Instructional Design and Technology Program, Department of Education, Health and Behavior Studies, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA.
School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2019 Dec;24(5):943-957. doi: 10.1007/s10459-019-09945-x. Epub 2019 Nov 25.
In the past 50 years, the original McMaster PBL model has been implemented, experimented, revised, and modified, and is still evolving. Yet, the development of PBL is not a series of success stories, but rather a journey of experiments, failures and lessons learned. In this paper, we analyzed the meta-analyses and systematic reviews on PBL from 1992 to present as they provide a focused lens on the PBL research in the past 5 decades. We identified three major waves in the PBL research development, analyzed their impact on PBL research and practice, and offered suggestions of research gaps and future directions for the field. The first wave of PBL research (polarization: 1990-mid 2000) focused on answering the question "Does PBL work?" and the outcomes. The results were conflicting. The researchers took polarizing positions and debated over the merits of PBL throughout this wave. However, the contradictory results and the debates in fact pushed the researchers to look harder for new directions to solve the puzzle. These efforts resulted in the second wave (from outcomes to process: mid 2000-mid 2010) that focused on the question "How does PBL work?" The second wave of PBL research targeted at investigating the effects of implementation constituents, such as assessment formats or single versus curriculum wide implementations. The third wave (specialization: mid 2010 and onward) of PBL research focused on "How does PBL work in different specific contexts?" These research widened our perspectives by expanding our understanding of how PBL manifests itself in different contexts. Given the diversification of PBL and more hybrid PBL models, we suggest "Why does PBL with particular implementation characteristics for specific outcomes work or not work in the condition where it is implemented?" to be the question to answer in the next wave of PBL research.
在过去的 50 年里，麦克马斯特 PBL 模式经历了实施、实验、修订和改进，并且仍在不断发展。然而，PBL 的发展并不是一系列成功的故事，而是一个实验、失败和吸取教训的过程。在本文中，我们分析了 1992 年至今关于 PBL 的荟萃分析和系统评价，因为它们为过去 50 年的 PBL 研究提供了一个集中的视角。我们确定了 PBL 研究发展的三个主要阶段，分析了它们对 PBL 研究和实践的影响，并提出了该领域研究差距和未来方向的建议。第一波 PBL 研究（极化：1990 年-2000 年代中期）专注于回答“PBL 是否有效？”以及结果。结果相互矛盾。在这一波中，研究人员持两极分化的立场，并就 PBL 的优点展开辩论。然而，矛盾的结果和争论实际上促使研究人员寻找新的方向来解决这个难题。这些努力导致了第二波（从结果到过程：2000 年代中期-2010 年代中期），专注于“PBL 是如何起作用的？”第二波 PBL 研究的目的是调查实施组成部分的影响，如评估形式或单一与课程广泛实施。第三波（专业化：2010 年代中期及以后）的 PBL 研究侧重于“PBL 在不同特定背景下是如何起作用的？”这些研究通过扩大我们对 PBL 在不同背景下表现形式的理解，拓宽了我们的视野。鉴于 PBL 的多样化和更多混合的 PBL 模式，我们建议“在实施的情况下，具有特定实施特征以实现特定结果的 PBL 为什么有效或无效？”作为下一波 PBL 研究要回答的问题。
