Problem-Based Learning in TPRS

A recap of the highlights in my conversation on the MoreTPRS Yahoo! Group, with commentary:

What does problem-based learning look like in foreign language classes,
particularly ones using TPRS?

Could it be as simple as just finding a way to express yourself? Or is there
more?

Better put by Martin Lapworth, here's what I mean:

Jillane simpy seems to be saying: "Problem solving? That sounds like what TPRSstudents are doing [subconsciously] all the time. Do you agree?" - Martin Lapworth

I read a post about problem-based learning
(http://plpnetwork.com/2013/04/19/ultimate-education-reform-messy-learning-probl\
em-solving/) and was intrigued. I was mainly inspired by the idea that
problem-based learning better prepares students for the world. Rather than
teaching students to find the "right" answer and bubble it in, students have to
solve "messy" problems that don't necessarily have one clear answer - much more
similar to the problems we face in the real world. I want to teach and
encourage these problem-solving skills in my own classroom and was thinking
about how I might go about doing so.

But then it occurred to me, isn't that point of TPRS and CI? More traditional
routes of language instruction - and how the classes I took in high school were
taught - ask students to find the "3rd person singular preterite" form of a verb
with one correct answer that we as TPRS teachers know is essentially useless. 
However, we ask our students to use what they know to find a way to comprehend
(i.e. 'I know that "ten..." means "have", so "tenía/tengo/tiene/etc. una casa"
means something along the lines of having a house) what they're hearing and
reading. Eventually they begin to express themselves, starting with simple
one-word answers (i.e. circling and PQA) and eventually stringing together words
and phrases to create more complicated language and (someday, hopefully!)
complete sentences. I'm not at all saying this should be forced output, but
when taken in the context of natural and individual language acquisition and
production, this is one of our big goals.

To me, this seems to naturally fulfill the aspirations in the article about
teaching kids to problem-solve using problem-based learning - due to the organic
nature of language, what they're going to hear and read won't be scripted, and
neither will their own production be. Every time they communicate, there is a
problem to solve.  On a *very* small skill, since language is organic
and cannot be memorized, students are constantly problem-solving every time they
are comprehending and producing unscripted language!

Lake put it simply, comparing old-school language instruction with our new-school TPRS:

"Every time we open our ears or mouths to anotherlanguage, we already have a "problem": How do I communicate? ...Old-school language instruction taught formulas and set dialogues, while weembrace that there is likely no one "right" way to express any idea. That alonebreaks TPRS out of the bubble-filling single-correct-answer education system theauthor is arguing against." - Lake

Janet helped me articulate this idea  a little more clearly, that I'm not trying to "teach" this kind of analysis, bur rather am "trying to figure out if that's the kind of things that happen in their brains."  She went on to describe her own ideas:

As I'm trying to improve my Spanish by reading, I am doing thatkind of thing.  Oh I see "ten", it's have, keep reading, like when I just readover words I don't know, and if the whole paragraph makes sense, I don't needthat word, I'll eventually acquire it because my brain caught the meaningwithout my thinking about it.  I'm thinking about the story, not the words,really, and I trust the process.  The only way I might 'teach' the process isdoing a 'think aloud' with the kids when reading by translation--but if I'mdoing my job, their reading pieces should be totally comprehensible anyway.I hope I understood both posts correctly.

So, let's clarify:  There's a difference between encouraging the process to happen, and teaching the kids about that process.  Because, let's face it, the kids aren't fluent and we're trying to turn "slow-processors" into "fast-processors", but without any conscious effort on their part.  No matter what, language is processed, though we're trying to get them to do it by feeling rather than decoding rules.  On a very small, but very important scale, this essentially fulfills the requirements for PBL!

Jeff Klamka had a few ideas for how to engage in PBL using TPRS more explicitly:

I'm looking at the summary of "problem-based learning" and it strikes me asquite simply a list of PQA topics for advanced-level classes. (Actually, theycould make for some fascinating discussions).--How should we respond to climate change?--How should the government be spending our tax dollars?--How should education be reformed?Or even, brought down to the level of the students:--How much time spent online is too much?--Should junk food be sold in the cafeteria?--If you were in charge of the school budget, what would you cut to balance thebudget and why?
Important questions with emotional impact. By focusing on a couple of keyphrases, it could make for great PQA. - Jeff Klamka

Pat Barrett had another PBL PQA question:

One that elicited output, unforced, was, “Should we close the campus” i.e.put a fence around it and keep kids on campus during lunch?Pat Barrett

I love all these PQA questions!  Many of them have basic structures that are taught as low as Spanish 1, while a few would be excellent in teaching higher-level structures!  I wonder if students would focus more on the meaning as they get excited to discuss their ideas. Moreover, I came across a great post about putting this into action while teaching structures to discuss illegal immigration.  Lake made an interesting point, though:

Though I do agree that the idea to incorporate some of the author's "messyquestions" into the classroom could be interesting, it seems to be creating"problems" on top of "problems" and the examples are a little cognitivelyadvanced for the level of proficiency.
I think it's "messy" enough just to think "How do I say that?" (even if it's notabout a big life question like the importance of education or the economy orwhatever) because language is inherently messy. There are a multitude ofdifferent ways to say the same thing. - Lake

Which made me think that maybe I'll save "real" problems for higher level kids, if ever. 
One thing I assume we all run into are kids that have something they want to
say, but they haven't yet figured out the skill of simplifying it down to what
they can say. I can see this happening if I were to use questions that they are
likely to be opinionated on. Asking "What color of shirt should she buy?"
doesn't provoke the same sort of opinionated responses that students might want
to express and defend with "real" problems.

So... lots of great ideas!  In sum, TPRS promotes the ideals of PBL simply by being what it is and teaching students to communicate in an organic manner that has countless possibilities, a VERY "messy" question!  If we do want to address other problems, PQA may be a good place to do so, but with caution and making sure students are set up for success :)