Principles underlying effective problem design

Duch (2001b:47), Schmidt and Moust (1998:73) state that the quality and the type of problem used is a central factor in the successful implementation of PBL. According to Duch (2001b, 47-48) and Schmidt et al. (nd:12) typical standard textbook problems do not foster the

development of effective problem-solving and analytical skills but tend to reinforce the students’ naïve view of learning that problems can successfully be answered through memorization of facts. Figure 2.5 illustrates clearly that the quality of the problem as well as the functioning of the tutor is central since it not only influences the better functioning of the group but also impacts on the amount of time students will spend on self study. And it is self study that ultimately determines how well their achievement will be (Schmidt & Moust, 1998:73).

Figure 2.5: Important elements in PBL (Schmidt & Moust, 1998:72; H.Scmidt, personal communication, April 11,2005).

The following essential criteria for effective problem design have been deduced from findings of research on learning and cognition (Charlin et al., 1998:323-330; Raine & Symons, 2005:8).

• Adapts to students prior knowledge: An important principle in effective problem design is to ensure that students can relate to it. The problem should provide students access to their personal experience (Dochy et al., 2000:86; Newman, 2004:125). If the contents of the problem adapts well to students prior knowledge, it will help the students mobilize what they already know about the problem (Dolmans, Snellen- Balendong, Wolfhagen & Van der Vleuten, 1997:185-189).

Amount of pre-existing

knowledge Quality of the problem

Tutor functioning

Group functioning

Time spent on self study

• Is complex: The problem should be complex enough to require considerable individual and collaborative effort (Claxton, 1999:32; Dolmans et al., 1997:185-189; Eason & Green, 1987:243; Hattingh & Killen, 2003:41) if it is to promote a deep level of thinking and understanding (Raine & Symons, 2005:7). The problem should incorporate stimulants for discussion (Dochy et al., 2000:86) where it will be necessary for the group members to cooperate in order to effectively work through a problem. Duch (2001b:48-49) also suggests that the length and complexity of the problem must be controlled in such a way that students realize that a ‘divide and conquer’ effort will not be an effective problem-solving strategy. For example, a problem that consists of a series of straightforward ‘end of chapter’ questions will be divided by the group and assigned to individuals and then reassembled for the assignment submission. Students will thus end up learning less, not more.

• Describes real-world situations: Schmidt et al., (nd: 22-23) describe the use of real world problems as a form of contextual or situated learning. Savery and Duffy (1994:8) provide three reasons why problems should address real issues. Firstly, problems addressing real issues provide opportunity for students to explore different dimensions or perspectives of a problem. Secondly, real problems tend to engage students more since there is greater familiarity with the problem. And finally, students must also take ownership of the problem (Burch, 2001:194; Duch, 2001b:48-49).

• Is ill-defined: A distinction can be made between well-defined, moderately defined and ill-defined problems. For a problem to be well defined there must be one clearly preferable solution and a small change in the problem would result in only a small change in the solution. Where more than one potentially acceptable solution exists the problem is described as moderately defined. For ill-defined problems, there may be no solution or there may be one solution and small changes in the problem will require large changes in the solution. The ‘authentic’ problem-based learning approach described by Barrows’ uses ill-defined problems to simulate the conditions that occur in the real environment. ‘Problems’ by this definition are therefore situations that challenge existing knowledge and expertise (Newman, 2004:125). Ill-defined problems can thus be described as messy problems that occur in the real world, where students have to use reasoning when they are confronted by a complex, novel or difficult problem (Barrows, 1994:6).

• Creates cognitive conflict: When problems are ill-defined and challenging, they encourage higher levels of comprehension and skill development than in traditional instruction (Duch, 1996; Van Loggerenberg-Hattingh, 2003:53). The problem is therefore designed in such a way that there is a mismatch or at least a gap between the students’ knowledge and the problem. This confrontation with meaningful but poorly understood problems drives the learning since there is an intrinsic need of the organism to reduce the gap or cognitive conflict (Norman & Schmidt, 1992:558). The way the students deal with this conflict in their groups as well as in their self study sessions will be largely due to this discrepancy (De Grave et al., 1996:324).

• Elicits self-directed learning: When a problem is so relatively unstructured and open- ended (Hattingh & Killen, 2003:41) that it creates cognitive conflict it will elicit spontaneous self-directed learning (De Grave et al., 1996:324). During this process students must identify key learning issues, focus their efforts, marshal resources, and collaborate. Since students immediately apply the knowledge they discover and explain it to others, they learn by doing. In the process, students develop new social and cognitive skills, responsibilities, and understandings (Burch, 2001:194; Claxton, 1999:32; Eason & Green, 1987:243; Hattingh & Killen, 2003:41). The problem should therefore sustain discussion about possible solutions and facilitate students to explore alternatives in order to enhance their interest in the subject-matter (Dolmans et al., 1997:185-189). Dilemmas that arise and questions that come up during these initial discussions can then be used as learning goals for subsequent individual self-directed learning (De Grave et al., 1996:324; Dochy et al., 2000:86; Norman & Schmidt, 1992:558; Yeung et al., 2003:237).

• Incorporates programme/course objectives: In PBL, objectives may exist at the programme, course and problem level. In spite of support in the literature for the narrowing effect of faculty-derived objectives on student learning and the need for self- directedness, most curricula are developed with faculty objectives in mind which, in turn, guide the selection of each problem (Charlin et al., 1998:323-330). It is important for the content objectives of the course to be incorporated into the problems, connecting previous knowledge to new concepts, and connecting new knowledge to concepts in other courses and disciplines (Dochy et al., 2000:86; Duch, 2001b:48-49; Savery & Duffy, 1994:7). The use of triggers throughout the problem text will keep students close to the desired learning objectives (Raine & Symons, 2005:8). If a problem does not lead students to spend time on the intended course objectives, the

intended learning outcomes are not accomplished, so that gaps in students’ knowledge can exist. This implies that problems should direct students to confront one or more of the course objectives (Dolmans et al., 1997:185-189).