Cogent Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oaed20

Trapped at the crossroads: Does problem-based

learning make a difference? The moderating role
of traditional mode of instruction

Fred Ssemugenyi

To cite this article: Fred Ssemugenyi (2022) Trapped at the crossroads: Does problem-based
learning make a difference? The moderating role of traditional mode of instruction, Cogent
Education, 9:1, 2068398, DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 01 May 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1058

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaed20
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION & TRAINING | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Received: 01 September 2021
Accepted: 12 April 2022
*Corresponding author: Fred
Ssemugenyi Department of Open &
Distance Learning, PNGUoT
E-mail: fred.ssemugenyi@pnguot.ac.
pg
Reviewing editor:
Andy Hung, Boise State University,
UNITED STATES
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Trapped at the crossroads: Does problem-based
learning make a difference? The moderating role
of traditional mode of instruction
Fred Ssemugenyi1*
Abstract: This study was set out to establish if adopting problem-based learning
(PBL) techniques would effectively address the teaching and learning challenges at
the University of Kisubi (Unik). Using Faculty of Education as a study sample, the
quasi-experimental pretest-posttest nonequivalent group design was utilized where
a class of 39 students was assigned to control group (19) and experimental group
(20). The pretest results revealed that the performance of the two groups did not
statistically differ (p-value = 0.409 > 0.05). However, the mean scores indicate that
students in the experimental group performed slightly better than their counter­
parts in the control group (X TMI = 53 < X PBL = 57.10). Although improvement was
observed in both streams at the posttest level (p-value 0.0384 < 0.05) for control
and experimental (p-value = 0.0329 < 0.05), respectively, their mean scores did not
statistically differ (X TMI = 53 < X PBL = 57.10). But there was a consistent improve­
ment in learning effectiveness with a consistent corresponding reduction in cogni­
tive overload in PBL stream, although on average, PBL was as effective as the
traditional mode of instruction (TMI). This therefore stands to reason that replacing
TMI with PBL method is not the ultimate solution to the teaching-learning chal­
lenges faced by the Faculty of Education at the moment, rather, understanding how
learning takes place in a particular academic culture and how those learning
activities mutually shape each other to influence the acquisition of knowledge,
desirable attitude, and skills should be the cornerstone to creating an enabling
learning environment at the faculty.

Subjects: Education & Training; Teaching & Learning - Education; Higher Education

ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Fred Ssemugenyi is an Associate Professor and
Director, Department of Open and Distance
Learning at PNGUoT. His research interest is pro­
minent in educational policy, institutional gov­
ernance and leadership, creative and inclusive
pedagogy, EdTech, and institutional
intelligence.
Fred Ssemugenyi
Although John Dewey (1859–1952) observed
that “meaningful learning” only takes place when
learners are empowered to construct knowledge
from their learning experiences as they attempt
to solve real-life problems, adopting student
centric learning models to spur learning effec­
tiveness remains a worldwide concern in HE. In
light of this, the researcher wondered if the poor
performance in Geography among the 3rd year
undergraduate students at Unik was not as
a result of the teaching-learning method hitherto
employed, and that if the adoption of a student-
centric mode of learning such as PBL would not
make a difference.

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

Keywords: Problem-based learning; traditional mode of instruction; lecture method; higher

education; higher education pedagogy; creative learning; educational planning

1. Introduction
The dichotomy between PBL and TMI in Higher Education (HE) has been given an overwhelming
attention by researchers for decades. While this is a truism, several institutions of higher learning
to date find it hard to either blend or drop TMI for PBL (Yonatan, 2020). The evidence of its
effectiveness (PBL) is sparse and anecdotal in social sciences and humanities, while prominent in
medical schools and other science-based disciplines on the other hand (McGrath et al., 2006). In
search for practical solutions to the myriad teaching and learning challenges (Kaozi B.K 2003), non
science-based universities have embarked on integrating PBL into their pedagogy to realize the
desired learning effectiveness (Bell, 2010; Ketpichainarong et al., 2010). It is believed that PBL does
not only empower students to learn independently (Department of Education, 2011), rather
enables them to develop the ability to think and act in ways that are related with inquiry (Aidoo
et al., 2016).

Although there is compelling evidence to suggest that PBL stimulates learning in science
disciplines, there is still relentless debate as to whether PBL can influence knowledge creation
and retention more than TMI in humanities and social sciences (Samuel, O. et al., 2007). The
argument is premised on the view that social science disciplines suffer from content overload,
large class sizes, and rigid mindset of lecturers, all of which seem to stifle effective application of
PBL. That notwithstanding, the increasing desire for knowledge creation, value for money, and fit
for purpose have jointly exerted pressure on conventional universities in demand for appropriate
teaching and learning techniques. It is widely believed that an effective teaching and learning
technique can be an answer to the perennial systemic malfunctioning of a country and a gateway
to development (Wittek & Habib, 2013). That being the case, emphasis to adopt student-centered
learning models such as PBL has become central to our discourse for a while.

John Dewey (1859–1952) observes that knowledge and ideas emerge only from situations in
which learners have to draw them out of experiences that have meaning and importance to them
(Devries, 2000). Conversely, Jean Piaget, a renowned psychologist as early as 1940s, had observed
that learners tend to remember more whatever is learnt from the experiences of what they have
themselves put together (Samuel & Sarah Kyolaba, 2007). In view of these classical submissions, it
sounds to reason that “meaningful learning” only takes place when learners are empowered to
construct knowledge from their learning experiences as they attempt to solve real-life problems.
From these observations, one can rightly claim that “meaningful learning” is one that strikes a right
balance between the brain (exclusively intellectual) and the hand (practical). However, striking this
balance remains largely ambiguous and a centre of debate in education philosophy to date
(Barrett, 2017;; Boblawlor, 2017).

This partly explains why some academics in Ugandan-based universities choose TMI for PBL due
to fear of venturing into the thick thickets of PBL where majority lack technical competencies.
Boblawlor (2017) contends that, academics teach the way they were taught; their teaching
strategies are majorly inclined to their past experiences (Oleson & Hora, 2014). Since most present
academics in humanities and social sciences were produced using TMI, they literally find no sound
reason to think outside the box for more innovative teaching strategies (Tuyizere Alice Peace,
2017; Elijah Dickens Mushemeza, 2016). In all fairness, some endeavor to make their lessons lively,
investigative (problem-based/fact finding) and engaging but unfortunately, they lack the institu­
tionalized structure in their universities that supports student-centered learning. The quality
assurance units are only concerned with the amount of content covered but not how it is covered.
This mindset has denied PBL and other student-centered teaching-learning approaches an oppor­
tunity to demonstrate their predictive power via learning effectiveness.

Page 2 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

This experimental study was conducted in a relatively newer university in Uganda in the
academic year of 2017–2018. The study was set out to establish if PBL would be a more effective
teaching and learning technique for Unik, whilst using the 3rd-year Geography students as unit of
analysis. Prior to this investigation, it was upon the discretion of the academics to apply any
teaching-learning style provided it would aid the attainment of the course learning outcomes
(CLO). Unik recognizes the importance of student-centered learning, but at the time of this inquiry,
it lacked an institutional framework to support its implementation. This study was born out of this
gap with an intended purpose of guiding decision making in the teaching and learning processes,
and at the same time serves as a baseline for policy formulation.

1.1. Problem justification

At Unik, learning effectiveness is perceived as a teaching and learning process that actively
motivates students to learn how to discover and apply knowledge. The rational for this is
engrained in its vision statement that fosters the provision of holistic education through teaching,
innovation and research for social transformation. Despite this decorated narrative, the quality
audit on teaching that was conducted in 2015/2016 academic year showed a yawning gap
between this vision and reality. The Quality Assurance Unit for National Council for Higher
Education (NCHE) also had earlier expressed dissatisfaction on how teaching is done across
universities and demanded the adoption of pedagogies of engagement which lead to personal
fulfillment and/or holistic transformation of learners (Uganda National Council for Higher
Education, 2016). It was against this background that the Faculty of Education at Unik encouraged
staff to introduce student-centric models such as PBL as one of the strategies to prepare students
for the world of practice. Only facilitators offering practical and/or field-based courses with prior
experience in PBL application were supported by the Faculty to take up this challenge. The fact that
Settlement Geography as a discipline is both class-based and field-driven, was considered for this
pilot. Students offering GEO 3101 Settlement Geography were not new to the researcher. The fact
that the researcher had earlier engaged this group of students in their second year of study using
a relatively similar mode of teaching (project-based learning), it was much easier for him to subject
a fraction of the same group of students to an experiential treatment whilst using another portion
of the same class as control group in their 3rd year of study.

1.2. Study objective

(1) To determine whether students taught using PBL techniques, learn significantly better than
those taught using lecture method.

1.3. Hypothesis (H0)

(1) The researcher wondered if the poor performance in Geography as a discipline was not as
a result of the teaching-learning method hitherto employed, and that if the adoption of
a student centric model of learning such as PBL would not make a difference.

1.4. Literature review

Although there is relentless debate about the constituents of PBL, there is little disagreement that
it is a core component of student-centered learning. It is a teaching and learning style in which
complex real-world problems are used as the vehicle to promote student learning of concepts and
principles as opposed to direct presentation of facts and concepts (Duch et al., 2001). Whereas this
definition can persuade one to believe and imagine the predictive power of PBL in teaching and
learning engagements, practice seems to suggest otherwise. A comprehensive study on South
African HE system reveals that while some academics are willing to try out new methods of
teaching and learning, the majority predominantly preferred lecture method (Samantha
Govender, 2015). Proponents of lecture method believe that it is economical, flexible, and can
accommodate large classes which PBL is incapable of. It is not unwise however, to claim that
lecture method is the most frequently used method due to its simplicity and flexibility (Killen,
2011).

Page 3 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

Although these views are justifiably credible, a sizable body of literature seems to favor PBL.
Contemporary educationists not only emphasize “fit for purpose”, rather, they argue that teaching
styles should shift further towards a developmental, learner-centered, and activity-based
approach to learning (Eshwar, K., et al., 2017). To an idealist this sounds a great deal, but to
a realist, it may be a potential recipe for disaster, more so, if PBL is adopted without a context-
based systematic teaching-learning structure. In most universities PBL is not yet institutionalized,
the available curricula and the teaching-learning structure do not practically support the applica­
tion of PBL. Besides, a majority of lecturers lack the skills to integrate PBL into the TMI or to apply it
as an independent learning style (Oleson & Hora, 2014). This partly explains why lecture method is
prominent in HE systems of East Africa.

Interesting to note is the fact that, the clinicians with no teaching professional background
effectively use PBL in their training sessions, yet it is still a nightmare for professional teachers in
higher institutions of learning. It is probable that lack of resources such as teaching aids, large
class size; pressure to complete syllabus, theory-based curricula, and inadequate materials for
practical lessons tend to force teachers to deliver the lessons theoretically (Edwards & Fisher,
1995; Hanushek, 1997). One may confidently argue that these observations are outdated due to
time passage; however, recent inquiries by Kasozi (2006), Mamdani (2007), Kasozi (2005), and
Tuyizere Alice Peace (2017) have all corroborated these findings.

In Uganda, the integration of student-centered learning models in the conventional teaching

and learning processes has been a serious debate for a while. However, a few academics in for
example, Makerere University (MAK) find the implementation of PBL challenging in the sense that
whenever applied, students think that the facilitator is dogging his primary responsibility. They
prefer spoon-feeding to student-centered learning. This mindset is not limited to MAK, but rather
a common denominator across universities in Uganda and Africa at large (Killen, 2011; & Bruce
G Charlton, 2006). In addition, barriers arising from the epistemic justification that knowledge
exists in one’s mind (Locke, 2015) and the cultural rigidities which regard teachers as the only
source of knowledge have stiffened the journey from TMI to PBL. However, blaming Uganda’s HE
for paying attention to memorizing facts as opposed to “thinking” is faultlessly an excuse, for
schools reflect the basic values of a society (Hallinger & Jiafang, 2011). It is believed that teachers
dispense truth and no one has the mandate to challenge that truth; correct answers only exist in
books and/or from authorities; political leaders are always right, while parents know better (Shaw,
1999). There is no reason to believe why such a context would opt for a teaching model that would
take away teachers’ monopoly in the teaching-learning process.

Whereas efforts in Ugandan-based universities are directed towards having a practical-based

model of instruction with the view of improving learning effectiveness, proponents of lecture
method still believe that its importance is underestimated (Charlton, 2006). In many circum­
stances, the lecture method is the best teaching method (Otaala et al., 2013). However, the lack
of a convincing rationale has been central in undermining its importance (Bruce G Charlton, 2006)
and there are many who advocate for its replacement. Samuel and Sarah Kyolaba (2007) are of
the view that, the argument should shift from the model of instruction to the circumstances under
which learning is bound to take place. On the account of scholarly appraisal, there appears to be
no basis for comparison, students’ ways of learning are as different as the colors of the rainbow.
Learning effectiveness is much more influenced by both teacher and student personalities, pre­
ferences, and the teaching and learning environment of which learning method may necessarily
not be part.

Paying much attention to the learning method is necessary but not a sufficient condition for one
to appreciate the processes of knowledge creation and retention among learners. Learning effec­
tiveness is much more complex than an average mind can imagine (Snyder, 2013). Samuel and
Sarah Kyolaba (2007) observe that, learning effectiveness is attainable through three lanes (e.g.,
presage, process, and product). Presage refers to teachers’ proficiency in their subject areas, and

Page 4 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

personality attributes, process looks at student learning experiences and teacher performance,
while product entails the teaching-learning style(s) identified for the learning process.

From the reviewed literature, it is not unwise to claim that learning effectiveness may not
necessarily be a function of teaching-learning methods as some pragmatists seem to allude,
rather, a combination of variables such as; the nature of the subject matter, age, students’
background, inquisitiveness, psychological factors, and time (Ting et al., 2020). In the same vein,
Mandernach (2015) contends that, the interrelated cognitive and affective components deserve
attention when analyzing learning effectiveness. True, a suitable learning method would simulate
learners to aim higher, but it would be a waste of time to pay much attention to learning styles if
teacher’s personality is bad.

Additionally, it is important to note that teachers and students are unique individuals with
unique ways of teaching and learning. Their mental construction is not homogeneous to assume
that a particular teaching style can lead to learning effectiveness of a distinct group. Most theorists
and practitioners are persuaded to believe that a particular teaching method is superior to others
and single handedly can adequately predict learning effectiveness without necessarily paying
attention to other variables in the causal chain. This experimental study is set out to determine
whether students taught using PBL techniques, learn significantly better than those taught using
lecture method with the view of helping the university management to make an informed decision
regarding the choice of an appropriate teaching-learning technique.

2. Methodology
The unit of analysis for this study was the final year undergraduate students of Unik, Faculty of
Education offering Geography as one of their specialized teaching subjects. Whereas this geogra­
phy class was among the smallest groups in the faculty, its academic performance for the previous
years was not convincing. The poor performance could have been influenced by factors such as
students’ previous performance at senior six (an equivalent of grade 12), students’ social-
economic background, inadequate learning resources, university learning culture and perhaps
the teaching-learning styles. Of these factors, teaching-learning style was identified for inquiry
because it is one of the variables that can ably explain a variation in academic performance of the
same group of students at two different points in time (Samuel, O. et al., 2007).

This study utilized a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest nonequivalent group design. The pre-
test was applied to both the experimental (PBL) and control group (TMI) with the specific intention
of establishing students’ prior knowledge base, problem solving skills, as well as their critical
thinking abilities before the intervention. This was used as a baseline to systematically track
students’ progression in knowledge and skill acquisition at the post-test level. The experimental
group (PBL) was given the instructions prior to the intervention, probing questions to keep them on
track, expected learning outcomes, tools for data collection and analysis, and an appropriate
orientation on how to construct their own knowledge during and after the coverage of the course
(GEO 3101 Settlement Geography). Equally, the control group was given a proper briefing on how
lectures would flow with the teacher acting as a facilitator.

Additionally, to reduce the degree of margin of error, threats to internal and external validity were
taken care of and controlled. For the internal validity, the researcher needed to be sure that the
observable cause-and-effect relationship established was as a result of the interaction between the
parameters of X and Y but not for any other factors. Although it is hard to ensure this in quasi-
experimental studies, the effective use of control group, manipulation, and having control over
reactivity, mitigated this challenge. For the external validity, the researcher was concerned about
the generalizability of the study findings beyond the experimental setting. This was ensured by
selecting a well-matched comparison group, assigning each group equal learning hours, equal
learning load, same facilitator, and different learning timings to minimize interaction among the
two groups. Again, pretest examinations were conducted as a validity control mechanism to establish

Page 5 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents (N = 39)

Group Instructional Sex Age Group Instructional prior knowledge
preference
PBL 20 M 11 (19–24) Fair 12
F 9 Good 8
Control 19 M 6 (19–24) Fair 1
F 13 Good 18

if subjects were or not, at the same level of cognition and learning experience before the treatment so
as to appreciate the effect of the intervention on the experimental group.

2.1. Conceptualizing effective learning in light of PBL and TMI

Contextually, instructional effectiveness was perceived as pedagogies of engagement which pre­
pare learners for the world of practice through knowledge application. The basis for this lies in the
constructivism view that looks at effective learning as a process in which learners actively con­
struct knowledge as they try to comprehend their world (Dewey, 1929; Bruner, 1961; Vygotsky,
1962;; Piaget, 1980). In this view, the duty of the facilitator is to create a learning environment
where students are exposed to different learning problems relating to real life and take interest in
solving them. This perspective towards instructional effectiveness informed the evaluation of PBL
alongside TMI with the view of informing practice and guiding policy formulation in teaching and
learning processes at Unik. The researcher is cognizant of the fact that there are many forms of
TMI (e.g., formal, informal, and semi-formal lecture methods), Lowman (1995), but in this study,
the researcher limited the definition of TMI to only the formal lecture method that supports the
logical verbal presentation of subject matter augmented by visual aids by an instructor to a group
of students in a designated classroom (SPENCE, 1928).

2.2. Participants
Before categorizing students into the experimental and control groups, a preliminary survey was
conducted to establish if the targeted class cohort had variations in terms of the instructional prior
knowledge, instructional preference, and age group. Although there were variations as provided in
Table 1, the said differences did not hinder the intervention, rather, were found useful in aiding the
categorization of students into experimental or control groups.

The final year undergraduate students offering Geography as one of their specialized subjects in
the academic year 2017/2018 were used as unit of analysis for this study. Settlement Geography
(GEO 3101) was at the time of the intervention a paper offered to year 3, semester 1 Geography
students of the Faculty of Education. The class total population was 41, but based on the
exclusion criterion (e.g., nil-participation in the preliminary survey), 39 students were considered
for this inquiry. Since it was hard to meet the desired conditions of random assignment (i.e.,
partially controlled environment), participants were assigned to PBL and lecture method basing
on how comfortable they were with any of the two teaching techniques. Data regarding their prior
experience in either TMI or PBL and/or instructional preference were obtained prior to the inter­
vention by the use of a questionnaire. Twenty (20) participants had interest in PBL while 19 in the
TMI. The experimental group was taught using PBL techniques while the control group by lecture
method for a full semester (January–May 2017). Students for lecture method were taught every
Thursday for 2 hours (standard lecture time at Unik) while the PBL group was allocated 2 hours
every Saturday for their study engagements throughout the semester. Guidelines and proper
orientation on how to work in groups, work independently, manage projects, hold leadership
roles, engage in self-directed learning, and critical thinking were extended to PBL group prior to
the treatment.

Page 6 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

2.3. Data analysis

The researcher had hypothesized that students taught using PBL do not significantly perform
better than students taught using lecture method. To prove whether there would be any statistical
significant difference in students’ performance, the student t-test was run with the aid of SPSS
(version 16.0). The observational method was equally significant in tracking students’ responsive­
ness to the learning themes, group participation, inquisitiveness, persistence among others. These
variables could not be measured using t-test but could be physically observed by the facilitator.

2.4. Study findings

The researcher wondered if students’ academic performance gains would still not improve when
taught using PBL. Since students offering Geography had for long performed implausibly, changing
the style of instruction was thought-out as an ultimate solution to the vice. The university
management still wanted to use this intervention as a pilot study for introducing practical-based
learning across faculties.

To establish whether PBL is a better mode of instruction than TMI, a sample of 39 students was
subjected to a highly controlled treatment for 15 weeks (one academic semester) of active
learning engagements. The control group (n = 19) was taught using TMI (lecture method), while
the experimental group (n = 20) by the PBL method. To reduce bias and any form of measurement
errors, a pre-test was conducted for PBL and TMI to establish students’ prior knowledge abilities in
GEO 3101 Settlement Geography and also to use it as a baseline to determine if students’
academic performance would statistically and significantly differ at the post-test level so as to
inform the university Management on the best course of action.

The pre-test comparisons in Table 1,2 reveal that the performance results of the two groups
(control and experimental) did not statistically differ (P-value = 0.409 > 0.05). However, the mean
scores indicate that students in the experimental group performed slightly better than their
counterparts in the control group (X TMI = 53 < X PBL = 57.10). This, however, suggests that the
observable differences in the mean scores may have happened by chance or sampling error but
not as a result of group categorization. It is not unfit to claim that before the treatment, students’
level of understanding was almost the same.

After teaching the control and experimental groups for 15 weeks, a second assessment was given
to establish if the PBL method would produce better students’ performance as opposed to TMI. At this
level the hypothesis that there would be no observable significant difference in students’ perfor­
mance in both experimental and control groups was verified at the 95% level of significance.

The post-test results provided in Table 2, 3 indicate that the difference between the post-test
academic achievements of the control and experimental groups was not statistically significant
(P-value = 0.409 > 0.05). This implies that the null hypothesis was accepted while the alternative
was rejected. It again suggests that no observable significant difference will be noticed in the
mean scores of the experimental and control groups in 95 out of 100 replications of the experi­
ment. The observable slight difference in the mean scores (X TMI = 63.16 < X PBL = 66.50) does not
mean that other factors being equal, PBL will continually edge out TMI whenever the two forms of
instruction are applied. It is likely at 95% that this slight difference was not due to experimental
treatment but due to chance and/or sampling error.

Using the pre-test scores for both control and experimental groups as baseline, the study further
intended to establish if both PBL and TMI would independently have a significant impact on
students’ academic performance gains at the end of the academic semester. Table 3, 4 below
shows how learning progressed in each stream.

It is observably clear that in both streams learning effectively took place since the p-values of
both control (p-value = 0.0384 < 0.05) and experimental (p-value = 0.0329 < 0.05) groups were

Page 7 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

Table 2. Pre-test performance comparisons between control and experimental groups

Test type Group N Mean Std. Dev. t-value P-value Decision on
H0
Pre-test Control Group 19 53.00 15.941 −.834 .409 Accepted
Experimental 20 57.10 14.747
Group

Table 3. Post-test performance comparisons between control and experimental groups

Test Group N Mean Std. Dev. t-value P-value Decision on
H0
Post Test Control Group 19 63.16 13.048 −.834 .409 Accepted
Experimental 20 66.50 11.967
Group

below the standard calculated probability (0.05) which was the minimum level of significance
required in this study to declare a significant effect. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected while
the alternative was accepted by default. Keeping other factors constant, it is more likely at 95%
that learning would still effectively take place regardless of the teaching-learning method adopted.
The mean scores for both PBL and TMI at post-test level are almost similar and at the same time
better than the pre-test scores. This suggests that both learning styles independently achieved
their intended learning objectives, although a consistent improvement in learning effectiveness
with a consistent corresponding reduction in cognitive overload was observed in PBL stream.

3. Discussion
The available body of literature demonstrates that PBL is an effective learning approach to
acquiring and retaining knowledge (Yoakan & Sampson, 2002; Kochhar, 2002; Aggarwal, 2000;
McDonald & Isaac, 2001;; Samuel & Sarah Kyolaba, 2007). It is a proven-teaching learning style
that empowers students to control the learning processes (Salari et al., 2018). Tiwari et al. (2006)
and Strobel and Barneveld (2009) further note that nursing students who were exposed to PBL
strategies displayed worthwhile and profound improvement in learning and long-term knowledge
retention as opposed to lecture method. Whereas this may be regarded as a substantial body of
evidence to claim that PBL is an effective mode of learning, Lee et al. (2016) established that PBL is
not good at stimulating critical thinking among learners. Its credence is limited to imparting
problem-solving skills but falls short on critical examination of a situation (Salari et al., 2018).
This observation is in consistence with this study’s findings in the sense that, the control group at
the post-test level of assessment demonstrated an improved level of critical examination of
learning content, articulation, and analytical confidence as opposed to the experimental group.
However, at both levels of assessments (e.g., pre-test and post-test), the experimental group had
a better mean than the control group although the difference was not statistically significant. This
may suggest that, if PBL is institutionalized as a mode of instruction at Unik and given equal
attention, as given to TMI, it may significantly affect learning effectiveness in the long run.

Interestingly, in this study, findings revealed that whereas PBL may be regarded as a good
method of learning, its goodness does not deny the TMI the leverage to shine. Whereas literature
on TMI is replete with reports of failure (Creedy et al., 1992; Beischline & Holmes, 1997;; Killen,
2011) in this study it is considered a core mode of learning. The academic gains of students taught
using PBL did not significantly differ from students taught using TMI. This implies that, both
methods were found to be independently significant in predicting students’ learning outcomes.
This agrees with (Beers, 2005; Rowan et al., 2008; Strobel & Barneveld, 2009; Dochy et al., 2003;
Colliver, 2000; & Shin et al., 2013) whose study findings found no statistical difference between PBL
and lecture method. But can we then use this evidence to conclude that PBL should not be

Page 8 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

Table 4. Pre-test and post-test comparisons within groups

Group Test Results N Mean Std. Dev. t-value P-value Decision on
H0
Control group Pre-test 19 53.00 15.941 −2.14937 0.0384 Rejected
Post-test 19 63.16 13.048
Experimental Pre-test 20 57.1 14.747 −2.21353 0.0329 Rejected
group
Post-test 20 66.5 11.967

considered as a best fit for replacing the TMI? Evidently provided in this study, there appears to be
no basis for comparing the effectiveness of these two methods of teaching. However, one of the
grounds to claim otherwise is that, the experimental group was not so familiar with PBL yet for the
control group, lecture method had been part of their learning since high school. This could have
denied the PBL method an opportunity to shine off lecture method.

Again, the timeframe (15 weeks) within which this treatment was conducted may have denied
the researchers the chance to appreciate the predictive power of the PBL method on students’
academic gains. Almost 40% of the required learning time was wasted since students were
deliberately rejecting the method on grounds that it was a ploy for the lecturer to dodge his
primary responsibility. This experience is consistent with (Schmidt, 1993) who opines that first-time
users usually react to the idea of PBL with anger, denial, and resistance. Conversely, Samuel and
Sarah Kyolaba (2007) observed that it is an avenue through which passive lecturers use to dodge
their responsibility of teaching. This in reaction with other factors such as previous students’
academic learning experiences at high school, timing, and teaching-learning culture at the faculty
of education could have annulled the usually overrated importance of the PBL method in this study
context.

Although these findings may trigger a very serious debate, one should be reminded that this
class of students was neither better nor promising in other subjects since day one of their
university education. To determine whether Unik should drop TMI for PBL method, further inves­
tigations of students’ academic performance trajectory overtime are necessary on other categories
of students in the same faculty and other faculties as well. It is not yet clear if students taught
using lecture method for a very long time can just appreciate other methods of learning overnight.
Knowledge acquisition requires a patient, logical, and persistent process, so does the method of
learning. To ascertain whether PBL is a reliable method of learning as opposed to TMI, focus should
be placed on what form of teaching–learning interactions extend overtime to make learning
a holistic process. In other words, it can be confidently claimed in this study that, it is not the
teaching method per say that determines students’ academic gains, rather, the nature of the
subject matter, teachers’ quality and their preparedness to deliver the content. Practically
observed during this treatment was that, to deliver just a single lesson, one may require
a variety of teaching methods. There were cases in the experimental group where lecture method
would be considered as the “magic wand” and vice versa, but because this study was set out with
a rigid purpose to guide policy and practice at Unik in as far as PBL is concerned, a mixed learning
model would not enable the researcher to appreciate the strength of PBL.

Emerging prominently from this inquiry is that both PBL and TMI are effective teaching-learning
methods whose implementation success depends solely on the prevailing learning context and the
art of the teacher rather than the methods themselves. It may be unwise to think that a mere
change of teaching methods would lead to effective learning without considering the caliber of the
teaching staff at the faculty and other variables in the causal chain. As provided in Ssemugenyi
et al. (2020) that the eminence of a university cannot outmatch that of its academic staff, it is
imperative to pay much attention to staff recruitment processes and the human resource devel­
opment practices at the faculty than investing heavily in various forms of teaching and learning

Page 9 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

methods. At least in this study PBL method did not significantly outshine TMI as some researchers
seem to allude (Gwee, 2009; McDonald & Isaac, 2001; Bransford & Brown 2002; Kohli, 2008; Mark,
2015). Given the study context, it is as good as TMI in predicting learning effectiveness.

3.1. Study implications

The challenges facing the teaching-learning processes today are different from those of yesterday
and this suggests that the teaching styles should not be applied on the basis of how relevant they
were before rather, on how fit they can conform to the prevailing teaching-learning conditions in
an academic institution. Cramping students in groups to stimulate the acquisition of problem-
solving skills may be a good practice in practical-based courses like nursing as intimated by Staun
et al. (2010), but may not be a realistic move for a theory-based subject whose teaching and
learning effectiveness is partly judged by the amount of content covered in a restricted timeframe.
Upon this basis, it may sound reasonable to conclude that this study did not find any statistical
difference between PBL method and TMI because, the theoretical nature of the subject matter and
content volume, coupled with rigid learning context could have undermined the predictive power
of PBL.

The implementation of the PBL method has proved to be somewhat tricky in an environment
where teachers’ teaching proficiency is determined by how fast one covers the required learning
load of a subject. At the time of this treatment, emphasis at Unik was more on syllabus coverage
rather than on problem solving and/or knowledge creation. The experimental group always wanted
to be taught like their counterparts (control group) and often reminded the lecturer on how much
less content they had covered. This suggests that the prior mental construction of students, their
orientation and learning culture can either favor or disfavor a particular learning method.

Paying attention to how learning takes place in a given particular academic culture and how
those learning activities mutually shape each other to influence knowledge acquisition is not only
important to an educator but a fundamental construct upon which learning effectiveness hinges.
The state of affairs at the Faculty of Education-Unik seems to be in conflict with the students
learning expectations and beliefs. While the faculty is looking forward to making learning student
centered with the view of stimulating students’ problem solving skills, inquisitiveness, and interest,
on the contrary, students are not yet prepared for this radical shift. For no fault of their own, they
still prefer a teacher-driven learning model where a teacher almost does everything for them. This
may be attributed to their prior learning experiences at high school where learning engagements
are dominated by the teacher.

It may also be correct to claim that the rigid study culture dictated by a rigid curriculum could
have underestimated the predictive influence of PBL method on students’ academic gains in GEO
3101 Settlement Geography. PBL flourishes in an environment where learning processes are not
restricted (Mark, 2015), in a setting where students are empowered to drive learning initiatives and
solve real-life problems through personal experience encounters (Samuel & Sarah Kyolaba, 2007).
But not in an environment where learning is restricted to pre-determined content in a syllabus as
the case was during this investigation. Paying much attention to finishing subject content as pre-
arranged in the syllabus marginalizes the role PBL is usually set out to play. During this investiga­
tion, the lecturer was under pressure to cover all the content in the limited timeframe as
demanded by the Quality Assurance Unit of the University, at the same time trying to experiment
if a student-based style of learning with little regard to time restrictions would influence learning
effectiveness. This seemed to be too much on the side of the lecturer, and one may simply
conclude that it might have affected the results. However, the researcher maintains that, validity
controls and quality checks were in place to mitigate some of these challenges.

Another remarkable implication was that learning under PBL proved to be a little messier as
opposed to TMI. The existing fundamental individual differences made group learning activities
almost impossible. Students with dominant and assertive personality made it difficult for the

Page 10 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

introverts to try out ideas, explore possibilities, and invent alternative solutions to learning pro­
blems. This notwithstanding, PBL proved to be a very suitable method for self-discovery, self-
reliance, and self-directedness which are core ingredients for preparing future innovators and
leaders.

There was a consistent improvement in learning effectiveness with a consistent corresponding

reduction in cognitive overload in PBL stream, although on average, PBL was as effective as the
traditional mode of instruction (TMI). However, given the study context, students’ academic back­
ground, learning culture, and adoption of a research design that does not support randomization,
generalizing these study findings should be made with caution.
4. Conclusion
Although there is enough evidence to suggest that PBL is a “magic wand” method of learning
(Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Mergendoller et al., 2006;; Thomas, 2000) that connects classroom
phenomena with real-life experiences, this study did not find it significantly better than TMI.
Considering other factors constant, its effectiveness to predicting learning is as good as lecture
method. This therefore means that replacing TMI with PBL method is not the ultimate solution to
the teaching-learning challenges faced by the Faculty of Education at Unik, rather, understanding
how learning takes place in a particular academic culture and how those learning activities
mutually shape each other to influence the acquisition of knowledge, desirable attitude, and skills
should be the cornerstone to creating an enabling learning environment at the faculty.

Again, to discern the most suitable teaching-learning method for teachers to adopt, further
investigations are required on the university-wide students’ academic performance trajectory
overtime whilst using a variety of teaching methods. It may be unwise to invest heavily in the
adoption of a particular method whose effectiveness in a particular learning environment is
uncertain. Needed still to emphasize is that, instead of paying much attention to teaching–learning
methods whose effectiveness solely depends on the quality of the teacher, focus should be
directed to skilling the academic team to competently identify, refine, and apply teaching-
learning methods in accordance with the learning context.

The complexity surrounding learning effectiveness is a natural byproduct of our failure as

academics to define learning effectiveness within our own context. Replicating teaching models
on the basis of their effectiveness elsewhere is not only a misleading undertaking, rather an
obsolete phenomenon that only breeds mediocrity. To prevent Unik from falling suit, this inquiry
has equally offered an operational definition of learning effectiveness that is in consistence with
the teaching-learning context at the Faculty of Education and the University at large. Thus;

Figure 1. A proposed context- Ag = Active learning

specific model for teaching and
learning effectiveness for unik.
Source: Fred Ssemugenyi, 2021. Interest
Social presence

Past learning
x Involvement + Cognitive presence
experience Learning effectiveness

Teacher presence
Learning challenge

Page 11 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398
Ag = Al (I+ Ple+Lc+Slc) × Inv (Cp+Sp+Tp) = > IK/Ef = > Le/Ag
Where; “Academic gains = Active learning (Interest + Past learning experience + Learning chal­
lenge + School learning culture) × Involvement (Cognitive presence + Social presence + Teacher
presence) producing increased knowledge and effectiveness which is subsequently translated into
increased learning engagement and academic gains. This is translated meaningfully to Figure 1. It
is hoped that once this operational model is embraced it may be a turning point for Unik.
Funding
The author received no direct funding for this research.
Author details
Fred Ssemugenyi1
E-mail: fred.ssemugenyi@pnguot.ac.pg
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2528-6960
1
Department of Open & Distance Learning, PNGUoT.
Data Availability
The raw dataset for this study is available on request to
the author.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).
Citation information
Cite this article as: Trapped at the crossroads: Does
problem-based learning make a difference? The moder­
ating role of traditional mode of instruction, Fred
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398.
References
Aggarwal, J. C. (2000). Methods and techniques of teach­
ing. Vikas Publishing House PVT Ltd.
Aidoo, B., Kwadwo Boateng, S., Siaw Kissi, P., & Ofori, I.
(2016). Effect of problem-based learning on students.
Achievement in Chemistry: Journal of Education and
Practice; 2222-1735 (Paper) 2222-288X (Online), 7
(33), 103–108. https://iiste.org/journals/index.php/
JEP/article/view/34135
Barrett, T. 2017. A new model of problem-based learning:
Inspiring concepts, practice strategies and case stu­
dies from higher education 978-0-9935254-6-9.
AISHE.
Beers, G. W. (2005). The effect of teaching method on
objective test scores: Problem-based learning versus
lecture. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(7), 305–309.
https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20050701-03
Beischline, M., & Holmes, C. (1997). Student preferences
for various teaching styles. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 24(2), 95–100.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st cen­
tury: Skills for the future. The Clearing House:
A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,
83(2), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00098650903505415
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, W., S, J.,
Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating
project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, sup­
porting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3),
369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.
9653139
Boblawlor (2017). Student centered learning: The Irish
enquiry/ problem based learning network, facilitate.
https://pblfacilitate.wordpress.com/author/boblawlor
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2002). How
people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school.
National Academic Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard
Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32. https://hal.
archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00692072
Charlton, B. G. (2006). Lectures are such an effective
teaching method because they exploit evolved
human psychology to improve learning. Medical
Hypotheses, 67(6), 1261–1265. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.mehy.2006.08.001
Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based
learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic
Medicine, 75(3), 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1097/
00001888-200003000-00017
Creedy, D., Horsfall, J., & Hand, B. (1992). Problem-based
learning in nurse education: An Australian view.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(6), 727–733. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01971.x
Department of Education. (2011). National curriculum and
assessment policy statement (CAPS). Government
Printer.
Devries. (2000). Developing constructivist early childhood
curriculum: Practical principles and activities.
Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. Minton.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003).
Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis.
Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., Allen, & E, D. (Eds.). (2001). The
power of problem-based learning. Stylus.
Edwards, G., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Effective and ineffec­
tive secondary schools in Zimbabwe: A preliminary
study. International Studies in Educational
Administration, 23 (4) 27–37. http://www.cceam.org/
index.php?id=6
Elijah Dickens Mushemeza. (2016). Opportunities and
challenges of academic staff in higher education in
Africa. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(3),
236–246. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n3p236
Eshwar, S., Manvi, S., Markose, J. & (2017). Problem-based
learning vs lectures—comparison of academic per­
formances among dental undergraduates in India:
A pilot study. World Journal of Dentistry, 8(1), 59–66.
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1412
Govender, S. (2015). Students’ perceptions of teaching
methods used at South African higher education
institutions. South African Journal of Higher Education,
29(3), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.20853/29-3-486
Gwee, M. C. E. (2009). Problem-based learning: A strategic
learning system design for the education of health­
care professionals in the 21st century. The Kaohsiung
Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(5), 231–239. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70067-1
Hallinger, P., & Jiafang, L. (2011). Implementing
problem-based learning in higher education in Asia:
Challenges, strategies and effect. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, 33(3), 267–285.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.565000 To
link to this Article
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school
resources on student performance: An update.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2),
Page 12 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398
141–164. https://doi.org/10.3102/
01623737019002141
Kasozi, B. K. (2003). University education in Uganda:
Challenges and opportunities for reform. Fountain
Publishers. Kampala
Kasozi, A. B. K.(2005).Bridging the digital and gender gap.
An issue paper of higher education. Ministry of
Education and Sports, Department of Higher
Education, Kampala.
Kasozi, A. B. K. (2006). Regulating transnational higher
education in Uganda: Consumers should be cautious.
National Council for Higher Education.
Ketpichainarong, W., Panijpan, B., & Ruenwongsa, P.
(2010). Enhanced learning of biotechnology students
by an inquiry-based cellulose laboratory.
International Journal of Environmental and Science
Education, 5(2), 169–187. http://www.ijese.net
Killen, R. (2011). Teaching strategies for quality teaching
and learning. Juta.
Kochhar, S. K. (2002). Methods and techniques of teach­
ing. Sterling Publication Ltd.
Kohli, A. (2008). Problem based learning in dentistry – An
answer to future challenges. Dentistry India Mar, 2(2),
18–28.
Lee, J., Lee, Y., Gong, S., Bae, J., & Choi, M. (2016). A
meta-analysis of the effects of nontraditional teach­
ing methods on the critical thinking abilities of nur­
sing students. BMC Medical Education, 16(1), 240.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0761-7
Locke, J. (2015). The clarendon edition of the works of
John Locke. Oxford University Press.
Lowman. J. (1995). Mastering the techniques of teaching.
2nd Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN:978-0-787-
95568-7
Mamdani, M. (2007). Scholars in the market place: The
dilemmas of neo-liberal reform at Makerere university,
1989-2005. Fountain Publishers.
Mandernach, B. J. (2015). Assessment of student
engagement in higher education: A synthesis of lit­
erature and assessment tools. International Journal
of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 12
(2), 1–14. file:///C:/Users/DODL/AppData/Local/Temp/
367-1259-2-PB-2.pdf
Mark, J. N. (2015). Problem based learning: An introduction
and overview of the key features of the approach.
Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 32(1), 12–20.
https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.32.1.12 Spring 2005
McDonald & Isaac. (2001). Problem-based learning.
London University Press.
McGrath, C., Comfort, M. B., Luo, Y., Samaranayake, L. P., &
Clark, C. D. (2006). Application of an interactive
computer program to manage a problem-based
dental curriculum. Journal of Dental Education, 70(4),
387–397. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16595531
Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006).
The effectiveness of problem-based instruction:
A comparative study of instructional methods and
student characteristics. InterdisciplinaryJournal of
Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49–69. https://doi.org/
10.7771/1541-5015.1026
Oleson, A., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Teaching the way they
were taught? Revisiting the sources of teaching
knowledge and the role of prior experience in shap­
ing faculty teaching practices. Higher Education, 68
(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-
9678-9
Otaala, J., Maani, J. S., & Bakaira, G. G. (2013).
Effectiveness of university teacher education curri­
culum on the secondary school teacher performance
in Uganda: The case of Kyambogo university. Journal
of International Cooperation in Education, 15(3), 95–
112. https://cice.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/wp-content/
uploads/publications/15-3/15-3-06.pdf
Piaget, J. (1980). The psychogenesis of knowledge and its
epistemological significance. In M. Piatelli-Palmarini
(Ed.), Language and learning (pp. 23–34). Harvard
University Press.
Rowan, C. J., McCourt, C., & Beake, S. (2008). Problem
based learning in midwifery - the students’ perspec­
tive. Nurse Education Today, 28(1), 93–99. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.nedt.2007.02.014
Salari, M., Roozbehi, A., Zarifi, A., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2018).
Pure PBL, hybrid PBL and lecturing: Which one is
more effective in developing cognitive skills of
undergraduate students in pediatric nursing course?
BMC Medical Education, 18(195), 26–38.https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12909-018-1305-0
Samuel O. Owalabi and Diana S. Kyolaba. (2007). Can
problem-based learning improve academic perfor­
mance? Research Digest, 1(1), 32–43.
Samuel, O. O., & Sarah Kyolaba, D. (2007). Can
problem-based learning improve academic
performance? Kampala International University
Research Digest, 1(1), 32–43. 1996-9023
Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based
learning: Some explanatory notes. Medical Education,
27(5), 422–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.
1993.tb00296.x
Shaw, S. M. (1999). It’s true. Asians can’t think time. 23.
Content.time.com.
Shin, I.-S., & Kim, J.-H. (2013). The effect of
problem-based learning in nursing education: A
meta-analysis. Advances in Health Sciences
Education, 18(5), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10459-012-9436-2
Snyder, S. (2013). The simple, the complicated, and the
complex: Educational reform through the lens
ofcomplexity theory. In OECD education working
papers, Directorate for Education and Skills-OECD:
Vol. 96, pp. 1–27. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.
1787/5k3txnpt1lnr-en
SPENCE, R. B. (1928). Lecture and class discussion in
teaching educational psychology. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 19(7), 454–462. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0071139
Ssemugenyi, F., Nuru Seje, T., & Amboka Asumwa, A.
(2020). Human resource development practices at
the crossroads: A performance review of higher
educational academics in East African universities.
World Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 2
(2), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.119.
2020.22.132.145
Staun, M., Bergström, B., & Wadensten, B. (2010). Evaluation
of a PBL strategy in clinical supervision of nursing stu­
dents: Patient-centred training in student dedicated
treatment rooms. Nurse Education Today, 30(7),
631–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.12.013
Strobel, J., & Barneveld, A. V. (2009). When is PBL more
effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses
comparing PBL to conventional classrooms.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning,
3(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.
1046
Thomas, J. W. (2000). San Rafael: The autodesk
Foundation 111 McInnis Parkway. (pp. 1–48). http://
www.bie.org/index.php/site/RE/pbl_research/29
Ting, J. K. S., Tan, V. M., & Voon, M. L. (2020). Factors
influencing student engagement in higher education
institutions: Central to sustainability and progression
of the institution. European Journal of Molecular &
Clinical Medicine 2515-8260, 7(8), 449–454. https://
ejmcm.com/article_3175.html
Page 13 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

Tiwari, A., Chan, S., Wong, E., & Wong, D. (2006). The
effect of problem-based learning on students’
approaches to learning in the context of clinical
nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 26(5),
631–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2005.12.001
Tuyizere Alice Peace. (2017). Challenges faced by sec­
ondary school teacher trainees in universities in
Uganda. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science, 7(8), 68–75. http://www.ijhssnet.com/
journals/Vol_7_No_8_August_2017/7.pdf
Uganda National Council for Higher Education. (2016).
The state of higher education and training 2013–
2014. Published by NCHE.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Wittek, L., & Habib, L. (2013). Quality teaching and
learning as practice within different disciplinary
discourses. International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 25(3), 275–287. http://
www.isetl.org/ijtlhe
Yoakan & Sampson. (2002). Techniques of teaching.
Sterling Publication Ltd.
Yonatan, S. (2020). Comparison between problem-based
learning and lecture-based learning: Effect of nursing
students’ immediate knowledge retention. <![cdata
[advances in Medical Education and Practice]]>, 11,
947–952. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S269207

Annexure 1
SPSS Output

Pre-test Comparisons

Group Statistics

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Mean
Pretest Control Group 19 53.00 15.941 3.65708
Experimental 20 57.10 14.747 3.29745
Group

Independent Samples Test

Levene’s Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
(2-tailed) Difference Difference of the Difference
Lower Upper
Pretest Equal .324 .573 −.834 37 .409 −4.10000 4.91410 −14.05691 5.85691
variances
assumed
Equal −.833 36.383 .410 −4.10000 4.92417 −14.08303 5.88303
variances
not
assumed

Page 14 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

Post Test Comparisons

Group Statistics

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Mean
PostTest Control Group 19 63.16 13.048 2.99343
Experimental 20 66.50 11.967 2.67592
Group

Independent Samples Test

Levene’s Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
(2-tailed) Difference Difference of the Difference
Lower Upper
PostTest Equal .577 .452 −.834 37 .409 −3.34211 4.00600 −11.45903 4.77482
variances
assumed
Equal −.832 36.301 .411 −3.34211 4.01511 −11.48279 4.79857
variances
not
assumed

Annexure 2
Faculty of Education- The University of Kisubi

Module Evaluation (Experimental Group)

PBL Process Evaluation Sheet

Using Likert Scale of 1–5 score (5 = very satisfactorily, 4 = satisfactorily, 3 = not sure, 2 = unsa­
tisfactorily, 1 = very unsatisfactorily) how do you rate your degree of satisfaction in as far as this
problem-based case is concerned?

(1) Group skills: I actively demonstrated the desire to learn with others, respected their unique learning
needs and aspirations as well as paying attention to the group’s code of conduct.

(1) very unsatisfactorily

(2) unsatisfactorily

(3) not sure

(4) satisfactorily

(5) very satisfactorily

Page 15 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

(2) Learning skills: I was able to identify and align the individual and group learning needs together with
the expected learning outcomes of the course.

(1) very unsatisfactorily

(2) unsatisfactorily

(3) not sure

(4) satisfactorily

(5) very satisfactorily

(3) Reasoning skills: I actively participated in the critical examination and evaluation of study materials,
information, and data so as to draw conclusions that are based on an evaluated body of evidence.

(1) very unsatisfactorily

(2) unsatisfactorily

(3) not sure

(4) satisfactorily

(5) very satisfactorily

(4) Application skills: I have gained the ability to demonstrate that the acquired knowledge can be
sufficiently applied in various real-life situations.

(1) very unsatisfactorily

(2) unsatisfactorily

(3) not sure

(4) satisfactorily

(5) very satisfactorily

(5) Feedback skills: I learned a lot from my colleagues’ feedback and I equally offered mine to the rest of
the group to strengthen their learning abilities.

(1) very unsatisfactorily

(2) unsatisfactorily

(3) not sure

(4) satisfactorily

(5) very satisfactorily

Page 16 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

(6) Reporting skills: I actively participated in the whole process of problem identification, document
review, data collection, analysis and reporting. This research-based approach to learning made
learning interactive, engaging and lively.

(1) very unsatisfactorily

(2) unsatisfactorily

(3) not sure

(4) satisfactorily

(5) very satisfactorily

(7) I feel I made considerable improvement in the following learning areas (one sentence)

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

(8) Overall I would rate my group as; (1. very poor, 2. poor, 3. good, 4. very good, 5. Excellent) . . . . . . . . .
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

(9) Overall I would rate this problem case as; (1. very dull, 2. dull, 3. ordinary, 4. interesting, 5. very
interesting) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annexure 3
Faculty of Education—The University of Kisubi

Sample Summative Questions (Control Group)

(1) GEO 3101: Settlement Geography (Year Three Semester One) Which one of the following is the
correct sequence of stages of urban development as postulated by L. Mumford (Memory)

(a) Polis—Ecopolis—Metropolis—Megalopolis

(b) Metropolis—Polis—Ecopolis—Megalopolis

(c) Ecopolis—Polis—Metropolis—Megalopolis

(d) Megalopolis—Metropolis—Ecopolis—Polis

(1) Is there any spatial analysis theory that can be applied in the growth of informal settlements and
roads in developing countries? Justify your answer with reference to one geographical area of your
life experience. (Reasoning)

(2) How far true is the statement that, “settlements are born not made”. (Reasoning)

(3) Assuming you are appointed as an urban planner for Kampala City, what locational and adminis­
trative strategies would you adopt to improve on the city fabric? (Application)

(4) It is claimed by most Geographers that Vonthunen is both a classical and contemporary theorist,
using his Agricultural Model, analyze how the current settlement patterns in Uganda are being
influenced by the said model. (Application/Reasoning)

Page 17 of 18
Ssemugenyi, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2068398
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2068398

(5) “The Urban Planning Policy for Kampala city is in conflict with the settlement laws” As a student of
Settlement Geography, how would you harmonize the two? Use practical examples to justify your
case. (Application/Reasoning)

(6) Comment on the following; (Memory)

- Centrality and nodality

- Hamlet

- Conurbation

(1) With reference to one region of your life experience, examine the factors responsible for human
migration and settlement. (Reasoning/Memory)

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Education (ISSN: 2331-186X) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 18 of 18