Problem-Based Learning Beyond Teaching: Case of Social Science Education in Latvia

Definition

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered instruction approach focused on skills development in problem-solving, interaction, autonomy, and critical thinking to learn and act to co-create new knowledge and solutions. Rarely, but authors sometimes identify the benefits of PBL for educators, for example, by allocating instructional time more flexibly for monitoring student performance and discussing issues. However, in the era where collaboration among universities and industries is emphasized, the authors pay little attention to contextualizing PBL in a broader context, such as bringing benefits for relationship management with the industry and alumni, promoting regional development, corporate and social responsibility, marketing of educational organizations, and talent development to create a mutual benefit-based ecosystem. Academic discussions about PBL planning and implementation also neglect the needs and motivation of industry stakeholders to get involved, thus narrowing not only the possibilities for cooperation between both parties but also negatively affecting student learning outcomes, which also directly depend on industry partners.

1. Introduction

This entry aims to identify the emphasis placed on collaboration with industry in academic discussions about PBL and the motivation of companies and other organizations outside the university to engage in PBL processes, as the quality of external stakeholders’ involvement affects learning outcomes. Consequently, less attention has been devoted to the pedagogical aspects of PBL as a learning method, which have already been widely discussed in the literature, but more to those related to collaboration with industry. The collaboration of public universities and other research institutions with industry is influenced not only by the organization’s activities (communication, previous collaboration experience, etc.) but also by external factors, including policy instruments. Therefore, there are limited opportunities to talk about PBL beyond teaching in a broad context, and this entry focuses on European Union countries, specifically Latvia [1,2]. This entry combines evidence-based literature studies with insights derived from empirical experience in the practical implementation of PBL in a higher education institution.

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a learner-centered method that focuses on solving authentic problems that lack a pre-defined solution, as many factors and variables are latent or ill-defined within the context. This method helps to catalyze self-directed knowledge development [3,4]. Communication and collaboration with others are a part of the PBL process [5]. PBL, according to Mainert et al. [6], belongs to the so-called 21st-century learning methods, which are characterized by the ability to collect information, make sense of diverse learning resources, and have strong collaboration. It can drive mutual contribution to the university (and community) and industry interaction via learning inside and outside the higher education organizations [7]. The definition of PBL varies widely due to differences in practice [8].

From a pedagogic perspective, PBL is positioned as a contrasting method to traditional teaching-learning methods, where educators adapt their instruction based on contextual limitations, such as standards, administrative frameworks, technology, and other factors. PBL requests that these instructional strategies be adapted to meet the unique needs of the problem environment, sometimes referred to as “theory to reality” [9,10].

The importance of problem-based learning in education is demonstrated by the fact that several peer-reviewed scientific journals have been established to share PBL case analysis and experience and research and develop this approach (e.g., Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education (2014–onwards), Journal of Problem Based Learning (2014–2022) Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning (2006–onwards)), and practitioners and researchers widely discuss this pedagogical approach in various educational fields in multiple aspects. According to Rosekranz [11], hospitality education has extended and integrated problem-based learning experience with proven beneficial effects on students’ learning outcomes. They are also willing to become highly invested in learning if their solution has the potential to be implemented and thus make a difference [12].

The roots of problem-based learning date back to 1969, when McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, introduced an innovative curriculum for medical students. In this curriculum, students worked on relevant biomedical or clinical problems in collaboration with peers, guided by a tutor [3]. McMaster University pioneered the problem-based learning (PBL) approach, but ideas leading to it had already been around for years in various educational institutions.

PBL as a pedagogical approach does not consistently achieve its goal. For example, Liu and Pásztor [13], by synthesizing 50 relevant empirical studies from 2000 to 2021, discovered that most studies demonstrated the overall positive effects of PBL on promoting critical thinking, while some were negative. Despite some criticism, since the establishment of the approach, problem-based learning has been recognized as one of the most influential curricular innovations in higher education, originating in medical education and expanding into the social sciences, architecture, humanities, law, business education, veterinary medicine, forestry, engineering, and mathematics [14,15].

Nowadays, problem-based learning continues to be adopted as a curricular approach in reaction to the issues surrounding traditional educational approaches [15]. It is also used in distance and online learning forms. PBL has also expanded into elementary, middle, high, and professional schools [16]. At the same time, integrating PBL into curricula can require more resources—financial, time, and effort—to design and implement compelling learning experiences under the restrained budgets of universities [17,18].

Previous studies cover several aspects of problem-based learning, illustrating strengths and challenges on both the conceptual and operational levels related to the design and delivery of this educational concept in hospitality management education.

2. PBL Contextualization from the Perspective of the Stakeholder Relationships

Studies [19,20,21,22] report an increasing role of stakeholders and even pressure to engage industry stakeholders in higher education to bring diverse perspectives and expertise into the planning process and align institutional goals with community needs and expectations. These changes in the context of higher education encourage us to reconsider the opportunities provided by the PBL approach, not only from the pedagogical point of view but also from the strategic management of higher education institutions (HEIs).

Stakeholder theory has already been used to analyze relationships between higher education institutions (HEIs) and their stakeholders [19,23]. These authors refer to HEIs as quasi-commercial organizations with a complex set of stakeholders, which, if neglected, lead to limited success. Stakeholder theory, in essence, suggests a need to satisfy different stakeholder groups in the management of organizations to align with new social demands and trends. (Freeman, 1984, as cited in de Freitas Langrafe [19]. According to de Freitas Langrafe et al. [19], considering the interests and demands of stakeholders is relevant not only for the broader society but also crucial for the survival of such institutions.

The resulting PBL process entails a mutual relationship between higher education institutions and industry. Undoubtedly, teachers are considered key players in planning and implementing PBL and need to be trained to carry out their tasks [24]. Tasks involve designing an ill-structured problem based on curriculum outcomes, learner characteristics, and real-life cases. They coach learning through probing, questioning, and challenging student thinking [24]. As emphasized in Mativo et al. [25], teachers collaborating with industry partners within PBL find the relevant industry partner to interact with and to design the real-life problem case, so the role of the teacher can also be evaluated in the broader context of the relationship between the university and external stakeholders.

De Freitas Langrafe et al. [19] characterize stakeholder relationships in the context of higher education in the following ways:

• Stakeholder participation in the decision-making process;
• The exchange of information;
• Mutual trust;
• Inclusion in strategic planning is associated with greater organizational value creation.

According to Table 1, PBL is considered an operational-level partnership, which can be implemented as a single collaboration activity and as one of many ways a stable HEI partner from industry collaborates with an educational organization. If PBL is a single collaboration activity, then during it the partners also gain an idea of each other, and it also creates or, on the contrary, does not create a favorable environment for further collaboration. Thus, the principles of stakeholder theory can be used not only to build collaborative PBL real-life cases but also to use them as a meeting point for long-term collaboration purposes.

Table 1. Stakeholders’ interaction levels in HEI. Adapted from [26].

Category	Description	Typical Characteristics	Examples
Strategic partnership “Why collaborate?”	Mutual strategic needs enabled structural and formal interactions with high commitment and institutional impact.	Strong institutional commitment Strategic and lasting impact Involvement in high-level decision-making Dedicated resource allocation Relationships are contributed at the top management level and across departments	Participation in management boards, joint curriculum design, joint Research and Development (R&D) ecosystems, and joint professional education offers
Tactic partnership “How to collaborate”	Less formalized, recurrent collaboration requiring some resources and coordination, enabled by medium-term needs	Relationship management at the department level Medium-term cooperation Recurrent cooperation Some resource allocation	Joint projects, training programs, and PBL
Operational partnership “What to do today?”	Operational, informal collaborations are enabled by the short-term needs of both parties, usually to implement a single activity.	Occasional cooperation Focus on practical implementation. Short-term cooperation episodic and limited impact on a specific topic A teacher and an industry representative contribute to the relationship	Consulting, PBL, guest lectures, study visits, data collection, and sporadic event participation

PBL literature displays general knowledge about the needs and drivers to engage in UIC (university–industry cooperation). Sources that identify the industry perspective as the most typical benefits from cooperation with universities generally include specific real-life problem solutions, enhancement of corporate image, hiring graduates and/or recruiting trainees, shaping a workforce, and enhancing the technological capacity and economic competitiveness of company; companies also see benefits in the research capacity of universities—attracting researchers to the company and providing financial benefits from serendipitous research [27,28].

Evidence in the literature shows that the driving force behind successful UIC (university–industry collaboration) partnerships is people understanding the specifics of academia and industry [29], and the same is pivotal for implementing the PBL approach. However, in PBL literature, the need to strengthen understanding of the specifics of both sides is only indirectly indicated, for example, as the need to prepare and train instructors to work with PBL [17]. Training needs are emphasized by the fact that industry organizations do not always trust universities or are interested in cooperating with HEIs, including in pedagogical work [18].

Some of the industry’s drivers to engage in cooperation with higher education institutions mentioned in the UIC literature (e.g., attracting researchers to the company, commercialization of research results) might be more typical for larger companies or specific economic sectors, but in real-life Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs, 99.8%) and, among them, micro-enterprises with up to nine employees represent the vast majority of firms in the euro area. In 2024, 93.6% of firms were considered micro-businesses, employing up to nine people [30].

Micro-businesses are often characterized by low business activity. Among small businesses, there are many lifestyle businesses. They can have the desire to develop, yet be growth-averse and display a lack of business plans and strategies due to a lack of time, expertise, and knowledge [31,32,33,34], which, to some extent, limits the motivation and ability of representatives of such companies to engage in cooperation with a university, especially at a strategic level. This is not to be viewed negatively, but rather indicates the importance of understanding the barriers to cooperation and the specifics of stakeholders.

Other potential barriers that make it difficult for industry and university cooperation have been identified in previous studies, but they can also be relevant for PBL planning and implementation: proximity of geographic location of stakeholders; the difficulty of reconciling university and industry time norms in a single collaboration (e.g., a solution is usually expected immediately, which is not always compatible with the curriculum timeline); bureaucratic procedures of universities; the lack of mechanisms for developing expertise in universities and communicating with the industry; and a lack of communication skills [35].

To conclude, the scientific literature on PBL recognizes the importance of industry in the PBL process and also identifies the barriers to cooperation. Yet, there is only a limited discussion of the conditions needed and ways to overcome these barriers, of how the benefits for industry stakeholders can be maximized to increase their interest in collaboration with universities, and where the value of collaboration lies from the perspective of industry.

3. Case Studies

Below are descriptions of two PBL cases that incorporate relationship management principles identified in stakeholder theory [19,36]. One case illustrates how collaboration is planned and played out with a significant industry player, a large organization. In contrast, the other illustrates a typical PBL case, representative of a small business problem situation. The instructors who participated in both of the PBL cases prepared case descriptions using a template.

Table 2 below describes the case study of PBL, focusing on collaboration with a large, resourceful state-owned company.

Table 2. The description of the PBL case: engagement of a large-scale company [37,38].

The PBL Example Title	Innovation Co-Creation Laboratory for Sustainable Development of Recreational and Tourism Sites at a State-Owned Company
PBL stakeholders	In 2024, an Innovation Co-Creation Laboratory (further in text ICL) dedicated to the topic of Forest Resources for the Creation of Sustainable Services was organized at a HEI with the support of the Vidzeme Planning Region, the Municipality of Valmiera, and the European University E3UDRES2. High-value-added wood products, recreation, and sustainable tourism are among the specialization areas of the Vidzeme Region. Companies working in the wood industry were invited to participate in the ICL. There were nineteen representatives from nine companies, five representatives from entrepreneurship and innovation support organizations, and one municipality participating in the ICL. Twelve researchers from six different research institutes and fourteen university students represented academia, including five PhD students. Six teams were formed with at least one industry stakeholder, one researcher, and one student in each team. Each team worked with one or several challenges that the team’s entrepreneurs brought up. The case study below describes cooperation with one of the ICL stakeholders, a state-owned company.
Responsibilities of the stakeholders and the depth of engagement	While developing ideas, the students received the support of the mentors (tourism teachers and researchers). In the case of the state-owned company’s challenge related to the development of recreational and tourism sites, about 30 ideas were proposed by the students and researchers during the ICL. Five of these ideas were selected by the team for validation at the end of ICL: (1) data from mobile network operators for analyzing visitor flows; (2) visitor counters at the recreational and tourism sites; (3) online visitor registration and satisfaction survey; (4) on-site visitor surveys (interviews); (5) on-site feedback mailboxes. After the ICL, cooperation continued between the company, the researcher, and one of the students who conducts research and undergoes an internship in the PBL partner organization. The student’s internship tasks are related to validating the above-mentioned solutions. The idea generation process in all ICL teams was similar: defining and discussing the challenge and brainstorming and selecting ideas. All team members equally participated in brainstorming ideas. The ideas were selected based on the following criteria: The effort needed for implementation vs. the impact expected after implementation. The teams agreed on the criteria for idea validation and ranking, e.g., expenses, time, reach, impact, durability, etc.
The level to which the expectations of both parties are met in the PBL case	The partnership agreement clearly states the outcome expected by the state-owned company and the HEI partners. The company’s representatives and the academic personnel frequently met to analyze the progress. Explicit agreement and constant monitoring allow for the alignment of expectations with results.
The HEI representatives provide information on how to ensure the continuity of cooperation after completing PBL	At the end of the ICL, ideas were provided to the stakeholders for further cooperation with students and researchers, including information on funding opportunities. Scholarships were awarded to the three best ICL teams, which were an important stimulus for student engagement. After completing the ICL, the stakeholders signed a formal partnership agreement for cooperation among the state-owned company, the student, and the mentor to conduct the research in real life.
The overall evaluation of PBL	State-owned company’s perspective: The student and the researcher test and validate positive evaluation as innovative solutions. Other ideas can be adapted later if needed. The state-owned company implements cooperation with educational institutions and raises young people’s awareness of the sustainable development of recreational and tourism sites. HEI’s perspective: The evaluation is positive, as the students’ learning goals are met. Additionally, one of the students and the mentor/researcher have both been able to implement the research.
Urgency of the need for results by a PBL partner	No urgency. There is enough time to plan PBL and to decide on the follow-up activities.
Characteristics of the needs of parties	State-owned company’s perspective: Need for applied research, innovations, and development planning results. HEI’s perspective: There is a need for applied research, student internship places, industry engagement in the curriculum, improving the quality of the learning process outcome, providing practical skills for learners, and cooperating with a large, nationally well-recognized partner.
Reciprocity/ mutual benefit and dependence	Applied research and innovations are the main mutual benefits. Both parties benefit equally from the cooperation. This cooperation also allows the HEI to provide monetary motivation for learners during PBL. Apart from gaining knowledge and skills in cooperation, task definition, and resource planning, the student receives access to recreation sites and data and solves problems by experimenting and researching in the real world.
PBL industry partner participation in the decision-making process	The state-owned company participates actively in the decisions related to the progress of PBL and joint applied research.
The exchange of information during PBL	The stakeholder sends information, initiates, and organizes joint meetings for information exchange. HEI sends information, mainly related to the progress of the joint project. However, HEI also informs about other events and activities that might interest the stakeholders.
Mutual trust	The level of trust between both parties is high, supported by a clear and detailed partnership agreement. The practice of research data collection and processing is stated in the cooperation agreement.
Prospects of the cooperation. Inclusion of the PBL partner in the strategic planning is associated with greater value creation.	A state-owned company that is not an entirely new partner to the university, yet an increasing partnership intensity would be welcomed. Currently, it cannot be considered a strategic partnership. However, moving to a strategic partnership in the future would be mutually beneficial. The state-owned company and HEI are preparing a new joint project.
Intensity and length of cooperation	The intensive cooperation in planning and implementing PBL lasted 4 months, followed by follow-up activities designed for another 10 months.

Table 3 below describes the case study of PBL, focusing on collaboration with several micro- and small-sized private enterprises. Food producers were invited to offer the challenges for PBL.

Table 3. The description of the PBL case: engagement of small-scale companies [39,40].

The PBL Example Title	Innovative Sales and Food Marketing Solutions
PBL stakeholders	For bachelor-level students representing different study programs (communication, business administration, tourism management) in social sciences, part of the content of the creativity study course is occupied by work on solving real-life challenges in companies. In this case, the principles of cooperation are determined by the project in which the PBL activity was planned. The administrative staff of the project has already identified six companies with which the students will cooperate before the start of the course. Therefore, the course lecturers do not have to do this. All but one were small companies whose activities are related to food production and agriculture. However, their challenges require different expertise—logistics, technology, customer service, marketing, etc. A group of students works on each challenge, and they can receive support from the course lecturers. The complex nature of the solutions requires interdisciplinary work, so groups are formed from students from different study programs. At the beginning of the course, a conversation with an entrepreneur or their representative is planned to explain the challenge and answer questions. After the students had conducted desk research for the challenge, they agreed with the entrepreneur about a face-to-face visit to the company. While working on the challenges, students can communicate with the entrepreneur. Progress is reported on dates set in the classes to ensure the quality of solutions. In the final class, student groups present solutions to lecturers and entrepreneurs.
Responsibilities of the stakeholders and the depth of engagement	There were four main stakeholders. Project administrative staff, who recruited companies and financially supported student visits to companies, but were not involved in the content. Course lecturers, who created a framework for achieving the result and advised students, but were not in close contact with companies. And entrepreneurs or their representatives, who provided real-life challenges and were responsible for explaining them to students and hosting students in their companies. Very different levels of involvement of entrepreneurs could be observed. Entrepreneurs were more actively involved in cases characterized by the urgency and importance of the problem from the company’s perspective. Entrepreneurs participated in PBL and devoted much time to talking to students and introducing their company and the context of the problem. However, some entrepreneurs did not find the time (a lack of time), as previously agreed, to meet with students and explain the real-life problem that needed to be solved, or students found it difficult to contact them if any additional questions arose during the work process. Entrepreneurs were also more responsible towards PBL when they had previously had a personal or professional connection with the university.
The level to which the expectations of both parties are met in the PBL case	The time that entrepreneurs were willing to invest in collaborating with students varied, as did the capacity of different groups to offer a high-value solution. As a result, there were cases where entrepreneurs’ expectations were exceeded and, conversely, unmet. Entrepreneurs may sometimes have an incomplete understanding of what types of challenges are suitable for inclusion in the learning process (for example, problems that can be solved using standard technological solutions), which indicates that the university needs to explain this more. Such real-life challenges cannot be accepted in PBL and can be frustrating for the entrepreneur.
The HEI representatives provide information on how to ensure the continuity of cooperation after completing PBL.	Activities were limited during the project, but after the end of the study course, some student groups continued to communicate with entrepreneurs about solutions.
The overall evaluation of PBL	Company’s perspective: Evaluation is positive if the innovative solutions the students provide are feasible, either as they are or after reshaping. Moreover, it was validated by the student and the researcher. HEI’s perspective: The evaluation is positive, as the students’ learning goals are met. Entrepreneurs whose expectations are met or exceeded can promote the university’s reputation in the business environment and pave the way for future collaborations.
Students` perspective	Many students indicated that the PBL process was stressful due to the interaction with entrepreneurs and the responsibility of working on real-life business problems. Sometimes stress was caused by the entrepreneur’s lack of interest and openness to communication. The interdisciplinary nature of the challenges required working in groups, but the students’ motivation and willingness to engage in the process varied, resulting in groups with unequal levels of student achievement.
Characteristics of the needs of parties	Company’s perspective: A practical and feasible solution to business challenges is needed. In this case, small businesses offered less complex real-life problems that required fewer innovative and creative solutions. Instead, they required exploring alternative solutions and weighing the most suitable ones. HEI’s perspective: There is a need for engagement in the curriculum, improving the quality of the learning process outcome, providing practical skills for learners, and cooperating with a large, nationally well-recognized partner.
Reciprocity/ mutual benefit and dependence	Mutual benefit depends on each case—it is determined by the complexity of the challenge, the student’s contribution, and the entrepreneur’s willingness to cooperate.
The exchange of information and PBL industry partner participation in the decision-making process	The industry partner is not involved in the decision-making process regarding the progress of the work. They receive information from the HEI about events where stakeholders` participation is expected.
Mutual trust	The trust of industry partners in HEIs and students varies in each case. Generally, when starting work, the HEI receives a trust credit. At the same time, in one of the cases, the entrepreneur had a previous unsuccessful experience with HEI students and low expectations for the possible outcome. During the work process, individual entrepreneurs sometimes had distrust in the individual elements of the solution and their alignment with their needs. In turn, students’ trust in the industry partner in certain groups was affected by the inability to communicate effectively with the entrepreneur in case of need.
Intensity and length of cooperation	The planning and implementation of PBL lasted for 5 months at HEI. During this period, industry stakeholders’ participation was sporadic.

These specific cases show how the resources available to an industry organization are also reflected in cooperation with HEIs and PBL processes—a resourceful organization can afford to devote much more time to planning cooperation. It plans cooperation complexly, foreseeing follow-up activities and their place in the organization’s development plans. At the same time, the university management also attaches much greater importance and resources to cooperation with a significant industry player, thus ensuring that the expectations of the industry partner are met. However, the collaboration is characterized only by operational and tactical cooperation elements.

In turn, PBL cooperation with small industrial companies identifies what has already been discovered in research: that companies have enough barriers to cooperation with universities, especially if the company has limited human resources and time that can be allocated to this cooperation, which affects the outcome for both the knowledge and skills acquired by students and the quality of the solution for the company. In this case, when several groups of students create solutions to real-life problems, it is not always possible to provide equally high-quality solutions for everyone; however, in several of these cases, it is precisely the solution ideas that have been the primary motivator for cooperation—for small companies, especially family businesses, the improvement of students’ competencies as future employees is less important.

4. Conclusions

There is currently a considerable amount of PBL literature available, in which the authors focus on the pedagogical aspects of this teaching approach. At the same time, this approach cannot be implemented without the appropriate involvement of industry stakeholders, who often need to be motivated to see the added value in cooperation with higher education institutions. According to stakeholder theory [19,36], higher education institutions currently do not sufficiently consider the benefits of engaging in PBL, thus not only limiting the number of potential cooperation partners in PBL, but also not using the opportunities to raise cooperation from the operational level to the tactical and strategic level.

Literature studies identify the need to strengthen the competencies of PBL instructors, especially by raising awareness of industry partners’ needs, motivations, and constraints to collaboration. In turn, case studies suggest that the literature should pay more attention to preparing industry representatives for involvement in PBL by explaining responsibilities and providing information that would create realistic expectations about the expected benefits.

Higher education is a strictly regulated field, which accordingly provides for bureaucratic procedures, which in turn allow for specific quality standards. At the same time, universities can create unnecessary bureaucratic procedures within the organization. However, not all industry representatives will understand and accept this specific nature of HEIs. Also, the particular nature of HEIs determines that curriculum planning takes place promptly, which often does not allow universities to respond to more urgent cooperation offers from the industry. As a result, few industry partners have the resources, expertise, and motivation to contribute diversely to PBL. This contributes to implementing a more strategic approach to the PBL process, especially in smaller countries where the business environment consists of a limited number of players. Different strategies may be applied to optimize the outcome of collaborations depending on the type of stakeholder, previous collaboration experiences, and needs [41]. PBL literature also needs to explicitly explain the barriers to engagement that various companies face [35], so that they can be taken into consideration both in communication with companies and in planning PBL activities.

If a higher education institution perceives PBL only as a pedagogical approach, it is often the only tool for cooperation between the two parties. On the other hand, if PBL is perceived as a platform for building collaboration at different levels, then it must be expected to require additional resources and efforts, and this challenge should be addressed by policy tools. There is no doubt that problem-based learning, when used properly, is an effective teaching method in higher education and is widely used. However, the circumstances in which higher education is under increasing pressure to collaborate more actively with stakeholders encourage us to look at this method from a broader perspective as a strategic tool for collaboration with the industry, without diminishing the pedagogical importance of this approach.