PBL shows significant advantages in critical thinking compared with traditional education or team-based learning in nursing and clinical student populations¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i1 A meta-analysis of nursing students found PBL significantly improved overall critical thinking scores versus traditional lectures (SMD = 0.33). → Ge Wei-Li 2025 q2 i1 A 2024 meta-analysis of pediatric/nursing education found PBL improved critical thinking skills (SMD = 0.47). → Ge Wei-Li 2025 (2) q2 i1 A meta-analysis of teaching strategies in undergraduate nursing found a small significant effect on critical thinking (0.32). → Ge Wei-Li 2025 (3)

Evidence¶

Ge Wei-Li 2025¶

Ge Wei-Li, Zhu Xia-Yin, Lin Jiang-Bo, Jiang Jian-Jun, Li Tao, Lu Yi-Fei, Mi Ya-Fei, Tung Tao-Hsin. (2025). Critical thinking and clinical skills by problem-based learning educational methods: an umbrella systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06951-z

q2 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Umbrella review reports the Kong et al. meta-analysis of 9 RCTs in nursing students (985 participants), finding "a significant difference in overall critical thinking scores" favoring PBL over traditional lectures, with printed effect size SMD = 0.33, 95%CI 0.13–0.52, p = 0.0009.

"Kong [26] proposed that the pooled effect size showed a significant difference in overall critical thinking scores (SMD = 0.33, 95%CI = 0.13–0.52, p = 0.0009) in favor of PBL compared with traditional lectures."

Ge Wei-Li 2025 (2)¶

Ge Wei-Li, Zhu Xia-Yin, Lin Jiang-Bo, Jiang Jian-Jun, Li Tao, Lu Yi-Fei, Mi Ya-Fei, Tung Tao-Hsin. (2025). Critical thinking and clinical skills by problem-based learning educational methods: an umbrella systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06951-z

q2 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Table 2 characterizes the Wei et al. 2024 review (19 studies, 1996 participants, pediatric medical education) reporting a printed critical thinking effect size of 0.47 (95% CI 0.33–0.61), I2 = 52%, P < 0.01, rated Moderate quality.

"Wei B et al,2024 [30] 12RCT/7corhort 19 1996 pediatric medical education critical thinking skills 0.47, 0.33–0.61 52% P <0.01"

Ge Wei-Li 2025 (3)¶

Ge Wei-Li, Zhu Xia-Yin, Lin Jiang-Bo, Jiang Jian-Jun, Li Tao, Lu Yi-Fei, Mi Ya-Fei, Tung Tao-Hsin. (2025). Critical thinking and clinical skills by problem-based learning educational methods: an umbrella systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06951-z

q2 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Table 2 characterizes the Oliveira et al. 2016 Cochrane/meta-analysis of 19 studies in nursing students reporting a printed critical thinking effect size of 0.32 (0.08–0.56), p = 0.0078, 989 participants in RCTs, rated Moderate.

"Oliveira LBet al .2016 [31] RTC/ Cochrane 19 1713 nursing students Critical Thinking 0.32(0.08–0.56) 989 p=0.0078 12 Moderate"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Critical Thinking — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Evidence for PBL effectiveness is rated low quality with considerable heterogeneity, attributed to instructor supervision, participant characteristics, and unstandardized assessment — related
• PBL significantly improves clinical skill scores compared with lecture-based learning in medical education — related
• Modern teaching methods significantly improve nursing students' problem-solving abilities (SMD = 1.05) — related
• In first-year medical students, PBL showed no significant difference from non-PBL teaching in critical thinking, problem-solving, or self-directed learning — reports the opposite
• In the RCT, PBL students rated their own communication skills and critical thinking significantly higher on a questionnaire than LBL students did — related
• Problem-based learning shows a small but significant pooled advantage over lecture-based learning in dental education (SMD = 0.33) — related