Measuring the Effect of Problem-Based Learning Instructional Program on Reflective Thinking Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at measuring effect of using problem-based learning (PBL) on reflective thinking development for tenth grade students in Jordan schools. The study sample consisted of 70 students divided randomly into two groups; experimental (36) and control (34) students. To collect study data, a reflective thinking test (RTT) was used to measure effect of instructional program on experimental group. The means, standard deviations and One-Way-ANCOVA analysis were calculated to verify significance of differences between means in both groups. The results showed a positive effect of PBL as significantly helpful strategy in promoting students' reflective thinking. While there is more research to be conducted, finding of this study concludes by outlining suggestions for creating an environment that encourages problem-based learning at Jordanian schools. Keywords: Problem-based learning; reflective thinking; solving; learning processes; educational programs; secondary school students. ********** Our schools need to implement learning strategies of modern education to be transformed from its traditional to non-traditional (progressive) role. One of progressive school goals is to develop higher-order thinking and inquiry skills among students to construct effective mental maps or models and paradigms to help them acquire a system of knowledge, skills, values, and applying and developing it to be positive change agents in their communities (Marzano, 1988; Resnick & Hall, 1998; Costa & Kallick, 2000; Duffy, 2009). Problem-based learning (PBL) is considered one of effective strategies that this study tackles and which contribute to development of students cognitive and meta- cognitive thinking skills. The roots of PBL can be traced to progressive movement and cognitive school of psychology, which holds a vision that education is a process that aims at developing strategic learner and teacher. Thus, content and required strategies should be meaningful, integrated, transferable, and developable (Delisle, 1997). Historically, Howard B arrows, a pioneer in development of PBL, first developed strategy in McMaster University in Canada. This strategy was used for enhancing students' abilities in Medicine College to think and deal with health problems in different situations and circumstances. After proving its success in medical field, Barrows's strategy caused a revolution in education (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993). Currently, it is used at nearly most medical colleges worldwide, at schools from K-12, and for training teachers to implement it to help students develop their thinking skills and solve their problems through learning content of school curricula (Delisle, 1997). Barrows and Tamblyn (1980) defined PBL, as the learning that results from process of working toward understanding or solving a problem ( p. 18). That is principle behind PBL. It is a methodology that situates learning in complex and meaningful problems that are framed in authentic contexts (Hmelo, 1994). Students work in small groups to acquire conceptual knowledge and procedural skills needed to develop one or more plausible solutions to each of problems creatively and cooperatively presented to them (Savery & Duffy, 1995; Barrows, 1996; Wee; Kek & Sim, 2001; Cotic & Zuljan, 2009). According to Delisle (1997), using PBL releases a teacher from limitations of school curricula. For a teacher who uses PBL, any incident, whether inside or outside school can formulate an effective PBL problem. There is no limit to variety of purposes behind PBL problems. Teachers can develop problems to address students' interest or lives, curriculum, school and community improvement or to solve interpersonal problems in classroom. Problems can be designed for a particular content area or interdisciplinary curriculum; they can be designed by individual teacher or collaboratively for team teaching. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".