Research for Practitioners: Does Problem-based Learning Work?

We have a choice, nay, a responsibility,to consider the long-term consequences of our choices, and this holds true inour choices as designers for learning practice as well as in other places.

Pedagogies vary. Some are more instructivist, talking aboutpresenting concepts, examples, and then providing practice in sequence.Problem-based learning (PBL) and other similar approaches (e.g., case-basedlearning) take a different approach, having ill-structured (though carefullychosen) problems at the center, using learner initiative to a great extent,with instructors playing a facilitating role, and using the challenge tomotivate attention to relevant concepts and examples.

Which choices lead to better retention over time and betterability to solve problems?

The question

Harold Barrows’ introduction of problem-based learning in1986 (see References) sparked considerable interest and debate about thisapproach has continued to this day. Medical schools have gone as far as turningover their entire curriculum to PBL. Is this shift justified? In a notoriousarticle in 2006, Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark took on constructivist approaches(including PBL) in general, arguing that minimal guidance fundamentallycouldn’t work. Is this conclusion justified?

Overall, meta-analyses to date have been inconclusive aboutthe effectiveness of PBL. Could a more refined analysis address thisinadequacy, by asking a more refined question: when is PBL effective?

The study

Johannes Strobel and Angela van Barneveld decided to answer thesequestions. Using existing meta-analyses of PBL, they conducted a meta-synthesisof the reports, with a view towards answering the question, “What generalizablevalue statements about the effectiveness of PBL can be made and are supportedby the majority of meta-analyses?”

The approach taken was specifically not a meta-meta-analysisbut instead a meta-synthesis (the differences get into important issues but theseare pin-dancing for most of us). The steps were to select relevant articles,translate them into common language, and integrate the findings.

Strobel and van Barneveld found eight meta-analyses that mettheir criteria, and they synthesized them. They divided up different types ofoutcomes to evaluate: outcomes on retention of knowledge over time, and ondevelopment of problem-solving skills.

The results

The results favored traditional classrooms for knowledgeretention in the short-term. That is, if you are trying to pass tests shortlyafter the learning experience traditional approaches work best.

However, the results favored PBL for longer-term retention andlong-term skill development. As a side benefit, both students and staffreceived PBL more positively.

The implications

While these results were largely from the education sector,the outcomes are clearly relevant for practitioners in other areas. It’s notsurprising, frankly, that practice environments that focus on meaningfulproblems introduce cognitive gaps, or that support for learning-by-doing wouldlead to better skills in doing. This means, however, that we need to carefullyexamine the practice we set learners.

In short, practice for skill-development should:

• Provide ill-structured, unsolved problems
• Ensure those problems are meaningful to thelearner
• Support learners in interpreting and providingsolutions
• Facilitate discussion around the domain and the process

Strobel and van Barneveld’s concluding quote says it best: “PBLis significantly more effective than traditional instruction to train competentand skilled practitioners and to promote long-term retention of knowledge andskills acquired during the learning experience or training session.”

References

Barrows, H. S. “A Taxonomy of Problem-based Learning Methods.”Medical Education, 20, 6. 1986.

Kirschner, Paul A., John Sweller,  Richard E. Clark. “Why Minimal GuidanceDuring Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist,Discovery, Problem-based, Experiential, and Inquiry-based Teaching.” EducationalPsychologist, 41(2). 2006.