article journal of management education / october ......students will ultimately grapple with in...

10.1177/1052562904265773 ArticleJOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / October 2004Sherwood / PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATION

PROBLEM-BASED LEARNINGIN MANAGEMENT EDUCATION:A FRAMEWORK FORDESIGNING CONTEXT

Arthur Lloyd SherwoodIndiana State University

Problem-based learning has great potential for management education. Plac-ing students in a problem-centered environment may help bridge the gapbetween theory and practice. One important but underdeveloped issue forproblem-based learning is the context design of the problem-solving situation.This article’s purpose is to develop a framework for designing the context forproblem-based learning in management education. Background informationis presented for problem-based learning, situated cognition, and the organiza-tion, leading to the development of such a framework. Cases are presented thatillustrate the framework’s use, and learning outcomes are discussed.

Keywords: problem-based learning; design; context; problem solving; man-agement education

Recently there has been great interest in the potential of problem-basedlearning (PBL) for management education. Problems are what businessstudents will ultimately grapple with in their professional lives, and thus aproblem-based approach presents a hopeful marriage between student needsand pedagogy. PBL offers the potential for real-life experience so oftencalled for by the stakeholders of higher education. Indeed, traditional

536

Author’s Note: Please address correspondence to Arthur Lloyd Sherwood, assistant professor,College of Business, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809; phone: (812) 237-2094; e-mail: [email protected].

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 28 No. 5, October 2004 536-557DOI: 10.1177/1052562904265773© 2004 Organizational Behavior Teaching Society

approaches to business education curriculum have been increasingly criti-cized for having little relationship with what is important for succeeding inbusiness (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002).

One particularly promising aspect of PBL is the opportunity to design rel-evant context for the problem-solving situation. This involves placing stu-dents in a meaningful context in which they can solve a meaningful problem.Although the potential is great, our understanding of PBL in managementeducation is in its early stages, and our understanding of designing contextfor PBL is in its infancy.

Thus, the purpose of this article is to address context and its design in PBL.First, background will be presented on PBL in general and on PBL contextspecifically. Second, important aspects of PBL context will be discussedfrom the situated cognition perspective. Third, a framework for bridging thegap between context theory and context design will be offered for man-agement education. Fourth, two case studies of undergraduate managementclasses (management and organizational behavior and business policy andstrategy) will be presented to illustrate varying applications of the frame-work. Finally, learning outcomes and implications for educators and research-ers are discussed.

BACKGROUND

PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING

PBL owes much of its development to the medical fields. Althoughschools of management, law, and other disciplines have approaches that fallunder the PBL umbrella, the medical profession has taken a leading role inresearch and curricular application.

Pinpointing a singular definition for PBL has remained an elusive task forscholars and practitioners from all fields (Davis & Harden, 1999). Hardenand Davis (1998) point out the variance from rigid definitions to anythingthat includes problem solving. Bereiter and Scardamalia (2000) point outthat there are two types of definitions varying from “a distinctive, well docu-mented instructional approach that originated in medical education” to “anindefinite range of educational approaches that give problems a central placein learning activity” (p. 185). In line with the latter, Harden and Davis placePBL on an 11-step continuum going from the least problem centered (infor-mation orientation) to the most problem centered (problem-centered andtask-based learning). This article will use the acronym PBL to refer to prob-lem-based learning that encompasses the continuum from less to moreproblem centered.

Sherwood / PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATION 537

Despite the definition diversity, there are at least two points of continuity.First, to some degree, the problem is the center of attention. Second, PBL isan approach to learning. This problem-centered approach for managementeducation and learning has multiple objectives based upon those framed forthe medical field (Barrows, 1986; Myers Kelson & Distlehorst, 2000). Theseinclude construction of professionally useful knowledge; development ofreasoning and problem-solving strategies; development of self-directedlearning strategies; increasing motivation for the learner; and becomingeffective collaborators. Barrows (as cited in Davis & Harden, 1999) indi-cates, “The basic outline of the PBL process is encountering the problemfirst, problem solving with clinical skills and identifying learning needs inthe process, self study, applying newly gained knowledge to the problem andsummarizing what has been learned” (p. 15).

Barrows (1986) points out that there are at least two antecedents to theprobability of accomplishing these objectives and executing this process.One is the locus of control of learning (teacher centered, student centered,or mixed). The other is the nature of the case (vignette, complete case, fullproblem-solving simulation). Context, defined here as the circumstancesthat give meaning, plays an important role when designing the locus of con-trol and the nature of the case for the problem-solving situation.

Context has been pinpointed as a critical ingredient of PBL. Edens (2000)notes,

Those authentic contexts are vital to the many fields that require specific pro-fessional training. That, of course, is a dramatic shift from the traditional viewof cognitive development resulting from one’s reception of knowledge trans-mitted by the instructor. Problem based learning holds promise as a teachingtool that provides for the acquisition of problem-solving skills to meet the chal-lenges of the twenty first century workplace. (p. 5)

Although PBL offers the potential for authentic context, the managementeducation literature has yet to formally address what elements of PBL con-text are important or how to bring that theoretical knowledge into practice.Fenwick (1998) critically appraises PBL cases and takes a critical view argu-ing that “another difficulty with the authenticity of PBL cases is that the prob-lem’s context is necessarily relegated to the shadows of background” (p. 22).Rather than taking the perspective that relegation to the background is neces-sary, this article contends that through active design and management, con-text is a critical ingredient to successful learning with the problem-basedapproach. To gain a greater understanding of context and its development,several questions beg to be answered. These include the following: Why is

538 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / October 2004

context so important to learning generally and to PBL in particular? Whatdimensions of context are important for learning? And, how can the answersto the above be translated into practice? The next section addresses the firsttwo questions using situated cognition as a lens for understanding. The lastquestion will be subsequently addressed.

THE SITUATED COGNITION PERSPECTIVE

Situated cognition (SC) provides a useful lens through which we canunderstand PBL context. SC holds that context is central to the successfullearning of knowledge and skills from others. Phrased another way, peda-gogy should not separate what is learned from how it is learned and used, asthis separation limits the learner’s understanding of much of the importantmeaning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989).

Scholars of SC argue that both the social and physical dimensions of con-text are vital to learning because knowledge is embedded in the use and prac-tice of knowledge (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Brown et al., 1989; Lave &Wenger, 1991). Lave and Wenger (1991) use the term “legitimate periph-eral participation” emphasizing that learning takes place when the learnerbecomes a legitimate participant in the periphery of practice. Brown andDuguid (1991) emphasize the importance of the ambient social and physicalcharacteristics of context. The authors indicate that students learn “invalu-able ‘know-how’—not just information but also manner and technique—from being on the periphery of competent practitioners going about theirbusiness” (p. 50).

Knowledge, then, is intertwined with the context in which it is found.Regarding the nature of such knowledge, Michael Polanyi (1967) writes,“We know more than we can tell” (p. 4). Based upon Polanyi’s foundationalwork, scholars argue that knowledge is broken into two distinct types: tacitand explicit (Grant, 1996). Tacit knowledge is defined as knowledge that isnonverbalized or even nonverbalizable, intuitive, or unarticulated (Hedlund,1994; Polanyi, 1967). Explicit knowledge is that which is articulated “eitherverbally or in writing, computer programs, patents, drawings or the like”(Hedlund, 1994, p. 75). Tacit knowledge has been referred to as “knowing-how” and explicit as “knowing-about” (Grant, 1996, p. 111).

Scholars of SC direct attention toward providing the student legitimateaccess to relevant experts and practice as well as toward the importance of thesocial and physical dimensions of context surrounding the problem situation.This approach provides great promise for the student to gain both tacit andexplicit knowledge.


Given that both the social and physical dimensions of context are impor-tant, how can each be separated for design purposes? In general, the socialdimension will include the contextual variables dealing with other peopleand the physical dimension with things. In the next section, these will beelaborated upon to develop a framework for PBL context design.

FRAMEWORK FOR PBL CONTEXT DESIGN

To develop a context-design framework for PBL in management educa-tion, it is first important to ask which context matters. One reasonable answerlies in the expectation that business students will work within an organizationand that many of the problems they will face will be within or related to thatorganization. Given this, the physical and social dimensions of the organiza-tional context are appropriate for context design. Depending upon the aimsand experience of the instructor, as well as the demographics of the students,the chosen physical and social contexts of the organization can be lightly torichly developed. The lighter end adds a limited degree of additional contextto the problem situation, whereas a richer design adds a larger degree ofcontext.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

Organization is defined in many ways. Based upon the work of well-known organizational scholars (e.g., Barnard, 1938; Blau & Scott, 1962;March & Simon, 1958), Scott (1992) defines a rational organization as “col-lectivities oriented to the pursuit of relatively specific goals and exhibitingrelatively highly formalized structures” (p. 23).

Leavitt (as cited in Scott, 1992) identified four key elements in the modelof the organization: participants, social structure, goals, and technology. Asthese focus internally, Scott (1992) added the fifth dimension of externalenvironment. These elements can usefully be categorized into the social andphysical dimensions of organizational context and can provide the frame-work for designing the PBL context for management education.

SOCIAL DESIGN DIMENSIONS

Both the participants and the social structure form the key design areas forthe social dimension of context. Each will be discussed in turn.

Participant design. Organizational participants can be defined as individ-uals who make a variety of contributions to the organization in return for a


variety of inducements (Barnard, 1938; Scott, 1992). In the case of PBL inmanagement education, this may include the instructor, individual studentson student teams, students engaged in other organizational roles (e.g.,staff members), and external participants such as customers or informationsources.

The design issue is the players who should take part in the PBL contextand to what degree there should be real-time participation between theseplayers. Design decisions focus on teacher and students as well as on outsideparticipants. On the light end of participant and real-time participation, theorganizational players and customers may originate from a written case. Onthe rich end, students are placed into live, real-time problems that facilitateinteraction with actual decision makers and informants.

The advantage of a lighter context design is the easy access to otherwiseinaccessible participants, making this design relatively low cost and efficient.However, the disadvantages are that because the cases are written, the non-explicit information and knowledge delivered in a live context is lost. Thericher approach offers the advantage of the student being in the context andpersonally involved with the tacit and explicit elements of the problem-solving situation. Although attractive, this is likely to be more difficult tofacilitate and administer for the instructor.

Social structure design. The second social context decision area is thedegree to which social structure should be designed into the problem-solvingsituation. Social structure includes the “patterned or regularized aspects ofthe relationships existing among participants in the organization” (Scott,1992, p. 18). For PBL in the classroom, multiple internal levels of socialstructure are available. In classic PBL, the tutor group (here referred to as thestudent team), plays a central role. Most of the literature focuses upon thislevel of structure and on a single authority relationship between instructor(tutor) and student team (tutor group).

To add richness to the PBL context, it is useful to think of 360-degreeinteraction for the students (analogous to 360-degree feedback systems).Relations go up to the instructor and students in class leader roles, to peerteams and teammates, to class staff roles, and down to student subordinates.Additionally, this may include linkages to external participants includingmultiple connections with organizational stakeholders such as clients andkey informants. The richness of the context increases as the number of partic-ipants and linkages between them increases. This richer-context approachstructures the class in such a way that the students interact with the internalorganizational structure and with external constituents. This ultimatelymeans that the class is a fully functional (even if simulated) organization.


Advantages of lighter design include reduced complexity for instructorand students, higher potential execution efficiency with larger class size, andlower costs of time and effort. Disadvantages are that many of the linkages intrue professional situations will not be present and that the problem solvingwill take place in a less-than-real context. Potential for gaining a tacit andexplicit understanding of what this additional structure brings to the situationwill be limited. Richer context advantages include the potential for a greaterunderstanding of the complexity of real problem-solving situations. Multi-ple constituents, varying (and potentially at-odds) agendas, and broaderdiversity can aid student learning and understanding of the problem, of theproblem-solving situation, and of collaboration. On the other hand, this com-plexity may be overwhelming for both the inexperienced student and for theinstructor who must deal with the potential conflicts and difficulties. Manag-ing the structure could take so much time that the main problems are lost.

PHYSICAL CONTEXT DIMENSIONS

The physical dimensions of organizational context encompass both thegoal and the technology elements of the organization.

Goal design. Goals are “conceptions of desired ends-conditions that par-ticipants attempt to effect through their performance of task activities”(Scott, 1992, p. 19). The contextual decision regarding PBL is the levels atwhich goals will be instituted. Such levels include the individual level, teamlevel, organizational level (class), or inter-organizational level (such asbetween the class and outside organizations).

Although there may be implicit or desired ends at all levels, it is the degreeto which they are made explicit that becomes part of the framework fordesign. At each level, outcome and process goals can be discussed, set, andwritten. This action of progressively pulling more and more people into a setof shared goals brings students closer to the reality of goal-driven organiza-tions, to the work it requires, and to the impact these goals have uponbehavior.

The advantages of a light shared-goal design include reduced develop-ment costs and decreased conflict, which inevitably arises between individ-ual, team, organizational, and inter-organizational objectives. The lighterdesign disadvantages include the students missing the important role thatmultiple goal levels play upon solving various problems and upon collabora-tion needed to resolve conflicting goals. Alternatively, the richer designoffers the potential for greater understanding of the problem-solving situa-tion and of what it takes to collaborate at multiple levels in an organization.


Disadvantages of multiple goal levels include increased complexity, the needfor conflict management to be carried out, and the time it takes to create allthe goals in an academic environment of limited time.

Technology design. Scott (1992) discusses the element of technology bystating,

To focus on the technology of an organization is to view the organization as aplace where some type of work is done, as a location where energy is applied tothe transformation of materials, as a mechanism for turning inputs into outputs.(p. 20)

Based on this discussion, technology can be usefully defined as the placewhere work is accomplished and as the process used in the work.

The decision regarding place centers on placing students in the physicalspace, or environment, where work is done. Internally, this includes both thephysical and the virtual work place. On the lightly contextualized end, thephysical place may be found in the classroom, where interaction focusingupon the problem takes place. The context becomes richer as other meetingtimes in breakout rooms are added and as more time is dedicated to turningthe classroom into a place where work on the problem is accomplished.

The virtual workplace can range from simply communicating andexchanging documentation to a richer use of technology such as threadeddiscussions, intra-nets, and technology-based collaboration and problem-solving tools that can be used off-site.

Regarding the external environment, decisions focus upon the degree towhich students will enter other organizational environments. On the lightside, secondary research can take place in libraries and on the Internet. On therich end, students may be placed in the actual customer environment or busi-ness environment related to the problem.

The advantages of a lighter context design are that, although facilitatingwork on the problem, it is less time consuming than interacting in multiplephysical and virtual environments. Yet, a lighter context may limit studentlearning about the many environments where work does take place and aboutthe challenges this presents. The richer context offers the potential to facili-tate both tacit and explicit learning related to collaborating in a real workenvironment. At the same time, turning the classroom into a work environ-ment challenges the control that the instructor has over what occurs in theclassroom. Additionally, the virtual and external work places take time tounderstand and to successfully work within.


In addition to place, the process used is an important design element oftechnology. The process in the case of management education is that which isused to approach, understand, and resolve the problem. This in turn mayresult in converting inputs into outputs. Internally, the decision regardingprocess is the extent to which the process is broken down into parts and theholistic or partial application of the process. Externally, the issue is thedegree to which encouragement of external variations are brought in to betterexecute the process.

On the lighter context side internally, the process is broken into segments,a relatively focused problem is presented, and the students focus upon apply-ing that segment of the process to the problem. On the richer side, a morecomplex problem is presented, and the whole process is open for executionrelating to that problem.

The lighter context for external information limits the amount of variationfrom outside that can be made to the process. The group seeks an acceptedprocess, and following that accepted approach is the aim of the group. As thedesign of context becomes richer, alterations to the process approaches areallowed and are encouraged to facilitate the real context of the availability ofthese potential options.

The advantage of the lighter context design is higher student potential forgaining an understanding of the accepted process due to the focus upon it andto the bite-size chunks in which it is presented. This focus in turn limits stu-dent potential to learn about the true interconnections among all parts of aprocess and about the nature of bringing in new technology to improve pro-cesses. The richer context offers the opposite. Allowing for a more complexproblem, a focus on the whole process, and a potential for change, a richercontext offers potential for a deeper understanding of both the large and smallpicture. At the same time, the complexity of this context will challenge inex-perienced learners and will necessarily demand some time for confusion andfor mistakes as the whole process is learned and ultimately adjusted to fit theproblem.

FRAMEWORK

Table 1 presents the decision-making framework for context design inPBL management education. As has been discussed, both the social andphysical dimensions of context are important for learning the tacit andexplicit knowledge that is there embedded. Applying this theoretical under-standing, key elements of the organization play the central role in contextdesign. Socially, both the internal and external participants and social struc-


tures are design decision elements. Physically, both the goals and technologyare design decision elements.

The next section presents two case studies used to highlight the applica-tion of this design framework to management education.

CASES ILLUSTRATING THEFRAMEWORK APPLICATION

In this section, two cases are presented to illustrate the application of thePBL context design framework. Both are undergraduate courses that are exe-cuted at a school of business in the United States that is accredited by theAssociation to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Each is arequired course that is comprised of students with various business majors.The design, execution, and adjustment of each PBL course took placebetween Fall 2001 and Fall 2002 and included four semesters and one sum-mer session. These cases describe the Fall 2002 designs. Case 1 represents acourse where a light to medium rich context is designed. Case 2 represents acourse with a very rich context design.

CASE 1: A PBL CONTEXT DESIGN OF MANAGEMENTAND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

Background. Business 371 (BUS 371), Management and OrganizationalBehavior, is typically comprised of students in their junior year. It is one offive functional core courses required in the business school curriculum. At


TABLE 1A Framework for Context Design for

Problem-Based Learning in Management Education

Social Dimensions Physical Dimension

Participants (internal and external) Goals (internal and external)• Who will participate? • At what levels will goals be established?• What level of real-time interaction

between participants?

Social structure (internal and external) Technology (internal and external)• Where will relationships be established • To what degree will the physical

between participants? workplace be developed?• What types of relationships will be • To what degree will the process being

established? applied to the problems be segmentedor holistic?

this point in their academic career, students have had some experience work-ing with groups but little if any training working as a team or in problem solv-ing. Class sizes generally range from 30 to 50 students, and this particulardesign was taught across two sections having 33 and 48 students attendingclass for 50 minutes every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for 16 weeks.The learning objectives of the course focused upon management practices(e.g., planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling) as well as organiza-tional behavior (e.g., teams, motivation, communication, leadership, andpersonality).

The PBL context design for the course was at two degrees: one being alighter design and the other being a more richly designed, problem-focusedproject that could be termed “medium” (i.e., it was more richly designed thanthe first and less richly designed than Case 2). These classes will be discussedtogether because the medium design built directly upon the lighter designand because the classes occurred simultaneously.

The light degree of context design focused upon both management prac-tices and organizational behavior subject matter and related problems. Foreach of the subject areas addressed throughout the course, students were pre-sented with a managerial task. For example, for the area of planning, the fol-lowing was initially written on the board: “Task—Create a single-use and astanding plan that helps accomplish the objectives of a company.” This prob-lem was presented with no prior reading assignment given to the students andwith very limited up-front context. The first class period focused upon deter-mining what this actually meant and upon what the teams needed to know todeal with this problem. Students either investigated answers to this problembetween classes, or on the next meeting day they worked together to build aset of answers to the questions generated. On subsequent days, teams werepresented with a focused problem with additional context that called for themto do something specific (e.g., identify, recommend, analyze, and so on).

The medium design built upon the lighter design. Because the problems ofa lighter context design were being presented separately, the students werealso comprehensively analyzing and reporting about a local business on thevery areas being addressed with the PBL approach in class. They learnedmore about how to deal with the larger project problem presented becausethey dealt with the smaller, in-class problem scenarios.

In addition to the PBL approach in the course, textbooks were required,and multiple choice exams were given on the material. Although the exammaterial was not directly discussed in class, the instructor would often referstudents to the text as a reference for dealing with problems.


Social context design: Participants and social structure. A design deci-sion for social context was to create a light and medium degree of partici-pants. This decision was based upon the experience level of the students andon the challenges faced by the instructor in dealing with the number of stu-dents. For each subject area (teams, planning, organizing, staffing, and con-trolling) being approached separately with PBL, the participants included theinstructor and the students. They were placed in the roles of team membersusing cases and current business press articles to set up problems. For the pro-ject, the participant list was widened to include an external customer in allcases. Teams went into the community and recruited businesses to help themwith the project.

The social structure design decision for the daily focus upon managementproblems was to create a relationship between the instructor and studentteams. This was based on the belief that it would facilitate instructor guidancewhile not creating an overly complex daily set of interactions that couldprove to be unmanageable. The instructor formed student teams on the 3rdday of class based upon student school, work, and extracurricular schedulesin order to facilitate outside meeting opportunities. In the class of 33, therewere six teams, and in the class of 48, there were eight teams. Social structurefor the project expanded into a formal relationship between the studentgroups and the contact at the company with whom they worked.

Physical context design: Goals and technology. Early in the semester, thedesign decision was made to emphasize two levels for the goals of the course.The reasoning was to link all students to the course goals as well as to theirrespective teams. First, the objective of the instructor was to facilitate learn-ing to solve real managerial problems, and a description of PBL was given.The first task or problem the students were given was to create a team planincluding goals and action steps. These were written, and the instructor gavefeedback.

For the project, teams formulated goals with the clients about what theteam would accomplish and what the client would receive in return. Eachparty had the understanding that the main goal was a learning exercise for thestudents that could result in some useful information for the client.

As with goals, the place and process elements of technology were givendesign considerations. For the daily approach to the problems and the pro-ject, the classroom was turned into the work environment. The basis for thedesign to use class time in such a way was to facilitate interaction between theinstructor and the teams and among individual team members. Time was


given on a regular basis for interaction in the classroom, and students metregularly outside of class. The instructor also consistently met with teamsoutside of scheduled class time on a “by request” basis.

The projects took the work-place design one step further. Students went tothe site of the business to observe and to conduct interviews with managersand employees. The number of visits was chosen by the team and rangedfrom one to four. Additionally, communication between the students and theclients took place via email and telephone. Finally, all students delivered aprofessional presentation to the clients in the “board room” in the school ofbusiness.

The process used for the business analysis and the ultimate recommenda-tions was separated in two ways. Daily, the problems were segmented intosubject areas with relatively focused problems. On the given day, the problemwas presented, and the multiple-day approach explained earlier wasimplemented.

The project was also broken into two phases to facilitate students movingto a more holistic understanding of the business problems while still breakingthe problems into manageable segments, allowing for significant interactionbetween the teams and the instructor. The first phase was a focus on an analy-sis of planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling of the business. The stu-dent teams were to collaboratively create a written business report describingeach area and pinpointing the advantages and disadvantages of each, giventhe business context and objectives. Students received extensive writtenfeedback on this report from the instructor. In the second phase, changeswere made to the initial report, a problem was selected, and recommenda-tions for dealing with this problem were developed, resulting in an actionplan for implementation.

CASE 2: A PBL CONTEXT DESIGNOF SENIOR BUSINESS EXPERIENCE

Background. Business 401 (BUS 401), Senior Business Experience, is arequired capstone course that fulfills both the objective of bringing students’prior learning together and the requirement of a senior undergraduate coursein business policy and strategy. At this point in their academic career, stu-dents have extensive experience working with teams on small and large pro-jects. Class sizes range from 25 to 45 for this class, and this particular designwas used for a class of 43 students attending a 16-week course every Mondayand Wednesday for 75 minutes. Learning objectives focused upon strategicmanagement theory and practice as well as upon providing an opportunityfor students to gain experience at integrating their prior higher education.


The context for the problem situation and the problems presented in thiscourse were designed to be very rich. This decision was based upon theadvanced status of the students and upon the desire to provide a realisticexperience in the year prior to the students entering into the full-timeworkforce. In the prior year, a strategic consulting company had been estab-lished within the course that was to be run by the students in BUS 401 eachsemester. Prior to this semester, students had developed vision, mission, orvalues statements, a general product design created for the process of strate-gic consulting, and overall policies and procedures for the business. The ulti-mate objectives of the business were to provide a real-life learning experi-ence for the students, to serve small- to medium-sized businesses and not-for-profits, and to become financially viable.

The problems faced by the students occurred at multiple levels. Theyincluded the problems of running the business, of executing the consultingproject requirements, and of dealing with the problems of the business cli-ents. Client problems varied, but were all framed by strategic theory andpractice (although the frames may have had a stronger functional tone such asoperations or marketing).

In almost all cases, students were responsible for identifying and develop-ing the problems themselves. Guidance was mostly given “on demand”; asthe students asked, the instructor provided training or directed them to wherethey could find the answers. In two cases, guidance was more structured.Each team was responsible for developing and executing a short training ses-sion called a “toolbox seminar,” focusing on an important strategic topic.Also, at the beginning of the semester, students were given a list of strategy-related questions on which they were later quizzed.

Social context design: Participants and social structure. The design deci-sion was made to create a rich combination of internal and external organiza-tional players. Internally, the instructor took on the role of facilitator andboss. Students took various roles including staff and consulting project teammembers. They were selected by applying for positions early in the semestervia an application sheet given by the instructor. Externally, participantsincluded the client in all cases and other informants such as customers of theclients, business school professors, and government officials, dependingupon the particulars of the business problems.

The design decision regarding social structure was to create multiple link-ages among the organizational players. The instructor was linked to all stu-dents with particularly strong ties to the staff and project team leaders. Staffhad the strongest relationships with the instructor and project team leaders.Each project team had up to three initial team leaders appointed by the


instructor, but each project team ultimately made decisions regarding how tostructure themselves best to accomplish the objectives of their projects. Twoproject teams were formed with 18 and 15 members. The rest of the studentsfilled functional staff positions.

Externally, the most formal relationships were with the clients. Projectteams met with the client at the client site between 6 and 12 times during thecourse of the semester.

Physical context design: Goals and technology. The design decision wasmade to create goals at three levels, including the team, the consulting busi-ness (class), and the client. Staff and project teams created goals and objec-tives relating to both what was to be accomplished and how to accomplish it.These were created and turned into the instructor as part of the strategic plan-ning and execution process of the consulting business and were to be in linewith overall company goals. Student teams also specifically discussed withthe clients the goals and objectives of the consulting business and establishedthe same for the particular relationship with the client.

The design for the technology element of place focused upon the physicalwork place and upon the client site. For scheduled class time, upward of 75%of time was dedicated to providing work time. Students made the decision onhow to use this time and on where to conduct their business (classroom,breakout areas, computer labs, and so on). During the class time, the instruc-tor interacted with the students to facilitate progress in the problem-solvingprocess.

In addition, students physically went to the client site for observation andinterviews with client contacts. One team scheduled regular weekly meetingswith the CEO and the other scheduled meetings with the general manager onan as-needed basis. All meetings took place at the client site.

The process design decision for this course was to holistically approach avariety of complex problems during the course of the semester. Again, thegeneral problems faced were running the business, executing the consultingprojects, and working with the client problems. Generally, strategic pro-cesses were the focus for these problems. This included understanding thebusiness (consulting and client) through analysis and through making andtaking recommended actions leading to improved performance. Althoughthe strategic process was discussed, students were challenged to develop pro-cesses, including textbook approaches, approaches offered by outside con-stituents, or approaches created on their own, that would deal with thesevarying problems. Ultimately, the delivered product (written report and pre-sentation) by the staff and the consulting teams was in a similar format across


teams, and each team was allowed to make variations depending upon theirproject.

LEARNING OUTCOMESAND CONTEXT DESIGN

As has been stated, PBL is centered on problems and on student learning.To gain insight into the success of the design in each case, a review of studentfeedback was undertaken. Students were asked to self-report using schoolstandardized Likert-type as well as course-specific open-ended question-naires focused on learning. The 5-point Likert-type scales asked students toeither rate the effectiveness (1 = ineffective; 3 = moderately effective; 5 = veryeffective) of the pedagogy in terms of learning or to rate the course againstother courses at the same level (1 = much less than most; 3 = the same; 5 =much more than most). The open-ended questions asked the students to com-ment on what contributed to or what could enhance their learning. It shouldbe noted that this instrument had not been designed for this purpose and hadnot been tested for reliability. The reporting of raw averages can only provideanecdotal and directional evidence rather than statistically significant find-ings. Although these questionnaires were not designed to measure the suc-cess of PBL specifically, they do provide data that give indications about thedegree of success achieved in meeting PBL objectives and about the potentialinfluence of the context design. Both the quantitative and qualitative feed-back was thoroughly reviewed, with key and representative results shown inTable 2 and described below.

The first objective of PBL is the construction of professionally usefulknowledge. Students were asked to rate the effectiveness of assignments inunderstanding course material, and the results showed support for effective-ness, with BUS 371 reporting 4.40 and 4.23 on the 5-point scale, and withBUS 401 reporting 3.94. The overall qualitative comments were positiveregarding PBL, but not regarding the exams. As one student of BUS 371stated, “I think the exams were kind of unnecessary. There were only two ofthem and I really didn’t learn much from them. The team work was more of ahelp than the tests.” The BUS 401 students echoed this support, with one stat-ing, “I liked being presented a problem then being told to find out how to getthe answers myself. The correct answer sticks in your head longer when youdiscover it yourself, rather than being told the answer.”

The second objective of PBL is the development of reasoning andproblem-solving skills. Both the quantitative and qualitative data demon-strated support that this objective was met. Students reported that the instruc-


552

TA

BL

E 2

Res

ults

of

Qua

ntit

ativ

e St

uden

t F

eedb

ack

on L

earn

ing

Out

com

es

Bus

ines

s 37

1B

usin

ess

401

Cla

ss s

ize

= 3

3C

lass

siz

e =

48

Cla

ss s

ize

= 4

3(N

= 3

0)(N

= 4

4)(N

= 3

8)

Item

s fr

om e

nd-o

f-se

mes

ter

stud

ent s

elf-

repo

rt o

n le

arni

ng o

utco

mes

M /

SDM

/ SD

M /

SD

The

hel

pful

ness

of

assi

gnm

ents

in u

nder

stan

ding

cou

rse

mat

eria

l.4.

40 /

.67

4.23

/ .7

73.

94 /

1.00

The

inst

ruct

or’s

use

of

chal

leng

ing

ques

tions

or

prob

lem

s.4.

63 /

.56

4.50

/ .6

34.

42 /

.68

Thi

s co

urse

hel

ped

me

thin

k in

depe

nden

tly a

bout

the

subj

ect m

atte

r.*4.

14 /

.64

3.89

/ .8

43.

68 /

.96

My

inte

rest

in th

e su

bjec

t are

a ha

s in

crea

sed.

*4.

14 /

.64

3.86

/ .8

23.

53 /

1.06

I st

udie

d an

d pu

t eff

ort i

nto

this

cou

rse.

*3.

93 /

.80

3.89

/ .8

43.

86 /

.90

I w

as p

repa

red

for

each

cla

ss.

3.66

/ .7

73.

82 /

.81

3.55

/ .8

6T

he in

stru

ctor

’s c

omm

ents

on

assi

gnm

ents

and

exa

ms.

4.38

/ .6

24.

29 /

.89

4.07

/ .9

1T

he in

stru

ctor

’s w

illin

gnes

s to

list

en to

stu

dent

que

stio

ns a

nd o

pini

ons.

4.77

/ .5

04.

61 /

.58

4.66

/ .5

8A

ssig

ned

proj

ects

in w

hich

stu

dent

s w

orke

d to

geth

er.

4.37

/ .8

94.

48 /

.67

4.16

/ .7

6Pr

oble

ms

or q

uest

ions

pre

sent

ed b

y th

e in

stru

ctor

for

sm

all g

roup

dis

cuss

ions

.4.

45 /

.63

4.47

/ .6

34.

30 /

.70

The

inst

ruct

or’s

use

of

clas

s tim

e.4.

50 /

.73

4.36

/ .8

94.

21 /

.96

My

lear

ning

incr

ease

d in

this

cou

rse.

4.17

/ .8

03.

93 /

.82

3.61

/ 1.

00R

ate

the

qual

ity o

f in

stru

ctio

n in

this

cou

rse

as it

con

trib

uted

to y

our

lear

ning

.4.

48 /

.51

4.20

/ .7

94.

13 /

.88

NO

TE

:*T

hese

wer

e co

mpa

red

to o

ther

cou

rses

at t

he s

ame

leve

l, >

3 is

mor

e th

an o

ther

s; 5

-poi

nt s

cale

, 1 =

inef

fect

ive,

5 =

very

effe

ctiv

e.

tors’ use of challenging questions or problems was effective in their learning(BUS 371 = 4.63, 4.50; BUS 401 = 4.42). Additional indicators that problemsolving and reasoning were enhanced were found in the qualitative answers.One student in BUS 371 commented, “The projects [Phase 1 and Phase 2]were very helpful in the areas of ‘real world’ problem-solution situations.They were a great way to make us think.” Consistent with this, one BUS 401student noted, “The second method was the group work in class. It helped usto improve on our quick problem solving.” Each of these indicators supportsthat this second objective was met with some success.

The third objective is development of self-directed learning strategies.When asked if the course was effective in helping them think independentlyabout the subject matter, data indicate that this was more so than in otherclasses, with a BUS 371 average of 4.14 and 3.89 and a BUS 401 average of3.68. Qualitative data also indicated students developing self-directed learn-ing strategies. One BUS 371 student commented,

Your approach to delivering information was guiding us toward finding it our-selves in more ways than reading a book. By putting us in teams and giving uslittle direction (not a bad thing) we found our own way, together, sometimesdifferently, and made projects come together with each other’s ideas. Just likereal world situations. I felt like this class is like having a job and I’m glad Ilearned this way.

In line with this, a BUS 401 student remarked,

At the start of the semester none of us knew what we were doing. We just had tojump in with both feet and learn from our mistakes as we go. That is exactlywhat the real world is all about.

The fourth objective is to increase the motivation for the learner. Studentsrated this course relative to other courses by answering if their interest in thesubject area increased, if they studied and put effort into the course, and ifthey were prepared for each class. The results in each case showed studentsreporting higher interest than other classes for each question (BUS 371, Class1 = 4.14, 3.93, 3.66; BUS 371, Class 2 = 3.86, 3.89, 3.82; BUS 401 = 3.53,3.86, 3.55). Although these averages are above other classes, the standarddeviations are relatively wide with the possible indication that there are anumber of students not as motivated by this approach. Yet the qualitative datauniversally supported student motivation. A BUS 371 student noted, “In hav-ing such a large project, it attempted to pull more out of me than has beendone previously. I have never had an assignment of this magnitude and itreally pushed me to what I am capable of.” A BUS 401 student echoed


saying, “The idea of being completely clueless about how to do the wholeproject, in general, helped me to learn or pushed me to learn about a givensubject.” The data appear to support an increase in motivation for moststudents.

The fifth objective is becoming effective collaborators. Although noquantitative items were deemed to be acceptable measures, the qualitativedata supported meeting this objective. There was universal and strong posi-tive commentary by students about collaborating with others and about howthey improved in their skills. A representative comment from a BUS 371 stu-dent was, “The teamwork was also helpful. I thought of myself as an efficientteam member but now realize I have areas to work on. I never would haveknown these flaws without this class.” BUS 401 students also indicated theirimprovement. For example, one student wrote, “Team members showed menot only how to work with others, but how to network.”

Across the five objectives, it appeared that there were successful learningoutcomes. Adding to this, as an overall assessment, students were asked torate the quality of instruction as it contributed to their learning. BUS 371 stu-dents reported back 4.48 and 4.20, and BUS 401 students reported 4.13. Therule of thumb in this school of business is when this item is above 4.00, it is agood indicator of teaching excellence. PBL appears to be delivering.

Did the context design contribute to this success? Quantitative and quali-tative indicators give preliminary support that it did. Regarding social con-text, students reported that the interaction with the instructor contributed totheir learning. Specifically, BUS 371 students reported the instructor’s com-ments on assignments (4.38, 4.29) and the instructor’s willingness to listen tostudent questions and opinions (4.77, 4.61) effectively contributed to theirlearning. BUS 401 students reported 4.07 and 4.66, respectively. Studentcommentary ranged from indicating “Constant interaction with teams andyou” to “Feedback and direction from X often led the group to another level”as contributors to learning. In addition, interaction with external constituentswas highlighted. “I feel that working with teams and picking out a companyfacilitated my learning,” wrote a BUS 371 student. In agreement, a BUS 401student stated, “I learned from doing the group projects. I enjoyed going tothe business to learn how they operate in order to make recommendations forour project. Without that experience, I would not have learned so much.”

Students in both cases reported assigned projects in which studentsworked together to be effective in learning (BUS 371 = 4.37, 4.48; BUS 401 =4.16). The qualitative gave more of the same, with BUS 371 comments suchas, “The projects were good because it put us in a role as if we are at work andhelped us see what it’s like to work with other people and get things done


effectively” and “Hands on experience and working with my team created avery real learning experience.” But in BUS 401, it was consistently noted thatthe size of the teams made it difficult for the students in terms of effective useof their teams. One student wrote, “Possibly working in smaller groups anddoing smaller projects. At times I felt that there were certain people who werenot as involved in the projects as others. Having smaller groups could leteveryone be involved.”

The data also showed that the physical context generally supported learn-ing. Both the goals or problems and questions presented by the instructor(BUS 371 = 4.45, 4.47; BUS 401 = 4.30) and the instructor’s use of class time(BUS 371 = 4.50, 4.36; BUS 401 = 4.21) received high marks. But the quali-tative data reveal that in both cases, the goals and process were not developedenough for the majority of students to be comfortable. A typical BUS 371comment was, “Maybe a better explanation in the beginning of what the pro-ject was to contain. This was my first project of this sort, so I didn’t knowwhere to begin.” A typical comment from BUS 401 was, “To help the learn-ing process you could give us a little more info in the beginning. I was prettylost in the first couple of weeks, not really knowing what you expect.” Anadditional comment was, “Discussions were good although sometimes stillslightly confusing. We understand you’re trying to make us think differently,but I think we aren’t used to it, and therefore, sometimes lost.” Another stu-dent noted, “The way that we would break down a challenging question, andmake it understandable was very effective. There were times on the projectwhen I was a little confused about what exactly you wanted, but our teamwould ask you and you would help.” This last comment leaves open the ques-tion of whether the goals and process needed more clarification or if PBL isjust so new to them that it is difficult at the beginning.

Finally, multiple students believed that more class time was needed,commenting that both longer periods and meeting more often would bebeneficial.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSFOR MANAGEMENT EDUCATORS ANDMANAGEMENT EDUCATION RESEARCH

This article has provided a framework for designing the context of prob-lems and the problem-solving situation for management educators using aPBL approach. An assessment of both the objectives and the impact of thecontext upon these objectives gives preliminary support to the beliefs that thePBL approach is effective at accomplishing the objectives and that context


plays an important role. Although concerns about clarity of goals and processarose, this early stage analysis found universal support for the importance ofthe social and physical context for the PBL process.

There are at least three implications of this work for the management edu-cator using a problem-based approach. First, context is an important elementof PBL. Giving effort to the context design process can aid in the accomplish-ment of PBL objectives. Second, context design can be appropriately light torich, depending upon the objectives and the experience of the instructor andupon the demographics of the student population. Third, when designingcontext for both the problem and the problem situation, the organization pro-vides a structured framework for design decisions. Decisions relating to theinternal and external environments of participants, social structure, goals,and technology are important elements in context design.

Finally, the development of this theoretically based framework raisessome important research questions. First, to what degree does context matterto ultimately accomplishing the objectives of problem-based learning? Thesecases provide preliminary evidence and suggest a connection, but muchremains to be learned through additional empirical investigation.

Second, what specifically about the objectives and experience level of theinstructor as well as the demographics of the students is important to thedegree to which the context design is light or rich? This is an important issuebecause the whole idea behind design is to create an appropriate and mean-ingful problem and problem-solving situation for the student. Dependingupon the varying objectives, experience, and demographics, the design maybe more or less appropriate and ultimately successful.

Problem-based learning offers great potential. As we gain greater experi-ence using the approach and as more emphasis is placed upon theoreticaldevelopment and empirical research, the promises offered have a bright, realfuture.

REFERENCES

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20,

481-486.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2000). Commentary on part I: Process and product in problem-

based learning (PBL) research. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem basedlearning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 185-195). Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum.

Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations. San Francisco: Chandler.Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.


Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice:Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1),40-57.

Davis, M. H., & Harden, R. M. (1999). AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 15: Problem-basedlearning: A practical guide. Medical Teacher, 21(2), 130-140.

Edens, K. M. (2000). Preparing problem solvers for the 21st century through problem-basedlearning. College Teaching, 48(2), 55-60. Retrieved November 6, 2002, from EBSCOdatabase.

Fenwick, T. (1998). Boldly solving the world: A critical analysis of problem-based learning as amethod of professional education. Studies in the Education of Adults, 30(1), 53-66. RetrievedOctober 22, 2002, from EBSCO database.

Grant, R. M. (1996, Winter). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 17, 109-122.

Harden, R. M., & Davis, M. H. (1998). The continuum of problem-based learning. MedicalTeacher, 20(4), 317-322.

Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. StrategicManagement Journal, 15, 73-90.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cam-bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley.Myers Kelson, A. C., & Distlehorst, L. H. (2000). Groups in problem-based learning (PBL):

Essential elements in theory and practice. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problembased learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 167-184). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye.Learning & Education, 1(1), 78-95.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor.Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.


article journal of management education / october ......students will ultimately grapple with in...

Documents