PBL @ UC : History of PBL @ UC

A History of Problem-Based Learning at the University of Cincinnati

If education is to meet its central purposes of occupational preparedness, liberal arts learning, and learning about the self, then PBL is indispensable.

D.S. Knowlton (2003, p. 9)

First Steps

As is the case with most curricular change, there are significant challenges that research institutions must address when adopting PBL on a sizeable scale. Problem-Based Learning, when compared to lecture-based teaching, requires considerably more time, training and commitment on the part of interested faculty and administrators who are asked to undergo a significant transformation in how they view the teaching and learning process. Additionally, these faculty and administrators must address issues related to promotion and tenure, sustainability and funding, and the need to bridge long-standing discipline, department, and college boundaries (Cavanaugh, 2001; Ching & Gallow, 2000; Conway & Little, 2000; The Boyer Commission, 1998;).

The University of Cincinnati is a large, diverse, multi-site university with relatively autonomous liberal arts, technical, and professional programs and multiple levels of degree programs (associate's, bachelor's, master's, doctoral, and terminal professional degrees). With 5 major campuses and 33,000 students, any concerted academic change process requires adoption across numerous interest groups and adaptations to meet diverse student and curriculum needs.

In spite of these challenges, UC has the potential to support widespread application of problem-based learning in that we provide the historical, philosophical and structural frameworks for this effort. Cooperative (co-op) education was founded at UC 98 years ago, and we have the largest co-op program of any public post-secondary school in the United States ( http://www.uc.edu/propractice/ ). This ongoing commitment to active, experiential learning is evident, not only in our extensive co-op, internship and work-based programs, but in our institutional philosophy as well.

Our Provost's institutional goals have prioritized the need to focus on student engagement in learning. One of the strategies identified to help us reach this goal has been the infusion of inquiry-based pedagogies, including PBL, throughout the curriculum. As part of this commitment to curricular change, the Provost created the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning (CET&L) to coordinate a variety of pedagogical initiatives including PBL, learning communities, service learning, distance learning, interdisciplinary studies, the first year experience, and global studies ( http://www.uc.edu/cetl ).

It is within this institutional context that the PBL initiative at UC was established through administrative action. The Provost's office issued a call to all full-time faculty requesting applications for membership on a UC Problem-Based Learning Steering Committee. It was stated the goal of this group was to examine various aspects of PBL and to determine its potential for adoption on our campus. Applicants were required to submit a narrative discussing their interest in PBL and why they were seeking membership on the university-wide team.

The membership of the new multidisciplinary, multi-college PBL Steering Committee represented eight disciplines (art history, biology, business ethics, counseling, education, engineering, English, medicine), six colleges and four campuses. Additionally, the team was comprised of seven faculty members and four administrators (Vice Provost, Dean, two Associate Deans).

The group began meeting immediately and developed quickly into an effective team committed to introducing PBL to University of Cincinnati administrators, faculty and students. Our first year was dedicated to research and planning. During this first year, we attended an international PBL conference, visited a medical school where "pure" PBL was practiced, brought a nationally recognized PBL expert to campus for a two-day workshop and attended a five-day PBL Institute.

Next Steps

At the beginning of our second year of work, we established college-based PBL Teams (CBT) in two colleges—The College of Applied Science (baccalaureate college) and University College (two-year college). Initially, membership in these groups was tied to faculty participation in a three-day PBL Institute held on our campus. Faculty members in the two colleges were selected to attend the institute with the understanding that they would receive a small stipend and would be required to demonstrate how they were using problem-based learning in their teaching throughout the academic year. A nationally recognized PBL expert was brought to campus to facilitate the workshop.

The college-based teams met throughout the year supported by a mentor from the university group. Near the end of the academic year, the university steering committee sponsored a meeting in which CBT members presented details on their experiences with PBL. CBTs continue to meet and to expand their membership.

In addition to supporting the college teams, members of the university group conducted and attended trainings on PBL for faculty and continued to consult with internationally recognized experts on problem-based learning. We also began to make presentations at conferences related to our experiences with implementing PBL on our campus and in our classrooms.

At the beginning of our third year, steering committee members were presented with a unique professional development opportunity. The UC Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning offered its first September Institute ( h ttp://www.uc.edu/cetl/september_institute.html ) . The Institute was organized around learning communities of faculty. Faculty members could apply as part of a team or as individuals interested in a particular topic. The learning communities worked together during the weeklong event and then continued to work as a team during the following academic year. Four members of the university PBL Steering Committee and three members of college PBL teams were selected to be members of the PBL Learning Community. This extremely worthwhile experience enabled participants to devote their attention to various aspects of the use of problem-based learning in a supportive, collegial environment.

Future Steps

At the University of Cincinnati , our journey toward PBL adoption has been facilitated by our historical, philosophical and structural frameworks. However, if we are to accomplish what the Boyer Commission termed radical reconstruction , we know this change must continue to be planned and implemented strategically.

References

Cavanaugh, J.C. (2001). Make it so: Administrative support for problem-based learning. In B.J. Duch, S.E. Groh, & D.E. Allen (Eds.), The power of problem-based learning (pp. 27 – 36). Sterling , VA : Stylus Publishing.

Ching, C.C., & Gallow, D. (2000, December). Fear and loathing in PBL: Faculty reactions to developing problem-based learning for a large research university. In O.S. Tan, P. Little, S.Y. Lin, & J. Conway (Eds.), Problem-based learning: Educational innovations across the disciplines. Selected papers from the second Asia-Pacific Conference on Problem-Based Learning. Singapore : University Publications.

Conway , J.F., & Little, P.J. (2000). Adopting PBL as the preferred institutional approach to teaching and learning: Considerations and challenges. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 11 (2&3), 11-26.

Knowlton, D.S. (2003). Preparing students for educated living: Virtues of problem-based learning across the higher education curriculum. In D.S. Knowlton & D.C. Sharp (Eds.), Problem-Based Learning in the Information Age. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 95, 5-12.

The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University . (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America 's Research Universities. Retrieved April 15, 2005 , from http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/