Efficacy of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Literature Review

As Epstein suggested earlier, there seems to be no downside to this process.

James Colliver (2000) would disagree. He dismisses the assertions that favor the efficacy of PBL; his misgivings parallel Hmelo-Smith's earlier remarks. For instance, Colliver contends that the popularity of PBL is predicated on a kind of mass enthusiasm rather than empirically

based scientific evidence (p.259). Colliver asserts that PBL has not proven valid and lacks confirmation as successful teaching model. His article is largely a condemnation of the assertions that proponents of PBL assert. (He also implicates the cognitive sciences that underscore PBL.)

Colliver believes medical educators must abandon their support of PBL until there is sufficient empirical proof that PBL is, in fact, an effective way to teach people.

After ten years of administering Problem-Based Learning at the University of Missouri's

School of Medicine, Hoffman and her research team sought to examine the overall efficacy of PBL training. Hoffman believes the PBL curriculum emphasizes learning in tandem with practical problem solving. Hoffman believes that PBL helps students access their own knowledge and also grasp relevant information they will use in real practice.

In order to discern the effects, if any, of problem-based learning on its medical students

Hoffman and her team chose several research methods. First, she divided her medical students into two categories: Students learning via traditional teaching methods and students reliant on PBL. Both groups had equal numbers of respondents. The mean age was 24 years at the time they graduated. Hoffman's team relied on four indices to determine the potential outcomes: Students' academic aptitudes; grade point averages; students' performances on the USMLE (Step 1 and 2); residency program directors responses to each student. Altogether, Hoffman and her team asserted that the changes her team observed in traditionally trained students differed from PBL students. They came to believe PBL trained graduates acquired skills needed for professional practice. This outcome, she felt, was especially important given the complexities inherent in today's health care system. Nurses In 2010, Szogedi and his research sought evidence to determine if PBL is more effective than traditional learning in the when training nurses. Szogedi's results suggest that PBL is more effective than traditional teaching for nurses who were taught cardiopulmonary resuscitation. (Parenthetically, the research was conducted in Hungary.) Szogedi conducted research on the effects of PBL on 1,775 nurses who had received cardiopulmonary resuscitation training. A comparative analysis was used at three major universities. The research consisted of a comparison of the outcomes of PBL students vs. students who were traditionally trained. The researchers relied on t-tests and exam grades. The t-tests yielded significant differences (t=3.569; p<.001) between conventional training and PBL students. The students who received PBL training acquired better final CPR exam grades than their counterparts. Thus, the researchers concluded, PBL is superior to traditional training. Students appeared to acquire more theoretical knowledge and skills. However, the authors noted, real life application may yield different outcomes. A study by Applin, Williams, Day, and Burok, sought to determine if PBL training (versus a traditional model) had any effect on students' self-perceptions about their own competencies. Applin's team chose qualitative methods to.....