ESD in TVET 2010 | Conference Proceedings | 171

ABSTRCT
Te importance of skills training is seen in the light of increasing concern on educational communities, on the
education for sustainable development. Tere is a need for an efective curriculum and an education for sustainable
development that prepares the future workforce with certain special skills and abilities. A specifc monitoring and
assessment strategy such as the Problem Based Learning (PBL), has been seen with a potential to promote students
competencies development and prepare sustainable communities fom technical education context. Terefore, several
PBL monitoring and assessment models have been reviewed, in order to identify the strategies and key factors that
contribute to a success of PBL implementation. Ten, these factors are used to propose a new PBL monitoring and
assessment model. In this context, several exemplary best practices have been identifed, such as the uses of rubric rating
scale with an emphasis on self-assessment process, as well as the strategy to assess two diferent areas of personal skills
and technical skills. Te future research that has been under progresses is to examine the efectiveness of this model in
technical education platform.
INTRODUCTION
In the recent global competitions of job placement,
the skills training become an imperative pre-requisite
to determine an individuals survival (Wang, 2008).
Without specifc skills training, the technical novice
graduates may be incapable to apply their knowledge
in actual workplace environments. It is particularly
in this new technology era, whereby the workplace
could be more complicated with sophisticated
high-tech machineries and computerized systems,
which may creates more complex and ill-structured
problems (Tan, Teo and Chye, 2009). Specifc skills
and abilities are crucial for graduates (Moesby, 2005),
in order to appear as a competence problem solver,
which is demanded by nowadays employers.
In spite of the important of producing graduates with
personal skills and abilities, the demands of skills
training is seen in light with the increasing concern
of educational communities, on the education for
sustainable development (e.g. Steinemann, 2003;
Barth et al., 2007). Within this capacity and challenges,
the hands-on skills alone would not be sufcient in
dealing with the complexity of the problems in actual
workplace environments (Bakar and Hanaf, 2007),
and the impact of education for future generations to
meet their own needs, is another issues to be resolved.
Education for Sustainable Development
through Problem Based Learning:
A Review of the Monitoring and
Assessment Strategy
Prof. Sulaiman Yamin, Ph.D.
Mr. Alias Masek
Professor, Faculty of Technical Education
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM), Malaysia

Research Assistant, Faculty of Technical Education, UTHM, Malaysia
172 | Section 2 - TRCK SESSION 1 - Track D: Research, Monitoring and Evaluation for ESD
In responding to these issues, PBL promises an
environment that is conducive for these competencies
to grow (Steinemann, 2003). Learning is driven by ill-
structured problem that triggers students knowledge
and cognitive skills, in order to allow them control
their process of thinking and behaviour (Huba
and Freed, 2000). Learning becomes meaningful
when students work in a group, where the skills are
developed through activities in problem solving,
communicating, discussing, ice breaking, and
collaborative learning (Brodie and Borch, 2004).
For that reasons, PBL is seen potential as an efective
learning approach to produce such graduates, who are
technically competent, as well as aware on the issues
sustainable development.
PBL FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Since PBL was introduced as an innovative teaching
and learning approach at the McMaster University
in Canada in 1965 (Barrows and Tamblyn, 1980), it
had inspired many universities to implement PBL in
their curriculum. To date, PBL has spread out across
the world, such as in Australia (Brodie and Gibbings,
2007), Denmark (Kolmos et al., 2007), and China
(Zhang, 2002). In fact, PBL has also embraced into
a diverse range of disciplines, such as in chemical
engineering (Zhang, 2002), engineering and
surveying (Brodie and Gibbings, 2007), mathematics
(Chamberlin, 2009), electrical engineering (Helerea
et al. 2008), business and entrepreneurs (Mossuto,
2009), and agriculture (Anderson, 2007).
Recently, one of the areas that have been concerned by
the educational communities is the potential of PBL
to promote education for sustainable development.
Te education for sustainable development caters a
wider range, which include social, techno-economic,
and environmental issues (Perdan, Azapagic and Clif,
2000). Te widely accepted defnition of sustainable
development refers to the development that meets
the needs of the present, without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs
(World, 1987). In this capacity, the PBL approach
appears to be a potential method to inculcate students
with sustainable knowledge, since it require action on
the ground, to provide students with opportunity to
apply their knowledge into practice (Steinemann,
2003).
It is the nature of PBL approach; students are given with
the opportunity to learn through solving authentic
engineering problem (Barrows and Tamblyn, 1980).
Students can be provided with problem triggers
that cater the aspect of sustainable development
competencies, which relate to knowledge, skills, and
atitude (Barth et al., 2007). For instance, students
can solve an authentic problem by creating a product
that meets the requirements. Tat product must
fulfl and solves the current problem, and at the
same time considers the future potential of product
expansion. Te product that is developed should fulfl
the conditions such as being environment-friendly,
use of recyclable materials, energy efciency, hazard
reduction, and pollution prevention (Steinemann,
2003). However, since PBL is generally various in
approaches, it is important to identify one of the
platforms, which ensures PBL is really helpful to
satisfy the intended learning outcomes.
THE NEEDS FOR PBL MONITORING
AND ASSESSMENT
A preliminary review indicates that numerous
international authors have ofered strategy to
implement the monitoring and assessment method
in PBL (Mitchell and Delaney, 2004; Savin-Baden,
2004; Kolmos and Holgaard, 2007). However, there
has been relatively litle efort from local authors
atempting to develop a model that fts to the local
needs. Te direct adaptation of outside models
might result in a possible failure to meet the intended
learning outcomes (Savin-Baden, 2004) since there
is a diference in the educational system between
Malaysian and European universities (Sulaiman,
2007). Terefore, specifc research is required, in
order to develop a customized PBL monitoring and
assessment model, which may suit the Malaysian
cultural and educational setings.
Based on the review, several factors contribute to
the success of PBL implementation. Amongst the
factors are the critical components of PBL, which
are the format and design of the problem (Wee,
Kek and Sim, 2001; Hung, 2006), the role of the
tutor (Wee, Kek and Sim, 2001; Wee, 2004), and
the assessment strategy (Gijbels et al., 2005). Tese
compulsory components must be integrated within
PBL instructions, in line with the three following exit
outcomes of PBL curriculum (Wee, 2004):
ESD in TVET 2010 | Conference Proceedings | 173
What to learn rfers to problem as the curriculum.
How to learn refers to the PBL process.
How much is learned refers to the assessment
strategy.
Tese PBL exit outcomes indicate that the assessment
strategy is critically important for comprehensive
learning in PBL environment. In addition, evidence
indicates that the assessment method afects the
PBL efectiveness (Gijbels et al., 2005). Moreover,
the students treated with PBL assessment tasks
would have beter time management and perform
much beter in the fnal examination (Gijbels, Van
De Watering and Dochy, 2005). Either in PBL or
traditional method, the assessment functions to drive
learning and to provide meaningful feedback (Wee,
2004). Students and tutors could address the teaching
and learning issues, through a specifc planning on the
monitoring and assessment activities (Mitchell and
Delaney, 2004).
RELATED WORKS
Several PBL models have been reviewed, in order to
propose an exemplary model of PBL monitoring and
assessment. Te strategies and the key success factors
have been identifed, and the summary of the review
is presented as follows:
McMaster PBL model
Te worldwide PBL model evolutions have been
strongly infuenced by the McMaster University PBL
model. Te unique can be seen from the method of
problem delivery and the implementation strategy.
Te model emphasises on students cooperative,
small group, self-directed, and self-assessed during
learning process (McMaster University, 2009). Te
problem is introduced before the learning takes place,
and typically begins with a specifc one before going
on with more comprehensive problems (Barrows
and Tamblyn, 1980; Woods, 2000). Based on this
concept, learning occurs through a process, which
similar to research works. In fact, the research itself is
deemed as PBL (Kolmos et al., 2007).
Troughout the assessment method, the McMaster
model emphasized more on the students development
during learning process (Woods, 1996). Woods, Te
PBL expert, has highlighted that the PBL assessment
must be conducted based on multidimensional
evidences, which include static and dynamic situation,
academic, social, and personal contexts. For example,
assessment in certain courses in chemical engineering
focuses on formative assessment in evaluating process
skills (Woods, 2000). Students progress is monitored
through a refective journal, which is completed at
least fve times each semester. In addition, the students
should always be encouraged to keep up with self-
assessment, respond through feedback process, and
thus modify their learning. Such assessment method
provides a system that closely monitors students
learning progress (Neufeld and Barrows, 1974).
Maastricht PBL Model
Maastricht University is the frst university to
implement PBL at the level of entire curriculum in
medical school (Kolmos et al., 2007). Te unique
of the Maastricht PBL model is the problem or
case-study, which is designed in a thematic block to
replace the discipline and major, as in the traditional
education coursework. Tis model focuses on a
specifc process in a tutorial session, which is known as
seven-jump method (Schmidt, 1993). Tis method
becomes popular, when it is proven to be efective
through a specifc research (Schmidt, 1994). Since
then, the Maastricht PBL model was expanded into
other disciplines, such as in health science, general
science, law, and economics.
Both formative and summative assessment is
extensively based on individual assessment, in
assessing students progress (Kolmos and Holgaard,
2007). For instance, in medical faculty, several
assessment methods are implemented, which include;
block test, computerized case-based testing, progress
test, and skills test (Maastricht University, 2009). Te
block test is conducted at the end of each block period,
which is intended to encourage students continuous
improvement and performance in tutorial group. Te
computerized case based testing is implemented to
test students problem solving skills. Te progress
test is likely similar to fnal examination, while the
skills test is to test the knowledge applications in
actual situations. In addition, peer or group-based
assessment is also conducted as formative assessment.
In some examples in other disciplines, an open-book
test assessment is implemented, in order to test the
174 | Section 2 - TRCK SESSION 1 - Track D: Research, Monitoring and Evaluation for ESD
specifc criteria on students development (Segers
and Dochy, 2001).
Linkoping PBL Model
Linkoping University in Sweden is amongst the frst
university to embrace PBL in medical education. In
1986, PBL was adapted into several undergraduate
programmes in Faculty of Health Science, such as in the
general nursing, community care, and psychotherapy
courses (Foldevi, Sommansson and Trell, 1994). PBL
curriculum is integrated within multi-dimensional
elements, and this also involves traditional lecturing
method (Linkoping University, 2010). Te purpose
is to develop students profciencies and professional
practices in clinical skills, through PBL integration in
the community-orientated medical education.
As an integral part of the education, the assessment
is designed by means to provide guidance, supports,
and reinforcement in learning (Foldevi, Sommansson
and Trell, 1994). Terefore, assessment activities are
implemented as a continuous process since students in
their frst year. Tese involve seminars, team refective
journals, short presentation sessions, and ongoing
feedback process. For example, the videotape of
student community-orientation is used in providing
ongoing feedback, in order to improve students
professional consultancy skills. Special rubric rating
scale is used to facilitate this process, which is also
being used for all formative assessment activities. Te
assessment is mostly conducted in a group-oriented,
but students are awarded with individual marks.
RP-PBL Model
Republic Polytechnic-PBL (RP-PBL) model is one
of the well known PBL models in Singapore. Te
RP-PBL is a unique model because it introduces
a concept of one problem for one day (OGrady
and Alwis, 2002). Tis concept allows the learning
processes to be repeated, so that the students are
expected to be a competence problem solver. Te
purpose of PBL inclusion in Republic Polytechnic
is to produce graduates, who are professionally and
technically competence in engineering feld.
In order to ensure students professional development,
PBL assessment is implemented as formative
assessment during learning process (OGrady and
Alwis, 2002). In light with the concept of one problem
for one day, the formative assessment is implemented
on daily basis during project completion. Te daily
assessment evaluates students process skills, such
as students engagement in the process and problem
solving skills. Tutor is responsible to provide feedback
and to monitor students learning progress. Students
have no fnal examination, but they are scheduled
for four understanding tests for each module in each
semester. In addition, students keep up with self-
electronic refective journal, in order to refect on the
whole day activities, as well as to track their previous
learning activities. Te daily quiz is also implemented
but very limited role in the daily assessment.
Lahti PBL Model
Lahti Polytechnic is a pioneer PBL model in
engineering education in Finland (Lahtinen, 2005).
Tis model is unique from the curriculum design,
whereby the curriculum structure provides students
with more learning autonomy. Te coaching strategy
highly focuses on facilitating and monitoring students
progress, while the learning and instructions is on the
lower level of priority. Te curriculum body structures
are designed to be gradually increased in complexity
for each semester. Tis model focuses on both content
knowledge and process skills development, within a
fexible and administrative content.
Te assessment method focuses on assessing both
process and product (Lahtinen, 2005). Te assessment
to measure processes is mainly based on self and peer-
assessment method, which is implemented through a
project presentation. While the assessment to measure
product is typically conducted to involve tests, skills
tests, and report writings. In addition, students atend
personal group interview for twice a year. Students
performance in a tutorial session is also assessed as a
part of overall accumulated grades. Interestingly, the
entire assessment processes are extensively supported
by a feedback and discussion session, in order to
promote students continuous improvement.
SUMMARY OF THE PBL MONITORING
AND ASSESSMENT
Generally, assessment in PBL focuses on diferent
aspects of evaluation, which is based on the main
purpose of PBL inclusion. Te assessment is typically
conducted, either to measure processes or products.
ESD in TVET 2010 | Conference Proceedings | 175
Te assessment is also determined; either based on
the project or the block of programme structures.
Moreover, the assessment can also be conducted,
either based on individual or group basis (e.g.
Lennox, 2003; Kolmos and Holgaard, 2007; Kolmos
et al., 2007). Students are typically awarded with
individuals grades, even though the assessment is
conducted in the group basis (Kolmos et al., 2007). It
is through the peer-assessment strategy, in which the
group marks is adjusted based on the peer-assessment
marks (Lennox, 2003).
However in general, most of the PBL assessment
practices emphasized assessing process skills
(Woods, 2000; OGrady and Alwis, 2002; Wee, 2004;
Lahtinen, 2005). Terefore, the formative assessment
is much appropriate, since PBL emphasises more on
the learning process. Te PBL assessment is typically
implemented as an ongoing process, in order to
monitor students skills development and to ensure
students learning is always in the right path. In some
other practices, writen fnal examination is excluded;
particularly for the assessment models that much
concern on the knowledge applications and skills
competences (OGrady and Alwis, 2002).
Te assessment of process skills, such as problem
solving and knowledge application, typically
takes place at the end of each project completion
(e.g. OGrady and Alwis, 2002; Lennox, 2003).
Te assessment of process skills is frequently
conducted parallel with the project or the block of
the programme structure. Multiple dimensions and
methods are involved, such as short presentation
sessions, quizzes, multiple-choice question test,
short-test of concepts, practical demonstrations, and
poster presentations (e.g. Foldevi, Sommansson and
Trell, 1994; Lennox, 2003). Te skills to be assessed
include communication skills, teamwork, research
skills, interpersonal skills, and professional skills. In
some other cases, the external examiners are invited,
particularly for those models that jointly collaborate
with industry (Kolmos et al., 2007). On the other
hand, the assessment to assess product, such as an
understanding of content knowledge is typically
scheduled at the end of the block or terms, through a
writen fnal examination or open-book test concepts
(Segers and Dochy, 2001; Wee et al., 2003).
PBL assessment philosophy stated that the assessment
is a part of learning process (Foldevi, Sommansson and
Trell, 1994). Terefore, a feedback comes along with
formative assessment to support students learning.
Terefore, feedback must be an ongoing process,
and thus equally important as formative assessment.
Te tandem process of formative assessment and
feedback will determine the success of PBL approach
implementation (Gijbels et al., 2005).
One unique approach in PBL assessment is the
tutorless concepts (Woods, 2000). According to
Woods, the feedback comes as a learning supports,
but not as rigour as in the regular tutoring concepts.
Students always keep up with self-assessment during
the learning process, in order to ensure that they are
always in the right path towards meeting the learning
outcomes. However, self-assessment can only be
successful, when students have a clear defnition of
their learning objectives. An example in Linkoping
Universitys PBL assessment model, the predefned
criteria in the form of rubric rating scale would allow
students to keep up with self-assessing their learning
progress (Foldevi, Sommansson and Trell, 1994).
PBL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
MODEL
In order to deliver a clear facilitators expectations,
it is suggested that students are to be provided with
several rubric rating scales during PBL process. Te
rubric rating scales should contain two diferent
areas of technical and personal skills, so that students
are able to identify the objectives and the ultimate
goals of their learning process. Tey should always
be encouraged to refer to the rating scales, and keep
up with self-assessment during problem solving
processes. Te rubric rating scales should also be
used in conducting facilitator and peer-assessment
evaluation.
Te rubric which contains technical skills
competencies, should specifcally explain the
technical skills expectation, in regards to the particular
modules in technical education programme. For
instance, the production of electronic Printed Circuit
Board (PCB) should include the skills such as drilling,
soldering, testing, and protecting. While the rubric
that is containing the personal skills, should explain
the process skills such as communication skills,
collaboration skills, team skills, and may be expanded
into other personal values according to intended
learning outcomes. If the sustainable development
176 | Section 2 - TRCK SESSION 1 - Track D: Research, Monitoring and Evaluation for ESD
competences become the major concern, the
atributes for these competencies should be included,
such as the awareness of students of possible future
product expansion, the uses of biodegradable and
hazardous chemical, as well as the relevant ethic and
values competencies.
In ensuring students learning is always in the right
path, short presentation sessions might serve as
a diagnostic tools and act as a students learning
support. Tese short presentations are suggested to be
conducted in a group basis, with all group members
presenting their parts. In this session, the other
groups should perform peer-assessment evaluation.
Meanwhile, the facilitator also assesses the group
performance and awards them with group marks.
Te results from peer-assessment should be used to
modify the group marks; in order to fairly award an
individual marks. Te facilitator assessment should
come with meaningful feedback, which functions as
to improve students learning process.
At the end of each problem solving cycle, students
are suggested to answer several fxed refective
questions. Students then submit the writen refection
immediately at the end of each tutorial session. Tey
should also properly document their parts for each
cycle of problem solving as portfolio, as for another
evaluation upon necessary. In addition, the other
forms of assessment such as quizzes, short essay, and
short-test on concept should also be conducted as
necessary. Te informal assessment activities, such as
probing, questioning, and provoking should also be
implemented, in order to closely monitor students
progress.
CONCLUSION
As a concluding remark, several key factors have been
identifed in order to design PBL monitoring and
assessment strategy. It is based on several pioneer
PBL models, the approach such as the uses of rubric
rating scale with an emphasis on self-assessment
practices, and the strategy to distinguish two diferent
areas of assessing personal skills and technical skills,
may appear as an exemplary strategies for an efective
PBL monitoring and assessment system.
It is within this context; the intended learning
outcomes can be easily to be embedded into
curriculum, and thus it is facilitating the process of
assessing and monitoring the students development
progress. Other new requirements from industries
and communities, such as the education for
sustainable development, the specifc atributes of
sustainable development competencies can also
be easily embedded into PBL monitoring and
assessment system, along with their module intended
learning outcomes. Te future research that has been
under progresses is to examine the efectiveness of
this model in technical education platform.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Te author/authors would like to thank Universiti
Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia for supporting this
research under the Postgraduates Incentive Research
Grant.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.C. (2007). Efect of problem based
learning on knowledge acquisition, knowledge
retention and critical thinking ability of agricultural
students in urban schools. University of Missouri:
Ph.D. Tesis.
Bakar, A.R. & Hanaf, I. (2007). Assessing
employability skills of technical-vocational students
in Malaysia. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(4), pp. 202-
207.
Barrows, H. S. & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-Based
Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. 1st ed.
New York: Springer Publishing
Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M. &
Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies
for sustainable development in higher education.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 8 (4), pp. 416 - 430
Brodie, L. & Borch, O. (2004). Choosing PBL
paradigms: experiences and methods of two
universities. Proceeding of 15th annual AAEE
conference. Toowoomba: Australasian Association
for Engineering Education.
Brodie, L. & Gibbings, P. (2007). Developing
problem based learning communities in virtual
space. Proceeding of Connected 2007 International
Conference On Design Education. Sydney:
University of New South Wales. pp. 1-4.Chamberlin,
ESD in TVET 2010 | Conference Proceedings | 177
S. (2009). Using problem based learning activities to
identify creativity
gifed mathematics students. In Tan, O.S. Problem
based learning and creativity. Singapore: Engage
Learning. 155-172.
Foldevi, M., Sommansson, G. & Trell, E. (1994).
Problem based medical education in general practice:
experience from Linkoping, Sweden. British Journal
of General Practice, 44, pp. 473-476.
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers,
M. (2005). Efects of problem-based learning: A
meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review
of Educational Research, 75, pp. 2761.
Gijbels, D., van de Watering, G. & Dochy, F. (2005)
Integrating assessment tasks in a problem-based
learning environment, Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 30(1), pp. 7386.
Helerea, E., Matoi, A., Oltean, I. & Munteanu, A.
(2008). Problem based learning applied to electrical
engineering. Proceeding of international conference
on engineering education. Hungary: International
Network for Engineering Education and Research
(iNEER Network).
Huba, M.E. & Freed, J.E. (2000). Learner-Centered
Assessment on College Campuses: Shifing the Focus
from Teaching to Learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hung, W. (2006). Te 3C3R model: A conceptual
framework for designing problem in PBL. Te
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based learning,
1(1), pp. 55-75.
Kolmos, A., Kuru, S., Hansen, H., Eskil, T., Podesta,
L., Fink, F., de Graaf, E., Wolf, J.U. & Soylu, A.
(2007). Problem Based Learning: special interest
group B5. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from TREE
Teaching and Research in Engineering in Europe:
htp://www3.unif.it/tree/dl/oc/b5.pdf
Kolmos, A. & Holgaard, J.E. (2007). Alignment of
PBL and assessment. Proceeding of 1st International
Conference on Research in Higher Education.
Honolulu: American Educational Research
Association. pp. 1-9.
Lahtinen, T. (2005). Implementation of problem
based learning in engineering education. In Poikela,
E & Poikela, S. PBL in Context Bridging Work and
Education. Tempere University Press.
Lennox, B. (2003). Teaching engineering through
problem based learning. In Problem Based Learning in
Engineering (PBLE). A guide to learning engineering
through project. United Kingdom: University Of
Notingham.
Linkoping University (2010). Web Based Scenarios
for PBL through EDIT. Retrieved January 2, 2010,
from Linkoping University ofcial website: htp://
www.hu.liu.se/edit?l=en
Maastricht University (2009). Problem Based
Learning. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from
Maastricht University Problem Based Learning
website: htp://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/
web/Mai n/Educat i on/Educat i onal Prof i l e/
ProblemBasedLearning.htm
McMaster University (2009). Problem Based
Learning: McMaster Problem Solving Program.
Retrieved December 12, 2009, from McMaster
University Ofcial website: htp://chemeng.
mcmaster.ca/innov1.htm
Mitchell, G.G. & Delaney, J.D. (2004). An assessment
strategy to determine learning outcome in a sofware
engineering problem based learning course.
International Journal Engineering Education, 20, pp.
494-502.
Moesby, E. (2005). Curriculum development
for project oriented and problem based learning
(POPBL) with emphasis on personal skills and
abilities. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 9,
pp. 121-128.
Mossuto, M. (2009). Problem based learning: student
engagement, learning and contextualized problem
solving. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from NCVER,
Commonwealth of Australia website: htp://www.
ncver.edu.au/publications/2198.html
Neufeld, V.R. & Barrows, H.S. (1974). Te McMaster
philosophy: an approach to medical education.
Journal of Medical Education, 49, pp. 1040-1050.
O Grady, G. & Alwis, W.A.M. (2002). One day
one problem: PBL at the Republic Polytechnic.
Proceeding of 4th Asia Pacifc conference in PBL,
Hatyai: Prince of Songkla University. pp. 1-8.
178 | Section 2 - TRCK SESSION 1 - Track D: Research, Monitoring and Evaluation for ESD
Perdan, S., Azapagic, A. and Clif, R. (2000). Teaching
sustainable development to engineering students.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 1 (3), pp.267 279.
Savin-Baden, M. (2004). Understanding the impact
of assessment on student in problem based learning.
Industrial in Education and Teaching International,
41, pp. 223-233.
Schmidt, H.G. (1993). Foundations of problem
based learning: some explanatory notes. Medical
Education, 27, pp. 422-432.
Schmidt, H.G. (1994). Resolving inconsistencies in
tutor expertise research: does lack of structure cause
students to seek tutor guidance. Academic Medicine,
69(8), pp. 656-662.
Segers, M. & Dochy, F. (2001). New assessment forms
in problem-based learning: the value-added of the
students perspective. Studies in Higher Education,
26(3), pp. 327-343.
Steinemann, A. (2003). Implementing sustainable
development through problem based learning:
pedagogy and practice. Journal of Professional Issues
in Engineering Education and Practice, 129(4),
pp.216-224.
Sulaiman, A.H. (2007). Results of the Asia link
project: Problem-Oriented Project Based Learning
in environmental management and technology. Asia
link symposium, 7 September, Kuala Lumpur.
Tan, O.S., Teo, C.T. &. Chye, S (2009). Problem and
Creativity. In Tan, O.S. Problem Based Learning and
Creativity. Singapore: Engage Learning, pp.1-14.
Wang, V.C.X. (2008). Te history of vocational
education up to 1850 and a rational for work. In
Wang, V.C.X & King, K.P. Innovations in Carrier
and Technical Education: Strategic Approaches
towards Workforce Competencies around the Globe.
Charlote: Information Age Publishing.
Wee, K.N.L, Kek, Y.C.M.A. & Sim, H.C.M. (2001).
Crafing efective problems for problem based
learning. Proceeding of 3rd Asia Pacifc Conference
on PBL. Australia: Australian Problem Based
Learning Network. pp.157-168.
Wee, K.N.L, Alexandria, M., Kek, Y.C. & Kelley, C.A.
(2003). Transforming the marketing curriculum
using problem-based learning: a case study. Journal of
Marketing Education, 25, pp. 150.
Wee K.N.L. (2004). Jump Start Authentic Problem
Based Learning. Singapore: Prentice Hall Pearson
Education South Asia Pte. Ltd.
Woods, D. R. (1996). Problem-based learning for
large classes in chemical engineering. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 68, pp. 91-99.
Woods, D.R. (2000). Helping your student gain the
most from PBL. Proceeding of Second Asia-Pacifc
Conference on PBL, Singapore, pp.1-22. Retrieved
December 14, 2009, from htp://chemeng.mcmaster.
ca/pbl/Singapore.pdf
World Commission on Environment and
Development ~WCED!(1987). Our common future,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Zhang, G. (2002). Using problem based learning and
cooperative group learning in teaching instrumental
analysis. Te China Papers, October 2002, pp 4-8.
BRIEF BIODATA
Prof. Dr. Sulaiman Yamin has over 29 years experience of teaching in higher education. He
has a Ph.D. in Science Education and Masters in Chemistry and Science Education from
the Oregon State University, USA. His BSc. (Hons) in Chemistry and Diploma Education
was obtained from the University Kebangsaan, Malaysia. He is currently a Professor and
concurrently, Deputy Dean of Post Graduate and Research at the Faculty of Technical
Education University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia. (Email: sulaimn@uthm.edu.my)