SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Schmidt HG. Problem-based learning; rationale and description. Med Educ 1983: 17: 1116.
  • 2
    Norman GR, Schmidt HG. The psychological basis of PBL. A review of the evidence. Acad Med 1992: 67: 557565.
  • 3
    Albanese MA, Mitchell S. Problem-based learning: a review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad Med 1993: 68: 5281.
  • 4
    Vernon DTA, Blake RI. Does problem based learning work? A meta analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med 1993: 68: 550563.
  • 5
    Savery JR, Duffy TM. Problem-based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educ Technol 1995: 135: 3138.
  • 6
    Schmidt HG, van der Molen HT. Self-reported competency ratings of graduates of a problem-based medical curriculum. Acad Med 2001: 76: 466468.
  • 7
    Abrandt Dahlgren M, Dahlgren LO. Portraits of PBL: students’ experiences of the characteristics of problem-based learning in physiotherapy, computer engineering and psychology. Instr Sci 2002: 30: 111127.
  • 8
    Prosser M. A student learning perspective on teaching and learning with implications for problem-based learning. Eur J Dent Educ 2004: 8: 5158.
  • 9
    Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 2004: 16: 235266.
  • 10
    Dolmans DHJM, de Grave WS, Wolfhagen IHAP, van der Vleuten CPM. Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ 2005: 39: 732741.
  • 11
    Dolmans DHJM, Schmidt HG. What do we know about cognitive and motivational effects of small group tutorials in problem-based learning? Adv Health Sci Educ 2006: 11: 321336.
  • 12
    Gross Davis B. Tools for teaching. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1993.
  • 13
    Slavin R. Cooperative learning. In: Gall JP, Gall MD, Borg WR eds Applying educational research: a practical guide. edn. New York: Longman, 1999: 4.
  • 14
    Fincham AG, Baehner R, Chai Y, et al. Problem-based learning at the University of Southern California School of Dentistry. J Dent Educ 1997: 61: 417425.
  • 15
    Rohlin M, Petersson K, Svensäter G. The Malmö model: a problem-based learning curriculum in undergraduate dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 1998: 2: 103114.
  • 16
    Shuler CF, Fincham AG. Comparative achievement on National Dental Board Examination Part 1 between dental students in problem-based learning and traditional educational tracks. J Dent Educ 1998: 62: 666670.
  • 17
    Haghparast N, Sedghizadeh PP, Shuler CF, Ferati D, Christersson C. Evaluation of student and faculty perceptions of the PBL at two dental schools from a student perspective: a cross-sectional survey. Eur J Dent Educ 2007: 11: 1422.
  • 18
    Maudsley G. Do we all mean the same thing by ‘Problem-based learning’? A review of the concepts and a formulation of the ground rules Acad Med 1999: 74: 178185.
  • 19
    Wood DF. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine. Br Med J 2003: 326: 328330.
  • 20
    De Grave WS, Dolmans DHJM, van der Vleuten CPM. Student perceptions about the occurrence of critical incidents in the tutorial group. Med Teach 2001: 23: 4954.
  • 21
    De Grave WS, Dolmans DHJM, van der Vleuten CPM. Student perceptions on critical incidents in the tutorial group. Adv Health Sci Educ 2002: 7: 201209.
  • 22
    Hendry GD, Ryan G, Harris J. Group problems in problem-based learning. Med Teach 2003: 25: 609615.
  • 23
    Hitchcock MA, Anderson AS. Dealing with dysfunctional tutorial groups. Teach Learn Med 1997: 9: 1924.
  • 24
    Houlden RL, Collier CP, Frid PJ, John SL, Pross H. Problems identified by tutors in a hybrid problem-based learning curriculum. Acad Med 2001: 76: 81.
  • 25
    Belbin RM. Management teams – why they succeed or fail, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, 2004.
  • 26
    Pritchard JS, Stanton NA. Testing Belbin’s team role theory of effective groups. J Manage Dev 1999: 18: 652665.
  • 27
    Macgowan MJ. Evaluation of a measure of engagement for group work. Res soc work practice 2000: 10: 348361.
  • 28
    Stockdale S, Williams RL. Cooperative learning groups at the college level: differential effects on high, average and low exam performers. J Behav Educ 2004: 13: 3750.
  • 29
    Murray-Harvey R. Metacognition makes a difference: identifying characteristics of successful tertiary students using path analysis. Flinders University of South Australia. http://www.aare.edu.au/93pap/murrr93159.txt [accessed 20 November, 2010].
  • 30
    Uzuntiryaki E. Learning styles and high school students’ chemistry achievement. Sci Educ Int 2007: 18: 2537.