Enhance acquisition, retention, and use of knowledge.

Improve integration of basic and clinical sciences.

Activation of prior knowledge facilitates the subsequent processing of new information. Small-group discussions can activate relevant prior knowledge.

Elaboration of knowledge at the time of learning enhances subsequent retreival. Discussion, note-taking, answering questions, or using the knowledge to understand a problem are all forms of elaboration.

Matching context facilitates recall. Godden and Baddeley study (1975) with Royal Navy divers showed that words learned on land were better recalled on land and words learned underwater were better recalled underwater.

Martensen and colleagues found that students in a PBL course were significantly better at long-term recall than non-PBL students.

Eisenstaedt study showed that immediate knowledge of students in PBL course was lower, but after two years, the difference between the two groups disappeared.

Tans and colleagues study showed PBL induces students to retain knowledge longer than it is retained by students taught under conventional conditions. PBL students process information learned more extensively.

Schmidt and associates found that students who discussed relevant problems recalled significantly more information from text than students who discussed irrelevant problems. This suggests that problem discussion activates prior knowledge which is elaborated upon and used for comprehension of new information.

Without specific hints, usually less than half the individuals in an experiment recognize the similarity between a new problem situation and one they have just read and recalled.

In order for transfer to occur, people must be processing the information similarly to the way they will process it when they approach a new problem.

Needham and Begg study compared a group who were asked to read and remember a problem and its solution with a group who tried to solve the problem and then given the solution. The two groups were then given problems that illustrated the same problem in contexts different from the original one. The study showed that those who were asked to solve the prototype problem and received feedback about the problem typically transferred the concept to a new problem nearly 90% of the time versus about 60% for those who were simply asked to memorize the problem and the solution. The study suggests that any advance organizer detracts from transfer and that feedback was essential in order for successful transfer.

For successful transfer, it appears that (1) the problem must be approached without much foreknowledge of the domain of t he solution or underlying principle; and (2) the problem solver must receive corrective feedback about the solution immediately upon completion.

Patel and colleagues studied students in a PBL and conventional curriculum. Students solved a clinical problem and then integrated htree passages of relevant basic science knowledge into their explanations of the problem. PBL students offered more explanations and were able to integrate basic science knowledge and clinical knowledge, but many hypotheses were incorrect.

Boshuizen and Schmidt study compared PBL and conventional curriculum students' ability to explain a specific medical condition and how a specific disease could be related. The notable difference was in the approach students took. PBL students appeared to take an analytical approach, while conventional curriculum students tended toward a more memory-based approach.

Blumberg and Michael showed that studetns in a PBL track borrowed more material from the library than students in a conventional curriculum and more PBL students and also acquired more clerkships.

There is not conclusive evidence that shows that PBL produces physicians who are better able to keep up with literature

De Volder and colleagues found that students who discussed a problem seemed more interested in the problem and studying related literature. The study suggests that PBL involves students more extensively in the subject matter.

However, there is no evidence that intrinsic interest in a topic significantly impacts performance related to the topic.