Trapped at the crossroads: Does problem-based learning make a difference? The moderating role of traditional mode of instruction

Abstract This study was set out to establish if adopting problem-based learning (PBL) techniques would effectively address the teaching and learning challenges at the University of Kisubi (Unik). Using Faculty of Education as a study sample, the quasi-experimental pretest-posttest nonequivalent group design was utilized where a class of 39 students was assigned to control group (19) and experimental group (20). The pretest results revealed that the performance of the two groups did not statistically differ (p-value = 0.409 > 0.05). However, the mean scores indicate that students in the experimental group performed slightly better than their counterparts in the control group ( TMI = 53 < PBL = 57.10). Although improvement was observed in both streams at the posttest level (p-value 0.0384 < 0.05) for control and experimental (p-value = 0.0329 < 0.05), respectively, their mean scores did not statistically differ ( TMI = 53 < PBL = 57.10). But there was a consistent improvement in learning effectiveness with a consistent corresponding reduction in cognitive overload in PBL stream, although on average, PBL was as effective as the traditional mode of instruction (TMI). This therefore stands to reason that replacing TMI with PBL method is not the ultimate solution to the teaching-learning challenges faced by the Faculty of Education at the moment, rather, understanding how learning takes place in a particular academic culture and how those learning activities mutually shape each other to influence the acquisition of knowledge, desirable attitude, and skills should be the cornerstone to creating an enabling learning environment at the faculty.


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Although John Dewey (1859Dewey ( -1952 observed that "meaningful learning" only takes place when learners are empowered to construct knowledge from their learning experiences as they attempt to solve real-life problems, adopting student centric learning models to spur learning effectiveness remains a worldwide concern in HE. In light of this, the researcher wondered if the poor performance in Geography among the 3 rd year undergraduate students at Unik was not as a result of the teaching-learning method hitherto employed, and that if the adoption of a studentcentric mode of learning such as PBL would not make a difference.

Introduction
The dichotomy between PBL and TMI in Higher Education (HE) has been given an overwhelming attention by researchers for decades. While this is a truism, several institutions of higher learning to date find it hard to either blend or drop TMI for PBL (Yonatan, 2020). The evidence of its effectiveness (PBL) is sparse and anecdotal in social sciences and humanities, while prominent in medical schools and other science-based disciplines on the other hand (McGrath et al., 2006). In search for practical solutions to the myriad teaching and learning challenges (Kaozi B.K 2003), non science-based universities have embarked on integrating PBL into their pedagogy to realize the desired learning effectiveness (Bell, 2010;Ketpichainarong et al., 2010). It is believed that PBL does not only empower students to learn independently (Department of Education, 2011), rather enables them to develop the ability to think and act in ways that are related with inquiry (Aidoo et al., 2016).
Although there is compelling evidence to suggest that PBL stimulates learning in science disciplines, there is still relentless debate as to whether PBL can influence knowledge creation and retention more than TMI in humanities and social sciences . The argument is premised on the view that social science disciplines suffer from content overload, large class sizes, and rigid mindset of lecturers, all of which seem to stifle effective application of PBL. That notwithstanding, the increasing desire for knowledge creation, value for money, and fit for purpose have jointly exerted pressure on conventional universities in demand for appropriate teaching and learning techniques. It is widely believed that an effective teaching and learning technique can be an answer to the perennial systemic malfunctioning of a country and a gateway to development (Wittek & Habib, 2013). That being the case, emphasis to adopt student-centered learning models such as PBL has become central to our discourse for a while.
John Dewey (1859Dewey ( -1952 observes that knowledge and ideas emerge only from situations in which learners have to draw them out of experiences that have meaning and importance to them (Devries, 2000). Conversely, Jean Piaget, a renowned psychologist as early as 1940s, had observed that learners tend to remember more whatever is learnt from the experiences of what they have themselves put together (Samuel & Sarah Kyolaba, 2007). In view of these classical submissions, it sounds to reason that "meaningful learning" only takes place when learners are empowered to construct knowledge from their learning experiences as they attempt to solve real-life problems. From these observations, one can rightly claim that "meaningful learning" is one that strikes a right balance between the brain (exclusively intellectual) and the hand (practical). However, striking this balance remains largely ambiguous and a centre of debate in education philosophy to date (Barrett, 2017;;Boblawlor, 2017).
This partly explains why some academics in Ugandan-based universities choose TMI for PBL due to fear of venturing into the thick thickets of PBL where majority lack technical competencies. Boblawlor (2017) contends that, academics teach the way they were taught; their teaching strategies are majorly inclined to their past experiences (Oleson & Hora, 2014). Since most present academics in humanities and social sciences were produced using TMI, they literally find no sound reason to think outside the box for more innovative teaching strategies (Tuyizere Alice Peace, 2017;Elijah Dickens Mushemeza, 2016). In all fairness, some endeavor to make their lessons lively, investigative (problem-based/fact finding) and engaging but unfortunately, they lack the institutionalized structure in their universities that supports student-centered learning. The quality assurance units are only concerned with the amount of content covered but not how it is covered. This mindset has denied PBL and other student-centered teaching-learning approaches an opportunity to demonstrate their predictive power via learning effectiveness.
This experimental study was conducted in a relatively newer university in Uganda in the academic year of 2017-2018. The study was set out to establish if PBL would be a more effective teaching and learning technique for Unik, whilst using the 3 rd -year Geography students as unit of analysis. Prior to this investigation, it was upon the discretion of the academics to apply any teaching-learning style provided it would aid the attainment of the course learning outcomes (CLO). Unik recognizes the importance of student-centered learning, but at the time of this inquiry, it lacked an institutional framework to support its implementation. This study was born out of this gap with an intended purpose of guiding decision making in the teaching and learning processes, and at the same time serves as a baseline for policy formulation.

Problem justification
At Unik, learning effectiveness is perceived as a teaching and learning process that actively motivates students to learn how to discover and apply knowledge. The rational for this is engrained in its vision statement that fosters the provision of holistic education through teaching, innovation and research for social transformation. Despite this decorated narrative, the quality audit on teaching that was conducted in 2015/2016 academic year showed a yawning gap between this vision and reality. The Quality Assurance Unit for National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) also had earlier expressed dissatisfaction on how teaching is done across universities and demanded the adoption of pedagogies of engagement which lead to personal fulfillment and/or holistic transformation of learners (Uganda National Council for Higher Education, 2016). It was against this background that the Faculty of Education at Unik encouraged staff to introduce student-centric models such as PBL as one of the strategies to prepare students for the world of practice. Only facilitators offering practical and/or field-based courses with prior experience in PBL application were supported by the Faculty to take up this challenge. The fact that Settlement Geography as a discipline is both class-based and field-driven, was considered for this pilot. Students offering GEO 3101 Settlement Geography were not new to the researcher. The fact that the researcher had earlier engaged this group of students in their second year of study using a relatively similar mode of teaching (project-based learning), it was much easier for him to subject a fraction of the same group of students to an experiential treatment whilst using another portion of the same class as control group in their 3 rd year of study.

Study objective
(1) To determine whether students taught using PBL techniques, learn significantly better than those taught using lecture method.

Hypothesis (H 0 )
(1) The researcher wondered if the poor performance in Geography as a discipline was not as a result of the teaching-learning method hitherto employed, and that if the adoption of a student centric model of learning such as PBL would not make a difference.

Literature review
Although there is relentless debate about the constituents of PBL, there is little disagreement that it is a core component of student-centered learning. It is a teaching and learning style in which complex real-world problems are used as the vehicle to promote student learning of concepts and principles as opposed to direct presentation of facts and concepts (Duch et al., 2001). Whereas this definition can persuade one to believe and imagine the predictive power of PBL in teaching and learning engagements, practice seems to suggest otherwise. A comprehensive study on South African HE system reveals that while some academics are willing to try out new methods of teaching and learning, the majority predominantly preferred lecture method (Samantha Govender, 2015). Proponents of lecture method believe that it is economical, flexible, and can accommodate large classes which PBL is incapable of. It is not unwise however, to claim that lecture method is the most frequently used method due to its simplicity and flexibility (Killen, 2011).
Although these views are justifiably credible, a sizable body of literature seems to favor PBL. Contemporary educationists not only emphasize "fit for purpose", rather, they argue that teaching styles should shift further towards a developmental, learner-centered, and activity-based approach to learning (Eshwar, K., et al., 2017). To an idealist this sounds a great deal, but to a realist, it may be a potential recipe for disaster, more so, if PBL is adopted without a contextbased systematic teaching-learning structure. In most universities PBL is not yet institutionalized, the available curricula and the teaching-learning structure do not practically support the application of PBL. Besides, a majority of lecturers lack the skills to integrate PBL into the TMI or to apply it as an independent learning style (Oleson & Hora, 2014). This partly explains why lecture method is prominent in HE systems of East Africa.
Interesting to note is the fact that, the clinicians with no teaching professional background effectively use PBL in their training sessions, yet it is still a nightmare for professional teachers in higher institutions of learning. It is probable that lack of resources such as teaching aids, large class size; pressure to complete syllabus, theory-based curricula, and inadequate materials for practical lessons tend to force teachers to deliver the lessons theoretically (Edwards & Fisher, 1995;Hanushek, 1997). One may confidently argue that these observations are outdated due to time passage; however, recent inquiries by Kasozi (2006), Mamdani (2007), Kasozi (2005), and Tuyizere Alice Peace (2017) have all corroborated these findings.
In Uganda, the integration of student-centered learning models in the conventional teaching and learning processes has been a serious debate for a while. However, a few academics in for example, Makerere University (MAK) find the implementation of PBL challenging in the sense that whenever applied, students think that the facilitator is dogging his primary responsibility. They prefer spoon-feeding to student-centered learning. This mindset is not limited to MAK, but rather a common denominator across universities in Uganda and Africa at large (Killen, 2011;& Bruce G Charlton, 2006). In addition, barriers arising from the epistemic justification that knowledge exists in one's mind (Locke, 2015) and the cultural rigidities which regard teachers as the only source of knowledge have stiffened the journey from TMI to PBL. However, blaming Uganda's HE for paying attention to memorizing facts as opposed to "thinking" is faultlessly an excuse, for schools reflect the basic values of a society (Hallinger & Jiafang, 2011). It is believed that teachers dispense truth and no one has the mandate to challenge that truth; correct answers only exist in books and/or from authorities; political leaders are always right, while parents know better (Shaw, 1999). There is no reason to believe why such a context would opt for a teaching model that would take away teachers' monopoly in the teaching-learning process.
Whereas efforts in Ugandan-based universities are directed towards having a practical-based model of instruction with the view of improving learning effectiveness, proponents of lecture method still believe that its importance is underestimated (Charlton, 2006). In many circumstances, the lecture method is the best teaching method (Otaala et al., 2013). However, the lack of a convincing rationale has been central in undermining its importance (Bruce G Charlton, 2006) and there are many who advocate for its replacement. Samuel and Sarah Kyolaba (2007) are of the view that, the argument should shift from the model of instruction to the circumstances under which learning is bound to take place. On the account of scholarly appraisal, there appears to be no basis for comparison, students' ways of learning are as different as the colors of the rainbow. Learning effectiveness is much more influenced by both teacher and student personalities, preferences, and the teaching and learning environment of which learning method may necessarily not be part.
Paying much attention to the learning method is necessary but not a sufficient condition for one to appreciate the processes of knowledge creation and retention among learners. Learning effectiveness is much more complex than an average mind can imagine (Snyder, 2013). Samuel and Sarah Kyolaba (2007) observe that, learning effectiveness is attainable through three lanes (e.g., presage, process, and product). Presage refers to teachers' proficiency in their subject areas, and personality attributes, process looks at student learning experiences and teacher performance, while product entails the teaching-learning style(s) identified for the learning process.
From the reviewed literature, it is not unwise to claim that learning effectiveness may not necessarily be a function of teaching-learning methods as some pragmatists seem to allude, rather, a combination of variables such as; the nature of the subject matter, age, students' background, inquisitiveness, psychological factors, and time (Ting et al., 2020). In the same vein, Mandernach (2015) contends that, the interrelated cognitive and affective components deserve attention when analyzing learning effectiveness. True, a suitable learning method would simulate learners to aim higher, but it would be a waste of time to pay much attention to learning styles if teacher's personality is bad.
Additionally, it is important to note that teachers and students are unique individuals with unique ways of teaching and learning. Their mental construction is not homogeneous to assume that a particular teaching style can lead to learning effectiveness of a distinct group. Most theorists and practitioners are persuaded to believe that a particular teaching method is superior to others and single handedly can adequately predict learning effectiveness without necessarily paying attention to other variables in the causal chain. This experimental study is set out to determine whether students taught using PBL techniques, learn significantly better than those taught using lecture method with the view of helping the university management to make an informed decision regarding the choice of an appropriate teaching-learning technique.

Methodology
The unit of analysis for this study was the final year undergraduate students of Unik, Faculty of Education offering Geography as one of their specialized teaching subjects. Whereas this geography class was among the smallest groups in the faculty, its academic performance for the previous years was not convincing. The poor performance could have been influenced by factors such as students' previous performance at senior six (an equivalent of grade 12), students' socialeconomic background, inadequate learning resources, university learning culture and perhaps the teaching-learning styles. Of these factors, teaching-learning style was identified for inquiry because it is one of the variables that can ably explain a variation in academic performance of the same group of students at two different points in time .
This study utilized a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest nonequivalent group design. The pretest was applied to both the experimental (PBL) and control group (TMI) with the specific intention of establishing students' prior knowledge base, problem solving skills, as well as their critical thinking abilities before the intervention. This was used as a baseline to systematically track students' progression in knowledge and skill acquisition at the post-test level. The experimental group (PBL) was given the instructions prior to the intervention, probing questions to keep them on track, expected learning outcomes, tools for data collection and analysis, and an appropriate orientation on how to construct their own knowledge during and after the coverage of the course (GEO 3101 Settlement Geography). Equally, the control group was given a proper briefing on how lectures would flow with the teacher acting as a facilitator.
Additionally, to reduce the degree of margin of error, threats to internal and external validity were taken care of and controlled. For the internal validity, the researcher needed to be sure that the observable cause-and-effect relationship established was as a result of the interaction between the parameters of X and Y but not for any other factors. Although it is hard to ensure this in quasiexperimental studies, the effective use of control group, manipulation, and having control over reactivity, mitigated this challenge. For the external validity, the researcher was concerned about the generalizability of the study findings beyond the experimental setting. This was ensured by selecting a well-matched comparison group, assigning each group equal learning hours, equal learning load, same facilitator, and different learning timings to minimize interaction among the two groups. Again, pretest examinations were conducted as a validity control mechanism to establish if subjects were or not, at the same level of cognition and learning experience before the treatment so as to appreciate the effect of the intervention on the experimental group.

Conceptualizing effective learning in light of PBL and TMI
Contextually, instructional effectiveness was perceived as pedagogies of engagement which prepare learners for the world of practice through knowledge application. The basis for this lies in the constructivism view that looks at effective learning as a process in which learners actively construct knowledge as they try to comprehend their world (Dewey, 1929;Bruner, 1961;Vygotsky, 1962;;Piaget, 1980). In this view, the duty of the facilitator is to create a learning environment where students are exposed to different learning problems relating to real life and take interest in solving them. This perspective towards instructional effectiveness informed the evaluation of PBL alongside TMI with the view of informing practice and guiding policy formulation in teaching and learning processes at Unik. The researcher is cognizant of the fact that there are many forms of TMI (e.g., formal, informal, and semi-formal lecture methods), Lowman (1995), but in this study, the researcher limited the definition of TMI to only the formal lecture method that supports the logical verbal presentation of subject matter augmented by visual aids by an instructor to a group of students in a designated classroom (SPENCE, 1928).

Participants
Before categorizing students into the experimental and control groups, a preliminary survey was conducted to establish if the targeted class cohort had variations in terms of the instructional prior knowledge, instructional preference, and age group. Although there were variations as provided in Table 1, the said differences did not hinder the intervention, rather, were found useful in aiding the categorization of students into experimental or control groups.
The final year undergraduate students offering Geography as one of their specialized subjects in the academic year 2017/2018 were used as unit of analysis for this study. Settlement Geography (GEO 3101) was at the time of the intervention a paper offered to year 3, semester 1 Geography students of the Faculty of Education. The class total population was 41, but based on the exclusion criterion (e.g., nil-participation in the preliminary survey), 39 students were considered for this inquiry. Since it was hard to meet the desired conditions of random assignment (i.e., partially controlled environment), participants were assigned to PBL and lecture method basing on how comfortable they were with any of the two teaching techniques. Data regarding their prior experience in either TMI or PBL and/or instructional preference were obtained prior to the intervention by the use of a questionnaire. Twenty (20) participants had interest in PBL while 19 in the TMI. The experimental group was taught using PBL techniques while the control group by lecture method for a full semester (January-May 2017). Students for lecture method were taught every Thursday for 2 hours (standard lecture time at Unik) while the PBL group was allocated 2 hours every Saturday for their study engagements throughout the semester. Guidelines and proper orientation on how to work in groups, work independently, manage projects, hold leadership roles, engage in self-directed learning, and critical thinking were extended to PBL group prior to the treatment.

Data analysis
The researcher had hypothesized that students taught using PBL do not significantly perform better than students taught using lecture method. To prove whether there would be any statistical significant difference in students' performance, the student t-test was run with the aid of SPSS (version 16.0). The observational method was equally significant in tracking students' responsiveness to the learning themes, group participation, inquisitiveness, persistence among others. These variables could not be measured using t-test but could be physically observed by the facilitator.

Study findings
The researcher wondered if students' academic performance gains would still not improve when taught using PBL. Since students offering Geography had for long performed implausibly, changing the style of instruction was thought-out as an ultimate solution to the vice. The university management still wanted to use this intervention as a pilot study for introducing practical-based learning across faculties.
To establish whether PBL is a better mode of instruction than TMI, a sample of 39 students was subjected to a highly controlled treatment for 15 weeks (one academic semester) of active learning engagements. The control group (n = 19) was taught using TMI (lecture method), while the experimental group (n = 20) by the PBL method. To reduce bias and any form of measurement errors, a pre-test was conducted for PBL and TMI to establish students' prior knowledge abilities in GEO 3101 Settlement Geography and also to use it as a baseline to determine if students' academic performance would statistically and significantly differ at the post-test level so as to inform the university Management on the best course of action.
The pre-test comparisons in Table 1,2 reveal that the performance results of the two groups (control and experimental) did not statistically differ (P-value = 0.409 > 0.05). However, the mean scores indicate that students in the experimental group performed slightly better than their counterparts in the control group (X TMI = 53 < X PBL = 57.10). This, however, suggests that the observable differences in the mean scores may have happened by chance or sampling error but not as a result of group categorization. It is not unfit to claim that before the treatment, students' level of understanding was almost the same.
After teaching the control and experimental groups for 15 weeks, a second assessment was given to establish if the PBL method would produce better students' performance as opposed to TMI. At this level the hypothesis that there would be no observable significant difference in students' performance in both experimental and control groups was verified at the 95% level of significance.
The post-test results provided in Table 2, 3 indicate that the difference between the post-test academic achievements of the control and experimental groups was not statistically significant (P-value = 0.409 > 0.05). This implies that the null hypothesis was accepted while the alternative was rejected. It again suggests that no observable significant difference will be noticed in the mean scores of the experimental and control groups in 95 out of 100 replications of the experiment. The observable slight difference in the mean scores (X TMI = 63.16 < X PBL = 66.50) does not mean that other factors being equal, PBL will continually edge out TMI whenever the two forms of instruction are applied. It is likely at 95% that this slight difference was not due to experimental treatment but due to chance and/or sampling error.
Using the pre-test scores for both control and experimental groups as baseline, the study further intended to establish if both PBL and TMI would independently have a significant impact on students' academic performance gains at the end of the academic semester. Table 3, 4 below shows how learning progressed in each stream.
It is observably clear that in both streams learning effectively took place since the p-values of both control (p-value = 0.0384 < 0.05) and experimental (p-value = 0.0329 < 0.05) groups were below the standard calculated probability (0.05) which was the minimum level of significance required in this study to declare a significant effect. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected while the alternative was accepted by default. Keeping other factors constant, it is more likely at 95% that learning would still effectively take place regardless of the teaching-learning method adopted. The mean scores for both PBL and TMI at post-test level are almost similar and at the same time better than the pre-test scores. This suggests that both learning styles independently achieved their intended learning objectives, although a consistent improvement in learning effectiveness with a consistent corresponding reduction in cognitive overload was observed in PBL stream.

Discussion
The available body of literature demonstrates that PBL is an effective learning approach to acquiring and retaining knowledge (Yoakan & Sampson, 2002;Kochhar, 2002;Aggarwal, 2000;McDonald & Isaac, 2001;;Samuel & Sarah Kyolaba, 2007). It is a proven-teaching learning style that empowers students to control the learning processes (Salari et al., 2018). Tiwari et al. (2006) and Strobel and Barneveld (2009) further note that nursing students who were exposed to PBL strategies displayed worthwhile and profound improvement in learning and long-term knowledge retention as opposed to lecture method. Whereas this may be regarded as a substantial body of evidence to claim that PBL is an effective mode of learning, Lee et al. (2016) established that PBL is not good at stimulating critical thinking among learners. Its credence is limited to imparting problem-solving skills but falls short on critical examination of a situation (Salari et al., 2018). This observation is in consistence with this study's findings in the sense that, the control group at the post-test level of assessment demonstrated an improved level of critical examination of learning content, articulation, and analytical confidence as opposed to the experimental group. However, at both levels of assessments (e.g., pre-test and post-test), the experimental group had a better mean than the control group although the difference was not statistically significant. This may suggest that, if PBL is institutionalized as a mode of instruction at Unik and given equal attention, as given to TMI, it may significantly affect learning effectiveness in the long run.
Interestingly, in this study, findings revealed that whereas PBL may be regarded as a good method of learning, its goodness does not deny the TMI the leverage to shine. Whereas literature on TMI is replete with reports of failure (Creedy et al., 1992;Beischline & Holmes, 1997;;Killen, 2011) in this study it is considered a core mode of learning. The academic gains of students taught using PBL did not significantly differ from students taught using TMI. This implies that, both methods were found to be independently significant in predicting students' learning outcomes. This agrees with (Beers, 2005;Rowan et al., 2008;Strobel & Barneveld, 2009;Dochy et al., 2003;Colliver, 2000;& Shin et al., 2013) whose study findings found no statistical difference between PBL and lecture method. But can we then use this evidence to conclude that PBL should not be considered as a best fit for replacing the TMI? Evidently provided in this study, there appears to be no basis for comparing the effectiveness of these two methods of teaching. However, one of the grounds to claim otherwise is that, the experimental group was not so familiar with PBL yet for the control group, lecture method had been part of their learning since high school. This could have denied the PBL method an opportunity to shine off lecture method.
Again, the timeframe (15 weeks) within which this treatment was conducted may have denied the researchers the chance to appreciate the predictive power of the PBL method on students' academic gains. Almost 40% of the required learning time was wasted since students were deliberately rejecting the method on grounds that it was a ploy for the lecturer to dodge his primary responsibility. This experience is consistent with (Schmidt, 1993) who opines that first-time users usually react to the idea of PBL with anger, denial, and resistance. Conversely, Samuel and Sarah Kyolaba (2007) observed that it is an avenue through which passive lecturers use to dodge their responsibility of teaching. This in reaction with other factors such as previous students' academic learning experiences at high school, timing, and teaching-learning culture at the faculty of education could have annulled the usually overrated importance of the PBL method in this study context.
Although these findings may trigger a very serious debate, one should be reminded that this class of students was neither better nor promising in other subjects since day one of their university education. To determine whether Unik should drop TMI for PBL method, further investigations of students' academic performance trajectory overtime are necessary on other categories of students in the same faculty and other faculties as well. It is not yet clear if students taught using lecture method for a very long time can just appreciate other methods of learning overnight. Knowledge acquisition requires a patient, logical, and persistent process, so does the method of learning. To ascertain whether PBL is a reliable method of learning as opposed to TMI, focus should be placed on what form of teaching-learning interactions extend overtime to make learning a holistic process. In other words, it can be confidently claimed in this study that, it is not the teaching method per say that determines students' academic gains, rather, the nature of the subject matter, teachers' quality and their preparedness to deliver the content. Practically observed during this treatment was that, to deliver just a single lesson, one may require a variety of teaching methods. There were cases in the experimental group where lecture method would be considered as the "magic wand" and vice versa, but because this study was set out with a rigid purpose to guide policy and practice at Unik in as far as PBL is concerned, a mixed learning model would not enable the researcher to appreciate the strength of PBL.
Emerging prominently from this inquiry is that both PBL and TMI are effective teaching-learning methods whose implementation success depends solely on the prevailing learning context and the art of the teacher rather than the methods themselves. It may be unwise to think that a mere change of teaching methods would lead to effective learning without considering the caliber of the teaching staff at the faculty and other variables in the causal chain. As provided in Ssemugenyi et al. (2020) that the eminence of a university cannot outmatch that of its academic staff, it is imperative to pay much attention to staff recruitment processes and the human resource development practices at the faculty than investing heavily in various forms of teaching and learning methods. At least in this study PBL method did not significantly outshine TMI as some researchers seem to allude (Gwee, 2009;McDonald & Isaac, 2001;Bransford & Brown 2002;Kohli, 2008;Mark, 2015). Given the study context, it is as good as TMI in predicting learning effectiveness.

Study implications
The challenges facing the teaching-learning processes today are different from those of yesterday and this suggests that the teaching styles should not be applied on the basis of how relevant they were before rather, on how fit they can conform to the prevailing teaching-learning conditions in an academic institution. Cramping students in groups to stimulate the acquisition of problemsolving skills may be a good practice in practical-based courses like nursing as intimated by Staun et al. (2010), but may not be a realistic move for a theory-based subject whose teaching and learning effectiveness is partly judged by the amount of content covered in a restricted timeframe. Upon this basis, it may sound reasonable to conclude that this study did not find any statistical difference between PBL method and TMI because, the theoretical nature of the subject matter and content volume, coupled with rigid learning context could have undermined the predictive power of PBL.
The implementation of the PBL method has proved to be somewhat tricky in an environment where teachers' teaching proficiency is determined by how fast one covers the required learning load of a subject. At the time of this treatment, emphasis at Unik was more on syllabus coverage rather than on problem solving and/or knowledge creation. The experimental group always wanted to be taught like their counterparts (control group) and often reminded the lecturer on how much less content they had covered. This suggests that the prior mental construction of students, their orientation and learning culture can either favor or disfavor a particular learning method.
Paying attention to how learning takes place in a given particular academic culture and how those learning activities mutually shape each other to influence knowledge acquisition is not only important to an educator but a fundamental construct upon which learning effectiveness hinges. The state of affairs at the Faculty of Education-Unik seems to be in conflict with the students learning expectations and beliefs. While the faculty is looking forward to making learning student centered with the view of stimulating students' problem solving skills, inquisitiveness, and interest, on the contrary, students are not yet prepared for this radical shift. For no fault of their own, they still prefer a teacher-driven learning model where a teacher almost does everything for them. This may be attributed to their prior learning experiences at high school where learning engagements are dominated by the teacher.
It may also be correct to claim that the rigid study culture dictated by a rigid curriculum could have underestimated the predictive influence of PBL method on students' academic gains in GEO 3101 Settlement Geography. PBL flourishes in an environment where learning processes are not restricted (Mark, 2015), in a setting where students are empowered to drive learning initiatives and solve real-life problems through personal experience encounters (Samuel & Sarah Kyolaba, 2007). But not in an environment where learning is restricted to pre-determined content in a syllabus as the case was during this investigation. Paying much attention to finishing subject content as prearranged in the syllabus marginalizes the role PBL is usually set out to play. During this investigation, the lecturer was under pressure to cover all the content in the limited timeframe as demanded by the Quality Assurance Unit of the University, at the same time trying to experiment if a student-based style of learning with little regard to time restrictions would influence learning effectiveness. This seemed to be too much on the side of the lecturer, and one may simply conclude that it might have affected the results. However, the researcher maintains that, validity controls and quality checks were in place to mitigate some of these challenges.
Another remarkable implication was that learning under PBL proved to be a little messier as opposed to TMI. The existing fundamental individual differences made group learning activities almost impossible. Students with dominant and assertive personality made it difficult for the introverts to try out ideas, explore possibilities, and invent alternative solutions to learning problems. This notwithstanding, PBL proved to be a very suitable method for self-discovery, selfreliance, and self-directedness which are core ingredients for preparing future innovators and leaders.
There was a consistent improvement in learning effectiveness with a consistent corresponding reduction in cognitive overload in PBL stream, although on average, PBL was as effective as the traditional mode of instruction (TMI). However, given the study context, students' academic background, learning culture, and adoption of a research design that does not support randomization, generalizing these study findings should be made with caution.

Conclusion
Although there is enough evidence to suggest that PBL is a "magic wand" method of learning (Blumenfeld et al., 1991;Mergendoller et al., 2006;;Thomas, 2000) that connects classroom phenomena with real-life experiences, this study did not find it significantly better than TMI. Considering other factors constant, its effectiveness to predicting learning is as good as lecture method. This therefore means that replacing TMI with PBL method is not the ultimate solution to the teaching-learning challenges faced by the Faculty of Education at Unik, rather, understanding how learning takes place in a particular academic culture and how those learning activities mutually shape each other to influence the acquisition of knowledge, desirable attitude, and skills should be the cornerstone to creating an enabling learning environment at the faculty.
Again, to discern the most suitable teaching-learning method for teachers to adopt, further investigations are required on the university-wide students' academic performance trajectory overtime whilst using a variety of teaching methods. It may be unwise to invest heavily in the adoption of a particular method whose effectiveness in a particular learning environment is uncertain. Needed still to emphasize is that, instead of paying much attention to teaching-learning methods whose effectiveness solely depends on the quality of the teacher, focus should be directed to skilling the academic team to competently identify, refine, and apply teachinglearning methods in accordance with the learning context.
The complexity surrounding learning effectiveness is a natural byproduct of our failure as academics to define learning effectiveness within our own context. Replicating teaching models on the basis of their effectiveness elsewhere is not only a misleading undertaking, rather an obsolete phenomenon that only breeds mediocrity. To prevent Unik from falling suit, this inquiry has equally offered an operational definition of learning effectiveness that is in consistence with the teaching-learning context at the Faculty of Education and the University at large. Thus;

PBL Process Evaluation Sheet
Using Likert Scale of 1-5 score (5 = very satisfactorily, 4 = satisfactorily, 3 = not sure, 2 = unsatisfactorily, 1 = very unsatisfactorily) how do you rate your degree of satisfaction in as far as this problem-based case is concerned?
(1) Group skills: I actively demonstrated the desire to learn with others, respected their unique learning needs and aspirations as well as paying attention to the group's code of conduct.
(1) very unsatisfactorily (2) unsatisfactorily (3) not sure (4)  (2) Learning skills: I was able to identify and align the individual and group learning needs together with the expected learning outcomes of the course.
(1) very unsatisfactorily (2) unsatisfactorily (3) not sure (4) satisfactorily (5) very satisfactorily (3) Reasoning skills: I actively participated in the critical examination and evaluation of study materials, information, and data so as to draw conclusions that are based on an evaluated body of evidence.
(1) very unsatisfactorily (2) unsatisfactorily (3) not sure (4) satisfactorily (5) very satisfactorily (4) Application skills: I have gained the ability to demonstrate that the acquired knowledge can be sufficiently applied in various real-life situations.
(1) very unsatisfactorily (2) unsatisfactorily (3) not sure (4) satisfactorily (5) very satisfactorily (5) Feedback skills: I learned a lot from my colleagues' feedback and I equally offered mine to the rest of the group to strengthen their learning abilities.
(1) very unsatisfactorily (2) unsatisfactorily (3) not sure (4) satisfactorily (5) very satisfactorily (6) Reporting skills: I actively participated in the whole process of problem identification, document review, data collection, analysis and reporting. This research-based approach to learning made learning interactive, engaging and lively.
(1) very unsatisfactorily (2)   You are free to: Share -copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt -remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution -You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.