Educational researches are conducted to discover new ways of learning to improve performance and student productivity. One of these discoveries, the Problem-Based Learning approach, according to Charoula Angeli, will help cultivate higher-order learning by preparing participants become self-directed learners, problem solvers, critical-thinkers, and acquiesce to life-long learning. PBL, in this case, not only promotes constructivism but also fortifies knowledge because it complements pragmatic approaches to teaching.
Although it was possible to draw valid generalization based on the careful observation of variables from the study, Angeli deliberately manipulated the independent variable that then resulted in selection bias.
According to John Best and James Kahn (1989), research must involve elements of observation, description, and an analysis of what happens under certain conditions (Best & Kahn, 1989). In order to do this, however, Angeli referred to previous studies involving both pragmatic and constructivist learning approaches to explain the dilemmas students encounter. Paul (1993), for instance, explains that, the pragmatic approach presupposes that knowledge is unintelligible and free from thinking. Learning, at last, becomes automatic because students apply what they learned in didactically taught courses to real life situations.
However, previous PBL attempts, which were examined from a logico-deductive perspective, claim that, the approach promotes cognitive puzzlement among students because this innovative strategy allows students to make feasible connections to real life situations while fortifying knowledge at the same time.
The process of learning, in this case, begins when students are presented with a problematic life situation since PBL is designed to be: a) student-centered, b) endorse learner’ constructive process, c) meet the needs of all learners, d) provide learners with challenging tasks to solve, e) mediate and scaffold learning; and promotes life-long learning (Savey & Duffy, 1995).
Meanwhile, a qualitative study was conducted using two-hour interviews to identify attributes that teachers value most for a user-centered design. This study provided a technique for inductively analyzing and comparing multiple sources of data so that theoretical notions can be derived from them.[1] As a result, factors were identified that may inhibit the implementation of PBL: a) the issue of control, b) incompatibility of the innovation with existing practices, and c) the complexity of the approach itself.
On the other hand, because Angeli failed to be objective and logical by not suppressing selection bias and emotion in her analysis, there was little evidence to show how the students directly reacted to the strategy.
Furthermore, since absolute objectivity is as elusive as pure righteousness, she was more sympathetic towards the feeling and apprehensions of the teachers rather than the students’ dilemma. Evidently, she had an emotionally held conviction when she said towards at the article, “the culture of teaching seems very complex to be understood by someone who has not been previously involved in a teaching setting.”
Hence, the implementation of PBL was doomed from the start because there were no test scores or quantitative measures to prove that it could be successful in the future.
Since the main goal of the study was to determine PBL’s effectivity in the classroom, a quantitative analysis should have also been conducted “because research is based upon observable experience or empirical evidence, thus, research demands accurate observation and description of (both) quantitative and qualitative measuring devices (Best & Kahn, 1989)”.[2]
The ultimate goal of research is to discover the cause and effect relationships, and in this case, the two methods of teaching, it would have been a good idea to use a qualitative analysis to determine which method is more successful in teaching students to improve their performance. The study showed that there was no direct link between theory and practices, making the study appear weak and unreliable.
Although it was possible to draw valid generalization based on a tentative explanation of the relationship between two or more variables, permissions/revelations should have been done afterwards; because by nature, humans are influenced by the attention that is focused on them when under investigation and by the knowledge that their behavior is being observed (Kahn, 89). Though her intentions were both noble and ethical, there was a big risk of creating a much bigger bias when she manipulated the independent variable.
In sum, when experimental controls are tightened to achieve internal validity, an artificial and less realistic situation may prevail, reducing the external validity of the experiment. In addition, if operational variables (e.g. student feedback and/or productivity) are improperly defined, it will be impossible to explain a current state or procedure, or even predicting the future occurrence (or implementation, in this case) of Problem Based Approach.
Since teachers were manipulated, their behavior changed and a much higher motivation introduced a bias that invalidated reasonable comparison between teachers apprehension and student feedback (Best & Kahn, 1989).
No comments:
Post a Comment