Exploring the Cognitive Processes of Problem–based Learning and Their Relationship to Talent Development

William Y. Wu

Victor Forrester

Problem–based Learning and Talent Development

A common feature among countries open to globalization is a movement within education reforms toward talent development. In Hong Kong, the movement is detectable by the formal defining of generic skills that are held to facilitate individual student learning (Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council, 2001). Such movements toward prioritizing the talent development of individual students mark a move away from assimilation theories of learning, where students amass and assimilate taught knowledge, toward constructivist theories of learning, where students actively construct their own knowledge.

With the change in the underpinning educational theory, there follows a change in pedagogy. One pedagogic approach that appears to facilitate the active construction of knowledge—and for this reason has aroused keen interest—is Problem–based learning (PBL).

PBL: Definitions and Characteristics

PBL exists under various guises, ranging from the definitive nature of Biggs and Moore (1993), “Learning declarative and procedural knowledge in a context that has defined a need for that knowledge,” to the comprehensiveness of Fogarty (1997), “PBL is a curriculum model designed around real-life problems that are ill-structured, open-ended, or ambiguous. PBL can be applied across the entire curriculum.”

Whatever their definitive guises, PBL approaches are seen to display a range of common characteristics:

• All PBL approaches begin with a problem or question (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Grabinger, 1996).
• The process of PBL involves clarification, definition with reframing, analysis, and summary with synthesis (Tan, 2003).
• Students assume primary responsibility for analyzing the problem and making inquiry (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1994).
• The teacher's role is primarily facilitative (Stepien & Gallagher, 1993).

Enveloped by these common PBL characteristics, students find themselves in a learning context that apparently requires them to (Fogarty, 1997, 3):

• meet the problem
• define the problem
• gather the facts
• generate questions
• make hypotheses
• rephrase the problem
• generate alternative solutions
• present the solutions, preferably with justifications

Within this learning context, the prescribed role of students is to assume primary responsibility for their learning—a role that has linked PBL with self-directed learning.

PBL and Self-directed Learning

The cognitive processes of self-directed learning are delineated in a model by Eggen and Kauchak (2001): Students first assess their own knowledge base with regard to the problem presented to them. They then identify their knowledge or information gaps. Finally, plans are developed to address their knowledge or information gaps. When sufficient information is gathered, the problem is solved. Where insufficient information is available, the deficiency stimulates the development of new learning strategies. Within these twin cognitive processes, the role of the teacher is to raise facilitative questions, such as: What do you already know? What additional information do you need? Where can you find this information?

For Eggen and Kauchak (2001), one of the goals of PBL is specifically the development of self-directed learning, which enables learners to become & aware of and take control of their learning progress” (p. 229). The claim that PBL is linked specifically to self-directed learning is significant, for it elevates both concepts from being considered at the level of cognition to also being validly considered at the level of metacognition.

Theoretical support for a metacognitive view of PBL in the development of self-directed learning skills is drawn from information processing theories of transfer as well as sociocultural theories such as cognitive apprenticeship (Hmelo & Lin, 2000). Such theoretical support is appealing, for information transfer and cognitive apprenticeship imply that learning is active and progressive, that the processes involved in active learning are integrated and directly evidential of individual talent development.

This attractive logic is further extended by claims that, in PBL, students continually apply their knowledge and accordingly are gaining incremental practice of their self-directed learning strategies. Such common ground between problem solving and incremental self-directed learning suggests a naturally occurring osmosis that predicts not only talent growth but also talent growth that is transferable across novel problems (Hmelo & Lin, 2000). In other words, PBL offers a form of learning that is transferable.

PBL: A Cognitive Apprenticeship?

The view that PBL offers a form of learning that is transferable has become embedded in both the vocabulary and the methodology of PBL. The vocabulary of PBL includes the educational notion of scaffolding, a descriptive term describing that part of the PBL methodology that emphasizes the role of context. For example:

An appropriate context forms a basis or scaffolding within which learners can receive the information they need to know (Coles, 1997, 316).

Context and scaffolding are therefore interchangeable for they serve the one common need in learners for some form of initial support. This view of context and scaffolding serving a common initial need is elaborated in the following:

In the early stages of a course, or where the information is novel and complex and perhaps from a variety of distinct sources, the information could be suitably packaged and provided for students. Later in courses, or in the areas where students have some background experience and knowledge, they can independently identify sources of the necessary information (Coles, 1997, 318).

With the assumptions of cognitive apprenticeship and transferable learning, the active learner's needs will appear to change: what was a need becomes “background experience” and, in turn, this background experience appears to serve as a prompt or guide empowering the learner to independently access “the necessary information.”

This view of an active learner serving a cognitive apprenticeship is appealing. However, it is a view that remains as yet unsupported by substantive evidence. According to Marincovich (2000), the research base is not yet firm enough for PBL advocates to state unequivocally that PBL results in improved student learning. The challenge highlighted by Marincovich is significant: although PBL may promote learning activity, there is as yet little evidence to relate that activity to specific learning outcomes. In the murky world of cognitive processes, there is always a risk of confusing correlation with causation.

Multiple Intelligences

Shining a light into the murky world of cognitive processes is our current understanding of multiple intelligences (MI). Armstrong (2000) offers a classification of MI into eight categories (p. 4):

1. Linguistic: sensitivity to the sounds, structure, meanings, and functions of words and language (e.g., writer)
2. Logical—mathematical: sensitivity to, and capacity to discern, logical or numerical patterns; ability to handle long chains of reasoning (e.g., mathematician)
3. Spatial: capacity to perceive the visual-spatial world accurately and to perform transformations on one's initial perceptions (e.g., artist)
4. Bodily-kinesthetic: ability to control one's body movements and to handle objects skillfully (e.g., athlete)
5. Musical: ability to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch, and timbre;appreciation of the forms of musical expressiveness (e.g., composer)
6. Interpersonal: capacity to discern and respond appropriately to the moods, temperaments, motivations, and desires of other people (e.g., counselor)
7. Intrapersonal: access to one's own feelings and the ability to discriminate among one's emotions; knowledge of one's own strengths and weaknesses (e.g., psychotherapist)
8. Naturalist: expertise in distinguishing between members of a species;recognizing the existence of other neighboring species; and charting out the relations, formally or informally, between several species (e.g., biologist)

These eight categories are neither exclusive nor indivisible (Armstrong, 2000); rather they may be viewed as learning nodes through which an individual may both acquire and express learning.

MI have been described in terms which emphasize that they are naturally occurring phenomena (Armstrong, 2000, 8–9):

• Each person possesses all eight intelligences.
• Most people can develop each intelligence to an adequate level of competency.
• Intelligences usually work together in complex ways.
• There are many ways to be intelligent within each category.

From this viewpoint, if MI are indeed naturally occurring, the argument arises that effective education is that which accesses and engages all eight intelligences. It is in this way—as a measure of educational adequacy—that current interest in MI has been aroused. To measure educational adequacy, it appears logical to evaluate current educational practice not in terms of its measurable output but, more revealingly, in terms of its ability to offer an input that addresses the full range of an individual's ability to learn. When the input addresses an individual's full range of intelligences, then that individual is deemed to be learning at maximum capacity. Although as yet unsupported by evidence, this reasoning retains an a priori validity. It is in this light that we now consider the interactive view afforded by MI and the input offered by a PBL approach to education.

MI and PBL

Weber (2000) has adapted MI into a Multiple Intelligence Teaching Approach model. This model comprises five phases:

• Questions and dialogue to solve key problems around the required subject content
• Identification by students and teachers of specific learning objectives, stated in doable and measurable terms
• Requirement of the class to create a rubric that shows exactly how assignments will be graded to ensure that specific objectives are attained and content understood
• Choice by students of an assessment task that allows them to demonstrate multiple approaches to expressing deep understanding of their topic
• Student reflection

Such categories, though helpful, might be questioned as oversimplifying the underlying complexity. The five phases are discrete and clearly targeted (e.g., solve key problems, then identify specific learning objectives); in contrast, MI have been described as usually working together in complex ways (Armstrong, 2000). Though attractive, the five-phase model is open to the challenge that it is an artifice imposed on, rather than freely drawing from, individual students' capacity to learn through a range of interacting MI.

In contrast to the five neat phases, PBL has been more objectively described as starting with an ill-structured mess (Gardner, 1983). It is from addressing this initial “mess” that students use their many intelligences—through discussion and research—to determine the real issue at hand (Fogarty, 1997). This description of the PBL process—a progression from addressing a mess to determining the real issue—captures the elements of MI as interconnected work. For example, students can use their bodily—kinesthetic intelligence through experiential, hands-on learning, their interpersonal intelligence to interview others, their intrapersonal intelligence to reflect on the problem, and their logical—mathematical intelligence to reason logically (Fogarty, 1997).

Drawing from this view of PBL, it is now possible to depict the potential relationship between MI and PBL, as shown in Figure 1. In the figure, a potential relationship is posited indicating that PBL may work in tandem with our understanding of MI. In sum, PBL offers a mess or problem, the

solution to which fully engages MI. The close relationship between PBL and MI is explored in Table 1 with reference to one possible PBL example, which shows that resolving the PBL problem appears to fully engage MI.

The Roles of Questioning and Visualization

Where resolving a PBL problem appears to fully engage MI, we can now refine our understanding of the twin roles of questioning and visualization in cognitive processes. First, we consider the potential roles of questioning, which are set out in Table 2.

Questioning within PBL appears to take the form of six roles: to remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Each appears to have a discrete role within the cognitive processes activated by PBL.

These six roles have been placed into one of two subsets. The first subset includes questions that are labeled broad or divergent; the second includes questions that are considered narrow or convergent. Broad or

divergent questions encourage thinking that moves in many directions and on a broad front. In contrast, narrow or convergent questions encourage thinking to narrow down, to focus on a particular point. The significance of these question subsets is that, in general, they appear to call on different levels of thinking. Broad or divergent questions, it has been argued, are more likely to utilize higher-order thinking. In contrast, narrow or convergent questioning is more likely to activate lower-order thinking (Sweeting, 1992). It has further been argued that these orders of thinking indicate a thinking aristocracy—for example, thinking of a lower order is taken to involve only memory or observation—with the implication that higher-order questions should be more educational (Sweeting, 1992).

However, from the perspective of MI, there is no thinking aristocracy, for thinking is no longer separate and divisible; rather it is a symptom of MI in action. From this MI perspective, the apparently six discrete roles of questioning within PBL represent six roles of the same cognitive activity. The engaged student utilizes each questioning role in terms of its contribution to the problem's resolution. In short, PBL appears to generate a questioning pragmatism.

We now turn to the potential roles of visual tools in cognitive processes.

It is suggested that there are three roles for visual tools in cognitive processes:

1. Organizing information: The human mind organizes and stores information in a series of networks (Ausubel, 1968; Hyerle, 2000). Visual tools include visual depictions resembling networks that enable students to add or modify their background knowledge by seeing the connections and contradictions between existing knowledge and new information.
2. Understanding information and relationships: Visual tools serve as mental tools to help students understand and retain important information and relationships (Vygotsky, 1965; Rice, 1994).
3. Depicting knowledge and understanding: Visual tools provide an optional way of expressing knowledge and understanding, so they are particularly beneficial for students who have difficulty with expressing relationships in written format (Hong Kong Education Department, 2001).

Given these three roles for visual tools, the question arises as to how PBL activates this visual generation, change, and communication of information.

First, it is helpful to recognize that visual tools is an umbrella term for different mental mapping techniques (Hyerle, 1996). These visual mapping techniques have been described as including (Hyerle, 2001, 402):

• brainstorming webs (e.g., clustering, mindscaping, and mind maps)
• graphic organizers (e.g., Bloom's “one-shot thinking”)
• thinking process maps (e.g., thinking patterns, conceptual development)

Such visual tools, for Hyerle, offer “open systems for thinking outside of the box” (2001, 403). The potential of such visual tools for PBL is illustrated in Table 3, which shows that visual tools may play a role not only at all levels of PBL activities but also in complementary and mutually supportive ways. For example, brainstorming webs may be utilized along with graphic organizers and/or thinking process maps to promote further planning. In this respect, PBL appears to embrace both questioning and visual tools with an open pragmatism that considers and prioritizes all forms of learning—all forms of MI—in terms of their contribution to problem resolution.

Schema for PBL

Incorporating our current understanding of the potential relationships between PBL, MI, and the tools of visualization and questioning, we can now construct a schema for PBL, as depicted in Figure 2.

The schema posits a full activation of MI in the individual's progression from perceiving a mess to being able to present a solution. Integral to this positive progression are the tools of both questioning and visualization. The “outcome” in the figure refers to both the solution and the entire process, both of which are held as evidence of learning.

Implications for Theory Building

The impact of any schema or model on theory building is essentially to act as a stimulus. The proposed schema for PBL raises many questions. One question is if this schema is appropriate for capturing the essential complexity and interrelated nature of MI—where it serves to offer an overview rather than detailed workings, then perhaps this schema is justified. One may also ask if active use of MI depends on being presented with PBL. MI are actually in constant active use. The presentation of PBL provides a focus. Any one focus, by definition, will simultaneously prioritize certain facets of MI while diminishing other facets. In doing so, it is assumed that PBL draws on the complementary nature inherent within MI. There is also the question of whether the role of MI is negated by the accentuated roles of questioning and visualization. The accentuated roles of questioning and visualization need not negate any one of the MI. Where questioning and visualization are taken as wide-ranging cognitive and behavioral functions, it is possible to see their accentuated roles as evidence of a pragmatic interplay among all of the MI.

Implications for Research

The role of any schema or model for future research is essentially to act as a guide. The schema for PBL raises many possible areas for research. For example:

• Is there evidence that an interaction with a problem activates MI?
• Which form or model of a problem fully activates MI?
• What are the “normal” roles of questioning and visualization within MI?
• Which form or model of a problem fully activates the roles of questioning and visualization within MI?
• Is there evidence that a PBL outcome (a solution) embodies evidence of learning?
• Is the assumed linear relationship between PBL and MI valid?

Implications for Enhanced Practice

The implication of any one schema or model on enhanced PBL practice is essentially to empower creative pedagogic thinking. The schema for PBL raises many possible areas for enhanced PBL practice. For example, the PBL schema may raise pre-teaching awareness, first, by defining the difficulty level of the problem appropriate to the developmental stages of MI (reflected in student maturity) and, second, by relating students' prior and present learning experiences in terms of promoting students' actuation of all components of MI.

In teaching PBL, student activity can be considered in terms of fully engaging the interrelated activity of MI. Accordingly, the PBL class can involve both group and individual work where the individual's output need not be predetermined and in which the learning process prioritizes flexibility and responsiveness to situations on the part not only of the student but equally of the instructor. In this light, PBL recognizes learning that may take place both inside and outside the classroom and both within and without the traditional concepts of a timetable.

With regard to assessment, PBL need not be subject-specific nor examination-focused because, although its end product of knowledge acquisition can be formally examined, it equally promotes other educational products, such as interpersonal skill and questioning skill development. In the PBL lesson, presenting a solution may be less important than generating a question as evidence of utilization of MI. In this light, there may be no distinction between assessing PBL and assessing an individual's capacity to fully engage in lifelong learning.

Having considered some of the implications for theory building, research, and enhanced practice, we now consider what this schema may indicate about the nature of PBL.

The Nature of PBL: Relationship between Pedagogy and Philosophic Underpinnings

PBL—as displayed in the above discussion—is complex and comprehensive in nature. For example, the proposed schema for PBL illustrates something of its potential to empower creative pedagogic thinking. Where this creative process involves an accumulation of experiences, at a metaphysical level the philosophic root of PBL draws on pragmatism. However, where PBL has its focus on drawing out from students their own knowledge, then the PBL philosophic root draws on idealism (Gutek, 1997). Such potential for philosophic pluralism points to the chameleon nature of PBL.

An example of PBL's chameleon nature is the philosophic stance inherent in adopting an MI approach to PBL. The MI approach to PBL carries with it a basic philosophic stance of holistic pragmatism, for it is implicitly assumed that each individual both has and constantly has access to MI.

From this pragmatic base flow several philosophic assumptions:

• that it rests on individuals to fully exercise their own MI
• that the individual learns both in isolation and in group interaction
• that learning is natural
• that education is a preparation for life
• that learning is by nature an experience-building activity
• that lifelong learning is natural
• that the classroom and life should not be polarized
• that individuals will learn better at their own pace
• that the PBL problem can be applicable to all levels and categories of learning
• that PBL is not restricted to pedagogy but rather embodies philosophic ideals

Although not exhaustive, this list serves to place any consideration and evaluation of PBL within a broad spectrum ranging from concerns with its pedagogic implementation to a recognition of PBL's chameleon nature.

Summation

This chapter has adopted both tentative and questioning personas with the intention of highlighting that the cognitive processes involved in PBL remain largely uncharted. This tentative exploration of the uncharted PBL cognitive processes has been guided by current perspectives of MI combined with an understanding of the twin tools of questioning and visualization. Informed by these, a schema for PBL has been derived. This schema then served to highlight potential implications in the areas of theory building, research, and enhanced practice with respect to PBL. From there, the pedagogy and resultant philosophic nature of PBL were considered and posited as illustrating that, where PBL is perceived through the holistic pragmatism of MI, it too offers an empowering holistic view of learning and talent development.

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

Biggs, J. B., & Moore, P. J. (1993). The process of learning. Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Coles, C. (1997). Is Problem–based learning the only way? In D. Boud & G. I. Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem—based learning (2nd ed., pp. 313–25). London: Kogan Page.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–98). New York: Macmillan.

Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2001). Strategies for teachers: Teaching content and thinking skills (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem–based learning and other curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Grabinger, R. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 665–92). New York: Macmillan.

Gutek, G. L. (1997). Philosophical and ideological perspectives on education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hmelo, C. E., & Lin, X. (2000). Becoming self-directed learners: Strategy development in Problem–based learning. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem–based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 227–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council (2001). Learning to learn: Life-long learning and whole-person development. Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Education Department (2001). The use of graphic organizers to enhance thinking skills in the learning of economics. Hong Kong.

Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hyerle, D. (2000). A field guide to using visual tools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hyerle, D. (2001). Visual tools for mapping minds. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd ed., pp. 401–7). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marincovich, M. (2000). Problems and promises in Problem–based learning. In O. S. Tan, P. Little, S. Y. Hee, & J. Conway (Eds.), Problem–based learning: Educational innovation across disciplines (pp. 3–11). Singapore: Temasek Centre for Problem–based Learning.

Rice, G. E. (1994). Need for explanations in graphic organizer research. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 15, 39–67.

Slavin, R., Madden, N., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. (1994). Roots and wings: Inspiring academic excellence. Educational Leadership, 52, 10–14.

Stepien, W. J., & Gallagher, S. A. (1993). Problem–based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50, 25–28.

Sweeting, T. (1992). Questioning. Teaching in Hong Kong, No. 11. Hong Kong: Longman.

Tan, O. S. (2003). Problem–based learning innovation: Using problems to power learning in the 21st century. Singapore: Thomson Learning.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1965). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Weber, E. (2000). Five phases to PBL: MITA (Multiple Intelligence Teaching Approach) model for redesigned higher education classes. In O. S. Tan, P. Little, S. Y. Hee, & J. Conway (Eds.), Problem–based learning: Educational innovation across disciplines (pp. 65–76). Singapore: Temasek Centre for Problem–based Learning.