Problem Based Learning:

Learning and Teaching in the Context of Problems

Jean W. Pierce
Northern Illinois University

Beau Fly Jones

Ohio SchoolNet
68
 You are a first grade teacher who has been assigned the 23 students portrayed in a video.
Your task is to identify one of the students who seems to have special learning needs
and/or talents and to define those needs and talents. Shortly, you will be teaching a unit
about how plants grow. The student you have identified will be in a group with four other
students (identified by other Òfirst-grade teachersÓ). Your task will be to determine how
you will help that group of five students as your student works with others to learn about
plants.

This problem was posed recently to an educational psychology class of 30 undergraduates

majoring in elementary education and special education. They were shown a 40-minute video
edited from a 3-hour tape filmed during a visit to a first-grade class. Each of the university students
identified a child who intrigued them and viewed the tape again. This time, their task was twofold:
to begin the job of defining their studentÕs strengths and needs and to formulate questions designed
to collect more information that would assist in accurate diagnoses and recommendations.

Individually, the college students formulated their own hypotheses and questions and then met with
classmates. The class arranged themselves into groups to pool their observations and develop a
plan of action to gather additional information that would answer their questions. As part of their
plan, they were expected to create questions for the first-grade teacher. These questions could
request more information regarding school work, social relations, home life, etc. The
undergraduates were not to ask the teacher to reveal her diagnosis of the child, and the teacher was
cautioned not to give answers that contained more information than had been requested. Some of
their questions were, ÒIs he on any medication for attention deficit disorder?Ó ÒWhat is his reading
level?Ó ÒDoes he have a problem retaining information for short periods of time?Ó and ÒHow well
does he interact with other children in social settings?Ó

The studentsÕ questions were submitted to the classroom teacher. At the next meeting, the students
worked individually and then in groups to refine their definitions of the childrenÕs needs and
strengths. The professor made available various references and indicated that the teacher had
provided some additional background information if the students specifically requested it. The
undergraduates were guided to consider the evidence they had for their hunches and to formulate
new questions. These questions were developed and submitted to the teacher. This time their
questions requested more specific information for defining the problem (e.g., ÒHow old was he
when he was adopted?Ó ÒDoes his diabetes seem to affect his concentration?Ó). In addition, they
started to develop questions designed to inform their recommendations (e.g., ÒWould he stay more
on task if he were located nearer the front of class or closer to the teacher?Ó and ÒDoes more
challenging work help keep his attention?Ó).

This is an example of one effort to implement problem-based learning (PBL) in an education

classroom. This undergraduate approach for student teachers was adopted from the medical model
of PBL developed by Barrows (1985), considered by many to be the father of PBL in the United

69
States. This model, aimed at teaching medical students clinical diagnosis, offers much to teacher
educators in their efforts to teach clinical diagnosis to undergraduate students.

His approach and the one described at the beginning of this paper start by confronting students
with a simulated or real problem: what is happening here? As the students wrestle with identifying
and defining the problem, they begin to realize that it can be viewed from very different
perspectives, and they need to learn and integrate information from various disciplines. According
to Barrows (1985), the problems encountered in PBL require that students find more information
than is given in order to define the issues and decide on solutions. In fact, as additional answers are
learned, the problem may be redefined in very different ways. Students must make decisions, even
though they know that some data may be missing or in conflict with others. Finally, it is critical that
the teacher who serves as a resource person (rather than information giver) debrief with the
students to make explicit their thinking processes and principles learned.

Although there is a rich literature base on clinical teaching, the use of cases, and reflective practice,
these approaches use only some elements of PBL and are seldom even discussed in the so-called
PBL literature. This is largely because that literature is dominated by the 25 years of research on the
PBL medical model and its recent implementation in K-12 education. Moreover, PBL has not been
well defined outside the medical education literature, and there are many approaches that use
elements of PBL or that include PBL as an element of a more comprehensive approach. Finally,
teachers, teacher educators, and researchers have often used PBL interchangeably with projects or
project-based learning with little attempt to differentiate the two. The next two sections address this
confusion.

But first it should be asked why it matters that these distinctions be discussed. Foremost, it matters
because problem-based learning is a primary attribute of contextual teaching and learning. PBL
appears to embrace in a practical way much of what cognitive scientists are learning about the
nature of learning as motivated co-construction of meaning. Yet it is not simple to sort out
specifically how this is true, so Table 1 is presented in this paper to clarify the points of
connectivity (see page 58).

Note that this table consists of examples drawn mostly from K-12, simply because that is where
most of the activities and literature for PBL and contextualized learning are focused. However, the
table is developed specifically for higher education faculty to model and teach undergraduates the
different types of learning contexts and their respective features. It is clear that the characteristics of
higher education teaching and undergraduate learning must be substantially enhanced if faculty and
undergraduates are to design and develop such contexts for teacher education and for K-12
schooling. Thus, there are two separate questions to consider while reading this analysis:

• To what extent can higher education use any of these methodologies to enrich teaching and
learning for undergraduates?

70
• To what extent is it the responsibility of higher education to develop teachers who are
familiar with PBL because it is a viable and effective approach for K-12?

What Is PBL and How Does It Relate to Contextualized Learning?

Ever since John Dewey described the benefits of pragmatism, educators have been developing
opportunities for students to work together to learn information and solve problems. For the
purpose of this analysis, PBL is defined in terms of two intersecting continua. One continuum
defines the degree of problem-based learning characteristicsÑhigh or low (Finkle 1998). The
second continuum depicts approaches that involve varying degrees of contextual learning.

The PBL Continuum

At one end are limited implementations of PBL that are abundant in all the array of activities that
engage students in problem solving or research based on a question or problem but do not involve
many other characteristics of PBL. These are Low PBL approaches.

At the other end of the PBL continuum are High PBL approaches. Students define and research
their own problems, usually collaboratively with a teacher or other practicing professional. They
experience the ÒmessinessÓ of ill-structured situations that are typical in real-world environment.
They assume the role of a stakeholder who is intimately affected by the resolution of the problem.
Stepien (1995) and Finkle (1998) have described segments of a PBL instructional sequence. Finkle
called these ÒtouchstoneÓ teaching-learning events that must be present for an approach to qualify
as fully PBL. There is no rigid sequence in the events.

• Engagement: (1) preparing for the role of being self-directed problem solvers who collaborate
with others; (2) encountering a situation that invites students to find problems; and (3)
searching for the nature of the problem while proposing hunches, action plans, etc.
• Inquiry and investigation: (1) exploring a variety of ways of explaining events and implications
of each and (2) gathering and sharing information.
• Performance: presenting the findings.
• Debriefing: (1) examining costs and benefits of the solutions generated and (2) reflecting on the
effectiveness of the whole approach to problem solving they have used.

The Continuum for Contextualized Learning

The second continuum is defined by degrees of contextualization. This means that students
experience the context of learning in the real world in some way. Contextual teaching and learning
is defined in the first chapter of this volume as follows:

71
• Teaching that enables learning in which students employ their academic understandings and
abilities in a variety of in- and out-of-school contexts to solve simulated or real-world
problems, both alone and in various dyad and group structures.
• Activities in which teachers use contextual teaching strategies to help students make
connections with their roles and responsibilities as family members, citizens, students, and
workers.
• Learning through and in these kinds of activities is commonly characterized as problem-based,
self-regulated, occurring in a variety of contexts including the community and work sites,
involving teams or learning groups ,and responsive to a host of diverse learner needs and
interests.
• Emphasis is on higher-level thinking, knowledge transfer, and collection, analysis, and
synthesis of information from multiple sources and viewpoints.
• Assessment is authentic, derived from multiple sources, ongoing, and blended with
instruction.

At the low end of this continuum (Low C), students might use the tools or materials of a scientist
or author without being involved in the richness of the work process or the thinking processes
used by the practicing professional. A highly contextualized learning environment (High C), on the
other hand, would necessarily involve students in the thinking processes, work environment, and
tools of the professional. Students may experience work or community contexts in different ways.
In school, students could experience such contexts through novels, documentaries or other video
representations, simulations, role playing, or telecommunications. Or students could experience
contexts through ÒworkingÓ internships or field trips designed to push forward the work of a
sustained inquiry (McMahon and OÕNeill 1993), activities that differ sharply in function and
quality from episodic field trips and internship activities designed to teach procedures.

Table 1 reflects four types of learning approaches:

• In Quadrant A are activities and approaches representing rich implementation of problem-based

learning (High PBL) and contextualized learning (High C).
• In Quadrant B are activities that the research community would recognize as problem-based
learning (High PBL) but which have few elements of contextualized learning (Low C).
• In Quadrant C are activities involving few elements of problem-based learning (Low PBL) but
strong elements of contextualized learning (High C).
• In Quadrant D are activities that are low in contextual elements (Low C) and have few elements
of problem-based learning (Low PBL).

72
 Table 1
Types of Learning Approaches

Quadrant B: Hi PBL and Lo C Quadrant A: Hi PBL and Hi C

• Cases • Co-investigations, co-development, and co-

• Simulations learning projects
• Progressive problem solving • Expeditions
• Process drama • Sustained internships
• Anchored instruction • Action research
• PBL classroom research problems

Quadrant D: Lo PBL and Lo C Quadrant C: Lo PBL and Hi C

• Isolated hands-on activities • Episodic field trips

• Thematic projects • Service learning
• Shadowing
• Procedural learning
• Activity simulation kits

Examples of Learning in Each Quadrant

Quadrant A. Quadrant A contains approaches that have rich elements of PBL and contextualized
learning (High PBL and High C). The following are key characteristics of learning that combine
both dimensions and build upon the definition of PBL given by Stepien (1995) and Finkle (1998):

• The focus is on questions or problems relating to real-world issues in which students

understand the context in which the problems or issues take place and have opportunities to
find and redefine problems.
• Students engage in various metacognitive and social activities to become self-directed learners
and members of collaborative learning groups.
• The roles of the teachers and students as co-investigators or co-learners involve sustained
inquiry, investigation, or development of a product/service.
• Frequent dialogue with experts and practicing professionals explores hunches, theorems, and
action plans and provides some sense of participating in a broader learning community.
• Manipulation of real data and sustained inquiry research take place.
• Opportunities are provided to explore the work conditions and tools in a real
workplaceÑeither through remote visits or virtual visits.

73
• Assessments are ongoing and designed to be formative as well as more structured
performance-based assessments presented to a real-world audience (ideally, experts in the
subject disciplines involved).
• Debriefing involves the whole class in understanding what was learned by the diverse
individuals or groups, the nature of the context and problem-based learning research
experience, the nature of the technology used, as well as principles of collaborative learning and
communication with professionals.

Good examples of contextualized problem-based learning would be projects that involve students,
teachers, and practicing professionals or community members in co-investigations, co-
development, and co-learning activities. It would also apply to internships and apprenticeships in
which students or student teachers were engaged in problem defining and self-directed learning,
inquiry and investigation, presentations, and debriefing. Such rich relationships can involve science
and development of a product or program.

For example, Sally Boysen, Professor of Psychology and Director of the Chimpanzee Center at the
Ohio State University, is in the process of co-developing an educational program with the
Columbus Public Schools and Ohio StateÕs College of Education. This 3-year project will involve
teachers and students in sustained dialogue with Boysen and her graduate students in site visits and
telecommunications. Students, their teachers, and higher education faculty and their students will
co-design experiments to teach the chimps analytical, mathematical, and reading problems; co-
design equipment for the experiments or living environment; and study and compare chimpanzee
life and environment to that of humans. Students will also develop web pages and
telecommunications tools for the project, and the activities they develop will be loaded on BoysenÕs
website as a major part of the educational outreach for the center.

Another example of co-development that would be well suited to apply in higher education
contexts is the PBL as Co-Development model developed by Jones, Rasmussen, and Moffitt for
high school (1996) and for elementary school (1997). This model involves professional
development providers working with and supporting teachers to co-develop an implementation of
the model with students and case studies that were published in the two books referenced. PBL as
Co-Development has five recursive stages:

1. Identifying specific problems

2. Developing a plan of inquiry or work
3. Conducting analysis and inquiry
4. Preparing and presenting the findings
5. Debriefing and consolidating the knowledge

These five stages were modeled for the teachers in professional development experiences, scenarios, and mentoring;
in turn, the teachers co-developed units with their students focusing on authentic problems with varying degrees of
contextualization.

74
Expeditions and internships also are high in contextual learning opportunities and PBL. In expeditions, students
either visit a remote site with a scientist, artist, or other professional; or they follow the travels and research of such
a person or team using telecommunications. In internships, students work directly in workplace environments. The
CO-NECT schools involve students in both types of activities in sustained learning projects (http://www.co-
nect.com). The JASON project (http://www.jasonproject.org) also involves students and teachers in communication
with various oceanographic experts. For example, participants can see and talk to the scientists underwater, explore
the tools they use, and address issues of their work environment. Additionally, the project offers internships to
students and teachers to work with these scientists in underwater stations or visit rain forests for 2 weeks at a time.
During this period they are engaged in problem defining and problem solving with the scientists as in a co-
investigation.

PBL Community-Based Projects are sustained projects that involve (1) providing some type of community service
or activity such as technology training for elders, research on a local nuclear reactor, or work with state policymakers
on pending legislation; and (2) PBL inquiry processes as defined in this chapter. This type of activity is different
from service learning as defined by Wade in the next chapter in this volume, which does not necessarily require
either investigation, research, or focus on academic subjects. An example of a PBL Community-Based Project is the
University High School at Illinois State University (Jones, Rasmussen, and Moffitt 1996). Faculty from the
university and the high school developed a challenging interdisciplinary problem-solving unit over the course of
several years that did not have all the elements of PBL or any contextual component. As part of a state-based high
school reform project, they agreed on the following: (1) a focus on problems rather than themes, (2) using the
Internet for background research, (3) a focus on gathering information in the community itself to sustain the inquiry,
and (4) an actual community component whereby students sought to implement at least the first step of their
proposed solution(s) to the community problem they identified.

In terms of teacher education in preservice and inservice contexts, Quadrant A also would include action research.
This links to the literature from the Holmes Group (1990, 1995) as it defines Professional Development Schools
and Professional Practice Schools. Action research in these and other contexts refers ideally to the opportunity for
preservice teachers to engage in inquiries, problem finding, and problem solving with practicing teachers in school
settings. Thus, the undergraduatelearning environment is highly contextualized because the classroom is the work
context.

Quadrant B. In Quadrant B, the classification of low contextualization is low only in relation to opportunities such
as those in Quadrant A that offer sustained dialogue and inquiry in the workplace itself. Having said that,
approaches in this quadrant are very rich in contextual information and learning opportunities and most of them
involve some degree of role playing.

Cases are well-structured examples of situations presented by an instructor either before or after students are
presented with the content that applies to the case. A variety of case studies have been developed for use in teacher
training. Most of these present very specific examples of particular concepts. One highly developed case study can
be found in Education as an Adventure, NichollsÕ and HazzardÕs (1993) description of a second-grade class.

Bridges and Hallinger (1996) developed cases for principals as a means of engaging them in problem-based learning.
This course was designed to prepare for a masterÕs degree program at Stanford University. Interviews with the
graduates have revealed that the PBL program was evaluated more positively than any other program in that college
of education. (The reader is also referred to Borko and PutnamÕs chapter in this volume for a more in-depth
discussion about using case studies to contextualize learning).

At Northern Arizona University, five separate courses have been combined in one experience, an
Integrated Secondary Teacher Education Program, which presents three PBL problems (Kain and
Mitchell 1997). Each problem involves information concerning curriculum, content-area reading,
educational psychology, teaching methods, and assessment. The first problem concerns a question
of whether a community should adopt an Afrocentric curriculum. The second presents a variety of
perspectives (some conflicting with others) regarding a studentÕs academic failure. The third
problem concerns issues surrounding grades based on an ÒintelligencesÓ portfolio.

75
Jones, Rasmussen, and Moffitt (1996, 1997) used cases in a different way that could be productive
for undergraduates. They asked teachers to create case studies that would be published. Each case
study asked teachers to describe a PBL unit they designed and/or implemented and to provide
certain kinds of information: an overview of the project, a description of the school or schools they
involved, a rationale for the project showing how they applied research to their unit, the flow of the
unit and sample activities, and reflections looking back on their development and the work as a
whole.

Simulations are powerful ways to emulate context and roles at all levels of education. The clinical
diagnosis simulation described at the beginning of this chapter is one example for higher education.
One of the PBL models used by the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) also has
great merit for higher education: Problems as Possibilities: Transforming Garbage into Gold. In
this model (Finkle and Torp 1997), IMSA engaged 50 middle school teachers in 9 teams in
sustained professional development experiences including an authentic service learning activity that
would also use all the elements of PBL. It also required classroom teachers to develop instructional
materials for a unit on garbage. The inservice project used a problem called the landfill simulation,
which provided such artifacts as a letter from concerned citizens, records, and news clippings that
stimulated the studentsÕ investigation and role playing and also their assessment.

At the secondary level, Stepien, Gallagher, and Workman (1993) reported on two courses taught at
the IMSA. In one of the courses, students explored social and ethical issues inherent in
controversial scientific issues, e.g., ÒWhat should be done about a severely handicapped baby?Ó In
the other course, students developed a deeper understanding of major decisions made in American
history, e.g., ÒHow would you bring a speedy end to World War II, ensuring unconditional
surrender by the Japanese and a secure post-war world?Ó

In a higher education problem designed by Pyke and Pourchot (1997), students were cast in the
roles of newly hired unit directors at ÒSunshine Camp.Ó They were charged with the responsibility
of recommending changes that would benefit the campers. The undergraduates were told that
previous campers had complained of Òtoo many adults bossing me around,Ó Òtoo many rules,Ó and
Ònothing interesting to do.Ó Meanwhile camp counselors were reported to have observed that ÒKids
just donÕt want to do anything,Ó ÒEverything is boring to them no matter what the activity,Ó and
ÓKids were so mean to one anotherÑthey need structure.Ó The undergraduates were NOT told that
this was a problem in motivation, but they were given opportunities to define the problem from a
variety of perspectives. Pyke and Pourchot concluded that their students enjoyed the experience,
although they were not convinced that the students learned as much about motivation as they would
have during a more traditional class.

Progressive Problem Solving occurs in many manifestations, but among the richest is the
Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE) project (http://csile.oise.on.ca/) at

76
the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE). In this model, faculty from the OISE (who
are higher education faculty) developed a very effective model of inquiry that involves all the
elements of PBL and much more. Specifically, the project takes its research bases not so much
from PBL but from research on expert novice differences, in-depth studies of expert problem
solving, metacognition and intentional learning, science and mathematics research, and computer
science. CSILE has very powerful representations of progressive problem solving as used by
experts to guide K-12 students through the processes used by scientists. Specifically, this process
helps students to find problems, develop theories and hunches, conduct inquiries, share results, and
engage in knowledge building to improve the next cycle of thinking. Thus, the work takes place
within communities of practice, and there is a progressively refined cycle of understanding about
the problem or phenomenon under study.

Process drama is a method taught in art education that may not involve the students in a complete
production of a play or other piece of literature. Instead, the focus is on understanding the subtext,
setting, use of music and art, and any sociocultural factors. Consider dramatizing a book such as
The Bobbin Girls set in the late 1800s in the cotton mills of Lowell, Massachusetts, and
highlighting the plight of child laborers. Teachers and students might research (1) how the sounds
of the machinery could be set to music as a means of deeply understanding the work conditions in
the mill; (2) issues of women and children; (3) how a bill becomes law, as illustrated by the child
labor laws; and (4) how the plight of women and children was depicted in art. This approach
involves various simulations and a lot of role playing rather than acting per se.

Anchored instruction. The Cognitive and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) defined this
approach in the Jasper series (http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/projects/funded/jasper/). This series
represents a collaboration among the CTGV and the faculty from VanderbiltÕs Peabody College of
Education. The context for each Jasper problem is contained mostly in interactive videodiscs
(essentially rich simulations). Typically, the video revolves around a real-world problem (such as
rescuing an injured eagle) and may ask such questions as ÒWill Jasper have enough time, money,
and gas to drive a boat across the lake before nightfall?Ó Some students would remember that a
scene at a gas station happened to show a gas pump listing the current cost. With interactive
videodisc or CD-ROM technology, students could quickly find the scene in question and record
the information needed. Jasper is probably the most well documented of all cognitive science
projects involving technology, and there is consistent evidence that the anchored instruction model
is effective in improving scores on numerous research-prepared and standardized measures for
mathematics, science, and problem solving (CTGV 1992, 1997). Clearly, anchored instruction, like
CSILE, is much more than PBL but does have all the elements of PBL.

An example of anchored instruction for preservice and inservice contexts was developed by Duffy
and Jonassen (1992), who presented teachers with a video of an entire class period involving
teachers identified as experts by research. Learners could access multiple perspectives on the

77
teaching in audiotaped commentary as well as follow specific elements of teaching such as
assessment or metacognitive instruction.

PBL Classroom Research Problems is a catch-all category for the array of PBL problems that are
designed by teachers and teacher educators to fit with their needs and curriculum. They may have
elements of simulation, role playing, cases, problem solving, and contextual learning. They may be
quite complex and elaborate or they may be more focused and simple. An example of this at the
high school level may be found in a project focusing on the question: How valid is the American
Dream? (Jones, Rasmussen, and Moffitt 1997). This 2-week unit was created by 2 teachers for
110 students in an American Studies high school course. The project integrated information from
multiple subjects and involved creating HyperStudio presentations as well as more traditional
written components (a project plan, a written narrative of the presentation, and a project evaluation.)

Developing good problems can require much time, effort, and creative writing as the instructor tries
to second-guess information that students will request. But teacher education and other programs
of study that prepare students for careers do not need to create artificial problems. Creative
instructors are able to use teachersÕ anecdotes or to take advantage of many opportunities for
students to solve problems in real-world contexts. At Samford University in Alabama, Carol Dean
(1998) is using actual experiences of recent graduates to create a portrait of ÒSarah,Ó a beginning
teacher faced with a myriad of problems and possibilities.. Undergraduates in a teacher education
course identify, define, and try to solve SarahÕs problems.

Sophomore students taught by one of this chapterÕs authors (Pierce) in an educational psychology
course were told that they would be presenting a lesson in a second-grade classroom toward the
end of the semester. The students made a list of problems they would need to solve and
information they would need to learn before that could happen. Then, with the assistance of the
instructor and the second-grade teacher, they began to find answers to their questions. Other
sophomores were paired with sixth graders who needed to learn study strategies. The
undergraduates and the sixth graders exchanged e-mail and faxes while the teacher education
majors explored ways to analyze and address the studentsÕ needs. The future teachers found that
they needed to integrate understandings of motivation, prior knowledge, individual differences, and
objectives while they helped the children learn about ancient Greece, the topic of instruction.

Quadrant C. In Quadrant C are approaches that are highly contextualized in that they do take place
in a workplace, community, or family setting (High C), but they contain few elements of PBL
(Low PBL). Or they may take place in school but are intended to allow students to experience
some aspect of a work or community environment through telecommunications, for example. It is
important to note that these approaches may be very rich in content and context; they just do not

78
focus on PBL. However, they are often confused with the notion of Òill-structured problemsÓ in
problem-based learning, and it is helpful to label them.1

• Field trips, for example, engaging in dialogue with the docent in a museum, are often focused
on learning factual information, are episodic, and may not require any integration of
information from multiple perspectives. The same may apply to an electronic field trip, e.g., to a
NASA space station.
• Or consider ÒshadowingÓ an adult role model at work. The learning is clearly contextualized
but not necessarily problem based, since the goal is primarily to learn what someone else does
in his/her work.
• Similarly, procedural learning, or learning the procedures of a scientist or writer, is by
definition contextualized by virtue of the focus on understanding the Òtools of the trade.Ó It
may be highly contextualized if the learners are in a real laboratory or workplace; less
contextualized if they are using videos, telecommunications, or role play, novels, or other
simulations to experience the workplace. However, it may not be problem focused at all if the
procedure is taught in isolation of the process of projects and sustained work or learning.
• The same is true of service learning (see WadeÕs chapter in this volume). The experience is
necessarily situated within the community and involves sustained dialogue with experts, but the
service learning literature does not seem to focus on the characteristics of problem-focused
inquiry as seen in examples in WadeÕs chapter or other literature.2 Many museums and zoos
provide teachers with Òactivity simulation kitsÓ for conducting mini-investigations. An example
of this is the landfill simulation in which students insert the garbage from their lunch into a
prepared container simulating a landfill to observe how water flows through the
garbage. This activity, which may be done at school or a remote site, is contextualized because it is
intended to simulate some element(s) of a work or ecological environment.

1
Note: Sometimes the activities and approaches described DO have elements of problem based learning, but in practice
they usually do NOT. Such activities may provide good, hands-on experiences, but they are not what the research
community would call problem-based learning. It is important that teacher educators understand the difference between
these highly contextualized activities that, again, may focus on a problem or question but lack most of the other
characteristics of PBL.
2
Note: Many community-based projects are designed to engage students in PBL but are not called service learning
(Jones, Rasmussen, and Moffitt 1997).

79
Quadrant D. In Quadrant D are teacher-led, structured group discussions of real-world problems
provided by the textbook or teacher that have only minimal elements of problem-based learning
(Lo-PBL) and few elements of contextual learning (Lo-C). It is important that higher education
faculty and undergraduates not confuse these activities or approaches with rich implementations of
PBL.

• Consider, for example, Òhands-onÓ activities as they are implemented in textbooks and many
classrooms. Countless activities on the Internet and in classrooms engage students in ÒmessyÓ
problems such as how to measure bubbles, identify the ÒmysteryÓ material or chemical element,
or count the number of elephants in a rapidly moving video. Often such activities are episodic,
taught as ends in themselves rather than part of an effort to understand real-world
environments, and/or decontextualized from the role of scientist. Thus, although these activities
contain elements of PBL and contextualized learning or could be enhanced to have more
elements of both, such activities would be on the low end of both continua.
• Another set of activities that seldom involves the full range of PBL characteristics are teacher-
led projects in which students do research on a general theme, engage in traditional research
activities (looking up information in encyclopedias, books, and electronic materials), and
posting their findings on the Web or making a class presentation. Thematic projects such as this
typically do not engage students in solving problems but rather focus on learning categorical,
factual information and would be better characterized as project-based teaching.

How Does PBL Relate to Other Methods?

We have already examined the relationship between PBL and contextual approaches. How does
PBL compare to other approaches? Although many comparisons could be made, it is important to
distinguish PBL from traditional approaches to instruction. The dominant philosophy in many
schools is instruction driven by textbooks or other prepared instructional materials. Typically, the
materials structure students through a sequence of skills or concepts, focus on learning factual
information and isolated skills, use paper and pencil tests, and define teacher roles as giving
information to students who must learn it.

In contrast, the dominant approach in research communities within higher education is some form
of constructivism with its focus on constructing meaning in ways that are rich in representations,
experiences, contexts, and authentic tasks. This type of instruction is highly social in nature, may
have unpredictable elements such as messy data, often is designed to address known
misconceptions, and has very diverse instructional strategies and learning strategies that manifest
higher-order thinking and problem solving. Teacher roles emphasize such metaphors as coach,
guide, mediator, co-learner, and co-investigator. Student roles emphasize learning as problem
solving, producing knowledge, exploring, and co-learning. PBL was derived largely from
constructivist research, as was the medical model, which drew heavily upon the research for
anchored instruction and cognitive apprenticeship (the idea that students are apprentice learners to

80
teachers and experts). (See Jones, Rasmussen, and Moffitt 1996 for elaboration of these
approaches.)

Increasingly, state education agencies, districts, and even cognitive scientists are moving toward
standards-based and performance-based approaches, which often have some elements of traditional
instruction in that they are typically teacher led and may heavily involve paper and pencil tests and
activities. However, they provide clear standards of knowledge, skills, and performance.
Instructional materials or approaches are then developed to meet the standards and performance
tasks. Thus, the test drives the instruction. In the best models, efforts are made to incorporate
elements of co-learning and investigation as well as contextualized performances, portfolios,
communities of practice, and other constructivist thinking.

What Are the Theoretical Bases and Actual Effects of PBL?

Research provides compelling evidence for at least considering the use of PBL. Blumenfeld,
Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, and Palincsar (1991), Norman and Schmidt (1992), and
Gijselaers (1996) have reviewed PBL literature. They highlighted evidence that cognitive
engagement in tasks has been related to intrinsic motivation and goal orientations that characterize
self-regulated students who know and use cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Findings such as
these have informed national standards developed by professional organizations representing the
content areas, for example, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), the
National Science Education Standards (NSES), and the National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE).

Is there evidence that PBL actually does have these effects? Two meta-analyses of PBL programs
in medical schools are commonly cited : Albanese and Mitchell (1993) and Vernon and Blake
(1993). Even though these reviews were both published in the same year, they differed
considerably in the research considered and the methods of analyses. In addition, there is a
growing body of research of the effects of PBL in other contexts. In the discussion that follows
and in Table 2, theoretical predictions are compared to research findings. The reader is cautioned to
recognize that programs classified as PBL may actually fit in various levels of the continuum
described earlierÑthat some PBL programs included in this discussion do not incorporate all of the
criteria.

Effects on Motivation and Self-Directed Learning

According to both meta-analyses and to the Norman and Schmidt review, students engaged in PBL
programs do seem to be intrinsically motivated to use self-directed methods aimed at acquiring in
depth understanding. Albanese and Mitchell concluded that PBL students did demonstrate different
study practices than other students, and these practices reflected different goal orientations. PBL
students were more likely to have mastery goals such as studying to understand and to learn

81
information needed to solve problems (Coles 1985; DeVolder, Schmidt, Moust, and DeGrave
1986; Newble and Clarke, 1986). To achieve their goals, PBL students spent more time using
library resources and applying strategies that helped them identify and define problems than did
students in traditional programs (e.g., Gallagher, Stepien, and Rosenthal 1992; Nolte, Eller, and
Ringel 1988, cited in Albanese and Mitchell; Stepien, Gallagher, and Workman 1993).

Table 2
Should PBL Work? Does It Work?

Standards-based categories Should it work? Does it work?

Theory-based reasons why PBL Conclusions from research
should or should not work
Motivation ÒA considerable body of research PBL students have been more
and theory has shown the link likely to study for deeper
ÒThe curriculum must take between student motivational understanding (e.g., Coles 1985;
seriously the goal of instilling in orientation and cognitive Newble and Clarke 1986).
students a sense of confidence in engagement in schoolworkÓ (cf. PBL students displayed more
the ability to think and Blumenfeld et al. 1991) interest in the subject and were
communicate mathematically.Ó more willing to study related
(NCTM) information and to attend a lecture
(DeVolder, Schmidt, Moust, and
De Grave 1986).

Self-directed Learning ÒKnowledge about problem Secondary school students who had
solving, in general, and about their experienced PBL were more likely
ÒMathematics learning is not a own mental processes, in particular, to spend time on problem finding
spectator sport.Ó helps students become better (Stepien, Gallagher, and Workman
(McTighe and Schollenberger 1991) problem solversÓ (Davidson and 1993) and brainstorming ideas
Sternberg 1998). rather than jumping to a conclusion
(Gallagher, Stepien, and Rosenthal
1992).
Retention and Transfer Providing a context for learning Although the initial learning of
that is similar to the context at the PBL students may be poorer, they
ÒAll mathematics should be studied time of recall influences retrieval remember the information much
in contexts that give the ideas and (e.g., Godden and Baddeley 1975) longer (cf. Norman and Schmidt
concepts meaning. Problems should Solving a prototype problem with 1992).
arise from situations that are not feedback transferred nearly 90% of PBL students are more likely to
always well formed.Ó (NCTM) the time versus 60% for students apply scientific knowledge
who memorized the problem appropriately (cf. Allen, Duch, and
(Needham and Begg 1991). Groh 1996).
PBL medical school graduates
receive higher clinical ratings by
their residency supervisors
(cf. Albanese and Mitchell 1993).

82
Conceptual Change ÒStudents often have considerable Tracking data of CSILE revealed
gaps in their knowledge or hold that encouraging students to revise
ÒEmphasizing mathematical initial preconceptions...that are earlier notes to reflect their current
concepts and relationships means quite resistant to change. These thinking has resulted in significant
devoting substantial time to the may interfere with their ability to conceptual change (Oshima,
development of understandings.Ó understand or benefit from Scardamalia, and Bereiter, in press).
(NCTM) information accessed during project-
based learning activitiesÓ (cf.
Blumenfeld et al. 1991).

Small Group Collaboration Learning together in a cooperative Building the communal knowledge
environment promotes student base with CSILE promoted high-
ÒFuture teachers must engage in achievement, critical thinking, level scientific thinking
collaborative aspects of scientific intrinsic motivation, social (Hakkarainen 1995).
inquiry. They need to experience competencies, positive attitudes,
the values and benefits of positive self-esteem, etc. (Johnson
cooperative work as well as the and Johnson 1989).
struggles and tensions.Ó (NSES)
TeachersÕ Attitudes ÒTeachersÕ beliefs regarding their ÒThese results, coupled with the
role, the goals of schooling, and anecdotal report of numerous other
ÒMany teachers come to learning how students learn are frequently studies...strongly suggest that
activities with preconceptions about antithetical to the assumptions faculty find PBL a satisfying way
teaching science.Ó (NSES) underlying [PBL] approaches to teachÓ (cf. Albanese and Mitchell
(Blumenfeld et al. 1991). 1993).

83
Retention, Transfer, and Conceptual Change in Collaborative Groups
Insofar as the goals of a PBL program focus on the development of self-regulated study strategies,
the results have been promising. However, there have been mixed results concerning the type and
amount of content achieved in courses stressing the approach. Both meta-analyses presented
evidence that medical students enrolled in traditional programs tended to score higher on
standardized measures of basic science knowledge. However, Albanese and Mitchell observed that
retention effects tended to be time sensitive. Although the short-term recall of PBL students was
not impressive, they seemed to have superior long-term recall, since they had learned the
information in more depth.

One would surmise that the strongest retention effects after contextual learning should be observed
when students encounter a similar context. As Norman and Schmidt remarked,

Since all the relevant concepts...are learned in the context of a clinical problem, usually
presented on paper in a small-group setting, they should be more available and better
integrated when a similar problem is encountered in a clinical setting. (p. 559)

Accordingly, Albanese and Mitchell found a nonsignificant trend for PBL students to perform
better on a standardized measure of clinical content. Additional data regarding clinical skills came
from evaluations by residency supervisors who rated medical school graduates. Albanese and
Mitchell concluded that there was Òa clear trend toward higher ratings for PBL graduates by their
clinical supervisors...These are some of the strongest evidence in support of PBL.Ó Vernon and
Blake combined a variety of measures of clinical functioning and agreed that PBL students showed
significantly better clinical performance.

Effects on the Faculty

Blumenfeld et al. (1991) cautioned that many teachers hold educational beliefs regarding their role,
the purpose of school, and the nature of learning that are not compatible with PBL. Furthermore,
cognitively based approaches such as PBLÑ

require substantial changes in teachersÕ thinking about the dispositions toward classroom
structures, activities, and tasks....A quarter of a century of research and development has
suggested that innovation in curriculum and instructional practice requires that considerable
attention be paid to...professional practice issues of teachers (e.g., teacher efficacy,
opportunities for professional development with colleagues, and organizational time and
support for teacher reflection. (p. 373)

As Blumenfeld and her colleagues noted, engaging students in complex learning activities can be a
messy process that slows down a lesson and leads to more student requests for assistance. Unless
teachers are prepared for these events, many would react by simplifying the problem or loosening

84
their standards of evaluation. Nevertheless, Albanese and Mitchell (1993) reported that eight
studies at five different institutions all concluded that faculty members were satisfied with PBL.

Recommendations for Teacher Education Programs

These findings of positive faculty evaluations are impressive when one considers the change in role
required for an instructor. Moreover, the impact on students cannot be ignored. The authors
strongly recommend that institutions of higher education support PBL in any or all of the following
ways.

First, because of the research base and increasing data, PBL is an approach that professors and
graduating teachers alike should at the very least be informed about, with respect to the core
characteristics of PBL, its manifestation in different learning contexts, its history, and the
dataÑincluding its limitations. Second, it is important to offer PBL as a specialty so that it would
be possible to prepare at least some teachers who were actually knowledgeable and skilled in
approaches and strategies. Third, faculty need to consider ways to enhance their teaching methods
with PBL approaches. Fourth, some schools may want to invest in establishing an institutional
outreach and/or research in local schools or around the state in which the institution is located. In
this regard, it may be possible to conduct action research in a Professional Development School or
have a PDS specialize in PBL approaches and explore ways of maximizing learning. Fourth, it
would be helpful to consider cross-institutional collaboration among interested institutions focusing
on PBL outreach and research.

In terms of implementing PBL, Stepien (1995) recommended that an instructor approach a PBL
experience as a skilled problem solver who has no preconceptions about a solution for the problem
at hand. In this role, professors are urged to model and scaffold techniques of reflective problem
solving without revealing their own preferred solutions. Blumenfeld et al. (1991) observed that this
is not easy for educators who have become experts at presenting lectures and facilitating recitations
that focus on one set of correct answers.

Sage and Torp (1997) noted that teachers of PBL are faced with the same type of conceptual
challenges as their students. These researchers spent 1 year training educators to develop and use
problem-based learning situations. As a result of that experience, they recommended that such
programs need to do the following:

• Provide teachers with opportunities to act as learners immersed in PBL experiences and to
observe others in the same environment
• Facilitate the development of self-efficacy by challenging the teachers and also supporting
their effortsÑe.g., modeling and mentoring approaches and strategies and providing a safe
microteaching setting to develop their skills

85
• Provide for opportunities to reflect on their experiences and to network with others who are
learning how to teach with PBL
• Prepare teachers to engage in action research evaluating the effects of PBL on their students
(action research itself being a form of PBL)

Jones, Rasmussen, and Moffitt (1996) have echoed the need for professionals to belong to a
community of practice when they are trying to create and teach PBL. Their approach to teacher
preparation involves four aspects: co-development processes, critical friend reviews, involvement
of a broader community and public presentations, and multistep debriefing. To promote co-
development, they have provided opportunities for teachers to collaborate with each other, with
professional development advocates, and with students to negotiate the goals and processes of
creating PBL. Critical friend reviews were provided by mentors and others who gave constructive
feedback about ideas while the plans are being developed. Members of the public were involved as
mentors, as critical friends, or as bodies (e.g., a town council) that assessed the value of the various
solutions recommended by students. Multistep debriefing followed the studentsÕ presentations of
their conclusions/solutions. The debriefing involved reflection on subject area content, the
processes, and resources that were used, and problem solving skills that were learned during the
experience.

Dean (1998) observed that education faculty members at Samford University began planning for
PBL by developing an infinity diagramÑidentifying and categorizing desired outcomes for their
graduates. Then they sequenced the experiences needed, and they blocked courses together in three
professional semesters that incorporated sustained experiences in the schools. The core of courses
was richly integrated with PBL experiences.

Because Samford is located near a large city, numerous schools have been willing to let their
students observe and teach. Dean reported that teachers have been attracted to their graduate
program because of their commitment to PBL. This has the potential of leading to seamless
professional development beginning with undergraduates learning how to use PBL working with
teachers who are well versed in the techniques. Upon graduation, the new teachers have the
potential of continuing to work with teachers who are PBL mentors. In addition, Samford offers
continuing support for first-year teachers. The university pays for substitute teachers while the
recent graduates meet in workshops.

Obstacles and Solutions to Creating a PBL Focus in Teacher Education Programs

Dean identified three major obstacles that Samford has addressed in the process of developing the
PBL-based teacher education program:

86
• The need to guarantee content. She described one language arts methods course that has a
relatively traditional structure during the first half of the semester. But during the second
half, students meet in groups to create curricula that meet the criteria of a rubric developed
by the class.
• The time and commitment needed for faculty planning. Dean observed that each of the
faculty members felt ownership of the program. She traced this back to the way they had
generated the infinity diagram by plastering a wall of a comfortable room with Òsticky
notesÓ describing desired outcomes. However, she lamented that getting faculty to meet in
teams after the program had been planned was harder. At Samford, the entire faculty of a
department had bought into the effort. In larger universities, it would be conceivable that
PBL would be a focus of a Òschool within a school.Ó However, when a subset of like-
minded professors band together, they may feel as if their efforts are not appreciated by
institutions that have traditionally rewarded grant-writing, research, and publication more
than planning for teaching.
• Scheduling conflicts with general education courses. Fortunately, the university solved this
problem by developing a core curriculum that guaranteed that general education courses
would be completed before students begin enrolling in teacher education.

Other potential barriers to implementing PBL on a large scale are identified in San Diego State
UniversityÕs PBL web pages (http://edweb.sdsu.edu/clrit/PBL_WebQuest.html):

• Changing the curriculum. Gil (1992, cited in Aspy, Aspy, and Quimby 1993, p. 23)
observed that Òchanging the curriculum is like moving a graveyard.Ó Faculty members need
time to adjust to the shift in thinking as well as time to develop PBL experiences.
• Student resistance. Many students have not been prepared to be responsible and
independent learners. (See the Paris and Winograd paper on self-regulated learning in this
volume.) They need a clear orientation to the expectations of PBL and effective
communication about their roles.
• Lack of efficiency. PBL courses are not as efficient as lectures, which typically present the
same amount of information in 22% less time (Shahabudin 1987). Of course, efficiency
may be irrelevant if the information is not retained as effectively in long-term memory.
Furthermore, most teacher education programs are not likely to use the PBL approach
exclusively. Future teachers need to be acquainted with a variety of methods. Stepien
(1995) has described a ÒpostholeÓ approach to PBLÑinserting a problem in the midst of a
course rather than devoting the whole course to the procedure. In addition to a possible cost
of time, higher monetary costs may also be associated with PBL. Some approaches require
a number of small seminar rooms and sufficient copies of library resources. Albanese and
Mitchell (1993) noted that PBL can be used when as many as 100 students are enrolled in a
class, but it is more economical for classes with fewer than 40.

87
• Staff development. Faculty who have spent years perfecting their lecturing techniques need
to develop coaching skills. For instance, they need to learn how to resist the urge to supply
an answer when students are struggling with a problem.

Strategies for Representing Problems and Processes

As teachers or teacher education students are coached through the process of developing and
solving PBL problems, they need to become familiar with various strategies for representing the
thoughts and work involved. There are rich representations in the field around several points in
PBL. First, students need help in representing learning. Consequently, problem-solving programs
such as CSILE frequently have incorporated metacognitive supports. Many students engaged in
PBL need encouragement to record their hypotheses, questions, and evidence. Blumenfeld et al.
(1991) recommended that students need to use two levels of metacognitionÑstrategic to monitor
general cognitive processes and tactical for more precise management of their efforts. As students
learn how to represent their thoughts and thought processes at different stages of PBL, these
representations can be used as formative and summative assessments.

Second, teachers need help in representing teaching and learning. Jones, Rasmussen, and Moffitt
(1996, 1997) developed a full set of templates and tools for conceptualizing planning, monitoring,
and assessing PBL units for student learning. These include, in the 1996 volume, a figure depicting
the main tasks for developing a PBL unit (in practice, this graphic is accompanied by a scenario of
four teachers discussing how to implement each step); a management template for developing
outcomes and standards in the same model; and a graphic illustrating the flow of the PBL project
developed by the University High School described earlier. The authors further required teachers to
develop one or more representations as part of their case studies. In the 1997 volume are a figure
from Edison middle school representing student roles and multiple intelligence attributes and a
figure depicting the flow of the PBL unit developed by IMSA on landfill.

Concept mapping is very commonly used to represent ideas and principles and their connections as
well as to move forward the conceptual work of the project. Table 3, prepared by Pierce for this
paper, is an adaptation of a widely used reading strategy developed by Ogle (1986). She used this
representation both to guide instruction and to record its progress so that it was a valuable artifact
for a portfolio.

88
 Table 3
Defining Hypotheses

Hunches defining What I know What do I want to Answers to questions

problems Rate the certainty of know? How useful is each
knowing each Prioritize your answer?
observation questions.
1 - Very Certain 1 - Highest priority
2 - Certain
3 - Uncertain Where will I look for
4 - Very Uncertain an answer?
Hunch 1 (A)
_______________ _______________
(B)
_______________ _______________
(C)

Hunch 2 (A)
_______________ _______________
(B)
_______________ _______________
(C)

Hunch 3 (A)
_______________ _______________
(B)
_______________ _______________
(C)

Hunch 4 (A)
_______________ _______________
(B)
_______________ _______________
(C)

Monitoring and Assessing for Various PBL Stages

89
In the early stages of a PBL experience, students need to identify whether a problem exists and to
define what a problem might be. Musial (1996) suggested that students might record these
thoughts in a journal, create a semantic map, or even present their ideas formally. Again, these
representation strategies also serve as assessments. In the planning stage of a PBL event, Musial
recommended that students learn how to use task analyses, timelines, or flowcharts, to create a
proposal and/or a budget.

When students are gathering data, Musial urged that they be shown how to record their data. This
may take the form of a table, a chart, field notes, or a recorded interview. This process may be
iterative in that, as students record hunches and gather information, they may generate new hunches
that require gathering additional data.

After the data have been collected, students may be expected to analyze them and produce a
summary of their findings. In some cases, this may involve a statistical analysis of data supporting
opposing solutions. In other cases, descriptive statistics may be sufficient to present data that
support a recommendation.

In one of the final stages of a PBL unit, students share their conclusions. Musial suggested this
might be in the form of an exhibit or a recital, a speech or a debate. Having an Òauthentic audienceÓ
is particularly motivating at this stage. It is absolutely critical to develop both standards and rubric
that are shared at least by the teacher and students, if not by any participating audiences and expert
mentors. Our experience in working with 40 other schools in the past 5 years indicates that this is a
major limitation in the practice of PBL and other related instructional approaches. Many teachers in
K-12 education and higher education are accustomed to grades without making the criteria explicit
or reflecting real-world standards.

Further, it may be argued that merely presenting oneÕs findings is only a beginning to demonstrate
and consolidate what is learned. Part of the reason for this is that if many groups are working in
related areas, it is critical to have some procedures for analyzing and sharing the findings across all
groups: How were they similar? How were they different? What insights can be gained from
making overarching principles explicit? Therefore, we suggest that faculty and teachers use this as
an opportunity to debrief what has been learned in several areas: content, skills, PBL and inquiry
processes, technologies used, communication and collaboration skills, and problem-solving
strategies. It may also be appropriate to debrief learnings about the workplace and tools of experts
or other elements of the context. It is very helpful to develop forms or templates for debriefing in
each of these areas to make more explicit the principles and concepts as well as to consolidate what
is learned and to clarify next steps.

Monitoring Conceptual Change

90
Throughout the PBL process, students need to make a variety of decisions. For instance, they may
be confronted with multiple possible solutions, ambiguous answers, and a need to make
recommendations before some of the questions can be answered. They need help with monitoring
their decision making.

One of the authors (Pierce) has used a technique known as EXPLORE to help students work
together through the decision-making process when they encounter anomalous data. The procedure
is based on conceptual change literature (cf. Chinn and Brewer 1993) and is similar to Johnson and
JohnsonÕs (1998) cooperative procedure of simultaneous explaining. In the first step, students list
all of the choices and Examine each one. Individually, students rate how strongly they agree with
each choice (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree). Next, students form Pairs
based on the degree to which they differ in their ratings. In the third step, students Listen to each
other explain why they prefer or disagree with each choice. Whenever students in a pair disagree
about a rating, they are instructed to listen well enough that their partner agrees that they have
accurately summarized the opposing arguments. Suppose that undergraduates support very
different recommendations for an educational plan for a student with attention deficit disorder. One
problem solver prefers using behaviorist treatments, whereas the other favors a learner-centered
approach. As they explain their arguments, each one is entered into a list. The next step is to
Organize the information into a matrix. To do this, they need to connect arguments that are
somehow related and identify the basis for each relationship. The fifth step is for each student to
engage in Research to find additional evidence and support that need to be considered in the matrix.
Finally, the students Evaluate the information in the matrix and decide whether the evidence favors
one position over the other or whether one approach might be preferable under one set of
circumstances and the other approach would work better in another situation.

Conclusion

Problem-based learning is becoming an increasingly popular approach to use in a variety of

settings with students of all ages. It is particularly appropriate for use in programs that are designed
to prepare students for careers and community situations that involve ill-structured problem
solving. As educators form partnerships with practitioners in the field, they can provide students
with more than enough real-world problems. As students wrestle with authentic problems, they
learn the information and problem-solving processes that they will need. They become apprentices
who experience the difficulties and processes inherent in constructivism. As they encounter
ÒmessyÓ problems, they need to acquire cognitive and metacognitive strategies that facilitate their
work. These experiences will help equip them to become skilled practitioners prepared to meet the
challenges of their chosen careers.

References

91
Albanese, M.A., and Mitchell, S. (1993). ÒProblem-based learning: A review of literature on its
outcomes and implementation issues.Ó Academic Medicine, 68 (1), 52-81.

Allen, D.E., Duch, B.J., and Groh, S.E. (1996, Winter). ÒThe power of problem-based learning in
teaching introductory science courses.Ó New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 68,
43-52.

Aspy, D.N., Aspy, C.B., and Quimby, P.M. (1993). ÒWhat doctors can teach teachers about
problem-based learning.Ó Educational Leadership, 50 (7) 22-24.

Barrows, H.S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New
York: Springer Publishing Company.

Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M., and Palincsar, A. (1991).
ÒMotivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.Ó
Educational Psychologist, 26 (3-4), 369-398.

Bridges, E.M., and Hallinger, P. (1996, Winter). ÒProblem-based learning in leadership education.Ó
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 68, 53-61.

Chinn, C.A., and Brewer, W.F. (1993). ÒThe role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A
theoretical framework and implications for science instruction.Ó Review of Educational
Research, 63 (1) 1-50.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). ÒThe Jasper series as an example of
anchored instruction: Theory, program description and assessment data.Ó Educational
Psychologist, 27, 291-315.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and professional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coles, C.R. (1985). ÒDifferences between conventional and problem-based curricula in their
studentsÕ approaches to studying.Ó Medical Education, 19, 308-309.

Davidson, J.E., and Sternberg, R.J. (1998). ÒSmart problem solving: How metacognition helps.Ó
In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational
Theory and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dean, C. (1998) Personal communication.

92
De Volder, M.L., Schmidt., H.G., Moust, J.H.C., and De Grave, W.S. (1986). ÒProblem-based
learning and intrinsic motivation.Ó In J.H.C. van der Berchen, Th. C.M. Bergen, and E.E.I.
de Bruyn (Eds.), Achievement and Task Motivation. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and
Zeilinger and Swets North America.

Duffy, T.M., and Jonassen, D.H. (Eds.) (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Ewy, C. with Student Authors (1997, January). ÒKids take on Ôthe test.ÕÓ Educational Leadership,
54 (4) 76-78.
Finkle, S. (1998). Personal communication.

Finkle, S., and Torp, L. (1997). Problems as possibilities: Transforming garbage to gold. Aurora:
Center for Problem-Based Learning, Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy.
<http://www.imsa.edu/team/cpbl/whatis/garb/garb2gold1.html>

Gallagher, S., Stepien, W., and Rosenthal, H. (1992). ÒThe effects of problem-based learning on
problem solving.Ó Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (4), 195-200.

Godden, D.R., and Baddeley, A.D. (1975). ÒContext-dependent memory in two natural
environments: On land and underwater.Ó British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325-32.

Gijselaers, W.H. (1996, Winter). ÒConnecting problem-based practices with educational theory.Ó
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 68. 13-21.

Hakkarainen, K. (1995). ÒCollaborative inquiry in the computer-supported intentional learning

environments.Ó A poster presented at the Annual Conference of the European Association
for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Nijmegen, August 26-31, 1995.

Holmes Group (1990). TomorrowÕs schools: Principles for the design of Professional
Development Schools. East Lansing, MI: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 328 533)

Holmes Group (1995). TomorrowÕs schools of education. East Lansing, MI: Author. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 399 220)

Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition. Edina, MN: Interaction
Book Company.

Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R. (1998). Cooperative learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book
Company.

93
Jones, B.F., Rasmussen, C.M., and Moffitt, M. C. (1996). Transformations: High school reform
to promote student performance. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.

Jones, B.F., Rasmussen, C.M., and Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A
collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Kain, D., and Mitchell, R.A. (1997, Spring). ÒProblem-based learning in secondary teacher
education.Ó The Problem Log 2 (2), 6-7.
McMahon, H., and OÕNeill, B. (1993). ÒComputer-mediated zones of engagement learning.Ó In T.
M. Duffy, J. Lodwyck, and D. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive
learning (pp. 37-58). New York: Springer-Verlag.

McTighe, J., and Schollenberger, J. (1991). ÒWhy teach thinking? A statement of rationale.Ó In A.
Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 332 166)

Musial, D. (1996). The Problem Log, 1 (2), 4-5. Described in Torp, L. , and Sage, S. (1998).
Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Needham, D.R., and Begg, I.M. (1991). ÒProblem-oriented training promotes spontaneous
analogical transfer. Memory-oriented training promotes memory for training.Ó Memory and
Cognition 19, 543-57

Newble, D.I., and Clarke, R.M. (1986). ÒThe approaches to learning of students in a traditional and
in an innovative problem-based medical school.Ó Medical Education, 20, 267-273.

Nicholls, J. G., and Hazzard, S.P. (1993). Education as adventure: Lessons from the second grade.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Nolte, J., Eller, P., and Ringel, S.P. (1988). ÒShifting toward problem-based learning in a medical
school neurobiology course.Ó In Research in medical education, 1988: Proceedings of the
twenty-seventh annual conference, pp. 66-72. Washington, DC: Association of American
Medical Colleges.

Norman, G.R., and Schmidt, H. G. (1992). ÒThe psychological basis of problem-based learning: A
review of the evidence.Ó Academic Medicine 67 (9), 557-65.

94
Ogle, D. M. (1986, February). ÒK-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of
expository text.Ó Reading Teacher, 39 (6), 564-570.

Oshima, J., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (in press). ÒCollaborative learning processes
associated with high and low conceptual progress.Ó Instructional Science.

Pyke, S., and Pourchot, T. (1997). ÒDevelopment and assessment of a problem-based learning
curriculum for the teaching of educational psychology.Ó Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Sage, S.M., and Torp, L.T. (1997). ÒWhat does it take to become a teacher of problem-based
learning?Ó Journal of Staff Development, 18 (4) 32-36.
Shahabudin, S.H. (1987). ÒContent coverage in problem-based learning.Ó Medical Education, 21,
310-313.

Stepien, W.J. (1995). A guide for designing problem-based instructional materials. Aurora: Illinois
Mathematics and Science Academy.

Stepien, W.J., Gallagher, S.A., and Workman, D. (1993). ÒProblem-based learning for traditional
and interdisciplinary classrooms.Ó Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16 (4) 338-357.

Vernon, D.T.A., and Blake, R.L. (1993, July). ÒDoes problem-based learning work? A meta-
analysis of evaluative research.Ó Academic Medicine, 68 (7), 550-563.

95
96