problem based learning in an msw programme: a study of learning outcomes

This article was downloaded by: [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ]On: 21 December 2014, At: 22:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Work Education: TheInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cswe20

Problem Based Learning in an MSWProgramme: A Study of LearningOutcomesVeronica Pearson a , Donna K. P. Wong a , Kit‐mui Ho a &

Yu‐cheung Wong a

a The University of Hong Kong , Hong KongPublished online: 13 Aug 2007.

To cite this article: Veronica Pearson , Donna K. P. Wong , Kit‐mui Ho & Yu‐cheung Wong (2007)Problem Based Learning in an MSW Programme: A Study of Learning Outcomes, Social WorkEducation: The International Journal, 26:6, 616-631, DOI: 10.1080/02615470701456533

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615470701456533

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cswe20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02615470701456533

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615470701456533

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Problem Based Learning in an MSWProgramme: A Study of LearningOutcomesVeronica Pearson, Donna K. P. Wong, Kit-mui Ho &Yu-cheung Wong

This article reports research undertaken as part of the curriculum development of a

Master of Social Work programme at the University of Hong Kong. It was decided to

switch four out of five core subjects to a problem based method of teaching and learning.

Two student self-assessment measures were used to track learning skills acquisition and

professional knowledge acquisition. The Problem Based Skills Learning Inventory covered

problem solving, interpersonal and group skills, self-directed learning skills, self-

assessment and knowledge building. The Competence and Aptitude in Social Work Scale

included knowledge, social awareness, communication skills, leadership and self-concept.

Results indicated that for most students there were significant gains over the course of the

academic year in most areas. Serendipitous findings throw light on the issue of students’

response to pure and hybrid PBL methods and the acceptability of this more active

approach to learning to Chinese students.

Keywords: Problem Based Learning; Social Work; Chinese Learners; Learning Outcomes

Introduction

The purpose of the research described in this article was to investigate learning

outcomes in students studying at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) for a Master

in Social Work (MSW) degree. In 1999, the programme adopted the problem based

learning (PBL) format for the majority of its core courses and action research was

planned as an integral part of the process of curriculum development. PBL is an

instructional format characterized by small group teaching, using tutorials rather

Correspondence to: Veronica Pearson, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong

Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong. Email: [email protected]

Veronica Pearson, Donna K. P. Wong, Kit-mui Ho & Yu-cheung Wong, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Social Work EducationVol. 26, No. 6, September 2007, pp. 616–631

ISSN 0261-5479 print/1470-1227 online # 2007 The Board of Social Work EducationDOI: 10.1080/02615470701456533

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

than lectures, and self-study around real-life cases that embody diverse subjects and

issues cutting across multiple disciplines where necessary. The situation described in

the case acts as a stimulant as students try to analyze it. In the process they become

aware of what they do not know and need to find out in order to master the situation.

They then do their own searching to acquire relevant knowledge and come back to

share information and discuss the problem again. They are encouraged to use a

multiplicity of sources to answer their questions; the library and the Internet are

obvious choices but they may also contact experts (practitioners, clients and others)

to facilitate their learning. Students work collaboratively and co-operatively in small

groups which emphasize peer learning. Thus the PBL model also prepares them for

team work in practice settings. It accepts that no one can know everything but that

everyone has a responsibility to accept the need for life long learning and to maintain

the energy and commitment to professional development that will encourage them to

actively seek out new, relevant information (Chui, 2005).

The teacher acts as a facilitator, moderator and supporter rather than a major

source of knowledge. Small group teaching is fundamental to PBL and an

understanding of group dynamics is a significant asset that many social work

teachers have as part of their professional knowledge. Such teaching requires skills in

communication, understanding group development, decision making, conflict

resolution and leadership. Being able to help group members’ function as a learning

group is axiomatic to a successful outcome and is far removed from the traditional

didactic, chalk and talk formula. This often requires changes in thinking from both

students and PBL tutors (Pearson, 2005a).

PBL has been introduced to a number of professional programmes, particularly

in the medical field, including Harvard Medical School (Branda, 1990; Savin-Baden,

1997). The approach fully utilizes the content, structure and process of the

programme to prepare students for modern and career-long learning which is

necessary for professional viability in contemporary society and because of this it

has been increasingly used in professional social work courses (Burgess, 1992;

English et al., 1994; Gibbons & Gray, 2002; Altschuler & Bosch, 2003; Lam, 2004;

Dworkin, 2005; Wong & Lam, 2007). A very full description of the use of PBL in

the Department of Social Work at Hong Kong University is given in Pearson

(2005b).

The courses that were involved in the shift to PBL in the MSW at the University of

Hong Kong were Human Behaviour and the Social Environment, Social Science

Theories, Theory and Practice of Social Work, and Social Policy. These were four out

of the five compulsory first year core courses. After considerable discussion the fifth,

a two semester course on research, was not selected. The teachers considered that the

emphasis on statistics made it an unsuitable candidate for PBL. Year 2 of the MSW

course consisted of electives and a dissertation, and involved far too many teachers to

be able to obtain a consensus regarding the use of PBL. Instead of teaching them

individually through lectures and tutorials as had been our common practice since

1975, the main content of each course was identified by its teacher and then these

topics were integrated into problem based cases that became the core of the first year

Social Work Education 617

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

of the MSW programme (Pearson, 2005c; Tsang, 2005). This was a major change in

our approach to teaching and learning and took considerable courage.

Empirical Evidence on PBL Outcomes

It has been claimed that PBL teaching rectifies some problems commonly identified

in conventional education like passivity of students, content over-load, poor

retention of concepts and poor reasoning skills (Marchais, 1991; Norman &

Schmidt, 2000). However other research supports the view that there is not enough

evidence that PBL should be the preferred teaching and learning approach in

professional education (Berkson, 1993; Brandon & Majumdar, 1997; Schmidt et al.,

1987). Some of the problems identified include confusion, anxiety and resistance

from staff and students (Moust et al., 2005), complaints about a lack of a firm grasp

of the core elements of the profession (Ozan et al., 2005) and a lack of demonstrated

superiority over students trained through more conventional modes. A meta

analysis of 43 studies (Dochy et al., 2003) suggests that PBL is effective in

inculcating skills in students but the effects on knowledge acquisition are still

inconclusive. It has also demonstrated advantages over conventional modes of

didactic education in social work and counsellor training (Hmelo & Ferrari, 1998;

Taylor & Burgess, 1997).

It has been argued that there are aspects of Asian culture that make students

unreceptive to the PBL approach, for instance, fear of confrontation, distaste for open

criticism, low participation in class discussions and fear of being proven wrong

publicly (Khoo, 2003). The study by Walker et al. (1996) investigated PBL

experiences from a cultural angle, particularly in terms of how the Chinese cultural

norms of conformity, conflict and hierarchy affected students’ learning in a small

group context. Their study made use of instructor observations, students’ own

written accounts of the experience and a structured group questionnaire to track the

process and outcomes of the PBL approach. Despite many positive experiences, the

study also noted the tendency of Chinese students to place greater emphasis on

harmony and avoid conflicts in groups. Cortazzi & Jin (1997) suggest that Chinese

students have academic expectations that are characterized by passive participation,

hierarchical relations and knowledge transmission from the teacher to the student.

Their experience in primary and secondary schools will have emphasized rote

learning rather than an active and participative classroom experience. All of this runs

counter to what is expected in PBL. On the other hand, the importance of the small

group in Chinese culture (family members, classmates, religion based fellowship

groups) and the instinctive appreciation of the importance of networking and

connections is a positive factor when working in small groups. Tang (1996) found

that spontaneous collaborative learning occurred in Chinese contexts even without

teachers deliberately structuring the learning environment. Chiu et al. (2007), in an

international study of 15 year olds in the areas of mathematics, science and reading,

found that memorization was negatively related to achievement. However, students’

scores were enhanced by their classmates’ use of what they refer to as ‘meta-cognitive’

618 V. Pearson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

strategies—the skills of reflection, planning and self-evaluation. Out of the 34

countries involved in the research Hong Kong ranked 29th for the use of meta-

cognitive skills. This research lends weight to the effectiveness of PBL strategies and in

particular, co-operative learning.

Speaking from experience, we would say that the teacher’s attitudes, expectations

and skills in handling a small group are crucial in this situation. Because students are

used to a hierarchical relationship, they follow the teacher’s lead. If the teacher makes

it clear that a traditional classroom environment is what s/he is comfortable with,

students tend to comply and remain passive and silent. If the teacher makes it clear

that communication among group members, the use of initiative and personal

knowledge, and the willingness to take risks are what are expected the students are

perfectly capable of responding positively. However, the key is the creation of a safe,

non-critical and accepting atmosphere in which students can practise this new way of

learning and behaving. For students unfamiliar with PBL it may be helpful for

teachers to take a slightly more directive approach initially, working towards a lower

profile as the group develops and matures.

Research Questions

The study set out to examine student learning outcomes in relation to the application

of PBL in a social work degree in the Asian context. We considered this important

because as far as we were aware it had not been done before in a social work

programme in Asia. In addition, we wished to be able to challenge the commonly

accepted stereotypical beliefs about the passivity of Asian learners through empirical

research showing that they could respond to and learn from a participative, self-

directed approach. The research questions underlying our investigation were as

follows.

(i) Did the MSW students (intake years 1999–2001) develop the PBL skills necessary to

integrate inter-disciplinary knowledge for social work? It is important that this can

occur to facilitate a sound foundation for the application of social work knowledge

in reflective and flexible practice.

(ii) Did MSW students (intake year 2002) develop professional competence as effective

social workers through PBL? This is a fundamental issue that any professional social

work training course must address.

Method

Measures

Collins (1996) categorized learning outcomes into subject based outcomes, personal

transferable outcomes and generic academic outcomes. Learning outcomes in

relation to the subject knowledge are often measured by examination. Personal

transferable outcomes referred to independent study, co-operation, communication


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

skills and skills in finding and using information. Generic academic outcomes are of a

higher level and involve elements of critical thinking, synthesis and inquiry skills. PBL

skills are closely related to the personal transferable outcomes according to this

conceptualization. A PBL Skills Inventory was devised by the authors based on our

knowledge of the subject and calling on previous work by Arthur (1999), Mpofu et al.

(1998) and Valle et al. (1999). It specifically identified the following five key areas:

1. problem solving skills;

2. interpersonal and group skills;

3. self-directed, interdependent learning skills;

4. self-assessment skills; and

5. knowledge building skills.

Each area consists of five or six items and students assess their own competence on

individual items on a 10-point scale (please refer to Appendix 1). Apart from the PBL

Skills Inventory, a 24-item computer proficiency test was also included to measure

students’ skills and mastery of information technology. Students would evaluate their

proficiency along each item on a four-point scale from ‘15unfamiliar’, ‘25no

experience’, ‘35some experience’ to ‘45proficient’. The PBL Skills Inventory and

computer proficiency test were administered at the beginning and end of each year for

the first year MSW students in the years 1999–2000, 2000–2001 and 2001–2002. A

wealth of data was generated to throw light on the learning outcomes in terms of PBL

skills. The computer proficiency test was not considered to be a core part of the PBL

curriculum per se but a skill that was vital to make full use of the learning opportunities

in a university. With the introduction of PBL and the necessity to develop efficient

searching and presentation skills it became even more important. Students who could

pass the test were exempted from the need to take the computer workshops.

The research team decided to have a new focus for the year 2002–2003 in order

that comparisons could be made with the use of PBL in our BSW programme and so

that we could focus more specifically on issues of professional competence. The

Competence and Aptitude in Social Work Scale (CASWS) (Lam & Wong, 2004) was

used for this particular year. The scale was modified from the previous Competence

and Aptitude Assessment in Community Work Scale (Chan et al., 1997). The scale

was developed to measure students’ perception of their ability and potential to be

social workers (Wong & Lam, 2005, 2007). The scale had proven reliability both for

its internal consistency and test–retest consistency based on previous action learning

research (Chan et al., 1997). The six sub-scales included knowledge, social awareness,

leadership, communication, values and self-concept. Altogether 40 questions were

asked and students had to rate how they perceived themselves, using a 10-point scale.

Both the PBL Skills Inventory and the CASWS used in the present research

demonstrated high levels of internal reliability as reflected by the Cronbach Alpha

scores shown in Table 1. Pre-PBL and post-PBL Cronbach Alpha scores for the PBL

Skills Inventory ranged from 0.82 to 0.92. The CASWS also displayed high reliability

in its various sub-scales as shown by the Cronbach Alpha scores in both pre-PBL and

post-PBL measurements (0.75–0.91).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Respondents

The respondents were 125 MSW students in their first year of study in the years 1999–

2002. A total of 93 students came from the intake years 1999–2001 and their perception

of learning outcomes was measured with the PBL Skills Inventory.* In addition, 32

students came from the year 2002–2003 and their learning outcomes were measured in

terms of social work competence and aptitude with the CASWS. The instruments were

administered both at the beginning and end of the respective academic years. Students

were identified by their university numbers in the questionnaires and anonymity and

confidentiality were maintained. We explained to students at the beginning of the year

that research into PBL was on-going and asked for their co-operation. All students

participated, and some seemed to welcome the opportunity to provide feedback, both

positive and negative. None formally opted out.

Results

Competence in PBL and Computer Proficiency Skills

Table 2 summarizes the paired t-test comparison of students’ perceived PBL skills at

the beginning and end of the academic year. Results indicate that there were obvious

differences between the first and the following two years. In the year 1999–2000, the

launching year of PBL, students actually perceived a negative change in their problem

solving skills and self-assessment skills. Based on student feedback and teacher

evaluation, changes were made in both the instruction format and teaching

arrangement for the following two years 2000–2001 and 2001–2002. In these two

years, the pattern of improvement in PBL skills was more encouraging. Paired t-test

comparisons indicated students had improvement in the same key areas (see Table 2).

Students showed significant changes in their problem solving skills, self-directed

learning skills, and knowledge building skills. The results of 2001–2002 displayed a

Table 1 Reliability Analysis of PBL Skills Inventory and CASWS

Cronbach Alpha (pre-test) Cronbach Alpha (post-test)

PBL skills 1999–2002 (n593)Problem solving skills 0.87 0.88Interpersonal & group skills 0.82 0.90Self-directed learning skills 0.89 0.87Self-assessment skills 0.91 0.92Knowledge building skills 0.88 0.90Computer proficiency skills 0.91 0.90

CASWS 2002–2003 (n532)Knowledge 0.87 0.91Social awareness 0.82 0.85Communication skills 0.87 0.76Leadership skills 0.92 0.91Values 0.83 0.75Self concept 0.90 0.89


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

more obvious improvement in self-directed learning skills as reflected by the higher t

score and significance level than the year 2000–2001. Besides PBL skills, students of

all three years (1999–2002) witnessed a significantly higher level of computer

proficiency.

Competence and Aptitude in Social Work

For the year 2002–2003, the study adopted the CASWS to examine whether students

had improvement in learning outcomes related to the professional requirements of

social work. In Table 3, the results indicate that students regarded themselves as

having increased knowledge, social awareness, communication skills, leadership skills,

and self-concept. As indicated by the t-value and mean differences, students

perceived the highest gains in knowledge, followed by social awareness, commu-

nication skills and leadership skills. Of the five sub-scales that were statistically

significant, self-concept yielded the least gain reflected in just a marginal increase in

the change in mean score in the post-test, and the smallest t-scores as compared with

other sub-scales. Students had a slightly more positive self-concept after one year’s

PBL experience.

There were no significant differences in the values sub-scales between the pre-PBL and

post-PBL measurements. A possible explanation lies in the higher baseline in these two

sub-scales for this batch of students. Students might already have a high identification

Table 2 T-test of PBL and Computer Proficiency Skills for the Years 1999–2001

Pre-PBL Post-PBLtMean SD Mean SD

Year 1999–2000 (n544)Problem solving skills 6.84 1.19 6.38 1.26 22.06*Interpersonal & group skills 7.10 1.16 7.44 1.52 1.21Self-directed learning skills 6.56 1.23 6.40 1.34 20.55Self-assessment skills 6.51 1.36 5.81 1.47 22.68**Knowledge building skills 6.68 1.13 6.31 1.52 21.44Computer proficiency skills 2.65 0.42 2.78 0.45 2.56*

Year 2000–2001 (n528)Problem solving skills 6.63 0.97 7.21 0.93 2.38*Interpersonal & group skills 7.13 1.00 7.52 0.87 1.97Self-directed learning skills 6.49 0.62 7.12 0.99 2.92**Self-assessment skills 6.81 0.91 7.05 1.09 0.88Knowledge building skills 6.81 0.88 7.29 0.74 2.23*Computer proficiency skills 2.66 0.47 2.93 0.43 5.40***

Year 2001–2002 (n521)Problem solving skills 6.30 1.43 6.99 0.78 2.33*Interpersonal & group skills 6.95 1.14 7.43 1.16 1.80Self-directed learning skills 6.13 1.18 7.22 1.00 4.62***Self-assessment skills 6.14 1.43 6.49 1.01 1.40Knowledge building skills 6.28 1.22 7.06 1.00 2.84**Computer proficiency skills 2.71 0.38 2.87 0.39 2.71**

Notes: * p,0.05; ** p,0.01; *** p,0.001.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

with social work values even before they joined the MSW programme. The first year of

the course might therefore not be as effective in bringing about significant changes to this

component in the CASWS. A similar finding was noted in Lam & Wong (2005) in

relation to Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) students at Hong Kong University.

Comparison of PBL Skills across the Three Groups of Students in the Intake Years 1999–

2001

ANOVA was performed to explore the variations in student baseline PBL skills

between the three years. In Table 4, a significant difference in self-assessment skills

was identified, but further analysis with a Tukey B homogenous subset test (please

refer to Table 5) indicated that the differences in students’ self-assessment skills

Table 3 Competence and Aptitude in Social Work for the Year 2002–2003

Pre-PBL Post-PBLtMean SD Mean SD

Year 2001–2002 (n532)Knowledge 5.79 1.04 7.21 0.79 5.20***Social awareness 6.33 1.00 7.14 0.95 3.46**Communication skills 6.76 0.88 7.38 0.67 3.37**Leadership skills 6.55 0.99 7.13 0.80 3.12**Values 7.75 0.93 8.02 0.58 1.78Self concept 6.98 1.14 7.40 0.88 2.37*

Notes: * p,0.05; ** p,0.01; *** p,0.001.

Table 4 Analysis of Variance for Students’ Baseline PBL Skills for the Intake Years

1999–2001

Sum of squares df Mean square F

Problem solvingskills

Between groups 3.62 2 1.81 1.31Within groups 178.49 129 1.38Total 182.11 131

Interpersonal &group skills


Self-directedlearning skills


Self-assessmentskills

Between groups 11.66 2 5.83 3.68*Within groups 204.23 129 1.58Total 215.89 131

Knowledgebuilding skills


Computerproficiency


Notes: * p,0.05; ** p,0.01; *** p,0.001.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

between the three years were not distinct. The three groups of students belonged to

overlapping subsets and the baseline scores in self-assessment skills between the

years 2000–2001 and 2001–2002 were slightly different. Apart from this, the general

profile of students’ baseline PBL skills could be considered similar across all three

years.

ANOVA with the PBL skills at the end of each year indicated a wide disparity and

significant variations across the three years (see Table 6). There were significant

differences between the three years in terms of problem solving skills, self-directed

learning skills, self-assessment skills and knowledge building skills. Further analysis

with Tukey B in Table 7 indicated that the year 1999–2000 was distinctly different

from the two years 2000–2001 and 2001–2002. The overall results presented in

Tables 4–7 indicated that the three groups of students in their respective years

reported roughly the same level of PBL skills at the beginning of the academic year.

However, by the end of the year, disparities had appeared. The Tukey B homogenous

subset test in Table 7 clearly showed that the self-ratings of those in year 1999–2000

were significantly different from the other two years in problem solving skills, self-

directed learning skills, self-assessment skills and knowledge building skills.

Discussion

In three of the groups studied the results support a positive response to both research

questions. We have demonstrated, in these groups, that PBL produces positive

learning outcomes and increases professional competence in beginning level social

workers. The gains are not restricted to skills, as has been suggested in the literature,

but also extend to knowledge. The fourth group presents a different picture the

reasons for which are discussed below. Although we did not specifically investigate

issues to do with Chinese culture and how it affects learning, the results indicate that

Chinese learners are more than capable of thriving in a PBL context. Speaking from

experience, many of them were enthusiastic about this new learning opportunity and

were only too pleased to throw off the straitjacket of the traditional learning

environment. They sometimes felt over-loaded and worried about the responsibility

of being a major resource person for a particular learning issue and there never

seemed to be enough time. But they rose to the occasion and interactions in the small

groups were generally lively, focused and by no means teacher-centred.

Table 5 Homogeneous Subset of Baseline Self-Assessment Skills (Tukey B)

Year NSubset*

1 2

Self-assessment skills 1999 57 6.49 6.492000 47 7.032001 28 6.31

Note: * alpha50.05.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

The results given in Table 2 show both consistency and variation. There is

consistency across all three years in the gains in computer proficiency. It would be

impossible for students to survive our programme without computer skills and if they

do not have them at the beginning they have certainly acquired them by the end. In

Table 6 Analysis of Variance for Students’ PBL Skills at the End of the Year

Sum of squares df Mean square F

Problem solvingskills

Between groups 14.81 2 7.40 6.26**Within groups 110.06 93 1.18Total 124.87 95

Interpersonal &group skills


Self-directedlearning skills

Between groups 13.02 2 6.51 4.78*Within groups 126.74 93 1.36Total 139.76 95

Self-assessmentskills

Between groups 27.49 2 13.74 8.37***Within groups 152.70 93 1.64Total 180.19 95

Knowledgebuilding skills

Between groups 20.39 2 10.19 6.69**Within groups 141.78 93 1.52Total 162.17 95

Computerproficiency

Between roups 0.37 2 0.18 1.01Within groups 16.91 93 0.18Total 17.28 95

Notes: * p,0.05; ** p,0.01; *** p,0.001.

Table 7 Homogeneous Subset of Year End PBL Skills (Tukey B)

Year NSubset*

1 2

Problem solving skills 1999 44 6.382000 29 7.202001 23 7.11

Interpersonal & group skills 1999 44 7.442000 29 7.572001 23 7.36

Self-directed learning skills 1999 44 6.402000 29 7.142001 23 7.13

Self-assessment skills 1999 44 5.812000 29 7.042001 23 6.56

Knowledge building skills 1999 44 6.312000 29 7.322001 23 7.12

Computer proficiency skills 1999 44 2.782000 29 2.922001 23 2.87

Note: * alpha50.05.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

none of the years is any gain shown in interpersonal and group skills and this is

puzzling. As a teacher it is very obvious that students’ ability to co-operate and work in

groups increases over the first year. Much of their work is carried out in groups and

their exposure to this as part of the learning experience is intense so why this is not

reflected in the findings is hard to explain unless the students considered that their skills

in this area were already so good that improvement was neither necessary nor possible.

The variation concerns the variables of problem solving skills, self-directed learning

skills, self-assessment skills and knowledge building skills. The year 1999–2000 presents

a significantly different picture from the years 2000–2002; in essence, evaluation of

their skills by the students in the year 1999–2000 suggests that they believe them to have

diminished. The following two years report that their skills in these areas have

significantly increased. This cannot be explained by differences between the three years

of students on intake as it was established that all three years were more or less

comparable when they entered the programme (see Tables 4–7). Thus the explanation

lies in what happened in the process of their learning in the first year and there are

lessons to be learned of which other programmes may wish to take note.

The first year of the PBL programme contained no supplementary lectures at all. The

entire curriculum was case based. Students admitted to the programme had been

informed about the changes in pedagogy and had chosen to pursue their admission so

PBL did not come as a surprise to them. However, they were aware that they were the

first year and the decision to switch to PBL was made after the application process had

begun. This combination of events was not wholly desirable. At the end of the first

semester they made a request during a Staff Student Consultative Committee that the

teachers should provide at least some lectures to support their knowledge acquisition.

The MSW programme accepts students with a wide variety of Bachelor degrees and

those without a social science background often experience difficulty in catching up. At

that time, the view of the teachers was that we should be using a ‘pure’ PBL approach

and that lectures could not, therefore, form part of the programme. In retrospect this

appears to have been an excess of ‘missionary zeal’ on our part. Consequently we did

not accede to this request and made suggestions as to how they might strengthen their

learning in other ways. Students were resentful of the decision and, sadly, their

relationship with the department deteriorated. Whether this negative assessment of

their own skills reflects reality is debatable but it does suggest a strong underlying

negative feeling towards their PBL experience and towards the teaching staff.

It was partly because of our experience with this first group that in all subsequent

years we introduced Foundation Lectures in all four core subjects at the beginning of

the first semester and gradually reduced the number of cases from 11 to 8 thus

moving from a pure to a hybrid model. Our experience in this respect mirrors that of

Bristol University, one of the pioneers in the use of PBL in social work education

(Taylor & Burgess, 1995).

It seems likely that the provision of a basis of knowledge at the beginning enhanced

the students’ belief in their ability to learn via the problem based mode. In addition,

students admitted in years 2000–2002 were thoroughly prepared that the majority of

their teaching and learning in the first year of the programme would be problem


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

based. The website that applicants accessed contained this information. It was further

emphasized in all the selection interviews and applicants were given an opportunity

to ask questions. Thus subsequent years were better prepared and can be assumed to

have made an active choice.

The results from the CASWS outlined in Table 3 show positive gains in four out of

five areas: knowledge, social awareness, communication skills, leadership skills and

self-concept. The only area in which there was no statistically significant positive

change was that of values. The most likely explanation for this finding is that social

work students are a self-selected group who chose the profession because of pre-

existing beliefs. Thus the stability of the construct over time could reflect students’

general identification with social work values at the point when they joined the

programme.

Limitations of Study

There was no attempt on our part to test whether the traditional mode of learning

was more or less effective than the PBL approach. Interesting as this would

undoubtedly have been, available resources and practical time lines did not permit it.

It was not possible to run a PBL based programme alongside a traditionally taught

programme simultaneously and the decision to shift to the PBL approach was not

planned several years in advance and thus we were not able to measure students’

learning in the traditional format so that we could make a comparison with the PBL

format. We were also unable, for similar reasons, to develop measuring instruments

that would have objectively measured differences in students’ knowledge, skills and

attitudes. Nor were we able to make comparisons between the traditional and PBL

formats in these areas. Action research that takes place in the here and now and

attempts to capture experience as it is lived has sometimes to make compromises

between what is achievable and what is desirable in research terms. Another

limitation is the relatively small sample size for the year 2002. In relation to the

difference in learning between the year 1999 and those in 2000 and 2001 it is not

possible to exclude entirely such factors as some variation in teachers between the

different years and the composition of the students’ groups that may have provoked

different dynamics. We would suggest that further research examines the impact of

interpersonal factors on learning and satisfaction and that objective measures are

devised so that a comparison can be made between those and students’ own self-

assessments. Finally, the data are based on students’ self assessments and thus they are

a subjective reflection of their experience rather than an objective measure. This

should be taken into account when interpreting the results.

Conclusions

Our findings support that (with the exception of year 1999) and based on self-

assessment our students were able to develop the skills necessary to benefit from a

problem based approach to learning. In addition they acquired professional


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

competence at a standard appropriate for their stage of professional development

through PBL. This suggests that PBL is a viable method of teaching and learning in

social work. Although we did not set out to test specifically whether this more active

approach is suitable for Chinese learners, the fact that our students are Chinese and,

on the whole, responded well suggests that it is. The negative findings in relation to

year 1999 throw light on the issue of the hybrid versus the pure model in PBL, a

sensitive and contentious topic. Although we did not set out to compare the two

approaches, serendipitously that is what we achieved because of the unexpected

findings regarding the differences between the learning experiences of the intake year

1999 and those of 2000 and 2001. Our research was on a modest scale but it does

suggest that learning outcomes may be better and student satisfaction greater when

some lectures are combined with problem based cases. Certainly the management of

student expectations needs to be handled in a positive and constructive fashion. It is

an area deserving of further research.

Acknowledgements

The research on which this study is based was supported by a grant from the Leung

Kau Kui Teaching and Research Endowment Fund.

References

Altschuler, S. J. & Bosch, L. A. (2003) ‘Problem based learning in social work education’, Journal ofTeaching in Social Work, vol. 23, no. 1–2, pp. 201–215.

Arthur, D. (1999) ‘Assessing nursing students’ basic communication and interviewing skills: thedevelopment and testing of a rating scale’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 29, no. 3,pp. 658–666.

Berkson, L. (1993) ‘Problem-based learning: have the expectations been met?’, Academic Medicine,vol. 68, supplement 10, pp. S79–88.

Branda, L. A. (1990) ‘Implementing problem-based learning’, Journal of Dental Education, vol. 54,no. 9, pp. 548–549.

Brandon, J. E. & Majumdar, B. (1997) ‘An introduction and evaluation of problem-based learningin health professions education’, Family Community Health, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–15.

Burgess, H. (1992) Problem-Led Learning for Social Work, Whiting and Birch, London.Chan, C. L. W., Chui, E. W. T., Wong, D. K. P., Tam, V. C. W., Wong, Y. C. & Law, C. K. (1997)

Critical Reflection and Community Work Education: A Social Work Curriculum AddressingSocial Deprivation and Poverty, Resource Paper Series No. 30, Department of Social Workand Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong.

Chiu, M. M., Chow, W. Y. B. & McBride-Chang, C. (2007) ‘Universals and specifics in learningstrategies: explaining adolescent mathematics, science, and reading achievement across 34countries’, Learning and Individual Differences, Available at: doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.007.

Chui, E. W. T. (2005) ‘Problem based learning’, in Problem Based Learning in a Social Work Context,ed. V. Pearson. Monograph Series No. 53, Department of Social Work and SocialAdministration, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Collins, A. (1996) ‘Design issues for learning environments’, in International Perspectives on theDesign of Technology Supported Learning Environments, eds S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R.Glaser & H. Mandl, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L. X. (1997) ‘Communication for learning across culture’, in Overseas Studiesand Higher Education: Issues in Teaching and Learning, eds D. McNamara & D. Harris,Routledge, London & New York, pp. 76–90.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P. & Gijbels, D. (2003) ‘Effects of problem-based learning:a meta-analysis’, Learning and Instruction, vol. 13, pp. 533–568.

Dworkin, J. (2005) Advanced Social Work Practice: An Integrative, Multi-level Approach, Pearson,Boston.

English, B., Gaha, J. & Gibbons, J. (1994) ‘Preparing social workers for an uncertain future’, inReflections on Problem Based Learning, ed. S. E. Chen, Australian P.B.L. Network, Sydney.

Gibbons, J. & Gray, M. (2002) ‘An integrated and experience based approach to social workeducation; the Newcastle model’, Social Work Education, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 529–549.

Hmelo, C. E. & Ferrari, M. (1998) ‘The problem-based learning tutorial: cultivating higher orderthinking skills’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 401–422.

Khoo, H. E. (2003) ‘Implementation of problem based learning in Asian medical schools andstudents’ perceptions of their experience’, Medical Education, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 401–409.

Lam, D. (2004) ‘Problem-based learning: an integration of theory and field’, Journal of Social WorkEducation, vol. 40, pp. 371–389.

Lam, D. O. B. & Wong, D. K. P. (2004) ‘The problem based learning approach in social worktraining: potentials and considerations’, in Developing Learning Environment: Creativity,Motivation and Collaboration in Higher Education, eds T. Moore, O. Kwo & J. Jones, HongKong University Press, Hong Kong.

Marchais, des J. R. (1991) ‘From traditional to problem-based curriculum: how the switch wasmade at Sherbrooke, Canada’, Lancet, vol. 338, no. 8761, pp. 234–237.

Moust, J. H. C., van Berkel, H. J. M. & Schmidt, H. G. (2005) ‘Signs of erosion: reflections on threedecades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University’, Higher Education, vol. 50, no. 4,pp. 665–683.

Mpofu, D. J. S., Das, M., Stewart, T., Dunn, E. & Schmidt, H. (1998) ‘Perceptions of groupdynamics in problem-based learning sessions: a time to reflect on group issues’, MedicalTeacher, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 421–428.

Norman, G. R. & Schmidt, H. G. (2000) ‘Effectiveness of problem based learning curricula: theory,practice and paper darts’, Medical Education, vol. 34, pp. 721–728.

Ozan, S., Karademir, S., Gursel, Y., Taskiran, H. C. & Musal, B. (2005) ‘First graduates’ perceptionson a problem-based and task-based learning curriculum’, Education for Health: Change inLearning & Practice, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 256–271.

Pearson, V. (2005a) ‘The challenges of being a PBL tutor’, in Problem Based Learning in a SocialWork Context, ed. V. Pearson. Monograph Series No. 53, Department of Social Work andSocial Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, pp. 91–98.

Pearson, V. (ed.) (2005b) Problem Based Learning in a Social Work Context, Monograph SeriesNo. 53, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of HongKong, Hong Kong.

Pearson, V. (2005c) ‘Designing cases in problem based learning for social work’, in Problem BasedLearning in a Social Work Context, ed. V. Pearson. Monograph Series No. 53, Department ofSocial Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, pp. 51–90.

Savin-Baden, M. (1997) ‘Problem-based learning, Part 2: understanding learner stances’, BritishJournal of Occupational Therapy, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 531–536.

Schmidt, H. G., Dauphinee, W. D. & Patel, V. L. (1987) ‘Comparing the effects of problem-basedand conventional curricula in an international sample’, Journal of Medical Education, vol. 62,no. 4, pp. 305–315.

Tang, C. (1996) ‘Collaborative learning: the latest dimension in Chinese students’ learning’, in TheChinese Learner; Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences, eds D. Watkins & J. Biggs,Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research,Hong Kong, pp. 183–204.

Taylor, I. & Burgess, H. (1995) ‘Orientation to self-directed learning: paradox or paradigm?’,Studies in Higher Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 87–98.

Taylor, I. & Burgess, H. (1997) ‘Responding to non-traditional students: an enquiry and actionlearning approach’, in The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning, 2nd edn, eds D. Boud & G.Feletti, Kogan Page, London.

Tsang, S. (2005) ‘MSW curriculum design and development’, in Problem Based Learning in a SocialWork Context, ed. V. Pearson. Monograph Series No. 53, Department of Social Work andSocial Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Valle, R., Petra, I., Martinez-Gonzalez, A., Rojas-Ramirez, J. A., Morales-Lopez, S. & Pina-Garza, B.(1999) ‘Assessment of student performance in problem-based tutorial sessions’, MedicalEducation, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 818–823.

Walker, A., Bridges, E. & Chan, B. (1996) ‘Wisdom gained, wisdom given: instituting PBL in aChinese culture’, Journal of Educational Administration, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 12–31.

Wong, D. K. P. & Lam, D. O. B. (2005) ‘Problem based learning in the BSW programme: a study oflearning outcomes’, in Problem Based Learning in a Social Work Context, ed. V. Pearson.Monograph Series No. 53, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, TheUniversity of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Wong, D. K. P. & Lam, D. O. B. (2007) ‘Problem based learning in social work: a study of learningoutcomes’, Research in Social Work Practice, vol. 17, pp. 55–65.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Appendix 1: Inventory of PBL Skills

PBL skills Rating of skill

Problem solving skillsN apply a variety of methods and hints 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N prioritize, make lists, tables and sketches 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N assess potential of ideas & options continually 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N plan, anticipate, develop and use a systematic plan 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N keep options open; see different points-of-view, willing

to discard0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

N draw conclusions substantiated by evidence 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Interpersonal and group skills

N enjoy working together 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N give emotional support to each other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N be able to express disagreement or disappointment

directly0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

N be enthusiastic and involved in groups 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N be willing to forego personal goals for the benefit of

the group0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Self-directed, interdependent learning skillsN use various means to teach others effectively 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N set explicit learning objectives 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N consider wide range of learning resources 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N be willing to draw on peers as resources 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N agonize through difficult parts of the subject 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Self-assessment skillsN identify goals for growth 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N convert goals to observable objectives 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N set measurable criteria 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N search for and use both positive and negative feedback 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N make a judgment based on the evidence, criteria,

objectives and goals0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Knowledge building skillsN embed new knowledge by applying it to solve problem 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N link theory to practice 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N relate new applications and use to past experience 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N know the limitations of the knowledge 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10N do not try to learn ‘everything’ when the resources are

not available0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

N be able to identify the next layer of information thatwould be tackled with more resources

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 2

2:46

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

problem based learning in an msw programme: a study of learning outcomes

Documents