Problem-based learning (PB), in its most current form, originated from Medical Education but has since been used in a variety of disciplines, at a variety of educational levels (Savery & Duffy, 1995; Savery, 2006). Briefly, PB is characterized as an approach to learning in which students are:
i. Given more control over their learning than a traditional approach, ii. Asked to work in small groups, and
iii. Most importantly, likely to acquire new knowledge only as a necessary step in solving authentic, ill-structured, and cross-disciplinary problems representative of professional practice (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; Barrows, 1986, 1996, 2002;).
This approach to learning arose, in part, from a sharp contrast between experiences at the beginning and end of medical school. During the first two years, students were put off by learning vast amounts of factual information, unsure of its connection to their future practice. During their residency, however, they tended to be highly motivated while engaging with patients and their problems (Spaulding, 1969).
This was because the students could relate and apply the knowledge they had acquired
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
39throughout the period of their training in the medical school to the reality of the patients‟
health problems.
Problem Based Learning (PB) implementations were put forward by Barrows (1986) through a learning taxonomy. The taxonomy moved from lecture-based cases to closed-loop problem based learning and includes a claim that the closed-loop approach is best positioned to enhance some educational objectives. It seems logical to expect that this type of PB learning implementation might play a positive role in learning outcomes.
An area of interest to achieve this is a focus on the problem types with which students are engaged. Jonassen (2000) proposed a typology of problems (ranging from logical problems to dilemmas) that includes associated learning activities, inputs, success criteria, context, and abstractness. Problem types may prove even more important than the examination of work done to acquire learning by the implementing body. According to Barrows (1996), PB learning has taken on a myriad of definitions pushed in part by institutions which desire to refine their particular approach. This is true to an even greater extent with PB learning expanding to several different disciplines and contexts outside medicine and education.
Changes to PB learning as initiated by institutions to reflect their needs and the needs of their discipline have made it somewhat difficult to construct a clear statement about what is and what is not PB learning. With that caveat in mind, and borrowing heavily from Barrows as one of the initial proponents of PB learning, some components can be considered appropriate in relation to this study. PB learning is:
i. Problems presented as unresolved so that students will generate not just multiple thoughts about the cause of the problem, but multiple thoughts on how to solve it (Barrows, 2002). Such problems may not have a single correct answer and should engage students in the exploration of multiple solution paths.
ii. A student centred approach in which students determine what they need to learn based on what is on their scheme and areas they need help. It is up to the learners to derive the key issues of the problems they face, define their knowledge gaps, and pursue and acquire the missing knowledge (Barrows, 2002; Hmelo-Silver &
Barrows, 2006).
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
40iii. Teachers are facilitators or tutors in the learning process. These facilitators, initially prompt students with meta-cognitive questions and, in subsequent sessions, fade that guidance (Barrows, 2002). They forgo lecturing about content in favour of modelling the kinds of learning processes that lead to success in PB settings (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006).Such learning processes may include monitoring the class activities to ensure that the entire class is carried along, encouraging contributions from members, and ensuring that the students‟ thought patterns are in the direction of the expected behavioural objectives.
These and more components constitute the minimum standards of PB learning.
Problem-Based Learning and achievement
Problem Based (PB) learning is an approach connecting real-life problems or challenges to the classroom and modifying classroom activities to meeting daily life needs of the students and those of the environment. The problem drives learning on a
„need to know‟ basis (Akoh, 2004). The discovery of what to know in order to solve a problem has to be made first; then, learning is organized to meet the need. It can be individual or group-based, self-directed, student-directed or teacher-guided. Using modelling examples based on screen recordings from participants in problem-solving conditions, Osman (2008) shows that goal-free effect applies to such learning as well.
The goal-free effect has been studied in cognitive load research with problem-solving tasks (Sweller and Levine, 1982; Ayres, 1993; Paas et al, 2001). It shows that learning is enhanced when students are not provided with a specific goal during problem-solving.
Providing students with no or a non-specific goal is assumed to prevent the use of means-ends analysis, thereby leading to better learning. Apparently, this benefit applies not only to the performer, but also to the observer‟s learning (Ayres & Paas, 2007;.Osman, 2008).
On the other hand and as the case may be, problems are absolutely essential for problem-based learning to prosper. This school of thought believes that problems initiate students‟ learning in PB learning. In other words, if there are no problems, there will be no problem-based learning. Although there are plenty of real-life problems around us, identifying the suitable problem to guide and direct students in their learning can be challenging.
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
41How should a problem for PB learning be designed? Is there any specific style or pattern to adopt? Should there be any interesting article/case study that is relevant to learning objectives to pose relevant questions? Or should learning objectives be identified and questions be posted on them? Is there a systematic way of designing these problems?
Recent studies suggest that problem effectiveness could be defined by eleven characteristics which are categorized into:
i. features characteristics, and ii. functions characteristics.
Features characteristics are designed elements while function characteristics are the desired outcomes of the problems Nachamma (2011). In designing problems, the characteristics to be manipulated are the feature characteristics which are;
problem clarity,
problem format,
problem difficulty level,
problem familiarity and
problem relevance
On the other hand, the function characteristic is the extent to which problem:
Leads to the intended learning issues,
Promotes self-directed learning,
Stimulates critical reasoning,
Stimulates elaboration,
Promotes team work and
Triggers interest.
In order to incorporate all these and make them relevant and realistic in designing effective problems in PB learning, Nachamma (2011) suggests that one could start off with analyzing students‟ characteristics and learning needs which will shed light on their prior knowledge and familiar content/context (these will cover information on problem familiarity, difficulty and relevance); their learning style (which will provide information on problem format) and comprehension capabilities (which will provide information on problem clarity). Such information needs to be incorporated into the presentation of the problem (Entwistle and Tait, 1990; Doyle 1997; Elen and Lowyck, 1999). This layer of
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
42the problem design could be likened to the user interface of the problem. Underlying the user interface is the content. Problem designers would need to identify the learning issues that need to be focused on and tailor it to students‟ prior knowledge and learning needs.
Hence it is essential to first analyse students‟ characteristics and learning needs to develop problems. This content then needs to be framed in a relevant and realistic context that students can relate to and apply in their studies and daily life (Olajide, 2005).
In addition to user interface, and the content, one needs to also focus on what is expected from the students as a result of working on the problem. This will create a platform on which to assess the achievement or outcomes at the end of the intervention.
Ko¨nings, van Merrienboer, and Brand-Gruwel (2010) opine that how students perceive instruction determines the nature and quality of their learning processes.
Instruction does not influence learning directly, but students‟ perceptions of instruction influence learning and study behaviour and eventually learning outcomes (Doyle, 1977;
Entwistle and Tai, 1990; Elen and Lowyck, 1999). Additionally, students tend to stick to learning preferences and habits and only use those elements of instruction that are in line with their habitual way of learning (Vermetten, Vermunt, and Lodewijks, 2002). It is, therefore, important to know how students perceive their instruction; to what degree is different aspects of instruction, such as student autonomy, are observed to be present in a course by the students. However, Watkins, (2004) and Holt, Denny, Capps, and de Vore (2005) affirm that students‟ perceptions and desires, with regard to their instruction, should be made more explicit, since those perceptions and desires appear to have a direct effect on learning processes. Since student autonomy is a component of the PB approach, it will be an action in the right direction if the approach is given a trial to see its effect on their overall learning achievement.