Abstract
This chapter describes naturalistic research carried out to study the process of the “One day, one problem” PBL approach of Republic Polytechnic, in order to gain insight into what and how students learn in all the phases of the PBL cycle, as well as to identify relationships between the learning activities of students (what they know, say, and do) with their learning outcomes. First, we have identified two distinct phases in the “One day, one problem” PBL process – an initial concept articulation phase, consisting of the problem analysis and initial SDL phase and a later concept repetition phase, consisting mainly of the second SDL period, where concepts are repeated and elaborated upon. The significance of verbalization in the PBL process is also clearly demonstrated from the finding that while individual study is important, it influences students’ learning achievements indirectly, through the verbalization of ideas. Lastly, we have also found that collaborative learning or self-directed study alone is insufficient to describe PBL or predict students’ learning outcomes. Instead, the learning in the “One day, one problem” PBL is cumulative, with every phase of the PBL cycle strongly influencing that of the next phase and finally that of students’ learning achievement. Thus the PBL cycle of initial problem analysis, followed by self-directed learning, and a subsequent reporting phase as described by various authors and used in our “One day, one problem” process is one which is backed by research findings.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS.
Barrows, H. S. (1988). The tutorial process. Springfield: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning (Vol. 68, pp. 3–11). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing Structural Equation Models, 154, 136–162.
Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79.
Chi, M. T. H., Deleeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.
Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
De Grave, W. S., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Schmidt, H. G. (1996). Problem based learning: Cognitive and metacognitive processes during problem analysis. Instructional Science, 24(5), 321–341.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 42.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. [Review]. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.
Dolmans, D., & Schmidt, H. G. (2006). What do we know about cognitive and motivational effects of small group tutorials in problem-based learning? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11(4), 321–336.
Dolmans, D., Schmidt, H. G., & Gijselaers, W. H. (1995). The relationship between student-generated learning issues and self-study in problem-based learning. Instructional Science, 22(4), 251–267.
Gijselaers, W. H., & Schmidt, H. G. (1990). Development and evaluation of a causal model of problem-based learning. In Z. H. Nooman, H. G. Schmidt, & E. S. Ezzat (Eds.), Innovation in medical education: An evaluation of its present status (pp. 95–113). New York: Springer.
Glaser, R., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 631–666.
Hak, T., & Maguire, P. (2000). Group process: The black box of studies on problem-based learning. Academic Medicine, 75(7), 769–772.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 21–39.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94.
Hovardas, T., & Korfiatis, K. J. (2006). Word associations as a tool for assessing conceptual change in science education. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 416–432.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Moust, J. H. C., Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., Belien, J., & De Grave, W. S. (1987). Effects of verbal participation in small group discussion. In J. T. E. Richardson, M. W. Eysenck, & D. W. Piper (Eds.), Student learning. Research in education and psychology (pp. 147–154). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289–316.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools for schools and corporations. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566–593.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37–54). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11–16.
Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning – Some explanatory notes. Medical Education, 27(5), 422–432.
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (2000). Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning: A review of research. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 19–52). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory models in the processing of science text: The role of prior knowledge activation through small-group discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 610–619.
Schmidt, H. G., Van der Molen, H. T., Te Winkel, W. W. R., & Wijnen, W. H. F. W. (2009). Constructivist, problem-based, learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 227–249.
Solomon, K. O., Medin, D. L., & Lynch, E. (1999). Concepts do more than categorize. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(3), 99–105.
Van den Hurk, M. M., Wolfhagen, I., Dolmans, D., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1999). The impact of student-generated learning issues on individual study time and academic achievement. Medical Education, 33(11), 808–814.
Van den Hurk, M. M., Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2001). Testing a causal model for learning in a problem-based curriculum. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 6(2), 141–149.
Visschers-Pleijers, A. J., Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I. H., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. (2004). Exploration of a method to analyze group interactions in problem-based learning. Medical Teacher, 26(5), 471–478.
Visschers-Pleijers, A. J., Dolmans, D., de Leng, B. A., Wolfhagen, I., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2006). Analysis of verbal interactions in tutorial groups: A process study. Medical Education, 40(2), 129–137.
Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2009). Evidence for constructive, self-regulatory, and collaborative processes in problem-based learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(2), 251–273. doi:10.1007/S10459-008-9105-7.
Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Is learning in problem-based learning cumulative? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(4), 449–464. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9267-y.
Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What students learn in problem-based learning: A process analysis. Instructional Science, 40(2), 371–395. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9181-6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yew, E.H.J., Schmidt, H.G. (2012). The Process of Student Learning in One-Day, One-Problem. In: O'Grady, G., Yew, E., Goh, K., Schmidt, H. (eds) One-Day, One-Problem. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4021-75-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4021-75-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-4021-74-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-4021-75-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)