T he approach to education in terms of a mosaic of highly structured subject-based knowledge domains is familiar to all. It is hard to think of education in any other way. Delivery of instructions, demonstration of solutions and testing of knowledge using predictably patterned examinations define the norm. A teacher would not feel comfortable in a class if he/she does not have a high degree of pre-planned control over the sequence of events in the class or cannot answer all questions asked by students. Most are quite happy to conduct rigidly teacher-centred classes even when they agree that student-centred education would be the better option. It is not surprising that the majority of class textbooks had been written to fit into such a system with chunks of highly organised information interspersed with end-of-chapter problems.

What is easily overlooked is that the process of rigidly structuring knowledge and instruction unwittingly limits applicability of knowledge. For example, in engineering mechanics, a ladder leaning against a wall may have been fondly analysed step by step in the class, yet a spoon in a soup bowl that leans against the edge and then slowly spins into the soup, would be a ‘killer’ in the examination paper—unless of course, the spoon problem also had been similarly discussed and possibly ‘the’ solution had been posted on the notice board or made available through the Intranet.

If the purpose of education is to prepare students for the future, then why is it not recognised that students need to be enabled to tackle things that are not necessarily addressed in textbooks, lectures or other well-structured knowledge delivery systems? Don’t we know that the real world out there is very complex and changes constantly? Academic institutions from time to time find that they have too many staff highly specialised in a ‘presently less important’ domain—shouldn’t this make us worry about the highly organised yet limited preparation we attempt to provide the future generation with?

It is not easy to find solutions to the problems we see in education. Problem-based learning (PBL), however, seems to be a far better option than the lecture-tutorial based instruction scheme widely practised today. PBL duly acknowledges that each student already knows some aspects about a subject and this may vary widely from student to student in a given class. PBL allows each individual to view a subject in a personal way and construct knowledge in a manner that fits one’s own pre-existing knowledge. PBL necessarily trains students to gather knowledge on a need basis to solve problems—the best way to handle a future where the needed knowledge cannot be predicted. In comparison, just like a driver who picks up a group of passengers from a certain point and transports them to another point by taking full control of the vehicle, an instructor in the lecture-tutorial scheme attempts to take a whole class along a pre-planned route in a well-guided manner—for what purpose is the question here.

Implementation of PBL, however, is not easy. The first difficulty one would encounter is misconception of PBL itself. Among those who claim to have practised PBL, many have not realised that problems drive the learning in PBL. This is different from the lecture-tutorial scheme where problems exist to illustrate the material covered. Giving a series of lectures to cover some knowledge considered to be required and then assigning a problem or a project to apply that knowledge is not the same situation as where a problem drives the learning.

Students need to be thoroughly trained on the practice of PBL in order to learn through PBL. Not all who attempt to conduct PBL sessions pay attention to this serious requirement. Indeed the teachers need to be thoroughly trained too before they start designing problems for PBL, or for that matter, designing any kind of a curriculum. Education is a domain far too complex to presume that someone with a PhD in a subject area can effectively teach that subject.

One major barrier to successfully implementing PBL is that for PBL to be successful, an institution cannot have the learning of some things happen via PBL while the other subjects are taught in parallel via the conventional instructional way. The focus and reflection needed for learning through PBL are unlikely to happen meaningfully in a mixed mode environment where ‘memorise-and-regurgitate’ is also valued.