When is PBL More Effective? A Meta-synthesis of Meta-analyses Comparing PBL to Conventional Classrooms

TLDR

Problem‑based learning has been used for over 40 years across disciplines, yet its effectiveness remains debated despite multiple meta‑analyses comparing it to traditional instruction. The study aimed to qualitatively synthesize and contrast the assumptions and findings of existing meta‑analyses on PBL effectiveness. The authors performed a qualitative meta‑synthesis of published meta‑analyses on PBL versus conventional classrooms. The synthesis found that PBL outperformed traditional methods in long‑term retention, skill development, and stakeholder satisfaction, whereas conventional instruction yielded better short‑term retention on standardized exams.

Abstract

Problem-based learning (PBL) has been utilized for over 40 years in a variety of different disciplines. Although extensively researched, there is heated debate about the effectiveness of PBL. Several meta-analyses were conducted that provided a synthesis of the effects of PBL in comparison to traditional forms of instruction. This study used a qualitative meta-synthesis approach to compare and contrast the assumptions and findings of the meta-analytical research on the effectiveness of PBL. Findings indicated that PBL was superior when it comes to long-term retention, skill development and satisfaction of students and teachers, while traditional approaches were more effective for short-term retention as measured by standardized board exams. Implications are discussed.