Content uploaded by Carmen Sum
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carmen Sum on Jul 15, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The Impacts of Problem-Based Learning on Students’ Motivation
Stephen Chana*, Carmen Sumb, Helen Wongc and Raymond Wongd
a The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
afskchan@polyu.edu.hk
b The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
cccarmen@hkcc-polyu.edu.hk
c The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
cchelen@hkcc-polyu.edu.hk
d The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
raykhwong@baf.cuhk.edu.hk
Abstract
Problem-based learning (PBL) has been adopted in many disciplines, including
medicine, engineering and other practical science areas which place more emphasis
on applied skills as opposed to pure knowledge. However, so far, there is little, if
any, empirical research conducted on the impact of PBL in the field of law, which is
also a very practical subject and focused on application skills rather than the
dissemination of pure legal knowledge. This paper, thus, examined the impact of
PBL on student’ motivation in the context of law. In this study, students were first
divided into two groups: PBL group (treatment group) and traditional lecturing group
(control group). MSLQ was conducted after the course to compare students’
motivation in the two groups. The findings showed that there was a significant
difference in students’ motivation between the two groups. The significant
improvement in students’ motivation in the ANOVA score of the PBL group was
found to be consistent with the research of Savery & Duffy (1995), Barr (1997), and
Rouse (1990), who indicated widespread support for the stimulus benefits of PBL.
Keywords: Problem-based learning, motivation, legal knowledge, law
1. Introduction
Higher education seems to be preparing for a major move in instructional strategy
(Gold, 1987; Mackinnon, 2006). Although different terms are used, e.g. life-long
learning, situational learning, authentic learning, open-discovery learning,
collaborative learning, or self-directed learning, these educational models propose a
more constructivist approach to teaching and learning, in which the emphasis shifts
from the rather absolute knowledge offered by the teacher to the learner’s active
participation in the construction of knowledge (Bjorck, 2002; Savery & Duffy, 1995).
The common feature of these educational approaches is a move away from the
classical teaching model towards a learning model, for which self-directed learning,
the ability to apply knowledge and skills in more authentic problem-oriented
situations, and group and teamwork are essential components. It constitutes a move
away from the existing teacher-centered models towards an emerging
student-centered, ‘life-long’ approach. Problem-based learning (PBL) is such a
student-centered model.
Barr (1977) concluded that the traditional curriculum produces a fragmentation of
2
knowledge and that there is a lack of integration of basic science knowledge and
clinical science knowledge. The traditional approach does not structure knowledge in
its clinical context nor does it provide a means for applying acquired basic science
knowledge in its clinical context (Finucane, Johnson, & Prideaux, 1998). The
students do not apply knowledge “learned” and therefore do not develop the clinical
reasoning skills necessary for a practitioner. Finucane et al. (1998) stated that
traditional curricular approach creates an “artificial divide” between the basic and
clinical sciences. Moreover, Rouse (1990) has articulated concern that traditional
strategies derive a clinical reasoning process that is often inappropriate, inaccurate, or
inefficient.
Another criticism of the traditional approach is that time is wasted acquiring
knowledge that is either forgotten or irrelevant (Finucane et al., 1998). This concern
relates to the overloaded curriculum and the vast amount of knowledge that needs to
be covered. This correlates with concern that the traditional curriculum does not
structure knowledge in its clinical context.
The superficial coverage of a vast amount of facts and the lack of integration of the
basic and clinical sciences often results in poor performance of the student’s
long-term recall of basic science information (Rouse, 1990). Rouse (1990) found
that traditional delivery methods impact negatively on self-directed learning ability
and interest and motivation for learning. Inter alia, these criticisms of the traditional
curricular approach and the concerns regarding student performance have provoked
educators to consider utilising a PBL approach instead of more traditional methods.
It is submitted that these criticisms of the traditional educational method, coupled
with a general dissatisfaction concerning educational outcomes, has led to an
elevation of the status of PBL as a viable alternative.
PBL has been adopted in many disciplines, including medicine, engineering and other
practical science areas which place more emphasis on applied skills as opposed to
pure knowledge (Williams, Iglesias, & Barak, 2008). PBL has for instance been
implemented very successfully in many Asian medical schools (Khoo, 2003). It has
been noted that the graduation rates of PBL medical students are significantly higher
than those of traditional medical students (Schmidt, Cohen-Schotanus, & Arends,
2009). PBL is also widely used in higher education (Kwan, 2008; Savin-Baden,
2000). Although PBL has its drawbacks, there is a surprising lack of critique in the
PBL literature in regards to its philosophical characteristics (Parton & Bailey, 2008).
A considerable amount of research has been conducted in this field and has indicated
that the adoption of a PBL protocol impacts significantly on student learning
outcomes (David & Patel, 1999). However, so far, there is little, if any, empirical
research conducted on the impact of PBL in the field of law, which is also a very
practical subject and focused on application skills rather than the dissemination of
pure legal knowledge (Godden & Dale, 2000; Keyes & Johnstone, 2004; Nuy &
Moust, 1990; Szabo, 1993; Tzannes, 1997). If a law student understands all the legal
rules but does not know how to apply them to solve real-life problems, he is no better
than a layman uninformed as to the applicable law. In order to be a successful
lawyer, a law student must not only understand the law but also apply the law to
real-life situations and solve legal problems. Moreover, the law is in a constant state
of flux. Any law diligently learnt may be obsolete within years, months or even
weeks, as new decisions are handed down by the courts, new legislation is enacted,
3
and old legislation is repealed. Therefore, in the field of law, acquisition of legal
knowledge is not as important as the learning of investigation, application, analytical
and presentation skills, which are difficult, if not impossible, to learn via traditional
lecturing methods. PBL, on the other hand, can help students to develop these skills.
However, it remains necessary to quantify the advantage that PBL bestows on
students in the acquisition of these skills, in comparison with the traditional lecturing
method. This paper thus examines the impact of PBL on student learning outcomes
in the context of law. Learning outcome, in this study, is defined as including
academic achievement, focus and motivation in learning.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Problem-based Learning
PBL is a learning strategy that uses real-life and often ill-structured “problems” to
engage learners in intellectual inquiry and allows them to learn to apply the law in
realistic situations (Fogarty, 1998). Learners usually take part in the self-regulated
and collaborative endeavour. Savery & Duffy (1995) claimed that PBL is one of the
best examples of constructivist learning, in which learners incorporate their
experiences and goals while constructing their understanding by employing inductive
and deductive logic, and at the same time, test, examine and expand their individual
understanding with others in a collaborative learning environment.
The general principle of PBL is to “put learners in a particular situation, and then to
give them a task or challenge as a source for learning, and arrange it to be of a kind
similar to work with which they will be confronted in their professional future”
(Walton & Matthews, 1989, p.543). Having researched the genesis of PBL, many
commentators have resolved that PBL derives from a long-standing educational
concept referenced in the writings of esteemed philosophers such as Socrates,
Comenius, Dewey and Whitehead (Birch, 1986; Ezzat, 1990). These philosophers
believed that students need to learn how to learn for themselves, with only the light,
the guiding hand of a facilitator and that they can do so by using their knowledge in
the context of real-world situations or problems.
PBL teaching methodologies promote conceptual understanding, development of
reasoning skills and self-directed learning strategies that can help to develop
meaningful links between theory and practice (Creedy, Horsfall, & Hand, 1992; Glen,
1995). PBL attempts to facilitate active learning and enhances the development of
higher levels of cognitive thinking and motivation for lifelong learning in students
(Heliker, 1994). In other words, it encourages students to be active rather than
passive receptors of knowledge.
PBL is described as both a teaching and learning strategy and is claimed to constitute
a ‘total’ approach to education. As defined by Barrows & Tamblyn (1980), PBL is
both a curriculum and a process. The curriculum consists of carefully selected and
designed problems that require the learner to acquire and develop critical knowledge,
problem-solving proficiency, self-directed learning strategies, and team participation
skills. The process replicates the commonly used systematic approach to problem
resolution and meeting the challenges encountered in an individual’s life and career.
According to Rhem (1998), PBL orientates students towards ‘meaning-making’ as
opposed to simple fact collecting. Students learn via contextualized problem sets and
4
situations. Because of the dynamics of group work and independent investigation,
students achieve higher levels of comprehension and develop more learning and
knowledge-forming skills and cultivate additional social skills in the process. Rhem
(1998) also asserted that PBL brings prior knowledge into play more rapidly and
fosters learning that adapts to new situations and related domains as quickly and with
the same joyous magic as a stone skipped over a body of water.
PBL is structured to help students: 1) direct and manage their own learning; 2)
develop problem-solving skills, particularly the clinical reasoning process; and 3)
learn important principles and key concepts (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). In PBL,
students start with a discussion of a case or problem to generate “learning issues”,
which they research during substantial amounts of autonomous study time. Students
prioritize what they need to learn, make choices about the resources they will consult,
work collaboratively with colleagues, and organize their efforts to address learning
issues in sufficient depth (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980).
In summary, PBL is a modern teaching approach, which is very new in law subjects
and is very different from the traditional lecturing approach. In traditional teaching
approach, students are passively spoon-fed what their lecturers expect them to learn.
Lecturers talk, and students listen. There is no way to ensure that students have
acquired the intended knowledge. However, in PBL, the roles of the lecturers and
students are different. Students are very active in PBL. This is consistent with
another important concept in education, i.e. “scaffolding”. Scaffolding is an
instructional strategy whereby the teacher models the desired learning strategy, then
gradually shifts responsibility to the students. This technique is derived from
Vygotsky’s concept of assisted learning (Eggen & Kauchak, 2012; Rosenshine &
Meister, 1992). Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) were the first educationists to use the
term “scaffolding” as a metaphorical concept to encapsulate the nature of help and
support that parents or caretakers use to enhance children’s problem-solving and
language development (Brickell and Herrington, 2006). This metaphor was
thereafter widely adopted in the educational milieu.
2.2. Student-centered Teaching-learning Methods in PBL
The essential characteristics of PBL are that it is student-centered and problem-based.
Barrows & Tamblyn (1980) categorized teaching strategies in medicine in two ways.
One category deals with the person responsible for deciding what the student will
learn; it is either the teacher (teacher-centered) or the student (student-centered. The
other category is based on how knowledge is organized; it is either grouped by
discipline or subject (subject-based), or it is centered on problems (problem-based).
In the case of student-centered learning, the students are responsible for being active
in the learning process. They determine what they need to learn and how they are
going to accomplish those learning goals. This does not imply that the teacher has no
control over the educational objectives of the course. The teacher prepares a
comprehensive scope of learning objectives for the course, outlines appropriate
resources that can be used, and determines the course evaluation procedures. The
unique feature of the student-centered approach is that the materials prepared by the
teacher act only as a guideline for the students; the students develop their own
learning strategies. The teacher’s role in PBL is considered to be tutorial-oriented.
The teacher offers guidance and facilitates the PBL process.
5
As stated, PBL is a problem-based and student-focused teaching/learning method. A
teaching/learning strategy centered on problem-solving fosters the remaining two
essential characteristics of PBL, which are: that there is an integration of subject
knowledge and application of that knowledge and that there is an emphasis on the
development of analytical, application and reasoning skills. A subject-based approach
may be effective in delivering a comprehensive knowledge base, but it does not
ensure that students will be able to integrate the knowledge acquired from separate
disciplines when faced with a real-life problem. In the problem-based approach,
students learn the relevance of the basic sciences in an application context. They use
the knowledge learned and integrate this understanding with newly learned
knowledge in the solution of specific real-life problems. The application of integrated
knowledge and the approach taken to problem solution fosters the development of
analytical, application and reasoning processes.
2.3. Collaborative Learning Environment in PBL
Before the PBL process begins, it is important to establish a suitable learning
environment. PBL works best in a small group setting, of around 5 to 7 students with
a group facilitator. The facilitator has the responsibility of establishing a secure
climate that will foster student learning. This climate has to be one in which the
student is able to identify him or herself as a part of the group, and one in which the
student feels that his/her contributions to the group are valued (Barrows and Tamblyn,
1980). The facilitator should also encourage the students to share their voice in an
environment that hears no wrong answers. Initially, the facilitator and students spend
time building rapport and trust among the members of the group. Once the group is
familiar with each other, its members must collaborate on the development of
educational objectives for the course. Course or curriculum objectives outlined by the
facilitator can guide the discussion of what is to be learned. The facilitator should then
use the educational objectives created by the group to keep the group on target in their
course of learning. Throughout the learning process, the facilitator’s role in the group
is as a guide or as a “metacognitive coach” (Barrows and Tamblyn, 1980). In his or
her role as a metacognitive coach, the facilitator encourages the students to think for
themselves. Barrows (1985, p.18) stated “The facilitator must guide, not direct;
facilitate learning, not dispense information; keep interactions between students alive
and the problem-based learning process on track.”. The facilitator’s presence is more
significant at the start of the process, after which it becomes less prevalent as the
students become confident with the learning process. A significant part of this
learning process is the sequence of clinical problem-solving.
2.4. Legal Education
The modus operandi of legal education is currently undergoing rapid change. Many
countries are reforming their legal education system to broaden the range of subjects
offered to students and provide a more eclectic and international focus (Steele and
Taylor, 2010; Szabo, 1993). It is anticipated that students will receive a more
interdisciplinary form of legal education and that students will graduate with a
broader knowledge base and better skills to qualify as lawyers as a consequence. It
has been contended that PBL is a better approach in an interdisciplinary curriculum
(Spencer and McNeil, 2009). In Hong Kong, law degrees were extended from a
three-year degree to a four-year degree in 2004 in order to enable students to be more
competitive globally. It was believed that clinical legal skills are necessary to
prepare students for the legal profession (Nathanson, 1994; Tokarz & Appell, 2010).
6
It was further accepted that lawyers should have good analytic skills, creativity,
research skills, and logical thinking ability. Of course, a lawyer should ideally have
excellent analytical skills and be equipped to organise and make sense of a large
volume of information. Good lawyering certainly demands creative and lateral
thinking in the face of the myriad problems and unique situations that can arise.
Preparing a legal strategy generally requires an extensive amount of research.
Anyone involved in the legal profession should have excellent research skills in order
to pinpoint and comprehend pertinent information. A good lawyer should be able to
think logically and make reasonable judgments and cogent assumptions based on
information presented. It is difficult for students to learn to enhance their clinical
skills under the traditional lecturing method. However, the teaching of these clinical
legal skills has become increasingly important in practice. Law teachers value these
skills because they are transferable; i.e. they can be used in wide variety of legal and
non-legal contexts. Based on the above discussion of PBL, it is asserted that PBL is
a better approach than the traditional lecturing method, in relation to the
process-acquisition of the stated skills (Nathanson, 1994; Steele and Taylor, 2010).
3. Research Question and Hypothesis
The major research question for this study is: whether the use of PBL in law subjects
has any impact on students’ motivation when compared to students engaged in
traditional lecturing method? The question is based on the rationale that PBL may
be used as a problem-solving tool to help improve students’ motivation. The
following research hypothesis identifies the studying testing instruments and
subsequent data analysis:
H(1): There will be no significant difference in students’ motivation between the
traditional lecture (control) and PBL (treatment) groups.
4. Methods
This study aimed to identify the impacts of PBL on students’ motivation. Students
were divided into two groups, i.e. traditional lecturing group and PBL group. In the
first semester, a traditional lecturing/ tutorial session was given to students (control
group), while in the second semester, a 12-week PBL session was provided to
students (treatment group). A questionnaire on students’ motivation was conducted
after students completed the sessions, i.e. at the end of the first semester for the
control group and at the end of the second semester for the treatment group. The
statistical method, “Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)”, was used to test the differences
in students’ motivation between two groups
4.1. PBL Group and Traditional Lecturing Group
This study involved two groups, control group and treatment group and consisted of
around 50 students per group. This study was a quasi-experimental design, using
statistics to explore gain among variables (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). The
control group, comprised of 50 students registered for AF2504 Introduction to
Business Law at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, involved an independent
lecturer who taught both the lecture and tutorial to the control group. Students were
randomly assigned to this group. On the other hand, the treatment group adopted a
PBL approach which involves a facilitator who was responsible for guiding students
to solve 12 real-life case studies in 12 weeks. Students in both the treatment and
control groups had the same syllabus, the same number of “teaching” hours, i.e. 36 (3
7
hours X 12 weeks), and same questionnaire to assess their motivation. The only
distinction between the two groups was the teaching method.
In the treatment group, PBL was administered, i.e. students were showed several
real-life short videos to illustrate some important concepts in business law and were
then given real-life problems every week. Students were expected to discuss the
problems with their classmates in the classroom with the guidance of a facilitator
during the first two hours of the seminar. In the final hour of the seminar, the students
were asked to prepare their written answers to the problems. In the control group,
traditional lecturing was administered, i.e. a one-hour lecture was given by a lecturer
and students were expected to present their answers to set questions during the tutorial
hour. No real-life short video was showed to students. In the traditional lecturing
group, there was neither guidance provided by a facilitator nor in-class discussion
with other classmates, though students were permitted to discuss the presentation
question with their group-mates outside the classroom in advance.
In this study, the pedagogical strategy was the independent variable treatment. The
dependent variable was students’ motivation. The following table shows the control
and treatment group pedagogy
Table 1: The Control and Treatment Group Pedagogy
Control Group
Treatment Group
Research Consent Form
Research Consent Form
Syllabus of AF2504 Introduction to Business
Law
Syllabus of AF2504 Introduction to Business
Law
Powerpoint slides with lectures (1 hour each
week for 12 weeks)
Powerpoint slides with lectures (1 hour each
week for 12 weeks)
No real-life short video. Legal problems with
tutorial (2 hour each week for 12 weeks)
Several real-life short videos on some important
legal concepts. 12 Problem-based learning
real-life cases
--
Facilitator guiding
No group interaction
Group interaction
Individual reading
PBL group & individual reading
Individual homework
PBL & individual homework
---
PBL group work outside classroom
Class web-page
Class web-page
Questionnaire to assess students’ motivation
Questionnaire to assess students’ motivation
Italic – indicates pedagogical differences.
4.2. Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
Pintrich & DeGroot (1990) found that it is important to teach students different
cognitive and self-regulatory strategies. These can improve students’ academic
performance. Zimmerman (1998) defined strategy as the process that helps students
match to the requirements of the task, facilitate performance. It was suggested that
there are different self-regulation strategies including, but not limited to i)
self-evaluation, ii) seeking information, iii) organizing and transforming information,
iv) goal setting and planning, v) record keeping and self-monitoring, vi) environment
structuring, vii) self-consequences, viii) persistence, ix) rehearsing and memorizing,
x) seeking assistance, and xi) reviewing notes, tests, and textbooks (Pintrich &
8
DeGroot, 1990; Howard-Rose & Winne, 1993; Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach,
1996).
Based on the model, Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie (1991) developed the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The MSLQ based on a
general cognitive view of motivation and learning strategies. There are two sections
in the MSLQ. Firstly, the motivation section consists of 31 items that assess
students’ goals and value beliefs for a course. Secondly, the learning strategies
section includes 31 items regarding students’ use of different cognitive and
metacognitive strategies and 19 items concerning student management of different
resources.
The MSLQ is a self-report instrument designed to assess college students’
motivational orientation and their use of different learning strategies for a college
course. The MSLQ is based on a general social-cognitive view of motivation and
learning strategies, with the student represented as an active processor of information
whose beliefs and cognitions are important mediators of instructional input and task
characteristics. It was suggested that by focusing on the roles of both motivation and
cognition in the classroom, the MSLQ could address students’ self-regulated learning,
which emphasizes the interface between students’ motivation and cognition (Schunk
& Zimmerman, 1994). The MSLQ was distinguished from many other older study
skill inventories, including Brown & Holtzman’s (1967) Survey of Study Habits and
Attitudes (SSHA), and Christensen’s (1968) College Adjustment and Study Skills
Inventory (CASSI). These Inventories have been criticized for being too theoretical.
It was also suggested that MSLQ takes a more detailed view of students' motivational
processes which involved students’ self-regulated learning, and their contextualized
motivation and students’ learning strategies by assessing them at the course level,
rather than at a general level.
The MSLQ has been used frequently in many different researches to research on the
nature of students’ motivation and the use of students’ learning strategies, e.g. the
MSLQ has been used in different content areas, including chemistry (Zusho, Pintrich
& Coppola, 2003), physical education, social studies and statistics (Ommundsen,
2003; Brookhart & Durkin, 2003). Besides, the MSLQ has been used to target
different populations, including African American undergraduate students, female
undergraduate students, students in nursing and gifted high school students (Green,
2000; Vogt, 2003; Sanderson, 2008; Hong & Aqui, 2004). In this study, MSLQ was
conducted to assess students’ motivation after they completed the course (for both
control group and treatment group).
5. Results
ANOVA was conducted, and the following table displays results of the ANOVA on
students’ motivation for MSLQ. It was found that there was a significant difference
in all the subscales, except extrinsic goal orientation, of the MSLQ.
Table 2: ANOVA results for motivational subscale of the MSLQ between the PBL
group and control group (Traditional Lecture - TL)
Dependent
variable
Group
Means
SD
Which group
performed
better?
F
p
η2
Intrinsic goal
PBL
4.985
.859
PBL
4.498
.036*
12.076
9
orientation
TL
4.290
1.152
Extrinsic goal
orientation
PBL
5.445
.881
PBL
3.695
.057
2.250
TL
5.145
.665
Task value
PBL
5.227
.753
PBL
20.960
.000***
13.322
TL
4.497
.839
Control of
learning beliefs
PBL
5.340
.785
PBL
25.063
.000***
17.431
TL
4.505
.880
Self-efficacy for
learning and
performance
PBL
4.845
.876
PBL
4.387
.039*
10.320
TL
4.202
0.984
Test anxiety
PBL
3.640
1.068
PBL
13.561
.000***
14.746
TL
4.408
1.017
Note: df = 1; * significant at .05; *** significant at .000
6. Conclusion
This study discovered that PBL as an independent variable had an effect on students’
motivation when compared to traditional lecturing methods in law. The research
hypothesis was rejected:
H(1): The researcher rejected the null hypothesis that there would be no significant
difference in students’ motivation between the traditional lecture (control) and
PBL (treatment) groups and accepted the alternative hypothesis that there
would be a significant difference in students’ motivation between the
traditional lecture (control) and PBL (treatment) groups.
This study set out to examine the impact of PBL and contrasted this with results
generated by the pursuit of the traditional lecturing method in business law. It was
thought that PBL would have positive impacts on students’ motivation in business
law. To test the hypotheses, a quasi-experimental methodology was designed. The
MSLQ was conducted to test hypothesis H(1). The researcher rejected the null
hypothesis that there would be no significant difference in students’ motivation
between the traditional lecture (control) and PBL (treatment) groups and accepted the
alternative hypothesis that there would be a significant difference in students’
motivation between the traditional lecture (control) and PBL (treatment) groups.
The researcher analyzed the MSLQ scores between the control group and treatment
group. The findings showed that there was a significant difference in students’
motivation between the two groups. The significant difference in students’ motivation
in the ANOVA score of the PBL group was found to be consistent with the research
of Savery & Duffy (1995), Barr (1997), and Rouse (1990), who indicated widespread
support for the stimulus benefits of PBL.
7. Limitations
For reasons of convenience, the subject study group was confined to the researcher’s
own university. Homogeneous samples might be used as samples were drawn from
one university. Therefore, the results of this study might be due to some unrealized
specific characteristics of the subject group, and it may not be reliable to extrapolate
the outcome into other contexts. Furthermore, again for reasons of academic
convenience, the researcher chose his own subject, i.e. Introduction to business law,
for the study. Different business courses in different universities manifestly work to
different syllabi, and thus one must be cautious before drawing generalized
conclusions.
10
8. Recommendations for Further Research
In this research, although students were randomly divided into the treatment group
and control group, other attributes were not considered, e.g. gender, economic, social
status and general background. It is suggested that other factors might also be
relevant to the academic achievement measured. Therefore, it is suggested that in
further research, more independent variables should be taken into consideration.
Moreover, almost all the previous empirical studies on PBL adopted either an
exclusively quantitative approach or exclusively qualitative approach. It seems that
none of them adopted a mixed approach. It is contended that the adoption of either
an exclusively quantitative approach or qualitative approach is not sufficient to
ascertain the full picture of the impacts of PBL on students’ learning outcomes. The
improvement in students’ motivation may, of course, be due to other factors and not
purely due to the adoption of a PBL method. Therefore, it is suggested that a mixed
approach may be adopted which harness both quantitative and qualitative protocols
and perspectives. It is asserted that this can facilitate a clearer understanding and more
eclectic, broad-based and reliable consideration of the impacts of PBL on students’
learning outcomes in the field of law.
9. References
Barr, J. S. (1977). A problem-solving curriculum design in physical therapy. Physical
Therapy, 57(3), 262-272.
Barrows, H. S. & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based Learning: An Approach to
Medical Education. New York: Springer Publishing.
Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to Design a Problem-based Curriculum for the
Preclinical Years. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Birch, W. (1986). Towards a model for problem-based learning. Studies in Higher
Education, 11(1), 73-82.
Bjorck, U. (2002). Distributed problem-based learning in social economy: Key issues
in students’ mastery of a structured method for education. Distance Education,
23(1), 85-103.
Brickell, G. & Herrington, J. (2006). Scaffolding learners in authentic problem-based
learning environment: the Geography Challenge. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 22(4), 531-547.
Brookhart, S., & Durkin, D. (2003). Classroom assessment, student motivation and
achievement in high school social science classes. Applied Measurement in
education, 16(1), 27-54.
Brown, W. T., & Holtzman, W. H. (1967). Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes. New
York: The Psychological Corporation.
Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-experimental
Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Christensen, F. (1968). College Adjustment and Study Skills Inventory. Bere, Ohio:
Personal Growth Press.
Creedy, D., Horsfall, J., & Hand, B. (1992). Problem-based learning in nurse
education: An Australian view. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(6), 727-733.
David, T. J. & Patel, L. (1999). Adult learning theory, problem-based learning and
paediatrics, Archives of Disease in Childhood, 73(4), 357-363.
Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. P. (2012). Educational Psychology: Windows on
Classrooms. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Ezzat, E. (1990) Current issues in problem-based learning. In Zohair, M., Nooman,
11
H., Schmidt, G. & Ezzat, E. (Eds.). Innovation in Medical Education: An
Evaluation of Its Present Status, 89-93. New York: Springer Publishing Co.
Finucane, P. M., Johnson, S. M., & Prideaux, .D J. (1998). Problem-based learning:
its rationale and efficacy. The Medical Journal of Australia, 168(9), 445-448.
Fogarty, R. J. (Ed.) (1998). Problem-based Learning: A Collection of Articles.
Arlington Heights, Ill.: SkyLight Training and Publication.
Glen, S. (1995). Towards a new model of nursing education. Nurse Education Today,
15(2), 90-95.
Godden, L. & Dale, P. (2000). Interdisciplinary teaching in law and environmental
science: Jurisprudence and environment. Legal Education Review, 11, 239.
Gold, N. (1987). Report on the Reform of Professional Legal Training in New
Zealand. Wellington: NZLS, NZ Council of Legal Education.
Green, A. L. (2000). The Perceived Motivation for Academic Achievement among
African American College Students. Dissertation. The Florida State University.
Heliker, D. (1994). Meeting the challenge of the curriculum revolution:
problem-based learning in nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education,
33(1), 45-47.
Hong, E., & Aqui, Y, (2004). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of
adolescents gifted in mathematics: Comparisons among students with different
types of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 191.
Howard-Rose, D., & Winne, P. H. (1993). Measuring component and sets of
cognitive processes in self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(4), 591-604.
Keyes, M. & Johnstone, R. (2004). Changing legal education: Rhetoric, reality, and
prospects for the future. The Sydney Law Review, 26(4), 537- 538.
Khoo, H. E. (2003). Implementation of problem-based learning in Asian medical
schools and students’ perceptions of their experience, Medical Education, 37(5),
401-09.
Kwan, T. Y. L. (2008). Student-teachers’ evaluation on the use of different modes of
problem-based learning in teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 36(4), 323-343.
Mackinnon, J. (2006). Problem-based learning and New Zealand legal education. Web
Journal of Current Legal Issues, 3, 1-23.
Nathanson, S. (1994). Developing legal problem-solving skills. Journal of Legal
Education, 44(2), 215-231.
Nuy, H. J. P. & Moust, J. H. C. (1990). Students and problem-based learning: how
well they fit in? Journal of Professional Legal Education, 8(2), 97-114.
Ommunden, Y. (2003). Implicit theories of ability and self-regulation strategies in
physical education classes. Educational Psychology, 23, 141-157.
Parton, G. & Bailey, R. (2008). Problem-based learning: A critical rationalist
perspective. London Review of Education, 6(3), 281-292.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for
the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve
Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Rhem, J. (1998). Problem-based learning: An introduction. The National Teaching
and Learning Forum, 8(1), 1-7.
12
Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1992). The Use of Scaffolding for Teaching
Higher-Level Cognitive Strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26-33.
Rouse, M. W. (1990). Problem-based learning: An alternative to traditional education.
Journal of Optometric Education, 15(4), 111-112.
Sanderson, H. L. (2008). Comparison of problem-based learning and traditional
lecture instruction on critical thinking, knowledge, and application of strength
and conditioning. Dissertation. Greensboro: The University of North Carolina.
Savery, J. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem-based learning: an instructional model
and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-38.
Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: Untold
Stories. Buckingham: OUP.
Schmidt, H. G., Cohen-Schotanus, J., & Arends, L. R. (2009). Impact of
problem-based, active learning on graduation rates for 10 generations of Dutch
medical students. Medical Education, 43(3), 211-218.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.) (1994). Self-regulation of learning and
performance: Issues and educational implications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spencer, A. L. & McNeil, M. (2009). Interdisciplinary curriculum to train internal
medicine and obstetrics-gynaecology residents in ambulatory women’s health:
adopting problem-based learning to residency education. Journal of Women’s
Health, 18(9), 1369-1375.
Steele, S. & Taylor, K. (Eds.) (2010). Legal Education in Asia: Globalization,
Change and Contexts. London: Routledge Publishing Company.
Szabo, A. B. (1993). Teaching substantive law through problem-based learning in
Hong Kong. Journal of Professional Legal Education, 11(2), 195-210.
Tokarz, K. & Appell, A. R. (2010). Introduction: New directions in ADR and Clinical
legal education. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 34, 1-9.
Tzannes, M. (1997). Problem-based learning in legal education: Intentionally
Overlooked or Merely Misunderstood? The Law Teacher, 31(2), 180-197.
Vogt, C. (2003). Gender differences in graduate students perspectives on the culture
of science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9,
119-136.
Walton, H. J. & Matthews, M. B. (1989). Essentials of problem-based learning.
Journal of Medical Education, 23(6), 542-58.
Williams, P. J., Iglesias, J., & Barak, M. (2008). Problem-based learning: application
to technology education in three countries. International Journal of Technology
Des Education, 18, 319-335.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2),
89-100.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation:
An analysis of exemplary instructional methods. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflexive
practice,1–19. New York: Guilford.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing Self-regulated
Learners: Beyond Achievement to Self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: The role of
motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International
Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1081-1094.
