Speaking Of Teaching
SPEAKING OF TEACHING
STANFORD UNIVERSITY NEWSLETTER ON TEACHING
WINTER 2001 Vol.11, No. 1
Problem-Based Learning
One must reconsider what students really need to learn and the environment in which
they learn. Much of the enthusiasm for the problem-based approach to learning comes
from instructors who feel revitalized by the creative energy it releases.
Hal White, "'Creating Problems' for PBL"
Every quarter faculty are faced with determining how to
ing” (pp. 101-102). Instructors also hope to develop
present course material so that students not only gain
students’ intrinsic interest in the subject matter, emphasize
knowledge of the discipline, but also become self-
learning as opposed to recall, promote groupwork, and help
directed learners who develop problem-solving skills
students become self-directed learners.
they can apply in future courses and in their careers.
Learning is “student-centered” because the students are
Confronted with these challenges, faculty at Stanford
given the freedom to study those topics that interest them
and elsewhere have begun to use problem-based learn-
the most and to determine how they want to study them.
ing techniques in their courses. In problem-based
Students should identify their learning needs, help plan
learning (PBL) courses, students work with classmates
classes, lead class discussions, and assess their own work
to solve complex and authentic problems that help
and their classmates’ work (Gallagher, 1997; Reynolds,
develop content knowledge as well as problem-solving,
1997). “[S]tudents develop a deeper awareness and
reasoning, communication, and self-assessment skills.
ownership of important concepts in the course by working
These problems also help to maintain student interest in
on activities, a basic tenet of the constructive approach to
course material because students realize that they are
learning” (Seltzer, et al., 1996, p. 86).
learning the skills needed to be successful in the field.
In addition to emphasizing learning by “doing,” PBL
Almost any course can incorporate PBL, and most
requires students to be metacognitively aware (Gijselaers,
faculty and students consider the benefits to be substan-
1996). That is, students must learn to be conscious of what
tial. This issue of Speaking of Teaching identifies the
information they already know about the problem, what
central features of PBL, provides some guidelines for
information they need to know to solve the problem, and
planning a PBL course, and discusses the impact of PBL
the strategies to use to solve the problem. Being able to
on student learning and motivation.
articulate such thoughts helps students become more
effective problem-solvers and self-directed learners.
Features of Problem-Based Learning
Initially, however, many students are not capable of this
sort of thinking on their own. For this reason, the instruc-
While the content and structure of PBL courses may
tor must become a tutor or “cognitive coach” who models
differ, the general goals and learning objectives tend to
be similar. PBL begins with the assumption that learning
Come visit our website!
is an active, integrated, and constructive process influ-
We feature
enced by social and contextual factors (Barrows, 1996;
resources for faculty and TAs
Gijselaers, 1996). In their review of the literature,
plus great links to teaching centers at
Wilkerson and Gijselaers (1996) claim that PBL is
characterized by a student-centered approach, teachers as
major universities all over the country!
“facilitators rather than disseminators,” and open-ended
problems (in PBL, these are called “ill-structured”) that
http://www-ctl.stanford.edu
“serve as the initial stimulus and framework for learn-
Speaking of Teaching Winter 2001
produced quarterly by the Center for Teaching and Learning
inquiry strategies, guides exploration, and helps students
Class Structure and Format
clarify and pursue their research questions (Arámbula-
Greenfield, 1996). The instructor plays a critical role in
Medical schools have relied on PBL since the early
helping students become self-directed learners and must
1980s to teach students clinical reasoning. However,
create a classroom environment in which students
undergraduate instructors have begun to use this method
“receive systematic instruction in conceptual, strategic,
only recently, and it is possible that most students have
and reflective reasoning in the context of a discipline
not experienced PBL before. Thus, it is imperative that
that will ultimately make them more successful in later
instructors establish classroom norms that make students
investigations” (Gallagher, 1997, p. 337). Gallagher
feel comfortable in this new learning environment. For
(1997) also suggests that teachers “give voice to
instance, mistakes should be viewed as learning opportu-
metacognitive questions” and “insert them into the
nities rather than as indicators of lack of ability (Bridges
classroom dialog so that students learn to attend to them,
& Hallinger, 1996). In addition, instructors need to find
appreciate their utility, and then adopt their use as they
the appropriate balance between allowing students to
become increasingly independent and self-directed” (p.
discuss issues on their own and intervening in group
340).
interactions (Gijselaers, 1996). Instructors should also
Groupwork is also an essential aspect of PBL for
encourage students to develop classroom norms and
several reasons. First, groupwork helps develop learning
ground rules for group work, including establishing
communities in which students feel comfortable devel-
attendance policies, the schedule of due dates, and the
oping new ideas and raising questions about the material
consequences for rule violation.
(Allen, Duch, & Groh, 1996). In addition, groupwork
The day-to-day structure of a PBL course is quite
enhances communication skills and students’ ability to
different from the structure of traditional lecture courses.
manage group dynamics. Finally, groupwork is interest-
Rangachari (1996) suggests that the first few class
ing and motivating for students because they become
meetings in a PBL course include brainstorming sessions
actively involved in the work and are held accountable
in which issues central to the course are identified.
for their actions by group members (Cohen, 1994). For
Alternatively, the instructor can create an extensive list
these reasons, groupwork can enhance student achieve-
of topics and ask students to focus on those topics that
ment. However, groups do not always work effectively
seem most interesting. Based on student input about
without guidance. Usually the instructor facilitates and
course topics, the instructor develops ill-structured
monitors group interactions because many students have
problems. Students then work on the problems in groups
not been taught how to work effectively in groups
of three to eight students, depending on the number of
(Bridges & Hallinger, 1996; Wilkerson, 1996). Well-
students in the course and the number of available
designed, open-ended problems that require the input
instructors or tutors.
and skills of all group members also are essential to
Regardless of how topics were selected, the instructor
positive groupwork experiences (Cohen, 1994).
presents the problems to student groups before providing
As noted, in PBL literature the term “ill-structured” is
any formal instruction on the topic. (Allen, Duch and
used to describe open-ended problems that have multiple
Groh [1996], however, suggest that problems be intro-
solutions and require students “to look at many methods
duced with “minilectures” that provide some context for
before deciding on a particular solution” (Shelton &
the problem and identify areas of potential difficulty.)
Smith, 1998, p. 21). Educationally sound, ill-structured
During class time and outside of class students work
problems “help students learn a set of important con-
with their groups to solve problems. Throughout each
cepts, ideas, and techniques” (Gallagher, 1997, p. 338)
class the instructor must ensure that all students are
because they provoke group discussion and give students
involved in the problem-solving process and must
experience solving problems encountered by experts in
familiarize students with the resources needed (e.g.,
the field. Students recognize these problems as profes-
library references, databases) to solve the problems, as
sionally relevant. Therefore, students are more likely to
well as identify common difficulties or misconceptions
be motivated to work on them (as opposed to discrete
(Arámbula-Greenfield, 1996; Seltzer, et al., 1996). With
problem sets or textbook exercises), not only because
multiple groups exploring different problems or even
they realize that the knowledge they gain by thinking
examining similar problems, the task of coaching groups
about these problems will be useful in the future, but
may be too much for one instructor. Thus, the instructor
also because students are typically given significant
may want to consider using teaching assistants or tutors
opportunities for creativity and flexibility in solving PBL
who are familiar with PBL methods and techniques to
problems.
assist groups. Finally, PBL emphasizes depth rather than
Page 2
Speaking of Teaching Winter 2001
breadth of content coverage, with students having from two
students explore the major issues. White (1995) argues
to six weeks to work on one problem depending on its
that even having students read, summarize, and critique
complexity. Upon completing the research or inquiry phase
journal articles can be a valuable experience. In order to
of problem solving, groups may be required to write a report
capture students’ interest, the instructor may use presen-
and present it to the rest of the class.
tation formats such as op-eds from fictitious newspapers,
data from experimental studies and case reports
Developing Ill-Structured Problems
(Rangachari, 1996).
Professor Copland uses role-playing as a powerful
Ill-structured problems:
way to teach students about being a school principal.
• require more information for understanding the
Students individually spend the afternoon in his office
problem than is initially available.
and act out the role of principal. They are presented with
• contain multiple solution paths.
• change as new information is obtained.
• prevent students from knowing that they have made
How to Get Organized
the “right” decision.
for a PBL Course
• generate interest and controversy and cause the
learner to ask questions.
• Clearly define your purpose for doing PBL,
• are open-ended and complex enough to require
the procedures you will use, and your ex-
collaboration and thinking beyond recall.
pectations -- do this BEFORE your first PBL
• contain content that is authentic to the discipline.
session.
(Adapted from Allen, Duch & Groh, 1996;
Gallagher, 1997.)
• Assign students to groups by an arbitrary
method (such as alphabetically) and distrib-
Students learn best by constructing solutions to open-
ute the list of assignments to students the
ended, complex, and problematic activities with class-
class period before the first PBL session. The
mates, rather than listening passively to lectures. These
list should show all groups, numbered, and
types of activities promote discussion among group
all members of each group.
members and keep students motivated to learn more
about the subject. Creating ill-structured problems takes
• Request a room conducive to group work.
time and creativity but can be extremely rewarding
For 80 students, a room with tables is best,
when students achieve their learning goals. Professor
followed by a room with moveable chairs.
Michael Copland, who teaches courses in the Prospec-
tive Principals Program in the School of Education at
• On the day of your first PBL session, prior to
Stanford, believes:
students’ arrival, assign seating by pasting
group numbers on all seats, if seats are not
The key thing in making [PBL] successful is the
already numbered.
amount of time and energy that goes into the cre-
ation of the project. Finding a problem that really
• Set up your room so that you are accessible
means something to the participants is absolutely
to all groups. In a large lecture hall with
critical. [O]nce you find a very salient problem,
fixed seating, this may mean leaving empty
then structure the learning objectives around that
rows between group rows.
problem and find resources that inform students’
thinking about the problem. . . chances are it’s going
• Bring extra group lists, masking tape, sta-
to have some success.
pler, extra textbook, reference materials, and
copies of problems for each group and for
Such problems exist in any discipline. One approach to
each group member.
developing problems is to work backwards from exam
questions (Rhem, 1998). For instance, word problems
• Anticipate problems and be ready to handle
and essays can be expanded into larger cases that require
them swiftly.
more integration of information. Another approach is to
identify current debates in the field of study and have
(Adapted from Dion, 1996)
Speaking of Teaching Winter 2001
Page 3
live interruptions, such as an angry parent who confronts
a field or discipline, faculty need to consider process-
them in the office, community members who are con-
oriented objectives, and the means by which to assess
cerned about students’ test scores, and a phone call from
them.
a father whose son is being harassed on the school bus.
Process-oriented objectives can be difficult to
For many students, this role-playing opportunity enables
articulate, although they constitute the “hidden curricu-
them to understand their chosen career path more deeply
lum” of most courses. We want students to understand
because it is the first time they are exposed to the daily
concepts, formulas, and skills which constitute the
demands of being a principal. Most students consider it
knowledge base of a discipline or profession. But we
to be an extremely valuable learning experience.
also want them to recognize the kinds of problems
After problems have been created and even imple-
embraced by specific disciplines and professions, and
mented in the curriculum, they should be revised and
the means by which practitioners go about solving them.
improved, as needed. Professor Renate Fruchter, the
Process-oriented objectives are those that relate to how
director of the Project-Based Learning Laboratory of the
practitioners of a discipline or profession think about
Department of Civil Engineering at Stanford and instruc-
tor of the PBL-structured Computer-Integrated Architec-
ture, Engineering and Construction course, identifies four
steps or phases involved in formalizing one’s problem-
Structuring a Large PBL Course
development efforts. The first step is “exploration/
experimentation” in which the problem is tested with
• Introduce a problem at the beginning of the class,
students for the first time. During the next phase,
or during the previous class, with a very brief
“sustainability,” the problem is administered several
“mini-lecture.”
more times and revised and adapted each time based on
student feedback. Professor Copland strongly advocates
• If the problem is printed (rather than viewed),
obtaining student feedback as well, and suggests asking
provide copies for each group and for each per-
students questions such as “How did this activity work
son in each group.
for you?” and “If you could change something about this
project, what would you change?” The third step,
• Furnish printed questions related to the problem
“institutionalization,” involves determining the extent to
(with space provided for answers). Copies should
which the problem is valuable for industry or the domain
be furnished to each group member and a copy
area. The last step is “reinvention,” refreshing the
to each group. The group’s copy, signed by all
problem so that it reflects the most current and relevant
participating members, should be turned in as the
topics of the domain.
group product at the end of the period. If ques-
tions are not appropriate for the problem, then
explain what product is expected as a result of
Assessment in Problem-Based Learning
the group work for that day.
Assessment needs to fit the philosophy of active
• If a printed problem is written on more than one
learning rather than passive reproductive learning. . .
page, and solutions to the problem unravel with
It may be preferable, and more rigorous, for assess-
each new page, then give out the pages one at a
ments to follow the PBL philosophy and to require the
time, requiring that answers to one page be turned
individual to analyze a problem, search for and then
in before the next is dispensed. Suspense is a
apply relevant information. (Reynolds, 1997, p. 272)
great motivator.
Unfortunately, assessment of PBL is poorly addressed in
• Assess progress at regular intervals. If necessary,
the research literature. Most studies compare students
interrupt group work to correct misconceptions,
who have undergone PBL curricula with those who have
or to bring groups up to par with one another.
not by using traditional measures, which tend to be
almost exclusively content-oriented. Results of these
• Allow time for class discussion of the problem
studies vary, but most indications are that PBL “does no
at the end of the PBL session, or at the begin-
harm” in terms of traditional, content-oriented outcomes
ning of the next class period.
(Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Vernon & Blake, 1993).
Yet, if the primary goal of PBL is to have students
(Adapted from Dion, 1996)
cultivate the habits of mind evidenced by professionals in
Page 4
Speaking of Teaching Winter 2001
and solve problems within a certain field (Toulmin,
times [students]. . . treat school. . . like. . .[it] is
1972). Because content-oriented objectives are usually
just a simulation. Then they go out and they are
emphasized, those seeking to implement PBL may
in situations which are almost identical to the ones
struggle, initially, with defining, highlighting to students,
they have experienced in the lab. The learning
and then assessing process-oriented objectives. In fact,
experience was so valuable because it prepared
those who have researched the process-oriented out-
them to handle, anticipate. . .and prevent some of
comes of PBL have found dramatic results (Hmelo, et
the miscommunications and difficult situations
al., 1997).
emerging on every project.
PBL assessments should be authentic, which is to say
that they should be structured so that students can
PBL promotes students’ confidence in their problem-
display their understanding of problems and their
solving skills and strives to make them self-directed
solutions in contextually-meaningful ways (Gallagher,
learners. These skills can put PBL students at an
1997). Clearly, multiple-choice assessments and even
advantage in future courses and in their careers. While
short-answer or essay questions that require rote repeti-
such confidence does not come immediately, it can be
tion of facts will be of little value in assessing the extent
fostered by good instruction. Teachers who provide a
to which students have internalized holistic approaches
good learning community in the classroom, with positive
to complex problems.
teacher-student and student-student relationships, give
A critical part of assessment in PBL is the feedback
students a sense of ownership over their learning,
students receive from their peers. Allen, Duch, and Groh
develop relevant and meaningful problems and learning
(1996) asked students to rate their group members using
methods, and empower students with valuable skills that
a numerical scale based on “attendance, degree of
will enhance students’ motivation to learn and ability to
preparation for class, listening and communication skills,
achieve (MacKinnon,1999).
ability to bring new and relevant information to the
group, and ability to support and improve the function-
ing of the group as a whole” (p. 49). This peer rating
Bibliography on Problem-Based Learning
constituted up to ten percent of students’ final grades.
Peer ratings, however, are not sufficient feedback and
Allen, D. E., Duch, B. J., & Groh, S. E. (1996). “The
neither are single letter grades. The instructor should
power of problem-based learning in teaching intro-
also provide detailed comments about each student’s
ductory science courses.” In L. Wilkerson & W. H.
strengths and weaknesses. Having students evaluate
Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning
their own performance can be a valuable task as well
to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 43-
(Bridges, 1996).
52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Impact on Student Learning
Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). “Problem-based
learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and
and Motivation
implementation issues.” Academic Medicine, 68 (1),
52-81.
Overall, PBL is an effective method for improving
students’ problem-solving skills. Students will make
Arámbula-Greenfield, T. (1996). “Implementing prob-
strong connections between concepts when they learn
lem-based learning in a college science class:
facts and skills by actively working with information
Testing problem-solving methodology as a viable
rather than by passively receiving information
alternative to traditional science-teaching tech-
(Gallagher, 1997; Resnick & Klopfer, 1989). Although
niques.” Journal of College Science Teaching, 26
active learning requires additional work on the part of
(1), 26-30.
students and faculty, Kingsland (1996) observed that
students find PBL courses satisfying. Professor Fruchter
Barrows, H. S. (1996). “Problem-based learning in
has found that students contact her once they are work-
medicine and beyond: A brief overview.” In L.
ing in the field to tell her how valuable their learning
Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing
experience has been. She remarks,
problem-based learning to higher education: Theory
and practice (pp. 3-12). San Francisco: Jossey-
I can tell you tons of stories, which I have been
Bass.
kind of informally collecting over the years. Many
Speaking of Teaching Winter 2001
Page 5
Bridges, E. M., & Hallinger, P. (1996). “Problem-
learning to higher education: Theory and practice
based learning in leadership education.” In L.
(pp. 73-81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing
problem-based learning to higher education:
MacKinnon, M. M. (1999). “CORE elements of student
Theory and practice (pp. 53-61). San Francisco:
motivation in problem-based learning.” In M.
Jossey-Bass.
Theall (Ed.), Motivation from within: Approaches
for encouraging faculty and students to excel (pp.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strate-
49-58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
gies for heterogeneous classrooms. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Rangachari, P. K. (1996). “Twenty-up: Problem-based
learning with a large group.” In L. Wilkerson & W.
Dion, L. (1996). “But I teach a large class.” Avail-
H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based
able on-line at: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/
learning to higher education: Theory and practice
spr96-bisc2.html.
(pp. 63-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gallagher, S. A. (1997). “Problem-based learning:
Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1989). “Toward the
Where did it come from, what does it do, and
thinking curriculum.” In L. B. Resnick & L. E.
where is it going?” Journal for the Education of
Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum:
the Gifted, 20 (4), 332-362.
Current cognitive research (pp. 1-18). Reston, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel-
Gijselaers, W. H. (1996). “Connecting problem-
opment.
based practices with educational theory.” In L.
Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing
Reynolds, F. (1997). “Studying psychology at degree
problem-based learning to higher education:
level: Would problem-based learning enhance
Theory and practice (pp. 13-21). San Francisco:
students’ experiences?” Studies in Higher Educa-
Jossey-Bass.
tion, 22 (3), 263-275.
Hmelo, C. E., Gotterer, G. S., & Bransford, J. D.
Rhem, J. (1998). “Problem-based learning: An introduc-
(1997). “A theory-driven approach to assessing
tion.” Available on-line at: http://www.ntlf.com/
the cognitive effects of PBL.” Instructional
html/pi/9812/pbl_1.htm.
Science, 25, 387-408.
Seltzer, S., Hilbert, S., Maceli, J., Robinson, E., &
Kingsland, A. J. (1996). “Time expenditure,
Schwartz, D. (1996). “An active approach to
workload, and student satisfaction in problem-
calculus.” In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers
based learning.” In L. Wilkerson & W. H.
(Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher
Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based
education: Theory and practice (pp. 83-90). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
WWW Resources
The Buck Institute <http://www.bie.org/pbl/trai.html>
Center for Educational Technologies (NASA’s Classroom of the Future) <http://www.cet.edu/profdev/main.html>
Illinois Math and Science Academy <http://www.imsa.edu/team/cpbl/cpbl.html>
Education by Design <http://www.edbydesign.org/assoc/courses.html>
Samford University <http://www.samford.edu/pbl/pbl_main.html>
The University of Delaware <http://www.udel.edu/pbl/>
University of Maastricht <http://www.unimaas.nl/pbl/>
List server: Send the command SUBSCRIBE PBLIST
Firstname Lastname in the body of an e-mail message to listproc@sparky.uthscsa.edu
Page 6
Speaking of Teaching Winter 2001
Shelton, J. B., & Smith, R. F. (1998). “Problem-based
Available on-line at: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/
learning in analytical science undergraduate teach-
jan95-chem.html.
ing.” Research in Science and Technological
Education, 16 (1), 19-29.
Wilkerson, L. (1996). “Tutors and small groups in
problem-based learning: Lessons from the litera-
Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human understanding: Collec-
ture.” In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.),
tive use and understanding of concepts. New Jersey:
Bringing problem-based learning to higher educa-
Princeton University Press.
tion: Theory and practice (pp. 23-32). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vernon, D. T. & Blake, R. L. (1993). “Does problem-
based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative
Wilkerson, L., & Gijselaers, W. H. (1996). “Concluding
research.” Academic Medicine, 68 (7), 550-563.
comments.” In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers
(Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher
White, H. (1995). “‘Creating problems’ for PBL.”
education: Theory and practice (pp. 101-104). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
New CTL Associate Director
The Center for Teaching and Learning welcomes Valerie Ross as our new Associate Director for the
Humanities. Valerie comes to us from the Stanford Introduction to Humanities Program, where she
was a Teaching Fellow and Course Coordinator for three years. As the long awaited replacement for
former Associate Director for the Humanities Jack Prostko, Valerie will be working with faculty,
teaching fellows and teaching assistants in the humanities, presenting a variety of teaching and
training workshops, and taking over the editorial production of this newsletter.
Valerie received her Ph.D. in comparative medieval literature from the University of California
Santa Cruz in 1995 and has been involved in teacher training and pedagogy development for over
ten years. She is particularly interested in methods for helping students cultivate critical skills, and
will be offering a critical skills building workshop for CTL in the Spring.
With additional background in Shakespeare studies, women’s literature, and journalism, Valerie
brings a broad range of reference to her approaches to teaching and writing. She has taught several
courses in these areas for the Continuing Studies Program and has assisted Lynn Freeman in the
Undergraduate Advising Center with training new peer writing tutors for the last two years.
Please feel free to contact Valerie Ross to welcome her and to set up a meeting to chat about your
own thoughts about teaching in the humanities. If you have any particular issues you would like to
discuss, she is also available for one-on-one consultations at your convenience. Valerie is also
planning to set up regular editorial columns in the CTL newsletter for graduate students and faculty
from the humanities and the sciences to share their views about teaching and would welcome your
submissions.
Valerie Ross can be reached through email at: varlet@stanford.edu; by phone, 723-6487; or just drop
by her office on the fourth floor of Sweet Hall, room 426.
Speaking of Teaching Winter 2001
Page 7
AWARD WINNING TEACHERS ON TEACHING SERIES
Spring Quarter 2001
Professor Keith Loague
Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences
“Teaching Strategies for Case-Based Learning:
Environmental Problems in the Classroom”
April 19, 12:00 noon – 1:00 pm
Hartley Conference Center, Mitchell Earth Sciences Building
Feel free to brownbag your lunch . . . We’ll provide drinks and desserts
NOMINATIONS FOR THE WALTER J. GORES AWARD
FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING
Awards will be presented to a senior faculty member
or senior lecturer, a junior faculty member
or member of the teaching staff, and two teaching assistants
Nominations must be received by Monday, April 2
For information or to submit nominations, please contact:
Subcommittee on University and Departmental Honors
c/o Registrar’s Office
Old Union 135
Mail Code: 3005
Page 8
Speaking of Teaching Winter 2001
