problem based learning vs problem solving

5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Problem-Based Learning [+ Activity Design Steps]

Written by Marcus Guido

Teaching Strategies

Advantages of Problem-Based Learning
Disadvantages of Problem-Based Learning
Steps to Designing Problem-Based Learning Activities

Used since the 1960s, many teachers express concerns about the effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) in certain classroom settings.

Whether you introduce the student-centred pedagogy as a one-time activity or mainstay exercise, grouping students together to solve open-ended problems can present pros and cons.

Below are five advantages and disadvantages of problem-based learning to help you determine if it can work in your classroom.

If you decide to introduce an activity, there are also design creation steps and a downloadable guide to keep at your desk for easy reference.

1. Development of Long-Term Knowledge Retention

Students who participate in problem-based learning activities can improve their abilities to retain and recall information, according to a literature review of studies about the pedagogy .

The literature review states “elaboration of knowledge at the time of learning” -- by sharing facts and ideas through discussion and answering questions -- “enhances subsequent retrieval.” This form of elaborating reinforces understanding of subject matter , making it easier to remember.

Small-group discussion can be especially beneficial -- ideally, each student will get chances to participate.

But regardless of group size, problem-based learning promotes long-term knowledge retention by encouraging students to discuss -- and answer questions about -- new concepts as they’re learning them.

2. Use of Diverse Instruction Types

problem based learning vs problem solving

You can use problem-based learning activities to the meet the diverse learning needs and styles of your students, effectively engaging a diverse classroom in the process. In general, grouping students together for problem-based learning will allow them to:

Address real-life issues that require real-life solutions, appealing to students who struggle to grasp abstract concepts
Participate in small-group and large-group learning, helping students who don’t excel during solo work grasp new material
Talk about their ideas and challenge each other in a constructive manner, giving participatory learners an avenue to excel
Tackle a problem using a range of content you provide -- such as videos, audio recordings, news articles and other applicable material -- allowing the lesson to appeal to distinct learning styles

Since running a problem-based learning scenario will give you a way to use these differentiated instruction approaches , it can be especially worthwhile if your students don’t have similar learning preferences.

3. Continuous Engagement

Providing a problem-based learning challenge can engage students by acting as a break from normal lessons and common exercises.

It’s not hard to see the potential for engagement, as kids collaborate to solve real-world problems that directly affect or heavily interest them.

Although conducted with post-secondary students, a study published by the Association for the Study of Medical Education reported increased student attendance to -- and better attitudes towards -- courses that feature problem-based learning.

These activities may lose some inherent engagement if you repeat them too often, but can certainly inject excitement into class.

4. Development of Transferable Skills

Problem-based learning can help students develop skills they can transfer to real-world scenarios, according to a 2015 book that outlines theories and characteristics of the pedagogy .

The tangible contexts and consequences presented in a problem-based learning activity “allow learning to become more profound and durable.” As you present lessons through these real-life scenarios, students should be able to apply learnings if they eventually face similar issues.

For example, if they work together to address a dispute within the school, they may develop lifelong skills related to negotiation and communicating their thoughts with others.

As long as the problem’s context applies to out-of-class scenarios, students should be able to build skills they can use again.

5. Improvement of Teamwork and Interpersonal Skills

Successful completion of a problem-based learning challenge hinges on interaction and communication, meaning students should also build transferable skills based on teamwork and collaboration . Instead of memorizing facts, they get chances to present their ideas to a group, defending and revising them when needed.

What’s more, this should help them understand a group dynamic. Depending on a given student, this can involve developing listening skills and a sense of responsibility when completing one’s tasks. Such skills and knowledge should serve your students well when they enter higher education levels and, eventually, the working world.

1. Potentially Poorer Performance on Tests

Devoting too much time to problem-based learning can cause issues when students take standardized tests, as they may not have the breadth of knowledge needed to achieve high scores. Whereas problem-based learners develop skills related to collaboration and justifying their reasoning, many tests reward fact-based learning with multiple choice and short answer questions. Despite offering many advantages, you could spot this problem develop if you run problem-based learning activities too regularly.

2. Student Unpreparedness

Problem-based learning exercises can engage many of your kids, but others may feel disengaged as a result of not being ready to handle this type of exercise for a number of reasons. On a class-by-class and activity-by-activity basis, participation may be hindered due to:

Immaturity -- Some students may not display enough maturity to effectively work in a group, not fulfilling expectations and distracting other students.
Unfamiliarity -- Some kids may struggle to grasp the concept of an open problem, since they can’t rely on you for answers.
Lack of Prerequisite Knowledge -- Although the activity should address a relevant and tangible problem, students may require new or abstract information to create an effective solution.

You can partially mitigate these issues by actively monitoring the classroom and distributing helpful resources, such as guiding questions and articles to read. This should keep students focused and help them overcome knowledge gaps. But if you foresee facing these challenges too frequently, you may decide to avoid or seldom introduce problem-based learning exercises.

3. Teacher Unpreparedness

If supervising a problem-based learning activity is a new experience, you may have to prepare to adjust some teaching habits . For example, overtly correcting students who make flawed assumptions or statements can prevent them from thinking through difficult concepts and questions. Similarly, you shouldn’t teach to promote the fast recall of facts. Instead, you should concentrate on:

Giving hints to help fix improper reasoning
Questioning student logic and ideas in a constructive manner
Distributing content for research and to reinforce new concepts
Asking targeted questions to a group or the class, focusing their attention on a specific aspect of the problem

Depending on your teaching style, it may take time to prepare yourself to successfully run a problem-based learning lesson.

4. Time-Consuming Assessment

If you choose to give marks, assessing a student’s performance throughout a problem-based learning exercise demands constant monitoring and note-taking. You must take factors into account such as:

Completed tasks
The quality of those tasks
The group’s overall work and solution
Communication among team members
Anything you outlined on the activity’s rubric

Monitoring these criteria is required for each student, making it time-consuming to give and justify a mark for everyone.

5. Varying Degrees of Relevancy and Applicability

It can be difficult to identify a tangible problem that students can solve with content they’re studying and skills they’re mastering. This introduces two clear issues. First, if it is easy for students to divert from the challenge’s objectives, they may miss pertinent information. Second, you could veer off the problem’s focus and purpose as students run into unanticipated obstacles. Overcoming obstacles has benefits, but may compromise the planning you did. It can also make it hard to get back on track once the activity is complete. Because of the difficulty associated with keeping activities relevant and applicable, you may see problem-based learning as too taxing.

If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages -- or you just want to give problem-based learning a shot -- follow these steps:

1. Identify an Applicable Real-Life Problem

Find a tangible problem that’s relevant to your students, allowing them to easily contextualize it and hopefully apply it to future challenges. To identify an appropriate real-world problem, look at issues related to your:

Students’ shared interests

You must also ensure that students understand the problem and the information around it. So, not all problems are appropriate for all grade levels.

2. Determine the Overarching Purpose of the Activity

Depending on the problem you choose, determine what you want to accomplish by running the challenge. For example, you may intend to help your students improve skills related to:

Collaboration
Problem-solving
Curriculum-aligned topics
Processing diverse content

A more precise example, you may prioritize collaboration skills by assigning specific tasks to pairs of students within each team. In doing so, students will continuously develop communication and collaboration abilities by working as a couple and part of a small group. By defining a clear purpose, you’ll also have an easier time following the next step.

3. Create and Distribute Helpful Material

Handouts and other content not only act as a set of resources, but help students stay focused on the activity and its purpose. For example, if you want them to improve a certain math skill , you should make material that highlights the mathematical aspects of the problem. You may decide to provide items such as:

Data that helps quantify and add context to the problem
Videos, presentations and other audio-visual material
A list of preliminary questions to investigate

Providing a range of resources can be especially important for elementary students and struggling students in higher grades, who may not have self-direction skills to work without them.

4. Set Goals and Expectations for Your Students

Along with the aforementioned materials, give students a guide or rubric that details goals and expectations. It will allow you to further highlight the purpose of the problem-based learning exercise, as you can explain what you’re looking for in terms of collaboration, the final product and anything else. It should also help students stay on track by acting as a reference throughout the activity.

5. Participate

Although explicitly correcting students may be discouraged, you can still help them and ask questions to dig into their thought processes. When you see an opportunity, consider if it’s worthwhile to:

Fill gaps in knowledge
Provide hints, not answers
Question a student’s conclusion or logic regarding a certain point, helping them think through tough spots

By participating in these ways, you can provide insight when students need it most, encouraging them to effectively analyze the problem.

6. Have Students Present Ideas and Findings

If you divided them into small groups, requiring students to present their thoughts and results in front the class adds a large-group learning component to the lesson. Encourage other students to ask questions, allowing the presenting group to elaborate and provide evidence for their thoughts. This wraps up the activity and gives your class a final chance to find solutions to the problem.

Wrapping Up

The effectiveness of problem-based learning may differ between classrooms and individual students, depending on how significant specific advantages and disadvantages are to you. Evaluative research consistently shows value in giving students a question and letting them take control of their learning. But the extent of this value can depend on the difficulties you face.It may be wise to try a problem-based learning activity, and go forward based on results.

Create or log into your teacher account on Prodigy -- an adaptive math game that adjusts content to accommodate player trouble spots and learning speeds. Aligned to US and Canadian curricula, it’s used by more than 350,000 teachers and 10 million students. It may be wise to try a problem-based learning activity, and go forward based on results.

Share this article

Table of Contents

Easily differentiate learning and engage your students with Prodigy Math.

Our Mission

Project-Based Learning vs. Problem-Based Learning vs. X-BL

At the Buck Institute for Education (BIE), we've been keeping a list of the many types of "_____- based learning" we've run across over the years:

Case-based learning
Challenge-based learning
Community-based learning
Design-based learning
Game-based learning
Inquiry-based learning
Land-based learning
Passion-based learning
Place-based learning
Problem-based learning
Proficiency-based learning
Service-based learning
Studio-based learning
Team-based learning
Work-based learning

. . . and our new fave . . .

Zombie-based learning (look it up!)

Let's Try to Sort This Out

The term "project learning" derives from the work of John Dewey and dates back to William Kilpatrick, who first used the term in 1918. At BIE, we see project-based learning as a broad category which, as long as there is an extended "project" at the heart of it, could take several forms or be a combination of:

Designing and/or creating a tangible product, performance or event
Solving a real-world problem (may be simulated or fully authentic)
Investigating a topic or issue to develop an answer to an open-ended question

So according to our "big tent" model of PBL, some of the newer "X-BLs" -- problem-, challenge- and design-based -- are basically modern versions of the same concept. They feature, to varying degrees, all of BIE's Essential Elements of PBL , although each has its own distinct flavor. (And by the way, each of these three, along with project-based learning, falls under the general category of inquiry-based learning -- which also includes research papers, scientific investigations, Socratic Seminars or other text-based discussions, etc. The other X-BLs might involve some inquiry, too, but now we're getting into the weeds . . .)

Other X-BLs are so named because they use a specific context for learning, such as a particular place or type of activity. They may contain projects within them, or have some of the 8 Essential Elements, but not necessarily. For example, within a community- or service-based learning experience, students may plan and conduct a project that improves their local community or helps the people in it, but they may also do other activities that are not part of a project. Conversely, students may learn content and skills via a game-based or work-based program that does not involve anything like what we would call a PBL-style project.

Problem-Based Learning vs. Project-Based Learning

Because they have the same acronym, we get a lot of questions about the similarities and differences between the two PBLs. We even had questions ourselves -- some years ago we created units for high school economics and government that we called "problem-based." But we later changed the name to " Project-Based Economics " and " Project-Based Government " to eliminate confusion about which PBL it was.

We decided to call problem-based learning a subset of project-based learning -- that is, one of the ways a teacher could frame a project is "to solve a problem." But problem-BL does have its own history and set of typically-followed procedures, which are more formally observed than in other types of projects. The use of case studies and simulations as "problems" dates back to medical schools in the 1960s, and problem-BL is still more often seen in the post-secondary world than in K-12, where project-BL is more common.

Problem-based learning typically follow prescribed steps:

Presentation of an "ill-structured" (open-ended, "messy") problem
Problem definition or formulation (the problem statement)
Generation of a "knowledge inventory" (a list of "what we know about the problem" and "what we need to know")
Generation of possible solutions
Formulation of learning issues for self-directed and coached learning
Sharing of findings and solutions

If you're a project-BL teacher, this probably looks pretty familiar, even though the process goes by different names. Other than the framing and the more formalized steps in problem-BL, there's really not much conceptual difference between the two PBLs -- it’s more a question of style and scope:

A Note on Math and the Two PBLs

Teachers at some K-12 schools that use project-BL as a primary instructional method, such as the New Technology Network and Envision Schools , have begun saying that they use problem-BL for math. Especially at the secondary level, teaching math primarily through multi-disciplinary projects has proved challenging. (Not that occasional multi-disciplinary projects including math are a bad idea!) By using problem-BL, these teachers feel they can design single-subject math projects -- aka "problems" -- that effectively teach more math content by being more limited in scope than many typical project-BL units. Tackling a "problem," for example, may not involve as much independent student inquiry, nor the creation of a complex product for presentation to a public audience.

How Does This Tale of Two PBLs End?

One could argue that completing any type of project involves solving a problem. If students are investigating an issue -- say, immigration policy -- the problem is deciding where they stand on it and how to communicate their views to a particular audience in a video. Or if students are building a new play structure for a playground, the problem is how to build it properly, given the users' wants and needs and the various constraints of safe, approved construction. Or even if they're writing stories for a book to be published about the Driving Question "How do we grow up?", the problem is how to express a unique, rich answer to the question.

So the semantics aren't worth worrying about, at least not for very long. The two PBLs are really two sides of the same coin. What type of PBL you decide to call your, er . . . extended learning experience just depends on how you frame it. The bottom line is the same: both PBLs can powerfully engage and effectively teach your students!

Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

What is Problem-Based Learning (PBL)? PBL is a student-centered approach to learning that involves groups of students working to solve a real-world problem, quite different from the direct teaching method of a teacher presenting facts and concepts about a specific subject to a classroom of students. Through PBL, students not only strengthen their teamwork, communication, and research skills, but they also sharpen their critical thinking and problem-solving abilities essential for life-long learning.

By working with PBL, students will:

Become engaged with open-ended situations that assimilate the world of work
Participate in groups to pinpoint what is known/ not known and the methods of finding information to help solve the given problem.
Investigate a problem; through critical thinking and problem solving, brainstorm a list of unique solutions.
Analyze the situation to see if the real problem is framed or if there are other problems that need to be solved.

How to Begin PBL

Establish the learning outcomes (i.e., what is it that you want your students to really learn and to be able to do after completing the learning project).
Find a real-world problem that is relevant to the students; often the problems are ones that students may encounter in their own life or future career.
Discuss pertinent rules for working in groups to maximize learning success.
Practice group processes: listening, involving others, assessing their work/peers.
Explore different roles for students to accomplish the work that needs to be done and/or to see the problem from various perspectives depending on the problem (e.g., for a problem about pollution, different roles may be a mayor, business owner, parent, child, neighboring city government officials, etc.).
Determine how the project will be evaluated and assessed. Most likely, both self-assessment and peer-assessment will factor into the assignment grade.

Designing Classroom Instruction

How to Orchestrate a PBL Activity

Explain Problem-Based Learning to students: its rationale, daily instruction, class expectations, grading.
Serve as a model and resource to the PBL process; work in-tandem through the first problem
Help students secure various resources when needed.
Supply ample class time for collaborative group work.
Give feedback to each group after they share via the established format; critique the solution in quality and thoroughness. Reinforce to the students that the prior thinking and reasoning process in addition to the solution are important as well.

Teacher’s Role in PBL

The Role of the Students

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Together with Edward Gurst, David Krathwohl, Max Englehart and Walter Hill, psychologist Benjamin Bloom released Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in 1956. This framework would prove to be valuable to teachers and instructors everywhere…

Wikis in Education: How Wikis are Being Used in the Classroom

What are Wikis? And should you use them? A Wiki can be defined as ‘‘a system that allows one or more people to build up a corpus of knowledge in a set of…

WebQuest: An Inquiry-oriented Approach in Learning

The rise in online learning brings renewed interest in WebQuests. As an authentic, scaffolded, and inquiry-based activity, a WebQuest is an educational superstar. It utilizes essential resources and captures the attention of the…

Definitions of Educational Technology

Educational Technology What is educational technology? There are a variety of definitions of educational technology. What is instructional design and technology? The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT): Educational technology is the study…

How to Create Effective Multiple Choice Questions

There are many advantages to using multiple choice (MC) questions as an evaluation / assessment strategy. They are easy to set up, easy to mark, and allow teachers to cover a wide range…

Center for Teaching Innovation

Resource library.

Establishing Community Agreements and Classroom Norms
Sample group work rubric
Problem-Based Learning Clearinghouse of Activities, University of Delaware

Problem-Based Learning

Problem-based learning  (PBL) is a student-centered approach in which students learn about a subject by working in groups to solve an open-ended problem. This problem is what drives the motivation and the learning. 

Why Use Problem-Based Learning?

Nilson (2010) lists the following learning outcomes that are associated with PBL. A well-designed PBL project provides students with the opportunity to develop skills related to:

Working in teams.
Managing projects and holding leadership roles.
Oral and written communication.
Self-awareness and evaluation of group processes.
Working independently.
Critical thinking and analysis.
Explaining concepts.
Self-directed learning.
Applying course content to real-world examples.
Researching and information literacy.
Problem solving across disciplines.

Considerations for Using Problem-Based Learning

Rather than teaching relevant material and subsequently having students apply the knowledge to solve problems, the problem is presented first. PBL assignments can be short, or they can be more involved and take a whole semester. PBL is often group-oriented, so it is beneficial to set aside classroom time to prepare students to  work in groups  and to allow them to engage in their PBL project.

Students generally must:

Examine and define the problem.
Explore what they already know about underlying issues related to it.
Determine what they need to learn and where they can acquire the information and tools necessary to solve the problem.
Evaluate possible ways to solve the problem.
Solve the problem.
Report on their findings.

Getting Started with Problem-Based Learning

Articulate the learning outcomes of the project. What do you want students to know or be able to do as a result of participating in the assignment?
Create the problem. Ideally, this will be a real-world situation that resembles something students may encounter in their future careers or lives. Cases are often the basis of PBL activities. Previously developed PBL activities can be found online through the University of Delaware’s PBL Clearinghouse of Activities .
Establish ground rules at the beginning to prepare students to work effectively in groups.
Introduce students to group processes and do some warm up exercises to allow them to practice assessing both their own work and that of their peers.
Consider having students take on different roles or divide up the work up amongst themselves. Alternatively, the project might require students to assume various perspectives, such as those of government officials, local business owners, etc.
Establish how you will evaluate and assess the assignment. Consider making the self and peer assessments a part of the assignment grade.

Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors (2nd ed.).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

- Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

My email alerts
BMA member login
Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

Advanced search
Search responses
Search blogs
News & Views
Medical students need...

Problem solving learning versus problem-based learning

Rapid response to:

Medical students need problem solving training to improve patient safety

Related content
Article metrics
Rapid responses

Rapid Response:

Taking this axis into account, problem solving seems not to affect it whilst in determined context a pure PBL curriculum may do, especially in the morphophysiological stage. This exactly occurred in our medical school since 2002 onwards, leading from then on to the proposal of a hybrid format for ameliorating this failure1, 2, 3, 4

1. Carrera LI, Tellez TE, D¡¯Ottavio AE: Implementing a problem - based learning curriculum in an Argentinean medical school: implications for developing countries. Academic Medicine 78: 1-4, 2003

2. D¡¯Ottavio AE: Issues on curricular changes. Are they unique to Argentina? (Letter to the Editor) Singapore Medical Journal 48: 7: 704- 704, 2007

3. Carrera LI, Tellez TE, D¡¯Ottavio AE: A hybrid curriculum would be a more suitable format for developing countries (Response to Diana F Wood¡¯s Editorial: Problem based learning. BMJ 2008;336:971 (3 May) British Medical Journal on line 336 (7651), 3 may 2008

4. D¡¯Ottavio AE: Transformaciones curriculares: an¨¢lisis y reflexiones. Revista Elementos. 72 (15): 35-38, 2008

Competing interests: No competing interests

Open access
Published: 17 February 2022

Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review

Joan Carles Trullàs ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7380-3475 1 , 2 , 3 ,
Carles Blay ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3962-5887 1 , 4 ,
Elisabet Sarri ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2435-399X 3 &
Ramon Pujol ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2527-385X 1

BMC Medical Education volume 22 , Article number: 104 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

39k Accesses

114 Citations

11 Altmetric

Metrics details

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach that shifts the role of the teacher to the student (student-centered) and is based on self-directed learning. Although PBL has been adopted in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, the effectiveness of the method is still under discussion. The author’s purpose was to appraise available international evidence concerning to the effectiveness and usefulness of PBL methodology in undergraduate medical teaching programs.

The authors applied the Arksey and O’Malley framework to undertake a scoping review. The search was carried out in February 2021 in PubMed and Web of Science including all publications in English and Spanish with no limits on publication date, study design or country of origin.

The literature search identified one hundred and twenty-four publications eligible for this review. Despite the fact that this review included many studies, their design was heterogeneous and only a few provided a high scientific evidence methodology (randomized design and/or systematic reviews with meta-analysis). Furthermore, most were single-center experiences with small sample size and there were no large multi-center studies. PBL methodology obtained a high level of satisfaction, especially among students. It was more effective than other more traditional (or lecture-based methods) at improving social and communication skills, problem-solving and self-learning skills. Knowledge retention and academic performance weren’t worse (and in many studies were better) than with traditional methods. PBL was not universally widespread, probably because requires greater human resources and continuous training for its implementation.

PBL is an effective and satisfactory methodology for medical education. It is likely that through PBL medical students will not only acquire knowledge but also other competencies that are needed in medical professionalism.

Peer Review reports

There has always been enormous interest in identifying the best learning methods. In the mid-twentieth century, US educator Edgar Dale proposed which actions would lead to deeper learning than others and published the well-known (and at the same time controversial) “Cone of Experience or Cone of Dale”. At the apex of the cone are oral representations (verbal descriptions, written descriptions, etc.) and at the base is direct experience (based on a person carrying out the activity that they aim to learn), which represents the greatest depth of our learning. In other words, each level of the cone corresponds to various learning methods. At the base are the most effective, participative methods (what we do and what we say) and at the apex are the least effective, abstract methods (what we read and what we hear) [ 1 ]. In 1990, psychologist George Miller proposed a framework pyramid to assess clinical competence. At the lowest level of the pyramid is knowledge (knows), followed by the competence (knows how), execution (shows how) and finally the action (does) [ 2 ]. Both Miller’s pyramid and Dale’s cone propose a very efficient way of training and, at the same time, of evaluation. Miller suggested that the learning curve passes through various levels, from the acquisition of theoretical knowledge to knowing how to put this knowledge into practice and demonstrate it. Dale stated that to remember a high percentage of the acquired knowledge, a theatrical representation should be carried out or real experiences should be simulated. It is difficult to situate methodologies such as problem-based learning (PBL), case-based learning (CBL) and team-based learning (TBL) in the context of these learning frameworks.

In the last 50 years, various university education models have emerged and have attempted to reconcile teaching with learning, according to the principle that students should lead their own learning process. Perhaps one of the most successful models is PBL that came out of the English-speaking environment. There are many descriptions of PBL in the literature, but in practice there is great variability in what people understand by this methodology. The original conception of PBL as an educational strategy in medicine was initiated at McMaster University (Canada) in 1969, leaving aside the traditional methodology (which is often based on lectures) and introducing student-centered learning. The new formulation of medical education proposed by McMaster did not separate the basic sciences from the clinical sciences, and partially abandoned theoretical classes, which were taught after the presentation of the problem. In its original version, PBL is a methodology in which the starting point is a problem or a problematic situation. The situation enables students to develop a hypothesis and identify learning needs so that they can better understand the problem and meet the established learning objectives [ 3 , 4 ]. PBL is taught using small groups (usually around 8–10 students) with a tutor. The aim of the group sessions is to identify a problem or scenario, define the key concepts identified, brainstorm ideas and discuss key learning objectives, research these and share this information with each other at subsequent sessions. Tutors are used to guide students, so they stay on track with the learning objectives of the task. Contemporary medical education also employs other small group learning methods including CBL and TBL. Characteristics common to the pedagogy of both CBL and TBL include the use of an authentic clinical case, active small-group learning, activation of existing knowledge and application of newly acquired knowledge. In CBL students are encouraged to engage in peer learning and apply new knowledge to these authentic clinical problems under the guidance of a facilitator. CBL encourages a structured and critical approach to clinical problem-solving, and, in contrast to PBL, is designed to allow the facilitator to correct and redirect students [ 5 ]. On the other hand, TBL offers a student-centered, instructional approach for large classes of students who are divided into small teams of typically five to seven students to solve clinically relevant problems. The overall similarities between PBL and TBL relate to the use of professionally relevant problems and small group learning, while the main difference relates to one teacher facilitating interactions between multiple self-managed teams in TBL, whereas each small group in PBL is facilitated by one teacher. Further differences are related to mandatory pre-reading assignments in TBL, testing of prior knowledge in TBL and activating prior knowledge in PBL, teacher-initiated clarifying of concepts that students struggled with in TBL versus students-generated issues that need further study in PBL, inter-team discussions in TBL and structured feedback and problems with related questions in TBL [ 6 ].

In the present study we have focused on PBL methodology, and, as attractive as the method may seem, we should consider whether it is really useful and effective as a learning method. Although PBL has been adopted in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, the effectiveness (in terms of academic performance and/or skill improvement) of the method is still under discussion. This is due partly to the methodological difficulty in comparing PBL with traditional curricula based on lectures. To our knowledge, there is no systematic scoping review in the literature that has analyzed these aspects.

The main motivation for carrying out this research and writing this article was scientific but also professional interest. We believe that reviewing the state of the art of this methodology once it was already underway in our young Faculty of Medicine, could allow us to know if we were on the right track and if we should implement changes in the training of future doctors.

The primary goal of this study was to appraise available international evidence concerning to the effectiveness and usefulness of PBL methodology in undergraduate medical teaching programs. As the intention was to synthesize the scattered evidence available, the option was to conduct a scoping review. A scoping study tends to address broader topics where many different study designs might be applicable. Scoping studies may be particularly relevant to disciplines, such as medical education, in which the paucity of randomized controlled trials makes it difficult for researchers to undertake systematic reviews [ 7 , 8 ]. Even though the scoping review methodology is not widely used in medical education, it is well established for synthesizing heterogeneous research evidence [ 9 ].

The specific aims were: 1) to determine the effectiveness of PBL in academic performance (learning and retention of knowledge) in medical education; 2) to determine the effectiveness of PBL in other skills (social and communication skills, problem solving or self-learning) in medical education; 3) to know the level of satisfaction perceived by the medical students (and/or tutors) when they are taught with the PBL methodology (or when they teach in case of tutors).

This review was guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews. The five main stages of the framework are: (1) identifying the research question; (2) ascertaining relevant studies; (3) determining study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results [ 7 ]. We reported our process according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews [ 10 ].

Stage 1: Identifying the research question

With the goals of the study established, the four members of the research team established the research questions. The primary research question was “What is the effectiveness of PBL methodology for learning in undergraduate medicine?” and the secondary question “What is the perception and satisfaction of medical students and tutors in relation to PBL methodology?”.

Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

After the research questions and a search strategy were defined, the searches were conducted in PubMed and Web of Science using the MeSH terms “problem-based learning” and “Medicine” (the Boolean operator “AND” was applied to the search terms). No limits were set on language, publication date, study design or country of origin. The search was carried out on 14th February 2021. Citations were uploaded to the reference manager software Mendeley Desktop (version 1.19.8) for title and abstract screening, and data characterization.

Stage 3: Study selection

The searching strategy in our scoping study generated a total of 2399 references. The literature search and screening of title, abstract and full text for suitability was performed independently by one author (JCT) based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were: 1) PBL methodology was the major research topic; 2) participants were undergraduate medical students or tutors; 3) the main outcome was academic performance (learning and knowledge retention); 4) the secondary outcomes were one of the following: social and communication skills, problem solving or self-learning and/or student/tutor satisfaction; 5) all types of studies were included including descriptive papers, qualitative, quantitative and mixed studies methods, perspectives, opinion, commentary pieces and editorials. Exclusion criteria were studies including other types of participants such as postgraduate medical students, residents and other health non-medical specialties such as pharmacy, veterinary, dentistry or nursing. Studies published in languages other than Spanish and English were also excluded. Situations in which uncertainty arose, all authors (CB, ES, RP) discussed the publication together to reach a final consensus. The outcomes of the search results and screening are presented in Fig. 1 . One-hundred and twenty-four articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis.

Study flow PRISMA diagram. Details the review process through the different stages of the review; includes the number of records identified, included and excluded

Stage 4: Charting the data

A data extraction table was developed by the research team. Data extracted from each of the 124 publications included general publication details (year, author, and country), sample size, study population, design/methodology, main and secondary outcomes and relevant results and/or conclusions. We compiled all data into a single spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel for coding and analysis. The characteristics and the study subject of the 124 articles included in this review are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 . The detailed results of the Microsoft Excel file is also available in Additional file 1 .

Stage 5: Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

As indicated in the search strategy (Fig. 1 ) this review resulted in the inclusion of 124 publications. Publication years of the final sample ranged from 1990 to 2020, the majority of the publications (51, 41%) were identified for the years 2010–2020 and the years in which there were more publications were 2001, 2009 and 2015. Countries from the six continents were represented in this review. Most of the publications were from Asia (especially China and Saudi Arabia) and North America followed by Europe, and few studies were from Africa, Oceania and South America. The country with more publications was the United States of America ( n = 27). The most frequent designs of the selected studies were surveys or questionnaires ( n = 45) and comparative studies ( n = 48, only 16 were randomized) with traditional or lecture-based learning methodologies (in two studies the comparison was with simulation) and the most frequently measured outcomes were academic performance followed by student satisfaction (48 studies measured more than one outcome). The few studies with the highest level of scientific evidence (systematic review and meta-analysis and randomized studies) were conducted mostly in Asian countries (Tables 1 and 2 ). The study subject was specified in 81 publications finding a high variability but at the same time great representability of almost all disciplines of the medical studies.

The sample size was available in 99 publications and the median [range] of the participants was 132 [14–2061]. According to study population, there were more participants in the students’ focused studies (median 134 and range 16–2061) in comparison with the tutors’ studies (median 53 and range 14–494).

Finally, after reviewing in detail the measured outcomes (main and secondary) according to the study design (Table 2 and Additional file 1 ) we present a narrative overview and a synthesis of the main findings.

Main outcome: academic performance (learning and knowledge retention)

Seventy-one of the 124 publications had learning and/or knowledge retention as a measured outcome, most of them ( n = 45) were comparative studies with traditional or lecture-based learning and 16 were randomized. These studies were varied in their methodology, were performed in different geographic zones, and normally analyzed the experience of just one education center. Most studies ( n = 49) reported superiority of PBL in learning and knowledge acquisition [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ] but there was no difference between traditional and PBL curriculums in another 19 studies [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 ]. Only three studies reported that PBL was less effective [ 79 , 80 , 81 ], two of them were randomized (in one case favoring simulation-based learning [ 80 ] and another favoring lectures [ 81 ]) and the remaining study was based on tutors’ opinion rather than real academic performance [ 79 ]. It is noteworthy that the four systematic reviews and meta-analysis included in this scoping review, all carried out in China, found that PBL was more effective than lecture-based learning in improving knowledge and other skills (clinical, problem-solving, self-learning and collaborative) [ 40 , 51 , 53 , 58 ]. Another relevant example of the superiority of the PBL method over the traditional method is the experience reported by Hoffman et al. from the University of Missouri-Columbia. The authors analyzed the impact of implementing the PBL methodology in its Faculty of Medicine and revealed an improvement in the academic results that lasted for over a decade [ 31 ].

Secondary outcomes

Social and communication skills.

We found five studies in this scoping review that focused on these outcomes and all of them described that a curriculum centered on PBL seems to instill more confidence in social and communication skills among students. Students perceived PBL positively for teamwork, communication skills and interpersonal relations [ 44 , 45 , 67 , 75 , 82 ].

Student satisfaction

Sixty publications analyzed student satisfaction with PBL methodology. The most frequent methodology were surveys or questionnaires (30 studies) followed by comparative studies with traditional or lecture-based methodology (19 studies, 7 of them were randomized). Almost all the studies (51) have shown that PBL is generally well-received [ 11 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 29 , 34 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 50 , 56 , 58 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 78 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 ] but in 9 studies the overall satisfaction scores for the PBL program were neutral [ 76 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 ] or negative [ 117 , 118 ]. Some factors that have been identified as key components for PBL to be successful include: a small group size, the use of scenarios of realistic cases and good management of group dynamics. Despite a mostly positive assessment of the PBL methodology by the students, there were some negative aspects that could be criticized or improved. These include unclear communication of the learning methodology, objectives and assessment method; bad management and organization of the sessions; tutors having little experience of the method; and a lack of standardization in the implementation of the method by the tutors.

Tutor satisfaction

There are only 15 publications that analyze the satisfaction of tutors, most of them surveys or questionnaires [ 85 , 88 , 92 , 98 , 108 , 110 , 119 ]. In comparison with the satisfaction of the students, here the results are more neutral [ 112 , 113 , 115 , 120 , 121 ] and even unfavorable to the PBL methodology in two publications [ 117 , 122 ]. PBL teaching was favored by tutors when the institutions train them in the subject, when there was administrative support and adequate infrastructure and coordination [ 123 ]. In some experiences, the PBL modules created an unacceptable toll of anxiety, unhappiness and strained relations.

Other skills (problem solving and self-learning)

The effectiveness of the PBL methodology has also been explored in other outcomes such as the ability to solve problems and to self-directed learning. All studies have shown that PBL is more effective than lecture-based learning in problem-solving and self-learning skills [ 18 , 24 , 40 , 48 , 67 , 75 , 93 , 104 , 124 ]. One single study found a poor accuracy of the students’ self-assessment when compared to their own performance [ 125 ]. In addition, there are studies that support PBL methodology for integration between basic and clinical sciences [ 126 ].

Finally, other publications have reported the experience of some faculties in the implementation of the PBL methodology. Different experiences have demonstrated that it is both possible and feasible to shift from a traditional curriculum to a PBL program, recognizing that PBL methodology is complex to plan and structure, needs a large number of human and material resources, requiring an immense teacher effort [ 28 , 31 , 94 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 ]. In addition, and despite its cost implication, a PBL curriculum can be successfully implemented in resource-constrained settings [ 134 , 135 ].

We conducted this scoping review to explore the effectiveness and satisfaction of PBL methodology for teaching in undergraduate medicine and, to our knowledge, it is the only study of its kind (systematic scoping review) that has been carried out in the last years. Similarly, Vernon et al. conducted a meta-analysis of articles published between 1970 and 1992 and their results generally supported the superiority of the PBL approach over more traditional methods of medical education [ 136 ]. PBL methodology is implemented in medical studies on the six continents but there is more experience (or at least more publications) from Asian countries and North America. Despite its apparent difficulties on implementation, a PBL curriculum can be successfully implemented in resource-constrained settings [ 134 , 135 ]. Although it is true that the few studies with the highest level of scientific evidence (randomized studies and meta-analysis) were carried out mainly in Asian countries (and some in North America and Europe), there were no significant differences in the main results according to geographical origin.

In this scoping review we have included a large number of publications that, despite their heterogeneity, tend to show favorable results for the usefulness of the PBL methodology in teaching and learning medicine. The results tend to be especially favorable to PBL methodology when it is compared with traditional or lecture-based teaching methods, but when compared with simulation it is not so clear. There are two studies that show neutral [ 71 ] or superior [ 80 ] results to simulation for the acquisition of specific clinical skills. It seems important to highlight that the four meta-analysis included in this review, which included a high number of participants, show results that are clearly favorable to the PBL methodology in terms of knowledge, clinical skills, problem-solving, self-learning and satisfaction [ 40 , 51 , 53 , 58 ].

Regarding the level of satisfaction described in the surveys or questionnaires, the overall satisfaction rate was higher in the PBL students when compared with traditional learning students. Students work in small groups, allowing and promoting teamwork and facilitating social and communication skills. As sessions are more attractive and dynamic than traditional classes, this could lead to a greater degree of motivation for learning.

These satisfaction results are not so favorable when tutors are asked and this may be due to different reasons; first, some studies are from the 90s, when the methodology was not yet fully implemented; second, the number of tutors included in these studies is low; and third, and perhaps most importantly, the complaints are not usually due to the methodology itself, but rather due to lack of administrative support, and/or work overload. PBL methodology implies more human and material resources. The lack of experience in guided self-learning by lecturers requires more training. Some teachers may not feel comfortable with the method and therefore do not apply it correctly.

Despite how effective and/or attractive the PBL methodology may seem, some (not many) authors are clearly detractors and have published opinion articles with fierce criticism to this methodology. Some of the arguments against are as follows: clinical problem solving is the wrong task for preclinical medical students, self-directed learning interpreted as self-teaching is not appropriate in undergraduate medical education, relegation to the role of facilitators is a misuse of the faculty, small-group experience is inherently variable and sometimes dysfunctional, etc. [ 137 ].

In light of the results found in our study, we believe that PBL is an adequate methodology for the training of future doctors and reinforces the idea that the PBL should have an important weight in the curriculum of our medical school. It is likely that training through PBL, the doctors of the future will not only have great knowledge but may also acquire greater capacity for communication, problem solving and self-learning, all of which are characteristics that are required in medical professionalism. For this purpose, Koh et al. analyzed the effect that PBL during medical school had on physician competencies after graduation, finding a positive effect mainly in social and cognitive dimensions [ 138 ].

Despite its defects and limitations, we must not abandon this methodology and, in any case, perhaps PBL should evolve, adapt, and improve to enhance its strengths and improve its weaknesses. It is likely that the new generations, trained in schools using new technologies and methodologies far from lectures, will feel more comfortable (either as students or as tutors) with methodologies more like PBL (small groups and work focused on problems or projects). It would be interesting to examine the implementation of technologies and even social media into PBL sessions, an issue that has been poorly explorer [ 139 ].

Limitations

Scoping reviews are not without limitations. Our review includes 124 articles from the 2399 initially identified and despite our efforts to be as comprehensive as possible, we may have missed some (probably few) articles. Even though this review includes many studies, their design is very heterogeneous, only a few include a large sample size and high scientific evidence methodology. Furthermore, most are single-center experiences and there are no large multi-center studies. Finally, the frequency of the PBL sessions (from once or twice a year to the whole curriculum) was not considered, in part, because most of the revised studies did not specify this information. This factor could affect the efficiency of PBL and the perceptions of students and tutors about PBL. However, the adoption of a scoping review methodology was effective in terms of summarizing the research findings, identifying limitations in studies’ methodologies and findings and provided a more rigorous vision of the international state of the art.

Conclusions

This systematic scoping review provides a broad overview of the efficacy of PBL methodology in undergraduate medicine teaching from different countries and institutions. PBL is not a new teaching method given that it has already been 50 years since it was implemented in medicine courses. It is a method that shifts the leading role from teachers to students and is based on guided self-learning. If it is applied properly, the degree of satisfaction is high, especially for students. PBL is more effective than traditional methods (based mainly on lectures) at improving social and communication skills, problem-solving and self-learning skills, and has no worse results (and in many studies better results) in relation to academic performance. Despite that, its use is not universally widespread, probably because it requires greater human resources and continuous training for its implementation. In any case, more comparative and randomized studies and/or other systematic reviews and meta-analysis are required to determine which educational strategies could be most suitable for the training of future doctors.

Abbreviations

Problem-based learning

Case-based learning

Team-based learning

References:

Dale E. Methods for analyzing the content of motion pictures. J Educ Sociol. 1932;6:244–50.

Google Scholar

Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 Suppl):S63–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045 .

Article Google Scholar

Bodagh N, Bloomfield J, Birch P, Ricketts W. Problem-based learning: a review. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2017;78:C167–70. https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2017.78.11.C167 .

- Branda LA. El abc del ABP: Lo esencial del aprendizaje basado en problemas. In: Fundación Dr. Esteve, Cuadernos de la fundación Dr. Antonio Esteve nº27: El aprendizaje basado en problemas en sus textos, pp.1–16. 2013. Barcelona.

Burgess A, Matar E, Roberts C, et al. Scaffolding medical student knowledge and skills: team-based learning (TBL) and case-based learning (CBL). BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02638-3 .

Dolmans D, Michaelsen L, van Merriënboer J, van der Vleuten C. Should we choose between problem-based learning and team-based learning? No, combine the best of both worlds! Med Teach. 2015;37:354–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.948828 .

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. In J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 .

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 .

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123 .

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 .

Sokas RK, Diserens D, Johnston MA. Integrating occupational-health into the internal medicine clerkship using problem-based learning. Clin Res. 1990;38:A735.

Richards BF, Ober KP, Cariaga-Lo L, et al. Ratings of students’ performances in a third-year internal medicine clerkship: a comparison between problem-based and lecture-based curricula. Acad Med. 1996;71:187–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199602000-00028 .

Gresham CL, Philp JR. Problem-based learning in clinical medicine. Teach Learn Med. 1996;8:111–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401339609539776 .

Hill J, Rolfe IE, Pearson SA, Heathcote A. Do junior doctors feel they are prepared for hospital practice? A study of graduates from traditional and non-traditional medical schools. Med Educ. 1998;32:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00152.x .

Blake RL, Parkison L. Faculty evaluation of the clinical performances of students in a problem-based learning curriculum. Teach Learn Med. 1998;10:69–73. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1002\_3 .

Hmelo CE. Problem-based learning: effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine. J Learn Sc. 1998;7:173–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0702\_2 .

Finch PN. The effect of problem-based learning on the academic performance of students studying podiatric medicine in Ontario. Med Educ. 1999;33:411–7.

Casassus P, Hivon R, Gagnayre R, d’Ivernois JF. An initial experiment in haematology instruction using the problem-based learning method in third-year medical training in France. Hematol Cell Ther. 1999;41:137–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00282-999-0137-0 .

Purdy RA, Benstead TJ, Holmes DB, Kaufman DM. Using problem-based learning in neurosciences education for medical students. Can J Neurol Sci. 1999;26:211–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0317167100000287 .

Farrell TA, Albanese MA, Pomrehn PRJ. Problem-based learning in ophthalmology: a pilot program for curricular renewal. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1223–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.117.9.1223 .

Curtis JA, Indyk D, Taylor B. Successful use of problem-based learning in a third-year pediatric clerkship. Ambul Pediatr. 2001;1:132–5. https://doi.org/10.1367/1539-4409(2001)001%3c0132:suopbl%3e2.0.co;2 .

Trevena LJ, Clarke RM. Self-directed learning in population health. a clinically relevant approach for medical students. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00395-6 .

Astin J, Jenkins T, Moore L. Medical students’ perspective on the teaching of medical statistics in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Stat Med. 2002;21:1003–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1132 .

Whitfield CR, Manger EA, Zwicker J, Lehman EB. Differences between students in problem-based and lecture-based curricula measured by clerkship performance ratings at the beginning of the third year. Teach Learn Med. 2002;14:211–7. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1404\_2 .

McParland M, Noble LM, Livingston G. The effectiveness of problem-based learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. Med Educ. 2004;38:859–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01818.x .

Casey PM, Magrane D, Lesnick TG. Improved performance and student satisfaction after implementation of a problem-based preclinical obstetrics and gynecology curriculum. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1874–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2005.07.061 .

Gurpinar E, Musal B, Aksakoglu G, Ucku R. Comparison of knowledge scores of medical students in problem-based learning and traditional curriculum on public health topics. BMC Med Educ. 2005;5:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-5-7 .

Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Dauphinee D, et al. Effect of a community oriented problem based learning curriculum on quality of primary care delivered by graduates: historical cohort comparison study. BMJ. 2005;331:1002. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.582546.7C .

Abu-Hijleh MF, Chakravarty M, Al-Shboul Q, Kassab S, Hamdy H. Integrating applied anatomy in surgical clerkship in a problem-based learning curriculum. Surg Radiol Anat. 2005;27:152–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-004-0293-4 .

Distlehorst LH, Dawson E, Robbs RS, Barrows HS. Problem-based learning outcomes: the glass half-full. Acad Med. 2005;80:294–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000-00020 .

Hoffman K, Hosokawa M, Blake R Jr, Headrick L, Johnson G. Problem-based learning outcomes: ten years of experience at the University of Missouri-Columbia school of medicine. Acad Med. 2006;81:617–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ACM.0000232411.97399.c6 .

Kong J, Li X, Wang Y, Sun W, Zhang J. Effect of digital problem-based learning cases on student learning outcomes in ophthalmology courses. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1211–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.110 .

Tsou KI, Cho SL, Lin CS, et al. Short-term outcomes of a near-full PBL curriculum in a new Taiwan medical school. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009;25:282–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70075-0 .

Wang J, Zhang W, Qin L, et al. Problem-based learning in regional anatomy education at Peking University. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:121–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.151 .

Abou-Elhamd KA, Rashad UM, Al-Sultan AI. Applying problem-based learning to otolaryngology teaching. J Laryngol Otol. 2011;125:117–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215110001702 .

Urrutia Aguilar ME, Hamui-Sutton A, Castaneda Figueiras S, van der Goes TI, Guevara-Guzman R. Impact of problem-based learning on the cognitive processes of medical students. Gac Med Mex. 2011;147:385–93.

Tian J-H, Yang K-H, Liu A-P. Problem-based learning in evidence-based medicine courses at Lanzhou University. Med Teach. 2012;34:341. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.531169 .

Hoover CR, Wong CC, Azzam A. From primary care to public health: using problem-based Learning and the ecological model to teach public health to first year medical students. J Community Health. 2012;37:647–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-011-9495-y .

Li J, Li QL, Li J, et al. Comparison of three problem-based learning conditions (real patients, digital and paper) with lecture-based learning in a dermatology course: a prospective randomized study from China. Med Teach. 2013;35:e963–70. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.719651 .

Ding X, Zhao L, Chu H, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of problem-based learning of preventive medicine education in China. Sci Rep. 2014;4:5126. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05126 .

Meo SA. Undergraduate medical student’s perceptions on traditional and problem based curricula: pilot study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2014;64:775–9.

Khoshnevisasl P, Sadeghzadeh M, Mazloomzadeh S, Hashemi Feshareki R, Ahmadiafshar A. Comparison of problem-based learning with lecture-based learning. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014;16: e5186. https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.5186 .

Al-Drees AA, Khalil MS, Irshad M, Abdulghani HM. Students’ perception towards the problem based learning tutorial session in a system-based hybrid curriculum. Saudi Med J. 2015;36:341–8. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2015.3.10216 .

Al-Shaikh G, Al Mussaed EM, Altamimi TN, Elmorshedy H, Syed S, Habib F. Perception of medical students regarding problem based learning. Kuwait Med J. 2015;47:133–8.

Hande S, Mohammed CA, Komattil R. Acquisition of knowledge, generic skills and attitudes through problem-based learning: student perspectives in a hybrid curriculum. J Taibah Univ Medical Sci. 2015;10:21–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2014.01.008 .

González Mirasol E, Gómez García MT, Lobo Abascal P, Moreno Selva R, Fuentes Rozalén AM, González MG. Analysis of perception of training in graduates of the faculty of medicine at Universidad de Castilla-Mancha. Eval Program Plann. 2015;52:169–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.06.001 .

Yanamadala M, Kaprielian VS, O’Connor Grochowski C, Reed T, Heflin MT. A problem-based learning curriculum in geriatrics for medical students. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2018;39:122–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2016.1152268 .

Balendran K, John L. Comparison of learning outcomes in problem based learning and lecture based learning in teaching forensic medicine. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2017;6:89–92. https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2017/22 .

Chang H-C, Wang N-Y, Ko W-R, Yu Y-T, Lin L-Y, Tsai H-F. The effectiveness of clinical problem-based learning model of medico-jurisprudence education on general law knowledge for obstetrics/gynecological interns. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;56:325–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2017.04.011 .

Eltony SA, El-Sayed NH, El-Araby SE-S, Kassab SE. Implementation and evaluation of a patient safety course in a problem-based learning program. Educ Heal. 2017;30:44–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.210512 .

Zhang S, Xu J, Wang H, Zhang D, Zhang Q, Zou L. Effects of problem-based learning in Chinese radiology education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97: e0069. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010069 .

Hincapie Parra DA, Ramos Monobe A, Chrino-Barcelo V. Problem based learning as an active learning strategy and its impact on academic performance and critical thinking of medical students. Rev Complut Educ. 2018;29:665–81. https://doi.org/10.5209/RCED.53581 .

Ma Y, Lu X. The effectiveness of problem-based learning in pediatric medical education in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98: e14052. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014052 .

Berger C, Brinkrolf P, Ertmer C, et al. Combination of problem-based learning with high-fidelity simulation in CPR training improves short and long-term CPR skills: a randomised single blinded trial. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1626-7 .

Aboonq M, Alquliti A, Abdulmonem I, Alpuq N, Jalali K, Arabi S. Students’ approaches to learning and perception of learning environment: a comparison between traditional and problem-based learning medical curricula. Indo Am J Pharm Sci. 2019;6:3610–9. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2562660 .

Li X, Xie F, Li X, et al. Development, application, and evaluation of a problem-based learning method in clinical laboratory education. Clin Chim ACTA. 2020;510:681–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.08.037 .

Zhao W, He L, Deng W, Zhu J, Su A, Zhang Y. The effectiveness of the combined problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) teaching method in the clinical practical teaching of thyroid disease. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:381. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02306 .

Liu C-X, Ouyang W-W, Wang X-W, Chen D, Jiang Z-L. Comparing hybrid problem-based and lecture learning (PBL plus LBL) with LBL pedagogy on clinical curriculum learning for medical students in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99:e19687. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019687 .

Margolius SW, Papp KK, Altose MD, Wilson-Delfosse AL. Students perceive skills learned in pre-clerkship PBL valuable in core clinical rotations. Med Teach. 2020;42:902–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1762031 .

Schwartz RW, Donnelly MB, Nash PP, Young B. Developing students cognitive skills in a problem-based surgery clerkship. Acad Med. 1992;67:694–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199210000-00016 .

Mennin SP, Friedman M, Skipper B, Kalishman S, Snyder J. Performances on the NBME-I, NBME-II, and NBME-III by medical-students in the problem-based learning and conventional tracks at the university-of-new-mexico. Acad Med. 1993;68:616–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199308000-00012 .

Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Comparing achievement on the medical council of Canada qualifying examination part I of students in conventional and problem-based learning curricula. Acad Med. 1998;73:1211–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199811000-00022 .

Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Achievement of students in a conventional and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) curriculum. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 1999;4:245–60. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009829831978 .

Antepohl W, Herzig S. Problem-based learning versus lecture-based learning in a course of basic pharmacology: a controlled, randomized study. Med Educ. 1999;33:106–13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00289.x .

Dyke P, Jamrozik K, Plant AJ. A randomized trial of a problem-based learning approach for teaching epidemiology. Acad Med. 2001;76:373–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200104000-00016 .

Brewer DW. Endocrine PBL in the year 2000. Adv Physiol Educ. 2001;25:249–55. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2001.25.4.249 .

Seneviratne RD, Samarasekera DD, Karunathilake IM, Ponnamperuma GG. Students’ perception of problem-based learning in the medical curriculum of the faculty of medicine, University of Colombo. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2001;30:379–81.

Alleyne T, Shirley A, Bennett C, et al. Problem-based compared with traditional methods at the faculty of medical sciences, University of the West Indies: a model study. Med Teach. 2002;24:273–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220125286 .

Norman GR, Wenghofer E, Klass D. Predicting doctor performance outcomes of curriculum interventions: problem-based learning and continuing competence. Med Educ. 2008;42:794–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03131.x .

Cohen-Schotanus J, Muijtjens AMM, Schoenrock-Adema J, Geertsma J, van der Vleuten CPM. Effects of conventional and problem-based learning on clinical and general competencies and career development. Med Educ. 2008;42:256–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02959.x .

Wenk M, Waurick R, Schotes D, et al. Simulation-based medical education is no better than problem-based discussions and induces misjudgment in self-assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14:159–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-008-9098-2 .

Collard A, Gelaes S, Vanbelle S, et al. Reasoning versus knowledge retention and ascertainment throughout a problem-based learning curriculum. Med Educ. 2009;43:854–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03410.x .

Nouns Z, Schauber S, Witt C, Kingreen H, Schuettpelz-Brauns K. Development of knowledge in basic sciences: a comparison of two medical curricula. Med Educ. 2012;46:1206–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12047 .

Saloojee S, van Wyk J. The impact of a problem-based learning curriculum on the psychiatric knowledge and skills of final-year students at the Nelson R Mandela school of medicine. South African J Psychiatry. 2012;18:116.

Mughal AM, Shaikh SH. Assessment of collaborative problem solving skills in undergraduate medical students at Ziauddin college of medicine. Karachi Pakistan J Med Sci. 2018;34:185–9. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.341.13485 .

Hu X, Zhang H, Song Y, et al. Implementation of flipped classroom combined with problem-based learning: an approach to promote learning about hyperthyroidism in the endocrinology internship. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:290. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1714-8 .

Thompson KL, Gendreau JL, Strickling JE, Young HE. Cadaveric dissection in relation to problem-based learning case sequencing: a report of medical student musculoskeletal examination performances and self-confidence. Anat Sci Educ. 2019;12:619–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1891 .

Chang G, Cook D, Maguire T, Skakun E, Yakimets WW, Warnock GL. Problem-based learning: its role in undergraduate surgical education. Can J Surg. 1995;38:13–21.

Vernon DTA, Hosokawa MC. Faculty attitudes and opinions about problem-based learning. Acad Med. 1996;71:1233–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199611000-00020 .

Steadman RH, Coates WC, Huang YM, et al. Simulation-based training is superior to problem-based learning for the acquisition of critical assessment and management skills. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:151–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000190619.42013.94 .

Johnston JM, Schooling CM, Leung GM. A randomised-controlled trial of two educational modes for undergraduate evidence-based medicine learning in Asia. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-63 .

Suleman W, Iqbal R, Alsultan A, Baig SM. Perception of 4(th) year medical students about problem based learning. Pakistan J Med Sci. 2010;26:871–4.

Blosser A, Jones B. Problem-based learning in a surgery clerkship. Med Teach. 1991;13:289–93. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599109089907 .

Usherwood T, Joesbury H, Hannay D. Student-directed problem-based learning in general-practice and public-health medicine. Med Educ. 1991;25:421–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1991.tb00090.x .

Bernstein P, Tipping J, Bercovitz K, Skinner HA. Shifting students and faculty to a PBL curriculum - attitudes changed and lessons learned. Acad Med. 1995;70:245–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199503000-00019 .

Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Comparing students’ attitudes in problem-based and conventional curricula. Acad Med. 1996;71:1096–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199610000-00018 .

Kalaian HA, Mullan PB. Exploratory factor analysis of students’ ratings of a problem-based learning curriculum. Acad Med. 1996;71:390–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199604000-00019 .

Vincelette J, Lalande R, Delorme P, Goudreau J, Lalonde V, Jean P. A pilot course as a model for implementing a PBL curriculum. Acad Med. 1997;72:698–701. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199708000-00015 .

Ghosh S, Dawka V. Combination of didactic lecture with problem-based learning sessions in physiology teaching in a developing medical college in Nepal. Adv Physiol Educ. 2000;24:8–12.

Walters MR. Problem-based learning within endocrine physiology lectures. Adv Physiol Educ. 2001;25:225–7. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2001.25.4.225 .

Leung GM, Lam TH, Hedley AJ. Problem-based public health learning - from the classroom to the community. Med Educ. 2001;35:1071–2.

Khoo HE, Chhem RK, Gwee MCE, Balasubramaniam P. Introduction of problem-based learning in a traditional medical curriculum in Singapore - students’ and tutors’ perspectives. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2001;30:371–4.

Villamor MCA. Problem-based learning (PBL) as an approach in the teaching of biochemistry of the endocrine system at the Angeles University College of Medicine. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2001;30:382–6.

Chang C-H, Yang C-Y, See L-C, Lui P-W. High satisfaction with problem-based learning for anesthesia. Chang Gung Med J. 2004;27:654–62.

McLean M. A comparison of students who chose a traditional or a problem-based learning curriculum after failing year 2 in the traditional curriculum: a unique case study at the Nelson R. Mandela school of medicine. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16:301–3. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1603\_15 .

Lucas M, García Guasch R, Moret E, Llasera R, Melero A. Canet J [Problem-based learning in an undergraduate medical school course on anesthesiology, recovery care, and pain management]. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2006;53:419–25.

Burgun A, Darmoni S, Le Duff F, Weber J. Problem-based learning in medical informatics for undergraduate medical students: an experiment in two medical schools. Int J Med Inform. 2006;75:396–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.014 .

Gurpinar E, Senol Y, Aktekin MR. Evaluation of problem based learning by tutors and students in a medical faculty of Turkey. Kuwait Med J. 2009;41:123–7.

Elzubeir MA. Teaching of the renal system in an integrated, problem-based curriculum. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2012;23:93–8.

Sulaiman N, Hamdy H. Problem-based learning: where are we now? Guide supplement 36.3–practical application. Med Teach. 2013;35:160–2. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.737965 .

Albarrak AI, Mohammed R, Abalhassan MF, Almutairi NK. Academic satisfaction among traditional and problem based learning medical students a comparative study. Saudi Med J. 2013;34:1179–88.

Nosair E, Mirghani Z, Mostafa RM. Measuring students’ perceptions of educational environment in the PBL program of Sharjah Medical College. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2015;2:71–9. https://doi.org/10.4137/JMECDECDECD.S29926 .

Tshitenge ST, Ndhlovu CE, Ogundipe R. Evaluation of problem-based learning curriculum implementation in a clerkship rotation of a newly established African medical training institution: lessons from the University of Botswana. Pan Afr Med J. 2017;27:13. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2017.27.13.10623 .

Yadav RL, Piryani RM, Deo GP, Shah DK, Yadav LK, Islam MN. Attitude and perception of undergraduate medical students toward the problem-based learning in Chitwan Medical College. Nepal Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:317–22. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S160814 .

Asad MR, Tadvi N, Amir KM, Afzal K, Irfan A, Hussain SA. Medical student’s feedback towards problem based learning and interactive lectures as a teaching and learning method in an outcome-based curriculum. Int J Med Res & Heal Sci. 2019;8:78–84. https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2019.60392 .

Mpalanyi M, Nalweyiso ID, Mubuuke AG. Perceptions of radiography students toward problem-based learning almost two decades after its introduction at Makerere University. Uganda J Med imaging Radiat Sci. 2020;51:639–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2020.06.009 .

Korkmaz NS, Ozcelik S. Evaluation of the opinions of the first, second and third term medical students about problem based learning sessions in Bezmialem Vakif University. Bezmialem Sci. 2020;8:144–9. https://doi.org/10.14235/bas.galenos.2019.3471 .

McGrew MC, Skipper B, Palley T, Kaufman A. Student and faculty perceptions of problem-based learning on a family medicine clerkship. Fam Med. 1999;31:171–6.

Kelly AM. A problem-based learning resource in emergency medicine for medical students. J Accid Emerg Med. 2000;17:320–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.17.5.320 .

Bui-Mansfield LT, Chew FS. Radiologists as clinical tutors in a problem-based medical school curriculum. Acad Radiol. 2001;8:657–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80693-1 .

Macallan DC, Kent A, Holmes SC, Farmer EA, McCrorie P. A model of clinical problem-based learning for clinical attachments in medicine. Med Educ. 2009;43:799–807. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03406.x .

Grisham JW, Martiniuk ALC, Negin J, Wright EP. Problem-based learning (PBL) and public health: an initial exploration of perceptions of PBL in Vietnam. Asia-Pacific J public Heal. 2015;27:NP2019-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539512436875 .

Khan IA, Al-Swailmi FK. Perceptions of faculty and students regarding Problem Based Learning: a mixed methods study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2015;65:1334–8.

Alduraywish AA, Mohager MO, Alenezi MJ, Nail AM, Aljafari AS. Evaluation of students’ experience with Problem-based Learning (PBL) applied at the College of Medicine, Al-Jouf University. Saudi Arabia J Pak Med Assoc. 2017;67:1870–3.

Yoo DM, Cho AR, Kim S. Satisfaction with and suitability of the problem-based learning program at the Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019;16:20. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.20 .

Aldayel AA, Alali AO, Altuwaim AA, et al. Problem-based learning: medical students’ perception toward their educational environment at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:95–104. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S189062 .

DeLowerntal E. An evaluation of a module in problem-based learning. Int J Educ Dev. 1996;16:303–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-0593(96)00001-6 .

Tufts MA, Higgins-Opitz SB. What makes the learning of physiology in a PBL medical curriculum challenging? Student perceptions. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009;33:187–95. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.90214.2008 .

Aboonq M. Perception of the faculty regarding problem-based learning as an educational approach in Northwestern Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. 2015;36:1329–35. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2015.11.12263 .

Subramaniam RM, Scally P, Gibson R. Problem-based learning and medical student radiology teaching. Australas Radiol. 2004;48:335–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0004-8461.2004.01317.x .

Chang BJ. Problem-based learning in medical school: a student’s perspective. Ann Med Surg. 2016;12:88–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.11.011 .

Griffith CD, Blue AV, Mainous AG, DeSimone PA. Housestaff attitudes toward a problem-based clerkship. Med Teach. 1996;18:133–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599609034147 .

Navarro HN, Zamora SJ. The opinion of teachers about tutorial problem based learning. Rev Med Chil. 2014;142:989–97. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872014000800006 .

Demiroren M, Turan S, Oztuna D. Medical students’ self-efficacy in problem-based learning and its relationship with self-regulated learning. Med Educ Online. 2016;21:30049. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v21.30049 .

Tousignant M, DesMarchais JE. Accuracy of student self-assessment ability compared to their own performance in a problem-based learning medical program: a correlation study. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2002;7:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014516206120 .

Brynhildsen J, Dahle LO, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Attitudes among students and teachers on vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Teach. 2002;24:286–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220134105 .

Desmarchais JE. A student-centered, problem-based curriculum - 5 years experience. Can Med Assoc J. 1993;148:1567–72.

Doig K, Werner E. The marriage of a traditional lecture-based curriculum and problem-based learning: are the offspring vigorous? Med Teach. 2000;22:173–8.

Kemahli S. Hematology education in a problem-based curriculum. Hematology. 2005;10(Suppl 1):161–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10245330512331390267 .

Grkovic I. Transition of the medical curriculum from classical to integrated: problem-based approach and Australian way of keeping academia in medicine. Croat Med J. 2005;46:16–20.

Bosch-Barrera J, Briceno Garcia HC, Capella D, et al. Teaching bioethics to students of medicine with Problem-Based Learning (PBL). Cuad Bioet. 2015;26:303–9.

Lin Y-C, Huang Y-S, Lai C-S, Yen J-H, Tsai W-C. Problem-based learning curriculum in medical education at Kaohsiung Medical University. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009;25:264–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70072-5 .

Salinas Sánchez AS, Hernández Millán I, Virseda Rodríguez JA, et al. Problem-based learning in urology training the faculty of medicine of the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha model. Actas Urol Esp. 2005;29:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0210-4806(05)73193-4 .

Amoako-Sakyi D, Amonoo-Kuofi H. Problem-based learning in resource-poor settings: lessons from a medical school in Ghana. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:221. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0501-4 .

Carrera LI, Tellez TE, D’Ottavio AE. Implementing a problem-based learning curriculum in an Argentinean medical school: implications for developing countries. Acad Med. 2003;78:798–801. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200308000-00010 .

Vernon DT, Blake RL. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med. 1993;68:550–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199307000-00015 .

Shanley PF. Viewpoint: leaving the “empty glass” of problem-based learning behind: new assumptions and a revised model for case study in preclinical medical education. Acad Med. 2007;82:479–85. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31803eac4c .

Koh GC, Khoo HE, Wong ML, Koh D. The effects of problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2008;178:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.070565 .

Awan ZA, Awan AA, Alshawwa L, Tekian A, Park YS. Assisting the integration of social media in problem-based learning sessions in the faculty of medicine at King Abdulaziz University. Med Teach. 2018;40:S37–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1465179 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Medical Education Cathedra, School of Medicine, University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Barcelona, Spain

Joan Carles Trullàs, Carles Blay & Ramon Pujol

Internal Medicine Service, Hospital de Olot i Comarcal de La Garrotxa, Olot, Girona, Spain

Joan Carles Trullàs

The Tissue Repair and Regeneration Laboratory (TR2Lab), University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Barcelona, Spain

Joan Carles Trullàs & Elisabet Sarri

Catalan Institute of Health (ICS) – Catalunya Central, Barcelona, Spain

Carles Blay

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JCT had the idea for the article, performed the literature search and data analysis and drafted the first version of the manuscript. CB, ES and RP contributed to the data analysis and suggested revisions to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics declarations

Availability of data and materials.

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable for a literature review.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Characteristics ofthe 124 included studies.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Trullàs, J.C., Blay, C., Sarri, E. et al. Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 22 , 104 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03154-8

Download citation

Received : 03 October 2021

Accepted : 02 February 2022

Published : 17 February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03154-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Systematic review

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Submission enquiries: [email protected]
General enquiries: [email protected]

University of Notre Dame
Blog Network

Notes on Teaching and Learning

Shutting Down on 1/6/2022 – New Posts are at Learning.ND.edu

Problem-Based and Inquiry-Based Learning: What’s the difference?

Sep 30th, 2019 by Kathryn Mulholland

“If your goal is to engage students in critical thinking… you need to present interesting challenges to solve, rather than simply explaining how other smart people have already solved those challenges.” – Therese Huston

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) are both student-centered teaching pedagogies that encourage active learning and critical thinking through investigation. Both methods offer students interesting problems to consider. And research shows that both PBL and IBL are effective models of learning.

So, what’s the difference between the two?

According to Banchi and Bell [4], there are four different levels of inquiry.

Confirmation Inquiry: Students confirm a principle through an activity when the results are known in advance.
Structured Inquiry: Students investigate a teacher-presented question through a prescribed procedure.
Guided Inquiry: Students investigate a teacher-presented question using student designed or selected procedures.
Open Inquiry: Students investigate questions that are student formulated through student designed or selected procedures.

Most academics define Inquiry-Based-Learning as a pedagogy that is based on one of these levels. So IBL can be as methodical as guiding students through a procedure to discover a known result or as free-form as encouraging students to formulate original questions. For example, in a Physics laboratory, suppose the topic is Newton’s Second Law of Motion. The lab instructions could define a procedure to record the mass and impact force of various objects. Multiplying the mass by the acceleration due to gravity, the students should recover the force they recorded, thus confirming Newton’s Second Law.

Problem-Based-Learning can be classified as guided inquiry where the teacher-presented question is an unsolved, real-world problem. For example, in a Middle Eastern Studies course, the main problem posed by the instructor could be “Propose a solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.” This question will motivate the study of the history of the region, the theological differences between Judaism and Islam, and current events. At the end of the semester, students would be expected to present and justify their solution.

Therefore, using the definition above, PBL is a type of IBL .

PBL is great because it motivates course content and maximizes learning via investigation, explanation, and resolution of real and meaningful problems. At any level, inquiry can be an effective method of learning because it is student-centered and encourages the development of practical skills and higher-level thinking.

As you plan for your next class, I invite you to reflect on your method of content delivery. Is it motivated? How? Would your students benefit from a day based on inquiry?

References.

Inquiry Based Learning. University of Notre Dame Notes on Teaching and Learning. https://sites.nd.edu/kaneb/2014/11/10/inquiry-based-learning/ .
Problem-Based Learning. Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation . https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/engaging-students/problem-based-learning .
Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E.; Duncan, Ravit Golan; Chinn, Clark A. (2007). “Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)”. Educational Psychologi st. 42 (2): 99–107. doi : 10.1080/00461520701263368 .
Banchi, H., & Bell R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children.

Posted in Uncategorized

Comments are closed.

If you have questions about a topic related to teaching or learning, please email [email protected] or call 631-9146.

Search for:

Related Sites

Kaneb Center – home page Notre Dame Learning

February 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
February 2013
January 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
February 2012
January 2012
January 2011
November 2010
September 2010
August 2010

Free WordPress Themes

Project-Based vs. Problem-Based Learning: Which is Right for Your Classroom?

Our Network

Resources and Tools

Introduction to PBL

Project-based learning (PBL) is an inquiry-based and learner-centered instructional approach that immerses students in real-world projects that foster deeper learning and critical thinking skills.

In contrast to traditional instruction and rote memorization, project-based learning encourages learner agency, collaboration, and problem-solving, empowering students to become active participants in their own learning. Students collaborate to solve real world problems that require understanding content knowledge, critical thinking, creativity, and robust communication skills.

New Tech Network (NTN) schools employ a pedagogy of project-based learning and in math, this can result in enhanced student understanding by having learners make real-world connections to math content and skills. However, it can be difficult to do math on a deep level encompassing all the requisite mathematical standards. As a result, NTN strongly promotes primarily problem-based learning (PrBL) in math classrooms, although, at times there may be authentic ways to embed math in a project-based learning unit.

In this article we will highlight New Tech Network’s lens on PrBL, the similarities and differences between project-based learning and problem-based learning, and what both look like when implemented in the classroom.

What is Project-Based Learning (PBL)?

The basic principle of the project-based instruction lies in students actively participating in an authentic challenging problem that enables students to have experiential learning, connection to community members, higher classroom engagement, and a deeper understanding of content. The PBL approach diverges from traditional instruction by encouraging students to learn about and try to solve real world issues, use problem solving skills, communicate ideas, become proficient in technology tools, and make a personal connection to content. These skills prepare students for success in college and career.

To learn more about implementing project-based learning, project design, and project-based learning examples, explore the article: The Comprehensive Guide to Project-Based Learning: Empowering Student Choice through an Effective Teaching Method . For a more in-depth look at the benefits of project-based learning, read How Project-Based Learning is Effective in Education .

What is Problem-Based Learning (PrBL)?

Like project-based learning (PBL), problem-based learning (PrBL) engages students in complex tasks, employs student-centered instruction and small group work, and positions the teacher as a facilitator of learning. In addition, PrBL accurately reflects the types of explorations, discussions, questions, and interactions that are authentic to mathematics as a discipline. PrBL uses formative and performance-based assessments to give feedback and check student progress.

The key differences between project-based learning and PrBL are that PrBL focuses on one or two standards at a time and each problem takes place over a shorter time period (roughly one to four days). In PrBL, students are mainly exploring and discussing mathematical ideas, with an emphasis on the problem solving process and productive struggle, whereas in PBL there is a greater emphasis on creating a culminating product that answers a Driving Question.

Project-Based Learning vs Problem-Based Learning

NTN suggests a secondary math learning environment which utilizes problem-based learning (PrBL) and in elementary math, problems appear alongside projects and, when applicable, within a project-based learning curriculum.

Problem-based learning provides a rich problem solving environment that allows for and necessitates the learning and assessment of the New Tech Network Learning Outcomes of Agency, Written Communication, Oral Communication, Collaboration, and Knowledge and Thinking along with important content standards. There some key differences between project-based learning and problem-based learning, primarily in timing and scope, but far more similarities exist than differences as shown below:

Problem-Based Learning

Standards: 1-2 Standards
Time: 1-4 Days
Main Activity: Inquiry and Discourse
Emphasis: Problem-solving Process

Similarities

Engages students in complex tasks
Student-centered small-group work
Reflects the work of the discipline
Teacher as facilitator of learning
Formative and performance-based assessment

Project-Based Learning

Standards: 4+ Standards
Time: 4-6 Weeks
Main Activity: Applying Learning
Emphasis: Product

The Differences:

The easiest answer to the PBL vs PrBL question is scope. NTN often supports schools and districts in a project-based learning environment, which can cause a tricky situation in terms of scaling this to a problem or choosing to do a project. Projects are typically designed to learn about a larger cluster of standards that can be taught using a single context, warrant multiple weeks of learning, and culminate in a substantial product as a presentation of learning.

However, a project is often not sufficient to adequately develop the deep understanding required of some math concepts. This is where PrBL plays a key role. PrBL allows a teacher to scale down to focus on just a few standards and to focus on students’ processes as they tackle contextual scenarios over the course of a few problems while still enabling a real world application.

The Similarities:

There are far more similarities between PrBL and PBL than differences. Both project-based learning and problem-based learning include entry events, knows and need to knows, rubrics, etc. However, as the number of standards and duration is scaled down, entry events and rubrics must be scaled down as well. But while perhaps a bit shorter/quicker in a problem rather than project, we must not lose the intent of each similarity. Here are two examples to better illustrate this point.

Keeping the Intent of Entry Events and Knows and Need to Knows in PrBL

An entry event is the student introduction or “hook” to the project or problem. A well-crafted entry event will solicit student needs to be met in order to adequately address the content and skills presented in the project or problem’s plan. For a project, the introduction needs to kick off (and help to sustain) weeks of learning. Examples of entry events might include field trips, interview with community partners, or perhaps a debate.

Moving to PrBL, the purpose of the entry event remains the same, but the scale needs to shift. For a problem you might present students with text, an image, or a video that will prompt students to pose questions. This can be something as simple as the image at right of a restaurant promotion, as long as you can then prompt students what questions they have, and what additional information they need.

You’ll want to document these questions in some way, but note that in a problem the number of questions or “need to knows” will likely be fewer than for a project due to the scope of standards you’re addressing. Gather enough questions to allow students to have direction (know what they are starting to solve) and can begin to struggle in solving the problem.

Keeping the Intent of Rubrics in PrBL

As a problem scales down the number of standards you’re addressing, so too should you scale down the number of indicators you’re giving feedback around and assessing.

While the culminating product of a project often serves as a hefty assessment through a hefty rubric, a problem-based approach offers a teacher the opportunity to get really specific about the rubric indicators they are after, sometimes narrowing down to just 1 or 2 for a product. Similarly, PrBL teachers will need to narrow the focus of rubric indicators for the other New Tech Network Learning Outcomes.

For example, for collaboration you may also want to zoom in on just one or two indicators – few enough that you can authentically teach, provide feedback, and assess in the shorter time span of a problem.

New Tech Network's Problem-Based Learning Model

Problem-based learning as we think about it at NTN consists of three phases: Launch, Explore, and Discuss . Launch-Explore-Discuss allows students to engage in inquiry, build their self-regard, and have discourse in small and large groups.

In Launch, students are introduced to the problem in a learner-centered way. Explore is when learners have time to explore solution strategies (correct or incorrect) in small groups, asking questions of each other and you. The problem ends with a Discussion in which multiple strategies are shared by learners and the whole class makes connections between different strategies, puts formal vocabulary to their ideas, and makes generalizations to connect to math standards. Each phase is discussed more in depth below.

A problem-based lesson would begin with a launch, where the problem is introduced in a learner-centered way to support learners in making sense of the problem and what is being asked as well as building excitement and interest. In order for learners to engage meaningfully in a cognitively challenging task, they need time to process and make sense of the problem.

A key aspect of the launch is not to “get learners started” by showing the first step or an example problem. The goal and the teacher’s role is to spark inquiry, maintain productive struggle, and allow learners to pursue multiple solution strategies.

The next phase is “explore”, where learners have time to try potential solution strategies that may or may not be correct in pairs or small groups, asking questions of each other and of the teacher. This phase serves to create a math classroom centered on student thinking and ideas, by giving students time to come up with their own solution strategies.

Facilitators must lean into their role as facilitators vs “rescuers”, moving away from the idea of saving students by telling them what to do. It’s okay if some of them are wrong, as there will be time to revise during the discussion section. This is also a time for learners to practice their collaboration and discourse in a low stakes setting.

Finally, all students engage in a whole-class discussion. During this time, learners share strategies, make connections, and generalize a rule. This is a time to share academic vocabulary, formal notation, and make explicit connections to prior topics and standards. After having time to come up with strategies in “explore”, students can compare multiple strategies and collectively decide what works and what doesn’t.

By drawing connections between strategies, learners can strengthen and deepen their understanding of the content. Teachers support learners during discussion by making connections and giving formal language and notation to learner generated ideas.

These strategies are not always easy to implement. Students need to be taught how to problem solve independently, how to work collaboratively in a group, and how to understand, evaluate, and question others’ ideas. These skills are supported by cultivating and sustaining a supportive and inclusive classroom culture. In addition to a strong classroom culture, facilitators must also consider important shifts in math instruction.

Key shifts in Math encouraged in a PrBL classroom

Math classrooms enacting these shifts provide a rich problem-solving environment that allow for and necessitate the learning and assessment of the New Tech Network Learning Outcomes. The Key Shifts in math facilitation are meant to guide the ongoing, hard work of all New Tech Network (NTN) math facilitators, new or veteran. We don’t pretend that they are easy; in fact, they often run directly against how we were taught to teach or even how we were taught ourselves and take years to fully implement.

Longtime methods of presenting and practicing content, and the associated frustration of students and teachers alike, are familiar to many of us. With these shifts as a lens, we can all work to reduce math anxiety, restore student engagement, and connect to the beauty of the subject we teach.

NTN Secondary Math Key Shifts

Successfully Supporting All Students

Key Shift One: Emphasis on Self Regard

Key shift two: emphasis on discourse, key shift three: emphasis on inquiry, key shift #1: improve mathematical self-regard.

It’s important for a teacher to communicate explicitly that each of their students are budding mathematicians. This directly contradicts deeply embedded cultural messages about who is “good at math” and what it means to be good at math (Boaler 2016). As a result, teacher messages must be intentional and consistent, as well as paired with a more accurate depiction of mathematics that aligns with the discipline, rather than the way mathematics is traditionally presented in schools.

For example, in the discipline, deep thinking, questioning, and creativity are key aspects of mathematics. However, in schools math classes tend to emphasize speed, breadth, and passive learning (Banilower et al. 2006).

By presenting mathematics as a discipline that requires a wider variety of skills, more students can see themselves as members of a mathematical community (Horn 2012). This also allows students of many cultural backgrounds to use their assets to be successful in mathematics (Carpenter et al. 1989).

Key Shift #2: Emphasis on Discourse

Research shows that complex knowledge such as mathematics is learned through social interactions (Vygotsky and Cole 1978; Lave and Wenger 1991). In traditional US math classrooms, discussion is typically teacher-led and consists of short, fact based questions and answers (Horn 2012).

The shift is to transform those discussions into ones that are student-led and consist of students’ conceptual ideas, questions, and mistakes, evaluating their own and others’ ideas.

Like all the shifts, this is not easy to accomplish and requires explicit instruction and support for students to learn how to participate in a small group or whole class discussion. In addition, it requires a change to class structures and the types of problems that are presented. Both must make space for student discussion and ideas to drive their own learning.

Key Shift #3: Emphasis on Inquiry

In an inquiry-based classroom, students construct their own knowledge, rather than teachers transferring knowledge to students. In this setting, the teacher’s role is to create a learning environment in which students can come up with ideas, share them, and refine them together with each other and the teacher (NCTM 2015).

One challenge is that teachers must maintain the cognitive load of the task – where students are engaging in reasoning and problem solving without being given a specific path to follow.

While these shifts are challenging, they are also mutually reinforcing. Inquiry and discourse position students as the possessors and creators of knowledge, which increases their self regard as mathematicians.

A learning environment that encourages inquiry will also lead to discussion as students come up with ideas, share them, and refine them in pursuit of understanding. As students come to regard themselves as mathematicians, they will feel more empowered to engage in discourse and PrBL.

PrBL Examples and Resources

Squirrel Race Guy is an Algebra 1 problem, designed in NTN’s Problem Planning Form and models the Explore-Launch-Discuss model described above. The planning form also includes a page that models the anticipatory planning required to design and implement strong problems.

Designing a 3D Product in 2D: Sports Bag This 7th grade sample problem is from the Mathematics Assessment Project which is part of the Math Design Collaborative initiated by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The project set out to design and develop well-engineered tools for formative and summative assessment that expose students’ mathematical knowledge and reasoning, helping teachers guide them towards improvement and monitor progress.

The Class Trip is a sample 3rd grade problem from Illustrative Math that models high-quality k-12 math problems aligned to NTN’s model of PrBL.

Resources for finding Math Problems to Adapt is a comprehensive list of resources curated by NTN for designing and adapting problems in your PrBL classroom.

Project-Based Learning is uses a real-world approach that requires students to use collaboration, problem solving and critical thinking skills that leads to a culminating product over an extended period of time. While Problem-Based Learning uses those same skills and narrows the focus to 1 or 2 standards over a shorter time period, emphasizing inquiry, exploration, and discussion of math concepts. Both approaches involve essential elements such as entry events that “hook” students with a real world problem or real math work and using rubrics for assessing learning outcomes.

New Tech Network’s Problem-Based Learning Model outlines three phases: Launch, Explore, and Discuss. Each phase plays a crucial role in engaging students in inquiry, building self-regard, and fostering discourse.

Both project-based learning and problem-based learning are both effective educational approaches that empower students to become active learners, critical thinkers, and effective collaborators. Using the resources from this article and creating a curriculum supported by projects and problems will allow students to strengthen their skills most needed for success in the 21st century.

About New Tech Network

New Tech Network is committed to meeting schools and districts where they are and helping them achieve their vision of student success. For a full list of our additional paths to impact or to speak with someone about how the NTN Model can make an impact in your district, please send an email to [email protected] .

Sign Up for the NTN Newsletter

CRLT Consultation Services
Consultation
Midterm Student Feedback
Classroom Observation
Teaching Philosophy
Upcoming Events and Seminars
CRLT Calendar
Orientations
Teaching Academies
Provost's Seminars
For Faculty
For Grad Students & Postdocs
For Chairs, Deans & Directors
Customized Workshops & Retreats
Assessment, Curriculum, & Learning Analytics Services
CRLT in Engineering
CRLT Players
Foundational Course Initiative
CRLT Grants
Other U-M Grants
Provost's Teaching Innovation Prize
U-M Teaching Awards
Retired Grants
Staff Directory
Faculty Advisory Board
Annual Report
Equity-Focused Teaching
Preparing to Teach
Teaching Strategies
Testing and Grading
Teaching with Technology
Teaching Philosophy & Statements
Training GSIs
Evaluation of Teaching
Occasional Papers

Case-based Teaching and Problem-based Learning

Case-based teaching.

With case-based teaching, students develop skills in analytical thinking and reflective judgment by reading and discussing complex, real-life scenarios. The articles in this section explain how to use cases in teaching and provide case studies for the natural sciences, social sciences, and other disciplines.

Teaching with Case Studies (Stanford University)

This article from the Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning describes the rationale for using case studies, the process for choosing appropriate cases, and tips for how to implement them in college courses.

The Case Method (University of Illinois)

Tips for teachers on how to be successful using the Case Method in the college/university classroom. Includes information about the Case Method values, uses, and additional resource links.

National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (National Science Teaching Association)

This site offers resources and examples specific to teaching in the sciences. This includes the “UB Case Study Collection,” an extensive list of ready-to-use cases in a variety of science disciplines. Each case features a PDF handout describing the case, as well as teaching notes.

The Michigan Sustainability Cases Initiative (CRLT Occasional Paper)

This paper describes the Michigan Sustainability Cases Initiative, including links to the full library of cases, and it offers advice both for writing cases and facilitating case discussions effectively.

The Case Method and the Interactive Classroom (Foran, 2001, NEA Higher Education Journal)

First-person account of how a sociology faculty member at University of California, Santa Barbara began using case studies in his teaching and how his methods have evolved over time as a professor.

Problem-based Learning

Problem-based learning (PBL) is both a teaching method and an approach to the curriculum. It consists of carefully designed problems that challenge students to use problem solving techniques, self-directed learning strategies, team participation skills, and disciplinary knowledge. The articles and links in this section describe the characteristics and objectives of PBL and the process for using PBL. There is also a list of printed and web resources.

Problem-Based Learning Network (Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy)

Site includes an interactive PBL Model, Professional Development links, and video vignettes to illustrate how to effectively use problem-based learning in the classroom. The goals of IMSA's PBLNetwork are to mentor educators in all disciplines, to explore problem-based learning strategies, and to connect PBL educators to one another.

Problem-Based Learning: An Introduction (Rhem, 1998, National Teaching and Learning Forum)

This piece summarizes the benefits of using problem-based learning, its historical origins, and the faculty/student roles in PBL. Overall, this is an easy to read introduction to problem-based learning.

Problem-Based Learning (Stanford University, 2001)

This issue of Speaking of Teaching identifies the central features of PBL, provides some guidelines for planning a PBL course, and discusses the impact of PBL on student learning and motivation.

Problem-Based Learning Clearinghouse (University of Delaware)

Collection of peer reviewed problems and articles to assist educators in using problem-based learning. Teaching notes and supplemental materials accompany each problem, providing insights and strategies that are innovative and classroom-tested. Free registration is required to view and download the Clearinghouse’s resources.

See also: The International Journal of Problem-Based Learning

Contact CRLT

location_on University of Michigan 1071 Palmer Commons 100 Washtenaw Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2218

phone Phone: (734) 764-0505

description Fax: (734) 647-3600

email Email: [email protected]

Connect with CRLT

directions Directions to CRLT

group Staff Directory

markunread_mailbox Subscribe to our Blog

Problem-based learning and project-based learning

Both problem-based learning and project-based learning are referred to as PBL, and some find it confusing to separate the two pedagogies.

So, what is the difference?

Problem-based learning originated in the 1960s and is a teaching pedagogy that is student-centred. Students learn about a topic through the solving of problems and generally work in groups to solve the problem where, often, there is no one correct answer. In short, ‘it empowers learners to conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable solution to a defined problem,’ (Savery, 2006).

Project-based learning has its origins back in the work of John Dewey and William Kilpatrick and dates back to 1918 when the term was first used ( Edutopia , 2014). Project-based learning is an instructional approach where students learn by investigating a complex question, problem or challenge. It promotes active learning, engages students, and allows for higher order thinking (Savery, 2006). Students explore real-world problems and find answers through the completion of a project. Students also have some control over the project they will be working on, how the project will finish, as well as the end product.

The differences

The difference between problem-based learning and project-based learning is that students who complete problem-based learning often share the outcomes and jointly set the learning goals and outcomes with the teacher. On the other hand, project-based learning is an approach where the goals are set. It is also quite structured in the way that the teaching occurs.

Project-based learning is often multidisciplinary and longer, whereas problem based learning is more likely to be a single subject and shorter. Generally, project-based learning follows general steps while problem-based learning provides specific steps. Importantly, project-based learning often involves authentic tasks that solve real-world problems while problem-based learning uses scenarios and cases that are perhaps less related to real life (Larmer, 2014).

In conclusion, it is probably the importance of conducting active learning with students that is worthy and not the actual name of the task. Both problem-based and project-based learning have their place in today’s classroom and can promote 21st Century learning.

Larmer, J. (2014). Project-based learning vs. problem-based learning vs. X-BL. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/pbl-vs-pbl-vs-xbl-john-larmer

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Deﬁnitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1 (1). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002

Further information also available at:

Leggett, A. (2014). Active learning pedagogies: Problem-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.uq.edu.au/tediteach/flipped-classroom/problem-bl.html

Have you used project-based learning or problem-based learning in your classroom?

What activities did you use to engage the students?

Was there any evidence to suggest that students were more engaged?

Effective implementation of project-based learning

PBL vs TBL: What's the Difference?

Shreya verma.

Jul 18, 2022 • 6min read

Educators are always looking for effective teaching approaches and strategies that benefit their students. Two common approaches include Problem-based Learning (PBL) and Team-based Learning (TBL).

PBL and TBL share several common characteristics – they are both student-centered approaches that involve small groups of students working together to solve real-world problems. However, these approaches are used in various contexts and produce different learning outcomes.

In PBL, students need to solve complex, real-world problems. There is one teacher/facilitator per small group. Unlike traditional classes, where the teacher begins classes by presenting the relevant material needed by students to solve a problem, PBL assigns the problem to the students first. The students then identify the concepts they need to know, and then apply them to solve the problem.

202207_BlogArticleImage_TraditionalvsPBL

PBL requires students to have some prior knowledge about the subject. Thus, PBL works more effectively for higher level modules where students already understand basic concepts.

PBL problems are the classroom’s main subject matter, so they need to be structured well ( Duch, Groh and Allen, 2001 ).

202207_BlogArticleImage_CharacteristicsofGoodPBLProblems

Through PBL, students are able to sharpen their problem-solving and critical thinking abilities ( Kurt, 2020 ).

Team-based Learning, on the other hand, is a structured form of small-group learning that emphasizes student preparation out of class and the application of knowledge in class. There is usually one teacher/facilitator assigned to all the small groups in a classroom. While PBL focuses on problem-solving through existing knowledge, TBL focuses on preparing the students through prework before testing them individually and as a team. The students will then solve a real-world problem. There is also a peer evaluation component in TBL.

TBL problems – or the application activities – need to follow the 4S framework .

Application activities require teams to make a specific choice about a significant problem. Teams need to work on the same problem and report their decisions simultaneously. This structure allows teams to articulate their thinking. Teams need to evaluate their own reasoning when confronted with different decisions that other teams may make.

Here is a table that summarizes the differences between PBL and TBL:


There is no mandatory prework component.	There is a mandatory prework component.
Students are not tested before attempting the problem, but they need to apply their existing knowledge during the group discussion.	Students are tested individually and as a team to check their understanding of the prework before attempting the problem in the application component.
PBL problems need not follow the 4S framework, but they need to be structured well as they are classroom’s main subject matter.	TBL follows the 4S framework to structure the problem in the application component.
There is no peer evaluation involved.	There is peer evaluation involved.

Before deciding whether to adopt TBL or PBL for your class, it is important to fully understand each approach. PBL might cause anxiety among students as classes can get messy without a proper structure. Prior learning experiences also may not prepare students well enough for PBL. TBL, on the other hand, is well-structured and requires students to conduct prework before classes. Thus, students start with the same knowledge, irrespective of their background.

Both students and facilitator are aware of the learning objectives that they are set out to achieve. This allows for a constructivist learning environment where students also become decision-makers in their learning journey. TBL also has a peer evaluation component which encourages students to take accountability for their learning.

If you would like to learn more about TBL, feel free to book a consultation with us here .

Free Download

Pbl vs tbl: what is the difference, join our newsletter community, recommended for you, the 5 benefits of peer evaluation in team-based learning.

Peer evaluation is an integral part of

5 Reasons Why Immediate Feedback is Important for Effective Learning

Educators are always searching for teaching

Educators are always looking for effective

3 Benefits of e-Gallery Walk for Students

InteDashboard can be used to conduct an online

Pros and Cons of The 4 Peer Evaluation Methods for Team-Based Learning

If you have been following our blog, you

What is Team-based Learning?

Team-based learning began as a way to improve

7 Benefits of Switching from IF-AT Scratch-off Cards to Digital TRAT

In 2015, after I had left as CFO of an airline

4 Benefits of Team-based Learning for Students

Hate sitting through hours of boring lectures

Testimonials

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
BMC Med Educ
PMC10394865

The effectiveness of problem-based learning compared with lecture-based learning in surgical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Qi-ming zheng.

1 Department of Thoracic Surgery, Jinan Central Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, 250013 China

2 Department of Thoracic Surgery, Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, 250013 China

Yuan-Yuan Li

3 Department of Medical Education, Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, 250013 China

Ye-Peng Wang

4 Department of Neurosurgery, Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, 250013 China

Guo-Xiang Li

Zhi-gang sun, associated data.

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. The Stata raw dataset can be provided on request. The corresponding author, Zhi-Gang Sun, will provide additional data, if requested.

This meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the impact of problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) teaching models on students’ learning in surgical education.

We systematically searched the publications related to the application of PBL and LBL in surgical courses in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases, the last retrieval time is September 20, 2022. After screening the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracting data and evaluating the methodological treatment of the included studies, Stata 17.0 software was used to perform meta-analysis.

Nine studies were included totally. The results showed that compared with LBL, PBL was superior in clinical competence (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.12 ~ 1.49, P = 0.020) and student satisfaction (SMD = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.11 ~ 3.15, P < 0.0001) with significant differences. But the comprehensive scores (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI: -0.37 ~ 0.89, P = 0.421) and theoretical knowledge (SMD=−0.19, 95% CI: −0.71 ~ 0.33, P = 0.482) to PBL and LBL had no significant difference.

This study showed that the PBL teaching model is more effective than the LBL teaching model in surgical education on the aspects of enhancing clinical competence and student satisfaction. However, further well-designed studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Introduction

Problem-based learning (PBL), a widely used approach to education and learning, was pioneered in 1969 by Barros, an American professor of neurology at McMaster University in Canada [ 1 ]. The first university in the United States to adopted a medical PBL curriculum was the University of New Mexico [ 2 ]. Subsequently, some countries from Europe and Asia also begun to promote PBL courses in medical education [ 3 , 4 ]. In this model, teachers ask questions, take students as the center, mobilize students’ enthusiasm for active learning of knowledge and stimulate students’ innovation and thinking ability. Accordingly, the triggered ability of PBL is to analyze a problem and derive personal learning outcomes, rather than mainly focusing on “solving” the problem, which is the goal of case-based learning (CBL). The theoretical source of the above difference is that PBL relies on constructivism [ 5 ] (everyone builds their own knowledge), while CBL relies on cognitivism [ 6 ] (the human mind is a problem processor).

Another commonly adopted model is lecture-based learning (LBL), which was firstly implemented in 1894 by the American Medical College Association and American Academy of Medicine [ 7 ]. LBL is a traditional didactic pedagogy centered on teachers, with classroom teaching as the main purpose, and knowledge imparting as the goal. It places special emphasis on the importance of theory and knowledge. Compared to the PBL model, in the LBL model, students only receive information from the instructor and attempt to remember the content, rather than understanding concepts and using them [ 8 ]. In the 21st century, the choice between PBL and LBL has always been a controversial topic, especially in the medical field.

Among the many medical disciplines, surgery is a highly practical clinical discipline. In clinical practice, surgery is a specialized department with surgical resection and repair as the main means of treatment. Technical ability is the cornerstone of surgery [ 9 ]. In addition to having some essential qualities, a component surgeon needs to be technically skilled. Of course, aptitude, interest in surgery, and voluntary motivation also affect learners’ performance in surgical studies [ 10 ]. Whether PBL contributes to these traits has been a hotly debated topic. In fact, the current application of PBL in surgical education has not been widely and deeply studied, and the related literature is also relatively little [ 11 ]. Moreover, different researchers held different opinions among the effect of PBL compared with LBL in surgical education [ 12 ]. Considering the uncertainty of these conclusions, we herein conducted a systematic meta-analysis of the eligible studies to explore the effectiveness of PBL versus LBL in surgical education, aiming to provide guidance for the application and promotion of PBL in surgical education.

The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) [ 13 ]. This protocol has been registered in the International Registry of Prospective Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero , CRD42022377288).

Search strategy

Electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched extensively. The last retrieval time is September 20, 2022. Retrieval strategy: The combination of Mesh words (“problem-based learning”, “general surgery”) and corresponding entry terms was used. In addition, in order to obtain all possible relevant studies, the references of the included literature and the relevant literature suggested by each database were manually searched. All articles in the search process have no language restrictions.

Selection criteria

Inclusion criteria: (1) randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials; (2) the main research subjects were students involved in surgical studies; (3) the PBL model and the LBL model were used for group teaching respectively, and the teaching effect was compared and studied; (4) the indicators of the outcome are measurement data with sufficient data.

Exclusion criteria: (1) non-original studies (such as meta-analysis, review), expert opinions, meeting summary and repeated studies; (2) no measurement data or insufficient data.

Data extraction

The data was independently extracted by two reviewers, and any differences can be agreed upon through a consultative discussion with a third researcher. Each included study extracted the following information: (a) first author, (b) publication year, (c) country, (d) study type, (e) age, (f) speciality, (g) number (PBL/LBL), (h) outcome indicators. The objective outcome measurements include comprehensive scores, theoretical knowledge and clinical competence. The subjective outcome measurements include students satisfaction.

Assessment of study quality

The quality of included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using Cochrane’s collaborative tool [ 14 ], which provides seven criteria to assess the risks of these studies: (a) random sequence generation, (b) allocation concealment, (c) blinding of participants and personnel, (d) blinding of outcome assessment, (e) incomplete outcome data, (f) selective reporting, (g) other biases. According to the description of each study, the assessment of each area is marked as “low risk”, “high risk” or “unclear risk”. Any differences shall be resolved through discussion until consensus is reached. If data is missing, the relevant information can be obtained by contacting the author of the literature.

Statistical analysis

Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0 software. For measurement data, standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as the analysis statistics of the learning effect. The χ² test was used to test the heterogeneity of the results of each study. When P ≥ 0.10 and I²≤50%, the fixed-effects model was used for meta-analysis; otherwise, the random-effects model was used for meta-analysis [ 15 , 16 ]. Descriptive analysis was used if data could not be combined. Sensitivity analysis was used to determine whether there was heterogeneity, and the results of each study were recalculated using consolidated estimates to see if these recalculations would change the results. Funnel plots, Begg’s and Egger’s tests [ 17 , 18 ] were used to evaluate publication bias. P < 0.05 is statistically significant.

Studies selection and basic characteristics

1273 articles were obtained from the initial search, and 264 articles were obtained from the supplementary manual search. After screening according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine literature were finally included for meta-analysis [ 19 – 27 ]. The literature screening process and results are shown in Fig. 1 , and the basic characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12909_2023_4531_Fig1_HTML.jpg

The study selection process

Basic characteristics of included studies

Author	Year	Country	Study type	Age	Speciality	Number (PBL/LBL)	Outcome
Alleyne	2002	India	RCT	N	Surgery	129 (57/72)	CS
Bai	2017	China	RCT	N	Dental Alveolar Surgery	90 (42/48)	TK, CC, SS
Davari	2021	Iran	RCT	N	General Surgery	175 (72/103)	TK
Holm	1999	Sweden	RCT	N	General surgery, Orthopaedics, Urology	70 (33/37)	CC
Langelotz	2005	Berlin	RCT	25	Surgery	98 (49/49)	CS, CC
Mogre	2014	Ghana	RCT	N	Surgery	175 (82/93)	CS
Qin	2010	China	RCT	N	Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery	231 (118/113)	TK, CC, SS
Tayyeb	2011	Pakistan	Q-RCT	N	Surgery	200 (100/100)	TK, CC
Zhang	2012	China	RCT	N	Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery	87 (43/44)	TK, CC, SS

Abbreviation: RCT, randomized controlled trial; Q-RCT, quasi-randomized control trial; PBL, problem-based learning; LBL, lecture-based learning; CS, comprehensive scores; TK, theoretical knowledge; CC, clinical competence; SS, student satisfaction

Evaluation of methodological quality included in the study

The assessment of bias in nine articles is shown in Fig. 2 . The author shows the results of each quality project as a percentage of cross study. In one study [ 26 ], the allocation sequence of its was generated by the preference of the students, whom were assigned to the experimental group or control group; this study was therefore judged to be high risk in this domain. All articles reported complete outcome data and no selective reporting. According to the definition of the Cochrane Cooperation Organization, all studies seem to have no “other sources of bias”. In general, most of the included articles were found to have low bias risk and high quality risk (Fig. 2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12909_2023_4531_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Risk of bias assessment. ( a ) Risk of bias graph as percentages for all included studies; ( b ) Risk of bias summary for each included study

Meta-analysis result for comprehensive scores

Three articles (7 studies) investigated the comprehensive scores of 332 patients [ 19 , 23 , 24 ], including 118 cases in the PBL group and 214 cases in the LBL group. There was statistical heterogeneity among the results (P<0.001, I²=85.8%), so the random effect model was used for meta-analysis. The results showed that there was no significant difference in comprehensive scores between students in PBL group and LBL group (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI: -0.37 ~ 0.89, P = 0.421) (Fig. 3 a).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12909_2023_4531_Fig3_HTML.jpg

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of problem-based learning compared with lecture-based learning in surgical education: ( a ) comprehensive scores, ( b ) theoretical knowledge, ( c ) clinical competence, ( d ) student satisfaction

Meta-analysis result for theoretical knowledge

Five articles (6 studies) investigated the theoretical knowledge of 870 patients [ 20 , 21 , 25 – 27 ], including 418 cases in the PBL group and 452 cases in the LBL group. There was statistical heterogeneity among the results (P = 0.000, I²=92.8%), so the random effect model was used for meta-analysis. The results showed that there was no significant difference in surgical theoretical knowledge between students in PBL group and LBL group (SMD=-0.19, 95% CI: −0.71 ~ 0.33, P = 0.482) (Fig. 3 b).

Meta-analysis result for clinical competence

Six articles (7 studies) investigated the clinical competence of 776 cases in total [ 20 , 22 , 23 , 25 – 27 ], including 385 cases in the PBL group and 391 cases in the LBL group. This objective outcome measurement includes operation skill, case analysis and other clinical projects. Because the survey items of the six articles are different and have significant heterogeneity (P<0.001, I²=94.6%), only the random effect model is used for combined analysis of clinical competence. The results showed that the clinical competence of medical students in PBL group was better than that in LBL group (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.12 ~ 1.49, P = 0.020) (Fig. 3 c).

Meta-analysis result for student satisfaction

Three articles (8 studies) investigated the student satisfaction of 846 cases in total [ 20 , 25 , 27 ], including 417 cases in the PBL group and 429 cases in the LBL group. This subjective outcome measurement includes learning interest, collaboration motivations and other projects. Given the differences in the survey items of the three articles and the significant heterogeneity (P<0.001, I²=94.2%), the random effect model is used for combined analysis of overall satisfaction. The results showed that the student satisfaction in the PBL group was better than that in the LBL group (SMD = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.32 ~ 1.53, P = 0.003) (Fig. 3 d).

Sensitivity analysis

Because of high heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis was implemented to evaluate the reliability of the results (Fig. 4 ). After excluding the study with the largest weight [ 24 ], the pooled effect size was in favor of the intervention group (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI: -0.68 ~ 1.08, P = 0.652) for comprehensive scores and did not change the effects observed in the primary analysis. In addition, after excluding the study with the largest weight [ 20 ], the pooled effect size in theoretical knowledge, clinical competence and student satisfaction was in favor of the intervention group (SMD=-0.28, 95% CI: -0.89 ~ 0.33, P = 0.369; SMD = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.14 ~ 1.70, P = 0.021; SMD = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.74 ~ 1.50, P < 0.00001), which also did not change the effects observed in the primary analysis. The results of sensitivity analysis indicated the relative stability of our results.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12909_2023_4531_Fig4_HTML.jpg

Sensitivity analysis of the effectiveness of problem-based learning compared with lecture-based learning in surgical education: ( a ) comprehensive scores, ( b ) theoretical knowledge, ( c ) clinical competence, ( d ) student satisfaction

Publication bias

The evaluation of publication bias was conducted using a funnel plot for each pooled outcome indicator (Fig. 5 ). The shape of the funnel plot did not show asymmetry, preliminarily indicating the absence of any publication bias. Considering that the number of articles included in the meta analysis is too small to judge the symmetry of the funnel plot [ 28 ]. In addition, the subjectivity of visual evaluation itself cannot be ignored. We further used the Begg’s rank correlation test and Egger’s linear regression test to evaluate the publication bias of comprehensive scores (Z = 0.90, P = 0.368; t=-0.99, P = 0.368), theoretical knowledge (Z = 1.13, P = 0.260; t=-0.27, P = 0.797), clinical competence (Z = 0.60, P = 0.548; t = 0.36, P = 0.737) and student satisfaction (Z = 3.09, P = 0.002; t = 8.40, P<0.001). When studying student satisfaction, there was publication bias in the pooled results. Then we used the shear patching method and did not find that the elimination of individual studies changed the original merging results. The above discussion showed that the results were relatively true.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 12909_2023_4531_Fig5_HTML.jpg

Funnel plot of the effectiveness of problem-based learning compared with lecture-based learning in surgical education: ( a ) comprehensive scores, ( b ) theoretical knowledge, ( c ) clinical competence, ( d ) student satisfaction

In recent years, due to continuous exploration by researchers, a growing body of research has highlighted the effectiveness of PBL in medical education. Based on such research, a large, systematic, and comprehensive meta-analysis of the PBL teaching mode was conducted in the context of standardized residency training in China, which suggested that PBL positively affects the mastery of theoretical knowledge, clinical diagnostic thinking, teamwork skills, analytical and problem-solving skills, consulting documents, learning interests and learning ability; however, it does not offer these advantages with respect to improving self-directed learning ability, communication ability or practical ability. This meta-analysis also provided ideas for further research on teaching methods that are suitable for different majors and abilities [ 29 ]. Based on this single-country study, we broadened the search and specifically explored the effectiveness of PBL and LBL in surgical education with the aim of providing surgical faculty and residents with new avenues for pedagogical reform.

This research shows that the use of PBL, as opposed to LBL, in surgery education can not only enhance students’ clinical competence but also effectively improve their satisfaction with learning. However, no significant differences are observed between the two teaching models with respect to comprehensive scores and theoretical knowledge. In contrast to the traditional teaching model, a core idea of PBL is that learning situations activate prior knowledge and promote the learning of new knowledge. This situation is similar to the demand for knowledge in the real world. In this way, students can increase their likelihood of recalling and applying information stored in their memory [ 30 ]. Moreover, the PBL teaching model pays more attention to the cultivation of students’ autonomous learning ability, theoretically eliminates the drawbacks of LBL model such as teaching rigidity and single means, fully draws out students’ ability to analyse problems, and improves teaching and learning quality. This model is also believed to effectively improve students’ professional knowledge and enrich their team cooperation experience [ 31 ]. One study showed that the implementation of PBL in medical schools not only generates implicit clinical knowledge and judgements but also provides the confidence and preparation necessary to convey independence [ 32 ].

In this study, students in the PBL group were not superior to those in the LBL group with regard to acquiring theoretical knowledge, which was consistent with the research results reported by Schwartz et al. [ 33 ] at Kentucky University. Some previous studies have also shown that PBL students do not perform well in knowledge tests, and so the traditional teaching model has been recommended to ensure content coverage [ 34 – 36 ]. The PBL teaching model views the problem as the centre of learning and the learner as the main relevant body. In the process of solving problems, students focus on the problem to locate and acquire relevant basic theoretical knowledge and ultimately to enhance their personal learning outcomes by analysing the problem. This model can effectively stimulate the learning interest of scholars and fully mobilize and take advantage of learning initiative. A disadvantage of this model is that learners must spend more time and energy in the process of acquiring and mastering knowledge and are more likely to miss key knowledge. According to the LBL teaching model, teaching is conducted based on a vertical knowledge system, which is relatively comprehensive and systematic. In a clinical course, with regard to the depth and breadth of each single course as well as the knowledge structure of the subjection stage, the PBL model can promote interaction between knowledge acquisition and practical ability improvement; however, compared with the LBL model, the gap between the two in acquiring theoretical knowledge is not obvious. However, when we interpret these results, we should note that many factors affect test scores pertaining to theoretical knowledge. Feeley et al. claimed that motivation, learning skills, learning methods and other important factors must be considered [ 37 ], which makes it difficult to draw reliable conclusions concerning the effects of PBL and LBL.

In this study, the surgical clinical competence of students in the PBL group exhibited significant improvement compared with that of students in the LBL group, which was consistent with Walker’s research results [ 38 ] and contrary to the research conclusions drawn by Albanese et al. [ 39 ]. The PBL teaching model can encourage students to actively learn knowledge and organically transform theoretical knowledge into practical ability. Under the guidance of teachers, the PBL teaching model shapes the knowledge summarized by the group by defining learning objectives, proposing surgical problems, establishing case assumptions, collecting data, and discussing and analysing specific cases with the goal of ensuring that students can understand the acquired knowledge more thoroughly and remember it more firmly, improve their ability to solve the practical problems they encounter in surgical clinical practice, acquire effective surgical clinical reasoning experience, and cultivate good thinking habits. Combining the knowledge learned in the classroom with the clinical practice skills learned in the hospital, properly applying this method to the surgical clinical practice teaching process can greatly improve students’ theoretical knowledge and clinical practice skills in the context of surgery and lay a solid foundation for training students to become qualified clinicians in the future. Similarly, we found that student satisfaction in the PBL group exhibited significant improvements compared with student satisfaction in the LBL group, which was consistent with the conclusions of some previous research. In this context, McGregor et al. showed that the PBL course can stimulate the enthusiasm of students and teachers. Unfortunately, this stimulation does not translate into more effective knowledge dissemination [ 40 ]. Centres using the PBL method have found that this approach can improve students’ enthusiasm and fun, but no convincing evidence has been found to indicate that it improves their learning [ 12 ].

To date, PBL has been proven to have advantages over LBL in various fields of medicine, such as gynaecology and obstetrics [ 12 ], internal medicine [ 41 ], anatomy [ 42 ], pathology [ 43 ], and medical cell biology [ 44 ]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the forms of teaching used in PBL courses have also undergone tremendous changes. Researchers have found that students who take online PBL courses exhibit lower performance than those who participate in the traditional face-to-face method of teaching [ 45 ]. However, in Nigeria, researchers have shown that computers and up-to-date libraries as well as internet and audio-visual facilities can enhance the adaptation of PBL to medical courses [ 46 ]. Nevertheless, one study found that both in-person PBL and virtual PBL were preferable to lectures with regard to preparing students for NBME examinations and surgical cases [ 47 ]. Many more reliable studies are needed to prove the effectiveness of online PBL courses. Due to the continuous deepening, development and reform of the educational model, researchers and teachers have found that the combination of some other teaching models with PBL in surgical education also have good teaching effects. Relevant studies have noted that combining PBL with CBL can improve the performance of medical students and residents and clinical skills in thyroid surgery [ 48 ]. The integration of PBL and LBL led by residents is preferable to lectures led by teachers, and this approach can prepare students for examinations and probation experience; it may thus serve as a useful aid for clinical education [ 47 ]. Accordingly, we believe that the PBL and LBL dual track teaching model can be used for surgical education under conditions of limited medical colleges and teachers. For one thing, LBL is used to help students master theory and train comprehensive practical skills in the context of surgical theory and basic surgical skills. In addition, PBL is used for surgical operation and case analysis, which can improve the clinical competence and capabilities of students. Combining the knowledge learned in the classroom with the clinical practice skills learned in the hospital and properly applying this method in the surgical clinical practice teaching process can greatly improve students’ theoretical knowledge and clinical practice skills in the context of surgery and lay a solid foundation for training students to become qualified clinicians in the future.

It must be noted that our study has the following limitations: (1) the quality of some of the included literature is not high, which may impact the results of the analysis; (2) the randomization method and allocation for inclusion in the study are not clear, so selective bias may be an issue; (3) the degree of difficulty of the specialized courses and test questions included in the study varies, which may affect the accuracy of the results; (4) the publication bias found by Egger’s test may affect the authenticity of some pooled results; and (5) the heterogeneity is significant. According to the information provided in the literature, no clear reason for heterogeneity has been found, and many factors may lead to heterogeneity. First, the methods used to implement PBL in medical colleges and universities are not uniform, such as the time distribution of each PBL program. Second, the organizer who actually teaches students represents another potential contributor to the heterogeneity because the learning process may be seriously affected by teachers’ performance. Third, the learning habits of students are also an important source that is difficult to unify. Despite these limitations, this meta-analysis is helpful with regard to our ability to understand the effectiveness of problem-based learning versus that of lecture-based learning in surgical education.

PBL has emerged as a prevalent educational model in various medical schools across different countries, gradually showcasing its strengths in some aspects. In this study, we tentatively explored the effectiveness of PBL compared with LBL in surgical education. Based on the results of our research, the available evidence supports PBL as more effective than LBL on the aspects of enhancing clinical competence and student satisfaction. However, in terms of comprehensive scores and theoretical knowledge, our results showed PBL does not have a significant advantage over LBL. Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to adopt the PBL teaching model in surgical education. In future research work, high-quality studies with larger sample sizes and standardized designs are needed to further verify this finding. Notably, with the continuous deepening and development of teaching reform in medical education, the feasibility and necessity of popularizing joint teaching models such as the combination of PBL and LBL methods also deserve further exploration.

Acknowledgements

We thank all colleagues and students who participated in this study.

Abbreviations

PBL	Problem-based learning
LBL	Lecture-based learning
PRISMA	Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols
SMD	Standardized mean difference
CI	Confidence interval
CBL	Case-based learning

Author contributions

ZGS contributed to the conception and design of the study. QMZ, YYL and YPW contributed to data acquisition, statistical analysis, data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript. QY and NZ participated in the study conceptualization. GXL prepared the figures and tables. QMZ and YYL contributed to data interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript. All the authors contributed to manuscript revision, read and approved the submitted version.

This work was supported by Shandong First Medical University Campus Education and Teaching Reform Research Project Approval Project in 2022 (Grant No. XM2022159).

Data Availability

Declarations.

No ethics approval or consent was needed to conduct this systematic review manuscript.

Not applicable.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Inquiry Skills / Planning & Teaching / Starting with Inquiry Learning

What the Heck is the Difference Between IBL and PBL?

A common question among educators is “what is the difference between inquiry-based learning and project-based learning?” Or, “what’s the difference between project-based and problem-based learning? How are they similar and what makes them different?” It can certainly be confusing, not only in differentiating between the three, but also deciding which method will work best for your class.

Inquiry-based learning is centred around an essential question and focuses more on the process of discovery. Problem-based learning challenges students to solve real-world problems and develop solutions. Project-based learning has an end goal of producing a useful, tangible product or solution.

Active students.

It is common knowledge that students who are more engaged with their learning tend to achieve better in and out of the classroom. It is difficult to engage students in material that seems irrelevant to them. All three learning methods give power to the students and let them take control of their learning to a certain degree. Not only does this allow students to pursue things that are relevant and interesting for them, but it helps them develop soft-skills; things like collaboration, self-regulation, and organizational skills. While there are many similarities between the three, there are a few key differences.

Inquiry-Based Learning

Inquiry-based learning is a student-led process that begins with their own questions and wonderings. it is an approach to learning that emphasizes questions, ideas, and the natural curiosity of children. with inquiry-based learning, student questions are at the centre of their learning journey..

Some examples of “essential questions” include:

How can we protect our oceans?
What makes a great leader?
How do our senses help us understand the world?
What can art teach us about culture?
How do humans affect their environment?

Download a free PDF of these questions, and 396 other inquiry-based questions using this link!

The essential question should cover multiple curriculum outcomes, and allow for multiple learning paths for students to take. Moreover, the question should be flexible and inspire student curiosity. Students should ask further questions with the intention to explore them in-depth.

Once an essential question is chosen, teachers facilitate the process of student discovery. To some degree, it is important to plan milestones for students, set goals with them, and provide some structure; this can be achieved through anchor charts to keep students on track, reflection journals so that students can record their progress, and also through regular meetings with students to check on their learning and unpack new knowledge and questions.

Some of the benefits of inquiry-based learning include:

Increased engagement : When students have ownership of their ideas and receive regular support and encouragement from their teachers, the benefits are astounding. One of those ways is an increased level of engagement. For example, this may look like attentive listening, improved organization skills, and frequently being in a state of “flow”
Stronger connections : Inquiry learning is incredibly flexible and far-reaching. In fact, you can touch on several subjects in a single session. With a focus on “big ideas”, students’ questions lead to knowledge acquisition in several subject areas. When students go through the inquiry process they discover connections between subjects they hadn’t imagined existed; this can be hugely beneficial for students trying to understand the interconnectedness of concepts.
Building curiosity : Replacing simple observations with asking questions about what they see, feel, and hear around them shows curiosity blooming. Nurturing students’ natural curiosity sparks further questions and engages students. Inquiry-based learning provides ways for students to find meaning and fascination in their work.
Skill development : During inquiry-based learning, teachers and educators need to go beyond information accumulation and focus more on seeking appropriate resolutions to questions and issues that are important for their students and the world around them. Consequently, nurturing the development of inquiry skills, as well as the attitudes or habits that will help students make sense of their learning, is crucial. Some of these skills include critical thinking, skimming and scanning, self-reflection, and collaboration.

Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning involves a longer-term approach to teaching and learning where students solve real-world problems. in this approach, the goal is for students to produce a tangible, meaningful product or solution..

While this approach also begins with a challenge or question, the goal is a bit different. The focus is more on the output of the learning journey – in other words, what students produce through extensive investigation and the application of skills often found in STEM subjects.

The essential elements of project-based learning include fostering student voice and choice, providing opportunities to regularly reflect on learning, and setting an appropriate level of challenge. Furthermore, project-based learning requires students to create a public project that demonstrates their understanding of the information they’ve gathered.

STEM Skills for Project-Based Learning:

Problem-solving : This includes making sense of problems as they are presented, and working to propose solutions or products. The solutions or products should match the problem being solved, and create positive change.
Creativity : Students need to look at and propose possible solutions to a problem, and use several different approaches, including “out-of-the-box” ideas, and ones that demonstrate creativity and ingenuity.
Design-thinking : One of the most important STEM skills to apply to project-based learning is design-thinking. This is a method whereby students research potential solutions to the problems presented, create prototypes, test, redesign, and tinker as they move closer to creating a workable solution.
Collaboration : This soft-skill is crucial when diving into project-based learning; students should understand that big challenges are rarely solved through individual efforts. Being able to work as a team is very important, and is a crucial skill to develop.

Space for Creativity

The aim with project-based learning is for students to gain and develop their knowledge and skills through practical applications. They need to work collaboratively and methodically to respond to a complex problem they feel connected to. Project-based learning is often linked with social studies, art, and historical topics. It combines collaboration, research, and design-thinking to find viable solutions; it is also incredibly thought-provoking and creative. Furthermore, students have many options for how to showcase their projects, and it can be a lot of fun to see ingenuity and innovation come alive!

Suggested resources

Hacking Project-Based Learning (excellent resource, and 30% off right now for the new school year)
Getting Stated with PBL (great wall chart for the classroom)
5 Immersive PBL Project Ideas

Problem-Based Learning

Problem-based learning focuses on solving authentic problems through investigation, decision-making, and problem-solving. it is based on real-world issues, and therefore offers students a unique chance to contribute to something meaningful and relevant in their lives..

It is important that students see the value in their contributions , and problem-based learning is an excellent way to foster this confidence.

Problem-based learning offers students more relevant advantages in today’s world. For instance, through problem-based learning, students need to make sense of the overwhelming abundance of information available to them; through actively engaging with the problems facing them and their futures, students develop a plethora of skills such as organizing information and connecting it to important issues in their world.

Traditionally, students are given the information they need to know, then they are asked to memorize it, and apply it to a problem they are assigned. With problem-based learning, students are given the problem first, then asked to identify the information required to solve it, then apply it to solve the problem. Again, the role of the educator is to provide materials and guidance that facilitate student learning. This is also similar to scenario-based learning, wherein students learn situational, decision-making, and critical thinking skills.

Educator and creativity expert Ronald A. Beghetto believes that “ the best way to unleash students’ problem solving and creativity—and thus prepare them to face real-world problems—is to incorporate complex challenges that teach students to respond productively to uncertainty “. This is what problem-based learning is all about. To read more about how to implement problem-based learning, he’s written a practical and useful book called “ What If?: Building Students’ Problem-Solving Skills Through Complex Challenges ” which touches on “possibility thinking”, and provides a great complement to our scenario-based learning article . It’s also half price on Amazon right now, which is a steal!

Assessment of Problem-Based Learning:

Assessment of problem-based learning works similarly to the other forms of learning mentioned. For example, evaluation tends to focus on:

Engagement with the topic : Successful students are the ones who ask questions, engage in dialogue with their peers in order to deepen their understanding, conduct research, and pose ideas regularly
Making connections : It is important in problem-based learning that students make connections between what they’re discovering and how to address the problem they have been tasked with. For example, how might geometry and physics be useful when addressing the problem of housing shortages or homelessness?
Future thinking : Thinking about the implementation of ideas in a future setting is an important consideration when working with problem-based learning. We wrote about writing stories of the future in a previous post, as well as a follow-up post , worth checking out for futuristic project ideas

Final Thoughts

There are many similarities between the three learning methods, however there are a few key differences. All three of them allow students to pursue things that are relevant and interesting for them while also helping them develop a variety of soft-skills. Download the venn diagram below here!

Privacy Overview

Automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

Effective Learning Behavior in Problem-Based Learning: a Scoping Review

Published: 21 April 2021
Volume 31 , pages 1199–1211, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

Azril Shahreez Abdul Ghani ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9130-2175 1 , 2 ,
Ahmad Fuad Abdul Rahim ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7499-8895 2 ,
Muhamad Saiful Bahri Yusoff ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4969-9217 2 &
Siti Nurma Hanim Hadie ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9046-9379 3

8955 Accesses

30 Citations

Explore all metrics

Problem-based learning (PBL) emphasizes learning behavior that leads to critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and collaborative skills in preparing students for a professional medical career. However, learning behavior that develops these skills has not been systematically described. This review aimed to unearth the elements of effective learning behavior in a PBL context, using the protocol by Arksey and O’Malley. The protocol identified the research question, selected relevant studies, charted and collected data, and collated, summarized, and reported results. We discovered three categories of elements—intrinsic empowerment, entrustment, and functional skills—proven effective in the achievement of learning outcomes in PBL.

Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review

Problem-Based Learning: Conception, Practice, and Future

Does your group matter? How group function impacts educational outcomes in problem-based learning: a scoping review

Explore related subjects.

Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Problem-based learning (PBL) is an educational approach that utilizes the principles of collaborative learning in small groups, first introduced by McMaster Medical University [ 1 ]. The shift of the higher education curriculum from traditional, lecture-based approaches to an integrated, student-centered approach was triggered by concern over the content-driven nature of medical knowledge with minimal clinical application [ 2 ]. The PBL pedagogy uses a systematic approach, starting with an authentic, real-life problem scenario as a context in which learning is not separated from practice as students collaborate and learn [ 3 ]. The tutor acts as a facilitator who guides the students’ learning, while students are required to solve the problems by discussing them with group members [ 4 ]. The essential aspect of the PBL process is the ability of the students to recognize their current knowledge, determine the gaps in their knowledge and experience, and acquire new knowledge to bridge the gaps [ 5 ]. PBL is a holistic approach that gives students an active role in their learning.

Since its inception, PBL has been used in many undergraduate and postgraduate degree programs, such as medicine [ 6 , 7 ], nursing [ 8 ], social work education [ 9 ], law [ 10 ], architecture [ 11 ], economics [ 12 ], business [ 13 ], science [ 14 ], and engineering [ 15 ]. It has also been applied in elementary and secondary education [ 16 , 17 , 18 ]. Despite its many applications, its implementation is based on a single universal workflow framework that contains three elements: problem as the initiator for learning, tutor as a facilitator in the group versions, and group work as a stimulus for collaborative interaction [ 19 ]. However, there are various versions of PBL workflow, such as the seven-step technique based on the Maastricht “seven jumps” process. The tutor’s role is to ensure the achievement of learning objectives and to assess students’ performance [ 20 , 21 ].

The PBL process revolves around four types of learning principles: constructive, self-directed, collaborative, and contextual [ 19 ]. Through the constructive learning process, the students are encouraged to think about what is already known and integrate their prior knowledge with their new understanding. This process helps the student understand the content, form a new opinion, and acquire new knowledge [ 22 ]. The PBL process encourages students to become self-directed learners who plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning, enabling them to become lifelong learners [ 23 ]. The contextualized collaborative learning process also promotes interaction among students, who share similar responsibilities to achieve common goals relevant to the learning context [ 24 ]. By exchanging ideas and providing feedback during the learning session, the students can attain a greater understanding of the subject matter [ 25 ].

Dolmans et al. [ 19 ] pointed out two issues related to the implementation of PBL: dominant facilitators and dysfunctional PBL groups. These problems inhibit students’ self-directed learning and reduce their satisfaction level with the PBL session. A case study by Eryilmaz [ 26 ] that evaluated engineering students’ and tutors’ experience of PBL discovered that PBL increased the students’ self-confidence and improved essential skills such as problem-solving, communications, critical thinking, and collaboration. Although most of the participants in the study found PBL satisfactory, many complained about the tutor’s poor guidance and lack of preparation. Additionally, it was noted that 64% of the first-year students were unable to adapt to the PBL system because they had been accustomed to conventional learning settings and that 43% of students were not adequately prepared for the sessions and thus were minimally involved in the discussion.

In a case study by Cónsul-giribet [ 27 ], newly graduated nursing professionals reported a lack of perceived theoretical basic science knowledge at the end of their program, despite learning through PBL. The nurses perceived that this lack of knowledge might affect their expertise, identity, and professional image.

Likewise, a study by McKendree [ 28 ] reported the outcomes of a workshop that explored the strengths and weaknesses of PBL in an allied health sciences curriculum in the UK. The workshop found that problems related to PBL were mainly caused by students, the majority of whom came from conventional educational backgrounds either during high school or their first degree. They felt anxious when they were involved in PBL, concerned about “not knowing when to stop” in exploring the learning needs. Apart from a lack of basic science knowledge, the knowledge acquired during PBL sessions remains unorganized [ 29 ]. Hence, tutors must guide students in overcoming this situation by instilling appropriate insights and essential skills for the achievement of the learning outcomes [ 30 ]. It was also evident that the combination of intention and motivation to learn and desirable learning behavior determined the quality of learning outcomes [ 31 , 32 ]. However, effective learning behaviors that help develop these skills have not been systematically described. Thus, this scoping review aimed to unearth the elements of effective learning behavior in the PBL context.

Scoping Review Protocol

This scoping review was performed using a protocol by Arksey and O’Malley [ 33 ]. The protocol comprises five phases: (i) identification of research questions, (ii) identification of relevant articles, (iii) selection of relevant studies, (iv) data collection and charting, and (v) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results.

Identification of Research Questions

This scoping review was designed to unearth the elements of effective learning behavior that can be generated from learning through PBL instruction. The review aimed to answer one research question: “What are the effective learning behavior elements related to PBL?” For the purpose of the review, an operational definition of effective learning behavior was constructed, whereby it was defined as any learning behavior that is related to PBL instruction and has been shown to successfully attain the desired learning outcomes (i.e., cognitive, skill, or affective)—either quantitatively or qualitatively—in any intervention conducted in higher education institutions.

The positive outcome variables include student viewpoint or perception, student learning experience and performance, lecturer viewpoint and expert judgment, and other indirect variables that may be important indicators of successful PBL learning (i.e., attendance to PBL session, participation in PBL activity, number of interactions in PBL activity, and improvement in communication skills in PBL).

Identification of Relevant Articles

An extensive literature search was conducted on articles published in English between 2015 and 2019. Three databases—Google Scholar, Scopus, and PubMed—were used for the literature search. Seven search terms with the Boolean combination were used, whereby the keywords were identified from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) databases. The search terms were tested and refined with multiple test searches. The final search terms with the Boolean operation were as follows: “problem-based learning” AND (“learning behavior” OR “learning behaviour”) AND (student OR “medical students” OR undergraduate OR “medical education”).

Selection of Relevant Articles

The articles from the three databases were exported manually into Microsoft Excel. The duplicates were removed, and the remaining articles were reviewed based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. These criteria were tested on titles and abstracts to ensure their robustness in capturing the articles related to learning behavior in PBL. The shortlisted articles were reviewed by two independent researchers, and a consensus was reached either to accept or reject each article based on the set criteria. When a disagreement occurred between the two reviewers, the particular article was re-evaluated independently by the third and fourth researchers (M.S.B.Y and A.F.A.R), who have vast experience in conducting qualitative research. The sets of criteria for selecting abstracts and final articles were developed. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed in Table 1 .

Data Charting

The selected final articles were reviewed, and several important data were extracted to provide an objective summary of the review. The extracted data were charted in a table, including the (i) title of the article, (ii) author(s), (iii) year of publication, (iv) aim or purpose of the study, (v) study design and method, (iv) intervention performed, and (v) study population and sample size.

Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results

A content analysis was performed to identify the elements of effective learning behaviors in the literature by A.S.A.G and S.N.H.H, who have experience in conducting qualitative studies. The initial step of content analysis was to read the selected articles thoroughly to gain a general understanding of the articles and extract the elements of learning behavior which are available in the articles. Next, the elements of learning behavior that fulfil the inclusion criteria were extracted. The selected elements that were related to each other through their content or context were grouped into subtheme categories. Subsequently, the combinations of several subthemes expressing similar underlying meanings were grouped into themes. Each of the themes and subthemes was given a name, which was operationally defined based on the underlying elements. The selected themes and subthemes were presented to the independent researchers in the team (M.S.B.Y and A.F.A.R), and a consensus was reached either to accept or reformulate each of the themes and subthemes. The flow of the scoping review methods for this study is illustrated in Fig. 1 .

The flow of literature search and article selection

Literature Search

Based on the keyword search, 1750 articles were obtained. Duplicate articles that were not original articles found in different databases and resources were removed. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of title selection, the eligibility of 1750 abstracts was evaluated. The articles that did not fulfil the criteria were removed, leaving 328 articles for abstract screening. A total of 284 articles were screened according to the eligibility criteria for abstract selection. Based on these criteria, 284 articles were selected and screened according to the eligibility criteria for full article selection. Fourteen articles were selected for the final review. The information about these articles is summarized in Table 2 .

Study Characteristics

The final 14 articles were published between 2015 and 2019. The majority of the studies were conducted in Western Asian countries ( n = 4), followed by China ( n = 3), European countries ( n = 2), Thailand ( n = 2), Indonesia ( n = 1), Singapore ( n = 1), and South Africa ( n = 1). Apart from traditional PBL, some studies incorporated other pedagogic modalities into their PBL sessions, such as online learning, blended learning, and gamification. The majority of the studies targeted a single-profession learner group, and one study was performed on mixed interprofessional health education learners.

Results of Thematic Analysis

The thematic analysis yielded three main themes of effective learning behavior: intrinsic empowerment, entrustment, and functional skills. Intrinsic empowerment overlies four proposed subthemes: proactivity, organization, diligence, and resourcefulness. For entrustment, there were four underlying subthemes: students as assessors, students as teachers, feedback-giving, and feedback-receiving. The functional skills theme contains four subthemes: time management, digital proficiency, data management, and collaboration.

Theme 1: Intrinsic Empowerment

Intrinsic empowerment enforces student learning behavior that can facilitate the achievement of learning outcomes. By empowering the development of these behaviors, students can become lifelong learners [ 34 ]. The first element of intrinsic empowerment is proactive behavior. In PBL, the students must be proactive in analyzing problems [ 35 , 36 ] and their learning needs [ 35 , 37 ], and this can be done by integrating prior knowledge and previous experience through a brainstorming session [ 35 , 38 ]. The students must be proactive in seeking guidance to ensure they stay focused and confident [ 39 , 40 ]. Finding ways to integrate content from different disciplines [ 35 , 41 ], formulate new explanations based on known facts [ 34 , 35 , 41 ], and incorporate hands-on activity [ 35 , 39 , 42 ] during a PBL session are also proactive behaviors.

The second element identified is “being organized” which reflects the ability of students to systematically manage their roles [ 43 ], ideas, and learning needs [ 34 ]. The students also need to understand the task for each learning role in PBL, such as chairperson or leader, scribe, recorder, and reflector. This role needs to be assigned appropriately to ensure that all members take part in the discussion [ 43 ]. Similarly, when discussing ideas or learning needs, the students need to follow the steps in the PBL process and organize and prioritize the information to ensure that the issues are discussed systematically and all aspects of the problems are covered accordingly [ 34 , 37 ]. This team organization and systematic thought process is an effective way for students to focus, plan, and finalize their learning tasks.

The third element of intrinsic empowerment is “being diligent.” Students must consistently conduct self-revision [ 40 ] and keep track of their learning plan to ensure the achievement of their learning goal [ 4 , 40 ]. The students must also be responsible for completing any given task and ensuring good understanding prior to their presentation [ 40 ]. Appropriate actions need to be undertaken to find solutions to unsolved problems [ 40 , 44 ]. This effort will help them think critically and apply their knowledge for problem-solving.

The fourth element identified is “being resourceful.” Students should be able to acquire knowledge from different resources, which include external resources (i.e., lecture notes, textbooks, journal articles, audiovisual instructions, the Internet) [ 38 , 40 , 45 ] and internal resources (i.e., students’ prior knowledge or experience) [ 35 , 39 ]. The resources must be evidence-based, and thus should be carefully selected by evaluating their cross-references and appraising them critically [ 37 ]. Students should also be able to understand and summarize the learned materials and explain them using their own words [ 4 , 34 ]. The subthemes of the intrinsic empowerment theme are summarized in Table 3 .

Theme 2: Entrustment

Entrustment emphasizes the various roles of students in PBL that can promote effective learning. The first entrusted role identified is “student as an assessor.” This means that students evaluate their own performance in PBL [ 46 ]. The evaluation of their own performance must be based on the achievement of the learning outcomes and reflect actual understanding of the content as well as the ability to apply the learned information in problem-solving [ 46 ].

The second element identified in this review is “student as a teacher.” To ensure successful peer teaching in PBL, students need to comprehensively understand the content of the learning materials and summarize the content in an organized manner. The students should be able to explain the gist of the discussed information using their own words [ 4 , 34 ] and utilize teaching methods to cater to differences in learning styles (i.e., visual, auditory, and kinesthetic) [ 41 ]. These strategies help capture their group members’ attention and evoke interactive discussions among them.

The third element of entrustment is to “give feedback.” Students should try giving constructive feedback on individual and group performance in PBL. Feedback on individual performance must reflect the quality of the content and task presented in the PBL. Feedback on group performance should reflect the ways in which the group members communicate and complete the group task [ 47 ]. To ensure continuous constructive feedback, students should be able to generate feedback questions beforehand and immediately deliver them during the PBL sessions [ 44 , 47 ]. In addition, the feedback must include specific measures for improvement to help their peers to take appropriate action for the future [ 47 ].

The fourth element of entrustment is “receive feedback.” Students should listen carefully to the feedback given and ask questions to clarify the feedback [ 47 ]. They need to be attentive and learn to deal with negative feedback [ 47 ]. Also, if the student does not receive feedback, they should request it either from peers or teachers and ask specific questions, such as what aspects to improve and how to improve [ 47 ]. The data on the subthemes of the entrustment theme are summarized in Table 4 .

Theme 3: Functional Skills

Functional skills refer to essential skills that can help students learn independently and competently. The first element identified is time management skills. In PBL, students must know how to prioritize learning tasks according to the needs and urgency of the tasks [ 40 ]. To ensure that students can self-pace their learning, a deadline should be set for each learning task within a manageable and achievable learning schedule [ 40 ].

Furthermore, students should have digital proficiency, the ability to utilize digital devices to support learning [ 38 , 40 , 44 ]. The student needs to know how to operate basic software (e.g., Words and PowerPoints) and the basic digital tools (i.e., social media, cloud storage, simulation, and online community learning platforms) to support their learning [ 39 , 40 ]. These skills are important for peer learning activities, which may require information sharing, information retrieval, online peer discussion, and online peer feedback [ 38 , 44 ].

The third functional skill identified is data management, the ability to collect key information in the PBL trigger and analyze that information to support the solution in a problem-solving activity [ 39 ]. Students need to work either individually or in a group to collect the key information from a different trigger or case format such as text lines, an interview, an investigation, or statistical results [ 39 ]. Subsequently, students also need to analyze the information and draw conclusions based on their analysis [ 39 ].

The fourth element of functional skill is collaboration. Students need to participate equally in the PBL discussion [ 41 , 46 ]. Through discussion, confusion and queries can be addressed and resolved by listening, respecting others’ viewpoints, and responding professionally [ 35 , 39 , 43 , 44 ]. In addition, the students need to learn from each other and reflect on their performance [ 48 ]. Table 5 summarizes the data on the subthemes of the functional skills theme.

This scoping review outlines three themes of effective learning behavior elements in the PBL context: intrinsic empowerment, entrustment, and functional skills. Hence, it is evident from this review that successful PBL instruction demands students’ commitment to empower themselves with value-driven behaviors, skills, and roles.

In this review, intrinsic empowerment is viewed as enforcement of students’ internal strength in performing positive learning behaviors related to PBL. This theme requires the student to proactively engage in the learning process, organize their learning activities systematically, persevere in learning, and be intelligently resourceful. One of the elements of intrinsic empowerment is the identification and analysis of problems related to complex scenarios. This element is aligned with a study by Meyer [ 49 ], who observed students’ engagement in problem identification and clarification prior to problem-solving activities in a PBL session related to multiple engineering design. Rubenstein and colleagues [ 50 ] discovered in a semi-structured interview the importance of undergoing a problem identification process before proposing a solution during learning. It was reported that the problem identification process in PBL may enhance the attainment of learning outcomes, specifically in the domain of concept understanding [ 51 ].

The ability of the students to acquire and manage learning resources is essential for building their understanding of the learned materials and enriching discussion among team members during PBL. This is aligned with a study by Jeong and Hmelo-Silver [ 52 ], who studied the use of learning resources by students in PBL. The study concluded that in a resource-rich environment, the students need to learn how to access and understand the resources to ensure effective learning. Secondly, they need to process the content of the resources, integrate various resources, and apply them in problem-solving activities. Finally, they need to use the resources in collaborative learning activities, such as sharing and relating to peer resources.

Wong [ 53 ] documented that excellent students spent considerably more time managing academic resources than low achievers. The ability of the student to identify and utilize their internal learning resources, such as prior knowledge and experience, is also important. A study by Lee et al. [ 54 ] has shown that participants with high domain-specific prior knowledge displayed a more systematic approach and high accuracy in visual and motor reactions in solving problems compared to novice learners.

During the discussion phase in PBL, organizing ideas—e.g., arranging relevant information gathered from the learning resources into relevant categories—is essential for communicating the idea clearly [ 34 ]. This finding is in line with a typology study conducted by Larue [ 55 ] on second-year nursing students’ learning strategies during a group discussion. The study discovered that although the content presented by the student is adequate, they unable to make further progress in the group discussion until they are instructed by the tutor on how to organize the information given into a category [ 55 ].

Hence, the empowerment of student intrinsic behavior may enhance students’ learning in PBL by allowing them to make a decision in their learning objectives and instilling confidence in them to achieve goals. A study conducted by Kirk et al. [ 56 ] proved that highly empowered students obtain better grades, increase learning participation, and target higher educational aspirations.

Entrustment is the learning role given to students to be engaging and identify gaps in their learning. This theme requires the student to engage in self-assessment, prepare to teach others, give constructive feedback, and value the feedback received. One of the elements of entrustment is the ability to self-assess. In a study conducted by Mohd et al. [ 57 ] looking at the factors in PBL that can strengthen the capability of IT students, they discovered that one of the critical factors that contribute to these skills is the ability of the student to perform self-assessment in PBL. As mentioned by Daud, Kassim, and Daud [ 58 ], the self-assessment may be more reliable if the assessment is performed based on the objectives set beforehand and if the criteria of the assessment are understood by the learner. This is important to avoid the fact that the result of the self-assessment is influenced by the students’ perception of themselves rather than reflecting their true performance. However, having an assessment based on the learning objective only focuses on the immediate learning requirements in the PBL. To foster lifelong learning skills, it should also be balanced with the long-term focus of assessment, such as utilizing the assessment to foster the application of knowledge in solving real-life situations. This is aligned with the review by Boud and Falchikov [ 59 ] suggesting that students need to become assessors within the concept of participation in practice, that is, the kind that is within the context of real life and work.

The second subtheme of entrustment is “students as a teacher” in PBL. In our review, the student needs to be well prepared with the teaching materials. A cross-sectional study conducted by Charoensakulchai and colleagues discovered that student preparation is considered among the important factors in PBL success, alongside other factors such as “objective and contents,” “student assessment,” and “attitude towards group work” [ 60 ]. This is also aligned with a study conducted by Sukrajh [ 61 ] using focus group discussion on fifth-year medical students to explore their perception of preparedness before conducting peer teaching activity. In this study, the student in the focus group expressed that the preparation made them more confident in teaching others because preparing stimulated them to activate and revise prior knowledge, discover their knowledge gaps, construct new knowledge, reflect on their learning, improve their memory, inspire them to search several resources, and motivate them to learn the topics.

The next element of “student as a teacher” is using various learning styles to teach other members in the group. A study conducted by Almomani [ 62 ] showed that the most preferred learning pattern by the high school student is the visual pattern, followed by auditory pattern and then kinesthetic. However, in the university setting, Hamdani [ 63 ] discovered that students prefer a combination of the three learning styles. Anbarasi [ 64 ] also explained that incorporating teaching methods based on the student’s preferred learning style further promotes active learning among the students and significantly improved the long-term retrieval of knowledge. However, among the three learning styles group, he discovered that the kinesthetic group with the kinesthetic teaching method showed a significantly higher post-test score compared to the traditional group with the didactic teaching method, and he concluded that this is because of the involvement of more active learning activity in the kinesthetic group.

The ability of students to give constructive feedback on individual tasks is an important element in promoting student contribution in PBL because feedback from peers or teachers is needed to reassure themselves that they are on the right track in the learning process. Kamp et al. [ 65 ] performed a study on the effectiveness of midterm peer feedback on student individual cognitive, collaborative, and motivational contributions in PBL. The experimental group that received midterm peer feedback combined with goal-setting with face-to-face discussion showed an increased amount of individual contributions in PBL. Another element of effective feedback is that the feedback is given immediately after the observed behavior. Parikh and colleagues survey student feedback in PBL environments among 103 final-year medical students in five Ontario schools, including the University of Toronto, McMaster University, Queens University, the University of Ottawa, and the University of Western Ontario. They discovered that there was a dramatic difference between McMaster University and other universities in the immediacy of feedback they practiced. Seventy percent of students at McMaster reported receiving immediate feedback in PBL, compared to less than 40 percent of students from the other universities, in which most of them received feedback within one week or several weeks after the PBL had been conducted [ 66 ]. Another study, conducted among students of the International Medical University of Kuala Lumpur examining the student expectation on feedback, discovered that immediate feedback is effective if the feedback is in written form, simple but focused on the area of improvement, and delivered by a content expert. If the feedback is delivered by a content non-expert and using a model answer, it must be supplemented with teacher dialogue sessions to clarify the feedback received [ 67 ].

Requesting feedback from peers and teachers is an important element of the PBL learning environment, enabling students to discover their learning gaps and ways to fill them. This is aligned with a study conducted by de Jong and colleagues [ 68 ], who discovered that high-performing students are more motivated to seek feedback than low-performing students. The main reason for this is because high-performing students seek feedback as a tool to learn from, whereas low-performing students do so as an academic requirement. This resulted in high-performing students collecting more feedback. A study by Bose and Gijselaers [ 69 ] examined the factors that promote feedback-seeking behavior in medical residency. They discovered that feedback-seeking behavior can be promoted by providing residents with high-quality feedback to motivate them to ask for feedback for improvement.

By assigning an active role to students as teachers, assessors, and feedback providers, teachers give them the ownership and responsibility to craft their learning. The learner will then learn the skills to monitor and reflect on their learning to achieve academic success. Furthermore, an active role encourages students to be evaluative experts in their own learning, and promoting deep learning [ 70 ].

Functional skills refer to essential abilities for competently performing a task in PBL. This theme requires the student to organize and plan time for specific learning tasks, be digitally literate, use data effectively to support problem-solving, and work together efficiently to achieve agreed objectives. One of the elements in this theme is to have a schedule of learning tasks with deadlines. In a study conducted by Tadjer and colleagues [ 71 ], they discovered that setting deadlines with a restricted time period in a group activity improved students’ cognitive abilities and soft skills. Although the deadline may initially cause anxiety, coping with it encourages students to become more creative and energetic in performing various learning strategies [ 72 , 73 ]. Ballard et al. [ 74 ] reported that students tend to work harder to complete learning tasks if they face multiple deadlines.

The students also need to be digitally literate—i.e., able to demonstrate the use of technological devices and tools in PBL. Taradi et al. [ 75 ] discovered that incorporating technology in learning—blending web technology with PBL—removes time and place barriers in the creation of a collaborative environment. It was found that students who participated in web discussions achieved a significantly higher mean grade on a physiology final examination than those who used traditional methods. Also, the incorporation of an online platform in PBL can facilitate students to develop investigation and inquiry skills with high-level cognitive thought processes, which is crucial to successful problem-solving [ 76 ].

In PBL, students need to work collaboratively with their peers to solve problems. A study by Hidayati et al. [ 77 ] demonstrated that effective collaborative skills improve cognitive learning outcomes and problem-solving ability among students who undergo PBL integrated with digital mind maps. To ensure successful collaborative learning in PBL, professional communication among students is pertinent. Research by Zheng and Huang [ 78 ] has proven that co-regulation (i.e., warm and responsive communication that provides support to peers) improved collaborative effort and group performance among undergraduate and master’s students majoring in education and psychology. This is also in line with a study by Maraj and colleagues [ 79 ], which showed the strong team interaction within the PBL group leads to a high level of team efficacy and academic self-efficacy. Moreover, strengthening communication competence, such as by developing negotiation skills among partners during discussion sessions, improves student scores [ 80 ].

PBL also includes opportunities for students to learn from each other (i.e., peer learning). A study by Maraj et al. [ 79 ] discovered that the majority of the students in their study perceived improvement in their understanding of the learned subject when they learned from each other. Another study by Lyonga [ 81 ] documented the successful formation of cohesive group learning, where students could express and share their ideas with their friends and help each other. It was suggested that each student should be paired with a more knowledgeable student who has mastered certain learning components to promote purposeful structured learning within the group.

From this scoping review, it is clear that functional skills equip the students with abilities and knowledge needed for successful PBL. Studies have shown that strong time management skills, digital literacy, data management, and collaborative skills lead to positive academic achievement [ 77 , 82 , 83 ].

Limitation of the Study

This scoping review is aimed to capture the recent effective learning behavior in problem-based learning; therefore, the literature before 2015 was not included. Without denying the importance of publication before 2015, we are relying on Okoli and Schabram [ 84 ] who highlighted the impossibility of retrieving all the published articles when conducting a literature search. Based on this ground, we decided to focus on the time frame between 2015 and 2019, which is aligned with the concepts of study maturity (i.e., the more mature the field, the higher the published articles and therefore more topics were investigated) by Kraus et al. [ 85 ]. In fact, it was noted that within this time frame, a significant number of articles have been found as relevant to PBL with the recent discovery of effective learning behavior. Nevertheless, our time frame did not include the timing of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak, which began at the end of 2019. Hence, we might miss some important elements of learning behavior that are required for the successful implementation of PBL during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Surprisingly, the results obtained from this study are also applicable for the PBL sessions administration during the COVID-19 pandemic situation as one of the functional skills identified is digital proficiency. This skill is indeed important for the successful implementation of online PBL session.

This review identified the essential learning behaviors required for effective PBL in higher education and clustered them into three main themes: (i) intrinsic empowerment, (ii) entrustment, and (iii) functional skills. These learning behaviors must coexist to ensure the achievement of desired learning outcomes. In fact, the findings of this study indicated two important implications for future practice. Firstly, the identified learning behaviors can be incorporated as functional elements in the PBL framework and implementation. Secondly, the learning behaviors change and adaption can be considered to be a new domain of formative assessment related to PBL. It is noteworthy to highlight that these learning behaviors could help in fostering the development of lifelong skills for future workplace challenges. Nevertheless, considerably more work should be carried out to design a solid guideline on how to systematically adopt the learning behaviors in PBL sessions, especially during this COVID-19 pandemic situation.

Barrows HS. Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Dir Teach Learn. 1996;68:3–12.

Article Google Scholar

Barrows H, Tamblyn R. Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. Springer Publishing Company; 1980.

Taylor D, Miflin B. Problem-based learning: where are we now? Med Teach. Taylor & Francis. 2008;30(8):742–763.

Rakhudu MA. Use of problem based scenarios to prepare nursing students to address quality improvement in health care unit: Int J Educ Sci. 2015;10(1):72–80.

Google Scholar

Radcliffe P, Kumar D. Is problem-based learning suitable for engineering ? Australas J Eng Educ. 2016;21(2):81–8.

Azer SA, Hasanato R, Al-Nassar S, Somily A, AlSaadi MM. Introducing integrated laboratory classes in a PBL curriculum: impact on student’s learning and satisfaction. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):1–12.

Doherty DO, Mc Keague H, Harney S, Browne G, McGrath D. What can we learn from problem-based learning tutors at a graduate entry medical school? A mixed method approach. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):1–12.

Choi E, Lindquist R, Song Y. Effects of problem-based learning vs. traditional lecture on Korean nursing students’ critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-directed learning. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(1):52–56.

Wong DKP, Lam DOB. Problem-based learning in social work: a study of student learning outcomes. Res Soc Work Pract. 2007;17(1):55–6.

Wijnen M, Loyens SMM, Smeets G, Kroeze M, van der Molen H. Comparing problem-based learning students to students in a lecture-based curriculum: learning strategies and the relation with self-study time. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2017;32(3):431–447.

Armitage A, Pihl O, Ryberg T. PBL and Creative Processes. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education. 2015;3(1).

Harun NF, Yusof KM, Jamaludin MZ, Hassan SAHS. Motivation in Problem-based Learning Implementation. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;56:233–242.

Smith GF. Problem-based learning: can it improve managerial thinking? J Manag Educ. 2005;29(2):357–78.

Akcay B. Problem-based learning in science education. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 2009;6(1):28–38.

Van Barneveld A, Strobel J. Problem-based learning: Effectiveness, drivers, and implementation challenges. In Research on PBL practice in engineering education; 2009. pp. 35–44.

Siew NM, Mapeala R. The effects of problem based learning with thinking maps on fifth graders’ science critical thinking. J Balt Sci Educ. 2016;15(5):602.

Li HC, Stylianides AJ. An examination of the roles of the teacher and students during a problem-based learning intervention: lessons learned from a study in a Taiwanese primary mathematics classroom. Interact Learn Environ. 2018;26(1):106–17.

Wilder S. Impact of problem-based learning on academic achievement in high school: a systematic review. Educ Rev. 2015;67(4):414–35.

Dolmans D, Grave W, Wolfhagen I, Van der Vleuten C. Problem‐based learning: Future challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ. 2005;1;39(7):732–41.

Wood DF. Problem based learning. BMJ. 2003;326(7384):328–30.

Ansari MT, Rahman SA, Badgujar VB, Sami F, Abdullah MS. Problem based learning (PBL): A novel and effective tool of teaching and learning. Indian J Pharm Educ Res. 2015;49(4):258–65.

Ertmer PA, Newby TJ. Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Perform Improv Q. 1993;6(4):50–72.

Ertmer PA, Newby TJ. The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instr Sci. 1996;24(1):1–24.

Billett S. Situated learning: bridging sociocultural and cognitive theorising. Learn Instr. 1996;6(3):263–80.

Dillenbourg P, Baker M, Blaye A, Malley CO. The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In: Spada E and Reimann P, editors. Learning in human machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science. 1996;189–211.

Ates O, Eryilmaz A. Strengths and weaknesses of problem-based learning: students’ and tutors’ perceptives. Journal of the Buca Educational Science Faculty. 2010;28:40–58.

Cónsul-giribet M, Medina-Moya JL. Strengths and weaknesses of problem based learning from the professional perspective of registered nurses. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2014;22(5):724–30.

McKendree J. Experiences of problem-based learning in the UK. Clin Teach. 2010;7(4):262–5.

Hemker HC. Critical perceptions on problem-based learning. Eur Rev. 2001;9(3):269–74.

Davis MH, Harden RM. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 15 : Problem-based learning: A practical guide. Med Teach. 1999;21(15):130–140.

Newblen DI, Entwistle NJ. Learning styles and approaches: Implications for medical education. Med Educ. 1986;20(3):162–75.

Albanese MA, Mitchell S. Problem-based learning: a review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad Med. 1993;68(1):52–81.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Khoiriyah U, Roberts C, Jorm C, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Enhancing students’ learning in problem based learning: validation of a self-assessment scale for active learning and critical thinking. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15(1):140.

Li H. Facilitating learning through PBL in a Chinese context: Students’ learning outcomes and attitudes. Int J Educ Res. 2018;17(7):80–93.

Gutman M. The influence of problem-based learning communities on research literacy and achievement goal motivation. Int J Educ. 2018;6(4):31–41.

Khumsikiew J, Donsamak S, Saeteaw M. A model of small-group problem-based learning in pharmacy education: teaching in the clinical environment. IAFOR J Educ. 2015;3(2):95–108.

William L, Abdul Rahim Z, Wu L, De Souza R. Effectiveness of supply chain games in problem-based learning environment. Game-Based Assessment Revisited. 2019:257–80.

Chung P, Yeh RC, Chen YC. Influence of problem-based learning strategy on enhancing student’s industrial oriented competences learned: An action research on learning weblog analysis. Int J Technol Des Educ. 2016;26(2):285–307.

Dawilai S, Kamyod C, Champakaew W. Proposed problem-based blended learning in creative writing: self-regulated learning in EFL Learners. Int J Appl Eng Res. 2018;13(7):4834–41.

Johnson M, Hayes MJ. A comparison of problem-based and didactic learning pedagogies on an electronics engineering course. Int J Electr Eng Educ. 2016;53(1):3–22.

Tarhan L, Ayyildiz Y. The views of undergraduates about problem-based learning applications in a biochemistry course. J Biol Educ. 2015;49(2):116–26.

Hursen C. The effect of technology supported problem-based learning approach on adults’ self-efficacy perception for research-inquiry. Educ Inf Technol. 2019;24(2):1131–45.

Asmi SO, Wonorahardjo S, Widarti HR. The application of problem based learning assisted by blended learning in atomic spectroscopy material on cognitive learning outcomes and students’ self system based on marzano taxonomy. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies. 2019;4(1):88–99.

Arana-Arexolaleiba N, Zubizarreta MI. The impact of PBL learning environment and supervision of engineering faculty of Mondragon University in the student learning approach. 2015:479–491.

Geitz G, Ten BDJ, Kirschner PA. Sustainable feedback: students’ and tutors’ perceptions. Qual Rep. 2016;21(11):2103–23.

Chou FC, Kwan CY, Hsin DHC. Examining the effects of interprofessional problem-based clinical ethics: findings from a mixed methods study. J Interprof Care. 2016;30(3):362–9.

Meyer H. Teachers’ thoughts on student decision making during engineering design lessons. Educ Sci. 2018;8(1):9–19.

Rubenstein LDV, Callan GL, Speirs Neumeister K, Ridgley LM, Hernández FM. How problem identification strategies influence creativity outcomes. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2020;60:101840.

Kartamiharja MR, Sopandi W, Anggraeni D. Implementation of problem-based learning (PBL) approach in chemistry instructional with context of tofu liquid waste treatment. Int J Educ Res. 2020;19(5):47–77.

Jeong H, Hmelo-Silver CE. Productive use of learning resources in an online problem-based learning environment. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(1):84–99.

Wong L. Student Engagement with online resources and its impact on learning outcomes. Journal of Information Technology Education Innovation in Practice. 2013;12:129–46.

Lee JY, Donkers J, Jarodzka H, van Merriënboer JJG. How prior knowledge affects problem-solving performance in a medical simulation game: Using game-logs and eye-tracking. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;99:268–77.

Larue C. Group learning strategies for nursing students: Reflections on the tutor role. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2008;5(1).

Kirk CM, Lewis RK, Brown K, Karibo B, Park E. The power of student empowerment: Measuring classroom predictors and individual indicators. J Educ Res. 2016;109(6):589–95.

Mohd H, Darus NM, Saip MA, Baharom F, Puteh N, Husin MZ, et al. Success factors of problem based learning for IT courses: measurements on PBL characteristics, PBL assessments and PBL practices. J Eng Appl Sci. 2017;12(21):5514–7.

Daud NM, Kassim NLA, Daud‏ NSM. Students as Assessors. 2011.

Boud D, Falchikov N. Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assess Eval High Educ. 2006;31(4):399–413.

Charoensakulchai S, Kantiwong A, Piyaraj P. Factors influencing problem-based learning: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives. MedEdPublish. 2019;8(3).

Sukrajh V. The use of peer teaching to promote active learning amongst senior medical students. Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch University. 2018.

Almomani JA. Preferred cognitive learning patterns (VAK) among secondary students admitted to King Saud University and its effect on their academic achievement in physics. Int Educ Stud. 2019;12(6):108–19.

Hamdani D Al. Exploring students’ learning style at a Gulf University: A contributing factor to effective instruction. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2015;176:124–128.

Anbarasi M, Rajkumar G, Krishnakumar S, Rajendran P, Venkatesan R, Dinesh T, et al. Learning style-based teaching harvests a superior comprehension of respiratory physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2015;39:214–7.

Kamp RJA, Dolmans DHJM, Van Berkel HJM, Schmidt HG. The effect of midterm peer feedback on student functioning in problem-based tutorials. 2013;18:199–213.

Parikh A, McReelis K, Hodges B. Student feedback in problem based learning: a survey of 103 final year students across five Ontario medical schools. Med Educ. 2001;35(7):632–6.

Perera J, Lee N, Win K, Perera J, Wijesuriya L. Formative feedback to students: The mismatch between faculty perceptions and student expectations. 2008;30(4):395–9.

De Jong LH, Favier RP, Van der Vleuten CPM, Bok HGJ. Students’ motivation toward feedback-seeking in the clinical workplace. Med Teach. 2017;39(9):954–8.

Bose MM, Gijselaers WH. Why supervisors should promote feedback-seeking behaviour in medical residency. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1573–83.

Entwistle N. Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment. In assessment to promote deep learning: Insights from AAHF’s 2000 and 1999 Assessment Conferences. 2000:9–20.

Tadjer H, Lafifi Y, Seridi-Bouchelaghem H, Gülseçen S. Improving soft skills based on students’ traces in problem-based learning environments. Interact Learn Environ. 2020:1–18.

Maule AJ, Hockey GRJ, Bdzola L. Effects of time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty: changes in affective state and information processing strategy. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2000;104(3):283–301.

Amabile TM, DeJong W, Lepper MR. Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1976;34(1):92–8.

Ballard T, Vancouver JB, Neal A. On the pursuit of multiple goals with different deadlines. J Appl Psychol. 2018;103(11):1242–64.

Taradi SK, Taradi M, Radić K, Pokrajac N. Blending problem-based learning with Web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2005;29(1):35–9.

Stewart T, MacIntyre W, Galea V, Steel C. Enhancing problem-based learning designs with a single e-learning scaffolding tool: two case studies using challenge FRAP. Interact Learn Environ. 2007;15(1):77–91.

Hidayati N, Zubaidah S, Suarsini E, Praherdhiono H. Cognitive learning outcomes: Its relationship with communication skills and collaboration skills through digital mind maps-integrated PBL. Int J Inf Educ Technol. 2020;10(6):433–48.

Zheng L, Huang R. The effects of sentiments and co-regulation on group performance in computer supported collaborative learning. Internet High Educ. 2016;28:59–67.

Maraj M, Hale CP, Kogelbauer A, Hellgardt K. Teaming with confidence: How peer connections in problem-based learning impact the team and academic self-efficacies of engineering students. ASEE Annu Conf Expo. 2019:1–14.

Baranova T, Kobicheva A, Olkhovik N, Tokareva E. Analysis of the communication competence dynamics in integrated learning. In: Proceedings of the Conference “Integrating Engineering Education and Humanities for Global Intercultural Perspectives.” Springer; 2020:425–38.

Lyonga NAN. Peer learning amongst students of higher technical teachers’ training college (HTTTC) of the university of buea in kumba. Cameroon Int J High Educ. 2018;7(2):216–26.

Britton BK, Tesser A. Effects of time-management practices on college grades. J Educ Psychol. 1991;83(3):405–10.

Pagani L, Argentin G, Gui M, Stanca L. The impact of digital skills on educational outcomes: evidence from performance tests. Educ Stud. 2016;42(2):137–62.

Okoli C, Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. Work Pap Inf Syst. 2010;10(26):1–51.

Kraus S, Breier M, Dasí-Rodríguez S. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. Int Entrep Manag J. 2020;16(3):1023–42.

Download references

This study was supported by Postgraduate Incentive Grant-PhD (GIPS-PhD, grant number: 311/PPSP/4404803).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Kulliyah of Medicine, Bandar Indera Mahkota Campus, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuantan, 25200, Pahang, Malaysia

Azril Shahreez Abdul Ghani

Department of Medical Education, School of Medical Sciences, Health Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kota Bharu, 16150, Kelantan, Malaysia

Azril Shahreez Abdul Ghani, Ahmad Fuad Abdul Rahim & Muhamad Saiful Bahri Yusoff

Department of Anatomy, School of Medical Sciences, Health Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, 16150, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia

Siti Nurma Hanim Hadie

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siti Nurma Hanim Hadie .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

The study has received an ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Informed Consent

No informed consent required for the scoping review.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ghani, A.S.A., Rahim, A.F.A., Yusoff, M.S.B. et al. Effective Learning Behavior in Problem-Based Learning: a Scoping Review. Med.Sci.Educ. 31 , 1199–1211 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01292-0

Download citation

Accepted : 13 April 2021

Published : 21 April 2021

Issue Date : June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01292-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Student behavior
Effective learning behavior
Problem-based learning
Higher education
Academic outcomes
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

IMAGES

Infographic (Problem-based learning vs. Project-based learning)
Rollins School of Public Health
Problem Based Learning Examples
Benefits of Problem-based Learning to Students and Teachers
Applying Problem Based Learning (PBL)
18 Problem-Based Learning Examples (2024)

COMMENTS

Problem-Based Learning: An Overview of its Process and Impact on
In this review, we provide an overview of the process of problem-based learning (PBL) and the studies examining the effectiveness of PBL. We also discuss a number of naturalistic and empirical studies that have examined the process of PBL and how its various components impact students' learning. We conclude that the studies comparing the ...
5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Problem-Based Learning [+ Activity
Whether you introduce the student-centred pedagogy as a one-time activity or mainstay exercise, grouping students together to solve open-ended problems can present pros and cons. Below are five advantages and disadvantages of problem-based learning to help you determine if it can work in your classroom.
Effective Learning Behavior in Problem-Based Learning: a Scoping Review
Problem-based learning (PBL) emphasizes learning behavior that leads to critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and collaborative skills in preparing students for a professional medical career. However, learning behavior that develops these ...
Problem-based learning
Problem-based learning ( PBL) is a teaching method in which students learn about a subject through the experience of solving an open-ended problem found in trigger material. The PBL process does not focus on problem solving with a defined solution, but it allows for the development of other desirable skills and attributes. This includes knowledge acquisition, enhanced group collaboration and ...
Project-Based Learning vs. Problem-Based Learning vs. X-BL
John Larmer of the Buck Institute for Education clears up any confusion on the difference between project-based learning, problem-based learning, and whatever-else-based learning.
Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
What is Problem-Based Learning (PBL)? PBL is a student-centered approach to learning that involves groups of students working to solve a real-world problem, quite different from the direct teaching method of a teacher presenting facts and concepts about a specific subject to a classroom of students.
Problem-Based Learning
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered approach in which students learn about a subject by working in groups to solve an open-ended problem. This problem is what drives the motivation and the learning.
Problem-Based Learning
Problem-based learning (PBL) is an instructional method aimed at preparing students for real-world settings. By requiring students to solve problems, PBL enhances students' learning outcomes by promoting their abilities and skills in applying knowledge, solving problems, practicing higher order thinking, and self-directing their own learning.
Problem-Based Learning and Case-Based Learning
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a learner-centered small-group learning approach that supports active learning. This chapter provides core definitions of PBL and other forms of case-based learning. To be precise, several aspects of designing PBL are described, such as problem design, process structure, small-group learning, tutoring, and others.
PDF The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning
To what extent does the degree of directedness in prob-lem-based learning (student-directed learning), lec-ture prior to problem-solving (partially student- and teacher-directed), and case-based learning (teacher-directed learning) difer in terms of developing causal reasoning skills?
Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?
Problem-based approaches to learning have a long history of advocating experience-based education. Psychological research and theory suggests that by having students learn through the experience of solving problems, they can learn both content and thinking strategies. Problem-based learning (PBL) is an instructional method in which students learn through facilitated problem solving. In PBL ...
PDF Problem Based Learning: A Student-Centered Approach
Abstract Problem-based learning is a teaching method in which students' learn through the complex and open ended problems. These problems are real world problems and are used to encourage students' learning through principles and concept. PBL is both a teaching method and approach to the curriculum. It can develop critical thinking skill, problem solving abilities, communication skills and ...
Problem solving learning versus problem-based learning
Problem solving learning versus problem-based learning. While problem solving learning is an advisable practice in any. curricular format, a pure problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum may. become a risky enterprise since many basic contents may not be learnt at. last.
Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate
Background Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach that shifts the role of the teacher to the student (student-centered) and is based on self-directed learning. Although PBL has been adopted in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, the effectiveness of the method is still under discussion. The author's purpose was to appraise available international evidence ...
Problem-Based and Inquiry-Based Learning: What's the difference?
Problem-Based-Learning can be classified as guided inquiry where the teacher-presented question is an unsolved, real-world problem. For example, in a Middle Eastern Studies course, the main problem posed by the instructor could be "Propose a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.". This question will motivate the study of the ...
Project-Based vs. Problem-Based Learning: Which is Right for Your
In contrast to traditional instruction and rote memorization, project-based learning encourages learner agency, collaboration, and problem-solving, empowering students to become active participants in their own learning. Students collaborate to solve real world problems that require understanding content knowledge, critical thinking, creativity, and robust communication skills.
Case-based Teaching and Problem-based Learning
Problem-based Learning Problem-based learning (PBL) is both a teaching method and an approach to the curriculum. It consists of carefully designed problems that challenge students to use problem solving techniques, self-directed learning strategies, team participation skills, and disciplinary knowledge.
PDF The Pros and Cons of Problem-Based Learning from the Teacherâ s Standpoint
The Pros and Cons of Problem-Based Learning from the Teacher's Standpoint. This article focuses on a teacher's evaluation of an experiment with problem-based learning (PBL) and its effects on his professional development. This case study, of a descriptive-analytical nature, involved the collaboration between the researcher and teacher in ...
Problem-based learning and project-based learning
Problem-based learning originated in the 1960s and is a teaching pedagogy that is student-centred. Students learn about a topic through the solving of problems and generally work in groups to solve the problem where, often, there is no one correct answer. In short, 'it empowers learners to conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable ...
PBL vs TBL: What's the Difference?
Team-based Learning and Problem-based Learning are used in various contexts and produce different learning outcomes. Learn more about their differences.
The effectiveness of problem-based learning compared with lecture-based
Accordingly, the triggered ability of PBL is to analyze a problem and derive personal learning outcomes, rather than mainly focusing on "solving" the problem, which is the goal of case-based learning (CBL).
What the Heck is the Difference Between IBL and PBL?
Problem-based learning focuses on solving authentic problems through investigation, decision-making, and problem-solving. It is based on real-world issues, and therefore offers students a unique chance to contribute to something meaningful and relevant in their lives.
Effective Learning Behavior in Problem-Based Learning: a ...
Problem-based learning (PBL) emphasizes learning behavior that leads to critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and collaborative skills in preparing students for a professional medical career.
Comparing effects of different goal type orders on collaborative
The order of knowledge construction and problem solving in learning through problem solving, however, has not been explained in current literature. Objectives. To understand their relationships, this study compared the effects of different goal type orders on collaborative simulation-based inquiry in engineering problem solving. Methods

5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Problem-Based Learning [+ Activity Design Steps]

1. Development of Long-Term Knowledge Retention

2. Use of Diverse Instruction Types

3. Continuous Engagement

4. Development of Transferable Skills

5. Improvement of Teamwork and Interpersonal Skills

1. Potentially Poorer Performance on Tests

2. Student Unpreparedness

3. Teacher Unpreparedness

4. Time-Consuming Assessment

5. Varying Degrees of Relevancy and Applicability

1. Identify an Applicable Real-Life Problem

2. Determine the Overarching Purpose of the Activity

3. Create and Distribute Helpful Material

4. Set Goals and Expectations for Your Students

5. Participate

6. Have Students Present Ideas and Findings

Wrapping Up

Project-Based Learning vs. Problem-Based Learning vs. X-BL

Let's Try to Sort This Out

Problem-Based Learning vs. Project-Based Learning

A Note on Math and the Two PBLs

How Does This Tale of Two PBLs End?

Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

By working with PBL, students will:

How to Begin PBL

Designing Classroom Instruction

How to Orchestrate a PBL Activity

Teacher’s Role in PBL

The Role of the Students

Similar Posts

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Wikis in Education: How Wikis are Being Used in the Classroom

WebQuest: An Inquiry-oriented Approach in Learning

Definitions of Educational Technology

How to Create Effective Multiple Choice Questions

Center for Teaching Innovation

Problem-Based Learning

Why Use Problem-Based Learning?

Considerations for Using Problem-Based Learning

Getting Started with Problem-Based Learning

Search form

Problem solving learning versus problem-based learning

Medical students need problem solving training to improve patient safety

Rapid Response:

Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review

Stage 1: Identifying the research question

Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

Stage 3: Study selection

Stage 4: Charting the data

Stage 5: Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

Main outcome: academic performance (learning and knowledge retention)

Secondary outcomes

Student satisfaction

Tutor satisfaction

Other skills (problem solving and self-learning)

Limitations

Conclusions

Abbreviations

References:

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Additional information

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

BMC Medical Education

Notes on Teaching and Learning

Problem-Based and Inquiry-Based Learning: What’s the difference?

Related Sites

Project-Based vs. Problem-Based Learning: Which is Right for Your Classroom?

Introduction to PBL

What is Project-Based Learning (PBL)?

What is Problem-Based Learning (PrBL)?

Project-Based Learning vs Problem-Based Learning