PBL Symposium 11 - 12 Jun 09 (Part 10): PBL and Public Libraries

[From Part 9]

OK, my final post regarding the Three-day PBL symposium. No substantial insights, I've to qualify.

As I mentioned in Part 1, I didn't have any specific expectations of the symposium. My main aim was to get some insights on Problem Based Learning (PBL). To get a feel of the trends and what educators are thinking/ doing.


APPRECIATION OF PBL
I started without any real appreciation of what is PBL. At the end, I can say I've internalised some aspects the Republic Poly's One Day One Problem approach). Come to think of it, this series of PBL posts is my Reflective Journal for the conference.

PBL is definitely not a teaching-fad. But it's not a complete replacement for all teaching methods.

To paraphrase Dr. Mark Serva (Day-1) a lecture format is still an efficient way to deliver information. If the intent is to deliver information in an efficient manner.


EMPHASIS ON INFORMATION-QUALITY LACKING IN PBL?
I'm careful to put a question-mark at the end of the header. I've not gone through any substantial PBL situation, so I'm not sure how much scrutiny is given to the information that students cite as part of their information search.

Maybe their quality of information (or lack of) will reveal itself, as facilitators probe and ask students to justify their responses.


THE LIBRARY IS A RESOURCE!
It's clear with PBL there is no prescribed text-book.

I know what you might think next: The Internet is the main resource for students taking PBL classes, right?

Probably true.

Ah, here's the good news (for librarians): Sharen the RP librarian, who gave me the tour, told me their students also recognise that not all answers are found on the Internet. They would turn to the RP library.

But not all students are aware of all books and library materials that might be relevant. And they may not ask the librarians.

BTW, I suggested to Sharen that their library blog could interview students who have used a particular library collection (e.g. book). Instead of featuring book reviews per se, just ask students simple questions like "Why did you choose this book?", "Which part did you find relevant to the Problem you're working on right now?".


A FEW CLAIMS
Here goes:

• Students exposed to the PBL way are also comfortable with independently searching for information, as part the learning experience.
• PBL makes students adopt an independent self-learning approach; which forms the basis of life-long learning.
• They are exposed to the library as a resource.
• As adults, they carry this habit, mindset and impression of the library with them.

The logical, albeit simple, conclusion: PBL ensures the viability of libraries in the long term?

OK, just pure speculation at this point.

But at some level, I can't help but feel that a PBL approach to learning can be connected with public libraries. For instance, let's say more institutions (even company training departments) adopt a PBL approach to learning at some level. For PBL, one big support infrastructure needed is access to information. The Internet is one source and the public library is the other one.


FINAL THOUGHTS
Going purely from my feel from the symposium, I think the legitimacy of PBL is not in question. Educators are also generally aware what PBL is good for, and what learning situations it may not be appropriate (e.g. where student maturity and self-motivation is low).

The real question seems to be how to go about implementing PBL (especially tackling the challenge of already having a traditional teaching curriculum in place) and how to assess PBL's outcomes and effectiveness relative to typical teaching approaches.

Which then means the traditional "teacher-focus" approach will still be the most widely used.

At least for now.

(Twitter hashtag #pbl09w)

PBL Symposium (Part 9): A greater appreciation of what "Student-focus" means

[From Part 8]

I've heard the term "Student-centered Learning" being mentioned a few times during the three-day symposium. I've a better appreciation what the phrase means, now that I read articles like these:

• Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? (n.d.). . Retrieved June 23, 2009, from www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/oneill-mcmahon-Tues_19th_Oct_SCL.html
• Student-centred learning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). . Retrieved June 23, 2009, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student-centered_learning

Some thoughts about the idea of "Student-centered learning", from my brief encounter with PBL.


WHAT ABOUT 'SLOWER' STUDENTS?
What if an individual student was slower at absorbing the concepts? I asked if there were remedial sessions (for slower students).

Answer was no.

Almost immediately, I realised why: Inherent in PBL is that the onus is on student to buck up. Which also means PBL requires students to have a certain level of maturity and motivation.


STUDENTS CANNOT AFFORD TO DISENGAGE THEMSELVES
In PBL, you're made to work harder as a student. Each student would get to present at some point.

I realised if I didn't force myself to stay engaged (no matter how disinterested I was in the engineering problem) I would not be able to explain when asked to.

In a real class, facilitators would observe students who seem to lag and disengage from the discussion. They can tell who might have problems following the class, from their presentations and responses (or lack of).


STUDENT-LED LEARNING
I think I understand better what is meant by "student-led" learning.

In a sense, the students lead in terms of responses, not necessarily answers. Each team would share their interpretation and rationale. Peers would question/ challenge their peers.


The facilitator said they found student discussions more forthcoming with this approach. I'm not surprised. I think students generally don't want to challenge the teacher whereas the PBL approach creates a more level playing field, so to speak.

The presentation format made the student get used to ideas being challenged. So they are forced to think through before proposing further answers.

I think effective students are honest about what they don't know.

And who would take it upon themselves to reduce that knowledge gap (as opposed to asking teachers to give them the required information).


ONUS IS ON STUDENT TO LEARN
I admitted to the facilitator that I was perhaps hindered by my mental model of what "education" should be. I was expecting to be told what the objective was (e.g. "Linear Programming") and would be happy to be told what it was and how to apply it.

At one point, I wanted to be told what to do.

I wanted to be told how to work on the problem, get on with it, and arrive at a "correct answer". That was how I was schooled for the most part of my student life.

But I realised while that approach was efficient from the "transfer of information" view point, the retention of information was definitely not as long-lasting as the PBL approach.


SUPPORT STRUCTURES
Of course, that does not mean students are left to their own devices. There are facilitators, and there are facilitators who go the extra mile.

One RP academic staff told me his approach was to identify the weaker students (from the tests and various assessments). He would speak to them and he would know if they were really lost. Then he would offer to give more pointers to the students on what to look up and/ or explain the concepts in greater detail.

But again, he admitted the final responsibility was on the student to want to learn.


***

I concluded that for PBL to show results, you really need students who have a certain level of maturity and motivation.

PBL will not motivate the un-motivated.

However, if my experience with the mock PBL lession is anything to go by, PBL is a very effective for students whose process of deriving understanding is best served through an internalisation, 'experiential' and iterative process.

(Twitter hashtag #pbl09w)

[Next: Part 10]

PBL Symposium 11 - 12 Jun 09 (Part 8): A simulated PBL lesson

[From Part 7]

On Day-2. 11 June 09.

"What happens if, in a student-led discussion, the entire group goes off track and doesn't grasp basic concepts that they are required to have?"

I asked my friend Mr. Grain Baysa-Pee at lunch today. He's a lecturer Senior Academic Staff at Republic Polytechnic (RP).

He clarified that by the time students make their third and final group presentations for the day's PBL lesson, they would have realised what they don't know, based on what the other groups have presented. Or through probing questions by the facilitator.

"Why can't the facilitator just tell them the concepts?" I queried further.

No, the facilitator should NOT say "That's wrong". The PBL approach was designed to let students internalise the error themselves.

My friend added: "What would (the facilitator) have achieved by telling students the 'right' concepts? It would only have satisfied the facilitator's need to tell them. But students would not know the significance".

I had a chance to internalise what my friend meant, next.

A SIMULATION: PBL in Engineering Education.


The symposium offered a few PBL 'mock' sessions. I attended the engineering-related one.

I've absolutely no engineering background. And I tend to be slow in grasping mathematical concepts (unless I can draw/ visualise it). But the aim of the shortened simulated PBL lesson (RP's unique "One Day One Problem" approach) was not to make an engineer out of me.

In fact, I wanted to experience first hand what a slower student* might feel in a PBL setting.


A 'SIMPLIFIED' PROBLEM
The normal PBL lesson, RP style, spans one full day. There would be a 'First Meeting' and 'First Study Period' (both one hour each). Then a Second Meeting/ Study Period (another hour each). Finally a Third Meeting (two hours).

The First Meeting was to define and understand the problem. The document detailing the 'problem scenario' was preloaded on the laptop:


The stated 'problem' involved percentages and ratios in sourcing and mixing iron-ores to produce steel. Three different country sources meant different costs. The alloy mixtures were sub-categorised by three different grades of steel (A to C), depending on variations to the percentages.


The phrasing of the problem, including the facts stated as part of the problem scenario, were realistic.

The line "Can you help Kawa-san" seems to reinforce the realism.


I re-read the 'problem' three times and still didn't quite get it. This was supposed to be simplified!

Upon hindsight, I think that might have been deliberate. In real-life, we may recognise a 'problem situation' but even so, things may not be clearly defined and require time to clarify.

[ASIDE: KEY ELEMENTS IN RP's PBL]
One of the facilitator, Hisham, explained that the key elements were:

1. Learning environment (group work; 5 students per team; wireless Internet access to allow them to obtain resources, references)
2. Problem statement and Daily Activities (Prob scenario design, 'Scaffolding', Facilitation, Presentation, Assessment)
3. Reflection (student journal)

The problem scenario would be something students can relate to in their daily/ real life. At this point of the PBL session, students are not told of learning objectives. That would only be revealed at the end of the session.

STUCK ALREADY?!
At that point, I felt unsure of what to do next. I couldn't quite appreciate what the guy I was supposed to help, Kawa-san, had to do.

In a hazy way, I knew he had to make a decision on how much iron ore to buy from each source. But I wasn't quite clear how to approach it.

Then the facilitator introduced a "problem definition template". It was a simple three-column table with the headers: "What do you already know, based on prior knowledge"; "What don't you know or are unsure"; "What do you need to find out?"


PROBLEM DEFINITION TEMPLATE
A quick discussion with my team partner (there were only two of us in the group) resulted in this:


At the second column, "What I do not know" , I wrote point 2: "What (does) the ratio for (mixing the) alloy mean". I wrote that with some reluctance, as I shall explain further.

Each team had to explain their problem definition template. Facilitators would ask probing questions at this point. My team was asked to clarify what we wrote for "Don't Know/ Unsure". Particularly point 2.

So I honestly said, "The facts are just data to me. There is no meaning as I look at the stated numbers and ratios".


OVERCOMING THE FEAR OF REVEALING ONE'S IGNORANCE
In a classroom setting, it was quite daunting to admit in front of strangers that you don't know something!

It didn't help when one other group was very advanced and already in the process of devising a mathematical solution to the problem. They had superior prior knowledge (not surprising, as they comprised of participants who were probably engineers with PhDs).

Yet I was glad I went for honesty instead of feigning intelligence.

Because after I explained to the class that the ratios don't hold meaning to me, the facilitator asked the 'advanced' group how they understood the ratio.

That group paused and stared. They hesitated.

It was as if I'd asked an extremely rudimentary question. Too simple to have even been raised at all, at this level.

But it turned out that group had made certain assumptions. As well as others.

The advanced group said, "We'd assumed it meant 'weight'".

"Ah, the unit of measurement isn't stated in the problem," prompted the facilitator. Whereby another group quickly said they'd assumed it meant "mass".

Suddenly I didn't feel that stupid for raising the question!


QUESTIONING ASSUMPTIONS
The facilitator deftly focused the discussion on whether the ratio meant "weight" or "volume" or "mass". Finally there was consensus on interpreting what the ratio meant.

I kept quiet throughout that episode. But my mind was actively making sense of the discussion. The ratios meant something to me now. Pretty simple yet amazing process, I thought.

For me, that simple act of admitting my ignorance, and the facilitators being able to channel that as a discussion point, clarified what I was really not able to articulate when I wrote "I don't know".

The simple three-column "problem definition template" allowed for interpretations and assumptions to surface. This was something I can bring back and share with colleagues. When delving into complex problem scenarios, there's a risk of interpreting the problem wrongly. Using the template may help negate that.


SCAFFOLDING
Then a second worksheet was given. There were more questions for us to consider (e.g. how would the problem be formulated from the perspective of 'cost'? Or maximising 'profits'?)

Basically more prompts to help us frame and conceptualise the problem.


This aspect of PBL was termed as a "scaffold". I understood it to mean various supporting tools -- worksheets or computer simulation programs -- anything that helps the student to frame and understand the problem better.



FACILITATE, NOT GIVE ANSWERS
The facilitators do not offer answers or solutions at any stage. They aimed to nudge students towards developing their own solutions.

In the mock PBL, at no point did the facilitators say "look up to solve the problem".

We were guided on writing and expressing the problem statements as equations. Which was a handy want to conceptualise the statements. That itself seems to be a hint but the faciliators stopped short of telling you what to do next.


INTERNALISING THE PROBLEM
I understood better how inherent in PBL was the process to make students internalise the the problem.

Contrast this with traditional teaching, where problems are merely given to students. The aim was to make students arrive at a solution (often a limited one), rather than to appreciate the problem and therefore being able to explore deeper solutions to the problem.

I asked: what if some students developed a solution without using the method/ intended concept to be gained for that session? E.g. instead of using linear programming, what if student develops a complicated but valid way to develop a solution?

"It's OK. It's the process."

It might not be exactly the answer. Or it might take a longer time to derive the answer. But in real world it might still work. That's how I understood it.

I also realised the logic to the above approach is that a student would realise which solution was the more elegant and efficient one. Which means greater understanding and appreciation of the 'preferred solution'.


HOW WOULD ALL STUDENTS LEARN WHAT THEY HAVE TO LEARN?
At that point I asked a facilitator how they would ensure all students picked up the same learning objectives?

For instance, what was the lesson of the day? Something to do with Simultaneous Equations? Or what?

Since this was a mock tutorial, I was told the lesson objective was about Linear Programming.

The facilitator explained that through group presentations, students would have to explain the rationale for their solution. Like why they decided on certain approaches; use of certain principles or concepts. Through open-ended questions, they are further prompted to explain the process of arriving at the group decisions.

Through this process, required concepts would be uncovered. If solutions presented were incomplete, other students would help out.

Another way to ensure students get to learn the required concepts is through reading materials distributed at end of the day (rather than at the start).


ASSESSMENT
The assessment module (via their LEO module, mentioned here) was also part of the process to determine if students have identified and understood the required concepts.

Daily grades are the main assess tools. The student presentations would confirm their understanding. There could also be quizzes and other such means of assessment. There are also written tests to check their level of understanding (Understanding Tests).



TEACH LESS, LEARN MORE
As I reflect on the mock PBL session, I'm reminded of our MOE's Teach Less, Learn More doctrine.

Seems to be RP is doing right in this regards.

I'm amazed there's no "instructional teaching/ telling" at all. Students are assessed on their level of engagement, their participation. Those who don't meet the expected level of participation would ultimate get a Fail grade for the day.

In an actual RP's PBL session, students would not be told they were learning about Linear Programming (which was what the simulation was about).

That seems to be the old way, where topics are stated at the start. I think the logic is that when you state the learning objectives immediately, there's a tendency to focus on the outcomes rather than the process.



***

Thanks to the RP academic staff for ably leading the simulated session: Urvi Maniar, Tan Yee Ping, Lim Chiew Yen and Hisham Moosa

(Twitter hashtag #pbl09w)

[Next: Part 9]

PBL Symposium (Part 7): Republic Polytechnic library

[From Part 6]

Day 3, Jun 12, 2009.

During the break, one of the RP librarian, Sharen, was kind enough to give me a tour of their library.

It was my first visit.

Their library opened in 2006; here's a LAS blog article on RP library's architecture and design philosophy.

My first impression: RP Library has lots of space! Very nice. Reminded me of the Bibliothèque de Charlesbourg (Charlesbourg Public Library), which I visited at the IFLA conference last year.


Most students were away for their term break, so the library was less crowded than normal.

Instead of photocopier machines, they provide scanners (they do have photocopiers on campus, but one can imagine a scanner would be much more used in line with RP's paperless campus concept).


There's a Games Room. Computer games could be borrowed and played in the room (overdue fees would be imposed it they returned the games late). RP offers a diploma in Games Design, btw. But I don't think you'd have to be taking that diploma to utilise this RP library service :)



I already said their library is spacious, didn't I?









At one point, my tour guide pulled open what seemed to be a recessed door in a wall, and revealed board games that students can borrow.


The grey-coloured panels pictured below could be swung open, to create private spaces. The picture below shows the "open" configuration.


A book-bin next to the book shelf.


This area served as an exhibition space. Very cozy. There's a piano and guitar at the far end. Students were encouraged to play and lounge there.


During the tour, someone was playing a song on the piano. It was quite loud and you could hear it downstairs. But it wasn't unpleasant. :)



Here's another wing of the library.




More study and discussion spaces. I can appreciate why lots of spaces are needed, since RP practices its unique "One Day One Problem" PBL programme. Students have to work in teams as part of their course work.



Up another level and we were at the Student Career Centre.





The view from upstairs.




Here's a closer shot of their programme zone, at their south entrance. They'd hold talks and library programmes there, and those walking outside would be able to see what's going on as well.






I'm impressed.

I didn't really ask about their collection size or digital collection policies. Was just enjoying the atmosphere of the library.

One would think this was a public library and not an academic library. In fact, RP has a unique policy of allowing members of the public to use their facilitaties and collections (although to borrow the materials, you'd have to be a member).

I asked if that posed problems to students and staff. Answer was no.

Quite innovative of RP Library to adopt that sort of policy, imho. I can imagine potential RP students using the library, being familiar with the campus. Which is a way to publicise the courses and services to future students.

I walked away wishing one of our public library could look like this. Who knows? :)

BTW, the RP Library has a blog at weblog.rp.sg.

(Twitter hashtag #pbl09w)

[Next: Part 8]

PBL Symposium (Part 6): Technology implementation at Republic Polytechnic

[From Part 5]

Day-3, 12 June 2009.

Mr. Yow Hon Kong, Republic Polytechnic's (RP) Deputy Director, Office of Information Services. He shared about their IT implementation rationale.

RP started with a stretch goal of having a campus that is entirely paperless: lessons, lecture notes, official documents etc.

Says their initial challenge was to manage administrative overheads with the same operational budget for IT (as other polytechnics); not so much for Problem-based Learning per se.

The technology RP uses isn't new. Says it is "less of a technology implementation and more of a cultural implementation".


RP staff are issued individual laptops. They can even synch their mobile phones with a virtual phone app (VOIP) on their laptops. Phone calls can be made from their laptops over the campus-wide WIFI.


RP uses email accounts as electronic filing cabinets. Each departmental email account is their official filing cabinet.

As far as I understand, they do not employ any taxonomy schemes nor are staff required to index or tag their documents. RP's efiling system is more of a "info dump" and used for unstructured data. No manual indexing.

Their IT team created a email/ e-file search engine that automatically index files/ mails. I asked if they performed document-housekeeping and answer was no.


All RP classrooms have wireless projectors (more efficient when you consider each PBL lesson involves multiple group presentations; no need to swap physical cables). They encourage use of MSN and Skype as communication platforms within campus.

RP has three separate data centres. Two are on site (but on different location within the campus) and one is offsite from campus.

On sustaining RP's IT culture: Any staff who joins RP (including temporary facilitators) are given a three-hour hands-on IT training on the very first day. Then there are weekly IT workshops (for staff and students. The campus has an onsite helpdesk and a network and application support team.

Each classroom and various strategic locations have web-cams installed. The cams can be accessed via their Intranet.



RP uses MS Access to enable staff to generate their reports on demand. They customise a MS Access program that allows users to link to separate divisional databases (to facilitate greater inter-divisional sharing of data). They conduct regular training sessions for their users to be able to generate MS Access queries and be able to generate reports on demand.




Because of the high importance for tests and exams, for this part RP opted for client-based applications rather than web-based. Client software (developed in-house) are installed on all student and staff laptops. Students would access and complete their tests via the client software.

During tests periods, access to the Internet is blocked (they don't want students to chat with their friends for answers, it seems).

Here's a demonstration of a system they call LEO, for "Learning Environment Online". The system is used by staff and students for time-tabling, class assignments, to access their discussion forums, quizzes, grading and surveys (more about LEO, here).


Academic staff are able to access students' Reflective Journal entries, and also assign grades.



I asked Mr. Yow if they faced situations where there were unauthorised account access/ identity theft among students.

Mr. Yow explained all accounts were required to have their passwords changed every two weeks. Also, students are able to report any issues to the IT support staff immediately. He said those measures helped to reduce the problems.

I inferred that there would be cases of unauthorised access and account break-ins (I suspect due to carelessness by users, i.e. leaving their passwords in plain sight). Inevitable, I suppose.

(Twitter hashtag #pbl09w)

[Next: Part 7]

PBL Symposium (Part 5): Quick walkabout in Republic Polytechnic

[From Part 4]

Day-2.

A guided-walkabout of the campus just before we broke for lunch.

Impressive place.

I'd have loved to study there.

We didn't get to tour the library though. Though I learned that the RP library is open to public as well (I saw kids in the library!)

An academic library that is accessible like a public library. That's innovation.

Pictures from the walkabout:






(Twitter hashtag #pbl09w)

[Next: Part 6]