This paper examines the implementation of two Problem-Based Learning (PBL) seminars at a university administrative credential program for graduate students preparing to become administrators. PBL is an instructional strategy that focuses students on a relevant problem to solve within a collaborative group. It explores in what ways PBL contributes to their development as administrators, ability to work in groups, and to use reflection as a part of their practice. Students worked in small groups to complete a relevant job-related problem. They were expected to apply theory to a real situation, use problem-solving skills, witness the impact of those skills, and reflect on their actions and those of others. Throughout the two seminars, a variety of data were collected including journal notes, videotapes, and process papers. When analyzed, the data provided important insights about the use of PBL for students as an instructional strategy. Analysis of data revealed that students found the content and process relevant to their work as administrators, saw patterns in their own growth, and gained an understanding of the importance of identifying implicit theories. The faculty also learned important lessons from this action research about the use of PBL as a pedagogical strategy. First, students need time to develop and practice both problem-solving as well as group process skills. Second, faculty needed to take an active role in teaching group process and reflective skills. This is important learning given the dynamic context of schools where collaboration with others and group work are essential components of effective organizations. The data indicate that in the HRM Seminar, Group 1 and Group 2 present a stark contrast to how well each group functioned. In Group 1, the lack of attention to group process, member's primary focus on individual achievement, lack of joint leadership, presence of conflict, and perception of not being heard led to low satisfaction with the task and process. Almost the opposite pattern occurred in Group 2. Members reported both high task and process focus and primary attention on group rather than individual achievement. In addition, they reported a sense of being valued and heard, minimal conflict between group members, and a balance between solitary and joint leadership. In addition, group members were more satisfied with the task and process. Group 3 experienced some difficulties and conflict; however, group members felt they accomplished the task well. In the UTE Seminar, the data indicate that Groups A and C functioned well with minimal conflict, and they were satisfied with the product and enjoyed the process. Group B struggled and was not fully satisfied with the product produced by the group and was only marginally satisfied with the group process.
