10 years of rote-learning, 3 years of PBL.
Rote-learning side, basically nothing can go wrong if you do your
part and memorize. But it also means that you are taught to be one
zombie.
PBL, on the other hand, is the direct opposite. It asks you to
question, it's a test of your basics, your understanding.
It has no boundaries, you can argue whatever you've learnt and
apply it to prove so.
There was once a case study done on the statistics, comparing
Singapore's dengue fever situation with other countries. The main
aim to be taught, to be critical of the statistics provided and to
show how they could be manipulated to tell lies.
My team and I went through the unconventional way proving that
Singapore's situation is better than other countries, argue our way
out of it. We knew it was wrong anyway, but so long it showed that
we understand, it's OK.
Scrap a B for that. That's how we played with statistics.
PBL also has no right or wrong answers. The way we played with
statistics shows that.
The most important thing in PBL is the concepts. No concepts, no
understanding, you basically will die in that environment. PBL is
also very stressful for those who can't stand independent learning.
It's a very highly independent learning system, requiring you to
search for your own answers, understand it and apply it. Most of
the time, you will find yourself staring at the most basic
questions and have no answers to it.
In terms of well-rounded students, I'm not sure for PBL. In terms
of more vocal and opinionated students, PBL will do that, unless
you are the kind who won't change in a thousand years.
More innovate and creative people? PBL will do that too, although I
have to say you need to have that creative element in you. I don't
have that element, PBL way of learning won't change me into
one.
