Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6
6
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232947104
CITATIONS
READS
11
360
4 authors, including:
Mar Carri
Josep-E Banos
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Jorge Prez
University Pompeu Fabra
40 PUBLICATIONS 300 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Research Group on Innovative Education in Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life
Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
Available online: 1 January 2011
To cite this article: M. Carri, P. Larramona, J.E. Baos & J. Prez (2011): The effectiveness of the hybrid problem-based
learning approach in the teaching of biology: a comparison with lecture-based learning, Journal of Biological Education,
DOI:10.1080/00219266.2010.546011
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2010.546011
Research paper
The effectiveness of the hybrid
problem-based learning approach in
the teaching of biology: a comparison
with lecture-based learning
Introduction
The use of problem-based learning (PBL) in college
education has spread extensively during recent decades. It has been suggested that PBL is better than
the traditional approaches (lecture-based learning,
LBL) for acquiring the generic skills needed for scientific careers, such as cooperative working, integration of information, critical thinking, communication
skills and self-directed learning (Dolmans et al.
2005). In the PBL approach, complex and realistic
problems are used to trigger students analytic thinking and to generate the adequate questions to solve
them. To this end, they need to identify the knowledge, concepts and principles they need to learn in
order to answer the proposed questions and to apply
Corresponding author: Mar Carrio, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Dr. Aiguader, 80,
08003 Barcelona, Spain. Email: mar.carrio@upf.edu.
Journal of Biological Education ISSN 0021-9266 print/ISSN 2157-6009 online 2011 Society of Biology
http://www.informaworld.com
DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2010.546011
ET AL. _______________________________________________________________________________________________
M. CARRIO
discussion from moving away from the main objectives of the problem (Barrows 1988; De Grave et al.
1999).
There is some evidence of the effectiveness of
PBL in developing critical thinking (Tiwari et al.
2006), acquiring professional skills (Berkson 1993)
and generating students interest and motivation
(Michel et al. 2002; Vernon and Blake 1993). Studies
carried out at Harvard University have shown that
PBL students believed that this method helped them
to develop humanistic and social skills and that the
programme influenced their thinking about professional issues (Peters et al. 2000). Nevertheless, there
is some scepticism about the effectiveness of PBL for
learning basic science subjects. Some comparisons
between the PBL and LBL approaches have been
performed in medical students, which generally show
that factual knowledge is similar in both groups
(Albano et al. 1996; Blake et al. 2000; Farquhar et al.
1986; Kaufman and Mann 1998). However, such
comparative studies are lacking for students of biological sciences, where basic subjects might be considered even more important than in the training of
medical students.
In 2004, our school began a pilot study devoted
to exploring how to adapt the bachelor of biology to
the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), following the Bologna Declaration. One of the cornerstones of the study has been the introduction of PBL
activities in the traditional curriculum to explore the
feasibility of creating a hybrid model of teaching.
With this aim, 20% of the teaching time was devoted
to PBL activities, whereas the remaining time was
used in traditional teaching activities such as lectures,
lab courses and seminars. This process was started
with first-year students and has since spread to the
entire curriculum. Problems that were later used in
PBL tutorials were built using the educational objectives of the subjects of each term. With this experience, faculty members from different disciplines were
involved in writing interdisciplinary cases and participating as tutors in the group sessions as well.
To permit the inclusion of PBL activities in the
students activities, the time devoted to lectures was
cut by 20% and transferred to PBL tutorials. This
option was questioned by some faculty members, as
they worried about the possibility that this reduction
in lecturing would reduce the acquisition of the factual knowledge that students would need in the following years.
The present study was designed to test the
hypothesis that effectiveness of hybrid PBL model
(H-PBL) and traditional curriculum, mainly based on
lectures (lecture-based learning, LBL), to learn factual
knowledge was similar. To prove it, two groups of
second-year students taken from consecutive years,
the first educated only in LBL and the second in HPBL, were compared to assess their recall of factual
Participants
Data were collected from two consecutive cohorts of
second-year students, the first educated only in LBL
and the second in H-PBL. Sixty students were initially available for each cohort.
PBL activities
Nine problems, which integrate the different subjects
of the first year, were prepared by the different
teachers and reviewed by the PBL activitys coordinators (Mar Carrio and Josep Eladi Banos) in order
to guarantee the problems quality and their ability
to reach the educational objectives of the pilot study
described previously. Accordingly, they included specific learning objectives from the different subjects of
the first year of the degree (Table 1).
Students worked in groups of 810 during the full
academic year (nine months). They spent three
weeks on solving each problem, accounting for nine
different problems for each year. They had two
working sessions per week, one with the tutor and
one with the group alone. The activity started with a
session in which, first of all, each tutor introduced
the problem and then students stated the main questions from the text, identified their knowledge deficiencies, had brainstorming sessions, proposed
hypotheses, listed the learning objectives which
would constitute their study plan and distributed the
tasks among the members of the group. After this
session, students individually researched one or more
topics in order to share the findings with their peers
in the next meetings. In the second session, students
met without the tutor and presented their research;
they had to integrate the new, acquired information
and use it to continue the analysis of the problem. In
the third session, they met again with the tutor to
discuss their research and the new knowledge they
had acquired. The role of the tutor was focused on
stimulating the students to argue their previously
Subjects
Specific educative
objectives
Problem context
To analyse radioactivity
applied to biomedicine
Zoology and
chemistry
Physics and
zoology
Anthropology
and botany
To analyse non-lineal
evolution
To relate genes to culture
coevolution
To analyse angiosperm
evolution
To identify Paleoclimates
through pollen analysis
Biochemistry
and
mathematics
Biochemistry
and botany
To identify mechanisms
involved in texture
and fruit composition
To describe maturation fruit
regulation
To analyse transgenic plant
engineering
Anatomy,
physiology and
cytology
To describe the
musculoskeletal system
To relate sport to skeletal
muscle
Anatomy,
physiology and
cytology
To analyse endocytosis
alterations that can cause heart
attacks
Anatomy,
physiology and
cytology
ET AL. _______________________________________________________________________________________________
M. CARRIO
Statistical analysis
Statistical comparisons were carried out using several
tests. A t-test was used to compare the mean scores
of both groups. Data were also compared considering
Results
Comparison of factual knowledge
acquisition between LBL and H-PBL
students
The LBL cohort comprised 52 students, whereas the
H-PBL group included 42 students. The mean scores
for the MCQ exam were 5.5 (SD=1.5) and 5.2
(SD=1.4) for LBL and H-PBL students, respectively.
SAQ scores were lower for both cohorts, being 3.8
(SD=1.4) and 3.8 (SD=1.6). These values did not
show statistically significant difference (Table 2).
A more detailed analysis comparing students of
each cohort that reached the threshold score in
MCQ and SAQ tests did not show statistical differences either (Table 3). Additionally, the qualitative
analysis of the results does not show significant differences between both cohorts. While LBL students
answered five MCQ and one SAQ items better than
H-PBL students, the H-PBL answered better in
three MCQ and two SAQ items. The individual
questions difficulty index does not show any statistically significant differences between cohorts (data not
shown).
The voluntary questionnaire assessing the self-perception of acquired competences was answered by 72%
and 87% of students and teachers, respectively.
As shown in Figure 1, the level of competence
acquisition was between 5.9 and 7.9. No significant
differences were obtained between students and
teachers perception on competences acquisition.
However, while students rated cooperative work and
information management as the best reinforced competences, teachers highlighted information management and writing communication skills. Most
competences were evaluated higher by students compared to teachers.
Discussion
The introduction of new teaching methods in curricula dominated by traditional educational approaches
is always a conflicting issue among faculty members.
Many reasons are invoked to defeat such changes, a
drop in knowledge acquisition being the most critical. If it can be demonstrated that such concerns are
unfounded then the door to further innovation will
be opened. With this aim, the present study was
planned as a controlled experiment to determine
whether there is a difference in student learning,
measured by fact retention, after using the H-PBL or
LBL approaches. This study has shown that there
were no significant differences between both educational strategies in global, MCQ or SAQ scores.
Even when a difference in other learning aspects
cannot be excluded, these results give an important
clue to the probability that PBL does not negatively
affect the acquisition and retention of factual knowledge, at least when used as a hybrid method.
This study does raise several questions. The first is
related to the possibility that the results of our study
Table 2.
MCQ
SAQ
MCQ
SAQ
Passed
Failed
Passed
Failed
LBL cohort
35
17
12
40
H-PBL cohort
24
18
10
32
v2
1.3
p
0.31 NS
0.01
0.93 NS
Passed
Failed
Passed
Failed
LBL cohort
35
17
12
40
H-PBL cohort
24
18
10
32
v2
1.3
p
0.31 NS
0.01
0.93 NS
Notes. Results are expressed by mean (scale 110) and standard deviation (SD) parameters for the LBL (n=52) and H-PBL cohorts (n=42).
MCQ, multiple choice questions; SAQ, short answered questions.
ET AL. _______________________________________________________________________________________________
M. CARRIO
Table 3. Comparison using v2 test of the exam scores by pass (>5/10) or fail (<5/10) scores
for the LBL (n=52) and H-PBL cohorts (n=42) in each type of exam
LBL cohort
MCQ
SAQ
H-PBL cohort
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Students t
5.5
3.8
1.5
1.4
5.2
3.8
1.4
1.6
1.2 NS
0.2 NS
study to test the differences in solving problems and scientific competences between both cohorts.
Educational implications
This study provides experimental evidence that supports the assumption that the H-PBL approach does
not affect the students factual knowledge acquisition,
when compared with more traditional lecture-based
learning. This is especially important if we consider
the usefulness of PBL in developing generic and scientific skills. With PBL tutorials, students are confronted with complex problems, which do not
usually have only one definite solution. They may
have to look for solutions creatively, make decisions,
work in a cooperative group and deal with uncertainty. These skills are often ignored in higher-education curricula, but they are very important for
students who will base their profession on scientific
activity and they will need to make decisions under
uncertain situations. Also, the curricula organisation
using PBL permits the integration of different disciplines and the incorporation of social issues in the
professional practice, which may enforce professional
and citizen responsibility.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Hypothesis Argumentation Synthesising Data analysis
Oral
Written
Cooperative
formulation
communication communication
work
Information
Time
management management
Figure 1. Students (black bars) and teachers (grey bars) perception of several
competences acquired through PBL activities.
Notes: The questionnaire was answered in 2006 by students and teachers who had participated in PBL activities
for two academic years. Acquisition of each competence was rated between 0 (no acquisition) to 10 (fully
acquired). Graph values indicate the mean and the standard deviation obtained by the answered questionnaires
(43 from the students and 34 from the teachers).
Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to those who participated in
this study, especially the students who agreed to take part
and the teachers who helped in choosing the questions
and scoring the tests. We also wish to thank Dr Luis
Perez Jurado for allowing us to give the test to students
during his lessons. Special thanks to Dr Luis Branda for
his review of the manuscript and his suggestions that have
permitted us to improve a little more each day. The
English of this manuscript has been proofread by Mr
Chuck Simmonds, a native English-speaking university
instructor of English.
References
Albano, M.G., F. Cavallo, R. Hoogenboom, F. Magni, G. Majoor, F.
Manenti, L. Schuwirth, I. Stiegler, and C. Van der Vleuten. 1996. An
international comparison of knowledge levels of medical students: The
Maastricht Progress Test. Medical Education 30: 23945.
Barrows, H.S. 1988. The tutorial process. Illinois: Southern Illinois University
School of Medicine.
Berkson, L. 1993. Problem-based learning: have the expectations been met?
Academic Medicine 68, no. 10: S7988.
Blake, R.L., M.C. Hosokawa, and S.L. Riley. 2000. Student performances
on Step 1 and Step 2 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination following implementation of a problem-based learning curriculum.
Academic Medicine 5, no. 1: 6670.
Cantillon, P., L. Hutchinson, and D. Wood. 2003. ABC of learning and
teaching in medicine. London: BMJ Publishing Group.
De Grave, W.S., D.H. Dolmans, and C.P. Van der Vleuten. 1999. Profiles
of effective tutors in PBL: Scaffolding student learning. Medical Education
33: 9016.
Dolmans, D.H., W. De Grave, I.H. Wolfhagen, and C.P. Van der Vleuten.
2005. Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice
and research. Medical Education 39: 73241.
Farquhar, L.J., J. Haf, and K. Kotabe. 1986. Effect of two preclinical curricula on NBME Part I examination performance. Journal of Medical Education 61, no. 5: 36873.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E. 2004. Problem-based learning: what and how students
learn. Educational Psychology Review 16, no. 3: 23566.
Kaufman, D.M., and K.V. Mann. 1998. Comparing achievement on the
Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part I of students in
conventional and problem-based learning curricula. Academic Medicine 73:
12113.
Koh, G.C.H., H.E. Khoo, M.L. Wong, and D.K. Koh. 2008. The effects of
problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: A
systematic review. Canadian Medical Association Journal 178, no. 1: 3441.
Kolmos, A. 2002. Facilitating change to a problem-based model. International Journal of Academic Development 7: 6474.
Michel, M., A. Bischoff, and K.H. Jakobs. 2002. Comparison of problemand lecture-based pharmacology teaching. Trends in Pharmacological Science
23, no. 4: 16870.
Norman, G.R., and H.G. Schmidt. 2000. Effectiveness of problem-based
learning curricula: Theory, practice and paper darts. Medical Education 34:
7218.
Peters, A.S., R. Greenberger-Rosovsky, C. Crowder, S.D. Block, and G.T.
Moore. 2000. Long-term outcomes of the New Pathway Program at
Harvard Medical School: A randomized controlled trial. Academic Medicine 75, no. 5: 4709.
Prince, K.J., H. Van Mameren, N. Hylkema, J. Drukker, A.J. Scherpbier,
and C.P. Van Der Vleuten. 2003. Does problem-based learning lead to
deficiencies in basic science knowledge? An empirical case on anatomy.
Medical Education 37: 1521.
Tiwari, A., P. Lai, M. So, and K. Yuen. 2006. A comparison of the effects
of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students
critical thinking. Medical Education 40: 54754.
Vernon, D.T., and R.L. Blake. 1993. Does problem-based learning work? A
meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine 68, no. 7: 55063.