Behind the Times: A Brief History of Motivation Discourse in Problem-Based Learning

• In Event: Celebrating 50 Years of Problem-Based Learning: Past, Present, and Future

Abstract

Purpose of the Study
That idea that PBL is more motivating than traditional education has been prevalent since the inception of PBL at McMaster University in the late 1960s. This paper retraces the development of motivation discourse from its inception to more current research on motivation and PBL.

Theoretical Framework
Although PBL is assumed to be motivating (Norman & Schmidt, 1992), evidencing this has proven to be a lot more problematic. We examine how motivation is discussed and measured in PBL papers, while looking at the evolution of motivation theory over the same period as well. By doing so, we can identify possible gaps between research and theory.

Methods and Data Sources
In this narrative review, we retrace the origins of motivational discourse in PBL at McMaster University and Maastricht University using archive materials. We further conducted a search in Web of Science, Medline, ERIC, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

 
Results
At McMaster University, student motivation was mentioned as one the reasons behind the PBL approach. Motivation was mostly discussed in laymen’s terms without connection to motivation theory. At Maastricht University (1974), mentions of motivation were initially not more developed than McMaster’s. However, in 1977, Schmidt’s research program identified motivation as an area of interest, which resulted in experiments on intrinsic motivation (Schmidt, 1983).
Despite promising developments of motivation theory in the 1980s (e.g. development of achievement goal theory and self-determination theory), the bulk of the articles written on motivation and PBL in the period between 1980 and 2000 continued to use a layman’s conception of motivation. The majority of the papers, argued that PBL’s motivating effect lies in the relevance and meaningfulness of problem scenarios to students. However, none of the studies were able to convincingly conclude that PBL had any significant impact on motivation.
From 2000 onwards, the subject of motivation in PBL expanded significantly. When looking more closely at studies examining the effectiveness of PBL on students’ (intrinsic) motivation, often outdated measures were used that do not reflect the nuances in motivation from contemporary motivation theory, giving us very little insight into the effects of PBL on students’ motivation using contemporary motivation theory. Studies that do use more updated motivational constructs teach us that the link between PBL and motivation is more complex than the founding fathers of PBL and later PBL practitioners assumed. These studies show the importance of looking at motivation at multiple moments during the PBL process of working on a problem and show that PBL is a combination of many factors rather than one approach. Each of these factors can have a unique impact on students’ motivation.

Scholarly Significance
PBL scholars often seem to be behind the times, applying outdated theories or measures or failing to incorporate all aspects of motivational theory to their programs. PBL combines many interacting elements, e.g. problems, tutors, group dynamics etc. Each of these elements can affect students’ motivation, which requires more research.

Authors

• Lisette Wijnia, Open Universiteit Nederland

• Virginie F. C. Servant-Miklos, Aalborg University