 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Evolution of the Problem-Based Learning Approach in My Teaching As I mentioned in the Introduction, it seems that learning without understanding is commonplace. This situation became particularly apparent to me in 1992 when I undertook a broad-based review of my educational psychology class. That year, I produced a course portfolio that documented my teaching and students' learning in an introductory educational psychology course for undergraduates -- many of whom would be going on to get certified as teachers. A single class episode, documented in the portfolio, was particularly instructive. In that episode, students worked in groups to explain why a particular approach to teaching reading reciprocal teaching (RT) -- improves reading comprehension. The purpose of the group activity was to engage students in applying psychological concepts they had learned in the course to a new situation. The episode turned out to be interesting because students did not do well on the exercise with respect to my goals, but did report that they thought the class session was productive and interesting. They tended to put aside disciplinary concepts and invoke their own theories about why RT improves comprehension. As a result of looking carefully at the results of that class and others, I began to question how my teaching influenced students' ability to understand and apply the course material. In the portfolio, I suggested that the course ought to be more problem-based as a way to deal with the problems students had applying the material.
|
