Merrill’s (2002) first principles of instruction recognize the real-world problem as one of five common principles across instructional design theories: “Learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems” (p. 43). At the heart of Merrill’s (2002) first principles is their problem-orientation, where ‘‘learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems’’ (p. 44).
Similarly, Jonassen (1999) highlights “the key to meaningful learning is ownership of the problem or learning goal” (p. 219). Such is the case in the constructivist learning environment where learners take ownership of the problem-solving process as well as the overall problem through their individual pursuit of learning goal(s), knowledge/skills, and a viable solution—all to the benefit of increased motivation, which results from personal meaning making and active engagement.
Savery (2009) brings light to some of the benefits of problem-based learning, namely the skills developed during the problem-solving process: self-direction, self-regulation, and lifelong learning. These types of skills, along with collaboration, creativity, and problem-solving to name a few, are becoming more in demand, particularly with the much recent attention on the future of work, impending disruption of jobs, and redefining of the skills needed to thrive in the workplace due to automation and artificial intelligence.
Savery and Duffy (1995) cite Lebow (1993) to discuss a shift in values that takes place when one takes a constructivist perspective. When contrasted with ‘traditional’ education the light of problem-based learning appears to shine more brightly. . .
“Traditional educational technology values of replicability, reliability, communication, and control (Heinich, 1984) contrast sharply with the seven primary constructivist values of collaboration, personal autonomy, generativity, reflectivity, active engagement, personal relevance, and pluralism” (1993, p.5).
While it appears that ‘traditional’ education is getting the bad guy treatment again, the shift in values helps to clarify what sets constructivist learning environments apart. For what it’s worth, Savery and Duffy agree with Lebow and propose that this value system serve to guide one’s interpretation of the problem-based learning environment.
References:
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth, (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 215-239). University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.
Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1995). Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Designing constructivist learning environments (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.
Andrew R. Claassen 