book chapter pbl

7/28/2019 Book Chapter PBL

1/25

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Teachers, parents and administrators are being faced with numerous changes in

education. Many people are concerned that the high school graduates are not capable of making

real-life decisions. In postindustrial world that we live in today, the need for problem-solving

skill is necessary. Employers are searching for graduates who not only have the academic drive

to do well in school, but the ability to take on a task that may or may not have an answer. The

scholars in Malaysian have called for a re-thinking of the dilemma of graduate unemployment

in Malaysia. Why there are 36,669 Malaysian graduates without jobs, in an expanding

economy? This serious phenomenon urges government to think on how to overcome this issue.

Ministry of Human Resources (MOHR) launched the RM100-million Graduate Training

Scheme (GTS) to assist and equip unemployed graduates in Malaysia secure the right skills to

find employment. It is time to have an in-depth study on why university graduates cannot find

jobs. The Ministry of Human Resources (MOHR) steps are good, but it done only as a remedial

effort or on an ad-hoc basis. Graduates have to be prepared for the working world while still in

university.

Classrooms today are often dictated by state standards and assessments. This is not

always a negative issue, but the impact of it must be concerned. The goal is for students to

graduate with a well-rounded education having developed the skills to be successful in the next

phase of their lives. Huge changes must be done in our education system. Students not just learn

how to make a right answer in the examination paper but they need to learn how to read and

interpret information. Learning how to think and problem-solve is the point of education.

Government standards and school assessment plans clearly dictate what must be taught in any

classrooms. Most of the material required by the Malaysian state standard is important

knowledge that students should know before they leave the high school classroom. The questionthen arises, when the students do not know how to apply the knowledge that has been taught in

school during their working life. Is it possible to teach the required content of knowledge, all the

while teaching them problem based learning skills that will prepared them for life?

1


2/25


3/25

curriculum and an approach to teaching will lessen the difficulty most students have in applying

chemistry to real world life outside the classroom. Such proven approach will help to bridge the

gap that Venkatachemy et all (2005) refers to exist between know what and know how in

learning. Problem-based learning states that it is possible to teach the content through real-life

scenarios without having the traditional notes, drilling practice, and assessment cycle. It also

claims that students will be more engaged in the process.

Problem-based learning was initially designed for graduate medical school programs

when instructors noted that young physicians were graduating with a wealth of information but

without the necessary problem solving skills to use that information wisely (Gallagher, Stepien,

Sher, & Workman, 1995). In 1969, a medical school was founded in Ontario with a unique

educational philosophy, the "McMaster philosophy," which has evolved into the educational

strategy known as problem-based learning (PBL) (Bayard, 1994). Problem-based learning

represents one approach to reforming leadership education. To further understanding of this

innovative approach to leadership development, we discuss what PBL is, the theoretical

underpinnings of this approach, the major implementation issues, effectiveness and the

possibilities for future research.

3


4/25

2.0 The role of teacher and students

The students as well as instructors have encountered great challenges when transitioning from

traditional instructional methods to PBL. These challenges might have evolved from students

as well as tutors interpretations of self-directed learning. According to (Miflin, 2004; Miflin et

al., 1999, 2000), self-directed learning in PBL could range from reorganized teaching, student-

initiated and selected but instructor-guided learning, to completely self-taught learning. This

wide spectrum of interpreting self-directed learning could have contributed to the confusion or

unsettled feeling for the students while defining their roles in PBL courses. Similar uncertainty

also occurred with the tutors when assuming their roles in the students learning process. In the

following sections, we discuss the perceptions of students as well as tutors in terms of their

roles in the PBL processes, as well as the tutoring factors that influence student learning.

2.1 Role of the Teacher

In problem based learning, the traditional teacher and student roles change. The students

feel more responsible for their learning this will give them more motivation. The faculty in turn

becomes resources, tutors, and evaluators, guiding the students in their problem solving efforts

(Delisle, 2002). Teacher acts as a cognitive and metacognitive role no more acting as a

knowledge-holder. Teacher provides an ill-structured problem based on desired curriculum

outcomes, leaner characteristics and problematic situations from the real world. Teachers also

investigate the range of resources important to the problem and arrange for their availability.

Teacher model, coach and fade in supporting and making explicit students learning process

(Bartels, 1998; Sage & Torp, 1997).

A major change that must occur is the teacher's perspective. Teachers' traditional views

of problem solving are influenced by their area of content specialization. Because PBL is often

interdisciplinary in nature, teachers need to recognize the connections between disciplines and

collaborate with other teachers in developing learning experiences that provide relevant

applications of content and skills (Maxwell et al., 2001; Meier et al., 1996).

Teachers must not only change the way they think about instruction, but also how they

approach instruction. What makes problems good are what the teachers do with them or what

they encourage students to do with them (Tchudi & Lafer, 1996). Teachers need to act as

4


5/25

models, thinking aloud with the students and practicing behavior they want to instill in their

students.A teacher role is to challenge the learner's thinking. The facilitator (and hopefully the

other students in this collaborative environment) will constantly ask: "Do you know what that

means? What are the implications of that? Is there anything else?" Superficial thinking and

vague notions do not go unchallenged.

2.2 Role of the Student

Students act the role of active problem-solvers, decision-makers, and meaning makers

rather than passive listeners. As the students are coached in their roles as real-world

investigators and active learners, they become self-regulated learners empowered to investigate

needed information, and learn actively. The students develop into self-directed learners and

problem solvers (Plucker & Nowak, 1999). Students construct their own understanding and

knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences.

Gurses et al. (2007) concluded that research shows that the initial transition to a PBL

curriculum may be difficult adjustment for student (p.107). the adjustment is difficult because

students are often concerned about content coverage in PBL environments (Dods, 1997; Lieux,

1996). The students, at times, struggle with how to discern what information is supplemental in

the problem and what is deemed important information for them to know for the test.

Furthermore, they struggle with how to bridge the gap between what they investigated in the

scenario and what principles are required for the class. These should go hand in hand. Whatever

the students learned in class previously, should be a fundamental part of solving the problem

they are given. Overall, their concerns mostly relate to uncertainty about their grades (Woods,

1996).

The concern about the sufficiency of content coverage also partially contributed to

students anxiety during PBL (Lieux, 2001; Schultz-Ross and Kline, 1999). Jost et al. (1997)

examined students discomfort levels with PBL in the initial stage of instruction by analyzing

the students journals, self-evaluations, and a survey. They found that the students anxiety

mainly resulted from their uncertainty about their roles and responsibilities in the course and

5


6/25

how they would be evaluated. The difficulty of assuming a more active role with more

responsibility in the learning processalso results from the students learned definition of roles

in traditional methods.

Students like to know exactly how much they have to do in order to receive a certain

grade. Putting them in roles where they are evaluated in several ways and where right and

wrong no longer matter tends to makes some students apprehensive. This might be due to the

newness of students roles in PBL or the difficulty of changing their attitudes about the class,

the teacher, themselves and the learning process itself. Despite all these issues, students still

produced understandable solutions to a problem and most of them were able to relate

information gleaned in the process back to the content of the class. The relative effectiveness of

the approach has also been written about. Gallagher, Stephen & Rosenthal (1992), Stephen,

Gallagher & Workman (1993) and others describe the approach as being capable of developing

in students better problem solving skills; resulting in better understanding and retention of

biochemistry content; and that the application shows better promise for pedagogy.

6


7/25

3.0 Features of problem based learning

Although the content and structure of PBL courses may be different but the general

goals and learning objectives tend to be similar. PBL starts with the assumption that learning is

an active, integrated, and constructive process influenced by social and contextual factors

(Barrows, 1996; Gijselaers, 1996). In their review of the literature, Wilkerson and Gijselaers

(1996) claim that PBL is characterized by a student-centered approach, teachers as facilitators

rather than disseminators, and open-ended problems (in PBL, these are called ill-structured)

that serve as the initial stimulus and framework for learning.

Learning is student-centered because the students are given the freedom to study

those topics that interest them the most and to determine how they want to study them. Students

should identify their learning needs, help plan classes, lead class discussions, and assess their

own work and their classmates work (Gallagher, 1997; Reynolds,1997). Students develop a

deeper awareness and ownership of important concepts in the course by working on activities, a

basic tenet of the constructive approach to learning (Seltzer, et al., 1996).

In addition to emphasizing learning by doing PBL requires students to be

metacognitively aware (Gijselaers, 1996). That is, students must learn to be conscious of what

information they already know about the problem, what information they need to know to solve

the problem, and the strategies to use to solve the problem. Being able to articulate such

thoughts helps students become more effective problem-solvers and self-directed learners.

Group work is also a needed aspect of PBL for several reasons. First, group work

helps develop learning communities in which students feel comfortable developing new ideas

and raising questions about the material (Allen, Duch, & Groh, 1996). In addition, group work

enhances communication skills and students ability to manage group dynamics. Finally,

groupwork is interesting and motivating for students because they become actively involved in

the work and are held accountable for their actions by group members (Cohen, 1994).

7


8/25


9/25

3.2 Challenge and barrier in implementation of PBL

Programs are resources concentrated and time consuming. One question that must be

asked before implementing any new educational innovation is whether the costs of changing the

curriculum and then sustaining the new program will be justified in terms of learning

effectiveness and efficiency. There are many factors to be considered in assessing cost: time

commitments of faculty and students, requirements for support personnel, cost of

instructional materials, necessary physical support such as buildings and rooms, such as

Barrows recommended a close look at both cost and feasibility before embarking on PBL.

Attention should be paid to those physical facilities, which might interfere with the success of

PBL. Enhanced student earning and improved professional education should outweigh the

initial costs due to refurbishment, for instance. Problem-based learning is resource-intensive

and requires much liaison which is time-consuming.

. One issue is the identification of appropriate tutors for PBL to facilitate teaching

in small groups. It is quiet difficult in identification of appropriate tutor .Should the tutor be an

expert in small-group work? Should the tutor be an expert in the content material? Should the

tutor be expert in both? Research results are unequivocal. For small groups to function

effectively, the facilitator must be familiar with teaching techniques of facilitating small

groups. That it is important for tutors to be well informed about a problem and about related

learning issues. Look at the effect of facilitating teaching with content expertise tutors on small

group-performance. Their findings suggest that content expert tutors have a more directive

role which may endanger one of the most important aspects of small-group work.

In PBL programs, to achieve the objectives of developing effective clinical reasoning

and cognitive abilities, problems included in curriculum must assist students in developing

skills to drive thorough lists of hypotheses and test them with focused databases similar

in quality to those that an expert would possess or obtain. Studies have shown that the waysmedical students think do not match with those of expert doctors. According to these studies,

experts rapidly generated hypotheses from the beginning of the encounter with the patient, and

often tested several hypotheses simultaneously. They then made a functional enquiry and a

review of symptoms and followed up any new clues or hypotheses, which were generated

by these procedures.

9


10/25

3.3 Comparison of PBL and Inquiry Learning

Problem based learning originated come from the field of medical education as a method

of instruction and a way of organizing the curriculum for preparing future physicians (Barrows

& Tamblyn, 1980). In most medical schools, lecturers use PBL to deliver part of a courses

content. At start only a few, but steadily increasing number of medical schools organize a

substantial portion of their curricula around problems and rely on PBL as the mode of

instruction. Cognitive scientists propose that learning results from the exploration of the

environment (Bruner,1966;Gagne, 1976; Inhelder & Piaget, 1958; Piaget, 2000) and the

learning acquired will in turn help the learner solve his own problem as he/she interacts with the

environment ( Kim, Bonk & Teng, 2007). The need for problem-based chemistry at higher level

of learning is also to accommodate aims such as evidenced in constructive learning (Fosnot,

2005), open-ended inquiry and learning environment (National Research Council,1995), goal-

based scenario (The Higher Education Academy, 2009) self-reflection and creative problem-

solving, researching market, pitching and selling.

Inquiry-based instruction is a methodology born out of the Constructivist idea that all

learning should occur at the hands of the student ( Tenbrink, 1999). According to constructivist

thinking, knowledge is personal, and arises out of experiences and interactions which are unique

to each individual (Alkove & McCarty, 1992). This type of methodology is defined in the

National Science Education Standards as :

Science teaching must involve students in inquiry-oriented investigations in

which they interact with their teachers and peers. Students establish connections

between their knowledge of science and the scientific knowledge found in many

sources; they apply science content to new questions; they engage in problem

solving , planning, decision making, and group discussion; and they experience

assessments that are consistent with an active approach to learning (NationalResearch Council, 1996).

While this is actually just a broad definition, it certainly applies to this study. Colburn

(2000) offers several different approaches to inquiry-based instruction. PBL seems to fit well

with the definition of guided inquiry. Guided inquiry is where the teachers provide only the

10


11/25

materials and the problem to investigates. Student devises their own plan procedure to solve the

problem (Colburn, 2000). This study is designed to investigate the effectiveness of PBL, a

form of inquiry-based instruction, in the high school science classroom.

Problem-based learning is a natural daughter product of inquiry-based instruction.

Barrow (1998) stated that there are 5 guiding principles for PBL.

i) Problem-based . It begins with the presentation of real-life (authentic) problem

stated as if it might be encountered by practitioners.

ii) Problem solving . It supports the application of problem-solving skills required in

clinical practice. The role of the instructor is to facilitate the application and

development of effective problem-solving process.

iii) Student -centered. Students assume responsibility to their own learning and

faculty act as facilitators. Instructors must avoid making students dependent on

them for what they should learn and know.

iv) Self -directed learning. It develops research skills. Students need to learn how to

get information when it is needed and will be current, as this is an essential skill

for professional performance.

v) Reflection. This should take place following the completion of problem work,

preferably through group discussion, and is meant to enhance transfer of learning

to new problems.

The cognitive scientists like Gagne and Suchman and pragmatist like Dewey can be said

to pioneer studies in problem-based learning. Problem-based learning cannot be discussed

without recourse to John Deweys philosophical perspectives on education also. Dewey (1933)

stressed the importance of learning through experience. Dewey believed teachers need to appeal

to students experiences. This is the basis of motivation in students. He also believed that

students learn best by doing, by discovery and by thinking through problems which are at the

root of problem-based learning. Suchman in Hassard (2004) gave a graphic illustration of

problem solving session as shown in the table below.

11


12/25

Topic Look beyond Look towards

Atomic structure Postulate, theories and

principles of modern atomic

structure

Recycling of chemical wastes

Chemical bonding Formation of compounds or

molecules

Green chemistry, producing

something not only useful

but supporting the

environment

Stochiochemistry Studying the composition of

matter

Study how much sugar is

consumed daily by citizen in

the food they eat and the

effects

Other studies like those of Seifer & Simmons (1997), Lacek (2001) and Orimogunje

(2004) gave different views of the concept. Seifer & Simmons (1997), for example, sees

problem based learning as an appeal that enhances communication skills, encourages active

participation and helps students become more self-reliant learners. Being self-reliant learners,

the students determine what materials should be researched and how they will go about finding

information from sources like the internet, interviews, reviewing recent publications and so on.

The Lamphier Curriculum Center (2000) provided excellent overview of the problem-

based learning process. An ill-structured problem is initially presented to the students.

Gallagher, Sher, Stephen and Workman (1995) define an ill-structured problem as a real life

problem that can be solved in more than one way. It is presented without all the necessary

information to solve the problem and the realization that the scope of the problem may change

as new information arises. The introduction of an ill-structured problem occurs before any

pertinent information is given to the students.

At the heart of true PBL is an ill-defined problem, an unresolved "murky" situation. This

is presented to small groups of students who have been given a stakeholder role which is the

12


13/25

"hook", says Gallagher (1995) that propels and invest students in the ill-defined situation. To

better understand what is meant by an ill-defined problem it is helpful to examine what is meant

by a problem. Although problems can differ in many ways, they all can be considered as having

three characteristics. First, there is an initial or present state in which we begin. Second, there is

a goal state we wish to achieve. Finally, there is some set of actions or operations needed to get

from the initial state to the goal state.

3.3 Learning Process in PBL

Several steps of what constitute the problem-based learning process were also given by

some authors like Gallagher (1995 ) and Greenald (2000). For instance, while some identify five

steps, others talk about six, seven and so on. Gallagher (1995) emphasizes, all three of these key

features must be present: initiating learning with a problem, exclusive use of ill-defined

problems and teacher as metacognitive coach. Greenald (2000) listed ten steps which are;

encountering an ill-defined problem , having the students ask questions, pursuing problem

finding, mapping problem finding and prioritizing, investigating the problem, analyzing the

results, reiterating learning, generating solutions and recommendations, communicating the

results, and conducting self-assessments. The major components identified by Seifert and

Simmons are; problem formulation, data collection, brainstorming solutions, evaluating and

selecting solutions and implementing the solutions. Whatever the number and the complexity of

steps, one thing is common, almost all of the steps involve the active participation on the part of

the students with the teachers acting as coaches or facilitators.

In problem-based learning, students are presented with a loosely structured problem

one that has no obvious solution and for which problem-solvers cannot be certain they have the

right answer. The problem must be content relevant and represent a real situation faced by an

individual, group, company, or community. Solving the problem takes students through the

following processes (Savoie & Hughes, 1994):

1) Engagement.

13


14/25

Problem-based learning requires students to self-direct their search for solution, often by

assuming the role of a key actor in the problem situation.

2) Inquiry.

Students brainstorm with others and gather information from multiple sources.

3) Solution Building.

Students work in teams discussing alternatives and examining possible solutions.

4) Debriefing and Reflection.

Students share information, opinions, and idea with others based on what they have learned

through the experience.

14


15/25

Figure 1. The problem based learning process. Taken from Barrows and Myers (1993).

15


16/25

3.4 Assessment Issues

The assessment used in the early implementation of PBL largely relied on traditional

U.S. board exams, which were standardized tests designed to assess students factual knowledge

and clinical reasoning. Nendaz and Tekian (1999) criticized traditional assessment as not being

in line with the principles of PBL; therefore, the PBL students performance might have been at

a disadvantage under traditional assessment. Fortunately, Blake et al. (2000) noted a shift in

more recent years such that the emphasis of assessment has moved from testing factual

knowledge to assessing application of the knowledge. This change not only benefits the students

who study under PBL curriculum but also signal an increasing attention to students abilities to

apply and transfer basic knowledge instead of focusing on factual knowledge acquisition.

A number of different methodologies have been developed to assess students problem-

solving skills, reasoning skills, and personal progress; for example, according to the

classification by Swanson et al. (1998), there are outcome-oriented instruments, such as the

progress test (Van der Vleuten et al., 1996), essay exams, oral and structured oral examinations,

patient-management problems, clinical reasoning exercises (Wood et al., 2000), problem-

analysis questions (Des Marchais et al., 1993), formative assessment (Neufeld et al., 1989), and

tutor, peer, and self-assessment. As Savin-Baden (2004) contended, assessment is probably one

of the most controversial issues in PBL because it is probably the most important indicator for

validating its effectiveness. The mixed results of PBL students learning outcomes discussed

earlier mighthave been largely due to incomparable assessment being used.

In their meta-analysis of PBL research, Gijbels et al. (2005) found that the effects of

PBL varied mostly depending on the focus of assessment instrument used. PBL had the most

positive effects when the instrument focused on assessing the understanding of principles that

link concepts. This may explain the pattern seen in PBL research that traditional students

performed better in basic knowledge acquisition while PBL students did better in application of

knowledge and clinical reasoning. Reviewing the assessment in the medical schools

implementing PBL from 1966 to 1998, Nendaz and Tekian (1999) concluded that a lack of

uniformity existed with regard to the assessment methodologies used in measuring PBL

students performance.

16


17/25

4.0 DISCUSSION

Problem based learning is one of the choices in instructional approach , it is well known

for their benefits in developing students skills rather than gathering and memorizing facts. PBL

involved students in learning information similar to the ways it will be recalled and employed in

future situations and assesses learning in ways which demonstrate understanding and not mere

acquisition (Gick & Holyoak, 1980; Ram, 1999). PBL become the practice in develop country

(western county) but rarely or may not be practiced in developing countries like Malaysia. In

order to be a develop county, the first thing we have to look is human capital. Human capital

play a vital part in planning natural resources, develop and design technology, and etc.

Furthermore, employers nowadays demand more from their workers. Employers cite the need

for workers with excellent communication skills, the ability to work collaboratively to solve

problems, an understanding of statistics, and the ability to creatively solve ill-defined problems

(Meier, Hovde, & Meier, 1996).Therefore teachers have to change their paradigm in term of

pedagogy approach. They should no longer acting as a disseminator of knowledge but become

as a good facilitator in classroom. The teacher should encourage students more engage in

discussion and search for information. After all, the way how teacher teaches will affect the

quality of human capital.

Theoretically PBL looks simple and easy but a lot of things need to be done whether for

students and teachers. The role of both parties has change tremendously from many aspects.

Many challenge we have to face in order to practice PBL and many questions need to be

answered. Some of the questions are Do our teacher ready to change their paradigm?, Do our

school evaluation system ready to change from centralized examination to de-centralized

exam?, Do our school management ready to accept this new approach of teaching? These are

only few example of questions need to be rectified, but a lot more should be explored in order to

put PBL in practice.

The most critical factor in implementing PBL in Malaysia is a teacher. Teacher is a front

line that faces the students every day. The successful or failure of teaching and learning depends

on several factors and the most two important factors are a teacher and learning method

17


18/25

(Omardin, 1999). What the teacher think will definitely some day will affect the quality of

student thinking skills. This is what we really afraid, if the teacher is a lazy and spoon feeder

then the students also become less engage in discussion, not creative and a good user of

technology not as a good inventor. Therefore, teacher training education program play a vital

part to introduce PBL and monitor the teacher practice while in practical training in school.

During this time we can find many weaknesses in term of how to use PBL instruction that suit

the cognitive level of students, how supportive school management to the PBL approach and

how facilities in schools suitable for using PBL. All those weaknesses should be listed and

research should be conducted to look them up detailed problem.

Another factor inhibiting change was noted by Albion and Gibson (2000) and Novak

(1990) in teacher education programs. Most of these programs still rely heavily on rote learning

and traditional lecture formats. It is difficult to expect teachers to adopt learning methodologies

that they have not experienced personally or through their teacher education programs. With

many administrators, curriculum developers, and teachers lacking experience in

interdisciplinary education, barriers to broad scale change.

The second factor but rarely being seen is parent or public view about the PBL. Since in

context of Malaysia, education is a sensitive issue that need to be handle with carefully since

Malaysia is a multiracial and sometime education is included in political agenda of certain

parties. Most parent still looking examination result as crucial end product of education. Their

perception is if the student can score A for all subject meaning that he or she is clever and

having a bright future. They are not looking the process of developing the student thinking skills

and the soft skills behind a certificate that actually play a crucial part in surviving in a global

competitive job market. In this case our government should provide proper medium for

explanation to the public. Otherwise, the implementation of PBL cannot be realized without the

support from parent.

Students are also play as important as teacher in determining the successful

implementation of PBL. But the unique about students in Malaysia is multiracial, rural and

remote area also indigenous students. These are part of the challenges that teacher will be

18


19/25

facing. Imagine how to teach indigenous students using PBL method. But that cannot be a

reason to not implement PBL instead it can be modified or simplified to suit with their thinking

ability and limited available resources. In fact this group of students will be more motivated

after findings that PBL relevant with their real-life problem. This is true as stated by Bayard

(1994 ) that Problem-based learning has the potential to structure knowledge so that acquisition

and recall are optimized, students develop self-directed learning skills, and there is an increase

in the motivation for learning . It is still depend on the teachers themselves to play their active

role as a good facilitator and motivator.

Is it any cost involved in implementing PBL in Malaysia? The answer is Yes, one

indirect cost is the initial shock or grieving period for both staff and students ( Woods 1994)

as many of the learning and teaching strategies suitable for the standard lecture and tutorial

format are not suitable any more in the PBL environment. For staff, moving from expert

lecturer or teacher to facilitator become difficult and many students report that they are satisfied

with the existing surface approaches to learning and can be anxious or even angry about the new

PBL approach ( Aldred et al 1997). There is also a time cost. Adequate preparation is essential

for staff and students ( Woods 1994, Alderd 1997 , Barrows 1985).

Another challenge to PBL is the lack of prepared materials for classroom instruction.

Few training materials are available. Present curriculum guides and textbooks do not contain

the variety of sample problems or assessment tools needed to support this methodology on a

broad scale. The philosophies supporting PBL are well established, but the "how tools" are in

short supply (Burruss, 1999; Gallagher et al., 1995).

19


20/25

4.1 SUGGESTIONS

1. Teachers should be given ample time to prepare themselves pertaining PBL approach.

Sometimes if teacher support is neglected, it is very hard to realize the successful

implementation.

2. Students or pupils should be given more guidance at the beginning of PBL lesson. Make

them struggle and anxious without any support will kill their motivation to become

independent learner. In general, the reduction of anxiety and uncertainty tends to

increase the students motivation and satisfaction with the learning process (Harasim

et al., 1997).

3. Parents or public should also be given explanation in any forum, seminars or course in

order to gain their support and change their perception about new approach of pedagogy.

4. More researches are encouraged in this PBL instruction whether in school or universities

to look any problems that could arise so that any recommendation for solution would be

made.

5. New incentives should be given to teachers who can successfully implement PBL in

teaching and learning. This will give motivation for other teachers to also carry out in

their lesson.

6. Government support is very important especially involving with cost for training more

teachers in PBL methodology and pedagogy.

20


21/25

5.0 CONCLUSION

PBL is an effective way of delivering education in a coherent, integrated program and

offers several advantages over traditional teaching methods. It is based on principles of adult

learning theory, including motivating the students, encouraging them to set their own learning

goals, and giving them a role in decisions that affect their own learning. Importantly, though,

students from PBL curriculums seem to have better knowledge retention. PBL also generates a

more stimulating and challenging educational environment, and the beneficial effects from the

generic attributes acquired through PBL should not be underestimated.

Some of the features of the PBL environment are that the learners are actively engaged

in working at tasks and activities which are authentic to the environment in which they would

be used. The focus is on learners as constructors of their own knowledge in a context which is

similar to the context in which they would apply that knowledge. Students are encouraged and

expected to think both critically and creatively and to monitor their own understanding i.e.

function at a metacognitive level. Social negotiation of meaning is an important part of the

problem-solving team structure and the facts of the case are only facts when the group decides

they are.

PBL as we described it, contrasts with a variety of other problem or case based

approaches. Most case based learning strategies (Williams, 1993) use cases as a means for

testing one's understanding. The case is presented after the topic is covered in order to help test

understanding and support synthesis. In contrast, in PBL, all of the learning arises out of

consideration of the problem. From the start, the learning is synthesized and organized in the

context of the problem.

It is not impossible to fully implement PBL in school or university in Malaysia. The

only things are all parties must play their part to comprehend, support and build positive

perception about PBL. The selection of new pedagogical approach is critical for us if we want

to become progressive nation.

21


22/25

REFERENCES

Allen, D. E., Duch, B. J., & Groh, S. E. (1996). The power of problem-based learning

in teaching introductory science courses. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing

problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 43-52). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass

Albion, P., & Gibson, I. (2000). Problem-based learning as a multimedia design

framework in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 315-326.

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief

overview. In L.Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to

higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 3-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bartels, B. H. (1998). Integrating the disciplines in the elementary grades with problem-

based learning. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 64(3), 9-14.

Blake, R. L., Hosokawa, M. C., and Riley, S. L. (2000). Student performances on step 1

and step 2 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination following implementation of a

problem-based learning curriculum. Acad. Med., 75, 6670.

Burruss, J. (1999). Problem-based learning. Science Scope, 22(6), 46-49

Chin,C.& Chia, L. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: Using students questions to drive

knowledge construction. Science Education, 88, 707-727.

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for heterogeneous classrooms.

New York:Teachers College Press.

Delisle, R. (2002). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom.

http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/books/delisle97book.html

Des Marchais, J. E., Dumais, B., Jean, P., and Vu, N. V. (1993). An attempt at

measuring student ability to analyze problems in the Sherbrooke problem-based curriculum: a

preliminary study. In Problem-Based Learning as an Educational Strategy, edited by P.

Bouhuijs, H. G. Schmidt, and H. J. M. van Berkel, pp. 239248. Maastricht, the Netherlands:

Network Publication.

Gallagher, S., Stepien, W., Sher, B., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-

based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 136-146.

22


23/25

Gallagher, S. A. (1997). Problem-based learning: thinking curriculum. In L. B.

Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research

(pp. 1-18). Reston, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., van den Bossche, P., and Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-

based learning: a meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Rev. Educ. Res., 75(1), 2761.*

Gijselaers, W. H. (1996). Connecting problem-based practices with educational

theory. In L.Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher

education: Theory and practice (pp. 13-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greenwald, N. L. (2000). Learning from problems. The Science Teacher, 67 (4), 28-32.

Goodnough, K. (2006). Enhancing pedagocigal content knowledge through self-study:

an exploration of problem-based learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 301-318.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L. & Turoff, M. (1997). Learning Networks: A

Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?

Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.

Jost, K. L., Harvard, B. C., and Smith, A. J. (1997). A study of problem-based learning

in a graduate education classroom. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development

Presentations at the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational

Communications and Technology, February 1418, Albuquerque, NM (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 409 840).

Lieux, E. M. (2001). A skeptics look at PBL. In The Power of Problem-Based

Learning: A Practical How To for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline, edited

by B. Duch, S. E. Groh, and D. E. Allen, pp. 223235. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Maxwell, N., Bellisimo, Y., & Mergendoller, J. (2001). Problem-based learning:

Modifying the medical school model for teaching high school economics. Social Studies, 92(2),

73-78.

Meier, S., Hovde, R., & Meier, R. (1996). Problem solving: Teachers perceptions,

content area models, and interdisciplinary connections. School Science and Mathemataics, 96,

230-237.

Miflin, B. M. (2004). Adult learning, self-directed learning and problem-based learning:

deconstructing the connections. Teaching Higher Educ., 9(1), 4353.

23


24/25

Miflin, B. M., Campbell, C. B., and Price, D. A. (1999). A lesson from the introduction

of a problem-based, graduate entry course: the effects of different views of self-direction. Med.

Educ., 33, 801807.

Nendaz, M. R. and Tekian, A. (1999). Assessment in problembased learning medical

schools: a literature review. Teaching

Learn. Med., 11(4), 232243.

Neufeld, V. R., Woodward, C. A., and MacLeod, S. M. (1989). The McMaster MD

program: a case study of renewal in medical education. Acad. Med., 64, 423432.

Novak, J. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937-949.

Omardin ( 1999 ). Creative Teaching for active learning.Kuala Lumpur : Dewan

Bahasa dan Pustaka

Plucker, J., & Nowak, J. (1999). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom.

Roeper Review, 22(1), 69-70.

Sage, S. M., & Torp, L. T. (1997). What does it take to become a teacher of problem-

based learning? Journal of Staff Development, 18, 32-6.

Savin-Baden, M. (2004). Understanding the impact of assessment on students in

problem-based learning. Innov. Educ. Teaching Int., 41(2), 223233.

Seltzer, S., Hilbert, S., Maceli, J., Robinson, E., & Schwartz, D. (1996). An active

approach to calculus. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based

learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 83-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shelton, J. B., & Smith, R. F. (1998). Problem-based learning in analytical science

undergraduate teaching. Research in Science and Technological Education, 16 (1), 19-29.

Smith, C. A. (1999). Problem-based learning. Biochemical Education, 27(3), 157-169.

Tchudi, S., & Lafer, S. (1996). The interdisciplinary teachers handbook: Integrated

teaching across the curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Swanson, D. B., Case, S. M., and Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1998). Strategies for

student assessment. In The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning, 2nd ed., edited by D. Boud

and G. Feletti, pp. 269282. London: Kogan Page.

24


25/25

Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Verwijnen, G. M., and Wijnen, W. F. H. W. (1996). Fifteen

years of experience with Progress Testing in a problem-based learning curriculum. Med.

Teacher, 18, 103109.

Woods, Donald R. Problem-based learning: how to gain the most from PBL.

Waterdown, Ont.:D.R. Woods, 1994, BSL Main Collection 378

Williams, S. M., (1992) Putting Case-Based Instruction Into Context: Examples From

Legal and Medical Education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 367- 427.

book chapter pbl

Documents