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

net/publication/7902006

Problem Based Learning: An Introduction and Overview of the Key Features of the
Approach

Article in Journal of Veterinary Medical Education · February 2005

DOI: 10.3138/jvme.32.1.12 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS
READS
100
11,943

1 author:

Mark Newman
University College London
65 PUBLICATIONS 1,032 CITATIONS

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Newman on 11 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 [23.3.2005– [12– [Page No. 12]
L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME- Journal of
Featured Article
Problem Based Learning: An Introduction and
Overview of the Key Features of the Approach
ABSTRACT
Problem Based Learning (PBL) has been adopted in educational programs in a variety of disciplines, including veterinary
medicine. There is a voluminous literature on the subject, but it often remains unclear just what is being done in the name of
PBL, and different accounts highlight different, often contradictory, positions on the key features of the approach. Similarly,
despite the many claims made for the advantages of PBL, the evidentiary basis of such claims is often questionable.
This article provides an introductory overview of what appear to be the key features of the approach and a brief
summary of empirical evidence on its effectiveness.
INTRODUCTION
Problem Based Learning (PBL) has been introduced into
education in many professional fields and appears to be of
growing interest to veterinary medical educators.
Cambridge Veterinary School in the United Kingdom,1
Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, 2 and
the newly created Western University of Health Sciences
College of Veterinary Medicine in the United States3 all
report using a form of PBL in their pre-clinical veterinary
medical curriculum. In its modern guise, PBL started to
become a feature of educational programs during the 1960s.
Since then there has been steady growth in the number of
programs and institutions that have adopted PBL around
the world. This transformation has been encouraged by an
almost evangelical PBL movement that has published a
wealth of anecdotal material extolling the virtues of the
approach.4 PBL has been endorsed by a wide variety of
national and international organizations,5 and, in recent
years, the advantages claimed for PBL have become part of
the generally articulated outcomes for education at all
levels.6
However, it is not always clear what exactly is being done
in the name of PBL.7, 8 There are a growing number of
references in the literature to ‘‘adapted’’ or ‘‘hybrid’’ PBL
approaches and approaches labeled ‘‘Inquiry-based learn-
ing,’’ which are apparently based on but not the same as
PBL.9–11 For example, a recent article in this journal
described Inquiry-based learning and contrasted it with
Problem Based Learning,12 but the description given of
Inquiry-based learning would match many definitions of
Problem Based Learning. There is no single unanimous
position about the theoretical basis for, or practice of, PBL.
There is not even agreement about whether there is, or
should be, one type of PBL or many variants. 11, 13 The
wide dissemination of PBL has de facto spawned many
variations.14
A distinction that does appear useful is made by Bereiter
and Scardamalia15 between PBL and problem-solving
learning. They distinguish between PBL (upper-case) and
pbl (lower-case). Lower-case pbl refers to an indefinite range
of educational approaches that give problems a central place
in the learning activity. Practitioners of upper-case PBL, on
the other hand, tend to adhere to the structures and
1 JVME 32(1) © 2005
Mark J. Newman
procedures first systematized by Howard Barrows.16
Central to this system is a conception of learning as an
integrated process of cognitive, metacognitive, and personal
development. Barrows argues that a more accurate title
for the model he and his collaborators developed might
be ‘‘student-centered, problem based, inquiry-based,
integrated, collaborative, reiterative, learning.’’17 However,
the label ‘‘Problem Based Learning’’ has stuck. And it is this
uppercase PBL that is the focus of this article.
It is not my intention to describe the many different theories
of learning and teaching that appear to provide the
principles that underpin PBL. The relationship between
some of the concepts (grey boxes), theories from which
they derive (clear boxes), and key features of PBL (black
boxes) are illustrated in Figure 1. It is worth noting that
when Barrows and his colleagues designed the original
Problem- Based Learning Curriculum at McMaster
University’s medical school in the late 1960s, they did so
with a view to overcoming what they perceived as the
practical problems of student boredom, students’ inability
to apply what they learned in medical school to clinical
practice, and the lack of ‘‘professional’’ skills of new
graduates.18 The explicit links with various theories of
learning and educa- tion came after this as various
disciplines analyzed and developed their own versions of
PBL.
WHAT TYPE OF LEARNING IS PBL INTENDED
TO PROMOTE?
Dolmans and Schmidt19 state that the aim of PBL is to help
students develop rich cognitive models of the problems
presented to them. Similarly, Savin-Baden 20 argues that the
often unarticulated aim of teachers who use PBL approaches
is to develop in their students ‘‘criticality,’’ that is,
emotional, intellectual, and practical independence. Bailey
et al.21 emphasize enhancing enculturation into a commu-
nity of practice as an aim of PBL. A summary of the ways in
which these aims have been operationalized, derived from
the work of Engel13 and Woods,22 is given in Box 1.
WHAT IS PROBLEM BASED LEARNING?
Engel13 describes the essential characteristics of a problem-
based curriculum as follows: it is cumulative (repeatedly
 [23.3.2005– [12– [Page No. 13]
L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME- Journal of

Social
Theories of self regulation and constructiv- ist theory
meta cognition Schema theory

Knowledge is socially constructed

Activation
in communities
of prior learning
of practice
and subsequent knowledge use facilitated by learning in context

Succsssful learning requires adoption of particular attitudes and strategies Importance of Internal/Episte mic motivation to learn
Use of ‘Problems’ to stimulate, contextulize and integrate learning Motivational theory
Learning in small groups

Teacher as facilitator of process of learning for which students themselves are responsible
Curriculum theories
Appropriate Assessment

Use of explicit tutorial process to stimulate reflection, active participation and application

Use of knowledge requires communica- tive actionLearning

students ismust
an active
also learn
process
these
ofskills
reflection and investigation

Theories of
Figure 1: Summary of the key features andprofessional practice and
conceptual of of Problem Based Learning
basis
learning

BOX 1: ‘‘CAPABILITIES’’ THAT PBL DEVELOPS

Awareness (active listening).
Problem solving
. Strategy (planning)
Personal learning preference .Defining real problems
(goals, mission, vision)
Look back and extending experience (recognizing fundamentals in a giv
. Learning skills .
Decision making
(laws, theories, concepts, etc.)
Group and chairperson skills
Coping creatively with conflict
. Creativity .Practicing empathy, appreciating the other person’s point of view

. Stress management Managing change . Time management .Self-directed lifetime learning

Reasoning critically and creatively Interpersonal skills
. . Adopting a more universal or holistic .approach
. . Self-directed learning .

. Collaborating productively in .
groups or teams
Self-assessment
. . Obtaining criteria

reintroducing material at increasing depth), integrated (de-
emphasizing separate subjects), progressive (developing as
students adapt), and consistent (supporting curricular aims
through all its facets). Others describe a continuum of PBL
models. Savin-Baden11 proposes six dimensions of PBL
and argues that the important differentiation is the way in
which knowledge, learning, and the role of the student are
conceptualized and manifest in the curriculum. Based on
the argument that the key variables in PBL are ‘‘the
problem’’ and ‘‘the information gained,’’ Harden and

JVME 32(1) © 2005 1

 [23.3.2005– [12– [Page No. 14]
L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME- Journal of

BOX 2: GENERIC PBL ESSENTIALS

●
Students must have responsibility for their own learning.
●
The problem simulations used in Problem Based Learning must be ill structured and allow for free inquiry.
●
Learning should be integrated from a wide range of disciplines or subjects.
●
Collaboration is essential.
●
What students learn during their self-directed learning must be applied back to the problem with reanalysis
and resolution.
●
A closing analysis of what has been learned from work with the problem and a discussion of what concepts
and principles have been learned is essential.
●
Self- and peer assessment should be carried out at the completion of each problem and at the end of every
curricular unit.
●
The activities carried out in Problem Based Learning must be those valued in the real world.
●
Student examinations must measure student progress towards the goals of Problem Based Learning.
●
Problem Based Learning must be the pedagogical base in the curriculum and not part of a didactic curriculum.

Davis23 propose a continuum of 11 ‘‘types’’ of PBL,

depending on the way in which the key variables are
employed to facilitate learning. Charlin et al. 24 developed a
10-dimension model of PBL which they used to compare
PBL programs in three Canadian medical schools.
Notwithstanding the considerable differences between
these schools on the 10 dimensions, the authors argue
that each program was ‘‘true PBL.’’ Perhaps a more
practical approach for teachers and curriculum develop-
ment teams is that provided by Barrows, 17 who proposes a
list of ‘‘essentials’’ or principles for the design of PBL (see
Box 2).
KEY FEATURES OF PBL CURRICULA
As noted above, there is little agreement about the key
features of PBL and little high-quality research evidence
upon which to distinguish the relative effectiveness of
different designs (see below for discussion). Arguably,
across the various PBL literatures, five key features of a
PBL curriculum can be distinguished.
1. Teacher as Facilitator
Different terms are used to indicate the role played by a
teacher in the context of a PBL program, including
‘‘tutor’’24 and ‘‘facilitator.’’20 However, the widespread use
of such terminology does not necessarily indicate
agreement or a great depth of understanding of the
practices and disposi- tions required for successful
facilitation.20 Different aspects of the role are emphasized
in different accounts and models of PBL. A common thread
in descriptions of this role is that the tutor or facilitator is a
‘‘more knowledgeable member of the community.’’
Sociocultural approaches emphasize the teacher’s role in
enculturating the learner into the specific community of
practice through, for example, internalization of the
language, attitudes, and values of the community. 21
Cognitive approaches emphasize the teacher’s role as
facilitator of cognitive development in the knowledge and
skills of the community.25
In the classroom, the PBL teacher employs his or her
knowledge of the ‘‘subject’’ area to support the processes of
cognitive or metacognitive development and/or encultura-
tion. The PBL literature suggests a number of techniques
that PBL teachers may adopt in their interactions with
students. These techniques include the adoption of
particular role personae and forms of communicative
action (see Box 3).27 Teachers require preparation and
support for both the change to and maintenance of these
role personae, in particular visible institutional support in
the form of recognition of the high level of skill required
and adequate time to prepare for and carry out their role.
2. The Use of an Explicit Process to Facilitate Learning
The tutorial process is used as a framework to assist in the
development and practice of affective, cognitive, and
metacognitive skills. There are different models of the PBL
tutorial process. The process referred to in many medical
school PBL programs is largely derived from the seven-step
model developed at Maastricht.26 This version is explicit in
its adherence to a classical hypothetico-deductive approach,
which can appear to overemphasize problem solving rather
than learning. An alternative description of the tutorial
process provided by Wolff27 appears to give greater
emphasis to identifying gaps in knowledge and self-
directed learning strategies to ‘‘fill’’ these gaps (see Box 4).
These models of the PBL process act as guides for the tutor
and students to help them through the learning process.
In the first meeting of a cycle with a new scenario,
the students work through steps 1 to 4. Between meetings
the students engage in self-directed learning. The second
and third meetings in a cycle are devoted to getting
feedback on what the students have learned from the
research they have undertaken between the meetings,
synthesizing this information, and applying it to the
scenario. At the end of each cycle, the group reviews its
performance as a learning group and learning goals are
identified for improvement.22
The stages may be worked through sequentially, but often
the students will move backward and forward between the
stages during each cycle as they spend more time thinking
and discussing the issues. There appears to be little

14 JVME 32(1) © 2005 AAVMC

 [23.3.2005– [12– [Page No. 15]
L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME- Journal of

BOX 3: TEACHING TECHNIQUES FOR THE PBL TEACHER

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Communicative actionsRole personae
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
. Staying silent . Learner
.
Probing questions: Why? What do you mean? What does that mean? Reflecting questions: How does this idea . Creator
help you?
Director Challenger Evaluator Ne
Involvement questions: Who else has ideas on this? Physical positioning in group . Facilitator Supporter
.
Educational diagnosis questions: How do you feel about the way you formulated your ideas? Stimulating interest
.
Decreasing challenge where there are signs of boredom or ‘‘over challenge’’ .
Helping students to address issues with interpersonal dynamics (e.g., by asking questions about dysfunctional
. group behaviors)
.
.
. .

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

BOX 4: THE EIGHT TASKS OF PBL

discussion in the PBL literature about the student feedback existing relevant knowledge into appropriate semantic
1. Explore
stage. Personalthe problem: of
experience clarify terms and
observation in concepts
a numberthatof are not understandable,
networks. 30
create hypotheses, identify issues.
different PBL programs suggests that feedback is often
2. Identify what you know already that is pertinent.
limited to the ‘‘mini-lecture’’ type identified by Hadwin. 28 3. Use of ‘‘Problems’’ to Stimulate, Contextualize and
3. Identify
While what you do
this is recognized as not know.
a kind of first ‘‘stage’’ in the Integrate Learning
29
student’s
4. As adevelopment
group, in the
prioritize the PBL literature,
learning needs, according
set learning goalsInand
theobjectives,
literatureallocate
on PBL resources;
the termsmembers
‘‘problem,’’ ‘‘trigger,’’
identify
28
to Hadwin it isthey
which task the will
least
do.effective at promoting self- and ‘‘scenario’’ are used to refer to the material presented
regulation and fostering critical thinking. The issue of to students in initiating a specific learning cycle. Often
5. Engage
feedback in alinked
is also self-directed
to the waysearch in for knowledge.
which the learning these terms are used interchangeably, even when, in
objectives
6. Returnare to
divided among
the group and the students.
share Barrows
your new argues effectively
knowledge practice, there
so that appearmembers
all group to be significant
learn thedifferences
information. in the
that from all the possible learning objectives identified in material presented. To avoid confusion, the term
each7. problem,
Apply thestudents
knowledge; try to
should integrate
prioritize a the
small knowledge
number acquired into a comprehensive explanation.
‘‘scenario’’ will be used here. In the PBL literature,
that8.they willoninvestigate,
Reflect what has been as this will and
learned facilitate greater
the process of learning.
scenarios play at least three roles in the construction of the
recognition of the complexity of any issue and deeper learning environment: discussion of the scenarios serves to
learning.17 The aim of feedback, therefore, should be for encourage students to activate relevant prior knowledge,
the students to share all the information they have stimulates students’ interest and thus their intrinsic
obtained in order to make in-depth analysis and synthesis motivation to learn, and sets a context for the learning of
of ideas possible. The importance of the stage of applying knowledge similar to that in which future use of the
the knowledge back to the scenario is emphasized in knowledge will be required.31 For example, from the
the PBL literature. It is argued that this attempted scenario given in Box 5, students in a nursing education
application of the knowledge facilitates the elaboration of program that uses PBL identified four broad learning
‘‘new’’ and issues:

JVME 32(1) © 2005 AAVMC 15

 [23.3.2005– [12– [Page No. 16]
L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME- Journal of

BOX 5: EXAMPLE OF SCENARIO FROM A PBL CURRICULUM IN NURSING

Nurse Sue Downs

Joy Chen is the newly appointed F Grade in charge of Blue team. She has been in post two months. Sue Downs is a D
Grade nurse in Joy’s team and has worked on the ward part-time for 10 years. Sue is popular with other members of staff
and with the patients. Joy feels that the team’s documentation of patient assessments, care plans, and evaluation could be
improved. She perceives that when Sue is the named nurse, documentation is particularly poor. She also notices that
when Sue has been looking after a group of patients on a shift she frequently leaves work incomplete. Sue is quite open
about this, often reporting that ‘‘she has not had time to do such and such’’ in the handover meeting. Although nobody
complains about this, Joy feels it may cause resentment among the other team members, who have to ’’do her work
for her.’’

Resources
Adair J. Effective Team Building. London: Pan Books, 1986.
Douglass LM. The Effective Nurse: Leader and Manager, 4th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby—Year Book, 1992.
Sullivan MP. Nursing Leadership and Management. Springhouse, PA: Springhouse Corp., 1990.
Tappen RM. Nursing Leadership and Management: Concepts and Practice, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Davis, 1995.
Driscoll J. Practising Clinical Supervision: A Reflective Approach. Edinburgh: Bailliere Tindall, 2000.

Core Concepts: Nurse Sue Downs

●
Nursing Role: Aesthetics: *Management of change, Leading and motivating a team, Role modeling
●
Ethics: Leading a team, Dealing with staff
●
Professional Role: *The nurse as a change agent, *Reflective practice, Risk management, Clinical supervision,
Leadership, Performance management
●
Sociology: Role theory, Management of change theories, Organizational and occupational culture
●
Education/Psychology: Motivation theory, Theories of reasoned action, Learning styles, Learning theory

1. What are effective styles of leadership?
2. How best to implement change?
3. What are current National Health Service Guidelines
on patient documentation?
4. What is clinical supervision and preceptorship?32
4. Learning in Small Groups
The small group is an integral part of the PBL approach,
used consciously and conscientiously to achieve the learn-
ing outcomes.29 It is argued that purposefully designed and
successful small group learning facilitates learning through
the development of a learning environment that supports
and promotes both cognitive and metacognitive develop-
ment. The links between the structures of small group
learning emphasized in PBL, the processes these structures
facilitate, and the learning outcomes that are claimed to
result from these processes are illustrated in Figure 2.
Implicit in the design of the PBL small group is the idea that
many of these ‘‘positive actions’’ (e.g., cooperation) do not
just happen by themselves, whereas many of the ‘‘negative
actions’’ (e.g., conflict) are a routine and inevitable part of
working in a group. The ‘‘structures’’ in small group PBL,
along with the tutorial process and the use of scenarios, help
the students learn how to learn in groups and learn how to
anticipate, prevent, cope with, and deal with the
difficulties that they will experience working in this way.
This is not to say that these structures are present in the
organization of all PBL small group learning environments.
In some models of PBL, the small group process includes
the requirement that at each session a different student
‘‘facilitate’’ or ‘‘chair’’ the session. It is argued that this
reinforces the message that students must take responsib-
ility for the learning process and for the functioning
of the group. It is also argued that ‘‘facilitation skills’’ are
an important part of the professional repertoire. Taking on
the role of facilitator in a supportive environment helps
students to practice and develop these skills. 29 Learning to
‘‘perform’’ in this role, therefore, becomes part of the goal
and process of learning. There are differences of opinion
about the ideal size for a PBL small group, but it is argued
that the development of skills for communication, the
development of knowledge, and collaboration are best
fostered in groups with between five and 10 members.29, 33
5. Assessment and Problem Based Learning
There is a shared view among PBL advocates that assess-
ment drives learning and that there should be alignment
between the goals of a PBL program and what is assessed.
However, the consequences of this view are interpreted
differently. Some writers suggest that both the response
format and the content of the test must be appropriate to
PBL.34 Others argue that response format is of less
consequence than content and test design.35 Multiple-
choice questions have often been rejected for use in PBL
programs, for various reasons including the belief that they
are suitable for measuring only lower levels of taxonomic
cognitive functioning.36 Others argue, however, that there
is no reason why multiple-choice questions cannot be used
in

16 JVME 32(1) © 2005 AAVMC

 [23.3.2005– [12– [Page No. 17]
L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME- Journal of

Structures in small group PBL: Processes facilitated by small group environment:

Products:
Small group is the only ‘scheduled’Sharing
learningideas
environment
Sharing knowledge Working together Providing support Conflict Competition
Students have to control the processChallenging
of learningof- Tutor
viewswill
Active facilitate Valuing
onlyparticipation of different
Monitoring Elaboration
Students have to take turns to act asCritical
a ‘Chair’
feedback
or ‘Scribe’ in a session perspectives
Follow tutorial process Exclusion Development of
Students identify learning goals Testing out of ideas/theories group
Students required to evaluate each Modelling
others performance
Evaluation process/teamwork/
Recognition of the different learning opportunities afforded
interpersonal skillsby the scenario
Individual reflection
Enhanced enthusiasm
and motivation
Increased ability in
self directed learning
Learning becomes more
meaningful and is thus
retained
Increased ability
in self-evaluation
Developing knowledge
as part of ‘community
of practice’

Figure 2: Structures, actions and products of small group learning

PBL assessment, as the key issue is the quality of the
design and administration of the test rather than the
method itself.37 The ‘‘Progress test,’’38 used with slight
variation in the PBL programs in a number of medical
schools, uses the multiple-choice question format.
A number of assessment formats are claimed to provide a
more valid measure of the learning developed by PBL
programs. Modified essay questions (MEǪs) have been
used to assess PBL in both clinical and pre-clinical courses.
It is argued that the properly designed evolving MEǪ opens
up possibilities for exercising ‘‘intelligent guessing’’ that
mirror the realities of clinical work and can thus measure
abilities and attitudes that other assessment methods
cannot.39 Although the reliability of the MEǪ method has
been established,40 caution has been expressed about its
misuse and overuse in PBL programs. 41 Studies have also
suggested that the MEǪ measures nothing different from
the multiple-choice question.42
The Triple Jump Exercise is a learning process measure
widely used as an assessment tool in PBL programs. 43 This
exercise consists of three steps (jumps): a structured oral
examination based on one or more patient problems, a time-
limited study assignment in relation to the patient
problems in the first oral examination, and a repeat oral
examination in which the quality of self-learning around
the assigned topic is assessed. The Triple Jump Exercise is
currently used in a number of PBL programs around the
world, including the problem-based BSc Nursing program
at McMaster University in Ontario. Critics have argued,
however, that
the Triple Jump Exercise is a very time-consuming,
costly method of assessment with poor measurement
characteristics.44
EVIDENCE ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
PROBLEM BASED LEARNING
Problem Based Learning is no exception to the debates and
arguments about appropriate methods of evaluation that
characterize the field of education research.45, 46 PBL has
arguably been one of the most scrutinized innovations in
professional education.7 However, as Woodward47 points
out, empirical evidence that supports the theories that
underpin PBL is not the same as empirical evidence to
support the claim that it produces practitioners who
maintain consistently high levels of performance through-
out their professional careers. Block and Moore 48 argue that
despite the fact that many useful studies of PBL exist,
selection bias and the absence of control groups limit the
conclusions that can be drawn from them. Colliver49 has
reignited the debate about the effectiveness of PBL by
claiming that studies have erroneously claimed effects for
PBL when it was more likely that these effects were due to
differences in selection and philosophy of care.
To obtain a clearer picture of what high-quality research
studies indicate about the effectiveness of PBL, a research
project involving secondary data analysis in the form of a
‘‘review of reviews’’ was carried out as part of the Project
on the Effectiveness of Problem Based Learning (PEPBL).8
Readers are advised to refer to the study report for details of

JVME 32(1) © 2005 AAVMC 17

 [23.3.2005– [12– [Page No. 18]
L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME- Journal of
the methods and results of this study, as only a summary
is given here. Five previous reviews of PBL were used. 50–54
Ninety studies cited in these reviews were identified as
providing evidence of the effectiveness of PBL; only 15 of
these met the quality inclusion criteria for the ‘‘review of
reviews.’’ Three of these 15 studies did not include any
data in the reports seen, and not all of the outcomes
reported met the quality criteria. The results regarding
cognitive devel- opment, as measured by assessment of
one kind or another, varied. Of the 39 outcomes reported,
16 favored PBL and 23 the control group. A pilot meta-
analysis carried out as part of the review found a mean
effect size estimate of d ¼ —0.3 (i.e., in favor of the control,
not PBL). However, this result should be treated with
caution, as the outcomes included are not independent.55
Only three of the included studies reported data that could
be interpreted as measures of ‘‘improvements in practice.’’
One study appeared to show that PBL students held
more desirable attitudes towards practice. 56 Of the seven
outcomes reported in a study of PBL in a nursing program,
two favored the PBL group. 57 In a study of the use of PBL to
improve general practice consultation skills, only one
outcome measure of nine favored PBL.58 Two of the
included studies assessed changes in student learning
styles and appeared to suggest that PBL had a favorable
impact on student learning styles.56, 59 While student
satisfaction was reported in many of the studies
considered in the review, in only one study did the
measurement of this outcome meet the inclusion criteria.
In this study, students in the PBL curriculum appeared to
rate their program more highly.56
The review described here was systematic but not compre-
hensive. Furthermore, there were many questions about
the design of PBL that were unclear in the studies included.
It could be argued that the outcomes assessed and/or
the methods of assessment used were not appropriate.
The absence of evidence should not be interpreted as
evidence of absence of effect. It does suggest, however,
that teachers and curriculum development staff should
treat claims for the effectiveness of any one particular
model of PBL with caution. Perhaps more importantly,
it suggests that the development of PBL curricula in
veterinary medical education should be accompanied
by rigorous evaluation.60
REFERENCES
1 Jeffries A. Curriculum development at Cambridge
Veterinary School. J Vet Med Educ 30:211–214, 2003.
2 Ǫuinlan KM. PBL at Cornell University’s College of
Veterinary Medicine: Implications for undergraduate
education. PBL Insight 3(1):4–5, 2000.
3 Western University of Health Sciences College of
Veterinary Medicine. Founding Principles <http://
www.westernu.edu/veterinary/principles.xml>. Accessed
02/11/04. Western University of Health Sciences College of
Veterinary Medicine, Pomona, CA, 2003.
4 Wilkie K. The nature of problem-based learning. In
Glen S, Wilkie K, eds. Problem Based Learning in Nursing.
Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press, 2000:11–34.
18
5 Tompkins C. Nursing education for the 21st century. In
Rideout E, ed. Transforming Nursing Education through
Problem-Based Learning. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett,
2001:1–21.
6 Hmelo C, Evensen D. Introduction to problem based
learning: Gaining insights on learning interactions through
multiple methods of enquiry. In Evensen D, Hmelo C,
eds. Problem Based Learning: A Research Perspective on
Learning Interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
2000:1–18.
7 Maudsley G. Do we all mean the same thing by
‘‘problem-based learning’’? A review of the concepts
and formulation of the ground rules. Acad Med 74:178–185,
1999.
8 Newman M. A pilot systematic review and meta-
analysis on the effectiveness of problem based learning
<http://www.ltsn-01.ac.uk/resources/features/pbl>.
Accessed 01/20/05. Learning and Teaching Subject
Network for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine,
Newcastle, UK, 2003.
9 Cleverley D. Implementing Inquiry-Based Learning
in Nursing. London: Routledge, 2003.
10 Margetson D. What counts as problem-based learning.
Educ Health 11:193–201, 1998.
11 Savin-Baden M. Problem-Based Learning in Higher
Education: Untold Stories. Buckingham, UK: Society for
Research in Higher Education/Open University Press,
2000.
12 Powell V, Steel C. Search for the woolly mammoth:
A case study in inquiry-based learning. J Vet Med Educ
30:254–257, 2003.
13 Engel CE. Not just a method but a way of learning.
In Boud D, Feletti GP, eds. The Challenge of Problem-Based
Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1991:22–33.
14 Barrows HS. Problem-Based Learning Applied to
Medical Education. Springfield: Southern Illinois University
School of Medicine, 2000.
15 Bereiter C, Scardamalia M. Process and product in
problem based learning. In Evensen D, Hmelo C, eds.
Problem Based Learning: A Research Perspective on Learning
Interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000:185–195.
16 Barrows HS. A taxonomy of problem-based learning
methods. Med Educ 20:481–486, 1986.
17 Barrows H. Generic Problem-Based Learning
Essentials <http://www.pbli.org/pbl/generic_pbl.htm>.
Accessed 02/11/04. Problem Based Learning Initiative
at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine,
Springfield, IL.
18 Barrows HS. Foreword. In Evensen D, Hmelo C,
eds. Problem Based Learning: A Research Perspective on
Learning Interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
2000:vii–ix.
19 Dolmans D, Schmidt H. What directs self-directed
learning in a problem based curriculum. In Evensen D,
Hmelo C, eds. Problem Based Learning: A Research
Perspective on Learning Interactions. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000:251–262.
JVME 32(1) © 2005 AAVMC
 [23.3.2005– [12– [Page No. 19]
L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME- Journal of
20 Savin-Baden M. Facilitating Problem Based
Learning: Illuminating Perspectives. Buckingham, UK:
Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University
Press, 2003.
21 Bailey J, Hoffman K, Donaldson J. Dimensions of a PBL
Curriculum that Enhance Enculturation into a Clinical
Community of Practice. Chicago: American Education
Research Association, 2003.
22 Woods DR. Problem-Based Learning: Helping Your
Students Gain the Most from PBL. Hamilton, CA: D.R. Woods,
1995.
23 Harden R, Davis M. The continuum of problem-based
learning. Med Teach 20:317–322, 1998.
24 Charlin B, Mann K, Hansen P. The many faces
of problem-based learning: A framework for
understanding and comparison. Med Teach 20:323–330,
1998.
25 Schmidt H, Moust J. What makes a tutor effective?
A structural equations modelling approach to learning
in problem-based curricula. Acad Med 70:708–714,
1995.
26 Schmidt HG. Problem-based learning: Rationale and
description. Med Educ 17:11–16, 1983.
27 Wolff A. Problem-Based Learning. The role of the
tutor: A resource guide for faculty. Vancouver: Wolff
Consulting, 2000.
28 Hadwin A. Promoting Self Regulation: Examining the
Relationships between Problem Based Learning in Medicine and
the Strategic Content Learning Approach. New York:
American Educational Research Association, 1996.
29 Benson G, Noesgaard C, Drummond-Young M.
Facilitating small group learning. In Rideout E, ed.
Transforming Nursing Education through Problem-Based
Learning. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett, 2001:75–102.
30 Gijselaers WH. Connecting problem-based
practices with educational theory. In Wilkerson L, Gijselaers
WH, eds. Bringing Problem-Based Learning to Higher
Education: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1996:13–22.
31 Schmidt H, Moust J. Factors affecting small-group
tutorial learning: A review of research. In Evensen D,
Hmelo C, eds. Problem Based Learning: A Research
Perspective on Learning Interactions. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000:19–51.
32 Newman M. Problem Based Learning: An Exploration
of the Method and an Evaluation of Its Effectiveness in a
Continuing Nursing Education Programme <http://
www.hebes.mdx.ac.uk/teaching/Research/PEPBL/>.
Accessed 02/11/04. Middlesex University School of Health
& Social Sciences, London, 2004.
33 Myers Kelson A, Distlehorst L. Groups in problem-
based learning: Essential elements in theory and practice.
In Evensen D, Hmelo C, eds. Problem-Based Learning: A
Research Perspective on Learning Interactions. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000:167–184.
34 Marks-Maran D, Gail Thomas B. Assessment and
evaluation in problem based learning. In Glen S, Wilkie
K,
JVME 32(1) © 2005 AAVMC
eds. Problem-Based Learning in Nursing: A New Model
for a New Context. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press,
2000:127–150.
35 Norman G. What should be assessed. In Boud D,
Feletti G, eds. The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning.
London: Kogan Page, 1991:254–259.
36 Van der Vleuten CPM. The assessment of professional
competence: Developments, research and practical
implications. Adv Health Sci Educ 1:41–67, 1996.
37 Swanson D, Case S, Van der Vleuten CPM. Strategies
for student assessment. In Boud D, Feletti G, eds. The
Challenge of Problem-Based Learning. London: Kogan Page,
1991:260–274.
38 Arnold L, Willoughby T. The quarterly profile test.
Acad Med 65:515–516, 1990.
39 Knox JDE. How to use modified essay questions. Med
Teach 2:20–24, 1980.
40 Feletti GP. Reliability and validity studies on modified
essay questions. J Med Educ 55:933–941, 1980.
41 Feletti GP, Smith EKM. Modified essay questions: Are
they worth the effort? Med Educ 20:132, 1986.
42 Norman G. Reliability and validity of some cognitive
measures of clinical reasoning. Teach Learn Med 1:194–199,
1989.
43 Painvin C, Neufeld VR, Norman G. The triple jump
exercise: A structured measure of problem-solving and
self-directed learning. In Proceedings of the 18th
Conference of Research in Medical Education. Washington,
DC: Association of American Medical Colleges,
1979:73–77.
44 Blake J, Norman GR, Smith EKM. Report card from
McMaster: Student evaluation at a problem-based medical
school. Lancet 345:899–902, 1995.
45 Dolmans D. The effectiveness of PBL. The debate
continues: Some concerns about the BEME movement.
Med Educ 37:1129–1130, 2003.
46 Norman GR. RCT ¼ results confounded and trivial:
The perils of grand educational experiments. Med Educ
37:582–584, 2003.
47 Woodward C. What can we learn from programme
evaluation studies in medical education? In Boud D,
Feletti G, eds. The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning.
London: Kogan Page, 1997:294–307.
48 Block S, Moore GT. Project evaluation. In Tosteson D,
Adelstein S, Carver S, eds. New Pathways to Medical
Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1994:114–122.
49 Colliver J. Effectiveness of problem-based
learning curricula: Research and theory. Acad Med
75:259–266, 2000.
50 Albanese MA, Mitchell S. Problem-based learning: A
review of literature on its outcomes and implementation
issues. Acad Med 68:52–81, 1993.
51 Berkson L. Problem-based learning: Have the
expectations been met? Acad Med 68:S79–S88,
1993.
19
 [23.3.2005– [12– [Page No. 20]
L:/Inprocess/UTPress/JVME/JVME32(1)-Revises-2/JVME- Journal of
52 Vernon D, Blake RL. Does problem-based learning
work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad
Med 69:550–563, 1993.
53 Van den Bossche P, Gijbels D, Dochy F. Does
problem based learning educate problem solvers?
A meta-analysis on the effects of problem based
learning. Paper presented at the 7th Annual EDINEB
International Conference, Newport Beach, CA, June 21–23,
2000.
54 Smits P, Verbeek J, De Buisonje C. Problem based
learning in continuing medical education: A review
of controlled evaluation studies. Brit Med J 324:153–156,
2002.
55 Hedges, L. The basics of meta-analysis. Stockholm:
3rd Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, 2003.
56 Moore GT, Block SD, Style CB, Mitchell R. The
influence of the New Pathway curriculum on Harvard
medical students. Acad Med 69:983–989, 1994.
57 Lewis KE, Tamblyn RM. The problem-based learning
approach in baccalaureate nursing education: How
effective is it? Nurs Papers 19:17–26, 1987.
58 Grol R, Mokkink H, Helsper-Lucas A, Tielens V,
Bulte J. Effects of the vocational training of general practice
20
View publication stats
consultation skills and medical performance. Med Educ
23:512–521, 1989.
59 Coles CR. Differences between conventional and
problem-based curricula in their students’ approaches to
studying. Med Educ 19:308–309, 1985.
60 Smith B, Walsh D. Teaching the art of clinical practice:
The veterinary medical teaching hospital, private practice,
and other externships. J Vet Med Educ 30:203–206, 2003.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Mark Newman, PhD, is a Senior Research Officer in the
Evidence for Policy and Practice Coordinating Center (EPPI-
Centre), Social Science Research Unit (SSRU) of the Institute
of Education, University of London, 18 Woburn Square,
London WC1H 0NR UK. E-mail: m.newman@ioe.ac.uk. He is
one of a team coordinating a major UK-government-
funded research project to produce systematic reviews on
educational topics. His major interest is evidence-based
practice in health care and education, including the
development of effective student-centered learning environ-
ments. He was the Principal Investigator on the Economic &
Social Science Research Council–funded Project on the
Effectiveness of Problem Based Learning (PEPBL).
JVME 32(1) © 2005 AAVMC