Abstract
The 21st century era of rapidly changing technology entails cognizance of the changing nature of knowledge, learning and environments. New models of knowledge building and knowledge co-creation are emerging. Personalized learning takes on new dimensions with mobile devices and new tools for sharing and meta-thinking. Evidences from research in learning sciences and neurosciences point to the importance of understanding human cognition and behaviors in optimizing the use of technology for learning. Future learning entails a powerful use of the cognitive propensity to learn by imitation and modeling as well as the novelty of inquiry and creation. Didactics are replaced by conversational learning with social media as powerful platforms. Apart from the analytics and logic, future learning incorporates big picture thinking, multiple perspective thinking and connective thinking to flourish problem-solving and creativity. The address will conclude with some implications for design and practice.
Keywords
Introduction
Throughout history, technology has shifted powers and centres of activities. In recent years, communications technology is changing the profile of societies as evident in the social media of cyberspace. New ways of learning are happening such as the advent of
Apart from having to deal with the rapid changes in technology and the transition to a knowledge-based economy, we also face more complex world problems today. The uncertainty of a flu or Ebola pandemic, the unprecedented scale of environmental disasters, the global problem of human trafficking, the constant threat of terrorism, and the complex political and socioeconomic challenges all point to the need for education to prepare our students for a fast-changing and increasingly sophisticated world. In the knowledge-based economy, we need to learn to solve novel problems, to assume personal responsibility for learning, to learn collaboratively and from multiple resources, and to be able to transfer learning across disciplines and contexts (Tan, 2003, p. 14; Tan, Liu&Low, 2017). 1
Key Tipping Points
In the 21st century learning environment, two key tipping points have surfaced. First, the nature of knowledge in the real world has changed. The rapid growth of technology has impacted the spread of information and ways of communicating. Second, the nature of participation has changed. Various innovations in curriculum and pedagogy are regularly developed to keep up with the fast-changing world. These changes have transformed the trend and profile of students, as well as created new needs in the knowledge and technology areas and the modified role and function of schools making them more challenging than before.
A story was told to me about a prospective university student contemplating on what course to pursue. Confused, the student asked a college student adviser to suggest a course of study that would ensure “a job with a future”. The adviser told the student: “All jobs have no future; just study what you think you will enjoy.” Indeed, jobs have no future; only people have future—people with the intelligences to craft their careers and future by relentless pursuit and creative learning. Based on my exposure to previous research and think tank literature, I would summarize 21st century competencies to include: (i) critical thinking (problem solving), (ii) collaborative (teamwork), (iii) creativity (flexibility and innovation), (iv) communication (interpersonal skills), and (v) connectivity (project management and systems thinking). I would like to propose in this symposium that we need (a) mindset shift in dealing with education, (b) acquisition of smart knowledge (understanding globalisation, technology, and nature of intelligence), (c) greater tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity, (d) big picture and multi-disciplinary thinking, and (e) understanding invariants of education (such as values and ethics).
Now, the crucial question we need to ask is: Are our current educational practices able to develop students with the necessary intelligences and capabilities to function effectively in the 21st century workplace and society? What are the challenges facing our current education system? (Tan, 2003, p. 3). 2 I would like to suggest that educators increasingly think in terms of the 3Ps: Paradigms (what are our worldviews?); Philosophy (what are our beliefs?); Practicality (what do we do?).
Since this conversation is taking in place in this prestigious corner of the world, Tsinghua University, in the famous capital of China, Beijing. I will use the acronym B.E.I.J.I.N.G to capture the essence of my keynote address. With reference to the theme of our conference
3
I would like to say something about: (i)
Big Picture Mindset and Big Data
Our world view ought to be both telescopic and helicopter in nature. By telescopic, I mean understanding the past (where we came from and how we arrived at the present) and seeing them into the future (intelligent extrapolation). We also need a helicopter view of things: rising above micro and fragmentary issues and having a big picture of things. We need the appropriate paradigms with the right worldviews and the right assumptions. Education from the big picture perspective calls for cognizance of national agendas, educational policies and long-term teacher preparation and development strategies. Next, we need to be grounded in our “why and how” philosophy. As educators, we need to be aware that we operate with many assumptions such as ideas pertaining to the nature of knowledge, the learning environment in and outside of the classroom, the role of teachers, how different students learn, and how students can be empowered to function in the future. Both the end in mind (the desired outcomes) and the journey (learning process) are equally important. We need to know the real world competencies needed to function in the 21st century. Our students live in a new millennium characterized by breakthroughs in knowledge and technology. The emerging profile of learners is one that seeks experiential learning, participation through active involvement, imagery-rich and inquiry-based learning environments, and a high degree of connectivity in the cyberspace. To cope with the changes in many aspects of life, we need to prepare students with ways of thinking that go beyond analytical thinking. Big picture thinking implies the use of what research calls “rich tasks” where learning has purposeful connections to the world beyond the classroom and provides for different needs and interests of the learners (Aubusson, et al., 2014). 4 I advocate the use of real-world problems where in solving a problem, students need to get the facts of the bigger picture and inter-related issues before going into the analytical and logical reasoning. Big picture thinking develops a different dimension of systems thinking.
Next is about “big data” which refers to the availability of large data sets of information and the possibility of leveraging on speed of data processing to analyse patterns and associated issues. This means we can interpolate and extrapolate scenarios and observe trends and predict behaviours and directions of impact. Industry players have been using big data in various areas from market analysis to price and inventory optimisation and even fraud detection. The healthcare industry is one of the biggest users of big data. There are clinical datasets on electronic medical records and imaging data, pharmaceutical data, data on personal dietary habits, exercise patterns and environmental factors, and financial records. All these data can be integrated to make significant improvements in interventions, healthcare delivery and personal well-being (Kambatla et al., 2014). 5 Business enterprises use big data analytics to integrate their processes, from supply chain management to customer management and after-sales support. It is especially important to understand customers, their preferences and purchasing behaviours. For example, retailers have added browser logs, social media data and text analytics to their usual transactional data to make predictive models and understand how a specific target market is responding to their products and services (Scott-Briggs, 2016). 6 Another example is computer technology firm Dell, which uses social media data to drive its business outcomes by tying transaction data to social media user names. Through this, they can offer personalised promotions and identify by name customers who respond to their promotions (Teradata, 2016). 7 In education, big data can be used in the service of learning to promote evidence-based culture and new connectivity of different information. This concomitantly requires teachers to possess a new set of competencies.
Engagement in New Ways
In the past, educational goals focused on learning the basics—reading, writing, and arithmetic—along with a set of essential information that society deems important for survival. But with the rapid technological growth, it is not enough to define education in just these terms. Many educators believe education must focus on capabilities that will help the students as they face an uncertain future. The emphasis on learning, innovation skills and critical thinking and problem solving in the 21st century student outcomes have been highlighted, for instance, in Singapore’s 21st Century Competencies (
Whereas everyone might agree that we need to adapt to the changing times, not everyone is on the same page on which strategies will serve today’s educational goals. Direct instruction, which is teacher-directed, emphasizing the transmission of pre-defined set of information to students (Carnine et al., 2009), 10 is based on objectivism, a belief system grounded primarily in behaviourist learning theory and the information-processing branch of the cognitive learning theories. Inquiry-based learning, on the other hand, allows learners to generate their own knowledge through experiences while teachers serve as facilitators (Healey, 2005). 11 This is based on constructivism, which evolved from other branches of thinking in cognitive learning theory. A few technology applications, such as drill and practice and tutorials, are associated only with directed instruction; most others (problem solving, multimedia production, web-based learning) can inform either directed instruction or constructivist teaching and learning.
I will argue that there are meaningful roles for both directed instruction and constructivist strategies and the technology applications associated with them. Both can help teachers and students meet the many and varied requirements of learning in today’s society.
Objectivist and Constructivist Teaching Strategies
In the field of education, objectivism and constructivism offer very different underlying epistemologies, although both nurture various cultures (Molenda, 1991; Phillips, 1995; Vrasidas, 2000). 12 Some teachers may use a combination of strategies with their students in the same instructional day depending on their background, training, and the material they are covering. Teaching strategies, materials, and classroom atmospheres will differ depending on the theory the instructor favours for a particular lesson. The characteristics and theoretical origins of these philosophical differences can be summarised in the following way (Roblyer&Doering, 2013): 13
Objectivists—Knowledge has a separate, real existence of its own outside the human mind. Learning happens when this knowledge is transmitted to people and they store it in their minds.
Constructivists—Humans construct all knowledge in their minds by participating in certain experiences. Learning occurs when one constructs both mechanisms for learning and one’s own unique version of the knowledge, coloured by background, experiences, and aptitudes.
Objectivist learning theories are derived from the works of psychologists like B. F. Skinner, who believed that learning was shaped by reinforcement as a way to train and instruct learners. 14 In the objectivist classroom, teachers identify the objectives, select the proper activities, organize and present the activities in the best possible manner, and finally evaluate the learning. Students are tested frequently and rigorous standards are set to ensure accountability (Vrasidas, 2000). 15 Teachers applying this strategy might use worksheets or flash cards to help student practice basic facts.
Constructivism emphasises active learning where the teacher performs as a guide to student learning. Known for his work on constructivism specifically on discovery learning, Jerome Bruner argued that knowledge is constructed in groups through social interaction. 16 He believes teachers could accomplish this by encouraging active participation in the learning process that would allow children to explore alternatives and recognise relationships between ideas. 17
The characteristics of the two strategies are specifically targeted to certain teaching and learning problems. Objectivists use traditional teaching and learning methods because they are designed to address problems of accountability and quality assurance in the educational system. Constructivists, on the other hand, stress cooperative work and non-traditional exploration methods, and are designed to help students think independently, work with diverse groups, and see the relevance of skills to their daily lives. Merging objectivism and constructivism as a model for future application requires an open-minded view from both learners and teachers. Arguably, this can be a new and powerful approach to solving some of the major problems of the educational system. The most effective approach will depend on the topics and problems that define the learning activity and individual learning needs. Teachers will always use some directed instruction as the most efficient means to teach. Likewise, teachers will always need motivating, cooperative learning activities to ensure that students want to learn and that they can transfer what they learn to problems they encounter. Teachers who adapt well with technology must choose technology resources and integration methods that are best suited to the learner’s specific needs (Okojie et al., 2006). 18 Hirsch (1996) 19 argues that objectivism is best for providing a foundation of skills, while inquiry-based learning is probably best for developing global skills slowly over time. It is important to recognise that each of the learning strategies addresses specific educational needs.
Inter-Disciplinary Thinking
Our society is beginning to place a high value on the ability to solve novel problems in creative ways. If students are mindful of the procedures they use to solve problems, they can certainly improve on their strategies and become more effective, creative, and innovative problem solvers. Consequently, teachers often attempt to provide students with new problems to resolve and to get them to analyse how to solve them. Resources such as problem solving courseware and multimedia applications are often considered ideal environments for getting students to think about how they think and for offering opportunities to challenge their creativity and problem-solving abilities (Roblyer&Doering, 2013). 20
In 2001, the Ministry of Education (
Juxtapositioning Working
Over the past few decades, technology has radically transformed how we work and play. Automation has changed entire industries and the Internet has revolutionized the way we access information and make decisions. The imminent reality is that our world will only come to depend more and more on technology—jobs will become increasingly skills-biased, and as a result, the workforce of tomorrow not only has to work productively with technology, they will also have to have a firm grasp on how technology works. One key idea is juxtapositioning, where pieces of module are flexible across strength and time. In a commencement speech at Stanford University in 2005, Steve Jobs told the graduates that six months into college, he dropped out because he was not interested in the subjects he was required to take (Stanford News, 2005). 23 He then spent the next 18 months ‘dropping in’ classes that interested him, which included a class on calligraphy that sparked an interest in beautiful typography. Ten years later, Jobs used his understanding and knowledge from those classes to design Apple, the first computer with beautiful typography.
Since technology is changing so rapidly, scholars are gradually using broader terms such as design thinking, computational thinking, epistemology of play, maker space to encapsulate the wider scope of teaching and learning. Design thinking is a structured process of designing to understand a problem, generate ideas, prototype and test solutions. Fundamentally, design thinking is a problem-solving process, whereby a designer brainstorms innovative and creative ideas with the help of technology to address people’s concerns. Design thinking is the confidence that everyone can be part of creating a more desirable future, and a process to take action when faced with a difficult challenge (
Inter-Networks
Major education reform agenda across the world, especially those involving
Sawyer (2014) 28 posited that computer technology is so transformative that schools as we know it might have to disappear before we can fully reap the merits of technology in learning. He envisioned a future where schools may not have physical locations, students may not be grouped by age or level, and learning could take place anywhere, anytime.
A glimpse into the Hellerup School in Denmark shows us one such school where there are no classrooms, the youngest students are all given a laptop or tablet and the older students do not have to be in school at fixed hours, as long as they stay in touch with their teachers through smartphones. Its philosophy is to equip students with 21st century competencies and their students graduate with strong soft skills necessary for the globalised world. Denmark is also the first country in the world in 2009 to allow their students to use the Internet during national examinations (Millar, 2013). 29 A school of the future is expected to be similar. It would be one with no textbooks, few lectures and no curriculum; it would be organized around small groups, all connected through high-bandwidth Internet software (Sawyer, 2014). 30
To stress clearly the importance of supporting innovations in schools and emphasize the interplay of multiple aspects of education reforms, let me briefly discuss Singapore’s
In some cases, however, the idea of combining computer and collaboration to enhance learning experiences is often viewed as a challenge in school contexts (Stahl et al. 2006). 34 In order for school leaders to enact pedagogical change in schools, they must consider the importance of networking and social capital for knowledge creation, cultivation of teacher leaders in championing innovations across the cluster of schools, optimization of resources and hence the sharing of them across the cluster of schools, and harness leadership as facilitated by the cluster structures (cluster superintendents, school principals, and other key personnel) to coordinate and align competing demands in the diffusion of innovation.
Novelty-Capacity
For education to flourish creativity, we need to learn from all other fields of work. Uncertainty and ambiguity with unprecedented challenges may aptly describe the era of the 21st century. Looking through a different lens this is also an age of opportunities for learners, thinkers and problem solvers. Twenty years ago, there were no social media experts or technology integration experts. Facebook didn’t exist and neither did Google nor Twitter. Today 75% of the Generation Y—millennials aged eighteen to thirty—has presence in social networking sites. According to Davidson (2010),
35
65% of today’s pre-schoolers will grow up to work in jobs or pursue careers that do not currently exist. In addition, the Institute for Business Value of
Creativity drives economies and cultures and makes people think in different ways (Goodwin&Sommervold, 2012).
37
We need creativity to adapt to changing paradigms and situations. More often than not, breakthroughs in science and technology are the result of interests or fascination with problems. While the tablet computer is associated with Steve Jobs, he did not come up with the original idea. The first tablets were launched in the late 1980s, but these were pricey, heavier than the laptops of that time, and were mostly used by the military. In 2010, Jobs graced us with the Apple iPad, which is affordable, light, and has an attractive touchscreen. Since then, it has hatched new tablet competitors and is fast transforming the traditional
While creativity is innate, it needs to be cultivated and nurtured. As schools place greater emphasis on learning material and taking tests, they are concerned that opportunities for thoughts to flow freely are fewer now than in the past. If we adopt a mindset of learning from challenges, engage in an active search for meaningful information, a proactive immersion in the task, a conscious and subconscious investment of time on the task, and a search for meaning and explanation, there will be real improvement and advancement.
Creativity is connectivity. We need to appreciate the power of different perspectives and of different ways of observing and learning. History reminds us that the great minds such as Aristotle, Galileo, and da Vinci utilized knowledge from both spectrum of the humanities and the sciences. In this day and age, the complementary relationship of the sciences and the humanities has been embraced by medicine, engineering, sports, and art among others. Few would dispute that the great scientific and technological innovators were creative thinkers. Society needs creative people for continued innovation. In this sense, a future-ready education must accept change for learning and infuse creative ways of observation to construct, derive and create knowledge in students (Tan, Teo,&Chye, 2009). 38 Like the artist Todd Siler, 39 whose “artscience” works epitomizes the way to understand the integration of art, science, and life, we need to appreciate the power of different perspectives and of different ways of observing and learning. With the things around us as evidence, the sciences and humanities are complementary ways of knowing: acknowledging the reality of chaos and uncertainty yet employing the power of evidence and objectivity. A future-ready education must change and use “problems” for learning and infuse creative ways of observation to construct, derive, and create knowledge in students.
Gaming and Simulation Learning
Most young students would associate games with fun and entertainment. Teachers are likely (or unlikely) to think of opportunities for learning. There is a growing debate as to the value of video games in the lives of young children and teenagers. Some studies show that playing video games, especially violent ones, is associated with increases in aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviours (Anderson, 2004; Gentile&Anderson, 2003; Uhlmann&Swanson, 2004; Wiegman&van Schie, 1998).
40
On the other hand, some researchers argue that playing video games has its benefits such as improvement of visual attention skills (Green&Bavelier, 2003),
41
mental skills (De Lisi&Wolford, 2002),
42
and motor skills (Fery&Ponserre, 2001).
43
However, rather than concentrating on the good and bad effects of gaming, Gentile and Stone (2005)
44
maintain that it is more important to consider the multiple dimensions of video games like the amount played, the content and structure of the games, and the mechanics of the game. Video games, according to Khoo and Gentile (2007)
45
“can enhance cognitive skills and can promote social and emotional learning, both for good and ill.” University students in the
Students’ passions can be a powerful driver for deeper and more creative learning. With this knowledge, some educators are using popular commercial games like World of Warcraft (WoW), a multiplayer online game, to create curriculum around the game. In an interview, WoW designer Peggy Sheehy (Schwartz, 2013) 47 said that “a well-designed video game is pure, scaffold, constructivist learning at its best.” Research on gaming shows that games display mastery learning because a player cannot move on until he/she has completed a set of tasks. Perhaps one of the benefits of using a multiplayer, collaborative game is that students work together to accomplish quests. They post their writing in “guilds” within the game and are asked to critique one another’s writing, creating a constructive peer review (Schwartz, 2013). 48 Knowledge creation to game play seeks to promote greater interest and enjoyment, better problem-solving and decision-making skills, and improved competence of students in both learning and playing games (Tan et al., 2002; Dondlinger, 2007). 49
Problem-Based e-Learning
Having shared what B.E.I.J.I.N.G stand for, let me stress how creative problem solving stimulates active teaching and learning.
In education, we need to learn more from the legacy of scientific discoveries. The ability to see a problem from a mass of information, learning to make observations and connections, and the attitude of taking ownership of problems are aspects of learning and thinking. Essentially, the human mind learns through two mechanisms: habit and novelty. The first is to learn through structured routines, memory, and modelling. The brain and mind is wired in such a way that we learn well through pattern recognition, observation, and imitation. The mind, however, can also be stimulated by novelty, through dealing with new situations. It seeks change and new environments as well as situations of challenge. This often calls for a different way of thinking and a different perspective and would require a more holistic and integrative approach. Many educational and training systems tend to emphasize learning by habit and imitation. This instructional approach, which is primarily linear and systematic with a stimulus-response feedback loop, is prevalent not only in schools but also in the current e-learning programmes. This is not surprising as we do need to learn through imitation, modelling, and memory. Learning by memorization begins in preschool and continues all the way to college with a prevalence of information accumulation and knowledge recall. The predominance of paper-and-pencil testing and examinations also contributed to this mode of learning. In many ways, the so-called “problems” that students are given to solve in many of our classes are actually exercises rather than problems. Teachers typically present in class a large number of worked examples accompanied by comprehensive guidelines and step-by-step solutions. Students are then given similar exercises of a variety of challenges. Often, there is very little novelty involved, although these “problems” may call for synthesis and application of the knowledge learned.
There is nothing wrong with this method, as we need such a structured and organized approach for acquiring basic knowledge and building foundations, such as learning basic axioms, definitions, and principles, particularly in disciplines like mathematics, language, and basic science. There is, however, an overdependence on learning through worked examples and routine exercises. As a result, the power of problems is hardly exploited. For simplicity, we may classify the types of problems along a continuum of routine, artificial at one end and novel, real-world at the other. Routine, artificial problems are the homework exercises and examination-type questions that our students are used to.
The
The problem is the starting point of learning.
The problem usually is set in a real-world context and appears unstructured. If it is a stimulated problem, it is designed to be as authentic as possible.
The problem has to be explored from multiple perspectives. The use of interdisciplinary knowledge is a key feature in many
The problem challenges students’ current knowledge, attitude, and competencies, thus calling for identification of learning needs and new areas of learning.
Self-directed learning is primary feature. Students are to assume major responsibility for the acquisition of information and knowledge.
Harnessing of a variety of knowledge sources and the evaluation and use of information resources are essential processes.
Learning is collaborative, communicative, and cooperative. Students work in small groups with a high level of interaction carrying out peer learning, peer teaching, and group presentation.
The development of inquiry and problem-solving skills is as important as content knowledge acquisition for solving the problem. The tutor facilitates and coaches through questioning and cognitive coaching.
The learning process closes with the synthesis and integration of the new knowledge.
The
By using problems as triggers for learning and interactivity, the potential of technology use in education could also be more fully harnessed. Table 1 compares the features of current e-learning programmes and
Getting students engaged in the learning process is perhaps one of the greatest challenges of teachers. As an educational innovation,
Current e-Learning and PBL e-Learning programmes comparison
Footnotes
1 Oon Seng Tan, Problem-Based Learning Innovation: Using Problems to Power Learning in the 21st Century (Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia, 2003); Oon Seng Tan, Woon Chia Liu,&Ee Ling Low, “Teacher Education Futures: Innovating Policy, Curriculum and Practices,” in Teacher Education in the 21st Century, ed. Oon Seng Tan, Woon Chia Liu, Ee Ling Low (Singapore: Springer, 
), 1-9.
3 The 2nd Symposium of Learning Science and Online Education 2015, July 8-10, 2015, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
6 Angela Scott-Briggs, “Four Examples of Big Data Applications that are Changing the World,” TechBullion, accessed October 19, 2016, .
7 Teradata, “6 Big Data Examples from Big Global Brands,” Teradata (2016), accessed April 20, 2017, .
12 Michael Molenda, “A Philosophical Critique on the Claims of ‘Constructivism’,” Educational Technology 31, no. 9 (1991): 44-48; Denis Phillips, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism,” Educational Researcher 24, no. 7 (): 5-12; Charalambos Vrasidas, “Constructivism Versus Objectivism: Implications for Interaction, Course Design, and Evaluation in Distance Education,” International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 6, no. 4 (2000): 339-362.
15 Charalambos Vrasidas, “Constructivism Versus Objectivism: Implications for Interaction, Course Design, and Evaluation in Distance Education,” International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 6, no. 4 (2000): 339-362.
29 Erin Millar, “No Classrooms and Lots of Technology: A Danish School’s Approach,” The Globe and Mail (2013, 20 June), accessed April 20, 2017, .
32 Roger Johnson,&David Johnson, “Action Research: Cooperative Learning in the Science Classroom,” Science and Children, no. 24 (1986): 31-32.; David Johnson,&Roger Johnson, “An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning,” Educational Researcher 38, no. 5 (): 365-379.
36 Bloomberg, “What Chief Executives Really Want,” Bloomberg (May 18 2010), accessed June 28, 2015, .
40 Craig Anderson, “An Update on the Effects of Playing Violent Video Games,” Journal of Adolescence 27, no. 1 (2004): 113-122; Douglas Gentile,&Craig Anderson, “Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard,” in Media, Violence And Children, ed. Douglas Gentile (Westport, ): 367-378.
47 Katrina Schwartz, “World of Warcraft Finds its Way into Class,” Mind Shift (2013), accessed June 28, 2015, .
48 Ibid.
49 Steven Tan, et al., “Implementing the Games Concept Approach in Singapore Schools: A Preliminary Report,” REACT 21, no. 1 (2002): 77-84; Mary Jo Dondlinger, “Educational Video Game Design: A Review of the Literature,” Journal of Applied Educational Technology 4, no. 1 (): 21-31.
50 Oon Seng Tan, “Editorial,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 41, no. 2 (2004): 123-124; Bee Leng Chua,&Stefanie Chye, “Nurturing Twenty-First Century Educators: An EPIIC Perspective,” in Teacher Education in the 21st Century, ed. Oon Seng Tan, Woon Chia Liu, and Ee Ling Low (Singapore: Springer, ), 59-76.
51 Oon Seng Tan, Problem-Based Learning Innovation: Using Problems to Power Learning in the 21st Century (Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia, 2003); John Savery, “Overview of Problem-Based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions,” in Essential Readings in Problem-Based Learning: Exploring and Extending the Legacy of Howard S. Barrows, (), 5-15.