Developing Models for Distributed Problem-Based Learning: Theoretical and Methodological Re ection

The traditional strategy in higher education, of setting the internal theory structures of the discipline as the base of the curriculum, and relying on well-deŽ ned and segmented study exercises, has not managed to develop students’ abilities to apply their knowledge in complex, ill-deŽ ned practical situations (Actenhagen, 1994). This type of higher education often fails to provide students with knowledge and skills applicable to the different problem-solving and activity situations of working life (Mandl et al., 1994). This has led to a strong emphasis of learning experiences in practical situations that are embedded in cultural contexts, or communities of practice. Although this approach has led to important advancement in the planning of learning environments (Bransford et al., 1999), it has also often neglected the importance of learning formal knowledge (e.g., Boshuizen et al., 1995), and the construction of abstract ideas (Ohlsson & Lehtinen, 1997). The problems of higher education cannot simply be solved by cutting away studies of formal, theoretical knowledge from the curriculum, and by replacing them with direct studies of informal knowledge related to the domain in question. Although experienced experts have developed rich informal knowledge structures, which give them quick practical reasoning in complex and often ill-deŽ ned problem situations, the experts also have a more profound understanding of the formal knowledge of their Ž eld than do the novices. Well-structured formal knowledge remains available for use if the informal knowledge, based on practical experience, fails to produce an adequate representation and solution to the problem at hand. Boshuizen et al. (1995) have described high-level experts’ knowledge structures in which the formal knowledge is embedded in informal activity scripts as encapsulated units. This would mean that formal and informal knowledge should not be viewed as alternative approaches, but the development of high-quality expertise seems to demand them both. Formal knowledge also provides the abstract tools that enable both experts and students to monitor the development of a certain Ž eld of knowledge and to gather new information. (e.g., Bereiter &