Educational Review

ISSN: 0013-1911 (Print) 1465-3397 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cedr20

A narrative review of problem-based learning

with school-aged children: implementation and
outcomes

Gabi Jerzembek & Simon Murphy

To cite this article: Gabi Jerzembek & Simon Murphy (2013) A narrative review of problem-
based learning with school-aged children: implementation and outcomes, Educational Review,
65:2, 206-218, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2012.659655

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2012.659655

Published online: 06 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1664

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedr20
Educational Review, 2013
Vol. 65, No. 2, 206–218, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2012.659655

A narrative review of problem-based learning with school-aged

children: implementation and outcomes
Gabi Jerzembek* and Simon Murphy

Cardiff Institute of Society and Health (CISHE), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff
University, Cardiff, UK

This paper reviews empirical studies that have evaluated the impact of problem-
based learning (PBL) on school-aged pupils, in order to summarise how it has
been implemented and to assess its effects on academic and personal develop-
ment. Following electronic searches of PsychINFO, the British Education Index
and the Cochrane review database, six studies concerned with school-aged learn-
ers (11 to 18 years) were identified and subjected to a detailed narrative litera-
ture review approach. Drawing on data from relatively small samples of
between 14 and 187 pupils, five studies used cross-sectional evaluation designs,
and one was a qualitative case study. Findings suggested that school pedagogic
practice informed by PBL-based principles could have a positive influence on
learners’ personal and academic development. However, a need for rigorous
studies evaluating the effects of PBL on school-aged learners was evident, to
identify effective components for implementation in school settings.
Keywords: secondary school; problem-based learning (PBL); effectiveness; aca-
demic performance; individual agency

Background
Problem-based learning (PBL) is an educational approach that emphasises practical
experience in supporting learning (Kilpatrick 1921; Dewey 1938). PBL places the
learner at the centre of the educational activity where a problem stimulates informa-
tion retrieval and the application of reasoning mechanisms (Dochy et al. 2003).
First introduced in medical teaching in 1958 in the McMaster University, Canada, it
has been widely implemented in medical and nursing education and is now gaining
popularity in other contexts (Barrows and Kelson 1995; Barrows 2000; Torp and
Sage 2002) and subjects (Hmelo et al. 1995; Hmelo-Silver 2002; Torp and Sage
2002).
In broad terms PBL describes an instructional method that uses problem scenar-
ios as contexts for students to learn problem solving skills and acquire knowledge
(Albanese and Mitchell 1993; Barrows and Kelson 1995). Pedagogic approaches
labelled as PBL may encompass a number of elements that are also present in other
varieties of group-based, self-directed learning prompted within school teaching.
Although PBL offers learners opportunities to acquire knowledge through problem
solving and the use of previous knowledge and experience in a similar way to

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Ó 2013 Educational Review

 Educational Review 207

Discovery Learning or “learning by doing” (Bruner 1961), some variants of PBL

integrate these activities into a structured development of hypotheses and reflection.
There is no singular form of PBL and different approaches have been taken to
clarify what PBL involves as pedagogic practice. As a flexible approach to learning
that is applicable across contexts PBL has been conceptualised in different ways
(Savin-Baden 2000; Savin-Baden and Wilkie 2004): Some insist that an approach
can only be termed PBL if it draws on specific components and has been integrated
across the curriculum or programme of study. Others regard PBL as a technique
teachers can draw on as and when required, using it as an isolated activity within
lectures or tutorials. Yet others believe that PBL is developed out of an adaptation
of the original PBL process based on a set of underlying principles (Barrows and
Tamblyn 1980). Rather than using subjects or classifying content into modules,
PBL draws on problems as central components around which the lesson content is
organised. Learners decide on the skills and knowledge that is required to resolve
the problems rather than work towards answering a specific set of pre-determined
questions (Savin-Baden and Wilkie 2004).
Considering PBL within this latter perspective, a problem in a school context
might ask pupils to make recommendations about how the school’s meal service
could be improved. The problem scenario encourages pupils to identify relevant
facts they need to consider such as pricing, costs, payment and serving processes,
nutritional aspects, menu choices and likely uptake. This leads to the generation of
hypotheses and the identification of knowledge deficiencies. Next, pupils indepen-
dently search for and acquire knowledge that is later applied and abstracted to
resolve the initial problem represented in the scenario. Whilst gathering information
from the internet, the school library and various stakeholders about money and
nutrition, pupils develop and apply transferable skills through mathematical prob-
lem-solving and budgeting, communication and negotiation. The final component of
PBL, evaluation and reflection, facilitates further identification of facts and genera-
tion of hypotheses. For example, pupils might consider the influence of school
meals on health (Barrows 2000; Hmelo-Silver 2004; Torp and Sage 2002).
Although the evidence base is limited, it has been suggested that PBL could
have a positive effect on young learners such as pre-school children (Neal Boyce
et al. 1997; Zumbach et al. 2004) or primary and middle-school pupils (Fogarty
1997). A comparison of gifted senior and junior student groups receiving PBL
teaching, traditional lecture-based and a combination of traditional and PBL teach-
ing found that understanding and knowledge retention was enhanced through PBL
(Dods 1997), whilst De Corte et al. (1998) found that PBL students performed bet-
ter in mathematical problem solving and recall tests. However, a study comparing
high school students in PBL groups to those in conventional classes found no
significant difference in learning outcomes (Gallagher and Stepien 1996).
Studies with adult learners have suggested that PBL-based teaching approaches
promote communication skills, social functioning, self-efficacy, problem solving
skills, and intrinsic motivation (Brown 1995; Blumenfeld, Marx, et al. 1996;
Ertmer, Newby, and MacDougall 1996; Alexander et al. 2002) with the acquisition
of meta-cognitive skills through problem-based learning facilitating appropriate
responses in a variety of social situations (Vermette, Harper and DiMillo 2004).
Systematic reviews or meta-analyses evaluating the impact of PBL on medical
students’ performance and perceptions found that compared to traditional lecture-
based learning, PBL had a more positive effect on student’s engagement,
208 G. Jerzembek and S. Murphy

problem-solving abilities, practical performance and the development of cognitive

skills (Albanese and Mitchell 1993; Vernon and Blake 1993; Dochy et al. 2003). A
meta-analysis indicated that PBL had a positive effect on medical students’ skills,
and although PBL students acquired slightly less knowledge, they retained it for
longer (Dochy et al. 2003). However, it has also been found that graduate students’
performance in exams or factual knowledge tests did not differ significantly
between PBL and traditionally taught groups (Vernon and Blake 1993) and
Albanese and Mitchell (1993) suggest that a clearer definition of PBL and its spe-
cific components is required to adequately assess the outcomes of PBL, before this
approach is widely adopted within institutions.
Indeed, gaps remain and the evidence is still insufficient to conclude whether
different forms of PBL are effective in different educational contexts with various
groups of students (Newman 2010). Azer (2009) highlighted the importance of
developing the evidence base for school-based PBL as a way to promote student
engagement in secondary school education where pedagogic approaches promoting
student engagement and facilitating active learning were noted to be less common
(Morais 2002). Indeed, secondary education was criticised for over-emphasising
knowledge transmission as illustrated in Freire and Shor’s (1987) description:

Knowledge is handed to them like a corpse of information – a dead ‘body of knowl-

edge’ – not living connection to their reality. Hour after deadly hour and year after
dull year, learning is just a chore imposed on students […]. (4)

Such traditional approaches do not motivate students to seek further information or

construct their own knowledge and repertoire of skills (Hmelo-Silver 2004; Azer
2009) and are seen as particularly unhelpful in the context of school health educa-
tion (Begoray, Wharf-Higgins, et al. 2009). As part of a holistic approach to
promoting well-being and academic performance, Markham and Aveyard (2003)
argued for pedagogic practice to empower learners by creating space for pupils’
contributions and opportunities for a pupil-centred approach that teaches learners
effective ways to learn and self-reflect. PBL or PBL-based techniques might poten-
tially inform such pupil-centred approaches (Dochy et al. 2003) and offer schools
the opportunity to change pupil roles from “empty vessels that need to be filled
with knowledge” (Freire 1970) towards one of active contributors in their own
learning. It is therefore important to understand the extent to which PBL has been
used with school-aged learners, how it has been implemented and what effects it
has had.

Aim of the literature review

To summarise findings from studies using PBL-based approaches with school-aged
learners to identify (1) how teaching approaches termed PBL have been imple-
mented in evaluation studies with school-aged learners and (2) their effects on
school pupils’ personal and academic development.

Method
Dochy et al.’s (2003) method for study selection informed the procedure of the
present review. Using the search terms [problem (-) based learning] and [PBL],
 Educational Review 209

PsychINFO, the British Education Index (BREI) within Education Resources Infor-
mation Centre (ERIC) and the Cochrane Review database were searched for rele-
vant papers that were published since 2000. Glass et al. (1981) noted that the
identification of literature is the stage where most bias potentially occurs. We
acknowledge that our search strategy has several weaknesses including the limited
number of databases searched, the fact that no “snowballing” or searches for “grey
literature” were conducted, and the limited number of search terms employed. As
such it is clear that some studies may have been missed. However, to reduce the
likelihood of introducing further bias at this stage, the electronic search was not nar-
rowed down further and subsequent iterations were done by hand. This was mainly
because the participant’s age group was often not or insufficiently reflected in titles,
key words or abstracts. Following initial selection on the basis of titles, the output
of the electronic search included a total of 126 papers. Abstracts were retrieved and
read by two independent researchers, and papers were selected according to the
following criteria:

• problem-based learning (PBL) had to be mentioned in the title, abstract or

key words;
• studies had to be with school-aged children (between four and 18 years);
• papers had to be published, peer-reviewed, original or primary and empirical
studies.

Although the focus on studies labelled as “PBL” may potentially exclude valuable
research that uses similar components or approaches that are termed in a different
way, it permitted a closer focus on the definitions used to describe PBL used within
these studies, and the extent to which they varied from Hmelo-Silvers’ (2004) defi-
nition. The majority of papers focussed on PBL with graduate or postgraduate stu-
dents in Medical Education, Nursing, Science and other educational contexts not
described in further detail. The remainder covered subjects like Engineering, Busi-
ness Education, Economics, Psychology, Sports Science, and Social Work. Six
papers reported on the use of PBL with school-aged children, which formed the
final sample of papers. A narrative literature review approach was taken to synthe-
sise these in a non-numeric but “systematic and creative way” (van Ijzendoorn
1997) by condensing findings from the literature search, summarising the contents
of papers, and evaluating the quality of studies and their contribution towards the
focus of the literature review (Green et al. 2006). Albanese and Mitchell (1993) pre-
viously used a narrative integration of the literature and their synthesis of findings
was supported by subsequent meta-analyses (Vernon and Blake 1993; Dochy et al.
2003).
A data extraction sheet was devised on the basis of quality criteria for interven-
tions (Michie et al. 2009) to identify: (a) the context of PBL teaching with young
learners in schools (i.e. classroom teaching of curriculum content or specific pro-
jects); (b) specific process components (i.e. the presentation of a problem scenario,
pupils’ generation of hypotheses, independent study or group work, and self- as
well as peer evaluation and reflection); (c) the outcomes of PBL teaching (i.e. stu-
dent enjoyment, support of personal development, improved learning processes and
academic performance). Two independent researchers read the papers and completed
the data extraction forms to support the validity of the recorded information; there
were no disagreements or inconsistencies. Owing to the diversity of samples and
210 G. Jerzembek and S. Murphy

outcome measures used a numerical synthesis of findings was considered less mean-
ingful than a qualitative synthesis and presentation of “lessons learnt” from across
the studies reviewed.

Results
Details of studies included in this review are summarised in Table 1. Five out of
the six papers reported on an evaluation of the use of PBL with school-aged pupils
as part of the curriculum (Cerezo 2004; Zumbach et al. 2004; Sungur and Tekkaya
2006; Simons and Klein 2007; Azer 2009), while one PBL course was an extra-cur-
ricular activity (Wang et al. 2001). There were some variations in the target age
groups: one paper reported on the use of PBL with fourth grade students in elemen-
tary school (Zumbach et al. 2004), two papers were concerned with seventh grade
students (Simons and Klein 2007; Azer 2009), one with eighth grade (Cerezo 2004)
and one study was conducted with 10th grade students in secondary education
(Sungur and Tekkaya 2006). One paper reported on a more heterogeneous group of
teenagers aged 13 to 18 (Wang et al. 2001).
Comparing the PBL-based pedagogic approaches reported in the six papers to the
key components of a PBL approach described earlier (Hmelo-Silver 2004), there were
some variations: all six studies used group work and group discussions to identify
learning goals on the basis of a problem scenario, independent task-oriented learning
or information retrieval, the application of that new knowledge to the problem-sce-
nario and the presence of one or more facilitators. Three papers described the use of
self- or peer-evaluation or self-reflection (Wang et al. 2001; Zumbach et al. 2004; Sun-
gur et al. 2006), indicated that PBL-based components supported an increase in intrin-
sic motivation (Zumbach et al. 2004; Sungur et al. 2006) and enhanced students’ self-
confidence (Wang et al. 2001). Two papers explicitly referred to students’ active gen-
eration of hypotheses as part of the PBL process (Cerezo 2004; Sungur et al. 2006).
Such variations between the different PBL-based approaches create difficulties in
drawing overall conclusions about their effectiveness.
However, all approaches appeared to have had a general orientation towards a
pedagogic practice that actively involves learners in the educational activity,
allowed them to take ownership of their work, and indeed develop individual
agency within their own learning process. This covered 10–12-year-old pupils
receiving tutorials and attending scheduled sessions facilitating independent work
and a self-directed learning session (Azer 2009). Independent work was also part of
the approach described by Simons and Klein (2007) where a web-based resource
facilitated 12-year-old pupils’ work on a geography project. Sungur and Tekkaya’s
(2006) approach to teaching 15–16-year-old students involved independent hypothe-
sis generation and planning of independent study. Whilst, in Cerezo’s (2004) case
study, 13-year-olds used Maths problem scenarios to independently decide on the
study approaches and resources they would use. In another study, 11-year-old
pupils’ work during a computer-based session was facilitated through the teacher
and active involvement was supported through stimulating questions, supervised
small group discussion and group negotiation throughout the activity (Zumbach
et al. 2004). Wang et al.’s (2001) project with teenagers aged 13–18 involved the
facilitation of collaboration and independent work through online resources
and face-to-face meetings that encouraged reflection on individual and group
performance.
Table 1. Summary table of studies included in this review.
Report of effect Accounted
Participant sizes and for subgroup
numbers Use of identification of differences
Method of and school Content and process of Validity and appropriate Timing of individual effects of or Reported
evaluation/ grades/age PBL teaching if Effects of PBL Type of reliability of comparison follow-up PBL components on Appropriateness moderating on
Subject context Setting research design groups available teaching measures used measures used groups assessment outcomes of analysis variables attrition

(1) (Azer 2009) Local Schools Cross-sectional 187 pupils,Cases were discussed Students perceived the Self-report Developed in a Explored None None reported Detailed Subgroups Not
Geography (Australia) comparison to 5–7th in 2–3 45 minute approach as engaging questionnaires previous study and group reported description of (language reported
(built assess pupils’ Grade (10– tutorials per case. and enjoyed the (1–5 Likert) validated, but no differences analysis spoken at
environment) perceptions of 12 years) Pupils had scheduled process of PBL and reliability values in processes, home)
and Biology PBL sessions to work case discussions. They reported perceptions analyses of
(health independently (one felt it had added to regarding variance used to
education) practical class and one their understanding the problem- identify
classes self directed session). (85%). Pupils’ views based differences
Materials were were not affected by learning between groups.
provided as relevant demographic factors or tutorials in
for each case. 2–3 first language spoken the 5th, 6th,
teachers per school (p = 0.751 (5th grade), and 7th
took part in a two-day p = 0.993 (6th grade) grades.
training workshop and p = 0.569 (7th
introducing the concept grade).
of PBL, theoretical
basis, writing PBL
cases and how to turn
curriculum objectives
into PBL cases
(2) (Simons and Klein Science and School Cross-sectional 111 pupils, A 3-week hypermedia The requirement of Combination of Reliability coefficient Measured Immediate Scaffolding Pearson’s r to None None
2007) Technology (USA) comparison 7th grade (website-based) scaffolds in PBL led to self-report and .74 for post-test the effects follow-up conditions on determine inter- reported reported
curriculum, (different levels (12 years) problem-based more highly organised objective assessment, .84 for of (evaluation student project rater agreement,
supplemental of scaffolding). programme was project notebooks with measures: attitude survey scaffolding on performance was analyses of
but compulsory developed. Three a higher percentage of teacher ratings in PBL completion) relatively strong but variance to
course classes were recruited note book entries of grade point sessions, no significant effect determine effect
component. with each receiving a directly linked to the averages as three on post-test scores of conditions;
different level of problem. The three measure of different multiple
scaffolding (structured scaffolding conditions achievement, groups each regression
questions as guidance (none, optional and attitude survey receiving a analyses to
within programme required) were found to (self-report), different examine effect of
completion): one group have statistically qualitative level scaffolding on
received no significant effects on notebooks, and achievement
scaffolding, one had student project observations levels and post-
the option of using it performance (F(8,210) test scores
and one group was = 13.26, p < 0.001, ή2
required to use it. The = 0.34)
programme contained
prompts and links to
sources of information.
A facilitator was
available and provided
additional support
(3) (Sungur and Tekkaya Biology, part of School Cross-sectional 61 pupils, The experimental The PBL group had Self-reported Used MLSQ Matched No time Significant scores on Analyses of Checked for Not
2006) regular (Turkey) comparison 10th grade group received significantly higher motivation and (Motivated Learning classes delay collective dependent variance to baseline reported
Educational Review

curriculum. (traditional (15–16 instruction according to scores in relation to learning Strategies randomly apparent, variables of intrinsic determine differences
teaching in years) the PBL model used intrinsic goal strategies Questionnaire) as assigned to immediately goal orientation, differences pre- between
control group, by Curry, Lubbers, and orientation and task established measure, after extrinsic goal and post-test control and

(Continued)
211
Table 1. (Continued).
212

Report of effect Accounted

Participant sizes and for subgroup
numbers Use of identification of differences
Method of and school Content and process of Validity and appropriate Timing of individual effects of or Reported
evaluation/ grades/age PBL teaching if Effects of PBL Type of reliability of comparison follow-up PBL components on Appropriateness moderating on
Subject context Setting research design groups available teaching measures used measures used groups assessment outcomes of analysis variables attrition

problem-based Tijoe (2001). Timing value, higher levels of reliability values control and classroom orientation, task scores; and experimental
learning in the of the instruction was critical thinking, reported (for internal experimental instruction value, control of differences group
experimental one four-week unit in metacognitive self- consistency (pre-and learning beliefs, self between groups
group) Biology. Students were regulation, effort coefficient alpha post-test). efficacy for learning to determine
required to read the regulation, and peer ranged between 0.54 and performance and difference
problem scenario, take learning. There was a and 0.93 for the test anxiety (no sub- between pre-and
statistically significant
notes and participate in motivation section; categorisation of post-test scores
group discussion to difference in self 0.61–0.81 for the components)
generate hypotheses reported motivation learning strategy
and learning issues. between the two section)
Students were then groups (F(6, 54) =
required to 3.99, p = 0.002, ή2 =
independently gather 0.31). PBL was also
information. Upon found to significantly
completion, they affect the use of self-
evaluated their group reported learning
and themselves strategies: F(9, 51) =
G. Jerzembek and S. Murphy

2.40, p = 0.002, ή2 =
0.30)
(4) (Cerezo 2004) Maths and Three Case study 14 at risk PBL case (one case PBL helped the Self-report Questions adapted Not Between 1 Not applicable Content analysis Exploratory Not
Science. middle (qualitative pupils (8th during the end of learning environment (interviews from previous applicable day and 3 processes case study reported.
schools in a mixed methods) grade, 13 Spring quarter) was and supported student’s about research, but no weeks of described did not approach to
city school years), 5 presented. Teachers interest and motivated perceptions and details about PBL case mention whether account for
system maths, 9 were already familiar independent work. experiences of validation presentation inter-rater diversity in
southeast science with PBL in middle Pupils felt it was PBL) agreement was participants.
USA students schools. Scenarios beneficial for their established or
were presented, and learning, was found to specify any
then groups worked on affect their overall processes to
identifying what they performance and validate the
knew. The generation increased their self- analysis
of hypotheses was efficacy processes
facilitated by the
teacher. Groups then
focused on deciding
how to research the
hypotheses and used
written and PC
resources
(5) (Zumbach et al. 2004) General Primary Cross-sectional 49 A single PBL unit was PBL was found to Self report. Self-developed, not Comparable Pre- and PBL increased Analyses of None None
teaching in school comparison elementary developed using promote intrinsic reported reliability or groups post-test as motivation and led variance to reported reported
elementary (Germany) (traditional school 4th PowerPoint. Prior to motivation and led to validation process recruited well as to better knowledge compare pre- and
school (1 lecture-based grade the presentation of the better performance at follow-up acquisition in follow follow up test
lesson). class compared pupils (11 problem scenario, follow-up. However, test 5 weeks up test scores
with PBL class) years) children were the differences between later
introduced to rules of the control and the
engagement and how experimental group
to deal with upcoming vanished between pre-
problems. Adults and post-test data
monitored and collection. PBL led to

(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
Report of effect Accounted
Participant sizes and for subgroup
numbers Use of identification of differences
Method of and school Content and process of Validity and appropriate Timing of individual effects of or Reported
evaluation/ grades/age PBL teaching if Effects of PBL Type of reliability of comparison follow-up PBL components on Appropriateness moderating on
Subject context Setting research design groups available teaching measures used measures used groups assessment outcomes of analysis variables attrition

occasionally prompted significantly higher

with stimulating performance in a
questions; learning follow-up test (F (2,
objectives were 43) = 14.9, p < 0.001;
developed in ή2 = 0.41)
supervised small group
discussions. To answer
questions presented by
the programme pupils
collectively navigated
through the
programme. At certain
points the programme
posed leading
questions (scaffolding).
The final stage was a
group discussion where
group consensus was
sought about the
answer to the problem
scenario and a
justification for this
solution had to be
given to the teacher
(6) (Wang et al. 2001) Extracurricular Expeditions Repeated 27 Using online Students showed a Self report No details reported No No details No effect sizes Comparison of None 3
learning 2000 measures design teenagers collaboration in PBL, considerable increase in comparison on delay; reported mean scores reported. dropped
experience (commercial using mixed (13–18 students worked in self-confidence in group, survey before and after out from
provided by initiative by methods years), teams and with the collaborative online before and conducted intervention group of
Motorola; Motorola (survey, children of help of expert work to resolve after before and (t-tests) 30
initiative to UK) observation of Motorola collaborators to create problems. Students also training after the
develop online employees marketing and developed social and events project
communication communication, communication plans leadership skills and
and marketing weekly for mobile phone (cell were better able to plan
plans for feedback phone) products. The collective tasks. A
teenage target surveys, and project lasted 5 weeks, comparison between
groups interviews with teenagers were pre- and post-treatment
mentors) supported by onsite data indicated that
and online mentors, competence in using
encouraged to online collaborative
collaborate online and tools increased
in face-to-face significantly (p <
meetings (weekly 2- 0.0001), as did
hour meetings). confidence in
Scaffolding and collaborating online (p
guidance was provided = 0.0326)
through the website
(milestones). Meetings
were mainly about
reflection and
Educational Review

monitoring team
progress. Although the
method contains
obvious elements of
PBL and the term is
used occasionally
213

within the paper, there

is no explicit reference
indicating that PBL
served as framework
for course delivery
214 G. Jerzembek and S. Murphy

Turning to evaluation designs, four out of the six studies (Zumbach et al. 2004;
Sungur and Tekkaya 2006; Simons and Klein 2007; Azer 2009) used a cross-sec-
tional comparison research design, one study (Wang et al. 2001) employed a
repeated measures design, and one was a qualitative case study (Cerezo 2004).
Effect sizes of PBL were reported in three papers (Zumbach et al. 2004; Sungur
and Tekkaya 2006; Simons and Klein 2007) and suggested that the overall PBL
approach had a positive impact on personal and academic development although it
was unclear which components of PBL exerted these effects: a three-week PBL-
based project (Barrows 2000) evaluated the effect of three different scaffolding con-
ditions on performance, and it was found that a greater level of structuring of these
PBL sessions was linked to improved teacher ratings of seventh grade pupils’ pro-
ject performance (Simons and Klein 2007). Similarly, a four-week PBL unit teach-
ing Biology had a positive impact on 10th graders intrinsic goal orientation, critical
thinking, self-regulation, motivation and collaborative learning (Sungur and Tekkaya
2006), whilst a single computer-based lesson using PBL key elements was found to
improve fourth graders’ knowledge about the lesson topic and problem-solving abil-
ities, as well as intrinsic motivation. These findings were based on a between-
groups comparison of a class that has experienced PBL-based learning, with one
that has received lecture-based learning (Zumbach et al. 2004).
The discussion of problem scenarios and independent work across a four week
period was found to be linked to fifth, sixth and seventh grade students’ positive
perceptions about the PBL process, case discussions and that it added to their
understanding. This study used convenience sampling of existing year groups to
examine group differences in students’ perceptions about PBL (Azer 2009). A web-
based project drawing on PBL components was shown to lead to an increase in
self-confidence about the use of collaborative online tools in teenagers aged 13 to
18. These findings were based on student views collated before and after the train-
ing (Wang et al. 2001). A qualitative case study aimed at exploring students’ expe-
riences by using interview data and found that the use of a single PBL case
supported eighth graders’ interest and motivation to engage in independent work, as
well as overall academic performance and self-efficacy (Cerezo 2004).
Analysis of moderating variables or subgroup analysis was reported in two
papers (Sungur and Tekkaya 2006; Azer 2009) to identify potential group differ-
ences that could impact on the effectiveness of PBL, such as language spoken at
home (Azer 2009), and baseline differences in academic performance between con-
trol and experimental groups (Sungur and Tekkaya 2006). Four studies used analy-
ses of variance (Zumbach et al. 2004; Sungur and Tekkaya 2006; Simons and Klein
2007; Azer 2009) whilst one study compared the average group scores (Wang et al.
2001). The qualitative case study reported on the use of content analysis, though
according to the paper no inter-rater agreement was sought or a validation of the
analysis process reported (Cerezo 2004).
Outcomes however, relied largely on self-report data (Wang et al. 2001; Cerezo
2004; Zumbach et al. 2004; Sungur and Tekkaya 2006; Azer 2009) although one
study employed a mixed methods approach that also included objective teacher
ratings as an indicator of achievement (Simons and Klein 2007). The validity and
reliability of questionnaires used was reported in only two papers (Sungur and
Tekkaya 2006; Simons and Klein 2007), whilst others either explained that mea-
sures or questions have been adopted from previous research without a specifying
how these have been validated (Cerezo 2004; Zumbach et al. 2004; Azer 2009), or
 Educational Review 215

they did not provide any details (Wang et al. 2001). Follow-up varied between five
weeks after the use of a PBL programme (Zumbach et al. 2004), to immediately
after programme delivery (Wang et al. 2001; Cerezo 2004; Sungur and Tekkaya
2006; Simons and Klein 2007), with one evaluation not reporting details on the tim-
ing of pre- or post-intervention data collection (Azer 2009). Attrition was reported
in only one paper (Wang et al. 2001).

Discussion
The purpose of this review was to summarise how teaching approaches termed PBL
have been implemented with school-aged learners and to assess the effects of these
on academic and personal development. Although all studies reported to have used
PBL, the approaches described in the papers varied and there was a lack of rigorous
evaluation designs. All studies used a problem scenario which pupils were encour-
aged to deal with, either within independent information search or within group
work. Fewer studies explicitly reported that they used self-reflection or peer evalua-
tion as part of the process.
Although there were some variations, studies were carried out in functioning
teaching environments, and sessions were in the main delivered as part of the stan-
dard curriculum. This suggests that findings may have a relatively high level of eco-
logical validity and could offer some suggestions towards improving classroom
practice in schools.
Some of these emphasise the importance of adequate training of facilitators is
paramount for the effective provision of PBL to help both teachers and learners
become accustomed to a new way of teaching and learning (Wang et al. 2001).
Simons and Klein (2007) concluded that the use of scaffolding guides is important
in promoting better performance. Age-appropriate self-monitoring tools that facili-
tate structured self-reflection should be developed (Puntambekar and Kolodner
1998; Hmelo-Silver 2004; Simons and Klein 2007). Simons and Klein (2007) also
emphasised it is important to pay special attention to low achievers, ensuring they
are not left behind during the PBL process. Teachers who plan to deliver PBL in a
secondary school context should be aware of student’s preferences with regards to
resource use and potential levels of engagement in the PBL process (Azer 2009).
They should also be prepared to change their role: from a provider and distributor
of knowledge towards a coach who helps pupils in their own efforts to gather that
knowledge (Gallagher et al. 1995; Sungur and Tekkaya 2006).
Pedagogic practice in schools might be enhanced through training and the
encouragement of teachers to assume such a facilitative role in the classroom, pro-
vide pupils with scaffolding guides and tools for self-monitoring, and develop les-
sons with a greater awareness of student preferences and variations in performance.
Such pupil-centred, competency- or skills-focused pedagogic approaches are already
used in many educational settings; and many practitioners recognise the value of
such approaches. Some might even suggest these are

things a good teacher has always done. (Head teacher, personal communication, 12
November 2009)

Schools are about developing pupils into a next generation of knowledgeable,

responsible, healthy, happy, active, innovative citizens (Au 2008). Work towards
216 G. Jerzembek and S. Murphy

such a challenging aim should attend to exchanges between teachers and pupils in
the classroom. Papers identified in this review suggest that school pedagogic prac-
tice informed by PBL-based principles could have a positive influence on learners’
personal and academic development.
However, these papers also suggest a need for more rigorous evaluations,
including the use of randomised comparison groups. This was noted to be particu-
larly important as students working within a PBL environment are likely to be qual-
itatively different from those working within a traditional teaching environment
(Vernon and Blake 1993). The majority also relied on self-report data, and validity
or reliability of measures was reported to only a limited extent and the longest fol-
low-up period that evaluated long-term effects of PBL was five weeks (Zumbach
et al. 2004). Analysis of data did not account for different components of PBL, but
focused on the overall effect of this approach. There is a need to clarify how PBL
affects school-aged pupils, and what components can be used to enhance classroom
practice with a view to supporting pupil engagement (Zumbach et al. 2004; Azer
2009).
Vernon and Blake (1993) acknowledged that the evaluation of PBL is difficult
as it is “more than a simple teaching method”. It was argued to be a complex colla-
tion of “a general teaching philosophy, learning objectives and goals” (560) as well
as attitudes and values held by the implementing institution; such a complex inter-
play of factors is difficult to define and control (Vernon and Blake 1993). Similar
limitations were highlighted by Albanese and Mitchell (1993), noting that more
needs to be learnt about how PBL should be implemented, how the balance
between teacher- and self-directed learning should be and what cognitive processes
are supported through PBL. In order to extend the evidence base and address the
potentially limited sample of literature reviewed within the present paper, future
reviews should evaluate approaches not labelled as PBL but having some or all of
its characteristics.
Interventions in schools are complex and require a high level of detail as to the
intervention components, analysis procedures and implementation processes (Craig
et al. 2008). More clarity is needed which components of PBL exert an effect on
pupils’ personal and academic development, and whether these effects are sustain-
able over longer periods of time if the true value of PBL with school-aged students
is to be established.

References
Albanese, M.A., and S. Mitchell. 1993. Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its
outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine 68: 52–81.
Alexander, J.G., G.S. McDaniel, M.S. Baldwin, and B.J. Money. 2002. Promoting, applying,
and evaluating problem-based learning in the undergraduate-nursing curriculum. Nursing
Education Perspectives 23: 248–53.
Au, W.W. 2008. Devising inequality: A Bernsteinian analysis of high stakes testing and
social reproduction in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29: 639–51.
Azer, S.A. 2009. Problem-based learning in the fifth, sixth and seventh grades: Assessment
of students’ perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education 25: 1033–42.
Barrows, H.S. 2000. Problem-based learning applied to medical education. Springfield, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Barrows, H.S., and A.C. Kelson. 1995. Problem-based learning in secondary education and
the problem-based learning institute (Monograph 1). Springfield, IL: Problem-based
Learning Institute.
 Educational Review 217

Barrows, H.S., and R. Tamblyn. 1980. Problem-based learning: An approach to medical

education. New York: Springer.
Begoray, D.L., J. Wharf-Higgins, et al. 2009. High school health curriculum and health liter-
acy: Canadian student voices. Global Health Promotion 16, no. 4: 35–42.
Blumenfeld, P.C., R.W. Marx, et al. 1996. Learning with peers: From small group coopera-
tion to collaborative communities. Educational Research 25: 37–40.
Brown, A.L. 1995. The advancement of learning. Educational Research 23: 4–12.
Bruner, J.S. 1961. The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review 31, no. 1: 21–32.
Cerezo, N. 2004. Problem-based learning in the middle school: A research case study of the
perceptions of at-risk females. Research in Middle Level Education 27: 1–12.
Curry, J.J., J.A. Lubbers, and S.A. Tijoe. 2001. A “multi-session” problem-based learning
case for first-year medical students focusing on spontaneous neumothorax. The Journal
of Clinical Problem Based Learning 5: 40–63.
Craig, P., P. Dieppe, S. Macintyre, S. Michie, I. Nazareth, and M. Petticrew. 2008. Develop-
ing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance.
BMJ 337: a1655.
De Corte, E., and L. Verschaffel. 1998. Design and evaluation of a learning environment for
mathematical modeling and problem solving in upper elementary school children. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the EARLI SIG Instructional
Design, June 26–27, at the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dochy, F., M. Segers, P. Van den Bossche, and D. Gijbels. 2003. Effects of problem-based
learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction 5: 533–68.
Dods, R.F. 1997. An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in
promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted 20, no. 4: 423–37.
Ertmer, P., T.J. Newby, and M. MacDougall. 1996. Students’ responses and approaches to
case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. American Journal of Educa-
tional Research 33: 719–52.
Fogarty, R. 1997. Problem-based learning and other curriculum models for the multiple
intelligences classroom. Palatine, IL: IRI/SkyLight Training and Publishing.
Freire, P. 1970. The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Harder and Harder.
Freire, P., and I. Shor. 1987. A pedagogy for liberation dialogues on transforming education.
London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Gallagher, S.A., B.T. Sher, W.J. Stepien, and D. Workman. 1995. Implementing problem-
based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics 95: 136–46.
Gallagher, S.A., and W.J. Stepien. 1996. Content acquisition in problem-based learning:
Depth versus breadth in American studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 19,
no. 3: 257–75.
Glass, G.V., B. McGaw, and M.L. Smith. 1981. Meta-analysis in social research. London:
Sage Publications.
Green, B.N., C.D. Johnson, and A. Adams. 2006. Writing narrative literature reviews for
peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractice Medicine 5, no. 3:
101–17.
Hmelo, C., T. Shikano, M. Realff, B. Bras, J. Mullholland, and J.A. Vanegas. 1995. A prob-
lem-based course in sustainable technology. In Frontiers in education 1995, ed. D. Bud-
ny, R. Herrick, G. Bjedov, and J.B. Perry. Washington, DC: American Society for
Engineering Education.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E. 2002. Collaborative ways of knowing: Issues in facilitation. In Proceed-
ings of CSCL 2002, ed. G. Stahl, 199–208. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E. 2004. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educa-
tional Psychology Review 16: 235–66.
Kilpatrick, W.H. 1921. Dangers and difficulties of the project method and how to overcome
them: Introductory statement: Definition of terms. Teachers College Record 22:
282–8.
Markham, W.A., and P. Aveyard. 2003. A new theory of health promoting schools based on
human functioning, school organisation and pedagogic practice. Social Science and Med-
icine 56: 1209–20.
218 G. Jerzembek and S. Murphy

Michie, S., D. Fixsen, J.M. Grimshaw, and M.P. Eccles. 2009. Specifying and reporting
complex behaviour change interventions: The need for a scientific method. Implementa-
tion Science 4, no. 1: 40.
Morais, A.M. 2002. Basil Bernstein at the micro level of the classroom. British Journal of
Education 23, no. 4: 539–70.
Neal Boyce, L., J. Van Tassel-Baska, J.D. Burruss, B.T. Sher, and D.T. Johnson. 1997. A
problem-based curriculum: Parallel learning opportunities for students and teachers. Jour-
nal for the Education of the Gifted 20, no. 4: 363–79.
Newman, M. 2010. A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of
problem based learning. On behalf of the Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review
Group on the effectiveness of Problem Based Learning. Middlesex University.
Puntambekar, S., and J.L. Kolodner. 1998. The design diary: A tool to support students in
learning science by design. In ICLS 98. Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
Savin-Baden, M. 2000. Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories. Buck-
ingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Savin-Baden, M., and K. Wilkie. 2004. Challenging research in problem-based learning.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Simons, K., and J.D. Klein. 2007. The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels
in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science 35: 41–72.
Sungur, S., and C. Tekkaya. 2006. Effects of problem-based learning and traditional instruc-
tion on self-regulated learning. The Journal of Educational Research 99: 307–18.
Sungur, S., C. Tekkaya, and Ö. Geban. 2006. Improving achievement through problem-based
learning. Educational Research 40: 155–60.
Torp, L.T., and S.M. Sage. 2002. Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-
10 education. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
van Ijzendoorn, M.H. 1997. Meta-analysis in early childhood education: Progress and prob-
lems. In Issues in early childhood education yearbook in early childhood education, ed.
B. Spodck, A.D. Pellegrini, and O.N. Saracho. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Vermette, P., L. Harper, and S. DiMillo. 2004. Cooperative and collaborative learning with
4–8 year olds: How does research support teacher’s practice? Journal of Instructional
Psychology 31: 130–6.
Vernon, D.T., and R.L. Blake. 1993. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of
evaluative research. Academic Medicine 68: 550–63.
Wang, M., M. Poole, B. Harris, and P. Wangemann. 2001. Promoting online collaborative
learning experiences for teenagers. Educational Media International 38: 203–15.
Zumbach, J., D. Kumpf, and S. Koch. 2004. Using multimedia to enhance problem-based
learning in elementary school. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual:
25–37.