1. Effectiveness of Problem-based
Learning Activities in the
Undergraduate Classroom
Lauren M. Dahlquist

2. Origin of Problem-based Learning
• Problem-based learning (PBL) began in 1969 in
McMaster University in Ontario, Canada
• One of McMaster’s authorities on PBL states
that PBL is any learning environment in which
the problem drives the learning, and
motivation for this pedagogical method stems
from the human desire for problem resolution

3. Where is PBL now?
• After the founding of PBL, it spread to several
continents
• PBL is largely focused in graduate schools, more
specifically, in science and pre-health courses
• Research has been conducted on PBL and its
effect on material comprehension, student
collaboration, and critical thinking skills; little
research has been conducted regarding the
effectiveness of PBL

4. Our Role
• We aimed to determine the effectiveness of
PBL exercises in
– Understanding
– Learning retention
– Communication skills
– Inter-personal relationships
• We examined the effectiveness and usefulness
of PBL exercises using pre-health students at
the undergraduate level

5. We hypothesized that students
would gain a greater
understanding of material
presented in the PBL format.

6. Materials and Methods
Students are presented with a pre-test
Students are presented with a problem
Students meet and discuss with peers to
solve the presented problem
Students complete a worksheet dissimilar
to pre- and post-test

7. After meeting, students take a post-test identical
to the pre-test
Students attend didactic lecture session
Surveys are administered
Material retention test administered
30-60 days later
*All post-test scores of PBL were compared with assessments from
material taught via traditional lecture

8. Results of Student Participation by Grade Level
N=91

9. Results of Student Participation by Major
n=91

10. Results
• n=91 (98.9% participation)
• Pre-test average was 31.9% (n=4 PBLs with 98.9%
participation each PBL)
• Post-test average was 90%
• We observed that students had a previous
understanding of common topics (i.e. HIV) and as
a consequence scored higher on pre-tests (50%)
compared with nascent topics (i.e. flow cytometry;
5%)
• Post-test scores were consistently high-no
matter the topic.

11. Figure 1. Student knowledge before (pre-test) and after (post-
test) a problem-based learning activity. Students were given the
same pre- and post-test as a method of discerning knowledge
acquired solely from the PBL activity. Panels A-D are student
performance as measured by average percentage on four PBL
activities. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. A,
PBL on tetanus; B, PBL on Ebola; C, PBL on Human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV); D, PBL on Flow cytometry. A-D
(n=91), E (n=364), and F (n=91)

12. A B
100 100
90 90
% Average
% Average
80 80 p<0.001
70 70
60
p<0.001 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
C 100
D
90 100
90
% Average
80
70 p<0.001 % Average 80
70 p<0.001
60
50 60
40 50
30 40
20 30
10 20
0 10
0
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

13. Results of Material Retention
• Students answered 78.6% (SD = 0.07) of questions on
information taught using PBL correctly on an
assessment 60 days after PBL presentation
• Students answered only 60% of questions on topics
presented in a traditional lecture format correctly
n=91

14. Results of Survey
• 53 students (57.6%) responded to an optional
survey positively about PBL use
• Students enjoyed PBL activities as a
supplement to didactic lecture and lab
• The active participation of students relied
heavily on the active engagement of
facilitators

16. Limitations
• Time required by instructor, including creation
of a PBL exercise
• Logistics such as time and space available
• Will these results be similar with different
courses? With different student majors or
non-majors?

17. Conclusion
The data generated indicate that PBL
exercises are beneficial as a supplement
to traditional lecture in an undergraduate
setting of pre-health students
Now, the authors would like to thank…

18. • The authors thank the Department of Biology at the University
of Nebraska at Omaha for supporting this research project.
• Thanks also to all of the student participants in the study.
• Thanks to Drs. W. Tapprich, C. Rauter, and J. White for insightful
suggestions for the study and the IRB process (IRB 548-12-EX).
• The authors acknowledge the Office of Sponsored Programs at
the University of Nebraska at Omaha for the support with
UCRCA funding (L. Dahlquist).
• This background is provided by The Guardian (2011). The
graphics are provided by Lyles, J. (2012) and The Extension
(2010).
• Thanks to Jamie Knehans, Dr. Abby Stanger, Dakota
Ahrendsen, and Josh Larson for accepting publication of their
photo.