This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Sains Malaysia]

On: 28 February 2014, At: 03:06

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Higher Education Research &

Development
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Theres a lot of learning going on

but NOT much teaching!: student
perceptions of ProblemBased Learning
in science
Coral Pepper

Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences , University of

Western Australia , Crawley, Australia
Published online: 05 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Coral Pepper (2010) Theres a lot of learning going on but NOT much
teaching!: student perceptions of ProblemBased Learning in science, Higher Education Research &
Development, 29:6, 693-707, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.501073
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501073

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Higher Education Research & Development

Vol. 29, No. 6, December 2010, 693707

Theres a lot of learning going on but NOT much teaching!:

student perceptions of Problem-Based Learning in science
Coral Pepper*
Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley,
Australia
(Received 12 November 2009; final version received 31 May 2010)

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Taylor and Francis

CHER_A_501073.sgm

Higher
10.1080/07294360.2010.501073
0729-4360
Original
Taylor
602010
29
Dr
c.pepper@ecu.edu.au
000002010
CoralPepper
&
Education
Article
Francis
(print)/1469-8366
Research &(online)
Development

In this paper I report on 625 student responses and analyse student perceptions of
Problem-Based Learning during their first semester at university. The data I
present outlines the scope of the implementation at six entry-level units for the
years 2007 to 2009 and is followed by a qualitative analysis of student responses.
Eight themes are conceptualised as stretching along a continuum with one end
point representing an instrumentalist and superficial response and the opposite end
representing a professional and more thoughtful response. Despite some tension,
this implementation of Problem-Based Learning into the Science Faculty was, in
the main, challenging, time-consuming and rewarding for the majority of students.
Two implications for science education evident as a result of this study are that the
general student response to change is more positive if they are informed and
supported when a different teaching and learning strategy is introduced and that
many students require training and support to become self-directed learners.
Keywords: continuum; Problem-Based Learning; student feedback

Introduction
In this paper I describe an initiative begun in 2007, to implement Problem-Based
Learning (PBL), into a research intensive Science Faculty at a Western Australian
university. Following a brief overview of PBL, I outline the scope of the implementation for the years 2007 to 2009. Data presented describe the perceptions of 625
students of the implementation of PBL across six entry-level Faculty units and build
on earlier accounts of the implementation. Student feedback offers insight about their
reaction to the introduction of PBL and their level of engagement with the strategy.
Student responses are clustered into eight themes for discussion.
Why introduce PBL into the Faculty?
Problem-Based Learning, a recognised teaching and learning strategy popularised
during the 1960s (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980), is used to engage students in deep
rather than surface learning. The approach is also regarded as a successful strategy to
align university courses with the real-life professional work students are expected to
undertake on graduation (Biggs, 2003; Biggs & Tang, 2007). According to SavinBaden (2001) PBL is an approach to learning that is characterised by flexibility and
*Email: c.pepper@ecu.edu.au
ISSN 0729-4360 print/ISSN 1469-8366 online
2010 HERDSA
DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.501073
http://www.informaworld.com

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

694

C. Pepper

diversity in the sense that it can be implemented in a variety of ways in different

subjects and disciplines in diverse contexts (p. 4). Problem-Based Learning represents a major and widespread change in educational practice within higher education
(Dolmans et al., 2005) and has been introduced into all of the health sciences, engineering, business, science and education (Boud & Feletti, 1991). Some researchers,
for example, Dolmans, De Grave, Wolfhagen and van der Vleuten (2005) and
Schwartz, Mennin and Webb (2001) report students feeling discouraged during PBL
tasks and finding the group work required problematic. Approaches to PBL are varied
within tertiary institutions, with both pure and hybrid models and a variety of
forms in between regarded as successful (Dahlgren & Oberg, 2001, Pawson et al.,
2006).
Problem-Based Learning is problem first learning (Spencer & Jordan, 1999)
because it is the problem that defines the learning. Problems are designed to represent
authentic, real-world situations, which small groups of students work to resolve. To
emphasise fundamental sciences training in the context of real-world problems in
undergraduate degrees, PBL was implemented in the four Schools of the Science
Faculty. According to researchers (Biggs, 2003; Biggs & Tang, 2007; Kolmos, 2008)
there is a greater likelihood of deep learning rather than surface learning due to the
alignment of teaching and learning activities, curriculum objectives and assessment
tasks when students engage with PBL. Further benefits attributed to PBL include:
students deciding on the information and skills they need to investigate issues while
building on their current knowledge to synthesise then integrate new information,
students taking responsibility for the learning that occurs within their group while
instructors monitor and facilitate student learning and students engaging with the
learning experience more fully.
To complete this research I sought answers to the following questions:
(1) What did Level 1 students enjoy and not enjoy about PBL?
(2) How did Level 1 students engage in deep learning to complete PBL tasks?
(3) How did implementing PBL into these units enhance Level 1 students perceptions of the learning experience?
How was PBL introduced into the Level 1 units?
To study the student perception of PBL all Level 1 units that included PBL tasks
during 2007, 2008 and Semester 1, 2009, were examined. Earlier accounts of staff and
student perceptions of the PBL implementation are reported in Pepper (2008, 2009).
Problem-Based Learning was used as a teaching and learning strategy for part of the
curriculum, with no attempt to redefine the entire curriculum. Such use of a single
problem over several weeks is also reported as effective by Hans (2001).
All units involved in the PBL implementation have equal value towards an
undergraduate degree. The Biology unit is a core component of all courses taught
across the Faculty, with in excess of 300 students enrolled annually. Six contact
hours are timetabled for students weekly. Prior to implementing PBL, Biology laboratory sessions involved group and individual exercises with students submitting an
individual laboratory report weekly. The Economics unit is a core component of
several applied science degrees and annual enrolment numbers range between 60
and 80 students. Three contact hours are timetabled weekly for these students. The
Geography and Geology units are core components for all Earth and Environmental

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Higher Education Research & Development

695

Science students across the Faculty with enrolment numbers between 150 and 200
annually. These students attend two one-hour lectures and one three-hour laboratory
weekly. Student numbers in the Terrestrial Ecology unit range from 45 to 60 as this
unit is a core component of several applied science degrees in the Faculty. Table 1
summarises the design of PBL sessions to the students in the five units during
2007.
Typically, the tasks in 2007 extended over two or more weeks and students were
assessed as a group. The uptake of PBL facilitation training differed across the units
with two unit coordinators preferring to train the majority of their tutors and students
themselves. Students in one unit did not receive information about PBL.
Due to the logistics of managing increasingly large enrolments in Geography and
Geology, these unit coordinators elected to refine the PBL task introduced in 2007 and
dispense with obtaining PBL feedback in 2008. While PBL was introduced into the
Ecology unit in 2007, student responses were not available from the unit coordinator.
To raise the profile and strengthen the implementation of PBL, I co-coordinated the
Ecology and Terrestrial Ecology units in 2008 (Table 2).
In 2008 the tasks extended over two or more weeks with all students assessed as a
group and some others also assessed individually. Students in two units completed
more than one PBL task and students in one unit did not receive information about
PBL. All tutors received PBL facilitation training.
Table 3 summarises the presentation of PBL sessions to students in Semester 1
during 2009. Due to restructuring and staff changes within the Faculty, PBL was
discontinued in the Economics unit and the Biology unit coordinator was confident to
continue without assistance. Again, I co-coordinated the Ecology unit. In this unit,
students completed two PBL tasks and were assessed as a group for each task. All
tutors received PBL facilitation training.

Table 1.
Unit
(Generic)

Introduction of PBL into Level 1 units in 2007.

Session
style

Tutor
training

No. of
tutors

Student
training

No. of
students

No.
feedback

Biology
Laboratory
Yes
12
No
300
13*
three, three-hour laboratory sessions over three weeks, student groups of 6 or 7, three triggers
(new sets of information) progressively disclosed, assessment: group oral presentation
Economics
Tutorial
Yes
2
Yes
75
35
four, one-hour tutorials over four weeks, students in groups of 4 or 6, three triggers
progressively disclosed, assessment: group oral presentation
Geography
Tutorial
Yes
6 (proxy**)
No
200
93
three, one-hour tutorial sessions followed by a full day field trip, student groups of 4 or 6,
assessment: group poster presentation
Geology
Tutorial
Yes
8 (proxy)
No
200
74
one, one-hour tutorial session followed by a half-day field trip, student groups of 4 to 6, one
problem was presented, assessment: group oral presentation
Terrestrial Ecology
Tutorial
Yes
3
Yes
50
19
two, one hour tutorial sessions over two weeks, student groups of 4 or 5, one problem
presented, assessment: group oral presentation
Notes: *students completed group feedback; **Proxy 1 or 2 tutors attended training then provided
information to others and students.

696

C. Pepper

Table 2.

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Unit
(Generic)

Introduction of PBL into Level 1 units in 2008.

Session
style

Tutor
training

No. of
tutors

Student
training

No. of
students

No.
feedback

Biology
Laboratory
Yes
12
No
300
121*
four, three-hour laboratory sessions over four weeks, student groups of 6 or 7, five triggers
progressively disclosed, assessment: group oral presentation, 2-page individual summary,
lab notebook
Ecology
Tutorial
Yes
3
Yes
45
71**
two, two-hour tutorial sessions over four weeks, student groups of 4 or 5, two separate
problems, assessment: two group oral presentations
Economics
Tutorial
Yes
2
Yes
75
40
six, one-hour tutorials over six weeks, students in groups of 4 or 5, five triggers were
progressively disclosed, assessment: group oral presentation
Terrestrial Ecology
Tutorial
Yes
3
Yes
50
68**
two, two-hour tutorial sessions over two weeks, student groups of 4 or 5, two separate
problems, assessment: group executive summary, individual modelling task, group poster
Notes: * students completed 46 group and 75 individual feedback; **students completed more than one
task and feedback sheet.

Data collection and analysis of results

Students were encouraged to reflect on their learning during the PBL tasks and feedback was sought after the completion of each task. Because students are frequently
requested to provide feedback on their perceptions of teaching and unit coordination,
the questions were few, brief and completed in the final 15 minutes of the PBL task.
All students, except those in the Biology unit, were invited to participate and answer
four open-ended questions. Due to the large number of Biology students, I sought
group feedback from three randomly selected laboratory classes in 2007. Students in
three randomly selected laboratory classes were also invited to provide individual
feedback in 2008 and all others invited to provide group feedback. The first two questions asked students: What was the most important thing you learned in todays
session? and What questions do you have from todays session that remain unanswered? Student answers differed depending on the unit they were completing with
the majority of responses related to content matter in the respective unit or the questions were left unanswered. No analysis of student responses to these questions was
undertaken.
Question 3 asked students: What are two aspects you enjoyed about the PBL
process? and the final question asked: What are two aspects you didnt enjoy about
the PBL process? While the majority of students participated in only one or two of
Table 3.
Unit
(Generic)

Introduction of PBL into Level 1 units in Semester 1, 2009.

Session
style

Tutor
training

No. of
tutors

Student
training

No. of
students

No.
feedback

Ecology
Tutorial
Yes
3
Yes
45
71*
two, two-hour tutorial sessions over four weeks, student groups of 4 or 5, two separate
problems, assessment: two group oral presentations
Note: *students completed more than one task and feedback sheet.

Higher Education Research & Development

Table 4.

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Year

697

Unit number of responses to PBL feedback Questions 3 and 4.

No of
responses Q

2007

254

2008

300

2009

71

Total

625

3
4
3
4
3
4

Ecology Biology

129
97
118
75
419

Terrestrial
Ecology Econs Geography Geology Total

13
17
146
126

34
36
113
78

61
41
67
52

127
92

140
94

302

261

221

219

234

375
280
455
353
118
75
1656

the units, a small number completed several of the units simultaneously so responded
in several units. The breakdown of the number of feedback responses for Question 3
and Question 4 for each unit is listed in Table 4. This is followed by Table 5, which
illustrates the total number (and percentages) of feedback responses for Questions 3
and 4.
Across these Level 1 units, 625 responses were received after implementing PBL
tasks into 10 units over 3 years, with a total of 1656 data items received. Across each
year the number of responses indicating something liked about the PBL task are
greater than those indicating something not liked about PBL.
Student responses varied from full paragraphs, sentences and dot points through to
fragments of phrases. Analysing text requires several steps such as identifying themes
and sub-themes, culling themes to a manageable few and linking these into theoretical
models (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). After organising then synthesising data, qualitative
researchers locate patterns and identify critical themes emerging from the data before
deciding what will be reported to others (Malterud, 2001). In keeping with accepted
practice (Patton, 2002) I considered each data item individually to ensure each voice
was heard clearly.
With the assistance of a colleague, I began the data analysis process by proofreading and re-reading the data in unit groups, I then began open coding to identify emerging themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). To do this, I underlined key phrases in the
responses from each unit set then transferred these onto different coloured post-it
notes which I placed on butchers paper. On my second sweep through the data I
searched for repetitions of words, topics and ideas, in addition to similarities and
differences across the data before regrouping them into categories (Glaser & Strauss,
1967; Guba, 1978; Marton, DallAlba, & Beaty, 1993). I allocated tentative names to
the 11 categories identified according to the phenomena they represented. Some
of these categories included group work, meeting people, flexibility, content and
Table 5.

Total number (and %) of responses to PBL feedback Questions 3 and 4.

Year

Q3 responses

Q4 responses

Total

2007
2008
2009
Total

375
455
118
948

57.3
56.3
61.1
57.2

280
353
75
708

42.7
43.7
38.9
42.8

655
808
193
1656

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

698

C. Pepper

self-directed learning. By repeating this process and sorting then re-sorting the data
into groups of attributes that appeared to fit together, I identified eight themes. Much
of the early analysis occurred during a collegiate writers retreat, where I described
and discussed the process with other academics. During each stage of the process I
also consulted with a colleague assisting on the project. While clearly documenting an
audit trail, I remain aware that there is no single set of correct themes as the data may
be viewed in numerous ways (Dey, 1993). In this instance I exercised judgement to
identify those themes most significant to my research and acknowledge my interest in
student comments about their learning (Mischler, 1986).
To identify the eight themes, I clustered data with similar or opposite meaning and
with a positive or negative orientation. For example, phrases such as: met new
friends and working with mates, rather work on my own were clustered as working
in groups, not having to do everything myself, people not finishing on time and
sharing the task were clustered together as splitting the workload, different ideas
from different people, exchanging different views of thinking and others unwilling
to accept as much of my input as Id have liked were clustered as sharing ideas and
the wet weather, three weeks off labs and having to work on the weekend were
clustered as missing the point. Similarly, I identified phrases describing student
perceptions of task assessment (oral presentation, posters, public speaking, nervousness) as assessing the task, phrases such as researching new information, how to
find resources and new materials were grouped as learning new information,
working at our own pace, working on contemporary highly debated topic and
completing feedback sheets were clustered as completing the task and phrases such
as self-learning, relying on our own knowledge and caused us to learn well and
required understanding were clustered as being self-directed learners.
To place the eight themes in perspective I conceptualised them as stretching along
a continuum, with one end point representing an instrumentalist and superficial
response and the opposite end representing a professional and more thoughtful
response. Such a conceptualisation has strong links with the descriptions of surface
and deep learning, where surface learning is recognised by student intentions to
complete the task quickly with minimum thinking and effort and in deep learning
there is a willingness to engage in a task meaningfully and appropriately (Biggs, 2003;
Biggs & Tang, 2007). While copious research about PBL exists, there is minimal qualitative data available in science studies and an absence of material describing the
Western Australian setting. Some similarity also exists with earlier research that identified six qualitatively different conceptions of learning among students studying at
the Open University in Britain (Marton et al., 1993).
Student responses that were clustered into missing the point I positioned at the
instrumentalist end point, while those responses clustered into being self-directed
learners I positioned at the professional end point. After further unpicking the themed
responses I allocated the themes in order of increasing learning depth along the continuum as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Problem-based learning continuum.

How did the students perceive Problem-Based Learning?

To answer the first research question: What did Level 1 students like and dislike
about PBL? the responses to Questions 3 and 4 are presented separately. It is important to acknowledge that the student feedback was obtained from three separate
student cohorts over the years 2007 to 2009.

Higher Education Research & Development

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Figure 1.

699

Problem-based learning continuum.

What aspects did students enjoy about the PBL process?

Student responses varied and are summarised in Table 6. Although the majority of
students listed two aspects they enjoyed about PBL several listed one or none.
In their feedback across the three years students consistently report they enjoyed
working in groups to complete PBL tasks. This theme is ranked first across the three
cohorts (with 31.7, 33.9 and 37.2% reported across the years 20072009, respectively).
Typical student responses grouped into this theme include:
Great group enjoyed PBL without any concerns.
Loved working in a group.
Working in groups to get to know new people.
Working in a group to achieve goals.

In 2007, 22.6% of student respondents identified elements of the theme completing

the task as enjoyable, followed by sharing ideas (18.9%) and being self-directed
learners (11.2%). Students in 2008 identified elements of the sharing ideas theme as
enjoyable (24.2%), followed by completing the task (10.7%). Similarly, students in
2009 identified sharing ideas (21.2%) as an enjoyable element of completing PBL
tasks, followed equally by learning new information and assessing the task (11%).
Table 6.

Thematic responses to PBL feedback Question 3 (20072009).

Theme identified in responses

2007 n (%)

2008 n (%)

2009 n (%)

Missing the point

Working in groups
Splitting the workload
Completing the task
Assessing the task
Learning new information
Sharing ideas
Being self-directed learners
Total

119 (31.7)
29 (7.8)
85 (22.6)
13 (3.5)
16 (4.3)
71 (18.9)
42 (11.2)
375

154 (33.9)
35 (7.7)
49 (10.7)
30 (6.6)
43 (9.4)
110 (24.2)
34 (7.5)
455

1(0.8)
44 (37.2)
4 (3.4)
10 (8.4)
13 (11)
13 (11)
25 (21.2)
7 (5.9)
118

Total n (%)
(0.8)
(33.4)
(7.2)
(15.2)
(5.9)
(7.6)
(21.7)
(8.7)
100

700

C. Pepper

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Sharing ideas was ranked third in 2007 and second in both 2008 and 2009. Being
self-directed learners is ranked fourth in 2007 and fifth in both 2008 and 2009.
Across the cohorts, the ranking is slightly altered, with working in groups followed
by sharing ideas (21.7%), completing the task (15.2%) and being self-directed
learners (8.7%)
What aspects did students not enjoy about the PBL process?
Many students did not answer this question and several who responded did not
offer two aspects. Nevertheless, these responses were diverse and were also
categorised into themes (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). The themes identified appear in
Table 7.
Across the units the theme that students commonly identify they did not enjoy is
being self-directed learners to complete the PBL tasks (41.4, 27.2 and 21.3% reported
across the years 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively). Across the three cohorts, being
self-directed learners (32.2%) is ranked first of the themes identified among the
themes of aspects of PBL that the students did not enjoy. Typical student responses
grouped into this theme include:
If you ask a vague question, expect vague answers.
Not knowing if what I was doing was right.
Useless if you have no idea in the first place.
Too much time is wasted trying to interpret the question with not enough left to develop
the content.

In 2007, 19.3% of students identified elements of the theme completing the task as
aspects they did not enjoy, followed by working in groups (16%) and assessing the
task (13.2%). Comments unrelated to the PBL tasks, for example referring to the
weather and weekend field trips, necessitated the theme missing the point though this
theme was largely absent in later years. Students in 2008, identified elements they did
not enjoy in the themes working in groups (24.3%), completing the task (22.3%) and
assessing the task (12.7%). Data obtained from 2009 feedback indicates student
Table 7.

Thematic responses to PBL feedback Question 4 (20072009).

Theme identified in responses

Missing the point
Working in groups
Splitting the workload
Completing the task
Assessing the task
Learning new information
Sharing ideas
Being self-directed learners
Total

2007
n (%)
11 (4)
45 (16)
9 (3.2)
54 (19.3)
37 (13.2)
8 (2.8)

116 (41.4)
280

2008
n (%)

2009
n (%)

86 (24.3)
26 (7.4)
79 (22.3)
45 (12.7)
11 (3.1)
11 (3.1)
96 (27.2)
353

17 (22.7)
2 (2.7)
13 (17.3)
25 (33.3)
1 (1.3)
1 (1.3)
16 (21.3)
75

Total
n (%)
(1.5)
(20.9)
(5.2)
(20.6)
(15.1)
(2.8)
(1.7)
(32.2)
100

Higher Education Research & Development

701

dissatisfaction with elements of the theme assessing the task (33.3%) followed by
working in groups (22.7%) and being self-directed learners (21.3%).
Across the cohorts, the ranking is slightly different and after being self-directed
learners, working in groups (20.9%) is followed by completing the task (20.6%).
This is interesting because working in groups was rated most frequently as enjoyable by the students when answering Question 3 and yet across the three years many
students did not enjoy working in groups or commented negatively on group issues
when answering Question 4. For example, student responses to Question 4 categorised
as working in groups include:

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Some members made little effort to meet agreed to deadlines.

Some people took the opportunity not to work.
Time wasted because some team members didnt initially take the task seriously.

Also interesting is the low incidence of feedback on sharing ideas across the three
cohorts (1.7%) given that this theme was reported the second highest in response to
Question 3.
How did Level 1 students engage in deep learning to complete PBL tasks?
To answer the second research question and obtain student perceptions of their
engagement in deep learning I focused on student responses within the themes
towards the professional/deep learning end of the continuum (being independent
learners, sharing ideas, learning new information). Of the total responses, 8.7% were
categorised in the theme being self-directed learners in response to Question 3 and
32.2% for Question 4. Clearly, the majority of students did not identify being selfdirected learners as enjoyable. Interestingly, the percentage of students who reported
they enjoyed being self-directed learners decreased over the three years, as did the
percentage of students who did not enjoy being self-directed learners. Instead, there
was a shift in Question 3 responses towards sharing ideas and away from this theme
among the Question 4 responses. Of the total responses, 21.7% were categorised in
the theme sharing ideas in response to Question 3 and 1.7% for Question 4 so, in the
main, students enjoyed sharing ideas. Student responses categorised into the learning
new information theme differed between Question 3 and Question 4 with 7.6% and
2.8% responses, accordingly.
Student responses categorised into being self-directed learners generally identified
a sense of achievement, student independence and deeper learning as elements they
enjoyed, with a lack of direction and the progressive disclosure of triggers elements
they did not appreciate. Typical student responses include:
Achievement:
Learnt lots while researching, often more than I was supposed to.
Can be innovative and find own way which is rewarding.
We felt a great sense of achievement when finding solutions to some more difficult
genetic problems.

702

C. Pepper

Independence:
We had to come up with a way of doing it without having to follow precise instructions.
Satisfaction of working things out for myself.
Groups could solve problems independently, with little outside help.
Enjoyed not just being told what to do but working it out for ourselves.

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Deeper learning:
Sharing information meant we could go to greater depth for greater understanding.
It allows you to develop a deep personal understanding of the topic.
Generating your own learning.

Lack of direction:
Lack of direction at the beginning.
Having to think so much for myself.
Too wishy-washy with no real aim or goal.

Theres a lot of learning going on but NOT much teaching!

Progressive disclosure of triggers:
Not knowing direction of assignments and receiving information bit by bit.
Delayed triggers, prefer all up front.
Being given different aspects at different times.

Student responses categorised into sharing ideas generally identified collaboration,

and valuing others perceptions as elements they enjoyed, with disagreements and
repetition as the elements which were not appreciated. Typical student responses
include:
Collaboration:
Group discussions being able to voice opinions and talk out problems.
Sharing information is easier to understand than reading off government reports.
The group discussions were very good at getting us to work together.
You get a chance to learn everything in a different way.

Higher Education Research & Development

703

Valuing others perceptions:

Seeing everyones interpretation approach to the problem.
See issue from other peoples perspective.
Bringing together different opinions and answers to a problem.
Different views on an issue expressed through discussion.

Disagreement/repetition:
Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Information disagreeing with each other.

Repetition of discussion.
Some group members unwilling to accept as much of my input as Id like.
Clash of ideas.

How did implementing PBL into these units enhance Level 1 students
perceptions of the learning experience?
To answer the third research question and to obtain student perceptions of their
(enhanced) learning experience I focused on the four highest ranked total student
responses presented in Table 6 and Table 7. As commented previously, students
consistently report they enjoyed working in groups (33.4%) when answering Question
3. However, when answering Question 4, presumably different students report their
dislike of working in groups (20.9%). Of course, while group work is beneficial to
students in their first semester at university, such opportunities are not exclusive to
PBL. Student feedback indicates that a smaller percentage of respondents liked
completing the task (15.2%) than the percentage who responded they disliked completing the task (20.6%), although the number of student responses for each was similar.
Student responses in sharing ideas and being independent learners are of particular interest. More than 200 students (21.7% of respondents) offered feedback categorised as sharing ideas in answer to Question 3 compared with 12 students (1.4%)
who responded in this category in answer to Question 4. Clearly students enjoy sharing perspectives, opinions and learning the views of their peers. Students are less
enamoured with being self-directed learners. In this category, 228 students (32.2%)
indicate their dislike of this approach, while 83 (8.7%) offer feedback indicating their
liking for being self-directed learners. Thus, in the main, students enjoy the social
activity of working in groups and sharing ideas but they do not perceive their learning experience enhanced when being self-directed learners. It is important to note
that, anecdotally, student semester results were similar to the results achieved in
cohorts prior to implementing PBL.
Discussion
All students were encouraged to reflect on their learning throughout the PBL process
and most were aware that their feedback would be sought on completion of the task.

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

704

C. Pepper

Differences in the implementation of PBL across the Faculty occurred due to the variety of class settings, which included tutorials, workshops, field trips and laboratory
sessions. Generally, more students directed their comments relating to what they did
and did not enjoy about the tasks towards the instrumentalist end point of the PBL
learning continuum. Tension, both within and between students, is evident across
student perceptions of PBL in Science. Such tensions may be explained due to a
number of factors, perhaps including the degree of prior information disclosed to the
student classes, the level of commitment to the implementation demonstrated by each
unit coordinator and the quality of group facilitation that occurred in each setting.
In the early stages of implementing PBL, or any other change, it is not unusual for
participants to experience a range of emotions, such as confusion, frustration and even
anger as they adapt (King, 2006; Pawson et al., 2006; Shelton & Smith, 1998).
According to these authors it is vital that students receive guidance about how and
why they are expected to work in new ways. Typically, individuals question teaching
practice, curricular materials and collegial ways of working (Biggs, 2003). While
most unit coordinators welcomed training for themselves and their tutors, some were
unwilling to allow their students this same opportunity. As a result the majority of
students in 2007 did not receive explicit PBL information and instead received snippets of information or no information at all from their tutors before their first PBL
task. Numerous student comments from this group reflected negatively on a perceived
lack of direction in addition to a sense of bewilderment and uncertainly while
completing tasks.
In contrast, all students in three of the four classes introduced to PBL in 2008 and
all students in 2009 received explicit information about the purpose, the strategy and
the possibility of their mixed reactions prior to their first encounter with PBL tasks.
This approach is in keeping with the view that it is vital that students receive guidance
about how and why they are expected to work in new ways and prior reassurance that
completing PBL tasks may find them working initially on unstructured and challenging tasks (Biggs, 2003; Pawson et al., 2006). Nevertheless, it is still likely that
introducing PBL tasks to this group of students caused some angst among those who
lacked confidence in decision making. Disappointingly, across this study, one third of
student responses to Question 4 indicate students did not enjoy being self-directed
learners and less than 10% of student responses indicate they enjoyed being selfdirected learners in answering Question 3. Given that PBL was implemented as a
teaching and learning strategy to engage students in deep learning, such feedback is
dispiriting and worthy of further investigation.
Tensions are evident in the student responses within the themes completing the
task and assessing the task. At first glance it appears that more students indicate that
they did not enjoy completing the task. However, an equivalent number of students
both enjoyed and did not enjoy completing the tasks across the study. On the one
hand, some students enjoyed the freedom and flexibility offered by PBL, particularly
while on field trips and in tutorials. They appreciated being able to work at a pace of
their own choosing and with time for group pondering and discussion. On the other
hand, different students felt abandoned and resented the need to meet out of scheduled
class time. Several suggestions that the PBL tasks distracted students from other
assignments and required more effort than students believed necessary were noted.
All student responses were collected immediately after student presentations, prior
to students receiving teacher feedback and formal assessment. This may partly explain
the high percentage of student responses indicating they did not enjoy the PBL

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Higher Education Research & Development

705

assessment. Students frequently highlight their uncertainty about completing the task
to an appropriate standard. They frequently voice their resentment of oral presentations to assess their work and their restricted experience of public speaking. Interestingly, other students express appreciation for the oral presentations, in place of written
reports, as an effective means of delivering their conclusions and in developing their
presentation skills. Anecdotally, unit coordinators indicate that while group assignment results were higher than usual, student semester results were unaffected by the
introduction of PBL tasks into these units.
Further tensions are evident in the student responses. For example, in all unit data
sets more than one third of students indicate enjoyment of working in groups. The
power of working collaboratively fosters strong communication and interpersonal
skills while harnessing the power of different thinking and learning styles according
to Allen, Duch, Groh, Watson and White (n.d.). However, roughly one fifth of
students across the years, in answer to Question 4, did not enjoy working in groups.
Individual preferences for alternative learning styles could account for these different
responses from students. Tension is perhaps more probable due to the varied interpretations of group work by the students and group facilitation by the teachers and their
tutors. For example, in the units with fewer student numbers, where students were
introduced to the dynamics of group processes and supported to complete group work,
more positive comments were noted than in the feedback for tasks which involved
large student numbers, numerous tutors and field trips.
In this study, the quality of facilitation skills differed among the unit coordinators and tutors. According to Danish researchers, facilitation means drawing out the
wisdom already embedded and lying dormant in the psyche of the learner (Kolmos,
Du, Holgaard, & Jensen, 2008, p. 10; see also Kolmos, 2008). By this the authors
suggest that facilitators are skilled people able to create conditions within which
other human beings can select and direct their own learning and development. While
the value and significance of facilitation training was constantly emphasised in my
discussions with unit coordinators, there were instances in this implementation
where training was avoided. Consequently, different tutor backgrounds and different
levels of training resulted in some tutors being better prepared for PBL group facilitation than others. Feedback from some of the larger classes indicates student resentment that tutors did not offer encouragement or support to complete the tasks. In
contrast, numerous students acknowledge a sense of achievement in working out
solutions independently of teachers, sharing new knowledge with others in their
team, finding the tasks challenging and enjoyable simultaneously and moving from
their comfort zone.
Conclusion
Implementing PBL across a number of Level 1 units delivered by this Science Faculty
was challenging, time consuming and rewarding for the majority of students (and
academics) involved. Within a variety of teaching settings, including workshops, tutorials, field trips and laboratory classes, students were exposed to a range of PBL tasks
and their perceptions of PBL in Science were, in the main, positive. Student feedback
was obtained on completion of each PBL task and categorised into one of eight themes
perceived as existing along a PBL learning continuum. At the instrumentalist end
point of the continuum I placed themes such as working in groups and splitting the
workload. At the opposite end of the continuum, the professional end point, which I

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

706

C. Pepper

considered representative of more thoughtful, deeper responses, I placed the themes

being self-directed learners and sharing ideas.
Student perceptions of PBL in Science varied. Reassuringly, across the three years
of the study and the six different units into which PBL was implemented more
students identified elements they enjoyed about PBL than students who identified
elements they did not enjoy. Some tension was evident in student responses. While
numerous students enjoyed working in groups, sharing ideas and completing the task,
many did not enjoy working in groups and completing the task. Interestingly, when
asked what they did not enjoy about PBL, the largest number of student responses,
were classified as being self-directed learners. This response is disturbing given the
major driver to implementing PBL was to deepen student learning and better engage
students in their own learning. On a more positive note, student feedback indicates the
learning experience was enhanced through working in groups (though this is not
limited to PBL) and in sharing ideas. Students, it seems, enjoy the social activity of
group work to share different perspectives and understandings but they do not
perceive their learning enhanced when the learning is self-directed. Hopefully with
further PBL experiences student familiarity with the strategy will strengthen so they
become more confident self-directed learners.
Several lessons were learnt from this initiative and two significant improvements
should be factored into future planning if the implementation is to become embedded
within these Level 1 units. Firstly, feedback clearly indicates that many students are
uncomfortable when uncertain about perceived changes to the traditional teaching and
learning process. Implementing change is difficult and for this reason all students
must receive guidance about how and why they are expected to work in new ways.
Such knowledge is empowering for tertiary students. Secondly, implementing PBL
requires a clear understanding of group processes and strong facilitation skills from
teachers. The challenge for academics is clearly to find the right balance between
facilitating self-directed learning among students while stepping aside from the
instruction process.
References
Allen, D.E., Duch, B.J., Groh, S.E., Watson, G.B., & White, H.B. (n.d.) Scaling up researchbased education for undergraduates: Problem-based learning. Retrieved 10 January,
2007, from http://www.cur.org/publications/aire_raire/delaware.asp
Barrrows, H.S., & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical
education. New York: Springer.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Berkshire, UK: Open University
Press.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Berkshire, UK:
Open University Press.
Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds.). (1991). The challenge of problem-based learning. London:
Kogan Page.
Dahlgren, M., & Oberg, G. (2001). Questioning to learn and learning to question: Structure
and function of problem-based learning scenarios in environmental science education.
Higher Education, 41(3), 263282.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London:
Routledge Kegan Paul.
Dolmans, D.H., De Grave, W., Wolfhagen, E.H., & van der Vleuten, C.P. (2005). Problembased learning: Future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education, 39(7), 732741.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York: Aldine.

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 03:06 28 February 2014

Higher Education Research & Development

707

Guba, E.G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation.

Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.
Hans, V.P. (2001). Integrating active learning and the use of technology in legal studies courses,
In B.J. Duch, S.E. Groh, & D.E. Allen (Eds.), The power of problem-based learning: A
practical how to for teaching courses in any discipline (pp. 141148). Sterling: Stylus.
King, S. (2006, November). Emotional dimensions of major educational change: A study of
higher education PBL curriculum reform. Paper presented to AARE Conference Engaging
Pedagogies, Adelaide.
Kolmos, A. (2008, November). Problem-based learning and the course structure review: An
opportunity to develop integrated learning. Workshop for the Faculty of Engineering,
Computing and Mathematics and the Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and
Learning, University of Western Australia.
Kolmos, A., Du, X., Holgaard, J., & Jensen, L. (2008). Facilitation in a PBL environment.
Publication for the Centre for Engineering Education Research and Development, Aalborg
University.
Marton, F., DallAlba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal
of Educational Research, 19(3), 277300.
Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges and guidelines. Lancet,
358(9280), 483488.
Mishler, E.G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pawson, E., Fournier, E., Haigh, M., Muniz, O., Trafford, J., & Vajoczki, S. (2006). Problembased learning in Geography: Towards a critical assessment of its purposes, benefits and
risks. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(1), 103116.
Pepper, C. (2008). Implementing problem-based learning in a science faculty. Issues in
Educational Research, 18(1), 6072.
Pepper, C. (2009). Problem-based learning in science. Issues in Educational Research, 19(2),
128141.
Ryan, G.W., & Bernard, H.R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1),
85109.
Savin-Baden, M. (2001). The problem-based learning landscape. PlanetSpecial Edition
2(November), 46.
Shelton, J.B., & Smith, R.F. (1998). Problem-based learning in analytical science undergraduate teaching. Research in Science and Technological Education, 16(1), 1929.
Spencer, J.A., & Jordan, R.K. (1999). Learner centred approaches in medical education.
British Medical Journal, 318, 12801283.
Schwartz, P., Mennin, S., & Webb, G. (Eds.). (2001). Problem-based learning: Case studies,
experience and practice. London: Kogan Page.