Challenges of Problem Based Learning

Abstract

Background: The cornerstone of problem-based learning (PBL) tutoring is its facilitation skills and is vital to student learning. PBL is a major component in the undergraduate medical curriculum at the Univeristi Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

Full text

South East Asian Journal of Medical Education
Vol. 3 no. 2, 2009
54
Original Research Paper
Challenges of Problem Based Learning
Abdus Salam1, Nabishah Mohamad2, Harlina Halizah Hj Siraj3, Azian Abd Latif4, Ima Nirwana
Soelaiman5, Baharuddin Hj Omar6, Wan Zurinah Wan Ngah7, Norhayati Moktar5
Abstract
Background: The cornerstone of problem-based learning (PBL) tutoring is its facilitation skills and is
vital to student learning. PBL is a major component in the undergraduate medical curriculum at the
Univeristi Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).
Objectives: The objective of this study was to identify the knowledge, attitudes and skills of PBL tutors
of different status and backgrounds.
Methods: A cross sectional study was carried out on 55 tutors with medical and non-medical
backgrounds, of various academic positions, who conducted 94 tutorials. Respondents were 240
semester-1, year-1, UKM medical students of the academic session of 2007-2008. Data was collected
at the end of last session of each PBL case tutorial, utilizing an evaluation form.
Results: The majority of tutors possessed knowledge on PBL process and showed positive attitudes
towards students learning. Facilitation skills varied among the tutors. However, no significant
difference was found between tutors of medical and non-medical backgrounds.
Conclusion: Problem processing or facilitation is a challenging task. This also depends on problem
structure or designing of the problem. Every PBL tutor irrespective of their background and status
must have adequate training on PBL facilitation skills and designing of problem based on critical
evaluation of educational theory.
Keywords: PBL tutors, Knowledge, Attitudes, Problem facilitation, Students’ perception
Introduction
Medical education is moving towards a more
problem-based model and over the years
problem based learning (PBL) has been
implemented in several schools and its
reputation continues to grow (Berkson, 1993).
1Senior Lecturer, Department of Medical Education
2Professor and Head, Department of Medical Education
3Associate Professor, Department of Medical Education
4Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy
5Professor, Department of Pharmacology
6Professor, Department of Parasitology
7Professor, Department of Biochemistry
Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Corresponding author: Dr. Abdus Salam
MBBS; MPH; DMedEd; MMedEd
Department of Medical Education
Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Jalan Yaacob Latif, Bandar Tun Razak Cheras 56000,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Phone: +6 03 91457973; Fax: +6 03 91738790; H/P: +6
0199061724
E-mail: salabdus@gmail.com; salam@ppukm.ukm.my
Problem-based learning is an active learning
method where a tutor facilitates a small self-
directed group to start tackling a problem with
a brain storming session. The problem, which
could be a clinical problem, community
problem or a scientific problem, is posed to the
students in a way that challenges their
knowledge and skills (Smits et al., 2002). The
principal idea behind this is that the starting
point for learning should be a problem, a
query, or a puzzle that the learner wishes to
solve (Davis & Harden, 1998; Harden & Davis,
1999). Learning goals are to be formulated by
consensus, and new information is to be
learned by self-directed study, which ends with
group discussion and evaluation (Smits et al.,
2002). Educational objectives of PBL help
students to develop their abilities to analyze
and solve problems i.e. to develop reasoning
or problem solving skills and be able to learn
on their own for the rest of their lives (Barrows
& Tamblyn, 1980; Marchais et al., 1993; Das
et al., 2002; Williams & Beattie, 2008).

South East Asian Journal of Medical Education
Vol. 3 no. 2, 2009 55
The role of the PBL tutor differs considerably
from that of a tutor in a conventional teaching
format (Smits et al., 2002; Das et al., 2002).
Facilitation in PBL incorporates fundamental
educational principles that derive from the
adult learning theory (Colliver, 2000); PBL is
an approach to “learn to learn” under the
guidance of a tutor, with critical problems used
as the stimulus for learning. It is therefore
crucially important to monitor the quality of
PBL after its adoption in the curriculum.
Moreover, there is debate within the literature
as to whether the best PBL tutors are those
with medical backgrounds (i.e. the subject
experts) or non medical background tutors
(Gilkison, 2003). The objective of this study
was to identify the knowledge, attitudes and
skills of tutors in PBL tutorials at Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and to explore
any differences between tutors of medical and
non-medical backgrounds with varying
academic status aimed at the continuous
process of curriculum development.
Method
Setting
The study was carried out among the first year
students at the Faculty of Medicine UKM,
during the academic session of 2007-2008. A
total of 240 students were enrolled in this
session of the MD programme. The MD
programme consists of 10 semesters in 5
years duration. The first two years of the
programme mainly comprises of preclinical
and basic science teaching framework, and
the last three years cover the clinical science
teaching framework. The preclinical teaching
framework uses paper based case write ups
as problems and the clinical teaching
framework uses real patients’ problems.
Approximately four modules are covered in
each preclinical semester and 2-4 paper based
PBL cases laid down under each module.
The setting of this study was in the first
semester of the preclinical teaching framework
where 10 paper based PBL cases were
conducted under four modules namely, cellular
biomolecules, tissues of body, membrane
receptors and human genetics. The case
content or problem structure varied depending
on the modules. The PBL group was facilitated
by a range of academic staff of varying status
from both medical and non-medical
backgrounds. These academic staff members
are referred to as ‘tutors’ in this paper. All PBL
tutors attended a two-day PBL facilitation
workshop and were briefed on specific cases
before they conducted the PBL session.
Students were also given inputs about PBL at
the beginning of the semester. The PBL
tutorials were conducted over a duration of 20
weeks through two-hour sessions held twice a
week for each PBL case.
Respondents were 240 students, divided into
20 groups, where each group consisted of 12
students. A total of 55 tutors conducted 94
PBL tutorial sessions for1st semester students
over a period of 20 weeks. Among these 94
tutorials, 30 tutorials were conducted by 30
tutors i.e, each tutor conducted one PBL case
tutorial, 28 tutorials were conducted by 14
tutors i.e, each tutor conducted 2 PBL case
tutorials, another 24 tutorials were conducted
by 8 tutors i.e, each tutor conducted 3 PBL
case tutorials and remaining 12 tutorials were
conducted by 3 tutors i.e, each conducted 4
PBL case tutorials. Thus total 55 tutors
conducted 10 PBL cases through 94 tutorial
sessions. As such, a single PBL group was
facilitated by more than one tutor over the 20
weeks duration.
Data were collected about the tutors
performance throughout these 94 tutorial
classes. The students evaluated their tutor by
filling in a tutor evaluation form at the end of
every PBL case i.e. at the end of second
session of each PBL tutorial. The students’
rating of tutors’ performance was averaged for
the tutors who facilitated the same group of
students for more than one PBL case. The
number of the students participating in each
tutorial group was 12. The minimum number of
students completing the instrument per group
was four.
Instrument
The tutor evaluation form consisted of a range
of items on PBL, categorized under the
domains of knowledge, attitudes and skills.
The rating scales used against these items
were ranged from 1-5, where 1 was for
‘strongly disagree’, and 5 was represented
‘strongly agree’. At the end of each PBL case,
students were asked to indicate their
perception against each of the items in order
to evaluate their tutors’ performance.
Analysis
The background of the tutors in the present
study and their academic status were
identified. Students’ rating against each item
for each tutor was analysed per tutorial group.
For simplification of presentation, students’
response regarding ‘agree’ and ‘strongly
agree’ were combined together and presented
here as agreed. Similarly, ‘disagree’ and

South East Asian Journal of Medical Education
Vol. 3 no. 2, 2009
56
‘strongly disagree’ were presented as
disagreed. The combined ratings were then
presented as number and percentage
distribution. Average score per tutorial group
against each item for each tutor was
computed, which represented the competence
of individual tutor in different items.
As such, students’ responses were available
for 55 tutors and their corresponding groups.
The highest and the lowest rankings of each
items regarding the tutors performance was
also computed and presented as number and
percentage distribution. Fisher exact test
outcomes were used to differentiate between
the lowest and highest scoring tutors.
Results
The response rate per tutorial group in the
present study varied from 58% to 100% for
each group of students. The average response
rate was 91%.
Table 1 shows the distribution of the tutors
background and their academic status. Of a
total of 55 tutors, 41 (74%) were from the
medical background (medical degree /doctor)
and 14 (26%) were from a non-medical
background (basic science PhD degree). In
terms of academic status, there were 24%
professors, 29% associate professors, 20%
senior lecturers, 20% lecturers and 7% trainee
lecturers.
Table 1: Distribution of academic status and background of PBL tutors n=55
Background
Academic status Medical
n (%) Non-medical
n (%)
Total
n (%)
Professors (P) 11 (20) 2 (4) 13 (24)
Associate Professors (AP) 11 (20) 5 (9) 16 (29)
Senior Lecturers (SL) 9 (16) 2 (4) 11 (20)
Lecturers (L) 6 (11) 5 (9) 11 (20)
Trainee Lecturers (TL) 4 (7) 0 (0) 4 (7)
Total 41 (74) 14 (26) 55 (100)
Table 2 represents the tutors’ knowledge on
the PBL process, where the lowest rank and
highest rank achieved tutors were categorized
based on the rating of students. Regarding
tutors with a medical background, students
perceived that 60-100% tutors understood the
PBL process, while 58-100% of tutors with a
non medical background were perceived to
have understood the PBL process. Among
tutors with a medical background, one tutor of
professor status (9 % professor) fell under the
lowest ranking, while 6 tutors of lecturer status
(100% lecturers), 5 tutors of senior lecturer
status (56% senior lecturers), 6 tutors of
professor status (56% professors), 2 tutors of
trainee lecturer status (50% trainee lecturers)
and 3 tutors of associate professor status
(27% associate professors) fell under the
highest ranking. Similarly, distribution of non
medical background tutors is shown in table 2.
Table 2. Tutors’ knowledge on PBL process
Medical background tutor Non-medical background tutor
Knowledge on
PBL process Lowest rank
with status* Highest rank
with status* Mean Lowest rank
with status* Highest rank
with status* Mean
p
value
Understood
PBL process 60%
Status n (%)
P 1 (9)
100%
Status n (%)
L 6 (100)
SL 5 (56)
P 6 (55)
TL 2 (50)
AP 3 (27)
88% 58%
Status n (%)
AP 1 (20)
100%
Status n (%)
P 2 (100)
L 4 (80)
SL 1 (50)
AP 1 (20)
92%
0.490
*P=Professor, AP=Assciate Professor, SL=Senior Lecturer, L=Lecturer, TL=Temporary Lecturer

South East Asian Journal of Medical Education
Vol. 3 no. 2, 2009 57
Table 3: Tutors’ attitude to show interest in students’ learning
Medical background tutor Non-medical background tutor
Attitude Lowest rank Highest rank Mean Lowest rank Highest rank Mean
with status* with status* with status* with status*
p
value
Showed
interest in
students
learning
30%
Status n (%)
AP 1 (9)
100%
Status n (%)
L 4 (67)
P 6 (55)
TL 2 (50)
SL 4 (44)
AP 3 (27)
88% 64%
Status n (%)
SL 1 (50)
100%
Status n (%)
L 3 (60)
P 1 (50)
SL 1 (50)
AP 1 (20)
92%
0.459
*P=Professor, AP=Associate Professor, SL=Senior Lecturer, L=Lecturer, TL=Temporary Lecturer
Table 3 reveals the tutors’ attitude and interest
in students’ learning, which shows that 30% to
100% tutors from medical background and
64% to 100% from non-medical background
tutors showed interest in students learning.
The number, percentage and status
distribution of lowest and highest ranked tutors
of both background are shown in this table.
Table 4 demonstrates the students’ responses
about skills in facilitation of the PBL tutorial by
their tutor. A total of eight items were
investigated, which included providing a good
introduction, probing for information, providing
information upon request, focusing on learning
issues, encouraging being more critical,
creating a comfortable learning environment,
encouraging to participate in group discussion
and providing feedback. An average of more
than 70% of tutors from both backgrounds
were found to possess all of these skills except
that of providing information upon request. This
study revealed that 20%-100% medical and
0%-100% non-medical background tutors
provided information. Table 4 also represents
the number, percentage and status distribution
of lowest and highest ranked tutors against
different skills in both backgrounds.
Discussion
We consider student feedback an important
exercise to improve the tutor skills in PBL. In
this study we examined the student
perceptions of the knowledge, attitude and
skills of PBL tutors of different academic
positions and of medical and non-medical
backgrounds. Irrespective of the tutors’
background and status, the present study
revealed that the most of tutors possessed
knowledge on PBL process (table 2) and
showed positive attitudes towards students
learning (table 3) (mean 88% for tutors with
medical backgrounds and 92% for those with
non-medical backgrounds). In terms of skills,
the mean ratings indicate that tutors with a
medical background performed better in
probing students for information, focusing on
learning issues, encouraging students to be
more critical and also to participate in active
group discussion. On the other hand, tutors
with non-medical backgrounds performed
better at skills in performing good introduction,
non provision of information upon request and
creating a comfortable non-threatening
learning environment. The lowest ranking
rating among tutors with non-medical
backgrounds was much better than their
medical counterpart in all skills except the skill
of assisting the group to focus on learning
issues (table 4). The range of lowest and
highest rank rating against these skills is also
closer among tutors with non-medical
backgrounds than those with medical
backgrounds. This means that facilitation skills
of non-medical background tutors are more
consistent and follow a more facilitative-
collaborative manner than those of their
medical counterparts.
The tutor’s role in PBL is neither to act as
authoritarian information provider nor passive
onlooker assuming PBL as self-directed
curriculum; rather, a tutors’ role is very active
in terms of the process and in keeping the
students’ discussion alive, being non-
threatening and motivating by non directive
stimuli (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; Barrows,
1985). In the present study, more than 50% of
the tutors from medical and non-medical
backgrounds, provided information upon
request from students which is against the PBL
philosophy (table 4).

South East Asian Journal of Medical Education
Vol. 3 no. 2, 2009
58
Table 4. Distribution of tutors’ skills in facilitation of PBL tutorials
Medical background tutor Non-medical background tutor
Skills Lowest rank
with status* Highest rank
with status* Mean Lowest rank
with status* Highest rank
with status* Mean p
value
50%
Status n (%) 100%
Status n (%) 100%
Status n (%) 86% 1.000 Performed a
good
introduction P
AP
SL
1
1
1
(9)
(9)
(11)
SL
L
TL
P
A
P
3
2
1
2
1
(33)
(33)
(25)
(18)
(9)
82% 64%
Status n (%)
SL 1 (50) P
AP
L
1
1
2
(50)
(20)
(40)
30%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
Probed for
information AP 1 (9) P
L
SL
AP
2
1
1
1
(18)
(17)
(11)
(9)
82%
45%
Status n (%)
SL 1 (50) L
AP
2
1
(40)
(20)
73
%
1.000
20%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
Provided
information
upon request
from students AP
SL 1
1
(9)
(11)
L
1 (17)
65%
0%
Status n (%)
L 1 (20) L 1
(20)
55
%
1.000
52%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
Assisted the
group to focus
on learning
issues AP 1
(9) L
SL
P
AP
3
3
3
2
(50)
(33)
(27)
(18)
86%
43%
Status n (%)
AP 1 (20) P
L 1
1
(50)
(20)
74
%
0.371
36%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
Encouraged
the group to be
more critical AP 1
(9) L
P
SL
AP
3
5
3
3
(50)
(45)
(33)
(27)
85%
50%
Status n (%)
AP 1 (20) P
L 1
2 (50)
(40)
79
%
0.386
58%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
100%
Status (%)
Assisted the
group in
creation of
comfortable
learning
environment
P 1
(9) L
P
TL
AP
SL
3
4
1
2
1
(50)
(36)
(25)
(18)
(11)
88%
71%
Status n (%)
AP 1 (20) P
SL
L
2
1
1
(100)
(50)
(40)
91
%
0.515
10%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
Encouraged
the students to
participate in
group
discussion
P 1
(9) P
SL
L
AP
TL
5
3
2
3
1
(45)
(33)
(33)
(27)
(25)
86%
71%
Status n (%)
AP 1 (20) P
L
AP
2
3
2
(100)
(60)
(40)
78
%
1.000
60%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
100%
Status n (%)
Provided
feedback P 1
(9) SL
TL
P
L
AP
3
1
2
1
1
(33)
(25)
(18)
(17)
(9)
83%
64%
Status n (%)
SL 1 (50) P
L
AP
1
2
1
(50)
(40)
(20)
83
%
1.000
*P=Professor, AP=Associate Professor, SL=Senior Lecturer, L=Lecturer, TL=Temporary Lecturer

South East Asian Journal of Medical Education
Vol. 3 no. 2, 2009 59
This finding may reflect the fact that the mindset
of many tutors was still in the “teacher centered”
or information provider mode rather than student
centered mode (Zubair & Eng, 2003; Benor,
2000). However, 20% of tutors of non-medical
background with the status of lecturers were
ranked 0% meaning that they did not provide
information upon request from students (Table
4), which is more directive towards PBL
philosophy. Gilkison (2003) and Dolmans et al.
(2003) reported that content expert tutors tend to
use subject matter expertise more and tend to
provide information, where as non-content expert
tutors tend to use their process facilitation
expertise more. Our study also showed that more
tutors with medical backgrounds provided
information than tutors with non-medical
backgrounds, which has similarities with studies
done by Gilikson and Dolmans et al. Readiness
to attend any staff development programme,
adequate training and actual realization of the
notion of PBL can help tutors to change their
mindset to student centered mode.
Providing feedback is an important skill for tutors
in the PBL curriculum. Evaluation studies have
repeatedly shown that students rated many
tutors as ineffective in skills of providing
feedback (Baroffio et al., 2007). This differs with
our study findings. Here, an average of 83%
tutors from both the backgrounds provided
feedback to students, which is a very good
number. The lowest ranking tutors of medical
and non-medical background were also quite
good in providing feedback, with ratings of 60%
and 64% respectively (table 4).
In this study, some tutors of senior position were
found to rank lowest in some skills. The lowest
rank was obtained by a tutor of professor status
from a medical background in the knowledge
domain and in four items of the skills domain.
Further, tutors with associate professor status
obtained lowest scores in the attitude domain
and in four items of the skills domain. On the
other hand, among tutors with non medical back
grounds, associate professors and senior
lecturers were found to score lowest in
knowledge, attitudes and some items of the skills
domain. As PBL facilitation differs from the
conventional teaching format, tutor performance
can be different where PBL is conducted by
traditionally trained tutors; although these tutors
may be excellent in conventional teaching
format.
Facilitation in PBL is dependent not only on the
capability of problem facilitation, but also on the
quality of problem structures that lead the
students to the interaction directed towards
learning issues. Munshi et al, (2008) highlighted
that the most leading factor that affected the PBL
process is the high quality of the problems
presented to the students. The problem should
be designed in explicit language so that issues
embodied can be easily identified and students
able to generate corresponding hypotheses and
learning issues on their own with very little or no
tutor assistance (Fosi-Mbantenkhu, 1996).
Sweenev (1999) clearly pointed out that the PBL
concept should be clear to all and every body
should understand the same thing by PBL,
otherwise it may frequently induce discomfort,
confusion, antipathy, lack of co-operation and
general disbelief in PBL. Interaction in PBL has
proved to be effective if it is followed through
critical evaluation of educational theory, hence its
use should be considered when implementing
training and educational strategies (Benavides-
Caballero et al., 2007). Therefore every PBL
tutor irrespective of their status and background
should have adequate training on PBL which is
methodologically sound and practical.
Small sample size for the non-medical tutors
compared to tutors with medical background was
a limitation of this study. This number become
even smaller when divided according to status.
However this is consistent with the existing
proportion of academic staff in the faculty.
The most dominant factors that affect the PBL
curriculum are the quality of problems and tutors’
skills in process of problems (Munshi et al.,
2008). Teaching-learning is a process of human
arrangement involving the learner, the tutor in
design and process of problem and the learning
group in capacity of dynamic relationships, which
are really challenging tasks. The challenges
faced by the tutors range from handling group
dynamics to ensuring that the learning outcomes
outlined are achieved (Azer, 2005). Tutors must
have appropriate training in group dynamics and
be able to foster a climate which is open, trustful
and supportive for learning (Salam, 2004). In fact
learning has no end, whatever the category of
tutors, there will be more to know, more to
master and more issues to address (Benor,
2000) in order to meet the challenges of
development of science and technology.
Conclusion
Irrespective of the background and status, the
majority of tutors possessed knowledge on the
PBL process and showed positive attitudes
towards students and their learning. In terms of
skills in facilitation, although there was variation
of skills among the tutors, there was no
significant difference between tutors of different
status and from medical and non-medical
backgrounds. Despite the fact that this study

South East Asian Journal of Medical Education
Vol. 3 no. 2, 2009
60
gives an insight into tutoring behaviour, students
ratings may give rise to bias, which may be due
to personal like or dislike or may be due to lack
of adequate training, or may be misinterpretation
of the evaluation instrument in constructing
meaning or it could be due to the fact that
different people have different perceptions about
PBL which requires further research. However,
the findings are important and have direct
implications for faculty development. Skills of
problem development and problem facilitation
are the key elements for an effective PBL
curriculum. Policy makers and educational
managers should put extensive efforts into
developing tutors’ skills in developing and
facilitating problems by encouraging the faculty
to develop strategies that stimulate student
reflection.
References
Azer, S. (2005) Challenges facing PBL tutors: 12 tips
for successful group facilitation, Medical Teacher, 27,
pp. 676–681.
Baroffio, A., Nendaz, M.R., Perrier, A., & Vu, N.V.
(2007) Tutor training, evaluation criteria and teaching
environment influence students’ ratings of tutor
feedback in PBL Advances in Health Sciences
Education : Theory and Practice, 12, pp. 427-439.
Barrows, H.S. (1985) How to Design a Problem-Based
Curriculum for the Preclinical Years, New York:
Springer Publishing Company.
Barrows, H.S., & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980) Problem-
based learning: An approach to medical education,
New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Benavides-Caballero, T.J., Insfran-Sanchez, M.D. &
Viniegra-Velazquez, L. (2007) Small group discussion
to promote self learning, Revisita Medica del Instituta
Mexicano del Seguro Social, 45, pp. 141-148.
Benor, D.E. (2000) Faculty development, teacher
training and accreditation in medical education: twenty
years from now, Medical Teacher, 22, pp. 503-512.
Berkson, L. (1993) Problem-based learning: Have the
expectations been met? In: Bouhuijs PAJ, Schmidt
HG, van Berkel HJM (eds.), Problem-Based Learning
as an Educational Strategy, Maastrict: Network
Publication, pp. 43-65.
Colliver, J.A. (2000) Effectiveness of Problem based
learning Curricula: Research and Theory, Academic
Medicine, 75, pp. 259-66.
Das, M., Mpofu, D.J., Hasan, M.Y. & Stewart, T.S.
(2002) Student perceptions of tutor skills in problem-
based learning tutorials, Medical Education, 36, pp.
272-778.
Davis, M.H. & Harden, R.M. (1998) Problem based
learning: a practical guide, Medical Teacher, 21(2), pp.
130-140.
Dolmans, D.H., Gijselaers, W.H., Moust, J.H., De
Grave, W.S., Wolfhagen, I.H. & Vander Vleuten, C.P.
(2003) Trends in research on the tutor in PBL:
conclusions and implications for educational practice
and research, Medical Teacher, 24, pp. 173-180.
Fosi-Mbantenkhu, J. (1996) How to Design Problems
for Problem-based Curriculum, PBL Consultancy.
Gilkison, A. (2003) Techniques used by ‘expert’ and
‘non-expert’ tutors to facilitate problem-based learning
tutorials in an undergraduate medical curriculum,
Medical Education, 37, pp. 6-14.
Harden, R.M., & Davis, M.H. (1999) The continuum of
problem based learning, Medical Teacher, 20(2), pp.
317-322.
Marchais, J.E.D., Dumais, B., Jean, P., Vu, N.V.
(1993) An attempt at measuring student ability to
analyze problems in the Sherbrooke problem-based
curriculum: A preliminary study. In: Bouhuijs, P.A.J.,
Schmidt, H.G., van Berkel, H.J.M. (eds.), Problem-
Based Learning as an Educational Strategy, Maastrict:
Network Publication.
Munshi, F.M., El Zayat, El.S.A. & Dolmans, D.H.
(2008) Development and utility of a questionnaire to
evaluate the quality of PBL problems, South East
Asian Journal of Medical Education, 2(2), pp. 32-40.
Salam, A. (2004) Problem-based learning: an
educational strategy for interactive learning:
experience from Universiti Sains Malaysia, Medical
Teacher, 26, pp. 279-280.
Smits, P.B.A., Verbeek, H.M.A. & de Buisonje, C.D.
(2002) Problem-based learning in continuing medical
education: a review of controlled evaluation studies,
British Medical Journal, 324, pp. 153-156.
Sweenev, G. (1999) The challenge for basic science
education in problem-based medical curricula, Clinical
and Investigative Medicine, 22, pp. 15-22.
Williams, S.M., Beattie, H.J. (2008) Problem-based
learning in the clinical setting – a systemic review,
Nurse Education Today, 3, pp. 146-154.
Zubair, A., Eng, K.H. (2003) Basics in Medical
Education, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
Pte. Ltd.