Skip to main content

The Process of Student Learning in One-Day, One-Problem

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
One-Day, One-Problem

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.

This chapter is partly based on work by Yew and Schmidt (2011, 2012).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S. (1988). The tutorial process. Springfield: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing Structural Equation Models, 154, 136–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Deleeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 631–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hak, T., & Maguire, P. (2000). Group process: The black box of studies on problem-based learning. Academic Medicine, 75(7), 769–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools for schools and corporations. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning – Some explanatory notes. Medical Education, 27(5), 422–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, K. O., Medin, D. L., & Lynch, E. (1999). Concepts do more than categorize. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(3), 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elaine H. J. Yew .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics