Complete thesis - Murdoch University

socially through negotiation (Jonassen, 2002).The CreativePBL model was developed to focus on creativity and divergent thinking, so that,instead of students aimed at finding the single, best, correct answer to a standard problemin the shortest time (convergent thinking) they aimed at redefining or discovering problemsand solving them by means of branching out, making unexpected associations, applying theknown in unusual ways, or seeing unexpected implications.This model focussed on student-centred learning within an ill-structured domain, so that thegap between know-how and know-that could be bridged. It could be considered an example ofSavin-Baden (2000)’s model for interdisciplinary understanding (see Table 9.3). This modelfocusses on understanding and synthesising information, and aligns more closely with thecharacteristics of the discipline – in particular the need to transcend the learnt context andintegrate multiple perspectives, which require elements of adaptability and creativity.Table 9.3: Model for interdisciplinary understanding (Savin-Baden, 2000)KnowledgeLearningProblem ScenarioStudentsFacilitatorAssessmentpropositional, practical and performativethe synthesis of skills and knowledge across disciplineboundariesacquiring knowledge to be able to do, therefore centredaround knowledge with actionintegrators across boundariesa co ordinator of knowledge and skills across boundariesof bothexamination of skills and knowledge in a context thatmay have been learnt out of contextHowever, while the CreativePBL environment appeared to facilitate creativity-enabling activitiesby embedding these within the process, the process itself acted as a deterrent to studentmotivation to study and to exploit the creativity being nurtured – opportunism was difficultwithin the process and hence flexibility inhibited; here a focus on process detracted from the‘authenticity’ of the environment.In effect, this strategy also did not align well enough with professional practice in the discipline.There is a suggestion that efforts to help students learn at the levels of analysis,synthesis, and evaluation (ie at Bloom et al (1956)’s higher levels) may be impeded by amismatch between the kinds of thinking actually required in specific disciplines and genericformulas for encouraging higher-order thinking. In the final analysis, applying a strict PBLmethodology for learning may run counter to the important strand in current thinking aboutteaching that stresses the disciplinary nature of knowledge.398