Integrating Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in Mathematics Method Course

Sharifah Norul Akmar SZ

Lee Siew Eng
Faculty of Education
University of Malaya

Abstract

In this era of rapid technological innovation, institutions of higher learning including

University of Malaya are faced with the challenge to develop highly qualified and trained
graduates. Since the current innovations call for new competencies, skills and
knowledge from our graduates, an alternative approach to teaching in higher learning
institutions is inevitable. In this regard, Problem-Based Learning (PBL) has emerged as
a promising approach to accomplish these goals. In this study we examined the
implementation of Problem Based learning in a Mathematics Method course.
Specifically, the objectives are to investigate students attitudes pre and post PBL
session, students activities in the PBL session and students perceptions towards the
PBL session. The participants for this study were 63 students enrolled in an
undergraduate mathematics method course. The assessment results indicate that PBL
method has an overall positive impact on the Mathematics Method students attitudes,
activities and perceptions towards Problem-Based Learning.

Key words: problem based learning, mathematics education, teacher education

Introduction

In this era of Information, communication and technology (ICT), University of Malaya is

challenged more than ever before with the need to develop graduates who will be
adaptable in a fast changing environment. Since globalization and rapid technological
innovations call for new competencies, knowledge and skills, there is a need for
pedagogical change in the undergraduate and graduate programs (Rahimah Kadir,
2004; Teoh, 2002). This change is inevitable for several other reasons. A widespread
worrying aspect has been that current curriculum and pedagogy employed in the
classrooms often fail to prepare students to solve authentic problems encountered in the
workplace or in everyday life. In addition, educational change is needed to equip our
students with higher order thinking skills and learning abilities as demanded by todays
marketplace.

Issues related to the achievement of students in higher learning institutions in Malaysia

have always been of concerned to the society. Reports on students passive attitudes,
lack of motivation, weakness in problem analysis and lack of communication skills has
prompted certain authorities to recommend Problem Based Learning (PBL) approach in
teaching. At the core of PBL is the integration of specific concepts and classroom
contexts for enhancing students critical-thinking skills and problem solving ability. It also

1
serves as a powerful tool in empowering learners to have a sense of control of their
learning (Ee, Chong & Tan, 2004).

Problem-based learning (PBL) has been widely used in the professional development of
the health science courses and medical course. Its promising characteristic is further
enhanced by its implementation in other professional courses such as those in the
management and leadership development (Bridges & Hallinger,1995) and lately in
teacher education (Delisle, 1997; Torp & Sage, 1998; Harvey & Slee, 2000; McPhee
2002; Lynda, Megan & Jeffrey, 2002). Levin (2001) described PBL as a tool that can
promote the kind of active learning experience that prospective teachers should embark
on during their initial teacher preparation and experience throughout their professional
lives. Taking the constructiveness of the approach, PBL was introduced in Mathematics
Method, a teacher education course.

.
Definition of Problem-based learning (PBL)

There has been an extensive review of literature with regard to PBL and it has been
described in a variety of ways and based on differing concept of PBL. PBL is an
alternative approach to teaching which is not prescriptive in nature. Krajcik et.al. (1998)
described Problem Based Learning (PBL) as learning that uses a problem as a focal
point for student investigation and inquiry. Problem based learning encompasses a
broad family of strategies that include problem solving, inquiry, project-based teaching,
case-based instruction and anchored instruction. Students active involvement in trying
to solve some problem or answer some question is central to all the different strategies
listed. PBL is also depicted as a curriculum development and instructional system that
simultaneously develops both problem solving strategies and disciplinary knowledge
bases and skills by placing students in the active role of problem solvers confronted with
non routine problems that reflects the real world.
MacDonald and Isaac (2001) explained that the characteristic that distinguishes PBL
from other learning methods is the problem comes before the knowledge needed to
solve or resolve it. In PBL, the problem steers the learning and is posed so that the
students discover that they need to learn some new knowledge before they can solve
the problem (Woods, 1995). According to Burch (1995), Problem-based Learning
rotates around a focal problem, group work, feedback, class discussion, skill
development and final reporting. The teacher coordinates, facilitates and pilots this
cycle of activity, then teaches skills within that context. Inviting students into a learning
experience that allows them to reckon it in their own terms, this teaching approach
provides the opportunity for active learning
.

Evaluative research on the effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning

Problem-based learning was found to nurture ability to be critical thinkers, skills to

analyze and solve problems, expertise in researching, identifying, evaluating and using
information resources, ability to work cooperatively in groups and skills to communicate
orally and in written form (Engel, 1991). Problem based learning has also been claimed
to enhance meaningful learning (Marton and Saljo,1976; Sobral,1995). During PBL
sessions, students assume increasing responsibility for their learning. The students then

2
will be more inspired and have the feelings of accomplishment. It is interesting to note
that PBL is also identified as constructivist pedagogy, consistent with constructivist
theories of learning that serve as foundation for many teacher education programs
(Delisle, 1997). Savery and Duffy (1995) summarize some of the main ideas of
constructivism: Understanding is based on previous experiences and unique to the
individual, knowledge cannot be transferred from one person to the other and cognitive
disturbance is the factor that motivates learning. Robbs and Meredith (1994) discussed
the advantages of PBL approach of learning such as an increased retention of
information, enhancing lifelong learning, improving student-lecturers liaison, and an
increase in motivation. Albanese and Mitchell (1993) reviewed several literatures and
indicated issues related to the implementation of PBL such as issues inherent to change,
assessment issues and issues related to the inherent demand of PBL. Zimitat and
colleagues (1994) reported the effect of tutors and facilitators on PBL success. The role
of the tutor in PBL includes facilitation of the learning process, assisting and ensuring
students are on the right track. A study by Wee and his colleagues (2000) identified five
worst performing factors in PBL from the students perspective with the class
infrastructure at the top of the list. Different researchers have focused various
respective areas in evaluating PBL. All in all, Glen (2004) highlighted that assessment
in PBL needs to be holistic in nature to ascertain the rich nature of learning is achievable
through PBL.

Background of the Mathematics Method Course

Mathematics method is a four credit hour course that is required of all mathematics
education majors. Majority of students enrolled the course in their third year. Typical
enrolment in the first semester is usually 45-60 students. The main aim of this course is
to develop the teacher trainees understanding and skills of the methodology of teaching
mathematics. Course content includes learning theories in mathematics education,
mathematics curriculum, resources in the teaching of mathematics, assessment,
teaching techniques and approaches. Through micro teaching, the trainees were
exposed to the skills and some practical aspects of teaching specific topics in secondary
school mathematics.
Lecture was scheduled every Tuesday and Thursday from 9 -11 a.m for fourteen weeks.
The course was normally taught in a traditional lecture format with micro teaching
sessions at the end.

Research objectives and questions

This study aimed at evaluating the implementation of Problem Based learning in a

Mathematics Method course. Specifically the objectives are to investigate students
attitudes pre and post PBL session, students activities during the PBL session and
students perceptions towards the PBL session
In achieving the research objectives, this study intends to answer the following three
research questions:
(i) Is there any difference in attitude of students before and after the PBL
experience?
(ii) What are the activities that students experience during the PBL lesson?
(iii) What are the students general perceptions of the PBL approach?

3
 Methodology

Sample and the task

This study is a quasi experimental study. Sixty three students enrolled in the
Mathematics Method Course offered in the first semester of the academic session
2002/03 participated in the study. Majority were females (76.2%) and third year students
(69.8%). This could well reflect the gender bias favoring the female in the teaching
profession. The students were divided into groups of 4 to 5 and were then given the
problem Scenario I. They were expected to study the scenario, identify the issues
involved in the problem and try to solve the problem. In the process, the students were
required to identify the different teaching approaches in mathematics instructions. They
had to search for relevant materials and towards the end made group presentation to the
class.

Course design using the PBL approach

Since this was an initial study using PBL, it was decided that only 30% of the course
should be taught using the PBL approach. The topic chosen was approaches to
teaching mathematics. The whole PBL session lasted for six weeks. The first meeting
involved dividing the class into small groups of 4 or 5. The students were then
introduced to the problem/scenario followed by discussions among the group under the
supervision of the tutor. Students were then given the opportunity to investigate further
using appropriate resources. The last session was the presentation.
Several important points were outlined:
What do we know?
What do we need to know?
What are the issues?
Where will we find more information?

Each group was asked to elect a leader and the tutor moved around the room listening
to the discussion of each group and asking questions to help them clarify ideas and think
more deeply about the issues. Lists of internet sites and reference books were provided
to the students. The students were also allowed to interview teachers and experts who
can provide perspectives on their problems.

Instruments and data collection

Two instruments were employed to collect data in this study.

(a) Questionnaires of Students Attitudes and Activity Assessment (QAAA)

The QAAA instrument measures both students attitudes towards classes and how they
spend their time in the course. The instrument is adapted from the Samford University
Problem-Based Learning Assessment efforts. The questionnaire consisted of 17 items
on attitude and 27 items on activities. The questionnaire was distributed to the students
before the PBL session began and six weeks after the PBL session.

4
(b) Survey instrument End of Session Evaluation

Besides QAAA, an end of session evaluation was distributed to the students at the end
of the PBL session. This instrument was adapted from the end of course evaluation
used by the Samford team. The questionnaire consisted of section A and B. Section A
comprises six statements utilizing a 5-point Likert scale with values of Strongly agree,
Agree, No opinion, Disagree and Strongly disagree while Section B comprises free
response question.

Data analysis

The data collected in the survey questionnaire provides the basis for indicating whether
there is a change in attitude of the students. A non parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test
was used to determine whether there is a significant difference in attitude of the
students pre and post PBL session. For the activity and the end of PBL session
questionnaire, the data were presented in frequency tables. In each table, corresponding
to each statement, the percentages of the responses for each of the various options or
choices were given.
Wherever appropriate, quantitative data were obtained but not necessarily analyzed
beyond descriptive analysis. For every item in the QAAA a weighted average was
obtained based on the response of all 63 students. A weighted average of 3.5 and
above is considered as espousing the belief statement. A weighted average of 2.5 and
below is considered not espousing the belief statement. A weighted average between
2.5 and 3.5 is considered as indicating indecision about the belief statement.

Results

Pre and Post PBL Survey: Students attitude

Among the seventeen attitude statements, significant differences between pre and post
PBL session emerged on five statements (Refer to Table 1 and Appendix 1). There is a
significant difference (p<.05) between the attitude of students towards working
cooperatively in groups pre PBL and after PBL. The output also indicates that there is a
significant difference between the students perceptions regarding the instruction using
PBL approach pre and after PBL sessions (p < .05). For three other statements, an
examination of the z score and two tailed p-value indicates that the test is significant ,
that is, PBL improves skills such as communicating effectively verbally (p<.001) and
adopting a more universal and holistic outlook (p<.05).

5
Table 1

Summary of responses from the students

Mean
Before After
Items z

10. I learn more by working in groups rather 3.5079 3.9683 -2.642 *

than working alone
11. I feel the instruction of this course is similar 3.127 2.8095 -2.165 *
to other classes that I have taken before
16. I am most concerned with finding the right 4.1746 3.9524 -2.060 *
answer to an issue or problem
21. I enjoy writing multiple drafts of paper 3.2698 3.7143 -3.270 **
22. I enjoy making formal oral presentation 2.7143 3.3651 -3.663 **

*p<.05 **p<.001

Students activities

Results indicate that students rated quite high the activities posed on the survey (refer to
Appendix 2). Nineteen items (1,2,4,6,7,8,10,12,13,16,17,18,20,21,22,23,24,25,and 26)
has a weighted average of more than 3.5 and can be considered as espousing the belief
statement. The responses show that PBL sessions provide opportunities for students to
enhance their skills to work in teams thus providing leadership experience, be a good
listener, be more open minded, be more organized and systematic, practice good time
management, improve relationship with other students, and learn to find, evaluate and
use appropriate learning resources.

End of PBL session evaluation

At the end of the session on PBL, it was observed that majority of the students admitted
that they did enjoy the PBL approach in the course. From Table 2 we can see that overall
measures suggest that PBL is having a positive impact on students learning in the
Mathematics Method course. In terms of a combined percentage of students choosing a
positive response strongly agree and agree, 92% found that PBL session increased
their ability to solve real world problems. Interestingly, all of them found that the PBL
session encouraged them to consider alternatives when solving problems. Results also
show that students (96.8%) are satisfied with their experience and enjoy the small group
interactions and atmosphere associated with PBL. Another 98.4% were satisfied that
PBL improve their ability to find appropriate resources and take an active role in their
learning.

6
Table 2

Summary of the End of PBL session evaluation

Item SA A NO D SD Total

This PBL session increased my 33.3 58.7 8.0 - - 100

ability to solve real world problems (21) (37) (5) (63)
This PBL session encouraged me 47.6 52.4 100
to consider alternatives when (30) (33) - - - (63)
solving problems
This PBL session improved
my ability to identify 44.4 54.0 1.6 - - 100
appropriate resources (28) (34) (1) (63)
This PBL session increased
my ability to work effectively 39.7 57.1 3.2 - - 100
on a team (25) (36) (2) (63)

This PBL session encouraged 42.9 55.6 1.6 100

me to take an active role (27) (35) (1) - - (63)
in my learning
I have used knowledge and 36.5 57.1 6.3 100
methods drawn from outside (23) (36) (4) - - (63)

SA (Strongly agree) A (Agree) NO (No opinion) D (Disagree) SD (Strongly disagree)

Aspects of PBL session that contributed most to students learning: Learners

perspectives

Table 3 presents the results from the students response to the open ended question in
which they were asked to identify the PBL process that contributed most to their
learning. About one third of the students (30%) indicated that the discussions
contributed most to their learning, followed by working in group (22%) and the process of
analyzing and making sense of the problem given (22%). Another 10% felt that the
presentations contributed most to their learning while 8% of the students felt that the
feelings of empathy contributed most.

7
Table 3

Aspects of PBL process that contributed most to students learning

Aspects %

Discussions 30

Group work 22

Analyzing and making sense of the 22

problems
Presentations 10

Practice empathy towards other 8

persons point of view
No response 8

Total 100

Conclusion

PBL is a relatively new approach to most of us in the mathematics teacher education

field even though others might argue that it has been within mathematics education
realm since problem solving were introduced more than 30 years ago. Making the
transition from the traditional approach to PBL format is fairly taxing for both faculty and
students. However, PBL seems a viable methodology for teacher education (McPhee,
2002). It is a flexible teaching method and can be used in many formats as suggested
by Kaufman (1995). Like many other studies, this small investigation suggests that PBL
has positive influence on students attitude. It is also clear that overall measures suggest
that PBL is having a positive impact on students learning in the Mathematics Method
course. Results indicate that PBL method significantly improves skills such as working
collaboratively in teams and communicating confidently. The responses also show that
PBL sessions provide the students opportunities to hone their leadership skills, be a
good listener, be more open minded, be more organized and systematic, practice good
time management, improve relationship with other students, and learn to search, assess
and use appropriate learning resources. It is important for educators to try it out in
practice and adopt the PBL method of instruction because by not doing so would be an
oversight and teacher education will be left behind by education for other professions in
quality and methodological considerations (Harland 1998).

8
 REFERENCES

Albanese, M. A., Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature

on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic medicine,
68(1), :52-81.

Bridges, E., & Hallinger, P. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in leadership

development. University of Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management.

Burch, K. (1995). PBL and the lively classroom. Available:

http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/jan95-posc.html

Delisle, R.(1997). How to use Problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria,

VA:ASCD

Ee, J., Chong, A., & Tan, O. S. (2004). Thinking aloud thinking: What educators need to
know. Singapore: Mc Graw Hill

Engel, C. E. (1991). Not just a method but a way of learning. In (Eds.) Boud. & Felleti G.
The challenge of problem based learning. London. Kogan pp.22-33.

Glen, O Grady. (2004). Holistic assessment and problem - based learning. Paper
presented at the 5th Asia Pacific Conference on Problem Based Learning:Pursuit
for excellence in education. 16-17 March, 2004. Singgahsana Hotel, Petaling
Jaya.

Harland, T. (1998). Moving towards problem-based learning. Teaching in Higher

Education, volume 3, no 2, pp 219-229

Harvey, R. M. & Slee, P. (2000). Problem based learning in teacher education: Just the
beginning. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian
Association for Research in Education, Sydney, Australia. 4-6 December, 2000.

Kaufman, D.M. (1995) Preparing faculty as tutors in problem-based learning. Teaching

Improvement PracticesSuccessful Strategies for Higher Education ( In W. A.
Wright & Associates), pp101-125. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E.
(1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle
school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.

Levin, B. B. (Ed.) (2001). Energizing teacher education and professional development

with problem-based learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Lynda Wee, K. N., Megan Kek, Y. C., Jeffrey Mok, C. H. (2002). The untold stories of
PBL student. Paper presented at 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Problem based
Laerning, 11-13 December 2003, Hat Yai, Songkla, Thailand.

9
Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning outcome and
process British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

Mac Donald, D & Isaacs, G. (2001) Developing a professional identity through problem-
based learning. Teaching Education, 12, 315-333.

McPhee, A. D. (2002). Problem based learning in initial-teacher-education:Taking the

agenda forward. Journal of Educational Enquiry. Vol.3 No.1.

Rahimah A. Kadir.(2004). Optimizing PBL in a multidisciplinary setting: A case of exciting

returns. Keynote address at the 5th Asia Pacific Conference on Problem Based
Learning:Pursuit for excellence in education. 16-17 March, 2004. Singgahsana
Hotel, Petaling Jaya.

Robbs, J. & Meredith, S. (1994). The Problem Based learning curriculum at Southern
Illinois University School of Medicine (online) available from: URL
http://www.suimed.edu/pblc/pblcur.html

Savery J.R. & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem- based learning : An instructional model and
its constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), 31- 38.

Sobral, D. T. (1995). The problem-based learning approach as an enhancement factor of

personal meaningfulness of learning. Higher Education, 29(1), 93-101.

Teoh, M. L. (2002). A PBL pilot study in semiotics. Paper presented at 4th Asia Pacific
Conference on Problem based Laerning, 11-13 December 2003, Hat Yai,
Songkla, Thailand

Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problem as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12
education. Alexandria, VA:ASCD

Wee Keng Neo and colleagues (2000). Tried and tested: Issues & implications for
educators in PBL learning-Relearning from the learners; perspective post
conference proceedings, 2nd Asia Pacific Conference on PBL, Singapore 4-7
Disember 2000.

Woods, D. R.(1995). Problem-based learning: Helping your students gain the most from
PBL, Waterdown, Canada. Available :
http://chemeng.macmaster.ca/pbl/chp2.htm

Zimitat C., Hamilton S., De Jersey J., Reilly P. and Ward, L. (1994). Problem based
learning in metabolic biochemistry [online] Available from:URL
http://florey.biosc.uq.edu.au/BiochemEd/PBLmetab.html

Appendix 1

Survey results on students attitude pre and post PBL

10
SD-Strongly Disagree D-Disagree N-No Opinion A-Agree SA- Strongly Agree

Mean SD D N A SA
Students' attitude (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

1. I feel comfortable working and Before

participating in small groups 4.14 0.00 4.80 9.50 52.40 33.30
After 4.25 0.00 3.20 7.90 49.20 39.70
2. I learn more by working in groups Before
rather than working alone
3.51 0.00 27.00 23.80 20.60 28.60
After 3.97 0.00 6.30 15.90 52.40 25.40
3. I feel the instruction of this course is Before
similar to other classes that I have taken 3.13 0.00 31.70
elsewhere 23.80 44.50 0.00

After 2.81 0.00 50.80 22.20 22.20 4.80

4. I feel comfortable in asking probing
questions that clarify facts, concepts, or
relationships Before 3.92 0.00 1.60 28.60 46.00 23.80
After 4.00 0.00 0.00 15.90 68.2 15.90

5.I am flexible and creative in seeking

potential solution to problems. Before 3.71 0.00 4.80 38.10 38.10 19.00
After 3.92 0.00 0.00 27.00 54.00 19.00
6. I am primarily responsible for my own
learning Before 4.37 0.00 0.00 7.90 47.60 44.5
After 4.38 0.00 0.00 7.90 46.00 4700
7. I am willing to persevere and persist at
finding solutions to problems Before 4.38 0.00 0.00 4.80 63.50 31.70
After 4.27 0.00 3.20 19.00 57.2 20.60
8. I am most concerned with finding the
right answer to an issue or problem. Before 4.17 0.00 0.00 14.30 54.00 31.70
After 3.95 0.00 3.20 19.00 57.2 20.60

9. I believe my primary learning as an

adult will happen during my
undergraduate college years. Before 3.65 0.00 23.80 17.50 28.60 30.1
After 3.52 1.60 17.50 22.20 44.40 14.30
10. I am curious about how and why Before 4.24 0.00 0.00 4.80 66.6 28.6
things work.
After 4.21 0.00 0.00 6.30 66.70 27.00
11. I value different points of view Before 4.22 0.00 0.00 3.20 71.40 25.40
After 4.13 0.00 0.00 11.10 65.10 23.80
12. I feel the instructor is primarily
responsible for my learning. Before 3.54 0.00 9.50 36.50 44.5 9.50

11
 After 3.63 0.00 6.30 33.30 50.80 9.50
13. I enjoy writing multiple drafts of
papers. Before 3.27 0.00 25.40 25.40 46.00 3.20
After 3.71 0.00 3.20 33.30 53.40 11.10
14. I enjoy making formal oral
presentations. Before 2.71 0.00 42.90 44.40 11.10 1.60
After 3.37 1.60 11.10 42.90 38.10 6.30
15. I am confident in my ability to identify
and search for information that is needed
to solve a problem. Before 3.89 0.00 0.00 17.50 76.20 6.30
After 3.79 0.00 1.60 31.70 52.40 14.30
16. I like working with problems that have
many solutions Before 3.86 0.00 0.00 27.00 60.30 12.70
After 3.87 0.00 4.80 17.50 63.50 14.2
17.I value understanding of the links and
the connections between various classes
and their content. Before 3.83 0.00 6.30 27.00 44.40 22.20
After 4.00 0.00 1.60 15.90 63.50 19.00

Appendix 2

Survey results on students activities

Oca.- Ocassionally

Very Not
Students' Activities Mean often Often Oca. Never Applicable.

1. I worked cooperatively with other students

on course assignments 4.037 17.5 68.3 14.2 0 0
2. There are multiple opportunities to work in
groups 3.698 7.9 57.1 31.7 3.2 0
3. I had an opportunity to provide
leadership for parts of our group work 3.381 6.3 28.6 61.9 3.3 0
4. I listened closely to questions and
comments from other members in my group
with an open mind 4.143 23.8 66.7 9.5 0 0
5. The instructor assigned our group roles. 2.778 4.8 12.7 39.7 41.3 1.5
6. Our group members effectively managed
conflict 3.889 14.3 61.9 22.2 1.6 0
7. Our group members allowed others to
express their own views. 4.254 33.3 60.3 4.8 1.6 0
8. Our group frequently worked on problems
or issues where there was not a single right
answer 3.937 4.8 84.1 11.1 0 0
9. Our group work was greatly enhanced by
the guidance of the tutor 3.238 1.6 25.4 68.2 4.8 0

12
10. Our group received useful feedback
from the instructor throughout the semester 3.524 1.6 54.0 39.7 4.7 0
11. My classmates provide feedback on my
ideas and work 3.492 6.3 42.9 44.4 6.4 0
12. Our group was able to complete our
assigned task(s) within specific time frames 4.286 36.5 58.7 1.6 3.2 0
13. Our group frequently generated multiple
solutions to issues or problems 3.794 9.5 60.3 30.2 0 0
14. I interacted with the instructor as part of
this course 3.429 1.6 44.4 49.2 4.8 0
15. I interacted with this instructor outside of
class 3.000 1.6 17.5 60.3 20.6 0
16. I interacted with students outside of
class 4.048 25.4 57.1 14.3 3.2 0
17. I wrote a rough draft of a paper and then
revised it myself before turning it into the
instructor 3.873 20.6 50.8 23.8 4.8 0
18. I spent at least five hours or more writing
a paper (not counting the time spent in
reading or at the library 3.508 11.1 41.3 36.5 9.5 1.6
19. I asked the instructor for advice and help
to strengthen my writing 3.444 4.8 39.7 50.7 4.8 0
20. The instructor's frequent feedback
helped me to improve my performance in
this course 3.841 11.1 66.7 19.0 1.6 1.6
21. I did additional readings on topics that
were introduced and discussed in class 3.746 7.9 58.7 33.4 0 0
22. I used the library to tracked down leads
and look for additional references that were
cited in materials that I read 3.952 17.5 60.3 22.2 0 0
23. I reflected on several alternatives before
choosing a solution 3.683 7.9 55.6 33.3 3.2 0
24. I examined and evaluated many sources
of information by using the computer 3.730 11.1 50.8 38.1 0 0
25. I evaluated potential solutions for both
negative and positive consequences 3.778 12.7 52.4 34.9 0 0
26. I was able to apply an abstract concept
or idea to a real situation or problem 3.603 9.5 42.9 46.0 1.6 0
27. I questioned the credibility of other's
assumptions. 3.381 6.3 34.9 50.8 6.4 1.6

13