2011 Yadav Subedi JEE PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/262960638
Problem‐based Learning: Inﬂuence on Students'

Learning in an Electrical Engineering Course
Article in Journal of Engineering Education · April 2011

DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00013.x
CITATIONS READS
230 4,478
4 authors:
Aman Yadav Dipendra Subedi

Michigan State University American Institutes for Research
95 PUBLICATIONS 2,006 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 230 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Mary Lundeberg Charles F Bunting

Ringling College of Art and Design Oklahoma State University - Stillwater
68 PUBLICATIONS 2,296 CITATIONS 106 PUBLICATIONS 1,182 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
CT4EDU View project
CaBIE - Case-based Instruction in Engineering Education View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Aman Yadav on 06 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Engineering Education
April 2011, Vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 253–280
© 2011 ASEE. http://www.jee.org
Problem-based Learning: Influence on

Students’ Learning in an Electrical Engineering
Course
AMAN YADAV, DIPENDRA SUBEDIa, MARY A. LUNDEBERGb,
AND CHARLES F. BUNTINGc
Purdue University, American Institutes for Researcha, University of Wisconsin-
River Fallsb Oklahoma State Universityc
BACKGROUND
Recently, there has been a shift from using lecture-based teaching methods in undergraduate engi-
neering courses to using more learner-centered teaching approaches, such as problem-based learning.
However, research on the impact of these approaches has mainly involved student perceptions of the
teaching method and anecdotal and opinion pieces by faculty on their use of the teaching method,
rather than empirically collected data on students’ learning outcomes.
PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS)
This paper describes an investigation of the impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on undergraduate
electrical engineering students’ conceptual understanding and their perceptions of learning using PBL as
compared to lecture.
DESIGN/METHOD
Fifty-five students enrolled in an electrical engineering course at a Midwestern university participated in
this research. The study utilized a within-subjects A-B-A-B research design with traditional lecture as the
baseline phase and problem-based learning as the experimental phase of the study. Participants completed
pre- and post-tests surrounding the four topics covered in the study and also completed a Student
Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) survey.
RESULTS
Results suggested participants’ learning gains from PBL were twice their gains from traditional lecture.
Even though students learned more from PBL, students thought they learned more from traditional lec-
ture. We discuss these findings and offer implications for faculty interested in implementing PBL.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the limited research on the beneficial effects of PBL on student learning, this study provides
empirical support for PBL. We discuss findings from this study and provide specific implications for fac-
ulty and researchers interested in problem-based learning in engineering.
KEYWORDS
electrical engineering, problem-based learning, student learning
INTRODUCTION
The engineering profession requires engineers to deal with uncertainty and solve com-
plex problems of the field, sometimes with incomplete data (Mills & Treagust, 2003;
NAE, 2004). In addition, engineers need to be able to function as effective members of
253
Journal of Engineering Education 100 (April 2011) 2
teams and have strong communication and problem-solving skills (NAE, 2004). Howev-
er, today’s engineering graduates lack these skills and have difficulty applying their funda-
mental knowledge to problems of practice (Mills & Treagust, 2003; NAE, 2005; Nguyen,
1998; Vergara, et al., 2009). In addition, while science and engineering jobs experienced
annual average growth rate of 6.7% (compared to 1.6% for total employment) between
1950-2000, the attrition rate for students has steadily increased and the annual graduation
rate decreased by 20%, (Felder, Felder, & Dietz, 1998; NSB, 2008). One of the complaints
from engineering students is that the current teaching pedagogies (such as, traditional lec-
ture format) emphasize explicit instruction, working individually, and norm-reference
grading, which can make learning extrinsically motivating rather than intrinsically moti-
vating (Felder, et al., 1998). The main problem within engineering education is the gap
between the active field and the passive classroom experience (Palmquist, 2007).
In general, the traditional lecture method within engineering education is deductive,
“beginning with theories and progressing towards application of those theories” and the
instructor presents information without a discussion of why the mathematical models
are being developed and what practical problems they will solve (Prince & Felder, 2006).
This pedagogical approach falls short because the knowledge is not grounded in context
and not specific to the situation in which the task needs to take place. Dewey (1938) ar-
gued that such a traditional learning environment is too abstract and dull, leaving stu-
dents with a sense of boredom and lack of motivation because they are presented with
random information with no unifying factor. Instead, Dewey suggested that educators
needed to encourage inquiry and that education should be grounded on experience and
linked to real-life activities in order to motivate and develop students into upstanding
citizens. Dewey also equated learning with doing and viewed learning as an activity, a
process of discovery, where students need to be actively engaged in all aspects of the
learning process (Savin-Baden, 2000).
Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) further emphasized that unless knowledge is de-
veloped in the context in which it is to be used, students will gain an understanding of ab-
stract concepts, algorithms, and procedures; thus, the knowledge remains inert and stu-
dents are unable to use it. Brown and colleagues stated, “the activity in which knowledge is
developed and deployed, is not separable from or ancillary to learning and cognition.
Rather it is an integral part of what is learned” (p. 32). This is even more so the case for a
complex enterprise such as engineering, which involves making decisions with real-world
implications that carry risks and uncertain outcomes.
Recently, there has been a shift from using lecture-based teaching methods in the un-
dergraduate courses in the STEM disciplines to using a more learner-centered teaching,
such as problem-based learning (Lattuca, Terenzini, Volkwein, & Peterson, 2006). This
shift is fueled by the need for future engineers to demonstrate the use of higher order
thinking, problem solving, and more interpersonal aspects of a career, such as communica-
tion, social, and team-work skills (NAE, 2005). Specifically, the engineering field is seeing
shifts in the types of engineers needed to emerge from college who are ready to participate
as active and effective members of a global society. The National Academy of Engineers
(NAE, 2004) developed a set of attributes future engineers will have to possess to be a
competitive force within the field. Hence, it is important for engineering education to re-
examine the use of typical lecture-based teaching methodology and consider incorporating
learner-centered teaching. One such approach, problem-based learning (PBL) has the po-
tential to help students to cope with the demands of complexities of the field and problems
they will face in their future careers.
254
100 (April 2011) 2 Journal of Engineering Education
PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING
Problem-based learning (PBL) was developed in the 1950s to respond to criticism that
traditional lecture failed to prepare medical students for problem-solving in clinical settings
(Hung, Jonassen, & Liu, 2008). PBL is a non-traditional, active, inductive, student-cen-
tered approach that centers on the introduction of a real-life problem (Ehrlich, 1998). The
problem is “a complex task created by the need to design, create, build, repair, and/or im-
prove something” (Burgess, 2004, p. 42). The goals of PBL include fostering active learn-
ing, interpersonal and collaborative skills, open inquiry, real-life problem solving, critical
thinking, intrinsic motivation, and the desire to learn for a lifetime (Barrows, 1998;
Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Savin-Baden, 2000; Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Hmelo-
Silver argued that PBL allows students to construct an extensive and flexible knowledge
base, which goes beyond factual knowledge, allowing them to fluently retrieve and apply
this knowledge in varied situations. Hence, PBL allows students to move beyond the men-
tal understanding of information and learn to apply concepts to real-life formats. In addi-
tion, since the knowledge is also grounded in context, which requires the use of problem-
solving skills, educators purport that the conceptualization of knowledge better prepares
students for future careers.
Research on problem-based learning in the medical field has suggested that PBL leads
to higher problem-solving skills as compared to the traditional lecture method while being
equally effective at increasing students’ factual knowledge. For example, Antepohl and
Herzig (1999) investigated whether students learned more and were more satisfied in a
PBL course than a traditional lecture-based course using a post-test-only control group
design. One hundred and twenty-three students were randomized to either a PBL section
(N ! 63) or lecture-based section (N ! 60) of the same pharmacology course. All partici-
pants completed a written examination for pharmacology, which included 20 multiple-
choice and 10 short answer questions to measure student performance, and a questionnaire
that measured students’ preferences for PBL or lecture-based instruction. The PBL group
also completed a second questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with the PBL approach.
The authors found no significant difference between the PBL and lecture students on the
multiple-choice questions, but PBL students scored significantly higher than lecture stu-
dents on the short answer questions. In addition, greater numbers of students preferred the
PBL approach and PBL students also reported higher overall satisfaction for the course as
compared to the control group. These results demonstrate that PBL provides similar
learning benefits to lecture in terms of factual knowledge; however, PBL also leads to gains
in complex levels of knowledge, such as comprehension and analysis of problems.
Similar results were supported by a meta-analysis conducted to investigate the effects of
problem-based learning in terms of impact on knowledge and skill acquisition (Dochy,
Segers, VandenBossche, & Gijbels, 2003). Dochy and colleagues reviewed 43 empirical
articles on problem-based learning in real-life classroom settings. These studies had a vari-
ety of assessment measures that could be categorized into factual knowledge and applica-
tion of knowledge, and included measures such as the NBME licensing test, modified
essay questions, essay questions, multiple choice, oral exams, performance-based testing,
free recall, standardized patient simulation, and cases. Thirty-three studies reported data
on knowledge effect; while 25 studies reported data on application of knowledge (numbers
do not add up to 43 because several studies reported data on more than one category). The
authors found that PBL was better in allowing students to apply their knowledge (skill de-
velopment), while there were no differences on the factual knowledge (after removing two
255
outlier studies). Additionally, even though PBL students scored slightly less on factual
knowledge, they retain more of the acquired knowledge. The authors argued that PBL
students developed more elaborated knowledge due to the attention for elaboration of con-
cepts in PBL; hence they were able to better recall the knowledge.
In another meta-analysis, Gijbels, Dochy, Bossche, and Segers (2005) examined the
influence of assessment on effects of problem-based learning. They focused on three levels
of assessment: (1) understanding of concepts, (2) understanding of the principles that link
concepts, and (3) the linking of concepts and principles. The inclusion criteria yielded 40
empirical studies with 31 studies reporting data on the first level, 17 reporting data of the
second level, and 8 presenting data on the third level. The meta-analysis results demon-
strated that PBL students performed better on the second and third levels of the knowl-
edge structures, which focus on the understanding and application of the principles that
link concepts. The authors concluded that problem-based learning allowed students to ac-
celerate towards expertise.
In order to summarize PBL research, Strobel and van Barneveld (2009) conducted a
qualitative meta-synthesis to identify common and generalizable results across different
PBL meta-analyses. The authors found eight meta-analysis articles that compared PBL
method to traditional lecture. The meta-synthesis suggested that PBL was better for
“long-term retention, skill development, and satisfaction of students and teachers, while
traditional lecture was more effective for short-term retention as measured by standardized
board exams” (p. 44). However, the majority of meta-analyses focused on medical educa-
tion or a medicine related field.
In the recent decades, PBL has moved beyond medicine and has been applied in a vari-
ety of educational settings including, K-12 education, chemistry, engineering, teacher edu-
cation, educational psychology, architecture, law studies, and business (Hung et al., 2008).
The fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education has also in-
creasingly implemented problem-based learning with an increased attention and the back-
ing of the National Science Foundation during the past two decades (Eberlein et al.,
2008). The basic proposition being the use of PBL in STEM education is the same as
other fields and students will learn and retain information more effectively when it is pre-
sented, discussed, and applied to a real-life format.
Problem-based Learning in Engineering Education

One of the main aims of engineering education is “to produce broad-based, flexible
graduates who can think integratively, solve problems and be life-long learners” (En-
gineering Professors’ Conference as stated in (Matthew & Hughes, 1994), p. 234).
Given that engineers need more than just factual technical knowledge to be successful
in an ill-structured and complex environment, problem-based learning seems well
suited to prepare future engineers. Problem-based learning in engineering is a natural
fit since it espouses developing students’ ability to solve ill-defined problems, increas-
ing critical thinking skills, and broadening their communication skills (Johnson, 1999;
Prince, 2004). Additionally, PBL provides students with life-long learning skills that
they can use to effectively and efficiently acquire new skills and knowledge required in
their career as engineers (Woods, 1996). Some of the classes in engineering curricu-
lum, such as design and capstone courses, already incorporate (unintentionally) as-
pects of problem-based learning (Johnson, 1999). Several authors have also reported
explicitly implementing PBL in their engineering courses; however, such use is still
limited (Mills & Treagust, 2003).
256
In one study, Bizjak (2008) described the incorporation of PBL in an electrical engi-
neering graduate program in Slovenia. The authors found that students gained more sub-
stantial knowledge than with traditional methods, as evidenced by higher test scores. PBL
also received positive feedback from students and faculty, who completed a survey ques-
tionnaire. Specifically, students reported that PBL allowed them to gain confidence in
their problem-solving abilities, prepared them for their future careers, and improved their
interpersonal and collaborative skills. In another electrical engineering example, de
Camargo Ribiero (2008) conducted a qualitative study of student evaluation of the PBL
approach in a classroom at a university in Brazil. Students reported that the PBL approach
was more engaging and interesting as it allowed them to construct their own knowledge
instead of absorbing teachers’ words and they were able to seek information on their own
to solve problems. Students also reported that they developed specific work skills such as,
ability to research, produce syntheses, express ideas, communicate, and effectively work in
teams to develop solutions to problems. These results suggest that PBL is an effective ped-
agogical tool to engage and increase students’ interest in problem solving as well as benefi-
cial for their knowledge gains.
There have also been some programmatic implementations of problem-based learn-
ing. For example, Polanco and colleagues (2004) conducted a three-year evaluation of a
problem-based learning integrated curriculum in a second-year engineering program at
a Mexican university. The longitudinal data suggested that students taught with PBL
achieved significantly higher grades and performed better than students who received
traditional instruction in advanced engineering courses. Similarly, Woods (1996) exam-
ined the influence of a PBL curriculum on students in a chemical engineering program
at McMaster University in Canada. The results suggested that PBL students had more
positive course perceptions and scored higher on the written three-hour exam as com-
pared to the control group of engineering students. The author also found that PBL stu-
dents’ confidence in problem-solving skills and their willingness to solve challenging
problems also increased substantially compared to traditional students, suggesting that
PBL students’ attitudes aligned with open-ended problem solving and self-directed
learning. Canavan(2008) also examined problem-based learning applied to electronic
and electrical engineering at three universities in the United Kingdom. The results from
the questionnaires and interviews suggested that students preferred the PBL approach
because it allowed them to engage in deep thinking skills and assume more responsibility
for their learning. The students also reported the PBL approach fostered more generic
skills, such as communication skills, group work, critically evaluating information, and
time and task management, which are crucial in “developing versatile and confident en-
gineer of the future” (p. 179).
In spite of the recent use of more problem-based learning, research on the impact of
these approaches on students’ conceptual understanding is limited (Hung, et al., 2008;
Mills & Treagust, 2003). Gijbel and colleagues (2005) argued that claims about the
effectiveness of PBL have been exclusively based on the research from medical field and
there is dearth of research on PBL outside of medicine related fields. This is especially
true within engineering education with regard to the effectiveness of PBL on students’
problem-solving and conceptual understanding (Mills & Treagust, 2003; Prince,
2004). Research on the use of problem-based learning within engineering has mainly
involved student and/or faculty perceptions of effectiveness of this approach rather than
empirically collected data on actual student outcomes (Mills & Treagust, 2003). Given
the little research on the impact of problem-based learning on engineering students’
257
conceptual understanding, it is important to provide empirical evidence for what edu-

cational innovations, such as PBL work, and create an empirical base for their use in
engineering education. Such an empirical base is imperative to improve engineering ed-
ucation as highlighted by a recent American Society for Engineering Education report,
which suggested the need to develop a “scientifically credible and shared knowledge
base on engineering learning” (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009).
The problem-based learning approach described in the paper is based upon the floating
facilitator model and is similar to self-directed, interdependent, small group problem-based
learning (Prince & Felder, 2006; Woods, 1996). Within this PBL approach, students
work in teams of 3–5 students with the instructor facilitating students’ understanding of
the material and students are responsible for their own learning (Prince & Felder, 2006).
The problem-based learning approach used in this study is different from project-based
learning. During project-based learning students have gained the required knowledge base
through formal instruction and central focus is on the final product, where as problem-
based learning typically requires students to work on ill-structured problems while acquir-
ing necessary knowledge base to complete the task and focus is on the learning process
rather than final product (Prince & Felder, 2007).
In addition to assessing learning outcomes, we wanted to examine student perceptions
of the PBL approach and how they match with actual learning. Research from psychology
has suggested that students’ judgments of learning are not accurate predictors of their actu-
al learning outcomes (Dunlosky & Lipko, 2007; Glenberg, Wilkinson, & Epstein, 1982).
Glenberg, Wilkinson, and Epstein found that students have an “illusion of knowing” and
tend to be overconfident in their understanding of the material. Given that the majority of
the research on problem-based learning has focused on student perceptions, it is important
to examine whether perceptions are an accurate predictor for learning.
Hence, our purpose in this study was to examine the impact of problem-based learning
on students’ learning and conceptual understanding. Specifically, this study addressed the
following research questions: a) What is the influence of a problem-based learning ap-
proach on undergraduate engineering students’ conceptual understanding in an electrical
engineering course?; b) What are engineering students’ perceptions of problem-based
learning and how do they match with their learning outcomes?
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Fifty-five undergraduate students enrolled in an electrical engineering course at a large
Midwestern university participated in this study. Participants included forty-six males and
nine females, primarily juniors (N ! 32), seniors (N ! 16), and a few sophomores (N ! 7).
Forty-nine percent (N ! 27) of the participants were majoring in mechanical and aero-
space engineering; about 16% (N ! 9) in chemical engineering; about 15% in electrical
engineering (N ! 8), and the remaining were majoring in other disciplines including civil
engineering (N ! 3), biosystems engineering (N ! 3), and industrial engineering and
management, architecture (N ! 1). Two did not report their majors. The required course
provided an introduction to electrical engineering and included basic elements of electrical
engineering, AC and DC circuits, mesh and node formulation of network equations,
steady-state response to sinusoids, energy, power and power factor.
258
Procedure
This study utilized pre-post testing using an A-B-A-B research design. Specifically,
this research design involved measuring the dependent variable (i.e., students’ conceptual
understanding) both before and after the baseline phase (i.e., first A – traditional lecture
method); introducing the treatment (i.e., first B-problem-based learning) and measuring
the dependent variable before and after the treatment phase; using a second baseline mea-
sure, returning to traditional lecture methods for a third topic (i.e., second A); and, finally
re-introducing the treatment (second B). Table 1 shows the research design and topics as-
sociated with each phase of the research.
The four phases of the research included different topics that built upon each other
with each phase emphasizing different aspects of electrical circuits as discussed below:
• Phase A1: The first lecture phase provided an overview of the introductory
material—foundational for all circuit analysis in the course. Emphasis during this
phase was on analysis of circuits provided by the instructor.
• Phase B1: Measurements and operational amplifiers were used for the first problem-
based learning phase of the study. Emphasis during this phase of research was on
circuit design and measurements using hands-on activities and tasks. The teams
having worked together on these activities are “developed” to a degree that the theo-
retical sections of “transient analysis” and “RL and RC response” material could be
well managed. Additionally, students should have formed an understanding of the
role of circuit analysis to judge whether the circuits designed can be expected to per-
form properly.
TABLE 1
Research Design
259
• Phase A2: The second lecture phase built upon material from the previous two phas-
es A1 and B1. Emphasis during this phase was placed on circuit analysis provided by
the instructor with the transient analysis of energy storage elements replaced by si-
nusoidal steady-state analysis.
• Phase B2: The second problem-based learning phase built upon material from all
previous phases. Emphasis during this phase was on developing students’ ability to
design circuits to perform functions with a sinusoidal steady state source. These cir-
cuits were typically filter circuits with gain.
The A-B-A-B design permits the most powerful demonstration of experimental con-
trol because it requires the repeated introduction and withdrawal of an intervention strate-
gy. The most crucial feature of the A-B-A-B design is that it includes a direct replication
of effect, i.e., the last two conditions (A2-B2) replicate the first two conditions (A1-B1) with
the same subject and the same behavior. It improves upon the A-B and A-B-A designs by
providing two opportunities to demonstrate causality with the same subject, thereby
strengthening the internal validity of the effectiveness of intervention (Yadav & Barry,
2009). This allowed us to make a prediction that any change in students’ conceptual un-
derstanding (i.e., dependent variable) was as a result of the treatment (i.e., problem-based
learning) with greater confidence and improve internal validity of the research design (see
Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006 for further discussion of this topic).
We do want to acknowledge that the use of four topics might raise some concerns
about the results, as certain topics might be well suited for traditional lecture while others
for PBL. However, educational research is the “hardest science” (Berliner, 2002), which
sometimes does not always permit a true experimental research design due to the contextu-
al nature of research settings. To conduct an experimental study, researchers would need to
randomly assign students to control and experimental conditions across two different
classes taught by the same instructor using traditional lecture method in the control class
and problem-based learning in the experimental class. However, in an educational setting
these necessary conditions of experimental research are not always met. For example, it is
not feasible to randomly assign students to control and experimental conditions and even if
students could be randomly assigned to two classes, one instructor might not teach both
classes. Finally, if one class is randomly split into control and experimental conditions,
there is a risk of diffusion where students in experimental condition communicate with
students in control condition in such a way that it influences their behaviors, causing a
threat to internal validity of the study (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010). Hence, despite the
reservations of some educators, therapists, and psychologists, the A-B-A-B design contin-
ues to be the simplest and most straightforward evaluation paradigm for demonstrating a
functional relationship between independent and dependent variables (Tawney & Gast,
1984). Since A-B-A-B design is a within-subjects design where participants act as their
own control, it alleviates any concerns about individual student differences that might exist
if two existing classes are used in a quasi-experimental research design.
The electrical engineering course where this study was conducted met three times a
week for 50-minute class periods. In order to examine the influence of problem-based
learning on students’ conceptual understanding, we implemented the A-B-A-B research
design over 16 weeks. Specifically, five weeks were devoted to phase A1, four weeks to
phase B1, four weeks to phase A2, and three weeks to phase B2. The traditional lecture
method (i.e., baseline phase in the A-B-A-B design) involved the instructor introducing
260
the topic at hand via traditional lecture. The students were also given individual weekly as-
signments and completed an exam.
The problem-based learning (PBL) intervention (i.e., treatment phase in the A-B-A-B
design) allowed students to work in teams of 3-4 students solving ill-structured problems
presented in class by the instructor. The teams were heterogeneous and an effort was made
so that each team at least had one electrical and computer engineering student. The prob-
lems given during the PBL phase presented students with hypothetical situations with
some of the background and complexities they are likely to face as engineers and had typi-
cally not been covered in class (see Appendix A for a sample of an in-class problem devel-
oped to provide a team exercise). Specifically, the problems introduced students to situa-
tions that involved making complex engineering decisions and producing solutions to the
engineering problems. These problems were “case-like” in that there were realistic charac-
ters that needed to develop a solution approach, or defend an argument.
The problems were used in the context of tasks, which allowed students to use their
conceptual understanding and learning from in-class problems to develop a final product,
such as designing circuits and models. The problem-based tasks were developed for both
in and out of the classroom setting and students worked in the same teams. The in-class
tasks were designed to help students become familiar with basic breadboard techniques
and to develop confidence in making measurements. Out-of-class tasks were more open-
ended, and required students to be responsible for their own learning. During these tasks
students checked out a “project box” that contained most of the components needed to
complete the task. Teaching assistants assisted with student questions and provided need-
ed instrumentation for the task. Although student teams were used, each team member
was also required to demonstrate competence on circuit operation, design choices, and to
answer “What if” questions. Students also completed pre-class formative assignments that
involved completing a reading assignment and then taking an online quiz. Multiple at-
tempts were permitted to complete the quiz so that the students were confident that they
understood basic concepts required to complete the task. This pedagogical approach
shown in Table 2 provided students with opportunities to face realistic problems, learn in-
dependently, and work in teams to share their understanding. Hence, the PBL approach
used in the study is an experiential learning where “students work in small collaborative
group and learn what they need to know in order to solve the problem” with the teacher as
a facilitator to guide students through the learning process (Hmelo-Silver, 2004, p. 236).
Note: both traditional lecture and PBL methods utilized the same number of resources in
terms of instructors and teaching assistants available for students.
Materials
Pre-post test. The instructor developed separate quizzes for each of the four topics that
the material covered in class. Participants completed quizzes in a pre-post test format
surrounding the topics to assess their learning and conceptual understanding of the topic.
Pre-tests measured students’ prior knowledge of the topic. Hence, participants took a quiz
before the topic was introduced in class via either traditional lecture or problem-based
learning and then took the same quiz in a post-test after the topic was covered in the class.
Specifically, each quiz consisted of a narrative problem scenario relevant to the topic an en-
gineer might face, which was followed by two conceptual questions. The first question
asked students to provide an explanation for the cause of the engineering problem, while
the second question asked students to provide a solution to the problem (see Appendix B
261
TABLE 2
Pedagogical Features Connected with Each Section of the Course
for the four quizzes). The assessments were developed by the course instructor (fourth au-
thor) and revised by the co-authors. We developed and utilized these open-ended pre-post
tests (instead of concept inventories) to capture students’ conceptual understanding of the
topic and ability to transfer their learning to novel situations. Even though concept inven-
tories are useful in assessing student knowledge, we wanted to assess students’ conceptual
understanding and ability to transfer their understanding to other novel problems. Hence,
we utilized open-ended problems rather than relying on closed-ended multiple-choice
questions, which are typical of concept inventories. We established the reliability of the
tests using the Split-Half Reliability Method, which yielded a correlation coefficient of
0.81 that suggests the tests to be reliable.
Survey. The participants also completed a Student Assessment of Learning Gains
(SALG) survey at the end of the course. This survey assessed student perceptions of
their learning from traditional lecture and PBL as well as other dimensions of the course.
Specifically, the survey contained two open-ended items that asked them to reflect on
their learning from traditional lecture and problem-based learning. The survey also con-
tained Likert-scale items that assessed student’s perceptions of how well they under-
stood the topics (both traditional lecture and PBL) as a result of their work in the class.
The survey consisted of general Likert-scale items that assessed students’ beliefs about
their improvement on a number proficiency items such as, solve problems, work effec-
tively with others, ability to think through a problem, etc. (see Appendix C for a list of
the survey items).
Data coding and analysis. To examine participants’ conceptual understanding,
participant responses were coded on a scale of 0 (No understanding) to 4 (Excellent
understanding). This scale was adapted from the work of Emert and Parish, 1996.
Participant responses were rated as 1 (Marginal understanding) if the students exhib-
ited some grasp of the topic, but unable to answer the question; as 2 (Average under-
standing) if the students exhibited some grasp of the subject matter, but only ad-
dressed basic elements of the problem; as 3 (Good understanding) if the students had
262
a grasp of the subject matter and were able to answer the questions but did not pro-
vide any elaboration; and finally, a score of 4 (Excellent understanding) was assigned
if the student showed full grasp of the subject matter by going beyond answering the
question and elaboration and explanation. If a participant left a blank response or was
completely off track, a score of 0 was assigned.
In order to establish reliability, two raters were first trained—in consultation with the
course instructor—by randomly selecting 10 quizzes from each pre-post quiz for all four
topics. After the training was completed, the two raters independently coded one-third of
the quizzes randomly selected from pre- and post-tests for each of the four topics. The
inter-rater reliability was calculated by using the percentage of agreements for the scores
between the two raters. Overall, the inter-rater reliability was 89.17% for Ohm's and Kir-
choff's Law quizzes; 78.30% for operational amplifier quizzes; 89.17% for inductance
quizzes; and 86.7% for the power factor quizzes.
The number of students taking both the pre-test and post-test corresponding to four
stages of the A-B-A-B design were 99, 88, 75, and 71. However, our final sample size with
students who took all eight tests (two for each stage) became 55. Two factors may account
for the decreasing attendance. First of all, some students dropped the class and therefore
there were fewer students, particularly during the second half of the class. Secondly, stu-
dents were allowed to drop two quizzes before it would impact their grade. We first veri-
fied whether there was any difference in results while analyzing data using pair-wise and
list-wise deletion. We found fairly consistent results in both cases. Here we present the re-
sults obtained from all complete data (N ! 55). Although we could utilize the partial data
and compute the missing values by methods, such as imputation, it might lead to biased pa-
rameter estimates for means and correlations. Thus, it is most appropriate to only utilize
the complete data set under the research design where each student served as his or her
own control. Additionally, we analyzed whether student scores were significantly different
between the lecture and PBL conditions in order to see how similar the two groups were at
the beginning of the treatment. We found no significant difference on the pre-test be-
tween the two conditions (p ! .36).
As expected, students’ scores on the first question were significantly correlated with
their scores on the second question (r ! 0.69, p " .05). Therefore, we formed a composite
score by adding the scores from both questions. The final analysis was conducted on this
composite score, which ranged from 0 to 8. We analyzed data from the final data set (N !
55) using paired sample t-tests for the mean difference between pre-test and post-test
scores. For the inferential tests, social scientists set the commonly used significance level of
.05 for hypothesis testing. However, for multiple paired t-tests, it is prudent to adjust for
inflated experiment-wise (type-I) error rate. Frequently, researchers adjust the probability
level (#) depending on the number of tests planned or calculated (for example, Bonferroni
adjustment). Since we used four paired t-tests, the Bonferroni adjustment resulted in the
alpha value of .0125. Finally, the survey data was analyzed using descriptive statistics,
which included frequency distribution, mean, and standard deviation.
RESULTS
Pre-Post-Test
As illustrated in Figure 1, students scored equally well or better in the problem-
based learning approach as compared to the lecture approach. The left panel
263
FIGURE 1. Mean scores for the pre-test and post-test.
corresponds to the first A and the first B and the right panel corresponds to the sec-
ond A and the second B.
The gain score in all four paired differences indicated that students scored significantly
higher in the post-tests as compared to pre-tests, except for the gain score in first
A, which was not significant [t(54) ! 1.822, p ! .074]. However, the gain scores were sig-
nificant in First B [t(54) ! 5.571, p " .001], Second A [ t(54) ! 6.213, p " .001], and
Second B [t(54) ! 6.142, p " .001]. In order to evaluate the magnitude of the treatment
$1-$2
effects, the effect size was computed as defined by Cohen’s d using the formula, d ! sdifference
where, $1 and $2 are the means of post-test and pre-test scores, and sdifference is the standard
deviation of the difference scores (Howell, 2002). The effect sizes for each corresponding
A-B-A-B stages were .25, .75, .83, and .83, respectively. These effect size measures are in-
terpreted using the following guidelines: “small, d ! .2,” “medium, d ! .5,” and “large, d !
.8” (Cohen, 1988). It is clear that the treatment effect (i.e., problem-based learning) pro-
duced an equally or better effect (in terms of gain score) than the lecture-based teaching
method (see Table 3). Note that the average gain in students’ conceptual understanding
from pre- to post-test during the PBL phases (2.255 for B1 and 2.31 for B2) was at least
twice as much as the gain during lecture phases (.4 for A1 and 1.2 for A2) of the study.
Survey
Appendix C provides the descriptive statistics for the Likert-Scale survey items. Over-
all, the survey results suggested that the majority of students thought their understanding
of the topics taught via the lecture method was greater compared to topics taught using the
problem-based learning method. For example, the highest percentage (91.7%) of students
felt they understood applying Kirchoff's current and voltage laws (taught via traditional
lecture) a lot or a great deal (Mean ! 4.5, SD ! 0.696); on the other hand, only 60.4% of
the students felt that they understood analyzing an ideal op-amp circuit taught via prob-
lem-based learning a lot or a great deal (Mean ! 3.78, SD ! 1.088). There were also more
264
TABLE 3
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of Scores
students who responded that they understood not at all or a little about the topics taught via
problem-based learning compared to topics taught via traditional lecture. It is interesting
to note that when asked about their ability to solve problems, work effectively with others,
appreciate the field, think through a problem or argument, and confidence to work prob-
lems in the field as a result of the class, the majority of the students agreed that the class
helped them a lot or a great deal on those proficiencies. For example, 55.2% of the students
reported that they made a lot or a great deal of gains in problem solving due to this class
while only 5.2% reported making little gains. Similarly, 42.7% of the students reported that
they gained a lot or a great deal of confidence in their ability to work a problem due to this
class while only 18.7% reported making little or no gains.
The open-ended responses provide a more in-depth perspective on students’ percep-
tions of their own learning and engagement from the PBL and lecture-based approach.
The open-ended comments also reflect a similar theme with students reporting they
learned more from the lecture method when things were explained in the class, whereas the
PBL method was less effective as students did not know the material and were responsible
for their own learning. For example, one student wrote:
I understood what was being taught much better when it was being explained in
class as well as with homework. Doing the projects would have been much better
if the components had been explained in class. I had never before seen the
components we were using and was unsure of how to connect them to solve our
problems. Also, I had a hard time understanding what was going on in class when
it was not being explained in class.
Another student expressed that the lecture method was better, stating,
I felt very confident in Method A [traditional lecture] but only because the way
[professor] presented the material he made it very clear how to understand and
work out problems. I thought Method B [PBL] was a great way to implement
another way of teaching this course. I felt at times that I did not know much of
what was going on [with PBL] because the students had to teach themselves the
material and I was sometimes unclear on what the material was.
265
The theme was consistent as students felt PBL provided a good hands-on experience with
the projects; however, PBL did not teach the concepts at hand as well as traditional lecture.
One student reported,
This is mainly due to the extreme lack of direction that seemed to always be present
with this approach [problem-based learning]. Of the information I did learn in this
fashion [problem-based learning], I feel much less confident that I got everything I
needed to get out of the subjects taught in this manner [problem-based learning].
When reflecting on the traditional lecture method, students reported that they were
more comfortable with this method; hence, they felt that they learned more when lecture
was used. One student reported, “I very much preferred method A [traditional lecture]. It
was more comfortable for me to learn in, because it is what I am most familiar with.” Along
the same theme, another student indicated, “I liked this more mainly because it is more
what I am used to. I found it easier to follow because someone was explicitly going through
the steps. For me, this was a more beneficial method.” Students also reported that they pre-
ferred traditional lecture because it allowed them “to take the notes and examples to help
with the homework and the exams.” Another student stated, “I liked this method [tradi-
tional lecture]. For the most part, this is the best way I learn. I like the basic professor get-
ting up and writing down problems and solutions to working the problems.”
However, it is interesting to note that even though students reported they learned more
from traditional lecture, their comments underlined the importance of PBL in allowing
them to apply the concepts and develop their problem solving skills. This is highlighted by
one student who stated that the PBL method help him understand how to apply concepts
stating “It really wouldn’t have been possible to understand the application of things we
learn just sitting in class and writing exams. The interaction with the students from differ-
ent streams of engineering definitely proved fruitful.” Another student expressed a similar
sentiment, “The pros [of PBL] were that we got to learn things with real applications.
Most students wonder, ‘when are we ever going to use this?’ and that’s where these [PBL]
projects come in. These have a large spectrum of applications. And it reinforces what we're
looking in the book.” Students also reported that PBL increased their problem-solving
abilities as stated by a student, “I thought Method B [PBL] was an excellent idea as we
were able to work together to solve problems and teach each other aspects of solving prob-
lems in which we might not have known on our own.”
Finally, students commented on the professor’s enthusiasm during the lecture as high-
lighted by one student’s comment,
[Professor] is a great lecturer that constantly held my interest in the classroom. I
am definitely more comfortable with this method of learning, so long as the
professor shows his/her passion for the subject material and teaching, as the
professor clearly did. I feel that the professor did a great job teaching “complex”
and “abstract” ideas in a manner that allowed the students to grasp the concepts.
DISCUSSION
Given the limited research on the beneficial effects of PBL on student learning and that
the majority of this research on PBL has focused on student perceptions, the results from
this study are important for engineering as well as other STEM disciplines. The research
266
on problem-based learning has suggested that students taught using the traditional cur-
riculum perform better on factual knowledge acquisition, whereas PBL students perform
better on knowledge application and clinical reasoning questions (Hung et al., 2008). For
example, in a review of literature from 1972 to 1992, Albanese and Mitchell (1993) exam-
ined the effects of PBL when compared to conventional instruction in the medical field
and found that PBL students performed as well or better than traditional students on clini-
cal examinations, and found it more nurturing and enjoyable; however, PBL students
scored lower on basic science examinations and perceived themselves to be less prepared in
basic sciences compared to their traditional peers. Our findings corroborate Albanese and
Mitchell’s findings that PBL students remember more about applying principles. Specifi-
cally, our results suggest that students performed at least twice as well on topics taught via
problem-based learning compared to students taught via traditional lecture method i.e.,
they were better able to problem-solve and transfer their learning to new situations.
As discussed previously, the topics utilized in this study increased in complexity and
difficulty, building on each other. It is interesting to note that even though the PBL phases
presented complex ideas compared to lecture phases (A1 vs. B1 vs. A2 vs. B2), problem-
based learning allowed students to better conceptualize the concepts and transfer their
learning to problem scenarios as highlighted by the gain scores (post-test minus pre-test
scores). While it is true that the effect sizes were similar in second A and second B, effect
size is one measure to evaluate the magnitude of gain score, but it is not the only measure
that we can entirely rely upon. A closer look at the means and standard deviation in Table 3
indicates that the mean gain score for second B was much higher when compared to sec-
ond A. Despite gain score being modest in second A, the small standard deviation is con-
tributing to a large effect size. It should be noted that the topics covered build on each
other and there may a be carry-over effect in which the lingering effect of one treatment
tends to produce a similar effect in whatever condition that follows. However, a non-sig-
nificant effect size in A1 does not support any claim about the possible impact of A1 on B1.
On the other hand, the significant learning gain in A2 and even in B2 may be attributed to
the increased attention developed during the B1.
Additionally, survey results exhibited that the majority of students felt that they under-
stood the relevance of the field to real world issues and appreciated the field more as a result
of work done in this class. However, students also reported that they learned more when
traditional lecture was used because problem-based learning did not provide them with
enough introduction to the basic concepts. This is not surprising as previous research has
shown that engineering students tend to go through an initial shock and denial phase and
it “is a natural part of their journey from dependence to intellectual autonomy” (Felder &
Brent, 1996) when forced to take responsibility of their own learning during a problem-
based approach. In addition to engineering students not being familiar with the PBL
process, an increase in complexity of the topics across the four phases of the research might
have also contributed to their lack of confidence in the knowledge gained from problem-
based learning.
Another possible hypothesis for why student perceptions do not necessarily match their
actual performance might be due to students’ overconfidence in what they actually know.
Researchers have found that people are generally overconfident about their cognitive abili-
ties. That is, people believe their responses to test questions are more accurate than the re-
sponses actually are (Kleitman & Stankov, 2001; Liberman & Tversky, 1993; Lundeberg,
Fox, Brown, & Elbedour, 2000; Lundeberg & Mohan, 2009). Hence, students think they
know more than they do. Furthermore, students are overconfident in their learning after
267
they have heard a lecture compared to when they have to solve a problem because the in-
structor's knowledge and understanding is mistaken to be one's own (Glenberg & Epstein,
1987; Svinicki, 2004). The problems given to students in the PBL condition probably
pushed students to realize what they did not understand, whereas in the lecture condition,
they thought they knew more than they did. Previous research has suggested that under-
graduate students consider learning to occur when an “expert ”transmits factual knowledge
and not when it is constructed via problem-based learning (Biley & Smith, 1999). Addi-
tionally, previous findings have indicated that students perceive traditional lecture to be
more effective compared to active learning methods even though students’ learning out-
comes were found to be higher in active learning courses (Lake, 2001; Richardson, 1997).
Research on the use of student-centered teaching within engineering has also found that
students feel that less content is covered when inductive teaching is used when compared
to deductive lecture-based approaches (Yadav, Shaver, & Meckl, 2010).
The open-ended comments provided some insight into students’ attitudes towards
the PBL method as well as their perceptions of learning from the two pedagogical ap-
proaches. Even though student perceptions of learning favored the traditional lecture
method, they still reported that PBL was beneficial in allowing them to see the applica-
bility of concepts to the real world as well as increasing their problem-solving abilities. A
possible hypothesis for why students also made significant learning gains during the tra-
ditional lecture might be a result of the instructor, who as underscored by student com-
ments, was a dynamic lecturer, able to convey the big picture in a way that made it easy
to understand complex concepts. However, students still gained more during the prob-
lem-based learning approach.
A recent report sponsored by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)
highlighted the need to develop a more “effective engineering education from a scientifically
credible and shared knowledge based on learning” (Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009, p. 1). Sor-
cinelli (1991) also highlighted the need to develop such a shared empirical base because, “we
simply do not have as much data confirming the beneficial effects of other kinds of active
learning such as the case method, independent study, and individualized instruction” (p.
17). The need for empirically supported educational innovations, such as PBL, is important
because it would provide evidence for what “works” rather basing pedagogy on intuition
(Jamieson & Lohmann, 2009). The current study is a step in the direction of building em-
pirically based support for problem-based learning not only within engineering, but also
other STEM disciplines. An evidence-based PBL method would support engineering fac-
ulty in their goals to develop competencies in engineering students by focusing on the ‘ings’
(e.g., planning, communicating, designing, problem-solving) rather than just having the
class being dominated by the ‘ics’ (mathematics, physics, dynamics, electronics, etc)
(Matthew & Hughes, 1994). However, engineering faculty interested in using problem-
based learning or any other kinds of active learning should be aware of potential challenges.
One of the challenges educators face when implementing problem-based learning is
student resistance and discomfort when transitioning from the traditional curriculum to
a PBL curriculum (Hung et al., 2008). Previous research has suggested that without
proper scaffolding students feel frustrated with the open-ended nature of problem-based
learning approaches (Yadav, 2006). Our results support previous research that problem-
based learning causes some discomfort and frustration among students as the necessary
information is not readily available like traditional lecture. However, it has been suggest-
ed that the students’ level of comfort increases with time and they need about six months
to adapt to the PBL method (Schultz-Ross & Kline, 1999). Six months is a relatively
268
long time to allow students to become comfortable with PBL given that a typical semes-
ter is 16 weeks long. Faculty implementing the PBL approach should scaffold learning
from PBL for students who are unfamiliar with this approach and prefer didactic in-
struction. It is important to prepare and familiarize students and raise their awareness of
the challenging aspects of problem-based learning. Specifically, the instructors need to
outline how PBL is different, advantages it offers, likely experiences students can expect
to help them manage uncertainty of the learning process (Kiley, Mullins, Peterson, &
Rogers, 2000). Kiley and colleagues also recommended, “explaining that other students,
and indeed tutors, have been through the same difficult adjustment” (p. 14). One mech-
anism is for faculty to ask students who have previously undergone the PBL process to
share the benefits of this approach and challenges students are likely to face. Professor
Bernard Van Wie at Washington State University uses a script where students from pre-
vious semesters who have undergone the problem-based learning act out the problem-
based learning process (Personal Communication, April 8, 2010). All the participants
(instructor, current and previous semester) then unpack and discuss various aspects of
teaching and learning they observed during the scripted drama. The discussion breaks
down student misconceptions and beneficial facets of PBL.
Prince and Felder (2006) also recommended that faculty implementing inductive
teaching, such as PBL should scaffold students’ learning, at least initially, and then gradu-
ally withdraw the support as students get more confident and comfortable. Some of the
student resistance arises due to their discomfort with assessment of learning. Even though
active learning methods, such as problem-based learning might be implemented, students’
learning of the material is still assessed using traditional means (i.e., plug and chug
quizzes); hence, they feel less prepared. Ames and Archer (1988) argued that even though
challenging tasks might afford learning, they threaten students’ sense of worth because
success is normatively defined in a traditional classroom. Ames and Archer suggested such
tasks might be more “attractive to students who view the situation as emphasizing the
process of learning, encouraging effortful activity, and deemphasizing the negative conse-
quences of making errors” (p. 261). Hence, faculty interested in implementing problem-
based learning could focus on the process of learning rather than grades, at least initially to
allow students to get comfortable with the new pedagogy. However, if faculty would like to
use grades as performance criteria, they should carefully develop tests that assess not only
students’ factual knowledge, but also their conceptual understanding (Lundeberg &
Yadav, 2006a, 2006b). One way to do this is to give students a traditional problem and
then ask them to qualitatively elaborate on their response, similar to Mazur’s (1998) paired
problem testing. Only students with good conceptual understanding would be able to ex-
plain their solution rather than just being able to solve the problem (Yadav & Barry, 2009).
See Felder and Brent (2004) for a detailed discussion on strategies for removing potential
barriers to implementing problem-based learning.
In the current study, our focus was to examine students’ ability to problem solve and
transfer their knowledge to real-life problem scenarios. Hence, we developed and utilized
quizzes that assessed students’ conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills rather
than their factual knowledge. Previous research on problem-based learning has suggested
there are no differences between PBL and traditional students when multiple-choice ques-
tions are used; however, PBL students show superior ability to transfer their problem-solv-
ing skills to real-life problems (Hung et al., 2008). Future researchers should also use as-
sessments that assess students’ ability to transfer their knowledge to solve new problems
rather than measuring their ability to perform rote memorization of factual knowledge.
269
Some faculty and students have expressed concerns about not enough content being
covered when active learning methods are used (Matthew & Hughes, 1994; Yadav et al.,
2010). These are valid concerns and we acknowledge the issue of covering the course con-
tent within a limited amount of time. However, as Matthew and Hughes pointed out, “if
we are serious about developing life-long learners then, in the short term something has to
give” (p. 238). Hence, we feel that it is important to make time in the courses to support
and develop engineering students as critical thinkers capable of solving open-ended prob-
lems. Yet, faculty have to carefully think about what content to teach with the problem-
based approach and what to cover with lecture. Engineering has a hierarchical knowledge
structure so that students need to have adequate basic knowledge to be successful at learn-
ing later concepts (Mills & Treagust, 2003). Consequently, it is important for faculty to
teach the basic concepts before using problem-based learning, as the PBL method will not
compensate for students’ lack of proficiency in those basic concepts.
Finally, we agree with Prince (2004) that faculty adopting instructional approaches,
such as PBL, with expectations of seeing results similar to this study should be aware of
practical limitations of educational studies. Additionally, more research needs to be con-
ducted to replicate these results and extend the research on the impact of PBL on student
learning in variety of STEM settings. The current study only focused on two PBL topics
and two traditional lecture topics in one electrical engineering classroom. Hence, more
research needs to be conducted to replicate these findings across a wide range of courses
and topics. Finally, our study examined students’ conceptual understanding and did not
assess students’ long-term retention of the material and how well students are able to per-
form after the course. However, it is important to understand the impact of PBL on engi-
neering students’ long-term retention of the material and future research needs to explore
this issue.
This study also had a few limitations. The study utilized a within-subjects A-B-A-
B research design, whose strength is establishing a causal relationship when a true con-
trol-experimental research design is not possible, such as only one class being available
for research (Yadav & Barry, 2009). However, the limitation of the A-B-A-B design
lies in the use of four topics across the different experimental and control phases of the
research, which can have some impact on the results. Future research should examine
the effectiveness of problem-based learning using experimental research design with
two sections of the same course taught by the same instructor to remove any potential
topic differences. Another limitation of this study is that it was conducted in one elec-
trical circuits course at a large mid-western university. Hence, researchers and educa-
tors interested in examining or implementing PBL in their own setting should take
into account the context of the current study—content of the course and implementa-
tion of PBL method.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This material is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Founda-
tion, under project number EEC - 0529909 and EEC - 0530588. Any opinion, finding,
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the supporting institutions.
270
REFERENCES
Albanese, M., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its out-
comes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strate-
gies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267.
Antepohl, W., & Herzig, S. (1999). Problem-based learning versus lecture-based learning in a
course of basic pharmacology: A controlled, randomized study. Medical Education, 33(2),
106–113.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wardsworth.
Barrows, H. S. (1998). The essentials of problem-based learning. Journal of Dental Education,
62(9), 630–633.
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher,
31(8), 18–20.
Biley, F. C., & Smith, K. L. (1999). Making sense of problem-based learning: The perceptions
and experiences of undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(5),
1205–1212.
Bizjak, G. (2008). Load flow network analysis with problem-based learning approach. Interna-
tional Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 45(2), 144–151.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Burgess, K. L. (2004). Is your case a problem? Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Re-
search, 1/2, 42–44.
Canavan, B. (2008). A summary of the findings from an evaluation of problem-based learning
carried out at three UK universities. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education,
45(2), 175–180.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum.
de Camargo Ribeiro, L. R. (2008). Electrical engineering students evaluate problem-based
learning (PBL). International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 45(2), 152–161.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based
learning: A meta-analysis. Learning & Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.
Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve
its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 228–232.
Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., … White, H. B. (2008).
Pedagogies of engagement in science. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4),
262–273.
Ehrlich, T. (1998). Reinventing John Dewey's “pedagogy as a university discipline”. The Ele-
mentary School Journal, 98(5), 489–509.
271
Emert, J. W., & Parish, C. R. (1996). Assessing concept attainment in undergraduate core course
in mathematics. In T. W. Banta, J. P. Lund, K. E. Black & F. W. Oblander (Eds.), Assessment
in practice: Putting principles to work on college campuses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction.
College Teaching, 44(2), 43.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2004). The intellectual development of science and engineering
students. Part 2: Teaching to promote growth. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(4), 279–291.
Felder, R. M., Felder, G. N., & Dietz, E. J. (1998). A longitudinal study of engineering student
performance and retention V. Comparisons with traditionally-taught students. Journal of
Engineering Education, 87(4), 469–480.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis
and applications (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based
learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research,
75(1), 27–61.
Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory &
Cognition, 15(1), 84–93.
Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in
the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10(6), 597–602.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing.
Hung, W., Jonassen, D., & Liu, R. (2008). Problem-based learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D.
Merrill, J. V. Merriënboer & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational com-
munications and technology (pp. 485–506). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jamieson, L., & Lohmann, J. (2009). Creating a culture for scholarly and systematic innovation
in engineering education: Ensuring U.S. engineering has the right people with the right tal-
ent for a global society. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
Johnson, P. A. (1999). Problem-based cooperative learning in the engineering classroom. Jour-
nal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 125(1), 8–11.
Kiley, M., Mullins, G., Peterson, R., & Rogers, T. (2000). Leap into…problem-based learn-
ing: Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide.
Kleitman, S., & Stankov, L. (2001). Ecological and person-oriented aspects of metacognitive
processes in test-taking. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(3), 321–341.
Lake, D. A. (2001). Student performance and perceptions of a lecture-based course compared
with the same course utilizing group discussion. Physical Therapy, 81(3), 896–902.
Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., Volkwein, J. F., & Peterson, G. D. (2006). The changing face
of engineering education. The Bridge, 36(2), 6–44.
Liberman, V., & Tversky, A. (1993). On the evaluation of probability judgments: Calibration,
resolution, and monotonicity. Psychological Bulletin, 114(162–173).
Lundeberg, M. A., Fox, P. W., Brown, A. C., & Elbedour, S. (2000). Cultural influences on
confidence: Country and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 152–159.
272
Lundeberg, M. A., & Mohan, L. (2009). Gender and cross-cultural differences in confidence.
In A. Graesser, J. Dunlosky & D. Hacker (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education
(pp. 221–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lundeberg, M. A., & Yadav, A. (2006a). Assessment of case study teaching: Where do we go
from here? Part I. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(5), 10–13.
Lundeberg, M. A., & Yadav, A. (2006b). Assessment of case study teaching: Where do we go
from here? Part 2. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(6), 8–13.
Matthew, R. G. S., & Hughes, D. C. (1994). Getting at deep learning: A problem-based ap-
proach. Engineering Science and Education Journal, 3(5), 234–240.
Mazur, E. (1998). Moving the mountain: Impediments to change. Paper presented at the Third
Annual NISE Forum, Washington, DC.
Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education — Is problem-based or project-
based learning the answer? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 2–16. Retrieved
from http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf
National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in
the new century. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting en-
gineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Board (NSB). (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008 (Vol. 1).
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Nguyen, D. Q. (1998). The essential skills and attributes of an engineer: A comparative study of
academics, industry personnel and engineering students. Global Journal of Engineering Edu-
cation, 2(1), 65–74.
Palmquist, S. (2007). Active project-based learning in structural analysis: Field inspection of steel truss
bridge. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, Honolulu, HI.
Polanco, R., Calderon, P., & Delgado, F. (2004). Effects of a problem-based learning program
on engineering students’ academic achievements in a Mexican university. Innovations in Ed-
ucation and Teaching International, 41(2), 145–155.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223–232.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, com-
parisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14–20.
Richardson, D. (1997). Student perceptions and learning outcomes of computer-assisted versus
traditional instruction in physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 18(1), 55–58.
Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories. Philadelphia,
PA: SRHE and Open University Press.
Schultz-Ross, R. A., & Kline, A. E. (1999). Using problem-based learning to teach forensic
psychiatry. Academic Psychiatry, 23(1), 37–41.
Sorcinelli, M. (1991). Research findings on the seven principles. In A. W. Chickering & Z. F.
Gamson (Eds.), Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education, new
directions in teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
273
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on un-
dergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Re-
view of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of
meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Prob-
lem-based Learning, 3(1), 44–58.
Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. Bolton, MA:
Anker Publishing Company.
Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single-subject research in special education. Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Vergara, C. E., Urban-Lurain, M., Dresen, C., Coxen, T., MacFarlane, T., Frazier, K., . . .
Wolff, T. F. (2009). Aligning computing education with engineering workforce computational
needs: New curricular directions to improve computational thinking in engineering graduates.
Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education, San Antonio, TX.
Woods, D. R. (1996). Problem-based learning for large classes in chemical engineering. In L.
Wilkerson & H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education (pp.
91–99). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yadav, A. (2006). Video cases in teacher education: What role does task play in learning from video
cases in two elementary education literacy methods courses? Ph.D Doctoral Dissertation, Michi-
gan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Yadav, A., & Barry, B. E. (2009). Using case-based instruction to increase ethical understand-
ing in engineering: What do we know? What do we need? International Journal of Engineer-
ing Education, 25(1), 138–143.
Yadav, A., Shaver, G. M., & Meckl, P. (2010). Lessons learned: Implementing the case teaching
method in a mechanical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 55–69.
AUTHOR
Aman Yadav is an assistant professor of Educational Psychology at Purdue University,

Department of Educational Studies, 100 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907;
amanyadav@purdue.edu.
Dipendra Raj Subedi is a psychometrician at the Assessment Division of the

American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, Washington, D.C.
20007; dsubedi@air.org.
Mary Lundeberg is a professor in the Biology department at the University of Wiscon-

sin-River Falls N8423 1251 St., River Falls, WI 54022; marylundeberg@gmail.com
Charles Bunting is an associate professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at

Oklahoma State University, 202 Engineering South, ECEN, Stillwater, OK 74078;
charles.bunting@okstate.edu.
274
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE PROBLEMS AND TASKS
Measurement of Voltage Project

Scott hammered his fist on the table, “What’s going on with you guys?” “I thought you
had all you needed to implement the design changes in the divider circuit for the reference
of the TwinAxeB.” Scott had been with Signa-Corp for 3
months as lead engineer. “The Reference voltage is wrong!”
Billy, the night-shift tech, had installed the panel meters
that had been delivered via FEDEX the night before. “I or-
dered the VoltaBx voltmeter from DigaFlex and they told
me that they would work great,” Billy said. Sarah was pretty
upset, but asked “I don’t think that anything is wrong with
the model - I think it's the meters”.
a. Is Sarah right?
b. Help her defend her answer by determining what the meters actually indicate.
1) The model for the air handler monitor system is given by the circuit below. Analyze
the circuit for the actual values that Scott expects for Vref.
FIGURE 1. Model for the reference system.
2) Sketch the panel meter voltmeter design of the DigaFlex VoltaBx. What will the
voltmeter indicate when measuring Vref?
OP AMP TASK
“Hey guys, did you see this email from the Boss?” Dave looked away from his screen.
The other three created a sound of clicking fury in the cubical area as they checked their
email in unison. The email read as follows:
To: Axle, Dave, Jeff, and Catalina

From: Bob
Subject: New Project
275
I got this one handed down from above; we have a problem. Our consumer electronics
division just received 1 million LEDs for our company's new digital GPS control boards.
You need to find a way to provide a quality control method to determine the forward
voltage for proper LED operation.
Bob
Saved by the Bell, Inc.
Lead Engineer
M/S: GG75
(702) 555 - 5555
“Hey, LEDs are cool!,” said Axle, “I know that you have to be careful about the current.
I'm going to Google it.”
Jeff found a good link to a tech book (provided along with the case study) by Stanley
that suggested using a current source made from an op amp of some kind - it would have to
be modified a bit to work for the LED problem.
Catalina countered, “Current sources, I remember those from circuits - pretty useless
really - op-amps eh…those weren't useless, but too many equations - we'll give it a look.”
TASK
1. Determine the maximum current that your op-amp can deliver. To do this, de-
velop a simple inverting amplifier to provide a gain of -10 (be careful to NOT
saturate the op-amp). Then vary the load resistance (typically reducing it) until
the circuit no longer provides the appropriate output voltage. Calculate Io (max).
Do this for each op-amp in the XX1458 package.
a. Io (max) for A
b. Io (max) for B
2. Design a current source capable of providing a constant current of 15 mA to

your LEDs.
a. V for LED 1
b. V for LED 2
c. …. And so on…
REPORT
1. Provide the schematic (all values shown) that you used to determine the maxi-
mum current. A sample calculation should be provided.
2. What is Io (max) for each op-amp?
a. Io (max) for A = _______ mA
b. Io (max) for B = _______ mA
276
3. Provide the schematic (all values shown) that you used to determine test the
voltage of the LED.
4. What is the measured voltage for 6 LEDs?
5. BONUS: Provide a characteristic curve of voltage vs. current to provide a more
complete picture of LED behavior. What do you notice about the behavior?
APPENDIX B: QUIZZES
First A - Lecture
The case of the lights that wouldn’t:
Jim Hendry, a technician at Sensory Development LLC, purchased several solar panels
from Energy-Corp. Jim wants to use the solar panels to provide power for a roadside dis-
play requiring three lamps.
The spec sheet for the panel indicated that it would provide a voltage of 1.5 volts. When
Jim connected a panel to three-volt lamps connected in parallel the lamps did not light.
Question 1. Provide an explanation as to what may be going on.
Question 2. What can be done so that the lamps will light?
First B - Problem-Based Learning

The Sound of Silence:
Karl had checked the circuit connections and the schematic. The microphone that he had
placed in the cabin of the Cessna 210 for noise monitoring appeared to be working correct-
ly, but when Jeanne connected the microphone to the data logging input of the Cx510
(with a USB connect to her Tablet computer), a very low level signal seemed to be present,
too small to properly record data. After checking the tone generator in the cabin to make
sure it was turned up and producing the 400 Hz tone, Jeanne suggested, “Let’s use the
AD8671 amplifier from Analog Devices”, placing an AD8671 on the table. When the
AD8671 was connected, the signal displayed on the computer was distorted.
Question 2. What steps need to be taken to correct the signal distortion?
Second A - Lecture
A Problem at Quad-Tech
When Peggy connected the 100 kHz signal from the tone generator to the printed circuit
inductor/resistor design, the output voltage was 10 volts. She told William in the San
Diego division that the circuit design worked perfectly. William, a recently hired intern at
Quad-Tech, constructed the circuit on a breadboard. When he tested the circuit at 100
kHz he reported back to Peggy that the circuit's output voltage was too low indicating that,
“8.4 volts is below specifications at 100 kHz, but it seems to works fine at 5 kHz.”
Question 2. What should William do to make the circuit work correctly?
277
Second B - Problem-Based Learning

POWER to the system!
Ceville was designing the power distribution system for the B1b aircraft system when he
grew concerned about the imaginary power content for the standby power controller — it
was 50% of the real power and appeared to be lagging. “I have eliminated all the secondary
systems that I can and it seems that we won’t be able to maintain standby primary system
power for long enough to complete the refueling”, Ceville complained to his technician,
Mark.
Question 2. What should Mark and Ceville do to make the system work more
efficiently?
278
Appendix C. Survey Items and Descriptive Statistics
279
Appendix C (Continued)
280
View publication stats

2011 Yadav Subedi JEE PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2011 Yadav Subedi JEE PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011 Yadav Subedi JEE PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Problem‐based Learning: Inﬂuence on Students'

Article in Journal of Engineering Education · April 2011

Aman Yadav Dipendra Subedi

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mary Lundeberg Charles F Bunting

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

CT4EDU View project

CaBIE - Case-based Instruction in Engineering Education View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Problem-based Learning: Influence on

Problem-based Learning in Engineering Education

conceptual understanding, it is important to provide empirical evidence for what edu-

FIGURE 1. Mean scores for the pre-test and post-test.

Aman Yadav is an assistant professor of Educational Psychology at Purdue University,

Dipendra Raj Subedi is a psychometrician at the Assessment Division of the

Mary Lundeberg is a professor in the Biology department at the University of Wiscon-

Charles Bunting is an associate professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE PROBLEMS AND TASKS

Measurement of Voltage Project

FIGURE 1. Model for the reference system.

To: Axle, Dave, Jeff, and Catalina

2. Design a current source capable of providing a constant current of 15 mA to

a. Io (max) for A = _______ mA

b. Io (max) for B = _______ mA

First B - Problem-Based Learning

Second B - Problem-Based Learning

Appendix C. Survey Items and Descriptive Statistics

View publication stats

You might also like