Problem-based Learning

Abstract

There have been many sentinel events in the life of problem-based learning (PBL). Once or twice I have been there when they happened. Many have been positive and rewarding. Some have been greeted with horror, derision, dissatisfaction, or disgust. I remember having a conversation with a Professor of Anatomy at London University who simply refused to see any merit in a group of students, who ‘knew nothing’, sitting around discussing what might be wrong with a patient in order to improve their understanding of science. They would, of course, have been much better off cutting up some cadavers to isolate the anatomical structures that were causing the patient's discomfort and probable death. This was in 1974, after I had enthusiastically returned from a visit to McMaster to see for myself how PBL functioned in its ‘true and purest’ form. Later, in 1983, in the bar of the Hotel Valkenburg in Limburg a group of people were talking about the new PBL curriculum at Maastricht. It was about 2am. I witnessed absolute astonishment slowly extend across Howard Barrows' and others' faces as he related his realisation that the course had essentially been designed and implemented by a bunch of psychologists and sociologists. It was clear that many in the room did not feel that the course would be sustainable. However, this event also created a challenge: that PBL needs a problem and it needs a process, but it does not necessarily need a medically qualified or discipline expert. And gradually all of these issues have become research foci, some more capable of resolution than others. The debate has widened from ‘it works!’–‘no it doesn’t'1, 2 to a dispute about the know-ability of whether, how and why it works;3, 4 and if it does what effect size would it be, and is it big enough?5, 6 I am still not sure what the cost-benefit is of this hyper reflection. Disappointingly some of PBL's early champions seem to have become a tad jaded, maybe because the argument has become so convoluted. Perhaps also, those who have spent most of their intellectual lives in a PBL institution have become impassive to its charms. Nevertheless in the last 2 years we have seen a few bits of the 1000 piece research jigsaw, that would be required to convince the sceptics, hewn out of the research data, and its quality is gradually increasing.7 In this issue we see a few more.8-12 Like most fragments of jigsaws they are rough around the edges; for example the study of the virtual environment omits reference to some important citations.13 Interestingly, both from these studies and from the general debate one gets the impression that some people are emotionally entwined with a pro- or anti stance: for them the jigsaw is either irrelevant or can never be complete. Yet the social constructivist dimension of the arguments, both about the experimental paradigms or about the possibility of finding an answer on the value of PBL, is important. Experience matters. It was clear to me in the last 3 decades visiting schools that had radically changed their curricula, that there was an important and qualitatively different set of characteristics between them and traditional schools. In the early days this difference was breathtaking – it was an arresting, confrontational experience. Some people did not like it. The difference seems to be less now; probably for the same reason that Harvard and New Mexico were unable to complete their definitive trials.14, 15 For example, there has been considerable drift and accommodation of curriculum models so the differences are less clear cut. Consequently the possibility of showing a radical distinction has diminished. At the same time PBL has found its niche in the methodology of self-directed learning. So, Geoff Norman may be right:16 encapsulating the essentials of the models in constrained situations and investigating them experimentally may be all that will drive progress. On the other hand we could just agree with David Berliner's very interesting defence of the polyphony of educational research: ‘… it was not bad science that caused findings to become irrelevant. Changes in the social, cultural, and intellectual environments negated the scientific work in these areas… Our (educational) science forces us to deal with particular problems, where local knowledge is needed. Therefore, ethnographic research is crucial, as are case studies, survey research, time series, design experiments, action research and other means to collect reliable evidence for engaging in unfettered argument about education issues’17 p20. These types of studies are all beginning to emerge. Do we still need them?