/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

The relationship between learning style and student satisfaction in the Problem Based Learning Dental Program at the University of Southern California

(USC Thesis Other)

The relationship between learning style and student satisfaction in the Problem Based Learning Dental Program at the University of Southern California

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING STYLE AND STUDENT
SATISFACTION IN THE PROBLEM BASED LEARNING DENTAL PROGRAM
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
by
Kyle Erwin
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2008
Copyright 2008 Kyle Erwin
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures iv
Abstract v
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Purpose of the Study 3
Research Questions 4
Overview of the Methodology 4
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 5
Theoretical Framework 5
Constructivism 5
SocioCultural Theory 6
Information Processing Theory 7
Description of Problem Based Learning 8
Facilitator Effect 9
Group Size 11
Group Dynamics 12
Effectiveness of Problem Based Learning 13
Problem Based Learning and Student Satisfaction 16
Problem Based Learning in Dental Education 21
Effectiveness of PBL at USCSD 26
Kolb’s Learning Style 27
Problem Based Learning and Learning Style 28
Chapter 3: Methodology 32
Research Questions 32
Hypothesis 32
Null Hypothesis 33
Sample Selection and Setting 33
Study Design 34
Independent Variable 35
Independent Variable Instrumentation 35
Dependent Variable Instrumentation 37
Data Analysis 38
iii
Chapter 4: Results 39
Effective Dental Professional 39
Collaborate 41
Care for Acute Patients 42
Basic Scientific Principals 44
Effective Communication with Patients 45
Meeting Expectations 47
Acquiring New Knowledge 48
Superior to Traditional Education 50
Major Factor in Choosing USCSD 51
Data Analysis 53
Chapter 5: Discussion 56
Learning Style and Student Satisfaction 56
Self Selection for the PBL Program and Learning Style 56
Highest General Satisfaction and Learning Style 57
Effective Dental Professional 58
Collaborate 58
Care for Acute Patients 59
Basic Scientific Principals 59
Communicate Effectively with Patients 60
Meeting Student Expectations 60
Acquiring Basic Knowledge 61
Superior to Traditional Education 61
Limitations 62
Implications for Future Research 62
References 64
Appendix: Student Satisfaction Survey 67
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Effective Dental Professional 40
Figure 2: Mean Effective Dental Professional 40
Figure 3: Ability to Collaborate 41
Figure 4: Mean Ability to Collaborate 42
Figure 5: Ability to Care for Acute Patients 43
Figure 6: Mean Ability to Care for Acute Patients 43
Figure 7: Basic Scientific Principals 44
Figure 8: Mean Basic Scientific Principals 45
Figure 9: Effective Communication with Patients 46
Figure 10: Mean Effective Communication with Patients 46
Figure 11: PBL is Meeting My Expectations 47
Figure 12: Mean PBL is Meeting My Expectations 48
Figure 13: Ability to Acquire Knowledge 49
Figure 14: Mean Ability to Acquire Knowledge 49
Figure 15: PBL Experiences Better Than Traditional 50
Figure 16: Mean PBL Experiences Better Than Traditional 51
Figure 17: PBL was Reason for Selecting USCSD 52
Figure 18: Mean PBL was Reason for Selecting USCSD 52
v
ABSTACT
146 students enrolled in the Problem Based Learning dental program at the
University of Southern California School of Dentistry completed the Kolb’s
Learning Style Inventory 3 and a Likert scale satisfaction survey. 9 dimensions of
students’ satisfaction were examined including the degree that students believe the
PBL program is adequately preparing them to be successful in their future
professional positions, how prepared students feel they are to work collaboratively
with other professionals, the degree that students feel the program conveys basic
science principles, the degree that students feel small groups help them acquire
knowledge, how satisfied students are with the program’s ability to prepare them for
working with patients in the future, the degree that the program is meeting their
expectations, and how the PBL program compares with past traditional education.
Responses were analyzed to determine if learning style as defined by Kolb’s
Experiential Learning Theory related to satisfaction with the PBL program. Results
showed that no significant relationship existed between learning style and
satisfaction with the PBL program. However, the number of years students
participated in the program was found to have a significant relationship with 8 of the
9 measures of student satisfaction. Medium to low student satisfaction was found
overall.
1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Statement of the Problem
Problem Based Learning was developed as a teaching technique that could
provide students with a meaningful learning experience based on learning theory that
humans construct knowledge through interactions with the environment. Within a
Problem Based Learning (PBL) program, students are formed into small cooperative
groups where they analyze an ill structured, realistic problem. This examination
process involves working with a group facilitator who guides the students through
each step of the process and also acts as a source of information. Students must form
hypotheses about possible solutions, identify their own learning needs, conduct
research to address these needs, reanalyze the problem, and reflect on the process.
Students use each other as a resource during this process through discussions in
regular group sessions where they are encouraged to help and challenge each other’s
views (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Barrows, 1986; Berkson, 1993; Colliver, 2000;
Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels, 2003; Fincham & Shuler, 2000; Vernon
& Blake, 1993).
The cost of implementing a Problem Based Learning program can be
immense due to the complete restructuring of both curriculum and logistics. For
example, each small group requires a meeting space that is conducive to student
interactions and provides access to the necessary resources. Large lecture halls could
2
not serve in this role and would therefore not be usable in a PBL program. Also,
additional trained facilitators are required since most traditional education programs
do not have enough instructors to provide for the numerous small groups. Extensive
curriculum designing and training in PBL techniques is required for all students and
faculty before the program can begin. These many requirements make problem
based learning an expensive endeavor compared to traditional lecture formatted
classes. Many medical programs have converted to full or hybrid PBL programs
with the belief that students will benefit from the changes (Fincham & Shuler, 2000).
However, the research conducted on the effectiveness of Problem Based
Learning programs has been mixed. Many studies show that PBL students perform
as well as students in traditional programs on knowledge assessments but higher on
application measurements. Other research has found PBL students to be slightly
superior on both measures (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Berkson, 1993; Colliver,
2000; Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels, 2003; Fincham & Shuler, 2000;
Vernon & Blake, 1993). Critics of PBL argue that the slight gains in achievement do
not justify the cost of the program (Colliver, 2000). Another dimension of a PBL
program is the effect on student satisfaction, with many studies finding that PBL
students have higher self reported satisfaction ratings than students in traditional
curriculum, yet many students in the studies preferred the traditional formats
(Antepohl, Domeij, Forsberg, & Ludvigsson, 2000; Cunningham, Deal, Neville,
Rimas, & Lohfeld, 2006; Edwards & Hammer, 2006; Prince, Van Ejis, Boshuizen,
Van Der Vleuten, Scherpbier, 2005). Fincham and Shuler (2000) argue that
3
admission into PBL programs should be partly based on student characteristics that
will enable them to be effective in a group discussion setting. One such factor that
may be effecting both PBL student achievement and satisfaction is learning style.
Kolb (1976) defined learning style as a preference to engage in a certain part
of the learning process that includes concrete experiences, abstract conceptualism,
active experimentation, and reflective observation. Students with particular learning
styles may be more successful in a PBL program and feel greater satisfaction than
students with different learning style preferences.   However, few studies have
analyzed PBL students’ achievement or satisfaction within the framework of Kolb’s
learning styles (McParland, Noble, & Livingston, 2004; Smits, Verbeek, Nauta, Ten
Cate, Metz, & Van Dijk, 2004).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship that students’
self reported learning style as defined by Kolb’s (1976) Experiential Learning
Theory has with satisfaction of a Problem Based Learning dental program. It was
anticipated that the results may have influenced educational practitioners by
demonstrating that learning style does relate to student satisfaction and it may be
advantageous to assess potential PBL students’ learning style preference as an
admissions criterion. Also, this study will add to the body of academic knowledge
concerning the relationship that learning styles have with a PBL program, which has
rarely been investigated by empirical research.
4
Research Questions
1. Does learning style as defined by Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory relate
to student satisfaction of a Problem Based Learning dental program?
2. Do dental students who self select to attend a Problem Based Learning
program have similar learning styles as defined by Kolb’s Experiential
Learning Theory?
3. What learning styles are students who are greatly satisfied with a Problem
Based Learning dental program most likely to exhibit?
Overview of the Methodology
The research questions of the study were answered by evaluating current
students at the University of Southern California School of Dentistry for both
learning style and satisfaction with the Problem Based Learning program. Learning
style was assessed with the LSI3, a revised form of Kolb’s original learning style
assessment that has been redesigned for increased reliability and validity (Kayes,
2005; Cassidy, 2004; Chapman & Calhoun, 2006). Student satisfaction was assessed
with a likert scale questionnaire based on those used by Antepohl, Domeij, Forsberg,
& Ludvigsson (2003) and Haghparast, Sedghizadeh, Shuler, Ferati & Christersson
(2007). Results of the study were achieved by using SPSS to statistically analyze the
data using multiple regression techniques.
5
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Theoretical Framework
Constructivism. Problem Based Learning arose from constructivism learning
theory that argues individuals learn by actively constructing knowledge. According
to Piaget (1954, 1970), people develop their cognitive capacities due to the factors of
biological maturation, activity, social experiences, and equilibrium. Biological
maturation refers to the development of genetically programmed characteristics that
are not impacted by people in the environment. Activity refers to interactions with
the physical environment where a child can learn and experiment with basic concepts
in order to make sense of the world. Social experiences refer to the process of social
transmission where individuals learn concepts directly from others without the need
to experience the event first hand. This also depends on the individual’s level of
cognitive development (Woolfolk, 2004).
The final factor of equilibrium refers to the tendency of humans to organize
information about the world into coherent systems of knowledge called schemes.
Schemes are the mental representations of the physical world and how to interact
with the world. Schemes can represent specific objects or complex procedures.
Once schemes are established, an individual continues to learn new ideas by either
assimilating the new information into old schemes by making the new knowledge fit
into the old scheme, which can sometimes distort the ideas, or by augmenting
existing schemes to fit new information. People may also experience input that
6
is nothing like existing schemes and will most likely ignore the new information.
The drive in humans for equilibrium involves first attempting to assimilate new
information into existing schemes and if unsuccessful, trying to accommodate
schemes to make sense of the new knowledge. Throughout this process the
individual is an active participant in the construction of the new knowledge by
constantly attempting to make sense of new experiences. Interactions with peers and
teachers become a primary method of creating and resolving disequilibrium and
continuing the learning process (Piaget, 1954, 1970; Woolfolk, 2004).
SocioCultural Theory. Vygotsky (1978) provides another way of
understanding knowledge acquisition of humans that also involves active
construction of knowledge, but unlike Piaget, this construction occurs within social
and cultural settings where knowledge is coconstructed between student and teacher
(Woolfolk, 2004). In this theory of learning, called Sociocultural Theory,
knowledge first appears between two people through interactions that later become
internalized to form individual knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Language and
interactions therefore become a critical component of learning. Tharpe and
Gallimore (1988) explain the process in an example of a child losing a toy and her
father helping her to find it. The child first requests aid from the father to locate the
toy and the father asks her a series of questions about possible locations. After
several inquiries and responses, the child decides to look in a specific place. The
knowledge of the toy’s location was created by both individuals through linguistic
interactions. However, the child may eventually internalize the strategy of
7
questioning to help her find missing items in the future without the aid of her father.
In this way, teachers coconstruct higher level knowledge and reasoning skills with
students that can eventually be internalized through self talk. Language is the critical
cultural tool that allows students to make sense of new information that is co
constructed with teachers or peers and internalize it (Woolfolk, 2006).
Both Piaget and Vygotsky believed that knowledge is socially constructed
through interactions with other people in the environment. The critical difference
lies in Piaget’s belief that students cannot learn certain higher level concepts until
they have reached a certain level of cognitive development determined by biological
factors, while Vygotsky asserted that the construction of knowledge lead cognitive
development. Also, Piaget placed greater importance on interacting with peers since
they are more likely to be on the same developmental level while Vygotsky felt that
interactions with more knowledgeable teachers was critical for developing more
sophisticated thought processes (Woolfolk, 2006).
Information Processing Theory. According to Bruning, Schraw, Norby, and
Ronning (2004) Information Processing Theory offers another interpretation of how
knowledge is constructed through interactions with the environment. In this modal
model of intelligence, human memory is viewed as three distinct components which
are the sensory memory, working memory, and long term memory.   Sensory
memory is the structure that takes in information from the environment through
human senses and only retains the information for a few seconds. To further analyze
the information, an individual must place their conscious attention on the
8
stimuli in the sensory memory before it is lost. Individuals usually place attention on
stimuli that their previous experiences or affective filter deem meaningful or
interesting. Once attention has been placed on the stimuli the information is moved
to the working memory. This mental structure is where previous knowledge is
activated from the long term memory in order to assign meaning to the new
information. The new information is connected with prior knowledge in order to
draw the new data into the long term memory. Information not elaborated into the
long term memory is lost after a short time unless rehearsal strategies are used.
There are many strategies that aid learners in the process of recalling prior
knowledge, elaborating prior knowledge, and analyzing their own learning.
Description of Problem Based Learning
Fincham and Shuler (2000) describe Problem Based Learning as a specific
instructional technique outlined by Barrows (1986) that follows constructivist
principals by focusing on gaining knowledge through small group interactions that
attempt to solve a real world problem. Many academic institutions attempt to use
PBL in various forms that include the critical attributes of presenting an ill structured
real world problem based on specific learning objectives, facilitated small group
sessions that analyze the problem, and student reflections on the process. Fincham
and Shuler (2000) go on to include mandatory attendance, use of charts, out loud
thinking processes, strict adherence to all components of the PBL learning process,
9
regular self evaluations, and facilitators refraining from contributing factual
information to students as critical aspects of successful Problem Based Learning.
The PBL process includes many specific steps that make it a distinct learning
technique with critical differences from other constructivism based techniques. First,
students are separated into small learning groups of usually 812 students. The
students are then presented with a problem that is realistic and ill structured but
designed to trigger knowledge acquisition that reaches specific learning objectives.
Next, the students discuss the problem presented to them by questioning the
facilitator for further information in order to begin formulating possible solutions or
ideas that will lead to solutions. Students then identify learning issues or questions
that must be researched in order to further refine and test the hypothesis. The group
members also create a method to gather the additional information called an action
plan. These ideas are recorded on and used throughout the group sessions as a
reference for reflection and planning. After students complete independent research
to resolve the learning issues that the group identified, the process is continued in
further sessions where members question or challenge each other in an attempt to
reach a solution. It is important to note that PBL problems do not necessarily have
one specific correct solution. Once the PBL process is complete, the students must
complete a reflection of their learning during the process (Fincham and Shuler,
2000).
Facilitator Effect. Gilkison (2003) conducted a study that analyzed how
facilitator expertise influenced the PBL process. The sample included 2 PBL
10
groups at the University of Liverpool Faculty of Medicine. The facilitators for each
group had almost identical experience and training with the PBL program at the
university but differed greatly in background experiences. One facilitator had
worked in the health care system and possessed a large amount of medical content
knowledge. The second facilitator had a background in humanities and little content
expertise in the medical field. The researchers sought to use a mixed method
approach to analyzing the PBL sessions of each facilitator which included analyzing
the frequency and type of interactions that occurred as well as the impact these
interactions had on students through semi structured interviews. Specifically, each
session was observed and audio taped in order to determine the exact amount and
type of facilitator or student interaction. To determine how these interactions
impacted the groups, the researchers recorded their own observations during the
sessions and interviewed both the students and facilitators after each session. The
results of the study found that the facilitator with a medical background made
statements more than twice as frequently as the facilitator with the humanities
background. However, the types of interactions remained consistent for both groups
with the majority being questions to guide the group discussion. The researchers
also found a distinct difference in the purpose and impact of the facilitators’
questions. The facilitator with medical background sought to help the students
consider alternative ideas that were not being discussed, while the facilitator with the
humanities background focused on keeping the discussion focused on the course
objectives. It was noted that the humanities facilitator made it clear to the
11
students that they would have to question each other since she did not have the
expertise to know if the students’ responses were correct. Both facilitator
approaches were valued by the students and seen as beneficial in the PBL process.
Group Size. Lohman and Finkelstein (2000) conducted a study of 72 dental
school students to determine the effect that group size plays in the effectiveness of
Problem Based Learning. Every student was enrolled in a pathology course that
utilized PBL throughout the course. The subjects were randomly assigned to groups
ranging in size from small groups of 3 students, medium groups of 6 students and
large groups of 9 students. PBL facilitators were also randomly assigned to the
various groups and completed identical facilitator training. The researchers sought
to analyze the effect of the various group sizes on the dependent variables of
technical knowledge, problem solving, and self directedness. A pre/post test design
was used to measure changes in each of these variables. Technical knowledge was
measured by two forms of a 16 item multiple choice assessment, problem solving
was measured by the course’s case study assessments, and self directedness was
measured by a 58 item self report questionnaire. The results of the study found that
no significant difference existed between the various groups in terms of new
technical knowledge, or problem solving skills. However, significant differences in
self directedness were found between small/medium groups and large groups. Also,
small and medium groups reported more positive impressions of the PBL process on
course reflection questionnaires.
12
Group Dynamics. Das Carlo, Swadi, and Mpofu (2003), conducted a study
with 115 medical students in the United Arab Emirates who completed PBL courses.
The researchers sought to understand what these students perceived the effect of
motivation, cohesion, sponging, withdrawal, interaction, and elaboration had on their
groups’ productivity. The Participants of the study included 81 women and 34 men
who completed a course designed to prepare them for the realities of the health care
system. The students were assigned into groups randomly but the medical school’s
policy prohibited men and women from attending the same classes. Therefore the
final PBL groups consisted of 4 groups of women and 2 groups of men, with 810
members in each group. All the students were given a 2 week introduction to
Problem Based Learning before beginning the 4 part course. During each of the 4
sections of the courses, the students worked with a different facilitator who rotated
through the groups after each section was completed. Once each section was
completed, the students filled out a productivity survey. This instrument consisted of
13 likert scale questions that analyzed student perspectives on the groups’
motivation, cohesion, sponging, withdrawal, interaction, and elaboration. The group
facilitators also completed a questionnaire about the interactions that they observed
during the group sessions.
The results of the study showed statistically significant positive correlations
between high self reported motivation, interaction, and elaboration and high self
reported overall productivity. The study also found significant negative correlations
between self reported overall productivity and sponging, relying on other group
13
members to complete tasks. However, the study did not find a significant
relationship between overall productivity and withdrawal from participation (Das
Carlo, Swadi, and Mpofu, 2003).
Effectiveness of Problem Based Learning
Three meta studies in 1993 analyzed the effectiveness of Problem Based
Learning curriculum compared to traditional lecture based classes. First, Albanese
and Mitchell (1993) found that students who were enrolled in PBL courses enjoyed
the experience more often than students in lecture based classes. Also, PBL students
scored higher on clinical exams compared to lecture tract students but PBL students
scored lower on knowledge assessments. Vernon and Blake (1993) found similar
results in a meta analysis of PBL medical programs, with PBL students reporting
positive opinions about the course more often than students in traditional classes.
The results also found that PBL students scored higher on tests of clinical application
and were not significantly different on measures of medical knowledge. Berkson
(1993) performed yet another analysis to determine the effectiveness of PBL
curriculum compared to traditional formats and found no significant differences on
several measures of students performance including: problem solving, motivation to
learn, self directed learning, student satisfaction, conveying knowledge, and
monetary costs.
Colliver (2000) continued to analyze the effectiveness of Problem Based
Learning compared to traditional educational formats by critiquing the three
previously mentioned reviews and completing a new analysis of PBL versus
14
traditional instruction studies published between 1992 and 1998. Colliver (2000)
closely examined the effect sizes of studies within Vernon and Blake’s (1993)
analysis to demonstrate the small effect that PBL was shown to have on clinical
knowledge and application measures as well as the moderate effect size on student
satisfaction. He argues that the cost of Problem Based Learning and theoretical
underpinnings promise extremely high impact on student performance that should be
at least half as effective as one on one tutoring. He also points out that most of the
studies in the meta analysis were nonrandomized with students who had higher past
academic assessment scores self selecting to be placed in PBL classes, which makes
conclusions about knowledge gains extremely difficult. Colliver (2000) continues to
show similar results in more recent studies with randomized samples showing no
difference on achievement measures and only a few nonrandomized studies
showing superior results for the PBL curriculum. These results are considered to be
unreliable since they emerged from self selected sample groups and had only
moderate effect sizes.
Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, and Gijbels (2003) conducted a meta
analysis of studies that examined the effectiveness of Problem Based Learning
compared to traditional teaching techniques in non medical school classroom
settings. The study specifically examined knowledge and skill acquisition as well as
potential moderating variables including methodological structures, students’
expertise levels, retention periods, and the type of assessments used. The results of
the study found that participation in PBL classes had a significantly positive
15
effective on students’ skills but a negative effect was found on student knowledge,
although this result may have been caused by outlier studies. It was also found that
students’ level of expertise was a factor in assessments of students’ knowledge and
skills. In addition, the researchers found that as the efficacy of skills assessments
increased the positive effects of PBL participation on knowledge application
increased.
Based on these findings, Gijbels, Dochy, Segers, and Van den Bossche,
(2005) conducted a meta analysis that sought to determine the effect that assessment
methods had on findings of Problem Based Learning programs’ outcomes. The
researchers examined 41 studies that compared PBL student achievement with
achievement scores from students in traditional formatted classes. Each of the
studies’ assessments was coded to determine the type of assessment being used,
including the understanding of basic knowledge concepts, the principles that connect
the knowledge concepts, and the application of the knowledge in practical settings.
31 studies presented data using basic knowledge concept assessments, 17 studies
used data from assessments of concept linking knowledge principles, and 8 studies
utilized data from knowledge application assessments. The results of the meta
analysis found that only the findings from the concept linking and knowledge
application assessments were statistically significant at the .05 level. The analysis of
basic knowledge concept assessments did show PBL to have a small negative effect
but again this did not meet significance. All but one of the results from assessments
of principles that link knowledge concepts showed positive relationships with
16
PBL participation at a significant level. Also, every assessment of knowledge
application displayed a significant positive relationship with PBL techniques. The
researchers conclude that PBL courses will show greater positive effect sizes when
compared to traditional formatted courses if assessments include all three levels of
knowledge.
Problem Based Learning and Student Satisfaction
Cunningham, Deal, Neville, Rimas, and Lohfeld (2006) conducted a mixed
method study of McMaster’s University medical school students’ satisfaction with
PBL curriculum. First, researchers led a focus group that involved current medical
students, graduates of the medical program, administrators, and faculty with a total
of 21 individuals participating in the group. The focus group communicated through
a computer interface where possible improvements to the medical program were
presented. The group members created possible program improvement techniques
and then rated the various improvement suggestions for satisfaction and perceived
possible effectiveness. These responses were summarized into broad categories
which were then used to create the student questionnaire. Next, all medical students
were invited to complete the program improvement questionnaire through email
with 44% of the population completing the survey for a total of 254 participants.
The results of the study found that students significantly favored the use of small
group PBL sessions over large group lecture classes. They also significantly favored
small group tutors who had both content knowledge and facilitator abilities.
17
Prince, Van Ejis, Boshuizen, Van Der Vleuten, Scherpbier (2005) also
investigated student satisfaction with PBL curriculum. The researchers analyzed self
reporting surveys of 1159 Dutch doctors 18 months after graduation, with 239
participants who graduated from a PBL program.   The data was taken from
questionnaires administered by the government to all graduated physicians by
extracting answers that related to the research study. These responses reported the
degree to which the doctors felt their training program had prepared them for the
work place as well as their perception of the overall medical program quality. The
results of the study found that graduates from PBL programs rated the overall quality
of their medical training program significantly higher than students from traditional
formatted programs. However, there was no significant difference between ratings
of how well the medical programs connected with demands of the work place. A
significantly higher portion of PBL graduates compared to traditional students
reported that they learned the necessary communication and team work skills in their
medical program.
Further investigation into students’ satisfaction with PBL curriculum was
conducted by Antepohl, Domeij, Forsberg, and Ludvigsson (2003). The researchers
collected self reported data from 336 graduates of a PBL undergraduate program
from the Faculty of Health Science at Linkoping University. The survey questioned
their satisfaction with the PBL program with regards to their current work demands.
Specific questions asked graduates to rate their preparedness to collaborate with
other professionals, communicate with patients, develop critical thinking skills,
18
and take care of acute patients. The results of the study found that on a 05 Likert
scale with 0 corresponding to low satisfaction and 5 corresponding to high
satisfaction, the mean satisfaction rating was 4.2. However, the mean score former
students rated their preparedness to take care of acute patients was only 2.9.
Edwards and Hammer (2006) sought to examine student satisfaction in a PBL
teacher training program. The study consisted of 85 2
nd
and 3
rd
year Australian
Education students who participated in a course that utilized PBL techniques. The
students were randomly assigned into groups of 5 and a perspective from which to
analyze the problem. This problem came in the form of weekly narratives about a
fictional child. The students were instructed to use provided resources to create a
presentation about their understanding of the problems from their assigned
perspective. The students presented ideas to each other and worked together to
analyze the problem from the various perspectives. Once the discussions were
completed, the students summarized their experiences in a reflective essay. The
researchers collected data on student perceptions about the PBL process through a
likert scale questionnaire that also included open ended qualitative questions that
probed the students’ attitudes towards the course. The results of the study showed
that of the 67% of the students who completed the survey, the average student
strongly agreed that the course helped them understand educational theory and
prepared them for real world experiences. Many of the comments from the
qualitative questions completed by 49% of the students were similar with statements
19
that professed a strong belief that the PBL experience helped them understand the
theory by placing it within a real world context.
ChanLin and Chan (2004), analyzed students’ perceptions of learning
effectiveness during a webbased course that utilized a problem based learning
approach. The study examined a drug nutrient interactions course that contained 56
college students studying to become nutritionists. The course was designed to
integrate the structures of Problem Based Learning into an electronic web based
format. Students were placed into groups of 5 or 6 people according to the type of
case they were interested in analyzing. Once grouped, the participants used an online
discussion forum in order to work collectively to complete assignments, conduct
research, and complete a final report on their case. A student who had taken the
course in the past acted as an online facilitator to monitor the students’ interactions
and help guide their investigation in a similar manner as other PBL facilitators. The
student groups also met in person to discuss research and assign the members with
different tasks. Once the course was completed, the students were administered a 5
point Likert questionnaire to discover their perception of the effectiveness of the
course. The results showed that all students held a belief that the PBL structure of
the course was a benefit to their learning. However, the results also showed that
students did not favor the online discussion board with the same magnitude as other
components of the course, which lead researchers to believe that students preferred
inperson group meetings. The students also displayed a belief that the task oriented
nature of the PBL structure facilitated learning of the content as well as helped
20
develop the problem solving skills necessary to transfer that knowledge to new areas
of study. The researchers also noted that the web based format allowed for greater
tracking of student progress and interactions but personal meeting times seemed to
be critical in order to clarify many aspects of the Problem Based Learning process.
Haghparast, Sedghizadeh, Shuler, Ferati and Christersson (2007) conducted a
study that compared students’ satisfaction with a problem based learning dental
program at the University of Southern California and University of Malmo in
Sweden. The researchers sought to find out whether satisfaction ratings would be
different due the cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences between the two student
populations. To accomplish this, students at both universities were presented with
satisfaction questionnaires that contained both multiple choice and open ended
questions. At the University of Malmo, 25% of second year students and 61% of
fifth year students responded. At the University of Southern California, 65% of
second year students, 42% of third year students, and 60% of fourth year students
responded. The survey questions probed: how students felt overall about the PBL
program, was it meeting their expectations, how they feel about small group work,
how they felt about the PBL program compared with traditional classes, and whether
students felt the program needed additional lectures.
The results of the study found that there was no statistically significant
difference between students’ perceptions of the PBL program at the University of
Southern California and the University of Malmo. The researchers found that the
majority of students were satisfied with the PBL programs and noted specific
21
benefits of the programs that centered on increased clinical experiences, stimulation
of critical thinking, and beneficial peer/team interactions. However, those students
also noted many disadvantages to the programs, such as a lack of support to ensure
that groups had identified the appropriate learning issues, doubt of whether groups
were using the best research sources to acquire knowledge, and dealing with
dysfunctional group members. Interestingly, the results also showed that the
majority of students in both PBL programs felt that increased lectures would be
beneficial. The researchers note that the small sample size of the study does not
permit these findings to be viewed as generalizable conclusions, but offers the data
as a means to expand the lacking body of research on student satisfaction of PBL
dental programs (Haghparast, Sedghizadeh, Shuler, Ferati & Christersson, 2007).
Problem Based Learning in Dental Education
Finchman and Shuler (2001) discuss the use of Problem Based Learning in
dental education and the benefits that PBL can bring compared to traditional dental
school curriculum. These benefits include: enhanced clinical reasoning, increased
technical knowledge, time for reflection of knowledge acquisition, helping students
understand the value of clinical knowledge, clinical application skills are seen as an
integrated part of discrete knowledge acquisition, increased emphasis on patient
interactions, increased emphasis on student responsibly for their own learning,
emphasis on working within a team, and higher student satisfaction. Several dental
schools have attempted to integrate PBL into existing curriculum in a hybrid model
that includes PBL courses or modules along with traditional formatted courses,
22
while a few schools have fully implemented PBL into all aspects of the dental
curriculum. The University of Southern California is one of these institutions with
students completing all dental course work in a PBL setting.
According to Finchman and Shuler (2001), in order to accomplish this
integration many difficulties must be overcome before the benefits of PBL are
realized. First, it may be beneficial to place special attention to the type of students
admitted into the program. PBL students must be able to function effectively within
groups in order for PBL to be most effective. This may be accomplished through the
use of introductory PBL sessions where potential students can gain first hand
experience into the PBL process in order to determine if they will be able to meet the
demands of effective group interactions. Another possible strategy is to have
potential students watch PBL sessions of current dental students to see what the
group learning process actually entails. Another challenge when implementing a
PBL curriculum is scheduling the appropriate amount of study time for students. In
many traditional curriculum formats all course time is taken up with activities or
lectures but PBL requires students to have considerable time to research their
learning needs in order to continue the problem solving process.
Finchman and Shuler (2001) outline yet another difficulty that must be
overcome when implementing a PBL dental program which is incorporating
psychomotor clinical skill objectives into the curriculum that can be accomplished by
using group members and experts in the fields as resources to solve problems that
require the application of procedural clinical skills. For example, at USC
23
students participate in a presession before any preclinical activities where the
faculty member acts as an expert resource to help students review the learning
objectives, the procedures to be used, and the patient history that was analyzed
through the prior PBL sessions. The facultyfacilitator then leads the students’
through the session where students further master clinical skills. After preclinical
sessions, students’ performances are recorded into a database to track the growth of
their skills. Once preclinical sessions are completed the students engage in another
group session to further reflect on the learning that occurred and identify additional
learning deficiencies that need to be addressed. This is the same process as all other
non clinical PBL problems. Furthermore, students at USC are placed in multi year
groups for clinical exercises with 1
st
, 2
nd
, 3
rd
, and 4
th
year students working together
to determine the best method of care for individual patients, and with the 4
th
year
students acting as coordinators in a similar fashion as resident physicians and faculty
members acting in the same function as attendant doctors.
Finchman and Shuler (2001) also discuss practical issues when converting a
traditional dental school curriculum into a PBL program. First, the faculty must be
retrained in the role of a facilitator which is quite different from the ordinary role as
instructor or lecturer. Many faculty members may rebel against this new role and
need extra time or training in order to adjust to the new methodology. There will
also be a need to train additional facilitators since the number of faculty members
may not be sufficient to create the number of small groups that a PBL program
requires. Physical meeting space also becomes an issue when converting to a
24
PBL curriculum since the numerous small groups requires meeting rooms that
facilitate group interactions, and many universities lecture rooms designed to seat
large numbers of students around a central speaker will not be sufficient. This may
mean costly remodeling to convert these spaces to small rooms where groups of 68
students can meet.
Rich, Keim, and Shuler (2005) describe the daily procedures of the PBL
dental program at the University of Southern California as it existed in 2002 after the
transition to a full PBL had begun. During a preclinical trimester, the PBL students
engaged in daily pre and post preclinical sessions modeled after the authentic
Problem Based Learning methodology described by Fincham and Shuler (2000).
The topics of these sessions are determined by daily learning goals supplied to small
groups through facilitators or email announcements.   While in presession the
students are presented an example case concerning a patient whose medical needs
mirror the course objectives. Then, through group interactions the students identify
the facts that exist in the case, their ideas about resolving the medical issues, and the
learning needs they must address. Finally, the students record their personal learning
objectives on the daily evaluation form based on the case analysis and the daily
objectives that were supplied to them at the beginning of the session. One student in
the group is responsible for accurately recording the proceedings and emailing the
group members a complete record of the group discussions and assignments to
resolve the learning needs. The students spend the next week researching the
identified learning needs and create a report to share with the group during the
25
next presession. Quizzes may be presented at the next presession but are only for
reflective purposes.
Rich, Keim, and Shuler (2005) go on to describe the preclinical sessions that
take place after students have analyzed the mini case during the presession. Staying
with the same small group members, the students practice the clinical skills
identified in the daily learning objectives from the presession. The students use the
instructor as a resource to demonstrate proper technique and answer questions.
Students also have access to videos that demonstrate the clinical procedures. During
these preclinical sessions the instructor provides evaluative feedback to the students
so they may monitor their progress with a formal evaluation of preclinical skills
occurring at the middle and end of the trimester.
After each preclinical session, the small groups meet for a post conference to
determine if the personal daily learning objectives recorded on the daily evaluation
log during the presession had been reached. The students are responsible for
probing their performance and carefully considering what learning issues they still
need to resolve. The group facilitator helps prompt this questioning process but
allows students to generate the ideas. The students also have the opportunity to
reflect on the performance of the instructor/facilitator as well. These reflections are
recorded on the daily evaluation forms and turned in to the central office as part of
the overall course evaluation (Rich, Keim, and Shuler, 2005).
26
Effectiveness of PBL at USCSD
Finchman and Shuler (2001) report that the 12 students in the PBL pilot
program at the school of dentistry scored significantly higher than USC dental
students in the traditional track courses on part I of the National Dental Board
Examination. Furthermore, the 48 students who participated in the fully
implemented PBL program scored slightly better at a significant level on the part I
National Dental Board Examination than the mean score of past USC dental students
who completed the traditional curriculum.
Rich, Keim, and Shuler (2005) conducted a study that compared students in
the Problem Based Learning program with students who were in the traditional
dental program at USC. The study utilized data from the objective structured clinical
examinations (OSCE) and the periodontics performance evaluation. The OSCE
consisted of two examinations during the preclinical trimester that required students
to perform procedures on a mock patient. The periodontics performance evaluation
occurred during clinical sessions and required students to conduct procedures on
dental patients. Scores for the traditional program classes of 2003 and 2004 were
compared with scores from the PBL classes of 2005 and 2006. The results of the
study found that the PBL and traditional students’ test scores on the preclinical
OSCE midterm and final exams were significantly different. However, the scores on
the clinical examination were not significantly different. On average, the PBL
students scored higher on both the preclinical midterm and final evaluations, but the
differences between the means of the PBL program and the traditional program
27
was less than 3 points. The researchers note this causes some doubt about the
educational significance of the difference in performance.
Kolb’s Learning Style
The concept of learning style has many definitions and is often
interchangeably used with learning preferences or cognitive styles, with many
theorists making distinctions between the three according to their own learning
theories (Cassidy, 2004). Kolb (1976) describes a four stage learning cycle where
students’ learning preferences will cause them to complete some components of the
process better than others. The four stages of this learning cycle include concrete
experiences where the students learn through direct experience, abstract
conceptualism where students learn through abstract theoretical understanding,
active experimentation where students attempt many solutions in order to gain
knowledge, and reflective observation where students contemplate many possible
solutions before engaging in other learning processes. The 4 part learning process
can be divided into two dimensions of learning that include the prehension
dimension where knowledge is pulled from experience and the transformation
dimension where the new knowledge is processed. During the prehension dimension
where students attempt to gain new knowledge, they move through the concrete
experience stage or abstract conceptualism stage. During the transformation
dimension where students attempt to process the information, they move through the
active experimentation and reflective observation stages. According to Kolb’s
(1976) theory, students regularly participate in all stages of learning but have a
28
preference about which stages to use during the learning process. The stage of
learning a student prefers to engage in, determines his/her individual learning style.
The learner who prefers concrete experience and active experimentations is labeled
an accommodator. These learners seek hands on learning and often quickly engage
in learning activities (Cassidy, 2004). Other learners who prefer to use abstract
theoretical thinking to help guide active experimentations are called converger.
These learners base their strategies of experimentation on the abstract understanding
of the subject. The next type of leaner, called a diverger, prefers to utilize reflective
observations with concrete experience. Divergers have the potential to be the most
creative due to their tendency to create multiple possible solutions for a given
problem.   The remaining learning style preference connects reflective observation
with abstract conceptualism. These learners, called assimilators, prefer to reflect on
previously created solutions in order to further improve the ideas (Cassidy, 2004).
Problem Based Learning and Learning style
It has been proposed that students who exhibit certain learning styles may
find greater satisfaction and academic achievement in a PBL medical program than
other students (Chapman and Calhoun, 2006). This hypothesis was investigated by
Smits, Verbeek, Nauta, Ten Cate, Metz, and Van Dijk (2004) in a study of 118
doctors who participated in a specialist medical training program. The researchers
used a prepost test design that measured both knowledge and performance 3 months
before the training, just before the training, after the training, and over 12 months
after the training. Knowledge was measured using an 80 item assessment that
29
included 70 true/false responses and 10 short answer responses. The internal
constancy of this measure was found to be low but satisfactory for the purposes of
the study. Performance was measured using 12 indicators based on the objectives of
the training. These indicators were compared with case reports provided by the
doctor participants before and after the training session, which were graded as met,
not met, or incompatible. The validity of these indicators was assumed to be
sufficient since they were approved by the training designers and similar to
indicators used by other researchers who measured similar constructs with sufficient
validity levels.
Half of the doctors were randomly assigned to a short 4 PBL learning
program while the rest of the doctors participated in more traditional lecture based
instruction. In addition, the doctors’ learning style was measured using Kolb’s LSI1
3 months prior to the training program. 40% of the doctors were classified as
assimilators who preferred abstract and reflective approaches to learning. Other
learning styles were not evenly distributed across the sample population. The results
of the study found that learning style significantly impacted knowledge acquisition
when the type of training program was used as a covariate in an ANOVA analysis.
Doctors who had active and concrete learning style scored lowest on the knowledge
assessment. The placement in a PBL classroom was not a significant covariate for
knowledge gains. The opposite was found when examining the performance
outcome, with PBL groups scoring significantly higher than traditional lecture
groups but learning style was not found to be a significant factor. Learning
30
style did not interact with placement in either the PBL or lecture training groups
(Smits, Verbeek, Nauta, Ten Cate, Metz, and Van Dijk, 2004).
McParland, Noble, and Livingston (2004) conducted a similar study
involving 379 British clinical psychiatry students with 188 students participating in a
traditional lecture based curriculum and 191 students in a PBL program. The
participants were assessed for learning style using the 28 item Study Process
Questionnaire that measures individual tendency to use surface, deep or strategic
learning. Students were assessed for attitudes toward psychiatry using the 30 item
Attitudes to Psychiatry Scale that examines individuals’ attitudes towards patients,
illness, treatment, psychiatrists, psychiatric institutions, teaching, knowledge, and
career choice. Student achievement was assessed by examining scores on the MCQ
a 125 item true/false test. Scores on an interview assessment were also used to
measure achievement which consisted of students presented with a recent clinical
case and answered questions concerning the case. Answers were analyzed for
correctness by 2 examiners to determine a total score. The examiners did not instruct
the students during the training process and any disagreements between the
examiners were taken to a larger committee for further discussion. There were also
no significant differences between demographic characteristics of the participating
students.
The results of the study found that students in the PBL curriculum scored
significantly better than students in the traditional lecture based format, however
there were no significant differences between the two instructional groups on
31
students who passed the achievement tests. Attitudes toward psychiatry were found
to significantly improve after the training was complete but no significant difference
in attitudes between the PBL and traditional groups, both before and after completing
the curriculums was evident. This improvement in attitude did not correlate with
achievement scores on the achievement tests. Learning styles did not change during
the course of the study for either students in the PBL or the traditional classes. There
was a significant correlation between academic achievement and use of strategic
learning styles on both achievement measures but the effect size was very low
(McParland, Noble, and Livingston, 2004).
32
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Research Questions
1. Does learning style as defined by Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory relate
to student satisfaction of a Problem Based Learning dental program?
2. Do dental students who self select to attend a Problem Based Learning
program have similar learning styles as defined by Kolb’s Experiential
Learning Theory?
3. What learning styles are students who are greatly satisfied with a Problem
Based Learning dental program most likely to exhibit?
Hypothesis
It was hypothesized that students who exhibit high satisfaction with the
Problem Based Learning dental program would share a certain learning style as
defined by Kolb’s (1976) Experiential Learning Theory and measured by the LSI3.
Also, dental students who self selected to attend a Problem Based Learning dental
program would share the same or similar learning style as defined by Kolb’s (1976)
Experiential Learning Theory. Finally, it was hypothesized that students who were
generally satisfied with a Problem Based Learning dental program would most likely
be found to exhibit Kolb’s (1976) learning style of accommodator or diverger due to
their preference for concrete rather than abstract learning.
33
Null Hypothesis
The null hypothesis of the study was that there would be no statistically
significant relationship between dental students’ satisfaction with a Problem Based
Learning program and their learning style as defined by Kolb’s (1976) Experiential
Learning Theory and measured by the LSI3. Also, students who self selected to
attend a Problem Based Learning dental program do not share the same or similar
learning style as defined by Kolb’s (1976) Experiential Learning Theory. Finally,
students who are generally satisfied with a Problem Based Learning dental program
do not share the same or similar learning style as defined by Kolb’s (1976)
Experiential Learning Theory.
Sample Selection and Setting
The study examined 146 current dental school students at the USC School of
dentistry who participate in a fully integrated Problem Based Learning program.
These particular dental school students were selected due to the fact that the
University of Southern California School of Dentistry is one of the few dental
schools in the world that use a fully implemented PBL program (Fincham and
Shuler, 2000). Fincham and Shuler (2000) describe the USC Problem Based
Learning as a specific instructional technique outlined by Barrows (1986) that
focuses on gaining knowledge through small group interactions that attempt to solve
a real world problem. Many academic institutions attempt to use PBL in various
forms that include the critical attributes of presenting an ill structured real world
problem based on specific learning objectives, facilitated small group sessions
34
that analyze the problem, and student reflections on the process. Fincham and Shuler
(2000) go on to include mandatory attendance, use of charts, out loud thinking
processes, strict adherence to all components of the PBL learning process, regular
self evaluations, and facilitators refraining from contributing factual information to
students as critical aspects of successful Problem Based Learning.
Study Design
The study compared current University of Southern California Dental School
students’ learning style with their satisfaction of the Problem Based Learning
program. To accomplish this, a convenience sample of 182 students with 1 semester
or 2 years of experience in the program anonymously completed both the LSI3 to
determine the students’ learning style as defined by Kolb’s (1976) Experiential
Learning Theory and a PBL program satisfaction survey based on those used by
Antepohl, Domeij, Forsberg, & Ludvigsson (2003) and Haghparast, Sedghizadeh,
Shuler, Ferati & Christersson (2007). 36 surveys were unable to be part of the
analysis due to student errors within the LSI3 instrument, which resulted in a total
of 146 student responses. 89 of these students indicated they were in their first year
of dental school and the PBL program. 55 students indicated they had completed
two years in the program and were currently in their 3
rd
year. All participants
completed both instruments on the same occasion but 2 failed to indicate their year
in the program. Once these instruments were completed, students were classified as
one of the four types of learners outlined by Kolb’s (1976) Experiential Learning
Theory and assigned satisfaction ratings based on their satisfaction survey
35
scores. This data was statistically analyzed to find significant relationships and
intervening variables.
Independent variable. The study analyzed the independent variable of
learning style as defined by Kolb (1976). As stated earlier, Kolb (1976) describes a
four stage learning cycle where students’ learning preferences will cause them to
complete some components of the process better than others. Students were
categorized as having one of the four learning styles as outlined in Kolb’s (1976)
theory. Again, learners who prefer concrete experience and active experimentations
were labeled an accommodator. These learners seek hands on learning and often
quickly engage in learning activities (Cassidy, 2004). Other learners who prefer to
use abstract theoretical thinking to help guide active experimentations were
categorized as a converger. These learners base their strategies of experimentation
on the abstract understanding of the subject. Students who prefer to utilize reflective
observations with concrete experience were labeled as a diverger. Divergers have
the potential to be the most creative due to their tendency to create multiple possible
solutions for a given problem.   Lastly, the students who prefer to connect reflective
observation with abstract conceptualism were labeled assimilators. These learners
also prefer to reflect on previously created solutions in order to further improve the
ideas (Cassidy, 2004).
Independent Variable Instrumentation. Kolb’s original learning style
inventory was developed to identify students as a particular type of learner while
recognizing that students may have borderline tendencies that only slightly
36
place them within one category. The updated form of the learning style inventory,
the LSI3 contains 12 items that prompt participants to rank possible endings of
sentences with each ending corresponding to a particular type of learner. Two of the
scores are combined in order to determine the respondent’s preference toward
abstract or concrete activities as well as their tendencies toward reflection or action
(Cassidy, 2004). Kolb’s original learning style inventory was shown to have
inconsistent test retest reliability (Cassidy, 2004; Sims, Veres, Watson, & Buckner,
1986; Veres, Sims, & Locklear 1991). However, the revised LSI3 has increased the
reliability as well as construct validity.
To further investigate the LSI3, Kayes (2005) conducted a study that
involved 221 university students enrolled in both full time undergraduate and part
time graduate business courses at a small Midwestern university. The sample of
students ranged in age from 18 to 51 with a mean age of 22.36 and was nearly evenly
split between gender with 52% males and 48% female. The students completed the
LSI3 with results that were normally distributed and analyzed to discover statistical
reliability and validity. The results of the study found that no significant differences
existed between the students’ scores except in regards to the abstract conceptualism
preference that was significantly favored by the graduate students. Using
Cronbach’s Alpha to measure internal consistency, a modified inter correlation
matrix to measure scale construct validity, and Rotated Principal Component
Analysis to examine construct validity, the researchers concluded that the LSI3 had
37
sufficient internal reliability and construct validity based on criteria from past
research.
Chapman and Calhoun (2006) further investigated the construct validity of
Kolb’s LSI in a study of 97 medical school students just prior to their participation in
a computer based simulation course. The researchers used other measurements of
learning style to further determine construct validity, which included the Group
Embedded Figures Test and the Learning Preference Inventory. The results of the
study found that learning style constructs measured on the LSI closely related to
measures of the learning style constructs measured by the LPI. Statistical analysis
showed that this relationship provided support for both the learning style constructs
themselves as well as the individual instruments ability to measure them.
Dependent Variable Instrumentation. The study analyzed the dependent
variable of student satisfaction using a 05 Likert scale survey that measured
students’ level of satisfaction with the overall program and each component of the
program. Items closely resemble those used by Antepohl, Domeij, Forsberg, &
Ludvigsson (2003) and Haghparast, Sedghizadeh, Shuler, Ferati & Christersson
(2007). The questions probed several aspects of students’ attitudes toward the PBL
program including: the degree that students believe the PBL program is adequately
preparing them to be successful in their future professional positions, how prepared
students feel they are to work collaboratively with other professionals, the degree
that students feel the program conveys basic science principles, the degree that
students feel small groups help them acquire knowledge, how satisfied students
38
are with the program’s ability to prepare them for working with patients in the future,
the degree that the program is meeting their expectations, and how the PBL program
compares with past traditional education. These types of inquiries have been used in
previous research that analyzed student satisfaction in a PBL program (Antepohl,
Domeij, Forsberg, and Ludvigsson, 2003; Edwards and Hammer, 2006; Prince, Van
Ejis, Boshuizen, Van Der Vleuten, Scherpbier, 2005).
Data Analysis
The research questions were answered by analyzing the independent variable
of learning style and the dependent variable of student satisfaction through a multiple
regression analysis as well as a nonparametric test. This analysis examined whether
a student’s learning style according to the LSI3 related to their satisfaction with the
problem based learning dental program significantly more than other factors such as
gender, age, and years in the program.
39
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
182 University of Southern California School of Dentistry students
completed the LSI3 and the Problem Based Learning satisfaction survey. 36
surveys were unable to be part of the analysis due to student errors within the LSI3
instrument, which resulted in a total of 146 student responses. Of the 146
respondents, the LSI3 categorized 57 students as Assimilators, 29 as Divergers, 23
as Accommodators, and 37 as Convergers. 89 of the students surveyed were 1
st
year
dental students who were beginning their second semester in the PBL program. The
remaining 55 students were in their 3
rd
year of the PBL dental program.
Effective Dental Professional
When asked whether the PBL program was preparing them to be effective
dental professionals, the mean response for Assimilators was 2.79 with a standard
deviation of 1.250, for Divergers the mean response was 2.90 with a standard
deviation of 1.472, for Accommodators the mean response was 2.91 with a standard
deviation of 1.231, and for Convergers the mean response was 3.19 with a standard
deviation of 1.151. The total mean response of all students was 2.93 with a standard
deviation of 1.267. The median response of each learning style group was 3. Figure
1 illustrates the range and concentration of student responses.
40
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Effective Dental Professional
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
3 3
1
3 1
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Mean Effective Dental Professional
4
3
2
1
0
3
1
Year in Program
Accommodator
Mean = 2.91
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.231
Assimilator
Mean = 2.79
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.250
Converger
Mean = 3.19
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.151
Diverger
Mean = 2.90
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.472
Figure 1: Effective Dental Professional
Figure 2: Mean Effective Dental Professional
41
Collaborate
When asked whether the PBL program was developing their ability to
collaborate with other medical professionals, the mean response for Assimilators was
3.40 with a standard deviation of 1.425, for Divergers the mean response was 3.31
with a standard deviation of 1.442, for Accommodators the mean response was 3.00
with a standard deviation of 1.679, and for Convergers the mean response was 3.68
with a standard deviation of 1.355. The total mean response of all students was 3.39
with a standard deviation of 1.454. The median response of the Accommodator
learning style group was 3, while the rest of the groups’ median score, as well as the
total median response was 4. Figure 3 illustrates the range and concentration of
student responses.
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Ability to Collaborate
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
3
3
3 3
Accommodator
Mean = 3.00
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.679
Assimilator
Mean = 3.40
Median = 4
Std. Dev. = 1.425
Converger
Mean = 3.68
Median = 4
Std. Dev. = 1.355
Diverger
Mean = 3.31
Median = 4
Std. Dev. = 1.442
Figure 3: Ability to Collaborate
42
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Mean Ability to Collaborate
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
1
Year in Program
Care for Acute Patients
When asked whether the PBL program was developing their ability to care
for acute patients, the mean response for Assimilators was 2.58 with a standard
deviation of 1.224, for Divergers the mean response was 2.86 with a standard
deviation of 1.356, for Accommodators the mean response was 2.65 with a standard
deviation of 1.027, and for Convergers the mean response was 2.97 with a standard
deviation of 1.093. The total mean response of all students was 2.75 with a standard
deviation of 1.191. The median response of every learning style group was 3.
Figure 5 illustrates the range and concentration of student responses.
Figure 4: Mean Ability to Collaborate
43
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Ability to Care for Acute Patients
5
4
3
2
1
0
3 1
1
1
1
3
3 3
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Mean Ability to Care for Acute Patients
4
3
2
1
0
3
1
Year in Program
Accommodator
Mean = 2.65
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.027
Assimilator
Mean = 2.58
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.224
Converger
Mean = 2.97
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.093
Diverger
Mean = 2.86
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.356
Figure 5: Ability to Care for Acute Patients
Figure 6: Mean Ability to Care for Acute Patients
44
Basic Scientific Principals
When asked whether the PBL program was developing their understanding of
basic scientific principles, the mean response for Assimilators was 2.72 with a
standard deviation of 1.386, for Divergers the mean response was 2.66 with a
standard deviation of 1.446, for Accommodators the mean response was 2.83 with a
standard deviation of 1.403, and for Convergers the mean response was 3.14 with a
standard deviation of 1.456. The total mean response of all students was 2.83 with a
standard deviation of 1.416. The median response of the Converger learning style
group was 4, while the rest of the groups’ median response was 3. Figure 7
illustrates the range and concentration of student responses.
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Basic Scientific Principles
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
3
1
3 3
Accommodator
Mean = 2.83
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.403
Assimilator
Mean = 2.72
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.386
Converger
Mean = 3.14
Median = 4
Std. Dev. = 1.456
Diverger
Mean = 2.66
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.446
Figure 7: Basic Scientific Principals
45
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Mean Basic Scientific Principles
4
3
2
1
0
3
1
Year in Program
Effective Communication with Patients
When asked whether the PBL program was developing ability to effectively
communicate with patients, the mean response for Assimilators was 3.18 with a
standard deviation of 1.428, for Divergers the mean response was 3.28 with a
standard deviation of 1.360, for Accommodators the mean response was 3.30 with a
standard deviation of 1.460, and for Convergers the mean response was 3.22 with a
standard deviation of 1.456. The total mean response of all students was 3.23 with a
standard deviation of 1.413. The median response of the Accommodator learning
style group was 4, while the rest of the groups’ median response was 3. Figure 9
illustrates the range and concentration of student responses.
Figure 8: Mean Basic Scientific Principles
46
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Effective Communication With Patients
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
3 1
3
1
1
1 99
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Mean Effective Communication With Patients
4
3
2
1
0
3
1
Year in Program
Accommodator
Mean = 3.30
Median = 4
Std. Dev. = 1.460
Assimilator
Mean = 3.18
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.428
Converger
Mean = 3.22
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.456
Diverger
Mean = 3.28
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.360
Figure 9: Effective Communication with Patients
Figure 10: Mean Effective Communication with Patients
47
Meeting Expectations
When asked whether the PBL program was meeting their expectations, the
mean response for Assimilators was 2.39 with a standard deviation of 1.411, for
Divergers the mean response was 2.62 with a standard deviation of 1.425, for
Accommodators the mean response was 2.30 with a standard deviation of 1.490, and
for Convergers the mean response was 2.73 with a standard deviation of 1.387. The
total mean response of all students was 2.51 with a standard deviation of 1.415. The
median response of the Converger and Diverger learning style groups was 3, while
the median response of the Accommodator and Assimilator learning style groups
was 2. The total sample median score was 3. Figure 11 illustrates the range and
concentration of student responses.
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
PBL is Meeting My Expectations
5
4
3
2
1
0
Accommodator
Mean = 2.30
Median = 4
Std. Dev. = 1.490
Assimilator
Mean = 2.39
Median = 4
Std. Dev. = 1.411
Converger
Mean = 2.73
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.387
Diverger
Mean = 2.62
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.425
Figure 11: PBL is Meeting My Expectations
48
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Mean PBL is Meeting My Expectations
4
3
2
1
0
3
1
Year in Program
Acquiring New Knowledge
When asked whether the PBL program was enhancing their ability to acquire
new knowledge, the mean response for Assimilators was 3.07 with a standard
deviation of 1.294, for Divergers the mean response was 3.10 with a standard
deviation of 1.398, for Accommodators the mean response was 3.26 with a standard
deviation of 1.137, and for Convergers the mean response was 3.43 with a standard
deviation of 1.365. The total mean response of all students was 3.20 with a standard
deviation of 1.306. The median response of the Converger learning style group was
4, while the rest of the groups’ median response was 3. Figure 13 illustrates the
range and concentration of student responses.
Figure 12: Mean PBL is Meeting My Expectations
49
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Ability to Acquire Knowledge
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
1 99
1
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Mean Ability to Acquire Knowledge
4
3
2
1
0
3
1
Year in Program
Accommodator
Mean = 3.26
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.137
Assimilator
Mean = 3.07
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.294
Converger
Mean = 3.43
Median = 4
Std. Dev. = 1.365
Diverger
Mean = 3.10
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.398
Figure 13: Ability to Acquire Knowledge
Figure 14: Mean Ability to Acquire Knowledge
50
Superior to Traditional Education
When asked whether the PBL program experiences were superior to those in
former traditional classes, the mean response for Assimilators was 2.30 with a
standard deviation of 1.500, for Divergers the mean response was 2.79 with a
standard deviation of 1.544 for Accommodators the mean response was 2.35 with a
standard deviation of 1.613, and for Convergers the mean response was 2.95 with a
standard deviation of 1.747. The total mean response of all students was 2.57 with a
standard deviation of 1.601. The median response of all learning style groups was 3.
Figure 15 illustrates the range and concentration of student responses.
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
PBL Experiences Better Than Traditional
5
4
3
2
1
0
Accommodator
Mean = 2.35
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.613
Assimilator
Mean = 2.30
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.500
Converger
Mean = 2.95
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.747
Diverger
Mean = 2.79
Median = 3
Std. Dev. = 1.544
Figure 15: PBL Experiences Better Than Traditional
51
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Mean PBL Experiences Better Than Traditional
4
3
2
1
0
3
1
Year in Program
Major Factor in Choosing USCSD
When asked whether the PBL program was a major factor in attending
USCSD, the mean response for Assimilators was 2.09 with a standard deviation of
1.786, for Divergers the mean response was 2.10 with a standard deviation of 1.655,
for Accommodators the mean response was 1.74 with a standard deviation of 1.738,
and for Convergers the mean response was 1.89 with a standard deviation of 1.646.
The total mean response of all students was 1.99 with a standard deviation of 1.706.
The median response of all learning style groups was 2. Figure 17 illustrates the
range and concentration of student responses.
Figure 16: Mean PBL Experiences Better Than Traditional
52
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
PBL was Reason for Selecting USCSD
5
4
3
2
1
0
Kolb's Learning Style
Diverger Converger Assimilator Accomodator
Mean PBL was Reason for Selecting USCSD
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
1
Year in Program
Accommodator
Mean = 1.74
Median = 2
Std. Dev. = 1.738
Assimilator
Mean = 2.09
Median = 2
Std. Dev. = 1.786
Converger
Mean = 1.89
Median = 2
Std. Dev. = 1.646
Diverger
Mean = 2.10
Median = 2
Std. Dev. = 1.655
Figure 17: PBL was Reason for Selecting USCSD
Figure 18: Mean PBL was Reason for Selection USCSD
53
Data Analysis
An analysis of variance revealed significance values between the independent
variable of learning style as defined by Kolb’s (1976) Experiential Learning Theory
and the dependent variable of student satisfaction of the PBL program were as
follows: on the measure of the program’s ability to create effective dental
professionals p = .522, develop the ability to collaborate with medical professionals
p = .369, develop the capacity to handle acute patients p = .413, acquire basic
scientific principles p = .478, develop the ability to effectively communicate with
patients p = .981, meet student expectations p = .578, enhance the acquisition of
basic knowledge p = .588, provide learning experiences superior to past traditional
education experiences p = .197, and students’ desire to attend USCSD because of the
PBL program p = .820. For the independent variable of gender and the dependent
variable of student satisfaction of the PBL program, p = .277. Also the independent
variable of age and the dependent variable of student satisfaction of the PBL
program showed a significance value of p = .748.
ANOVA results illustrated a negative correlation between the independent
variable of year in the program and the dependent variable of student. Specifically,
3
rd
year students’ satisfaction with PBL was lower than 1
st
year students in regards to
the program’s ability to create effective dental professionals (p<.001), develop the
ability to collaborate with medical professionals (p<.001), develop the capacity to
handle acute patients (p<.001), acquire basic scientific principles (p<.001), develop
the ability to effectively communicate with patients (p = .009), meet student
54
expectations (p<.001), enhance the acquisition of basic knowledge (p<.001), provide
learning experiences superior to past traditional education experiences (p<.001), and
influence students’ desire to attend USCSD (p = .073). Data was also collected on
ethnicity, undergraduate major and primary language but an insufficient number of
students in each sub group prevented a statistical analysis. A test of between subject
effects found p = .102 between the independent variables of learning style and year
in the program. To determine the reliability of Kolb’s learning styles in relation to
the dependent variable, Cronbach's alpha was found to be .885.
Due to the fact that the satisfaction survey data is ordinal with responses on a
0 to 5 scale, the non parametric KruskalWallis test was also conducted with similar
results. Significance values between the independent variable of learning style as
defined by Kolb’s (1976) Experiential Learning Theory and the dependent variable
of student satisfaction of the PBL program were as follows: on the measure of the
program’s ability to create effective dental professionals p = .436, develop the ability
to collaborate with medical professionals p = .440, develop the capacity to handle
acute patients p = .239, acquire basic scientific principles p = .323, develop the
ability to effectively communicate with patients p = .958, meet student expectations
p = .562, enhance the acquisition of basic knowledge p = .487, provide learning
experiences superior to past traditional education experiences p = .164, and students’
desire to attend USCSD because of the PBL program p = .783. The same negative
relationship between the independent variable of year in the program and student
satisfaction was also found. Again, 3
rd
year students’ satisfaction with PBL was
55
lower than 1
st
year students in regards to the program’s ability to create effective
dental professionals (p<.001), develop the ability to collaborate with medical
professionals (p<.001), develop the capacity to handle acute patients (p<.001),
acquire basic scientific principles (p<.001), develop the ability to effectively
communicate with patients (p = .009), meet student expectations (p<.001), enhance
the acquisition of basic knowledge (p<.001), provide learning experiences superior
to past traditional education experiences (p<.001), and influence students’ desire to
attend USCSD because of the PBL program (p = .079).
56
CHAPTER 5
Discussion
Learning Style and Student Satisfaction
The results of the study indicate that learning style as defined by Kolb’s
(1976) Experiential Learning Theory does not relate to students satisfaction with a
PBL dental program. The only predicting variable of student satisfaction was the
number of years spent in the program. This negative relationship suggests that
students generally became less satisfied over time regardless of their preference for
abstract versus concrete learning experiences. Also, with mean scores for each
dimension of student satisfaction ranging from 1.99 to 3.39 it appears that students
have overall mild to low satisfaction with the PBL program. This is also reflected in
the median score of 3 for 7 of the 9 dimensions of student satisfaction. These results
contrast previous research by Antepohl, Domeij, Forsberg, and Ludvigsson (2003)
who found that students who graduated from a PBL health and science program
reported a mean satisfaction rating of 4.2 on a 05 likert scale survey that analyzed
similar dimensions of satisfaction. The mild satisfaction ratings also seem to
contrast the results found by Haghparast, Sedghizadeh, Shuler, Ferati and
Christersson (2007) who analyzed student satisfaction with the PBL dental program
at USC and the University of Malmo in Sweden.
Self Selection for the PBL Program and Learning Style
The results also show an unlikely relationship between dental students who
self select to attend a Problem Based Learning program and learning styles as
57
defined by Kolb’s (1976) Experiential Learning Theory. The other independent
variables tested also seem to have no relationship with students’ response to the
satisfaction survey item regarding the PBL program being a major reason for
selecting USCSD. However, the median response of 2 and the mean response of
1.99 to the prompt could indicate that for most students the PBL program was not a
major factor in deciding to attend USCSD and therefore no relationships between the
variables would exist. Figure 18 illustrates the student responses according to
learning style and year in the program.
Highest General Satisfaction and Learning Style
It was hypothesized that students who were generally satisfied with the PBL
program at USCSD would exhibit the learning styles of accommodator and diverger
because of a preference for concrete rather than abstract thinking. Since the results
showed an unlikely relationship with any learning style group, this hypothesis must
be rejected. However, a pattern relating to learning style did emerge. On 7 of the 9
measures of student satisfaction, the converger group possessed the highest mean
satisfaction score. This may be due to the converger preference to use theoretical
knowledge to guide experimentation. Although the PBL program is designed to offer
concrete learning experiences, the format of lessons does involve the gathering of
abstract data from various sources to guide students to a solution, which may appeal
to a convergers’ theoretical nature. Another trend that emerged was assimilators
reporting the lowest mean satisfaction ratings on 5 of the 9 measures. This
corresponds to the theoretical frame work of Kolb’s learning style as
58
assimilators preference for reflective observation and abstract conceptualism would
most contradict the fundamental learning strategies found in PBL. It is also
interesting to note that assimilators made up the largest learning style group.
Effective Dental Professional
These patterns are demonstrated in Figure 2 which illustrates the mean
responses to the prompt that the PBL program is developing students’ ability to be
effective dental professionals. However, it is important to emphasize that no group
displayed high satisfaction with the program’s ability to create effective dental
practitioners and the sharp drop in satisfaction between 1
st
and 3
rd
year students is the
most prevalent trend.
Collaborate
Figure 4 further illustrates the trend of greater converger satisfaction,
specifically on the degree of the PBL program’s ability to prepare students to
collaborate with other medical professionals. Also, this measure of student
satisfaction possessed the highest total mean satisfaction scores. This is an expected
result since the PBL program was specifically designed around collaborative groups.
However, with the immense stress on collaboration it is surprising that the mean
satisfaction rating was less than 4, which indicates only a mild satisfaction with
development of collaboration overall.
59
Care for Acute Patients
Figure 6 illustrates the mean responses of students to the prompt that the PBL
program is developing their ability to care for acute patients. Convergers once again
show the greatest degree of satisfaction, assimilators show the least, and divergers
show the greatest degree of difference between 1
st
and 3
rd
year students. Divergers
would be expected to show high degrees of satisfaction due to their preference of
combining reflection with concrete learning experiences, but it may be that their
ability to create multiple solutions to given problems did not match with the clinical
aspects of the dental program found in the 3
rd
year.
Basic Scientific Principals
Figure 8 illustrates students’ response to the prompt that the program
effectively conveys basic scientific principals. The higher converger response trend
is again evident, but the diverger group provided the lowest mean score, while the
sharpest change in satisfaction between 1
st
and 3
rd
year students now belongs to the
accommodator group. It would be expected that accommodators show high
satisfaction with learning basic science through the PBL process since an emphasis is
placed on their learning preference of active experimentation within concrete
learning experiences. However, this drop in satisfaction may be due to procedural
learning in the later stages of the dental program that do not permit the same level of
experimentation as earlier PBL sessions.
60
Communicate Effectively with Patients
Figure 10 displays students’ satisfaction with the PBL program’s ability to
develop their capacity to communicate effectively with patients. Convergers once
more showed a slightly higher mean satisfaction rating, while assimilators showed
the lowest. More interestingly, satisfaction across 1
st
and 3
rd
year students was more
stable than other measures, with the largest drop in satisfaction occurring within the
diverger group. Again, this may be due to an aspect of the program within the third
year’s clinical components where patient interactions increase. However, there is no
clear theoretical explanation as to why a diverger’s emphasis on reflection and
concrete experimentation would cause a decreased satisfaction within the 3
rd
year of
the program.
Meeting Student Expectations
Figure 12 illustrates the degree that the PBL program is meeting students’
expectations. Again, the converger group possessed the highest satisfaction score
while the decrease between 1
st
and 3
rd
year students was minutely larger within the
diverger and accommodator groups. The convergers’ preference of applying
theoretical knowledge to guide testing and an increased belief that the program is
meeting their expectations might indicate that the PBL program provides less of a
concrete learning experience and more of a guided abstract experimentation process.
However, this could be an erroneous conclusion considering the low overall
61
satisfaction on this particular measure and that the difference between the learning
style groups was p = .578.
Acquire Basic Knowledge
Figure 14 illustrates students’ agreement that the PBL program is enhancing
their ability to acquire basic knowledge. Once more, convergers’ were most in
agreement with the program’s effectiveness, while assimilators were least in
agreement. Similarly, divergers’ once again show the greatest decease between 1
st
and 3
rd
year student responses. Again, there is no strong theoretical basis of why 3
rd
year divergers would rate the program lower except some component of the program
within that year that contradicts their approach to gaining new knowledge in a
clinical setting. However, with an interaction effect between the variables of year in
the program and learning style of p = .102, these finding may be due to chance.
Superior to Traditional Education
Figure 16 illustrates students’ agreement that the PBL program provides
superior learning experiences compared to traditional formats. Once more
convergers provided the highest mean satisfaction rating, assimilators provided the
lowest mean score, and accommodators showed slightly larger decreases between 1
st
and 3
rd
year students. The mild satisfaction ratings among 1
st
year students and low
ratings among 3
rd
year students on this particular measurement item most profoundly
illustrates the overall satisfaction students surveyed held for the PBL program.
62
Limitations
The results of the study have several limitations to generalizeability due to
the fact that the sample is taken from a single university PBL dental program and
participants were not randomly selected. The results may generalize to other student
populations in similar problem based learning dental programs with similar student
demographics. However, the results cannot be generalized to problem based
learning programs in different disciplines or to student populations of different
demographics. Also, the validity of the study is limited because of not statistically
addressing all intervening variables that may have affected the dependent variable of
student satisfaction, including ethnicity, undergraduate major, primary language,
previous educational experiences, or economic status. Lastly, the exclusion of 36
surveys because of student errors could also have compromised the validity of the
results due to the fact that students who had difficulty completing the LSI3 could
share similar characteristics that may have impacted their learning style or
satisfaction with PBL.
Implications for future research
The results of the study add to the small body of research on student
satisfaction with problem based learning dental programs and its interaction with
learning style as defined by Kolb’s (1976) Experiential Learning Theory. Future
research is needed to find if these results are common to other PBL programs.
Further research is also needed before it can be concluded that learning style does
not cause a significant interaction with satisfaction of a PBL program. Larger
63
sample sizes across several different PBL programs could corroborate the
statistically insignificant trends in this study as a significant factor in students’
satisfaction of PBL. Additional research must also be conducted to determine if
learning style and satisfaction rates directly impact student achievement within a
PBL program.
64
References
Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). "Problembased learning: A review of
literature on its outcomes and implementation issues": Correction. Academic
Medicine, 68(8), 615.
Antepohl, W., Domeij, E., Forsberg, P., & Ludvigsson, J. (2003). A followup of
medical graduates of a problembased learning curriculum. Medical education,
37(2), 155162.
Barrows, H. S., (1986). A taxonomy of problem based learning methods. Medical
Education, 20, 481486.
Berkson, L. (1993). Problembased learning: Have the expectations been met?
Academic Medicine, 68(10), 7988.
Bruning, R., Schraw, G., Norby., & Ronning, R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and
instruction. 4
th
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Carlo, M. D., Swadi, H., & Mpofu, D. (2003). Medical student perceptions of factors
affecting productivity of problembased learning tutorial groups: Does culture
influence the outcome? Teaching and learning in medicine, 15(1), 5964.
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures.
Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419444.
ChanLin, L., & Chan, K. (2004). PBL approach in webbased instruction. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 98105.
Chapman, D. M., & Calhoun, J. G. (2006). Validation of learning style measures:
Implications for medical education practice. Medical education, 40(6), 576583.
Colliver, J. (2000). Effectiveness of PBL curricula. Medical education, 34(11), 959
960.
Cunningham, C. E., Deal, K., Neville, A., Rimas, H., & Lohfeld, L. (2006).
Modeling the problembased learning preferences of McMaster university
undergraduate medical students using a discrete choice conjoint experiment.
Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11(3), 245266.
65
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of
problembased learning: A metaanalysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533
568.
Edwards, S., & Hammer, M. (2006). Laura's story: Using problem based learning in
early childhood and primary teacher education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22(4), 465477.
Fincham, A., & Shuler, C. (2001). The changing face of dental education: The
impact of PBL. Journal of Dental Education, 65(5), 406421.
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of
problembased learning: A metaanalysis from the angle of assessment. Review
of Educational Research, 75(1), 2761.
Gilkison, A. (2003). Techniques used by 'expert' and 'nonexpert' tutors to facilitate
problembased learning tutorials in an undergraduate medical curriculum.
Medical education, 37(1), 614.
Haghparast, N., Sedghizadeh, P., Shuler, C., Ferati, D., & Christersson, C. (2007).
Evaluation of student and faculty perceptions of the PBL curriculum at two
dental schools from a student perspective: a crosssectional survey. Europe
Journal of Dental Education, 11, 1422.
Kayes, D. C. (2005). Internal validity and reliability of kolb's learning style
inventory version 3 (1999). Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 249
257.
Kolb, D. (1976). The learning styles inventory: Technical Manual. Boston, MA:
McBer & Company.
Lohman, M. C., & Finkelstein, M. (2000). Designing groups in problembased
learning to promote problemsolving skill and selfdirectedness. Instructional
Science, 28(4), 291307.
McParland, M., Noble, L. M., & Livingston, G. (2004). The effectiveness of
problembased learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate
psychiatry. Medical education, 38(8), 859867.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. trans. D.
coltman. Oxford, England: Orion.
66
Piaget, J., & Cook, M. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York,
NY, US: Basic Books.
Prince, K., Van Eijs, P., Boshuizen, H., Van Der Vleuten, Cees P., & Scherpbier, A.
(2005). General competencies of problembased learning (PBL) and nonPBL
graduates. Medical education, 39(4), 394401.
Rich, S., Keim, R., & Shuler, C. (2005). Problembased learning versus a traditional
educational methodology: A comparison of preclinical and clinical periodontics
performance. Journal of Dental Education, 69(6), 649662.
Sims, R. S., Veres, J. G., Watson, P., & Buckner, K. E. (1986). The reliability and
classification stability of the learning style inventory. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 46(3), 753760.
Smits, P., Verbeek, J., Nauta, M., Cate, T., Metz, J., & Van Dijk, F. (2004). Factors
predictive of successful learning in postgraduate medical education. Medical
education, 38(7), 758766.
Tharpe, R. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and
schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Veres, J. G., Sims, R. R., & Locklear, T. S. (1991). Improving the reliability of
kolb's revised learning style inventory. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 51(1), 143150.
Vernon, D. T., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problembased learning work? A meta
analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550563.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher mental process.
Cambridege, MA: Harvard University Press.
Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology. 9
th
ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
67
Appendix: Student Satisfaction Survey
Please Circle the number that best matches your agreement with each statement with
0 being “not at all” and 5 being “to a very high degree”.
1. The PBL dental program is preparing me to be an effective dental
professional.
Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 5 to a very high degree
2. The PBL dental program is helping me to develop my ability to collaborate
with other medical professionals.
Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 5 to a very high degree
3. The PBL dental program is preparing me for taking care of acute patients.
Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 5 to a very high degree
4. The PBL dental program is effectively conveying basic scientific principles.
Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 5 to a very high degree
5. The PBL dental program is preparing me to effectively communicate with
patients.
Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 5 to a very high degree
6. The PBL dental program is meeting my expectations.
Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 5 to a very high degree
7. The small group work in the PBL program is enhancing my ability to acquire
knowledge.
Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 5 to a very high degree
8. My experiences in the PBL dental program have been better than those from
traditional education.
Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 5 to a very high degree
68
9. The PBL program was a major factor in choosing to attend the USC School
of Dentistry
Not at all 0 1 2 3 4 5 to a very high degree
Please fill in the following demographic information:
1. Gender ______________________
2. Primary language ____________________________________
3. Year in the dental program ________________
4. Age ___________________
5. Ethnicity _____________________________________
6. Undergraduate major ___________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract 146 students enrolled in the Problem Based Learning dental program at the University of Southern California School of Dentistry completed the Kolb 's Learning Style Inventory 3 and a Likert scale satisfaction survey. 9 dimensions of students' satisfaction were examined including the degree that students believe the PBL program is adequately preparing them to be successful in their future professional positions, how prepared students feel they are to work collaboratively with other professionals, the degree that students feel the program conveys basic science principles, the degree that students feel small groups help them acquire knowledge, how satisfied students are with the program 's ability to prepare them for working with patients in the future, the degree that the program is meeting their expectations, and how the PBL program compares with past traditional education. Responses were analyzed to determine if learning style as defined by Kolb 's Experiential Learning Theory related to satisfaction with the PBL program. Results showed that no significant relationship existed between learning style and satisfaction with the PBL program. However, the number of years students participated in the program was found to have a significant relationship with 8 of the 9 measures of student satisfaction. Medium to low student satisfaction was found overall.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

PDF

The relationship between teacher assessment practices, student goal orientation, and student engagement in elementary mathematics

PDF

Problem-based learning and its influence on college preparation knowledge, motivation, & self-efficacy in high school students

PDF

Problem-based learning in a dental school: measuring change in students' critical thinking skills

PDF

Facilitation of authentic teaching and learning in a problem-based learning (PBL) environment

PDF

A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses

PDF

Attachment style as a predictor of group conflict, post-conflict relationship repair, trust and leadership style

PDF

Integrating project-based learning and work-based learning into a coherent program: is the sum worth more than its parts?

PDF

Implementing problem-based learning to develop student supply chain skills

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

Exploring the relationship of learning strategies and transformational leadership for business managers

PDF

Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development

PDF

The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation

PDF

The relationship between students’ feelings of belonging to their campus community and racial ethnic identification in undergraduate university students

PDF

Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model

PDF

Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses

PDF

Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

Student perceptions of the relationship between Web-based instructional tools and perceived attainment of intended learning outcomes

PDF

Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?