To Know or Not to Know? The Influence of Educational Setting on Knowledge Base Development

• In Event: Arming Achilles’ Heel: Instructional Strategies and Approaches for Promoting Knowledge Acquisition in Problem-Based Learning

Abstract

Objectives
The present study investigated the development of a flexible knowledge base in problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture-based learning (LBL) curricula across five programs three in European countries.

Theoretical Framework & Hypotheses
The theoretical concept of ‘deep understanding’ (Entwistle, 2009; Dahlgren, 1997; Marton & Booth, 1997) was employed as a measure of flexible knowledge. Due to the analogies between deep learning and the learning process operationalized in PBL, it was assumed that students’ learning in PBL would show a deeper understanding of the topic at hand than students from more traditional, lecture-based curricula. Additionally it was hypothesized, that not only the instructional format but also socio-demographic, economic, and education-related variables influence the development of a flexible knowledge base.

Methods
Participants were 214 first-year students in bachelor psychology programs in three European countries. Two of the programs used PBL as their main instructional format while the three other programs were lecture-based.
Participants were surveyed at the beginning and at the end of their first semester. The task used to measure the level of understanding in this study was an open-ended question posed to the participants after reading a text: “Elaborate on the content of the text that you just read. What have you learned from this text?” Answers were written in the form of 1-page essays. The qualitative essays were rated according to the SOLO-taxonomy (Biggs & Tang, 2009), thus transferring the qualitative material into a quantitative measure. Levels of understanding ranged from ‘uni-dimensional’ via ‘bi-‘ and ‘multi-dimensional’ to ‘extended abstract’, and the category ‘misses the point’ was applied for completely wrong answers. Socio-demographic, economic, and education-related variables were assessed with multiple-choice questions. Prior knowledge was assessed with the so-called progress-test (Van der Vleuten & Verwijnen, 1990), which contained 65 true-false items and which was administered to all participants prior to the essay task.

Results
No overall difference between the PBL- and the LBL-groups could be found with respect to level of understanding (t=1.01, df = 212, p = .313). However, the pattern of levels of understanding did differ between both groups with PBL-students giving more ‘conservative’ statements (i.e., statements showing middle levels of understanding), whilst LBL-students tended to give more extreme answers at both ends of the scale (i.e., very good and very poor answers). Additionally, a mild, but significant influence on level of understanding could be seen of both mother’s and father’s highest academic degree.

Scientific Significance
The findings of this study shed new light on the hypothesis that advantages of PBL with respect to knowledge acquisition only emerge when measured at an appropriate level (Gijbels, Dochy, Van den Bossche, & Segers, 2005). When assessing PBL’s ability to foster the development of a flexible knowledge base further research should focus different patterns of understanding obtained in PBL- vs. LBL-curricula rather than on mean differences; also, the moderating role of socio-demographic, economic, and education-related variables should be taken into account.

Authors

• Antonia B. Scholkmann, University of Hamburg

• Sofie Loyens, University College Roosevelt

• Felix-Sebastian Koch, Linkoping University

• Bianca Roters, TU Dortmund University

• Judith Ricken, Ruhr University Bochum

• Lars-Owe Dahlgren, Linköping University