J Sci Educ Technol (2010) 19:266275

DOI 10.1007/s10956-009-9198-7

Effects of Problem-Based Learning on University Students

Epistemological Beliefs About Physics and Physics Learning
and Conceptual Understanding of Newtonian Mechanics
Mehmet Sahin

Published online: 15 October 2009

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract This study investigated the effects of problembased learning on students beliefs about physics and
physics learning and conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics. The study further examines the relationship between students beliefs about physics and their
conceptual understanding of mechanics concepts. Participants were 124 Turkish university students (PBL = 55,
traditional = 69) enrolled in a calculus-based introductory
physics class. Students beliefs about physics and physics
learning and their physics conceptual understanding were
measured with the Colorado Learning Attitudes about
Science Survey (CLASS) and the Force Concept Inventory
(FCI), respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance of how PBL influence beliefs and conceptual understanding were performed. The PBL group showed
significantly higher conceptual learning gains in FCI than
the traditional group. PBL approach showed no influence
on students beliefs about physics; both groups displayed
similar beliefs. A significant positive correlation was found
between beliefs and conceptual understanding. Students
with more expert-like beliefs at the beginning of the
semester were more likely to obtain higher conceptual
understanding scores at the end of the semester. Suggestions are presented regarding the implementation of the
PBL approach.
Keywords Problem-based learning

Epistemological beliefs
Conceptual understanding

Introductory physics

M. Sahin (&)
Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education,
Dokuz Eylul University, 35160 Buca, Izmir, Turkey
e-mail: mehmet.sahin@deu.edu.tr

123

Introduction
Traditional physics teaching was commonly reported to be
ineffective in helping students develop a more scientific
view and conceptual understanding of physics (Redish
et al. 1998). It is said that problem-based learning (PBL)
promises a variety of educational outcomes including but
not limited to skills in group work and information seeking,
self-directed learning, communication skills, and developing learners knowledge base and reasoning skills (Neild
2004). It has been suggested that instructional designs that
have an impact on students epistemological beliefs may in
turn impact physics learning. Therefore, PBL may prove to
be useful in improving students beliefs and conceptual
understanding of physics.

What is Problem-Based Learning?

Problem-based learning (PBL) is generally implemented as
a small group tutorial in which students work through
scenarios. The scenarios provide the context for learning;
involve ill-structured, interesting, open-ended, and real-life
problems to motivate students and stimulate discussion
(Levin 2001).
Since its administration at McMaster University (Barrows
and Tamblyn 1980) over four decades ago, PBL has gained
prominence in a wide variety of disciplines including but not
limited to medicine (Vernon and Hosokawa 1996), psychology and occupational therapy (Reynolds 1997), educational administration (Copland 2000), engineering (Said
et al. 2005), mathematics (Erickson 1999), and education
(Sezgin and Sahin 2008; McPhee 2002). PBL was not a
popular mode of instruction in physics until last decade or so
(Sahin 2007, 2009a; Duch 1996; Raine and Collett 2003).

J Sci Educ Technol (2010) 19:266275

The history of PBL and its definitions are covered in

detail by Gijbels et al. (2005) and by Prince (2004)
amongst others and do not need to be addressed here.
However, it is worth reiterating here that the key characteristic of PBL, according to Gijbels et al. (2005) is posing
a concrete problem to students to initiate the learning
process. Hmelo-Silver (2004) described PBL as an
instructional method in which students learn through
facilitated problem solving that centres on a complex realworld problem. Students work in collaborative groups to
identify what they need to learn in order to solve a problem, engage in self-directed learning, apply their new
knowledge to the problem, and reflect on what they learned
and the effectiveness of the strategies employed. Torp
and Sage (2002) described PBL as focused, experiential
learning organized around the investigation and resolution
of a complex, real-world problem that does not have single
correct answer. They describe students as engaged problem
solvers, seeking to identify the root problem and the conditions needed for a good solution and in the process
becoming self-directed learners. PBL teaches students
learn how to learn. It is an instructional method for
lifelong learning.
Traditional lecture approach in basic sciences is very
common. There is compelling evidence that this approach
is not successful in helping students to gain conceptual
understanding of the most basic concepts (Pundak and
Rozner 2008). Interactive engagement approaches are
widely accepted and used in science and physics education
throughout the world (Hake 1998; McDermott 1995;
Redish 2003). The decreasing enrolment in physics has led
many physics educators to search for alternative ways of
instruction, and the success of PBL in medicine and
engineering, particularly in motivating students, makes
PBL a strong candidate (Raine and Collett 2003; Sahin
2009b; Sahin and Yorek 2009).

Does Problem-Based Learning Work?

Although researchers agree upon the basic components of
the PBL, the approach varies greatly in application. The
variation in PBL practices makes the evaluation of its
effectiveness difficult. Considerable research has been
conducted on the effectiveness of PBL in medicine,
evidenced in several considerable reviews of literature
(Albanese and Mitchell 1993; Colliver 2000; Norman and
Schmidt 2000; Major and Palmer 2001; Prince 2004;
Vernon and Blake 1993).
Researchers who have investigated PBL in medical
schools have reached contradictory results. For example,
Albanese and Mitchell (1993) concluded that problembased learning was less effective in teaching basic science

267

content, whereas Vernon and Blake (1993) reported that

PBL approaches were more effective in generating student
interest, sustaining motivation, and preparing students for
clinical interactions with patients. Berkson (1993) found
that the graduate of PBL is not distinguishable from his or
her traditional counterpart (p. 85). This conclusion is
consistent with a number of studies that have shown no
statistically significant differences in learner performance
compared to students receiving lecture-based instruction
(Colliver 2000).
Several studies focus on the effectiveness of PBL in
science subjects (Aknoglu and Tandogan 2007). Polanco
et al. (2004) reported the evaluation of an experimental
problem-based learning integrated curriculum directed to
second-year engineering students. The PBL curriculum
integrated the contents of physics, mathematics, and
computer science courses into a single course. Results
showed that while PBL students improvements in scores
were significantly higher than control students improvements on the Mechanics Baseline Test (MBT) (Hestenes
and Wells 1992), improvements were similar in both
groups on the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) (Hestenes
et al. 1992). Another study (Chang 2001) explored the
effects of a Problem-Based Computer-Assisted Instruction
(PBCAI) on 10th grade students earth science achievement in Taiwan. Results suggested that the PBCAI was
more effective in promoting students achievement and
students in the experimental group had significantly
higher achievement scores than did students in the control
group, especially on the knowledge and comprehension
test items, but not on the application test items. Research
on PBL also shows changes in students study behaviour.
Blumberg and Michael (1992) found that PBL students
were more likely to use textbooks and other books and
informal discussion with peers than did non-PBL students,
who were more likely to rely on lecture notes. A study
(Shamir et al. 2008) exploring the effect on young childrens critical thinking of a peer-tutoring training
embedded with the metacognitive processes required for
problem-based learning and, consequently, for critical
thinking, reported that the application reinforced young
childrens higher-order thinking. Despite wide variations
of reports about effectiveness of PBL, there is at least one
generally accepted finding that emerges from the literature, which is that PBL produces positive student attitudes
(Prince 2004).
A review of the related literature indicates that the
effects of active engagement approaches on students
learning of physics have been documented well (Hake
1998; McDermott 1995) however; research investigating
the effectiveness of PBL on students epistemological
beliefs and conceptual understanding of physics is very
limited.

123

268

Epistemological Beliefs About Physics and Physics

Learning
Research has shown that students not only bring to the
class novice understanding of physical concepts but also a
set of attitudes, beliefs, and expectations. These prior
assumptions and beliefs may affect students learning of
introductory physics and how they interpret what they hear
in a physics class. Most students have beliefs about physics
and physics learning very different from that of an expert
physicist (Redish et al. 1998). As Hammer (1994) reports,
some students consider physics as weakly connected pieces
of information to be learned separately, whereas others see
physics as a coherent set of ideas to be learned together.
Some students perceive learning physics as memorizing
formulas and problem solving algorithms, while others
think that learning involves developing a deeper conceptual
understanding. Some students believe that physics is not
connected to the real world, while others believe that ideas
learned in physics are relevant and useful in a wide variety
of real contexts.
Different terminologies are used to refer to students
attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts about learning and knowledge. Redish et al. (1998) at the University of Maryland
used the term cognitive expectations which mean
expectations about understanding the process of learning
physics and the structure of physics learning. Hammer
(1994) used epistemological belief, which means students beliefs about knowledge and learning in a discipline.
Im and Pak (2004) defined cognitive belief with a
meaning representing students beliefs, expectations, or
attitudes about knowledge and learning of science. In the
present study, physics-related epistemological beliefs are
described as beliefs about what constitutes knowledge in
physics and how knowledge is developed (Kortemeyer
2007).
Epistemological beliefs are investigated extensively in
the literature. More expert-like beliefs are a desired outcome in instructional programs. Skills and attitudes influential on learning such as critical thinking, motivation,
ability to communicate ideas and to learn from collaboration have been found to be positively related to epistemological sophistication (Hofer and Pintrich 1997). The term
epistemological sophistication is used to describe the level
of similarity between ones beliefs and those commonly
held by physicists. Except for specially designed instructional approaches to improve beliefs, researchers reported
deteriorating beliefs after one semester of instruction even
in research-based active engagement classrooms (Elby
2001; Lising and Elby 2005; Marx and Cummings 2007).
Previous research has found correlations between epistemological beliefs and academic performance (Hofer
and Pintrich 1997; Windschitl 1997). Physics-related

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2010) 19:266275

epistemological beliefs were found to be related to physics

conceptual understanding and performance of secondary
school and university students (May and Etkina 2002). A
semester-long quasi-experimental study (Chu et al. 2008)
analyzing the progressive development of nave physics
students conceptions of sound and wave motion, resulted
that students conceptual development was related to their
cognitive understanding and epistemological beliefs of
physics. Stathopoulou and Vosniadou (2007) investigated
the relationship between secondary school students physics-related epistemological beliefs and physics conceptual
understanding. Regression analysis showed that beliefs
regarding the Construction and Stability of physics
knowledge and the Structure of physics knowledge were
good predictors of physics understanding. In one study,
Perkins et al. (2005) looked at the correlations between
student beliefs about physics and their conceptual learning
in an introductory physics course. They used the Colorado
Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS) (Adams
et al. 2006) to measure student beliefs and the Force and
Motion Conceptual Evaluation instrument (FMCE)
(Thornton and Sokoloff 1998) and the Force Concept
Inventory (FCI) (Hestenes et al. 1992) to measure student
learning. They reported significant correlations between
individual belief categories of the CLASS and normalized
learning gain, calculated from the FMCE scores. The
results indicated that students starting the course with more
favourable beliefs were more likely to attain high learning
gains.
An examination of the literature indicates that the
research on student epistemologies in the field of introductory physics is limited (Hammer 1994; Redish et al.
1998; Roth and Roychoudhury 1994). Therefore, further
research is needed on epistemological beliefs within this
particular physics domain.
Due to many different and sometimes complex to
measure learning outcomes of PBL it is necessary to share
the findings of every study involving PBL. In addition, this
sample of existing literature suggests conflicting views on
the efficacy of PBL as an approach. Hence, as Prince
(2004) remarks, we need further research evidence to better
understand what works and support or reject the view that
PBL is better, and in what way(s) than traditional methods.
Consequently, the present study aims to investigate the
effects of PBL on university students epistemological
beliefs about physics and physics learning and their physics
conceptual understanding. This information would add to
the existing evidence for the importance of designing
teaching practices and curriculum that effectively develop
expert-like beliefs in students. In addition, it may contribute significantly to the literature in this field of research
thereby assisting educators and researchers by providing
information to share and benefit from.

J Sci Educ Technol (2010) 19:266275

Methodology
The present study aims to investigate the effects of PBL on
freshmen university students epistemological beliefs about
physics and physics learning and their conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics. The data include the pre
and post measures of students epistemological beliefs and
physics conceptual understanding. In addition, informal
student-instructor (researcher) dialogues will serve as more
of an exploratory data.
Following research questions were probed in the study:
1.
2.
3.

Are there any effects of PBL on students physics

conceptual understanding scores?
Are there any effects of PBL on students physicsrelated epistemological beliefs?
Are students epistemological beliefs related to physics
conceptual understanding?

Results from the CLASS were used to characterize the

students beliefs about physics and physics learning at the
beginning and end of the semester. The students physics
conceptual understanding was measured using the FCI. The
surveys were administered in lecture, and were completed
by the students in a paper and pencil format.
The Sample
The sample consisted of 124 (female = 22, male = 102)
students who were enrolled in a state university in Turkey.
The PBL group included 55 (female = 3, male = 52)
students and the traditional group included 69
(female = 19, male = 50) students. The PBL students
ranged in age from 17 to 22 years, with an overall mean
age of 19.4 (SD = 1.00). The traditional students ranged in
age from 17 to 23 years, with an overall mean age of 19.2
(SD = 1.08). The students participated in the study were
from the Electrical and Electronics (PBL group) and
Computer and Environmental Engineering (traditional
group) departments. Therefore, the sample of this study
was a convenient sample. They were selected by virtue of
being the students in the university where the researcher
worked.
Instruments
The Force Concept Inventory (FCI)
The FCI developed by Hestenes et al. (1992) is a widely
used instrument to measure student understanding of
Newtonian mechanics and emphasizes qualitative reasoning. The instrument can be used in the form of pre- and
post-test in a physics course to determine the improvement
in students conceptual understanding.

269

The FCI consists of 30 items related to force and motion

concepts. Validity and reliability study of the inventory for
the sample of this study are conducted by the researcher.
The FCI was translated into Turkish and presented to a
group of physics and Turkish language faculty members.
Using the feedback from the experts, Turkish version of the
FCI was revised and administered to a group of (n = 313)
engineering and education students. Kuder-Richardson 21
(KR-21) reliability estimate of the inventory was found to
be 0.71.
The Colorado Learning Attitudes About Science Survey
(CLASS)
The CLASS was developed by Adams et al. (2006) to
probe students beliefs about physics and physics learning
and to distinguish the beliefs of experts from those of
novices. It has 42 five-point (agree-disagree) Likert type
statements. One item is used for control purposes and is not
scored. Complete details of the design, categorization,
validation, and scoring of the CLASS are reported by
Adams et al. (2006).
There are several useful ways to use the scores from the
CLASS. One can look at the pre-test results and their
influence on student learning. One can also look at the
change in attitudes over a semester to determine what
effect instruction had on students beliefs. Three sample
items from the instrument are provided below:
Learning physics changes my ideas of how the
world works.
Knowledge in physics consists of many disconnected topics.
Nearly everyone is capable of understanding physics if they work at it.
Adams et al. (2006) identified the following eight categories that characterize a specific aspect of participants
thinking: (a) real world connection, (b) personal interest,
(c) sense making/effort, (d) conceptual connections, (e)
applied conceptual understanding, (f) problem solving
[general], (g) problem solving [confidence], and (h) problem solving [sophistication].
Validity and reliability studies of the survey for the
Turkish version were conducted by the researcher. Originally in English, the survey was translated into Turkish and
asked to be reviewed by two experts from the Turkish
language department of the same university. Based on the
feedback from the language experts the survey was revised
and asked to be reviewed in terms of content by the education researchers. The final version of the survey was
administered to a group of students (n = 320) enrolled in
engineering and education faculties. For the construct
validity of the survey, Confirmatory Factor Analysis was

123

270

conducted and four dimensions were determined as

opposed to eight dimensions reported in the original version. The four categories obtained in the current study were
very similar to the originally reported dimensions, therefore; the original category names were used as the names of
the four dimensions:
Conceptual understanding (CU) (a = 0.71), personal
interest (PI) (a = 0.72), sense making/effort (SME)
(a = 0.71), and problem solving general (PSG) (a = 0.69).
Overall reliability of the survey was found to be a = 0.81.
Students belief scores were calculated as the sum of
their responses to the items. Scores for four dimensions
were determined in the same way. The highest score which
can be obtained from the scale is 205, and the lowest score
is 41.
Research Design
The study employed a pretestposttest 2 9 2 (group 9
time) factorial design with control group. The groups were
named as PBL (n = 55) and traditional (n = 69). In this
study, students of three departments were studied in a
timely investigation in the university. The implementation
process took 10 weeks and post-tests were administered
after the tenth week.
Implementation of the PBL Approach
Starting from the 20022003 fall semester, several
departments in the Engineering Faculty of a state university
in Turkey have replaced its traditional curriculum with
PBL approach. The present study compares the traditional
instruction and PBL in an introductory physics course
focused on mechanics concepts during the 20072008 fall
semester. The traditional classes consisted of lecture and
recitation sections, four classes per week in total. Students
in traditional physics classes had no laboratory sections.
The PBL is constructed in the form of a modular
approach. The purpose of modular structure is to enable
students concentrate on the given problem and the learning
outcomes. Freshman year modules are integrated scenarios
within which a real-life problem is given including concepts from physics, mathematics, and sometimes from
basic engineering, materials, and/or chemistry. Modules
last 23 weeks depending on the weight of the subject
matter taught in the scenario. A module consists of three or
four PBL sessions, lecture presentations on each discipline
integrated in the module, physics and computer laboratories, project-based learning, consultation, discussion and
evaluation and a module exam.
The main portion of the process is the PBL sessions.
PBL sessions aimed at discussion of real-life problems,
constructed in the form of a scenario-like context, by

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2010) 19:266275

groups of eight students. There is a TA or faculty member

guiding each group. The problem-solving process takes
place in PBL sessions until the students reach and agree
upon a solution to the given problem. Students are guided
via the scenario problems to reach the intended outcomes.
The process usually takes place as the following:
The tutor distributes copies of the first part of the scenario to the group. Students read aloud the context of the
problem, define the problem, and produce hypotheses.
They then discuss them in light of the new information
provided in the next section of the scenario, and eliminate
false hypotheses, thus forming a true hypothesis toward
solution of the problem. During the PBL sessions tutor
provides feedback, asks guiding questions, and encourage
students to share and discuss their ideas. Students determine the concepts which they need to study and learn
generally in the first session. They then come to the next
session prepared, studied and learned the necessary concepts required to solve the problem. The process takes
about three or four PBL sessions until an agreement upon
the solution of the problem is reached. Students are evaluated on the basis of their participation and effort in
solving the problem in the PBL sessions by the tutors.
A module includes a laboratory section where students
perform experiments as part of a scenario. Groups of 45
students collect and analyze the data about the concepts
they learn in the scenario.
The PBL program has also a project part. The purpose of
projects is to integrate concepts from mathematics, physics,
and computer sciences and other basic sciences such as
chemistry or material sciences. Students are grouped into
56 and work together throughout the semester to plan,
design, implement, and report projects. At the end of the
semester, students present their projects orally and in the
form of posters and hand in a final report. Project evaluations are done by a jury composed of faculty members and
are included in the final scores.
In the consultation hours students can interact with peers
and tutors and ask questions they might have about the
module, scenario, and project. Tutors can also meet with
the students to discuss the scenario and the problem. Any
comments or suggestions students provide about a scenario
are used to improve the quality of the scenario. All the
tutors and the staff involved in the implementation of a
module get together in a meeting room to evaluate that
module. They share ideas and experiences, discuss about
the PBL approach and the particular scenario, and provide
feedback to the department and scenario writers about the
application process of the module.
There is an evaluation test (module exam) at the end of
each module and an end-of-semester exam that contains
questions both multiple choice and open-ended format.
Students end-of-module exam scores, PBL session scores,

J Sci Educ Technol (2010) 19:266275

271

lab scores, and project scores are averaged and they are
given a final score. Students whose score 70 or above as
their total score on all the modules in a year are considered
successful. Students whose score below 70 are considered
unsuccessful and they need to repeat the module and hence
the whole year.
Both groups were taught by the same physics instructor
(the author). In terms of content, both groups were
instructed exactly the same mechanics concepts. Post-test
measures of conceptual understanding and beliefs about
physics and physics learning were collected at the end of
the tenth week. The FCI was administered as part of a
midterm examination to both groups. Structure of the
courses and the number of students in both groups are
presented in Table 1.
Data Analyses
The data were analyzed using SPSS 13.0 statistical analysis
program. Means and standard deviations were calculated.
To investigate time and group dependencies of changes, a
2 9 2 (group 9 time) repeated measures ANOVA and
MANOVA were conducted. An alpha level of 0.05 was
used in all analyses. Multivariate analysis helps control for
intercorrelations among variables (Tabachnick and Fidell
2001) and is considered the more statistically powerful
technique in the context of repeated measures analysis.
Partial eta squared (g2) is used as the measure of accounted
for variance (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). It is equivalent
to a squared partial correlation. The time 9 group interaction estimates the treatment effect in a repeated measures
Table 1 Structure of the groups
in the study

analysis of pre- and post treatment data and is equivalent to

a one-way ANOVA of difference scores (Bonate 2000).

Results
The data measured on two dependent variables (conceptual
understanding, beliefs about physics), collected two times
over 10 weeks. Appropriate parametric tests were used to
detect any significant differences between PBL and traditional groups prior to instruction. Groups did not differ in
their epistemological beliefs (F[1,122] = 1.64, p = 0.203)
but they were significantly different in their physics conceptual understanding (F[1,122] = 16.58, p = 0.000) at the
beginning of the semester. Table 2 summarizes descriptive
statistics for the FCI and CLASS pre and post-test scores
according to group.
In the data, the groups have different sample sizes. This
may influence the group variances. ANOVA assumes that
groups are normally distributed with equal variances,
though it is robust upon departures from these conditions.
The results of ANOVA were confirmed with Welchs test,
which identifies differences between groups and does not
require equal variances. In all cases, Welchs test agreed
with the results of ANOVA.
Effects of PBL on Students FCI Scores
To determine if students conceptual understanding of
mechanics concepts changes with respect to combined
effects of group and time, a 2 9 2 (group 9 time) repeated

Group

Instructional characteristics

PBL

(Modular) problem-based active learning, with group learning

PBL tutorials, traditional presentations, labs, and small projects

55

Traditional

Traditional lectures and recitations with no labs

69

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for students physics conceptual understanding and epistemological beliefs
Dep. variable

PBL group (n = 55)

Pre-test
M

FCI

Traditional group (n = 69)

Post-test

SD

Pre-test
SD

Post-test
SD

SD

56.29

10.84

70.71

14.00

45.83

16.41

56.01

16.17

149.60

10.56

140.05

13.19

146.83

13.00

138.80

13.89

CU

30.16

4.06

24.75

4.58

28.00

4.63

24.75

4.21

PI

25.24

3.16

24.95

3.08

25.19

3.64

23.58

3.79

SM/E

40.69

4.00

37.49

4.95

40.01

4.48

38.04

4.61

PSG

31.16

2.99

30.05

3.66

30.09

3.85

29.03

3.70

CLASS overall

FCI force concept inventory, CLASS the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey, CU conceptual understanding, PI personal interest,
SM/E sense making/effort, PSG problem solving general

123

272

J Sci Educ Technol (2010) 19:266275

measures ANOVA was conducted. Results indicated a

significant main effect for time (F[1,122] = 167.64,
p = 0.000, partial g2 = 0.579), a significant main effect
for time 9 group interaction (F[1,122] = 4.95, p = 0.028,
partial g2 = 0.039), and a significant main effect for group
(F[1,122] = 25.53, p = 0.000, partial g2 = 0.173). This
suggests a between-group difference in the pre to post
administration change of the FCI scores. That is, both
groups conceptual understanding scores have changed
(improved) from the pre to post administration; however,
the improvement was significantly higher for the PBL
group than it was for the traditional group. A plot of the
means was performed to interpret the interaction. Figure 1
shows the mean pre to post application change per group
across time on FCI.
The results for conceptual learning were also analyzed
by comparing the pre and post test scores, the Hake gain
(also called the Hake factor) (Hake 1998). The Hake gain is
a normalized gain defined as
g

Actual gain
Posttest  Pretest

Max: possible gain Max score  Pretest

Gain scores for all students were calculated and used to

compare the groups in terms of conceptual learning.
Results of the Univariate ANOVA confirmed the results
of the repeated measures ANOVA reported above. The
PBL group (M = 0.34, SD = 0.274) obtained significantly
higher (F[1,122] = 11.60, p = 0.001, partial g2 = 0.087)
conceptual learning gain than the traditional group
(M = 0.20, SD = 0.189).
The analysis also revealed that the conceptual learning
gain of females (M = 0.21) and males (M = 0.28) was not
significantly different (F[1,122] = 1.348, p = 0.248, partial
g2 = 0.011) across pre and post application.

Effects of PBL on Students Epistemological Belief

Scores
A 2 9 2 repeated measures MANOVA was conducted to
seek out the effects of the PBL approach on students
epistemological beliefs about physics and physics learning.
Analyses were conducted for overall belief scores and also
for the four components of the CLASS.
Results from the 2 9 2 (group 9 time) repeated measures MANOVA yielded a significant main effect for time
(F[1,122] = 58.37, p = 0.000, partial g2 = 0.324) suggesting that overall belief scores for both groups have changed
(declined) from the pre to post administration (See
Table 2). However, the lack of a significant time 9 group
interaction (F[1,122] = 0.44, p = 0.511, partial g2 = 0.004)
and the lack of a significant main effect for group
(F[1,122] = 0.44, p = 0.511, partial g2 = 0.004) suggested
no between-group differences in the pre to post administration change in overall belief scores for both groups. That
is, both groups overall epistemological belief scores have
deteriorated from the pre to post administration of the
CLASS; and the deterioration was similar for both groups.
Figure 2 shows the mean pre- to post application change
per group across time on overall CLASS.
Results also yielded a significant main effect for time for
the components conceptual understanding (F[1,122] =
103.13, p = 0.000, partial g2 = 0.458), personal interest
(F[1,122] = 9.36, p = 0.003, partial g2 = 0.071), sense
making/effort (F[1,122] = 32.73, p = 0.000, partial g2 =
0.212), and problem solving general (F[1,122] = 9.45,
p = 0.003, partial g2 = 0.072) which suggest that belief
scores in the components of the CLASS have changed
(decreased) significantly from the pre to post administration for both groups. However, the lack of a significant
150

Percent FCI scores

70
PBL

65

Traditional

60
55
50

PBL

148

Traditional
146
144
142
140
138

45
1

Time
Fig. 1 Pre to post administration change of percent FCI scores for
groups

123

Total belief (CLASS) score

75

Time
Fig. 2 Pre to post administration change of overall CLASS scores for
groups

J Sci Educ Technol (2010) 19:266275

time 9 group interaction and a non-significant main effect

for group for all components suggested no between-group
differences in the pre to post administration change in all
dimensions of the CLASS for both groups.
Change in students beliefs was also examined according to gender. The analysis revealed statistically significant
decreases from the pre-test (Mmales = 149.18; Mfemales =
142.86) to the post-test (Mmales = 140.02; Mfemales =
136.27) for both males and females in overall (p = 0.000)
and in four components of the CLASS. However, the
analysis also showed that the deterioration in epistemological beliefs was similar for both females and males.
Relationship Between Physics Conceptual
Understanding and Epistemological Beliefs
Correlational analyses were conducted with the variables
of the study. Results revealed that physics conceptual
understanding was significantly related to epistemological
beliefs. For all students (n = 124), FCI post-test score was
significantly correlated with overall CLASS pre-test score
(r = 0.19) and the components Conceptual Understanding
pre-test score (r = 0.24) and Problem Solving General pretest score (r = 0.18). The CLASS pre-test score was significantly correlated with the CLASS post-test score and
also with all four components, Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from r = 0.37 to r = 0.82. In addition, all
the components of the CLASS were correlated significantly
with each other both for pre and post administration.

Discussion
This study demonstrates the effects of PBL to student
understanding of Newtonian concepts in introductory
physics and their beliefs about physics. The conceptual
comprehension of students in the PBL class is better than
that of students in the traditional class, as was shown by the
normalized conceptual learning gain in the FCI scores.
According to the results of the study, PBL and traditional
lecture students were no different in their physics-related
epistemological beliefs. Students beliefs in both groups
have deteriorated from pre to post administration, similar
to findings reported in the literature (Redish et al. 1998).
Thus the results suggest that with this particular group of
students, the PBL approach had no positive influence on
students physics-related epistemological beliefs.
Conceptual learning was found to be related to epistemological beliefs. The results of the study suggest that
students who start with more expert-like beliefs were
more likely to obtain higher conceptual understanding
scores at the end of the semester which supports the results
of a companion study reported by Sahin (2009a).

273

Correlations of conceptual learning or achievement with

epistemological beliefs were reported in various research
studies (Perkins et al. 2005) and form a solid foundation for
researchers studying epistemological beliefs and their
effects on learning.
In addition, students with more expert-like views about
physics on the components Conceptual Understanding and
Problem Solving General tended to obtain higher FCI
scores at the end of the semester. However, it should be
noted that correlations between epistemologies and learning alone do not imply causal relationships. It is not possible to completely associate learning gains with any
particular course elements. There may be other extraneous
factors influencing students beliefs about physics.
One should be aware that affective characteristics such
as attitudes and beliefs are not simple to change or improve
over the course of a semester of instruction. Several
research-based instructional approaches, despite their
positive influence in students conceptual learning, were
shown to have no significant effect on attitudes and beliefs
about physics (Redish 2003). It should be noted that the
correlations between expectations, attitudes, and beliefs
and learning may be different with respect to a course and
its instructional practices, particular student population,
and the instruments used to measure learning and beliefs.

Conclusion
According to aforementioned literature about introductory
physics, the present study revealed significant results partly
supporting the findings of previous studies. In addition, the
results are significant for investigation of the effectiveness
of PBL approach on students physics conceptual
understanding.
The findings of this study emphasize the importance of
taking into account students beliefs about physics. Since
beliefs are related to conceptual understanding, modifying
instructional approaches to help students gain more expertlike beliefs may significantly contribute to their learning. In
future studies, instructional approaches to improve students epistemological sophistication could be designed
and tested to see if improvement in beliefs will result in
better physics learning.
PBL can be considered as a popular mode of instruction.
However, personal communication with the participating
students of the present study revealed a number of problems in the implementation of the PBL approach. Considering students views about PBL, some suggestions are
advisable for educators and instructors who consider
adopting the approach in the future. For instance, the
rationale and the purpose of the PBL tutorials should be
clearly explained to students at the beginning of each

123

274

tutorial. Students may require additional time to deal with

problem solving and project work. Finally, the activities
and work done in the PBL tutorials should be reflected in
the module exam. This may encourage students to participate in the PBL sessions more seriously.
Whilst the PBL group expressed a positive appraisal to
the new instructional approach, they still possessed a traditional lecture paradigm in their preference as to a
teaching approach. The idea that teaching should be only in
lecturing is resulted from students years of experiences.
As the traditional lecture is the only method of instruction
most Turkish students and educators are familiar with, it
would require tremendous personal effort, funds, and
institutional support to make an improvement in students
learning as shown by this study.

References
Adams WK, Perkins KK, Dubson M, Finkelstein ND, Wieman CE
(2006) New instrument for measuring student beliefs about
physics and learning physics: the Colorado learning attitudes
about science survey. Phys Rev Special Topics Phys Educ Res
2:114
Aknoglu O, Tandogan RO (2007) The effects of problem-based
active learning in science education on students academic
achievement, attitude and concept learning. Eurasia J Math Sci
Technol Educ 3(1):7181
Albanese MA, Mitchell S (1993) Problem-based learning: a review of
the literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad
Med 68(1):5281
Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM (1980) Problem-based learning: an
approach to medical education. Springer, New York
Berkson J (1993) Problem-based learning: have the expectations been
met? Invited review. Acad Med 68(10):7988
Blumberg P, Michael JA (1992) Development of self-directed
learning behaviours in a partially teacher-directed problembased learning curriculum. Teach Learn Med 4(1):38
Bonate PL (2000) Analysis of pretestposttest designs. Chapman &
Hall/CRC, New York
Chang YC (2001) Comparing the impacts of a problem-based
computer-assisted instruction and the direct-interactive teaching
method on student science achievement. J Sci Educ Technol
10(2):147153
Chu HE, Treagust DF, Chandrasegaran AL (2008) Nave students
conceptual development and beliefs: the need for multiple
analyses to determine what contributes to student success in a
university introductory physics course. Res Sci Educ 38(1):
111125
Colliver JA (2000) Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula:
research and theory. Acad Med 75(3):259266
Copland MA (2000, April) Developing the problem-framing skills of
prospective principals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans,
LA
Duch B (1996) Problem-based learning in physics: the power of
students teaching students. J Coll Sci Teach 25(5):326329
Elby A (2001) Helping physics students learn about learning. Phys
Educ Res Am J Phys Suppl 69(7):5464

123

J Sci Educ Technol (2010) 19:266275

Erickson DK (1999) A problem-based approach to mathematics
instruction. Math Teach 92(6):516521
Gijbels D, Dochy F, Van Den Bossche P, Segers M (2005) Effects of
problem based learning: a meta-analysis from the angle of
assessment. Rev Educ Res 75(1):2761
Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: a
six-thousand- student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics. Am J Phys 66(1):6474
Hammer D (1994) Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics.
Cogn Instr 12(2):151183
Hestenes D, Wells M (1992) Mechanics baseline test. Phys Teach
30(3):159166
Hestenes D, Wells M, Swackhamer G (1992) Force concept
inventory. Phys Teach 30(3):141158
Hmelo-Silver CE (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do
students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 16(3):235266
Hofer BK, Pintrich PR (1997) The development of epistemological
theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation
to learning. Rev Educ Res 67(1):88140
Im S, Pak SJ (2004) Secondary and university students expectations
on learning physics. J Korean Phys Soc 44(2):217222
Kortemeyer G (2007) Correlations between student discussion
behaviour, attitudes, and learning. Phys Rev Special Topics
Phys Educ Res 3(1):18
Levin BB (2001) Introduction. In: Levin BB (ed) Energizing teacher
education and professional development with problem-based
learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA, pp 17
Lising L, Elby A (2005) The impact of epistemology on learning: a
case study from introductory physics. Am J Phys Phys Educ Sect
73(4):372382
Major C, Palmer B (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of problembased learning in higher education: lessons from the literature.
Acad Exch Q 5(1):49
Marx J, Cummings K (2007) What factors really influence shifts in
students attitudes and expectations in an introductory physics
course? AIP Conf Proc 883:101104
May DB, Etkina E (2002) College physics students epistemological
self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning. Am J
Phys 70(12):12491258
McDermott LC (1995) Physics by inquiry. Wiley, New York
McPhee AD (2002) Problem-based learning in initial teacher
education: taking the agenda forward. J Educ Enq 3(1):6078
Neild T (2004) Defining, measuring and maintaining the quality of
problem-based learning [On-line]. Available from: http://auqa.edu.
au/auqf/pastfora/2004/program/papers/Neild.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug
2009
Norman GR, Schmidt HG (2000) Effectiveness of problem-based
learning curricula: theory, practice and paper darts. Med Educ
34(9):721728
Perkins KK, Adams WK, Pollock SJ, Finkelstein ND, Wieman CE
(2005) Correlating student beliefs with student learning using the
Colorado learning attitudes about science survey. In: Marx J,
Heron P, Franklin S (eds) Proceedings of 2004 physics education
research conference, Sacramento, CA. American Institute of
Physics, pp 6164
Polanco R, Calderon P, Delgado F (2004) Effects of a problem-based
learning program on engineering students academic achievements in a Mexican university. Innov Educ Teach Int 41(2):
145155
Prince M (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research.
J Eng Educ 93(3):223231
Pundak D, Rozner S (2008) Empowering engineering college staff
to adopt active learning methods. J Sci Educ Technol 17(2):
152162

J Sci Educ Technol (2010) 19:266275

Raine J, Collett J (2003) Problem-based learning in astrophysics. Eur
J Phys 24(2):4146
Redish EF (2003) Teaching physics with physics suite. Wiley, New
York
Redish EF, Saul JM, Steinberg RN (1998) Student expectations in
introductory physics. Am J Phys 66(3):212224
Reynolds F (1997) Studying psychology at degree level: would
problem-based learning enhance students experiences? Stud
High Educ 22(3):263275
Roth WM, Roychoudhury A (1994) Physics students epistemologies
and views about knowing and learning. J Res Sci Teach 31(1):
530
Sahin M (2007) The importance of efficiency in active learning.
J Turkish Sci Educ 4(2):6174
Sahin M (2009a) Correlations of students grades, expectations,
epistemological beliefs and demographics in a problem-based
introductory course. Int J Environ Sci Educ 4(2):169184
Sahin M (2009b) Exploring university students expectations about
physics and physics learning in a problem-based learning
context. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 5(4):319331
Sahin M, Yorek N (2009) A comparison of problem-based learning
and traditional lecture students expectations and course grades
in an introductory physics classroom. Sci Res Essays 4(8):
753762
Said SM, Mahamd Adikan FR, Mekhilef S, Abd Rahim N (2005)
Implementation of the problem-based learning approach in the
department of electrical engineering, university of Malaya. Eur J
Eng Educ 30(1):129136

275
Sezgin G, Sahin M (2008) Probleme dayal ogrenme ve ogretmen
egitimi (Problem-based learning and teacher education). Buca
Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi 24(1):1219 (in Turkish)
Shamir A, Zion M, Levi OS (2008) Peer tutoring, metacognitive
processes and multimedia problem-based learning: the effects of
mediation training on critical thinking. J Sci Educ Technol
17(4):384398
Stathopoulou C, Vosniadou S (2007) Exploring the relationship
between physics-related epistemological beliefs and physics
understanding. Contemp Educ Psychol 32(3):255281
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics, 4th
edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston
Thornton RK, Sokoloff DR (1998) Assessing student learning of
Newtons laws: the force and motion conceptual evaluation and
the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula.
Am J Phys 66(4):338352
Torp L, Sage S (2002) Problems as possibilities: problem-based
learning for K-16 education, 2nd edn. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA
Vernon DTA, Blake RL (1993) Does problem-based learning work?
A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med 68(7):
550563
Vernon DTA, Hosokawa MC (1996) Faculty attitudes and opinions
about problem-based learning. Acad Med 71(11):12331238
Windschitl M (1997) Student epistemological beliefs and conceptual
change activities: how do pair members affect each other? J Sci
Educ Technol 6(1):3747

123