A review to identify key perspectives in PBL meta-analyses and reviews: trends, gaps and future research directions.
Clicks: 393
ID: 67799
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
73.2
/100
393 views
262 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #7 of 14 articles by views in advances in health sciences education : theory and practice
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In the past 50 years, the original McMaster PBL model has been implemented, experimented, revised, and modified, and is still evolving. Yet, the development of PBL is not a series of success stories, but rather a journey of experiments, failures and lessons learned. In this paper, we analyzed the meta-analyses and systematic reviews on PBL from 1992 to present as they provide a focused lens on the PBL research in the past 5 decades. We identified three major waves in the PBL research development, analyzed their impact on PBL research and practice, and offered suggestions of research gaps and future directions for the field. The first wave of PBL research (polarization: 1990-mid 2000) focused on answering the question "Does PBL work?" and the outcomes. The results were conflicting. The researchers took polarizing positions and debated over the merits of PBL throughout this wave. However, the contradictory results and the debates in fact pushed the researchers to look harder for new directions to solve the puzzle. These efforts resulted in the second wave (from outcomes to process: mid 2000-mid 2010) that focused on the question "How does PBL work?" The second wave of PBL research targeted at investigating the effects of implementation constituents, such as assessment formats or single versus curriculum wide implementations. The third wave (specialization: mid 2010 and onward) of PBL research focused on "How does PBL work in different specific contexts?" These research widened our perspectives by expanding our understanding of how PBL manifests itself in different contexts. Given the diversification of PBL and more hybrid PBL models, we suggest "Why does PBL with particular implementation characteristics for specific outcomes work or not work in the condition where it is implemented?" to be the question to answer in the next wave of PBL research.
| Reference Key |
hung2019aadvances
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Hung, Woei;Dolmans, Diana H J M;van Merriënboer, Jeroen J G; |
| Journal | advances in health sciences education : theory and practice |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1007/s10459-019-09945-x
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.