Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Issues in Modified Problem-Based Learning: A Self-Study in Pre-service Science-Teacher Education

  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this self-study, the author gained in-depth understanding of how to plan and implement problem-based learning (PBL), a student-centred approach to teaching and learning that is driven by messy, open-ended problems. This paper focuses primarily on the issues and concerns that arose as she developed and implemented a modified form of traditional PBL (Barrows, 1996) in large, pre-service science-teacher education classes. To view the research from many perspectives, a variety of data collection methods and sources were used, including field notes, semi-structured interviews, student-generated documents, and student journals. The outcomes of this study describe challenges (problem development, facilitation of groups, and assessment) encountered by the author as she planned for and implemented PBL. Furthermore, changes in the author’s classroom practice, the connection between these changes and constructivist learning principles, and implications for science-teacher education are addressed.

Sommaire exécutif

Cette étude analyse les questions et problèmes qui ont été soulevés alors que l’auteur mettait en application une variante de l’APP, ou apprentissage par problèmes (Barrows. 1996), dans un cours de méthodes scientifiques destiné à un groupe de futurs enseignants. Trente-trois étudiants se sont inscrits au cours et ont participé à une expérience d’apprentissage par problèmes visant à leur faire comprendre l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des sciences dans les secteurs suivants: la mise au point et l’application des curriculums, l’enseignement et l’évaluation, le contexte de l’enseignement.

Dans le type d’apprentissage par problèmes utilisé dans le cadre de cette étude, l’apprentissage est centré sur les étudiants, qui collaborent au sein de petits groupes. L’enseignant est un simple facilitateur ou guide, et les problèmes sont le thème central de l’apprentissage. Différents problèmes ont été confiés à chaque groupe, après que chacun eut classé les trois questions jugées comme prioritaires à partir d’une liste comprenant les questions suivantes: l’intégration des curriculums, le questionnement scientifique, l’apprentissage coopératif, l’équité et les sciences, l’enseignement différencié, l’évaluation des portfolios et la théorie des intelligences multiples. Chaque problème fournissait aux étudiants l’occasion d’explorer une question susceptible de se présenter dans le contexte de leur future carrière en enseignement des sciences. De plus, grâce à la création d’un document au choix (plan de leçon, site Web, brochure, etc.), les étudiants ont eu l’occasion d’illustrer comment ils intégreraient les contenus scientifiques et la pédagogie.

Dans l’étude de sa propre pratique de l’enseignement, l’auteur a utilisé la recherche action en classe (Kemmis et McTaggart, 2000) comme stratégie pour explorer l’APP. Elle s’est engagée dans une série d’activités de « planification, action, observation et réflexion, et toutes ces activités ont été systématiquement analysées de façon critique, mises en pratique et reliées entre elles» (Grundy, 1982, p. 23). Pour pouvoir analyser la recherche selon différentes perspectives, l’auteur a utilisé une série de méthodes et de sources pour la cueillette des données, y compris les notes de terrain, les entrevues et les documents produits par les étudiants.

Les résultats de l’étude illustrent les façons dont l’auteur a structuré et appliqué cette expérience d’apprentissage par problèmes; les défis liés à la gestion des curriculums, à la facilitation des groupes et à l’évaluation; la perception qu’ont les étudiants de l’apprentissage grâce à l’APP; les changements que l’auteur a apporté à sa pratique de l’enseignement. Selon elle, pour les jeunes enseignants l’APP peut être le point de départ permettant d’élargir leur base de connaissances pédagogiques. Elle souligne en outre que ceux qui conçoivent et facilitent les expériences d’apprentissage par résolution de problèmes doivent constamment observer leur propre enseignement de façon critique et systématique s’ils veulent que les étudiants tirent le meilleur profit possible de leurs expériences de ce type d’apprentissage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the pre-clinical years. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson & W.H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 3–12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, L. (2002). The politics of standardization: Teacher education in the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching, 25(3), 239–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, J.G., & Brooks M.G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). Changing problem-based learning: Introduction to the second edition. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem-based learning (pp. 1–14). London: Kogan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The discourse of reform in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Chief State School Officers. (2004). Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. Available: http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Interstate (accessed 16 December 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Educating teachers for the next century: Rethinking practice and policy. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 221–256). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, C. (1999). Problem-based learning in teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 431771)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duch, B. (2001). Writing problems for deeper understanding. In B. Duch, S. Gro., & D. Allen (Eds.), The power of problem-based learning (pp. 47–58). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, C., & Petrilli, M. (2000). The state of state standards. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franks, D.R. (1994). Exploring tension in a constructivist preservice (finite) mathematics course. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Ontario Educational Research Council: Researching Equity and Accountability, Toronto, ON.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frid, S. (2000). Constructivism and reflective practice in practice: Challenges and dilemmas of a mathematics teacher educator. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 2, 17–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Pérez, D., Guisasola J., Moreno A., Cachapuz A., Pessoa De Carvalho A.M., Martinez Torregrosa J., et al. (2002). Defending constructivim in science education. Science and Education. 11, 557–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glew, R.H. (2003). The problem with problem-based medical education: Promises not kept. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 31, 52–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(3), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, G., Frommer, M., & Walker, R. (1999). Constructivism and problem-based learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23(3), 259–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heron, J. (1993). Group facilitation. London: Kogan-Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herreid, C. (2003). Response to: The problem with problem-based medical education: Promises not kept. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 3/(4), 253–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, E.W. (2000). Constructivism in school science education: Powerful model or the most dangerous intellectual tendency. Science and Education, 9, 599–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Evaluating constructivisitic learning. Educational Technology, 49(1), 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567–606). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., Andrews, R., & Carr, D. (2004). Traditional versus integrated preservice teacher education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(A), 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and experience in teachers’ thinking about cases. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B. (2001). Energizing teacher education and professional development with problem-based learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J. (2002). Understanding self-study of teacher education practices. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practices through self-study (pp. 237–248). London: Routledge/Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mettetal, G. (2001). Classroom action research as problem-based learning. In B. Levin (Ed.), Energizing teacher education and professional development with problem-based learning (pp. 108–120). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPhee, A. (2002). Problem-based learning in initial teacher education: Taking the agenda forward. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 5(1), 60–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merseth, K. (1996). Cases and case method in teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 722–744). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). NC ATE standards. Available: http://www.ncate.org/standard/m_stds.htm (accessed, 16 December 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Onslow, B., & Laine, C. (2000). Developing a’ pre-service teacher education course using a constructivist frame of reference. Journal of Professional Studies, 7(2), 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T., McPherson, S., & Martin, A. (2001). Coherence and collaboration in teacher education reform. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(1), 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, G. (1993). Student perceptions about self-directed learning in a professional course implementing problem-based learning. Studies in Higher Education, 18(1), 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sage, S. (2000). The learning and teaching experiences in an on-line problem-based learning course (No. ED442467). New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facillating problem-based learning: Illuminating perspectives. Philadelphia, PA: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, P., Mennin, S., & Webb, G. (2001). Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice. London: Kogan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinson, J., & Milter, R. (1996). Problem-based learning in business education: Curriculum design and implementation issues. In L. Wilkerson & W. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 33–42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, I. (1997). Developing learning in professional education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE/Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, D.A., & Blake, R.L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Glaserfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & L. Gale (Eds.), Constructivis in education (pp. 3–15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, R.E. (2003). Designing problems to promote higher-order thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolcott, H.F. (1990). On seeking and rejecting validity in qualitative research. In E.W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D. (1996). Problem-based learning for large classes in chemical engineering. In L. Wilkerson & W. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 91–102). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

    Karen Goodnough

Authors
  1. Karen Goodnough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goodnough, K. Issues in Modified Problem-Based Learning: A Self-Study in Pre-service Science-Teacher Education. Can J Sci Math Techn 5, 289–306 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150509556663

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150509556663

Search

Navigation