effect of problem based learning units on students
TRANSCRIPT
EFFECT OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING UNITS ON STUDENTS ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT IN THE SUBJECT OF SCIENCE AT ELEMENTARY LEVEL
SAGHIR IQBAL
(Registration No. 0861100007)
DIVISION OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION LAHORE
2014
EFFECT OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING UNITS ON STUDENTS ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT IN THE SUBJECT OF SCIENCE AT ELEMENTARY LEVEL
SAGHIR IQBAL
(Registration No. 0861100007)
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education at the Division of Education,
University of Education, Lahore
2014
i
DEDICATION
I dedicate my this work to my father, deceased mother and my family.
ii
PHD THESIS CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
Name of Student Student No. Programme
Saghir Iqbal 608-Ph.D-08 PhD (Education)
TOPIC: Effect of problem based learning units on students’
academic achievement in the subject of science at
elementary level
Date of Acceptance: - -
THESIS COMMITTEE
SR.# NAME POSITION SIGNATURE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
( / / )
iii
EFFECT OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING UNITS ON STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN THE SUBJECT OF SCIENCE AT ELEMENTARY LEVEL
ABSTRACT
The problem based learning (PBL) is very interesting form of pedagogy based
on present human learning cognitive theories. Constructivist theory of learning is the
basis for problem based learning technique. Students have the central place in this
learning technique, while, the teacher or educator works as guide or facilitator in
learning process. Students’ work in small teams, face the problematic situation,
hypothesize the situation, acquire new information, analyze it and finally reach at
some decision by providing findings.
This research study established to examine the effect of problem based
learning technique on students’ academic achievement in subject of science at
elementary level. An experiment was conducted with students’ of eighth class
studying science subject at Government high school people’s colony, Gujranwala in
session 2013-2014. Problem scenarios/ statements were framed out by the researcher
based on two selected chapters of Text Book of Science of 8th class.
Pretest, posttest control group design was used in the study. Seventy students
out of 211 students were randomly selected as a sample of study. Further, the selected
students were randomly assigned into two equal traditional and experimental groups.
iv
The students of experimental group worked in seven sub groups on
problematic situations/ scenarios in their class over eight week period. The students’
of control group studied science as usual in their class by the class teacher in
traditional way.
Pretest was used on both traditional and experimental groups before starting
the experiment. The purpose of using this test was to know the achievement level of
both groups so that the researcher may able to compare achievement level after
experimentation. Pretest and posttest were same and comprised of forty two multiple-
choice questions (MCQs). The Achievement Test of Science (ATS) was consisted
upon knowledge, understanding and application components of Bloom Taxonomy.
The experimental group students’ were given Problem Based Feedback Form
(PBLFF) after posttest to evaluate their opinion about problem based learning
technique. After four months of period again, the students of both traditional and
experimental group were given the achievement test of science. The purpose of using
test is to evaluate their retention level and to examine, which group retained more
knowledge.
On the basis of acquired and analyzed data, the null hypotheses were tested.
Independent samples t-test was used to establish the significant difference between
mean scores of traditional and experimental group students on achievement test. Chi-
square test was applied for the analysis of experimental group students’ opinion on
PBLFF.
v
The study results exposed that the experimental group students’ performed in
a better way than control group students except knowledge domain, whereas, control
group students performed slightly better than experimental group students. The
experimental group students’ showed likeness regarding PBL technique as compared
to traditional method of teaching. The results of retention test exposed that the
experimental group students’ who worked in groups and responsible for their learning
retained more knowledge as compare to traditional group students. On the basis of
results, it was recommended that new mode of instruction like PBL be prescribed in
the school teaching.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“If you would count up the favors of Allah, never would you be able to number them:
for Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful” (Al-Nahl, 18). All gratitude’s and praises are due to
Almighty Allah, the most merciful, gracious and compassionate, and the creator of the
universe. This study would never have been started and completed successfully without His
blessings.
First and foremost, the researcher wants to utter his profound and honest gratitude to
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Khalid, the thesis supervisor, for his personal assistance,
encouragement, and pleasant advises throughout the research work. His proficiency, research
insight, and thorough and positive comments helped me enormously particularly in the
writing of thesis. He is in real words a true mentor. The researcher not only learned research
skills but also life skills from the honorable supervisor. He is really a seasoned personality.
The researcher also extends his gratitude to all professors for imparting solid grounds
for real education and research. Especially to Prof. Dr. Mushtaq-ur-Rehman Siddiqui, whose
thoughtfulness lectures inspired and motivated me to pursue higher studies.
A special words of thanks to Prof. Dr. Akbar Ali for sparing time to guide the
researcher in doing the data analysis. Thanks to, Muhammad Ijaz (lecturer, Zoology, PhD.
Scholar, GCU LHR.) for help rendered for conducting the research experiment for this study
and especial thanks to Rashid Ali Qadri my colleague (Lecturer, Department of English) who,
reviewed this document. Thanks to Mr. Arslan Arshad (Doctor of Pharmacy) who was
always ready to say ‘yes’ whenever he was called for assistance. The study would not be
vii
possible without the assistance of students, science teachers and the Head teacher of the
school. Thanks to all of them. Thanks to all of my research fellows, who always were source
of encouragement for me and Mr. Munir Hussain who helped me in reviewing and validating
the research instruments of the study?
Finally, this study could not have been completed without the unconditioned love,
consistent encouragement, unfailing support and continuous prayers of those closest to my
heart, My mother (Late), father, spouse, children, (Hashir, Manaal, Nur-ul-Huda, Aeman),
and other family members. Thank you for enduring and bearing with my periods of neglect
and absence especially throughout stages of thesis writing. Without all of you, this study
would not have been accomplished.
Saghir Iqbal
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topic Page No.
Title Dedication i Approval Sheet ii Abstract iii Acknowledgement vi Table of Contents viii List of Tables xi List of Figures xii List of Appendices xiii CHAPTER 1
Introduction 1 1.2 Statement of the problem 7 1.3 Objectives of the study 8 1.4 Significance of the study 8 1.5 Hypotheses of the study 10 1.6 Delimitation 11 1.7 Operational definitions 11 1.8 Conceptual Framework 14 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Concept of Teaching 16 2.2 Modes of Learning 17 2.2.1 Formal Learning 18 2.2.2 Non-formal Learning 18 2.2.3 Informal Learning 18 2.3 Structure of Education in Pakistan 19 2.4 What is Science Education? 19 2.5 Place of Science at Elementary Level in Pakistan 20 2.6 Problems and Issues in Teaching of Science 22 2.7 Problems of Science Teaching in Pakistan 25 2.8 Theoretical Foundations of Problem Based Learning 25 2.9 Constructivism 27 2.10 Types of Constructivism 30 2.10.1 Cognitive Constructivism 30 2.10.2 Social Constructivism 35 2.11 Problem Based Learning: Definition 38 2.12 Characteristics of Problem Based Learning 40 2.13 Problem Based Learning Techniques 41
ix
2.13.1 Inquiry Contract 42 2.13.2 Case Studies: Open / Closed 42 2.13.3 Simulations 43 2.13.4 Workshops: Open / Closed Actions 43 2.13.5 Study Questions: Open / Closed 44 2.14 Problem Based Learning Models 44 2.15 Role of Teacher in PBL 48 2.16 Modes of Facilitation 50 2.17 Role of Students in PBL 51 2.18 Importance of Teams in PBL 54 2.19 Benefits and Risks of PBL 55 2.20 Features of Real Problems 57 2.21 Three Common Mistakes in Designing Problems 58 2.22 Limitations of Problem Based Learning 59 2.23 Lecture Method in Teaching 60 2.24 Relevant Studies on Problem Based Learning 62 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY 3.1 Design of Research Study 3.2 Population of the study 69 3.3 Sample and sampling technique 70 3.4 Control factors 71 3.5 Variables 71 3.6 Selection of Concepts 72 3.7 Research Instruments 73
3.7.1 Validity and Reliability 74 3.7.2 Validation and Pilot Testing 74 3.7.3 Validation of Problem Based Learning Feedback Form 75 3.7.4 Problem Based Learning Feedback Form (PBLFF) 76
3.8 Selection and training of teacher for treatment 76 3.9 Process of Experimentation 79 3.10 Data Collection 82 3.11 Retention Test 82 3.12 Statistical Analysis of the Data 83 CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.1 Achievement Test of Science 85 4.2 Problem Based Learning Feedback Form (PBLFF) 103 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary Findings 110 Conclusions 115 Discussion 118 Recommendations 120 General Recommendations 122
x
REFERENCES 124 APPENDICES 132
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title of Tables Page
1 t-Test on Means Scores of Control and Experimental Group in Pre-Test 85
2 t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Control and Experimental Group in Post-Test 86
3 t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Pre-Test and Post-Test of Control Group 87
4 t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Pre-Test and Post-Test of Experimental Group 88
5 t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Pre-Test and Post-Test of Control Group in Knowledge Domain 89
6 t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Pre-Test and Post-Test of Experimental Group in Knowledge Domain 90
7 t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Control and Experimental Group of Pre-Test in Knowledge Domain 91
8 t-Test Between Control and Experimental Group on Post-Test Scores in Knowledge Domain 92
9 t-Test on Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores of Control Group in Understanding Domain 93
10 t-Test on the Achievement on Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores of Experimental Group in Understanding Domain 94
11 t-Test on the Achievement of Control and Experimental Group on Pre-Test Mean Scores in Understanding Domain 95
12 t-Test on the Achievement of Control and Experimental Group on Post-Test Mean Scores in Understanding Domain 96
13 t-Test on the Achievement of Control Group on Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores in Application Domain 97
14 t-Test on the Achievement of Experimental Group on Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Score in Application Domain 98
15 t-Test on the Achievement of Control and Experimental Group on Pre-Test in Application Domain 99
16 t-Test on the Achievement of Control and Experimental Group on Post-Test in Application Domain 100
17 t-Test between Control and Experimental Group on Retention Test 101 18 Problem Based Learning Feedback Form (PBLFF)
Chi Square Results 104
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Sr. No. Figures Page
1 Conceptual Frame Work 14 2 Comparison of Control and Experimental Group in
Pre-Test and Post-Test 87 3 Comparison of Mean Scores on Pre-Test and Post-Test
of Control and Experimental 89 4 Comparison of Pre-Test and Post-Test of Control and
Experimental Group 91 5 Comparison of Control and Experimental Group on
Pre-Test and Post-Test 93 6 Comparison on Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores
of Control and Experimental Group 95 7 Comparison of Control and Experimental Group on
Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores 97 8 Comparison of Pre-Test and Post-Test of Control
and Experimental Group 99 9 Comparison of Control and Experimental Group on
Pre-Test and Post-Test 101 10 Comparison of Control and Experimental Group in
Post-Test and Retention-Test 103
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Sr. No. Appendices Page No. Appendix-A 1. Achievement Test of Science (ATS) Appendix-B 2. Problem Based Learning Feedback Form (PBLFF) Appendix-C 3. Pre-test Post test Scores Chart
Appendix-D 4. List of Experts
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Education plays significant role in nation’s progress. The school education is
the progressive investment in national planning of the countries. The conference at
Jomtien (1990) and the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have emphasized
the importance of education as a useful instrument for poverty alleviation by producing
skilled labor force for challenging, competitive and worldwide economy
(www.UNESCO.Org/ education). The state of Pakistan has also given great
importance to education since her inception. The first All Pakistan Education
Conference was held in Karachi in1947, although Quaid-e- Azam, the founder of
Pakistan, could not participate in the conference but he sent his message to the
participants in these words which show his great concern about the matter of education
“There is no doubt that the future of our State will and must greatly depend on the type
of education we give to our children and the way in which we bring them up as future
citizens of Pakistan” (Iqbal, 1993).
Teaching is a very complicated and dynamic activity; it demands to take
appropriate and flexible actions during the process of teaching. A number of steps are
required for a quality teaching; until and unless one meets these steps, a good teaching
2
could not be happened i.e. curriculum, teaching techniques and strategies and,
evaluation methods, all should be aligned with one another (Tileston, 2004). In
modern era teaching, learning process has become very complex, the traditional ways
of teaching are rapidly losing their importance. Especially in twenty first century,
every nation is looking to update its educational system with newly emerged methods
of teaching and techniques, evaluation systems and information technology. The old
methods for educating the child do not meet the learners needs due to many reasons
but the old one goes in to the opposition of brain structure of the learner in process of
gathering or collecting the new information and ideas (Ronis,2008).
Teaching is not merely to provide some information to the students but it should
influence somebody to do something, to learn something. In Dewey’s words as
quoted by Nodding (1995) “The only way to increase learning of pupils is to augment
the quantity and quality of real teaching. Since learning is something that the pupil
has to do himself and for him, the initiative lies with the learner”. The past
experiences and previous knowledge having much importance in human learning.
They build new ideas on grounds of previous concrete information. Humans learn
and remember by connecting new ideas to existing structures built from previous
knowledge and experience (Fauske & Rushton, 2008). The problem based learning
technique is getting much importance in teaching of different subjects due to its
compatibility with human brain structure: “Problem based learning (PBL) is effective
in teaching students because it reinforces the characteristics of brain-compatible
learning” (Ronis, 2008).
In new era many of new teaching methods and techniques have been developed
for successful teaching by the educationists. Each one has its idiosyncrasy to different
subjects. Some-times one method of teaching is suitable to a specific subject of
3
learning but the other method will not be suitable for that specific subject. Many
teaching methods and techniques are being used in teaching-learning process. For
example, lecture method, collaborative method, co-operative method, project method,
heuristic method, computer-assisted instruction; problem based learning technique,
etc. Each method of instruction has its merits and demerits. Here is given a brief
description of only two of them, known as lecture method or traditional method (TM)
and problem based learning technique (PBL). The traditional method of teaching is
also called method of lecture. This is the most popular way of instruction in our
school education. This is a teacher structured method and, the students are just
passive listeners most of the time. Very few teachers allow for questions during the
lecture, though some of them give some time to their students to ask questions by the
time the lecture is over. Teacher talks most of the time without using any aid though
some of them use black board (Lakshmi, et.al. 2004). Ali (2012) has quoted Druger;
(1999), Khan and Akbar; (1997) in his article that “in many developing countries
lecturing is the dominant and traditional method of instruction”. In contrast to lecture
method the problem-based learning is the class instructional method which situates
learning in multifaceted perspectives. Here, pupils learn by way of specific
experiences of solution of open-ended problems such as diagnosing medical cases or
scheming playgrounds. Problem-based learning (PBL) rests on the thought that
individuals fashion their understanding largely through what they experience. This
inquiry method of learning allows learners to process and acquire new information in
the way most suited to their natural brain process (Ronis, 2008).
The educational experts have defined the term PBL in different ways. Hmelo-
Silver (2004) has described PBL in these words, “it is an instructional method in
4
which students work collaboratively to find possible solutions for a problem
scenario”.
Finkle and Torp (1995) have defined it as “Problem-based learning is 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 an ill-structured
problem that mirrors real-world problems”.
The problem-based learning (PBL) technique firstly was used at McMaster
University in 1960’s for medical students and after it was used in other medical
colleges subsequently (Barrows, 1996) and was also adopted in under graduate level
instruction (Boud and Feletti, 1997).
Converse to traditional teaching, PBL helps out the students in devising
knowledge in a new way of their own. They overcome several weaknesses of
traditional class room setting in which knowledge is poured by the teacher into the
minds of learners.
There are studies in literature in perspective of problem based learning at
graduate and school levels (Selcuk, 2010, Folashade and Akinyemi, 2009, Bilgin I
et.al, 2009, Riasat et.al., 2010, NurIzzati, 2009, Serife, 2011, Debbie, 2011,
McParland et.al., 2004, Low and Ng, 2005, Achilles & Hoover, 1996). The findings
of the studies showed that problem based learning develops learning environment for
the students, where students take an active part in process of learning, deep approach
to learning, show interest in learning, perform in better way in solving conceptual
problems, direct their own learning goals, activities and teamwork and in this way
they learn in a better way.
5
The main feature of PBL which gives it a special place amongst the other
constructivist methods is presenting the ill structured, messy problems related to the
real life of the students for getting possible solutions. Learning based on problems
emphasizes teaching the content of the subject in real situations. It does not have the
structured lesson plans, practices, actions, and evaluation system. The students
hypothesize the problems and try to provide solutions in given situations. The
learners collect information from peers, parents, websites, helping material and school
teachers, discuss it within the group and outside the group etc. The students as learner
play an active role and provide solution to the problems and tutor facilitates and
guides those (Torp &Sage, 2002).
In Meta analysis of PBL by Walker and Leary (2009) have discussed that
there is a healthy compilation of primary researches and even quite a few Meta-
analyses of problem based learning. These meta analyses show positive results of
using problem based learning as teaching-learning strategy.
As problem based learning is majorly used in teaching those subjects which
have scientific basis. In this viewpoint it seemed very appropriate to test and put into
practice problem based learning in our own background but before it, we very briefly
look at the history of science teaching in Pakistan. In a research, Iqbal & Mahmood
(2000) have explained that “until 1950 science was not taught at primary and middle
level. It was the Science Education Commission established in 1959 which
recommended that science education be made compulsory for classes VI-VIII. In the
early sixties science education was made compulsory for I – VIII” classes. The
EdQual report (2007) also has narrated about teaching of science as subject and the
time spent on its teaching in our schools. The report states that “Science is taught as a
compulsory subject at primary and elementary level (I-VIII) in an integration of
6
biology, chemistry, physics and earth science. In primary classes (I-V), students
study science 12 % of the total school time. At middle school level (VI-VIII) students
spend 13-15% of their school time in studying science”. In a study conducted by
Mahmood (2007) in perspective of teacher’s beliefs of science and its instruction in
constructivist background, the research results showed that “Pakistani practicing
science teachers’ lower support for student involvement is because of the traditional
trend of using lecturing as most popular teaching methodologies”.
The quality of education is not a static phenomenon, which once achieved and
be satisfied with it. It demands continuous efforts to improve it, with the changing
needs of the time. Ministry of Education (MOE) Pakistan has developed New
National Curriculum in 2006 to increase the standard of science teaching at
elementary classes. The main feature of this newly designed curriculum is “student-
centered” and “inquiry-based” (Govt. of Pakistan, 2006)
The present curriculum which is running in Pakistani school system has been
designed on the basis of student centered approaches to increase the standard of
science teaching. In Pakistan new education policy 2009 has emphasized and
encouraged using new teaching techniques in process of learning (Education Policy,
2009). Therefore, a study was planned to justify the relevance of problem-based
learning of teaching science in our own context in Pakistan. This research was
designed to find out the “Effect of problem based learning on the academic
achievement of elementary students in subject of science”.
7
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Teaching of content as well as transfer of different skills among the learners is a
big challenge for the teachers so that students may meet the future needs and be
successful in viable market place. For this purpose it is important to present the content
in the form of problematic scenarios, these scenarios be produced in such a way that
students can not only learn the subject matter, but are also capable of applying in
current and future situations. However, query remains, what is the most useful teaching
method of science ideas, rules and practical experiences for utmost knowledge and
application of acquired knowledge in the real life situations. According to
constructivist philosophy learner is at the central place in teaching learning process
instead of teacher. It requires to work on this theme to see its suitability in Pakistani
context. Along with many other modern teaching techniques, Problem Based Learning
(PBL) with constructivist approach is also very important in instructing science in all
classes. Owing to above- mentioned reasons, the researcher intended to investigate
whether Problem Based Learning is an effective method of teaching science at
elementary level or traditional method of teaching is better? An experimental study
was taken up by the researcher to investigate the answer of this question. So the study
was designed to know the “effect of problem based learning units on students’
academic achievement in the subject of science at elementary level”
8
1.2 Objectives of the Study The objectives of the study were to:
1. determine the effect of problem based learning units on academic
achievement of elementary students in science subject
2. compare the achievement level of students taught by problem based
learning units and by traditional method
3. identify students’ views about problem-based learning units
4. assess the retention level of students both in traditional method of
teaching and problem based learning method
1.3 Significance of the Study
In transmission mode of teaching mere transmission of knowledge is considered
to be enough for the teaching learning process. It is also called the conventional mode
of teaching but now a days this approach has lost its importance due to many reasons
because institutions of education now a days’ are looking to develop command on
content, thinking processes skills, values critical thinking, self-directed learning,
conceptual understanding etc. in the students. Problem Based Learning Technique
(PBL) is an important method of teaching which is getting popularity in teaching -
learning spheres, especially in science subjects in third world countries, too. The origin
of PBL in education finds in medical history, where the students come across with the
real life problems. This method of instruction is being successfully used in solving the
instructional problems of medical students all over the world. More over the other
natural sciences like physics, maths, biology, micro- biology, chemistry, Bio-chemistry
9
etc. are getting benefit of this instructional technique. Educational experts of different
countries have been devising problem based learning curricula for different subjects at
their institutions for the purpose of developing scientific approach to solve the
problems at campuses and in real life, too. Many researchers have been conducting
researches at secondary and higher level all over the world. The elementary level is
important one because it will become base for students in further stages of education.
With the intention that students may become familiar with this approach, the researcher
has selected the elementary level for conducting this research. Keeping in view the
importance of science at elementary stage for in-depth understanding, advancement of
problem solution skills, class room related and lifelong problem solving skills, problem
based learning (PBL) is very vital. This study would be ready to lend a hand to the
teachers and would be advantageous to the students. It would be a constructive study
for the educators and curriculum developers. So the research will help all the
stakeholders of the education to tackle the important issues regarding education.
This study will be beneficial in many ways such as:
it is expected that this study will be helpful to enhance deeper conceptual
understanding, grip of content and growth of logical reasoning
it is expected that this study may also support the teachers to find out a new
way of teaching difficult subjects like physics, chemistry, biology,
mathematics, etc. so that students can easily understand and develop interest in
the subject
the study findings may provide an opportunity to the curricula developers to
pay heed to PBL technique in process of development of curriculum
10
the study findings may be helpful for effective teaching to the science teachers
as well as social sciences and language teachers, too
the findings of research may also be supportive for the parents to look into
cognitive development process of their offspring
1.4 Hypothesis of the Study The following null hypotheses were framed to test those as per objectives of the
study.
Ho 1: There is no significant difference of students’ academic achievement
between problem based learning and traditional learning method in science
subject at elementary level
Ho 2: There is no significant difference in the academic achievement of experimental
group and control group at knowledge level
Ho 3: There is no significant difference in the academic achievement of experimental
group and control group at understanding level
Ho 4: There is no significant difference in the academic achievement of experimental
group and control group at application level.
Ho 5: There is no significant difference in students’ views regarding problem based
learning technique
11
Ho 6: There is no significant difference in students’ retention level both in traditional
method of teaching and problem based learning method
1.5 Delimitations of the Study The study was delimited to:
1. elementary class students in the subject of science
2. the cognitive domain on three levels, i.e. knowledge, understanding
(comprehension) and application
3. Govt. M.T. High School People’s Colony, Gujranwala city, (Pakistan)
where the experiment was conducted
4. two units (chapters) of eighth class science were covered from Punjab
Text Book Board of 8th grade level:
- Environment
- Electricity and Magnetism
What was included in these chapters has been explained in the
following pages.
1.6 Operational Definitions
1. Academic Achievement: Students’ performance or obtained scores (pre and
post experiment scores) on multiple choice questions test from two chapters
on environment and electricity & magnetism were developed by the
12
researcher. This evaluation system to test students through multiple choice
questions (MCQ) is being implemented in our school system with the use of
English as medium of instruction.
2. Achievement Test of Science (ATS): A multiple choice test based on two
selected chapters from eighth grade science book of Punjab Text Book Board
was developed to measure the performance of the students.
3. Problem Based Learning (PBL): A teaching methodology, where problems
are presented to the learners, they are expected to provide solution of these
problems in contrast to transmission mode of teaching.
4. Traditional Method(TM): The routine teaching which a teacher carries in
the class room, where teacher transmits the knowledge to the students and the
students remain passive listeners.
5. Problem Based Learning Feedback Form (PBLFF): It was used to know
the views of the learners regarding newly used instructional methodology i.e.
PBL was also developed by the researcher.
6. Three Levels of Cognitive Domain: This study was designed to measure
cognitive domain only on three levels i.e. knowledge, understanding, and
application.
7. Learning Units: Here learning units mean the problem scenarios which were
presented to the experimental group students for learning the science
concepts.
8. Control group: The group of 35 students of 8th class was taught through
traditional method of teaching.
9. Experimental group: The group of 35 students of 8th class was taught
through problem based method.
13
10. Treatment: Ill structured complex problems were presented to students of
experimental group.
11. Pretest: Achievement test of science of 8th class was given to students before
the provision of treatment.
12. Posttest: Achievement test of science of 8th class was given to students after
the treatment.
13. Retention Test: Achievement Test of Science was used after four months on
both the groups to check the retention level of the students.
14
Conceptual Framework
The Conceptual Frame Work of the study entitled as “effect of problem
based learning on students’ academic achievement in the subject of science at
elementary level” is given as under. It was based on Fraenkel &Wallen (2006)
design
Fig 1 Conceptual Frame Work
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The educational journey of a person starts from birth and continues till his/her
death. Education is the most important activity throughout the human history. In
ancient interlude families took responsibility to impart education to their kids by
themselves. That education was not complex in its nature; it was just related to their
professions and in these way families or in real words societies not only preserved
their skills, values, and cultural heritage etc. but to kept them alive too. In modern
era, the industrial revolution has not only changed our life style but also influenced
our economic, social, moral, religious, psychological, and educational life. Today the
process of education has become a complex phenomenon. The states have established
formal education systems to deal with these complex activities today. To meet the
increasing complexities of teaching-learning process new methods of teaching have
emerged. Efficiency in all aspects is the key issue before the educationists. How to
improve teaching? How to develop learning activities? How to generate genuine
knowledge and many such other questions have instigated the theorists and
16
practitioners to propose modern teaching-learning methods and techniques to
increase the standard of instruction? In this regard the objective of current research
study was to reassess the impact of PBL teaching technique on achievements of
elementary level students in science. For this purpose following literature has been
reviewed.
Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary of Oxford describes education as “a
process of teaching, training and learning, especially in schools or colleges, to
improve knowledge and develop skills”.
2.1 The Concept of Teaching
Teaching has become an important challenge and complex procedure now a day.
It is not easy to define teaching because there are many things associated with
teaching. In simple way teaching can be defined by discussing those teaching
attitudes which are considered important to instigate learning process in respect to the
learner. Blair (1988) has discussed teaching with respect to Luis Raths (1969)
according to him teaching has ten important components, which are:
1. Informing and explaining 2. Presenting how? 3. Supplementing the
curriculum
4. Provision of learning opportunity for student to think and exchange their
thoughts with other students
5. Assisting learners to build up values
6. Connecting community and school
17
7. Create opportunities for every learner to receive respect and status among his
or her fellows
8. Creating a secure emotional atmosphere to facilitate learning
9. Diagnosing and remedying learning problems
10. Recording and reporting
Blair (1988) has further discussed teaching with reference to Green (1971) who
has described that teaching is those logical and strategic actions of the teachers
which they perform during learning process.
The Logical Acts The Strategic Acts Explaining Motivating
Concluding Counseling Inferring Evaluating Giving reasons Planning Amassing evidence Encouraging Demonstrating Disciplining Defining Questioning Comparing
2.2 Modes of Learning
There are basically three modes of learning; each has its unique
characteristics. The three terms have been defined in different ways by different
people. Colardyn & Bjornavold (2004) have given the definition of formal
education, non-formal education and informal education with reference to Cedefop
(fg2000) and the Communication (2001). In their article they have described as:
18
2.2.1 Formal Learning
Formal education system is important in attaining the set objectives of
education in any society. Formal education system has some basic characteristics, for
example, it is kind of learning that happens in a well-developed and pre-arranged
background. It may take to a formal acknowledgment in shape degree. This type of
learning is intentionally designed from the learners’ point of view.
2.2.2 Non-formal learning:
It consists of learning entrenched in designed actions which are not overtly
chosen as learning. But they include significant teaching elements. Non-formal
teaching is deliberate from learners’ perspective.
2.2.3 Informal learning:
It is explain as learning which comes out from everyday actions pertaining to
job, family unit, or spare time. This is frequently named practical knowledge which
may be considered unintentional learning. This is not designed in terms of objectives
of learning and learning occasion. It does not end with any sort of diploma or
certificate. Informal learning may be intended but most of the time, it is
unintentional.
19
2.3 Structure of Education in Pakistan
The education system of Pakistan is divided into three tiers. Each part has a
specific period of time and students have to move ahead step by step. The detail of
these three tiers is as under:
“In Pakistan, the education system is three-tier: elementary (grade 1-8),
secondary (grade 9-12), and tertiary or higher education, after 12 years’ schooling.
Elementary education is split up into primary (grade 1-5) and elementary/middle
(grade 6-8) and is catered in primary and elementary schools” (Saeed, 2007). Dogar,
et al. (2011) stated about the structure of elementary education in Pakistan that
“elementary education is consists of classes from 1st to 5th and middle from 6th to
8th”.
2.4 What is Science Education?
Science education has great importance at all curricula levels throughout the
world. In today’s competitive market science education and its related subjects have
gotten much importance. Science is considered fundamental to understand the world
in which we live. According to Blough and Schwartz (1990) “it is learning how to
learn about our world. This involves the use of the processes of science (also known
as problem-solving skills) such as observing, classifying, describing, experimenting,
measuring, inferring, and predicting to discover ideas that can be put together to
formulate science concepts and principles”. Science education covers what has been
discovered and how it has been covered? In science education there are two main
20
things, first is the content of the subject and second is the method by which it is
discovered. Our schools should provide such opportunities so that students may
utilize their potential and natural curiosity to explore the things independently.
2.5 Place of Science at Elementary Level in Pakistan
As problem based learning majorly is used in teaching those subjects which
have scientific basis. In this viewpoint it seems very appropriate to test and put into
practice problem based learning in our own background but before it, we very briefly
look at the place of teaching of science in Pakistan.
In a research study, Iqbal and Mahmood (2000) have explained, “until 1950
science was not taught at primary and middle level. It was the Science Education
Commission established in 1959 which recommended that science education be made
compulsory for classes VI-VIII. In the early sixties science education was made
compulsory for I – VIII” classes. Rashid (2004) has described that individuals are
provided with basic knowledge, skills and attitudes at elementary education that’s
why science has important place at this level. The EdQual report (2007) also has
narrated about teaching of science as subject and the time spent on its teaching in our
schools. The report states that “Science is taught as a compulsory subject at primary
and elementary level (I-VIII) in an integration of biology, chemistry, physics and
earth science. In primary classes (I-V), students study science 12 % of the total
school time. At middle school level (VI-VIII) students spend 13-15% of their school
time in studying science”. The teaching of science has been carried in traditional way
during the teaching-learning process at this level. Mahmood, (2007) has described
that “Pakistani practicing science teachers’ lower support for student involvement is
21
because of the traditional trend of using lecturing as most popular teaching
methodology”. In a research study, Askari (1994) discussed exploitation of
educational aids & apparatus was stressed on by Education Policies. The Ministry of
Education (MoE), Islamabad introduced a plan in 1974 for developing teaching kit for
all the primary schools. The author has moreover discussed that the Institute for
Promotion of Science Education and Training (IPSET) now renamed as (NISTE) i.e.
National Institute of Science and Technical Education devised Teaching Learning
Resource Materials (TLR). There are syllabus books, teachers’ manuals, worksheets
for class 6th, 7th, 8th, & science kits are incorporated in TLR materials. It is
considered that teaching of science as a subject is very important at elementary level.
According to, Eshach and Fried (2005) who have narrated in their article reasons as to
why primary level learners should be taught science?
(1) Children at early age are naturally curious and observe their environment.
(2) Teaching of science will develop positive attitudes towards learning of science in
the children.
(3) Early experiences to scientific processes will develop better comprehension of
science concepts in a formal way of schooling in the coming life.
(4) Use of well informed language regarding teaching of science at initial classes,
most probably will be helpful in improvement of science concepts.
(5) Kids are able to comprehend scientific phenomena & rationale on scientific basis.
(6) Teaching of subject of science is an efficient tool for development of rationale
thinking.
22
An individual plays a crucial part in process of learning. S/he is intrinsically
motivated and learns the concepts herself/himself. Montessori (1972) had immense
esteem for the children for unprompted and autonomous learner. The children have
curious and innate behavior towards learning without intervention of adults. These
views are also supported by the Plowden report (CACE, 1967, p, 17) as discussed by
Kwon (2002) "The child appears to have a strong drive, which shows itself at a very
early age, toward activity and the exploration of the environment.... as far as can be
judged, this behavior is autonomous since it occurs when there is no obvious
motivation such as hunger." The literature tells that if people take interest in
something, they pay special attention and become alert in learning new things
(Bulunuz and Jerret, 2010).
2.6 Problems and Issues in Teaching of Science
Education nourishes a person physically, mentally, socially, spiritually,
psychologically and economically. For nurturing a person in the above mentioned
aspects different nations have developed education system for them. There are some
problems which every nation face in his system. A workshop was held in this regard
in China from 27-31 March, 2000 to look into problems, issues & dilemmas in the
teaching of science and technology at primary and secondary level in Asia. Here
some of the problems are being discussed relevant to teaching of science which the
world has been facing in twenty 1st century. Poisson (2000) had compiled workshop
findings. A brief summary of problems of selective countries are given here in the
coming lines.
23
According to workshop report China is facing problems regarding curriculum
that the present curriculum is knowledge and subject focused, getting of knowledge is
too much stressed and how to apply this knowledge is ignored? Studying science is
stressed through recitation method rather inquiry method and teachers in Chinese
schools are badly failed in developing science based attitudes, higher level thinking
skills and science values among students.
The workshop report states that India is facing problems in science teaching
like, it is general people notion that curriculum is unnecessarily and extremely tough
and demanding. It is negatively affecting normal growth of the students; secondly,
teacher’s preparation (pre and in-service teachers training) is a major problem which
India is facing. At curriculum implementation phase this problem is being faced
badly, thirdly and lastly; assessment methods in science disciplines are mournfully
poor and it is main reason hindering in excellence of education, practical work is
badly ignoring at school education.
Indonesia, a far-east Asian country also facing many problems regarding
science education like, the science curriculum at school level is not up to the mark. A
very strict schedule has been designed for the teachers to follow during the course of
academic calendar. It limits the creative teachers in carrying out the syllabus
according to their innovative ideas, the curriculum is unnecessarily tough, and it
obstructs the quality of education, teaching of science taken in didactic method; the
pre-service teachers preparation is not up to the mark which is required for teaching of
science subjects, in return the art of learning things in new way could not be promoted
into the students; the in-service structure of teachers training is also not focusing on
the teachers required needs, which are too much needed in a heterogeneous
24
Indonesian society; although the textbooks are being provided free of cost in all
Indonesian schools by the government but unfortunately these books are badly failed
in stimulating the learners towards self-motivated learning; science laboratories are
poorly equipped and where there the latest science apparatus is available, the science
teachers are incapable or unskillful to use the apparatus.
Japanese system of education is also facing some serious problems and issues
in teaching of science although there nature is some different. The problems are like,
students low interest in science subjects, a large number of Japanese students don’t
comprehend science content, students could not express fully after getting school
education, the students’ interest in science subjects at the lowest level amongst the
country’s who have participated in the workshop. To address scientific problems is a
big challenge for Japanese students.
Sri Lanka our neighboring country is also very unfortunate in respect to
science education and facing many problems in this regard. Especially in deployment
of science teachers, in upgrading school resources, dropout ratio especially at 8th and
9th grades. Problems in conduction of practical’s in science classes, scarcity of
syllabus and other helping books due to financial constraints, slow implementation of
school assessment programs, no regular teacher training programs, shortage of science
teachers, no practical’s at school education level, laboratory’s are not in working
condition and without functional apparatus, absence of students as well as teachers
interest in teaching of science subjects, absenteeism at massive level, absence of
students from science classes examinations, and unavailability of science books in
local languages.
25
2.7 Problems of Science Teaching in Pakistan
Like many other countries of the world, the education system of Pakistan is
also not satisfactorily running and not free from problems and issues. Pakistani
system of education is also facing many problems like, not need based curriculum,
lacking in use of innovative teaching strategies, old assessment system, shortage of
science teachers, alarming drop out ratio, student-teacher ratio, shortage of science
laboratories, no emphasis on practical work, and lack of motivated teachers etc. This
situation demands for serious efforts to address them. Memon (2007) has mentioned
in his article that “it is realized that science education in particular is reaching lowest
ebb and needs to be improved urgently. There is acute shortage of teachers.
Laboratories are poor and ill equipped and curriculum has little relevance to present
day needs. The schools generally are not doing well. Tracing causative factors
responsible for the present state is a critical need. These include defective curricula,
dual medium of instruction at secondary level, poor quality of teachers, cheating in
the examinations and overcrowded classrooms”.
2.8 Theoretical Foundations of PBL
The basis of problem based learning has spurred out from the cognitive
theories. We have to go back in the history to find out its roots in learning theories
provided by different educationists and philosophers. But before going to discuss
history it looks better to visualize the focus of learning theories. All the learning
26
theories focus on the question what actually learning is? How learning takes place in
human beings? How learning can be improved and nourished? The views regarding
learning can be categorized into two major paradigms. These are;
1. Behaviorist
2. Cognitivist
According to the behaviorists a change occurs in learner’s behavior due to stimuli and
its response. According to Singh, et al. (2008) “the ideas and system propagated by
Thorndike is called ‘Connectionism’, the system presented by Watson and Pavlov is
known as classical conditioning and the system given by Skinner is called operant
conditioning”.
According to the Cognitivists point of view learning is associated with
learner’s environment and her/ his perceptions. These theorists have emphasized on
that “the role of purpose, insight, and understanding in the process of learning” Singh,
et al. (2008). Wertheimer, Kohler, Koffka and Levin were chief propagators.
A short history of Behaviorism is given in the coming lines.
In early ninetieth century with the industrial revolution psychologists started to
think about the maximum output from the human beings in respect to industry and
schools. In this regime behaviorism as a theory of learning came into existence.
After World War II it got popularity and reached at its highest place. The theory of
behaviorism as put forward by Jhon B. Watson actually derived from the conclusions
of the theory of Ivan Pavlov. He was promoter of theory of classical conditioning
(Mangal, 2000). It has been further described by Mangal (2000) that “the
behaviorism as a method of studying behavior focused its attention totally on the
overt or observable behavior” and he further concluded that “behavior is merely the
response to some environmental stimulus”. In an experiment Pavlov exhibited how
27
the dog conditioned to salivate (response) at the presence of artificial stimulus (bell)
when bell paired with presentation of food. Pavlov called this process “conditioned
learning” (Mangal, 2000).
The theorists related to behaviorism focused on immediately and spontaneous
recognizable outcomes of behaviors. Huffman, Vernoy and Vernoy (1995)
highlighted that theorists of behaviorism and B.F Skinner focused on fundamental
tenets of learning. He developed his stimulus response theory on the basis of
experimental data. The main principle of his theory was that an immediate outcome
engenders change in behavior. Pleasant outcomes make stronger behaviors and
unpleasant consequences make weaker them.
2.9 Constructivism
Several learning theories have been introduced and discussed in the field of
education. Majority of educational research has its foundation in one or more of these
theories. For example problem based learning design is based on the constructivist
learning theory. Inman (2011) has quoted Hein (1991) in his doctoral dissertation that
constructivism is basically a learning theory or philosophy. He explains that “learners
construct knowledge for themselves – each learner individually (and socially)
constructs meaning – as he or she learns”. The constructivist learning environments
demand from learners to use their previous knowledge and experience to create new
and related ideas in process of learning. Bruner (1990) has discussed the three
principles of constructivist learning: i) teaching should be related to the prior
practices & the situations that enable students eager to learn; ii) teaching should be
planned so that it can comfortably be comprehended by students; and iii) teaching
28
must be planned to make easy estimations for filling the knowledge gaps. Here in
constructivism learners’ prior experiences have special place and it is considered as
constructivism “the concept that learners construct their own knowledge from
experience is termed as constructivism” (Fosnot, 1996). Under this frame-work the
role of teacher is that of a facilitator, who gives guidance so students may create
knowledge for them in their own way. The educators of constructivist approach must
ensure that the previous learning experiences are proper and relevant to the ideas
being learnt.
The basis of constructive ideas can be traced out in thoughts of renowned
philosopher John Dewy and some famous psychologists of twentieth century like,
Vygotsky, Bruner, Piaget, & Garner. The learners take part in making sense of the
specific information. Baden and Major (2004) have described the changing role of
students in PBL set up “students have shifted from one primary role (listener and
observer) to a multitude of overlapping and ever-changing roles”.
Constructivists believe that the information could not be poured into the mind
by some outer manipulator but an individual gets it from societal relations. Learning
comes into existence by taking part in meaningful actions. Each individual with his/
her mental aptitude and knowledge experience accommodate new knowledge.
Constructivist point of view emphasizes on the dynamic and active role of the
students in developing concepts and building good judgment from the specific
information. (Roblyer & Edward, 2000; Hsu Chen & Hung, 2000).
According to cognitive theorists a child brain is not an empty vessel or a
‘Blackbox’ while researches show that learners right from very early ages make
judgment of the world around them, give new meanings to the things during the
process of reading books, interacting with peers, parents, teachers and members of
29
society etc. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) have described, “It is now known
that very young children are competent, active agents of their own conceptual
development. In short, the mind of the young child has come to life”.
The set patterns in constructivism theory find no place rather new experiences
by the students and young adolescents are welcomed as (Borich, 1992) has explained
“Constructivism, in which lessons are designed and sequenced to encourage learners
to use their own experiences to actively construct meaning that makes sense to them,
rather than acquiring understanding by having it presented in an already organized
format”.
The literature has showed that different educationists and philosophers have
defined constructivist theory in different manner with specific background of the
discipline. Nasir (2007) has conducted a study keeping in view these constructivist
principles.
1. Provides greater opportunities to learners to work on their ideas.
2. Value students’ judgments.
3. Helps learners in understanding class room discussions.
4. Develops unanimity among fellow learners on the acquired things, & finally,
5. Appreciates students in describing new phenomena on scientific basis.
Basically PBL was firstly used in teaching education of medical sciences at
McMaster University, Canada in 1960s (Barrows and Tamblyn,1980). But in recent
years the use of PBL technique has increased for the deeper understanding in
engineering, medical humanity, and in many other disciplines.
30
2.10 Types of Constructivism
There are two different views regarding constructivism. A number of
constructivists believed on the societal construction of basic knowledge and others
visualized the social aspect having less importance. First one is the cognitive
constructivism which is based on the epistemological thoughts of Piaget and the
second one is social constructivism majorly based on ideas of Vygotsky (Roblyer and
Edward, 2000; Madux, Johnson and Willis, 1997).
2.10.1 Cognitive Constructivism
Developmental psychology is the basis of all type of constructivist’s thoughts.
The proponents of developmental psychology do not see the human’s as robots or
product of mere reaction of their environment. Development psychology considers
human beings as living organism’s which grow and develop themselves while
interacting with their environment. It has earlier been discussed that cognitive
constructivism is majorly based on Jean Piaget’s thoughts. Jean Piaget, presented
himself as “genetic epistemologist” one who observes about the origin of knowledge
and its development in an individual. Noddings (1995) has stated that “his
epistemology is genetic in the sense that it claims a parallel between the development
of knowledge in the human race and the development exhibited in individuals”, and
also “it is constructivist in the sense that it claims that all knowledge (and perception
itself) is constructed, neither merely received nor innate”. According to Mangal
(2000) “he has shown keen interest in development of cognitive abilities and
31
operation of cognitive processes in children” and also “there are two aspects of human
mind: one is referred to as cognitive structure and the other as cognitive functioning”.
On the basis of above discussion, it is observed that there are two widely accepted
concepts regarding Piaget’s theory;
(A) Cognitive structure or development
(B) Cognitive functioning
(A) Four Stages of Cognitive Development Piaget postulated that every individual pass through from the four cognitive
development stages and changes occurs in every individual from simple to complex.
i. Sensori-motor stage (From birth to two years)
This is the earliest period of one’s cognitive development and all his/ her thinking
consisted upon to see, hear, touch, move, taste, and so on. There are two major
characteristics of this age; one is the ‘object permanency’ and second is ‘goal directed
actions’ (Woolfolk, 2004).
ii. Pre-operational Stage (From about 2 years to about 7 years)
This is also called early elementary stage. In this stage language plays a vital role in
child’s cognitive development. The child started to replace direct actions with the
help of symbols. Piaget has divided this stage further into (a) pre-conceptual stage,
lasted approximately two years to four years of age (b) intuitive stage, which is lasted
approximately four years to seven years of age. In all these years child develops
better ability to engage him/ her and communicate through language, draw images,
32
playing with different concrete objects, develops numeric ability by assigning
numbers to different objects, have the tendency to see the others experiences with
own point of view, unable to conserve the thoughts etc.
iii. Concrete Operational Stage (About seven years to eleven years of age)
This phase of cognitive development shows a noticeable functioning of cognition in a
child’s life. According to Woolfolf (2004) “the basic characteristics of the stage are
the recognition of the logical stability of the physical world, the realization that
elements can be changed and transformed and still conserved many of their original
characteristics and the understanding that these changes can be reversed”. Child
increases the ability of abstract thinking and able to generalize the concepts to other
situations. Now child is not ego centric and give importance to others point of views.
iv. Formal Operation Stage (From twelve years to fifteen years of age)
The cognitive functioning and logical development reaches at a very stylish and
complicated phase. Woolfolk, (2004) has stated about this stage that “the ability to
think hypothetically, consider alternatives, identify all possible combinations, and
analyze one’s own thinking has some interesting consequences for adolescents”.
(B) Cognitive functioning
According to Piaget as discussed by Woolfolk (2004) there are two basic
tendencies being found in all types of species. The first one is organization, that’s
mean, to arrange, to combine, to recombine or to rearrange the things to present these
concepts into a collective way, the second one is adaptation that’s mean, to adjust
oneself into its new environment.
33
i. Organization All human beings born with a tendency to organize or to arrange their thinking
procedures into developed psychological structures. Woolfolk (2004) has stated that
“These psychological structures are our systems for understanding and
interacting with the world. Simple structure are continually combined and
coordinated to become more sophisticated and thus more effective. Piaget has given
special name to these structures schemes”. These schemes or schemata’s are called
“the way individuals store and organize knowledge and experiences in memory”
(Arends, 2007). Defining these schemes, Woolfolk (2004) states that “schemes are
basic building blocks of thinking. Schemes may be very small and specific. As
person’s thinking processes become more organized and new schemes develop,
behavior also becomes more sophisticated and better suited to the environment”.
ii. Adaptation
Human beings also have the inborn tendency to adapt themselves according to
the new situation arouse in their environment. This adaptation is linked with two
more structures (a) assimilation and (b) accommodation.
(a) Assimilation
This assimilation emerges when humans use their already existing
schemas to develop sense of actions or events in their surroundings.
According to Mangal (2000) assimilation is referred “to a kind of
matching between the already existing cognitive structure and the
environmental needs as they arise”. Woolfolk (2004) has explained
34
about assimilation that “assimilation involves trying to understand
something to new by fitting it into what we already know”.
(b) Accommodation
When an individual finds difficulty to assimilate new information to
already existing schemas, the individual modifies the structure and
accommodate the new experience or information. Woolfolk (2004)
states in explaining it that “people adapt to their increasingly complex
environments by using existing schemes whenever these schemes work
(assimilation) and by modifying and adding to their schemes when
something new is needed (accommodation)”.
iii. Equilibration
“Piaget has postulated another concept equilibration, parallel to
organizing, assimilation, and accommodation linked with the process
of cognitive functioning. Woolfolk (2004) stated that “the actual
changes in thinking take place through the process of equilibration”.
Mangal (2000) stated that “the process of assimilation or
accommodation helps the organism to adjust or maintain a harmonious
relationship between himself and his environment. This adjustment
mechanism was called equilibration by Piaget”.
35
2.10.2 Social Constructivism
The educationists have the point of view that there is much similarity between
cognitive constructivism and social constructivism and sometimes look overlapping
each other. But in social constructivism there is much importance on societal
environment of learning. As the child interact with its environment, its cognitive
development increases. The social constructivism’s concept is found in thoughts of
John Dewy & L. S. Vygotsky (Roblyer and Edward, 2000; Maddux, Johnson and
Willis, 1997)
(A) John Dewy and Social Constructivism
Educationists give tribute to John Dewy for forwarding ideas regarding social
constructivism in modern era. Dewy considers environment as major source for
influencing learning. He had the opinion that children are not good nor bad, it is there
environment which make them so. Nodding (1995) has stated the ideas of Dewy that
“children are born with the potential for both good and evil and that transactions with
an educational or miseducational environment would direct them toward one or the
other”.
Education is a social activity and our schools should represent the society.
There should be no difference in schools and society. The students have the central
role at school and in society. Their experiences have great importance in constructing
new knowledge. Noddings (1995) has expressed that “to be educative, an experience
has to be built on or connected to prior experience” and “there must be continuity in
experience”.
36
(B) Vygotsky and Social Constructivism
It was L. S. Vygotsky, who gave too much importance to social environment
of a child in cognitive development other than any element. When a child socially
interacts with environment, learning takes place. Woolfolk (2004) stated that “human
activities take place in cultural settings and cannot be understood apart from these
settings”. There are two levels of understanding the things in child’s environment.
Nodding (1995) explained these levels in Vygotskey’s words as that “every function
in children’s cultural development appears first at the social level; that is, children can
perform certain tasks in social settings with the help of others. Later the same
functions appear at psychological level and can be activated by the individual
children”. Talking about the key idea Woolfolk (2004) has quoted Palincsar (1998)
who stated that “one of key ideas was that our specific mental structures and
processes can be traced to our interactions with others. These social interactions are
more than simple influences on cognitive development- they actually create our
cognitive structures and thinking processes”. For further understanding of
Vygotsky’s thoughts, there are two more concepts which are very important in his
theory of learning. First one is ‘Scaffolding’ and second one is ‘Zone of Proximal
Development’. A brief description of these two concepts is being presented here.
37
i. Scaffolding
Adults, seniors or peers play an important role in child’s cognitive
development. Vygotsky considered that cognitive improvement heavily rely on
child’s discussions and interactions with more competent and learned members of the
society. Such type of assistance from adults to child is called ‘scaffolding’ Woolfolk,
(2004). The purpose of this assistance to child is actually making enable him for
future learning.
ii. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
In Vygotsky’s opinion many times during learning process child is unable to
solve a specific problem alone and looking for assistance, some clues or
encouragement to solve it. It is quite possible that there are some problems which are
beyond child’s capabilities to solve, even solution steps explained very clearly to him.
Woolfolk, (2004) has quoted Wertsch, (1991) who has explained that ZPD mean that
“the zone of proximal development is the area where the child cannot solve a problem
alone, but can be successful under adults’ guidance or in collaboration with a more
advanced peer”. This is the true region where teaching can be successful.
In process of scaffolding and ZPD the teacher gradually reduces its help to
students and in this way they may able to solve the problem alone.
38
2.11 Problem Based Learning (PBL) Definition:
PBL is not a new idea in educational spheres in technologically advanced
countries but it is new idea and latest teaching, learning mode for the developing
countries converse to didactic lectures. Problem based learning provides learners the
chance to practice the curriculum away from the strict school environment and find
out rational truths for themselves. Learners and often instructors engaged in this
course of action in the beginning feel uneasy with this sort of learning technique and
can be bewildered if the prospects are not visibly explained. According to Arambula-
Greenfield (1996), PBL is a teaching methodology that demands dynamic
involvement of learners in their learning by the method of researching & working
collaboratively and individually to get the best resolution of the issues or problem.
PBL organized content of the study in such a way that students use their brain to
solve these problems and use this skill on facing such situations in future with great
interest as discussed by Arend’s (2007) “ the essence of problem-based learning
consists of presenting students with authentic and meaningful problem situations that
can serve as springboards for investigations and inquiry” and he further describes that
“students learn academic content and problem-solving skills by engaging in real life
situations”. Barnes and Bramley (2008) have concluded “making activities relevant
to students’ lives, affording students’ choice in their work, and encouraging students
to set goals and reflect on them positively influence engagement in classroom
activities”. Ronis (2008) has defined problem based learning that “Innovators of the
past wrote about particular problems that sparked their special interests. PBL is
methodology that can ignite that kind of spark in today’s students”.
39
Duch, et al. (2001) has described that PBL helps learners to “think critically
and be able to analyze and solve complex, real-world problems; find, evaluate and use
appropriate learning resources; work cooperatively in teams and small groups;
demonstrate versatile and effective communication skills, both verbal and written; and
use content knowledge and intellectual skills acquired at university to become
continual learners”.
In PBL learners are provided ‘real world’ problems which help out them to
increase their problem solving skills, analytical skills, and expand new knowledge in
area under discussion (Boud & Feletti, 1991; Barrows and Tamblyn 1980; Schmidt,
1983).
Hmelo –Silver (2000) has explained PBL as a teaching technique where
students work helpfully to find feasible solutions for a problem situation. Mishra,
(2007) has defined problem based learning that “in a PBL setting, students are
presented with a problem (e.g. case, video tape, research paper, news of the day)
Barrow and Tamblyn (1980) have stated that problem based learning has many
uses and benefits for the students in learning process. For example PBL:
encourages bored learners
improve comprehension
develops critical thinking skills
enhances creativeness and autonomy
arouses wisdom of responsibility in learners
Why should we use PBL in our schools during teaching learning process Barrow
and Tamblyn (1980) have mentioned six reasons:
40
works sound for all students
prepares learners as useful workforce
develops a sense of "real world"
involves learners in process of learning
nurtures mutual way of learning
enhances learning standards
2.12 Characteristics of Problem Based Learning
Barrows (1996) has described six main features of PBL: 1) Learning is
student centered;
2) Learning happens in small teams; 3) Teacher as a guide; 4) Authentic and real
problems are the basis for learning; 5) Real world problematic situations or statements
are utilized being the source of attaining information & acquisition of problem-
solving skills; 6) Latest knowledge is attained by self-directed process of learning.
According to Savery (2006) PBL has these essential characteristics:
students are responsible for their own learning
the problem scenarios in problem based learning should be poorly-
structured and let for independent enquiry
learning must be an harmonized and collaborative effort working with
any discipline or subject
application of knowledge to the problems with reanalysis of the situation
41
a close analysis of learned concepts and a discussion on the learned
principles, which are considered essential
at the completion of each problem and curricular unit self and peer assessment should be done .
activities designed in PBL should be linked with practical world
students’ assessment should evaluate their improvement towards the
objectives of designed problems .
Mishra, (2007) discussed in his book ‘Teaching Styles’ the characteristics of
problem based learning. According to him “it substitutes active, student-centered,
team oriented learning of information for delivery of course content by the instructor.
It emphasizes learning within the context that the learned information to be used
rather than memorization of isolated facts. It incorporates the development of skills
required to use the learned information as a part of learning process”.
2.13 Problem Based Learning Techniques
There are many problem based learning methods/ techniques, teachers may
exercise these methods / techniques to begin a problem based learning practice.
Teacher may use these methods or techniques for the students in problem based
learning class. Ronis (2008) has discussed some of them. The detail is given as
under.
42
2.13.1 Inquiry Contract
Inquiry contract method may be used by teachers in problem based learning
classes. Investigation problems are presented to the students in the form of
hypotheses or inquest question in this method. In this method students
individually or in groups explore the things by doing practical research. The
teacher as a facilitator defines, makes the things easy, sets criteria of success,
and analyzes the whole process according to set criteria of success.
2.13.2 Case studies: Open/ Closed
Normally a case study is done broadly in shape of verbal or in black and white
of a real event. Through question and answering technique the specific task is
completed. The students play an important role in all this activity and solve
the problem. Teacher as a facilitator develop the problem in a systematic way
and presents it before the students. All the questions are asked with clarity
and students are bound to solve the problem within a specific period of time.
The case studies may be carried in groups or as an individual assignment. The
students’ are expected to provide their findings and conclusions but the
facilitator always available till the end of activity for the clarifications and
feedback.
43
2.13.3 Simulations: Simulations are “real life” situations portray in a play with well defined roles.
It is provided to the participants in written form. All the tasks related to each
individual is elaborated clearly and the group or individual acted out according
to given tasks. The role playing can best be used to develop most wanted
problem solving skills among the students’ through simulations. It is the
responsibility of the teacher to plan the situation cautiously, plainly state the
objective of planned activity, clearly state rules, and observe the process
vigilantly whether there is need of more guidance or help to the students?
2.13.4 Workshops: Open/ Closed Actions
In workshop technique students are gathered at a workplace for sharing
knowledge and doing research for the development of problem solving skills.
Open or closed workshops are arranged for the purpose to increase
performance of the students. The facilitator role is to visibly state the function
of workshop, makes sure that the participants have the ability to work in
groups for the attainment of defined objectives, observe the process of
workshop, prepare written record of the whole process.
44
2.13.5 Study Questions: Open/ Closed
In this technique study questions are used as a device to focus, guide and score
an inquiry. Study questions are used for getting answers for a short period of
time and questions are framed narrowly that allow inquiry in a specific topic.
The facilitator planned inspiring and answerable questions. Make sure that the
students are in a position to provide answers of the questions.
2.14 Problem Based Learning Models
Here is given detail of some important models which are used in teaching
learning process at different levels with problem based learning perspective. There
are many similarities in these models but the difference lies with their steps suggested
by the originators.
Arend (2007) has discussed in his book “Learning to Teach” that various
developers of problem-based learning have described the instructional model as
having the following features:
Driving questions or problems
Problem based learning present’s content of the study in form of ill
framed problems rather in form of structured lessons or didactic
lectures. These questions and problems are very significant to the
students in their personal and social life.
45
Interdisciplinary focus
The problem lessons designed in one particular subject may fall in the
domain of other subjects, too. The problems under exploration are
selected because their elucidation demands students to probe into many
other subjects.
Authentic investigation
Students in Problem-based learning work on scientific basis. For
authentic investigations first they understand the situation or problem,
develop hypotheses, collect information, provide analysis and then
accept the hypotheses, if in case reject then develop new hypotheses.
Production of artifacts and exhibits
Problem-based learning demands the learners to produce materials
which would show their solutions to the problem.
Collaboration
In problem-based learning students learn in groups, learn from others’
experiences, help each other and finally gain teaching objectives
through collaborative learning process.
46
Arend’s (2007) Problem Based Learning Model
Phases Teacher Behavior
1: Orient students to the problem.
Teacher goes over the objectives of the lesson, describes important logistical, requirements and motivates students to engage in problem-solving activity.
2: Organize students for study.
Teacher helps students define and organize study tasks related to the problem.
3: Assist independent and group investigation.
Teacher encourages students to gather appropriate information conduct experiments, and search for Explanations and solutions.
4: Develop and present artifacts and exhibits.
Teacher assists students in planning and preparing appropriate artifacts such as reports, videos and models and helps them and shares their work with others.
5: Analyze and evaluate the
Teacher helps students to reflect on their investigation and processes they used.
Ryan and Millspaugh’s (2004) also have designed a learning model, which has
14 important steps. The first step is quite different to Arend’s model where
introduction of the problem to the students is considered important. This step is
having much importance because students are frustrated due to lack of knowledge
about the presented problem, so it is good to discuss with the students. Now look at
the other steps, how this model proceeds?
47
Problem-Based Learning Model by Ryan and Millspaugh’s (2004)
Steps Teacher Behavior
1 Explain to students why problem-based learning is used.
2 Establish small teams and assign team member role. 3 Present the case to the students prior to presenting lecture, assigning readings.
4 Guide students teams to identify major problems and stakeholders; discuss “What we need to know” to solve the problems; discuss what they already know; identify concepts, principles, facts that may be used in solving the case; list terms (Jorgan) presented case to be learned; brain storm in possible resolution by considering stakeholders perspective; and generate list of learning’s objectives.
5 Respond to student requests for more information. 6 Provide list of instructor’s formal learning objectives. 7 Guide student teams assign learning’s objectives to members for research and
preparation of written summaries. 8 Conduct lectures, discussions, readings etc. to cover information related to learning
objectives, case resolutions and justifications. 9 Guide students to report within teams on learning objective research. 10 Refocus students on the case and renew discussion on problems, solutions, and
justifications, as the teams discuss, application of learning objectives. Lectures, etc. to case.
11 Facilitate an exchange of ideas within teams to generate alternate solutions and justifications.
12 Guide students to individually write their preferred case resolution or justification. Oral presentations or debates can replace written responses.
13 Debrief the case with class 14 Facilitate discussion to “generalize” the learning (concepts, principles thinking
process) from the case experience to other situations.
Howard (2002) and Long, Drake, and Halychyn (2004) have designed problem
based model for the students of elementary level. The specific model has been
followed in this study. The following four steps are included in this model.
1. Engagement: The problem is presented to the students and any roles are
explained.
2. Inquiry/Investigation: It is determined what information students already know,
what information they need to know, and how best to acquire this information.
48
3. Problem Resolution: Students analyze their options and decide on an action or a
decision.
4. Debriefing: Students discuss not only the content they have learned and how it
may be useful in new situations but also the processes involved in solving the
problem.
2.15 Role of Teacher in Problem Based Learning
Teacher’s role is very important in PBL class room environment. S/he should
always be very conscious during the teaching-learning process. The teachers in PBL
class room setting should always:
1. Ask open-ended questions
2. Wait for the students’ responses to those questions and give time to
process
3. Repeat or paraphrases students’ ideas but not criticize
4. Not tell the students exactly how to do something
5. Manage discipline/ behavioral problems
(Colburn, 2000)
In PBL class room students cannot be left unfocused. The teachers must
always provide open opportunities to the students for the successful completion of the
teaching/ learning process. “Effective teaching (in PBL) is a highly interactive
activity” where teachers’ are key to the structure of the problem based learning class
room, giving way to enhanced content knowledge. (Clark, Clough & Berg, 2000).
Problem-based learning also demands the teachers to increase different skills among
students and to help them in probing the solution of the problems (Arends, 2007).
Some other writers have also highlighted the teacher role in PBL settings like, Mishra,
49
(2007) who has discussed the role of teacher in following way “the role of instructor
in PBL is that of a “guide on the side” rather than a “sage on the stage”. He or she
guides, probes, and supports students’ initiatives. Instead of lecturing, directing, or
providing easy solutions, the instructor uses the Socratic approach and guides students
by asking those questions to clarify, verify, or further students’ pursuit of needed
knowledge”.
In a problem based learning environment the role of class teacher has been
shifted from knowledge disseminator to a guide, facilitator and trainer. Ronis (2008)
has highlighted the new role of instructor in these words “as a facilitator, it is the
teacher’s role to provide a rich environment that involves students in high-level
thought process such as decision making and problem solving” further the author has
described that “the role of facilitator also requires that teachers provide varied
activities to help students link new information to prior knowledge, provide
opportunities for collaborative work, and engage students in inquiry and problem
solving activities through authentic learning tasks”.
In problem based learning teacher also shares his/ her ideas with students to
enhance the learning of the learners. The teacher presents himself/ herself as a role
model, class teachers demonstrate before students how to behave, correspond in
cooperative situations. When teacher working as a coach or trainer it means “giving
hints or cues, providing feedback, redirecting student efforts, and helping students
choose and employ various strategies” and also “in PBL tasks, the teacher’s role is
that of facilitator and coach rather than leader” (Ronis, 2008). This is just like
‘scaffolding’ technique in which teacher provides only very little amount of
information or help to the learners, when s/he (teacher) feels its need during teaching-
learning process. The sole purpose of given this help is to make them enable to foster
50
their learning. Teacher helps the learners to set their learning goals within the domain
of what has been taught in the specific subject or discipline. Here, teacher becomes
co-researcher, co-learner and co-investigator along the students but actually all the
assignments, tasks, discussions, etc. carried upon by the students. It has earlier been
discussed that use of PBL technique during teaching learning process mean a shift
from teacher centered to student centered. As in PBL students are responsible for
their learning and some teachers feel uneasy to carry this approach in teaching-
learning process. Ronis (2008) has quoted Susan Florio-Ruan (1998) that “many
teachers do not feel comfortable in these new roles. For many teachers, allowing
students to initiate dialogue, determine topics, or explore perspectives other than their
own may feel threatening at times”. Thus, teachers find it difficult to assist students
in constructing new meanings for them especially in developing linkage between new
knowledge and their earlier experiences.
2.16 Modes of Facilitation
In problem based learning teacher plays her/his role as facilitator, learning
coach, helper, etc. the educators and researchers have overviewed her/his role in
different manners. Baden and Major (2004) have quoted Heron, (1989, 1993) who
has mentioned three types of facilitation, which a teacher gives to students during
process of problem based learning.
51
2.16.1 Hierarchical Mode:
In hierarchical style the instructor control and direct the whole learning
process and uses her/his authority on it. Thus the instructor decides the goals
of the group, manages group sentiments and makes available arrangements for
learning process.
2.16.2 Co-operative Mode:
In co-operative style of facilitation the instructor supports the learners, share
her/his ideas with them and try to enable them to become more and more self-
learners. The instructor buck up the students to manage their learning issues
and reach on any conclusion
2.16.3 Autonomous Mode:
In this mode the instructor completely give respect to the students’ thoughts
and gives autonomy to students for their own learning, on their own way.
Here the teacher does not guide or assist them rather they are considered
responsible for their learning. The students draw conclusions by tackling the
problematic situations collaboratively according to their own crafted ways.
2.17 Role of Students in Problem Based Learning
As a teaching methodology problem based leaning is new practice for the
students. The researchers and educators observe it a shift from traditional way of
52
teaching to new technique known as problem based learning. In PBL an individual is
considered as responsible for his/ her learning followed by group work. Baden and
Major (2004) have discussed about their new role that “students have shifted from one
primary role (listener and observer) to a multitude of overlapping and ever-changing
roles. They have shifted from one primary responsibility (learn the content) to a host
of new responsibilities”. Baden and Major (2004) have quoted Macgregor, (1990)
who has discussed students’ new role in PBL technique in these words:
From inactive, listener, and viewer to dynamic crisis over-comer, giver
and discuss issues;
From a shy person, taking no chance to a community man who actively
takes part in many challenging activities;
From contest with class fellows to shared effort with classmates;
From self-regulating learning to mutually supporting learning; and
From looking tutors and books the only source of knowledge to
looking classmates, society and other sources of knowledge as
authority.
Baden and Major (2004) have described about the learner as an active person in PBL
class room setting, who plays some other important roles like;
Role as real life problem solvers
As the problems replaces the text material and these problems serve as text
which are based on real life problems and students become real problem
solvers while working on these problems.
Role as decision maker
53
In problem based learning students work collaboratively living in teams and
reach on some decision. Students analyze the situation, develop hypothesis,
collect data and then finally infer some result from it. In these way students
become decision makers in their life and solve many of their life problem him/
her.
Role as self directed learner
There is a shift in students’ role from passive learner to active participant in
teaching learning process and it become the responsibility of the students to
learn the content or new knowledge through personal effort. The students
become responsible for their own learning. In this way they become self
directed learners.
Role as communicator
A PBL student develop linkage between previous experiences and the current
experience to construct new meanings for it, in this process s/he shares her/ his
experience with other group members and becomes good communicator. S/he
communicates the experiences and knowledge with other group mates.
Role as advocate
In problem based learning the students work in groups collect data, infer
results and then convey and advocates for his/ her findings to other fellow
learners. In this way students play their role as solicitor to convince other
team members.
Role as participator in a society of learners
As learning is considered an individuals’ responsibility in problem based
learning but also contribute to.
54
Role as scientist
During the teaching-learning process in PBL setting students’ act as scientists
and produce knowledge living in their limitations. They find bundle of
opportunities to solve the real world problems through inquiry and
investigation, thus they become real scientists while dealing with problems.
Role as explorer
In the learning process with problem based learning technique, students often
face the challenging situations. They work and explore new things as a
member of team and share her/ his findings with other fellow learners. In this
way students becomes explorers and take initiatives to reach any specific
results.
2.18 Importance of Teams in Problem Based Learning
The individual role is very important in problem based learning as earlier
discussed side by side individuals have to play an important role living in teams for
functioning effectively. Baden and Major (2004) have discussed these roles as under;
Facilitator, one who facilitate in discussion, maintain the group on selected
task, makes certain that all members are working in a positive way;
Researcher; an individual helps the team members to find out the relevant
material;
Encourager; one who supports team mates to contribute;
Timekeeper; s/he plays her/his role as a timekeeper, who watches the group
activities and alarm the members to complete the task in given time;
55
Recorder; S/he maintain the record of all sort of discussions during learning
process and prepare results on paper;
Checker; who observes that have all the group members comprehended the
concepts and findings.
2.19 Benefits and Risks of Problem Based Learning
PBL has many benefits in its use as a teaching learning strategy. There are
some dangers and risks also attach with its use during teaching learning process.
Pawson et al (2006) have narrated some benefits and risks after studying extensively
the literature based on problem based learning. There are some benefits for learners
like; 1) it is purely student-centered technique, 2) students feel it more pleasurable and
gratifying, 3) problem based learning encourages better comprehension, 4) students
working with PBL utilize their abilities at higher level, 5) PBL helps in developing
different skills. It has also some benefits for teachers like; 1) students like to attend
PBL class, 2) the students are intrinsically motivated and get reward, 3) the students
spend more time in studying, 4) PBL promotes harmony. If on one side students and
teachers get benefit from this learning strategy, institutions also get advantage from
this like; 1) the students give priority to learning, 2) the students’ retention level
increases, 3) use of this approach shows that Institution gives importance to teaching.
Furthermore, Pawson et al (2006) also have discussed some potential risks and
disadvantages of problem based Learning. For example, it has some risks for students
like; 1) earlier learning experiences of students do not support in a good way to PBL,
2) problem-based learning demands more time and other subjects find less time, 3)
56
problem based learning creates anxiety among students, 4) at certain times group
dynamics issues have PBL efficacy, 5) a very little amount of content may be covered
and learned. It has some risks and disadvantages for teachers like; 1) developing
appropriate problem scenarios is not easy, 2) it demands more time to prepare class
for teaching, 3) students always have many questions about its implementation
process, 4) group dynamics issues need the involvement of faculty, 5) how to assess
students is difficult.
Problem based learning as a learning strategy has some serious dangers and
risks for institutions like; 1) a shift from lecturing to PBL means shifting in
philosophy of education, 2) staff training and co-operation will be required by faculty,
3) for successful implementation, there is need for more teachers, 4) it works well in
spacious classrooms, 5) it gives rise to hindrance on the part of faculty who doubt its
effectiveness.
Talking about problem solving strategy Killen (2003) has the opinion that “this
approach to curriculum design is usually referred to as problem-based learning”
further he has quoted Mayo, et al. (1993) who has described that problem solving is a
strategy for “posing significant, contextualized, real world situations, and providing
resources, guidance and instruction to learners as they develop content knowledge and
problem-solving skills”. Problem solving as a teaching strategy has many benefits
and advantages over other student centered approaches, as Killen, (2003) has
elaborated that, why should this teaching strategy be used in our classrooms?
According to him;
Problem solving provides challenging situation for the students. The students
construct innovative knowledge by working in this challenging situation
57
Problem solving encourages interaction and other interpersonal skills in the
students as they work in groups.
This strategy engages the students very actively in learning process.
By establishing consequential solutions of problems, it develops deeper
comprehension in the students.
This teaching strategy helps in making students responsible for their learning.
It helps the students to develop critical-thinking skills in them.
It helps in developing confidence in students by taking active part in
discussions. The students may express their point of view before others with
confidence.
It creates an ability in students to make well-informed decisions.
By working with this strategy students not only preserve the thoughts but also
apply the in future situations.
This strategy helps in developing many good qualities in students like,
cooperation, patience, facilitator, independence, etc.
By engaging students in the learning process through this strategy provides an
opportunity for the teacher to assess students real potential and abilities.
2.20 Features of the Real Problems
The instructors or teachers should always give consideration to the point that
what is the level of the students for whom the problem situations or any task is
providing for the solution? Definitely problems or problem situations will be
58
different for a master degree students’ and for a first year students. Baden and Major
(2004) have discussed the taxonomy of problems as under:
Problems: The problems where explanation is needed?
Strategy task: Here in strategy task problems “what would you do”?
How would you manage the work force in factory? Such situations are
presented.
Action task: involvement in any activity, e.g. interviewing head of
institution.
Discussion task: the opinions of the students are focused in discussion
task.
Study task: Here in study task an individual’s opinion is considered
important.
2.21 Three Common Mistakes in Designing Problems
Designing problem is a big issue in problem based learning. Tutors should
always discuss with other fellow teachers after designing the problems so that they
may criticize these problems. The tutors should avoid these mistakes during the
process of designing the problems. Some mistakes are made by the tutors in process
of designing problems as discussed by Baden and Major (2004) 1) firstly, tutors do
not provide thought provoking questions or statements at the end of the problem.
These questions are needed because only through these questions tutor able to get
desired knowledge from the students, 2) secondly, presentation of the problem should
not be in a simplistic or constricted form so that may not create effect on learners. 3)
59
Thirdly, in contrast to second the problem should not be too much complex those
students may not work appropriately.
The problems which are presented before the student to find out their solution
has some essential features. According to Killen, (2005) there are three significant
features of the real problems (1) “when people are trying to solve a real-life problem
they know why they are trying to solve it; (2) when people are faced with a real-life
problem, they normally do not have all the knowledge and / or skills to solve it; and
(3) real-life problems rarely have only one solution and often do not have a ‘best’
solution”.
2.22 Limitations of Problem Based Learning
PBL as a teaching strategy has some limitations in its implementation. These
limitations cannot be ignored during teaching-learning process. Akinoglu and
Ozkardes (2007) have recognized more than a few factors that may limit problem
based learning in process of teaching.
Teachers normally find difficulty to adopt some different teaching
style.
It may be time-consuming technique for resolving the problematic
situations.
Groups or individuals complete work at their own pace.
PBL requires rich material research for implementation.
PBL models could not be implemented easily at all levels.
Assessment of learning is quite difficult.
60
Killen (2003) has also discussed some limitations as under;
The preparation of lessons is quite difficult and time consuming
activity.
The students should make clear that why they are trying to solve this
problem otherwise they will not be able to fulfill the objectives of
learning.
The problems should be relevant to their real world life otherwise they
will not take it seriously.
Students, who are familiarized with traditional way of teaching, will
feel uneasy working with this self directed approach.
It is not necessary that all students will learn with same pace because it
is quite possible that they have not complementary skills to work with
this strategy.
The students having less abilities will be deficient in this strategy
comparatively to those who have better abilities.
2.23 Lecture Method of Teaching:
Lecture method of teaching is being used since the ancient times and considered
as the oldest method of teaching. Lecture method is used commonly in our education
system at all levels. Why lecture method is being considered so important in spheres
of education? It is acknowledged due to following reasons:
The contents of subject can easily, interestingly and enthusiastically be
transmitted to learners.
61
The enthusiastic attitude of the teacher ultimately creates interest in the
learners.
Lectures help the teachers to present them as a role model before the students
and afterward students copy their teachers as role model in their professional
life.
Through lectures a teacher can convey published or un-published researches to
the students easily and can make them understandable in a short period of
time.
Lecturing is being considered as a faster and cheaper mode of instruction.
Many people at the same time under one umbrella can get huge amount of
information from lecturing.
Teacher can easily manage and control big classes in presence of lecture
method.
Teachers can cover a vast subject matter through lecturing.
Students feel less pressure in presence of lecture method and learn
independently without any fear.
Some students who are not good readers and can’t read long articles and books
for attainment of knowledge, for them lecturing is the best mode of learning.
Lecturing has a special feature in which teachers and students sit face to face
and students not only learn from lecture but from the gestures and body
movements too.(Mishra,2007)
However, with the rapid increase in information technology, internet and other
sources of information lecturing is not considered a good teaching method near
teachers, students and researchers. Teachers face many challenges regarding teaching
62
as students have diversity in their learning styles. They have the opinion that
lecturing is not a conducive learning methodology. To them this traditional method of
teaching has following weaknesses.
The students have very passive role during lecture method.
It is one way of teaching and has no proper feedback system in this
methodology.
For lecture method verbal skills are required and every teacher does not
necessarily have these skills.
Lecture method does not suit well for imparting abstract and complex content
material to students. It does not suit for higher order learning for example
applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating.
It is assumed that all the participants in the class are learning at same level but
it is almost not true.
Students absorb very little amount of information through this method and
forget soon as we find in old Chinese quote “Tell me and I’ll forget; show me
and I may remember; involve mw and I’ll understand” (Mishra, 2007)
2.24 Relevant studies on Problem Based Learning:
When literature in PBL was reviewed, it was found that many of researches
showed that PBL has strong and positive impact in different areas related to students
such as acquisition of learning skills, retention, motivation, interest ,critical thinking,
problem solving skills and lifelong learning ,knowledge, understanding, application
skills ,etc. whereas there were studies which signaled that problem based learning
technique has not provided encouraging results in different areas of students
63
achievement. It is controversial among the researchers whether PBL always provides
positive results or negative? The intention is to provide instances from the literature
regarding studies in PBL frame work.
A meta- analysis conducted by Albanese and Mitchell in (1993) reveals
effectiveness of PBL technique. A leading question of the meta-analysis was “What
does literature tell us about outcomes and implementation issues related to problem-
based instruction”.
Bridges (1991) & Woods (1996) explored outcomes related to school
administrator and chemical engineering students with problem based learning
technique. Gallagher and Stepien (1996) established that secondary level learners
with problem based learning in American studies performed good enough on
multiple-choice tests as students studying with routine (traditional) method of
teaching. The problem based learning learners also exhibited an improvement in
understanding of the content. Breton (1996) conducted an experiment in an
‘accounting theory’ with two different teaching methods. The students with
traditional and PBL method were taught and compared to determine the difference of
results in knowledge acquisition and aptitude for problem solving. Teacher education
is being considered a very vital segment of educational systems worldwide. In a
study problem based learning technique was exploited in the training of pre-service
science educators at elementary level. Peterson & Treagust (1998) and Watters and
Ginns (2000) used authentic and purposeful learning scenarios for science education
class to work on it as necessary part of practicum work at elementary level. Peterson
& Treagust (1998) established that the students improved in acquisition of knowledge
in teaching of science as well as in analytical capability by using PBL as learning
technique.
64
A study was conducted in subject of Earth Science 10-grade students using
PBL technique, when the study results were compared PBL students showed
improvement in knowledge in an achievement test as compared to traditional class
students (Chang, 2001). Likewise, Edens, (2000) in a study “Introducing problem-
based learning into a traditional lecture course” found out students comfort and
satisfaction in a course of study using problem-based learning and lecture method as
teaching-learning methodology. Gordon et al. (2001) conducted experiment on
students of an urban minority middle school. The experimental group students
expressed better results in their academics & better conduct during the entire span of
research.
McParland et al. (2004) have conducted research on medical students. The
researchers have used a questionnaire as instrument to collect data from both the
groups. The students with PBL method performed in better way and achieved high
examination results than those in the traditional teaching method. Low and Ng. in
(2005) carried out a research to highlight the effectiveness of PBL technique on
students’ self-motivated learning behaviors in subject of Math in Singapore. The
authors have discussed that most of the students were agreed upon that, they had
changed into self-motivated students having worked with problem based learning
technique in subject of math. Sungar, Tekkaya, and Geban (2006) conducted a study
on secondary level students in Turkey studying concept of human excretory system in
science curricula. The students in treatment group gained convincingly improved
scores as compared to the control group in regard to science achievement and
practical skills scores. Liu et, al (2006) have established that elementary school
students had improved science skills understanding and realized and were convinced
65
about being thriving learners after studying with computer enhanced problem based
learning unit.
Folashade and Akinyemi in (2009) have conducted a study with different
ability level students. According to the study findings, even the students having low
ability level showed very good scores having taught through PBL method. Overall
the students taught by PBL method showed better results than the students taught by
traditional method.
Bilgin et al. (2009) have conducted a research to discover the effectiveness of
problem based learning technique on students’ concept based and quantitative aspects.
The study findings expressed that the students with PBL technique performed in
better way while solving concept based problems, whereas no difference was found in
quantitative gained scores. A research has been conducted by Selcuk, (2010) in
subject of physics, the findings of the study exhibited that PBL method motivates
students’ for deep approach to learn physics concepts. Especially with physics course
PBL develops interest in students learning. The students’ results improved positively
with PBL method.
NurIzzati (2009) did a research on Mathematics students to find out the
performance and efficiency effective attributes through PBL and conventional method
of teaching. The study results there were not found significant difference at
performance level but students showed better results on working collaboratively and
communication skills level as compared to conventional class.
Riasat et.al.in (2010) has conducted a research study. The study results showed
that a significant difference was observed in students’ achievement teaching with PBL
than teaching with conventional method. The authors of this research study have the
opinion that PBL is the best method of teaching various mathematical concepts at
66
elementary level. In another study conducted by Serife (2011), the study findings
exposed that the students performed in a better way and showed better learning with
PBL technique. Debbie (2011) has conducted a research at university of Hong Kong.
The findings of the research were very interesting. The findings expressed that the
learners direct their goals learning for themselves, activities and teamwork
collaboration. Furthermore the students and the supervisors showed positive feedback
regarding PBL method. Gabr and Mohamed (2011) have conducted a research to
evaluate effectiveness of PBL on an undergraduate class of nursing students. The
research findings showed that the problem based learning technique had positively
affected knowledge and acquisition of skills.
Dods (1997) conducted a research in biochemistry on students of secondary
level to examine the usefulness of problem based learning in enhancing knowledge
attainment and retention level of the students. The students showed better retention
level of knowledge using problem based learning strategy.
The above mentioned research studies and carefully obtained conclusions
provide support to Problem based learning technique to be used in different natural
and social sciences classes. Some studies, however also find that PBL provides weak
results in knowledge domain but it is better for advanced level skills. According to
the New National Curriculum (Govt. of Pakistan, 2006) “The main feature of this
newly designed curriculum is “student-centered” and “inquiry-based”. However, the
training system in our country does not support the new teaching methods and our
teacher lacks in using these teaching methods as Tahir (2011) mentioned in his article
that “the system of in-service science teacher training in the country is weak and most
of the teachers do not have the opportunities to equip themselves with new teaching
methods in-line with the new curriculum”. This research study will find an
67
opportunity to assess usefulness and need of using new teaching methodologies at
elementary level.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This research study was designed to examine the effectiveness of problem based
learning on students’ achievement at elementary level in subject of science. In order to
find out effectiveness of problem based learning (independent variable) an instruction
method. The selection of a suitable research design was very important. Ray (1999)
has quoted Cambell &Stanley discussion about multiple factors affecting internal and
external validity of any research study. The main factors related to internal validity are
maturation, testing, instrumentation, selection bias, statistical regression, mortality, and
history. During the research and experimentation process the researcher has tried to
control/minimize the factors affecting research validity.
3.1. Design of Research Study
To see the actual results of this PBL technique, an experimental study was
designed. Pretest-Posttest Control group design was employed in this research study.
The pre-test, posttest control group design may also be expanded to include any
number of treatment groups (Gay, 2005). But according to this specific study only one
69
control and one experimental group was selected. This design can be shown
symbolically as under.
R O X T O R.T
R O C …. O R.T
Fraenkel and Wallen (2006)
Where,
R = Random assignment of the subjects
E = Experimental group
C = Control group
O = Pre-test, posttest
T = Treatment
… = No treatment
R. T = Retention Test
3.2. Population of the Study
The aim of this research study was to find out expected result of the problem
based learning on the academic achievement of elementary students in subject of
science. Therefore, the target population of this study was all eighth grade students’ of
the Punjab province and the accessible population was all eighth grade students (211)
of Govt. M.T. High School for Boys People’s Colony Gujranwala. The population of
70
this study was almost homogenous in respect to family background, economic status
and social setup. All the participants were of thirteen to fourteen years of age, lower
middle and poor class families and to a large extent from the same community and
having same characteristics regarding mental level, learning styles, working habits,
social behaviors, social and cultural values, etc. It is based on the general observation
because most of the children who get admission in public sector schools belong to
deprived of families in Pakistan.
3.3. Sample of the Study
Students from Govt. M.T. High School for boys People’s Colony Gujranwala
were taken as sample of this research conveniently. As the study was in science subject
for 8th class therefore, sample of the study was constituted from 8th class students
studying the science subject.
Both random selection and random assignment was made to fulfill the
assumptions of this design (Gay, 2005). The students from 8th grade were selected
randomly for study. Out of 211 students 70 students were selected randomly. Then
from these 70 students they were assigned control and experimental group on the basis
of random assignment. The experimental group was named as ‘A’ whereas; group ‘B’
taken as control group. The instruction was given to the control group through
traditional method while the experimental group was taught through problem based
learning technique. The school which was selected for the experiment had two
different types of laboratories. The first one was the science laboratory and the second
was the computer laboratory with internet facility. All the students’ had an easy access
71
to the school library, laboratory and all other resources i.e. computer. The researcher
visited the respective school and got the permission from the school principal to
conduct the experiment. Formal permission from the concerned school principal was
taken to conduct study at 8th class.
3.4. Control Factors
One of the most important aspects of experimental research designs was to
address the internal validity of the research. Usually the research designs in which
these threats are not being controlled provide inconsistent results. In the absence of
controlling these factors the researcher could not conclude confidently that the study
result was due to the independent variables (Parker, 1993).
3.5. Variables Mainly there were two types of variables in the study.
Independent variable: Teaching method, problem based learning; this variable
was used as independent in this study. Dependent variable: The second variable was
students’ academic achievement level. The experiment was conducted during March,
2013 to June, 2013.
72
3.6 Selection of Study Units
The following two chapters or units of study from 8th grade science book of
Punjab Text Book Board were selected for the study to come across with the
performance of the students.
1. Environment (Chapter # 4)
This chapter contains the following environmental concepts:
i) Population and Community
ii) Changes in Population
iii) Effects of Over Population on Environment
iv) Role of Man in disturbing the Environment
v) Green House Effect and Global Warming
vi) Causes and Prevention of Environmental Degradation
2. Electricity and Magnetism (Chapter # 14)
This chapter contains the following electricity and magnetism concepts:
i) Potential Difference
ii) Electric Potential
iii) Electric Current and Potential Difference
iv) Production of Electricity
v) Electric Power
vi) Electromagnetic Induction
73
3.7. Research Instruments
Two different types of instruments were used in this study.
The Achievement Test of Science (ATS) was used which was developed by the
researcher from two selected chapters. Different modes of students’ assessment are
employed in PBL teaching like, self-assessment, peer assessment, instructor’s
assessment, etc. Etherington (2011) has quoted Allen et al. (1996), who discussed that
“peer assessment could comprise of 10 percent of students final grade, are worthy for
further investigation” and Ronis (2008) “suggests that instructors should employ a
variety of assessment strategies in their PBL courses, such as scoring rubrics,
portfolios, students performances and presentations and journals”. In this research
study completely instructors made assessment strategy has been employed. The
achievement test of science was used on both experimental and control group to
evaluate the students’ achievement level before the experimentation. After the
conduction of experiment, the same test was used as posttest for both experimental and
control group to find out performance level of the students. Pretest and posttest were
same but test items were shuffled and presented in different order to minimize the
guessing chances. The ATS was developed by the researcher in the light of test
construction principles. The test construction experts from Punjab Examination
Commission (PEC) and class teachers were consulted during the development process
of test items. The experts in assessment and instrument development were invited for
one day session to review the test items (Appendix-A). Two review processes were
done by different experts to maintain the high quality of test items. The test comprised
of 42 items. The test items consisted of knowledge, understanding, and application
74
level according to blooms taxonomy. The test items were totally based on the selected
two chapters from eighth class science book of Punjab Text Book Board.
3.7.1. Validity and Reliability
The test was constructed on the basis of table of specification to maintain the
content validity of test. Similarly, construct validity was also determined by the
assessment experts and test developers. Further the class teachers’ who were suitable
and capable also engaged to improve the quality of test items to maintain the
representation of test items for these chapters (Appendix-D). Seventy test items were
originally developed and pilot tested on thirty students in November 10, 2012. After
item analysis, the test was improved and finalized according to difficulty level and
discrimination index. The identified ambiguous items were corrected and test items
were selected for the test. Achievement test of science (ATS) comprised of forty two
multiple choice items after improvement (. The reliability of test was calculated with
Cronbach Alpha formula to be 0.801
3.7.2. Validation and Pilot Testing Achievement Test of Science was conducted on the eighth class students for
pilot testing. Seventy test items were developed and pilot tested on thirty students.
There were forty two test items finally chosen, identified ambiguous items either
corrected or deleted. There were almost ten items easy, twenty four moderate and eight
75
items difficult. It is important to note that the test items which are considered difficult
and have less than 0.25 p-value and items which have more than 0.75p-value are
considered easy. That’s why measurement experts always try to construct the test items
having p-value 0.20 to 0.80, with an average of 0.50 p- level. When the p-level of each
item of the test is 0.50, it would be the highest discrimination ability of the test
(Kubiszyn and Borich, 2003).
3.7.3. Validation of Problem Based Learning Feedback Form(PBLFF)
The second instrument used for data collection was Problem Based Learning
Feedback Form (Appendix B). It was developed after reviewing the relevant literature.
PBLFF was presented to the experimental group students to find out their responses
about newly used teaching technique. The responses were taken from strongly agree to
strongly disagree on five point rating scale. In validation process of PBLFF, ten
statement were found wrong, two non relevant, three of the statements were ill
structured and those were improved, three of the statements were identified as
ambiguous and those were deleted and finally fifteen statements were selected for the
PBLFF. Improvements in view of the above were made according to the statistical
values of results, again the instruments were presented to same group of educational
and assessment experts for the finalization of instruments.
76
3.7.4 Problem Based Learning Feedback Form (PBLFF)
At the end of experiment, PBLFF was used on the experimental group for
obtaining students opinion regarding its relevance and effectiveness of using this
methodology i.e. PBL. The PBLFF was consisted upon fifteen items to attain an
exhaustive understanding of the student’s opinion. This form was used only on the
experimental group, which encountered or experienced the newly used instructional
method. It was administered on the student’s immediately after conducting the
posttest. The results have been mentioned in chapter IV.
3.8. Selection and training of teacher for treatment
Two teachers from Govt. M.T. High School People’s Colony Gujranwala,
almost equal in all aspects like, qualification, experience of teaching, significantly
having same teaching abilities were taken for teaching science to both experimental
and control groups. The instructor who opted for teaching the experimental group
was given one week training in problem based learning. The training contents were
as under:
Introduction of problem based learning?
Experience with problem-based learning.
Class environment.
Group-building technique
Strategies for students-centered learning
Lesson presentation( Demonstrating the use of PBL)
77
Elaboration of PBL model to the experimental group teacher and the way to
implement it during the study.
The experimental group teacher was introduced with Problem-Based Learning,
what is the importance of PBL in science class? How the PBL works? How the groups
are being formed?
A group comprising of five members is considered good group in problem based
learning class. One person leads the group and is considered responsible for whole the
group activities. The teacher had also been introduced with some other student
centered teaching techniques and the difference among them, such as inquiry method;
co-operative method; project method etc. It was emphasized during the training session
that how the lessons will be presented to the different groups of study and what will be
role of instructor in the teaching-learning process. It was informed to the teacher that
he will work as facilitator in the teaching-learning process. The teacher will interact
with each group within the experimental group during the teaching-learning process
and guide them accordingly.
There were different models for PBL learning which had been discussed in chapter
II. Here only Howard (2002) and Long, Drake, and Halychyn (2004) model for
elementary school students has been discussed. This model had been followed in this
study. The following four steps are included in this model.
1. Engagement: The problems are presented to the students’ and roles are
explained to them.
78
2. Inquiry/Investigation: It is determined what information students already
know, what information they need to know, and how best to acquire this
information.
3. Problem Resolution: Students analyze their options and decide on an action
or a decision.
4. Debriefing: Students discuss not only the content they have learned and how
it may be useful in new situations but also the processes involved in solving the
problem.
In this model on the first stage students’ engage with the problem. The students
will experience the problem based learning as a learner while facing the problematic
situation. They will try to learn relationship between ill-structured problems and the
real life situations. At this stage, students will engage themselves in inquiry process
and reflect on the problems. The students will open new doors for knowing more and
more through a number of information sources. In this way they will gain sense of
problem based learning. The learners will be informed about their individual and
collective roles while working with problems.
At the inquiry and investigation stage, learners will make a list of things which
they already know and need to know separately. This will help them to find out the
missing information regarding the problem. The learners will use different sources
for getting knowledge about the problem. In whole process teacher will guide and
facilitate them where they feel difficulty and learners will share their problems in this
process of inquiry.
At problem resolution stage the learners refine their knowledge by getting
more and more information. They share with each other, discuss information;
cooperate with each other to find out maximum knowledge. This research process
79
continues till they do not reach any conclusion. Finally group leader writes down the
best possible solution of the problem and presents to the teacher.
At the debriefing stage the learners look back what they have done and try to
recognize those things which worked well? But perhaps the most important, the
learners will clarify those things which did not work well and also examine the
reasons why those things did not work effectively? This will help the learners to
understand, how they can apply their experience in dealing with such problems in
future? When the learners look back and examine their struggles to solve the
problem, they develop a set pattern for solving problems in future. This has a
tremendous value for the learners.
3.9 Process of Experimentation
The experiment was conducted in months of March to June in session 2013-14
at a public sector school Gujranwala (Punjab, Pakistan). Environment and Electricity
& magnetism chapters were covered during this period included in Punjab Text Book
Board eighth class science book were taught. As discussed earlier that classes were
randomly established in experimental and control groups. The students of the control
group were taught with traditional method. In our traditional class room set up, most of
the time, teacher speaks and students listen passively or one student reads the text
material and the teacher explains it to students at elementary level. It is very rare that
the class teacher uses any teaching aid other than the textbook. Teacher controls the
class and students rarely question about the lesson. Students play no active role in the
class room. It is one way teaching, where teacher transmits the knowledge to the
students. Either teacher or student reads the text and teacher explains the topic to the
80
students. In our Pakistani context in public sector schools, teacher rarely uses science
laboratory, computer laboratory, models, charts or any helping material during the
teaching learning process, which may be helpful to understand the difficult concepts of
subject of science. In this research, the control group teacher was responsible to teach
the student during this period. There were two chapters before him to teach in the
given time period. Normally a teacher teaches one concept in forty five minutes period
to the students and assigns this topic or concept for home work. Students write down
this topic in their note books and on next day the class teacher checks the home work
and guides the students regarding their home work. The teacher lines up the students
and asks to learn the topic by heart, so the students get busy in cramming the material.
The teacher asks oral questions to the selective students next day. The control group
class proceeded almost in the same manner and the teacher divided the two chapters
into small topics and taught to the students in the entire period of experiment as per
schedule.
In contrast to traditional class room the experimental group was divided into
seven heterogeneous groups of five. Before starting the experiment, the researcher
arranged a presentation for experimental group students in presence of teacher. The
researcher informed the students about what PBL is? And how this instructional
methodology proceeds? Moreover the researcher developed a guide book for the
students. It was informed to the students about the book and its importance. It
consisted of two parts. In the first part, PBL implementation plan was discussed and in
the second part extra material was provided related to study units for the students. It
was distributed among the students before starting the experiment so that they may get
benefit from the document. Problem scenarios based on these two chapters were
81
presented before the students. The students met with the problem without any prior
experience in dealing with the problem scenario. Each group of students met the
facilitator to discuss the problem. The facilitator presented a limited amount of
information about the problem, and the group was charged with the task to identify the
different aspects of the problem.
Students worked together to generate and refine hypotheses related to the
problems potential solution. The facilitator’s role was to guide them towards right
direction if they went beyond the right type of solution. The students determine
“learning issues” which were relevant and that they need to learn more to find an
acceptable solution to the problem. The groups were then asked to assign tasks to each
member of the group for researching each of different “learning issues” they had
identified.
Group members engaged in self-directed learning by gathering information
related to the assigned learning issues from a variety of different sources. After each
group member had conducted the necessary research related to the “learning issues”
they were assigned, the group member reported their findings to each other. They
reconvened and re-examined the problems and applied newly acquired knowledge and
skills to generate a formal solution to the problems. Once the formal solution had been
presented to the class and the facilitator, students reflected on what they had learned
from the problem and the process used to resolve the problem presented. In this way
the students proceeded and provided solutions to the problems presented before the
class one by one.
82
3.10 Data Collection
There were two groups of study, one was control or comparison group and the
other was experimental or treatment group. The Achievement Test of Science (ATS) as
pretest was administered on both the groups before starting the experiment to measure
the achievement level of the students. The same test with different arrangement of test
items as posttest was administered on both the groups after treatment to obtain the
achievement level of the students after treatment (Appendix-C). Problem Based
Learning Feedback Form was used on experimental group only immediately after
administering posttest to obtain the opinion and effectiveness of the new methodology,
the problem based learning.
3.11 Retention Test
The same achievement test of science was administered on both traditional and
experimental group after four months of experimentation to check the retention level of
students. As concepts are stored in long term memory and information is stored in
short term memory. Literature highlighted that in problem based learning active
participation is the basic thing converse to traditional lecture method. Therefore,
retention test was used to measure the impact of teaching methodologies on students’
retention.
83
3.12 Statistical Analysis of the Data
All types of obtained data was coded and entered in SPSS software for data
analysis. As the data was in interval scale, therefore, both descriptive and inferential
tests were used. Chi-test and t-test were computed for handling the unprocessed data.
To compare the achievement level of both experimental and control group, t-test was
established, keeping in view all the three levels (Knowledge, Understanding and
Application) which were hypothesized. The experimental group students’ opinion
about the effectiveness of new method of teaching-learning was obtained through
PBLFF and analyzed with the help of Chi-Square test. This is considered a powerful
test for obtaining statistical difference of opinion in researches. The results have been
discussed in fourth chapter.
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
This was basically an experimental study with pretest, posttest control group
design. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of problem-based
learning on students’ achievement in subject of science at elementary level. Two
different instruments were used for data collection.
4.1 Achievement Test of Science (ATS) 4.2 Problem-Based Learning Feedback Form (PBLFF) To assess and compare the effectiveness of problem based learning and traditional
method of learning. Analysis was done in the following way:
1. Comparison of Control group and Experimental group in pre-test
2. Comparison of Control group and Experimental group in post-test
3. Comparison of Pre-test and Post-test in Control group
4. Comparison of Pre-test and Post-test in Experimental group
All the hypotheses were addressed keeping in view all above four types of
comparisons.
In these four comparisons first comparison of control group and experimental
group provided the base either both the groups were at equal level of achievement at
the start of experiment in science subject. Rest of the three comparisons provided a
85
clear picture about both the methods used in this study i.e. Problem based learning
and Traditional method of teaching. The detailed discussion about these analyses
and their results are:
4.1 Achievement Test of Science (ATS)
The comparison of pre-test, posttest scores of control and experimental
groups on achievement test of science are presented in the following tables. The last
table deals with PBLFF data regarding students’ views about newly used teaching-
learning methodology.
Ho1:
There is no significant difference of students’ academic achievement between
problem- based learning and traditional learning method in science subject at
elementary level.
Table 1. t-test on Means Scores of Control and Experimental Group in Pre-Test
Group Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Control Group 35 18.43 2.8521 1.139 .259 Experimental
Group 35 19.34 3.7958
*p>0.05, t=1.96
Table 1 shows the t-value on mean scores of control and experimental group in pre-
test. The calculated value of t (1.14) is less than the table value (1.96), therefore,
table indicates almost the same mean scores of control group (18.43) and
86
experimental group (19.34) among pre-test scores in the subject of science at 8th grade
level. On the basis of mean scores and t-value it was found that there is no significant
difference between control and experimental group on pre-test.
Table 2 t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Control and Experimental Group in Post-Test
Group Number (N)
Mean SD t-value P-value
Control Group 35 20.8000 4.3440 6.211 .000 Experimental
Group 35 27.0000 4.0000
*p<0.05, t=1.96
Table 2 shows that the calculated value of t (6.211) is greater than the table
value (1.96) on post-test mean scores of control and experimental groups. Mean score
of control group (20.80) and experimental group (27.00) shows that the performance
of students taught through problem- based learning is better than the students taught
through traditional method of teaching. P-value in the table (2) depicts the picture
that there is significant difference between the achievement level of experimental and
control group. This shows that participants of experimental group have higher level
of achievement in post-test than that of the control group.
87
The graphical description is shown in the figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Comparison of Control and Experimental Group in Pre-Test and Post-Test
This comparison of the performance of control group on pre-test and post-test,
as well as comparison of the performance of experimental group on pre-test and post-
test is also done for further details. The details are given in the next tables.
Table 3 t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Pre-Test and Post-Test Of Control Group
Test Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Pre-test 35 18.4286 2.85210 2.700 .009
Post-test 35 20.8000 4.34403 *p<0.05, t= 1.96
Control Group Experimental Group
Pre‐Test 18.43 19.34
Post‐Test 20 27
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Pre‐Test
Post‐Test
88
Table 3 shows a comparison by t-test on pre-test and post-test mean scores of
control group. Mean scores of control group on pre-test is (18.43) and on post-test is
(20.80). t value shows that students of control group in their performance on pre-test
and post-test differ significantly.
p-value shows that difference is significant in the performance on pre-test and
posttest. This shows that traditional method of teaching has its importance in teaching
science to 8th grade students.
Table 4. t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Pre-Test and Post-Test of Experimental Group
Tests Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Pre-test 35 19.3429 3.79584 8.215 .000
Post-test 35 27.0000 4.00000 *p<0.05, t=1.96
Table 4 shows results of t-test between pre-test and post-test mean scores of
experimental group. The calculated t value 8.215 is greater than the table value
(1.96). Mean score on pre-test is (19.34) and on post-test is (27.00) of experimental
group. t-test value shows that student of experimental group on pre-test and post-test
are at different level of performance. The post-test scores exhibit a high level
difference as compared to pre test scores on problem based learners (the experimental
group). In the same way, p-value also shows that there is significant difference in the
achievement level of experimental group (PBL) on pre-test and post-test mean scores.
This shows positive impact of manipulation of experimental study.
Above results are graphically shown in the following way on the next page (figure 2).
89
Figure 3: Comparison of Mean Scores on Pre-Test and Post-Test of Control and Experimental Groups
Ho2:
There is no significant difference in the academic achievement of experimental group
and control group at knowledge level. (Relevant to objective =2)
Table 5. t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Pre-Test and Post-Test of Control Group in Knowledge Domain
Tests Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Pre-Test 35 3.9714 1.59937 13.399 .000
Post-Test 35 9.1429 1.62956 *p>0.05, t=1.96
Table 5 depicts a comparison by t-test between pre-test and post-test scores of
control group in the knowledge domain of cognitive domain according to bloom’s
Pre‐Test Post‐Test
Control Group 18.43 20.8
Experimental Group 19.34 27
15161718192021222324252627282930
Control Group
Experimental Group
90
taxonomy. Mean scores of pre-test (3.98) and post-test (9.14) of control group are
given in this table. The calculated value of t (13.40) is greater than the table value of t
(1.96). t value shows that students of control group have better performance on
posttest. P-value also shows that there was significant difference in the academic
achievement of control group (taught by traditional method) at the start and at the end
of the study. This means that the students who were taught by traditional method of
teaching improved their learning in the knowledge domain
Table 6. t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Pre-Test and Post-Test of Experimental Group in Knowledge Domain
Tests Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Pre-Test 35 3.7714 1.81636
12.481 .000 Post-Test 35 9.0286 1.70614
*p>0.05, t=1.96
Table 6 shows t value between pre-test and post-test mean scores of
experimental group in the knowledge domain. Mean score value of pre-test is 3.78
and post-test is 9.03 of experimental group in knowledge domain. The calculated
value t=12.48 is greater than the table value 1.96, therefore, students’ achievement
level of experimental group (PBL) on post-test has clearly been improved. This show
that students’ knowledge about science concepts through problem based learning has
been improved effectively. p-value (.000) also shows that there is significant
difference in the achievement level of experimental group (PBL) on pre-test and post-
test. This also shows positive impact of manipulation of experimental study.
Above results can be graphically shown in the following way on next page (figure .4)
91
Figure 4: Comparison of Pre-Test and Post-Test Of Control and Experimental Group
Table 7. t-Test on the Achievement Scores of Control and Experimental Group of Pre-Test in Knowledge Domain
Group Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Control Group 35 8.6571 1.47415 1.898 .062
Experimental Group 35 9.4000 1.78556 *p>0.05, 1.96
Table 4.7 shows t-test value between control group and experimental group in
pre-test mean scores in the knowledge domain questions. The calculated value of
t=1.898 is less than the table value 1.96, therefore, table indicates almost the same
mean score values of control group (8.66) and experimental group (9.40) on pre-test
scores in the subject of science at 8th grade level in knowledge domain. On the basis
of mean score values and p-value, it becomes clear that there is no significant
difference between control and experimental group on pre-test scores. This means
Pre-Test Post-Test
Control Group 3.97 9.14
Experimental Group 3.77 9.03
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Control Group
Experimental Group
92
that participants of both control and experimental group are at the same achievement
level in science in knowledge domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Table 8. t-Test between Control and Experimental Group on Post-Test Scores in Knowledge Domain
Group Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Control Group 35 8.9714 1.82282 .527 .600 Experimental
Group 35 8.7429 1.80429
*p>0.05, t=1.96
Table 8 shows the t-test value between control group and experimental group
on post-test scores in knowledge domain of science subject. Mean values of control
group (8.97) and experimental group (8.74) on post-test scores in the subject of
science at grade 8th level in knowledge domain. The calculated value of t (.527) is
less than the table value. This clarifies that students taught through problem based
learning and students taught by traditional method of teaching are on the same
achievement level in knowledge domain. P-value (.600) in the table 4.8 also depicts
the picture that there is no significant difference between the achievement level of
experimental and control group on post-test mean scores in the knowledge domain.
Therefore, null hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the academic
achievement of experimental group and control group at knowledge level” is
accepted.
The graphical description is shown on the next page figure 5.
93
Figure 5: Comparison of Control and Experimental Group on Pre-Test and Post-Test
Ho3:
There is no significant difference in the academic achievement of experimental
group and control group at understanding level. (Relevant to objective =2)
Table 9. t-Test on Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores of Control Group in Understanding Domain
Tests Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Pre-Test 35 6.1143 1.89071 3.443 .001
Post-Test 35 7.7714 2.12943 *p<0.05, t= 1.96
Table 9 depicts a comparison on t-test between pre-test and post-test mean
scores of control group in the understanding level of cognitive domain according to
Bloom’s Taxonomy. Mean score values of pre-test (6.11) and post-test (7.77) of
Control Group Experimental Group
Pre‐Test 8.66 9.4
Post‐Test 8.97 8.74
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9
9.2
9.4
9.6
Pre‐Test
Post‐Test
94
control group are clear from the table given above. t-test value shows that students of
control group on pre-test and post-test differed significantly on understanding
domain of 8th class science subject. p-value also shows that there is significant
difference in the academic achievement of control group (taught through traditional
method) at the start and at the end of manipulation in understanding domain of
bloom’s taxonomy. This means that traditional method of teaching has also improved
understanding level of students in the science subject.
Table 10. t-Test on the Achievement on Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores of Experimental Group in Understanding Domain
Tests Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Pre-Test 35 7.4286 2.22665 3.653 .001
Post-Test 35 9.0571 1.41302 *p<0.05, t=1.96
Table 10 shows t-test value between pre-test and post-test mean scores of
experimental group in the understanding domain. Mean score on pre-test is (7.43)
and on post-test is (9.06) of experimental group in understanding domain. t value
shows that students’ achievement level of experimental group (PBL) on posttest is
better than the achievement level on pre-test scores in understanding domain of
Bloom’s Taxonomy. This shows that students’ understanding of science concepts
through problem based learning has been effective.
Above results can graphically be shown in the following way on next page
(figure 6). Graph shows that the achievement level of problem based learning and
traditional method of teaching is almost same. This means in understanding domain
both the teaching methods have almost same impact level.
95
Figure 6: Comparison on Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores of Control and Experimental Group
Table 11. t-Test on the Achievement of Control and Experimental Group on Pre-Test Mean Scores in Understanding Domain
Group Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Control Group 35 6.1143 1.89071 2.662 .010 Experimental
Group 35 7.4286 2.22665
*p<0.05, t= 1.96
Table 11 shows t value between control group and experimental group on pre-
test mean scores in the understanding domain. The calculated value of t (2.66) is
greater than the table value. This shows that experimental group differs significantly
on pre-test mean scores in the subject of science at 8th grade level. On the basis of
mean values and p-value, it became clear that there was significant difference
between control and experimental group on pre-test mean scores. This means that
Pre‐Test Post‐Test
Control Group 6.11 7.77
Experimental Group 7.43 9.06
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Control Group
Experimental Group
96
participants of both control and experimental group were at the different achievement
level in science in understanding domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
Table 12. t-Test on the Achievement of Control and Experimental Group on Post-Test Mean Scores in Understanding Domain
Group Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Control Group 35 7.7714 2.12943 2.976 .004 Experimental
Group 35 9.0571 1.41302
*p<0.05, t=1.96
Table 12 shows t value of post-test mean scores of control and experimental groups in
understanding domain of science subject. Mean score of control group is (7.77) and
experimental group is (9.06) on post-test scores in the subject of science at grade 8th
level in understanding domain. Here the calculated value of t (2.98) is greater than
table value (1.96). This identifies that students taught through problem based learning
have better achievement level as compared to students taught through traditional
method of teaching. P-value (.004) also depicts the picture that there was significant
difference between the achievement level of experimental and control group on post-
test mean scores in the understanding domain.
The graphical description is shown on the next page figure 7.
97
Figure 7: Comparison of Control and Experimental Group on Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores
Ho4:
There is no significant difference in the academic achievement of experimental group
and control group at application level. (Relevant to objective =2)
Table # 13. t-Test on the Achievement of Control Group on Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Scores in Application Domain
Group Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Pre-Test 35 3.6571 2.31292 .649 .518
Post-Test 35 4.0571 2.81741 *p>0.05, t=1.96
Table 13 provides comparison by t-test on pre-test and post-test mean scores
of control group in the application domain of cognitive domain according to Bloom’s
Taxonomy. Mean score values on pre-test (3.66) and on post-test (4.06) of control
group are clear from the table given above. t value shows that students of control
Control Group Experimental Group
Pre‐Test 6.11 7.4
Post‐Test 7.77 9.06
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Pre‐Test
Post‐Test
98
group in both pre-test and post-test are at the same level of performance in
application domain on 8th class science subject. p-value (.518) also shows that there
is no significant difference in the academic achievement of control group taught
through traditional method of teaching.
Table 14. t-Test on the Achievement of Experimental Group on Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean Score in Application Domain
Tests Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Pre-Test 35 2.5143 2.61637 12.689 .000
Post-Test 35 9.2000 1.69428 *p<0.05, t=1.96
Table 14 shows t value on pre-test and post-test mean scores of experimental
group in the application domain. Mean score values are on pre-test 2.51 and on post-
test 9.20 of experimental group in application domain. t value shows that students’
achievement level of experimental group (PBL) on post-test is higher than the
achievement level on pre-test scores in application domain. This shows that students’
application skill of science concepts taught through problem based learning has been
very effective. p-value also shows that there is significant difference in the
achievement level of experimental group (PBL) taught through PBL technique.
The results of table 13 and 14 are graphically shown in the following way on next
page (figure 8).
99
Figure 8: Comparison of Pre-Test and Post-Test of Control and Experimental Group
Graph shows that the achievement level of problem based learning students is
much higher than the achievement level of students taught by traditional method of
teaching. This means, for enhancement of application skill in scientific concepts in
the students problem based learning is an effective learning technique as compared to
traditional method of teaching.
Table 15. t-Test on the Achievement of Control and Experimental Group on Pre-Test in Application Domain
Group Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Control Group 35 3.6571 2.31292 1.936 .057 Experimental
Group 35 2.5143 2.61637
*p>0.05, t=1.96
Pre‐Test Post‐Test
Control Group 3.66 4.06
Experimental Group 2.51 9.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Control Group
Experimental Group
100
Table 15 shows the t-test value in pre-test mean scores in the application
domain by control group and experimental group. Table indicates almost the same
mean values of control group (3.66) and experimental group (2.51) on pre-test scores
in the subject of science at grade 8th level in application domain with slight
difference. On the basis of mean values and p-value, it became clear that there was no
significant difference between control and experimental group in pre-test in
application domain. This means that participants of both control and experimental
group were at the same achievement level in science in application domain of
Bloom’s Taxonomy before the experimental process.
Table 16. t-Test on the Achievement of Control and Experimental Group on Post-Test in Application Domain
Group Number (N)
Mean SD t-value p-value
Control Group 35 4.0571 2.81741 9.255 .000 Experimental
Group 35 9.2000 1.69428
*p<0.05, t= 1.96
Table 16 shows the results of t-test between control group and experimental
group in post-test mean scores in application domain of science subject. Mean value
of control group is (4.06) and experimental group is (9.20) on post-test scores in the
subject of science at grade 8th level in application domain. This identifies that
students taught through problem based learning are better in achievement level as
compared to the achievement level of students taught through traditional method of
teaching in application domain. P-value (.000) also depicts the picture that there is
significant difference between the achievement level of experimental and control
group of post-test scores in the application domain. Therefore, null hypothesis “There
101
is no significant difference in the academic achievement of experimental group and
control group at application level” was rejected.
The graphical description is shown below in figure 9.
Figure 9: Comparison of Control and Experimental Group on Pre-Test and Post-Test
A retention test was conducted after four months and found following results.
Table 17. t-Test between Control and Experimental Group on Retention Test
Group Number (N)
Mean SD t-value P-value
Control Group 34 12.5429 3.8528 -10.27 .000 Experimental
Group 32 21.3714 3.3174
Table 17 highlights t-test results of retention test which was applied on control
and experimental group. Mean values again show that there is significant difference
Control Group Experimental Group
Pre‐Test 3.66 2.51
Post‐Test 4.06 9.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Pre‐Test
Post‐Test
102
in control group (12.54) and experimental group (21.37) in retention test. The
achievement level of students from control group in post-test was 20.80 and in
retention level test mean value is 12.54, and there is a decrease of 8.26 points. On the
other side in experimental students’ achievement level was 27.00 at the end of
experimentation while on retention test mean value was 21.37, and there was a
decrease of 5.63 points. This difference advocates that Problem Based Learning
method is more suitable for students to retain for a long time. The reason may be that
in PBL students learn things by active participation which cause better impact on
memory while in traditional method students learn things without any participation
and could not memorize things for longer period. Above discussion show that the
null hypothesis “There is no significant difference of student’s academic achievement
between problem based learning and traditional learning method on retention test in
science subject at elementary level” was rejected because PBL produced significantly
better results on memory as compared to traditional method.
The graphical description of pace of decrease in Problem Based Learning and
traditional method is shown on the next page figure 10.
103
Figure 10: Comparison of Control and Experimental Group in Post-Test and Retention-Test
4.2 Problem Based Learning Feedback Form (PBLFF)
In spite of the precise and accurate experimentation the researcher further got
views of students who were taught through problem based learning to provide
feedback about liking and disliking of this method. The views of the students about
problem based learning were of the great importance for further recommendation
about the replication of the study and more precise directions. The analysis of
students’ views has been given in the following table on the next page. Chi-square
test has been established to find out the statistical significance of the views regarding
PBL.
Analysis of experimental group results gained through Problem Based
Learning Feedback Form (PBLFF)
Control Group Experimental Group
Post‐Test 20.8 27
Retention Test 12.54 21.37
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Post‐Test
Retention Test
104
Chi-square test was used to analyze the data. Table 18. Analysis of Students’ Opinion Data on PBLFF
Statements SD DA S A SA χ2
1. The problem scenarios were related to the study units of the textbook.
0 2 6 21 6 38.56
2. I liked the presentation of subject matter through problem scenarios.
0 0 7 19 8 34.71
3. A student remains engaged most of the time in PBL class than in traditional class.
0 1 5 16 13 29.42
4. PBL helps in developing clarity in science concepts. 0 2 6 19 8 31.42
5. The science concepts can be learnt in a better way through PBL than traditional method.
0 3 3 18 11 31.16
6. The students’ understanding increases with PBL method in better way than traditional method of teaching.
0 1 5 18 11 32.29
7. The problems stated in PBL class provide an opportunity to think deeply.
0 1 5 19 10 30.28
8. Each student in PBL class learns with his/her own speed.
0 2 7 15 11 22.0
9. Each student in PBL class learns with his/her own style.
0 0 4 20 11 41.72
10. PBL is an interesting instructional method than traditional method.
0 1 5 19 10 34.57
11. PBL is a difficult method of teaching than traditional method.
0 3 5 13 14 22.0
12. Through PBL technique a student becomes real world problem solver.
2 4 5 15 9 15.14
13. PBL technique helps students’ develop decision making power in him/her.
0 2 5 22 6 43.42
14. The student becomes more self-directed learner in PBL than traditional method.
0 0 12 18 5 35.43
15. PBL technique helps an individual to identify his/her strengths and weaknesses during the teaching-learning process.
0 1 4 20 10 38.86
df.4, level of significance 0.05, χ2= 9.488
Strongly Agree (SA) =5, Agree (A) =4, To Some Extent Agree (S) =3, Disagree (D)
=2, Strongly Disagree (SD) =1
105
Interpretation of the Table
Table value of χ2 is 9.488 and calculated values in all the statements are greater than
the table value. It means that;
1. Students’ of experimental group are highly in favor of relatedness of problem
scenarios to the problem based learning units of textbook.
2. The students’ of the treatment group has highly liked the presentation of
subject matter through problem scenarios.
3. The students’ have the opinion that they remain engage most of the time in
PBL class than traditional class.
4. The students have the opinion that they were in favor that PBL helps in
developing clarity in science concepts.
5. They have opinion that science concepts can be learnt in better way than
traditional method of teaching.
6. Students’ think that PBL method engender to increase in their understanding
level. This result also supports our experiment results.
7. The students’ are agreed upon PBL technique provides opportunities to think
deeply.
8. The student’s responses reflect that a good number of respondents agree that
they learn with their own speed.
9. The students’ learn with their own style in teaching learning process.
10. Most of the students’ have shown their interest learning with problem based
learning technique.
106
11. Most of the students have the opinion that PBL is a difficult method of
teaching.
12. The students’ are in favor of statement that they became real world problem
solvers working with problem based learning technique.
13. As a powerful learning technique students’ have the opinion that PBL
develops decision power in them.
14. The students’ become self-directed learners in problem based learning
technique than traditional method of teaching
15. Majority of the students’ have the opinion that problem based learning
technique identifies their strengths and weaknesses in teaching learning
process.
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSION
Summary:
It was an experimental study in which pretest, posttest control group design
was used to check the effect of problem based learning technique on science
student’s achievement at elementary level. The subject of Science has been
regarded as an essential part of curricula in Pakistan. The teaching of science is a
compulsory subject from primary to secondary level in Pakistani education system.
The students’ achievement was evaluated in knowledge, understanding and
application level in Bloom’s Taxonomy in this study. The objectives of the study
were as: to determine the effect of problem based learning units on the academic
achievement of elementary students in science subject, to compare the achievement
level of students taught by problem based learning units and by traditional
method in three cognitive levels (Knowledge, Understanding and Application), to
identify the students’ attitude about problem-based learning technique and to assess
the retention level of students both in traditional method of teaching and problem
based learning method. In order to investigate the achievement, following null
108
hypotheses were framed out for this study. They were as that, there was no
significant difference of student’s academic achievement between problem based
learning and traditional learning method in science subject at elementary level, there
was no significant difference in the student’s academic achievement of experimental
group and control group in the cognitive domain, there was no significant difference
in the academic achievement of experimental group and control group at knowledge
level, there was no significant difference in the academic achievement of
experimental group and control group at understanding level, there is no significant
difference in the academic achievement of experimental group and control group at
application level, there was no significant difference of students’ views in
experimental group students about PBL technique and There is no significant
difference in students’ retention level both in traditional method of teaching and
problem based learning method. The study was conducted in Govt. M.T. High
School for Boys People’s Colony Gujranwala (Punjab, Pakistan). The sample of the
study was constituted from 8th class. A sample of seventy students was randomly
selected for the study out of 211 students. Through random assignment two groups
of 35, 35 were formed. Group A was taken as experimental group whereas group B
taken as control group. The control group was taught in traditional classroom
environment while the experimental group was taught with problem based learning
technique. Although the objectives of the selective study units were same but both
the groups were taught in two different ways. Problem scenarios were devised
keeping in view the content of selected chapters of 8th grade science book PTBB and
presented to the experimental group. There was no restriction on the experimental
group students to learn in controlled classroom setting. They worked in groups.
Each group was comprised of five students. One of them declared as leader of the
109
group. The members of each group worked together, hypothesized the problem,
shared their views, collected information regarding problem, visited library and used
computers to investigate the problem. The experiment was lasted from March, 2013
to June, 2013. Two chapters of eighth grade science i.e. environment and electricity
and magnetism were selected from 8th grade science book of Punjab Text Book
Board for teaching. The researcher developed problem scenarios for teaching /
learning purpose keeping in view the content of the selected chapters. The students
remained busy with these problem scenarios in the prescribed model of study and
provided written answers to the class teacher. The teacher as facilitator was
remained with them during problem based learning sessions. If teacher observed
that the students were not going in to the right direction and confused to solve the
problem, he asked driving questions from them, so that they could find the solution
of the problem.
Pretest and posttest were used as measuring tools in the study. Both the tests
were same but with different arrangement of test items. The purpose of pretest was
to measure the achievement level of the both groups before the conduction of the
experiment. The posttest was used at the end of the experiment to measure
achievement level of both experimental and control groups in knowledge,
understanding and application level and then compared with pretest scores which
were already been obtained from the students on the start of experiment. Problem
based learning feedback form was used on experimental group only to collect their
views regarding PBL method. After four months of experiment the same test was
used to check the retention level of students.
Reliability of the test was determined by using Cronbach Alpha formulae.
Reliability of the test was found to be 0.704. Validity of the test was judged by a
110
committee of experts from education field and senior science teachers. To find out
the significance of difference between mean scores of both experimental and control
was tested by using t-test. So the data was analyzed by using t-test and chi-square
test. The findings thereupon are reported as under:
Findings: Findings are based on Achievement Test.
The main findings of the study were as following. These findings are based
on achievement test.
1. The mean scores of control and experimental groups on pre-test
were 18.43 and 19.34 respectively and the groups did not differ
significantly in their achievement in this test. (Table 1)
2. The mean scores of control and experimental groups on posttest
were 20.80 and 27.00 respectively and the groups differ
significantly in their achievement in this test. (Table 2)
3. The mean scores of control group on pre-test and posttest were
18.43 and 20.80 respectively and the achievement of the control
group was significant. (Table 3)
4. The mean scores of experimental group on pre-test and posttest
were 19.34 and 27.00 respectively and the groups differ
111
significantly on its achievement on pre-test and posttest mean
scores. (Table 4)
5. The mean scores of control group on pre-test and posttest in the
knowledge domain were 3.97 and 9.14 respectively and in this
domain the achievement is found to be significant. (Table 5).
6. The mean scores of experimental group on pre-test and posttest in
the knowledge domain 3.77 and 9.03 respectively and in this
domain the achievement is found to be significant. (Table 6)
7. The mean scores of control and experimental group on pre-test in
knowledge domain were 8.66 and 9.40 respectively and the groups
did not differ significantly in their achievement. (Table 7)
8. The means scores of control and experimental groups on posttest in
the knowledge domain were 8.97 and 8.74 respectively and the
groups did not differ significantly in their achievement in this test.
(Table 8)
9. The mean scores of control group on pre-test and posttest in
understanding domain were 6.11 and 7.77 respectively and the
group differs significantly in its achievement in this domain.
(Table 9)
10. The mean score of experimental group on pre-test and posttest in
understanding domain were 7.43 and 9.06 respectively and the
group differs significantly in its achievement in this domain.
(Table 10)
11. The mean score of control and experimental groups on pre-test in
understanding domain were 6.11 and 7.43 respectively. The
112
groups differ significantly in their mean scores on pre-test in
understanding domain. (Table 11)
12. The mean scores of control and experimental groups on posttest in
understanding domain were 7.77 and 9.06 respectively. The
groups differ significantly in their mean scores on posttest in
understanding domain. (Table 12)
13. The mean scores of control group on pre-test and posttest were
3.66 and 4.06 respectively in application domain. The group does
not differ significantly in its achievement in application domain.
(Table 13)
14. The mean scores of experimental group on pre-test and posttest
were 2.51 and 9.20 respectively in the application domain. The
group differs significantly in its achievement in the application
domain. (Table 14)
15. The mean scores of control and experimental groups in pre-test
were 3.66 and 2.51 in the application domain. The groups do not
differ significantly in their achievement in the application domain.
(Table 15)
16. The mean scores of control and experimental groups in posttest
were 4.06 and 9.20 in the application domain. The groups differ
significantly in their achievement in the application domain.
(Table 16)
113
Finding Based on Retention Test.
1. The results of retention test show that students who were taught
through problem based learning method retained knowledge
better than students who were taught through traditional method.
(Table 17)
Findings Based on Problem Based Learning Feedback Form.
1. Students of experimental group were highly in favor of relatedness
of problem scenarios to the problem based learning units of
textbook. (Table 18)
2. Students of the treatment group highly liked the presentation of
subject matter through problem scenarios. (Table 18)
3. Students were remained engage most of the time in PBL class
sessions than teaching through traditional method. (Table 18)
4. Students of experimental group of the view that PBL helped in
developing clarity in science concepts. (Table 18)
5. Students from experimental group had favored that science
concepts can be learnt in better way through PBL than traditional
method. (Table 18)
6. Similarly students highly supported that PBL method engenders in
depth understanding of science concepts. (Table 18)
114
7. Students mentioned that PBL promoted deep and critical thinking
among them. (Table 18)
8. The students’ responses reflected that they learnt with their own
speed according to their learning level. (Table 18)
9. Students were of the view that they learnt science concepts with
their own style in PBL teaching learning process. (Table 18)
10. Most of the students had shown their high level interest in PBL
teaching-learning method. (Table 18)
11. Majority of the students were of the view that working with PBL
technique was difficult as compared to traditional method of
teaching. (Table 18)
12. Students were of the opinion that they can be become problem
solver in real life problems if they were taught by PBL method.
(Table 18)
13. PBL method also encouraged students to improve decision power.
Students might be good decision makers in future. (Table 18)
14. Students had the opinion that PBL method developed sense of self-
directed learning among them. (Table 18)
15. Students were of the view that PBL technique identified their
strengths and weaknesses in teaching learning process. (Table 18)
115
Conclusions: Following conclusions are drawn on the basis of findings of the study.
1. The achievement of experimental and control group is almost the same in the
pre-test. The groups do not differ significantly in their achievement. The
hypothesis “there is no significant difference of students’ academic
achievement kept in problem based learning and traditional learning method
groups in science subjects at elementary level” is accepted.
2. The achievement of the experimental group was better as compared to the
achievement of control group on posttest. The groups differ significantly in
their mean scores. The null hypothesis “there is no significant difference of
students’ achievement between problem based learning and traditional
learning method in subject of science at elementary level” was rejected.
3. The control group differs significantly in its achievement on the pre-test and
posttest mean scores. This shows that the traditional method of teaching
science at elementary level has its importance.
4. The experimental group differs significantly in its achievement on pre-test and
posttest mean scores. The achievement is in favor of problem based learning.
Problem based learning method of teaching is very useful for teaching science
at elementary level.
5. The control group differs significantly in its achievement on pre-test and
posttest mean scores in the knowledge domain. This shows traditional method
of teaching science at elementary level is very useful for conceptual
development in the knowledge domain.
116
6. The experimental group differs significantly in its achievement on pre-test and
posttest mean scores in the knowledge domain. These shows that problem
based learning method is also quite useful for teaching concepts in the
knowledge domain.
7. The control group and experimental groups do not differ significantly in their
achievement on mean scores on posttest in the knowledge domain therefore,
the hypothesis: there is no significant difference in academic achievement of
experimental group and control group at knowledge level” was accepted.
8. The control group and experimental groups do not differ significantly in their
achievement on posttest mean scores in the knowledge domain. Both method
of teaching i.e. problem based learning and traditional method of teaching are
equally useful for developing concepts in the knowledge domain. The
hypothesis’ “There is no significant difference in the academic achievement of
experimental group and control group at knowledge level’’ was accepted.
9. The control group differs significantly in its achievement on pretest and
posttest mean scores in the understanding domain. This shows that traditional
method of teaching science at elementary level in the understanding domain is
also very useful.
10. The experimental group differs significantly in its achievement on pretest and
posttest mean scores in the understanding domain. This means problem based
learning method for teaching of concepts based on understanding is an
effective method of teaching science at elementary level.
11. Control and experimental groups differ significantly in their achievement in
the mean score on pretest in the subject of science at 8th grade level in
understanding. It is clear that the group were at the different achievement
117
level in understanding domain. The achievement of the experimental group
was better as compared to control group.
12. Control and experimental groups differ significantly in their achievement on
posttest in understanding domain. The performance of the experimental group
is better. It means problem based learning method is more useful than the
traditional method of teaching concepts based on the understanding level in
the subject of science at 8th grade level.
13. The control group does not differ significantly in its achievement on pre-test
and posttest mean scores in application domain. It means traditional method
of teaching science is not effective for teaching higher order thinking at
application level in the subject of science at 8th grade level.
14. The experimental group differs significantly in its achievement on pre-test and
posttest mean scores in the application domain. Problem based learning
method of teaching science at application level is very useful and effective.
15. Control group and experimental group do not differ significantly in their
achievement in the mean scores on pre-test in the application domain. Both
the groups were at the same level of performance in application domain at the
time of grouping.
16. Control and experimental groups differ significantly in their achievement on
posttest mean scores in application domain. Performance of the experimental
group is much better as compared to the performance of the control group.
Null hypothesis “there is no significant difference in the academic
achievement of experimental and control group at application level” was
rejected.
118
17. It was concluded that retention level of students’ increased in problem based
learning method as compared to traditional method of teaching.
18. Experimental group (problem-based learning) differed significantly in positive
direction as compared to control group (traditional method).
Discussion
1. The present study was basically designed to compare the students’
achievement level with two different modes of learning i.e. traditional method
and problem based learning technique at three cognitive levels i.e. knowledge,
understanding and application in Bloom’s Taxonomy. Two groups were
formed by random selection and then randomly assigned to control and
experimental group. Each group was comprised of 35 students. Both the
groups were almost homogenous in many aspects i.e. age, locality,
geography, socio-economic status, and intelligence. The control group
received instruction in traditional manner where teacher most of the time
speaks and students’ sit before him/ her as passive listener. The experimental
group received instruction through problem based learning technique. Pre-
test, posttest control group design was employed in the study. Both the groups
were pre tested before starting the experiment and then at the end of
experiment once again the achievement level of both groups was measured
through posttest. It was revealed from the study findings that experimental
group overall performed in a better way. Although experimental group did not
show improvement in knowledge domain as compared to control group after
119
treatment. As discussed earlier that in PBL technique learners’ were
effectively involved in different activities for solving the problems and they
were least concerned with the content. Therefore, knowledge domain which is
basically reproduction or recalling of the previous memorized knowledge or
content remained low in experimental group. The experiment results showed
that PBL instruction was an affective mode of learning for understanding and
application domain. The experimental group students initially felt discomfort
with PBL class room setting but after two weeks they adjusted themselves
with the learning mode. Later on, they showed interest in the learning process.
It was may be due to that they were not familiar with this brain storming
teaching methodology.
2. The results of the present study were in consonance with the previous studies.
For example meta analysis results of Albanese and Mitchell (1993); Colliver,
(2000); Bransford, et al. (1989); Dods; (1997); Van den Bossche, et al.
(2000). Review of literature showed that PBL was an affective mode of
instruction especially for teaching of science.
3. PBL is no doubt good learning technique. But its use was difficult during the
teaching-learning process. The results depend upon the quality of developed
learning units. The problems used in the study developed by the researcher as
the curriculum was not developed on the basis of problem based learning
technique. Due to this limitation the developed problem situations provide
effective results which were matched with the previously conducted studies.
4. In addition to it, student’s opinion about PBL was positive like Gordon et al.
(2001); Sage, (1996); Araz, (2007). The opinion results showed that this
120
method was more interesting, more constructive in developing thinking habits,
and better mode of instruction than traditional method.
5. These results supported the actual experiments results. Although this study
was not designed to explore self-efficacy of the students but it was expected
that PBL implementation would develop higher sense of self-efficacy among
the students and it may be helpful to make the students’ more self-directed
learners.
6. In sum the results of the present study showed that this methodology has put
positive effect on student’s achievement scores. In contrast to this study
results showed better results in understanding and application domain.
Therefore PBL method was suggested to use at elementary level to improve
students’ academic achievement in subject of science by providing them an
opportunity to learn by themselves.
Recommendations
On the basis of findings and conclusions of this study, the following
recommendations have been formulated:
1. As problem based learning is based on students’ maximum
participation therefore, at school level problem based learning
should be proposed for the teaching of science subjects.
2. In teacher education institutions, teachers should be properly
trained according to the modern teaching learning pedagogies like
problem based learning.
121
3. As the study depicted that problem based learning is effective for
students’ understanding therefore, this technique should be
projected for school level as well as other levels of education in
Pakistan.
4. One of the most important aspect of PBL is the development of
students’ ability to apply their knowledge to other situations,
therefore, Problem based learning technique is suitable for the
teaching learning process in social sciences as well as natural
sciences.
5. According to the results of study it is also recommended that
problem based learning technique should be included in the
curricula of teacher training institutions.
6. Results depicted that problem based learning also transfer
knowledge in the long term memory and students retain knowledge
for a long time. Therefore, PBL should be adopted as one of the
main teaching pedagogy.
7. Training of students for the solution of daily life problems is one of
neglected area in our education system and problem based learning
promotes students’ problem solving skill, therefore, should be
promoted accordingly.
8. As the study results have reflected that problem based learning
engenders to increase better results in subject of science and
therefore studies should be conducted at higher level classes in
different subjects.
122
General recommendations
1. The study findings should be shared with the science teachers,
who are teaching science at school level.
2. The study results may also be disseminated to the curriculum
wing of education, Islam Abad and provincial bureau. The
results may serve as guidelines for improving syllabuses.
3. University of Education may get benefit from the study results
by inducting problem based learning techniques in teacher
training programs.
4. Our education system is assessing only knowledge level of the
students and to some extent understanding level. The results
may guide us to assess the higher level of cognition by
methodological change.
5. Logical thinking, performance skills and problem solving skills
may also be developed in the students through this method of
teaching; therefore our schools should promote this teaching/
learning technique.
6. For future researchers, it is suggested that problem based
learning technique may be used for higher classes in subject of
science.
7. It is also recommended for further research that other than
science subjects, this learning technique may be tested.
123
8. It is suggested that science labs should be used for teaching
subject of science and library should be established inside the
lab or classroom.
9. Higher Education Commission may provide opportunities to
the research scholars for short period of time to interact with
foreign professors and research scholars to have latest
knowledge and skills regarding thesis writing requirements.
124
REFERENCES
AK, S. (2011) “The effects of computer supported problem based learning student’s
approaches to learning”. Current Issues in Education, vol.14 (1).
Akinoglu, O. and Ozkardes, T. R. (2007). The effects of problem-based active learning in science education on students academic achievement, attitude and concepts learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 71-81.
Akinyemni, Flashade, A. (2009). Constructivist Problem Based Learning Technique and the Academic Achievement of Physics Students with Low Ability Level in Nigerian Secondary Schools. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education. 1(1):45-51, 2009.
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.
Ali, I.et.al. (2012). “A Comparative Study of Students Achievement Taught by Lecture Method and Lecture cum Workbook Method at Elementary Level” Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business September 2012 Vol. 4, No. 5
Arambula-Greenfield, T. (1996). Implementing Problem-based learning in a college science class. Journal of College Science Teaching 26(1), 26-30.
Arends, R. I. (2007). Learning to Teach. 7th. Ed. McGraw Hill.
Askari, S.H.(1994) Effectiveness of Scientific Kit and Pupils Manuals in Pakistan: Prospective and Prospects. Journal of Educational Research. 2.19-27.
Baden, M.S. and Major,C.H. (2004). Foundations of Problem- based learning. Open University Press. Mcgraw –Hill House England.
Baden, M.S. and Major, C.H. (2004). Foundations of Problem Based Learning. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. USA.
Barrows H.S. and Tamblyn, R.M. (1980). Problem-Based Learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In Wilkerson, L, & Gijselaers, W.H. (eds.). New directions for teaching and learning, vol. 68. Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and pracice, pp. 3-13. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
125
Bilgin, I.et.al. (2009). “The Effects of Problem-Based Learning Instruction on University Students Performance of Conceptual and Quantitative Problems in Gas Concepts”.Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(2), 153-164.
Blair, T. R. (1988). Emerging Patterns of Teaching: From Method to Field Experiences. Merrill Publishing Company; A Bell & Howell Information Company. London.
Borich, G.D. (1992). Effective Teaching Methods. The University of Texas at Austin. Prentice Hall, Engle wood Cliffs, New Jersey, Columbus, Ohio.pp.238-309.
Boud, D., & Feletti, G.I. (1997). The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning. 2nd ed. Kogan Page Ltd. London.
Branes, J.L. and Bramley ,S.A. (2008, May). Increasing high school student engage in classroom activities by implementing real world projects with choice, goals portfolios and goals conferencing. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED500846).
Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, eds. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New Approaches to Instruction: Because Wisdom can't be told. In S. Vosiadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–297). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Breton, G. (1996). Some empirical evidence on the superiority of the problem-based learning method, Accounting Education, 8, 1-12.
Bridges, E. (1991). Problem-based learning in medical and managerial education. A paper presented at the Cognition and School Conference of the National Center for Educational leadership and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Nashville, TN.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bulunuz , M. and Jerret, O.S. (2010). Developing an interest in science: background experiences of preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Environmental & Education. Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2010, 65-84.
Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Chang, C-Y. (2001). Comparing the impacts of a problem-based computer-assisted instruction and the direct-interactive teaching method on student science achievement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 147-153.
126
Chin, C., & Chia, L. (2005). Problem-based learning: Using students’ questions to drive knowledge construction. Science Education, 88(5), 707-727.
Clark, R. Clough, M. and Berg, C. (2000). Modifying cookbook labs: A different way of teaching a standard laboratory engages students and promotes understanding. The science teacher, 67(7), 40-43.
Colardyn D. & Bjornavold J. (2004) Validation of Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning: policy and practices in EU Member States. European Journal of Education, Vol. 39, No. 1.
Colburn, A. (2000, March). An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope, 42-44.
Colliver, J. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259–266.
Dods, R. F. (1997). An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 423-437.
Dogar, A.H. Dr. (2011). 1947-2008 Evaluation of Elementary Education in Pakistan. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. Vol. 1 No. 15 [Special Issue- October 2011].
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E. and Allen, D. E. (2001). The Power of Problem-Based Learning. (pp. 3-11) Stylus: Sterling, VA.
Ebenezer, J. V. & Connor, S. (1998). Learning to teach science: A model for the 21st century, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Edens, K.M.(2000). Preparing problem solvers for the 21st century through problem-based learning, College Technology, Vol. 48 (2), pp 55-60.
EdQual, (June,2007). A Research Programme Consortium on Implementing Education Quality in low Income Countries. Midterm Review Implementing Curriculum Change Project Literature Reviews Pakistan, South Africa And Rwanda.
Elvan, Ezgi (2010). Effect of Problem Solving Method on Science Process Skills and Academic Achievement, Journal of Turkish Science Education, Vol.7, Issue 4, December 2010.
Eshach H. and Fried M.N. (Sep., 2005). Should Science be Taught in Early Childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 3.
Etherington, M. B. (2011). Investigative Primary Science: A Problem Based Learning Approach. Australian Journal of Teacher Education: Vol. 36, Issue 9, Article, 4.
127
Faukes, J. R., Carr, J. F. and, Rushton, S.(2008).Teaching and Leading from the Inside Out: A Model for Reflection, Exploration, and Action. Corwin Press, Inc. Thousand Oaks, California.
Finkle, S.L. and Torp, L.L. (1995). Introductory Documents.(Available from the Centre for Problem-Based Learning, Illinois Math and Science Academy, 1500 West Sullivan Road, Aurora, IL 60506-1000).
Flint, W.J. (2007). Problem-Based Learning: Welcome to the “Real World” A
Teaching Model for Adult Learners. Word Unlimited Publications, USA.
Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspective, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fraenkel, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 6th ed. McGraw-Hill, NewYork. USA.
Gabr, H., & Mohamed, N. (2011). Effect of problem-based learning on undergraduate nursing students enrolled in nursing administration course. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(1), 154–162.)
Gallagher, S. A., & Stepien, W. J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 257-275.
Gay, L. R. (2005). Educational Research: competences for analysis and application 5th ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Gordon, P. R., Rogers, A. M., Comfort, M., Gavula, N., & McGee, B. P. (2001). A taste of problem-based learning increases achievement of urban minority middle school students. Educational Horizons, 79(4), 171-175.
Government of Pakistan (2006). National Curriculum for General Science for Grades IV-VIII, 2006. Ministry of Education, Islamabad.
Government of Pakistan (2009). National Education Policy, Islamabad: Ministry of Education.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem Based Learning: What and How Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16 (3), 325-266.
Howard, J. (2002). Technology-enhanced project-based learning in teacher education: Addressing the goals of transfer. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 343-364.
Hsu, J.J.F., Chen, D. & Hung, D. (2000). Learning Theories and IT: The Computer as a Tutor. In Williams, M.D. (Ed) (2000). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching and Learning Concepts and Applications, (2nd). Singapore: Prentice Hall inc.
128
Huffman, K., Vernoy, K and Vernoy, J. (1995). Essentials of Psychology in Action. New York: John Willey and Sons. Inc.
Inman, T. F. (2011). "The Effects of Problem-Based Learning in Math and Science on High Potential Elementary School Students" ttp://digitalcommons.wku.edu/diss/14
Instructional Efficiency and Affective Attributes in Secondary Schools, Port Dickson, Malaysia”. (Un-published Master Degree Thesis).
Iqbal, H.M. & Mahmood, N. (2000). Teacher education in Pakistan: policies and practices. In Sandra K. Abell. (Ed) .Science Teacher Education: An international Perspective. Kluwer Academic publisher. P.75-92
Iqbal, M. (1993).Education in Pakistan. Aziz Publishers, Urdu Bazar LHR.
Izzati, N. (2009). “Effects of Problem Based Learning on Mathematics Performance,
Jomtien Conference on Education for All (1990). Retrieved on 22.12.2013 from WWW.UNESCO.Org/ education.
Khanna, S. (2008). Effectiveness of problem-based learning in a materials science course in the engineering curriculum. NSF Grant Proposal. University of Missouri. Columbia, MO.
Killen R. (2005). Effective Teaching Strategies, Lessons from Research and Practice. 3rd ed. Thomson, Social Science Press.
Kubiszyn, T. and Borich, G (2003). Educational Testing and Measurement, Classroom Application and Practice. 7th ed. Jhon Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kwon, Y.I. (2002). Changing Curriculum for Early Childhood Education in England. Early Childhood Research and Practices; Vol. 4, No. 2.
Lam, D. O. B. (2011). “Impact of problem based learning on social work students: growth and limits”. British Journal of Social Work. June, 2011, 41(4).Oxford University Press.
Liu, M., Hsieh, P., Cho, Y., & Schallert, D. (2006). Middle school students’ self-efficacy, attitudes, and achievement in a computer-enhanced problem-based learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(3), 225-242.
Long, D., Drake, K., & Halychyn, D. (2004). Go on a Science Quest. Science and Children, 42(2), 40-45.
Low, C.H. and Ng, H.T. (2005). “Effects of Problem-Based Learning on Students Self Directed Learning Behaviors in Mathematics”. Centre for research in pedagogy and practice, National Institute of Education, Singapore.
129
Maddux, C.D. Johnson, D.L. and Willis, J.W. (1997). Educational Computing: Learning with Tomorrows Technologies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Mahmood, M.K. (2004). A Comparison of Traditional Method and Computer Assisted
Instruction on Students Achievement in General Science. (Un-published Ph.D. Thesis IER).
Mahmood, N. (December, 2007). Bulletin of Education & Research, Vol. 29, No. 2,
pp. 59-72 McParland, M., Noble, L.M., and Livingston, G. (2004).The effectiveness of problem-
based learning compared to traditional teaching in under graduate psychiatry students. Medical Education, 38(8), 859-867.
Memon, G.R. (2007). Education in Pakistan: The Key Issues, Problems and The New Challenges. Journal of Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 1, (Spring 2007) 47-55
Mishra, R.C. (2007) Teaching Styles, A P H Publishing Corporation, 5 ANSARI ROAD, DARYA GANJ: NEW DELHI-110 002.
Montessori, Maria. (1972). Dr. Montessori's own handbook: A short guide to her ideas and materials. New York: Schocken Books.
National Education Policy (2009). Govt. of Pakistan, Ministry of Education: Islamabad.
Nodding. N. (1995). Philosophy of Education. West View Press, Harper Collins Publishers, USA.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1998). Oxford University Press.
Parker, R. M. (1993). Threats to the validity of research. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 36(3), 131-138.
Pawson, E., Fournier, E., Haight, M., Muniz, O., Trafford, J., and Vajoczki, S. (2006). Problem-based learning in geography: Towards a critical assessment of its purposes, benefits and risks. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 30 (1): 103–16.
Peterson, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning to teach primary science through problem-based learning. Science Education, 82(2), 215-237.
Poisson, M.(2000). Problems, Issues, Dilemmas. International Bureau of Education, The Chinese National Commission For UNESCO.
Rashid K. (2004), Education, Lahore, Urdu Bazaar, Carvan book house.
130
Riasat, et.al. (2010). Effect of Using Problem Solving Method in Teaching Mathematics on the Achievement of Mathematic Students” Asian Social Science. Vol. 6, No. 2, Feb. 2010.
Robleyr, M.D. & Edward, J. (2000). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Inc.
Ronis, D. L. (2008). Problem based learning for math and science: Integrating inquiry and the internet. London: Corwin Press
Ryan, M. R., & Millspaugh, J. J. (2004). The Problem-based learning process: A model for undergraduate courses. University of Missouri, Columbia.
Saeed, M. (2007). Education System of Pakistan and the UK: Comparisons in Context to Inter-provincial and Inter-countries Reflections. Bulletin of Education & Research December, 2007, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 43-57.
Savery, J.R. (2006). Overview of Problem-Based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. 1(1), 9-20.
Schmidt, H.G. (1983). Problem Based Learning: Rationale and Description in Medical Education.
Selcuk, G.S. (2010).The effects of problem-based learning on pre-service teacher’s achievement, approaches and attitude towards leaning physics. International journal of Physical Sciences Vol. 5(6), pp. 711-723, June, 2010.
Sheikh, M.A. (2010). Understanding Educational Management: A Handbook for
Teacher and Taught. Spector, J. M. et.al. (2008). Handbook of research on Educational Communications
and Technology, 3rd ed. Taylor and Francis Group, New York.
Sungar, S., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, O. (2006). Improving achievement through problem based learning. Journal of Biological Education, 40(4), 155-160.
Tahir, A. Q. (2011). Developing a Student Centered Inquiry Based Teaching Approach at Elementary Level Science in Pakistan-A Three Years Implementation Cycle. Asian Social Science Vol. 7, No. 8; August 2011.
Tileston D.W. (2004). What Every Teacher should know about Instructional Planning. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: problem-based learning for K-
16 education.2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Van den Bossche, P., Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2000). Does problem-based learning educate problem solvers? A meta-analysis on the effects of problem based
131
learning.A paper presented at the 7th EDINEB Conference, Newport Beach, CA.
Vissor, Y.L. (2002). What makes problem-based effective? The impact of various PBL attributes on performance, problem solving strategies, attitudes, and self-regularity processes of high school science students. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1-5.
Walker, A. & Leary, H. (2009). A Problem Based Learning Meta Analysis: Differences Across Problem Types, Implementation Types, Disciplines, and Assessment Levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 6-28.
Watters, J., & Ginns, I. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: Effect of collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 301-321.
Woods, D. R. (1996). Problem-based learning for large classes in chemical engineering. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 68) (pp. 91-99). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
132
APPENDICES
133
APPENDIX-A
Achievement Test of Science
Pre test / Post test
8th Class
Student Name: ………………………………………………………..
Fathers Name: ………………………………………………………….
Roll No: …………............. Section: ……………………………
Note : All the questions are compulsory. Each question in the following has been given four
possible answers. Encircle the correct answer.
1. The time taken by the population of an area to double is called:
a) True time
b) Half time
c) double time
d) Normal time
2. How many times during last fifty years the population of Pakistan has
increased?
a) Nine
b) Seven
c) Six
d) Four
134
3. How much total area of Pakistan is occupied by forests?
a) 3 percent
b) 5 percent
c) 6 percent
d) 8 percent
4. Chlorofluorocarbons are released from:
a) Refrigerators
b) Air conditioners
c) Cans of spray
d) All of above
5. All members of a specie living in an area is called:
a) Community
b) Population
c) Biodiversity
d) Urbanization
6. Population living and interacting in an area is called.
a) Community
b) Population
c) Biodiversity
d) Urbanization
7. Rendering used articles into useful ones is called:
a) Rebuilding
b) Reversing
c) Recycling
d) Recharging
135
8. Plaque, Typhoid, Cholera, Malaria and Small pox diseases are called?
a) Epidemic
b) Fatal
c) Pathogenic
d) Harmony
9. Mechanized farming makes use of:
a) Machines
b) Fertilizers
c) Pesticides
d) All of these
10. Forests prevent erosion of:
a) Soil
b) Sand
c) Hills
d) Canals
11. How much times the population of Karachi has increased in 1998 as compared
to 1951?
a) 7
b) 8
c) 9
d) 10
12. If population exceeds the limit, the resources become.
a) Sufficient
b) Insufficient
c) Renewable
d) All of above
136
13. Destruction of forests as a result of human activities is called.
a) Deforestation
b) Forestation
c) Mutation
d) Resources depletion
14. Heat waves which cannot go out of the green house have wave length:
a) Shorter
b) Longer
c) Medium
d) Smaller
15. Forests are being cleared for obtaining.
a) Vegetables and fruits
b) Timber and firewood
c) Space and fruits
d) Seeds and timber
16. If birth rate is less than death rate the population shows?
a) An increase
b) Decrease
c) An equality
d) None of these
17. At the negative terminal of a battery, there is:
a) Abundance of electrons
b) Abundance of proton
c) Deficiency of electrons
d) Abundance of neutron
137
18. The rod that is placed at the centre of the dry cell is made up of:
a) Sulphur
b) Carbon
c) Zinc
d) Iron
19. The container of the dry cell is made of:
a) Copper
b) Zinc
c) Iron
d) Cobalt
20. The name of nuclear power station near Karachi is
a) Kanupp
b) SPARCO
c) NASA
d) Chashma
21. The potential difference is measured in:
a) Volts
b) Watts
c) Kilowatts
d) Horse power
22. Free electrons in solids are present in the
a) Middle orbits of atoms
b) Innermost orbits of atoms
c) Outermost orbits of atoms
d) All of above
138
23. If two atoms are very close to one another, the force that free electrons
present in them experience is called:
a) Repulsive
b) Attractive
c) Static
d) Magnetic
24. The chemical mean of electricity is:
a) Dry cell
b) Solar Panel
c) Heater
d) Both A & B
25. Some power plants use flowing water as a source of:
a) Electrical energy
b) Thermal energy
c) Chemical energy
d) Mechanical energy
26. Blades of which instrument are attached to the lower end of the axil of the
electric generator
in a hydal power plants?
a) Turbines
b) Boiler
c) Coil
d) Windmill
139
27. The generator produce electricity which is supplied to the consumers through:
a) Electric poles
b) Power cables
c) Power station
d) Power network
28. Where coal, oil, gas and waste products are burned to heat water under
pressure to produce
a) Vapors
b) Steam
c) Carbon
d) Smoke
29. Steam is used to rotate
a) Generator
b) Turbines
c) Boilers
d) Blades of windmill
30. Which energy is measured in kilo watt hour?
a) Mechanical
b) Electrical
c) Chemical
d) Potential
140
31. Current can flow through a ______unless it’s both ends are connected to the
two terminals of a battery
a) Metal
b) Plastic
c) Wood
d) Glass
32. A country has population of 180 million. Its Birth Rate is 35 per thousand and
Death Rate is 11 per thousand. The percentage of Growth Rate of this country
will be:
a) 2%
b) 2.4%
c) 2.6%
d) 2.8%
33. A country with the population of 180 million has the Growth Rate of 2.6
percent. In how many years the population of this country will reach 210
million:
a) 2 years
b) 3 years
c) 5 years
d) 6 years
34. A country has birth rate of 30 per thousand, while the Growth Rate is 2
percent. What will be the Death Rate per thousand?
a) 10
b) 15
c) 28
d) 60
141
35. A country has Death Rate of 5 per thousand while, the Growth Rate is 3.5
percent. What will be the Birth Rate of the country in per thousand?
a) 8.5
b) 17.5
c) 30
d) 40
36. The current passing through a circuit under Potential Difference of 3 Volt is
_________than the current passing through the same circuit under the
Potential Difference of 1.5 Volt.
a) More
b) Equal
c) Less
d) Double
37. How many energy savors of 25 Watt each will consume electrical energy in 10
hours?
a) 2
b) 3
c) 4
d) 5
38. How many hours are required to consume electrical energy of 2 Units by 10
energy savors of 20 Watt each?
a) 5
b) 10
c) 20
d) 40
142
39. What is the power of an electric heater if it consumes 10 Units of energy,
when it is used to heat up the room during 5 hours?
a) 50 Watt
b) 500 Watt
c) 1000 Watt
d) 2000 Watt
40. Which circuit will show the maximum Potential Difference?
a)
b)
c)
d)
41. Due to human activities destruction of forests is called.
a) Reforestation
b) Deforestation
c) Biodiversity
d) Recharging
143
42. What is the most important to accommodate a large number of people?
a) Food
b) Space
c) Medicine
d) Road
144
APPENDIX-B
PROBLEM BASED LEARNING FEEDBACK FORM (PBLFF)
Exploring students views regarding Problem Based Learning Method.
Dear students,
Some statements are given below in this questionnaire. There is no correct or
incorrect answer in the questionnaire. It is just to take your opinion. You can give tour
opinion by ( ) in front of each statement.
Name :………………………. Section:…………… Roll No…………………...
Problem Based Learning Feedback Form (PBLFF)
Statements SD DA S A SA
1. The problem scenarios were related to the study units
of the textbook.
2. I liked the presentation of subject matter through
problem scenarios.
3. A student remains engage most of the time in PBL
class than traditional class.
4. PBL helps in developing clarity in science concepts.
5. The science concepts could be learned in better way
through PBL than traditional method.
145
6. The student understanding increase with PBL method
in better way than traditional method.
7. The problems stated in PBL class provide an
opportunity to think deeply.
8. Each student in PBL class learns with his/her own
speed.
9. Each student in PBL class learns with his/her own
style.
10. PBL is an interesting instructional method than
traditional method.
11. PBL is a difficult method of teaching than traditional
method.
12. Through PBL technique a student becomes real world
problem solver.
13. PBL technique helps student to develop decision
making power in him/her.
14. The student becomes more self-directed learner in PBL
than traditional method.
15. PBL technique helps an individual to identify his/her
strengths and weaknesses during the teaching-learning
process.
146
APPENDIX-C
PRE TEST AND POST TEST SCORES CHART
Control Group Experimental Group
S.No. Students Name Pre-test Score
Posttest Score
S.No Students Name Pre-test Score
Posttest Score
1 Qasim Ali 18 15 1 Samer Iqbal 18 292 Tayyib Tahir 19 16 2 Raees Iqbal 17 30 3 Mubasshir
Hussain 16 18 3 Sahil sultan 20 29
4 Rafaqat Ishaque 22 16 4 Umer Nadeem 15 30 5 Usman Ali 17 22 5 Tayyib Hussain 25 30 6 Ameer Hamza 13 17 6 Hassan Raza 23 26 7 Ali Haider 20 25 7 Saqib Ijaz 15 27
8 Muzammil Salim
19 28 8 Abdul Mannan 24 26
9 Asad Azhar 23 25 9 Muhammad Tanvir
28 22
10 Usama Kramat 21 22 10 Muhammad Naveed
23 28
11 Zubair Younas 16 21 11 Muhammad Yousaf
21 20
12 Muhammad Awais
22 19 12 Abdullah 17 25
13 Zaheer Khan 17 15 13 Abdul Qayyum 16 24
14 Chand Ali 18 23 14 Abdur Rehman 18 27
15 Muhammad Bilal
21 12 15 Muhammad Usama
15 29
16 Asim Arshad 23 24 16 Muhammad Sajid 23 24
17 Suleman 20 25 17 Waqas Ahmed 18 29
18 Hammad Ali 18 17 18 Yasir Irshad 23 26
19 Muhammad Arslan
21 25 19 Najam-ul-Saqib 22 29
20 Muhammad Abrar
15 17 20 Asjad Ali
22 22
21 Abubakar 16 18 21 Muhammad Tayyib
16 24
22 Sarmad Amin 18 17 22 Hassan Farid 15 30
147
23 Muhammad Zeshan
17 20 23 Shazib Zia Ullah 19 30
24 Mudassir Ali 18 15 24 Muhammad Tauqeer
23 28
25 Usman Farooq 15 25 25 Muhammad Yaqoob
24 19
26 Ihtasham 16 23 26 Zeshan Shahid 21 31
27 Muhammad Husnain
18 15 27 Abubakar Subhani
12 31
28 Muhammad Oman
16 24 28 Wahhab Ahmed 17 30
29 Nabil Anwar 22 28 29 Muneeb Zia 18 16
30 Abid Ali 17 23 30 Ahsan Ali 17 36
31 Shajar Abbas 18 27 31 Qamar Akram 21 29
32 Ali Nawaz 13 20 32 Muhammad Zubair
21 27
33 Hassan Hafeez 16 21 33 Muhammad Arfan
15 23
34 Adeel Ashraf 22 26 34 Hamza 13 31
35 Muhammad Ansar
24 24 35 Muhammad Farooq
22 28
148
APPENDIX-D
LIST OF EXPERTS
1. Dr. Akbar Ali, Professor (R), IER, PU, LHR.
2. Dr. Munir Hussain, Government High School Nurpur Thal, Khushab.
3. Dr. Mehfooz-ul-Haque, Government High School Minchin Abad, Bahawal
Nagar.
4. Dr. Tariq Hussain, Lecturer, Institute of Education and Research Punjab
University, LHR.
5. Mr. Muhammad Ijaz, (Ph.D Scholar, GCU. LHR) Lecturer in Zoology.
Government FMF Post Graduate College People’s Colony, Gujranwala.
6. Mr. Rashid Ali Qadri, ((Lecturer in English) Government FMF Post Graduate
College People’s Colony, Gujranwala.
7. Mr. Muhammad Jamil, (Assistant Professor in Physics) Government FMF
Post Graduate College People’s Colony, Gujranwala.
8. Muhammad Safdar, Science Teacher. Government High School, People’s
Colony, Gujranwala.