A Practical Guide and a Constructivist Rationale for Inquiry Based Learning

Author(s): Thomas M. Duffy and Pamela L. Raymer

Source: Educational Technology , July-August 2010, Vol. 50, No. 4 (July-August 2010),
pp. 3-15
Published by: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44429836

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Technology

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Practical Guide placed in a state of "perplexity, confusion or doubt"
(p. 12). To overcome this state, the learner searches for
solutions by engaging in inquiry and reflective thinking.
and a Constructivist He says that thinking does not happen spontaneously -
something triggers this activity. Placing the learner in IBL

Rationale for activities can be that triggering activity. The approaches

that tend to fit this framework include problem based
learning (Barrows, 1986, 1992; Savery & Duffy, 1995),
Inquiry Based project based learning (Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx
et al., 1991), learning by design (Hmelo, Holton, &

Learning Kolodner, 2000; Kolodner, Camp, Crismond et al., 2003)

and learning through invention (Schwartz & Martin,
2004; Schwartz, Lindgren, & Lewis, 2009).
IBL strategies are seen as providing both deeper and
Thomas M. Duffy more flexible learning. There is a vast array of research
Pamela L. Raymer debating the effectiveness of IBL approaches (see Tobias
& Duffy, 2009). However, there is strong evidence that
the inquiry approaches do indeed lead to deeper and
more flexible learning (Boaler, 1998; Schwartz &
This article focuses on the practical issues in imple-
Bransford, 1998; Schwartz & Martin, 2004; Sears, 2006).
menting instructional approaches based on construc-
tivist views of learning. The authors do not view this as
But, of course, the conflicting findings almost certainly
also reflect the need to better understand from both a
a procedural guide, but rather believe that the design of
these inquiry based learning (IBL) approaches must be theoretical and practical perspective the key variables in
guided by the view of learning represented in con- the successful design and implementation of IBL. It is
structivist frameworks. Thus, they begin with a consid- beyond the scope of this article to address these research
eration of the constructivist framework as it informs
issues - our focus is practical. We hope, however, that
design. They then examine the key design components in addressing the practical issues of design and delivery,
based on this rationale and provide an instructional
we help shed light on the research issues.
example.
The value of the IBL strategies, from our perspective, is
that they lead to the kind of learning that is increasingly
Introduction
being recognized as critical to success in our society.
The purpose of this article is to provide guidance on The recognition of these learning requirements is
the use of inquiry based learning (IBL) instructional particularly evident in the approach to training Soldiers in
strategies. Specifically, we will identify the key features the U.S. Army. A Department of the Army memo states
of IBL and discuss why these features are important to that all of the military services needed to "enhance their
learning. We will then more broadly describe the ways learning paradigm to facilitate adaptability learning for
in which IBL may be implemented. Finally, we will individuals and units at every stage of a career and at
discuss the strategies for analyzing, designing, and every level of organization" (Office of the Under
developing an IBL course. Secretary, 2007). On a much broader scale and scope
We use the term Inquiry Based Learning to encom- than before, Soldiers are expected to interpret the com-
pass a variety of instructional methods, all of which mander's intent in the context of the immediate situation
center around learning through the inquiry process or, (U.S. Department of the Army, 2008). That is, they are
more generally, learning by doing. Dewey (1910), a expected to be agile in their assessment of situations (see
progressive educator in early 20th century, believed also Riccio, Diedrich, & Cortes, 2009) . Most importantly,
that the learning process begins when the learner is this focus on adaptive expertise (Bransford, Brown, &
Cocking, 2000; Hatano & Inagaki, 1986) applies to the
training of all Soldiers, even those in entry level training.
This same theme has dominated discussions of K-12
Thomas M. Duffy is Professor of Learning Sciences at Indiana
University-Bloomington. He is the editor of several books and higher education. For example, the Association of
examining issues in the design of problem-based learning and American Colleges and Universities organized a multi-
other inquiry approaches to instruction (e-mail: duffy® year panel of experts to articulate the aims for an under-
indiana.edu). Pamela L. Raymer is Dean, Academics, at the graduate education and identify characteristics of models
Army Management Staff College. She has more than 16 years for achieving those aims (AACU, 2002). The three broad
of university teaching experience, at the University of categories of goals (empowered, responsible, and
Louisville and at Webster University (e-mail: pamela.raymer@ informed) include the ability to "demonstrate intellectual
us.army.mil).
agility and the ability to manage change." These are not
seen as skills to be achieved in isolation, but rather they

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/july-August 201 0 3

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
should be integral to the individual's work (learning) in based on the student's analysis. This is a view that has
the content domains. Thus, the panel recommended a likely arisen from the behaviorist tradition where it is
curriculum designed to "stress inquiry and engagement argued that we must reinforce rather than critique
with unscripted and contested problems, including those students (Foshay, Silber, & Stelnicki, 2003). As a conse-
drawn from real life." quence, we find that there is a tendency for some
Finally, the focus on the agile mind has been in the fore- instructors trying to implement an IBL approach to either
front of arguments for the change in the K-1 2 curriculum not ask students for their analysis of a problem (except on
and teaching practices. The corporate response has an exam) or, if students do provide their analysis, it is
arguably been the most vocal and systematic in its call for treated as an opinion not to be challenged (it is analo-
developing 21st century skills (Partnership for 21st gous to asking you to name your favorite movie - no
Century Skills, 2009). The call is for schools to develop defense is needed, since it is an opinion). Indeed, in our
students who are flexible and adaptive problem solvers. undergraduate education program at Indiana University,
Like the Army and higher education, the Partnership we find that students like to hear the "opinions" of many
emphasizes that these are not skills to be learned in isola- other students so they can choose the one they like the
tion but rather be a part of the strategy for developing best - there is no notion of critical analysis or dialectic
deep mastery of subject matter. interchange (Osman, Duffy, Chang, & Lee, 2007).
The IBL approaches to instruction are ideally designed However, challenging the learner's thinking is at the heart
to support the development of this agile and adaptive of the IBL process (Zhang, 2009); understanding is seen
learner. All of the IBL approaches engage learners in as growing through serious discussion of alternative per-
problems or projects where the learner must take the spectives. While the students "own" the decision, plan, or
initiative. Thus, the very character of IBL approaches calls action produced as part of the IBL learning process, they
for the development of confidence and initiative as well must also be prepared to defend their work through
as problem-solving skills, as students tackle key issues in rigorous discussion of the information that informed their
the subject matter domain. In the next section, we position and their consideration of alternatives.
discuss the key characteristics of IBL that support the The challenge to the students' thinking also encourages
development of adaptive expertise. them to critically evaluate their sources of information.
A basic tenet for Dewey (1910) is that inquiry is
Key Characteristics of IBL problematic because it requires the learner to overcome
As IBL approaches have become increasingly popular the "inertia" associated with the tendency to accept the
in the school systems (Edelson, Gordin, & Pea, 1999) and opinions of others, especially when the opinion comes
corporate training (Kramer, 2008), many misconceptions from an expert. Critically evaluating information serves
have developed about the approaches. Because these to deepen and enrich the learner's thinking skills and
misconceptions often lead to misinterpretation of what ultimately learning. Dewey adds that as learners continue
is meant by an IBL approach, we begin this section their inquiry, they must delay reaching conclusions
by directly addressing these misconceptions. After we and be willing to maintain a prolonged state of doubt
discuss what IBL is not, we will turn to a discussion of to generate the best solutions That doubt must be
the critical characteristics of any IBL approach. maintained as the individual continues to evaluate the
situation until a decision is required. This is consistent
What IBL Is Not with Suchman's (1 987) argument that plans are a starting
IBL, as reflected in the variety of instructional place but are constantly adapted based on context. As
approaches, often comes under criticism for not being the learner cycles through this iterative process, the
rigorous enough in the learning demands placed on learner's problem-solving capability improves because of
learners. More specifically, there are four primary "not the additional practice and the need to become more
rigorous enough" criticisms that we have heard: First, efficient in problem-solving when less time is available.
some claim that the IBL approaches simply throw the A third misconception about IBL is that there is no
students into the problem and let them "sink or swim." direct instruction. The belief we often hear expressed is
While this is a common belief (see, e.g., Kirschner, Sweller, that the students must discover everything on their own
& Clark, 2006; Tobias & Duffy, 2009), in fact the guidance (Klahr, 2009). However, lectures, demonstrations, and
provided to learners is a critical part of any IBL method other "instructional" approaches are very often an
(Wise & O'Neill, 2009). However, the guidance is focused important part of the learning environment. In contrast to
on promoting the students' critical thinking rather than traditional classroom instruction, however, the lectures
taking away the need to think by simply telling them and demonstrations are provided after the learner has
what to do or what to pay attention to. This is a critical already wrestled with the issue. That is, they have worked
distinction that we will return to throughout this article. on the issue and they now recognize a need for learning
Second, others have claimed that in IBL any solution set (Duffy, Stinson, Milter, & Kirkley, 2008; Milter & Stinson,
provided by the student is okay simply because it was 1 995). This is no different than what we find in our own

4 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/July-August 201 0

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
everyday learning. We go to conferences and workshops processing. In essence, the belief is that we can transfer
based on the work we are doing - we have a problem knowledge to the individual by using the appropriate
we are trying to resolve and we go not to learn the presentation and reinforcement strategies. Once the
lecture or presentation but rather to use the lecture as a knowledge is transferred to the head of the learners, they
source of information to apply to our problem analysis will be able to use/apply that knowledge. IBL is based on
and problem solving. a different conception of learning, one traceable back to
Finally, it is often argued that IBL is good for higher John Dewey (1910) and Jean Piaget (1972; von
level, more complex problem solving, but it is not Glasersfeld, 1995) and which emphasizes the importance
adequate for teaching technical or procedural skills. of the goals and needs of the learners as important deter-
However, that view does not recognize that all learning minants of what is learned in any situation (in the school-
is in context (Barab & Duffy, 2000). house or in the field). We will discuss this in more detail
That is, the procedural tasks are generally not the end later, but since we have focused on what IBL is not, let us
state and they do not occur in isolation. That is, they now turn to the key characteristics of an IBL approach.
often do not occur in routine environments, where the
same task is executed the same way repetitively. Multiple Critical Characteristics of IBL
variables impact the execution or completion of tasks, There are three critical characteristics of an IBL
and the ability of the learner to deal with this complexity learning environment - characteristics that apply regard-
is critical to being an effective problem solver. The less of the particular IBL instructional methodology.
procedures and technical skills are often part of a larger
problem-solving event. That is, the skilled execution is a Learning is centered around problem solving. All
means to an end and must be adapted to the larger learning is centered around problem solving. That is,
context being supported. That is, adaptive rather than learning begins with a problem, and all of the learner's
routine expertise is generally required (Gott, Hall, activities are centered on the goal of resolving that
Pokorny, Dibble, & Glaser, 1 992). If a procedural task is problem such that the resolution can be explained and
to be routinely performed in an isolated context, then job defended against alternatives. By "problem" we do not
aiding - direct guidance in the performance of the task - necessarily mean something that is wrong. More general-
is likely the most effective approach. However, if the ly, a problem may be anything that drives a need to know
task is part of a larger problem-solving event or requires and be able to do. For example, the problem may be a
adaptive expertise, then instruction that promotes situation that calls for a new, more creative approach.
adaptiveness is essential. We would agree that well- Traditional instruction typically has students learn individ-
structured tasks are more efficiently taught using a ual concepts and procedures, integrating them at the end
behavioral approach (e.g., direct instruction or rote of instruction through a complex integrative problem. IBL
learning), but teaching them in isolation from the ill- can be thought of as reversing that process. Instruction
structured tasks that they support or demands they must begins with the more complex, integrative problem, and
be responsive to is not appropriate. Surgical procedures then learning of the individual concepts and procedures
is an example of a well-structured task. Acquiring occurs within the context of that problem; the problem
proficiency in these procedures can be accomplished provides an organizational structure or schema for inte-
through behavioral approaches, but the problem-solving, grating understanding. Research shows that institutional/
diagnostic skills needed by a surgeon cannot be ignored school learning that occurs in context is richer and
and are more appropriately taught in an IBL environment. deeper and transfers more easily to the work environment
Problem-solving requirements should be built into the (Bereiter, 2002; Foshay et al., 2003; Noe, 2008). The
behavioral approaches for tasks such as these. result is a richer understanding of the relationship and
As we observe teachers and instructors who purport contextual limitation of the concepts and procedures.
to use an IBL approach, we frequently find these four Let us emphasize that IBL does not just start instruction
misconceptions reflected in their instruction. They do with a problem, but rather all learning centers around the
not develop structures to support and guide student learner's work in developing a response to that problem.
learning, they do not challenge student thinking, and This view coincides with Dewey's (1910) argument that
they do not share their expertise at any time during the inquiry is not spontaneous - it originates with some need.
learning experience. We must emphasize that these are This is in contrast to many traditional instructional
not effective applications of IBL and, in fact, totally approaches that use a problem at the start of instruction
unstructured and unguided learning may well be less simply to motivate the learners, showing them that
effective than very structured direct instruction. what is being learned is important and will apply. In the
We think that these problems arise, at least in part, from traditional approach, these problems may be examples
a lack of understanding of the learning model underlying from the workplace (e.g., a problem involving managing
IBL. Instructors, like most of us, grew up under a traditional an employee) or classroom games to illustrate an abstract
teaching approach based on behaviorism and information principle (e.g., using games to illustrate the various sorts of

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/July-August 201 0 5

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
communication paths and the effects on performance). have now struggled with the problem, identified what
But, in each of these cases, the problems are used to they consider to be the relevant concepts and procedures,
illustrate and motivate and do not become the focus of and developed a point of view. Now they are ready to
the learning activities. In this traditional approach, after learn - they have a perspective from which to evaluate
the motivator, instruction proceeds with some sequence relevance and adjust their view. This is much as we do in
of lecture (demonstration), practice, and test for each of our professional life when we go to lectures or read a
the concepts, techniques, and procedures that are to book relevant to the problem we are working on. That
be learned; later these are practiced in the context of lecture or book takes on rich meaning because we
the whole. In essence, the traditional approach, in recognize the need to know and we have a point of view
contrast to IBL, goes from part to whole learning - we can use to evaluate and integrate the information.
learning the individual parts in isolation and then putting One way to think about this is in terms of the
them together after they are learned, which we would learners working on the problem before receiving
consider inadequate. instruction. It is not important that they get the problem
right - in fact, they likely will not get it right. What is
The learner takes ownership of the problem. The goals important is that the work on the problem forces them
of the learner determine what is learned (Dewey, 1 91 0; to think about the issues and take a position. Now they
Duffy 2009; Piaget, 1972; Schank, Fano, Bell, & Jona, have their own framework for learning from any
1993). If the learners are focused on figuring out what lecture, demonstration, or text. These opportunities to
the instructor wants, then they will not be focused on use errors to recognize the need for learning and to
thinking about the issues in the domain. It is much like establish a framework for the learning cannot be open-
studying to pass a test. In the test preparation approach, ended exercises that will place the learners at risk.
the learners are focused on what is emphasized and Certainly safety precautions must be in place for
what they expect to be on the test. The learning is potentially dangerous activities. The instruction follows
integrated around answering test questions. the exercise and following this instruction the learners
In contrast, if learners take ownership of the are ready to incorporate what they learned in their con-
problem, treat it as one that needs to be addressed, and tinued analysis of the problem: The process is iterative.
are willing to wrestle with the complexities of the It is important to recognize that errors or the inability
problem, then they will use the text and lectures to to fully make sense of a situation provides the basis for
identify information relevant to that problem solving. learning (Piaget, 1973; Schank et al., 1993). Thus, the
That is, they embed themselves into the issues of the errors are corrected in the learning process. When time
domain rather than the issues of testing. As a conse- is constrained, learning activities must be structured to
quence, the concepts, techniques, and procedures are ensure that learners do not end the activity without
integrated in their thinking around the issues of the sufficient time to engage in the necessary learning to
domain. We see this as critical to transfer of learning. assure successful transfer to new situations. This may
be achieved by narrowing the focus of the problem to
Learning is supported rather than directed. Central to the big or critical issues in the domain. Unfortunately,
the IBL approaches is the view that the learners must too often the opposite decision is made: "covering" the
know what they do not know. Imagine reading instruc- content at a more surface level. If our goal is to support
tions for assembling something complex and then the individual in being able to "do" the job, then this
putting the instructions aside and beginning the superficial coverage is simply not adequate.
assembly process. Of course, as soon as you begin
work, you will discover what you did not know and Rationale for IBL
perhaps what you misinterpreted. Trying something first Why are these three factors considered as the critical
gives a perspective on one's knowledge and skill needs. characteristics of IBL? Simply put, it is based on our
But it is not just knowing what they do not know in a framework for thinking about how people learn. The
general sense. It is not just saying, "I need to know how framework is quite basic and should feel very familiar if
to supervise my employees." Rather, it is getting down you think about almost any of your learning experiences
into the details. It involves developing a personal outside of school, i.e., in the "real' world. Basically,
perspective on specifically what you must do and know we argue that learning is a process of sense making :
and also why you need to know and do it. That is, we learn when we need to make sense of some aspect of
learners need to formulate a point of view or perspective our world (Weick, 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld,
at least partially filled in; they must have their own 2005). Usually we can navigate our world with no
perspective to use in evaluating and integrating what they surprises. We have expectations and they are met -
are learning. If they developed their own solution to a or easily interpreted. However, when we cannot make
problem without instruction, it is almost certain to be sense of the world, and it is important for us to do so, we
incomplete and even likely to be wrong. However, they engage in learning. The sense making may be driven by a

6 EDUCATIONAL TECH NOLOC Y/July-August 201 0

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
functional need (e.g., learning to use maps to navigate; and problem solving - are important characteristics for
learning to drive a car) or because of interest or wonder all learners to possess as citizens and in a workplace
(learning to play chess or golf or identify birds), or simply that demands these competencies. Unlike other
because it is something that is not understood but is instructional approaches, the IBL approach specifies
relevant to one's life (e.g., understanding the effect of these agility objectives as part of formal training and
workplace stress and how to manage it). education. They are a natural part of the IBL instruc-
Our learning activities are centered on understanding tional approach, when properly executed, and should
in order to make sense of the situation based on our goals be articulated in the outcomes for IBL instruction.
and to be able to do the task. So our sense-making
goal directs where we will focus our learning efforts in The Components of the IBL Approaches
listening to a lecture, watching a demonstration, or using In this section, we shift to the more practical issues
text, technology, or people resources. If I am reading a of IBL, the components in an IBL course. Recall that we
book or listening to a lecture on leadership and I am an are using IBL to identify a family of instructional
instructor, I will be attending to different things - learning approaches. Therefore, there will be much variation in
different things - than if I am a manager in the workplace. how these components are incorporated. While we will
I will focus my attention on different issues, interpret discuss some of these variations, it is important to
concepts, techniques, and procedures in different ways, remember that this is not a procedural guide, but rather
and organize my understanding in different ways. the designer must think about these components in the
Perhaps the effect is most dramatic when we look at our context of the key characteristics of IBL and the "sense-
(or any) school system. The sense making in schools is making" view of learning. In the Appendix to this article
generally set around passing tests in order to pass the we provide an example of the application of an
course. Thus, many students are not thinking of the IBL design reflecting a problem-centered learning
subject matter domain and grappling with the issues - approach. The problem is one of four used in devel-
building their schema of chemistry or historical analysis, oping leadership skills of senior civil servants working
etc. Rather, they are focused on identifying what will for the U.S. Army (see Duffy, Stinson, & Kirkley (2007)
be on the test. They are looking at what is underlined or for more details on the curriculum in the Appendix).
highlighted in the book, what the teacher writes on the
board or emphasizes, how they can get the teacher to tell The Problem
them what is important, etc. For these students there is no If learning is a matter of sense making, then we must
attempt to develop an understanding of the subject be certain that the problems we give learners - the
matter outside of passing a test; the sense making is problems that drive the course experience - involve
focused on the test, not the domain. Alfred North them in learning and using the concepts, techniques,
Whitehead (1929) referred to this school focused sense and procedures in a way that will prepare them to be
making as developing inert knowledge, i.e., knowledge effective in the out-of-school environment, e.g., in the
we can use in school but not apply outside of school. workplace or as a citizen in a community. The problem
Consistent with this view, we often hear from employers should have the following five characteristics:
hiring college students that they come with good grades First, the problem should be complex, calling for
but can't do very much in the workplace. We would argue analysis and judgment. It is not an isolated skill, strategy,
that a primary factor in this is that what they are learning or concept being learned, but rather it is the ability to
is not properly contextualized and is not designed to analyze a complex situation they would encounter in
maximize acquisition of functional or useable knowledge. the environment where the learning will be applied.
That complexity will almost always allow for different
Pervasive Learning Outcomes points of view, depending on the background of the
Any IBL environment will focus on domain-specific individual, what is emphasized in the analysis, and
learning: the concepts, skills, and procedures relevant to what assumptions are made. As should be clear from
the content domain. However, there are also learning earlier discussion, the fact that a problem is complex
outcomes that are a part of inquiry based learning does not mean any decision is okay. Clearly, in the real-
regardless of the specific instructional approach. These life situations we face, there are bad decisions, decisions
pervasive outcomes include initiative, confidence, and that are not rationally justified. However, there are likely
problem-solving skills. In all IBL instruction, the learners to be several alternative correct decisions, decisions
must take the lead, and so certainly initiative is central. based on a strong analysis of the information available.
Further, confidence is promoted not just through Second, the problem presented to the learners
ownership of the problem but also by their ability to should have three components: establishing the
explain and defne their position on the problem. Finally, context, identifying the particular task or problem that
the entire IBL approach centers around problem solving. needs to be addressed, and specifying in some detail
These three characteristics - initiative, confidence, what the learners are to produce in the end and who

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/july-August 201 0 7

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
will be reviewing it. Regarding the product, learners generally fail to engage the students in the problem -
will often focus on the format and media more than the they are pressed for time and hence focus on what they
content. Be sure that your demands do not focus them need to produce (meeting the instructor's requirements)
on slick presentations - informal professional presen- rather than the learning process. Additionally, problems
tations are generally best. Also be sure they know they of shorter duration in a learning environment do not
will need to defend their analysis and conclusions generally enable the complexity so necessary for
based on data and should be ready to evaluate alternative acquiring the skills and strategies that IBL calls for.
perspectives. Clarity as to requirements is essential. One interesting point to consider is that the same
Third, the problem must be authentic. It must repre- problem may be used with learners at different levels
sent the kinds of situations the learner will face outside of expertise and for different amounts of time. It is just
of training and call on the application of the critical a matter of adjusting what level of performance is
skills and cognitive strategies required in that situation. expected. For example, the first author was working with
The problem often cannot be the "real" situation the some teachers who developed a problem related to the
learners will face: equipment costs and access, poten- Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. After the bombing,
tial danger, and simply the authenticity of the experi- there was talk of tagging all fertilizer so if it were used
ence limits what we can do. The problem and context in an attempted bombing, its source could be identified.
need not replicate the situation; rather, the goal is to A fifth grade teacher had her students determining how
create realistic situations, with realistic demands as well the tagging was done and also taking a position on the
as constraints on the cognitive and skill requirements. ethics of requiring that sort of tagging. Fifth graders! Of
Fourth, the problem must be designed to engage the course, this problem could be used with college students
learners in the key concepts, techniques, and procedures as well. We would simply expect different levels of per-
that they must be able to apply in the field. That is, it is formance. Some years back, the MBA program at Ohio
not just an authentic problem, but it is an authentic prob- University (Stinson, 2004) used a problem simply stated
lem that will lead to the learning objectives necessary to as "Will Apple Computer survive?" When it was first used,
prepare learners for the real-world problem. Designing a students spent a month working on it full time (with many
series of problems that are not just authentic and motivat- analyses required). However, as the curriculum evolved,
ing but also lead to the intended learning objectives is this problem was used as a two-day problem to introduce
a demanding instructional design process. This is espe- the process. Again, the different amount of time allowed
cially true since several or many learning outcomes must just leads to an adjustment of expectations.
be achieved through work on a given problem. In the The time allowed for the problem and the proficiency
next section of this article, we will discuss the strategy for expected are important factors in the design of any prob-
identifying outcomes and relating them to problems. lem. This is particularly true because the student plays a
Finally, the problems must be presented to the role in determining the outcomes achieved. In traditional
learners in a way that engages them in it as a real instruction, time requirements can be specified reason-
problem rather than an academic exercise. The intro- ably precisely because the content related to the learning
duction of the problem must move the learner beyond objective is "covered" by the instructor's presentation.
the traditional attitude of "what does the instructor However, in IBL, the student takes ownership of the prob-
want" or passing a test. It is from the authentic problem- lem. For this reason it is essential to pilot-test a course at
centered focus of the learners that they will learn in a least once before implementing it.
way that will transfer beyond the classroom - exhibiting
initiative, confidence, and problem solving. Deliverables/Progress Reports
Beyond these five considerations, there is considerable The use of interim reports is one very important
flexibility in the use of problems. Problems may be at anystrategy for helping learners structure a complex task, for
level of complexity and address any number of learningproviding an opportunity to give learners feedback, and
outcomes or objectives. The enabling objectives, as to promote reflection on learning. A complex task might
described in traditional instruction, are an implicitbe broken into steps where we ask for interim reports.
component of the learning, since they are embedded These are not "make-work" steps but rather steps that are
in the context and must be understood in order to natural to the process and similar to when a supervisor
address the problem and the primary learning outcomes might step in for a review. In a business context, if we
that are explicitly part of the problem. The time allowedask students to do an analysis of several international
for work on the problem is flexible, though generally we sites for the expansion of a company's production, there
are several natural sub-products along the way, e.g.,
find that a problem should last at least a full education or
training day and preferably three or more days or two company analysis, competitive analysis, cultural analysis.
weeks in a traditional school setting where this is oneEach one of the steps in the above examples provides
of several courses in which the student is enrolled. The
a natural point for reporting on progress/current thinking.
reason for this is that problems with a short timeline This in turn provides the opportunity for a check on

8 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/July-August 201 0

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Student understanding and a discussion of key variables. faculty to lecture to them whenever they did not
These should not be long reports - brevity forces the understand. So, they dropped their goals of problem
learners to focus on what is most important. Also, in IBL solving in the content domain and adopted a new
exercises we have found it problematic to define the problem-solving goal: getting the faculty to explain. This
progress report in terms of common report types (as we whole process came to light because after many years of
did in the examples above). All of the types have some successfully running the program, this year both students
protocol requirements, and we have found students more and faculty were complaining that little learning was
focused on meeting the protocol rules and on how well occurring. An analysis identified this "premature sharing
any presentation looks than on the substance and person- of expertise" as the problem. Once those impromptu
al usefulness of the report. Be careful that the students mini-lectures-on-demand were eliminated, learning
focus on the problem and the help they can get in a began to progress satisfactorily.
progress report - and that they do not get caught up in the When coaching, it is very important to always
formatting and protocol of presenting the solution. discuss from the learner's point of view. The IBL coach
At times, a progress report can be used in a manner must focus on the thinking of the students as they work
similar to or in conjunction with the deliverables. The through their interpretation and analysis of the prob-
deliverable is really an outcome for that stage of the work. lem. If it is a complex, ill-structured problem, then the
In contrast, the progress report focuses on how work is coach may not have thought of the approach the
progressing. In both cases, a goal should be to have stu- student is taking or the evidence/rationale for the
dents reflect on their work on the problem but also to approach. Coaching may involve engaging in discussion
reflect on what they have learned and need to learn, e.g., with the student, but the role is to understand the
asking them what they have learned and what do they still students' perspectives and then ask questions that
need to know. promote their critical thinking rather than directing or
The class should know when they are expected to give explaining. Questions such as "What would happen if...,
informal updates on their work. Most teams will want to How does that relate to..., What is the evidence support-
give a chronology of what they did - but this is not very ing that..., Is there criticism..., What are the dangers in
useful. What should be required is a discussion of: where that approach..., Are there ways of addressing them...?
they are struggling and why they are struggling; what their Of course, these question frames are not asked so
current thinking about the problem is; and what they generally, but will be embedded in the particular domain
are planning on next to resolve their struggles or test their context. Fosnot (1989) put the role of the coach best in
current thinking. In essence, we want to understand their describing the responsibility as being one of asking
critical thinking about the problem, and we want them to questions on the leading edge of the student's thinking.
use these meetings as a time to solicit advice. As they talk Most of the questioning will occur during student
about their struggles, the instructors or classmates can updates and presentations. These provide a time for
offer suggestions of resources or other things to consider. reflection, analysis, and feedback, and thus care should
And, of course, everyone can ask questions. be taken in scheduling them, as discussed in the previous
Finally, if there are multiple teams, it is generally section. Besides asking questions, do remember to com-
valuable to have the report by each team given to the pliment critical thinking and analysis that is well done.
whole class. This creates more of a class spirit and also The instructor needs to be available while students are
gives each team a chance to see and learn from differ- working. If students have questions, it is always important
ent perspectives on the problem. It can also create to get their point of view before engaging in discussion.
competitiveness in terms of trying to improve their Don't let them come with their thinking unprepared. If
solution to be better than those of other teams. they do, then simply let them know it is important that
they have a point of view and analysis that can serve as
Coaching the basis for discussion and send them away to prepare.
We now turn to the role of the instructor as a coach. The analysis need not be correct, it just forms the basis for
In the next section, we will discuss the role of the the discussion. The exception to this is when students
instructor in offering lectures and demonstrations. have questions for which they could not reasonably find
Coaching is very difficult because there is such a natural an answer without going to the instructor. These typically
tendency to share expertise. But that sharing, done will be questions about the requirements, permissions,
prematurely, simply removes the learner's responsibility access to resources and tools, or constraints of the situa-
for and ownership of sense making. We know of one tion. These questions should be answered; there should
IBL based MBA program where a faculty member heard never be any " game playing "
students struggling over a concept that was in his area of
expertise. He decided that he knew how to explain it, so Lectures and Demonstrations
he invited them to meet with him for a lecture. Students Lectures and demonstrations are a very important part
are quick learners: They saw that they could get the of learning. We want the students to have a deep and rich

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/July-August 201 0 9

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
understanding of the concepts, strategies, and techniques, then finding resources is part of the task and part of the
and therefore we need to share our expertise and make discussion of learning. It is interesting that many
available the expertise of others. In our own professional college students - even graduate students - will go to
context, conference, talks, and seminars are central to our textbooks as a first source of information. However,
learning and to advancing our thinking on a problem. It is they typically learn very quickly that the textbook
just that the sharing of expertise must occur when the information is too general or outdated and does not
learners are ready. Just as with our own use of confer- provide insights that help on particular problems.
ences and presentations, the value of the classroom lec- Hence, they learn that primary, rather than secondary,
ture comes once the learner has completed an analysis sources are important in problem solving.
and formulated a perspective. The learners have engaged
in sense making and know where their analysis still does Assessment
not make sense. Even when they feel comfortable with In an IBL curriculum, time should be allotted to
their analysis, the lecture and related question and allow ample opportunity for both formal and informal
answer sessions provide the opportunity to check their assessment as well as the opportunity to provide
thinking. In essence, they are not a tabula rasa simply feedback based on that assessment. It is important that
receiving your wisdom (mastering the lecture), but rather clear expectations are set for the students so they know
they have a point of view and they use your expertise to what they are being assessed on. Expectations need to be
evaluate, enrich, and modify that point of view (see set for both the specific content-based learning
Bransford & Schwartz, 1998; Schwarz et al., 2009; and outcomes and the cognitive (or higher-order thinking)
Sears, 2006, for research indicating the importance of the skills like leadership and team skills, critical thinking,
sequencing of instruction and problem solving activities). confidence, initiative, etc.
If an issue is particularly complex, the lectures may During work on the problem, the instructor can
be scheduled during the students' time working on the assess incremental understanding of the learning out-
problem. That is, once they have engaged with the comes as well as progress on the cognitive skills
problem and explored the complexity, a lecture or through observation of the team work and, in particu-
demonstration can provide a basic orientation to the issue lar, in the interim progress reports or presentation of
that they can use to continue building. A lecture may interim deliverables. During the progress report
come very early in the process, if there are complex sessions in particular, the instructor can probe under-
aspects of the problem that are totally unfamiliar to the standing and observe the thinking and leadership skills
learners. However, it should be kept in mind that the displayed by the students. It is important to ask good
problem and the learning requirements should be geared questions that promote thinking and to follow up on
to the level of the students. Only in wrestling with the the students' thinking in successive progress reports or
problem can they begin to form an analysis and become in the deliverables. The final presentation, where they
ready to receive additional guidance and clarification. present their position and the evidence or argument
It is important that the lecture be informative and not supporting their positions, provides a particularly valu-
directive. Therefore, it is best to think of the lecture as able opportunity to probe understanding of the principles,
addressing the issue or topic broadly and not addressing procedures, and concepts. This is the culmination of their
specifically the problem on which they are working. work, and thus it is the point where they should be able
The lecture should be viewed as a talk being given for a to respond to a wide range of questions and also where
larger audience on a strategy, concept, or principle. It is they should be clear as to where they are uncertain.
not a talk that prescribes for them what they should The end of the problem is the time for reflection and
do. Students can, of course, ask questions and there more formal assessment. An After-Action Review (AAR)
should be discussion - but the lecturer should not can ask the students to assess their own and their
focus on the specific problem on which the students teammates'
are strengths and weaknesses in terms of both
working, but rather the concepts, skills, and procedurescognitive skills and learning outcomes. The AAR would
also provide feedback on the problem, the instructor
that are the focus of the lecture. Also, just as with any talk,
time is limited. The section below on after-action reviewssupport, and the learning process as it related to work on
(part of Assessment) discusses other uses of lectures. the problem. The end of the problem is also the time
for more formal assessment of student mastery of the
Resources learning outcomes. The instructor can use whole-class
Books, the Internet, other experts, doctrinal manuals, discussion, teams, or individual written assessments in
field manuals, and tools (technology and otherwise) are asking the students to apply their knowledge and skills in
all resources students may use. As a designer, one must new situations. These new situations may be entirely new
decide whether or not finding relevant resources is an problems or extensions of the problem they just worked
important learning outcome. If it is not important, thenon. In the latter case, the instructor would ask "what-if"
questions (CTGV, 1997), i.e., questions that ask how they
provide all the resources they need. If it is important,

1 0 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/July-August 201 0

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
would respond differently if some variable in the problem the learning outcomes that should be realized through the
situation changed, or if a particular outcome occurred. In work on the problem in an IBL curriculum (see Raymer,
using either what-if questions or a new problem, it is 2006, for an example of the application of this process.)
important to probe in a way that will allow one to assess Traditional front-end analysis seeks to identify not
the students' understanding of the concepts, strategies, only the learning outcomes but also all concepts,
and principles. procedures, and skills that must be learned to achieve the
Finally, the end of course activity should not just be outcome. These are the enabling objectives, i.e., they
about assessing students, it should also be a learning enable achieving the outcome. These enabling objectives
opportunity. The end of the course is a good time for more as well as the outcomes are specified using a format
extended lectures. Those lectures should clarify topics that describes what must be done, under what conditions,
and issues that were central to the problem, but like the and to what standard. The process we have described
assessments, they should also extend discussion to new above contrasts significantly to this traditional approach.
contexts and new, related issues. It is after the students In IBL, the problem itself defines the conditions
have expended their energy studying the issues that they under which they must perform and to what standard. The
have a framework in which to organize and interpret the context is the scenario context itself - the rich data set
lecture and discussion material. that is part of the scenario. The standard is to be able to
use that concept, procedure, or skill in order to provide a
Developing an IBL Curriculum recommendation related to the problem that can be
Discussing the entire development process is beyond explained and defended and adapted if some aspects
the scope and goals of this article. However, we want of the scenario change. That is, a deep understanding is
to briefly consider the analysis process that underlies expected. In a similar way, the enabling objectives
the development of problems and thus forms the themselves are simply a part of the problem scenario. The
foundation for the instruction. This analysis is less time problem is designed so that key variables identified by
consuming and detailed than traditional front-end workers and subject matter experts are important factors
analysis in large part because we are bringing the work in the problem-solving process. Thus, the IBL approach
tasks or problems into the classroom to serve as the calls for rich development of problem scenarios and a
basis for learning. The basic goal in the front-end consideration of key variables and learning outcomes
analysis is, in fact, to capture work situations that will related to those scenarios, but it does not require the
engage the learner in the core concepts and strategies, in extensive list of all relevant variables that might be a part
particular, those where there are frequent errors. of a complex problem that individuals might face. These
Critical incident analysis (Flanagan, 1954; Nemeth, variables will evolve as the learner integrates them during
2004) is one strategy for capturing those work the problem-solving process.
situations. The critical incident analysis involves Let us now return to IBL and discuss the final stages of
capturing key events in the workplace. Individuals are the IBL analysis and development process. The analysis
interviewed to identify specific instances of work tasks will identify a large number of scenarios and associated
that went extremely well or where there were particular tasks, more than could possibly be used. There will also
problems. The goal is to capture efficiencies of the be a list of the key concepts, strategies, and procedures
workplace as well as problems that have to be dealt distributed across those problems that reflect the learning
with. There is particular interest in identifying situations requirements. The goal is to take this database of scenar-
where there are frequent or serious errors. These are ios and compress and reduce it to a set of scenarios that
places to focus learning. captures the relevant concepts, procedures, and skills and
These critical incidents are then discussed with the that can be used within the allotted instructional time.
individual in order to capture the situation in detail as To accomplish this, a matrix is developed showing the
well as to capture the problem-solving process learning outcomes associated with each scenario. This
involved, i.e., what decisions the individual faced, process becomes a good tracking mechanism for cross-
what option was chosen, and why it was chosen. referencing learning outcomes against problems. Then
While the interview focuses on understanding the key scenarios are identified that hold the potential to be
cognitive processes or decision making related to the used in instruction. Those scenarios are enriched and
error, the goal is to also capture the richness of the situa- modified to include key learning outcomes and variables
tion, including distractions, time pressures, competing to the degree it is possible to do so without compromis-
demands, team coordination, etc., that may be related ing the authenticity of the problem. That is, the scenario
to the problems. Once the key error events are captured is modified to include variables that will set a context
and described, subject matter experts are used to validate where the learner will need to consider additional
the context, performance of the technical skills, and concepts and procedures that are in the list of learning
cognitive variables relevant to the errors. This analysis outcomes. As noted earlier, the goal of incorporating
provides the basis for describing a problem situation and several outcomes in a scenario and enriching it based

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/July-August 201 0 11

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
on related scenarios is to focus learning activities on the
smallest number of scenarios necessary to address the References
learning outcomes within the time available for learning.
The final scenarios must maintain the complexity of the AACU. (2002). Grea
original scenarios as much as is reasonable, considering as a nation goes t
cost and danger. DC: Association of
This was by necessity a very brief overview of one Barab S., & Duffy,
strategy for conducting a front-end analysis and contrast- munities of prac
ing it to a more traditional approach. There is much more Theoretical foun
that could be said in elaborating this approach and in 25-26). Mahwah, N
considering alternative IBL-related analysis strategies. Barrows, H. S. (198
methods. Medical
Summary and Conclusion Barrows, H. S. (19
The intellectual skills called for in our life cannot be
Southern Illinois U
filled by traditional instructional approaches. While the
Bereiter, C. (2002).
behavioral approach has been and continues to be
Mahwah, NJ: Law
extremely successful in teaching technical and procedur-
al skills and the cognitive approach moves toward Blumenfeld, P. C.,
advancing thinking skills in situations calling for routine Cuzdial, M., & Ra
expertise, it is really the inquiry based learning approach based learning: Su
ing. Educational P
that maximizes the acquisition of higher-order thinking
skills so needed in virtually all aspects of life. Boaler, J. (1998).
As Dewey (1910) would describe it, IBL pushes experiences and u
learners to move from idle thoughts along a continuum in Mathematics Educ

their problem-solving process to logical conclusions. Bransford, J. D., B

Only when learners are placed in this type of learning How people learn
environment will they develop the necessary thinking or Washington, DC: N
inquiry skills of complex problem solving, adaptability, Cognition & Tech
initiative, and critical and creative thinking and agility, Jasper Project. Ma
along with the skill sets of competence and confidence. Dewey, J. (1 91 0).
The IBL approach detailed in this article is based Company.
upon the belief that all learning is an attempt on the part
of the learner to make sense of the world - that instruction Duffy, T. M. (2009). Building lines of communication - and a
research agenda. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.),
is most effective once the learner recognizes the need
Constructivist instruction: Success or failure Ì (pp. 351-367).
to learn and that learning is most effective when learners
New York: Routledge.
engage in an authentic problem that captures the
Duffy, T. M., Stinson, J., & Kirkley, J. (2007). Problem 1: Sea
complexities of the real world.
Lanes of communication : A curriculum plan for the Army
Misconceptions associated with this approach are
Management Staff College Advanced Course. Bloomington,
numerous. Learners are not thrown into a discovery IN: Information in Place, Inc.
learning mode; they are not allowed to derive just any
solution; instructors do provide direct instruction; and, Duffy, T. M., Stinson, J., Milter, R., & Kirkley, J. (2008, March).
Facilitator guidebook: Inquiry based learning workshop.
finally, it is not just reserved for teaching of higher-
Prepared for the Army Management Staff College.
order thinking skills.
Bloomington, IN: Information in Place, Inc.
IBL is highly interactive and immersive, placing the
learner into supported - not instructor-directed instruc- Edelson, D., Gordin, D., & Pea, R. (1999). Addressing the chal-
tion. For the instructor and training developer, learner lenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and
curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8,
outcomes associated with the key components of IBL,
391-450.
e.g., use of problems and resources, deliverables,
coaching techniques, purposeful lectures and demon- Flanagan, J. (1954). The critical incident technique.
strations, and assessment are provided. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 335-356.
We can only hope that further consideration for this Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners. A
approach will result in continued use and expansion of constructivist approach to teaching. New York: Teachers
this method of instruction. Placing learners in this type College Press.
of learning environment will better prepare them for the Foshay, W. R., Silber, K. H., & Stelnicki, M. (2003). Writing
complexities they will face in life outside of the training materials that work: How to train anyone to do any-
classroom. □ thing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

1 2 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/July-August 201 0

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Glasersfeld, E. von. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of Viking Press, Inc.
knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.
Raymer, P. (2006, July-August). Redesigning the FACCC: The
Gott, S., Hall, P., Pokorny, A., Dibble, E., & Glaser, R. (1992). deliberate versus rapid methodology. Field Artillery 15-17.
A naturalistic study of transfer: Adaptive expertise in
Riccio, G., Diedrich, F., & Cortes, M. (Eds.). (2009). An
technical domains In D. Detterman & R. Sternberg (Eds.),
initiative in outcomes-based training and education:
Transfer on trial: Intelligence , cognition , and instruction (pp.
Prolegomena grounded in values-based requirements. Ft.
258-288). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Meade, MD: U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In
Savery, J., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An
H. Stevenson, J. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child develop-
instructional model and its constructivist framework.
ment and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: W.
H. Freeman & Co. Educational Technology 35(5), 31-38.

Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Schank, R., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1993). The design of
Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of goal-based scenarios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences ,
3(4), 305-345.
the Learning Sciences , 9(3), 247-298.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling.
guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of Cognition and Instruction , /6, 475-522.
the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, expe- Schwartz, D., Lindgren, R., & Lewis, S. (2009). Constructivism
riential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational in an age of non-constructivist assessments. In S. Tobias &
Psychologist , 4/(2), 75-86. T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or
Klahr, D. (2009). To every thing there is a season, and a time failure ? (pp. 34-61). New York: Routledge.
to every purpose under the heavens: What about direct
Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for
instruction? In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist
learning: The hidden efficiency of original student produc-
instruction : Success or failure ? (pp. 291-310). New York:
tion in statistics instruction. Cognition & Instruction , 22,
Routledge. 129-184.
Kolodner, J., Camp, P., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J.,
Sears, D. (2006). Effects of innovation versus efficiency tasks
Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003).
on collaboration and learning. Unpublished dissertation.
Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
middle-school science classroom: Putting Learning by
Design(tm) into practice. The Journal of the Learning Stinson, J. (2004). A continuing learning community for grad-
Sciences , /2, 495-548. uates of an MBA program: The experiment at Ohio
University. In T. Duffy & J. Kirkley (Eds.), Learner centered
Kramer, R. (2008). Learning how to learn: Action learning for
leadership development. In R. Morse (Ed.), Innovations in theory and practice in distance education : Cases from high-
er education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
public leadership development (pp. 296-326). Washington
DC: M. E. Sharpe and National Academy of Public Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem
Administration.
of human-machine communication. New York: Cambridge
Milter, R. G., & Stinson, J. E. (1995). Educating leaders for University Press.
the new competitive environment. In G. Gijselaers, S. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruc-
Tempelaar, & S. Keizer (Eds.), Educational innovation in tion: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.
economics and business administration: The case of prob-
lem-based learning. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. U.S. Department of the Army. (2008, August). The Army
strategy. Washington DC: Headquarters, Department of the
Nemeth, C. P. (2004). Human factors methods for design- Army, G-3/5/7.
making systems human-centered. New York: CRC Press.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand
Noe, R. A. (2008). Employee training and development (4th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005).
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness). (2007,
July). Initiative to support adaptability training throughout
Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization
Science , /6(4), 409-421.
the Department of Defense (Memorandum), TAB A.
Washington DC: Department of Defense. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other
Osman, G., Duffy, T. M., Chang, J. Y., & Lee, J. E. (2007). essays. New York: Macmillan.
Learning through collaboration : Student perspectives. Wise, A. F., & O'Neill, K. (2009). Beyond more versus less: A
Unpublished. Bloomington IN: Indiana University. reframing of the debate on instructional guidance. In S.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). The MILE guide: Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction :
Milestone for improving learning and education. Tucson, AZ: Success or failure ? (pp. 82-1 05). New York: Routledge.
Authors.
Zhang, J. (2009). Toward a creative social Web for learners and
Piaget, J. (1972). To understand is to invent. New York: The teachers. Educational Researcher, 38, 274-279.

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/July-August 201 0 13

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 your country, and how your country's national strategy
Appendix toward SLOC issues may change over the next three years
and the implications of that for U.S. negotiation. Provide
data and rationale to support your conclusions.
This Appendix provides an example of an international
problem used in leadership training. The problem was used
as a six-day problem and the curriculum schedule for those
3. Prepare a country book providing background
six days is also shown, followed by a seventh day, for information on your country including information
relevant to determining the country's national strategy and
assessment. The time for work on the problem could be
expanded or contracted to reflect the different levels of
policies toward SLOC issues.
expertise of the class. Mini-lectures in the schedule last 15
minutes at most and are general to the relevant concepts
and issues (not problem specific). Workshops are less than
an hour and are hands-on. Note that there is considerable Schedule
faculty guidance provided along with this schedule.
Day 1. Problem Introduction and Team Assignments

Problem (1 hour). Whole class meeting. The class begins with the
learning model being introduced. The model will be
SEA LANES OF COMMUNICATION reviewed again after the students review the problem.
Students are introduced to the problem, they are assigned
Problem Charge to teams, and each team is assigned responsibility for
How does the United States guarantee continued
analysis of a particular country.
free and open access to its Sea Lines of Communication
After the problem is reviewed, they are assigned work that
(SLOC)? You are assigned to an Army Strategic Planning
requires
Team that is subordinate to a Joint Task Force conducting a them to identify the issues they need to consider in
conducting
strategic analysis of regional Sea Lines of Communications the analysis for the problem within their
(SLOC). See attached map of the area. teams, e.g., what is important for them to know and to
consider. The deliverable is the team's list of learning issues
There is considerable tension in the Pacific region they need to address.
(the South China Sea) and the Army Planning Team
Theto
Commander expects that there will be some challenges second assignment requires each individual to review
characteristics of high performance teams (HPT) and
the current policies/agreements. Therefore, he has formed
this Strategic Planning Team to help him prepare consider
an rules that will govern their team interactions and
responsibilities.
analysis of the national strategy for the key countries in A set of resources is available online for
the region as it pertains to the SLOC, how that the students. The deliverable is a proposed list of rules that
will form the team charter.
strategy may change, and how the U.S. National Strategy
compares to it. This analysis should include an analysis
The third assignment requires the teams to discuss the
of negotiating points, "lines in the sand" that this country
may have, and other critical considerations that wouldresults
help of the individual research on high performance
teams and rules for the team charter. The deliverable is
in the negotiating process. You have been asked to serve on
an initial draft of the team charter and a 5 minute brief the
a team that will conduct the national strategy analysis for
one of these countries. next day on the charter explaining the rationale for the
charter. These briefs are to the entire class. Faculty will
Final Team Deliverables review these charters and provide feedback.
1, Participation in a summit where each team will
have 15 minutes to present the analysis of the national Students are released to work on these assignments.
strategy of their country as it relates to the SLOC
policies, where it is consistent and inconsistent with Day 2. Team. Preliminary Country Analysis
U.S. policy, and what are potential points of negotiating
based on your analysis of the U.S. and your country's (1 hour). Whole class meeting. All students contribute to
national strategies. This will be a formal presentation. The the identification of learning issues. It is noted that this is a
presentation will be followed by 10 minutes of questionliving document and can be expected to change as they
and answer from members of the audience. Following the analyze the problem.
presentations there will be discussion of how the U.S.
should respond in a summit with these countries. This Assignments are given for the next day. The teams will
will require you to think across the national strategies, to begin to develop an analysis of their country's relevant
potentially reconsider your analysis of the U.S. national characteristics and the preliminary analysis of their
strategy. country's national strategy. The deliverable is a 5 minute
brief on their initial findings and issues they face. A
2. A report not to exceed 3 pages that lays out your document no longer than 2 pages detailing this
analysis of the U.S and your country's national strategies rationale for their conclusions on the national strategy is
relative to relevant SLOCs, how the U.S. should respond to also required.

1 4 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/July-August 201 0

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
(15 minutes). Students are given a mini-lecture: (1 Hour). Mid-Problem Team Reflection. In team rooms,
Understanding the components of a national strategy. the teams will focus on analyzing 1) how each team is
functioning relative to its charter, 2) the critical characteris-
(4 hours). Students are released to work in teams and tics of a high performance team (what has been most
individually. important to their success as a team), and 3) adjustments in
their charter as needed. The output is posted on the team's
(15 minutes). Students are given a mini-lecture: High discussion forum along with a paragraph identifying what
performance teaming. they defined as the critical characteristics of their team
strategy.
(2 hours). Students are released to work in teams.
(2 hours). Team and Individual Research
(1 hour). Whole class meeting. Each team briefs their
charter in 5 minutes and receives feedback from faculty (1 hour). Workshop: Preparation for the Summit. This
and other teams. Students need to link items in their workshop will discuss some of the issues they should be
charter to assigned readings. prepared to discuss and clearly lay out the expectation for
the summit.

Day 3. Detailed U.S. Analysis

Day 5. Summit Preparation
(1 hour). Whole class meeting. Teams present 5 minute
(1 hour). Whole class meeting. Teams provide 5 minute
briefs of their country book data and their preliminary
analysis of the national strategy followed by 5 minute briefs
Q&A on their detailed analysis of their country's national
from faculty and other teams. strategy and the implications for SLOC. They will also raise
any issues they are having in doing their analysis.
Team assignment is to present a 5 minute brief
tomorrow morning on the U.S. national strategy and Teams will be reminded of the requirement for the final
the implications for U.S. policy on SLOC, addressing presentation, a 15 minute brief with slides on the national
the following issues in particular: What is the U.S/s strategy of their country, how it relates to the U.S. national
strategy relative to SLOCs in that area? Which SLOCs strategy, and what the implications are for policy toward
are most important? What forces might cause the SLOC issues. They are to be prepared to do a practice
strategy to change? What do you expect the strategy to be presentation in the morning with the final Summit
in three years? Provide data and rationale to support occurring after lunch.
your conclusions.
(3 hours). Team and Individual Research
(15 minutes). Mini-lecture on Strategic Vision and Action
Plans (1 hour). Workshop: Presentation Skills

(4 hours). Team and Individual Research (3 hours). Team and Individual Research

(1 hour). Workshop: Developing an Action Plan

Day 6. Summit Day
(IV2 hour). Team and Individual Research
(4 hours). Preparation and Practice in Team Rooms for
(1 hour). Guest lecture on strategic visions and action Summit and Revisions as Needed.
plans. A lecture by a representative of another country
outside the team's countries who discusses that country's (3 hours). Summit
strategic vision and its relation to an action plan.

Day 7. Final Assessment

Day 4. Detailed Country Analysis
(1 hour). Teams review video of presentation and receive
(1 hour). Whole class meeting. Teams give 5 minute brief- feedback from faculty and other team members in team
ings on the U.S. national strategy and the implications for room.

U.S. policy on SLOC. Also note any issues they are

struggling with. Other teams and faculty provide feed- (1 hour). Students are tested to assess content and
back. leadership learning.

Students are assigned work to complete a detailed (1 hour). In team rooms, teams will debrief on member
analysis of their country's national strategy and the policy and team performance based on team charter.
implication for SLOC in that area. They will complete a
report not to exceed 2 pages and prepare a 5 minute (1 hour). Teams will conduct AAR assessing effective-
briefing for tomorrow morning. ness of their problem, learning, and blocks to learning.

(4 hours). Team and Individual Research

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/July-August 201 0 15

This content downloaded from

58.136.250.190 on Tue, 03 Dec 2024 10:06:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms