Southern Illinois University Carbondale

OpenSIUC
Dissertations Theses and Dissertations

8-1-2015

PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN A
HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM
Anthony Agbeh
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/dissertations

Recommended Citation
Agbeh, Anthony, "PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN A HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM" (2015). Dissertations. 1057.
http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/dissertations/1057

This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected].
PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN A HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM
ADMINISTRATION COURSE

by

Anthony Agbeh

B.S., Florida International University, Miami FL 1982

M.S., Florida International University, Miami FL 1983

A Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

in the Graduate School
Southern Illinois University of Carbondale
August 2015
DISSERTATION APPROVAL

PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN A HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM

ADMINISTRATION COURSE

By
Anthony Agbeh

A Dissertation Submitted in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in the field of Curriculum and Instruction

Approved by:

Dr. D. John McIntyre, Chair

Dr. Christina McIntyre

Dr. Grant Miller

Dr. Frackson Mumba

Dr. Bill Banz

Graduate School
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
06/30/15
AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF

ANTHONY AGBEH, for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in CURRICULUM &

INSTRUCTION, presented on November 3, 2014, at Southern Illinois University
Carbondale.

TITLE: PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN A HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM

ADMINISTRATION COURSE

MAJOR PROFESSORS: DR. D. JOHN MCINTYRE

The purpose of this study was threefold: 1) to examine the effect of the Problem-

Based Learning (PBL) instructional approach on Hospitality students’ content

knowledge (see chapter 1); 2) to examine the effect of the PBL instructional approach

on Hospitality students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills (see chapter 1); 3) to

examine the effect of the Problem-Based Learning instructional approach on students’

attitudes and perceptions of problem solving in Hospitality settings, in order to increase

the relevance of their learning and program of study. Students in a Hospitality

management course in a large mid-west university participated in this study. This study

used a mixed methods approach to collect and analyze data. There were six data

sources used in the study: Pre- and Post-Content Knowledge Test, pre- and post-

California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) applicable to 4-year-college students,

pre- and post- Measure of Epistemological Reflection Survey (a validated tool used by

permission from Dr. Baxter Magolda), PBL Rubric, students’ reflection journals, and my

observation notes. Data were analyzed quantitatively by using SPSS Version 14 to

compare the pre- and post-Content Knowledge Tests and pre- and post- California

Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST).

i
A Wilcoxon signed ranked test, a non-parametric test, an equivalent of

dependent test were used to determine a significant difference between the pre- and

post-test results. Qualitative data were analyzed using the pre- and post-Measure of

Epistemological Reflection (MER) survey, student reflective journal entries, and my

observation. The results showed that there was a significant difference between the

content knowledge mean of the pre- and post-content knowledge test after teaching the

students using PBL. The result also shows that there was no significant difference in the

pre- and post-test of the California Critical Thinking Skill Test (CCTST) after teaching

the students using PBL. The result also showed the students’ problem solving skills

improved after solving the four closed loop case problems. Students’ perception and

attitude of PBL were positive, although the students indicated some negatives, such as

increase in work load, time wasted, uncertainty of their answers, and being confused at

the beginning of the learning process, as this approach was new to them. Nevertheless,

the findings indicated that PBL helps students to build a capacity for self-directed

learning, foster team work, improve their communications skills, manage their learning

time table, be active learners, find relevant and valuable information, and apply

problem-solving skills. The students’ attitudes and perceptions were positive and

encouraging, despite encountering some issues during the intervention. These findings

have theoretical, practical, and research implications.

ii
DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my wife, Elizabeth Agbeh, and my children Antonia Agbeh,

Rosemary Agbeh, Samuel Agbeh, and Patricia Agbeh. I also dedicate this work to my

mother, Rosemary Agbede Agbeh, and my late father, Jonas Agbeh.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is with my most sincere appreciation that I extend immeasurable gratitude to

Dr. John McIntyre, my advisor and chair of my dissertation committee, for his patience,

valuable support, and encouragement. He modeled the characteristics of how an

educator can be an advisor, mentor, and expert practitioner.

I am thankful to my committee members for their time and encouraging spirit. I

wish to thank Dr. Christina McIntyre, who provided me with both research assistance

and support, for her ideas, suggestions, and discussions of related matters. She found a

way to encourage me when I needed it most. She had a unique way of making a very

difficult task seem feasible in a given time. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Grant

Miller for his unwavering support and positive feedback. My heartfelt thanks go to Dr.

Frackson Mumba for his quick and constructive feedback and encouragement. My

appreciation goes to Dr. Bill Banz for his moral support and for serving on my

committee.

I was thrilled to work with my former colleague, Professor T.C. Girard, and thank

him for encouraging me to conduct this study in the Hospitality field. His input,

discussion, encouragement, and commitment over the years have gained my life-long

loyalty and respect.

My deepest thanks and gratitude go to my wife, Elizabeth Agbeh, and my

children Antonia Agbeh, Rosemary Agbeh, Samuel Agbeh, and Patrica Agbeh for their

understanding, patience, and perseverance when they were most needed. They

showed me unconditional love and remained an encouraging force in my effort to

complete this study. I am grateful for their support, enabling me to devote the necessary

iv
time and energy to accompany me on this journey of my life. I am forever indebted to

each of them.

Finally, my appreciation is extended to the students who participated in this

study. I appreciate the time they took to share their opinions and thoughts on what

works for them in college. I will do my best to take what I have learned and share with

others the lessons they have taught me.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. i

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ x

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 5

Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 8

Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 8

Rationale for this Study .......................................................................................................... 9

Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................11

Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................................................12

Limitations of the Study .........................................................................................................18

Delimitations ..........................................................................................................................18

Assumptions of the Study ......................................................................................................18

Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................19

Abbreviations.........................................................................................................................21

Summary ...............................................................................................................................22

CHAPTER 2 ..............................................................................................................................23

LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................23

vi
Problem-Based Learning Origins and Description .................................................................23

Problem-Based Learning Conceptual Framework .................................................................26

PBL Characteristics ...............................................................................................................27

Problem-Based Learning Categories .....................................................................................32

Hospitality Problem-Based Learning ......................................................................................34

Real-Life Cases of Lack of Work Readiness in Hospitality Graduates ...................................38

Problem-Based Learning Implementation ..............................................................................41

Assessment of Critical Thinking .............................................................................................41

Problem-Based Learning Assessment ...................................................................................42

Hospitality Problem-Based Learning Studies’ Findings ..........................................................44

Summary ...............................................................................................................................47

CHAPTER 3 ..............................................................................................................................49

METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................49

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................49

Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................49

Research Questions ..............................................................................................................49

Research Design ...................................................................................................................50

Participants ...........................................................................................................................52

Access and Recruitment of Participants ................................................................................53

Data Collection Instruments...................................................................................................53

Problem-Based Learning Procedure ......................................................................................59

vii
Problem-Based Learning Initiation .........................................................................................62

Group Function......................................................................................................................62

Assessment ...........................................................................................................................64

Method of Data Analysis ........................................................................................................65

Trustworthiness of the Study .................................................................................................67

CHAPTER 4 ..............................................................................................................................70

FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................70

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................70

Research Question #1: Hospitality Students’ Content Knowledge .........................................70

Research Question #2: Hospitality Students’ Critical Thinking Skills ......................................73

Research Question #3: Hospitality Students’ Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Problem

Solving ..................................................................................................................................86

Triangulation of Data Sources. ..............................................................................................97

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................99

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................101

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.........................................................................................101

Introduction .........................................................................................................................101

Summary of the Results ......................................................................................................102

Relationship of Current Study to Previous Research ...........................................................105

Theoretical Implications .......................................................................................................107

Practical Implications ...........................................................................................................108

Recommendations for Future Research ..............................................................................110

viii
Limitations ...........................................................................................................................111

Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................112

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................114

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Human Subject Application ............................................................................131

Appendix B - Recruitment Script for Subjects ......................................................................132

Appendix C - Consent Form ................................................................................................134

Appendix D - Pre-Knowledge Test.......................................................................................136

Appendix E - Post Content-Knowledge Test ........................................................................148

Appendix F - Sample California Critical Thinking Questions ................................................161

Appendix G - Pre Measure of Epistemological Reflection ....................................................163

Appendix H - Post Measure of Epistemological Reflection...................................................166

Appendix I - Problem Solving Skills Rubric ..........................................................................169

Appendix J - Students’ Journal Reflection ...........................................................................170

Appendix K - Problem-Based Learning Schedule ................................................................171

Appendix L - Instructor’s Observation Notes ........................................................................172

Appendix M - PBL Peer Evaluation ......................................................................................173

Appendix N - Approval to use MER Survey by Dr. Baxter Magolda .....................................175

Appendix O - Summary of Cases Used ...............................................................................176

VITA ....................................................................................................................................178

ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE

Table 1.Data Collection Timeline .................................................................................. 54

Table 2. Pre- and Post-Content Knowledge Result ....................................................... 71

Table 3. Pre- and Post-California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) ....................... 73

Table 4. Descriptions of Recommended Performance Assessment Overall Scores ..... 77

Table 5. Problem-Solving Skill Scores for Cases 1 Through 4 ...................................... 85

x
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

Figure 1 Visual Model of Concurrent Mixed Methods Design........................................ 52

Figure 2 Triangulation ................................................................................................... 69

Figure 3 CCTST Overall Score ..................................................................................... 74

Figure 4 CCTST Analysis Score ................................................................................... 78

Figure 5 CCTST Interpretation Score ............................................................................ 79

Figure 6 CCTST Inference Score .................................................................................. 80

Figure 7 CCTST Evaluation Score ................................................................................ 81

Figure 8 CCTST Explanation Score .............................................................................. 82

Figure 9 CCTST Induction Score .................................................................................. 83

Figure 10 CCTST Deduction Score ............................................................................... 84

Figure 11 Results of Triangulation ................................................................................ 96

xi
1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The hospitality industry includes for-profit or not-for-profit organizations, such as

lodging, food service, transportation, entertainment, clubs, and establishments where

guests are served (Kotler, Bowen, & Makens, 1999). Today's hospitality industry

requires graduates to have certain competencies, such as leadership skills, critical

thinking and problem-solving skills, creativity, analytical, communication technology

skills, and the ability to cope with a rapidly changing environment (Athanassiou et al.,

2003; Dawson & Titz, 2012; Kivela & Kivela, 2005; Kwok, 2012; Raybound & Wilkins,

2006). There is concern about the job readiness of hospitality undergraduates coming

out of the universities (Cushman, Dilly & Gould 1998: Dawson &Titz, 2012: Nelson

&Dopson) and their being equipped with the relevant skills to meet the hospitality

industry job market; thus, competent graduates have become a priority to hire

(Cushman, Dilly, & Gould, 1998; Dawson & Titz, 2012; deBoer & Otting 2011; Huang

2005; Nelson &Dopson, 2001). Industry leaders worldwide express this concern.

For example, Lalit K. Panwar, vice chairman and managing director of Indian

Tourism Development Corporation Limited complained to a Hotel News Now

correspondent, “The situation is stark […]. The industry requirement is 150,000 trained

persons per annum while the availability is only 50,000 per annum […]. Thus, there is

an existing shortage of 100,000 persons per month.” (Balasubramaniam, 2013).

In the NRN Editorial from August 23rd, 1993, Rich van Warner noted in his article,

“The gap between classrooms and workplace needs narrowing” that educators like

Robert Lewis at the University of Guelph in Ontario and Mike Olsen at Virginia
2

Polytechnic Institute point out there is a need for much more emphasis in interpersonal

communication skills and critical thinking. For instance, instead of simply training would-

be managers in technical skills involved in operating a back office accounting system,

more attention must be paid to helping them become better communicators with

customers and subordinates alike. Finding ways to satisfy customers who have endured

an hour wait on a Saturday night after the ice machine breaks is as important as food

cost matrices. Amicably resolving a fight between a cook and waitress or, for that

matter, between two departmental rivals takes a different type of talent than operating a

POS system.

According to Warner, customer-oriented service skills are crucial; however, many

hospitality education programs have not changed significantly over the years – they

teach students basic skills for specialized job functions and make them take a quick

internship in the “real world,” and then throw them into the job market. He said

graduates need to be “strategic, big picture thinkers” who can make use of

opportunities. The instructors in hospitality programs have to communicate clearer

expectations and develop employees who can raise performance. (van Warner, 1993)

In 1997, David A. Dittman, former dean of the Cornell University School of Hotel

Administration, published his article, “Educators prepare for industry globalization” in the

Cornell Commentary. He maintains that the most important trend in hospitality

nowadays is a close cooperation between educators and industry. This partnership is to

ensure that the educational institutions manage to assess and meet the demands of the

industry. He lists examples from The Cornell Hotel School, whose faculty members

“channel back into our curriculum the information they glean while working with industry
3

executives” (Dittman, 1997, p. 23). Faculty seek the judgments and reactions of their

partnering practitioners, so the educational institution does not stand as an “ivory tower”

but integrates the needs of the industry.

Dittman(1997) asserts that his hotel school has not done away with basic skills

such as culinary practice, housekeeping, property operations, etc., but that their

curriculum focuses much more on the management of such skills. He mentions that

intensity has to be the focus of modern hospitality education:

Judy Hou, Director General / CEO, who manages Glion-branded institutions in

Switzerland and the United Kingdom, mentions that industry leaders demand advanced

soft skills and interpersonal skills from their employees when dealing with customers

face-to-face: “Soft skills are at the very core of the hospitality industry […] (Hou, 2014)

They are needed to create a “personalization” and an “increased identification” of the

customer with the brand (Hou, 2014).

The goal of Hospitality management programs should be to prepare

undergraduates with competencies to make a successful transition from the classroom

setting into the industry. There is concern that the Hospitality management curriculum

needs to develop an essential body of integrated knowledge that supports cognitive

skills and management skills relevant to their future profession (deBoer & Otting, 2011;

Huang 2005; Wolfe & Gould, 2001). Hospitality industry’s executive critiques of the

hospitality management programs are creating pressure to adopt new innovative

approaches. Hospitality educators are faced with the question of how to improve

students’ skills to match industry needs. It is therefore necessary for Hospitality

educators to equip students with competencies to be successful in the competitive job

4

market. Gursoy and Swanger (2012) explain “[a] growing demand for hospitality

employees can be translated into a growing demand for hospitality programs to

adequately prepare that workforce.” (p. 32) The researchers maintain that programs

need to tailor their instruction not only towards the employability of their graduates, but

also to ensure their success in the field.

In his editorial, “Some Ramblings About Hospitality Curricula” in the International

CHRIE –The Hospitality & Tourism Educators, Peter Rainsford, the J. Thomas Clark

Professor of Entrepreneurship and Personal Enterprise at Cornell University’s School of

Hotel Administration, complained about current curricula and made suggestions for

improvement. He suggested that hospitality programs should offer a variety of one-

credit-hour courses during the freshman year. This system would provide flexibility

which allow each academic area to begin teaching the underpinnings of its academic

discipline, and would allow some extended time periods for the students to study the

various facets of the hotel.

Internships are also very important for hospitality students to get a grasp of real-

world cases to practice their problem-solving skills (Lee, 2014). According to Arcodia

and Dickson (2013), it is crucial to balance theory and practice in tourism education,

because university programs tend to graduate lots of students with great quantitative

and technical silks, but little interpersonal practice (p. 146). The researchers noted that

“[v]arious strategies have been used in higher education in order to strike the elusive

balance between theory and practice” (p. 146), and they cited recent publications on the

benefits of integrating experiential education programs. Experiential education is a

5

process where “knowledge is created through the transformation of experience (Kolb,

1984, p. 41). This experience can be gained through internships:

However, oftentimes, those internships are too short to give the students a

valuable overview of real-life situations. At The Spartan Hospitality Educators Summit

from September 6-7, 2001 at the Michigan State University, the discussion panel

expressed their wish that “[c]ompanies must make significant investment in these

programs,” and that “a six month internship would be best” (p. 28). The discussion panel

members explained that internships are the students’ “laboratories of life,” and that

“working in the ‘real world’ is where students have the opportunity to put their

knowledge to work and start moving from a ‘knowledge’ level to an ‘understanding’

level” (ibid, p. 24).

Statement of the Problem

The hospitality industry is facing severe problem of not having competent

graduates with the required competencies to solve the new challenges of the industry.

For example, Dawson & Titz, (2012) stated that, "There is concern many students do

not think critically and do not integrate what they are learning with what they already

know". Customers who are dissatisfied with hospitality services nowadays often go to

public online profiles and blogs to vent about their negative experiences. According to

Dawson & Titz, hospitality graduates “should grasp the concept of service recovery in

order to encourage dissatisfied customers to come back and experience changes based

upon their feedback.” (p. 71) Not only do hospitality students have problems with

resolving disputes with disgruntled guests – they also lack other competencies and

skills, such as problem solving, critical thinking, working in teams, and being life-long
6

learners that are deemed necessary for success in the job market. While educators

have historically used the traditional lecture approach to transmit knowledge so that

students can memorize content to pass the examinations, this approach has not solved

the core problem, which is having competent graduates solve the new challenges of the

industry.

Dittman,(1994) a former Dean of one of the top-ranked hotel schools in the world,

listed the following skills as crucial for his hospitality graduates to have:

- Strategic orientation—the ability to see the big picture.

- Communication ability.

- Management style—teamwork.

- Leadership skills—ability to persuade, motivate, and encourage.

- Analytical ability and mastery of technical skills.

- Ethical awareness.

- International scope

To these can be added problem-identification and problem-solving skills,

guest problem solving skills, financial skills, communication skills (both oral and

written), listening skills, customer feedback skills, cultural sensitivity,

interpersonal skills, management flexibility, adaptive leadership, conceptual

thinking, customer relations, and system-wide computer skills (Chung, 2000;

Gursoy & Swanger, 2005; Liu, 2002; Mayburry & Swanger, 2011; Tesone &

Ricci, 2005, 2006; Spowart, 2011). According to leaders of the industry, critical

thinking is one of the crucial components that hospitality graduates lack,

according to leaders of the industry.

7

At the August 1993, Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional

Education (CHRIE) conference, a discussion panel consisting of hospitality

industry leaders (McDonalds, Hyatt, & TGIF) identified several desirable job

criterion missing in college graduates. Three of these criteria refer to the very

essence of this theoretical discussion: using dynamic approaches in business,

solving problems as they occur and creativity. Malekzadeh (1998) identified a

lack of critical thinking skills in many students at the upper level.

As educators we need to teach our students these skills lacking in most

graduates; we must teach them how to learn, how to become better problem

solvers, how to separate relevant from irrelevant information, and how to

generate new options. (Gustin, 2001, p. 42)

According to Dittman (1994), in order prepare graduates to succeed in the

competitive job market, there is an urgent need to find a more effective instructional

approach for teaching industry skills (interpersonal skills, social skills, cognitive skills,

financial skills, computer skills, etc. "Lecturing is without a doubt effective for

transmitting information but if we wish to develop thinking skills, problem solving abilities

and life-long learning skills a more student-centered approach must be taken" (Donnelly

& Fitzmaurice, 2005, p. 1-2). Unfortunately, lecture-based instruction is often content

driven, emphasizing abstract concepts over concrete examples and application. If

students cannot retain or apply information given through a lecture, then the goal of

students being prepared for the world of work is not met. Lecture has been the preferred

method of instruction because it is the more convenient, low cost, and partially efficient
8

method to offer the most information in a short time (Bonwell &Eison, 1991; Cashin,

1985; Wood, 2003).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is three fold: 1) to examine the effect of the Problem-

Based Learning (PBL) Instructional Approach on Hospitality students’ content

knowledge; 2) to examine the effect of the PBL Instructional Approach on Hospitality

students’ problem solving and critical thinking skills; and 3) to examine the effect of the

PBL Instructional Approach on students’ attitudes and perceptions of problem solving in

Hospitality settings. To explore this issue, three research questions are posed:

Research Questions

1. How does the Problem Based Learning instructional approach affect students'

content knowledge in Hospitality?

2. How does the Problem-based Learning instructional approach affect Hospitality

students' critical thinking and problem solving skills?

3. What is the effect of Problem-Based Learning instructional approach on students'

attitudes and perceptions of problem solving in Hospitality settings?

These questions address whether or not a Problem-based Learning instructional

approach can help Hospitality students to think critically and to analyze and solve

complex problems, which are competencies that the Hospitality industry demands.

Hospitality graduates possessing these competencies may be more successful in the

industry, by using content knowledge and intellectual skills to become continued

9

learners. Also, the questions are appropriate because of the significant body of literature

in other fields that show success in students’ learning through PBL. Therefore, this

study will go beyond previous studies and examine the possible effect of Problem-

based Learning on content knowledge, problem solving and critical thinking skills, and

attitudes and perceptions of problem solving in the Hospitality setting.

Rationale for this Study

There have been tremendous changes, such as globalization, technological

innovation, and workforce diversity, taking place in the Hospitality industry. These

changes challenge the traditional educational process of mainly using lecture and tests.

This means the educational institutions need to establish concrete dispositions they want

their hospitality graduates to possess. Personality type tests can help to show whether or

not students possess these, and to which degree. One of those personality tests is the

Myers Briggs Personality Indicator (MBTI), an instrument developed by Isabell Myers and

Katherine Briggs, based on Jung’s (1971) categories of a typical personality. The

researchers maintain that when one knows one’s own personality, the knowledge of self

can be incorporated in many facets of the hospitality curriculum. Students with a better

understanding of their own needs and how these needs relate to others and to their

industry has very important practical implications.

Hospitality graduates’ academic ranking in college is not all that hospitality

employers are seeking. Undergraduates need to demonstrate multiple skills, including

critical thinking and problem-solving skills, information literacy skills, and computer skills

(Huang, 2005; McDonald & Lalopa, 2005; Otting, 2009; deBoer & Otting, 2011; Swager

& Gursoy, 2010; Dawson & Titz, 2012). Previous hospitality studies mainly focused on
10

content knowledge. A review of the literature yielded no results for hospitality studies

that examined the impact of PBL on problem-solving skills and activities that take place

in the Hospitality classroom. Further, hospitality PBL studies mostly focused on

conceptual understanding and interest in subject matter. Also, hospitality researchers

have not examined the overall classroom atmosphere and the development of a sense

of community, problem-solving skills, perceptions, attitudes and dispositions of students,

yet these aspects have an influence on learning. Previous studies neglected to analyze

how PBL affects content knowledge, problem-solving and critical thinking skills. Industry

leaders find fault with how hospitality students are taught – they receive too much

factual/content-related information, and too few interpersonal and cognitive skills:

Instructional methods must allow the activation of prior knowledge in order to

process and garner new knowledge. One method to activate prior knowledge may be

small-group discussion. Furthermore, presenting a situation or an opportunity to learn

within a specific context will foster group discussion and ultimately long-term knowledge

and effective problem-solving skills. In the traditional classroom setting, students are

often exposed to problem-solving application lectures in a contextual situation; yet for a

student truly to learn to perform problem solving skills, he or she must be given the

opportunity to do so actively. A major reason for adopting PBL as an instructional

approach is the disenchantment with the lecture approach. According to Myers and

Jones (1983), students are not attending to what is being said 40% of the time during a

teachers’ lecture. During the first 10 minutes of a lecture, students retain 70% of the

information; during the last 10 minutes; 20% of the students lose their initial interest,

and the attention levels continue to drop as the lecture proceeds. Most alarming of all,
11

four months after taking an Introductory Psychology Course, students remembered only

8% more than the control group who had never taken the course. Meyers and Jones

(1993) also mentioned that the lecture was not suitable for the ever-expanding

educational objectives of today’s society, diversity of learners’ needs or increasing

volume of information.

It is therefore clear that traditional lectures passively transfer information to

students. This passive nature of lecture is a big challenge as it can be soporific. As a

result, the Hospitality industry and educators call for different experiences for students

that require them to be independent learners and problem solvers rather than passive

learners. Hospitality practitioners and educators stress the importance of integrating

knowledge, critical reflection, debate, individual and cooperative learning, critical inquiry,

and independent thinking. These competences provide students with the critical thinking

capacity that the industry needs and expects (deBoer&Otting, 2011; Lee, 2003; Otting,

2009).

Significance of the Study

This study is significant because to date few researchers (Huang, 2005; Kivela &

Kivela, 2005; Otting, 2011) have focused on PBL in the hospitality field. The limited

studies in the hospitality field have not focused on the skills that employers are looking

for in graduates to be successful in the industry. PBL has received wide-spread

recognition in other fields. For example, it was introduced in medical education in the

late 1980’s (Dawson & Titz, 2012). Hasen (2006) writes PBL is an extension of the

Accounting Education Change Commission’s reports that recommended a shift from a

knowledge-based curriculum to a skills-based curriculum for accounting students. Also,

12

according to Gabr and Mohammed (2011), the National Council of State Boards of

Nursing continues to encourage the adoption of PBL in the Nursing curriculum because

of its success (p. 154). This success indicates why this study should be used in the

Hospitality field. Huang (2005) argues, "PBL will develop the necessary skills and

personal qualities that employers in the Hospitality industry require, it is important to

obtain feedback in order to provide insights for the future alteration and enhancement of

courses" (p.37).

This study will address competencies such as problem-solving and critical

thinking skills deemed necessary for success in the Hospitality industry. Furthermore,

this approach may not only engage students but also prepare them for future success in

content acquisition. This study will examine the effect of the Problem-Based Learning

instructional approach on students’ attitudes and perceptions of problem solving in

Hospitality settings.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework guiding this study is constructivism. Cooperstein and

Weidinger (2004), Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006), and Mandernach ( 2006) state

that constructivism posits that the learner constructs his or her own meaning by relating

new information to existing knowledge. Constructivists theorize that learners will apply

previous knowledge and understandings when encountering new or different

information. In a constructivist approach, the context, beliefs, and attitudes of the

learner affect his or her learning (Cobb, 1996).

Learners must work with new material in a manner that allows them to apply

previous thoughts and concepts in order to make new meaning, to be life-long learners,
13

and construct an understanding of the new material. This approach emphasizes the

important role of prior knowledge (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Scott, Dyson, & Gater, 1987)

and the interactivity of the learners by questioning, in order to create new meaning,

knowledge, and skills. Constructivism is student centered (which includes active

learning, where content knowledge is embedded in the context), whereas behaviorism

is teacher centered (students’ learning is passive, not engaged).

From a historical perspective, PBL is related to Dewey (1916, 1938), who stated

that knowledge emerges only from situations in which learners have meaningful

experiences. These experiences have to be embedded in a social context, such as a

classroom, in which the learner can manipulate materials and form a community of

learners who construct their own meaning. According to Dewey, learners must be

engaged in meaningful activities that interest them, to apply the concepts being learned.

This means for the hospitality industry students have to practice on sample cases, just

as medical students practice on sample patients, so that role play can help them

simulate real-life situations. Paris (2011) in his article, “Social constructivism and

tourism education,” attempts to delineate how social constructivism can “weave together

the current research and practice of tourism; tourism education; and, the classroom

learning experience of tourism students […].” (p. 107) He states that, “[s]ince learning is

an active and creative process, classrooms should include challenging problems,

projects and issues that require engagement, such as discussion, researching and

presenting.” (p. 103) He further maintains that the Socratic Method is very valuable in

instructing hospitality students by using structured questions to form a guided discourse,

14

which engages students actively in learning: “This strategy is particularly valuable when

applied along with a case study.” (p. 106)

In addition to Dewey, Piaget (1973) stated that the basis of learning is discovery.

“To understand is to discover, or reconstruct by rediscovery and such conditions must

be complied with if in the future individuals are to be formed who are capable of

production and creativity and not simply repetition” (Piaget, 1973). Bruner (1996)

recognized that interest in the material to be learned is the “best stimulus to learning,

rather than external rewards such as grades or later competitive advantage” (p. 14), and

thus leads to intuitive and analytical thinking among learners.

Constructivists believe that rote memorization does not lead to conceptual

understanding or application of new concepts and skills; thus, students' current

paradigm is used to solve new problems and to create a new paradigm, which improves

the cognitive structure that can be applied to real life settings (Fosnot, 1996).

Constructivism is a “psychological theory of learning that describes how structure and

deep conceptual understanding come about” (Fosnot, 1996). According to Fosnot

(1996), constructivists theorize learning as an interpretative and reflective process

conducted by active learners interacting with both the physical and social world. Fosnot

(1996) describes constructivism as “both what knowing is and how one comes to know.”

Zwaal and Otting (2010) conducted research in a hospitality management school

with a fully integrated PBL curriculum, and observed the problem-solving skills of their

students. “In problem-based learning (PBL), constructive, collaborative, contextual and

self-directed learning is promoted by having small groups work on authentic tasks,

facilitated by a tutor.” (p. 17). They found that the PBL groups differed with regard to
15

time spent on tasks and the quality of performing the different steps of the afore-

mentioned seven-step method from Barrows and Tamblyn (1980). Apparently, the

students spent minimal time on step 4, which showed a lack of conceptualizing. During

Step 4, students in the PBL group are expected to draw a conceptual model as a

representation of their analysis and common understanding of the problem and as a

roadmap for further study. Introducing concept mapping as a tool to enhance both the

performance of this step and the quality of the PBL process is recommended (Novak,

1998).

However, the use of a tutor still left areas for improvement – their results showed

that tutors seemed to focus more on task-related interventions and less on group

dynamics. More attention to the learning processes and group dynamics could improve

the quality of learning and problem solving in PBL groups. One of the recurring aspects

of the personal development of teachers in our university is training of tutors in PBL.

Students rated the performance of the tutor well above the midpoint of the scale,

indicating that they were generally satisfied with the functioning of the tutors. (Zwaal &

Otting, 2010)

Constructivism does not promote regurgitating a wide array of facts and figures; it

promotes an in depth understanding of a centralized topic. It is a student-centered

theory, but it does not diminish the role of the teacher. The teacher becomes a facilitator

of instruction, not a disseminator or lecturer of facts and figures. In other words, the

teacher’s role is to “guide, focus, suggest, lead and continually evaluate the progress”

(Marlowe & Page, 1998, p. 11). In PBL, the teacher is a facilitator of instruction.

Constructivism is not rejecting the teaching of standards in an effort to placate students’

16

interest; rather, it is finding what interests students and capitalizing on that interest to

design an instructional plan for reaching predetermined outcomes.

According to Brooks and Brooks (1993), teachers design tasks in an environment

that allows students to question, internalize and reshape, or transform new information.

A constructivist teacher may engage students in a field trip to a hotel or restaurant

where they can interact with actual hotel or restaurant personnel; he/she may

encourage students to explore problems of practice, or he/she may create projects that

require students to interact with each other. In PBL, the teacher encourages the

students to explore problems of practice and create projects that require students to

interact with each other.

Group work and presentations by themselves are not automatically constructivist

methods. The group has to use each other’s opinions, knowledge, and questions to

formulate new ideas and concepts. They must synthesize the material to formulate a

new paradigm. Within a constructivist framework, students will have an opportunity to

link their experience and share individual self-expressions of conceptual knowledge in a

collaborative setting. In PBL, the students use each other’s opinions, ideas, and

knowledge to formulate new ideas and concepts.

The purpose, the context, and the goal of the instructional activities are what

constitute constructivist action. The theory asserts that as students formulate meaning

and interact with the environment, objects, and people around them, they are also

receiving cues that affect their further processing. Cues are indications that new

information is being processed, such as a difference in texture or color after an

experiment, questions, comments, or information that causes the students to make new
17

links between prior knowledge and a new construct. The cues may come from the

teacher’s reaction to how the students interact, peers’ and students’ personal reflection,

and this could result in a change of direction, change in understanding or even change

in students’ responses. These cues in themselves become formative assessments that

occur during instruction and the learning process. Constructivist teachers believe that

assessment is a continuous part of the learning process, which transforms their

instruction; thus, assessment serves as an essential element within their instruction

(Kugel, Mass, 1995, as cited by Marlowe & Page, 1998).

It is important to note that constructivist classrooms do not all look the same or

follow a predetermined plan or schema. One common thread of constructivist

classrooms is that the teacher works to support and facilitate instruction rather than

dictate and control it. Constructivism is not a teaching method; however, it is important

to illustrate this definition of constructivism in terms of what constructivism might look

like in a PBL educational setting. The constructivist theory includes questioning,

investigating, inquiry, problem generating and problem solving. The PBL strategies

employed in this study areas follows: the students will be given four problems and

asked to identify the problems, define the desired outcomes, research and investigate

the problems, provide possible solutions, provide pros and cons and prioritized

solutions, select the solutions that best meet the desired outcomes, and reflect. The

students will work collaboratively on the case study problems and will be supported to

engage in task-oriented dialogue with one another. The students will be routinely asked

to apply knowledge in diverse and authentic contexts, to explain ideas, interpret texts,
18

predict phenomena, and construct arguments based on evidence rather than focus on

the right answer.

Limitations of the Study

The following are the limitations of this study:

1. Small sample size, limited to the number of students registered in the course.

2. A sample of convenience was used.

3. The participants in the study had little to no prior experience with the problem

based learning instructional strategy.

4. Participants were predominantly white females

5. The pre- and post-MER survey were self-reported

6. The study lasted only 16 weeks.

Delimitations

The following are the delimitations of this study:

1. The participants were students recruited from a Midwestern university in the

U.S.

2. The participants were juniors and seniors in the Hospitality Program.

3. The participants’ responses came only from the course.

4. The study lasted one semester in a 3-credit course.

Assumptions of the Study

The following are the assumptions of this study:

1. Students learn collaboratively.

2. Students are interested in the material of the course.

19

3. Students’ responses are spontaneous.

4. The instructor facilitating this study has sufficient prior experience in PBL.

5. Students participated and completed all instruments to the best of their ability.

Definition of Terms

Active Learning- It involves providing opportunities for students meaningfully to talk and

listen, write, read, and reflect on the content, ideas, issues, and concerns of an

academic subject (Myer & Jones, 1993).

Collaborative Learning- Learners working together as a team to solve a problem,

complete a task, or accomplish a common goal

Communication Skills- Abilities that influence a participant’s perception of individuals

and build interpersonal relationships (Asher and Gazelle, 1999; Gallagher, 1991).

Constructivism- A theoretical learning approach, that humans construct their learning by

building new knowledge upon previous learning. The two concepts involved in this

theory are that students construct new knowledge from prior knowledge and that

learning is active instead of passive (Hoover, 2003).

Critical Thinking- The intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully

conceptualizing, applying, synthesizing, and or evaluating information gathered from

observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief

and action. “In its exemplary form, it is based on universal values that transcend subject

matter division and clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence,

good reason, depth, breadth, and fairness” (Scriven & Paul, 1992).
20

Employer - Organization that employs graduates in the hospitality Industry.

Hospitality Industry - For profit or nonprofit organization providing food and beverage,

lodging and entertainment (Kotler, Bowen, & Makens, 1999).

Ill-structured problem-Unresolved problems that students will generate not just multiple

thoughts about the cause of the problems, but multiple thoughts on how to resolve it.

Such problems may not have a single correct answer and should engage students in

exploration of multiple solutions.

Leadership Skills- Boyer (1995) described leadership skills as abilities to get others

involved into problem solving, to recognize when a group requires direction to interact

with a group effectively, and to guide them to accomplish a task.

Life-Long Learning- Incorporating learning process into everyday life is needed to

succeed in a rapidly changing environment. Lindeman’s (1961) philosophy that

education is life revolves around the notion that learning is infinite.

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) - A student-centered instructional method using the

presentation of real-life situational problems to a tutorial group in order to solve the

problem (Spencer, 1999; Barrow, 1986).

Rubric- Is a systematic scoring guideline to evaluate students’ performance through the

use of a detailed description of performance standards.

Self-Directed Learning- Is a process that individuals take to initiate ownership for their

own development and learning on self-directed basis (Knowles, 1998).

21

Traditional Lecture- “A process by which the notes of a teacher become the notes of a

student without passing the minds of either” (a cynical view of the definition by O’Donell,

1997)

Abbreviations

AECC- Accounting Education Change Commission

CCTST- California Critical Thinking Skills Test

C&E- Controlling & Evaluation

F- Female (For example, F2 refers to Female participant 2)

F&B- Food & Beverage

GE- Guest Experience

HTA- Hospitality and Tourism Administration

M- Male (For example, M2 refers to Male participant 2)

MER- Measure of Epistemological Reflection

PBL- Problem-Based Learning

SDSU- San Diego State University

SHM- Strategic Hospitality Management

22

Summary

One of the goals of Hospitality Management programs is to equip

undergraduates with competencies to make a transition from the classroom to the

industry. There is a concern that some of the Hospitality graduates are not well

equipped with relevant skills to meet the demands of the industry’s job market.

Graduates lack competencies such as problem solving, critical thinking, working in

teams, financial skills, communication skills, customer feedback skills, cultural

sensitivity, conceptual skills, adaptive leadership skills, system-wide computer skills and

ethical awareness. The traditional lecture approach has been used to transmit

knowledge, but the approach has not solved the core problem. A more student-centered

approach has to be taken if we wish to develop the skills demanded of the industry’s

workforce.
23

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Problem-Based Learning Origins and Description

Problem-Based Learning (PBL), originally developed in McMaster University’s

Medical School (Barrow, 1960), has expanded to basically all subject areas of education

and all levels from elementary to higher education (Dawson, Lalopa & McDonald, 2002;

Lee, 2003; Titz, 2012; Tonts, 2011). PBL was introduced in the late 1960s as a result of

research conducted by Barrows to resolve problems associated with medical education.

“Medical students were having difficulty applying their pre-clinical knowledge to practice

situations; as a consequence, the students were unable to correctly diagnose patients’

problems and symptoms"(Dawson & Titz, 2012, p.67). PBL has received wide-spread

recognition in the medical field (Lee, 2003; Dawson & Titz, 2012; Walker& Leary, 2009).

The success in medical school PBL is now used across several disciplines.

In the field of hospitality, the graduates have to be able to deal with daily

problems, such as customer complaints. The students are taught eight steps to solve

these complaints: 1. Stay calm, 2. Listen carefully, 3. Empathize, 4. Avoid becoming

defensive, 5. Never ignore a dissatisfied guest, 6. Accept responsibility, and 7. Work to

find solution, 8. Follow-up (Kotschevar & Valentino, 1996).

Research on the incorporation of PBL in hospitality classrooms has been sparse,

with the studies limited to content knowledge and with little focus on skills that

employers are looking for in successful graduates. In PBL, students are presented with

a real-world problem and are challenged to seek solutions to the problem. The major

difference between PBL and the traditional lecture is that in PBL the content is
24

introduced in the context of real world problems, while in traditional lecture, the content

precedes end-of-chapter problems.

The pioneer of Problem Based Learning (PBL) research in education was William

Kilpatrick (1918). Dewey (1944) emphasized that the PBL model was the connection

among doing, thinking, and learning. According to Bonwell and Eison (1991), Problem-

Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional strategy of “active learning.” PBL can be

described as “an instructional strategy in which students confront contextualized, ill-

structured problems and strive to find meaningful solutions” (Rhem, 1989, p. 3).

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an approach to learning that involves confronting

students with real-life problems that provide a stimulus for critical thinking (Rhem, 1989,

p. 3). It will serve as the conceptual framework of this study:

"The students engage in inquiry-based questions, design investigations, gather

and analyze data, construct explanations and arguments in light of empirical evidence,

communicate their findings, and make connections among ideas” (Dawson &Titz, 2012,

p.68). Hospitality students need to have an integrated body of knowledge and should

develop management skills relevant to their future professions.

The method of Problem-Based Learning has received positive reviews by

educators for the following reasons: for improving the students’ level of motivation

making their education more student centered, improving their independent learning,

stimulating integration of their discipline, and promoting life-long learning. Learning in a

problem based learning curriculum can be characterized as contextual, collaborative,

self-directed, and constructive, and aims at further cognitive and social learning (de

Boer &Otting, 2011; Ferreira, 2012; Hanson, 2006; Taylor & Miflin, 2008). According to
25

Fisher and Lynagh (2005), PBL is seen as more democratic and humanistic; the

individual's voice is valued, and students are no longer silent receptors of knowledge

from their superiors.

Lalopa and McDonald’s (2002) study found that writing on higher order thinking

also alludes to problem-based learning. Grounded in the 1980s, when thinking skills

began to be emphasized, the model of problem solving teaches students to think

inductively and deductively (p.37). PBL can foster students to think critically and to solve

complex problems, to find and use learning resources, and to work in teams, to use

effective communication skills and to become continued learners (Fisher & Lynagh,

2000; Hansen, 2006; Tonts, 2011). PBL uses problems that the students will face in the

real world to motivate them to research the concepts and ideas they need to know in

order to solve these problems. The students will then work in teams to communicate

and gather information.

The main goals are to help students think critically, to analyze and solve real-

world problems. In other words, the PBL approach involves students as active,

independent learners and as problem solvers in a team-based collaborative learning

environment (Chiriac, 2008; Hansen, 2006; SDSU, n.d.). PBL consists of several

defining attributes: problems are context specific; learning is guided by challenging

open-ended problems with no single “right answer”; students work as self-directed,

active learners and problem solvers in small groups; instructors take the role as

facilitators of learning, guiding and promoting an environment of inquiry, and the

problem is identified and a solution is agreed upon and implemented.

26

Problem-Based Learning Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of the present study is the process of PBL, which

includes multiple possible solutions. The problem in PBL must be ill-structured and

allow for free inquiry so students can think more in depth and not look for a single

solution. Problems in the real world are ill-structured (or they would not be problems). Ill-

structured problems are unresolved problems about which students will generate

multiple thoughts about the cause of the problems, as well as on how to solve them

(Barrow, 2002). Such problems may not have a single correct answer and should

engage students in the exploration of multiple solution paths (Hmelo-Sailver & Barrow,

2006). When a problem is well structured, the learners are less motivated and less

invested in the development of the solution. "The activities carried out in PBL must be

those valued in the real world" (Savery, 2006, p.14).

As cited by San Diego State University (n.d.), generating the proper questions is

the most critical aspect of PBL. Without problems that encompass specific objectives

where students must find their way to reach the solution, there is a good chance that

important information will not be studied. It has been speculated that if students divert

from their anticipated direction during their solution generation, they may completely

miss the main content if not re-directed by their instructor.

The small group provides a supportive environment for students’ discussion of

the problem and strategies to reach a final solution. The success of the group rests on

factors such as the role and expectations of group members, the number of students in

the group, face to face interaction, and the facilitator. Amos and White (1998) suggested

a minimum of four students per group for problem solving. Studies by Bovee, 2000;
27

Hwang & Kim, 2006 and Nilson, 2003 support these suggestions. Group interaction

varies among different studies of the problem-solving process. The amount of time

varies from one day a week to two days a week for six hours (Amos & White, 1998;

Hwang & Kim, 2006; Otting, 2001). However, in other studies, students met once every

other week, giving little time for interaction and instructor’s feedback, causing a

challenge in the success and progress of the problem-solving process. The instructor’s

role during small groups is that of a facilitator, the students are active, not passive

learners; thus, the process is student centered. The facilitator guides and facilitates

critical thinking and asks questions that require students to elaborate, justify, and

provide a rational for their decisions.

PBL Characteristics

American physician and medical educator Howard Barrows (1928-2011) was

instrumental in showing that students learn more from “hypothetical-deductive

reasoning processes and expert knowledge” (Savery, 2006, p. 10) than from mere

paper and pencil tests, and introduced simulated patients for medical students to work

with. His basic research was focused on clinical reasoning processes. PBL

characteristics as defined by Barrows (2006) include:

Student centered

Student-centered strategies are those in which the learners determine what they

need to learn. It is up to the learners to derive the key issues of the problem in question,

define their knowledge gaps, and probe and acquire the missing knowledge. An

expectation exists for the learners to take an active part in planning, organizing and
28

conducting their own learning within a group framework. The instructor’s role is that of a

facilitator guiding and promoting inquiry, “guide on the side” rather than a “sage on the

stage.” The learners are responsible for what they need to learn and for their learning

(Barrow, 2002; Hmelo-Silver & Barrow, 2006; Walker & Leary, 2009).

Ill-Structured

The problems found in a real-world situation are ill structured. The problems are

presented as unresolved so that students can generate not just multiple thoughts about

the cause of the problem, but multiple thoughts on how to solve the problem. These

problems may not have a simple correct answer and will engage students in exploring

multiple solution paths. The purpose of the problem is to encourage students’

development and skills of effective and efficient reasoning (Barrow, 2002; Hmelo-Silver

& Barrow, 2006, Walker & Leary, 2009).

Self-Directed

Self-directed strategies are those where students choose what they want to learn

based on their efforts to solve the problems. Reiterative- After active learning (in order

to find information and knowledge to solve problems), they step back from the problems

and apply their new learning to the problems (Barrow, 2002; Savery, 2006).

Collaborative

This strategy is when students work collaboratively to solve problems and try to

recognize learning issues. Graduates will find themselves in jobs where they need to

share information and work productively with others. PBL provides a format to develop

these skills (Barrow, 2002; Savery, 2006).

29

Self-Reflecting / Self-Monitoring

Self-reflecting or self-monitoring occurs after the problem is solved, students self-

reflect on their learning. Learning activities consist of comparing new problems with old

ones, engaging in reflection based on their preparation for facing the same problem in

the future and drawing concepts maps to show relationships between each element in

the problems (Barrow, 2002; Barrow, 1996; Walker & Leary, 2009). Students monitor

their own achievement and evaluate their own progress. The self-monitoring can come

from feedback from the instructor, peers, and other evaluations.

Authentic

Authentic learning forms the basis of problem selection embodied by alignment

to real-world practice. All behaviors embraced in PBL are steps acquired by students as

they evaluate real world problems in the future.

The literature reveals specific benefits claimed for the PBL approach, which

includes students being able to construct new knowledge when they relate to what they

already know, and an emphasis on meaning, not on facts (Bransford & McCarrell, 1997;

Doig & Werner, 2000; Huang, 2005; Vernon & Blake, 1993). In this approach, students

develop effective problem-solving skills, have deep understanding of issues, think

critically, and have a higher comprehension level, and will be intrinsically motivated and

become active learners (Ferreira, & Trudel, 2012; Folodner, 1993; Huang, 2005; Jones

& Turner, 2006; Tonts, 2011, Lalopa & McDonald, 2002; Mohamed & Gabr, 2011;

Pawson et al., 2006; Titz & Dawson 2012; Bandura, 1997; Chiriac, 2007; Dweck, 1991;

Vernon & Blake, 1993).

30

Learning and knowledge creation in problem-based learning takes place in small

groups. When students emphasized social interaction in knowledge discussions in

areas that were crucial to effective learning, it led to better retention, understanding,

integration, and application of knowledge (Chiriac, 2008;Savery, 2006). Social

interaction is very important in work life as very few people work in isolation. PBL

incorporates collaborative teams in solving problems. This approach promotes

interaction and teamwork, thereby enhancing students’ interpersonal skills (Dawson

&Titz, 2012; Lee, 2011; Steinert, 2004; Wolfe & Gould, 2001). With PBL, students

cannot "hide" in a lecture hall. Individual students interact with their classmates.

Students become effective collaborators, have the ability to function in teams, are able

to establish common ground, are able to resolve discrepancies, and are able to

negotiate the action (Barron, 2002; Chiriac, 2007; Ferreiro&Trudel, 2012; Huang, 2005;

Lee, 2003; Savery, 2006; Tonts, 2011; Vernon, 1995; Wolfe, & Gould 2001).

As noted by Dawson and Titz, "self-directed learning involves students taking

responsibility for acquiring the knowledge and skills identified as needed in the problem

phase in PBL" (p. 69). In PBL, students pursue solutions to the problem, thereby

assuming increased responsibility for their learning. The students use self-selected

resources, example journals, and on-line searches, which makes them more competent

in information seeking. The students enjoyed the sense of control they experienced

when working together to find solutions to the problem they were trying to solve. This

self-directed learning must be applied back to the problem with reanalysis and

resolution. Students develop self-directed, life-long learning skills (Chiriac, 2007;

31

Duncan, Lyons, & Nakeeh, 2007; Lee, 2003; Otting, & deBoer, 2011; Savery, 2006;

Thomas & Chan, 2002; Tonts, 2011; Vernon & Blake, 1993).

However, PBL is not without its critics. Literature reveals that the transition to

PBL is not only difficult for faculty, but also is a big change for students. PBL requires

more time, and requires students to be responsible and independent learners. Not all

teachers can be good facilitators; they need training. Assessing students in teamwork is

a common issue for group assessment. According to Barrow and Tamblyn (1980), PBL

students cannot really know what might be important for them to learn, especially in

areas where they have no prior experience, and teachers adopting this approach may

not be able to cover as much material as in a conventional lecture approach.

"The experience of PBL can be stressful for student and faculty and

implementation of PBL may be unrealistically costly" (Colliver, 2000; p.69). In addition,

PBL can also make it difficult for students to communicate findings and perform self-

studies, as well as getting used to the change from a teacher-centered perspective

towards a repositioning of oneself as a director of one's own learning. (deBoer & Otting,

2011). Other weaknesses of PBL include the experience of PBL can be stressful for

tutors, students, and teachers (Colliver, 2000; Duncan, Lyons & Al-Nakeeb, 2007) and

the students’ ability to tackle problems without adequate prior learning can be a problem

(Newman, 2004; Tonts, 2011). Also, implementation can be very expensive, needing a

wider range of resources as well as being labor intensive and requiring a greater time

commitment (Colliver, 2000; Duncan, Lyons, & Al-Nakeeb). Finally, students’ conflict

with teams sometimes requires the instructor’s intervention (Lee, 2003).

32

An additional negative is students being unsure of the knowledge and how much

self-directed study to do as well as what information to collect (Duncan, Lyons, Al-

Nakeeb; 2007; Huang, 2005). The process of transition from dependence to

independent learners can be difficult for teacher and students; the teacher may be

unwilling to give up control, and the students may have difficulty in changing from

dependent learning practices (Tonts, 2011). Most students believe that their teacher is

the expert in the field and the main disseminator of knowledge. With this perception,

students tend to depend on the teacher and to be passive learners, not really interested

in actively solving problems on their own. As a result, these students have lost the

ability to simply wonder about something. This is especially seen in the first year

students who often encounter difficulties with self-directed learning." (SDSU, n.d., p.12).

Problem-Based Learning Categories

Barrow (1986) described the following categories of PBL:

i. Case-based lectures involve students receiving background information on a

case to study prior to the lecture.

ii. In the case method, students receive complete details on a case to study and

research before coming to class. The instructor, acting as a tutor, facilitates class

discussion in analyzing the case.

iii. For modified case-based PBL, students receive partial details on a case and,

after class discussion, choose from a limited number of inquiry actions or

decisions. The list of inquiry actions and decisions may be generated by the

class or provided by the instructor. Students then receive additional information

on the case, and further discussion ensues.

33

iv. In problem-based cases, students may be presented with a simulated patient.

The students evaluate the patient’s signs and symptoms, generate hypotheses,

and decide what additional information is needed. The instructor facilitates the

class exploration of the problem.

v. Closed-loop problem-based cases involve students completing a problem-based

case and undertaking self-directed study. They return to the problem as it was

initially presented and evaluate their prior reasoning and knowledge and the

information sources used.

In their work, Problem-Based Learning – An Approach to Medical Education,

Barrows and Tamblyn (1980) described a rationale for and definition of PBL. They

stated that PBL should explain the clinical reasoning process with regard to problem-

solving in medicine, list the educational implications, talk about facilitating self-directed

study in problem-based learning, evaluate the problem-based learning process, select

appropriate problems, and design problem-based learning units. The researchers

summarize the PBL procedure as follows:

· The problem is encountered

· The problem situation is presented to students as in the real world

· The student works with the problem using the ability to reason and apply

knowledge to be evaluated appropriate to the level of learning

· Needed areas of learning are identified

· The skills and knowledge acquired by this study are applied back to the problem,

to evaluate the effectiveness of learning and to reinforce learning

34

Hospitality Problem-Based Learning

As Mayburry and Swanger (2011) stated, hospitality education before 1950

concentrated on skills training. In the meantime, the industry has seen tremendous

growth in size and complexity, which gave rise to different types of hospitality programs

in U.S. colleges. In addition, changes in work environment, increased competition, a

demanding and increasingly sophisticated clientele, advances in technology, and the

changing expectations of investors, employers, and employees have profoundly

impacted on education and training.

According to Raybould and Wilkins (2006), the hospitality industry needs

employees who are able to cope with a rapidly changing environment. Therefore,

hospitality students are expected to be multi-skilled to allow them to be creative, flexible,

and adaptable to opportunities and challenges confronting them. Computer technology

nowadays enables students to simulate real-life events in hospitality settings and work

on case studies. Martin and McEvoy (2001) mentioned that the rapid developments in

and sophistication of computer technology has increased the possibility of simulating

real world situations in a classroom environment.

In addition to technological changes, globalization necessitates a revamping of

hospitality education, so hospitality students can extend their service beyond the

boundaries of the U.S. Recently, globalization of the market, growth in technology, and

cultural diversity have become important factors affecting the needs of hospitality

graduates (Whitelaw, Barron, Buultjeans, Cairncross, & Davidson, 2009.)” (Sisson &

Adams, 2013). At the Spartan Hospitality Educators Summit Hilton Lecture Series XII

from September 6-7, 2001, a forum discussed the new market demands with regard to
35

globalization. They agreed that globalization enlists many different meanings in

hospitality education ranging from adding a little international discourse to a course via

lecture, a few readings, cursory discussions or assignments. They also state students

need to be immersed in rigorous specialized international programs and overseas

experiences.

Hospitality studies have used tutorials, industry challenge, and wizard modules.

However, these studies mainly focused on content knowledge. Hence, this study

attempts to fill the gap in the literature by exploring critical thinking, problem solving,

perception, attitude, and disposition.

Challenges to the industry were presented in an article titled, “Problem-based

learning: Providing students the opportunity to solve real-world industry problems in the

safety of the classroom” by Lalopa and McDonald (2002). In order to understand the

problem better, their students were allowed to ask the owner/manager questions. They

began their preliminary PBL work on the problem to comprehend the nature of the

problem, e. g. one team reasoned a particular problem due to inadequate training;

another team saw it as ineffective advertising. The industry professionals stayed around

for the remainder of the class to answer questions students had pertaining to the

problem the business was experiencing, and to explain what had been done to solve

the problem. The students defined the problem, and researched information. The

instructor became the “guide on the side” as opposed to the “sage on the stage”. The

industry professionals were invited back to the class, and the students held

presentations and proposed solutions. The industry professionals evaluated the

proposals based on their criteria, and picked a winner. Students analyzed the legal
36

aspects of hypothetical situations concerning (1) three students injured in falls in a high

school cafeteria, (2) a restaurant employee who was raped in the parking lot where she

was required to park, (3) a physically disabled child who was injured at a hotel play

area, and (4) a gambler who jumped to his death from the roof of a casino hotel.

Barth and Hayes (2009) mentioned more sample scenarios for the hospitality

classroom, mostly dealing with natural catastrophes and unforeseen emergencies.

When students deal with such simulated problems, they can do so in the safety of their

classrooms, without being thrown into the field yet. They can learn about measures,

procedures, and the correct protocol to follow, in case such situations arise one day in

real life, without being endangered themselves during their studies.

Furthermore, the students learn with the help of simulated scenarios in which

cases they are allowed to refuse service to a guest. According to the Federal Civil

Rights Act of 1964, hospitality establishments cannot “deny any person admission to a

facility of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

(Barth & Hayes, 2009, p. 288) State and local civil rights laws have extended this list to

include age, marital status, and sexual orientation. The students, however, need to

know that they are allowed to refuse service to guests in the following cases: 1. The

potential guest is unable to pay for the service, 2. The guest has a readily

communicable disease, 3. The guest wants to bring a prohibited item, such as a

weapon, into the facilities, 4. The guest is intoxicated, 5. The guest presents a threat to

employees or other guests, 6. The person does not want to become a guest, 7. The

guest is too young (cannot make a contract due to being a minor), 8. The facility is full.

(Barth & Hayes, 2009, pp. 289-291)

37

According to Lee’s (2003) study, the tutorial module used in PBL has been found

to be effective in presenting such sample cases. An undergraduate student who has

already completed a course can serve effectively as a tutor in subsequent semesters,

provided a faculty member gives the student ample guidance. Students are given cases

that will stimulate critical thinking, and that have been used in Hospitality education, e.g.

creating an entirely new hotel (Norman, 1997), establishing a new food and beverage

outlet (Tse, 1997), dealing with a restaurant that has lagging sales, and employee theft

problems (Cushman, Dilly, & Gould, 1997/1998). The tutor’s responsibility is to stimulate

the learning process of students and to encourage cooperation between them. The tutor

observes the activities of the group, asks questions, and gives advice about the way the

group is functioning. The intervention of the tutor can make a significant difference

between the success and failure of the PBL process.

According to Lee’s (2003) study, the wizard students ask questions of the wizard

by sending email messages to the instructor’s email address. When the students are

stumped on a part of an assignment, the wizard provides advice. The intent is to help

the students realize they are not attempting the impossible in their problem-solving

tasks, and to help them to the point of giving them the complete answers to their

questions. The wizard also adds some levity to the situation.

Each Hospitality PBL module follows the group problem solving steps: Clarify

and agree on working definitions and any unclear understanding of concepts; define the

problem using your own terminology; analyze the problem and brainstorm ideas;

arrange the ideas into possible explanations or hypothesis; generate and prioritize

learning objectives; research the learning objectives; present the research to the group;
38

synthesize explanations; apply new information to develop a solution; reflect; evaluate;

and review students' learning objectives.

The tutorial and wizard cases were used in the present study. The tutorial

module was used first, as it has been found to be most effective according to Lee’s

study (2003). The wizard module was used second as the instructor is an expert in the

field and thus can answer any questions the tutor cannot answer. The modules used in

this study followed the Hospitality PBL group problem steps.

For PBL to be authentic in Hospitality-based courses tasks must be derived from

or be directly related to the context of the professional practice, thus, three items are

used as indicators: "The task is derived from the Hospitality industry; task is Hospitality

specific and the task addresses relevant issues from the Hospitality industry" (Otting,

2011, p.7). Tasks that are derived from or directly related to the context of the

professional practice are authentic. These tasks address students in their role as

beginning practitioners in the Hospitality industry.

Real-Life Cases of Lack of Work Readiness in Hospitality Graduates

A survey of real-life incidents in the hospitality setting shows multiple areas in

which hospitality graduates lacked work readiness. Those include racial discrimination,

sexual discrimination and accommodations for guests with disabilities, customer

service, and ethics. The following cases were described in the conference paper

“Hospitality Case Review: The Top 100+ Cases that Impacted Us This Past Year,”

presented February 11-13, 2008 at the Sixth Annual Hospitality Law Conference in

Houston, Texas. There were scenarios in which hospitality staff racially discriminated

against guests. For example, a patron filed a claim against a café alleging racial
39

discrimination due to inappropriate actions of the restaurant owner. The court

determined that patron did show evidence that the restaurant owner intentionally

discriminated against him and awarded the patron $5,000 in compensatory damages

and $5,000 in punitive damages. (Morris & Barber, 2008).

Many cases of sexual harassment and discrimination are also noted; in some

instances, hospitality staff violated the anti-fraternization policy, which prohibits

employees of the same restaurant from maintaining a personal relationship (p. 10). Very

unprofessional behavior of hospitality staff is noted in cases of gay-bashing; in a lodge,

a plaintiff sued for sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation and was awarded

$1,395,000 and $155,000 respectively. The Plaintiff alleged that his supervisor and the

kitchen manager made daily jokes and sexual remarks using highly offensive words

about women employees and directed graphic “gay-bashing”. He advised his supervisor

asking him to stop the unprofessional remarks, but the supervisor crumpled up the

document and threw it at him. Plaintiff and a female employee went to the HR director,

who said he would investigate, but Plaintiff never heard from him regarding this

complaint. (Morris & Barber, 2008).

Furthermore, hotel managers were reported to have acted unethically with regard

to pregnant employees, whom they terminated. A striking incident occurred in 2007 at

the Budget Suites of America, where “[t]he senior vice president allegedly stated that

women are not suitable for managerial positions since they miss too much work when

they become pregnant” (Morris & Barber, 2008, p. 13), and demoted a pregnant

regional manager a few days later. She sued and was awarded back pay and punitive

damages by the district court in Texas.

40

With regard to accommodations for people with disabilities, in 2007, a Waffle

Shop was cited for non-compliance when it was “required to make certain modifications

to its facilities by a specified date to enable access by wheelchair patrons” (p. 5). Civil

contempt proceedings started when the work was not completed on time, but the claim

was dismissed because the restaurant moved consistently toward completion of this

task.

Most complaints in the hospitality setting seem to concern customer service. In

Tableservice Restauarant Trends (1993, by the National Restaurant Association), it was

found that 49% of the guests complained about the service, 12% about the food, 11%

about the atmosphere, and 28% about other things. (Kotschevar & Luciani, 1996, p. 43)

Customer service includes providing a safe and clean environment; cases of negligence

were recorded, such as the following, in which a fall occurred in 2007: a guest had

slipped on a piece of lettuce on a stairway of a restaurant.

One of the employees who came to her aid after the fall apologized for the

lettuce and Plaintiff overheard the employee telling the hostess that they should

have cleaned up the stair. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied

and the court stated that the repeated comment allegedly made by the hostess

was admissible and it could be reasonably inferred from her duty of seating

guests that it was within the scope of her employment to notify another employee

of unsafe conditions. (Morris & Barber, 2008).

All these scenarios would constitute excellent sample cases for hospitality

students to work on in their classrooms in the context of PBL implementation, so that

they become acquainted with handling customer complaints and ethical behavior alike.
41

Problem-Based Learning Implementation

There are various factors involved with the implementation of PBL, and they

include the number of students per group, interaction time, the role of the facilitator, and

the problem, which can create a challenge when deciding how to best implement PBL.

The implementation of PBL will include "[s]etting the climate, connecting with the

problem, setting up the structure, visiting the problem, revisiting the problem, producing

a product or performance, evaluating the performance" (Ferreira & Trudel, 2012; Taylor

& Miflin, 2008). In PBL, the instructor focuses on questioning students’ logic, providing

hints to correcting erroneous student reasoning, providing resources for student

research, and keeping students on task. This new role will be foreign to some

instructors, and they may have difficulty overcoming past habits of being in charge and

in control of the class.

Assessment of Critical Thinking

PBL provides students with the opportunity to be active participants in the

learning process and to develop critical thinking skills. Students research a vast amount

of information, then develop reasoning skills and critical thinking skills to apply the

knowledge to a specific problem, as in studies by Amos and White, 1998; Dawson and

Titz, 2012; Huang, 2005; and Otting, 2010.

The California Critical Thinking Skill Test (CCTST) measures critical thinking

skills by testing the ability to analyze, evaluate, infer, induce, deduce, and reason when

faced with a problem. PBL research in Hospitality management may benefit using the

CCTST as it requires the ability to make decisions based on a cognitive foundation.

42

Literature suggests that critical thinking leads to higher order thinking skills among

students, which is essential in problem solving (Gabr and Mohamed, 2011; Huang,

2005; Juremi, 2003; Otting, 2010). Gabr and Mohamed’s (2011) study on the effect of

problem-based learning on undergraduate nursing students enrolled in Nursing

Administration courses revealed that PBL students reported it promoted their critical

thinking and their interaction with individuals, and fostered active group participation.

Problem-Based Learning Assessment

Before launching a PBL learning approach in a course, plans must be set for

student assessment. Assessment methods could include written examination, written

reports, concepts maps, peer assessment, self-assessment, facilitator assessment,

case studies, and/or oral presentation.

A review of the literature (DeWet, Veldman, Bower, and Mokhele, 2008; Duncan,

Lyons, and Al-Nakeeb, 2007; Elizondo-Montemyor, 2004) reveals the inadequacy of

traditional assessment methods in the context of PBL. To be competence driven,

assessment methods must integrate knowledge, skills and include teacher, self- and

peer assessment (Savin-Baden, 2004; Seger and Dochy, 2001). In contrast to these

statements, however, other researchers have voiced their concern with self- and peer

assessment due to biases, such as “friendship-marking” (Dochy et al.1999), and the

disruption of social relations among peers.

Likewise, Montemayo’s study (2004) showed that self-assessment had a

formative way to get students to reflect on their abilities, performance, and attitude, but

had no summative value. Peer assessment had no summative value; it fostered

reflection by students on how their classmates assessed their performance.

43

Other researchers prefer written reports to peer assessment. Written report

assessments have been cited as developing important practical skills, especially when a

small word count is used (Macdonald & Savin-Baden, 2003). These reports require

students to engage in scenarios presented to them and provide a practically based

solution to the problem.

Examination questions involve a series of problem-based scenarios. Students

are required to reapply concepts that have previously been used to solve problems. The

examination includes short responses to problems that examine students’ application of

knowledge to real-life situations, also including their ability to evaluate and select

information and reason behind solutions to problem scenario questions.

Macdonald and Savin-Baden (2003) recommended a number of guidelines for

assessment in PBL. Assessment should be based in practice context (i.e., what the

students did to solve the problem) and it should assess some process based activity

(i.e., how they used particular procedures and methods). They believed that students

should experience working with clients, peers, or people in a professional capacity, and

there should be alignment between objectives, learning outcomes, and teaching

methods.

Criteria for grading must be presented to the students at the beginning of the

course in order to assess the students’ ability to provide knowledge, and also to assess

students’ acquisition of practical skills, their engagement, collection of practical

information, data from clients, and students’ ability to evaluate the way they came to the

solution. In order to achieve a valid formative and summative assessment, criteria for

each PBL objective must be identified. In PBL, the tool to evaluate students is known as
44

a rubric. “A rubric is a scoring guide to evaluate students’ performance through the use

of a detailed description of performance standards.” (Lane and Cauley, 2001).

Macdonald and Savin-Baden (2004) state that assessment in PBL primarily

needs to focus on how students integrate the whole learning process as distinct from

what has actually been learned. In most cases, student learning is significantly

influenced by the assessment methods used, but if the assessment methods rely

entirely on recalling facts, then PBL is unlikely to succeed. To assess students’ PBL

skills, written reports and presentations will be used (Macdonald and Savin-Baden,

2003). Also, assessment is done by having the students self-assess their decisions, and

a crucial instrument for this is the Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER). There

has been growing recognition in research about student learning that students’

epistemologies play an important role in helping them to construct knowledge.

Epistemology is the study of students’ responses to their views and beliefs about how

knowledge is constructed and evaluated. As part of the present study, students were

given the MER questionnaire developed by Baxter-Magolda and Porterfield (1982) to

respond to their opinions or choices in understanding perspectives on learning.

Hospitality Problem-Based Learning Studies’ Findings

According to hospitality studies by Dawson and Titz (2012), the development of

students’ competencies cannot sufficiently be brought about by traditional approaches

to education that just focus on reproduction of knowledge applied to an existing

situation. Savin-Baden’s study (2000) reveals that PBL offers Hospitality students the

opportunity to think critically and link learning with their own interests and motivations. It

helps students learn in the context of “real life,” where they must focus on the
45

investigations they are undertaking. Ross’ (2003) study’s results are similar to Savin-

Baden’s study’s (2000), which reveals that problem-solving strategies in the hospitality

work place are becoming critically important for organizational effectiveness. Hospitality

employees require an enhanced capacity to think critically in a spontaneous situation.

Regarding the positive comments, the results are similar to Lo’s (2004) research

on Hong Kong Hospitality students’ experiences in PBL courses. The students stated

that they enjoyed the interactions among themselves and with the instructor. They

stated PBL allowed them to learn on their own. They felt satisfied when their classmates

accepted their ideas. Hospitality students who feel insecure about their solutions will

benefit from group work and discussions to see others’ points of view and problem-

solving attempts. The results are similar to Harland’s (2002) and Chung and Chow’s

(1999) studies, which suggested PBL was a more effective way for students to learn.

However, the Hospitality students’ negative perceptions towards PBL were

consistent with the findings from previous studies. Uncertainty about the accuracy of the

acquired knowledge was the description most frequently mentioned. Although students

mentioned heavy workload as a negative, it was not as serious as in Lo’s (2004) and

Deboer&Otting’s studies (2011). A hospitality study by Kivela and Kivela (2005)

suggests that PBL encourages and cultivates independent learning among students,

and adopts a more analytical approach to problem solving.

Huang’s (2005) Hospitality study to investigate Chinese international students’

perceptions of PBL in the U.K. revealed that students were motivated to try a more

active learning mode, and to use more study skills in PBL than with other traditional

teaching methods. It allowed students to attain higher order skills in organizing and
46

integrating information through critical evaluation. In the same study, the students

reported that PBL made them feel satisfied when classmates accepted their ideas. PBL

was more interactive than other learning styles and allowed them to learn on their own.

However, a few students supported the notion that PBL improved their creativity, and

helped learn more effectively from classmates. Also, the students were very uncertain

on the accuracy of the knowledge acquired; some claimed time was wasted in class,

others felt teaching was not focused, and the work load was heavy and required extra

effort and work outside class. The limited studies in PBL in the hospitality field led to

mixed results, but there are more positive outcomes than negatives (deBoer&Ottings,

2011).

These comments show that the transition to PBL is not so much about doing PBL

since students do show a clear sign of adaptation to the PBL approach. Instead the

problem tends to be how hard it is to change student beliefs about conception of

education and knowledge and their social and emotional learning (Otting, 2011).

A review of Hospitality literature on PBL reveals varying conclusions regarding

the effects on content knowledge and application. Unfortunately, only a handful of

studies in Hospitality investigated students’ perceptions, critical thinking, thoughts,

feelings, attitudes and dispositions. The designs of most of these studies were

qualitative, with very few quantitative studies. Because other studies overlooked

quantitative variables, this study will include and analyze their effect. The potential of

PBL to simulate real life situations makes it widely applicable to Hospitality education.

As a result, this study will provide a unique contribution to the scholarly literature.
47

Summary

The literature reveals that there are striking problems with job readiness in

hospitality graduates. The literature also suggests that students favor PBL instruction.

There are gains in terms of student learning and skills development. However, good

students prepare, design good problems, and carefully construct dynamic PBL curricula.

In order for PBL to be effective, there must be a successful interplay of forces pertaining

to the problem, the instructor, and the learners.

Several studies have suggested that students’ experiences point to a need to

prepare their mindset and to ensure good design of problems (Walker & Leary, 2009:

Ferreira et al., 2012; Zwaal &Otting, 2010; Otting, 2011; Schmidt, 1993). The same

studies also suggest that the structuring of knowledge in PBL should flow in the

following way: initial analysis of the problem, activation of prior knowledge through

small-group discussion elaborate on prior knowledge and active processing of new

information, restricting of knowledge, learning in context, and stimulation of curiosity

related to presentation of a relevant problem.

The literature further reveals that for PBL to be successful, students’ confidence

in independent learning must be developed, and learning must be scaffold for students

that is close to the real world. Also, the instructor must be competent in terms of

process skills, including handling group dynamics, energy, question skills, facilitating

meta-cognition, and being able to identify, articulate, and assess these skills.

The MER was chosen as data collection tool due to its accessibility and

practicability for a number of reasons mentioned above. “Studying epistemological

beliefs is important because they influence motivation and affect the selection of
48

learning strategies by students. In particular, immature beliefs affect students’ ability to

integrate their understanding […]” (May, 2002, pp. 2-3)

49

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter presents the purpose of the study, research questions, research

design, participants, access and recruitment of participants, description of data

collection instrument, instrumentation, methodology and data analysis procedure. The

chapter concludes with Figure 2 that shows the areas of research questions and data

sources used within this study.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was three fold. First, this study examined the effect in

which the PBL instructional approach had on Hospitality student's content knowledge.

Second, this study examined the extent to which the PBL instructional approach

affected Hospitality students problem solving and critical thinking skills, and third, the

study examined the effect of the change from a lecture-based instructional approach to

a PBL instructional approach on students’ attitudes and perceptions of problem solving

in Hospitality settings.

Research Questions

The following research questions were used to address the purpose of the study:

1. How does the PBL instructional approach affect the content knowledge of

Hospitality students?

2. How does the Problem-Based Learning instructional approach affect the

critical thinking and problem-solving skills of Hospitality students?

50

3. What is the effect of the PBL instructional approach on students' attitude and

perceptions of problem solving in Hospitality settings?

These questions are important because the literature in other fields reveals that

"'PBL is an approach to learning that involves confronting students with real-life

problems that provides a stimulus for critical thinking and self-directed content "(Gabr &

Mohammed, 2011; Zabit, 2010). Other studies found that PBL fosters creativity and

problem solving skills, encourages a deeper understanding of issues, improves the level

of comprehension and promotes a “real-world pedagogical focus” (Tonts, 2011; Zabits,

2010). I also believe it is important to obtain students’ feedback in order to provide

insights for future enhancement of courses. Also, critical thinking and problem solving

skills are outcomes expected of graduates in Hospitality education to be successful in

the workforce.

Research Design

A concurrent mixed methods design was used in the present study, where

qualitative and quantitative data were collected, analyzed, and integrated (Tashakkori

& Teddlie, 2003). A mixed methods approach generally follows philosophical and

methodological pragmatism with a very broad and inclusive ontological realism (Maxcy,

2003). Pragmatism (Johnson & Onwegbuzie, 2004) and inclusive ontology (Sanders,

1997) have played important roles in shaping the understanding of the validity in mixed

research approaches. Creswell (2007) identified several types of mixed method

designs and these include the concurrent design, embedded design, explanatory

design, and exploratory design. This study used the mixed concurrent design for the
51

collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data to enable the researcher to

better understand the research problem (Creswell 2005). The quantitative part

measured content knowledge using research question 1, How does the PBL

instructional approach affect the content knowledge of Hospitality students?. Also,

quantitative measured critical thinking using research question 2, How does the

Problem-Based Learning instructional approach affect the critical thinking and problem-

solving skills of Hospitality students? The qualitative part measured attitude and

perceptions of problem solving using research question 3 What is the effect of the PBL

instructional approach on students' attitude and perceptions of problem solving in

Hospitality settings?

This study also used triangulation (figure 2) to gain an in-depth understanding of

the effect of PBL on critical thinking, problem solving, and the effect of a Problem-Based

Learning instructional approach on students’ content knowledge, attitudes and

perceptions in PBL classrooms. The triangulation design also helped confirm, cross

validate, and collaborate findings (Creswell Plano Clark, Guttman & Hanson, 2003). A

mixed-methods approach was appropriate for this research because it helped increase

the trustworthiness of the findings by triangulating multiple data sources which were

used to answer the same questions (Brewer & Hunter, 1990; Lincoln & Guba, 1985;

Morse, 2003; Tashakikori & Teddllie, 2003). Brewer and Hunter (1990) stated “[w]hen

the findings of different methods agree, we are more confident” (p.17). In other words,

mixed methods enables the researcher to get a better understanding of the phenomena

under investigation (Morse, 2003; Tashakkori & Tedellie 1998). The visual model
52

procedure of the concurrent mixed method design of this study is shown in figure 1 on

the next page.


Quantitative Data

Pre- & Post Basic

knowledge test to measure
+ 

Qualitative Data

Instructor’s observation
Students’ reflections
journals
content knowledge
 Measure of Epistemological
 Pre- & Post-Test of
Reflection (MER) Pre- and
California Critical Thinking
Post Survey
Skills Test (CCTST)
 PBL Rubrics

Interpretation

Figure 1: Visual Model of Concurrent Mixed Methods Design

Participants

The participants in the study consisted of a class of 12 students in Hospitality

Management at a research university in the Midwest of the U.S. All participants were

juniors and seniors. This one course was a sample of convenience. The participants

were both males and females and did not represent a diverse ethnic and racial

population. I served as the instructor of a course the students were taking at the time of

the study. As the instructor, I worked with the students as a subject matter expert,
53

scaffolding, asking stimulating questions, seeking clarification and providing hints to

erroneous reasoning. I guided the students to identify the key issues in each problem

and to learn those areas in appropriate breadth and depth, assisting them to realize

their capacity to learn. I helped answer questions they had, and interacted with them

through the role of an instructor; my role at the researcher was clearly explained before

the study.

Access and Recruitment of Participants

I applied to the Human Subject Committee (HSC) for approval to request a

waiver for participants’ consent. The HSC recommended that I ask a colleague to

present the study to the students, because he himself needed to stand aside, so his

presence would not affect the outcome. I stressed to the students that they were not

obliged to take part in the study and could withdraw at any time from the study.

Anonymity and confidentiality were assured to all participants. All reasonable steps

were taken to protect the participants’ identity, records, and transcripts as indicated in

the Human Subject application and consent letters.

Data Collection Instruments

There were six data sources used for this study. The Pre- and Post-Content

Knowledge Test (Appendix E & F), the Pre- and Post-CCTST (Appendix G), the PBL

Rubric (Appendix J), the Pre- and Post-MER Survey (H & I), the students’ reflective

journals (Appendix K), and the my observations (Appendix M). A crosswalk assisted me

in aligning the research questions with the data methods (O’ Sullivan, 1991). The

method for collecting data is presented in Table 1.

54

Table 1:

Data Collection Timeline

Stage Source of Data Question(s) Addressed

Pre- knowledge test How does the PBL instructional approach

effect students' content knowledge in
Hospitality?
MER/Pre-Survey What is the effect of the PBL instructional
Pre-
approach on students' attitude and
Intervention
perceptions of problem solving in Hospitality
Data
settings?
Pre-Test California How does the PBL instructional approach
Critical Thinking Skills effect Hospitality students' problem solving
Test (CCTST)/Rubric and critical thinking skills?
Activities How does the PBL instructional approach
Development affect Hospitality students' Problem Solving &
and Critical Thinking Skills?
Implementation Student/Instructor What is the effect of the PBL instructional
of Intervention Reflection Journal approach on students' attitude and
Units perceptions of problem solving in Hospitality
settings?

Post- knowledge test How does the PBL instructional approach

affect students' content knowledge in
Hospitality?
MER/Post- Survey What is the effect of the PBL instructional
Post-
approach on students' attitude and
Intervention
perceptions of problem solving in Hospitality
Data
settings?
Post-Test California How does PBL instructional approach effect
Critical Thinking Skills Hospitality students' problem solving and
Test (CCTST)/Rubric critical thinking skills?

To measure content knowledge a pre- and post-knowledge test was

administered, which examined the students’ content knowledge gained while using PBL.

The pre- and post-content knowledge test was comprised of 50 multiple-choice

questions (Appendix E & F).

55

The main purpose of administering the content knowledge test was to investigate

students’ knowledge before and after the intervention. To determine whether knowledge

was gained or not after the intervention, pre- and post-test scores were obtained and

analyzed. My engagement observations (qualitative data) were used as a first-hand

experience with the participants to record information as it occurred.

The development of the content knowledge test included references from the

Hospitality text questions prepared by the Educational Institute of the American Hotel

and Lodging Association. It is based on special topics in the syllabus, comprised of legal

issues in purchasing, labor cost control, time management, diversity, and ethics (see

problems described in chapter 1 and 2). The main purpose of administering this test

was to investigate students’ knowledge of these special topics before and after the

intervention. It is worthwhile noting that I have been teaching the course for five years at

the same university.

To measure students’ critical thinking skills, a pre- and post-test using the

standardized California Critical Thinking Skill Test (CCTST) was used, because it

required testing students’ ability to analyze, evaluate as well as infer inductively and

deductively when faced with a problem. Also, the purpose for using the CCTST was that

it measures critical thinking skills in college students by testing the integration of core

thinking skills measured on this test, including analysis, interpretation, inferences,

evaluation, explanation, induction, and deduction. As discussed in chapters 1 and 2,

critical thinking skills are what the industry demands of hospitality graduates; therefore,

this assessment tool is especially applicable for hospitality student assessment. The

overall score predicts the capacity for success in educational and workplace settings,
56

which demand reasoned decision making and thoughtful problem solving. Also,

construct validity for the CCTST was developed from the outcome of the American

Philosophical Association (APA).

The CCTST was administered by Insight Assessment (CCTST User Manual). It

consisted of 34 items, each with four response options, one of which is correct

(Appendix C). Each correct answer is assigned 1 point; as a result, scores can range

from 0 to 34 with higher scores reflecting stronger critical thinking skills.

In the generic CCTST test, the score was called CCTST Overall Score (Figure

3). The reasoning skills Overall Score describes overall strength in using reasoning to

form reflective judgments about what to believe or what to do. To score well overall, the

students must excel in the sustained, focused, and integrated application of core

reasoning skills including analysis, interpretation, inference, evaluation, explanation,

induction and deduction. Figure 3 (p. 60) shows the overall relationship between the

pre- and post-test scores.

The CCTST scores in each qualitative level and description of recommended

performance assessment were as follows: Superior (86-100): This result indicated

critical thinking skills that are superior to the vast majority of test-takers’ skills. Skills at

the superior level were consistent with the potential for more advanced learning and

leadership. Strong (79-85): This result was consistent with the potential for academic

success and career development. Moderate (70-78): This result indicated the potential

for skills-related challenges when engaged in reflective problem-solving and reflective

decision-making associated with learning or employee development. Weak (63-68):

This result was predictive of difficulties with educational and employment related
57

demands for reflective problem solving and reflective decision-making. Not Manifested

(50-62): This result was consistent with possible insufficient test-taker effort, cognitive

fatigue, or possible reading or language comprehension issues.

As for the effect of PBL on problem solving, a PBL rubric and my observation

were used to measure students’ problem solving skills. Students were divided into two

groups. In keeping with the principles of effective group work. the maximum number of

students in a group was six (n=6). The students were given four closed-group case

problems (Cases 1-4) to discuss and asked to present their solutions in class for a

period of eight weeks with the Problem-Based Learning intervention occurring during

this time. The rubric was shared with the students describing how they would be

assessed (see Rubric Appendix J). During the PBL closed loop case based problem

solving activities, I also recorded my observations related to students’ engagement in

problem-solving activities taking place during the use of PBL learning in a reflective

journal. I used the PBL rubric to determine whether students increased their problem

solving skills as they resolved the four module problems. My observations were used to

record events and activities as they occurred during the course.

To measure the effect of the change from a lecture-based instructional approach

to a Problem-Based Learning instructional approach on students’ attitudes and

perceptions of problem solving in hospitality settings, a pre- and post-measure of

epistemological reflection (MER) survey was administered. For the present study, the

Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER) was chosen as a data collection tool.

The purpose for choosing the MER survey as a data source was for theoretical

and practical reasons. Theoretically, the idea of the MER survey is related to the
58

purpose of the study, because there is a growing awareness about student learning that

students’ epistemologies play an important role in helping them construct knowledge,

and that the inclusion of the students in their own knowledge construction and

development of pedagogy approach that students want will help them to be life-long

learners (Baxter, 2001).

It is a questionnaire about students’ perspective on learning in college. “When

applied to student learning one can understand student epistemologies as their beliefs

or views about how knowledge is constructed and evaluated” (May, 2002, p. 1) The

MER was also selected for this study for the following reasons: (1) theoretical and

practical. Regarding practicability, the MER is more accessible than other tools – the

protocol required permission by the author to be used, and it is recommended that

researchers become familiar with certain works by the author prior to its use. (2) The

MER can be used to access epistemological reflection from a constructivist vantage

point due to its open-ended nature (Baxter-Magolda, 2001, p. 525). It also offers

freedom of response to express thoughts and reasons for them (p. 525). The MER

further offers different areas: absolute knower, transitional knower, independent knower,

and interpersonal knower (Baxter-Magolda, 2000, p. 8). (3) The content analysis

revealed that trust and mutual respect were key factors in the relationship among

students (learners.) (4) It provided a forum for the students to explore their own

understandings and that of their peers. (5) Students were confident they could arrive at

personal understanding when given the opportunity to connect new information to their

prior knowledge and experiences.

59

According to a study by Otting, Zwaal and Gijselaers (2009), students’

epistemological beliefs and conceptions about teaching and learning are important in

the understanding of PBL principles. Practically, the MER survey was easily available.

Students’ reflective journals were required for data collection to record their

thoughts, ideas, strategies and observations related to the PBL process. According to

Traverse (2011), using the journal as a research tool “permits the examination of

reported events and experiences in their natural, spontaneous context” (p. 204). The

purpose for using students’ reflective journals was to reflect on students’ experiences

using their own words, thus adding depth and richness to the result. According to

Travers (2011), the benefit of journals is that they permit the examination of reported

events and experiences in their natural spontaneous context, providing information

complimentary to that obtained by the research design.

Problem-Based Learning Procedure

The participants engaged in PBL activities, which this section will describe in

greater detail. There were four case based on the closed-loop problem-based format

from Barrow’s (1986) Case Categories. The reason for using the closed-loop problem-

based format is because it best aligns with the educational goals of structuring

knowledge in a way that supports problem solving, reasoning processes for problem-

based learning, self-directed learning skills, and higher motivation for learning (Barrow,

1986). The students were presented with ill-structured real-life problems. The students

began by using prior knowledge to determine what they knew and did not know,

concepts that needed further explanations, what issues were relevant, and possible

hypotheses. These cases had all of Barrow’s (1997) characteristics, which include:
60

a) Student-centered - In which they determined what they need to learn. My role

was that of a facilitator of learning, guiding and promoting inquiry. The

students were responsible for their own learning.

b) Ill structured- The problems were ill-structured; those found in real-world

situations. The problems were presented as unresolved so that students

would generate not just multiple thoughts about the cause of the problem, but

multiple thoughts on how to solve it.

c) Problem Solving- The purpose of the problem was to encourage students’

development and skills of effective and efficient reasoning.

d) Self-Directed- Students chose what they wanted to learn based on their

efforts to solve the problems.

e) Reiterative- After active learning (in order to find information and knowledge

to solve problems), they stepped back from the problems and applied their

new learning to the problems.

f) Collaborative- Students worked collaboratively to solve problems and tried to

recognize learning issues.

g) Self-Reflecting- After the problem was solved, students reflected on their

learning. Learning activities such as comparing new problems with old ones,

engaging in reflection based on their preparation and facing the same

problem in the future drawing concepts maps to show relationships between

each element in the problems.

61

h) Self-Monitoring- Students monitored their own achievement and evaluated

their own progress. The self-achievement came from feedback from the

myself, peers and other evaluations.

i) Authentic- This formed the basis of problem selection embodied by alignment

to real world practice. All behaviors embraced in PBL were steps acquired by

students as they evaluated real world problems in the future.

One of the sample scenarios (the first case the students worked on) I used was a

scenario where money had vanished in a restaurant (Operational Ethics). The students

had to find out what had happened to the money. They used all the above-mentioned

points to discuss the case and came up with a solution. The second case was death of

two hotel guests. The students had to find out why the guests had died. (Dilemma

Case,). The third case was that in a hotel, the employee turnover rate was extremely

high. (Operational Management ). The students had to find out why so many employees

quit. The fourth case was about a decline in sales compared to the previous year in a

restaurant (Food and Beverage). The students had to find out why the sales had

declined. The points above helped them to find the solution in group work and

discussion. These included explanation case problems (Strategic Hospitality

Management), dilemma case problems (Operational Ethics [OP]), operational

application case problems (Food and Beverage [F&B] and strategic case problems

(Operation Management [OM]) that are encountered in Hospitality industry

establishments.

I employed these interactive, authentic cases in the Hospitality industry content

theory by using Barrow’s characteristics, such as student-centeredness – I facilitated

62

their learning to encourage my students’ skills development of effective and efficient

reasoning by guiding and promoting their inquiry. My students were responsible for their

learning and worked collaboratively, being able to reflect on their own learning.

Problem-Based Learning Initiation

Over the sixteen-week semester, four PBL problems were presented. During the

first week of class, an introduction workshop to PBL was conducted where the students

learned the purpose and rationale of PBL, and how it differed from traditional instruction

(lecture). An icebreaker exercise was conducted for students to get to know each other,

and to facilitate group cohesiveness.

Group Function

One class period was spent helping the students to understand some of the

dynamics of teams, to help increase their effectiveness in performing in teams, and to

improve overall team performance. Groups of six students were formed with juniors and

seniors in each team. At the next class session, group guidelines and roles were

discussed to encourage the students to take ownership of their effective performance as

a group. The group discussed a written set of standards and expectations in order to

establish norms and group behavior. The syllabus had a number of class periods when

teams could meet on their own with no requirement to come to class. I assisted with the

establishment of these rules, because the group was new to PBL. These are the rules

they developed as a group:

 Be prepared and have assignment on time,

 Be an active participant,
63

 No social loafing,

 Use group time wisely,

 No arguing,

 Show respect for everyone’s role,

 Keep an open mind,

 If unable to be present, notify designated contact person.

The consequences for breaking the rules were discussed to hold individual

members accountable. The students formulated roles and rotated them after every

problem to discourage students from sticking to roles that seemed easy to the student,

thus giving them additional experience in those roles which may have been challenging

(Duch, Groh et al., 2001). The roles included convening the group through the

discussion leader, keeping the group on track and maintaining full participation;

recording through the recorder the assignments and strategies that are used to resolve

issues; checking the group’s understanding and facilitating the evaluation of the

resources through the accuracy coach; and coordinating the presentation materials

through the presenter. The role titles were: 1. discussion leader, 2. recorder, 3.

assignment coordinator, 4. presenter, and 5. accuracy coach. I selected four cases for

the students to work on. They dealt with (1) the Breakfast Basket Restaurant, where

money had vanished; (2) a management crisis after deaths occurred following a food

poisoning outbreak at Gates Hotel; (3) the high turnover on Cross Street; and (4) the

unprofitable management of Suarro Inn (see Appendix P for a summary of the cases).
64

The course relied on students’ input from their prior experiences, as they

discussed the cases and solutions. I visited each team as needed with a chance to be a

“guide on the side” as opposed to the “sage on the stage.” Specific class periods were

selected for the students to make their presentations based on the problem solving

rubric template, which was a modification of Maastricht’s 7 Step Model. One of the

stipulations with respect to the proposal presentation was that the student be very

“professional.” I evaluated the presentations and proposals and assigned grades (see

Appendix J), as to the criteria used to assign grades.

Assessment

The assessments were consistent with the course objectives, thus diminishing

subjectivity across evaluation. The assessment of the PBL tutorial focused on the way

students go through the process of the strategy and acquire self-study and thinking

skills. The assessment also included the content knowledge that students attained while

using the PBL model. Assessment was both summative and formative. Formative

assessment is in-process evaluation that teachers use to check on students’

comprehension and learning needs. On the contrary, summative assessment was used

at the end of an instructional unit to assess students’ skills.

Formative assessment included process learning, application of knowledge,

critical thinking, student group skills, presentation skills, attitude during discussion (a

crucial factor in any learning process), and personal skills. This learning was captured

with corresponding rubrics. I put these components in the rubric for the following

reasons: prior knowledge, active learning, learning for understanding, critical thinking,

and learning as a time-consuming endeavor are all parts of the PBL Instructional
65

Approach. The students’ group skills, how they interacted, and their attitudes during

discussion deal with collaboration, which is crucial to PBL. The formative assessment

occurred during the PBL activities and included feedback to students after each of the

four closed-loop case problems with the purpose of improving learning.

Summative assessment included peer evaluation, presentation skills, the

content knowledge test, the critical thinking skills test, and the problem solving skills

rubric. The summative assessment occurred at the end of the course and was used

primarily to provide information on how much the students had learned of the content

and PBL skills. Peer assessments were used at the end of the course, in which each

student evaluated members of the group. It encouraged the students to reflect on how

each member had assessed their performance. At the end of the course, they also

completed a self-assessment, reflecting on their abilities, performance, and attitudes.

Method of Data Analysis

The goal of this study was to explore the effect of PBL on Hospitality students’

content knowledge, critical thinking and problem solving skills, and the effect of a

change from a lecture-based instructional approach to a Problem-Based Learning

instructional approach on problem solving, perceptions, attitudes, and activities. Due to

the complex nature of the learning environment, it was necessary to analyze students’

responses using both qualitative and quantitative measures. A mixed method design

enabled me to expand, elaborate on, and explain findings (Creswell, 2008).

The concurrent collection of data allowed for comparisons and interpretations as

to whether the data from each set were supportive or contradicted the other.

Observations and students’ reflective journals were used to support and contrast some
66

of the quantitative findings. The analysis used the Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare

the mean of the scores in the pre- and post-content knowledge test. The Wilcoxon

signed rank test was used in the quantitative research question because of the small

sample size. It is a non-parametric equivalent of the dependent t-test to find out if there

is a significant difference in content knowledge and the California Critical Skills Test

after teaching the students how to use PBL. A rubric with elements and a level of

performance was used to analyze problem-solving skills. The MER questionnaire,

students’ reflection notes, and my observations were used in the qualitative research

question. The effect of PBL on students’ attitudes and perceptions of problem solving

was analyzed by the Pre and Post MER survey, students’ reflection and my

observations.

Students’ interactions during activities were noted in their journal entries

describing their experiences during PBL. Students’ journals were analyzed using a

technique referred to by Lincoln and Guba (1985) as unitizing and categorizing. The

data was coded, and similar codes were grouped into themes. Further insights were

obtained from my observations and experience, which were triangulated with the

students’ journals and the MER survey. A triangulation method was determined to be

appropriate to give a perspective of the participants’ thoughts and feelings. My

observations, the students’ journals, and the MER surveys were used to confirm,

disconfirm, cross-validate, and corroborate one another (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham,

1989; Morgan, 1998; Steckler, McLeroy, Goodman, Burd, & McCormick, 1992 (as cited

in Cresswell, 2009, p. 213). The model used separate quantitative and qualitative

methods as a means to offset the weaknesses inherent within one method with the
67

strength of the other. Themes in the student journals emerged and were not a priori

themes based on other data.

In summary, the methodology was a concurrent mixed method approach.

(Creswell, 2003) defined mixed method research as a procedure for collecting,

analyzing and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data either simultaneously or

sequentially within a single study to best understand a research problem. In quantitative

pre- and post-content knowledge test were used to examine students’ content

knowledge gained while using PBL. Also a pre- and post-California Critical Thinking

Skills Test was used to tests students’ critical thinking and ability when faced with a

problem. In qualitative, the students were required to solve closed-loop case problems

that were assessed using a rubric. A pre- and post-measure of epistemological

reflection (MER) survey were administered to determine students’ perspective on

learning. Students’ journals were used to understand their thoughts and ideas related to

PBL. And finally, the instructor’s observations were used to show what had happened

during the students’ engagement in the PBL process.

Trustworthiness of the Study

Qualitative researchers are more concerned with validity than reliability (Merriam

1998). In this study, credibility was established by way of my engagement, observation

and triangulation. Corroboration was used by employing multiple sources of data.

Referential or interpretative adequacy was established by using direct quotations from

the participants in questionnaire responses. My background knowledge of the PBL

process and engagement observation ensured that the study met the requirement for
68

trustworthiness. The students’ reflective journals provided students’ ideas, thought

processes, procedures, benefits and challenges with PBL. It provided rich data, which in

combination with other data sources, the pre- and post-content knowledge test, the pre-

and post-CCTST test, the PBL rubric, the MER survey, and my observation facilitated

triangulation, thereby increasing the trustworthiness of the findings. The pre- and post-

content knowledge tests were triangulated my observation to answer research question

one. The pre- and post-California Critical Thinking Skills Tests were triangulated with

the PBL rubric and my engagement observations to answer research question two. The

pre MER survey, the students’ reflective journals, and my engagement observations

were triangulated to answer research question three (figure 2 next page).

The instruments in this study represented multiple perspectives. It is my view that

the methodology presented in the study supports a trustworthy study.

69

Research
Intervention Data Sources
Questions

Pre and Post

Knowledge Test
Content
Knowledge (CK)
Instructor's
Observations

California Critical
Thinking Skills

Critical Thinking
Skills
PBL Rubric
Problem Based Problem Solving
Learning (PBL) Skills

Instructor's
Observations

Measure of
Epistemological
Reflection (MER)

Attitude and Student Journals

Perception Quotes

Instructor's
Observation

Figure 2: Triangulation
70

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

Introduction

The chapter presents the research findings and is organized by the research

questions. Both quantitative and qualitative data are presented and analyzed. The study

examined the effect of problem-based learning on Hospitality students’ content

knowledge, critical thinking, problem solving, and students’ attitudes and perceptions on

problem solving in hospitality settings and also addressed the questions to what extent

the qualitative data confirm the quantitative results. The study sought to answer the

following questions:

1. How does the PBL instructional approach affect the content knowledge of Hospitality

students?

2. How does the Problem-Based Learning instructional approach affect the critical

thinking and problem-solving skills of Hospitality students?

3. What is the effect of the Problem-Based Learning instructional approach on students’

attitude and perceptions of problem solving in hospitality settings?

Research Question #1: Hospitality Students’ Content Knowledge

The students’ content knowledge on the pre and post-tests were measured with

the combined total scores which included the following topics of hospitality law,

hospitality cultural diversity, hospitality labor cost control, and hospitality ethics. The first

research question investigated the effect of Problem Based Learning on the Hospitality

students’ content knowledge. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to

71

address this question, including pre- and post-content knowledge and an analysis of my

observation, respectively.

Table 2 displays a summary of the pre- and post-content knowledge test results

performed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test, a non-parametric equivalent of dependent

t-test, to find out if there is a significant difference in content knowledge after using PBL

to teach the students. The results in Table 2 show that there was a statistically

significant difference between the pre- and post-test scores at 0.05 level. The students

scored higher in the post-test than the pretest, N=12, z= -2.87, p =.004, r=.39. This was

a small to medium effect size according to Cohen (1988). The mean rank of the pretest

was 1.0, while the mean rank of the post test was 6.5. Of the 12 students who took the

content knowledge test, one student (8%) scored higher in the pretest than the post-

test, and 10 students (83%) scored higher in the post-test than in the pretest, while

there was one tie (8%) and no change in the pre/post test score.

Table 2:

Pre- and Post-Content Knowledge Test

Test Type Mean SD Mean N Rank Z Sig. Effect Size

Rank

Pretest 61.50 6.63 1.00 1 Negative -2.87 .004 .39

Post-Test 67.08 6.35 6.50 10 Positive

1 Tie

N = 12, P-value 0.004 < 0.05

These results suggest that 83% of the Hospitality students’ content knowledge

increased after teaching the students how to use PBL with statistically significant as
72

illustrated in table 2. These were whole scores, not sub-themes, as the questions were

mixed. The questions integrated a variety of topics such as : Hospitality law, diversity

management in Hospitality, labor cost control in Hospitality, and Hospitality ethics.

When these quantitative results are compared to the qualitative findings from my

observations, one can see that the students were not motivated and prepared for class,

might explain why the content knowledge of 17% percent of the students did not

increase. Also, I observed that, the students were having more trouble with the material

than I had expected, and “the students were confused by the vocabulary and the

terminology used,” which might be a reason for 17% of the students not improving.

Furthermore, the tracked students 8,9, and 2 “were consistently complaining and were

not sure what to do while working on the rubric for problem solving,” and I concluded in

my observations that “these students had some problems or were academically weak.”

In general, these particular students struggled throughout the course.

On the other hand, the 83% increase in content knowledge was very satisfactory.

When comparing this finding with the MER survey results from this study elicited,

positive student comments showing why they gained more content knowledge, for

example: “Ideas and concepts help me understand the information better than just the

definition” (F3), and “Because facts are black and white, you have to memorize. With

ideas and concepts, I can link to something I understand” (F2). The opportunity of group

work also contributed to the good result. These student quotes demonstrates, that they

benefited greatly from team work, because they “gathered ideas from others” (F2).

Another commented in their student journal “I get more networking, different ideas and

views, hear what students know, it is just better” (F11).

73

Research Question #2: Hospitality Students’ Critical Thinking Skills

The second research question investigated the effect of problem-based learning

on Hospitality students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. For this question,

both quantitative and qualitative data were used, including CCTST and Problem Solving

rubric.

A pre- and post-test of the California Critical thinking Skills Test (CCTST) were

given to the students to measure critical thinking changes and development over a

twelve-week semester period. Three students opted out of the study of the CCTST; only

nine students took the test. A Wilcoxon signed rank test, a non-parametric equivalent of

dependent t-test, was performed to find out if there was a significant difference between

the pre- and post-CCTST. The result (Table 3) shows that there was no statistically

significant difference between the pre- and post-test at 0.05 level N=9, Z= .744, P=.439,

r=.06. The mean rank of the pretest was 5.33, while the mean rank of the post-test was

4.83. Of the 9 students who took the CCTST, three students (33%) scored higher in the

pretest than in the post-test, and six students (66%) scored higher in the post-test than

in the pretest.

Table 3:

Pre- and Post-California Critical Thinking Skills Test

Test Type Mean SD Mean N Rank Z Sig. Effect

Rank Size

Pretest 71.11 7.02 5.33 3 Negative -.774 .439 .06

Post-Test 72.11 8.60 4.83 6 Positive

N = 9, P-value at 0.439 > 0.05

74

Although there was no statistical significance,these results suggest that some

Hospitality students’ critical thinking skills increased slightly after teaching the students

using PBL. Also, based on the distribution of the overall score percentiles for the test

takers in this group, as compared to an aggregate sample of CCTST four-year college

students, the average percentile score of this group of test-takers increased from 25 to

32 points on the pre-test and post-test respectively.

100
90 85 86
78 80 79
80 73 73
69 69 71 69 68
70 65 66 65 66 66
59
Test Scores

60
50
40 pre

30 post

20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Students

Figure 3: Overall Score (CCTST)

As stated before, out of 12 students, three opted out. In the overall score of the

CCTST (Figure 3), 6 students out of 9 (67%) did better in the post-test than in the

pretest. This shows that the majority of the students displayed an overall strength in

using reasoning to form reflective judgment about what to believe and what to do. It

could be as a result of the students being able to follow the rubric with different

elements for solving a problem. Three students opted out of the CCTST test.

The next section includes the sub-scale scores of the CCTST and a short summary of
75

each subscale area. These subscales will include: Analysis, Interpretation, Inference,

Evaluation, Explanation, Induction and deduction.

Analysis of Sub-Scales

Sub-Scale 1: Analysis

An analysis of the reasoning skills enables students to identify assumptions,

reasons, and claims, and to examine how they interact in the formation of arguments.

As compared to the recommended performance assessment in the analysis score, the

findings show that 1 student was superior, 2 students were strong, 4 students were

moderate, and 2 students were weak.

Sub-Scale 2: Interpretation

Interpretation skills are used to determine the precise meaning and significance

of a message or signal. Correct interpretation depends on understanding the message.

When compared to the recommended performance assessment of the interpretation

scores, the findings shows 1 student was superior, 4 students were strong, 1 student

was moderate, 1 student was weak, and 1 student not manifested.

Sub-Scale 3: Inference

Inference skills enable students to draw conclusions from reasons and evidence.

Compared to the recommended performance assessment in the inference scores, 1

student was superior, 1 student was strong, 5 students were moderate and 2 students

were weak.

Sub-Scale 4: Evaluation

An evaluation of reasoning skills enables students to assess the credibility of

sources of information and the claims they make. As compared to the recommended
76

performance assessment in the evaluation scores, no student was superior, no student

was strong, 5 students were moderate, 3 students were weak and 1 student was not

manifested.

Sub-Scale 5: Explanation

Explanatory reasoning skills, when exercised prior to making a final decision

about what to believe or what to do, enables students to describe the evidence,

reasons, methods, assumptions, standards or rationale for these decisions, opinions,

beliefs, and conclusions. As compared to the recommended performance assessment

in the explanation scores, the findings show 1 student was superior, 2 students were

moderate, 4 students were weak and 2 students not manifested.

Sub-Scale 6: Induction

Induction decision making in context of uncertainty relies on inductive reasoning,

used to draw inferences about what we think must probably be true based on analogies,

case studies, prior experiences. As compared to the recommended performance

assessment in the induction scores, the findings show 1 student was superior, 2

students were strong, 4 students were moderate and 2 students were weak.

Sub-Scale 7: Deduction

Regarding deductions, students’ decision making is in a precisely defined

context. Validity leaves no room for uncertainty, unless one alters the meaning or the

grammar of the language. As compared to the recommended performance assessment

in the deduction scores, the findings show no student was superior, 2 students were

strong, 3 students were moderate and 4 students were weak.

77

In summary, it is fair to conclude that research in the hospitality industry may

benefit from using the CCTST, as it requires the ability to make decisions based on

cognitive foundation. Overall, the CCTST is an effective strategy for engaging students

cognitively. By analyzing, interpreting, making inferences, evaluating, explaining,

making inductions and deductions, the students are using critical thinking skills.

Table 4:

Descriptions of Recommended Performance Assessment Overall Scores

Superior: This result indicates critical thinking skill that is superior to the vast majority of test-
takers. Skills at the superior level are consistent with the potential for more advanced learning
and leadership.
86-100%

Strong: This result is consistent with the potential for academic success and career
development.
79-85%

Moderate: This result indicates the potential for skills-related challenges when engaged in
reflective problem solving and reflective decision making associated with learning or
employee development.
70-78%

Weak: This result is predictive of difficulties with educational and employment related
demands for reflective problem solving and reflective decision making.
63-69%

Not Manifested: This result is consistent with possible insufficient test-taker effort, cognitive
fatigue, or possible reading or language comprehension issues.
50-62%

The graphs in figure 4,5,6,7,8, and 9 display the scores for analysis,

interpretation, inference, evaluation, explanation, induction, and deduction.

78

100
9090
90 85
80
80 75 75 75 75 7575 75
70 7070
70 65 65 65 65
Test Scores

60
50
pre
40
Post
post
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Students

Figure 4: Analysis Score (CCTST)

Again, out of 12 students, three opted out. The sub-score analysis of the CCTST

(Figure 4) indicates that four students showed an increase in score, two students

showed a decrease in score, and three students received the same score. This shows

that only four students were able to identify assumptions, reasons, and claims, and

were able to examine how they interacted in the formation of arguments. Seven out of

nine students (77%) did score better or the same on the post-test than on the pretest,

because analysis skills are primary skills; one has to understand the problem to analyze

it. Two out of nine students did worse in the post-test.

79

100 9494
87
90 81 81 8181 81
80 74 74 74
68 68
70 61 61 6161
Test Scores

60 55
50
pre
40
post Post
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Students

Figure 5: Interpretation Score (CCTST)

In the sub-score interpretation of the CCTST (Figure 5) test, three students

showed an increase in score, three students showed a decrease in score, and three

students received the same score. As a result, six out of nine students (66%) did better

or the same on the post-test than the pretest, because interpretation skills are

dependent on analysis scores. Thus, a better understanding of the problem might have

led to the students’ improvement of their scores.

80

100 92
90 86 86 83
78 80 80
80 75 78 75
69 69 69 69 72 72 72
70 61
Test Scores

60
50
pre
40
post Post
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Students

Figure 6: Inference Score (CCTST)

In the sub-score inference of the CCTST test (Figure 6), four students showed an

increase in score, four students showed a decrease in score, and one student received

the same score. Five out of nine students (55%) did better or the same in inference. The

results show that four students had difficulty drawing conclusions from reasons and

evidence.
81

90
80
80 75 75 75 75 75
71 71
70 67 67 67 67 67
63 63 63
59 59
60
Test Scores

50
40 pre

30 post Post

20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Students

Figure 7: Evaluation Score (CCTST)

In the sub-score evaluation of the CCTST (Figure 7), three students showed an

increase in score, three students showed a decrease in score, and three students

received the same score. Six of the students were able to use reasoning skills to assess

the credibility of the sources of information and the claims made. The majority of the

students were able to determine the strength or weakness of an argument, and they

were able to judge the quality of options, opinions, ideas, and decisions. Six out of nine

students (66%) did better or the same in evaluation. The majority of the students could

reason well enough to be able to assess the credibility of the sources of information and

claims.
82

100
87
90 81 81
80 74 74 74
68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68
70 61 61 61 61
Test scores

60
50
pre
40
postPost
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Student

Figure 8: Explanation Score (CCTST)

In the sub-score explanation of the CCTST (Figure 8), three students showed an

increase in score, four students showed a decrease in score, and two students received

the same score. Five students were able to describe the evidence, reasons, methods,

assumptions, standards, or rationale for decisions, opinions, beliefs, and conclusions.

The lower percentages could be because the students were not able to describe

evidence, but relied on their opinions.

83

100
90 87
82 82 84 82 84
77 79 79 77
80 74
69 71 69 71
70 64 66
58
Test Scores

60
50
pre
40
postPost
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Students

Figure 9: Induction Score (CCTST)

In the sub-score induction of the CCTST (Figure 9), five students showed an

increase in score, and four students showed a decrease in score. This means in the

context of uncertainty, five students relied on inductive reasoning used to draw

inferences from what they thought must be based on analogies and prior experience.

The low percentage could be a result of their relying too much on their opinion,

especially with regard to uncertain cases.

84

100
90 87
82 82 84 82 84
77 79 79 77
80 74
69 71 69 71
70 64 66
58
Test Scores

60
50
pre
40
post Post
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Students

Figure 10: Deduction Score (CCTST)

In the sub-score deduction of the CCTST (Figure 10) student 1,2,3,6, and 9,

showed an increase in scores between pre and post-test. Students 4, 5 ,7, and 8

showed a decrease in scores between pre and post-test. These findings demonstrate

five students were capable of decision making in a precisely defined context. There was

no statistical significance difference between the pre- and post-test results in critical

thinking. When compared to the qualitative findings, several students said on the MER

survey that they perceived critical thinking as a major strength of PBL. This is confirmed

by quotes from student journals as follows: “[t]he information is easier to connect with

and remember. Also it encourages me to think critically” (F5). Student M2 maintained

that critical thinking helped him to “develop a more creative mind and think critically on

the spot decisions.” A student who was a transitional/contextual knower stated that, “[i]t

gives you a new view of thinking critically” (F7). When supplementing the quantitative

findings with my qualitative observations, it becomes obvious that three students opted
85

out of the test because they were apprehensive of the results. Further, instructor

observation were academically weak students and a general lack of understanding of

critical thinking skills, which might explain the low achievement in critical thinking. Thus,

students would have benefitted from more time to develop and practice.

First, table 5 reflects students’ problem solving skills increasing from Case 1 to

Case 4. To verify that students’ problem solving skills improved, I used a combination of

the CCTST subscales that include analysis, interpretation, inference, evaluation,

explanation, induction, deduction, on the development of the rubric to score each case

study imitating the CCTST subscale. Based on the course rubric, students’ problem

solving skills increased form Case 1 to Case 4 comparing this percentage score to the

CCTST company substandard assessment table 4, both groups score increased from

strong to superior.

Table 5:

Problem-Solving Skills Scores for Cases 1 through 4

Case # Group 1 Group 2

Case 1 76% 82%

Case 2 84% 86%

Case 3 86% 88%

Case 4 88% 90%

86

Research Question #3: Hospitality Students’ Attitudes and Perceptions Toward

Problem Solving

The third research question investigated the effect of the Problem-Based

Learning instructional approach on students’ attitudes and perceptions of problem

solving in the hospitality setting. Qualitative data sources were used for this question

and included the Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER) survey, the students’

reflective journals.

The MER survey did not use the Baxter-Magolda scoring rubric. Instead, the

responses were sorted by common subject matter to develop themes. It consisted of a

pre- and post-test; however, the students left the answers on the pretest very vague or

blank, so most of the responses came from the post-test. There were both positive and

negative themes that emerged in the MER opened-ended survey. The positive themes

were: Ideas and concepts, group work, learning from others, critical thinking, students

doing lots of talking, and real world and factual information.

One strength of PBL identified by the subjects within the MER survey emerged

as ideas and concepts. To illustrate this, student M2 shared: "With ideas and concepts, I

can develop my own thoughts." Another student (F3) reported: "Ideas and concepts

help me understand the information better than just the definition." Yet another student

(F2) added to this: "Because facts are black and white, you have to memorize. With

ideas and concepts, I can link to something I understand."

Another strength of PBL mentioned by the students in the MER survey was

Group work and learning from others. Student M2 talked about his preference for group

work: "I prefer discussions with group. We can relate to each other." A second student
87

claimed she gathered “ideas from others” (F2). Student F11 describes her gains through

group work as follows: "I get more networking, different ideas and views, hear what

students know, it is just better."

Critical thinking was mentioned as a third perceived strength of PBL. Student F5

commented that, “[t]he information is easier to connect with and remember. Also it

encourages me to think critically." Another student (M2) shared, “[i]t helps develop a

more creative mind and think critically on the spot decisions." According to Baxter-

Magolda, this student would be an absolute knower. Finally, student F7 talked about a

new perspective it gave her: "It gives you a new view of thinking critically." This student,

according to Baxter-Magolda, would be a transitional/contextual knower.

A fourth perceived strength of PBL was the active learning component of student-

centered instruction. Student M2 commented, “I prefer students doing most of the

talking." Likewise, student F3 shared, “[s]tudents did most of the talking and were

engaged." Yet another student (F11) added, “[w]e did a lot of talking, we became active

learners." According to Baxter-Magolda, student F11 would be an independent knower.

A fifth strength of PBL was the factual information conveyed. Student F6 stated:

"My career benefits because I know factual information about my industry." In the same

vein, student F8 responded, “[f]acts are facts and usually don't change." Likewise,

student M1 mentioned “[e]asier to comprehend factual information."

In addition to the positive themes from the study, a number of negative themes

also emerged. These include: disagreement, disorganization, uncertainty on the correct

answers, and group members not doing their own share of work. For example, several

students described disagreement and task avoidance as being a negative factor of PBL.
88

The following three quotes are by what Baxter-Magolda calls interpersonal knowers:

Student F3 commented about “[p]eers not agreeing with each other, some students

could not relate." Likewise, student F7 responded: "We had a lot of disagreement

among our group." Also, student F4 complained about one student not doing her share

of work:

In my group was a girl who was lazy and she did not do her homework.

When we evaluated the session it came out that she had problems with

her school work and was not sure whether she wanted to be in the

group. (F4)

Two students describe disorganization as another negative aspect of PBL

through the MER survey. Student M1 complained that, “[t]he course was a little bit

disorganized." In addition, student F4 provided a reason for this disorganization: “It was

not focused, maybe because it was still new to us."

The last perceived negative aspect of PBL in the MER survey was the

uncertainty of answer correctness. Student F10 reported that “[t]here [was] a lot of

confusion about what the correct answer was." In the same vein, student M2 claimed:

"No I want to be taught by the teacher, who knows the right answers." Finally, student

F4 stated, “[t]here were too many opinions, we needed opinions of an expert." Students

M2 and F4 are what Baxter-Magolda called absolute knowers.

Students’ Reflective Journals.

In the students’ journals, the students were able to describe their thoughts,

opinions, and feelings towards PBL, and these were sorted by positive and negative

themes. Positive themes include: Independent learning/self-directed learning,

89

understanding of content, improved self-esteem, prepare them for work force, student-

centered/active learning, collaborative learning/soft skills, enhance critical

thinking/problem-solving skills, time management, and search for information.

Several of these themes also were found in the results of the MER Survey, which

helps to reinforce these themes as stronger factors emerging from PBL and also helped

to address Research Question 3. For example, student-centered and active learning

were described as a further benefit of PBL in both the survey and journals which helps

reinforce a key feature of PBL which is to prepare students to be more student-centered

in their learning activities. Student F 10 commented: “It is very useful for me to take

charge of my own learning particularly when arranging my time.” Student F7 added to

this by saying, “[i]n PBL you really have to be prepared otherwise you cannot be active,

because of this you are forced to do your work. This is good in my own opinion.”

Similarly, student F 4 claimed: “PBL is a huge motivation to stay focused on your study,

you will be active in your studies you don’t want to let your fellow students down.” In the

same vein, student F 5 responded that, “[w]ith this way of learning I get very motivated

to learn by myself. I experienced that I spent a lot of time doing my work.” Also, student

M1 said that, “[t]his method works very well for me to improve myself, interpersonal

skills, and reach my greater goal.”

A second common theme that can be found in both the survey and journals is

collaborative learning/learning from others and soft skills. A student wrote PBL helped

her to practice collaborative learning; thus, she can give ideas and opinions to solve

problems: “The most useful part of PBL is the practice of collaborative learning, we can

give ideas to solve the problem” (F9). Also, student F 2 expressed her satisfaction with
90

group work; however, she also cautioned against students who answered dishonestly: “I

can really be satisfied about the teamwork in our group which is important in PBL but on

the other hand I’m not satisfied about the feedback we get from each other. I think not

everybody is willing to give their honest opinion” (F2). Still, she stayed positive about the

team work, claiming that “[t]he interaction and collaboration with peers help me learn"

(F2). Likewise, student F 6 responded: "The interaction helped me gain knowledge.

Helped me improve interpersonal skills and learn from others based off their opinion.”

Finally, student F4 commented that “[t]he discussion helped me to become more active

in learning and helped me to remember the materials." Students did indicate how PBL

helped them polish their “soft skills”, such as communication skills, self-confidence, and

improvement of personal skills: “I was able to improve my communication skills, build

my self confidence and improve my people skills” (F4).

Critical thinking and problem-solving skills is a third common theme mentioned

within the survey and journals as strengths of PBL and is related to Research Question

2. Critical and creative thinking are criteria for solving problems in a meaningful way. A

student pointed out that the real challenge was when the theories needed to be applied

in the real world: “Theories are easy to understand but how can we apply it in the real

world” (F6).

A fourth common theme emerging from both the survey and journals was

described as the enhanced understanding of content. This particular theme supports

Research Question 1. Students stated they needed a learning method that makes them

better understand the content or knowledge being taught. One student, F4, said that

there is a need to change the present learning process and activities such as lecture to
91

a new, challenging one. According to the student, “[w]e need a method of learning that

helps us to absorb and understand the Hospitality contents meaningfully.”

Several additional themes emerged from the journals and appear to add

additional information to address Research Question 3. For example, Independent

learning/self-directed learning was described as a crucial advantage in the reflective

journals. Student F2 said: “More independence, learn at your own pace.” Likewise,

student F3 commented that the students liked “planning own tasks, and schedule.”

Student F11 stated, “This trained me to be independent and gave me much

satisfaction.” Many students also stated that PBL helped them in self-directed learning.

The majority of the students commented on this theme. Thus, student F3 said: “I think

self-directed learning is a great and modern way for students to learn things. This

makes you remember much more than when a teacher tells you what you have to

know.” In the same vein, student F7 commented:

I feel really comfortable about studying with PBL because I prefer to be

responsible for my own learning and development. For me it is also interesting to

have the opportunity to build my own opinion and share it with my group

members.

Student F9 responded: “I like self-directed study, but on the other hand it does

not give me certainty about the information I get. I think it is the biggest disadvantage of

PBL because with lecture you can be certain about the things being told and think it is

more structured.” In the same vein, student F7 maintained, “I enjoyed the sense of

control while working to find a solution to the problem." Also, student F2 enjoyed her

work: “Today was fun, we had to do it our way." Student F9 was proud to be the
92

decision maker: "We control the amount of our learning." Student M1 claimed “[t]he

sense of control helps us think deeper." Student F2 added: "You learn even when you

don't feel like learning," and student F5 explained, “You think deeper than you should

have in this learning method."

Another perceived advantage of the journals was mentioned to be self-esteem.

One student, F7, pointed out that she feels her self-esteem was improved: “I think

lecture just involves the theories, in PBL I was able to build my self-esteem on how to

be confident to approaching something new.” Likewise, student F 6 talked about her

heightened sense of self-confidence and motivation: “During the PBL session I became

more confident with myself because I was motivated to do the work.”

Preparation for the workforce was mentioned as yet another strength of PBL.

One student claimed he was better prepared to be responsible in the workforce. Student

M3 commented: “Hospitality has more connections to the real world situation, by using

PBL I can relate both theory and real life.” Student F 9 stated: “Studying in a PBL

environment is very effective. You don’t just learn things but you really get an idea of

how different theories and methods can be used in real life.”

Time management is another perceived strength of PBL. Students commented

that with PBL they had to arrange their own time and that PBL taught them to manage

their time judiciously. According to student M1, “it afforded me flexibility of time, when

arranging to meet as a group.”

The last perceived strength of PBL in the reflective journals was that PBL helped

them search for information from various sources, which they were not able to do prior

to PBL. Student M3 stated, “I still have difficulty with finding my information and the right
93

sources. I am to easy satisfied when I find an answer on the internet so I forget to check

the source and compare to other sources.” Likewise, student F4 said that, “sometimes I

get frustrated when I cannot find the information while looking for the right information.”

Another student put it more positively: “I was able to search and access information

from a variety of sources as was assigned by the group" (F7). Finally, student F6

responded: “I can make connections between different facts and evaluate findings."

However, negative themes also emerged and also would be applicable to

providing additional data to address Research Question 3. These include: not enough

time to study using PBL, depends on individual PBL, not focused on how to answer

questions, lack of cooperation from group members, new approach, little guidance, hard

to justify answers. One of the perceived negatives of the reflective journals as

perceived by the students was that it was hard to justify answers. A student stated that it

was hard for their group to justify answers. Some discussions were unrelated to the

question at hand: “Sometime we talked of things outside the topic” (M1). Likewise,

student F6 responded, “Sometimes you don't know if you are right or wrong.” In the

same vein, student F8 complained, “I didn't understand it.” Also, student M2 cautioned

about “The possibility of independent work going wrong.”

Another disadvantage of PBL in the reflective journals was indicated to be the

time wasted and the heightened workload. One student mentioned that with PBL they

had to follow a long process to the problem: “In PBL we imagine, try to think actively,

taking a long time” (F9). Student M1 just said, “Time was wasted.” Likewise, student F8

complained that, “It was not focused, it was frustrating and this led to increase in

workload.” Also, student F2 claimed, “I need more time to cope with this learning,” and
94

student F5 complained that “It was frustrating which led to workload increase.” In the

same vein, student F2 responded “Time was wasted, and the workload became too

much." Also, student M2 felt the same way: "PBL required extra effort in accomplishing

the task," and student F7 replied, “Some of our group members were not putting in

effort."

A further disadvantage of PBL in the reflective journals was perceived to be the

lack of cooperation from the group. A student reported some members were indolent

and failed to do their part: “The problem is the group members, it was really hard to

cooperate with each other” (M1). Several students complained about an unequal

distribution of the work within their groups. Thus, student F5 commented, “When the

group is not working together and doesn’t have a good connection with each other, the

process is way harder and time is wasted.” Finally, one student claimed of having had to

do other people’s work: "Some of us did all the work" (F2).

Little guidance was further perceived as a disadvantage in the reflective journals.

A student mentioned that PBL had little guidance and this was a problem especially in

learning outcomes, which were not focused: “The guiding of our group would have

helped. Sometimes we got confused” (F10). Likewise, student F7 said, “It does not

always work for me because sometimes the questions are hard to answer and it takes

me a long time to find a reliable answer. I think you learn more by lectures.” This

student would have liked a “guide on the side.”

The last two disadvantages in the reflective journals were perceived as the fact

that PBL is not for every student, and that it was a new approach for the students. Some

students felt it might not be a good approach for every student. If one student learns
95

well with PBL, it does not mean another student will be equally successful or

comfortable with the approach. In this vein, student F10 stated, “To be honest with you,

those who like to read and surf the web, this approach will fit them, but others like to

wait for lecture to have notes, this may not fit them.” The students felt perplexed at the

beginning of the assessment; students had struggled at the beginning, since it was new

to them. Thus, student F3 expressed strongly, “No way, I want to be taught and guided

by the teacher who is the expert."

It is my conclusion that this study contributes to the understanding of the use of

Performance Based Learning in the field of hospitality. As chapter 2 indicates, there is

a need to respond to the hospitality industry’s demand for competent graduates to be

equipped with critical thinking and problem solving skills that the industry needs and

expects. PBL is a demanding approach that is likely to encounter student resistance

initially as was stated by student F3, “No way, I want to be taught and guided by the

teacher who is the expert.” However, with time and the right subject matter, students

can be more open to working in a different setting such as PBL that is quite different

from the students’ traditional experiences. It appears that it is important to show

students what is expected of them every step of the way as well as a need to have more

solid scaffolding and communication with the students in order to keep them on track.

Finally I recommend that PBL be implemented in multiple courses within a program

because integrating the PBL or similar approach in only one course while the other

courses using the role-learning approach sends students mixed messages about

expectations within the program and industry.

96

Research Data
Intervention Data Sources
Questions Findings

Pre and
Content Post
Content knowledge increased
Know- Knowledge
Test
ledge
(CK) Instructor's
Observations

California
Critical
Critical Thinking
Overall average score increased by 7 points from pre to post.
Thinking Skills Test
Skills PBL Problem
Solving
Problem Problem Rubric No significant difference in the mean score of the pre and post.
Based Solving An increase in problem solving skills
Learning Skills Instructor's
(PBL) Observations

Critical thinking skills enhanced; student centered

Active not passive learning; search for information

Measure of Group work / learning from each other

Attitude Epistemo- Self-directed learning / Collaborative learning
s and logical Communication and Problem-Solving Skills enhanced
Reflection
Per- Challenging and enjoyable; preparation for workforce

ceptions Students' Enhanced interpersonal soft skills; enhanced self-esteem

Journals Difficult to cope with workload
Frustrating; disorganization
Uncertainty on accuracy of knowledge acquired
Teaching was not focused
Heavy workload
Some team members not putting in effort
Time was wasted in class

Figure 11: Result of Triangulation

97

Triangulation of Data Sources

According to Patton (2000), triangulation gives deeper insight into the

relationship between the measurement method and the studied phenomenon. It also

increases the reliability of the study by reducing systematic error due to the use of

multiple data collection tools. In this study, my engagement observation and students’

reflective journals provided rich data in conjunction with other data sources, which

included the pre- and post-content knowledge test, the pre- and post-CCTST test, the

PBL rubric, and the MER survey.

Research question 1 was quantitative and used the data collection tool of the

Content Knowledge test. The main findings were that students 8 and 9 did very poorly

(48% pretest and 52% post-test; 53% pretest and 60% post-test, respectively). Also, in

the content knowledge test, student 2 scored lower in the post-test (66%) than in the

pretest (68%). In my engagement observations (qualitative), students 8, 9, and 2 were

consistently complaining and were not sure what to do while working on the rubric for

problem solving (quantitative). This corroborates with the scores in content knowledge,

showing that these students had some problems or were academically weak.

Research question 2 was quantitative also. Student 7 did worse on the post-test

in five out of seven sub-scales, and student 9 did worse on the post-test in four of the

seven sub-scales. My engagement observation was qualitative. Student 7 did not seem

to be motivated, was always late to class, and complained that the other students did

not like him. His not listening to the group discussion might have contributed to his

lowered results on the post-tests. Student 9 did not show up during the first case

presentation and thus missed content. The group also mentioned that she missed group
98

meetings. Therefore, the student not being serious about her work might have

contributed to her lower scores. Throughout all seven assessments, student 8 (outlier)

did poorer than her classmates, with scores mostly in the 50s to 70s. This student was

always complaining and had a very bad relationship with her classmates. Thus, group

work was not very helpful for this special student, and he brought the results of her

group down (see Table 4). When I in my role as observer approached the students

about her bad results, she mentioned problems at home that cannot be revealed here

due to privacy. These findings were triangulated with the PBL rubric. Student 7 and 8

were in group 1 in the qualitative assessment (Problem-Solving Rubric), and they

brought their group’s overall score down through their low scores. These triangulated

findings corroborate each other.

Research question 3 was qualitative; the data sources are also supporting each

other. The MER (qualitative) and the students’ reflective journals (qualitative)

corroborate each other’s findings. Thus, the features considered positive by the

students were the same in both data collection tools: First, the group work was seen as

advantageous in both data collection tools. Second, critical thinking was also seen as

advantageous in both data collection tools. Third, student-centered and active learning

was further seen as advantageous in both data collection tools. Fourth, self-directed

and independent learning was seen advantageous in both data sources. Also, in both

qualitative data collection tools, the students identified the same negative aspects: First,

the disagreement among the group members, and second, the uncertainty of the

answers was perceived as disadvantageous by the students. However, the students’

reflective journals provided more data than the MER, because the MER survey just
99

employed open-ended questions, whereas the journals were written in free flow. Thus,

the students’ reflective journals mentioned self-esteem, preparation for the workforce,

search for information as positively perceived attributes, and PBL being a new

approach, PBL not being for everyone, and little guidance as negatively perceived

attributes. This means that triangulation does not have the purpose of yielding the same

results through different data collection tools, but that each data source contributes

somewhat different results.

My engaged observations further helped me to supplement the other data, and

thus provided support for the interpretation of my data. My observations were

triangulated with my interpretations and my interventions. For example, when I

observed that the students asked repeatedly what they had to do when working on the

PBL problem-solving rubric, my interpretation was that this process was new to them,

and my intervention was a thorough explanation of the PBL process. Therefore, it can

be said that my data sources were talking to each other. In conclusion, the triangulation

of methods as delineated above showed deeper insight into my students’ engagement

and their personal results according to their abilities with regard to content knowledge,

problem solving, and critical thinking.

Conclusion

Figure 11 summarizes the basic findings of this study. First, data from the pre-

post test reveal that content knowledge did increase using PBL. Second, although

significant difference was not established, problem-solving skills did seem to improve

using PBL. Third, my observations and student journals seem to indicate that critical

thinking skills were enhanced and instruction became more student-centered with more
100

self-directed, collaborative learning. Students also expressed enhanced communication

and problem-solving skills as well as enhanced self-esteem. On the other hand,

negative opinions were also expressed that include a more difficult and heavier

workload, disorganization of student groups, uncertainty of the accuracy of data

collected, unfocused teaching, unequal effort by team members and wasted time in

class.
101

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Introduction

This chapter concludes the study by presenting the purpose of the study, a

summary of the results, the relationship of the current study to previous research, the

theoretical implications, the practical implications, the research implications,

suggestions and recommendations for further research, and the limitations of the study.

The chapter ends with a conclusion that summarizes the study.

Undergraduates lack competencies such as problem-solving, critical thinking,

working in teams, and being life-long learners that are deemed necessary for success in

the job market. Historically, educators have used the traditional lecture approach, in

which information is transmitted as students memorize content to pass the

examinations, but this still has not solved the core problem, which is having competent

graduates solve the new challenges of the industry. Therefore, to best prepare

graduates to compete in the competitive job market, there is an urgent need to find a

more effective instructional approach for teaching industry skills in order for graduates

to become successful.

The purpose of this study was threefold: to examine the effect of the PBL

instructional approach on the content knowledge of Hospitality students; to examine

how the Problem-Based Learning instructional approach affects Hospitality students’

critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and to examine the effect of a Problem-

Based Learning instructional approach on Hospitality students’ critical thinking and

problem solving skills.

102

Summary of the Results

Research Question One: “How does the Problem-Based Learning instructional

approach affect students’ content knowledge in Hospitality?” The results show that there

was a significant difference (p=.004) between the pre- and post-content knowledge

tests. The students performed better in the post-test than the pretest, which were twelve

weeks apart. This increase in performance may be a result of teaching PBL to the

students. As some students stated, PBL made it easier to understand the content and

asserted that learning became more interesting, enjoyable, and fun. One student stated,

“[w]e need this kind of learning strategy in order for [us] to better understand the course

concepts.”

Research Question Two: “How does the Problem-Based Learning instructional

approach affect the critical thinking and problem-solving skills of Hospitality students?”

The results show there was no statistically significant difference (p value.439 > 0.05)

between the CCTST pre- and post-test. This may be due to the small sample size. The

students may have needed more time to develop and practice, to extend and broaden

their capacity to become critical thinkers; however, the pre- and post-tests were only

twelve weeks apart. Also, the reason for these results may be the type of academically

weak students in this course. In the overall score of the CCTST, compared to the

recommended performance assessment by insight assessment research team in the

overall score, the findings show 1 student was superior, 1 student was strong, 3

students were moderate, 3 students were weak, and 1 student was not manifested (See

Table 4).
103

In addition, the result shows that students’ problem solving skills improved from

case 1 to case 4 (see Table 4 for scores of the four cases). The scores increased 76%-

88% in group 1 and 82%-90% in group 2.The higher score may be attributed to the

teaching of PBL after each case was presented. The intervention feedback that

stressed the importance of following the rubric 7 steps approach of problem solving by

Barrow (1966) may have improved the scores. The interaction with each other in the

groups regarding content knowledge, building ideas, and conversations may have

contributed to the increase in scores. The learning activities in groups helped with the

activation and the brainstorming of ideas, and as a result, the activities helped them to

think in terms of cause and effect. My role of guiding on the side, giving feedback, and

asking questions may have contributed to the increase of scores. The guiding on the

side included help with identifying the key issues in each problem, so the students could

learn those areas in appropriate breadth and depth. The result also shows the

difference in the two groups. Group 2 scored higher in all the modules compared to

group 1, which might indicate higher academic skills of the students in group 2.

Research Question Three: “What is the effect of a Problem-Based Learning

instructional approach on students' attitudes and perceptions of problem solving in

Hospitality settings?” The study’s findings support the fact that students had more

positive than negatives attitudes towards PBL. Other researchers using PBL have

stated that students became more motivated to learn. The MER survey was chosen as

data collection tool because of its accessibility and practicability. The MER survey and

the journals seem to indicate that the students in this study did emerge as engaged
104

learners and were motivated to learn. Students emerged as self-directed learners while

using PBL.

The MER survey provided positive evidence in both pre- and post-PBL

implementation. The positive themes of the MER survey in this study include that the

students like the ideas and concepts; that they like group work and learning from each

other; that they like critical thinking; that they like to do most of the talking; and that they

like the factual information provided. The negative themes of the MER survey include

disagreement among group members; group members not doing their share of the

work; disorganization; and uncertainty of the correct answers.

The students’ journals reflected the students’ experience with PBL using their own

words, thus adding depth and richness to the results. The positive themes of the

students’ journals in this study include self-directed learning; understanding content;

self-esteem; preparation for the workforce; student centered, collaborative, and active

learning; critical thinking; enhanced interpersonal skills (soft skills); and support in

search for information. The negatives themes of the students’ journals included the

difficulty of justifying their answers; the waste of time; the fact that PBL is not for

everyone; a lack of cooperation from the group; the insecurity about a new approach;

and the fact that PBL caused a higher workload. From my observations, I conclude that

the students have not been asked to be individually focused and disciplined, because of

their comments of being frustrated. Evidence can be seen from the following student

example: “PBL was not focused, it was frustrating and led to increase in workload.” (F8)

This led to my intervention to guide students to become more self-disciplined and

focused.
105

Relationship of Current Study to Previous Research

The results of this study showed a significant difference between the pre- and

post-content knowledge test. These findings are consistent with the findings of the

studies of Gijbel et al., 2005; Kivelaand & Kivela, 2005; Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2006

that show the same results, but differ from the findings of the studies of Mitchell, 1993,

and Dochy et al., 2003. This difference might be due to the interventions used.

In addition, the results also revealed no significant difference between the pre-

and post-test of the CCTST. This finding is consistent with PBL critics (Morris, 2003;

Newman, 2004; Norman & Schmidt, 2000; Vernon & Blake, 1993; Wilson, 2007). This

study does not support the findings of Ali et al., 2010, Andrews et al., 2000, Hansen,

2006; Otting et al., 2009; Pawson et al., 2006; Savin-Baden, 2000; Ward and Lee, 2002

that claimed that the PBL process does expand students’ critical thinking skills. The

results are consistent with the study by Hussain, Mamat, Salleh, and Harland, 2007,

which reported that students were positive about PBL benefits but had problems with

the adaptation at the beginning of PBL. This might be because PBL is new to the

students, who are not used to this method of teaching. Another reason might be the

academic performance of the different students.

Regarding active learning, the study is consistent with the studies of de Boer and

Otting, 2011; Lee, 2005;Torpand Sage, 2002, who stated that students emerged as

active learners in solving problems as seen in table 5 problem solving skills increased in

all case studies. Also, students were motivated to learn during the various stages of the

PBL process, which was also evidenced in the students’ journals and my observations.
106

The students’ journals indicated that students believed PBL taught them how to

think creatively in problem solving. This finding supports the studies of Ferreira and

Trudel, 2012; Frenay et al., 2007; Pennell and Miles, 2009; Neo and Neo, 2001;

Torpsand Sage, 2002, who indicated that PBL promoted creative thinking.

In their journal entries, students believed that PBL provided them with self-

directed learning, while working to solve problems, which supports the studies by

Barrow, 2002;deBoerand Otting, 2011;Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, and Gijbels,

2003; Hmelo- Silver, 2004; Pawson et al., 2006; and VandenHurk, 2006. However,

Silen and Uhlin (2008) are critical that self-directed learning is narrowed down to self-

study. The student journals provided rich data, which in combination with my

observation and the MER survey facilitated triangulation, and thus helped confirm, cross

validate, and collaborate findings to help increase the trustworthiness of the findings in

this study (Creswell Plano Clark, Guttman & Hanson, 2003; Lincoln & Gruba, 1985).

These studies also found positive effect of PBLand the data complemented each other

to strengthen the findings.

In the present study, the students felt PBL taught them to think deeper and

promoted interpersonal soft skills and higher order thinking in solving problems, which is

supported by Pennell and Miles, 2009; and Torps and Sage, 2002. Group Collaboration

helped promote creative problem solving and higher order thinking skills, as with other

studies (deBoer & Otting, 2011; Ferreira &Trudel, 2011; Kwok, 2012;Kunar &

Natarajam, 2007; Schmidt et al., 2009; Wolfe &Gould, 2001). This study verified their

finding that PBL developed students’ higher-order thinking and interpersonal skills by
107

working in groups. The results of this study verify other researchers’ claims of students’

ownership of their learning (Ferreira & Trudel, 2011;Yeung, et al., 2003).

Among some of the students quotes from the MER survey and students’ journals

include: student M2, “I prefer discussions in groups, we can relate to each other.” F2, “I

get more networking, different ideas and views, hear what students know, it is just

better.” F7 it encourages me to think critically.” Another student stated, “It helped me to

develop a more creative mind and think critically on the spot.” F10, “It is very useful for

me to take charge of my own learning particularly when arranging my time.” F2, “It help

me improve myself interpersonal skills and reach my greater goal. Another student F4

commented, “The discussion helped me to become more active in learning, it was able

to improve my communication skills and build my self-confidence and improve my

people skills.”

Theoretical Implications

The results of this study are consistent with the tenets of the constructivism

framework as stated in Chapter 1. Constructivists believe that learners construct their

own knowledge through prior experiences and reflections on those experiences. In the

context of this study, the students performed better in the content knowledge post-test

than the pretest; thus, it shows that the low scores in the pretest were manifestations of

students’ development in constructing knowledge about their prior experiences with

Hospitality problems. PBL strategy has to do with student learning, the intervention

provided a constructivist view that learning is an active, contextualized process of

constructing knowledge rather than being taught it. Interest also has a great influence
108

on the construction of new knowledge by learners. In constructivism, students construct

their own knowledge of the world on their perception and experience. The students’

positive attitudes towards PBL after the teaching of PBL may have resulted in the higher

scores in the posttest.

The findings also suggest that PBL activities, addressing such elements as

identifying the problem, defining the desired outcome, searching for information,

providing possible solutions, providing pros and cons, selecting the solution, solving the

problem, and reflecting, which are done collaboratively with peers, have a positive

influence on students’ thinking and learning. Students’ style of thinking can be improved

through the questions and inquiries posed by myself as the instructor. This connects to

the present data and reflects constructivism insofar as the instructor is a “guide on the

side” rather a “sage on the stage,” which is the instructor’s role in constructivism

(scaffolding).

In PBL, the main focus of learning occurs through problem-solving activities;

these activities may well be more interesting and serve to motivate students to engage

more in their learning. Declarative knowledge and skills are nurtured, requiring creative

and critical thinking to solve problems. The learning processes will be ongoing, and

knowledge and skills can be stored in long-term memory, not the short term memory,

because the information will be kept longer, and most parts of the brain will be involved.

Thus, it will be easier to recall such knowledge when needed in the future.

Practical Implications

As educators, we must create a learning environment that will engage students to

develop competences and skills in conjunction with knowledge to become successful

109

hospitality professionals. To provide graduates with critical thinking and problem-solving

skills demanded by industry professionals, a new approach such as PBL can be

adopted.

PBL is by no means a panacea for all of hospitality education failings, because

students learn differently, but it meets an important set of objectives that have been

identified as essential when preparing managers for action in the present labor market.

The critical thinking potential of PBL can foster a global perspective and be conducive to

ethical judgment and awareness in decision-making. In the present study, the students

also showed heightened awareness in decision-making. The self-regulation and

problem-solving skills of PBL facilitates the ability to manage information and

technologies. Simply stated, the PBL format places the learner into the type of work

situations that graduates will face as leaders in 21th century organizations. The aim of

this study was to examine the effect of PBL on content knowledge, critical thinking and

problem solving, and the effect of attitudes and perceptions on problem solving in

hospitality settings. For PBL to be successful, students must develop confidence in

independent learning that is close to the real-world, and the instructor must be

competent in terms of the process. In the present study, the students expressed

confidence in the independent learning process by stating positive experiences, such

as: “With ideas and concepts, I can develop my own thoughts” (M2), “I can gather ideas

from others” (F2), and “We did a lot of talking, we became active learners” (F11). It is

our duty as educators constantly to review and improve our teaching efforts to ensure a

brighter future in the Hospitality education. However, if one student learned well with

PBL it does not mean other students will be equally successful. In this study one
110

student expressed these difficulties. “No way, I want to be taught and guided by the

teacher who is the expert.”

Recommendations for Future Research

There is a lack of PBL research in the Hospitality field. As a result, research in

PBL in Hospitality is needed in order to determine its effectiveness. The findings in this

study show positive effects, such as students’ self-directed learning, interpersonal soft

skills, problem-solving skills, working in groups, and preparation for the workforce. More

research is needed to investigate these aspects of PBL in detail.

Teaching and learning have been subjects of enormous research, much of which

suggests that teaching and learning are not as they should be and that changes have to

be made. Globalization, information technologies, and the diverse nature of the

workforce mean that we need students who not only can apply the knowledge they

learned but also to think and to investigate problems to produce the best decisions. For

this reason, a shift from route memorization to the PBL skills can be recommended

when teaching Hospitality courses.

This study should be considered as an initial attempt to determine the

effectiveness of PBL with juniors and seniors. Further investigation of PBL should

examine the relationship between demographic information, such as whether freshmen

and sophomores will experience a different effect of PBL. A new research endeavor

could be done to determine the effect of PBL on rate of learning. No studies were found

that examined the rate of learning; thus, PBL may help speed up the learning process.
111

Research could be conducted on content knowledge retention. There were a few

hospitality studies on content knowledge, which this study addressed, but no study was

found on the retention of content knowledge.

A study that lasts longer than a sixteen-week semester may provide a better

environment to draw more substantial conclusions as to the effectiveness of PBL.

Another recommendation is to examine the instructor’s perspective of the PBL process;

this could be an interesting topic for future research. Lastly, it would be useful to

conduct research to determine if Hospitality Management students who have had

training in a PBL environment perform better than those without experience in PBL. This

is the beginning of new research in the Hospitality field using PBL. Hospitality educators

need to do more research in our Hospitality field since there are only a handful of

studies, in order to help students to develop more competence; PBL has the potential to

stimulate real life situations, making it widely applicable to Hospitality education, which

will have positive implications for the industry.

Limitations

The findings in the study may have been influenced by any of the following

limitations, which suggest direction for future investigation:

1. Small sample size; limited to the number of students registered in the course.

It would be interesting to gather a large sample to see whether there is a strong effect

that can be generalized to a larger Hospitality learner population.

2. A sample of convenience was used. Therefore, the results of this study may not be

generalizable.
112

3. Participants in this study did not have any prior experience with PBL.

4. Participants were predominantly white females; therefore, the results may not be

generalized beyond this demographic group.

5. The pre- and post-MER attitude and perception survey by students were self-

reported.

6. The study lasted only 16 weeks. A time longer than a semester may provide a better

environment to draw a more substantial conclusion.

7. During the CCTST, only nine out of 12 students completed the assessment, because

the other three had dropped out.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that students’ content knowledge increased

after the implementation of PBL, and is revealed in the higher scores in the post-test

compared to the pretest. The students stated they needed a learning method that will

make them understand the content better. According to one of the students, “[t]here is a

need to change the present learning process and activities such as lecture to a new

challenging one such as PBL.” Another student wrote, “[t]he interactive environment in

PBL helps me retain better.”

The results also indicated that the critical thinking skills of the majority of the

students increased. The interaction with each other in group discussions, the building of

ideas, and the conversations during PBL may have contributed to the increase in

scores. According to the students, the greater interaction and collaboration with peers

facilitated learning. As pointed out by one student, “I learn a great deal in this way

because of the interactive environment which helps me to retain better.” Similarly,

113

another student wrote, “[t]he discussion in the group helped me to be more active in

learning and therefore it helped me remember it.” Also, the my role of guiding on the

side and giving feedback might have contributed to the increase in scores.

Students’ attitudes and perceptions of the effect of PBL on problem solving

revealed that the students had more positive than negative comments about PBL. The

negative comments included insecurity of how to justify their answers due to uncertainty

of correctness of their answers; frustration with group members for lack of cooperation

(some members were not pulling their weight); and ineffectiveness due to wasted time,

heavy load, and little guidance. However, the positive comments included an

improvement in content comprehension and self-esteem; better preparation for the work

force; growth under student-centered instruction; enhancement of efficiency in problem

solving; fostering of soft skills, such as communication skills and people skills;

development of critical thinking skills; increase of motivation to learn and to become

self-directed and active learners; and growth through collaboratively work. Thus,

through an improvement of their critical thinking and problem-solving skills, PBL could

prepare Hospitality students better for the job market.

114

REFERENCES

Agbeh, A., & Buchanan, P. (1993). High turnover on Cross Street: A problem-solving

approach. London, Ontario: International Case Clearing House, 1-3.

Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature

on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Med, 68(1), 52-81.

Ali, R., Akhter, A., Hukamdad, & Khan, A. (2010). Effect of using problem solving method

in teaching mathematics on the achievement of mathematics students. Asian

Social Science, 6(2), 67-72.

Andrews, E., Donen, N., Davis, P., Kvern, B., & Nixon, O. (2000). Evaluation of a problem-

based learning workshop using pre- and post-test objective structured clinical

examinations and standardized patients. Journal of Continuing Education Health

Profession, 20(3), 164-170.

Arcodia, C., & Dickson, C. (2013). Tourism field studies: Experiencing the Carnival of

Venice. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 25(3), 146-155.

Athanassion, N., McNett, J.M.,& Harvey, C. (2003). Critical thinking in the management

classroom: Bloom’s taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management

Education, 27(5), 533-555.

Balasubrimania, C. (2013). Lack of skilled labor still plagues India. Hotel News Now.

Retrieved from http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Article/9653/Lack-of-skilled-labor-

still-plagues-India

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficiency: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Barrows, H.S., &Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem based learning: An approach to medical

education. New York: Springer.

115

Barrow, H.S. (1997). Problem-based learning is more than just learning around problems.

The Problem Log Spring (2), 4-5.

Barth, S. & Hayes, D. (2009). Hospitality law: Managing legal issues in the hospitality

industry. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Baxter-Magolda, B. (2001). Making their own way: Narrative for transforming higher

education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter-Magolda, B. (2000). Interpreting student stories: A qualitative revision of the

measure of epistemological reflection. Paper presented at American College

Personnel Association, Washington, DC.

Bonwell, C.C., & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning creating excitement in the classroom.

(ASHE—ERIC Higher Education REP. N01). Washington D.C.: George

Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Boud, D., & Felleti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan.

Bovee, M. & Gran, D. (2000). Comparison of two teaching methods in a chiropractic

clinical science course. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(8), 373-376.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn. Washington,

D.C: National Academy Press.

Brooks, M.G., & Brooks, J.G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for

constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

Bruner, J. (1973). Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton.
116

California Critical Thinking Skills Test. (2014). User Manual. San Jose, CA: Insight

Assessment, AP.

Cashin, W.E. (1985). Improving lectures (Idea paper NO. 14). Manhattan: Kansas State

University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.

Chan, K.W. (2004). Assessment of PBL design approach in a dietetic web-based

instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(4), 437-452.

Chiriac, H.E. (2008). A scheme for understanding group processes in problem-based

learning. Higher Education, 55(5), 505-518.

Chung, J. C. C. & Chow, S. M. K. (1999). Imbedded PBL in an Asian context:

Opportunities and challenges. Proceedings of the 1st Asia Pacific Conference on

problem-based learning, Hong Kong, 35-46.

Cobb, P. (1996). Where is the mind? A coordination of sociocultural and cognitive

constructivist perspective in C.T. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and

practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colliver, J.A. (1999). Research strategy for problem-based learning: Cognitive science or

outcomes research. Teach Learn Med, 64(11), 64-65.

Colliver, J.A. (2000).Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and

theory. Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259-266.

Cooperstein, S.E. & Weidinger, E.K. (2004). Beyond active learning: a constructivist

approach to learning. Reference Service Review, 2(32), 141-148.

117

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Cushman, J., Dilly, G., & Gould, R. (1997/1998). Applying the problem-

solving method to hospitality education. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Education, 9(4), 60-62.

Dawson, M., & Titz, K. (2012). Problem-based learning as a strategy to teach service

Quality: An assessment of on-line reviews. Journal of Hospitality& Tourism

Education, 24(2/3), 67-72.

De Boer, M. R., & Otting, H. (2011). Student’s voice in problem-based learning: Personal

experiences, thoughts and feeling. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education,

23(2), 30-40.

Denzin, K., & Lincoln, S. (2005). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

Dewet, M. A., Veldman, F. J., Bouwer, W. A. J., & Mokhele, N. E. L. (2008). Organizational

change and faculty development: The introduction of Problem Based Learning in

hospitality management at the central university of technology, Free State, South

Africa. Retrieved from http://www.sefi.be/wp-content/abstracts/1123.pdf

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of

education (1966 ed.) New York: Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Dittman, D. (1997). Educators prepare for industry globalization. Hotel and Motel

Magazine, 23-51.
118

Dittman, D. (1994). Cornell University did, and learned much about the state of hospitality

education. Just ask David Dittman, dean of Cornell’s hotel school. Lodging, 47-49.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-

based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533-568.

Doig, K., & Werner, E. (2000). The marriage of lecture based curriculum and problem-

based learning: Are the offspring vigorous? Medical Teacher, 22(2), 173-178.

Donnelly, A., & Fitzmaurice, M. (2005). Collaborative project-based learning and problem-

based learning in Higher education: A consideration of tutor and student roles in

learning-focused strategies, pp. 87-98. In O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (eds):

Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching. Dublin: AISHE.

Duncan, M., Lyons, M., & Al-Nakeeb, Y. (2007). "You have to do it rather than being in a

class and just listening." The impact of Problem-based Learning on the student

experience in sports and exercise biomechanics. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure

Sports & Tourism Education, 6(11), 71-80.

Duch, B. J., & Groh, S. E. (2001). The power of problem-based learning: A practical “how

to” for teaching undergraduates courses in any discipline. Sterling, VA: Stylus

Publishing.

Ferreiro, M. M., & Trudel, R. A. (2012). The impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on

student attitudes toward science, Problem - solving skills, and sense community in

classroom. Journals of Classroom Interaction, 47(1), 23-25.

Fisher, W. R., & Lynagh, M. (n.y.). Problem-based learning: A dissemination success

story? The Medical Journal of Australia,183(5), 258-260.

119

Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of larning. Constructivism

Theory, Perspective, and Practice. New York: Teacher College Press.

Frenay, M., Galand, B., Milgrom, E., & Raucent, B. (2007). Project and problem based

learning in the first two years of the engineering curriculum at UC Louvain, pp. 93-

108. In A. Kolmos & E. de Graaff (Eds). Management of change: Implementation

of problem-based and project-based learning in engineering. Rotterdam: Sense

Publisher.

Gabr, H., & Mohamed, N. (2011). Effect of problem-based learning on undergraduate

nursing students enrolled in Nursing Administration Course. International Journal

of Academic Research, 3(1), 154-162.

Gallagher, J. M. (1997). Problem-based learning: Where did it come from, what does it

do, and where is it going? Journal for Education of the Gifted, 20, 332-362.

Goeij, A. (1996). Problem-based learning: What is it? What is it not? What about the basic

sciences? Biochemical Society Transactions, 25, 289-290.

Gustin, M. (2001). Think for yourself: Bringing critical thinking skills to the classroom.

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 13(1), 41-47.

Gursoy, D., Rohman, I., & Swanger, N. (2012). Industry’s expectation from hospitality

schools: What has changed? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 23 (4),

32-33.

Gursoy, D., & Swanger, N. (2005). An industry driven model of hospitality curriculum for

programs housed in accredited colleges of business: Part II. Journal of Hospitality

& Tourism Education 17(2), 46-56.

120

Hansen, J. D. (2006). Using problem-based learning in accounting. Journal of Education

for Business, 81(4), 221-224.

Hinkin, T. R. (1995). Cases in hospitality management: A critical incident approach.

Ithaca, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004). Problem based learning: What and how do students learn?

Educational Psychology Review 16(3), 235-266.

Hou, J. (2014). Soft skills make the difference in a competitive (hospitality) job market.

Hotel Industry Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.hotel-

industry.co.uk/2014/09/soft-skills-make-the-difference-in-a-competitive-

hospitality-job-market/

Huang, R. (2005). Chinese international students' perceptions of the problem-based

learning experience. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism

Education, 4(2), 36-44.

Hussain, R. M. R., Mamat, W. H. W., Salleh, N., & Harland, T. (2007). Problem-based

learning in Asian universities. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 761-772.

Hwang, S. Y., and M. J. Kim (2006). A comparison of problem-based learning and lecture

based learning in on adult health nursery course. Nurse Education Today 26(4),

315-321.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed method research. A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, K. & Linda, M. (1996). Personality types and the hospitality industry: A tool for

educators. Hospitality and Tourism Educators, 105-108.

121

Jones, R. L., & Turner, P. (2006). Teaching coaches to coach holistically: Can problem-

based learning (PBL) help? Physical Education and Sports Pedagogy, 11(2), 181-

202.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during

instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,

problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational

Psychologist, 2(41), 75-86.

Kivela, J., & Kivela, R. J. (2005). Student perceptions of an embedded problem-based

learning instructional approach in hospitality undergraduate programme.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24,(3) 437-464.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (1996). Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism. UK:

Prentice Hall.

Kotschovar, L., & Luciani, V. (1996). The ultimate service professional. Chicago:

National Restaurant Association.

Kumar, M., & Natarajan, U. (2007). A problem-based learning model: Show casing an

educational paradigm shift. Curriculum Journal, 18(1), 89-102.

Lalopa, J. M., & McDonald, J. T. (2002). Problem-based learning: Providing students the

opportunity to solve real-world industry problems in the safety of the classroom.

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 14(3), 36-41.

122

Lee, C.-F. (2014). The determinants of hospitality internship quality from the perspectives

of three stakeholders: A case from Taiwan. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Education, 26(2), 75-86.

Lee, R. D. (2003). Problem-based learning in the teaching of hospitality law. Journal of

Hospitality& Tourism Education, 15(1), 17-26.

Lin, S. (2002). Exploring the relationships between hotel management courses and

industry required competencies. Journal of Teaching and Travel and Tourism, 2(3-

4), 81-101.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Validity trustworthiness and rigor: Quality and the

idea of qualitative research. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research, 304-310.

Lo, A. (2004). Development quality of students for the hospitality and tourism industries

through problem-based learning. Conference proceedings of Hospitality. Tourism

and food service industry in Asia: Development, marketing and sustainability: May

27-29, Phucket.

Mandernach, B. J. (2006). Thinking critically about critical thinking integrating online tools

to promote critical thinking. Critical Thinking, 1, 41-50.

Marlowe, B. L., & Page, M. L. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist

classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Martin, D., & McEvoy, B. (2001). Classroom simulation is computer based. Hospitality

Review 19(2), 13-22.

Martin, D., & Mc Fuoy, B. (2001). Classroom simulation is computer based. FIU

Hospitality Review 4(2), 45-63.

123

May, D. B. (2002). College physics students’ epistemological self-reflection and its

relationship to conceptual learning. Physics Education Research: A Supplement

to the American Journal of Physics, 1-19.

Mayburry, T. L., & Swanger, N. (2011). Identification of Industry Needs for Baccalaureate

Hospitality Educators Summit Hilton Lecture Series XII, The School of Hospitality

Business, Michigan State University.

Maxcy, S.J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social science:

The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of

formalism. In Tashakkori, A.,& Teddlie, C.(Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in

Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mbewe, S. (2012). Middle school teachers’ familiarity with, interest in, performance on,

and conceptual and pedagogical knowledge of light. Doctoral dissertation,

Southern Illinois University .Carbondale IL.

McIntyre, C. (2007). Outcome of teacher candidate portfolios: Action or reflection action.

Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University. Atlanta, GA.

McIntyre, C., Dangle, J., & Guyton, E. (2004). Journey to authorship. Conference

proceedings of Association of Teacher Educators, National Conference in Dallas,

Texas. February 17, 2004.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miflin, B., & Taylor, D. (2008). Problem-based learning: Where are we now?

Medical Teacher, 30(8), 742-763.

124

Millar, M., Mao, Z., & Moreo, P. (2010) Hospitality and tourism educators. The Industry

Competency Assessment, 5(2), 123-156.

Montemayor, E. (2004). Formative and summative assessment of the problem based

learning. Tutorial session using a criterion reference system. IAMSE, 8-14.

Morse, J. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals.

Qualitative Health Research, 13(6), 833-851.

Morris, K., & Barber, D. (2008). Hospitality case review: The top 100+ cases that impacted

us this past year. Presented at the sixth annual hospitality law conference.

Houston, Texas.

Myers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college

classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nelson, A. A., & Dopson, L. (2001). Future of hotel education: Required skills and

knowledge for graduates of U.S. hospitality programs beyond the year 2000-part

one. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 13(5), 58-67.

Neo, T. K., & Neo, M. (2001). Problem-based learning: Reconstructing a website using

multimedia authoring tools. N.d., n.p.

Newman, M. (2003). A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of

problem-based learning. Campbell collaboration systematic review group on the

effectiveness of problem-based learning England: Middlesex University.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.J. (2004). Enhancing the interpretation of “significant”

findings: The role of mixed methods research. The Quantitative Report, 9(4), 770-

792.
125

O’ Sullivan, R. G. (1991). Improving evaluation design and use through the “evaluation

cross-walk” method. National forums of Applied Research Journal 4(1), 43-49.

Otting, H. (2011). Hospitality management students' conceptions about teaching and

learning and their evaluation of tasks in problem-based learning. Journal of

Hospitality, Leisure, Sports & Tourism Education, 10(1), 5-7.

Otting, H., Zwaal, W., & Gijselaers, W. (2009). International hospitality management

students’ epistemological beliefs and conceptions of teaching and learning.

Journal for Hospitality and Tourism Education, 21(3), 44-53.

Otting, H., Zwaal, W., & Gijselaers, W. (2009). International hospitality management

students’ epistemological beliefs and conceptions of teaching and learning.

Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 44-53.

Paris, C. (2011). Social constructivism and tourism education.

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 10(2), 103 – 108.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Pawson, E., Fournier, E., Haigh, M., Munuz, O., Trafford, J., & Vajoczki, S. (2006).

Problem-based learning in geography: Towards a critical assessment of its

purposes, benefits and risks. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30, 103-

116.

Pennell, M., & Miles, L. (2009). “It actually made me think”: Problem-based learning in the

business communications classroom. Business Communication Quarterly, 72(4),

377-394.
126

Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. New York: Grossman. Retrieved on July 22,

2013, from http. Curriculum.calstalela.edu/faculty/psparks/

Theorist/50/const.htm

Queensland Studies Authority (2013). Research assessment: Investigating and

responding to client needs, 1-7. Retrieved from

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/senior/snr_hospitality_12_sai_resp_clien

t_needs.pdf

Rainsfors, P. (1997). Some ramblings about hospitality curricula. Journal of Hospitality

andTtourism Education, 9(3), 4-5.

Raybound, M., & Wilkins, H. (2006). Generic skills for hospitality management: A

comparative study of management expectations and students’ perceptions.

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 13(2), 177-188.

Rhem, J. (1998). Problem based learning: An introduction. The National Teaching and

Learning Forum, 8 (1), 1-7.

Ross, V. (2003). The Socratic method: What it is and how to use it in the classroom.

Standford University Newsletter on Teaching, 13(1), 1-4.

Sanders, J.T. (1997). An ontology of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 9(1), 97-112.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and

its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-38.

Savery, R. J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definition and distinctions. The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-14.

127

Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories.

Philadelphia, PA: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open

University Press.

Schmidt, H. G., van der Molen, H. T., te Winkel, W. W. R. & Wijnen, W. H. F. W. (2009).

Constructivists, problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular

comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44(4),

227-249.

Scott, P., & Gater, S. (1987). A constructivist view of learning and teaching in science.

University of Leeds, Leeds England: Centre for Studies in Science and

Mathematics Education.

Silen, C., & Uhlin, L. (2008). Self-directed learning a learning issue for students and

faculty. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 461-475.

Sisson, L., & Adams, A. (2012). Essential hospitality management competencies: the

importance of soft skills. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 25, 131-

145.

Spence, L. D. (2000). Problem based learning: Lead to learn, learn to lead.

Retrieved from http://www.lst.psu.edu

Spencer, J. A. (1999). Learner centered approaches in medical education. British Medical

Journal, 318, 1280-1283.

Spowart, J. (2011). Hospitality students competencies are they work ready? Journal of

Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 10(2), 169-181.

Steinert, Y. (2004). Student perceptions of effective small group teaching. Medical

Education, 38, 286-293.

128

Tashakkori, A., & Teddllie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and

quantitative approaches. Thousand Oak: Sage.

Tesone, D., & Ricci, P. (2006). Toward a definition of entry level hob competencies.

International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 7(4), 65-88.

Thomas, M., & Chan, L.P. (2002). Achieving learner independence using the problem-

based learning approaches. Journal of Language and Linguistics,1(3), 288-297.

Tonts, M. (2011).Using problem-based learning in large undergraduate fieldwork classes:

An Australian example. International Research in Geographical and Environmental

Education, 20(2), 105-119.

Torps, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problems and possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-

16 education (2ndEd.). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Travers, C. (2011). Unveiling a reflective diary methodology for exploring the lived

experiences of stress and coping. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 204-216.

Tse, P.S.M. (1997). Problem based learning in hotel and tourism management:

Implementation and evaluation, pp. 610-620. In Conway, Fisher, Sheridan-Burns,

and Ryan.

San Diego State University (ND). PBL. Retrieved on March 16, 2013

Fromhttp://edweb.sdsu.edu/Clrit/Learningtree/Ltrec.html.

Vernon, D., & Blake, R. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis for

evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550-563.

Visschers-Pleijers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. H. J. M, De Grave, W. S., Wolfhagen,

129

I. M. A. P., Jacobs, J. A., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2006). Student perceptions

about the characteristics of an effective discussion during the reporting phase in

problem-based learning. Medical Education, 40(9), 924-931.

Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2008). A problem-based learning meta-analysis: Differences

across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels.

The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 12.

Ward, J. D., & Lee, C. L. (2002). A review of problem-based learning. Journal of Family

and Consumer Science Education, 20(1), 16-26.

Warner, V. (1993). Gap between classrooms and workplace needs narrowing. Restaurant

News, 25.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the

amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3),

420-432.

Williams, A. G. (1997). Hospitality cases in marketing and operations. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas:

An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing

teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.

Wolfe, K., & Gould, R. (2001). Insights on team-based learning. Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism Education, 13(3/4), 87-96.

Woods, D.F. (2008). Teaching and learning in a large group. Journal of U.K. Diabetic

Medicine, 20, 1-14.

Zwaal, W., & Otting, H. (2010). The process of problem-based hospitality

130

management education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism

Education, 9(2), 17-30.

APPENDICES
131

Appendix A - Human Subject Application

SIUC Human Subject Committee

Office of Sponsored Projects Administration

Woody Hall C214

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

MC. 4709

Dear Human Subject Committee Chair,

I am a PhD. Student in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. I am writing

to you requesting for research proposal review under Category I for a study I would like
to undertake for my dissertation.

The study will be conducted in my course, a curriculum efficacy study for HTA
371 Spring Semester to begin in January 22 and end May 9, 2014.

You will find enclosed here a copy of form A, three copies of form B and C. Also
enclosed are three copies of Research Description, Recruitment Script for Subjects,
Consent Form and Instruments for Measurements.

Thanks.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony Agbeh

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Phone #: (561)-727-9104

Email: [email protected]
132

Appendix B - Recruitment Script for Subjects

Research Title: Problem based-learning in Hospitality and Tourism Administration

Course.

Researcher: My name is Anthony Agbeh, Doctoral Student at Southern Illinois

University Carbondale in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, and my

specialty area is Curriculum Studies.

I am asking for your voluntary participation in this study, which will have no effect on

your academic work.

This study has three instruments, Pre & Post Survey, Measure of Epistemological

Reflection (MER) and Pre & Post Knowledge Test. You will not be required to write your

name on the answer sheet, instead you will be identified by a number that will be printed

on the test paper. The researcher will score and analyze all the responses.

I assure you that all reasonable steps will be taken by the researcher to protect your

identity. Only the researcher will have access to the records and these will be kept in a

locked file in the researcher office (Quigley Room 209).The records will be destroyed

after the study is completed.

If you have any questions or concerns about the study you can direct them to me

(Anthony Agbeh, 618-453-2462, [email protected]) or my advisor (Dr. John McIntyre) at

[email protected], 618-453 4266.Your participation will be greatly valued. Thank

you.
133

This project has been reviewed and approved by the SIUC Human Subject Committee.

Questions concerning your rights as a participant in this research may be addressed to

the committee chair person.

Office of Sponsored Projects Administration SIUC, Carbondale, IL 62901-4709. Phone:

(618)-453-4533 Email: [email protected].

134

Appendix C - Consent Form

Researcher: Anthony Agbeh

Research Title: Problem-Based Learning in the Hospitality and Tourism Administration

Course.

I ________________________ agree to participate in this research study

conducted by Anthony Agbeh, Doctoral Student, Department of Curriculum and

Instruction.

I understand the purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of problem

based- learning on content knowledge, student’s disposition attitude and perception of

PBL on problem solving and the impact of PBL on problem solving and critical thinking

skills.

I understand my participation is strictly voluntary and that I may refuse to

participate at anytime.

The three instruments will be administered on three separate days during the

period of the workshop and will take about 30-40 minutes. I understand that my

responses to these instruments will be analyzed, but that no identifying information will

be included on the instruments.

I understand that only the researcher will have access to the records and notes

which will be kept in a locked file in the researcher’s office Quigley (Room 209A).
135

I understand that the researcher will take all reasonable steps to protect my

identity. I understand questions or concerns about this study are to be directed to

Anthony Agbeh at 618-453-2462, [email protected] or my advisor, Dr. John McIntyre, at

[email protected], 618-453 4266

I have read the information above.

I agree ______ I disagree______ to complete the instruments.

Participant Signature and Date----------------------------------------------------------

This project has been reviewed and approved by the SIUC Human Subject

Committee. Questions concerning your rights as a participant in this research may be

addressed to the Committee Chairperson, Office of Sponsored Projects

Administration, SIUC, Carbondale IL 62901-4709.Phone (618) 453-4533. E-mail :

siuhsc @siu.
136

Appendix D - Pre-Knowledge Test

1. Which of the following recognizes that a purchaser may act as an agent for a food
service operation and has the power to legally obligate it?
a. sales law

b. antitrust law

c. warranty law

d. law of agency

2. Sales law is addressed in the:

a. Uniform Commercial Code.

b. U.S. Constitution.

c. Robinson-Patman Act.

d. Sherman Act.

3. At what point does a buyer assume title when products are shipped FOB?
a. when the products are received at the operation

b. when the seller puts the items in the hands of a carrier

c. as soon as the order is placed

d. when the invoice has been paid

4. Antitrust laws are designed to:

a. regulate business conduct to preserve competition and to prevent economic
coercion.

b. prevent all forms of consolidation in business.

c. prevent price gouging.

d. control products that are imported into the United States.

5. Which law makes it illegal to sell the same products to competing customers at
different prices?
a. Federal Trade Commission Act
137

b. Celler-Kefauver Amendment

c. Robinson-Patman Act

d. Clayton Act

6. In most contracts, consideration consists of:

a. all express and implied warranties.

b. specifications for the products to be purchased.

c. payment by a purchaser for products and services provided by a seller.

d. an oral agreement between the parties involved.

7. _____ warranties assure an operator that a product is fit for the ordering purposes
of such a product.
a. Express

b. Implied

c. Disclaimed

d. Uniform

8. All of the following are standard remedies for contract breach except:
a. requiring specific performance.

b. revising the agreement and seeking restitution.

c. obtaining damages.

d. receiving free delivery of products.

9. A hotel industry study in Toronto showed that although cultural diversity in the
workplace has positive effects, it can be a negative force when:
a. departmental concentration of minority ethnic groups causes conflicts between
individuals due to language or cultural differences.

b. new immigrant groups provide a large source of potential workers.

c. the work environment is enriched by multiple cultures.

d. hotels are able to meet the needs of a diverse group of customers.

138

10. The biggest challenge for a hotel manager in an environment of cultural diversity,
and the one that will bring the property the most benefit, is to:
a. ignore the different value systems.

b. focus only on the goals of the organization.

c. make ethnic groups behave as mainstream Americans.

d. create a team attitude toward achieving the goals and objectives of the
department and the hotel.

11. Which of the following statements about European-owned companies is false?

a. They tend to stress short-term results.

b. They spend less than do U.S. companies on training.

c. They tend to rely more on Americans for middle and upper-middle management
support than do companies owned by Asians.

d. Middle managers in British- and French-owned properties have to get approval

from upper level managers on decisions outside their small sphere of
responsibility.

12. Low-context cultures place great emphasis on the spoken and written word. Which
of the following is a low-context culture?
a. Chinese culture

b. North American culture

c. Japanese culture

d. Middle Eastern culture

13. Which of the following is not a valid insight into the behavior and values of people?
a. In many societies, family roles and relationships are very traditional, personal,
and precise.

b. Arabs and Africans have a close conversational space and may feel rejected by
the greater personal distance of Americans.

c. In cultures where religion governs business, it is important for a manager to

respect prayer requirements and diet restrictions in the hotel’s daily routines.

d. “More is better” or “bigger is better” is universally admired.

139

14. Which of the following actions would be a breach of protocol by an American in a

foreign country?
a. presenting flowers and a bottle of wine when in an Islamic culture

b. combining a handshake with a bow when greeting a Japanese business

associate

c. hugging when greeting a South American business associate

d. presenting an American-made gift to a business associate who is from a former

communist country

15. Which of the following actions is not recommended in negotiating across the given
culture?
a. In Latin America, build a business relationship that is based on friendship.

b. Work through government channels in Greece to conduct business.

c. In Italy, be conservative, efficient, impersonal, and go straight to the point.

d. With the Japanese, have the negotiation arranged by a mutual acquaintance or

go-between—a face-saving measure.

16. Cultural sensitivity training attempts to:

a. increase insight into one’s own behavior.

b. increase sensitivity to the behavior of others.

c. develop an attitudinal flexibility within the individual.

d. all of the above

17. Of the five categories of power recognized in German business, ____________

power ranks highest in esteem.
a. intellectual

b. financial

c. entrepreneurial

d. political
140

18. Which of the following statements about collectivism is false?

a. Ties between individuals are very tight.

b. Everybody looks after the interests of group members.

c. Everybody is expected to have opinions or beliefs other than those of the group.

d. The group protects or provides for its members.

19. Which of the following supervisory tools helps a housekeeping supervisor to specify
the quality of work needed to clean or maintain items within a hotel?
a. performance standards

b. a calendar plan of special cleaning projects

c. an area frequency list

d. productivity standards

20. If the time available for guestroom cleaning during a work shift is 6 hours and 48
minutes and each room attendant is expected to clean 17 guestrooms per shift, the
time it takes for one room attendant to clean one guestroom is:
a. 18 minutes.

b. 20 minutes.

c. 24 minutes.

d. 28 minutes.

21. Supervisors determine productivity standards by:

a. averaging the abilities of the most-productive and least-productive staff
members.

b. consulting standard industry guidelines for their type of operation.

c. doing a task themselves and comparing their results with the results of staff
members.

d. determining the amount of time required to perform a given task by trained staff
members.

22. Which of the following staff positions are likely to have work schedules that change
in relation to changes in hotel occupancy?
141

a. compressed staff positions

b. variable staff positions

c. shared staff positions

d. fixed staff positions

23. Which of the following housekeeping positions is most likely to have a work
schedule that varies directly in relation to hotel occupancy?
a. executive housekeeper

b. assistant executive housekeeper

c. floor supervisor

d. room attendant

24. The minimum labor required to run a food service operation, regardless of business
volume, is called the:
a. static labor.

b. constant staffing level.

c. fixed labor.

d. non-variable work force.

25. If the productivity standard at a 100-room hotel is 30 minutes to clean one

guestroom, how many room attendant labor hours are needed to clean guestrooms
when the hotel is at 80 percent occupancy?
a. 40 labor hours

b. 80 labor hours

c. 160 labor hours

d. 320 labor hours

26. Developing a staffing guide for each departmental position enables the scheduler
primarily to __________ for each position.
a. plan the number of labor hours needed

b. see the approved vacation dates at a glance

142

c. assess the appropriate labor standards

d. judge the work-performance quality

27. Jennifer, the catering manager at the Season’s Resort, uses a base adjustment
approach to forecasting sales. In order to take seasonality of business into account,
Jennifer should:
a. average data over one seasonal cycle and use the results as a base figure.

b. use data from the same period in the previous year as a base figure.

c. use a forecasted figure from a previous period and adjust it according to actual
activity in that period.

d. adopt a different forecasting method because the time series approach cannot
take seasonality of business into account.

28. The Fun Family Restaurant uses a base adjustment approach for forecasting covers
and scheduling staff. In April, the restaurant had 5,000 covers. The unit manager
expects business in May to decrease by 5 percent due to cutbacks in marketing and
promotional efforts. What is the manager’s forecast of covers for May?
a. 5,500

b. 5,250

c. 5,005

d. 4,750

29. The two tools managers use to schedule staff members are the staffing guide and:
a. sales forecasts.

b. job pyramid.

c. time clock data sheet.

d. purchase orders.

30. Which of the following helps ensure that the greatest number of employees are
working during peak business hours?
a. compressed work schedules

b. expanded work schedules

143

c. rotated work schedules

d. staggered work schedules

31. Every day and every week, the supervisor of the Rawhide Chow Wagon restaurant
compares the actual hours each staff member works with the number of hours for
which the staff member was scheduled to work. Supervisors perform this
comparison in order to:
a. monitor and evaluate the scheduling process.

b. compare their staffs’ performance with those of the competition.

c. consider staff members’ preferences for time off.

d. prevent staff members from working overtime.

32. Which of the following statements about scheduling and labor control software
applications is true?
a. Software systems are programmed with industry-wide productivity standards
and generally accepted demand drivers.

b. The best scheduling and labor control software systems are standalone
applications that function independently of other systems.

c. Scheduling and labor control software applications prompt supervisors of their

staffing requirements based on their operation’s productivity standards and
specific demand drivers.

d. Scheduling and labor control software applications forecast demand drivers

based on a specific work load.

33. The BEST way for supervisors to increase the productivity of employees is to:
a. routinely understaff their departments to ensure high productivity levels.

b. periodically overforecast the expected volume of business.

c. consistently reward top performers.

d. continually review and revise performance standards.

34. Which of the following misconceptions about time management may be covering up
a supervisor’s inability or unwillingness to train and develop staff?
a. “My job as a supervisor isn’t to manage time, it’s to put out fires.”
144

b. “I’m the only one who can really do this task the right way.”

c. “My job is different every day, specific schedules won’t work.”

d. “I get so many interruptions, time management is impossible.”

35. Stephanie is analyzing how she actually spends time at work. She is especially
interested in planning her time more wisely in the future. She wants to find out
which part of each day is typically the most productive for her. The best time
management tool for Stephanie to use would be:
a. job analysis forms.

b. daily time logs.

c. a weekly planning guide.

d. a day-timer calendar.

36. Analyzing daily time logs would help a supervisor to accomplish all of the following
except:
a. establish priorities.

b. determine the most productive times of the workday.

c. discover which tasks are consistently avoided.

d. identify activities that waste time on unproductive tasks.

37. All of the following are time robbers except:

a. procrastinating.

b. setting unrealistic deadlines for tasks.

c. establishing priorities.

d. overloading your schedule with meetings and tasks.

38. Enrique’s “can do” attitude was an important factor in his recent promotion to dining
room supervisor at the Fitness Club Restaurant. In his new position, Enrique is
busier than ever before but seems to be accomplishing less and less. He seems
pulled from one person to the next, from one problem to the next, from one crisis to
the next and the work schedules are posted later and later, his reports have more
and more errors, and his attitude seems to be changing for the worse. Enrique
probably needs help with:
145

a. time management skills.

b. conflict management skills.

c. change management skills.

d. coaching skills.

39. After listing all of the tasks on a daily to-do list, the next step in managing your time
should be to:
a. prioritize tasks in terms of which are to be done first, second, third, etc.

b. delegate what you can and do the rest yourself.

c. file it away for a day that is not so busy.

d. accomplish all the short tasks first and leave the longer tasks for later in the
day.

40. Managing time and sticking to priorities becomes easier for supervisors when they:
a. delegate the lowest priority tasks to employees.

b. avoid all interruptions and follow their to-do lists.

c. set priorities with the help of their boss.

d. delegate the highest priority tasks to employees.

41. Which of the following statements about time management software applications is
false?
a. Electronic to-do lists set all tasks as the same priority level.

b. Electronic time management systems enable users to track tasks their

percentage of completion.

c. Electronic time management systems provide automatic prompts and

reminders about tasks and scheduled meetings.

d. Electronic time management systems can post regularly occurring meetings

and block time on a calendar for appropriate days for several weeks into the
future.

42. Which of the following cannot be delegated?

a. responsibility for performing a task
146

b. authority to complete a task

c. accountability for accomplishing a task

d. none of the above can be delegated

43. Successful delegation depends on all of the following factors except:

a. the supervisor’s willingness to help an employee succeed at completing a task.

b. the supervisor’s ability to help an employee succeed at completing a task.

c. the supervisor’s willingness to give necessary authority to an employee to

complete a task.

d. the supervisor’s need to get the credit for accomplishing the delegate task.

44. All of the following are barriers preventing supervisors from becoming effective
delegators except:
a. need for perfectionism.

b. reluctance to spend the time it takes to train employees.

c. failure to establish follow-up procedures.

d. pride in work done well.

45. Roberta thinks that whatever brings the greatest good to the greatest number of
people is the right thing to do. The ethical theory that best fits Roberts’s ethical
viewpoint is called:

a. Utilitarianism

b. Kantian ethics

c. The ethic of justice.

d. Social responsibility.

46. The philosopher who argued that actions are moral or immoral because of their very
nature, not because of their consequences, was:

a. Michael Josephson.

b. Immanuel Kant.
147

c. Linda Enghagen.

d. Stephen S.J. Hall

47. In a survey about ethics within the Hospitality industry, Hospitality managers were
asked to rank various Hospitality entities in terms of their ethical behavior. In the survey,
the entity ranked last or least ethical was:

a. The American hotel industry in general.

b. Hotel guests.

c. Hotel labor unions.

d. Competitors.

48. Which of the following statements about a code of ethics is true?

a. A code of ethics is simply a statement of the principles by which an operation

intends to conduct business.

b. A code of ethics should try to cover every conceivable ethical dilemma.

c. A code of ethics should never be written down.

d. A and C.

49. All of these are ethical views except?

a. Trustworthiness.

b. Fairness.

c. Respect.

d. Code

50. Which of these is not an ethical litmus test?

a. It is fair?

b. What if everyone did it?

c. Is my action legal?

d. It should be about self-interest.

148

Appendix E - Post Content-Knowledge Test

1. Which of the following recognizes that a purchaser may act as an agent for a food
service operation and has the power to legally obligate it? 1. Which of the
following recognizes that a purchaser may act as an agent for a food service
operation and has the power to legally obligate it?
a. sales law

b. antitrust law

c. warranty law

d. law of agency

2. Sales law is addressed in the:

a. Uniform Commercial Code.

b. U.S. Constitution.

c. Robinson-Patman Act.

d. Sherman Act.

3. At what point does a buyer assume title when products are shipped FOB?
a. when the products are received at the operation

b. when the seller puts the items in the hands of a carrier

c. as soon as the order is placed

d. when the invoice has been paid

4. Antitrust laws are designed to:

a. regulate business conduct to preserve competition and to prevent economic
coercion.

b. prevent all forms of consolidation in business.

c. prevent price gouging.

d. control products that are imported into the United States.

149

5. Which law makes it illegal to sell the same products to competing customers at
different prices?
a. Federal Trade Commission Act

b. Celler-Kefauver Amendment

c. Robinson-Patman Act

d. Clayton Act

6. In most contracts, consideration consists of:

a. all express and implied warranties.

b. specifications for the products to be purchased.

c. payment by a purchaser for products and services provided by a seller.

d. an oral agreement between the parties involved.

7. _____ warranties assure an operator that a product is fit for the ordering purposes
of such a product.
a. Express

b. Implied

c. Disclaimed

d. Uniform

8. All of the following are standard remedies for contract breach except:
a. requiring specific performance.

b. revising the agreement and seeking restitution.

c. obtaining damages.

d. receiving free delivery of products.

9. A hotel industry study in Toronto showed that although cultural diversity in the
workplace has positive effects, it can be a negative force when:
a. departmental concentration of minority ethnic groups causes conflicts between
individuals due to language or cultural differences.

b. new immigrant groups provide a large source of potential workers.

150

c. the work environment is enriched by multiple cultures.

d. hotels are able to meet the needs of a diverse group of customers.

10. The biggest challenge for a hotel manager in an environment of cultural diversity,
and the one that will bring the property the most benefit, is to:
a. ignore the different value systems.

b. focus only on the goals of the organization.

c. make ethnic groups behave as mainstream Americans.

d. create a team attitude toward achieving the goals and objectives of the
department and the hotel.

11. Which of the following statements about European-owned companies is false?

a. They tend to stress short-term results.

b. They spend less than do U.S. companies on training.

c. They tend to rely more on Americans for middle and upper-middle management
support than do companies owned by Asians.

d. Middle managers in British- and French-owned properties have to get approval

from upper level managers on decisions outside their small sphere of
responsibility.

12. Low-context cultures place great emphasis on the spoken and written word. Which
of the following is a low-context culture?
a. Chinese culture

b. North American culture

c. Japanese culture

d. Middle Eastern culture

13. Which of the following is not a valid insight into the behavior and values of people?
a. In many societies, family roles and relationships are very traditional, personal,
and precise.

b. Arabs and Africans have a close conversational space and may feel rejected by
the greater personal distance of Americans.
151

c. In cultures where religion governs business, it is important for a manager to

respect prayer requirements and diet restrictions in the hotel’s daily routines.

d. “More is better” or “bigger is better” is universally admired.

14. Which of the following actions would be a breach of protocol by an American in a

foreign country?
a. presenting flowers and a bottle of wine when in an Islamic culture

b. combining a handshake with a bow when greeting a Japanese business

associate

c. hugging when greeting a South American business associate

d. presenting an American-made gift to a business associate who is from a former

communist country

15. Which of the following actions is not recommended in negotiating across the given
culture?
a. In Latin America, build a business relationship that is based on friendship.

b. Work through government channels in Greece to conduct business.

c. In Italy, be conservative, efficient, impersonal, and go straight to the point.

d. With the Japanese, have the negotiation arranged by a mutual acquaintance or

go-between—a face-saving measure.

16. Cultural sensitivity training attempts to:

a. increase insight into one’s own behavior.

b. increase sensitivity to the behavior of others.

c. develop an attitudinal flexibility within the individual.

d. all of the above

17. Of the five categories of power recognized in German business, ____________

power ranks highest in esteem.
a. intellectuel

b. Financial

c. entrepreneurial
152

d. political

18. Which of the following statements about collectivism is false?

a. Ties between individuals are very tight.

b. Everybody looks after the interests of group members.

c. Everybody is expected to have opinions or beliefs other than those of the group.

d. The group protects or provides for its members.

19. Which of the following supervisory tools helps a housekeeping supervisor to specify
the quality of work needed to clean or maintain items within a hotel?
a. performance standards

b. a calendar plan of special cleaning projects

c. an area frequency list

d. productivity standards

20. If the time available for guestroom cleaning during a work shift is 6 hours and 48
minutes and each room attendant is expected to clean 17 guestrooms per shift, the
time it takes for one room attendant to clean one guestroom is:
a. 18 minutes.

b. 20 minutes.

c. 24 minutes.

d. 28 minutes.

21. Supervisors determine productivity standards by:

a. averaging the abilities of the most-productive and least-productive staff
members.

b. consulting standard industry guidelines for their type of operation.

c. doing a task themselves and comparing their results with the results of staff
members.

d. determining the amount of time required to perform a given task by trained staff
members.
153

22. Which of the following staff positions are likely to have work schedules that change
in relation to changes in hotel occupancy?
a. compressed staff positions

b. variable staff positions

c. shared staff positions

d. fixed staff positions

23. Which of the following housekeeping positions is most likely to have a work
schedule that varies directly in relation to hotel occupancy?
a. executive housekeeper

b. assistant executive housekeeper

c. floor supervisor

d. room attendant

24. The minimum labor required to run a food service operation, regardless of business
volume, is called the:
a. static labor.

b. constant staffing level.

c. fixed labor.

d. non-variable work force.

25. If the productivity standard at a 100-room hotel is 30 minutes to clean one

guestroom, how many room attendant labor hours are needed to clean guestrooms
when the hotel is at 80 percent occupancy?
a. 40 labor hours

b. 80 labor hours

c. 160 labor hours

d. 320 labor hours

154

26. Developing a staffing guide for each departmental position enables the scheduler
primarily to __________ for each position.
a. plan the number of labor hours needed

b. see the approved vacation dates at a glance

c. assess the appropriate labor standards

d. judge the work-performance quality

27. Jennifer, the catering manager at the Season’s Resort, uses a base adjustment
approach to forecasting sales. In order to take seasonality of business into account,
Jennifer should:
a. average data over one seasonal cycle and use the results as a base figure.

b. use data from the same period in the previous year as a base figure.

c. use a forecasted figure from a previous period and adjust it according to actual
activity in that period.

d. adopt a different forecasting method because the time series approach cannot
take seasonality of business into account.

28. The Fun Family Restaurant uses a base adjustment approach for forecasting covers
and scheduling staff. In April, the restaurant had 5,000 covers. The unit manager
expects business in May to decrease by 5 percent due to cutbacks in marketing and
promotional efforts. What is the manager’s forecast of covers for May?
a. 5,500

b. 5,250

c. 5,005

d. 4,750

29. The two tools managers use to schedule staff members are the staffing guide and:
a. sales forecasts.

b. job pyramid.

c. time clock data sheet.

d. purchase orders.
155

30. Which of the following helps ensure that the greatest number of employees are
working during peak business hours?
a. compressed work schedules

b. expanded work schedules

c. rotated work schedules

d. staggered work schedules

31. Every day and every week, the supervisor of the Rawhide Chow Wagon restaurant
compares the actual hours each staff member works with the number of hours for
which the staff member was scheduled to work. Supervisors perform this
comparison in order to:
a. monitor and evaluate the scheduling process.

b. compare their staffs’ performance with those of the competition.

c. consider staff members’ preferences for time off.

d. prevent staff members from working overtime.

32. Which of the following statements about scheduling and labor control software
applications is true?
a. Software systems are programmed with industry-wide productivity standards
and generally accepted demand drivers.

b. The best scheduling and labor control software systems are standalone
applications that function independently of other systems.

c. Scheduling and labor control software applications prompt supervisors of their

staffing requirements based on their operation’s productivity standards and
specific demand drivers.

d. Scheduling and labor control software applications forecast demand drivers

based on a specific work load.

33. The BEST way for supervisors to increase the productivity of employees is to:
a. routinely understaff their departments to ensure high productivity levels.

b. periodically over forecast the expected volume of business.

c. consistently reward top performers.

156

d. continually review and revise performance standards.

34. Which of the following misconceptions about time management may be covering up
a supervisor’s inability or unwillingness to train and develop staff?
a. “My job as a supervisor isn’t to manage time, it’s to put out fires.”

b. “I’m the only one who can really do this task the right way.”

c. “My job is different every day, specific schedules won’t work.”

d. “I get so many interruptions, time management is impossible.”

35. Stephanie is analyzing how she actually spends time at work. She is especially
interested in planning her time more wisely in the future. She wants to find out
which part of each day is typically the most productive for her. The best time
management tool for Stephanie to use would be:
a. job analysis forms.

b. daily time logs.

c. a weekly planning guide.

d. a Day-Timer calendar.

36. Analyzing daily time logs would help a supervisor to accomplish all of the following
except:
a. establish priorities.

b. determine the most productive times of the workday.

c. discover which tasks are consistently avoided.

d. identify activities that waste time on unproductive tasks.

37. All of the following are time robbers except:

a. procrastinating.

b. setting unrealistic deadlines for tasks.

c. establishing priorities.

d. overloading your schedule with meetings and tasks.

157

38. Enrique’s “can do” attitude was an important factor in his recent promotion to dining
room supervisor at the Fitness Club Restaurant. In his new position, Enrique is
busier than ever before but seems to be accomplishing less and less. He seems
pulled from one person to the next, from one problem to the next, from one crisis to
the next and the work schedules are posted later and later, his reports have more
and more errors, and his attitude seems to be changing for the worse. Enrique
probably needs help with:
a. time management skills.

b. conflict management skills.

c. change management skills.

d. coaching skills.

39. After listing all of the tasks on a daily to-do list, the next step in managing your time
should be to:
a. prioritize tasks in terms of which are to be done first, second, third, etc.

b. delegate what you can and do the rest yourself.

c. file it away for a day that is not so busy.

d. accomplish all the short tasks first and leave the longer tasks for later in the
day.

40. Managing time and sticking to priorities becomes easier for supervisors when they:
a. delegate the lowest priority tasks to employees.

b. avoid all interruptions and follow their to-do lists.

c. set priorities with the help of their boss.

d. delegate the highest priority tasks to employees.

41. Which of the following statements about time management software applications is
false?
a. Electronic to-do lists set all tasks as the same priority level.

b. Electronic time management systems enable users to track tasks their

percentage of completion.

c. Electronic time management systems provide automatic prompts and

reminders about tasks and scheduled meetings.
158

d. Electronic time management systems can post regularly occurring meetings

and block time on a calendar for appropriate days for several weeks into the
future.

42. Which of the following cannot be delegated?

a. responsibility for performing a task

b. authority to complete a task

c. accountability for accomplishing a task

d. none of the above can be delegated

43. Successful delegation depends on all of the following factors except:

a. the supervisor’s willingness to help an employee succeed at completing a task.

b. the supervisor’s ability to help an employee succeed at completing a task.

c. the supervisor’s willingness to give necessary authority to an employee to

complete a task.

d. the supervisor’s need to get the credit for accomplishing the delegate task.

44. All of the following are barriers preventing supervisors from becoming effective
delegators except:
a. need for perfectionism.

b. reluctance to spend the time it takes to train employees.

c. failure to establish follow-up procedures.

d. pride in work done well.

45 Roberta thinks that whatever brings the greatest good to the greatest number of
people is the right thing to do. The ethical theory that best fits Roberts’s ethical
viewpoint is called:

A. Utilitarianism

B. Kantian ethics

C. The ethic of justice.

D. Social responsibility.
159

46. The philosopher who argued that actions are moral or immoral because of their very
nature, not because of their consequences, was:

A. Michael Josephson.

B. Immanuel Kant.

C. Linda Enghagen.

D. Stephen S.J. Hall

47. In a survey about ethics within the Hospitality industry, Hospitality managers were
asked to rank various Hospitality entities in terms of their ethical behavior. In the survey,
the entity ranked last or least ethical was:

A. The American hotel industry in general.

B. Hotel guests.

C. Hotel labor unions.

D. Competitors.

48. Which of the following statements about a code of ethics is true?

A. A code of ethics is simply a statement of the principles by which an operation

intends to

conduct business.

B. A code of ethics should try to cover every conceivable ethical dilemma.

C. A code of ethics should never be written down.

D. A and C.

49 All of these are ethical views except?

A. Trustworthiness.

B. Fairness.

C. Respect.

D. Code.
160

50. Which of these is not an ethical litmus test?

A. It is fair?

B. What if everyone did it?

C. Is my action legal?

D. It should be about self-interest.

161

Appendix F - Sample California Critical Thinking Questions

162
163

Appendix G - Pre Measure of Epistemological Reflection

1. Do you learn best in classes which focus on factual information or classes which
focus on ideas and concepts?

2. Why do you learn best in the type of class you chose above?

3. What do you see as the advantages of the choice you made above?

4. What do you see as the disadvantages of the choice you made above?

5. During the course of your studies, you have probably had instructors with different
teaching methods. As you think back to the instructors you have had, describe the
method of instruction which had the most beneficial effect on you.

6. What made that teaching method beneficial? Please be specific and use examples.
164

7. Were there aspects of that teaching method which were not beneficial? If so, please
talk about some of the aspects and why they were not beneficial.

8. What are the most important things you learned from the instructor’s methods of
teaching?

9. Do you prefer classes in which the students do a lot of talking, or where students
don’t talk very much?

10. Why do you prefer the degree of student involvement/participation that you chose
above?

11. What do you see as the advantages of your preferences above?

12. What do you see as the disadvantages of your preferences?

165

13. What type of interactions would you like to see among members of a class in order
to enhance your own learning?

14. When two explanations are given for the same situation, how would you go about
deciding which explanation to believe? Please give details and examples.

15. Can one ever be sure of which explanation to believe, if so, how?

16. If one can’t be sure of which explanation to believe, why not?

166

Appendix H - Post Measure of Epistemological Reflection

1. Do you learn best in classes which focus on factual information or classes which
focus on ideas and concepts?

2. Why do you learn best in the type of class you chose above?

3. What do you see as the advantages of the choice you made above?

4. What do you see as the disadvantages of the choice you made above?

5. During the course of your studies, you have probably had instructors with different
teaching methods. As you think back to the instructors you have had, describe the
method of instruction which had the most beneficial effect on you.

6. What made that teaching method beneficial? Please be specific and use examples.
167

7. Were there aspects of that teaching method which were not beneficial? If so, please
talk about some of the aspects and why they were not beneficial.

8. What are the most important things you learned from the instructor’s methods of
teaching?

9. Do you prefer classes in which the students do a lot of talking, or where students
don’t talk very much?

10. Why do you prefer the degree of student involvement/participation that you chose
above?

11. What do you see as the advantages of your preferences above?

12. What do you see as the disadvantages of your preferences?

168

13. What type of interactions would you like to see among members of a class in order
to enhance your own learning?

14. When two explanations are given for the same situation, how would you go about
deciding which explanation to believe? Please give details and examples.

15. Can one ever be sure of which explanation to believe, if so, how?

16. If one can’t be sure of which explanation to believe, why not?

169

Appendix I - Problem Solving Skills Rubric

Elements Level of Performance

Exceeds expectations Meets Does not meet expectations

expectations
1. Identify the Consistently defines Defines problems Seldom defines problems and
problems problems and identifies and identifies identifies some key issues clearly,
10 Pts. key issues clearly, some key issues accurately, and completely.
accurately, and clearly, accurately,
completely. and completely.
2. Define outcome Consistently reaches Occasionally Has trouble recognizing desirable
desired desirable outcome. recognizes outcome.
10 Pts. desired outcome.
3. Research and Clearly investigate and Minimally Addresses a few, if any, contextual
investigate the analyze appropriate and investigate and factors as evident.
problem credible information as analyze and
20 Pts. evident. research few
contextual factors
as evident.
4. Provide possible Consistently formulates, Formulates, Seldom formulates, proposes, and
solution proposes, and proposes, and addresses a solution.
10 Pts. addresses solution. addresses
solutions.
5. Provides pros Fully provides Provides few pros Comes up with pros and cons but
and cons and numerous pros and and cons and does not prioritize solutions.
prioritized solution cons and prioritized prioritized
20 Pts. solution. solution.
6. Select solution Clearly selects solutions Selects solution Selects solutions that meet some
that best meets that meet desired that meet desired desired outcomes.
desired outcome outcome in a outcome.
20 Pts. comprehensive manner
or modified the
outcomes based on
research.
7. Reflection Completely answered Answered most of Answered some reflection journal
10 Pts. all the reflection journal the reflection questions, but failed to reference
questions with reference journal questions research and did not consider
to the research and with reference to contextual factors.
considers contextual research but does
factors. not consider
contextual factors.
Total Possible
Points
100 Pts.
170

Appendix J - Students’ Journal Reflection

In your journal, write and describe in your own words how you felt or learned from
each PBL activity.

1. PBL Positives

2. PBL Negatives/Challenges

3. How did PBL approach help you in Problem solving skills

4. Would you like to learn in a PBL environment? Why, why not?

171

Appendix K - Problem-Based Learning Schedule

50 Minute Period
Week

1. Introduced the importance of student participation

2. Group Dynamic

3. Pre MER Survey

4. Pretest Knowledge

5. Pretest CCTS

6. Explanation of purpose of PBL. Establish teams and help identify members role
orient group to the problem case and facilitate group processing of case
information. Provide resources for learning objective.

7. Prepare learning objective

8. Module 1 case presentation of case resolution

9. Reading

10. Module 2 case presentation resolution

11. Reading

12. Module 3 Case Presentation resolution

13. Post Test

14. Module 4 Case presentation resolution

15. Post CCTST

16. Post MER Surve

172

Appendix L - Instructor’s Observation Notes

- Spent most of today going over the purpose of PBL. Students understand the
difference b/w PBL and traditional learning.

- Group Dynamic. Students seem to understand their role vs. my role. Seem excited
with a little uncertainty.

- Positive reaction to the case study in general. They agreed it is a real-life problem.

- 1st Module Case Presentation. One student in the ground was not present for
presentation of the case. The other students were not informed of her absence. In this
case students had trouble deciding on "what we need to know" to resolve the problem.

- I tried to impress upon them that "what we need to know relates to leadership." After
asking several leading questions, they came up with some things that made sense. But
I felt uneasy, maybe I was feeding them the answer.

- They understood that they will be working independently on their objective, but within
the context of a team.

- Problems on reading and investigating. I feel the students have not been asked to be
so individually discipline and focused.

- I had a hard time figuring out when I crossed the line as a facilitator.

- I was able to see which students were leaders and which were followers, hard and
motivated students, struggling students with difficulty of the information. Some students
were barely doing anything.

- There seem to be a disconnect between the theories and resolving the case.

- I found that some students were writing resolutions based on their opinions.

- Most students seem to feel a sense of accomplishment with their resolution.

- Many said they would like to use PBL again.

- Some felt it was hard for them.

- Some were relieved it was over.

173

Appendix M - PBL Peer Evaluation

Upon completion of each PBL Module, each member of the group is to evaluate one
another. Using a separate evaluative form for each group member, please rate his/her
performance as a group member using the scale provided. Thank you.
Student Name:___________________________ Date: ______________________
Lowest---------------------Highest
1. Quality of Work 1 2 3 4
(work is timely, current, creative, organized)

2. Content/Process 1 2 3 4
(demonstrates self-directed and balanced learning via written work, oral presentations
and group responsibility)

3. Application to Practice 1 2 3 4
(discusses and applies leaning to other situations and/or future problems)

4. Follows Rules of Trust 1 2 3 4

(follows group rules)
1. Be prepared and have designated assignments on time.
2. Be an active participant, no Social Loafing.
3. Use group time wisely.
4. Notify designated contact person if unable to be present.
5. No arguing, keep an open mind.
6. Show for respect for everyone’s role.
7. Ensure everyone is able to give input.

5. Group Participation 1 2 3 4
(actively participates in activities, critiques and questions)
Total Possible Points: 20
Total Score:____________
174

6. Comments (please provide if any of the above criteria is rated a 3 or below)

Adapted and used with permission of Dr. Mary Jo White and Dr. Libby Amos, University of
Texas Health Science Center, Houston Texas.
175

Appendix N - Approval to use MER Survey by Dr. Baxter Magolda

176

Appendix O - Summary of Cases Used

The first two cases (Breakfast Basket Restaurant and Gates Hotel) were taken
from Hospitality cases in Marketing and operations by A. G. Williams (1997), the third
case (Cross Street) was taken from “High turnover on Cross Street” by A. Agbeh and P.
Buchanan (1993), and the fourth case (Suarro Inn) was taken from Cases in hospitality
management: A critical incident approach by T. R. Hinkin (1995).

Case 1: The Breakfast Basket Restaurant (where money had vanished)

The Breakfast Basket Restaurant in South Florida enjoys a well-established clientele. Its
head cook has been there for 10 years; its wait-staff has a combined tenure of 60 years.
It has been in operation for 18 years. The wait-staff manages their own money bags
during their shifts. The shift supervisors are responsible to cash out the wait-staff at the
end of their shifts. This policy was enacted because of a cash shortage problem during
the shifts, when many people had access to the register, in order to avoid long lines of
guests waiting to pay their bills. One of the money bags went missing. The students had
to find out what had happened.

Case 2: A Management Crisis (death occurred as a result of food poisoning out at

Gates Hotel)

At the Gates Hotel, members of the Second Life Cancer Support group had gathered for
their annual conference. On the second day of the conference, two guests died, 83
were hospitalized, and 200 were examined at area emergency rooms. The area
emergency catastrophe plan had been activated due to the large number of ill people.
Despite numerous attempts, officials of the Gates Hotel could not have been reached
for comments. All guests have been moved to other establishments within the area. The
students were to find out what had happened.

Case 3: The High Turnover on Cross Street

Cross Street, located in a suburban area close to a large urban population center, is a
hospitality facility with a public cafeteria, a mid-priced dining-room, and a medium-sized
conference center, each with its own unit manager. Industrial development has grown
steadily in the area, and has brought new business to Cross Street from small
177

companies. The employee turnover rate for the recent months from their monthly report
shows the following:

January: 71%

February: 71%
March: 69%
April: 70%
May: 86%
June: 87%
July: 88%
August: 90%
September: 90%
October: 90%
November: 95%

The students were to determine the problem with the high employee turnover, and to
design a solution for the problem.

Case 4: The Unprofitable Management of Suarro Inn

Suarro Inn is located in the South West of the United States, scenic and easily
accessible by air and ground travel. It consists of seven buildings, separated by a large
area of space. Suarro Inn’s profitability has fallen compared to previous years. It has
been running well below 80% occupancy and a $180 average room rate, that were
forecasted for the property. The students were to determine what the problem was, and
determine a solution.
178

VITA

Graduate School
Southern Illinois University

Anthony Agbeh

[email protected]

Florida International University, Miami, Florida.

Master of Science in Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, December 1983
Florida International University, Miami, Florida.
Bachelor of Science, Hospitality and Tourism Management, May 1982

Palm Beach Junior College, Palm Beach, Florida.

Associate of Science, Hospitality and Tourism Management, December 1980

Special Honors and Awards:

Who’s Who in American Education 2014-2015

Who’s Who in American Teachers and Educators 2007
Who’s Who in American Education, 2006-2007
Certified Hotel Administrator, CHA
Professor Emeritus Ferris State University 2004
Nominated, Ferris Award for Academic Excellence, March 2003
Founding Fellow, American Hotel and Lodging Foundation (AH&LEF),
since 2002
Ferris State University Leadership Development Program Certificate, 2001
Finalists, Steve Fletcher Achievement Award Council on Hotel Restaurant
Institution Education CHRIE 2000/2001
Recognition Student Satisfaction Survey, 1999/2000, 2001/2002,
2002/2003
Who’s Who in Lodging
Certificate of Appreciation, The Educational Foundation of the National
Restaurant Association Hospitality Research Census, 1998
179

Certificate of Completion Total Quality Management - Omni International

Hotel Detroit, Michigan, 1992
Award of Service Dedication Vision, Wiley College, 1989
Certificate of Achievement, Victoria Station, 1984
Dean’s List for academic excellence 1982-1983
Award of Merit, Palm Beach County Hotel Motel Association, 1979
Dissertation Title:

Problem based learning in the hospitality and tourism administration program

Major Professor: Dr. D. John Mclntyre

Publications:

Agbeh, A., Ametepee, & Tchinsala. (2014) “The No Child Left Behind Act,
The Common Core State Standards, and the School Curriculum. Review
of Higher Education and Self Learning (RHESL) Volume 7 Issue 24
Agbeh, A. (2014) The Impact of Problem-Solving Skills and a Sense of
Community in the Classroom. Review of Higher Education and Self-
Learning (RHESL) Volume 7, Issue 24.
Agbeh, A. : How to Spot a Nontech in the Computer Lab,” Hosteur
Magazine Vol. 7, No.1, fall 1997.
Agbeh, A. Co-authored Revised Monitoring Handbook: Career Tech
Education Hospitality Food Service, Michigan Department of Education
Summer 1997.
Agbeh, A & Heroux, M. “Community Connections,” Hosteur Magazine
Vol. 6, No.1, Fall 1996.
Agbeh, A. & Elfrink, J. (1995) “Assessment outcome in Hospitality
Education Implication for the Future” Hospitality Research Journal Vol. 18,
No.3
Agbeh, A. & Buchanan, P. “Case Studies in Hospitality, Travel, and
Tourism,” International Case Clearing House, 1993.
Agbeh, A. “What You Can Do For Restaurant Industry,” Michigan
Restaurateur, October 1993.
Agbeh, A. “What Industry Can Do for Education,” The Management
Magazine of the Michigan Travel and Tourism, Summer 1993.