1.

INTRODUCTION

In the new global innovation economy, employers require creative, teamwork-oriented problem solvers capable of adapting to the ever-changing needs of business and industry. This is especially true in the field of photonics, in which rapid advances in technology require engineers and technicians to apply their knowledge and skills in solving problems in new and novel situations. A good problem solver approaches a problem, any problem, systematically and methodically, carefully considering all options before moving forward toward a solution. Good problem solvers are patient and methodical, breaking complex problems down into smaller, more manageable steps, and making reasoned decisions on how to approach each step. Good problem solvers use metacognitive strategies to manage the problem solving process by planning, monitoring, and evaluating their progress and strategies during problem solving, and adjusting their approach when necessary. Good problem solvers persist in the face of difficulty and have the confidence and motivation to seek alternative solutions. In short, good problem solvers are those who “know what to do when you don’t know what to do.” ^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}

But how do we teach students to be good problem solvers? Traditional instructor-centered approaches to technology education often do not provide students with the real-world problem solving experiences needed for students to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to be good problem solvers. One instructional method that has been shown to be effective in helping students develop these skills is PBL. In PBL, students actively participate in their own learning by solving real-world problems in which the parameters are ill-defined and ambiguous. Unlike traditional lecture-based instruction in which students attend lectures and solve well-defined “end-of-chapter” homework problems, PBL is open-ended and contextualized, and student learning is driven by the problem itself. Research shows that PBL results in “deep” learning rather than “surface” learning, improves critical thinking and problem-solving skills, motivation for learning, and students’ ability to skillfully apply knowledge in new and novel situations. ^{6, 7, 8, 9}

With PBL, students learn both content and problem-solving ability by engaging in a systematic and reflective process that begins with problem analysis, in which small teams of students work collaboratively to properly define and frame the problem, identifying what is known, what needs to be learned, situational constraints and assumptions that might apply, and other pertinent problem features required to formulate a solution. Once the problem has been properly framed, students engage in self-directed learning in which they set specific learning goals and conduct independent research to acquire the knowledge, skills and resources needed to solve the problem. This is followed by brainstorming potential solution ideas with team members, where newly acquired information is synthesized and forged into possible solutions. The final stage is solution testing, where students develop strategies to test and validate their solutions⁸.

2.

THE PBL CHALLENGES

In order to facilitate the use of PBL in photonics technology education, the PBL Projects of New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE) has created a comprehensive series of online multimedia PBL Challenges through funding by the National Science Foundation Advanced Technology Education (NSF-ATE) program. The PBL Challenges are self-contained multimedia instructional modules designed to develop students’ problem solving and technical skills in the areas of photonics and sustainable technologies. Developed in partnership with industry partners, university researchers and other organizations, the PBL Challenges present students with authentic real-world problems captured and brought to life in a multimedia format designed to emulate the real-world context in which the problems were encountered and solved.

Each PBL Challenge contains five main sections:

The Problem Discussion and Problem Solution sections are password protected to allow instructors to control the flow of information and pace of instruction. Each of the five main sections contains additional information and resources (i.e., scripts, websites, spec sheets, etc.) designed to guide the student through the problem solving process. The PBL Challenges are designed to be implemented using three levels of structure ranging from highly structured (instructor led) to guided (instructor guided) to open-ended (instructor as consultant) representing increasing levels of autonomy to acclimate students to the PBL process and scaffold the development of their problem solving skills. The main sections of the PBL Challenges are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Main PBL Challenge Sections (a) Problem Analysis Whiteboard, (b) Independent Research Whiteboard, (3) Brainstorming Whiteboard, (4) Solution Testing Whiteboard

One unique feature of the PBL Challenges is the “Problem Solvers Toolbox.” The Problem Solvers Toolbox contains a tool called “The Whiteboards,” which guide students through a systematic four-phase problem solving process in which students respond to a series of specific questions posted on a mock whiteboard graphic. The Whiteboards help students capture and document their thoughts, ideas, and learning strategies during each stage of the problem solving process - a form of formative self-assessment. The four Whiteboards are shown in Figure 2:

Figure 2.

(a) Problem Analysis Whiteboard, (b) Independent Research Whiteboard, (3) Brainstorming Whiteboard, (4) Solution Testing Whiteboard

Teacher resources including tutorials, assessment tools, and alignment with national science, math and technological literacy standards, a “How To” video, and a series of implementation case studies are incorporated into each PBL Challenge as well. To date, 14 PBL Challenges have been developed in partnership with industry and university partners with an additional six PBL Challenges in advanced manufacturing technology currently under development (to be completed by 201 and are available online at http://www.pblprojects.org to educators at no charge.

3.

STUDENT REACTIONS TO PBL

The knowledge, skills and attitudes that students bring the classroom are important factors related to successful learning outcomes. This is especially true in PBL, where students accustomed to traditional instructor-centered education are thrust into a new and ambiguous learning environment in which the responsibility for learning is placed squarely on the shoulders of the student. In order for students to become effective problem solvers, they need to develop and internalize the problem solving and critical thinking skills needed to systematically dissect, analyze, and formulate coherent and viable strategies for solving problem. They also require the motivation and confidence to persist in the face of difficulty and seek alternative solutions, and the metacognitive ability to manage the problem solving process by planning, monitoring, and evaluating their learning strategy and adjusting their approach when necessary.

In this study, we examined the reactions of photonics technology students enrolled in a two associate degree-level courses in which students engaged in three PBL activities over the course of one semester. Five variables were examined; motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation, and peer learning. Motivation refers to the amount of effort a student is willing to commit to a particular learning activity and can vary depending on the value that a student places on the activity. Students who engage in a learning activity out of personal interest in the topic (i.e., learning for learning sake) are said to be intrinsically motivated or mastery oriented. In contrast, students who engage in a learning activity for external rewards such as a good grade or promotion are said to be externally motivated or goal oriented. Research shows that while both motivational orientations are important for successful learning outcomes, students who are intrinsically motivated are more likely to engage in “deep learning” and persist in the face of difficulty¹⁰. In this study, we defined motivation using two constructs: (1) intrinsic goal orientation – the extent to which students are intrinsically motivated to engage in PBL activities for personal gain, and (2) extrinsic goal orientation – the extent to which students are motivated to engage in PBL activities for external rewards (i.e., grade).

Self-efficacy refers to a student’s confidence in his or her ability to be successful in a particular learning endeavor. Research shows that self-efficacy is an important factor related to positive learning outcomes and can moderate the amount of effort learners put forth in achieving a specific learning objectives¹¹. In this study, we defined self-efficacy as students’ confidence in their ability to engage in real-world problem solving.

Critical thinking refers to the degree to which students are able to apply previous knowledge to new situations in order to solve problems, reach decisions, or make critical evaluations with respect to performance standards¹². In order for students to develop critical thinking skills, they must be provided with authentic learning experiences that stimulate their interest and a supportive learning environment that allows for open and meaningful discussions and alternative viewpoints. Accordingly, proponents claim that PBL is ideally suited for improving students’ problem-solving and critical thinking abilities. Research shows that PBL can promote the development of students’ critical thinking skills^{13, 14} increase transfer and application of knowledge^{15, 16}, and is effective in promoting higher-order thinking^{17, 18}. In this study, we defined critical thinking as students’ ability to skillfully apply technical knowledge and problem solving strategies in solving real-world problems presented in the PBL Challenges.

Metacognition refers to the awareness, knowledge, and control of cognition, or in more simple terms, “thinking about thinking.” ¹⁹ Metacognition is often expressed in terms of two constructs: Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive self-regulation. Metacognitive knowledge includes three components: declarative knowledge refers to one’s knowledge of understanding of the specific requirements of the task at hand and of specific learning strategies; procedural knowledge involves knowing how to use a particular learning strategy; and conditional knowledge, knowing under what circumstances it is appropriate to use that strategy. Metacognitive self-regulation involves three primary components: planning, monitoring and evaluating. Planning involves activities such as setting learning goals, identifying resources, establishing timelines, and developing strategies for acquiring the desired knowledge. Monitoring involves tracking comprehension and understanding as one reconciles and integrates current information with prior knowledge. Evaluating involves the assessment and adjustment of learning strategies and cognitive activities after a learning episode.²⁰ Research shows that metacognitive self-regulation can improve learning outcomes by assisting learners in continuously monitoring and correcting their understanding and comprehension as they engage in a learning task, and is a key factor linked to students’ ability to transfer knowledge and skills to new situations.^{20, 21, 22} Accordingly, researchers agree that PBL, in which students learn to take responsibility for their own learning, is ideally suited for supporting the development of metacognitive self-regulation.^{21, 23, 24} Moreover, researchers maintain that metacognition is an essential component of critical thinking arguing that monitoring the quality of one’s learning and thought process makes it more likely that one will engage in high-quality (critical) thinking.^{19, 20, 25} In this study, we defined metacognitive self-regulation as students’ ability to apply specific learning strategies to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning while solving real-world problems presented in the STEM PBL Challenges.

One of the cornerstones of PBL is collaborative or peer learning. In collaborative learning, students work together in small teams toward a common goal and are active participants in each other’s learning, helping each other to be successful. Researchers maintain that the active exchange of ideas among team members in collaborative learning increases interest among participants and promotes critical thinking.³² Students who work collaboratively also exhibit higher levels of thought and retain information longer than students who work independently.³³ Collaborative learning provides students the opportunity to engage in discussion, take responsibility for their own learning, and thus become critical thinkers.³⁴ In this study, we define collaborative or peer learning as students’ effective use of other students to help their learning.²⁹

4.

METHOD

This study was conducted during the fall 2012 semester as an observational case study.^{26, 27, 28} Quantitative and qualitative measures were applied to answer the research question, “How and in what ways does engagement with the PBL Challenges affect photonics technology students’ motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking skills, metacognitive self-regulation, and peer learning needed to successfully apply problem solving strategies in solving real-world photonics problems?”

A total of 12 volunteer (9 male: 3 female) first and second year photonics technology students from two east coast community colleges enrolled in two 3-credit one-semester photonics technology courses participated in the study. On average, study participants were between 25-35 years old and none had ever taken a course in which PBL methods were used.

Over the 16-week semester, each class was divided into teams of 3-4 students tasked with completing three PBL Challenges. The first PBL Challenge was implemented in a “structured” or cases study mode (∼ 2 weeks) in which the instructor worked closely each team to tutor and guide in the PBL process. The second PBL Challenge was implemented in a “guided” mode (∼ 3-weeks) in which the instructor played the role of facilitator and students were given more autonomy in an effort to help them develop self-directed learning skills. The third and final PBL Challenge was implemented in an open-ended mode (∼ 4 weeks) in which teams had complete autonomy to work through the problem solving process to develop their own solutions. During the third Challenge, the instructor played the role of consultant, providing guidance on an “as needed” basis. At the end of each PBL Challenge, each team presented their solution to the class and discussed the process they employed in solving the problem. A class discussion followed in which students compared and contrasted their solutions with the PBL Challenge solution.

Two measures were used to answer the research question:

Students were invited to participate in the study by volunteering to complete a pre-post online survey (MSLQ) and participate in a focus group interview at the end of the fall 2012 semester. Mean values were computed for each variable from the MSLQ subscales and data were screened for outliers and normality. Paired t-tests were conducted to measure changes in mean scores for each variable. Effect sizes³⁰ (Cohen’s d) were calculated using t-scores and sample size to quantify the effect of PBL instruction on the variables in question. To encourage student participation, a cash gift card was given to those students who completed the requirements of the study. The MSLQ was administered using SurveyMonkey® and analyses conducted using SPSS v.19. Researchers were available to respond to any questions or concerns via e-mail and telephone.

5.

RESULTS

6.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we presented the results of a study conducted to examine student reactions to PBL in photonics technology education. The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether PBL represents a viable alternative to traditional lecture-based methods in preparing photonics technicians with the problem solving and critical thinking skills needed to adapt to the rapidly changing demands of the 21^st century workplace. During the fall 2012 semester, 12 photonics technology students enrolled in two associate degree level courses at two east coast community colleges completed three photonics-related PBL Challenges over the course of a 16-week semester. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to assess students’ motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation, and peer learning using selected scales from the MSLQ. Data were corroborated through post-course focus group interviews with students conducted by an independent evaluator. Analysis of pre-post MSLQ data showed gains in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation, and peer learning. The results of the study showed that overall, photonics technology students reacted positively to the PBL method of instruction. Students reported being motivated by the real-world nature of the problems presented in the PBL Challenges and were excited to come to class and engage in additional PBL Challenges. Results also showed that with increased experience with PBL, students developed the confidence and critical thinking skills needed to solve ill-structured problems and the metacognitive ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning and performance - skills deemed critical for lifelong learning. Finally, results showed that students learned to work collaboratively and productively in teams and were able to draw upon the collective knowledge and experience of team members to effectively converge on problem solutions. In addition, learning to deal effectively with underperforming team mates by viewing the issue as a learning opportunity was an unexpected but positive outcome. While the results are encouraging, given the small sample size, lack of a control group, and other threats to internal validity, the generalizability of this study is limited to the study population. Future studies should include a larger sample size and an experimental or quasi-experimental design to improve internal validity and generalizability.