Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in Undergraduate Education: Design Thinking to Redesign Courses

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347558030

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in Undergraduate Education: Design Thinking

to Redesign Courses

Conference Paper · January 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-16-0119-4_28

CITATIONS

READS

524

10 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Idea-Inspire View project

Diagnostics for All View project

Shakuntala Acharya

Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati

19 PUBLICATIONS38 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Apoorv Naresh Bhatt

Indian Institute of Science

12 PUBLICATIONS24 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Amaresh Chakrabarti

Indian Institute of Science

254 PUBLICATIONS5,292 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Venkata Santosh Kumar Delhi

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay

47 PUBLICATIONS193 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jan Carel Diehl on 22 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 28

Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

in Undergraduate Education: Design

Thinking to Redesign Courses

Shakuntala Acharya , Apoorv Naresh Bhatt, Amaresh Chakrabarti,

Venkata S. K. Delhi, Jan Carel Diehl, Ellen van Andel, Andrius Jurelionis,

Laura Stasiuliene, Luis De Jussilainen Costa, and Riina Subra

Abstract Problem-based learning (PBL) has profound implications on the moti-

vations of the student to learn and is known to help develop critical thinking,

complex problem-solving, self-learning, collaboration and communication skills,

thereby enabling fresh graduates to be industry-ready. However, most institutes of

higher education in South Asia offering undergraduate programmes have instruc-

tional and didactic pedagogical systems. The Erasmus + project, ‘Strengthening

S. Acharya (

) · A. N. Bhatt · A. Chakrabarti

Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

e-mail: [email protected]

A. N. Bhatt

e-mail: [email protected]

A. Chakrabarti

e-mail: [email protected]

V. S. K. Delhi

Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India

e-mail: venkatad@iitb.ac.in

J. C. Diehl · E. van Andel

Delft Institute of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

e-mail: [email protected]

E. van Andel

e-mail: [email protected]

A. Jurelionis · L. Stasiuliene

Kaunas Institute of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

e-mail: [email protected]

L. Stasiuliene

e-mail: [email protected]

L. De Jussilainen Costa · R. Subra

Aalto University, Aalto, Finland

e-mail: luis.dejussilainencosta@aalto.ﬁ

R. Subra

e-mail: riina.subra@aalto.ﬁ

A. Chakrabarti et al. (eds.), Design for Tomorrow–Volume 2, Smart Innovation, Systems

and Technologies 222, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0119-4_28

349

350 S. Acharya et al.

Problem-based Learning in South Asian Universities’ (PBL South Asia) aims to

build capacity of the South Asian partner institutes by collaboratively developing best

practices in PBL for undergraduate education, bringing expertise and experience of

peers from across Europe and India. Therefore, to gain beneﬁts of the PBL approach,

the redesign of existing courses was undertaken and the novel strategy of conducting

a Design Thinking workshop to do so, was engaged. During the ﬁve-day workshop,

faculties from the institutes in Nepal and Bhutan, who are most well aware of the

challenges, shortcomings and strengths of their curriculum, were mentored step-by-

step, by their Indian and European peers, who have more experience in delivering

PBL courses. Backed by the strategy of Design Thinking, the complex problem-

solving activity of course design was addressed systematically, and the ﬁve institutes

proposed redesigned courses which are currently in the process of implementation.

28.1 Introduction

India, Nepal and Bhutan share a common history with respect to modern education

practices and have a similar institutional and curricular construct for undergrad-

uate, technical programmes. Graduate programmes are offered either on univer-

sity campuses or in afﬁliated colleges, and a national-level body usually oversees

curriculum development on technical education, such as All India Council for Tech-

nical Education (AICTE) in India and Nepal Engineering Council (NEC) in Nepal.

Though the evaluation schemes may vary, the overall assessment is conducted as a

common examination across all colleges afﬁliated to a university. A survey across

South Asian universities r evealed that the undergraduate curricula are predominantly

instructional and not adequately hands-on due to several constraints, such as

•

University-directed lesson plans with heavy syllabi to cover and restricted time

for practical activities;

•

A fewer number of co-instructors to guide in practical, real-world issues that can

be addressed in courses;

•

Dearth of motivation in students to self-learn and innovate during the stipulated

practical hours within a course;

•

Poor critical-thinking ability due to a general lack of awareness on sustainable

development goals and their local implications in the students;

•

Fewer collaborations in these courses and

•

Poor communication skills.

Literature corroborates that in traditional engineering education [1]:

– Programs are content-driven instead of need-driven and do not provide sufﬁcient

design experiences to students.

– Students lack communication skills and teamwork experience, as well as

awareness about social, environmental, economic and legal issues.

28 Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in Undergraduate Education … 351

– Faculties lack practical experience and are not able to adequately relate theory

to practice or provide design experiences, having outdated teaching and learning

strategies.

Therefore, to address the above shortcomings and constraints, the introduction of

problem-based learning (PBL) as a pedagogical approach is proposed as it is known

to support the development of speciﬁc skills, such as critical thinking; complex

problem solving, self-learning, due to increased motivation and engagement; collab-

oration and people management and communication [2] and can be implemented

without altering the existing course content that is approved by the governing body

or university.

This paper presents the unique proposition of using a ‘Design Thinking’ process

to guide the redesign of existing courses into PBL courses.

28.2 Literature Review

28.2.1 Design Thinking

‘Design Thinking’, as a descriptive model of creative problem-solving, has its roots in

architecture and industrial design practice [3]. It is deﬁned as a cognitive process [4]

of identifying and resolving ‘wicked’ or ill-deﬁned problems through iterative stages

and activities. Literature notes that this approach is viewed through various lenses,

from being a process of reﬂective practice to being a systematic problem-solving

methodology.

Stanford’s d.school Design Thinking process [5] and IDEO human-centred

design model [6] are among the most renowned, entailing ﬁve nonlinear activi-

ties, namely Empathize—Deﬁne—Ideate—Prototype—Test. These two models stem

from human-centred design principles, whereas several other systematic design

approaches, such as Cross [4], Pahl and Bietz [7], Hubka and Eder [8], Dieter and

Schmidt [9], Eppinger and Ulrich [10] are prevalent in engineering practice. The

latter models propose stage-wise progression from problem identiﬁcation to concept

selection, supported by several methods and tools. While each model has its relevance

depending on the problem at hand, they may be broadly described by the following

four steps [11]:

•

Step 1: Identiﬁcation of requirements generated and clariﬁed against needs,

through observations, interviews, role-play, stakeholder analysis and checklists;

•

Step 2: Ideation of solutions through creative methods such as brainstorming and

SCAMPER;

•

Step 3: Consolidation of solutions into feasible solutions through for example

TRIZ and morphological chart method and

352 S. Acharya et al.

•

Step 4: Selection of the most promising solution as concept from among all other

alternatives, upon evaluation by methods such as weighted objectives and concept

selection methods.

28.2.2 Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

Problem-based learning (PBL) is an ‘instructional (and curricular) learner-centred

approach that empowers learners to conduct research, integrate theory and practice

and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable s olution to a deﬁned problem’

[12]. This method was developed and implemented in McMaster University around

1965 and is based on the theory that learning is a process in which the learner

actively constructs knowledge [13]. It is deﬁned as a ‘focused, experiential learning

organized around the investigation and resolution of messy, real-world problems’

[14] in which students learn through ‘facilitated problem-solving that centres on a

complex problem that does not have a single correct answer’ [15].

Six core characteristics of PBL [16] are identiﬁed as follows:

1. Learning is student-centred: Students take responsibility for their own learning,

identify the knowledge that is required to learn and determine the way/resources

to get information by themselves.

2. Learning occurs in small student groups: A group generally consists of ﬁve

to nine students who work together along with a tutor. Students share their

knowledge and learn from others, and learning happens in collaboration.

3. Teachers are facilitators or guides: Tutor asks students typically questions to

better understand and manage the problem.

4. Problems form the organizing focus and stimulus for learning: Problems repre-

sent the challenges students will face in real life and provide t he relevance and

motivation for learning. Students realize what they will need to learn in order

to solve the problem.

5. Problems are a vehicle for the development of problem-solving skills: The

problem format is in the same way that it occurs in the real world (ill-structured,

complex) which allow students to inquire the problem deeper. The students do

not restrict to a single subject; instead, they focus on integrating information

from many disciplines.

6. New information is acquired through self-directed learning: The students are

expected to learn from the world’s knowledge and accumulated expertise by

virtue of their own study and research.

There are many variants of PBL as it can be modiﬁed according to domain or

subject, individual course requirements or institute traditions, and can be imple-

mented at a chapter level, course level or even curriculum level. Broadly, every

variant has two phases, namely a collaborative-learning phase and a self-directed

learning phase. A single phase alone has insufﬁcient impact on learning in PBL [17].

An exemplary PBL structure is given below:

28 Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in Undergraduate Education … 353

•

The PBL process starts with an ill-deﬁned, real-life problem formulated by

tutor/teacher.

•

Students in small groups start analysing the given problem systematically and try

to reach a consensus on the meaning or implication of the problem based on the

terms and concepts of the domain, subject or topic.

•

Next, they construct a tentative theory explaining the phenomena or events

described in the problem-at-hand in terms of its underlying principles or mech-

anisms and identify the facts that they already know and what they require to

know in order to solve the problem. Thus, learning issues for individual study are

formulated. These learning issues usually consist of questions arising from the

discussions.

•

Students search and evaluate resources which can be useful to learn problem

domain and pursue these issues through individual, self-directed learning usually

using a variety of resources: books, articles, movies and Internet sites, where tutor

scaffolding takes place.

•

Students return to their t utorial group, review and share what they have learned,

propose the solution and elaborate on different aspects of it. Together they discuss

and explore the extent to which the students understanding of the problem have

developed and whether misconceptions remain that need to be addressed.

•

Students self-evaluate and evaluate others in the group (peer evaluation).

Curriculum-wide PBL implementation and single-course PBL implementation

show similar ﬁndings according to earlier studies [17, 18]. PBL has been found to

have profound implications on the motivations of the student to learn, stating that

‘the freedom to select their (students) own resources to answer the learning issues

gives them ownership over their learning’, [19] and the onus of ensuring retained

motivation falls on the shoulders of the students as peer–teacher [20]. The role of

the mentor is to assure the students and allow constructive discussion while not

interfering with the process. The teacher or tutor may also be the mentor. However, the

key responsibilities of the tutor are formulating a contextually appropriate problem

and facilitating the learning by helping students manage metacognitive activities by

providing ‘triggers’.

The key element driving PBL is the ‘problem’. It guides self-learning and problem-

solving and, in turn, develops the other critical skills. Subject or topical problems and

learning objectives for a domain maybe considered universal and are well-structured,

less complex and domain-speciﬁc. However, ‘real-world’ problems are ill-structured,

more complex and cover knowledge of multiple domains [21], and its context is

subjectively unique to South Asia. Consequently, borrowing of existing courses

and their deﬁned problems from European curricula would not be appropriate. The

revised literature also states that different cognitive skills are required to solve well-

structured or classroom problems versus ill-structured or real-life problems [22],

thereby reﬂecting that it is inadequate for students to merely be able to solve class-

room problems as it has little to no bearing on their abilities for post-undergraduate

studies.

The two critical attributes of a ‘problem’ are as follows [22]:

354 S. Acharya et al.

1. A problem must be an unknown entity in some situation (the difference between

a goal state and a current state) varying from algorithmic math problems to

complex societal problems, such as violence in the schools.

2. Finding or solving for the unknown must have some social, cultural or

intellectual value, i.e. someone believes that it is worth ﬁnding the unknown.

Problem complexity is deﬁned by the number of issues, functions or variables

involved in the problem; the degree of connectivity among those properties; the

type of functional relationships among those properties and the stability among the

properties of the problem over time [23]. Problem statement may be formulated

with respect to general guidelines in the form of a checklist [24] or criteria identi-

ﬁed for constructing problem [25]. Therefore, formulating contextually appropriate

problems for South Asian undergraduate students is important.

28.3 Descriptive Study—Redesigning Courses with Design

Thinking

A ﬁve-day workshop was conducted at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Banga-

lore, with the intent to redesign existing courses into PBL courses, to be implemented

in the partnering universities of Nepal and Bhutan for the ﬁnal year undergraduate

students.

28.3.1 Methodology

The workshop had 24 participants comprising 12 faculties from the ﬁve South Asian

partner universities in Nepal and Bhutan as the key course designers, supported by

12 faculty and research associates from the Indian and European Universities.

Four teams were devised (Table 28.1), based on two factors—(1) status of insti-

tute: (S1) autonomous or (S2) afﬁliated; and (i2) intervention s ought: (i1) process

and PBL methodology focus; (i2) domain and technical focus and (i3) Soft skill

focus. While the status of the institute reﬂects the ability of the institute to imple-

ment the proposed redesigned PBL course, the three broad areas of focus for course

development were clariﬁed from previous surveys and need assessments. The four

teams were as follows.

Table 28.1 Team composition

(i1) Process and

Methodology focus

(i2) Domain and Technical

focus

(i3) Soft skill focus

(S1) Autonomous Team 1 Team 3

(S2) Afﬁliated Team 2 Team 4

28 Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in Undergraduate Education … 355

The workshop was planned, such that each day would emulate a stage of the design

process, as elucidated by the Design Thinking steps discussed above and, in turn, had

(1) tutoring sessions, where the speciﬁc design stage and its methods were taught to

support the course redesigning task, as well as for further dissemination during the

course; (2) collaborative-learning sessions, where each team consisting of the ‘course

designers’ and mentors co-created the solution. Apart from this, expert practitioners

of PBL presented cases and examples of PBL course or curricula implementation in

India and Europe. At the same time, self-learning sessions were encouraged prior to

or during the off hours of the workshop.

The program for the workshop was as follows:

Day 1—Team building

Day 2—Identiﬁcation/exploration

Day 3—Conceptualisation/ideation

Day 4—Consolidation/discussion

Day 5—Selection/reﬂection and presentation.

The teams were provided with a template for ‘proposal of a new course/PBL

course adaptation’. It provided an overall guideline for development and implemen-

tation of each proposed course and highlighted the essential elements that need to be

addressed, apart from the individual requirement of each course and syllabus.

28.3.2 Results

On the ﬁnal day of the workshop, the teams presented their proposed ‘solutions’ for

each of the focus areas and drew discussions, reﬂections and insights to conceptualize

institute-speciﬁc, redesign of their course with adoption of the PBL approach. An

example of such a proposal, detailed with respect to the provided template, is given

below.

28.3.2.1 Current Course Description and Justiﬁcation for Change

This course will teach additional practical skills related to integrated circuit building

(including the prototyping of the printed circuit board and integrated circuit) and

knowledge of scale integration that are currently missing in the existing course.

These missing skills, along with the recent course, will be taught by using PBL

methods.

356 S. Acharya et al.

28.3.2.2 Problem Identiﬁcation

Overview of the Intervention needed is as Follows

Aim: To change the conventional passive learning into active, problem-based

learning.

1. Course to be redesigned: Integrated Digital Electronics (Credits: 3) Level:

B.Eng., 3rd Year, 1st Sem

2. Course Objective: To impart knowledge different types of Logic Gates, Memory

and Switching Systems and apply the same through PBL approach.

3. Duration: One Semester, 15 weeks

4. Learning Outcomes: On course completion, students should be able to:

(a) Develop different digital logic gates using semi-conductor components.

(b) Analyse, design, simulate and implement digital logic circuits.

mance.

(d) Classify different semiconductor memories.

(e) Acquire the knowledge to address real-life applications of digital logic

gates.

5. Learning Objectives: Students must be capable of:

(a) Independently managing a project;

(b) Solving real-life problems using digital logic gates/electronics;

(d) Working in teams collaboratively, manage projects and people, show

leadership; and

(e) Communicating one’s ideas and concepts with clarity.

The Formulated List of Requirements Are Below

1. Course must have the following PBL course elements and ensure that the time

is adequately planned:

(a) Lecture ( L) delivery time

(b) Tutorial (T ) time for mentoring/facilitating time

(d) Students’ collaboration time

(e) Communication time—presentations (Pr)

2. Course must imbibe PBL through several ‘triggers’ and ‘methods’ that aid the

process.

3. Course Plan must have the stipulated minimum number of hours per week, as

per University:

(a) 3 h/week—Lectures (L) or Tutorials (T )

28 Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in Undergraduate Education … 357

(b) 1 h/week—Presentation (Pr)

4. Internal Evaluation Scheme is required, with the consultation of the department,

as ﬁnal exam will be conducted as per University.

5. Availability and access to dedicated Team workspace/prototyping space.

28.3.2.3 Ideation and Solution Consolidation

Teams used several ideation techniques to generate various sub-solutions with respect

to the requirements identiﬁed earlier and consolidated the same into solution variants

(Tables 28.2 and 28.3).

Table 28.2 Activities and skills for each PBL course elements

Course elements

L: Lecture T: Tutorial P: Practical F: Fieldwork Pr: Presentation

Lecture

delivery

Assignment mentorship Simulation Industry visit Presentation/communication

Question

answer

session

Analytical thinking and

self-learning

Testing Survey Data

collection

Report writing/collaboration

Group

discussion/

collaboration

Problem ﬁnding/

identiﬁcation

Prototyping Problem

reformulation

Evaluation (by instructor)

problem-solving/ideation Solution

validation

Feedback (from instructor,

mentor, peer)

Feedback

Table 28.3 Mapping of PBL course elements to each chapter/unit of course

Chapter/Unit Topic/Course details L T P F Pr

1 Review of BJT and MOS ✔ ✔ ✔

2 Resistor–transistor logic (RTL) and

integrated–injection logic (IIL)

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

3 Diode–transistor logic (DTL) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

4 Transistor–transistor l ogic (TTL) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

5 Emitter–couple logic (ECL) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

6 NMOS and CMOS logic ✔ ✔

7 Comparison of logic families ✔ ✔

8 Memories ✔ ✔ ✔

9 Switches

L stands for ‘lecture’, for T stands for ‘tutorial’, P stands for ‘practical’, F stands for ‘ﬁeldwork’,

and Pr stands for ‘presentation’

358 S. Acharya et al.

Table 28.4 Proposal for internal evaluation scheme

Attendance Scheduled test Laboratory test Presentation Report Prototyping/ Total

5 10 5 10 5 + 5 10 50

28.3.2.4 Concept: Selection of the Most Promising Solution

Teams evaluated the solution variants and selected the most promising as ‘concept’

to further detail, as described in Tables 28.4 and 28.5.

Table 28.5 Week-wise course plan

Week PBL tasks Roles and responsibility Notes

1 Course introduction,

orientation of teaching

methodology, timeline,

evaluation criteria

Instructor Introducing PBL

2–4 Lecture delivery,

laboratory work,

problem identiﬁcation

and analysis

Instructor and supporting

laboratory staff

Classroom and laboratory

activities

5–6 Case preparation/ﬁeld

visit followed by

presentation and

preliminary report

submission

Instructor, mentor and

supporting staff

Group formation, literature

review, domain

identiﬁcation, ﬁeld visit

7–9 Problem-solving

assignments, group

discussion, lectures,

laboratory works and

mentoring

Instructor, mentor and

supporting laboratory staff

Brainstorming, classroom

and laboratory activities

9 Mid-term presentation

/assignment evaluation

Instructor, mentor Group discussion, feedback

collection

10 Incorporating the

feedback and

generating ﬁnal

outcome

Students Modiﬁcation, prototyping

11 Deliverables Students Prototyping, assignment

submission

12 Deliverables Students Final presentation and report

submission

13–14 Preparation week Student

15 Final assessment,

university examination

Student

28 Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in Undergraduate Education … 359

28.3.3 Discussions

The proposed courses were conceptualized through a systematic approach and miti-

gated the conﬂicts between current practice, university demands and the unorthodox

approach of PBL. The resulting course plans and evaluation schemes mapped onto

the PBL methodology elements were selected upon extensive discussion and evalu-

ation with the mentors/ course co-creators from the other partner universities, from

India and Europe, with expertise and experience in PBL.

28.4 Summary, Conclusions and Discussions

Problem-based learning is a pedagogical approach where students pursue self-

learning of a subject or domain, driven by real-world problems. This approach is

reported to be effective in inculcating hard and soft skills needed to be industry-

ready. However, present undergraduate programs in South Asia are instructional and

content-heavy, thereby requiring redesign to incorporate PBL methodology. Design

Thinking, a creative approach towards problem ﬁnding and solving, is employed

during a ﬁve-day workshop to guide the redesign process and develop a course

proposal for each of the participating institutes of Nepal and Bhutan, mentored by

Indian and European partner universities. The use of Design Thinking allowed the

faculty course designers to identify several issues from different perspectives, ideate

large number of solutions, consolidate them into viable solutions and select the most

promising one to further detail. At present, these proposals are being implemented

at the home institutes and gathering feedback is in progress.

Acknowledgements and Disclaimer This publication is part of the ‘Strengthening Problem-

based Learning in South Asian Universities’ (PBL South Asia) project, co-funded by the Erasmus

+ programme of the European Union*. Acknowledgements to the faculty participants from across

ﬁve countries and ten partner universities, namely Aalto University, Finland; Indian Institute of

Science (IISc) and Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IITB), India; Kaunas University of Tech-

nology (KTU), Lithuania; TU Delft, The Netherlands; JNEC, Royal University of Bhutan, Bhutan;

and Kathmandu University, Asian Institute of Technology and Management (AITM), Sagarmatha

Engineering College and Nepal Engineering College, Nepal.

*The European Commission’s support for the production of this publication does not constitute

an endorsement of the contents, which reﬂect the views only of the authors, and the commission

cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

References

1. Mills, J.E., Treagust, D.F.: Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning

the answer. Aust. J. Eng. Educ 3(2), 2–16 (2003)

360 S. Acharya et al.

2. Duch, B.J., Groh, S.E., Allen, D.E.: The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how

to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Publishing, LLC (2001)

3. Lawson, B. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystiﬁed. Routledge (2006).

4. Cross, N.: Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues

17(3), 49–55 (2001)

5. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Weinberg, U.: Design-Thinking. Mi-Fachverlag, Landsberg am Lech

(2009)

6. Brown, T., Wyatt, J.: Design thinking for social innovation. Dev. Outreach 12(1), 29–43 (2010)

7. Beitz, W., Pahl, G., Grote, K.: Engineering design: a systematic approach (1996)

8. Hubka, V., Eder, W.E.: Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering

Design. Springer (2012).

9. Dieter, G.E., Schmidt, L.C.: Engineering Design. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Boston

(2009)

10. Eppinger, S., Ulrich, K.: Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill Higher Education

(2015)

11. Bhaumik, R., Bhatt, A., Kumari, M.C., Menon, S.R., Chakrabarti, A.: A gamiﬁed model of

design thinking for fostering learning in children. In: Research into Design for a Connected

World, pp. 1023–1036. Springer, Singapore (2019)

12. Savery, J.R.: Overview of problem-based learning: Deﬁnitions and distinctions. Essential read-

ings in problem-based learning: Exploring a nd extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows 9,

5–15 (2015)

13. Gijselaers, W.H.: Connecting problem-based practices with educational theory. In New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, pp. 13–22 (1996)

14. Torp, L., Sage, S.: Problems as Possibilities: Problem-Based Learning for K-16 Education

(2002)

15. Hmelo-Silver, C.E.: Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ. Psychol.

Rev. 16(3), 235–266 (2004)

16. Barrows, H.S.:What Your Tutor May Never Tell You: A Medical Student’s Guide to Problem-

based Learning (PBL). Southern Illinois University School of Medicine (1996)

17. Schmidt, H.G., Van der Molen, H.T., Te Winkel, W.W.R., Wijnen, W.H.F.W.: Constructivist,

problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a

single medical school. Educ. Psychol. 44(4), 227–249 (2009)

18. Birgegård, G., Lindquist, U.: Change in student attitudes to medical school after the introduction

of problem-based learning in spite of low ratings. Med. Educ. 32(1), 46–49 (1998)

19. Dolmans, D.H., Loyens, S.M., Marcq, H., Gijbels, D.: Deep and surface learning in problem-

based learning: a review of the literature. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 21(5), 1087–1112 (2016)

20. Caswell, C.A.: Design and facilitation of problem-based learning in graduate teacher education:

An MA TESOL case. Interdiscip. J. Problem-Based Learn. 11(1) (2017)

21. Jonassen, D.H.: Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-

solving learning outcomes. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 45(1), 65–94 (1997)

22. Jonassen, D.H.: Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 48(4), 63–85

(2000)

23. Funke, J.: Solving complex problems: Exploration and control of complex systems. In: Complex

Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms, pp. 185–222 (1991)

24. Delisle, R. How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Ascd (1997)

25. Marchais, J.E.D.: A Delphi technique to identify and evaluate criteria for construction of PBL

problems. Med. Educ. 33(7), 504–508 (1999)

View publication stats