See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259873856

A Comparative Study of the Effect of Problem Based Learning and Traditional

Learning Approaches on Students' Knowledge Acquisition

Article in International Journal of Engineering Education · May 2012

CITATIONS READS

26 5,156

2 authors:

Alias Bin Masek Sulaiman Yamin

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
71 PUBLICATIONS 759 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 333 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alias Bin Masek on 11 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

A comparative study of the effect of Problem Based Learning and Traditional Learning Approaches on
students’ knowledge acquisition

Alias Masek and Sulaiman Yamin

Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education,

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Johor,
Malaysia

Correspondence author email: [email protected]

Abstract
This paper investigates the effect of Problem Based Learning (PBL) compared to a conventional approach, on
students’ knowledge acquisition, specific to concepts, principles, and procedures. This study employed an
experiment, a pre-test, and a post-test, with control group designs. Participants were 53 first semester electrical
engineering undergraduate students, attending the Electrical Technology (ET101) module. Participants completed a
pre-test and a post-test of multiple choice questions, of a two unit syllabus after ten weeks of treatment. Results
suggested that student principles and procedure knowledge acquisition within the PBL group increased to
outperform their counterparts. However, students using the conventional approach performed much better in concept
knowledge acquisition. Given the whole structure of concepts, principles, and procedures, PBL enhanced students’
knowledge acquisition in the electrical engineering course, compared to the conventional approach. This study also
discusses the implication of PBL within engineering education.

Key words: Problem Based Learning; engineering education; electrical engineering; knowledge acquisition

1. Introduction
With recent developments in the engineering workplace, engineering education providers should comprehend the
needs of the workplace engineering problem. Graduates must be capable of conceptually understanding a problem,
and be capable of applying their knowledge to solve real-world complex engineering problems effectively. One new
popular method addresses the needs of the engineering workplace requirement of engineers is using PBL [1, 2]. This
method has been widely claimed for promoting students’ learning, especially enhancing knowledge acquisition and
promoting students’ ability to apply knowledge in real world situations. This assertion is clearly supported in several
previous research findings, within engineering disciplines; particularly electrical engineering [3, 4]. In fact, PBL is
generally ideal for epistemological competence, in the aspect of better knowledge understanding, application, and
management, in solving a problem [5].
PBL is anchored by Students Centred Learning (SCL) concepts that follow constructivist learning theory
principles [6, 7]. In this theory, knowledge is internally imposed by the individual, when the cognitive processes are
situated in physical and social contexts [8]. In other words, knowledge is learnt in a socially mediated process,
whereby students learn many concepts during social interactions. An understanding of a new concept is built based
on both current and previous knowledge and experience [6].
In accordance of the current trend of research, knowledge acquisition is a common variable of interest in
evaluating PBL effectiveness, which can be measured in a specific manner. Sugrue [9] proposed an explicit method
of assessing knowledge structure according to concepts, principles, and procedures. During instruction, it is important
for students’ learning to reach these three levels of knowledge structure. Students learn concepts, understand
principles, and apply specific concepts and principles, to a condition. When students’ learning reaches these three
levels of knowledge structure, they internalize and structure that knowledge in their mind, which helps them to retain
knowledge longer, so that it is easily accessible in the future [10].
Although PBL has been widely accepted internationally and adapted within multiple educational disciplines,
a review reveals a gap in determining the effect of PBL instruction on students’ concepts, principles, and procedures
of knowledge acquisition [10, 11]. This may be due to several predictors that are associated with PBL design and
learning outcomes, such as the quality of problem’s design [12], the method of facilitation [13], and the strategy of
assessment [10]. In this paper, we examine the effects of PBL on students’ knowledge acquisition, in order to provide
an insight into specific concepts, principles, and procedures, within an electrical engineering context. Based on
existing PBL models, a special design of PBL procedures was used, which focused on these predictors to stimulate
THE EFFECT OF PBL ON KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITIONS 2

students’ knowledge acquisition. The experiment revealed that students’ knowledge increased; indicating the
effectiveness of PBL as an instructional method, compared to conventional approaches.

2. Problem Based Learning Research

The McMaster’s Medical School PBL model was the first model established in 1974 [14], since PBL was emerged at
the McMaster’s University in 1965 [15]. To date, PBL model has been evolved and used worldwide, including
Australia [16], Denmark [14], Iran [17], and Singapore [1].
PBL is a challenging and enjoyable learning approach [18], which has resulted from the process of working
towards understanding or resolving a problem [15]. During instruction, students solve a real-world problem (or
simulation) in a physical work space. Students learn concepts and principles through the process of problem solving,
based on specific learning goals [6]. Within this, the authenticity of the real-world problem promotes students’
ability to apply and relate these concepts and principles [6]. Their interaction with the environment helps them to
translate the concepts and principles learned, into new work practices [19]. Subsequently, these concepts and
principles are converted into procedural knowledge, when they reach a certain level of higher performance [20].
In PBL literature, several authors have agreed that deep-content learning is one of the PBL intended learning
outcomes [7]. In fact, evidence suggests that students engaged in deep-content learning, improved their ultimate
learning outcomes [10, 21]. It is generally agreed that students’ performance and learning outcomes are associated
with PBL components. The quality of the problem determines the students’ “deep-content knowledge acquisition,”
which is explained in terms of concepts, principles, and procedures [12]. Unlike conventional approaches, using a
lecture-based method, students’ learning reaches at concepts and principles by rote memorization [10] and thus, may
be difficult to reach the highest levels. Other components, such as the role of the facilitator [1], and the strategy of
assessment [10], serve as supportive elements to students’ knowledge acquisition.
A review of recent experimental research reveals that most of studies measured students’ knowledge
acquisition without specifying specific knowledge structures. The result is that students in PBL groups significantly
increased their knowledge acquisition, compared to students using a conventional approach [22, 23]. Only a few
researches reported the three levels of knowledge according to concepts, principles, and procedures. In this context,
the majority of studies indicated that PBL contributed positively to students’ knowledge acquisition, in the aspects of
concepts and principles. For instance, a quasi-experiment by Capon and Kuhn [24] demonstrated that PBL students
had better concept acquisition compared to their conventional counterparts. In Bilgin et al. [25], the true experimental
study indicated that PBL students outperformed their conventional counterparts in concepts and principles
acquisition, after ten hours of PBL treatments.
However, several other studies also demonstrated that PBL had no more advantages than conventional
learning approaches on students’ concepts and principles knowledge acquisition. This was indicated by a quasi-
experimental study by Dehkordi and Heydarnejad [17], when participants, comprised of 40 students, demonstrated
positive effects on students’ higher cognitive levels, such as application; but not in understanding levels, such as
recall concepts. Similar findings were also illustrated by Sendaq and Odabas [26], through their comparison of PBL
versus conventional approaches, which resulted in no-significant difference in students’ concepts and principles
knowledge acquisition.
In a wider context of educational disciplines, either in a true or quasi-experimental study, the effectiveness
of PBL in promoting the knowledge of procedures or applications seems to remain inconclusive in any findings. A
number evidences suggests that PBL does not enhance students’ knowledge of procedures or applications, compared
to conventional approaches. For example, a quasi-experimental study by Van Den Bossche et al. [27] found no-
significant difference in students’ knowledge of procedures or applications in a PBL Macroeconomic course;
compared to their conventional counterparts. This finding was supported by Sanderson’s [28] study of Sports
Science; when students in PBL groups did not enhance their knowledge of procedures or applications after 15 weeks
of PBL treatment; compared to students using conventional approaches.
Several studies demonstrated that PBL was more effective in constructing students’ knowledge of
procedures or applications, compared to conventional approaches. This was also indicated by Capon and Kuhn [24],
when students in PBL showed better knowledge of procedures or applications by demonstrating their ability to apply
knowledge to a specific test case. This similar finding was also illustrated by Dehkordi and Heydarnejad [17]. Also,
when compared to Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain, PBL appeared to be effective in promoting students’
learning at higher cognitive levels of application and evaluation, but less effective for lower cognitive levels [29].
A systematic review in the medical field supported that students in PBL gained slightly less factual
knowledge of concepts and principles [11]. Furthermore, there was no convincing evidence to support that the PBL
instructional approach improved students’ knowledge and clinical performance [30]. Given the knowledge, as a
whole structure of concepts, principles, and procedures; Gijbel et al. [10] supported that the systematic evidence on
the effectiveness of PBL was more likely to be equivocal according to these structures; across multiple educational
disciplines that justifies the need of this research in engineering education.
THE EFFECT OF PBL ON KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITIONS 3

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design

Experimental, pre-test and post-tests, with control group design, were implemented in July 2011 on undergraduate
students, attending Electrical Technology Module (ET101) in their first semester, in the Malaysian Polytechnic.

3.2 Participants
A total of 53 students participants were selected according to two stages of cluster sampling technique [31]. In the
first stage of sampling, two out of twenty-two polytechnics were selected, namely Polytechnic A (N = 27) and
Polytechnic B (N = 26). In the second stage of sampling, a class (element) in each of these polytechnics was
randomly selected according to lecturers, without studying students’ characteristics first. These classes were
randomly assigned to either the experimental (Polytechnic A) or the control group (Polytechnic B). Both groups were
then exposed to ten weeks of instructions (PBL versus conventional approach), given a pre-test in the first weeks and
a post-test in the twelfth week. In this study, the homogeneity of two classes was confirmed by the pre-test data,
which was not significantly different (Levene’s statistic = .777; p = .383).

3.3 Experimental Procedures

The unit of instruction used for this study, involves two selected units of the Electrical Technology (ET101) module
syllabus (Units 3 and 4).
• An Introduction to Electric Circuits
• DC Equivalent Circuits and Network Theorems
These two major units accommodate a timeframe of 14 hours of lecture and 20 hours of laboratory practical within an
eight to ten weeks period. In this study, the timeframe for these units of instruction was prefixed into ten weeks for
both groups. Students were first given a pre-test before the treatment began and a post-test after completing the ten
weeks of treatment.
Control group instruction procedures: In brief, the procedures for the control group were retained according
to the existing setting (i.e., conventional approach). Teaching Units 3 and 4, the lecture was for a two hour meeting
session in the classroom with an additional two hours for laboratory session within one week. In this case, the lecturer
typically delivered information and facts, explained terms, symbols, concepts, and procedures. Students acted as
passive learners. In certain learning topics e.g., ‘Kirchhoff’s Law’, the lecturer introduced the theorem before
showing some examples of application and calculation on a whiteboard. Due to the nature of these topics’ content,
with a large number of concepts and principles, the teaching approach using lecturing has always been the primary
method of instruction. This instruction continued for 10 weeks in parallel with the experimental group.
Experimental group instruction procedures: The procedures were appropriately designed based on the
standard of PBL practice provided by Koschmann [32]. A framework from Arts et al. [33] was used, which contained
the three dimensions that influence cognitive outcomes, namely task dimension, control dimension, and social
dimension. A variety of steps and processes that are typically used in existing pioneering models were studied, such
as the Aalborg Model, McMaster Model, Republic Polytechnic Model, etc. These steps were summarized according
to three key success factors, namely problem orientation, implementation method, and assessment strategy [34].
During the ten weeks of PBL treatment, students were scheduled to solve five problems related to these two
ET101 module topics. Within these, students were scheduled to have a two week problem solving period, in order to
complete one cycle of the PBL procedures. The first week’s sessions were generally devoted to groups receiving
problem scenarios. The second week was devoted to assessment activities. The subject-centric problem was used as a
trigger [35] and a ten-minute mini-lecture was used to fill the gaps within the subject-centric problem [7].
During the first tutorial session, students were divided into heterogeneous groups consisting of four to five
members each [14]. A leader was then appointed and rotated for each PBL problem. All groups received the problem
in the form of a written scenario. Each group was given several documents, including a problem analysis table,
humanistic skills rubric, process skills rubric, and grading forms. A facilitator then conducted a mini-lecture to
introduce the problem, explain several important concepts, and the students’ role. Then, the PBL groups immediately
began work to understand the problem.
During the problem solving, a floating facilitator concept was applied, where the facilitator moved from one
group to another, in order to probe and facilitate students through the process of understanding the problem [1, 7]. In
between meeting sessions, students were encouraged to conduct independent self-studies [1] and independent group
discussions. Students were also free to collaborate with relevant experts [14].
During the final meeting session, the major activities involved information sharing, assessment, and a
feedback process [36]. The groups took turns to present their solution proposal. These short presentations were
conducted in a group-based format, with all group members presenting their part [14]. While this was going on, the
other groups performed peer-assessments to evaluate the other groups’ performances. At the end of the presentation
THE EFFECT OF PBL ON KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITIONS 4

session, students were asked to rate their team members’ performance, according to the rubric rating scale [37]. The
facilitator immediately provided feedback to each group [7]. The facilitator and the students then generalized the
learning experience, relevant to their learning outcomes.

3.4 Instruments
A set of Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) tests, consisting of 36 selected items, was developed to measure students’
knowledge acquisition, according concepts (e.g., current, resistance), principles (e.g., relationship of current and
resistance), and procedures (e.g., using Ohm’s law) [9]. In order to ensure the validity of the measurement, items
were selected according to the module’s intended learning outcomes (of the two topics), as well as the lecturers’
consent. Finally, 12 questions were used to fairly measure each level of knowledge structure, based on the test
specification table. The specific difficulty levels were based on Bloom’s taxonomy [38], which was detailed
according to McMillan [39]. The estimated internal consistency coefficient was 0.62, which was above the range of
modest reliability (0.5 to 0.6), and deemed acceptable for the purpose of research [40].

4. Results
Three students (Experimental group = 2; Control group = 1) dropped out from the polytechnic, and one student form
the control group did not attend the post-test. The remaining 49’s completed pairs of data were included in the
analysis. Within these, males were dominant representing 84% (N = 41) of the respondents, whilst females
represented 16% (N = 8). However, gender was equally distributed in both groups. The majority of students were 18
years old except two students who were 19 years old and above.
A number of factors were held constant. These included the lecturers, students, polytechnic administration,
instruction duration, and the topics of instruction. Groups variance were homogeneous, since both groups pre-tests on
knowledge were not significantly different [F (1, 46) = 1.75, p >.05]. The descriptive statistic and Analysis of
Covariance (ANCOVA) were used to analyse the completed pairs of data (N =49). The results are given in Tables1
and 2.

Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of knowledge acquisition

Grouping Mean score SD
Experimental group
Pre-test score 16.56 2.551
Post-test score 22.92 4.092
Control group
Pre-test score 15.96 3.085
Post-test score 20.25 3.791

Table 2. ANCOVA for knowledge acquisition test scores

Source of variation d.f. Sum of squares Mean square F Sig. level
Pre-test knowledge 1 280.487 280.487 28.554 .000
Instructions 1 55.927 55.927 5.694 .021
Error 46 451.853 9.823
Total 49 23707.000
Corrected total 48 819.633
a. R Square = .449 (Adjusted R Squared = .425)

Table 1 indicates that the mean score for the post-tests on knowledge acquisition in the experimental group,
exceeds the mean score of the control group, with 22.92 (SD = 4.09) and 20.25 (SD = 3.79), respectively. As shown
in Table 2, further analysis indicates that knowledge acquisition is significant [F (1, 46) = 5.69, p < .05], indicates a
significant difference between groups on knowledge acquisition scores when controlling for pre-test knowledge
acquisition score. Therefore, students taught using PBL scored higher on knowledge acquisitions than the students
taught using the conventional approach. The effect size (.68) was medium, with a power of 0.32.
Detailed analysis was performed using Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) to test specific
knowledge acquisitions according to knowledge structures. The post-test mean of concepts acquisition indicates that
the control group (M = 8.17, S.D = 1.83) scored higher than the experimental group (M = 7.80, SD = 2.12); but both
groups were not significantly different in mean concepts acquisition [F (1, 44) = .849, p > .05]. However, the post-
test mean of principles acquisition in the experimental group (M = 7.52, SD = 1.74) was higher than the control group
(M = 5.42, SD = 1.86). As a result, both groups were significantly different in principles knowledge acquisition [F (1,
44) = 18.72, p < .05]. The effect size (1.17) was large with a power of 0.50. The post-test mean of procedures
acquisition in the experimental group (M = 8.00, SD = 2.06) was also higher than the control group (M = 6.71, SD =
1.78). Further analysis indicates that both groups were significantly different in mean procedures acquisition [F (1,
THE EFFECT OF PBL ON KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITIONS 5

44) = 5.01, p > .05]. The effect size (1.21) was large with a power of 0.52. Details of each analysis are shown in
Table 3.

Table 3. MANCOVA for concepts acquisition scores

Knowledge Group Mean S.D. F Sig.
structure (Post-test) level
Concepts Experiment 7.80 2.121
Control 8.17 1.834 .849 .362
Principles Experiment 7.52 1.735
Control 5.42 1.863 18.724 .000
Procedures Experiment 8.00 2.062
Control 6.71 1.781 5.005 .030

5. Discussion
These findings reaffirmed earlier studies, where PBL significantly increases students’ knowledge acquisition,
compared to a conventional approach [22, 23]. These findings follow the theory that PBL enhances students’
knowledge acquisition; as explained by previous researchers [6]. The theory states that in a PBL environment,
learning occurs when students attempt to solve a problem. Students faced with a cognitive conflict, interact with the
environment, and construct knowledge based on previous knowledge and experience. Specific knowledge was learnt
based on specific learning goals during the problem solving [6].
From the specific knowledge structures’ point of view, these findings suggest that PBL promotes student’s
knowledge acquisition (in the aspect of principles and procedural knowledge), compared to a conventional approach.
This can be justified in regards to the learning approaches used in both methods. Many authors have proposed that
specific approaches used in PBL, promotes students’ deep-content learning [7]; since it improves the quality of PBL
intended learning outcomes [21]. In regards to this study sample, students in PBL may engage in deep-content
learning during the process of solving PBL problems; particularly during discussion sessions, brainstorming, debate
sessions, interaction, reflection, feedback, and teaching each other [41]. Moreover, previous research suggests that
students achieve deep-content learning when they are capable of understanding the relationship of concepts
(principles) and applying them to a condition (knowledge of procedures) [20, 21].
Several previous PBL experimental research findings reported on concepts and principles, resulting in
positive findings [3, 4, 27, 24, 25]. However, the results of this study contradict in the aspect of concepts, but support
the positive findings in the aspect of principles knowledge acquisition. Concepts and principles are normally defined
as a declarative knowledge, which is ‘know-that’, while the knowledge of procedures is known as ‘know-why’ or
‘know-how’ [20]. From this perspective, students may learn electrical engineering declarative knowledge as a
separate element between concepts and principles. As explained by Sugrue [9] this is because a domain, such as
electrical engineering content, has explicit concepts and principles. Thus, understanding the first level of individual
concepts, such as resistance, current, and voltage, seems much easier; but to understand the relationships of these
concepts (principles) is at the next level, which sometimes requires much more effort for students to achieve.
However, these results reaffirmed the meta-analysis findings of Gijbel et al. [10], where PBL enhanced students’
knowledge acquisition in the aspect of principles and procedures.
In this study, students in PBL were better in knowledge acquisition, compared to students in a conventional
approach, in the aspect of understanding procedures. Several previous studies showed the same result [17, 24, 29].
Additionally, these findings also align with the purpose of PBL for epistemological competence, as highlighted by
Savin-Baden [5]. However, in regards to this study’s limitations, there is a doubt for the effectiveness of PBL when
compared to a conventional approach; especially in promoting students procedural knowledge within these two
topics, which content with a simple and straightforward procedural knowledge. This provided a limited space for
multidisciplinary learning for PBL students in their first year. In this case, PBL may not be efficient for procedural
knowledge within the boundary of the subject-centric problem. The PBL problem should imply that the nature of a
real world problem is typically complex, ill-structured, and involves a multidisciplinary context of solution [2].
Therefore, it is argued that PBL could be more efficient for nurturing students’ procedural knowledge during the
latter years of their course.
In addition, this study found that students in a conventional approach were much better in concepts
acquisition, and outperformed students in PBL. This finding is supported by several previous studies’ results [11].
Students in a conventional approach were better at memorizing more concepts or facts, but their memory retention
was less compared to students in PBL. The possible reason for this is that in PBL, students undergo a process of
learning through group brainstorming and discussion sessions [1, 7], in which certain concepts or facts are better
understood. However, students in a conventional approach undergo a process of learning through listening and rote
memorization that may make it difficult to reach the next highest level.
THE EFFECT OF PBL ON KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITIONS 6

6. Conclusion
Based on these findings, it is concluded that students engaged in PBL had better knowledge acquisition in the aspect
of principles and procedures, compared to the conventional approach students. This result implies that nowadays, the
method of instruction should focus on the application of knowledge or ‘know-how’ or ‘know-why’, rather than
focusing on ‘know-what’; as per the conventional approach. The ability to apply knowledge is one of the necessary
competences in solving problems in an engineering workplace environment; as highlighted by Jonassen et al. In this
capacity, PBL is able enhance students’ ability to apply knowledge, even in an unreal engineering problem that was
proven in this study. Further research is suggested in order to investigate students’ knowledge retention in respect to
concept, principles, and procedures. Knowledge retention is critical, in order to ensure that students internalize
knowledge within their field of expertise; especially before students graduate.

Acknowledgments
The author/authors would like to thank Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia for supporting this research under the
Postgraduates Incentive Research Grant

Reference
1. K.N.L. Wee, Jump Start Authentic Problem Based Learning, Prentice Hall Pearson Education South Asia Pte.
Ltd., Singapore, 2004.
2. D. Jonassen, J. Stobel, and C.B. Lee, Everyday problem solving in engineering: lesson for engineering educators,
Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 2006, pp. 139-151.
3. A. Mantri, S. Dutt, J.P. Gupta, and M. Chitkara, Using PBL to deliver course in digital electronics, Advances in
Engineering Education, 2009, pp. 1-17.
4. A. Yadav, D. Subedi, M.A. Lundeberg and C.F. Bunting, Problem Based Learning: Influence on students’
learning in an electrical engineering course, Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 2011, pp. 253-280.
5. M. Savin-Baden, Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories, Open University Press,
Buckingham, 2000.
6. J. R. Savery and T.M. Duffy, Problem Based Learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework,
2011, http://java.cs.vt.edu/public/classes/communities/ readings/Savery-Duffy-ConstructivePBL.pdf, Accessed 3
April 2011.
7. C. E. Hmelo-Silver, Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review,
16, 2004, pp. 235–266.
8. D.H. Schunk, Learning theories: An educational perspective, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2004.
9. B. Sugrue, A theory-based framework for assessing domain specific problem solving ability, Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(3), 1995, pp. 29-36.
10. D. Gijbels, F. Dochy, P. Van den Bossche and M. Segers, Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis
from the angle of assessment, Rev. of Edu. Research, 75, 2005, pp. 27–61.
11. F. Dochy, M. Segers, P. Ven den Bossche and D. Gijbels, Effect of problem based learning: a meta-analysis,
Learning and Instruction, 13, 2003, 553-568.
12. W. Hung, The 3C3R model: A conceptual framework for designing problem in PBL, The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem Based learning, 1(1), 2006, 55-75.
13. M. Savin-Baden, Facilitating Problem Based Learning: Illuminating Perspectives, Open University Press,
Buckinghan, 2003.
14. A. Kolmos, S. Kuru, H. Hansen, T. Eskil, L. Podesta, F. Fink, E. de Graaff, J.U. Wolf and A. Soylu, Problem
Based Learning: Special Interest Group B5, 2007, http://www3.unifi.it/tree/dl/oc/b5.pdf, Accessed 12 Mei 2011.
15. H. S. Barrows and R. Tamblyn, Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education, Springer
Publishing, New York, 1980.
16. L. Brodie and O. Borch, Choosing PBL paradigms: experiences and methods of two universities, Proceeding of
15th annual AAEE conference, Toowoomba, Australia, 27 - 29th Sept 2004, 2004.
17. A.H. Dehkordi and M.S. Heydarnejad, The impact of problem based learning and lecturing on the behaviour and
attitudes of Iranian nursing students, Danish Medical Bulletin, 55(4), 2008, pp. 224-226.
18. G.R. Norman and H.G. Schmidt, Effectiveness of problem based learning curricula: Theory, practice and paper
darts, Medical Education, 34, 2000, pp. 721-728.
19. D. Garvin, Building a Learning Organization, Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 1993, pp. 78-91.
20. J. Winterton, F. Delamare-Le Deist and E. Stringfellow, Typology of Knowledge, Skills and Competences:
Clarification of the Concept and Prototype, Office for Official Publication of the European Community,
Luxembourg, 2006.
21. A.K. Serife, The effects of computer supported problem based learning on students’ approach to learning,
Current Issues in Education, 14(1), 2011, pp. 1-18.
 THE EFFECT OF PBL ON KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITIONS 7

22. J.R. Mergendoller, N.L. Maxwell and Y. Bellisimo, The effectiveness of problem based instruction: a
comparative study of instructional method and student characteristics, Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem
Based Learning, 1(2), 2008, pp. 46-69.
23. N. Finkelstein, T. Hanson, C.W. Huang, B. Hirschman, M. Huan and O.C. Park, Effects of Problem Based
Economic on high school economics instruction, Institute of Education Science, United State, 2010.
24. N. Capon and D. Kuhn, What’s so good about problem based learning? Cognitive and Instruction, 22(1), 2004,
pp. 61-79.
25. I. Bilgin, E. Senocak and M. Sozbilir, The effect of problem based learning instruction on university students’
performance of conceptual and quantitative problem in gas concepts, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science,
and Technology Education, 5(2), 2009, pp. 153-164.
26. S. Sendaq and H.F. Odabas, Effect of problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and
critical thinking skills, Computers and Edu., 53(1), 2009, pp. 132-141.
27. P. Van den Bossche, M. Segars, D. Gijbels and F. Dochy, Effects of Problem Based Learning in business
education: A comparison between PBL and a conventional educational approach, Review of Educational
Research, 75(1), 2001, pp. 27-61.
28. H. Sanderson, Comparison of Problem Based Learning and Traditional Lecture Instruction on Critical Thinking,
Knowledge, and Application of Strength and Condition (Unpublished doctoral thesis), University of North
Carolina, 2008.
29. M.T.M. Alcazar and V.L. Fitzgerald, An experimental design to study the effectiveness of PBL in higher
education, in first year of science students at a University in Peru, South America, College Quarterly, 8(2), 2005,
pp. 1-19.
30. J.A. Colliver, The effect of problem based learning curricula: research and theory, Academic Medicine, 75, 2000,
pp. 259-266.
31. T.R. Black, Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences: An integrated approach to research design,
measurement and statistic, Sage Publication Ltd, London, 1999.
32. T. Koschmann, Dewey's Contribution to a Standard of Problem-Based Learning Practice, Proceedings of the 1st
European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Maastricht University, 22-24 March
2001, 2001.
33. J.A.R. Arts, W.H. Gijselaers and M.S.R. Segers, Cognitive effects of an authentic computer-supported, problem
based learning environment, Instructional Sci., 30, 2002, pp. 465-495.
34. A. Masek and S. Yamin, Problem Based Learning model: A collection from the literature, Asian Social Science,
6(8), 2010, pp. 148-156.
35. A. Kolmos, Reflection on project work and problem based learning, European Journal of Engineering
Education, 21(2), 1996, pp. 141-148.
36. R. McDonald and M. Savin-Baden, A briefing on assessment in Problem Based Learning, 2004,
http://www.heacademy.ac. uk/resources/ detail /id 349_A_Briefing_on_Assessment_in_Problembased_Learning,
Accessed 18 January 2011.
37. M. Foldevi, G. Sommansson and E. Trell, Problem based medical education in general practice: experience from
Linkoping, Sweden, British Jrnal. of Gen. Practice, 44, 1994, pp. 473-476.
38. B.S. Bloom. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain, David McKay Co Inc.,
New York, 1956.
39. J.H. McMillan, Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practice for Effective Instruction, Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, 1997.
40. D. Ary, L.C. Jacobs and C.K. Sorensen, Introduction to Research in Education, Cencage Learning, Wadswoth,
USA, 2010.
41. P.A. Weissinger, Critical thinking, meta-cognition, and problem based learning, in O.S. Tan (Eds.), Enhancing
thinking through problem based learning approach: International perspectives, Thomson, Singapore, 2004.

Alias Masek is a post-graduate student in the Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education in the Universiti Tun
Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM). He earned his first degree, Bach. in electrical engineering in 2003 from UTHM. His
master was in Technical and Vocational Education, and currently pursuing PhD in the same field (Teaching and
learning) in UTHM. His current field of research interest is Problem Based Learning in Engineering Education.

Sulaiman Yamin is a Professor in the Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education in the Universiti Tun Hussein
Onn Malaysia (UTHM). He obtained his BSc from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in 1977, MSc and PhD degrees
from the Oregon State University respectively in 1980 and 1988.

View publication stats