Hi everyone! Just returned from a week of discussing PBL at a conference with two wonderful groups of people, and other individuals along the way. I met lots of great math teachers who all had me thinking and justifying what I do almost continuously 24/7 for the whole week. It was exhausting, but exciting to discuss teaching so intensely for so long with so many. The best part about talking about PBL with people who are new to it is the fresh vision that I get; the new perspective on what I take for granted in so many ways. I want to thank everyone so much for all of the great input and the questions that you all asked during the week.

One of the most important discussions I had with my group was after we had just watched a video of my class for about 20 or so minutes. I had put forth the caveat that it was by no means the perfect class and there was one student that had struggled for a while with one problem about similar triangles. I could tell that it was making my participants very uncomfortable that I had let the student go on, and perhaps it was making other students confused. This is an excellent opportunity for us to discuss classroom management – or maybe a better term for it is “learning mangement”. In other words, when do the “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” (does anyone get that Star Trek reference)? When does the individual student’s learning become more (or less) important than that clarity for the group or vice versa? When is there a point of diminishing returns for the whole group?

Part of the philosophy of PBL is based in social constructivist learning theory where the class will co-construct the knowledge together, even with students at different learning abilities and levels all discussing problems. It is feasible that with consistency and the values of such a learning environment repeated to them that students become acclimated to this environment over the school year and begin to value it as well. This has been my experience at least. However, at certain times when a student is taking “too much” time and others might not jump in to help co-construct, it does leave a moment up to the teacher to decide to either help with the construction, give direct instruction (i.e. perhaps go against the pedagogical ideology of the classroom), redirect the construction to others in the room, or even be patient and allow the organic process even more time.

This was a very difficult thing for people who had not yet seen this type of learning in practice. Although all teachers have heard the adage to what ten seconds before you react to students comments or wait for an answer, the fact is we are all uncomfortable with silence or discomfort in the classroom. We are all uncomfortable with disorganization and potential chaos. However, it is clear that there is great value in allowing a student or a group of student to grapple with a problem, as they practice problem-solving skills. I think it will be important for me in the future to have better sets of skills to give teachers in order for them to aptly deal with, and be ready for, this discomfort.

However, the question of time committed to individual students needs as opposed to the groups needs, I feel is something that you can ask in any instructional approach – even direct instruction where students are allowed to ask questions (probably the only instructional approach where that question doesn’t apply is a lecture where student don’t respond at all). In any classroom, the instructor needs to think about organizing the time committed to dealing with students on an individual basis vis-a-vis dealing with the classroom as a whole – this is no different in PBL. The biggest difference may be that a teacher following this instructional approach may feel more comfortable allowing the student the freedom to grapple with the problem on their own for longer, which honestly is probably a good thing, if you have the time in your class period, of course.