I would say, if students are struggling with PBQ's, it's because they are not going deep enough in their learning.
I've mentioned before, I am a big fan of
Bloom's Taxonomy and the certifications generally aimed at the Application layer of the Cognitive Domain. This means that it's not nearly enough that a student can define, identify, and describe a thing. And it's still not deep enough that they are able to explain, relate, or describe something (even though many of the imperative questions in the domains often say 'explain'). Students need to be able to apply those things, use them to solve problems, and choose which ones are needed for different scenarios.
This is the dividing line between academic knowledge and practitioner experience.
I remember one question from the Net+ PBQ that was brought up in the 008 TTT. It required the learner know particulars of specific technology from a reverse angle - that is, if you need a 10Gbps throughput on a Layer 2 circuit, what kind of SFP would do the job? It wasn't enough that the student knew what an SFP or QSFP was, or what their throughputs are. But which SFP do you use to solve the problem? Do you just select QSFP+, knowing that a 40Gbps module would work for a 10Gbps job, or do you get the one that does the 10Gbps SFP+, but meanwhile, considering if there is a future-proof requirement?
It's this kind of depth that the PBQ's require.
So, in short, if they struggle with PBQ's, go deeper. Keep asking the WHY question.
Here is an active verb sheet for Bloom's, which may assist with this.
HTH
/r
