International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education

Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

Effectiveness of Problem-Based
Learning Implementation
Savitri Bevinakoppa, Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
Biplob Ray, Central Queensland University, Cairns, Australia
Fariza Sabrina, Mebourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) exercises have been proven to be an effective teaching method
for preparing the students as work ready graduates. Students work on a real world industry based
problem of relevant discipline. It also help students to improve their capability of critical analysis.
PBL has been adopted in educational practise in many disciplines. In this paper, the authors explore
the various existing PBL practices, develop, implement a model and analyse the effectiveness of the
implementation. This paper explains few exemplars of PBL, their implementation method and analysis
of students feedback. Paper concludes with the direction of the authors future work.

Keywords
Collaborative Learning, Critical Thinking, Learning Strategies, Problem Based Learning, Real World Case Study

1. INTRODUCTION

Problem Based Learning (PBL) mainly has been used in the medical science area, since its development
by Barrows and Tamblyn at McMaster University in 1980 (Major & Palmer, 2001). It is viewed as a
successful strategy to align university courses/units with the real life case studies and students be able
to ready as work ready graduates (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Pawson, Fournier, Haigh, Muniz, Trafford
& Vajoczki, 2006). It was since introduced in educational practice in all of the areas such as health
sciences, engineering, business, science, education etc. courses/units in many universities worldwide.
Over the last 15 years, many Australian universities have also adopted PBL as an instructional approach
either in a pure or a hybrid form. In the pure form of PBL, the entire course is delivered using the
PBL instructional approach, with no traditional lectures involved. As an example Monash University
offers Business strategy courses in Peninsula campus using pure PBL instructional approach (Problem-
based learning, n.d.). In the hybrid form, PBL approach is blended with tradition instructional
approach such as in lectures, laboratories, tutorials etc. For example, computer science courses of
University of Sydney (Barg, Fekete, Greening, & Hollands, 1999). Based on the nature of students
enrolment in networking and engineering courses in Melbourne Institute of Technology (MIT), we
practice hybrid form of PBL.
PBL is one of the teaching and learning strategies, which is an open-ended and ill structured
problem. There are many definitions in the literature to define PBL. None-the-less all definitions
might have slight variation based on the context PBL is implemented, the main concept of all those
definitions attempts to frame same view. A working definition of PBL which will be suitable for the
hybrid approach used at MIT is:

DOI: 10.4018/IJQAETE.2016070104

Copyright 2016, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

46
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

Problem-based learning use stimulus material to engage students in considering a problem which, as
far as possible, is presented in the same context as they would find it in real life; this often means
that it crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries. Information on how to tackle the problem is not
given, although resources are available to assist the students to clarify what the problem consists
of and how they might deal with it. Students work cooperatively in a group or team with access to a
tutor who can facilitate the learning process.

The above definition is adopted from (Boud & Feletti, 1998) and modified to fit in our context.
This paper explores the various existing PBL practices, develop a model to satisfy MIT courses
and benchmark with practices at other higher education institutions. This will also contribute to
standardising MIT PBL practice across all schools (IT & Engineering and Business).

2. BACKGROUND

Problem Based Learning (PBL) is an learning approach, that is characterised by flexibility and
diversity that can be implemented in a various ways in diverse contexts to improve on students
deep learning capability. Researchers from within Australia have commented on the lack of a deep
approach to learning and thus employers dissatisfaction with graduates (Cope, Staehr & Horan,
2002; Tan, 2008). The framework for success based on promoting a deep learning approach includes:

Assessment tasks that demonstrate conceptual understanding;

The emphasis is on depth of learning rather than breadth of coverage;
Tackle real world problems/scenario.

PBL can be a combination of cognitive and social constructivist theories, as developed by Piaget
and Vygotsky, respectively (Ozer, 2004). Both cognitive and social constructivist theories state
the importance of deep learning using unstructured problem context that closely resemble future
professional problems. According to Savin- Baden (Savin-Baden, 2001), PBL is characterized by
several pedagogical approach including:

An acknowledgment of learners experience

An emphasis on students taking responsibility for their own learning
An intertwining of theory and practice
A focus on the processes of knowledge acquisition rather than the products of such processes
A focus on communication and interpersonal skills so that students understand, relate their
knowledge, and require skills to communicate with others

Well-designed PBL exercise can make students a creative thinker and achieve deep learning
in an industry situation, where learning starts by defining the problem which always unstructured.
Coral Pepper from University of Western Australia (Pepper, 2009) stated benefits of PBL in
business and Science courses as below:

students deciding on the information and skills they need to investigate issues, while building
on their current knowledge to synthesise than integrate a new information

47
International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

students taking responsibility for the learning that occurs within their group, while instructors
monitor and facilitate student learning
students engaging with the learning experience.

Although there are differences at the concrete model level in achieving learning objectives of
collaborative learning and lifelong learning, there are common learning and teaching principles cross
PBL models and can be categorised in three approaches: learning, contents and social (Xiangyun,
Graaff, & Kolmos, 2009) (Etherington, 2011).
Students learn by working on real world problems using a combination of self-directed, peer,
and collegial learning approaches that are designed to meet the demands of the discipline and the
profession. After reviewing many literatures, we came up with the PBL approach written in section
3. We followed the following sequential process to conduct this project:

1. Review of the current literature regarding standard PBL practices.

2. Review of the current PBL conducting process and practices at other higher education institutions.
3. Analyse current MIT PBL practices and benchmark with other higher education institutions
based on their PBL process and practices.
4. Develop a standard PBL model to satisfy MIT units and prepare exemplars.
5. Conduct seminar and workshops for all staff. Provide feedback to Unit Coordinators (UC) based
on their current PBL problem, process and practices for improvement.
6. Work along with UC to ensure that improved PBL problem, process and practices are aligned
with newly developed model.
7. Finally, analysed feedback from UC to verify that new PBL problem, process and practices are
achieving its objective to preparing work ready graduates.

3. PROBLEM BASED LEARNING APPROACH

The PBL has three main elements: the problem, process and reflection (reflective journal with plan
for improvement) which determine the overall outcome of the learning. Carefully designed problem,
proven process and continuous improvement plan will achieve optimal outcome of PBL exercise in
a hybrid implementation at MIT. There are three characters (unit coordinators, students and tutors)
involved in PBL exercise, the discussion below detail their roles and responsibilities to achieve learning
outcome of the PBL. Normally unit coordinators design and develop PBL exercise, students solve
the problem and tutors give constructive feedback to students with valuable suggestions or relevant
solutions.

3.1. The Problem: Design and Develop PBL Exercise (for Unit Coordinators)
Designing and developing a problem is not easy. Instructors need to understand carefully on various
parameters, such as students prior knowledge, course/program level (such as Under Graduate or
Post Graduate), students work experience, ability to solve problems etc. Problem based learning is
problem first learning (Spencer & Jordan, 1999) because it is the problem which defines the learning.
Instructors design problems to represent authentic, real world situations where small group of students
work on problem to resolve. To enhance the understanding of problems, a number of central features
for problem construction in PBL have been proposed (Dolmans, Snellen-Balendong, Wolfhagen, &
Van der Vleuten, 1997). University of Wollongongs approach (Loyens, Kirschner, & Paas, 2011)
explains the following parameters to design a problem: prior knowledge, elicit discussion, stimulate
self-directed learning, and encourage knowledge integration and transfer. Based on this approach,
we came up with five rules for effective problem design as PREES:

48
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

1. Prior (P) Knowledge: Students need to have at least prior knowledge of basic concept necessary
to understand the problem. Piagets research on cognitive constructivist theory has shown that
prior knowledge influences the quantity and quality of new knowledge acquired (Ozer, 2004).
2. Relevance (R): To motivate students learning, PBL problems should be relevant for students
future profession (Loyens, Magda, & Rikers, 2008). It stimulates their cognitive and social
learning aspiration. This also covers the gap between learning theories in traditional class and
using it in professional context.
3. Elicit (E) Discussion: In addition to linking of the problem to prior knowledge, problem must
have scope and encourage elicit decision making. Problems can elicit discussion with some self-
directed clues such as opposing viewpoints, allowing students to generate arguments within peers
and discuss optimal point of view among group. Unstructured problems can lead to confusion
and on the other hand, too well-structured problems that lead to structured answer without critical
analysis part.
4. Encourage (E): Problems need to inspire students to apply their developed knowledge with
existing schemas, so that they can apply information in subsequent new situations. In other
words, a problem needs to stimulate knowledge integration and transfer. To accomplish this,
information needs to be presented in a broad context, so that students can better understand the
purpose of the problem (Loyens, Kirschner, & Paas, 2011).
5. Stimulate (S): PBL problems need to be constructed that learners determine themselves what they
find relevant for their learning. Same time, they are not diverted from their learning issue, such
as learning objectives of the unit. The problem should stimulate students cognitive conflict and
further Self Directed Learning (SDL), because it can involve multiple solutions which generate
discussions within the group.

It is not necessary to have a separate problem for each tutorial session. As an example, in a Web
Technology unit, the tutor might give a problem to design an e-market site that is better than ebay.
In one tutorial, students might investigate the features of ebay, in another they might try to discover
deficiencies in the ebay operation, in another tutorial they might take one of those deficiencies and
work out how to rectify it, in the next tutorial they might critically analyse the strengths and weaknesses
of their solution strategy etc.

3.2. Process or Approach: Student Role to Solve PBL Exercise

The process of conducting PBL in business, ICT and engineering context has been discussed in some
models (Karami, Karami & Attaran, 2013; The Guide offers illustrative examples of key variables to
consider when contemplating the Design, Implementation, Evaluation or Revision, of undergraduate
medical curricula, n.d.; Graff & Kolmos, 2003). These models are designed to keep in mind the pure
PBL learning approach. Karami et al (Karami, Karami, & Attaran, 2013) have broadly introduced
a model to engage ICT solution on PBL. It has four main stages: presenting issues related to the
content knowledge and unit objectives, grouping, data collection and involving groups in problem
to conduct PBL. In University of Newcastle (The Guide which follows offers illustrative examples
of key variables to consider when contemplating the Design, Implemention, Evaluation or Revision,
of undergraduate medical curricula, n.d.), PBL study guide state the process as Self-directed study
groups discuss and analyse selected cases. The typical study group (8 to12 students) meets once or
twice a week. Each individual student in the study group presents his/her work. It is then discussed
and the group decides who will continue with what tasks. Often students organise their work in such a
way that their individual work supplements the work of the group, enabling them to develop a broader
perspective of the related themes. The role of the teacher who attends the meetings is primarily to
facilitate the learning process i.e. to facilitate the groups work and internal communication (Graaff
& Kolmos, 2003).

49
International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

Figure 1. PBL learning process model in (Etherington, 2011)

Trinity Western University proposed by Etherington in Australian Journal of Teacher Education

(Etherington, 2011) is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 has four stages to achieve PBL learning outcome
and designed for pure PBL approaches. Four stages are mainly categorised as: Problem, Analyses,
Proposal of solution and Report.
To develop an appropriate process for conducting hybrid PBL in MIT, this paper adapted PBL
learning approach from (Etherington, 2011) with a number of modifications. Modifications are based
on various case study presented on hybrid PBL implementations within Australian institutions, such
as The University of Sydney (Barg, Fekete, Greening, & Hollands, 1999), University of Western
Australia (Pepper, 2009) and Monash University (Edwards & Hammer, 2007). MIT learning process
model (RAID) is shown in Figure 2, where few elements are modified such as students analyses in
a group of 3-4, students final outcome is their reflection on learning outcome, etc. Main four stages
are Real (R) life problem, Analyse (A), Identify (I), Discuss (D) and last stage is Reflective Journal
that can be combined as in the stage discuss. The final outcome is students proposed solution to
the problem and then a reflection of the process and outcomes.

3.3. Guide: Instructors/Tutors Role

Traditionally tutors play as a source of information and lead students to reach a pre-determined
goals. However, to achieve learning benefits offered by PBL method, tutors require to take the role
of facilitator, which is different to traditional tutors role (Spronken-Smith & Harland, 2009).
In the literature (Loyens, Kirschner & Paas, 2011; Spronken-Smith & Harland, 2009), authors
identified various reasons of instructors weaknesses, such as lack of understanding about PBL process,
fear of getting negative feedback from students and lack of broader view of problem knowledge
within the domain.

4. DELIVERY OF PBL EXERCISES

MIT offers combined Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) lecture and laboratory classes. PG
units have an extra one hour tutorial, where we deliver PBL tutorial. The Undergraduate (UG) students
can also learn from PBL as long as it is completely built on their appropriate level of knowledge and
their interest domain. PBLs are included in UG lectures and discussed during class. As an example,
units might have one short problem during the lecture which is related to the lecture content. PBL
problem is discussed not more than 10 minutes of the lecture time. These PBLs were common to UG

50
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

Figure 2. The RAID - PBL learning process for MIT

and PG students, however, the PBLs are mainly focused to PG students. For an effective participation
of students, we have allocated responsibilities as follows:

PBL preparation and marking guide Unit Coordinator (UC) responsibility

Solving problem Students responsibility
Facilitating Tutors responsibility

Tutors facilitate PBL tutorials, currently there is one hour allocated for this session. Tutors follow
the following steps as shown in figure 3:

5 minutes introduction of the problem by tutor

20-30 minutes students discussion among the group
10-15 minutes students write their individual discussion outcome
10-15 minutes feedback to their outcome by tutor

Since PBL is a new concept for students, it is important to explain students in the very first session
regarding PBL and its nature. Lecturer or UC chooses an appropriate problem which is learners
interest domain, appropriate for level of learners and relevant to their future profession to overcome

51
International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

Figure 3. PBL tutorial session process

leaners dissatisfaction, confusion and uncertainty. As an example, if we choose the problem from
a newspaper which created great public interest on the relevant domain, students will be very much
interested to brainstorm on it. Then tutors facilitate the discussion.

5. PBL EXEMPLARS

Master of Networking course has 12 units. There are 3 units per trimester. MN501 Network
Management in Organisatios unit is in first trimester, and MN505 Local Area Network Management
unit is a second trimester unit, where students have a background of Networking concepts. MN501
unit topic covers mainly professional practice: One of the PBL exercises for MN501 and MN505
are given below.

5.1. MN501 Network Management in Organisations PBL exercise exemplar

ABC Pty Ltd is a sales company, which sells networking devices such as routers, switches, cables,
compact flashes, wireless dongles etc. Ross is a long serving employee of ABC Pty ltd. He has
contacts with more than 100 companies/institutes who buys networking items through him. He is
friendly and knowledgeable person. Because of his friendliness, one of his buyer gifts a bottle of
wine and hamper for Christmas.

A. Do you think Ross will accept gifts? Explain your answer with justification.
B. What is bribery?
C. Do you think gift is a genuine business purpose?
D. How can you find out ethics policy of the organisation?

Above example can be discussed within group of 2-3 students in a class in one week PBL class
duration.

5.2. MN505 Local Area Network PBL Exercise Exemplar

XYZ IT company is situated within city area. This company building has 6 floors, with each floor
accommodate approximately 40 employees. First floor is a security area where guard will be looking
after the area with CCTV cameras monitoring. Second floor to 6th floor, most of the employees need
specialised software to work on IT projects. Server room with IT manager is situated on 3rd floor.
Each floor has approximately 10 rooms. Design a network for this IT company. Your network design
should consider the following criteria:

A. Type of network cable, length of the cable

B. Type of networking devices
C. Specification of each networking device with justification
D. Type of server with specification
E. Network diagram
F. Budget to build LAN or cost analysis

52
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

G. Configuration of networking devices

H. Performance analysis of the network in terms of speed, efficiency etc.

The above PBL exercise can be for 5 weeks covering 2-3 points in each week. Such as week 1,
students can think about points a-c before coming to week 2 class. Group of 2-3 students discuss their
finding and come to a conclusion of the outcome for each point a- c. Similarly week 3 covers points
d-e, week 4 covers f-g and week 5 covers point h. Each week students are asked to write reflective
journal on their finding before the class, outcome of the group discussion and plan for upcoming
week based on interactive discussion with whole class and instructor.

6. STUDENT SURVEY

Surveys have been conducted in both Melbourne and Sydney campuses where PBL exercises are
same. Following number of surveys have been received by students in Melbourne campus: MN501
= 15, MN503 = 37, MN505 = 26, MN506 = 17, MN601 = 25, and MN603 = 9. MN 501, MN503
are first trimester units, MN505, MN601 are second trimester units and MN506, MN603 are third
trimester units were chosen for surveys.

6.1. Survey Questions

Following points were given on the students survey form. Option are Strongly agree, Agree,
Neutral, Disagree, Strongly disagree and comments column to write additional feedback.

1. The PBL problems are based on real world case studies.

2. The PBL problems are appropriate for this Unit.
3. The PBL problems are interesting.
4. The PBL problems are based on unit learning outcomes.
5. The PBL problems gave me an exposure to the industry based work.
6. The PBL task helped me in improving my critical thinking ability.
7. The PBL task helped me understanding the topic better.
8. The brainstorming sessions were very effective.
9. The discussion among the students and with the tutor was very beneficial for my learning.
10. The duration of the PBL session was appropriate.

6.2. Survey Feedbacks

Survey results are shown in figures 4-9. X axis shows question number, y axis show percent of
students, bars show percentage of options Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and
Strongly disagree.

6.3. Survey Analysis

Figure 4 and 5 show feedback graph of first trimester units MN501 and MN503. Percentage for
option agree has more than other 4 units shown in figures 6-9. It indicates that students agree that
PBL exercises are useful and gives them opportunity to explore real world scenario in depth. Once
students understand the expectation of teh PBL, student strongly agree that PBLs are very useful,
except in MN506. After analysing MN506 PBL exercises, we found that most of the questions are
direct questions on theory covered in lecture class. Students are not applying their theory knowledge
to explore in real world case studies.

53
International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

Figure 4. MN501 Students feedback graph

Figure 5. MN503 Students feedback graph

7. CONCLUSION

Qualitative survey was conducted among unit coordinators and students. Survey results show that
Unit Coordinators were happy to receive feedback on their PBL exercises and did constructively
updated PBL based on critical comments. On the other hand, student often express their dissatisfaction
regarding PBL as they experience confusion and uncertainty (what was required from them)
because of the responsibility and control given to them. Some students experienced this differently

54
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

Figure 6. MN505 Students feedback graph

Figure 7. MN506 Students feedback graph

as stimulating and challenging, while others felt seriously hindered in their learning process to the
extent of developing feelings of anxiety (Duke, Forbes, Hunter, & Prosser, 1998).
It can be challenging to facilitate a group of students who are facing uncertainty because of the
above mentioned reasons. This situations can be avoided by explaining students in the very first session
regarding PBL and its nature. It is also very important to choose an appropriate problem which is
in learners interest domain, appropriate for level of learners and relevant to their future profession
to overcome learners dissatisfaction, confusion and uncertainty. As an example, if we choose the

55
International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

Figure 8. MN601 Students feedback graph

Figure 9. MN603 Students feedback graph

problem from a newspaper which created great public interest on the relevant domain, students will
be very interested to brainstorm on it. Our future work will focus on training students and tutors to
handle PBL process efficiently.

56
 International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Authors would like to acknowledge Melbourne Institute of Technology (MIT) for providing funds
to carry out this research project.

REFERENCES

Barg, M., Fekete, A., Greening, T., & Hollands, O. (1999). Problem-Based Learning for Foundation Computer
Science Courses. Retrieved February 27, 2015, from www.cs.usyd.edu.au/~judy/Teach/cse_pbl99.pdf
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1998). The Challenge of Problem Based Learning. Kogan Page.
Cope, C., Staehr, L., & Horan, P. (2002). Towards Establishing the Best Ways to Teach and Learn about IT.
In Challenges of Information Technology Education in the 21st Century (pp. 5784). Idea Group Publishing.
doi:10.4018/978-1-930708-34-1.ch004
Dolmans, D. H., Snellen-Balendong, H., Wolfhagen, I. H., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. (1997). Seven
principles of effective case design for a problem-based curriculum. Medical Teacher, 19(3), 185189.
doi:10.3109/01421599709019379
Duke, M., Forbes, H., Hunter, S., & Prosser, M. (1998). Problem-based learning: conceptions and approaches
of undergraduate students of nursing. Advances in Health Sciences Education.
Edwards, S., & Hammer, M. (2007). Problem-based Learning in Early Childhood and Primary Pre-Service
Teacher Education: Identifying the Issues and Examining the Benefits. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
32(2). doi:10.14221/ajte.2007v32n2.3
Etherington, M. B. (2011). Investigative primary science: A problem-based learning approach. Australian Journal
of Teacher Education, 36(9), 3657. doi:10.14221/ajte.2011v36n9.2
Graaff, E. D., & Kolmos, A. (2003). Characteristics of Problem- Based Learning. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 19(5), 657662.
Karami, M., Karami, Z., & Attaran, M. (2013). Integrating problem-based learning with ICT for developing
trainee teacher content knowledge and teaching skill. International Journal of Education and Development
using Information and Communication Technology, 9(1), 36-49.
Loyens, S. M., Kirschner, P., & Paas, F. (2011). Problem-based Learning. American Psychological Association, 2.
Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its
relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411427. doi:10.1007/
s10648-008-9082-7
Major, C., & Palmer, B. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education:
Lessons from the literature. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(4), 411.
Ozer, O. (2004). Constructivism in Piaget and Vygotsky. Retrieved February 27, 2015, from http://www.
psychology.org.au/publication/statements/substance/
Pawson, E., Fournier, E., Haigh, M., Muniz, O., Trafford, J., & Vajoczki, S. (2006). Problem based learning in
Geography: Towards a critical assessment of its purposes, benefits and risks. Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 30(1), 103116. doi:10.1080/03098260500499709
Pepper, C. (2009). Problem-based learning in science. Educational Research, 19(2), 128141.
Problem-Based Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2015, from http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/future-
students/undergraduate/studentexperience/problem-based-learning.html
Savin-Baden, M. (2001). Problem Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold stories. Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.

57
International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education
Volume 5 Issue 3 July-September 2016

Spencer, J. A., & Jordan, R. K. (1999). Learner centred approaches in medical education. British Medical Journal,
318(7193), 12801283. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1280 PMID:10231266
Spronken-Smith, R., & Harland, T. (2009). Learning to teach with problem-based learning. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 10(10), 138153. doi:10.1177/1469787409104787
Stark, J. (2013). Optus rolls out new 4G network. Retrieved February 27, 2015, from http://www.smh.com.au/
digital-life/mobiles/optus-rolls-out-new-4g-network-20130913-2to95.html
Tan, O. S. (2008). Problem-Based Learning and Creativity. Cengage Learning Asia.
The Guide which follows offers illustrative examples of key variables to consider when contemplating the Design,
Implementation, Evaluation or Revision, of undergraduate medical curricula. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27,
2015, from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf
Xiangyun, D., Graaff, E. D., & Kolmos, A. (2009). Research on PBL practice in engineering education. Sense
Publishers.

58