Problem-based learning and management development – Empirical and theoretical considerations

The International Journal of Management Education 13 (2015) 249e259

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of Management Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme

Problem-based learning and management development e Empirical and theoretical considerations Michael S. Carriger Welch College of Business, Sacred Heart University, 5151 Park Avenue, Fairfield, CT 06825, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 5 November 2014 Received in revised form 19 June 2015 Accepted 22 July 2015 Available online xxx

Problem-based learning has been used as a learning device in medical school classrooms for some time and has recently been used in the management classroom, since at least 2004. Although theory about the effectiveness of problem-based learning and practical advice about implementing problem-based learning abound, the empirical evidence available to date suggests problem-based learning primarily impacts problem solving and critical thinking skill but not necessarily knowledge acquisition. This paper presents an overview of the prevailing theoretical approach to problem-based learning. Then presents a comprehensive review of the empirical literature on problem-based learning with a focus on its application to the management classroom. Finally, the paper presents an alternative, novel pedagogical theory, Montessorian theory, as applied to problem-based learning, that aligns theory and prevailing research better than the existing theoretical conception. Montessorian theory as applied to problem-based learning can lead to a better understanding of the effectiveness of problem-based learning, focus on more appropriate learning objectives and learning outcomes, and have implications for future research, curricular development, and assessment of learning outcomes in the management classroom. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Problem-based learning Management development Constructivist theory Montessorian theory Learning outcomes Curriculum design

When we want to develop new, young managers, we put them in a management education program, perhaps through a college of business. Give them their bachelor's degree in management or business. And send them off to get their MBA. We lecture to them, provide all the information and knowledge we deem managers need to know. But fairly recently, within the last 10 years, a new approach to teaching, drawn from experience in medical schools, has been applied in management education; problem-based learning, focused on learner-centric, self-directed learning. However, despite all the enthusiasm in management academic circles for problem-based learning (see, for example, the October, 2004 issue of the Journal of Management Education, solely dedicated to problem-based learning in the management classroom), the evidence presently available does not support that enthusiasm. There is theoretical support for problembased learning and much practical advice about implementing problem-based learning, but there is very little empirical support for problem-based learning. And what support exists is mixed at best. The theoretical support for problem-based learning is primarily found in John Dewey's Constructivist approach to pedagogy (Dewey, 1938). The empirical evidence used to support this pedagogical theory is drawn primarily from the medical education literature, with a fragment drawn from the engineering and management education literatures. Although DeFillipi and Milter (2009) outlined the migration of problem-based learning from the medical school to the management classroom,

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2015.07.003 1472-8117/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

250

M.S. Carriger / The International Journal of Management Education 13 (2015) 249e259

they provided no original empirical support for this approach to management education. And what little empirical support does exist in the literature, on the whole, provides only mixed support for Dewey's Constructivist theory as applied to problem-based learning. Rather than dispense with problem-based learning altogether, other theoretical foundations for problem-based learning could be explored. Other theoretical foundations that suggest learning outcomes more in line with what the empirical evidence does support should be considered. One such theoretical foundation is Montessorian pedagogical theory. This paper presents an alternative, novel pedagogical theory, Montessorian theory, as applied to problem-based learning, that aligns theory and prevailing research better than the existing theoretical conception. Montessorian theory as applied to problem-based learning can lead to a better understanding of the effectiveness of problem-based learning, focus on more appropriate learning objectives and learning outcomes, and have implications for future research, curricular development, and assessment of learning outcomes in the management classroom. 1. What is problem-based learning The hallmark of problem-based learning is the development by faculty and the delivery to learners of a very specific type of problem … “ill-structured and allow[ing] for free inquiry” (Savery, 2006, p. 13). If this problem is also a real-world problem, the problem motivates learners to identify the core issues presented in the problem, set parameters on the development of a solution, and engage in self-directed learning to solve the problem. The point of self-directed learning in this context is to promote the collection of information by identifying what the learner already knows, what the learner needs to know, and how to fill that gap (Peterson, 2004; Savery, 2006; Smith, 2005). For an example of an ill-structured, real-world problem applicable to a management classroom see Appendix 1. Problem-based learning “is an instructional (and curricular) learner-centric approach that empowers learners to conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable solution to a defined problem” (Savery, 2006, p. 12). In other words, rather than the more instructor-centric approach of lecturing to a passive learner, in problem-based learning, a more active learner engages with an ill-structured problem provided by the instructor (DeFillipi & Milter, 2009; Peterson, 2004). Through the process of engaging with the ill-structured problem, and with tutoring and facilitation by the instructor, the learner learns. Obviously, critical to this approach to instruction is the crafting of the illstructured problem, and the quality of the tutoring or facilitation by the instructor. Newman (2005) identifies five overlapping key features of problem-based learning. First, the instructor acts as a facilitator of learning rather than a deliverer of knowledge. Second, the process of learning in a problem-based designed classroom must follow an explicit set of steps. Third, the use of ill-structured, real-world problems must be employed to help contextualize and integrate learning. Fourth, the nature of these ill-structured, real world problems disallows individualized learning and requires collaboration. And, finally, fifth, learner assessment must be driven by the goals and learning objectives built into the ill-structured, real-world problems. This description of problem-based learning will sound somewhat familiar to faculty in a business school or college used to case-based instruction. However, proponents of problem-based learning go to great lengths to differentiate problem-based learning from other case-based learning approaches. “While cases and projects are excellent learner-centric instructional strategies, they tend to diminish the learner's role in setting the goals and outcomes for the ‘problem’. When the expected outcomes are clearly defined, then there is less need or incentive for the learner to set his/her own parameters.” (Savery, 2006, p. 16). The primary difference between problem-based learning and case-based learning is the type of problem (or case) presented and the sequence of the presentation of the case or problem and the learning (Savery & Duffy, 1995). In the typical MBA classroom leveraging case-based instruction, a well-defined and constructed case helps learners uncover important elements of the issue at hand, that the instructor deems important (Savery, 2006) and is presented after direct instruction to help test understanding and synthesis (Savery & Duffy, 1995). Whereas in a problem-based learning approach an illstructured problem is leveraged to help learners determine what the important elements are and then uncover them (Savery, 2006). Case-based instruction is used primarily to demonstrate learning and application of learning from lecture and discussion to the case. Whereas problem-based learning is used primarily to facilitate learning rather than demonstrate the application of learning. Historically, problem-based learning was first developed and implemented in medical schools (Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, & Gijbels, 2003; Hmelo-Silver, 2004) as a means of overcoming both student apathy and boredom and students' seeming inability to apply what they were learning to real-world, clinical situations (Newman, 2005). Only recently has problem-based learning been applied to the management classroom, primarily at the graduate (MBA) level (Bigelow, 2004). Sherwood (2004) notes that “problem-based learning has great potential for management education” (p. 536). In particular, problem-based learning may have potential to bridge the gap between theory and practice in management and business education. Noting the historical roots of problem-based learning in medical schools, Sherwood (2004) identifies two points of similarity between medical schools and business schools. First, in both medical schools and business schools various problems are the center of attention. And, second, the abstract learning objectives addressed by problem-based learning are similar in the management classroom and the medical classroom. For example, “construction of professionally useful knowledge; development of reasoning and problem-solving strategies; development of self-directed learning strategies; increasing motivation for the learner; and becoming effective collaborators” (Sherwood, 2004, p. 537) are characteristics of both medical and management classrooms.

M.S. Carriger / The International Journal of Management Education 13 (2015) 249e259

251

2. Current theoretical foundation for problem-based learning Pedagogically, problem-based learning is founded in the Constructivist approach to education (DeFillipi & Milter, 2009), primarily associated with John Dewey (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996) and Richard Rorty (Savery & Duffy, 1995). The Constructivist approach to education is founded on the notion that learners actively construction their own knowledge (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; DeFillipi & Milter, 2009; Gijselaers, 1996; Savery & Duffy, 1995). Learning is an active process of constructing knowledge and, therefore, instruction should be structured in such a way as to support this construction of knowledge (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Direct delivery of knowledge and information through the traditional lecture-based process is deemed to be less effective at promoting knowledge development and learning than is self-directed creation of knowledge. The basic premise in a Constructivist approach to learning is that learning is a process of constructing new knowledge based on previously learned, existing knowledge (DeFillipi & Milter, 2009; Gijselaers, 1996). Learning progresses once an instructor is able to activate existing knowledge in the learner and motivate the creation of new knowledge based on the activated existing knowledge. This is the function of the ill-structured, real-world problem in problem-based learning; to activate existing knowledge and motivate the construction of new knowledge. In terms of learning outcomes, Dewey's Constructivist pedagogical theory (Dewey, 1938) suggests that problem-based learning should lead to more learning, both in terms of content learned and thinking strategies developed, than a traditional lecture-based curriculum. More specifically, John Dewey theorized that learning occurs in the activity of the learner not the activity of the instructor (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Kirkpatrick, 2008). In order for learning to take place at all, the learner must be actively engaged in the process of seeking an understanding of something. John Dewey also argued that knowledge situated in the real world should not be the desired outcome of learning but rather the context for learning (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Kirkpatrick, 2008). In order for learning to take hold, interest in the learner has to be aroused and organizing the learning around a realworld problem to be solved can best do this. Like John Dewey, Richard Rorty proposes that learning occurs though the learner's interactions with his or her environment (Savery & Duffy, 1995). What is to be and has been learned cannot be separated from how that will be or was learned. Rorty proposes that it is the cognitive effect of conflict or puzzlement that motivates the learning and determines how what is learned is organized (Savery & Duffy, 1995). The cognitive conflict of not knowing motivates learning. Finally, Rorty suggestions that it is through social interaction that knowledge evolves (Savery & Duffy, 1995). Social interaction leads to negotiation and evaluation of knowledge, making the knowledge viable. According to Rorty this leads to eight implications for learning (Savery & Duffy, 1995): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

all learning activities must be anchored within a larger task or problem; the learner must take ownership of the overall task or problem; the task or problem must be a real-world, authentic task or problem; the real-world, authentic task or problem must represent those the learner will find him or herself after the learning is complete; the learner should be solely responsible for developing the process of finding a solution to the task or problem; the learning environment provided by the instructor must support and challenge the learner's thinking; the learner should be encouraged to test his or her knowledge against alternative views and contexts; and, the learner should be encouraged to reflect on his or her learning and learning process.

This is supported by current thinking about adult learning. For example, Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998) identify six core adult learning principles: the adult learner's need to know, the self-concept of the adult learner, prior experience of the adult learner, readiness to learn, orientation to learning, and motivation to learn. The proposition made by Constructivist theory that problem-based learning would lead to more learning, both in terms of content learned and thinking strategies developed, is supported by a prior knowledge perspective: current learning is affected by prior learning and ill-structured, real-world problems activate prior knowledge (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993). Similarly the proposition is supported by an encoding specificity perspective: the closer the resemblance between the learning context and the applied context the more learning will be applied (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993). Finally, the proposition is supported by an elaboration of knowledge perspective: the more elaborated the knowledge the better remembered and applied the learning (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993).

3. Empirical evidence supporting the current theoretical foundation The evidence for problem-based learning consists of three meta-analytic efforts conducted through the mid-90s to mid00s concerning the effectiveness of problem-based learning, mostly in medical school settings, and a few independent research efforts implemented since then, primarily in engineering settings, with a very few in management settings. However, there is little across this research that supports the current theoretical foundation for problem-based learning. Albanese and Mitchell (1993) conducted the first meta-analytic study comparing problem-based learning with more traditional lecture-based learning across a variety of studies conducted in medical schools from 1972 through 1993. The

252

M.S. Carriger / The International Journal of Management Education 13 (2015) 249e259

authors acknowledge that despite the growth of interest in problem-based learning in medical education, there was, at that time, little evidence to support problem-based learning and some confusion about exactly what problem-based learning was. In order to identify studies that looked at the effectiveness of problem-based learning Albanese and Mitchell (1993) used Barrows' (1985) definition of problem-based learning … “the basic outline of the problem-based learning process is: encountering the problem first, problem solving with clinical reasoning skills and identifying learning needs in an interactive process, self-study, applying newly gained knowledge to the problem, and summarizing what has been learned” (Barrows, 1985, p. 15). The authors further defined, for the sake of their meta-analysis, conventional instruction as “instructor-provided learning objectives and assignments, large-group lectures, structured laboratory experiences, and periodic multiple-choice tests of achievement” (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993, p. 54). With regards to knowledge acquisition, for six of the 10 studies that compared basic science examination performance, traditional, lecture-based instruction produced higher test scores, and in three of these cases statistically significant higher test scores. With regards to clinical problem-solving skills, in five of the seven studies that compared clinical examination performance, problem-based instruction produced higher, though in only one case statistically significant higher examination scores. For this meta-analytic survey, lecture-based instruction led to more general knowledge acquisition, while problembased learning led to more problem-solving skill. Additionally, with regards to student satisfaction, seven of seven studies looking at student satisfaction ratings for problem-based learning showed average or higher than the mid-point scores on each rating scale. However, this result should be interpreted cautiously as there was no comparison in any of the studies with traditional, lecture-based instruction. Finally, the authors (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993) noted that in all studies that looked at students' perceptions of their preparation to do clinical work problem-based students did not view themselves as being disadvantaged having learned through problembased instruction, nor where problem-based students rated by their supervisors as being disadvantaged in their actual clinical work. In general, these medical students rated themselves as highly satisfied with their experience, and did not feel disadvantaged for doing future clinical work. In general, these studies (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993) reveal a mixed bag with regards to problem-based learning. Problembased learning improved problem-solving skills over traditional, lecture-based instruction; however, it did not improve and actually decreases knowledge acquisition. At the same time, students in problem-based classrooms rated the course highly, and did not feel disadvantaged for having gone through problem-based instruction. Concurrently, though independently, Vernon and Blake (1993) conducted the second meta-analytic study comparing problem-based learning with more traditional lecture-based learning across a variety of studies conducted in medical schools from 1970 through 1992. Vernon and Blake (1993) defined problem-based learning as “a method of learning (or teaching) that emphasized (1) the study of clinical cases, either real or hypothetical, (2) small discussion groups, (3) collaborative independent study, (4) hypothetico-deductive reasoning, and (5) a style of faculty direction that concentrated on group processes rather than imparting information” (pp. 550e551). Eight published reports assessed, with a total of twenty-eight samples, contained data about students' academic achievement as measured by standardized tests (Vernon & Blake, 1993). Overall, effect sizes for academic achievement showed a significant trend in favor of lecture-based instruction. Twelve of the published reports assessed, with a total of sixteen samples, contained data about students' problem-solving or clinical functioning. In thirteen of the sixteen samples effect sizes significantly favored students exposed to problem-based learning. Just as Albanese and Mitchell (1993) found, problem-based learning promotes problem-solving skill whereas traditional, lecture-based instruction promotes knowledge acquisition. Five of the published reports assessed contained data about students' evaluation of the curriculum such that effect sizes could be calculated (Vernon & Blake, 1993). In every case, student attitudes favored problem-based learning over traditional, lecture-based instruction. Again, as with Albanese and Mitchell (1993), problem-based learning is generally favored by students. In general, these studies (Vernon & Blake, 1993) replicate the mixed bag of results with regards to problem-based learning. Problem-based learning improved problem-solving skills over traditional, lecture-based instruction; however, it did not improve knowledge acquisition. At the same time, students favored problem-based learning. Finally, and more recently, Dochy et al. (2003) conducted a meta-analysis on 43 published reports, from 1984 to 2000, with a specific focus on comparing and contrasting the effects of problem-based vs. lecture-based learning on knowledge acquisition and skill development and to consider moderator variables. Like Albanese and Mitchell (1993), these authors (Dochy et al., 2003) noted the ambiguity in the definition of problem-based learning, but also followed Barrows' (1985) definition. Of the 43 studies included in the meta-analysis, 33 contained data on knowledge acquisition and 25 contained data on knowledge application or skill development (Dochy et al., 2003). In general, using both effect size and vote count techniques, problem-based learning showed a significant effect on knowledge application and skill development. However, traditional, lecture-based instruction showed a directional, though non-significant, effect on knowledge acquisition. In general, these more recent studies (Dochy et al., 2003) again replicate the mixed results for problem-based learning. In all three meta-analytic studies (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Dochy et al., 2003; Vernon & Blake, 1993) problem-based learning improved problem-solving skills over traditional, lecture-based instruction; however, it did not improve knowledge acquisition. At the same time, students liked problem-based learning approaches.

M.S. Carriger / The International Journal of Management Education 13 (2015) 249e259

253

A number of additional studies have been conducted since the most recent meta-analytic undertaking in 2003. Four of these have been conducted in schools of engineering. Hsieh and Knight (2008) describe two studies that they conducted comparing problem-based learning and traditional, lecture-based instruction for introducing library skills to engineering students. In the first study, a pilot study, the authors (Hsieh & Knight, 2008) found that lecture-based students did slightly better on an objective quiz of eleven questions but the problem-based students did slightly better on a set of six reflective questions. In the second study, employing a theory-oriented and practice-oriented pre-test/post-test methodology, the authors (Hsieh & Knight, 2008) found that problem-based students improved significantly across the pre-test to post-test whereas lecture-bases students did not. However, lecture-based students did score slightly, though not significantly, higher than problem-based students on the pre-test. Mitchell, Canavan, and Smith (2010) looked at learning outcomes and student achievement for students completing a communications systems course in a problem-based learning format compared to a traditional, lecture-based format. Student achievement was assessed over a seven-year period as the course shifted from a traditional, lecture-based course to a problem-based learning course. The authors (Mitchell et al., 2010) rightly caution about making direct comparison statements, as the two approaches were not pitted against each other. The authors (Mitchell et al., 2010) found a slight increase in assessment scores as the course shifted from a traditional, lecture-based to a problem-based course. The authors (Mitchell et al., 2010) also found a significant drop in course failures from 18% to 0% across the transition from lecture-based to problem-based instruction. Finally, Downing, Ning, and Shin (2011) looked at the impact of problem-based learning versus traditional, lecture-based instruction on the experience of students exposed to these methods as well as the development of meta-cognitive skills among these students. Again, the study was conducted in an engineering school, specifically the building design program. The authors (Downing et al., 2011) used a standardized measure of meta-cognitive skills development, the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. The authors (Downing et al., 2011) found that students in the problem-based classroom reported significantly higher overall levels of satisfaction compare to students in the traditional, lecture-based classroom. With regards to meta-cognitive skills, only students in the problem-based curriculum showed significant self-perceived improvement. In general, these studies in engineering classroom environments support the three meta-analyses in medical school classrooms. Students in a problem-based classroom developed better problem-solving, reflection, and meta-cognitive skills, yet students in a traditional, lecture-based classroom developed more knowledge acquisition. Additionally, students exposed to a problem-based classroom did report a higher level of satisfaction, in some respects, with the learning experience. Finally, and most relevant, three additional studies since 2003 have been conducted looking at the impact of problembased learning in the management classroom. Significantly, in the entire special issue of the Journal of Management Education dedicated to problem-based learning (October 2004), among numerous papers defining problem-based learning, its theoretical foundations, advice on and examples of implementation, there are only a few case studies but no empirical research aimed at evaluating problem-based learning. Bamford, Karjalainen, and Jenavs (2012) focused on the impact of problem-based assessment versus final exam assessment on teaching operations management. The authors (Bamford et al., 2012) defined problem-based assessment as containing “a realistic, unstructured, and informal problem” which required students to “define the problem further as well as solve it, consider alternative solutions, weigh the pros and cons, and collect relevant information” (p. 1498). Bamford et al. (2008) found that problem-based assessment lead to the highest grades among students exposed to the different assessment approaches, a mix of problem-based assessment and final exam lead to the next highest grades, and final exam along lead to the lowest grades. Additionally, students exposed to the problem-based assessment reported significantly more learning, more useful feedback, more motivation to spend time on the assessment, and more intellectual stimulation from the assessment approach than students taking only the final exam (Bamford et al., 2012). However, it is unclear how to evaluate these results on assessment techniques and relate them to the above results on instructional techniques. Stanley and Marsden (2012) reported a case study in which problem-based learning was implemented within an accounting classroom. The case study focused on a questioning approach for gathering information to solve the problems delivered and the use of term-long cohorts of students working together on the problems. A majority of the report focused on implementation of problem-based learning in the management classroom with little or no empirical data presented, other than a descriptive case study. The students taking part in the case study generally rated the experience positively on an endof-term survey (Stanley & Marsden, 2012) though there were no comparisons with other instructional approaches. However, students did rate the workload and challenge of the problem-based approach negatively (Stanley & Marsden, 2012). Again, it is difficult to reconcile these results with those reported in medical and engineering schools since this was a descriptive case study and no comparisons with other instructional approaches were done. But students in an accounting classroom do positively rate, in some respects, problem-based learning. Finally, Hartman, Moberg, and Lambert (2013) considered problem-based learning in an introductory business classroom. However, rather than assessing knowledge acquisition, problem-solving skills, and student satisfaction, Hartman et al. (2013) took the novel approach of focusing on student ability to tolerate ambiguity and the influence this has on coping skills in the problem-based classroom. Rather than looking at cognitive skills impacted by problem-based instruction these authors focused on affective skills. The authors (Hartman et al., 2013) defined tolerance for ambiguity as “the way an individual or group perceives and processes information about ambiguous situations or stimuli when confronted with unfamiliar, complex, or incongruent cues” (p. 3). They (Hartman et al., 2013) further define coping as “behavioral or cognitive efforts to manage situations that are evaluated to be stressful” (p. 4). Hartman et al. (2013) found that tolerance for ambiguity significantly

254

M.S. Carriger / The International Journal of Management Education 13 (2015) 249e259

decreased over time in the students exposed to problem-based instruction and although problem-focused coping did not significantly change, emotionally coping with stressful situations significantly increased over time in these students. Once again, it is hard to integrate these results with those reported from medical and engineering schools as the focus was on affective rather than cognitive effects of problem-based learning and no comparisons were done between problem-based learning and traditional, lecture-based instruction. However, if we can conceptualize tolerance for ambiguity and coping as problem-solving skills, this result supports the work done in medical and engineering schools, that is problem-based learning leads to better problem-solving or knowledge application skills. In general, these studies in management and business classroom environments support, to some extent, the studies in engineering classroom environments and the three meta-analyses in medical school classroom environments. Students respond more favorably to a problem-based assessment tool, rate their experience in a problem-based classroom positively, and develop better emotional coping and problem solving skills than when exposed to more traditional approaches. In summary, across some 90 studies, some employing multiple samples, in three general academic areas, medical, engineering, and management, problem-based learning leads to improved problem-solving skills, broadly defined, but not knowledge acquisition, as compared to traditional, lecture-based approaches to education. Though, students do generally have a positive view of their experience in a problem-based learning classroom. 4. An alternative theoretical foundation for problem-based learning The issue of problem-based learning resolves to two questions. First, why is it that the predictions from Constructivist theory, that problem-based learning should lead to improved knowledge acquisition and problem-solving and critical thinking skills, only seem to be half correct? And, if Constructivist theory and its predictions for research outcomes are not fully correct, shouldn't alternative theories be considered or crafted to help explain the results that are obtained? Second, why do we not see better outcomes for problem-based learning when compared to a more traditional, lecture-based curriculum? Would the consideration of a different theoretical perspective, more in line with research outcomes, lead management development professionals, whether academic or professional, to consider different outcome measures? One quite old (in the sense of having a long history), but novel in this context (in the sense of not having been applied to higher education), pedagogical theory that might be helpful in understanding problem-based learning is Montessorian pedagogical theory (Montessori, 2012). Some applications of the Montessorian approach have been directed at secondary education, but the approach has not been applied at the post-secondary level, and this is mainly because Maria Montessori developed her pedagogy based on her direct and exclusive observation of young children (Martin, 2004). Montessorian pedagogical theory is based on the philosophy and methodology developed by Maria Montessori (Kirkpatrick, 2008; Martin, 2004). According to this pedagogical theory the goal of education is not for the instructor to “direct, drill, or instruct”, but rather to foster independent mastery among the students (Martin, 2004). This is based on the premise that students will work on their own, and quite actively, to develop their own potential and skills (Kirkpatrick, 2008). Therefore, the role of the instructor in the Montessorian approach is one of facilitator, to provide learning-appropriate stimuli that allows the student to develop his or her own potentials and skills. Dubbed “scientific pedagogy”, the Montessorian approach is based on leveraging the inherent inquisitiveness of the learner (Brendt, 2012). The underlying assumption is that the learner learns best when following his or her own interests for long, uninterrupted stretches of time. When a student is engaged in a learning activity that he or she is inherently interested in, his or her learning appears effortless (Brendt, 2012). Therefore, the instructor's role is simply to provide exposure to subjects and materials, then observe in which subjects and materials the learner shows most interest. Finally, the instructor would prepare the learning environment to allow for a deeper exploration of what intrigues the learner. “Learning occurs as a fluid process reflective of respect for the individuality of the” learner (Brendt, 2012, p. 11). The instructor in a Montessorian classroom functions more as a facilitator, developing learning environments and activities that are aligned with the development and learning needs of the students (Martin, 2004). More philosophically, Montessori suggested that students learn because of an “inner force” which “prompts” the student “to seek out certain experiences and activities at certain times” (Crain, 2004, p. 2). These activities allow the student to develop his or her underlying skills and abilities. And when these activities are found, then motivate the student to enthusiastically engage with the activities without the need for instructor direction or supervision. Given this, the goal of the instructor is to provide these activities and allow the student's inner force to guide the student to learn. The instructor must trust the student to freely choose to engage with the activity and work independently on the activity, realizing underlying skills and abilities in the process (Crain, 2004). The Montessorian approach is in direct contrast to the traditional, lecture-based curriculum with its emphasis on external motivation and dependence on an instructor. The traditional approach to education focuses on the student performing in order to receive external rewards or avoid punishments for performance: awards, grades, praise, or criticism (Crain, 2004). The Montessorian approach to education focuses on the intrinsic motivation of self-directed learning, and self-discovery of skills and abilities. Additionally, the Montessorian approach emphasizes the social nature of learning (Crain, 2004). In the traditional Montessorian classroom, students are mixed in terms of age, experience, skill, and ability. The underlying assumption is that those students with more experience, skill, and ability will help those students with less experience, skill, and ability learn through the process of learning together.

M.S. Carriger / The International Journal of Management Education 13 (2015) 249e259

255

It must be noted that, “beyond age twelve, Montessori's ideas on education for the adolescent and young adult, that is, for secondary and higher education, are brief and underdevelopment” (Kirkpatrick, 2008). At the secondary level, the Montessorian approach focuses on education for self knowledge, which includes the development of connection, identity, systems, and interdependence (McKenzie, 2007). This can best be accomplished through learning opportunities offered to students requiring collaborative efforts at solving real-world problems (McKenzie, 2007). The real-world problem solving exercise helps the student generate higher-level thinking skills and make connections across content domains. This is best facilitated through instructors guiding students and students guiding each other, rather than through direct instruction. “Exposing students to strategies and activities that do not match their dominant learning styles and intelligences not only makes them stronger, more balanced, and more flexible learners, but also makes them more tolerant of those who do things differently.” (McKenzie, 2007, p. 28). Montessori did write about the application of her approach to older children and adolescents. Though these writings are less well known, this has led to the emergence of secondary Montessori schools. However, theoretically, David Kahn is perhaps best known for his rather extensive writing on the application of Marie Montessori's work to the secondary (high school primarily) classroom. Though not particularly or specifically applied to the college management or business, MBA, or professional management development classrooms and problem-based learning, Kahn's thinking is applicable here. Kahn (2008) notes that Montessorian secondary instruction requires a specialized theory of knowledge. The Montessorian theory of knowledge stipulates that there is a relationship between practical and intellectual knowledge, between the acquisition of knowledge inside the classroom and outside the classroom (Kahn, 2008). Knowledge is viewed as both strategic in the sense of helping the learner adapt to society and self-regulatory in the sense of promoting a sense of independence in the learner. The outcomes of knowledge acquisition are practical e “learning the nobility of work, how to contribute to a community, the importance of commerce, the assumption of adult-like responsibilities within the group, the contemplation of moral questions, a belief in progress, a focus on belonging to humanity and connecting with the history of culture, the ability to solve both individual and group problems” (Kahn, 2008, p. 103). The outcomes of knowledge acquisition are also social e “desire for help, desire for a feeling of usefulness and belonging, desire for application of abstract skills, desire for simply the strengthening of confidence and outright adaptation to different groups and environments” (Kahn, 2008, p. 106). The hallmark intellectual achievement that begins in adolescences according to Montessori is the emergence and effective use of meta-cognitive skills (Kahn, 2008). Meta-cognitive skills in the context of the learning environment have three distinct characteristics. First, meta-cognitive skills help learners identify where and when learning, or acquiring knowledge, will be useful in approaching problems or issues in the future. Second, meta-cognitive skills help learners retain current knowledge that may be related or needed for active problem-solving. And finally, third, meta-cognitive skills help learners engage in deliberative, systematic search of their own knowledge base when confronted with a problem. The development and finetuning of these meta-cognitive skills require an increasingly complex learning environment (Kahn, 2008). “Montessori's theory of intelligence is multifold (though not necessarily ‘multiple intelligence’) and holistic” (Kahn, 2008, p. 111). Intelligence has an emotional and unconscious dimension as well as a knowledge and intentional dimension. Montessori's is a theory of unified knowledge, a web of interconnected information in which disciplines of knowledge converge on an understanding of the broader universe and history (Kahn, 2008). The chief task of the learner is to discover the interrelationships, the wholes, the systems, which ultimately make up this web of knowledge (Kahn & Feldman, 2008). This is done through the development of meta-cognitive skills. In order to develop these meta-cognitive skills learners must be presented with a very specific, collaborative learning environment (Kahn, 2008; Kahn & Feldman, 2008). The learner must encounter a learning environment that fosters social activity and broad social understanding. The learner must encounter a learning environment that supports the notion that human propensity toward organization is fundamentally good. The learner must encounter a learning environment that contributes to social harmony. Finally, the learner must encounter a learning environment that exposes both knowledge about the world and the best aspects of human organization. In the Montessorian perspective, education has two primary functions: to support the development of the learner into adulthood and to foster the intergenerational development of the culture within which the learners exist (Lockhorst, Wubbels, & van Oers, 2010). Bragdon (2014) notes eight characteristics of the Montessorian classroom that might easily translate to the problem-based learning setting: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

the Montessorian approach is student-centric, learner-centric; the student or learner is encouraged to reach his or her full potential in all aspects of classroom life; the instructor does not direct learning but facilitates learning; the instructor provides specially designed materials to the students that support and facilitate learning; the learners work with these specially designed materials in a multidisciplinary/multi-contextual way; the learners learn best in a social context where each learner's individual and unique learning style is accepted and supported; 7. the learning is immersive, independent, and multi-faceted; 8. and, the learners are free to explore and move about the “learning environment” at will (Table 1).

256

M.S. Carriger / The International Journal of Management Education 13 (2015) 249e259

The Montessori classroom and the functioning of the instructor in that classroom at the secondary and post-secondary levels would look very much like an instructor in a problem-based classroom: learner-centric, facilitator rather than lecturer, focused on the design of learning materials (problems), promoting multidisciplinary and multi-contextual approaches to solving the problems, and promoting learning in a social context. The basic underlying ethos of the Montessorian approach is that the instructor follows the student, rather than the student following the instructor (Crain, 2004). Education must be tailored to the unique and natural developmental needs of the learner. As applied to problem-based learning, Montessorian pedagogy might have two benefits over other Constructivist philosophies. One, it would not be a stretch to understand problem-based learning from a Montessorian theoretical position as the Montessorian methodology of “instructing” sounds like problem-based learning. But, perhaps more importantly, two, the focus in the Montessorian approach is more heavily placed on the development of naturally unfolding skills and abilities rather than knowledge acquisition. Whereas other Constructivist philosophies focus on both the learner's construction of knowledge and acquisition of skills, the Montessorian approach focused more heavily on the acquisition of skills and understandings. This may suggest that the learning outcomes emphasized in the Montessorian pedagogy more accurately reflects what the research evidence has uncovered with regards to the effectiveness of problem-based learning. Montessorian learning outcomes would include the development of problem-solving, thinking, learning, and metacognitive skills. Just the sort of skills the research literature suggests problem-based learning promotes. However, Deweyian Constructivist theory learning outcomes would add to this the development of knowledge acquisition as a learning outcome. Just what the research literature suggests may not be the case. Therefore, a Montessorian approach to learning outcomes may be more aligned with the empirical evidence with regards to problem-based learning than the Dewey-ian Constructivist approach. And, adopting the Montessorian approach may help educators in the management classroom, interested in applying a problem-based approach to their teaching, focus on more empirically supported learning outcomes. Applying a Montessorian approach to our understanding of problem-based learning would lead to an answer to the second question raised above. Whereas a Constructivist approach leads researchers to focus on five goals of instruction, with presumably corresponding outcome measures, a Montessorian approach would lead researcher to focus primarily on three of these. The goals of problem-based learning from a Constructivist pedagogy would include, the construction of an extensive and flexible knowledge base, development of effective problem-solving skills, development of self-directed and lifelong learning skills, development of effective collaboration skills, and the elicitation of intrinsic motivation to learn (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). However, as we have seen above from research evidence, there does not appear to be much support for problem-based learning contributing to an extensive and flexible knowledge base. And there has not been much emphasis on studying the impact of problem-based learning on the development of collaboration skills. However, as is also evident from the research conducted to date, there is evidence that problem-based learning contributes to the development of problem-solving and self-directed learning skills and learner satisfaction. Alternatively, whereas a Constructivist approach to understanding problem-based learning leads researchers to focus on both explicit and implicit knowledge acquisition, a Montesorrian approach would lead researchers to focus primarily on implicit knowledge acquisition. Explicit knowledge, or the knowledge that something is true (Brownell & Jameson, 2004), is emphasized in traditional, lecture-based approaches to education. Similarly explicit knowledge is also emphasized in problem-based learning, from a Constructivist perspective, through the notion of the construction of knowledge. On the other hand, implicit knowledge, sometimes referred to as tacit knowledge, the knowledge of how to do something (Brownell & Jameson, 2004) is typically not addressed in a traditional, lecture-based classroom. However, implicit knowledge is emphasized, along with explicit knowledge, in problem-based learning, from a Constructivist perspective. And implicit knowledge might be considered the main focus of the Montessorian approach to education. This may suggest a continuum of learning outcomes facilitated by various approaches to education, ranging from the acquisition of explicit knowledge facilitated by a lecture-based approach and the acquisition of implicit knowledge facilitated by a problem-based approach from a Montessorian perspective. Perhaps the Montessorian perspective of implicit knowledge acquisition would inform an understanding of problem-based learning in a manner more aligned with the prevailing research evidence on learning outcomes (Table 2). Finally, the adoption of a Montessorian perspective to understanding problem-based learning would have implications on management curricula. It certainly is the case that management is a body of knowledge and a set of practices. Given a

Table 1 The characteristics of the Monetossori classroom and their relationship to problem-based learning. Characteristics of the Montessorian classroom

Characteristic of problem-based learning

The The The The The The The The

Yes

approach is student-centric, learner-centric student is encouraged to reach his or her full potential instructor does not direct learning but facilitates learning instructor provides specially designed materials to the students learners work with these specially designed materials in a multidisciplinary/multi-contextual way learners learn best in a social context learning is immersive, independent, and multi-faceted learners are free to explore and move about the “learning environment” at will

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

M.S. Carriger / The International Journal of Management Education 13 (2015) 249e259

257

Montessorian perspective problem-based learning would only be applied to the development of the set of practices whereas lecture-based instruction would be more effectively applied to the development of the management body of knowledge. This suggests that both problem-based learning and lecture-based instruction would need to be applied across the curriculum based on the learning outcomes of the various courses or modules within the curriculum. 5. Conclusion When one is confronted, as here, with the inability to support a particular theoretical position with research evidence, one is left with one of two options, abandon the theory and research endeavor, or choose or craft an alternative theory that helps to explain the research evidence collected. From a theoretical standpoint, the current foundation for problem-based learning, Dewey-ian Constructivism, suggests that problem-based learning should lead to great knowledge acquisition and more effective knowledge application. But the research evidence to date shows this is only half true. Problem-based learning is not any more effective, and in some instances less effective, at promoting knowledge acquisition than is a traditional, lecture-based approach to education. On the other hand, problem-based learning is more effective than traditional, lecture-based instruction at promoting knowledge application and problem solving. Although generally considered falling under the broad rubric of social constructivism theory (Audi, 2006), like Dewey-ian Constructivist pedagogy; Montessorian pedagogy suggests a different set of learning outcomes. A simple shift in theoretical emphasis from a Dewey-ian to a Montessorian approach to understanding problem-based learning leads to a reconceptualization of problem-based learning which is more in line with the empirical evidence. This shift in emphasis suggests that the measure of success of problem-based learning should be focused on various aspects of knowledge application and problem solving rather than knowledge acquisition. This leads directly to implications for further research and curricular development with regards to problem-based learning and the management classroom. A shift in focus from a Dewey-ian Constructivist understanding of problem-based learning to a Montessorian understanding of problem-based learning would not necessarily change the approach to delivering a problem-based learning course. What it would change would be the learning objectives for the course delivered and the assessment of learning outcomes. From a Montessorian perspective, problem-based learning would still feature an instructor acting as a facilitator of learning rather than a deliverer of knowledge, the use of ill-structured, real-world problems that require collaboration, and learning objectives built into the ill-structured, real-world problems. What would change would be those learning objectives. Learning objectives focused less on knowledge acquisition or information mastery and focused more on the application of knowledge would characterize a problem-based classroom from a Montessorian perspective. This might include learning objectives focused on developing problem-solving skills, learning how to learn, developing meta-cognitive skills, developing information discovery skills. Interestingly, these are the kinds of skills business is increasing looking for in business school graduates (see for example, Hamel, 2007, 2012; Semler, 2004). Similarly in a Montessorian perspective, outcomes of learning would change. Learning outcomes would focus less on how much knowledge or information was acquired through the course and focus more on the development of problem-solving, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills. This shift in focus would also having implications for curriculum. From a Montessorian perspective, management curriculum would change, with problem-based learning and lecture-based instruction applied with specific courses or modules depending upon the stated learning outcomes for the course or module. This shift in the way in which problem-based learning is founded in pedagogical theory would have implications for future research, curricular development, and outcome assessment. 6. Future implications From a research standpoint, the assessment of problem-based learning should focus more squarely on knowledge application and problem solving outcomes rather than knowledge acquisition. For example, Downing et al. (2011) focused on the impact of problem-based learning on meta-cognitive skills. Employing a standardized assessment of meta-cognitive skills would seem fruitful for further study. Alternatively, the impact of problem-based learning on critical thinking skills, exhibited in writing assignments, and assessed using an application of the Association of American Colleges and Universities Critical Thinking VALUE Rubric (http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/pdf/CriticalThinking.pdf), for example, would seem fruitful for further study. Additionally, a Montessorian focus on intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation for learning (Crain, 2004) and the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge (Brownell & Jameson, 2004) might also be fruitful alternative outcome measures Table 2 Dewey-ian constructivist theory vs. Montessorian constructivist theory.

Problem-based learning Lecture based instruction

Dewey Montessori

Knowledge

Learning outcomes

Motivation to learn

Supported by evidence

Explicit and implicit Implicit Explicit

Knowledge and application Application Knowledge

Extrinsic and intrinsic Intrinsic Extrinsic

Partially Fully Fully

258

M.S. Carriger / The International Journal of Management Education 13 (2015) 249e259

when assessing problem-based learning. One can imagine comparing the acquisition of explicit, factual knowledge and implicit or tacit, procedural knowledge between problem-based learning and traditional, lecture-based instruction. Similarly, one can imagine assessing the levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation generated by problem-based vs. traditional, lecturebased classrooms. And, further one can imagine the assessment of the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on learning, perhaps even both in terms of knowledge acquisition and knowledge application. From a pedagogical standpoint, within the business school or management department curriculum there does seem to be a natural distinction between introductory, knowledge- or fact-heavy courses and more advanced, knowledge-applicationheavy courses. The implication being that problem-based learning would be more effectively applied to more advanced, knowledge-application-heavy courses whereas traditional, lecture-based instruction would be more effectively applied to introductory, knowledge- or fact-heavy courses. Savery (2006) does include in his 10 generic characteristics of problem-based learning the notion that the process of self-directed learning through problem-based learning must be integrated into the pedagogy of the curriculum and not just an add-on to an otherwise lecture-based curriculum. Perhaps a way to integrate problem-based learning into a comprehensive curriculum would be to begin with traditional, lecture-based introductory courses focused on knowledge acquisition and gradually shifting to problem-based learning advanced courses focused on knowledge application. In fact, one could imagine a traditional, lecture-based introductory course incorporating problembased modules toward the end of the course as a means of showing how knowledge and fact acquired through lecture in the beginning of the course is integrated with skill and ability developed through problem-based learning toward the end of the course. Perhaps even assessing the employment of a problem-based assessment process as suggested by the research of Bamford et al. (2012) in the management classroom. Obviously, this might be a fruitful avenue for further curricular and pedagogical research. From a more practical perspective, this theoretical shift suggests management development courses in higher education and management training courses in business blend a lecture-based and a problem based approach in order to produce both knowledge acquisition and knowledge application. For example, each period of instruction could be kicked off with a personal narrative and mini-lecture presented by the instructor focused on one or a few aspects of the topic to be covered. The narrative and mini-lecture could be followed by a rather specific, though ill-defined problem that the students have to work on to craft and present a solution at the end of the period of instruction. This may lead to an integration of knowledge acquisition and skill development; management knowledge and management practice. A shift from a focus on Dewey-ian to Montessorian pedagogical theory may move us to thinking about problem-based learning in the management classroom in a different way. This shift, with a corresponding change in emphasis with regards to outcome measures and design of management development curricula, focusing more on knowledge application and problem-solving rather than knowledge acquisition, would be a fruitful approach to improving our management development. This theoretical shift would be a reasonable response to empirical evidence that does not fully support currently accepted pedagogical theory about problem-based learning. And this theoretical shift would lead to concrete recommendations about designing management development activities and assessing the outcomes of such activities. Appendix 1. Example of an ill-structured, real-word problem applicable to a management classroom You and five of your colleagues have decided to start your own business. Because of your mutual interest in Human Resource Management you have decided to start a Human Resource Management Consulting business. You decide that the consultancy will have two separate but related components. You will have to create the operational side of the business as one component. This could entail such things as a business plan, source of start-up capital, mission and vision, strategy, operational and human resources policies and procedures, etc … And you will have to create the consulting side of the business as the other component. This could entail decisions about what products and services you are going to offer, potential clients, marketing and branding, etc … With each succeeding problem in this course you will be adding (or deciding not to add) components both to the operational and consulting side of your business. For this first problem you need to begin to plan the business and decide how you are going to leverage the diversity on your team to support your business. You will have to figure out what you will need to plan a new consulting venture and how the diversity of backgrounds and experiences on your team can help your business. Once you have figured out what you will need you will then begin planning the business. References Albanese, M., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: a review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52e81. Audi, R. (2006). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bamford, D., Karjalainen, K., & Jenavs, E. (2012). An evaluation of problem-based assessment in teaching operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(12), 1493e1514. Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. NY: Springer Publishing. Bigelow, J. D. (2004). Using problem-based learning to develop skills in solving unstructured problems. Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 591e609. Bragdon, J. (2014). What every family should know about Montessori. Montessori Life, 26(1), 7. Brendt, R. (2012). Early childhood education: a model for the 21st century secondary education. Educational Facility Planner, 46(2/3), 10e13. Brownell, J., & Jameson, D. A. (2004). Problem-based learning in graduate management education: an integrative model and interdisciplinary application. Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 558e577.

M.S. Carriger / The International Journal of Management Education 13 (2015) 249e259

259

Crain, W. (2004). Montessori. Encounter, 17(2), 2e4. DeFillippi, R., & Milter, R. G. (2009). Problem-based and Project-based Learning Approaches: Applying Knowledge to Authentic Situations. In S. Armstrong, & C. Fukami (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Management Learning, Education and Development (pp. 344e363). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & education. New York: Touchstone. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533e568. Downing, K., Ning, F., & Shin, K. (2011). Impact of problem-based learning on student experience and meta-cognitive development. Multicultural Education and Technology Journal, 5(1), 55e69. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan. Gijselaers, W. H. (1996). Connecting problem-based practices with educational theory. In L. Wilkerson, & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hamel, G. (2012). What matters now: How to win in a world of relentless change, ferocious competition, and unstoppable innovation. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Hartman, K. B., Moberg, C. R., & Lambert, J. M. (2013). Effectiveness of problem-based learning in introductory business courses. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 12, 1e13. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235e266. Hsieh, C., & Knight, L. (2008). Problem-based learning for engineering students: an evidence-based comparative study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 25e30. Kahn, D. (2008). Towards a theory of knowledge framework for a Montessori high school. The NAMTA Journal, 33(1), 100e123. Kahn, D., & Feldman, R. (2008). Montessori secondary education: moving from discipline-based integration to whole formation synthesis. The NAMTA Journal, 33(3), 223e241. Kirkpatrick, J. (2008). Montessori, Dewey, and capitalism. Claremont, CA: TLJ Books. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner. In The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Lockhorst, D., Wubbels, T., & van Oers, B. (2010). Educational dialogues and the fostering of pupil's independence: the practices of two teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 99e121. Martin, R. A. (2004). Philosophically based alternatives in education. Encounter, 17(1), 17e27. McKenzie, G. K. (2007). Montessori secondary schools: preparing today's adolescents for the challenges of tomorrow. Montessori Life, 19(4), 26e32. Mitchell, J. E., Canavan, B., & Smith, J. (2010). Problem-based learning in communication systems: student perceptions and achievement. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53(4), 587e594. Montessori, M. (2012). The Montessori method. Lexington, KY: Renaissance Classics. Newman, M. J. (2005). Problem based learning: an introduction and overview of the key features of the approach. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 32(1), 12e20. Peterson, T. O. (2004). So you’re thinking of trying problem based learning? Three critical success factors for implementation. Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 630e647. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9e20. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Semler, R. (2004). The seven day weekend: Changing the way work works. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Sherwood, A. L. (2004). Problem-based learning in management education: a framework for designing context. Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 536e557. Smith, G. F. (2005). Problem-based learning: can it improve managerial thinking? Journal of Management Education, 29(2), 357e378. Stanley, T., & Marsden, S. (2012). Problem-based learning: does accounting education need it? Journal of Accounting Education, 30, 267e289. Vernon, D. T. A., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluation research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550e563.