Bethel University

Spark

All Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2019

Problem Based Learning: the Impact on Classroom Environment

and Student Engagement
Peter D. Gosen
Bethel University

Follow this and additional works at: https://spark.bethel.edu/etd

Part of the Education Commons

Recommended Citation
Gosen, P. D. (2019). Problem Based Learning: the Impact on Classroom Environment and Student
Engagement [Masterʼs thesis, Bethel University]. Spark Repository. https://spark.bethel.edu/etd/242

This Masterʼs thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Spark. It has been accepted for inclusion in All
Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Spark.
PROBLEM BASED LEARNING: THE IMPACT ON CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

A MASTER’S THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

OF BETHEL UNIVERSITY

BY

PETER GOSEN

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

FEBRUARY 2019
 2

BETHEL UNIVERSITY

PROBLEM BASED LEARNING: THE IMPACT ON CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

PETER GOSEN

FEBRUARY 2019
 3

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my loving wife for all of her support and guidance while working

on my thesis. I would also like to thank my friends and family who encouraged me,

pushed me and read my thesis. Without all of those people who have supported me I

would not have been able to put forth my best effort.

 4

Abstract

This literature review will look at the implications of Problem Based Learning and its

effects on student’s engagement in their learning. The research shows that students need

to have a good foundation in the content information for Problem Based Learning to be

successful. Along with this much of the research takes place at the collegiate level. The

studies show that Problem Based Learning does have a positive impact on students

learning and engagement compared to Lecture Based Learning. The structure of Problem

Based Learning lends to the educational flexibility and gives students the ability to apply

real world strategies to solve the problems that are presented.

 5

Table of Contents

Signature Page…………………………………………………………………………….2
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..3
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………............4
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………….5
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………...............7
Chapter I: Introduction……………………………………………………………………8
Main Goals of Problem Based Learning…………………………………………12
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………..…......12
Research Questions……………………………………………………................13
Chapter II: Literature Review…………………………………………………................14
Research Strategies………………………………………………………………14
Relationship between the Theory and the Implementation…………………........15
Theories behind Problem Based Learning……………………………………….15
Implementation of Problem Based Learning…………………………………….21
Comparison between Traditional and Problem Based Learning………………...22
Motivational Aspects of Learning Environments………………………………..31
Autonomy-Supportive Teachers…………………………………………………31
Meaningful and Challenging tasks……………………………………………….32
Positive Motivation and Feedback……………………………………………….33
Collaboration……………………………………………………………………..34
Scaffolding……………………………………………………………………….35
Characteristics: The method of Problem Based Learning……………………….35
Comparing Problem Based Learning Methods…………………………………..40
Curriculum and Classroom Concerns in PBL……………………………………44
Chapter III: Discussion and Conclusion…………………………………………………48
Summary of Research……………………………………………………………48
Limitations of the Research……………………………………………...............50
Implications for Future Research………………………………………...............51
Implications for Professional Application……………………………………….52
 6

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….54
References………………………………………………………………………..56
 7

List of Tables
Table Page
1. Comparing Learning Styles……………………………………………………19
 8

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

What is the foundational element of education? Is it to have students graduate

from high school with a set of skills to aid them in their future? Or is it to teach students

to be better people who can bring a positive impact to society? The answer is both! The

world of education is a world that is ever changing and one that strives to draw the best

out of every student. For decades, teachers have been driven to find a method in which to

engage their students and to have a finished product that shows understanding, if not

mastery, of a subject. The question we need to be asking as educators is how are we

giving our students the skills to show mastery of a specific content and will those skills

support them for the rest of their lives?

Over my limited years of teaching I have learned that there is no one magical way

to teach students. However, a method that has been influential in the education of

thousands of learners is Problem Based Learning. Problem Based Learning or PBL’s

foundations are found in the teachings of Confucius and Aristotle, strong supporters of

learning by doing. The great philosopher Socrates used PBL strategies by learning

through questioning, inquiry and critical thinking. These strategies still remain relevant to

today’s students over two thousand years later.

The focus of this literature review is on how Problem Based Learning affects a

variety of learners and more importantly how it can increase motivation and engagement

for students in the learning process within our classrooms. But first, to understand the

direct impact of Problem Based Learning, there is a need to understand the history and

vocabulary behind it.

 9

The one name that is synonymous with Project Based Learning is 20th century

American educational theorist and philosopher John Dewey. John Dewey challenges the

educational structure of the time where students are placed in rows and sit through long

lectures. In this structure students are passively receiving knowledge and teachers

statically giving facts. Dewey believes that students should be actively engaged in their

learning and have an active say in what they learn. Dewey believes that education is

preparing students for ongoing learning in an ever changing world (Carver & Enfield,

2006).

Dewey’s basis for education inspired Maria Montessori to continue to look at

methods in which she believes that education is best through doing and experiencing not

by listening. The focus of her educational practices are with early childhood. Her theories

inspire the school system that holds her name. There are over twenty-two thousand

Montessori schools across the world.

From these great philosophers and educational minds came Problem Based

Learning, but in today’s literature there are many definitions and PBL has been described

in a variety of ways. PBL is used to refer to a vast number of concepts and approaches to

instruction that have anchors in student focused concrete problems (Evenson & Hmelo,

2000). This focus on “answer a specific problem” as the beginning of the learning

process is a core in many of the definitions of PBL. R.W. Marx states that learning taking

place in project based classrooms allows students to investigate an essential question to

find answers (Marx, Blumenfeld, Karjcick, & Soloway, 2004). Within Project Based

Learning the question or problem is encountered in the beginning stage of the PBL

process.
 10

Vernon and Blake (1993, p. 550) defined PBL by its instructional design

components, student’s mental process and the teacher's’ role: “a method of learning (or

teaching) that emphasizes (1) the study of clinical cases, either real or hypothetical, (2)

small discussion groups, (3) collaborative independent study, (4) hypothetical deductive

reasoning, and (5) a style of faculty direction that concentrates on group progress rather

than imparting information.” This diverse range of aspects for PBL makes it very hard to

have a specific definition. Barrow’s (1996) model of PBL is focused on six core

characteristics:

1. Learning is student-centered.

2. Learning occurs in small student groups.

3. A tutor (educator) is present as facilitator or guide.

4. Authentic problems are presented at the beginning of the learning

sequence, before any preparation or study has occurred.

5. The problems encountered are used as tools to achieve the required

knowledge and the problem-solving skills necessary to eventually

solve the problems.

6. New information is acquired through self-directed learning.

Looking at Hmelo-Silver’s (2004) structure of PBL, it follows a similar pattern. In

the six steps the educator is evaluating during steps 2 through step 6. At all points in time

students are taking part in self-directed learning.

1. Problem/Scenario

2. Identify Facts

3. Generate Hypotheses
 11

4. Identify knowledge deficiencies

5. Apply new knowledge

6. Demonstrate findings

Mergendoller, Markham, Ravitz, and Larmer (2006) also provide a reasoning that

they have determined captures the many integral parts of PBL to create a definition. They

explain PBL as such, “a systemic teaching method that engages students in learning

essential knowledge and life-enhancing skills through extended, student-influenced

inquiry process that is structured around complex, authentic questions and carefully

designed products and tasks” (p.587).

Like the definition of Problem Based Learning, so too is the broad definition of

what defines an atypical Lecture Based classroom. From basic research, lecture based

instruction is defined as a large group of students observing an instructor and that

instructor is providing the learning targets and assignments (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993).

Main Goals of Problem Based Learning

Research suggests that use of PBL methods can increased 21st century skills in

students. What is a 21st century skill? The West Virginia Board of Education (2008, p.5)

defines a 21st century skill as “the student will access, analyze, manage, integrate,

evaluate, and create information in a variety of forms using appropriate technology skills

and communicate that information in an appropriate oral, written or multimedia format.

Along with this it is expected that the student will demonstrate the ability to explore and

develop new ideas, to intentionally apply sound reasoning process and to frame, analyze

and solve complex problems using appropriate technological tools.”

 12

Problem Based Learning has a goal to increase the student’s understanding of

concepts and an increase in their ability to apply that knowledge (Finkelstein, Hanson,

Huang, Hirschman, & Huang, 2010; Walker & Leary, 2008). Following this goal, PBL

also enables students to engrain what they have learned and remember it longer and use

that knowledge in new situations (Schwartz & Martin, 2004). Included in the 21st century

skills, Problem Based Learning strives to have students engage in learning as part of a

group, solve problems within that group, and have positive communication skills within

the group, while also being able to share what each student has learned in the group

(Hmelo, 1998). Finally, Project Based Learning has a goal to improve student attitudes

and motivation to participate in their learning (Boaler, 2002).

Definition of Terms

A brief definition of some terms seems in order here. Although most terms are

defined in the context of the book, these few could seem mystifying or misinterpreted

without comment at the outset on our specific use. The teacher/tutor; this refers to anyone

responsible for the education of students, for example, full-time faculty, part-time faculty,

practicing physicians, other health professionals, or other students. Problem Based

Learning (PBL) - is a student-centered pedagogy in which students learn about a subject

through the experience of solving an open-ended problem found in trigger material. In

comparison there is Lecture Based Learning (LBL) - is an oral presentation intended to

present information or teach people about a particular subject within a classroom or

another setting.
 13

Research Questions

This literature review will look into how the structure of Problem Based Learning

and the methodology behind Problem Based Learning increases the engagement of

students in their learning. It will also address how there are different levels of Problem

Based Learning. Finally, it will also bring into question should Problem Based Learning

replace Lecture Based Learning?

 14

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Research Strategies

The literature for this thesis, searches of Educator’s Reference Complete,

Expanded Academic ASAP, Education Journals, ERIC, JSTOR Arts & Sciences VI

Archive Collection, ECO, Academic Search Complete, and EBSCO MegaFILE were

conducted for publications from 1980 to 2018. This list was narrowed by only reviewing

published empirical studies articles from peer-reviewed journals that focused on Problem

Based Learning, student engagement, and effects of PBL. The key words that were used

in these searches were “Problem Based Learning,” “increasing student engagement,”

“effects of Problem Based Learning,” “Does PBL increase GPA,” and “PBL’s effect on

students learning”.

This review of literature surrounding Problem-Based Learning (PBL) will seek to

answer: How does Problem-Based Learning increase classroom differentiation and

adaptation which creates an environment where students have increased engagement by

taking ownership of their learning? This question will be assessed by looking at the

relationship between Problem Based Learning and the implementation of Problem Based

Learning. Along with theories behind PBL, the teacher’s exposure, acceptance, and

training involved in using project-based learning methods within the classroom can

determine the effectiveness of PBL. Within PBL, the building blocks and the method’s

behind Problem-Based Learning are functional and adaptable to the modern student in

contemporary educational outcomes. The literature reviewed will also focus on the

impact that PBL has on the classroom environment.

 15

Relationship between the Theory and the Implementation

As the educational landscape continues to focus on how to make education

relevant to today's students, teachers are stretched to continue to grow and implement

nontraditional methods of teaching. Understanding the theory and the implementation

process is pivotal to having success when using Problem Based Learning.

Theories behind Problem Based Learning

In Neville’s (2009) review of Problem Based Learning he concludes that the

educational field of medicine became intertwined with the concepts of PBL long before

there was evidence available to back up its education effects. This by itself does not

imply that PBL is suitable, progressive, or perfect. However, it does show that PBL is

supported within the medical community as a positive method of education. Along with

this it reveals that the theories of PBL fit within a model that reflects the experiences and

demands within the modern workplace.

Over time there many have researched and addressed the theories behind PBL.

Barrows and Tamblyn (1980) state that PBL is based on an information process model,

cognitive theories, and constructivist theories. The study was developed over the years

through work with faculty and students across North America, Holland, England and

Japan. They looked into two major assumptions within problem-based learning. The first

states that learning through Problem Based Learning is much more effective for creating

a student’s body of usable knowledge for the future rather than traditional memory-based

learning. The second is that the physician’s skills most important for patients are

problem-solving skills, not memory skills.

 16

During their research they worked with students who were moving into the

medical fields studying to become physicians. Their decision to do this was determined

because “The physician should be able to evaluate and manage patients with medical

problems effectively, efficiently, and humanely” (Borrows et al., 1996, p. 8). A pilot for

problem-based learning might occur within a departmental group that has a block of time

in the curriculum long enough (six to eight weeks) to attempt problem-based learning.

This could be in a basic science course, an integrated course (neuroscience), a

departmental course (pathology or pediatrics), or in a special interdepartmental course

(introduction to clinical medicine). An undesirable effect of a single block of problem-

based learning is that as soon as the students develop the ability to carry out problem-

based/self-directed learning and accept responsibility for their own education, the block is

finished and they plunge back into their regular curriculum. The positive effects of the

experience soon may be lost unless the students carry on with problem-based learning on

their own. The desirable effect is that the students will, if it is done well, become

enthusiastic about the experience and other faculty may be encouraged to try similar

approaches. This allows all faculty and students to see such a teaching-learning approach

in action.

Barrows and Tamblyn (1980) determined that the key to becoming successful

vocationally in both the medical field along with other lines of both real world work and

educational study is to be problem solvers and have the ability to think critically. Barrows

and Tamblyn developed their book as a resource to support the building of problem-

based learning units that focus around medical classrooms.

 17

The conclusions written in Barrows and Tamblyn’s Problem-based Learning: An

Approach to Medical Education, written in 1980, is also supported by De Grave,

Boshuizen, and Schmidt’s research in 1996. The purpose of De Grave et al.’s study is

twofold. First, it investigates whether PBL indeed leads to conceptual change of the

learner and secondly, it works to develop a method of teaching that is sensitive to the

experiences that the students go through.

In this study, De Grave et al. (2004) use a small group consisting of five medical

students from the University of Limberg who were already well versed in PBL. Leading

up to the study, the students participated in analyzing problems in a PBL method bi-

weekly for two years. Third and fourth year medical students operated as moderators for

the study and had all required relevant background information for the sessions. “The

problem (case) they had to analyze was a case taken from the block "Pain" which is part

of the third curriculum year. It was a difficult enough problem to stimulate the students'

cognitive processes. On the other hand, the students also had sufficient prior knowledge

for analysis of the problem” (De Grave et al., 2004, p, 4).

The group of students analyzed the problem for twenty minutes before they began

discussion lead by one of the medical students. Following the discussion, participants

were moved to separate rooms to take part in the stimulated recall. The task of the

interviewer was to stimulate the students’ ability to recall what was discussed during the

twenty minutes of discussion. The results of the study show that PBL stimulated the

student’s ability to recall information from the group’s discussion and increase the

cognitive process for students in a short period of time.

 18

As De Grave et al. (2004) shows this learning experience through discussion and

the solving of a problem is a foundational building block to how students learn and is

fundamental in Hmelo-Silver’s study on what and how students learn. Hmelo-Silver

(2004) focuses on the five core components that make the structural foundation of

problem-based learning. She states the goals of PBL as flexible knowledge, effective

problem-solving skills, self-directed learning skills (SDL), effective collaboration skills,

and intrinsic motivation.

Hmelo-Silver’s (2007) writing supports that within the PBL community there has

been a great deal of study looking at the first three aspects of PBL (i.e. flexible

knowledge, effective problem solving skills and SDL skills) but little to no studies on the

the last two (ie. effective collaboration skills and intrinsic motivation). She believes that a

review of PBL is timely as the progression of the educational system and today’s learner

has influenced educators to place further emphasis on active, transferable learning and its

potential for motivating students (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). To understand Hmelo-Silver’s

position on the subject, one must first understand the difference in PBL and other

experiential approaches. Problem Based Learning follows a learning cycle such as this:

Step one, teacher presents problem scenario; Step two, students then identify known

facts; Step three, learners generate a hypothesis; Step four, learners identify knowledge

deficiencies (self-directed learning-this is where problems can be solved in groups or as

individuals); Step five, apply new knowledge gained and final abstraction. After a student

or group of students reaches the point of abstraction they may need to revisit either steps

two or three (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).

 19

The purpose behind this step method of PBL is to allow for the teacher to become

a facilitator of the education experience rather than the focal point as in a lecture based

classroom. Hmelo-Silver also references Barrow’s lesson design here by ensuring that

students need to work in a setting that nurtures social interaction and team problem

solving. The following table is from Hmelo-Silver’s comparison of approaches to

learning situated in problem-solving experiences.

PBL Anchored Project-Base

Instruction Science

Problem Realistic ill- Video-based Driving question

structured problem narrative ending
with complex
problem

Role of Problem Focus for learning Provide shared Focus for scientific
information and experience so inquiry process
reasoning strategies students can leading to artifacts
understand how production
knowledge can
support problem
solving

Video supports
problem
comprehension

Process Identify facts, Guided planning Prediction,

generated ideas and and goal generation observation,
learning issues, explanation cycles
SDL, revisit, and
reflect

Role of Teacher Facilitate learning Engage students’ Introduce relevant

process and model prior knowledge, content before and
reasoning model problem- during inquiry
solving strategies,
provide content Guides inquiry
instruction when process
needed by students
 20

Collaboration Negotiation of ideas Negotiation of ideas Negotiation of ideas

Individual students and strategies with peers and local
bring knowledge to within small groups community
group application and whole class members
to problem

Tools Structured Video controller Computer-based

whiteboard tools that support
Problem-specific planning, data
Student- tools (e.g., maps, collection and
identified compasses) analysis,
learning modeling, and
resources information-
gathering

Figure 1. Comparison of PBL

Because all of these methods start with a query to some degree, the step that

separates and distinguishes PBL from the other methods is its foundation in student

directed learning. This foundation is the driving force in which the students become

responsible for their own learning which causes them to reflect, engage, and think

critically in the learning process (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989). When considering the

theory of PBL and the goals of student engagement and reflective learning, Hmelo-Silver

calls into question the lack of research beyond the medical field and gifted learners in

higher education. Hmelo-Silver states that it is important to continue to grow research in

the areas where struggling learners can affect the outcomes and that this will allow for a

broader spectrum of PBL and how it supports education. Looking at the discussion

portion of her research, Hmelo-Silver examines the fact that the majority of research is in

knowledge construction and does not address motivation and collaboration. Due to these

both being major contributing factors to the use of PBL, Hmelo-Silver explains this will

need further research to allow for further effective implementation in the classroom.
 21

Hmelo-Silver does recognize that due to the level of learning that will take place,

particular learners will struggle with PBL and they will need more guidance. In K-12

classrooms, teachers must assess students in specific subject areas and problems that

often do not map neatly onto these subject area divisions. To support this, each teacher

will need to use careful planning to engage in a PBL classroom to accommodate into a

stereotypical fifty minute class.

Implementation of Problem Based Learning

PBL is a focused experiential learning organized around the investigation,

explanation, and solving of student focused meaningful problems (Barrow, 2000; Torp &

Sage, 2002). With a focus on meaningful problems as Borrow, Torp and Sage state in

their research, educators must look at how to practically implement Problem Based

Learning within their classroom. The success and the soundness of the theories of

Problem Based Learning are important but the key to success for students and the further

engagement of the class is found in the implementation of Problem Based Learning.

Implementation starts and ends with the teacher. Therefore, teachers need to have a high

level of exposure, accept the methods, and receive training to be successful in a PBL

environment.

Woei Hung’s research and literature looks into PBL beyond just the theories and

addresses how to make it a reality in the classroom. Hung’s initial point in her writing is

substantial; she asks the question, is PBL effective? Her research, much like this

literature review, has found that most theorists and researchers (i.e. Albanese& Mitchell

1993; Berkson, 1993; Colliver, 2000; Neville, 2009; Norman & Schmidt, 1992; Vernon

& Blake, 1993) results are inconclusive at best and at times can even be conflicting. So
 22

Hung probes the question, if PBL is so effective and the theories are able to support

students’ learning of soft skills that can support their development for post academic life,

why are there inconsistencies.

In a more recent study done by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006), they

criticize PBL for its inability to adhere to human cognitive architecture and cognitive

load theory. Cognitive load theory is a theory developed by John Sweller in 1988. It

states that the best learning takes place under conditions aligned with human cognitive

architecture. This is countered by Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) where they produce

evidence that supports the soundness of PBL and its effectiveness in all areas of learning.

In asking why PBL research has produced so many inconsistent and conflicting results,

Hung digs deeper into what PBL implementation looks like and how that can help answer

the question of Problem Based Learning effectiveness in the classroom.

When introducing the implementation of PBL, Hung states, “In reality,

implementation of PBL at both the course and curriculum levels requires facing a number

of challenges that may infuse confounding variables into the process and skew the end

results. When examining the PBL literature it finds that some probable confounding

variables may derive from how PBL is implemented, how the curriculum or problems are

designed, and other ‘human factors’” (Hung, 2009 p. 532).

A Comparison between a Traditional and Problem Based Learning

PBL environments are designed to help students construct an extensive and

flexible knowledge base, become effective collaborators, develop self-directed learning

skills, develop effective problem solving skills and become intrinsically motivated to

learn (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Many studies reveal a great deal around the positive impacts
 23

of PBL on a student's’ skill but not the measure of factual knowledge (Vernon & Blake,

1993). There have been others who question the superiority of PBL simply because of the

financial burden it puts on the classroom (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993). There have been a

number of explanations as to why PBL does not always appear to fulfill its promise of

increase motivation along with increased student ability (Delva, Woodhouse, Hains,

Birtwhistle, Knapper, & Kirby, 2000).

Loyens, Rikers and Schmidt (2007) look at the effects of PBL and demonstrates

how they differ according to the levels of knowledge structure that are measured with

various types of exams evaluating different types of knowledge levels. The method in

which the study was conducted involved one hundred and eighty-six first year students

enrolled in a PBL psychology curriculum and one hundred and seven first-year students

enrolled in a lecture-based curriculum. Within the PBL group, one hundred and thirty

were female and fifty six were male. The mean age of this group of students was 19.94

and the response rate was 74.4% of all first-year students. Eighty-eight participants of the

lecture-based learning group were female and nineteen were male. The mean age of this

group was 19.02 and the response rate was 49.6% of the first-year student population.

The PBL curriculum is structured as follows. Students worked in small groups,

with the maximum being 12, on authentic problems, under the guidance of a tutor. First,

students discussed a problem and possible explanations or solutions were proposed. The

groups then participated in self-study, students shared findings, elaborated on knowledge

acquired, and had the opportunity to correct misconceptions (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). The

PBL course consisted of eight problems that lasted five weeks each. At the end of the

course a comprehensive test was administered. The conventional, lecture-based

 24

curriculum consisted of two semesters of 22 weeks each. Each semester was divided in

two periods of ten weeks, followed by an examination week. Students attended lectures

for two hours each, twice a week. For some of the sessions an additional two-hour

practice session was needed as well.

To determine the effects of PBL compared to lecture based learning, a

questionnaire was distributed twice during the semester. Once at the beginning and once

at the end. The areas in which the questionnaire assessed were: knowledge construction,

cooperative learning, self-regulation, authentic problems, self-perceived inability to learn,

and motivation to learn. Loyens et al. chose to use The Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI, Tucker

& Lewis, 1973) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI, Bentler, 1990) as the measure of the

student’s fit. Both indices ranged from zero to 1, with the higher the values indicating the

better fit. Values greater than 0.90 are traditionally associated with well-fitting models.

The results of Lyons et al.’s study conclude as follows: the PBL student

population resulted in a CFI of 0.90 and a TLI of 0.87 while the results of the lecture-

based curriculum showed a CFI of 0.91 and a TLI of 0.89 showing that both of the

curriculum were well fitting for the student groups that attended these courses. The areas

in which the PBL curriculum was considered far superior to lecture-based curriculum

were in areas such as cooperative learning, authentic problems, and motivation to learn.

Continuing to look at the effects of PBL vs LB (lecture-based) learning

environments, Winjina, Loyens and Derous look at how two different learning

environments had effects on undergraduates’ study motivation. In Winjina et al. first

study, the group studied students in PBL environment compared to conventional lecture

based students on motivation and self-regulated learning. The participants in the first
 25

study were undergraduates in psychology that were either enrolled in a PBL environment

or a lecture-based environment. The group enrolled in the PBL course consisted of a

hundred and seventeen students. Twenty-seven of them were male and ninety of them

were female. The lecture-based classroom was made up of thirty-eight males and eighty-

eight females. The mean age of the PBL group was 21.29 while the mean age of the

lecture-based group was 19.12. The great majority of students had roughly the same

amount of secondary education. Winjia does note that there is a significant difference in

age between the two groups with the PBL group being older but upon further analysis did

not see the age difference as a contributing factor.

Much like Lyens et al.’s study, Winjia et al.’s study consisted of small groups

made up of twelve students. Students were presented the problem by a tutor at the

beginning of the semester. The PBL course then followed “Seven Jump method”. Step

one, clarification of unknown concepts; Step two, formulation of a problem definition;

Step three, brainstorming on the problem; Step four, problem analysis; and Step five,

formulation of learning issues for further self-directed study. To conclude each session of

self-directed study, groups would move to Step six, which was studying relevant research

followed by Step seven, where they shared what was found during independent study

time. The PBL curriculum consisted of eight 5-week periods, each period dealt with a

particular psychological discipline. A course test was given at the end of each five week

section. The progress test consisted of one hundred and ninety True/False questions that

covered the complete knowledge domain of the first two years of studying psychology

(Winjia, 2011, p. 109).

 26

The stereotypical lecture-based curriculum consisted of two semesters lasting

thirteen weeks. During these weeks students took part in the same psychological

subdisciplines as the problem-based course. Following the thirteen weeks of lecture there

were three weeks of study where no lectures took place. After the completion of the three

weeks of study, assessments were given.

The scales used by Winjia (2011) to measure the motivation and self-regulated

learning were given through surveys. The measures were on a scale of 1, not at all true, to

7, very true. The questionnaire for motivation was the Learning Self-Regulation

Questionnaire (SRQ-L) which measures a person’s perceived control. Along with this the

Learning and Study Strategy Inventory (LASSI; Weinstein, 1987) was used to measure

self-regulated learning. The overall mark on this first study shows that there was a

discrepancy between PBL and LB in the measure of motivation. The result of the study

indicates that the PBL group scored significantly higher on competence in comparison to

LB students. This partially supported Wijnia et al.’s hypothesis.

To test the second hypothesis the use of the Learning and Study Strategy

Inventory (Weinstein, 1987) shows significant differences between PBL and LB students

in affective strategies and goal strategies. The results indicate that the students from the

PBL group seem to work with more effort within their courses. The PBL group also

showed that they were able to use strategies to cope with examinations and anxiety more

effectively than their LB counterparts.

The second study done by Winjina et al. was a focus group study that investigated

specific aspects that can motivate students to a further extent compared to the first study.

Focus groups were used because they are particularly useful in generating different
 27

opinions and experiences of students in order to investigate the survey results more in

depth (Kitzinger, 1995). One area that needs further research according to Wijnia et al.’s

group is to investigate the results between PBL and LB in autonomous motivation. There

is little discrepancy between the two in the first study.

Winjina et al. stated that due to the lack of discrepancy between the PBL students

and the LB students, a second study was conducted by the same team of researchers as a

follow up. The two groups used within the follow up study were focus groups from the

first study, thus allowing for more in-depth focus on what was perceived as being

motivating or demotivating for the studies in the PBL group. The participants consisted

of seven first-year students of which three were male and four were female. The second

group was made up of second year psychology students and consisted of one male and

six females Winjina et al. (2011).

The focus groups met following the end of group meetings and lasted roughly 45

minutes. One of interviewers operated as the author of the notes and so both focus groups

had the same interviewers. During the interview the question that was asked was “Which

aspects of PBL do you find motivating and which ones not?” The students were given

liberty to answer freely and were asked not to hold back on both positives and negatives

in the use of PBL. The guidelines of motivation were determined by the aspects of PBL;

this being guiding role of instructors, use of problems, the evaluation system that both

courses in the previous study used, collaboration, and self-directed learning. If one of the

subjects was not naturally covered in discussion, the facilitator asked directly about one

of those topics (Winjina et al. 2011, p. 109). All conversations were recorded.
 28

The data from the focus group was analyzed in line with Kitzinger (1995). Audio

tapes were transcribed and statements made within the conversations were grouped into

five categories. These categories were: autonomy-supportive teachers, meaningful and

challenging tasks, feedback, collaboration, and self-regulated learning. These categories

were each based on the motivation literature. Where there was a great deal of difference

within the statements could not be directly placed within a category, they were placed

into a rest category.

The results of the focus group study were segmented into the aforementioned

groupings where many of the students agreed that some aspects of PBL were perceived as

motivating while some were considered detrimental to their motivation.

Within the two focus groups were slightly differing opinions on the role and

motivation factor in the supportive teacher. The first year students felt that the guiding

role of a tutor was useful but overall was not motivating. While the second year students

found an enthusiastic teacher to be very motivating due to the teacher sharing their

perspective and personal experiences. Both groups felt that a teacher should be

stimulating and should follow group discussions carefully. When teachers asked

questions that covered topics that were considered covered and closed, it was perceived

as demotivating for the students. Second year students found it to be demotivating when

teachers could not clarify misconceptions and uncertainties that groups encountered

during discussions. Between the two focus groups it was agreed that the tutors gave an

unsatisfied feeling about what they learned in the group meeting (Winjnia et al., 2011).

There was a general consensus that the students liked the way subject matter was

introduced to them through problems. The focus group reported that it stimulated their
 29

willingness to engage and learn. Students did emphasize the need to have a quality

problem and to have the problem adequately presented to the students. Students found

that if there was a large discrepancy between the problem and current research it was

seen as detrimental to their motivation to continue studying the problem. A few of the

first year students mentioned that motivation was found during the initial problem when

the problem was found to be something that was experienced in everyday life.

When looking at the feedback portion of the PBL process Winjia et al. (2011)

states that many students felt the assessment system used in the first study to be

demotivating. To recall, there were two types of assessments: course tests and progress

tests. The perception of the progress tests was that many students felt it to be detrimental

to their motivation because many of the credits that were associated with the progress

tests, while no course credit was associated with the course tests. Because the cut-off

between passing and failing is norm-referenced, there was always a portion of the class

that failed the tests. A number of the students would not prepare for the curriculum tests

and would fail but would prepare for the progress tests and only pass that portion of the

course. The focus group felt this was hindering to the PBL process.

All of the students in both focus groups found that the collaboration with other

students to be extremely motivating. Wijnia et al. (2011) writes that social interaction and

sociability are perceived as very important and motivating. Students felt that they

experienced more pressure to study because of the socially shared responsibility to

succeed. More accurately they did not want to embarrass themselves in the eyes of others

by having a lack of knowledge on the subject. The focus groups agreed that it was

imperative that everyone attend and prepare for the group meetings and when one or
 30

more students was not prepared for the meetings, it demotivated students to continue

putting forth effort.

The fifth topic of the focus group was self-regulated learning. Wijnia et al. (2011)

states that some first-year students mentioned they sometimes could easily formulate

learning issues, without first analyzing and discussing the problem in a tutorial meeting,

because problems did not always elicit sufficient group discussion. Contradictory to this,

some of the students felt that the discussions developed collaborative learning. This was

affected by students who did not have sufficient prior knowledge of the topic.

Both first and second years student focus groups felt that there were times when

self-directed learning made them feel insecure about their search for relevant learning

material. Most of the focus group wished that the facilitator would give more direction.

An example was a wish for the facilitator to give some basic articles to read to initiate

student learning. First year students wished there was a predetermined course book to

refer to instead of needing to research to find relevant articles on a given problem.

The final category by Wijnia was called “rest category” but focuses on mandatory

presence. Wijnia et al. states that all students need to be present at every tutorial meeting

to ensure the group process. The subject, mandatory presence, elicits a good deal of

discussion in both focus groups. All of the students felt that the mandatory presence as

too restrictive, because no exceptions were made. When a student missed a mandatory

meeting there was a compensation assignment and this was viewed as a punishment,

which negatively impacted student engagement through that portion of the course.

In the discussion portion of Wijnia et al. research there was a focus on the effects

of learning environments on student motivation. Wijnia’s findings are in contrast to the

 31

expectations of the group. The findings show that no major differences were found

between PBL and LB learning environments under the parameters formed in the study.

Because of this, they created focus groups and a second study to determine why this

would be. The findings show that students had external motivating factors rather than

internal motivating factors, i.e. avoiding punishment or ensuring having a higher GPA.

The second focus group also mentions that many of the students felt uncertain through

the PBL experience and lacked direction during the self-learning portion. This caused

many of the students to struggle with motivation.

Motivational Aspects of Learning Environments

PBL has many dimensions in which it is able to enhance student motivation;

autonomy-supportive teachers; meaningful and challenging tasks; positive feedback;

collaboration; and scaffolding (Wijnia et al., 2010). Along with Wijnia, Hmelo-Silver

found that the leading aspects that supported the ability to motivate students were

autonomy-supportive teachers, meaningful and challenging tasks and positive feedback.

Autonomy-Supportive Teachers

There are many aspects that influence a learner’s environment but many times it

can be broken into two categories for the teacher’s influence: autonomy-supportive or

controlling, but among the most important aspects are a students’ perception of their

teacher (Deci & Ryan 2008). Teachers can achieve autonomy support by taking the

perspective of their students. Along with offering opportunities of choice, being receptive

to student’s questions or ideas, and making learning relevant to today’s learners (Assor,

Kaplan, & Roth, 2002) students have more autonomy with the teacher. In addition to this,

the type of language a teacher uses can influence the amount of autonomy a student will
 32

experience in the classroom (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, & Soenens, 2004). Studies

show that specific controlling instructions such as “you must” or “you have to” have a

negative impact on deeper learning, understanding, and overall performance of students.

Whereas language such as “you can” or “you might” had positive impacts on student

learning. Black and Deci (2000) discuss that a student centered focus learning

environment could be considered autonomy supportive. In a PBL style classroom,

teachers guide and encourage students to perform learning tasks their own way. When an

educator or tutor facilitates instead of dictates a student’s learning process, it will allow

for the classroom to be an autonomous learning environment.

Meaningful and Challenging tasks

Designing meaningful tasks and activities for students to participate in can

increase their intrinsic motivation (Ames, 1992; Blumenfeld, 1992; Wigfield & Eccles,

2000). To promote meaningfulness for students, tasks need to take on a personally

relevant aspect. The problems used in PBL often describe a question or issue that can be

seen in daily life. Because of this, students can therefore perceive the problem/learning

task as meaningful (Schmidt & Moust, 2000). Meaningful tasks are associated with an

increase in student interest and create a deeper level of learning (Pintrich & Schunk,

2002).

Along with creating meaningful tasks, another way in which to increase

motivation is by creating a challenging task. Within PBL, creating a challenging task is

through the creation of a complex and ill-structured problem. These problems do not need

to have one solution. The discussion that the students participate in help the students

develop understanding of the subject matter at hand and allow for the students to have a
 33

grasp of complex levels of thinking. Noordzij and Te Lindert (2010) demonstrate that the

interest level of the problem is positivity related to intrinsic motivation.

Positive Motivation and Feedback

The evaluation of a student’s performance in a classroom can have a large effect

on their motivation when it is perceived as pressuring or controlling (Blumenfeld, 1992).

Blumenfeld writes in Classroom Learning and Motivation: Clarifying and Expanding

Goal Theory (1992, p. 272) that there are three classroom structures that affect goal

orientation and a student’s desire to succeed in the classroom. Blumenfeld states that

they are: the influence of tasks, evaluation, authority (1992, p. 272).

Breaking down tasks and how they influence student engagement Blumenfeld

says that teachers need to create variety. There are many ways in which to create it but

students need to have different avenues in which to master what they are learning rather

than simply garner short-term attention on a topic. Within that variety Blumenfeld states

that educators and researchers need to know more about how to select appropriately

challenging tasks and sustain student motivation to engage in cognitively complex tasks

over time (Blumenfeld 1992, p 273). To support the growth of a student within the tasks

there needs to be impactful meaning in which the students can understand the importance

of the classwork. Blumenfeld recommends that tasks given to students need to reflect

meaning to the students and this is at the center of Problem Based Learning.

The second area of influence in a student’s motivation according to Blumenfeld

(1992) is evaluation. He states that by stressing correct answers, grades, and social

comparison promotes a performance orientation. Even if students perceive grades as

controlling this need not be the case when grades are accompanied by the opportunity for
 34

improvement (Blumenfeld, 1992, p 273). Because Problem Based Learning focuses on

individual improvement it allows for students to have more success and empowered to

continue to improve. The issue that arises is how do teachers sustain a mastery

orientation and reward improvement at the same time? Blumenfeld expresses this a major

area of concern within the Problem Based Learning model.

The final area in which Blumenfeld sees effects in student’s motivation is

authority or the student, teacher relationship. Blumenfeld states that evidence shows that

classrooms that allow for students autonomy and decision making lead to a great success

in mastery of a topic (Blumenfeld, 1992, p. 274). Within, a Problem Based Learning

classroom students are allowed opportunities to develop self-regulatory learning and

benefit from having choice and control of the learning. He later argues that the best

method in which teachers can guide students while they are exercising choice is through

positive feedback.

The research shows that when students are given positive feedback and the

opportunity to improve on their work, there are positive effects on the student’s future

performance (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In addition, positive feedback will have a positive

impact on the motivation of a student as they feel they can be creative in a safe

environment. PBL gives students the opportunity to try, fail or succeed without worry

that it will negatively impact their final grade.

Collaboration

Most research on relatedness focuses on the influence and connection between

student and teacher or between parent and student. But it is equally important to consider

the influence that students’ peers have on one another. This peer interaction can have a
 35

significant impact on students’ engagement, motivation and achievement within the

classroom (Ryan, 2000). Collaborative learning could help students feel more connected

to their peers and as a result influence their effort (Wentzel, 1999). Because PBL is

student centered with students discussing real-life problems, this allows for students to

work in a collaborative environment, with no more than 12 students, where students work

towards a common goal (Barrow, 1996). This demonstrates an example of how PBL can

therefore be expected to have a positive outcome on a student’s motivation and learning.

Scaffolding

Some researchers argue that PBL and the responsibility that is placed on the

learner could distract or confuse the learner and lead to more stress and anxiety in the

learning process (Berkson, 1993). Zimmeran and Campillo, 2003 states that PBL

believed that due to the unsystematic stance of PBL it could negatively affect self-

efficacy. But it should be pointed out that PBL should not be an unguided or minimally

guided instructional approach when the correct amount of scaffolding is applied (Schmidt

et al. 2007). For instance, facilitators of the PBL environment need to have a deep

knowledge of scaffolding (Schmidt et al. 2007).

Characteristics: The method of Problem Based Learning

The basic foundation of Problem-Based Learning is made up of six parts. Of those

six parts, students and facilitators of Problem-Based Learning will find that the steps do

not need to go in sequential order (Hmelo-Silver, 2009). All students will begin at Step

One but due to the nature of background knowledge and ability to apply what is learned

will affect the sequence in which they will complete the problem. The following list is

how Hmelo-Silver outlined Problem-Based Learning in 2009.

 36

1. The problem is encountered first in the learning sequence, before

any preparation or study has occurred.

2. The problem situation is presented to the student in the same way it

would present in reality.

3. The student works with the problem in-a manner that permits his

ability to reason and apply knowledge to be challenged and evaluated,

appropriate to his/her level of learning.

4. Needed areas of learning are identified in the process of work with

the problem and used as a guide to individualized study.

5. The skills and knowledge acquired by this study are applied back

to the problem, to evaluate the effectiveness of learning and to reinforce

learning.

6. The learning that has occurred in work with the problem and in

individualized study is summarized and integrated into the student’s

existing knowledge and skills.

Levels in PBL- from instruction led and well-structured to full problem

simulation and self-led. (Hung, 2009, p. 534). For educators to begin to understand the

functionality of problem-based learning they must first understand the method in which it

is carried out. Looking into the steps in which PBL is carried out, one must understand

that learning is continuous and at times a rational one, two, three etc. step process is not

how PBL will operate. There will be times when PBL will move from learners being

given a problem before any learning has taken place, hoping they have a solution, and

finding out that it does not work and needing to start over.
 37

Looking at the most recent development of PBL the West Virginia Department of

Education created the Teacher Leadership Institute which was to focus solely on the

development of PBL. Because teachers lacked the training, they looked at Hung’s steps

of PB (Figure 1). Though there are many ways to set a PBL focused classroom, many

authors agree that true PBL is in line with Boud and Feletti (1997, p.15) “Problem based

learning is an approach to structuring the curriculum which involves confronting students

with problems from practice which provide a stimulus for learning.”

When shifting to PBL it is important that the problem that is introduced is

simplistic in nature to begin and then as the students become more and more comfortable

with the PBL process, allow for more complicated problems to be used. Vernon and

Blake (1993) explain that the first step in PBL needs to be giving a scenario/problem.

Once this is given to the class as a whole, students need to be separated into groups where

they are given assignment expectations, rubrics, and timelines. Zwall and Otting believe

that the first step of PBL is to introduce terms and concepts to students that would not be

readily available to the students before introducing the problem.

Step two listed by Hung (Figure 1) is similar to Vernon and Blake’s sequencing of

PBL, where each problem needed to be given or presented in the most realistic way

possible or at least as close to a problem that would take place in the real world. Within

this step, the instructor would first need to give the scenario and problem followed by the

classroom expectations. This includes discussing the rubrics and classroom timelines for

due dates. Once students grasp the expectations, Hung et al. (2009) agree you move to

Step three. Zwall and Otting believe Step two should be as follows: that by sharing ideas,

understandings, and knowledge about the problem and its interrelated phenomena,
 38

students construct a common understanding of the problem. The students define the exact

nature of the problem and agree upon the phenomena that has to be explained.

Moving to Step Three, Zwall et al. state: that based on the often incomplete

information in the problem description, students activate their prior knowledge and use

their thinking and problem solving skills to elaborate on the contents of the task. In a

round of free association they can express ideas, thoughts, questions, opinions, concepts,

and hypotheses about the problem and its underlying mechanisms. Brainstorming

techniques are often used for the generation of ideas. Students are encouraged to freely

express themselves and to avoid criticism and discussion about the quality of ideas while

brainstorming.

They believe that this achieves two major objectives within this phase of PBL.

The first being that students engage in the creative process of gaining facts and

information around the problem. The second is after ideas have been generated, students

explain and discuss the ideas and ask critical questions to assess the quality of ideas.

Inadequate execution of Step three results in poor and superficial problem analysis with

little elaboration on prior knowledge. This step is the same approach that is used by De

Grave et al. (1996).

Step Four is to gather information learned from Step Three. This is where

collaboration becomes an integral part of PBL. The group comes to a common

understanding of the problem, not only on an individual level but also on a group level.

Different viewpoints and interpretations must be discussed and common understanding

must be achieved (Akkerman et al. 2007, p. 36-40). Once all information is gathered and

the group has a common understanding, all information is placed within a systematic log.
 39

From Step Four, the group of learners have the pieces of information that they

have a clear understanding of. Step five is to discover the group’s learning issues. Then

compiling a list of information that needs to be learned outside of the PBL model. Van

den Hurk, Dolmans, Wolfhagen, and Van der Vleuten (1998) have formulated three

criteria for student generated learning issues in Step five of the seven-step procedure. A

proper learning issue: 1. should contain keywords; 2. include a concise description of the

main aspects of the learning topics; 3. should be understood regarding purpose and

content by all members of the PBL-group.

After the learning issues are identified by the group, Step Six is to gather relevant

outside information outside of the group setting. The students select and study literature

that they consider worthwhile for attaining their learning goals. It is important to note that

facilitators and teachers emphasize the importance of self-study. Within this, they need to

dictate the norms of studying and effort in which the students need to devote to their self-

study. Nuutila, Törmä, and Malmi (2005) indicated that during this time there needs to be

a steady stream of feedback about the level of learning and knowledge obtained.

When looking at medical students, Musal, Gursel, Taskiran, Ozan, and Tuna

(2004) find that first-year medical students spend more time on self-study than third-year

students. First-year students generally restrict themselves to the learning issues that were

agreed upon in step five, while senior students use the guidelines in a more flexible

manner and tend to follow their own learning interests. Students who study beyond the

learning objectives spend more time on self-study and gain better results on knowledge

tests (Van den Hurk et al., 1999; 2001).

 40

Once individual research and self-study is concluded, teams need to come back

together and share the newly acquired knowledge. Step seven is synthesizing and testing

newly acquired data against the problem. The students relate the acquired knowledge to

the problem and evaluate what they have learned from the problem, which helps them to

apply their knowledge to other problems the individual study of relevant information in

preparation to the reporting phase, influences the breadth and depth of discussion in the

reporting phase (Van den Hurk et al. 1999). When students do not spend enough time and

effort on the self-study phase and they restrict themselves to the most basic of studying,

there will be little to discuss when synthesizing the newly acquired data. During this

phase, students, with the support of the facilitator/instructor, will determine if the

students have solved the problem or they will need to revisit steps two through six.

Comparing Problem-Based Learning Methods

To fully understand how PBL curriculum is organized, a teacher must first

determine the level of PBL they wish to undertake. Moving from highly instructor

led/complete case to self-led/full problem stimulation, Barrow’s PBL taxonomy is

defined with the following: lecture-based with problem solving activities, case-based

learning, project-based learning, anchored instruction, hybrid PBL, and lastly, pure PBL.

Of these classifications, problem solving activities and case-based learning both have the

highest, most defined classroom structure. Barrow places the classifications of project-

based learning and anchored instruction into the subsections of partially self/instructor

led and partial problem simulation. Finally, the hybrid and pure PBL are two styles

shown to be the most self-directed and involve full problem simulations.

 41

Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) break down all of these PBL teaching methods further

to allow for educators to understand the effects and outcomes each has on the students

they are working with. It is important to note that each method does not guarantee a

specific outcome but rather increases the chances of learning outcomes. The model of

pure PBL is learning initiated by a need to solve a real world problem. Within this, there

are no whole class lectures. The PBL process is led by the learner, and the content

knowledge is acquired by the learner through his or her own research. The timing of the

learning and application of what is learned is a simultaneously learned and applied

through the inquiry process. The overall structure of pure PBL is very ill-structured.

Hmelo-Silver et al. states that the impacts on student learning are as follows: the

efficiency of content knowledge and acquisition is medium to high; knowledge

application and transfer to everyday life is very high; problem solving and reasoning

skills affected are very high; self-directed learning is very high; ability to cope with

uncertainty is very high.

Continuing down Barrows’ (1996) PBL taxonomy would bring one to hybrid

PBL. Hybrid PBL is similar to pure PBL but is supplemented with a few lectures. The

PBL process follows the same structure, meaning that the problem solving is learner

directed. The change is in how the content knowledge is acquired. In hybrid PBL the

learner is completing the research and completing the inquiries into unknown knowledge

to solve the problem but is given minimal assistance by the instructor on how to integrate

knowledge gained. These two types of PBL are considered to be the least structured and

most student led methods.

 42

Anchored instruction follows the format in which students possess basic content

knowledge before they are given the problem solving portion of the class. According to

Barrow (1996) the PBL process in which anchored instruction takes place is partially led

by both instructor and learner. The content knowledge that students need to complete the

problem is mainly given by the instructor rather than the learner directed like pure or

hybrid PBL. The timing of how students acquire knowledge and its application follows

the flow of first learning material then applying the learned material. Learners may then

learn more as additional content knowledge may be needed to solve problem given. The

problem solving process is an inquiry process with the support of previously taught

material. The structure of this type of PBL classroom is considered moderately

structured. Its impact on learning outcomes shows knowledge application and transfer to

real world application is very high; the effect on problem solving skills and reasoning

skills is very high; while its effects on students’ ability to cope with uncertainty is

considered moderate by Hmelo-Silver et al..

Stepping up in structure of format, the next level of PBL in Barrow’s (1996)

structure is Project Based Learning. The format behind Project Based Learning is

learning started by lecture or by students already having basic content knowledge before

engaging in the project. The majority of this class would be filled with time to take part

and complete the project. Project Based Learning has the same impact on educational

outcomes as anchored learning but at the end of Project Based Learning there is a

tangible creation by the student.

Barrow (1996) states third and most structured portions of PBL are Case Based

Learning and lecture-based learning with problem solving activities. The format in Case
 43

Based Learning is started with a lecture and is completed by studying or analyzing a

problem that has already been solved. The process in which case-based learning takes

place is led by the instructor and all knowledge is given to the students by the instructor.

Knowledge is gained by the students, then it is applied where the problem solving

process is the realization of the content knowledge prior to analyzing the already

completed problem. The overall structure is considered to be moderate to well structured.

The knowledge application of this style of learning is theoretically seen as high to

moderate for students. Impact on a students’ learning outcomes are much more mild than

those that are closer to pure PBL. The knowledge application and ability to transfer to the

real world are considered medium whereas self-directed learning is low.

Like Case Based Learning, Lecture Based Learning with problem solving

activities is highly structured. Lecture Based Learning with some problem solving

activities is just that, the knowledge is gained through teacher taught lectures with few

hands on practice problems where students can practice gained knowledge at the end of a

course. It is highly structured and leaves little space for self-directed learning. Its impact

on a students’ learning outcomes are important to note, for when knowledge is gained

and applied, it is considered to have low transfer to the real world. Lecture Based

Learnings effects on a student’s problem solving skills and reasoning skills are also very

low.

Within each model of PBL it is imperative to consider many factors when

deciding which to use. First, each teacher needs to consider which model they are most

familiar with and one that they are able to complete the learning process. Additionally,

there will need to be scaffolding based on the needs of the students. Finally, the instructor
 44

must consider the way in which they are going to measure the students’ learning. Each

teacher must address what type of assessment is going to be used and it will require a

different set of teacher expectations.

Curriculum and Classroom Concerns in PBL

Barrows and Tamblyn (1980, p. 18) define PBL as “the learning that results from

the process of working toward the understanding or resolution of a problem. The problem

is encountered first in the learning process and serves as a focus or stimulus for the

application of problem solving or reasoning skills, as well as for the search for or study of

information or knowledge needed to understand the mechanisms responsible for the

problem and how it might be resolved,” and this is now considered by many experts to be

“pure” PBL. With this definition Hung brings up many issues within today's educational

system when looking to implement problem-based learning. To begin with, one must

look at the different aspects an educator may need to vary within PBL to meet required

educational outcomes. These factors include nature of the discipline being taught, the

learning goals, and the cognitive readiness of self-directed learning skills of the students

within the classroom.

The wide variety in methods (three given within the theory section) and

educational outcomes in which PBL is used can attest for the very large discrepancy in

data from various studies on PBL. This puts a strain on educators on which PBL is the

“real” PBL and how to know if PBL is having a positive effect on their classroom. This

can be the reasoning in which there has been a lower demand on the students to assume

an active role in the problem solving and learning process within PBL. If a PBL course is
 45

following Kirschner’s hybrid PBL style, then the classroom may have produced

something similar to that of a traditional learning style classroom.

With that line of reasoning Hung (2009) states that a case-based learning course

or a lecture based learning course with some problems embedded within the curriculum

could look very similar to a PBL course because the cognitive requirements placed on the

students would be the same.

Another area of concern when looking at using PBL in the classroom is the design

of the PBL problem. Angeli (2002) and Hung (2009) point out that many curricula in

medical schools have used this method, but within medical schools there is the chance of

fewer challenges for faculty or those that are a part of the problem design process than an

educator within a typical K-12 classroom. Both of their research and accompanying

literature points to this because of the time consuming a research heavy process that goes

into creating a problem within a PBL environment.

Gijselaers and Schmidt (1990) stated that ineffective Problem Based Learning

problems and curriculum could be what undermine the effectiveness of PBL in a K-12

student’s ability to apply prior knowledge and the student’s group educational process.

This too would have dramatic effects on the students’ self-directed learning. Because of

the major shortcomings located within the problem of PBL, there would be negative

effects on the student’s learning outcomes and will affect most reports within the studies

seen in PBL.

Two other areas that need to be addressed when looking at issues within the PBL

environment are the parties that are actively involved in making the PBL process take

shape. These would be the students and the instructors. Dolmans & Schmidt (1994)
 46

studied what drives the student in problem based learning. Within their research they

observe some PBL students’ behaviors that they call “ritual behaviors;” this refers to

students maintaining superficial and minimum work to have the appearance of being

actively engaged in the learning process. Dolmans and Schmidt explain that these

behaviors not only degraded the students’ learning of content knowledge but would go so

far as to point out that it can at times defeat the instructional methods in which students

obtain self-directed learning skills. This finding Dolmans et al. will also have negative

effects on the facilitators of PBL.

Due to the nature of PBL and its self-directed nature, many educators are

misinformed about the role and responsibilities of the facilitator. Even though the

learning is supposed to be self-directed by the students that does not diminish the role of

the educator in the classroom. Depending on the level and comfort of the students within

the classroom, the educator still needs to model both the problem solving and reasoning

process of PBL to the students. In Glew’s (2003) analysis of why PBL fails to live up to

its promises, it highlights that many times the facilitator did not follow tutoring

guidelines of the PBL curriculum from the curriculum designers. If the facilitators fail to

provide the correct modeling and guidance for the students to follow, then the students

are unable to complete PBL’s learning process.

The issue of facilitator guidance may be less of an issue when the use of PBL is

done within a unit of a class rather than a whole department shift to PBL. But teachers

may face a struggle in having a lack of resources and training with PBL to be effective

with the strategies behind it. This tends to lead to a second issue for facilitators and

educators with PBL, over guidance and micromanaging within the PBL process.
 47

In an article by Moust, Berkel, and Schmidt (2005), they report that the fear of not

giving enough guidance and content for the students to work from has led to facilitators

giving too much direct instruction. Moust et al. even finds that some teachers gave the

students a list of specific learning resources to use instead of possible places to begin

research. From interviews within their research Moust et al. states that even teachers who

have been conducting PBL practices can fall victim to this fear of not giving the students

enough guidance or resources.

 48

CHAPTER III: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Summary of the Research

To summarize the findings on Problem Based Learning and its effects on

motivating students to engage more deeply in the learning process, one must look back

on the research one can see that Problem Based Learning has gone through some changes

in structure but the basis of Problem Based Learning remains largely the same since 20th

century American educational theorist and philosopher John Dewey began to use

Problem Based Learning to change America’s educational system (Carver & Enfield,

2006).

Both Neville’s study (2009) along with Barrows and Tamblyn’s study (1980)

agree that Problem Based Learning builds a students’ useable knowledge base rather than

just rot memory base. Both studies focused on students moving towards the medical field.

Other researchers that have agreed with Barrows and Tamblyn are Albanese and Mitchell

(1993), Akkerman, Van den Bossche, Admiraal (2007), and De Grave, Boshuizen, and

Schmidt’s Problem Based Learning: Cognitive and Metacognitive Processes during

Problem Analysis (1996). Within these studies all students were upper level college

students and had some background in Problem Based Learning.

Hmelo-Silver (2004), Ames (1992), and Angeli (2002) agreed with De Grave et

al. (2004) study that the discussion portion of Problem Based Learning is a foundational

building block that supports both students’ motivation and their ability to retain usable

knowledge. Both groups agree that students learning from students supports both groups.

When one student teaches another the teacher and the peer receiving the learning gain a

deeper understanding and ownership of the content. Blumenfeld (1992) and Boud (1997)
 49

questioned this portion of learning as he struggled with the direction in which learners

will be assessed and how students will be measured during this learning phase. Assor,

Kaplan and Roth (2002) expanded on Blumenfeld’s thoughts by looking at the impact of

a teacher in the self-directed learning portion of Problem Based Learning.

Blumenfeld (1992), Albanese and Mitchell (1993), Berkson 1993, Colliver

(2000); Neville (2009), Norman and Schmidt (1992), and Vernon and Blake (1993) all

agreed that within Problem Based Learning there is conflicting evidence on whether

Problem Based Learning is successfully engaging students in learning. Because of this

Wei Hung (2009, p. 532) established that the reason for conflicting evidence is due to the

human element within teaching. Hmelo-Silver (2007) also stated that without positive

feedback and relationships between teacher/tutor and students there will be discrepancies

in learning.

Blumenfeld (1992), Black & Deci (2000) and Boaler (2002) expressed that one of

the foundational blocks of being successful within the classroom was the relationship

between teacher and student and the best way to bridge the gap of learning is through

positive feedback. This allows for teachers guide students while allowing students to

have the freedom of choice.

This freedom of choice is agree to have a positive impact on students learning.

According to Dolmans & Schmidt (1994); Finkelstein, Hanson, Huang, Hirschman, and

Huang (2010) this can be a driving force for students having better engagement in their

learning. Evenson and Hmelo (2000) agree but believe it needs to be taken further with

having uniquire real world problems being presented. Colliver (2000), Deci and Ryan

(2000) Furrer and Skinner (2003), Gijselaers and Schmidt (1995), Marx et al. (2004), and
 50

Mergendoller et al. (2006) find the most important piece is the real world problems. This

lends them to agree with Musal et al. (2004), Neville (2009), and Noordzij et al. (2010)

agree that the methodology lends itself to guide students to have stronger problem

solving skills as adults.

Limitations of the Research

When researching Problem Based Learning there is a great deal of information

regarding its influence in today’s educational field. When looking to narrow my research

I focused on three major aspects of the current scientific articles. First and foremost I

needed to have a clear understanding of the basis of Problem Based Learning and the

many different types of learning that have stemmed from this method of education. Being

able to sort out what was pure Problem Based Learning and what was not showed me that

there is a great deal of research on the effects of Problem Based Learning at the collegiate

level. This led me to look at the levels of education in which Problem Based Learning has

been used whether it is has been successful or not.

When gathering research on the effects of Problem Based Learning I tried to limit

myself to learning that was taking place in either undergraduate studies or high school.

What I found was there is a lack of research for students under the collegiate level. Many

studies were conducted at both the undergraduate level and at the graduate level in the

fields of medicine. Many times the studies focused on how a group of medical students

were able to conduct understanding issues related to patiences. Which is great, but I felt

was not applicable to what I needed in my current state. What I did find is that in order

for students to feel successful in a Problem Based Learning classroom they need to have

a solid foundation in their learning.

 51

Because students needed to have a solid foundation in their learning I found that

studies also looked to compare the success of students in a Problem Based classroom vs.

students in a Lecture Based classroom. Within this subcategory of research there was

minimal information that depicted a great deal of difference in the success rate of

students. What it did show was that there was a difference in the motivation behind the

students learning. The questions that this led me to ask were; how does the facilitator

affect the student’s motivation? Can students who are used to a Lecture Base style of

learning easily transition to Problem Based Learning or does there need to be a gradual

change in learning styles?

Implications for Future Research

Because the research in areas around PBL in high schools are insufficient to

support teachers moving to a PBL style classroom in all academic areas, I think being

able to compare choose two classes in the same academic area comparing students testing

ability between a pure PBL format and a typical lecture based classroom may show an

interesting relationship between how students learn best and how they present the

knowledge they learned best. As an example let us look at an elementary classroom.

If the educational outcomes were based on the fourth grade Minnesota State

Standards it would be interesting to see how PBL would affect one group of learners

verses the other group of learners being taught in a traditional lecture based learning

environment. Areas of comprehension could be: student engagement, growth of

understanding mathematical concepts, problem solving skills, and finally standardized

testing scores.
 52

Using standardized testing scores would be an important addition because this is a

standardized measure that shows if a student is able to meet grade level standards. Along

with using a standardized measure to demonstrate learning, it allows the researcher to see

if PBL has a positive outcome on the student’s ability to test. I feel this is not as

important as being able to problem solve but in today’s educational system being able to

pass the test is pivotal for student’s success.

Professional Application

Looking back through the research on PBL it is clear to see that even though PBL

in it many forms (true PBL to lecture based with some problems to solve) is still a

relatively under-used method of educating students in the formative years of school, from

Kindergarten through Grade 12. You do see some use of PBL is in the areas of science

classes but often these are lecture based classes. The students are solving some problems

once they receive all of the knowledge they need to solve the problem given by the

instructor, rather than using the problem as a guide for the students learning process.

Along with this, there has been little to no research showing that PBL is in fact

more conducive to students’ learning. Some studies show that students have enjoyed PBL

more than a typical lecture base but the research does not indicate that students actually

test better overall. Because of this shortcoming, it is difficult for teachers and districts to

a desire to move to this potentially more engaging and active learning style.

Another reason some teachers/districts will struggle to consider bringing more

true PBL into the classroom is that there is little available training and curriculum for the

staff that would be involved in teaching the PBL course. The lack of curriculum that

could support teachers in moving to a more authentic PBL formant simply is either not
 53

very good or does not exist. With that being said it is also quite difficult to use a true PBL

format in classrooms that are not based in either science or math. There is very little

research that shows PBL being used in an English or social studies classroom.

Learning the foundations of Problem Based Learning in its many dimensions and

levels has profoundly changed my view of the educational world. I look back into my

educational experience where many teachers stood at the front of the classroom and

lectured at students rather than getting into the learning process with students. The

purpose of PBL is to bring the student into a new realm of learning and affect the

metacognition within learning. The point of learning becomes the process of learning as

much as the outcome of the learning process. I believe as educators we are called to

understand that not every student is going to be earn a perfect 4.0 in every class and not

every student is going to be able to absorb every detail and remember it for the next few

decades, but what we can teach our students is the importance of being able to solve a

problem and how to research methods in which to solve those problems. The desire to

work in education is a calling to more than to just be an administrator of a curriculum. It

imperative to teach students how to be lifelong learners. Teachers need to educate

students on the process and methods used to think for themselves.

The effects of studying PBL have shown me that I need to understand the why

behind what I teach. Why is this important and how is this building my students to be

modern thinkers in an ever changing world. Looking at PBL has shown me that as an

educator, it is much more effective to come alongside a learner and support the journey.

While working in special education it is challenging to encourage students with learning

disabilities to engage in material that they have struggled with throughout their
 54

educational careers. By using PBL I can support student learning through meaningful

engaging questions that may impact their lives. These engaging questions give students

ownership in their learning. With that ownership, it may impact them on a level that

lecture and testing cannot accomplish. When students take ownership, they begin to

change the way in which they interact with the class material. An example can be given

within my math class. My demographic of students will need math that can use

throughout their lives such as computing hourly wage, shopping, and most importantly

budgeting for life. By building PSL in these areas, students can see the effects math has

on their lives.

When students leaves the world of academics and move into the workforce, they

are given problems in which they need to complete or solve. It is no longer a world of

input to output. It is a world of complex competing ideas where companies want

professionals that can work as a team to solve complex company problems. This causes

me to question how we are teaching and preparing our youth for life after high school.

Are we as educators providing the best education by sticking with what we know as

teachers or are we continuing our own education that allows us to aid our students in the

ever changing world? I plan to advocate that my students will be lifelong learners that

can meet the demands of today's world.

Conclusion

Looking back at the direct influence Problem Based Learning has on students’

engagement it is clear that it has a positive impact when presented to students with real

world application. Through the structure of Problem Based Learning both educators and

students have the ability to take ownership of learning and allows for students to use
 55

information and skills gathered in future presented problems compared to the rot

knowledge learned in Lecture Based Learning. Overall, Problem Based Learning garners

greater depth of understanding and application for students.

 56

References

Albanese, M.A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature

on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52-81.

Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature

on its outcomes and implementation issues. Medical Education, 34, 729-738.

Akkerman, S., Van den Bossche, P., Admiraal, W., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Simons,

R-J., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Reconsidering group cognition: from conceptual

confusion to a boundary area between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives?

Educational Research Review, 2, 39- 63.

Ames, C (1992). Classroom: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Angeli, C. (2002). Teacher’s practical theories for the design and implementation of

problem-based learning. Science Education International, 12(3), 9-15

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:

Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’

engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2),

261. https://doi-org.ezproxy.bethel.edu/10.1348/000709902158883

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to

medical education. New York: Springer.

Barrows, H.S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond. In L. Wilkerson

& W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.). Bringing problem-based learning to high education:

Theory and practice. New directions in teaching and learning (Vol. 68, pp. 3-12).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 57

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In

Resnick, L.B. (ed.) Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of

Robert Glaser, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 361-392.

Berkson, L. (1993). Problem-based learning: Have the expectations been met? Academic

Medicine, 68 (Supple. October), 79-88.

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). Changing problem-based learning [introduction]. IN D.

Boud & G. Feletti (Eds), The challenge of problem-based learning (2nd ed.;

pp.1-14) London: Kogan Page.

Black, A.E. & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructor’s autonomy support and

students’ autonomous motivation on learning and organic chemistry: a self

determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756.

Blumberg, P. (2000). Evaluating the evidence that problem-based learners are self-

directed learners: A review of the literature. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo

(Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions

(pp. 199-226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom Learning and motivation: Clarifying and

expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-281.

Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform

curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(4),

239-258. Retrieved from http://tnl.esd113.org/cms/lib3/WA01001093/Centricity/

ModuleInstance/276/BoalerReformCurriculumandequity.pdf
 58

Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver (2005). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students

Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16., 235-266.

Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and

theory. Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259-266.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human

needs and self-determination of behavior. Psychology Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2008a). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological

well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23.

De Grave, W., Boshuizen, H., & Schmidt, H. (1996). Problem based learning: Cognitive

and metacognitive processes during problem analysis. Instructional Science,

24(5), 321-341. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.bethel.edu/stable/23371327

Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (1994). What drives the student in problem-

based learning? Education, 28, 372-889.

Evenson, D.H., Hmelo, C.E. (Eds.). (2000). Problem-based learning: A research

perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Finkelstein, N., Hanson T., Huang, C. W., Hirschman, B., & Huang, M. (2010). Effects

of problem based economics on high school economics instruction. (NCEE

2010-4002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and

Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of

Education. Retriueved

from http://www.bie.org/research/study/experimental_study_of_bie_project_bas

ed_economics_units
 59

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic

engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162.

Gijselaers, W. H., & Schmidt, H. G. (1990). Development and evaluation of a causal

model of problem-based learning. In Z. H. Nooman, H. G. Schmidt, & E. S.

Ezzat (Eds.), Innovation in medical education, an evaluation of its present status

(pp. 95-113). New York; Springer Publishing.

Gijselaers, W. H., & Schmidt, H. G. (1995). Effects of quantity of instruction on time

spent on learning and achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(2),

183-201.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and

achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner,

Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and how do students learn?

Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 16. Pp. 235-266.

Hmelo, C. (1998). Problem-based learning: Effects on the early acquisition of cognitive

skill in medicine. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 173-208.

Hung, W. (2011). Theory to reality: a few issues in implementing problem-based

learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. 59(4), 529-552.

Hung, W. (2009), The 9-step process for designing PBL problems: Application of the

3C3R model. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 118-141.

Kischner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during

instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,

 60

problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational

Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B. Soloway, E., Geier, R., &

Revital T. T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of

learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

41(10), 1063-10180

Mergendoller, J. R. Markham, T., Ravitz, J., & Larmer, J. (2006). Pervasive

management of project based learning: Teachers as guides and facilitators. In C.

M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management:

Research, practice, and contemporary issues, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

inc.

Moust, J. H. C., van Berkel, H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2005). Signs of erosion:

Reflections on three decades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University.

Higher Education, 50, 665-683.

Musal, B., Gursel, Y., Taskiran, H. C., Ozan, S., & Tuna, A. (2004). Perceptions of first

and third year medical students on self-study and reporting processes of

problem-based learning. BMC Medical Education, 4(16).

Neville, A.J. (2009). Problem-based learning and medical education forth years on.

Medical Principles and Practices, 18, 1-9.

Norman, G., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-solving

learning clinical curriculum. Medical Education, 34, 608-613.

Noordzij, G. & Te Lindert, A. (2010). The effects of goal orientations and quality of

problems on students’ motivation in a problem based learning environment.

 61

Poster presented at the self-determination theory conference, Gent, Belgium

(May).

Pedersen, S. & Liu, M. (2002-2003). The Transfer of Problem-Solving Skills from a

Problem-Based Learning Environment: The Effect of Modeling an Expert’s

Cognitive Processes, Winter 2002-2003: 35(2) 303-320.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and

applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.

Ryan, A. M. (2000). Peer groups as context for the socialization of adolescents’

motivation, engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist,

35, 101-111.

Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M. Van Gog. T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning

is compatible with human architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and

Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 91-97.

Schmidt, H. G., Van der Molen, H. T., Te Winkel, W. W. R., & Wijnen, W. H. F. W.

(2009). Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of

curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational

Psychologist, 44, 227-249.

Schwartz, D. & Martin, T. 2004. Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden

efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction.

Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129–184.

Torp, L. & Sage, S (2002). Problems as Possibilities: Problem-Based Learning for K-12

Education, 2nd Edn., ASCD, Alexandria, VA.

 62

Van den Hurk, M. M., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van der

Vleuten, C. P. M. (1998). Essential characteristics of student-generated learning

issues in a problem-based curriculum. Medical Teacher, 20(4), 307-309.

Van den Hurk, M. M., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., Muijtjens, A. M.

M., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1999). Impact of individual study on tutorial

group discussion. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 11(4), 196-201.

Van den Hurk, M. M., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van der

Vleuten, C. P. M. (2001). Quality of student-generated learning issues in a

problem-based curriculum. Medical Teacher, 23(6), 567-571.

Van den Hurk, M. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Van der

Vleuten, C. P. M. (1999). The impact of student-generated learning issues on

individual study time and academic achievement. Medical Education, 33, 808-

814.

Vernon, D.T. A., & Blake, R.L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta

analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68, 550-563.

Walker, A. & Leary, H. (2008). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences

across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels,

Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 12-43. Retrieved

from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol3/iss1/3

West Virginia Board of Education (2008). 21st century learning skills and technology

tools content standards and objectives for West Virginia schools (Policy

2520.14). Charleston, WV: Author. Retrieved

from http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/p2520.14.pdf
 63

Wentzel, K. R., Jablansky, S., & Scalise, N. R. (2018). Do Friendships Afford Academic

Benefits? A Meta-analytic Study. Educational Psychology Review, 30(4), 1241–

1267. https://doi-org.ezproxy.bethel.edu/10.1007/s10648-018-9447-5

Wijnia, L., Loyens, S. M. M., & Derous, E. (2011). Investigating effects of problem-

based versus lecture-based learning environments on student motivation.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 101–113. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.bethel.edu/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.11.003

Zwaal, W., & Otting, H. (2016). Performance of the Seven-Step Procedure in Problem-

Based Hospitality Management Education. Journal of Problem Based Learning

in Higher Education, 4(1), 1–15. Retrieved

from http://ezproxy.bethel.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx

?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1124227&site=ehost-live&scope=site