I am really surprised that Spector claimed PCI lacks a proper theoretical foundation. Until now, my theoretical framework on ill-structured problem solving stemmed from Hannifin, Land, Oliver (1999) Open-ended Learning Environment (OELE) and Jonassen's Constructivists Learning Environment (CLE). Both learning environments are grounded in established learning theory - constructivisim and designed to support higher order cognitive skills. Further, these environments provide a system or holistic approach with support of cognitive tools for scaffolding learner problem solving.
On the assessment side, I am intrigued that learner problem solving can be assessed through causal diagrams. This brings new insights on self-assessement in which learners build causal diagrams on problem solutions and then compared that with the expert's diagrams.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Last semester, during Complex Problem Solving class, we reviewed various instructional design strategies that promise to facilitate learning in complex knowledge domains. These included inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, discovery learning, case-based learning, etc. there were several issues with PBL. for instance, if you look at the theoretical foundations of problem-based learning,everyone seems to interpret it differently. It seemed that PBL, as originally proposed by its founder, who successfully implemented in medicine, has lost the important properties that make PBL effective while it is translated to education by different groups. That is a huge problem. Also, the results of the studies were often contradictory, while meta-studies could not find support for claims of effective learning. Perhaps Victor or Bryan could talk more about these issues. Overall, I would argue that the claims by Spector et al. makes sense.
Therefore, the important issue for model-based learning is to form a strong foundations. The three articles you were assigned by Seel, Gibbons, and Milrad et al. give their individual attempts at this. However, I would like for you to examine it in detail and make a critical analysis.
By the way, constructivism is NOT a learning theory. It is a philosophical view, which drives some of the learning theories such as the social learning theory, etc. that are attributed in Hannafin's article. This is a common mistake among those not from our field, most of which do not study learning theories properly. Especially, in other education fields, so-called constructivistic learning theory is being attributed to (which does not exist) as a panacea to everything that is going wrong in K-2 education. It seems like a more marketing strategy than anything else. Research shows that such approaches are also have issues when it comes to implementing in classrooms.
In sum, different philosophical approaches affect how one defines what learning is and thereby influence the learning theories. The theoretical bases of some learning theories are more close to objectivism as the philosophical base (such as behavioral learning theory); some, like social cognitive learning theory, are influenced by more constructivistic philosophy and define learning as a social negotiation of meaning because there is nothing called 'truth' out there; we co-construct 'truth' and negotiate the meaning we assign etc etc
In our field, I see three types of terminologies frequently. And, it is worthwhile to really understand how to use them. Let me give it a try here:
1. Epistemology - something like objectivism/constructivism - as Deniz said, it is a philosophical view that drives learning theory. So, we don't use it as theoretical ground to support our theory. I think it is OK to tell people which philosophical view we use. The view suggests certain approach to our research.
2. Theories - here is my understanding of theory: it should explain or predict. e.g. Cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro); cognitive flexibility theory (Sweller)...
3. Learning environment/instructional approach. - we talked about different instructional approaches such as PBL last semester. I don't think those are theories. Instead, those are some ways to help learners to learn in certain situations (maybe certain domain, certain instructional environment...). One of the problems of Problem-based learning (or PCI as Spector suggested) was the lack of definition. What PBL really is? Of course, as Deniz said, the empirical findings from PBL is mixed.
Seems like Nelson thinks OELE and CLE have some direct relationship with PCI. I am not familiar with those learning environment. Maybe Nelson or Deniz may give us some explanation.
Dr. Eseryel, thanks for the needed clarification. It's more clear to me now :-)
Victor, OELE and CLE are theoretical models for building learning environment to support ill-structured problem solving.
Argh, the terminology! I read it in the papers and seem to understand most of it. But, haven't internalized it all yet (I could assess this by reading these responses to this post). I need to keep working at it. I do appreciate Victor's "dictionary" of the broad terms to help me structure the more specific terms. Thanks!
Post a Comment