The Effectiveness of Problem Based Learning Approach on the Academic Performance of the Economics Students of Kampala International University, Kampala, Uganda

Abstract The study dwelt into the Effectiveness of Problem Based Learning Approach on the Academic Performance of the first year students of economics, of Kampala international university. The study aimed at examining the mean scores in both the pre-test and posttest for both experimental and the control group, whether there is a significant mean posttest gain, and asses whether there is a significant difference in the mean post-test gain in both experimental and control group. A test questionnaire was used as the research instrument of the study to measure the knowledge. The quasi experimental method was used. The prepared t-test was used to determine significant differences between the pretest and the posttest results of the students in terms of knowledge. The independent t-test was utilized in the evaluation of the significant differences between differences of learning employing the two methods of teaching. The findings revealed that the posttest mean result of the problem based learning approach in terms of knowledge was higher compared to the conventional method. The mean posttest gain in the scores of the students in the experimental group was 73.84 higher to that of the control group which was 71.28 in terms of knowledge of the s,ubject (economics) There was no significant difference in the pretest result of the students in the two methods of teaching employed. There was no significant difference in the increase of the posttest gain scores of the students between the two groups. Based on the findings of the study, it is concluded that the problem based learning approach did not significantly increase the students’ posttest scores in the knowledge in economics. It was highly recommended that problem based learning be used as a method of teaching along side the conventional approach in subjects like mathematics, economics, physics and other related subjects, that will develop the totality of the learner equip with. their knowledge of the chosen car.

DECLARATION ~ii

TABLE OF CONTENT vi

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF Figures

LIST OF APPENDICES xi

ACRONYMS xii

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS xiii

ABSTRACT xiv

C~1AP1~ER

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction 1

Rationale of the Study 1

Student’s Affairs 6

Accommodation 7

Philosophy 7

Vision 7

University Mission 8

Principal Officers of the University 8

Schools in the University 9

Statement of Research problem 11

Objectives of the study 14

General Objective 14

Specific Objectives 14

Research questions 14

Specifically, answers to the following questions were sought~ 15

Significance of the study 15

vi

CFIAP~TE~~.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE~17

Introduction 17

Theory 18

Related Literature 23

Traditional classroom 25

Constructivist Classroom 25

Facilitator Role 28

Student Role 31

PBL Process: Group Process 33

CHAPTER

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 56

Introduction 56

Research Design 56

Systematic list sampling of the groups 57

Research Environment/scope of the study 57

Research Respondents 57

Research instrument 58

Data collection procedures 58

Administration of the pretest 58

Problem inquiry

Learning issues

Statistical treatment of data 60

~

Limitations of the study 63

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 64

Introduction

vii

I

I

The significant difference in t~e mean posttest gain between the experimeb~äi and control

group in terms of knowledge ...........,............,.............~67

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 70

Introduction 70

Summary 70

Administration of the Pre-Test 71

Problem Inquiry 71

Learning Issues 71

Administration of the Post-Test 71.

Findings 72

Recommendations 73

Suggestions for further research 77

REFERENCES 78

Books 78

Journals and magazines 82

Web sites 84

Unpublished Thesis 84

VH~

I

usr OF YAWS

Table 1: The 10 guIding prindpies of constructlvlsm.

Table 2: comparison of PBL to the traditional method of teaching. ..................................25

Table 3: PrescriptIve Curriculum and Experiential Cunlculum.........................................so

Table 4: Mean score In the pretest/posttest results based on the knowledge...................64

TableS: The mean posttest gain In the scores of the students In the experimental and

Table

control

6:

groups

SIgnificant

in terms

of the

of

difference

knowledge.

between