The Karate Kid Method of Problem Based Learning

Chapter

Abstract

The traditional introduction to computer programming course delivers lectures that meticulously describe language components and the way they work combined with homework and laboratory drills. The challenge of teaching introductory programming courses is: the students do not know enough to work on interesting and challenging projects. As a result, they are assigned small structured (toy) problems that do not engage their curiosity and allow them to try on their own. This results in little motivation and poor learning. Large numbers of students fail, drop, or complete courses without learning to program. In contrast, this introductory class enables students to learn programming languages by designing and implementing a computer game. Two obstacles must be overcome to make this work. The first is the students’ anxiety when faced with a complex task they cannot do. The second issue is the menial and tedious practices they must undergo to master the tools required by the task. Imbedding structured problems within the requirements of a complex unstructured project helps resolve these issues. We describe this version of PBL using the pedagogical metaphor of the popular movie, the Karate Kid.

References

  1. Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1987). Paradox of the active user. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Interfacing thought: Cognitive aspects of human-computer interaction (pp. 80–111). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  4. Evensen, D. H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2000). Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Fischer, K. W., & Rose, L. T. (2001). Webs of skills: How students learn. Educational Leadership, 59(3), 6–12.Google Scholar
  6. Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method. The Teachers College Record, 19(4), 319–335.Google Scholar
  7. Nater, S., Gallimore, R., Walton, B., & Sinegal, J. (2005). You havent taught until they have learned: John Woodens teaching principles and practices. Fitness Information Technology.Google Scholar
  8. Ornish, D., Brown, S. E., Scherwitz, L. W., Billings, J. H., Ports, T. A., McLanahan, S. M., et al. (1990). Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? The lifestyle heart trial. Lancet, 336(8708), 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sanson-Fisher, R. W., & Lynagh, M. C. (2005). Problem-based learning: a dissemination success story? Medical Journal of Australia, 183(5), 258.Google Scholar
  10. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning (Spring), 1(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (1995). What makes a tutor effective? A structural equations modeling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Academic Medicine, 70(8), 708–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Translation newly rev. and edited ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations