View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Changes in Learning Outcomes of Students Participating in Problem-Based Learning for the First Time: A Case Study of a Financial Management Course

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Changes in Learning Outcomes of Students Participating in Problem-Based Learning for the First Time: A Case Study of a Financial Management Course
Language: English
Authors: Yung-Chuan Lee (ORCID 0000-0002-9794-7457)
Source: Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2025 34(1):511-530.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Undergraduate Students, Money Management, Financial Education, Problem Based Learning, Active Learning, Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, Teacher Effectiveness, Cooperative Learning, Tutor Training, Tutors, Tutoring, Tutorial Programs, Achievement Gains
DOI: 10.1007/s40299-024-00873-y
ISSN: 0119-5646
2243-7908
Abstract: The aim of this study was to explore how first-time problem-based learning (PBL) participants can improve their learning outcomes. Empirical results showed that students with higher academic performance and attendance rates significantly enhanced their critical thinking and problem-solving skills through PBL compared to traditional lecture-based methods. However, PBL was less effective for students with lower academic performance or attendance rates compared to traditional lectures, highlighting the impact of student characteristics on PBL outcomes. Tutors should focus on students with lower academic or attendance rates, encouraging their active participation to improve overall learning outcomes. Results of path model analysis revealed that tutor performance significantly influences both the learning process and the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Self-directed learning greatly influences critical thinking, while the functionality of tutorial groups significantly affects problem-solving skills. These findings emphasized the importance of tutor performance in enhancing the learning outcomes of students new to PBL. Therefore, educational institutions should invest in PBL teaching seminars to boost tutor performance and ultimately improve student learning outcomes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1457905
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEHTZlHq7bPoV0WG8jHsajEAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOQ3V8UZhMD8jh1qRwIBEICBmwzLRiBUCRtWNIIdfZ383EKLBjvJ8UPq56YmUJMZvLv9FfD00q8NThWPoDyRLA54wv1-gW37yE3y8MPmV8RYJjemfQa1FDRCjbZ-G9sjE2IOelk6RSj01FVoRdxNHFGHmUDuFWrNVxMmEK7g3_NUN6lE2a5r7Z9Bv3BoDh1l1WLVnYxv9B8ZFC4MroM6XWe-yiF17_MWYh8ARH6i
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182324040;[gchw]01feb.25;2025Jan22.01:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182324040-1">Changes in Learning Outcomes of Students Participating in Problem-Based Learning for the First Time: A Case Study of a Financial Management Course </title> <p>The aim of this study was to explore how first-time problem-based learning (PBL) participants can improve their learning outcomes. Empirical results showed that students with higher academic performance and attendance rates significantly enhanced their critical thinking and problem-solving skills through PBL compared to traditional lecture-based methods. However, PBL was less effective for students with lower academic performance or attendance rates compared to traditional lectures, highlighting the impact of student characteristics on PBL outcomes. Tutors should focus on students with lower academic or attendance rates, encouraging their active participation to improve overall learning outcomes. Results of path model analysis revealed that tutor performance significantly influences both the learning process and the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Self-directed learning greatly influences critical thinking, while the functionality of tutorial groups significantly affects problem-solving skills. These findings emphasized the importance of tutor performance in enhancing the learning outcomes of students new to PBL. Therefore, educational institutions should invest in PBL teaching seminars to boost tutor performance and ultimately improve student learning outcomes.</p> <p>Keywords: Problem-based learning; Learning outcome; Critical thinking; Problem solving; Self-directed learning; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00873-y.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Universities bear the crucial responsibility of enhancing students' employability (Santiago, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref1">48</reflink>]). This responsibility extends beyond merely delivering theoretical knowledge to involve active support for the translation of theories into real-world applications. A 2013 survey by Hart Research Associates of 318 employers underscored the importance of critical thinking and complex problem-solving skills over academic specialization in hiring decisions (Garnjost & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref2">21</reflink>]). Financial management is indispensable in business operations. However, financial management education is often shackled by lecture-based learning (LBL) (Xia & Song, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref3">61</reflink>]). Such pedagogical approaches, which are largely teacher-centric, fail to foster meaningful student engagement and interactivity, leading to a diminished interest in financial management-related subjects (Lai et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref4">33</reflink>]) and a notable deficit in critical analytical and problem-solving skills (Hursen, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref5">29</reflink>]). This represents a significant challenge in terms of the development of contemporary university-level financial management course curricula.</p> <p>Critical thinking empowers individuals to adeptly handle intricate challenges and make well-informed decisions, incorporating the analysis, evaluation, and integration of information (Paul & Elder, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref6">44</reflink>]). Its significance is paramount in several fields, aiding in clinical decision-making and problem resolution (Papathanasiou et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref7">41</reflink>]), pinpointing and rectifying engineering design issues (Felder & Brent, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]), and exerting a positive influence on business innovation and entrepreneurial ventures (Eggers et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>]). Problem-solving is a process by which solutions are devised. It entails recognizing the problem, generating feasible solutions, and enacting the most suitable plan of action (Nickerson et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref10">38</reflink>]). These skills are essential for addressing challenges, improving results, and instigating positive transformations across various domains (Tallman et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref11">55</reflink>]). Critical thinking and problem-solving are recognized as key skills to be nurtured within the realm of higher education (Khan, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref12">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Problem-based learning (PBL) is a potent instructional strategy for augmenting critical thinking (Asyari et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>]; Iwaoka et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref14">30</reflink>]) and problem-solving skills (Aslan, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>]; Rattanatumma & Puncreobutr, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref16">47</reflink>]; Wilder, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref17">59</reflink>]). Students are organized into groups in which they collaborate and solve problems through self-directed learning (Schmidt & Moust, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref18">50</reflink>]; Sockalingam et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref19">53</reflink>]). This approach is instrumental in cultivating their capabilities for analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of problems (Ramsay & Sorrell, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref20">46</reflink>]), facilitating the construction of the intended learning outcomes (van Berkel & Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref21">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Within the PBL paradigm, educators, termed tutors, along with students, are the primary stakeholders. Tutors transcend the traditional role of knowledge transmitters, serving instead as facilitators who guide students in applying prior knowledge to comprehend, identify, and resolve given problems. Moreover, tutors are tasked with crafting contextually relevant, open-ended problems to foster discussions (Catanach et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]; Esmond-Kiger & Kirch, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]). Students engage in PBL through collaborative group discussions based on prior knowledge and self-directed learning to fill knowledge gaps, thereby integrating content knowledge through self-study and discourse (Sockalingam et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref24">53</reflink>]), leading to the successful resolution of the challenges posed.</p> <p>Despite a substantial body of literature affirming PBL's efficacy, some studies have suggested that PBL does not necessarily enhance student performance (Alzughaibi et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]; Marya, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref26">35</reflink>]). Garnjost and Brown ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref27">21</reflink>]) evaluated PBL's impact on five educational outcomes: knowledge acquisition, problem solving, critical thinking, teamwork, and self-directed learning and revealed no significant differences between PBL and instructor-led courses. The success of PBL hinges on active engagement and interaction between educators and students (Lim et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref28">34</reflink>]), which can present challenges for introverted students (Takahashi & Saito, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref29">54</reflink>]) and potentially disadvantage some individuals.</p> <p>Existing research primarily examines the general impact of PBL on student achievement, with scant attention paid to how student characteristics influence PBL outcomes. García-Merino et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref30">20</reflink>]) highlighted PBL's efficacy for underperforming students by reducing their reliance on prior knowledge and motivation. However, these outcomes presuppose active student engagement. The shift from a teacher-centered to a student-centered paradigm, such as PBL, may be met with resistance by students accustomed to traditional LBL environments, potentially undermining learning outcomes—an issue that has not yet been extensively explored.</p> <p>This investigation focused on students who had not been previously exposed to student-centered instructional strategies. PBL was the instructional method used for the experimental group. The rationale for selecting PBL was based on a substantial body of literature that underscores its efficacy in enhancing critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Aslan, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref31">4</reflink>]; Asyari et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref32">5</reflink>]; Iwaoka et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>]; Rattanatumma & Puncreobutr, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref34">47</reflink>]; Wilder, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref35">59</reflink>]). In this study, critical thinking and problem-solving skills were analyzed, with juxtaposition of students newly introduced to PBL and those engaged in conventional LBL, to investigate the extent to which student characteristics modulate the learning outcomes attributable to PBL. Utilizing a PBL learning outcome-based path model, the direct, indirect, and total impacts of various PBL components on educational effectiveness were identified. The objective was to elucidate PBL instructional methodologies that effectively nurture critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The results provide insights into methods for optimizing the pedagogical impact of PBL.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-3">Literature Review and Conceptual Model Construction</hd> <p>PBL emphasizes the utilization of prior knowledge by tutorial groups to solve problems and clarify issues. Therefore, prior knowledge should enhance the functionality of tutorial groups. However, Schmidt and Gijselaers ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref36">49</reflink>]) and van Berkel and Schmidt ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref37">58</reflink>]) found no significant correlation between prior knowledge and functionality of tutorial groups. In addition, van Berkel and Schmidt ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref38">58</reflink>]) pointed out that students with less knowledge are more inclined to actively participate in group meetings to compensate for their lack of knowledge. In contrast, students with more knowledge might be less willing to engage in group discussions. Students with less knowledge need more information to complete their learning tasks, requiring them to invest more time in self-directed learning, such as searching for supplementary information (Pardos & Xu, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>]). Other studies suggest that richer prior knowledge is associated with better learning outcomes (Hailikari et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>]; Norman, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]; Schmidt & Moust, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref42">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the PBL process, teachers do not solely impart knowledge. Rather, they act as facilitators. They guide students as they delve into a subject, focusing on important issues, encouraging discussions among tutorial group members, monitoring students' learning progress, promoting collaborative learning, and providing feedback when appropriate to facilitate student learning (Das et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref43">12</reflink>]). Therefore, tutors need to possess relevant expertise and facilitation skills to effectively guide tutorial groups through the problem-solving process. However, they must be careful to avoid excessive guidance to prevent restricting student autonomy and self-regulated learning and making learning overly passive (Ames, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>]; Pintrich, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref45">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>The competence of tutors is crucial for promoting active learning, constructive learning, self-directed learning, and collaborative learning. It not only contributes to improved problem quality (van Berkel & Dolmans, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref46">57</reflink>]), but also to enhanced functionality of tutorial groups (Schmidt & Gijselaers, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref47">49</reflink>]; Schmidt & Moust, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref48">50</reflink>]; van Berkel & Dolmans, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref49">57</reflink>]; van Berkel & Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref50">58</reflink>]) and stimulation of student self-directed learning (De Grave et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref51">13</reflink>]; Schmidt & Moust, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref52">50</reflink>]). Research by van Berkel and Dolmans ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref53">57</reflink>]) has confirmed the positive impact of tutor competence on student learning.</p> <p>In PBL, the quality of problems and functionality of tutorial groups are also important. The PBL process is student-guided and problem-oriented (Sockalingam et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref54">53</reflink>]). Problem design should arouse student interest, stimulating them to apply prior knowledge to discussions, while encouraging collaboration and promoting the development of self-directed learning skills to fill knowledge gaps, such that relevant knowledge is obtained in the process of problem solving (Hmelo-Silver, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref55">28</reflink>]). Previous research has shown that problem quality significantly influences functionality of tutorial groups and self-directed learning time (Schmidt & Gijselaers, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref56">49</reflink>]; van Berkel & Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref57">58</reflink>]). High problem quality leads to reduced attendance during tutorial group meetings, indicating that when problem quality is poor, students may be more inclined to attend group discussions to compensate for their lack of understanding of the issues. The quality of problems has a more significant impact on functionality of tutorial groups and self-directed learning time than student prior knowledge or tutor performance, indirectly affecting interest in the topic and academic performance (Schmidt & Gijselaers, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref58">49</reflink>]; van Berkel & Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref59">58</reflink>]). Therefore, problem quality is closely related to the effectiveness of PBL (Albanese & Mitchell, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>]; Schmidt & Moust, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref61">50</reflink>]; van Berkel & Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref62">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>The functionality of tutorial groups is at the core of the PBL process and directly affects learning outcomes (Hammar Chiriac, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref63">26</reflink>]; Schmidt & Moust, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref64">50</reflink>]). The quality of tutorial group operations impacts on PBL attendance, as more efficient tutorial group operations lead to greater willingness among group members to participate in meetings. Furthermore, the functionality of tutorial groups affects self-directed learning (Schmidt & Gijselaers, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref65">49</reflink>]), with Gijselaers and Schmidt ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref66">22</reflink>]) finding a compensatory effect between tutorial group functionality and the time spent on self-directed learning. That is, tutorial group functionality is negatively correlated with the time spent on self-directed learning.</p> <p>To illuminate the pathways through which learning outcomes are achieved within the framework of PBL, this study drew upon the foundational PBL causal pathway model proposed by van Berkel and Schmidt ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref67">58</reflink>]) and Schmidt and Gijselaers ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref68">49</reflink>]). This model, informed by school learning theory on educational processes, delineates a tripartite structure comprising input, process, and output stages. Inputs include essential elements such as prior knowledge, efficacy of tutor, and quality of problem constructs. The process stage encompasses variables indicative of the operational effectiveness of tutorial groups, breadth of self-directed learning, and degree of student engagement. Outputs are encapsulated by the learning outcome. In this study, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, which are highly valued by employers, were chosen as indicators of learning outcome.</p> <p>The phase following identification of the components of the PBL learning outcome-based conceptual pathway model involves elucidation of the causal dynamics among them by delineating the influence paths between any two elements. The pertinent literature substantiates specific pathways within the model, with each pathway in this study empirically supported. Table 1 meticulously catalogs the literature underpinning each causal connection in this study. Figure 1 offers a graphical depiction of the conceptual model, visually integrating the interrelationships among its components.</p> <p>Table 1 Literature related to conceptual PBL path model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Independent variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>Dependent variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>Literature</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sign</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>Prior knowledge</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Gijselaers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">1990</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>×</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Schmidt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>×</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PBL attendance</p></td><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Schmidt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Pardos and Xu (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2016</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Learning outcome</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hailikari et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2007</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Norman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">1988</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Moust (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="9"><p>Tutor performance</p></td><td align="left"><p>Quality of problems</p></td><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Dolmans (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2006</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Schmidt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Gijselaers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">1990</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Moust (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Dolmans (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2006</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Moust (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>De Grave et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">1999</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Dolmans (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2006</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Learning outcome</p></td><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Dolmans (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2006</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="10"><p>Quality of problems</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Schmidt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Gijselaers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">1990</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Moust (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Dolmans (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2006</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PBL attendance</p></td><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Schmidt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Gijselaers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">1990</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Schmidt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Learning outcome</p></td><td align="left"><p>Albanese and Mitchell (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">1993</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Schmidt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Moust (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td align="left"><p>PBL attendance</p></td><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Schmidt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Gijselaers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">1990</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gijselaers and Schmidt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">1990</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Learning outcome</p></td><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Moust (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hammar Chiriac (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2008</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>PBL attendance</p></td><td align="left"><p>Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Schmidt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>−</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>Learning outcome</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bevitt et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2010</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Moore et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2003</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Newman‐Ford et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2008</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Woodfield et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">2006</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Eisen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2015</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Learning outcome</p></td><td align="left"><p>van Berkel and Schmidt (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Gijselaers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">1990</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Schmidt and Moust (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2000</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>+</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Conceptual PBL learning outcome-based path model</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-4">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182324040-5">Participants and Procedures</hd> <p>The study participants were third-year undergraduate students majoring in Business Administration at Asia University in Taiwan. Prior to this study, these students had only experienced traditional LBL methods and not student-centered learning methods. They were divided into three classes: A, B, and C, with 62, 53, and 57 participants, respectively, for a total of 172 participants. An experimental group (receiving PBL instruction) and a control group (receiving LBL instruction) were established. Class A was designated as the experimental group, while classes B and C were designated as the control group. This division ensured the equivalence of both groups with respect to demographic variables such as gender and age, as well as academic variables including average absenteeism rates and performance in an Economics course that was taught by the same instructor. This methodological approach was carefully designed to control for variances in learning outcomes attributable to differences in group characteristics, thus ensuring the integrity of the findings.</p> <p>This study was conducted between September 2022 and January 2023. Following a survey of the opinions of 12 corporate finance managers, the three most crucial units in a financial management curriculum were identified: time value of money, financial statement analysis, and capital structure. In Class A, these three units were taught using the PBL method, while in classes B and C these units were taught using the LBL method. Finally, student learning outcomes were compared between the groups across the three selected units.</p> <p>In the experimental cohort (Class A), students were organized into groups of 5–7 members each, for a total of ten groups. The PBL problems for these three units pertained to topics such as home buying and retirement financial planning. They also included financial analysis of a listed company and a financing case study of a well-known publicly listed company. Three financial expert tutors reviewed the designed problems for these three units to ensure their quality. As students in Class A had no prior experience with PBL, to facilitate smooth implementation, instructional videos explaining the PBL process were uploaded to the learning platform 2 weeks before the start of classes. Students were required to watch these videos within the stipulated timeframe and to take a quiz to ensure their understanding of the PBL process.</p> <p>Each tutorial group was required to complete meeting records for every session, which included the date, starting and ending times, attendees, number of speeches, resolutions, and allocations of self-directed learning content. Meetings were held at least twice a week. Tutorial groups were student-led, with the instructor assisting as needed to avoid over-guidance and promote student autonomy.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-6">Variable Measurements</hd> <p>In the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) construct, variables are of two types—observable and latent. Observable variables refer to those that correspond to a directly measurable variable, while latent variables are reflected in a set of indicators. For example, multiple questionnaire questions are designed to reflect the value of the latent variable, with each question representing an indicator variable. The relationships between latent variables and indicator variables are known as the measurement model, and the causal relationships among all constructs are referred to as the structural model.</p> <p>To collect construct data for the PBL learning outcome-based pathway model, students in Class A were required to complete a five-point Likert scale questionnaire at the end of the course, with choices ranging from strongly disagree (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>) to strongly agree (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref70">5</reflink>). The six constructs in the input and learning process stages of the PBL learning outcome-based conceptual pathway model were latent variables. The questionnaire items were developed based on van Berkel and Schmidt ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref71">58</reflink>]) and adjusted with reference to the questionnaire items of Patria ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref72">43</reflink>]) and Tork and Shahin ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref73">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Prior knowledge was assessed via eight items that were primarily focused on the relevance of prior knowledge to problem understanding, interest in the problem, and usefulness of its application to discussions and problem-solving. Tutor performance was evaluated via ten items, covering aspects such as the clarity of tutor explanations regarding PBL, professional abilities, and the extent to which the tutor stimulated participation in discussions, helped students to overcome learning process difficulties, provided adequate feedback, and facilitated group cooperation.</p> <p>Problem quality was assessed using eight items, including whether the problem was clearly stated, stimulated interest in learning, was conducive to exploratory learning, facilitated in-depth discussions, had educational value, and contributed to the development of critical thinking. Tutorial group functionality was evaluated using ten items, which focused on factors such as the quality of group discussions, the responsibility of group members, appropriate task allocation, freedom of expression, and rational handling of differing opinions.</p> <p>PBL attendance was measured via eight items to assess factors such as attendance at group meetings, punctuality, absence due to personal reasons, and active participation in discussions. Self-directed learning time was assessed via seven items, encompassing the completion of learning objectives, the provision of satisfactory answers to group members' questions, additional learning related to the topic, a sense of achievement from self-directed learning, and the sufficiency of time allowed for self-directed learning.</p> <p>Critical thinking skills were assessed based on identification and resolution of logic errors, with four logic statements designed for each unit. Students were required to identify errors within the statements and provide corrections. The number of correct answers was used as a measure of critical thinking skills.</p> <p>Problem-solving skills were evaluated using case studies, with students asked to propose solutions to problems presented in the cases. One case was designed for each unit, and grading criteria were established to convert students' answers into scores on a four-point scale (lack of problem-solving skills (1 point) to excellent problem-solving skills (4 points)). Problem-solving skills were measured based on the total scores for the three units.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-7">Introduction to PLS-SEM</hd> <p>PLS-SEM, which is grounded in regression analysis, adopts a component-centered approach to elucidate direct relationships among a cohort of variables (Hair et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref74">24</reflink>]). Similar to CB-SEM, it serves as an estimation method for structural equation models encompassing latent variables. Despite the earlier development of CB-SEM, PLS-SEM is favored for its flexibility with non-normally distributed variables and its applicability to small samples. It is utilized not only for validating causal relationships, but also for exploring theoretical models, leading to its increasing popularity among researchers.</p> <p>Moreover, the PLS approach is suited to addressing issues of collinearity and does not necessitate the assumption that independent variables are mutually exclusive. As such, it enables the estimation of both direct and indirect effects of input or learning process variables on outcomes like critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Due to these attributes, PLS-SEM was chosen for model estimation in this study.</p> <p>The PLS-SEM estimation process comprises four main tasks: model construction, hypothesis testing, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural model analysis (Jabeur & Sghaier, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref75">31</reflink>]). Hypothesis testing and confirmatory factor analysis are aimed at refining the path model through reliability and validity testing. The refinement of the conceptual pathway model necessitates two prerequisites: ascertainment of the reliability of each latent variable and acceptability of all pathways within the model.</p> <p>The structural model was validated using a bootstrap method with 5,000 resamples and SmartPLS 4.0 software. It is important to note that, due to the non-requirement for data normality in PLS-SEM, the conventional <emph>t</emph>-test is unsuitable for significance determination. A non-parametric bootstrapping method is recommended instead, where significance is assessed based on the inclusion or exclusion of zero within the confidence interval. Table 2 shows the path coefficients of the six latent variables that passed the significance test. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the path diagrams for critical thinking and problem-solving skills, respectively.</p> <p>Table 2 Results of path coefficients and hypothesis testing</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Path</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>90% CI</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>f</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Accept</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>5%</p></th><th align="left"><p>95%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="8"><p>Panel A: Critical thinking skills</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge → Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.083</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.042</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.987</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.048</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.175</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.103</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge → Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.107</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.052</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.068</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.006</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.216</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.098</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance → Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.911</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.015</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>59.690</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.880</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.940</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.868</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance → Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.547</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.084</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.490</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.381</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.715</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.701</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance → Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.375</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.224</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.232</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.514</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.360</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance → Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.106</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.061</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.725</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.271</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.034</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems → Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.367</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.069</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.229</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.511</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.298</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems → PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.514</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.127</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.060</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.252</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.751</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.377</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems → Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.384</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.330</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.239</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.527</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.487</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems → Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.052</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.021</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.501</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.036</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.087</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.210</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutorial group functioning → PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.457</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.128</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.563</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.216</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.721</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.299</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutorial group functioning → Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.246</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.092</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.676</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.071</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.435</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.115</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutorial group functioning → Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.206</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.107</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.923</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.018</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.407</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.171</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> PBL attendance → Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.189</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.079</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.394</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.022</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.336</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.096</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Time spent on self-directed learning → Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.847</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.137</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.199</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.579</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.118</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.799</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="8"><p>Panel B: Problem-solving skills</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge → Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.084</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.055</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.916</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.040</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.174</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.030</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge → Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.273</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.127</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.149</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.033</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.542</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.097</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance → Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.910</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.015</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>60.431</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.879</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.938</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.822</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance → Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.549</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.084</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.534</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.381</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.712</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.717</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance → Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.377</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.070</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.416</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.233</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.508</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.364</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance → Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.478</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.240</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.987</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.026</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.964</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.073</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems → Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.365</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.071</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.116</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.229</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.509</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.301</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems → PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.513</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.124</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.141</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.258</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.749</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.376</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems → Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.385</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.073</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.276</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.252</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.529</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.494</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems → Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.071</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.228</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.812</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.013</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.186</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.049</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutorial group functioning → PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.457</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.126</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.634</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.216</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.712</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.298</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutorial group functioning → Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.243</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.092</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.634</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.064</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.432</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.112</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutorial group functioning → Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.738</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.230</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.203</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.257</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.859</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.155</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Time spent on self-directed learning → Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.903</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.322</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.802</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.300</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.957</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.138</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Coef.</emph> standardized coefficients, <emph>SE</emph> standard errors, <emph>CI</emph> confidence intervals "<emph>f</emph><sups>2</sups>" represents the effect size. Weak <emph>f</emph><sups>2</sups>: 0.02, moderate <emph>f</emph><sups>2</sups>: 0.15, strong<emph> f</emph><sups>2</sups>: 0.35</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 The impact path of PBL process on critical thinking skills</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 The impact path of PBL process on problem-solving skills</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-8">Model Quality Assessment</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182324040-9">Measurement Model</hd> <p>Before evaluation of the measurement and structural models, it was necessary to revise the conceptual path model. This stage required that two conditions be met:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>) Each latent variable had to be valid, with its indicator variable factor loadings exceeding 0.7. Non-compliant indicators were sequentially removed and re-estimated until all exceeded 0.7.</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>) All paths within the model had to demonstrate significance. Non-significant path coefficients were progressively removed and recalculated until each path was significant.</item> </ulist> <p>After these revisions, the model was referred to as the revised path model.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-10">Reliability Testing</hd> <p>Reliability refers to the likelihood that repeated measurements of the same phenomenon will yield consistent results. Common metrics include Cronbach's α, Dijkstra-Henseler's reliability (rho_A), and composite reliability (CR). The calculated results for the model's reliability and validity are presented in Table 3, with Cronbach's α for critical thinking and problem-solving skills ranging between 0.712 and 0.884, surpassing the acceptable threshold of 0.7. This indicates consistent reliability of the measurement model's indicators. The minimum values for critical thinking skills and problem-solving skills rho_A were 0.722 and 0.724, respectively, and for CR were 0.832 and 0.841, which all exceeded the 0.7 threshold. The results for rho_A and CR supported the reliability of the revised path model.</p> <p>Table 3 The validity and reliability of measurement and structure model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Construct</p></th><th align="left"><p>Cronbach's α</p></th><th align="left"><p>rho_A</p></th><th align="left"><p>CR</p></th><th align="left"><p>AVE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>Q</italic><sup>2</sup></p></th><th align="left" /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="8"><p>Panel A: Critical thinking skills</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.712</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.722</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.874</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.776</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>NFI = 0.850</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.874</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.874</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.941</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.888</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>SRMR = 0.065</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.884</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.891</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.928</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.812</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.828</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.612</p></td><td align="left"><p>Max VIF = 2.946</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.843</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.776</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.905</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.762</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.933</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.621</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.766</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.776</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.895</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.811</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.911</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.633</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.802</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.815</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.832</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.836</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.964</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.647</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.787</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.519</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="8"><p>Panel B: Problem-solving skills</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.712</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.724</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.895</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.810</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>NFI = 0.871</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.874</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.875</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.941</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.888</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left"><p>SRMR = 0.065</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.884</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.891</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.928</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.812</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.830</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.617</p></td><td align="left"><p>Max VIF = 2.715</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.843</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.851</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.905</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.762</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.933</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.629</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.766</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.775</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.895</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.810</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.912</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.645</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.811</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.825</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.841</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.806</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.963</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.669</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.967</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.548</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>IV</emph> indicator variables, <emph>FL</emph> factors loading, <emph>rho_A</emph> Dijkstra-Henseler's reliability, <emph>CR</emph> composite reliability, <emph>AVE</emph> average variance extracted, <emph>NFI</emph> normed fit index, <emph>SRMR</emph> standardized root mean square residual, <emph>VIF</emph> variance inflation factor <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = explanation ability: weak <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups>: 0.19, moderate <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups>: 0.33, strong <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups>: 0.67. <emph>Q</emph><sups>2</sups> = exhibiting predictive relevance: <emph>Q</emph><sups>2</sups> > 0</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-11">Validity Testing</hd> <p>Convergent and discriminant validity are two metrics used to examine a model's validity. Convergent validity implies that indicators of the same construct are highly correlated. In this study, the average variance extracted (AVE) for assessment was employed. AVE minimum value was 0.762 for both models, exceeding the 0.5 threshold and indicating that the revised path models for critical thinking and problem-solving skills possess convergent validity. Discriminant validity is the principle that items from different constructs have low correlations to prevent validity contamination. The Fornell–Larcker criterion was employed for discriminant validity testing. The square roots of AVE are represented by the diagonal elements in bold. Correlations between constructs with reflective measures are displayed below the diagonal elements. Discriminant validity of each latent variable was suggested when the square root of the AVE was larger than the correlation coefficient of each latent variable (see Table 4).</p> <p>Table 4 Fornell–Larcker criterion discriminant validity test</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>(1)</p></th><th align="left"><p>(2)</p></th><th align="left"><p>(3)</p></th><th align="left"><p>(4)</p></th><th align="left"><p>(5)</p></th><th align="left"><p>(6)</p></th><th align="left"><p>(7)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="8"><p>Panel A: Critical thinking skills</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (1) Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.881</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (2) Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.638</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.942</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (3) Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.341</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.541</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.901</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (4) Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.418</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.301</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.529</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.873</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (5) PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.405</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.436</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.411</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.618</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.901</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (6) Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.333</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.478</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.556</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.441</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.527</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.914</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (7) Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.537</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.357</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.435</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.535</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.550</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.461</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>1.000</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="8"><p>Panel B: Problem-solving skills</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (1) Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.900</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (2) Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.625</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.942</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (3) Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.341</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.520</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.901</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (4) Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.419</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.353</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.529</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.873</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (5) PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.404</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.401</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.410</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.618</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.900</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (6) Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.333</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.457</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.556</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.441</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.527</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>0.898</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> (7) Learning outcome</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.537</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.357</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.435</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.536</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.550</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.462</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>1.000</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The diagonal elements, in bold, represent square roots of the extracted average variance. The elements below the diagonal indicate the correlations between constructs with reflective measures</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-12">Structural Model</hd> <p>For structural model evaluation, three metrics, <emph>f</emph><sups>2</sups>, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups>, and <emph>Q</emph><sups>2</sups>. <emph>f</emph><sups>2</sups>, were employed to assess the effect size of each pathway. All pathway effect sizes in the revised path model exceeded 0.03 (see Table 2), above the 0.02 minimum threshold, indicating significant effect sizes for each pathway. <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> and <emph>Q</emph><sups>2</sups> are critical indicators of model predictability, with <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> representing the explanatory power of each endogenous variable in the model and serving as an indicator of the model's overall predictive strength. <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> values above 0.670, 0.330, and 0.100 indicate strong, medium, and weak predictive powers, respectively (Chin, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref78">11</reflink>]). The <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> values for the critical thinking skills model ranged from 0.787 to 0.964 and for the problem-solving skills model ranged from 0.830 to 0.967, suggesting that both models have excellent predictive power. Additionally, <emph>Q</emph><sups>2</sups> was used to evaluate the standard of construct cross-validated redundancy. A higher <emph>Q</emph><sups>2</sups> indicates stronger predictive relevance. When employing <emph>Q</emph><sups>2</sups> to assess the predictive ability of endogenous variables, a <emph>Q</emph><sups>2</sups> value above 0 is recommended, which indicates predictive relevance.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-13">Model Fit</hd> <p>The overall model fit was assessed using two metrics: the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) and the Normed Fit Index (NFI). The SRMR values for both models were 0.065, which was below the threshold of 0.1, indicating an acceptable fit. The NFI values for the two learning outcome models were 0.871 and 0.850, respectively, which were slightly below the minimum threshold of 0.9 and the only indicators that were not met. Considering that the NFI values for both models were close to the 0.9 benchmark and the relatively small sample size, it is possible that there was a slight underestimation of NFI values. However, all reliability and validity test indicators met the requirements. Therefore, after a comprehensive evaluation, the quality of the revised path model was deemed acceptable.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-14">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182324040-15">Path Model Analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182324040-16">The Impact of PBL Input on the Learning Process</hd> <p>Within the PBL framework, instructors not only pass on knowledge, but also design problems and facilitate learning. In the revised PBL learning outcome-based path model, instructors influenced student learning processes and, directly or indirectly, their learning outcomes. To comprehensively understand the impact of instructors on the efficacy of PBL, it is critical to analyze the direct, indirect, and total effects on both the learning process and outcomes. Such analyses can assist educators and institutions in the effective allocation of educational resources for facilitating PBL.</p> <p>The path coefficients estimated from the revised PBL path model in Table 2 were utilized to analyze PBL learning outcomes. Analysis began with the impacts of prior knowledge, tutor performance, and problem quality during the PBL engagement phase on the learning process, with all results consolidated in Table 5. Across all PBL learning activities, instructor performance was the most influential, followed by problem quality, while prior knowledge was the least influential. The same results were obtained from the revised path models for critical thinking skills and problem-solving skills.</p> <p>Table 5 The influence of PBL input variables on PBL process</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Direct effect</p></th><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Indirect effect</p></th><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Total effect</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>90% CI</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>90% CI</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>90% CI</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="6"><p>Panel A: Critical thinking skills model</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6"><p> Dependent variable is tutorial group functioning</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.083</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.012</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.987</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.048, 0.175]</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.083</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.042</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.987</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.048, 0.175]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.547</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.104</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.490</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.381, 0.715]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.334</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.065</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.145</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.209, 0.446]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.881</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.092</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.563</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.902, 0.991]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.367</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.061</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.069</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.229, 0.511]</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.367</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.069</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.229, 0.511]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6"><p> Dependent variable is PBL attendance</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.869</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.024</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>36.201</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.824, 0.919]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.869</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.024</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>36.201</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.824, 0.919]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.514</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.127</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.060</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.252, 0.751]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.168</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.065</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.582</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.064, 0.319]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.681</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.076</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.980</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.520, 0.818]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6"><p> Dependent variable is time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.020</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.010</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.912</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.011, 0.055]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.020</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.010</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.912</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.011, 0.055]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.375</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.224</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.232, 0.514]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.566</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.065</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.758</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.411, 0.703]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.941</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.104</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.070</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.912, 0.968]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.384</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.330</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.239, 0.527]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.091</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.037</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.458</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.026, 0.173]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.475</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.061</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.791</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.356, 0.592]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="16"><p>Panel B: Problem-solving skills mode</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6"><p> Dependent variable is tutorial group functioning</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.084</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.044</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.916</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.040, 0.174]</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.084</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.044</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.916</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.040, 0.174]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.549</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.084</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.534</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.381, 0.712]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.334</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.065</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.145</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.210, 0.464]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.883</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.090</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.828</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.802, 0.986]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.365</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.071</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.116</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.229, 0.509]</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.365</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.071</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.116</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.229, 0.509]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6"><p> Dependent variable is PBL attendance</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.868</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.024</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>36.018</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.823, 0.919]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.868</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.024</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>36.018</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.823, 0.919]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.513</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.124</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.141</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.258, 0.749]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.168</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.064</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.611</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.064, 0.314]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.681</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.077</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.896</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.528, 0.827]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6"><p> Dependent variable is time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.023</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.012</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.904</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.010, 0.057]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.023</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.012</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.904</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.010, 0.057]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.377</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.070</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.416</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.233, 0.508]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.566</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.065</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.686</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.477, 0.699]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.943</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.104</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.088</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.911, 0.967]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.385</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.073</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.261</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.242, 0.529]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.090</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.037</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.454</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.024, 0.167]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.475</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.061</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.780</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.360, 0.594]</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Values in [] represent the confidence intervals of estimated+++ coefficients ***, ** and * represent significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively</p> <p>Furthermore, the indirect effects were non-negligible. Taking the critical thinking skills model as an example, tutor performance accounted for at least 37.8% of the total effect on the learning process and 100% of the total effect on PBL engagement. When considering only direct effects, problem quality (0.514), but not tutor performance or prior knowledge, directly influenced PBL engagement. However, tutor performance indirectly affected PBL engagement through problem quality and tutorial group functionality, with an impact coefficient of 0.869, surpassing the total effect of problem quality (0.681). The primary reason is that problem design directly affects student willingness to engage. As the tutor designs the problems to be solved by the tutorial groups, problem quality is linked to tutor performance. From this analysis, it is evident that tutor performance is a pivotal factor in driving the PBL process.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-17">The Impact of PBL Input and Learning Process on Learning Outcomes</hd> <p>The influences of engagement and procedural variables in the PBL context on learning outcomes were investigated, utilizing analytical models for critical thinking and problem-solving skills. From Panel A of Table 6, self-directed learning was the principal direct influencer of critical thinking within the spectrum of PBL engagement and procedural variables. Although the direct influence of tutor performance on critical thinking was a modest 0.106, it held substantial indirect sway over critical thinking skills through seven pathways, leading to a significant total indirect effect of 1.096 and an overall impact of 1.200. Self-directed learning and problem quality were also identified as significant contributors to critical thinking skills. In terms of problem-solving skills, tutor performance was identified as the paramount factor, followed by tutorial group functionality and self-directed learning.</p> <p>Table 6 The influence of PBL input variables and PBL process on learning outcomes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Direct effect</p></th><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Indirect effect</p></th><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Total effect</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>90% CI</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>90% CI</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>90% CI</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="16"><p>Panel A: Critical thinking skills model</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.107</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.052</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.068</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.006, 0.216]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.042</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.018</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.288</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.020, 0.107]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.149</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.073</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.048, 0.189]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.106</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.061</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.725</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.072, 0.271]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.096</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.094</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.614</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.917, 1.289]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.200</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.060</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.132</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.898, 1.287]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.052</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.021</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.501</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.016, 0.246]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.606</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.087</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.990</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.443, 0.782]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.658</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.112</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.896</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.364, 0.728]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.206</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.107</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.923</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.018, 0.407]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.294</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.095</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.091</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.123, 0.500]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.500</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.121</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.137</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.269, 0.749]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.189</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.079</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.394</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.022, 0.336]</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.189</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.079</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.394</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.022, 0.336]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.847</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.137</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.199</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.579, 0.918]</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.847</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.137</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.199</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.579, 0.918]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="16"><p>Panel B: Problem-solving skills model</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.273</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.127</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.149</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.033, 0.542]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.080</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.034</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.324</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.036, 0.205]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.353</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.042</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.441</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.054, 0.476]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.478</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.240</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.987</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.026, 0.964]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.437</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.245</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.864</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.993, 1.953]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.915</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.092</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.488</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[1.747, 2.196]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.071</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.031</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.312</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.029, 0.386]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.697</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.168</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.154</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.392, 1.066]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.768</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.085</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.232, 1.025]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.738</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.230</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.203</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.257, 1.159]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.220</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.129</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.701</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.034, 0.530]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.958</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.042</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.357</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.542, 1.400]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.903</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.322</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.802</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.300, 1.581]</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.903</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.322</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.802</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>[0.300, 1.581]</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>***, **, and * represent significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively</p> <p>Further scrutiny of the direct and indirect impacts of various PBL elements on critical thinking and problem-solving skills indicated that the influence of prior knowledge on these skills predominantly stemmed from direct effects. In contrast, the contributions of tutor performance and problem quality to learning outcomes were largely indirect, owing to their broad direct impacts on numerous other facets. The effect of self-directed learning on both critical thinking and problem-solving skills was exclusively direct. In a similar vein, engagement in PBL activities directly affected critical thinking skills without impacting problem-solving skills.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-18">Learning Outcomes</hd> <p>The performances of the experimental group and the control group were compared in terms of critical thinking skills and problem-solving skills using the mean difference test. From Panel A of Table 7, students taught using PBL showed slightly worse critical thinking skills (14.422) compared to those taught using LBL (15.122), but the difference was not significant. Students taught using PBL (5.973) exhibited slightly better problem-solving skills than those taught using LBL (5.823). However, this difference was also not statistically significant. In summary, there were no significant differences in critical thinking or problem-solving skills between PBL and LBL. Despite the use of controls with no significant disparities in demographic characteristics or prior academic performance with the experimental group, the outcomes of the mean difference tests diverged from the majority of findings reported in the extant literature, warranting further exploration.</p> <p>Table 7 Comparisons of learning outcomes between PBL and lecture-based learning</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Panel A: Overall sample</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2" /></tr><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" colspan="2"><p>Learning outcome items</p></th><th align="left"><p>Problem-based learning</p></th><th align="left"><p>Lecture-based learning</p></th><th align="left"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Obs. = 62</p></th><th align="left"><p>Obs. = 110</p></th><th align="left"><p>−0.699</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>−1.057</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" colspan="2"><p>Critical thinking skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.422</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.122</p></td><td align="left"><p>−0.699</p></td><td align="char" colspan="2"><p>−1.057</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(4.871)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(2.448)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" colspan="2"><p>Problem-solving skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.973</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.823</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.150</p></td><td char="." align="char" colspan="2"><p>0.433</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(2.552)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(1.356)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" colspan="2" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="7"><p>Panel B: Grouped by students' previous academic performance</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Learning outcome items</p></th><th align="left"><p>Problem-based learning</p></th><th align="left"><p>Lecture-based learning</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2" /></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Obs. = 32</p></th><th align="left"><p>Obs. = 66</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Excellent</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Critical thinking skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>18.126</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.062</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>3.064</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>5.980</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(2.406)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(2.366)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Problem-solving skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.967</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.922</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>2.045</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>6.424</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(1.596)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(1.418)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Learning outcome items</p></th><th align="left"><p>Obs. = 30</p></th><th align="left"><p>Obs. = 44</p></th><th align="left"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Poor</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Critical thinking skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.462</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.200</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>−4.738</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>−6.667</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(3.521)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(2.593)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Problem-solving skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.835</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.661</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>−1.826</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>−6.181</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(1.234)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(1.256)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="7"><p>Panel C: Grouped by students' previous class attendance</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Learning outcome items</p></th><th align="left"><p>Problem-based learning</p></th><th align="left"><p>Lecture-based learning</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2" /></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Obs. = 33</p></th><th align="left"><p>Obs. = 56</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>High</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Critical thinking skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>17.605</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.410</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>3.195</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>5.313</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(3.191)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(2.440)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Problem-solving skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.426</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.930</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>1.496</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>3.755</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(2.062)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(1.291)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Learning outcome items</p></th><th align="left"><p>Obs. = 29</p></th><th align="left"><p>Obs. = 54</p></th><th align="left"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left" /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Low</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Critical thinking skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.792</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.851</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>−5.059</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>−6.573</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(3.802)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(2.252)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Problem-solving skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.307</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.700</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>−1.393</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>−3.764</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>(1.911)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(1.423)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Values in parentheses represent standard deviations ***, ** and * represent significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively</p> <p>Next, students were divided into excellent and poor groups based on their past average grades in compulsory professional courses. The learning outcomes of these two groups were compared under PBL and LBL. From Panel B of Table 7, excellent students taught using PBL method showed significantly better critical thinking skills (18.126) compared to those taught using LBL method (15.062). There were similar results for problem-solving skills (7.967 for PBL method versus 5.922 for LBL method). However, for students with lower grades in compulsory professional courses, those taught using PBL method performed significantly worse in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving skills compared to those taught using LBL method.</p> <p>Attendance rates reflect the attitude of students towards learning. The sample was divided into high and low attendance rate groups based on the average attendance rate of the previous semester. The learning outcomes of these two groups under PBL and LBL methods were compared. The empirical results in Panel C of Table 7 were consistent with those in Panel B. Among students with high attendance rate, those taught using PBL method performed better in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving skills than those taught using LBL method. However, for students with low attendance rate, those taught using PBL method performed significantly worse in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving skills compared to those taught using LBL method. The empirical results indicated that the application of the PBL methodology to financial management courses predominantly benefits first-time PBL participants who have previously demonstrated superior academic performance and maintain positive attitudes towards learning. These students are the ones most likely to experience enhanced learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-19">Multigroup Analysis</hd> <p>In an earlier analysis (Table 7), students were classified based on prior academic performance and attendance rate to evaluate the effects of their initial engagement with PBL on their critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Findings revealed that students with higher academic achievement experienced an enhancement in these skills through PBL, unlike their lower-achieving counterparts who saw a reduction in these skills compared to those participating in traditional educational format. This pattern was consistent for attendance rate.</p> <p>Guided by the PBL learning outcome-based path model, six critical aspects of PBL engagement were identified as key influencers of learning outcomes. The objective was to ascertain the primary factors affecting the learning outcomes of students with higher academic performance (or attendance) compared to those with lower academic performance (or attendance) after their first PBL experience. Based on the results of bootstrapping multigroup analysis, there were differences in the overall impacts of these six aspects on learning outcomes between the two groups.</p> <p>Panel A of Table 8, in which students are categorized by academic performance, reveals the impacts of these six aspects on critical thinking between groups. There were significant differences in prior knowledge and tutor performance. In the higher academic performance group, prior knowledge had a significant positive total effect (0.222) on critical thinking, whereas in the lower academic performance group, it had an insignificant and negative effect (−0.072). The total impact of tutor performance on critical thinking in the higher academic performance group was minor (0.126) and non-significant, but significantly negative (−0.640) in the lower academic performance group. This comparison highlights a more substantial positive total impact of tutor performance on critical thinking in the higher performance group. According to Panel A, the improvement in critical thinking skills following initial PBL experience in the higher academic performance group was primarily due to the effects of prior knowledge and tutor performance.</p> <p>Table 8 Multigroup analysis</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="10"><p>Panel A: Critical thinking skills vs. previous academic performance</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Excellent</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Poor</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2" /></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.222</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.122</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.820</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.123</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.583</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.293</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.674</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.126</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.111</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.142</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.640</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.098</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.513</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.766</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.026</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.992</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.002</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.313</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.574</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.835</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.310</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.493</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.193</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.203</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.160</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.074</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.932</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.080</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.119</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.074</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.088</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.237</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.688</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.148</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.582</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.094</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.236</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.137</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.356</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.573</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.862</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.296</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.114</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.265</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.651</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.809</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="10"><p>Panel B: Critical thinking skills vs. previous class attendance</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>High</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Low</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2" /></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.421</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.119</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.548</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.135</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.025</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.418</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.349</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.119</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.136</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.874</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.643</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.113</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.715</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.524</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.969</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.112</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.797</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.619</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.077</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.894</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.569</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.035</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.014</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.026</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.159</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.886</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.450</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.167</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.242</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−2.476</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.513</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PBL attendance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.018</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.128</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.675</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.263</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.717</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.735</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.756</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.871</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.725</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.537</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.472</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.502</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.063</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.472</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.227</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.652</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="10"><p>Panel C: Problem-solving skills vs. previous academic performance</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Excellent</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Poor</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2" /></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.350</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.093</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.749</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.150</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.139</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.078</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.199</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.242</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.356</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.099</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.614</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.656</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.073</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.023</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.012</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.835</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.979</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.132</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.928</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.397</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.102</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.361</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.581</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.603</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.522</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.773</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.970</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.329</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.118</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.188</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.851</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.178</p></td><td align="left"><p>**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PBL attendance</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.733</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.963</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.800</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.456</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.454</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.277</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.911</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="10"><p>Panel D: Problem-solving skills vs. previous class attendance</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>High</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Low</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2" /></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coef</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Diff</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Prior knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.531</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.100</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.312</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.189</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.178</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.058</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.343</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.716</p></td><td align="left"><p>*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tutor performance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.083</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.129</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.639</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.486</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.124</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.906</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.569</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.177</p></td><td align="left"><p>***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Quality of problems</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.430</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.479</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.173</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.534</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.556</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.344</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.105</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.035</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tutorial group functioning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.179</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.928</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.192</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.045</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.710</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.196</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.866</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.983</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PBL attendance</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Time spent on self-directed learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.424</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.538</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.275</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.987</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.360</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.726</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−0.563</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.274</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>***, **, and * represent significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively</p> <p>Panel B presents the differential impacts on critical thinking post-PBL participation among groups sorted by past attendance rates, revealing differences that were also predominantly due to prior knowledge and tutor performance. Panels C and D demonstrate the effects on problem-solving skills, with Panel D focusing on past attendance rates. In the group with higher attendance rates, there were significantly greater effects of prior knowledge and tutor performance on problem-solving skills compared to the group with lower attendance rates. Panel C indicates that students with better past academic performance surpassed those with lower past academic performance in terms of problem-solving skills post-PBL, mainly due to significant differences in the effects of tutor performance and tutorial group functionality. The results of multigroup analysis further supported that students with higher academic achievements or attendance rates gain more substantial and positive benefits from PBL in terms of enhanced critical thinking and problem-solving skills, consistent with the findings of the mean difference tests shown in Table 5.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-20">Discussion</hd> <p>In this study, the impact of transitioning from teacher-centered to student-centered learning via initial engagement in PBL on students' critical thinking and problem-solving skills was examined. Recognized as pivotal in the workplace, these competencies were assessed using PLS-SEM to determine pathway coefficients within a PBL learning outcome-based model. This analysis delineated the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of PBL components, offering preliminary recommendations for its efficacious implementation in three dimensions: learning outcomes, student characteristics, and pedagogical approaches.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-21">Learning Outcomes Dimension</hd> <p>This study focused on a financial management course, employing an experimental control approach to compare the critical thinking and problem-solving skills of first-time PBL participants with students taught via LBL. Results indicated no significant differences in these skills between the two groups. While prior research predominantly supports the enhancement of learning outcomes through PBL, such studies are often focused on fields such as engineering (Servant‐Miklos & Kolmos, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref79">51</reflink>]) or medicine (Camp, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref80">8</reflink>]; Gallagher et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref81">19</reflink>]; Hamilton et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref82">25</reflink>]) without the use of critical thinking and problem-solving skills as specific learning metrics, thus limiting opportunities for comparative analysis.</p> <p>Historically, studies have assessed average participant performance without considering individual differences. In this study, students were divided into groups based on historical academic performance and attendance to evaluate the influence of initial PBL engagement on critical thinking and problem-solving skills. It was found that students with high academic achievement or attendance benefit from initial PBL exposure in terms of enhanced critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Conversely, those with poorer academic records or lower attendance rates experienced reduced competencies compared to their LBL counterparts, underscoring the necessity of customizing instructional strategies to align with student characteristics, particularly for novices to innovative educational methods such as PBL.</p> <p>While much of the literature advocates PBL for elevating learning outcomes, Garnjost and Brown ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref83">21</reflink>]) and Alzughaibi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref84">2</reflink>]) observed no significant differences in learning effectiveness between PBL and LBL. Therefore, there is a need for further exploration of measurement methods (Caspersen et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref85">9</reflink>]), student demographics (Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref86">62</reflink>]), prior PBL exposure (Belwal et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref87">6</reflink>]), cultural influences (Frambach et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref88">18</reflink>]), and educational environment (Nuy, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref89">40</reflink>]), all of which could potentially affect PBL efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-22">Student Dimension</hd> <p>Influences on learning outcomes from the PBL-based pathway model include prior knowledge, PBL participation, tutorial group functionality, and self-directed learning. Pathway coefficients indicated that extensive prior knowledge enhances the operational efficiency of groups, as it allows members to effectively analyze and address problems during meetings, promoting more vibrant discussion, which is consistent with the observations of Hmelo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref90">27</reflink>]). Additionally, prior knowledge showed a positive correlation with learning outcomes, which was supported by Shapiro ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref91">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Effective tutorial group operations bolster PBL engagement and investment in self-directed learning. Contrary to the findings of van Berkel and Schmidt ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref92">58</reflink>]), who noted a decrease in PBL participation linked to extensive prior knowledge among non-first-time participants, our results revealed no significant influence of prior knowledge on PBL participation levels.</p> <p>The functionality of tutorial groups and self-directed learning form the core of PBL activities, significantly enhancing learning outcomes, notably in self-directed learning endeavors with pathway coefficients of 0.847 and 0.903 for critical thinking and problem-solving skills, respectively. Tutorial group functionality notably impacted problem-solving skills with a coefficient of 0.738. Although its influence on critical thinking skills registered lower at 0.206, proficient group operations can amplify member engagement and self-directed learning, thus indirectly fortifying critical thinking skills. Hence, fostering effective group dynamics is imperative for optimizing PBL outcomes. Additionally, van Berkel and Schmidt ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref93">58</reflink>]) highlighted a reduction in self-directed learning time with increased PBL engagement, a relationship not corroborated by our findings.</p> <p>Our results also diverged from those of van Berkel and Schmidt ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref94">58</reflink>]) in terms of the compensatory effects between prior knowledge and PBL participation, as well as between PBL participation and self-directed learning time. They posited that rich prior knowledge and high-quality problems simplify issue identification and comprehension, thereby diminishing the necessity for extensive PBL group discussions. Active PBL participation deepens problem understanding, curtails the need for further clarification, and consequently, reduces the time dedicated to self-directed learning. These variances could stem from differences in students' familiarity with PBL practices. For seasoned PBL participants, engaging in discussions serves to bridge knowledge gaps. Once they grasp the issues, their involvement in PBL and self-directed learning diminishes. Conversely, for novices to the PBL method, the impact of participation may be attributed to the confidence acquired during the learning process, inciting greater participation in PBL activities. Given that in the prior literature, learning outcomes pathway model has not been used to analyze the efficacy of initial PBL participation, additional empirical evidence is necessary to substantiate whether these distinctions are related to students' PBL experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-23">Pedagogical Dimension</hd> <p>Implementing PBL means that teachers must devote time to crafting problems, steering student discussions, and aiding in problem-solving processes to facilitate students' knowledge construction. Even when an educational method is substantiated as effective, unfamiliarity with it may impede learning outcomes. Transitioning students from a teacher-centric to a student-centric learning approach poses significant challenges, as the literature lacks effective transition strategies.</p> <p>Teachers are responsible not only for designing problems but also for facilitating group discussions. Effective guidance allows tutorial groups to concentrate more on problem-solving and influences the time students allocate to self-directed learning. Our findings suggested that among all factors affecting learning effectiveness, tutor performance exerts the largest influence on critical thinking and problem-solving skills, underscoring its pivotal role in PBL outcomes. While van Berkel and Schmidt ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref95">58</reflink>]) also employed a learning outcomes pathway model, their findings indicated that tutor performance bolsters the operational efficiency of learning groups but does not directly impact self-directed learning or overall learning effectiveness.</p> <p>Problems should be comprehensible and interesting, to foster involvement in learning and successful problem resolution through guided steps. High-quality problems enhance group operational efficiency and prompt students to devote more time to self-directed learning. In their study, van Berkel and Schmidt ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref96">58</reflink>]) suggested that superior quality problems augment students' comprehension, thereby reducing the need for PBL discussion sessions.</p> <p>The pathway model formulated in the present study underscored the critical role of teachers in aiding students' adaptation to new learning methods. Special attention should be directed towards students with poor academic performance or low attendance rates who are encountering PBL for the first time. Moreover, problems should be grounded in real-life scenarios to stimulate learning and interest, with clear and straightforward descriptions. During group discussions, students should be encouraged to participate and receive ample praise to boost their confidence, thereby fostering engagement and involvement. Before advancing PBL, educational institutions should invest in PBL teacher training to ensure that teachers are proficient in the PBL process, attentive to student learning processes, and provide appropriate guidance and support. This will promote discussions within groups, enhance student autonomy, facilitate collaborative problem-solving, and build necessary knowledge, thereby maximizing PBL's educational potential.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-24">Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research</hd> <p>This study provides insights into the impact of PBL and LBL on students' critical thinking and problem-solving skills, albeit with notable limitations that may influence the generalization and interpretation of the findings. The sample was exclusively drawn from the College of Management at Asia University, Taiwan, which restricts the extrapolation of the results to other institutional contexts. Moreover, the modest sample size constrains the broader applicability of the findings. Future studies should seek to expand the sample size to bolster statistical robustness and the reliability of results. Moreover, enhancing sample diversity to encompass varied cultural and academic backgrounds would augment the representativeness of the findings. While this study employed a mix of self-reported questionnaires and objective assessment techniques, the self-reported measures' accuracy and reliability could have been impacted by their design and implementation. Therefore, it is advisable to integrate multiple assessment methods, including qualitative approaches like interviews and observations, for a more comprehensive understanding of student experiences and instructional practices. Additionally, this study's use of cross-sectional surveys to explore variable relationships precludes establishment of causality. Future research should employ longitudinal analyses to validate the predictive capabilities of these factors in terms of critical thinking and problem-solving skills.</p> <p>Considering these limitations, we propose several avenues for future research. Firstly, the collection of a diverse dataset would enhance the generalizability of the findings. Cross-national and cross-cultural studies could elucidate the effects of PBL across varying cultural contexts and determine how cultural differences influence novice participants' learning outcomes in PBL settings. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are essential to assess the enduring impacts of PBL on students' critical thinking and problem-solving skills, including their professional trajectories post-graduation.</p> <p>By addressing these research gaps and exploring these proposed directions, the practical application of PBL in educational settings can be significantly enhanced, offering more effective learning environments for a diverse student body. This, in turn, will aid educators and researchers in more deeply understanding and refining PBL pedagogical strategies, thereby effectively boosting students' critical thinking and problem-solving skills.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-25">Author contribution</hd> <p>YCL conceptualized the design of this study. YCL was the sole contributor in writing the manuscript. YCL analyzed and interpreted the data used for determining the results of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-26">Funding</hd> <p>This study was supported by Ministry of Education (Grant no. PBM1110383).</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-27">Data availability</hd> <p>Data is available upon request.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-28">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182324040-29">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The author declares that they have no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-30">Ethical approval</hd> <p>This study involves human participants and has been reviewed and approved by the Academic Ethics Committee of Asia University. All participants were informed about their involvement in this educational research and have signed informed consent forms agreeing to participate in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-31">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (XLSX 34 KB)</p> <hd id="AN0182324040-32">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0182324040-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref60" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Albanese MA, Mitchell S. Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine. 1993; 68: 52-81. 10.1097/00001888-199301000-00012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref25" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alzughaibi M, Alotaibi M, Ahmed F, Alqahtani B, Bargo M. PBL quizzes and their effects on student performance. Journal of US-China Medical Science. 2016; 13: 108-112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref44" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ames C. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1992; 84; 3: 261. 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref15" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Aslan A. Problem- based learning in live online classes: Learning achievement, problem-solving skill, communication skill, and interaction. Computers & Education. 2021; 171: 104237. 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref13" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Asyari M, Al Muhdhar MHI, Susilo H, Ibrohim I. Improving critical thinking skills through the integration of problem based learning and group investigation. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies. 2016; 5; 1: 36-44. 10.1108/IJLLS-10-2014-0042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref87" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Belwal R, Belwal S, Sufian AB, Al Badi A. Project-based learning (PBL): Outcomes of students' engagement in an external consultancy project in Oman. Education + Training. 2020; 63; 3: 336-359. 10.1108/ET-01-2020-0006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bevitt D, Baldwin C, Calvert J. Intervening early: Attendance and performance monitoring as a trigger for first year support in the biosciences. Bioscience Education. 2010; 15; 1: 1-14. 10.3108/beej.15.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref80" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Camp G. Problem-based learning: A paradigm shift or a passing fad?. Medical Education Online. 1996; 1; 1: 4282. 10.3402/meo.v1i.4282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref85" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Caspersen J, Smeby J-C, Olaf Aamodt P. Measuring learning outcomes. European Journal of Education. 2017; 52; 1: 20-30. 10.1111/ejed.12205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Catanach AH Jr, Croll DB, Grinaker RL. Teaching intermediate financial accounting using a business activity model. Issues in Accounting Education. 2000; 15; 4: 583-603. 10.2308/iace.2000.15.4.583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research. 1998; 295; 2: 295-336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Das M, Mpofu DJS, Hasan MY, Stewart TS. Student perceptions of tutor skills in problem-based learning tutorials. Medical Education. 2002; 36; 3: 272-278. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01148.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Grave WS, Dolmans DHJM, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Profiles of effective tutors in problem-based learning: Scaffolding student learning. Medical Education. 1999; 33; 12: 901-906. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00492.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eggers F, Lovelace KJ, Kraft F. Fostering creativity through critical thinking: The case of business start-up simulations. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2017; 26; 3: 266-276. 10.1111/caim.12225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisen DB, Schupp CW, Isseroff RR, Ibrahimi OA, Ledo L, Armstrong AW. Does class attendance matter? Results from a second-year medical school dermatology cohort study. International Journal of Dermatology. 2015; 54; 7: 807-816. 10.1111/ijd.12816</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Esmond-Kiger C, Kirch DP. Implementing the business activity model for teaching intermediate accounting: A recipe for success. Management Accounting Quarterly. 2003; 4; 4: 53-62</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Felder RM, Brent R. Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education. 2005; 94; 1: 57-72. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00829.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frambach JM, Driessen EW, Chan L-C, van der Vleuten CPM. Rethinking the globalisation of problem-based learning: How culture challenges self-directed learning. Medical Education. 2012; 46; 8: 738-747. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04290.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallagher SA, Sher BT, Stepien WJ, Workman D. Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics. 1995; 95; 3: 136-146. 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb15748.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García-Merino JD, Urionabarrenetxea S, Fernández-Sainz A. Does PBL improve student performance in a multidimensional way? A proposal for a moderated mediation model. Higher Education Research & Development. 2020; 39; 7: 1454-1473. 10.1080/07294360.2020.1732878</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garnjost P, Brown SM. Undergraduate business students' perceptions of learning outcomes in problem based and faculty centered courses. The International Journal of Management Education. 2018; 16; 1: 121-130. 10.1016/j.ijme.2017.12.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gijselaers WH, Schmidt HGNorman Z, Schmidt HG, Ezzat E. Towards a causal model of student learning within the context of a problem-based curriculum. Innovation in medical education: An evaluation of its present status. 1990; Springer: 95-114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hailikari T, Nevgi A, Lindblom-Ylänne S. Exploring alternative ways of assessing prior knowledge, its components and their relation to student achievement: A mathematics based case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2007; 33; 3: 320-337. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2007.07.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2012; 40; 3: 414-433. 10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamilton KL, Kuo Y-C, Horneffer P, Stein TP, Goldberg GS. Video didactic preparation augments problem-based learning for first year medical students. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development. 2023; 10: 23821205231177862. 10.1177/23821205231177862</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammar Chiriac E. A scheme for understanding group processes in problem-based learning. Higher Education. 2008; 55; 5: 505-518. 10.1007/s10734-007-9071-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hmelo CE, Nagarajan A, Day RS. Effects of high and low prior knowledge on construction of a joint problem space. The Journal of Experimental Education. 2000; 69; 1: 36-56. 10.1080/00220970009600648</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational Psychology Review. 2004; 16; 3: 235-266. 10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hursen C. The effect of problem-based learning method supported by web 2.0 tools on academic achievement and critical thinking skills in teacher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 2021; 26: 515-533. 10.1007/s10758-020-09458-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iwaoka WT, Li Y, Rhee WY. Measuring gains in critical thinking in food science and human nutrition courses: The Cornell Critical Thinking Test, problem-based learning activities, and student journal entries. Journal of Food Science Education. 2010; 9; 3: 68-75. 10.1111/j.1541-4329.2010.00100.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jabeur SB, Sghaier A. The relationship between energy, pollution, economic growth and corruption: A Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) approach. Economics Bulletin. 2018; 38; 4: 1927-1946</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khan SI. Critical thinking in a higher education functional English course. European Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 6; 1: 59-67. 10.12973/eu-jer.6.1.59</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lai MM, Kwan JH, Kadir HA, Abdullah M, Yap VC. Effectiveness, teaching, and assessments: Survey evidence from finance courses. Journal of Education for Business. 2009; 85; 1: 21-29. 10.1080/08832320903217556</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, H. C, Jawawi, R, Matzin, R, Jaidin, J. H, Shahrill, M, & Mundia, L. (2020, March 28–30). PBL in accounting: An alternative approach. In Proceedings of the 2020 8th international conference on information and education technology (pp. 94–98).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marya RK. Subjective and objective evaluation of PBL outcomes in preclinical medical students. Internet Journal of Medical Update-EJOURNAL. 2012; 7; 1: 56-57</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore R, Jensen M, Hatch J, Duranczyk I, Staats S, Koch L. Showing up: The importance of class attendance for academic success in introductory science courses. The American Biology Teacher. 2003; 65; 5: 325-329. 10.1662/0002-7685(2003)065[0325:SUTIOC]2.0.CO;2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newman-Ford L, Fitzgibbon K, Lloyd S, Thomas S. A large-scale investigation into the relationship between attendance and attainment: A study using an innovative, electronic attendance monitoring system. Studies in Higher Education. 2008; 33; 6: 699-717. 10.1080/03075070802457066</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nickerson J, Yen CJ, Mahoney JT. Exploring the problem-finding and problem-solving approach for designing organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives. 2012; 26; 1: 52-72. 10.5465/amp.2011.0106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norman GR. Problem-solving skills, solving problems and problem-based learning. Medical Education. 1988; 22; 4: 279-286. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1988.tb00754.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nuy HJP. Interactions of study orientation and students' appreciation of structure in their educational environment. Higher Education. 1991; 22; 3: 267-274. 10.1007/BF00132291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papathanasiou IV, Kleisiaris CF, Fradelos EC, Kakou K, Kourkouta L. Critical thinking: The development of an essential skill for nursing students. Acta Informatica Medica. 2014; 22; 4: 283-286. 10.5455/aim.2014.22.283-286</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pardos, Z. A, & Xu, Y. (2016, April 25–29). Improving efficacy attribution in a self-directed learning environment using prior knowledge individualization. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 435–439). https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883949</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patria B. The validity and reliability of a problem-based learning implementation questionnaire. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions. 2015; 12: 22. 10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul R, Elder L. Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education. 2006; 30; 2: 34</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pintrich PR. A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2003; 95; 4: 667-686. 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramsay J, Sorrell E. Problem-based learning: An adult-education-oriented training approach For SH&E practitioners. Professional Safety. 2007; 52; 9: 41-46</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rattanatumma T, Puncreobutr V. Assessing the effectiveness of STAD model and Problem Based Learning in mathematics learning achievement and problem solving ability. Journal of Education and Practice. 2016; 7; 12: 194-199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santiago A. Impact of sandwich course design on first job experience. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2009; 18; 2: 205-217. 10.3860/taper.v18i2.1323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, H. G, & Gijselaers, W. H. (1990, April 8–12). Causal modeling of problem-based learning. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 16–22).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt HG, Moust JHEvensen DH, Hmelo CE, Hmelo-Silver CE. Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning: A review of research. Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. 2000; Routledge: 19-52</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Servant-Miklos VF, Kolmos A. Student conceptions of problem and project based learning in engineering education: A phenomenographic investigation. Journal of Engineering Education. 2022; 111; 4: 792-812. 10.1002/jee.20478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro AM. How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal. 2004; 41; 1: 159-189. 10.3102/00028312041001159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sockalingam N, Rotgans J, Schmidt HG. Student and tutor perceptions on attributes of effective problems in problem-based learning. Higher Education. 2011; 62; 1: 1-16. 10.1007/s10734-010-9361-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takahashi S, Saito E. Changing pedagogical styles: A case study of The Trading Game in a Japanese university. Teaching in Higher Education. 2011; 16; 4: 401-412. 10.1080/13562517.2011.560377</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tallman I, Leik RK, Gray LN, Stafford MC. A theory of problem-solving behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1993; 56; 3: 157-177. 10.2307/2786776</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tork HMM, Shahin ESM. The effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) in nursing education: Cross-cultural student's perspective. Journal of American Science. 2011; 7; 11: 516-521</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Berkel HJM, Dolmans DHJM. The influence of tutoring competencies on problems, group functioning and student achievement in problem-based learning. Medical Education. 2006; 40; 8: 730-736. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02530.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Berkel HJM, Schmidt HG. Motivation to commit oneself as a determinant of achievement in problem-based learning. Higher Education. 2000; 40; 2: 231-242. 10.1023/A:1004022116365</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilder S. Impact of problem-based learning on academic achievement in high school: A systematic review. Educational Review. 2015; 67; 4: 414-435. 10.1080/00131911.2014.974511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodfield R, Jessop D, McMillan L. Gender differences in undergraduate attendance rates. Studies in Higher Education. 2006; 31; 1: 1-22. 10.1080/03075070500340127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xia J, Song B. Problems and countermeasures of financial management specialty based on genetic algorithm. International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC). 2021; 2021: 771-774. 10.1109/IWCMC51323.2021.9498815</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang W, Yang ACH, Huang L, Leung DYH, Lau N. Correlation between the composition of personalities and project success in project-based learning among design students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2022; 32; 5: 2873-2895. 10.1007/s10798-021-09716-z</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Yung-Chuan Lee</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref91"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1457905
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Changes in Learning Outcomes of Students Participating in Problem-Based Learning for the First Time: A Case Study of a Financial Management Course
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yung-Chuan+Lee%22">Yung-Chuan Lee</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9794-7457">0000-0002-9794-7457</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Asia-Pacific+Education+Researcher%22"><i>Asia-Pacific Education Researcher</i></searchLink>. 2025 34(1):511-530.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Money+Management%22">Money Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Financial+Education%22">Financial Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Based+Learning%22">Problem Based Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+Thinking%22">Critical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperative+Learning%22">Cooperative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tutor+Training%22">Tutor Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tutors%22">Tutors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tutoring%22">Tutoring</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tutorial+Programs%22">Tutorial Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Gains%22">Achievement Gains</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s40299-024-00873-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0119-5646<br />2243-7908
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The aim of this study was to explore how first-time problem-based learning (PBL) participants can improve their learning outcomes. Empirical results showed that students with higher academic performance and attendance rates significantly enhanced their critical thinking and problem-solving skills through PBL compared to traditional lecture-based methods. However, PBL was less effective for students with lower academic performance or attendance rates compared to traditional lectures, highlighting the impact of student characteristics on PBL outcomes. Tutors should focus on students with lower academic or attendance rates, encouraging their active participation to improve overall learning outcomes. Results of path model analysis revealed that tutor performance significantly influences both the learning process and the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Self-directed learning greatly influences critical thinking, while the functionality of tutorial groups significantly affects problem-solving skills. These findings emphasized the importance of tutor performance in enhancing the learning outcomes of students new to PBL. Therefore, educational institutions should invest in PBL teaching seminars to boost tutor performance and ultimately improve student learning outcomes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1457905
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1457905
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s40299-024-00873-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 511
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Money Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Financial Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Based Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Critical Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Solving
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tutor Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tutors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tutoring
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tutorial Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Gains
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Changes in Learning Outcomes of Students Participating in Problem-Based Learning for the First Time: A Case Study of a Financial Management Course
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yung-Chuan Lee
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0119-5646
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2243-7908
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 34
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Asia-Pacific Education Researcher
              Type: main
ResultId 1