problem solving method of teaching biology

Browse Course Material

Course info, instructors.

• Prof. Hazel Sive
• Prof. Tyler Jacks
• Dr. Diviya Sinha

Departments

As taught in.

• Biochemistry
• Cell Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Molecular Biology

Learning Resource Types

Introductory biology, teaching students to solve problems.

In this section, Prof. Hazel Sive describes this course’s focus on problem solving.

Problem Solving at MIT

I think the unofficial motto of MIT is “We solve problems.” Everything that we do here is to prepare our students to be problem solvers in the world. This idea permeates all the disciplines at MIT: engineering; science; business; architecture and urban planning; and humanities, arts, and social sciences. No matter what degree students earn at MIT, they leave with the ability to solve hard problems. When faced with a new problem, they know how to understand it, think about ways to solve it, try those ways, and ultimately get some kind of solution. That kind of philosophical and also real power gives students a big edge when they leave MIT and enter the workforce, go to graduate school, or go to medical school and become a physician.

It’s a difficult way to learn, but it’s a fantastic way to learn. I believe that learning should be a struggle; without struggle, you don’t get anywhere new. I think the courses at MIT are very challenging, and the introductory courses here are much harder than the introductory courses at most other universities.

Learning Terminology and Facts in Order to Solve Problems

Our course does include some rote learning, but the purpose of this rote learning is for our students to develop enough background to be able to speak the subject and understand and tackle challenging problems. They have to know what DNA is, what a gene is, and what a cell is. Very often, I’ll give them a term and I’ll say, “This is the scientific term. You should know it because it’s in your book, it’s in the scientific literature, and you’ll hear it on the news. But what’s most important is the concept underlying the term.” If you look at our problem sets and exams, you’ll see that there are no questions where students have to label a diagram, give a definition, or regurgitate facts.

Learning to Problem Solve through Practice

"It’s a terrific moment when a student realizes that this is different from any way they’ve been taught before, and they’re going to be challenged in ways in which they never knew they could be challenged."

In this course, students learn to solve problems through practice. Every two weeks, we give the students a problem set with six long problems. The problems are all about problem solving. The students look at the problems and realize that this isn’t just a matter of taking the lecture material and giving it back to us; we assume they know that information, and they’re expected to build from there. It’s very challenging for the students.

This is a shock to many of our students. In most high schools and even universities, biology is about learning facts. This was the case for me. I went to a very good university in South Africa. I learned all about the anatomy of the skull. I learned all about bones. I could classify fish. I learned many things that are very useful, but no one ever taught me how to solve a problem. Many of our students arrive at MIT having gotten the highest possible mark on the Advanced Placement ® biology exam, and when they get the first problem set in our course, they are stunned. They haven’t encountered biology as a kind of detective story where there’s a problem that they need to understand and solve. We explain that biology is a rigorous problem solving discipline; in fact, biology is all about using information to solve problems. It’s a terrific moment when a student realizes that this is different from any way they’ve been taught before, and they’re going to be challenged in ways in which they never knew they could be challenged.

The first problem set has to do with biochemistry. By the time they get the problem set, we’ve taught them about the various classes of molecules and macro-molecules that are found in living cells. We give them a problem set where not only do they have to be able to recognize something about the macro-molecules we present to them, they also have to recognize something about how the macro-molecules are put together, about bonding between the different parts of the macro-molecules, and about what that means for the structure of the macro-molecule, especially proteins. We do that both on paper and then also using a visualization program that was developed in the biology department called StarBiochem . In this program, the students are given a 3-dimensional structure of a protein, and they have to be able to understand what they’re looking at and what it means for the actual function of the protein, which is usually an enzyme that can catalyze a particular reaction. As soon as they see that problem set, they realize that this is going to be different from their high school biology experience.

As another example, when students learn about medical disorders, we don’t ask them to regurgitate the typical symptoms. Instead, we might say, “Here’s a patient that’s presenting with a funny disorder, and if she tries to move too quickly, she collapses. Her muscles look normal. Her nerves look normal, but if you do certain tests to them, you can see they’re not firing properly. Here’s what the trace of their firing pattern looks like. Suggest what’s wrong with the patient.”

The Problem Set Process

I tell the students that they have to practice these problems on their own. We can give pointers about how to solve the problems, but they need to think through the material. I tell them that when I’m thinking hard, I get a headache. For them, it might come as some other manifestation, but they should be getting their own personal version of a headache when they’re doing their problem sets. It shouldn’t be easy, but once they learn how to do a problem and get somewhere with a problem, it’s powerful. It empowers them to then go and tackle another one.

"Through this process, students show themselves that they can triumph over the work, and they come out actually having some power over the material."

For each problem set, I tell the students to print out three copies. First, students should take one copy and attempt the problem set all by themselves, without their notes and without help from others. They can identify what they don’t understand right away. They might get halfway through the problem set and panic upon realizing that they don’t know very much, that they went to lecture but didn’t absorb a lot of the material.

At that point, they can review their notes and their textbook, or go to the library, or search for information on the web. They learn what they can, then try the second problem set copy. Again, this is without help from other people; they need to personally struggle with the material. They always get farther the second time. The headache, the struggle, and then the triumph with bits of the problems is really powerful. Through this process, students show themselves that they can triumph over the work, and they come out actually having some power over the material.

Usually there will still be some holes in what they’re able to do and understand. Then, they can go and talk to their friends, their teaching assistants, and me or my co-instructor. They have to hand in their own work, in their own words, but they can work together and their work can have all these inputs. If they work as a group initially, they may miss getting that headache because they’re relying on their friends and people who may get it more quickly or in a different way than they do. I really discourage them from working together initially because I think they just don’t learn the material properly that way. They need to learn by doing. As they do more and more problems, they get better at addressing these questions. Students get substantial practice throughout the semester, and they come out really knowing something about how to solve problems in this particular area of life science.

Crafting Good Problems for 7.013

A critical part of our job as teachers is crafting good problems. We aim to create problems that have the following characteristics:

• Rooted in problem solving . A good problem should challenge students to think and to apply their knowledge in novel ways.
• Clearly written and easily understandable . The point of the problem should be clear.
• Built upon multiple aspects of the course material . Although the course is taught in a modular way, students cannot forget the earlier material as they learn new material. The early, fundamental material is used for all of the later lectures and problem sets. The best problems not only address the current module that they’re learning, but also draw upon and integrate past modules. For example, while learning about neurobiology, students should still remember that proteins only function properly if they’re put in the correct place in a cell.
• Informed by current literature . When possible, we like to draw upon real, current examples from the news and/or scientific literature. We usually take just one aspect of it and use it in a problem. When possible, we try to pick topics that we think students can relate to. This way, our problems are fresh, current, and interesting, and we never run out of ideas for problems.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.3: Problem Solving

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 8377

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Problem Solving

Educators and employers alike have all argued strongly in recent years that the ability to solve problems is one of the most important skills that should be taught to and nurtured in university students. Medical, professional, and graduate schools alike look for students with demonstrated ability to solve problems; the MCAT has even recently changed its format to more specifically assess student’s ability to solve problems. Life is full of problems to solve, irrespective of the profession one chooses. Effective problem-solving skills are important!

Despite a clear demand for this skill set, it is surprisingly rare to find problem solving taught explicitly in formal educational settings, particularly in core science courses where the transmission and memorization of “facts” usually take precedence.

In BIS2A, we want to start changing this. After all, nobody really cares if you’ve memorized the name or catalytic rate of the third enzyme in the citric acid cycle (not even standardized tests), but a lot of people care if you can use information about that enzyme and the context it functions in to help develop a new drug, design a metabolic pathway for making a new fuel, or help understand its importance in the evolution of biological energy transformations.

Your instructors believe that the ability to solve problems is a skill like any other. It is NOT an innate (i.e. you’ve either got it or you don’t) aptitude. Problem solving can be broken down into a set of skills that can be taught and practiced to mastery. So, even if you do not consider yourself a good problem solver today, there is no reason why you can’t become a better problem solver with some guidance and practice. If you think that you are already a good problem solver, you can still get better.

Cognitive scientists have thought about problem solving a lot. Some of this thinking has focused on trying to classify problems into different types. While problems come in many different flavors (and we’ll see some different types throughout the course), most problems can be classified along a continuum of how well-structured they are.

At one end of the continuum are well-structured problems . These are the types of problems that you usually encounter in school. They usually have most of the information required to solve the problem, ask you to apply some known rules or formulas, and have a pre-prescribed answer. On the other end of the continuum are ill-structured problems . These are the types of problems you will usually face in real life or at work. Ill-structured problems are often poorly defined and usually do not include all of the information required to solve them. There may be multiple ways of solving them, and even multiple possible “correct” outcomes/answers.

Note: Possible Discussion

Well-structured problems (like the story problems you might often encounter in text books) are often set in an artificial context, while the ill-structured problems one faces in day-to-day life are often set in a very specific context (your life). Is it possible for multiple people to observe the same situation and perceive different problems associated with it? How does context and perception influence how one might identify a problem, its solution, or its importance? To have a fruitful/enriching discussion it pays to start by presenting an example AND some direct reasoning. Replies that acknowledge the initial comment and either provide an extension of the original argument (by way of a new perspective or example) or provide a reasoned counter-argument the are most valuable follow-ups.

Problems can also be “simple” or “complex,” depending on how many different variables need to be considered to find a solution. They can also be considered as “dynamic” if they change over time. Other problem classification schemes include story problems, rule-based problems, decision-making problems, troubleshooting problems, policy problems, design problems, and dilemmas. As you can see, problem solving is a complicated topic, and a proper, in-depth discussion about it could take up multiple courses. While the topic of problem solving is fascinating, in BIS2A we aren’t interested in teaching the theories of problem solving per se. However, we ARE interested in teaching students skills that are applicable to solving most types of problems, giving students an opportunity to practice these skills, and assessing whether or not they are improving their problem-solving abilities.

Note: Since we are asking you to think explicitly about problem solving, it is fair to expect that your ability to do so will be evaluated on exams. Do not be surprised by this. We are going to incorporate problem solving into the class in a number of different ways:

• We will be explicitly teaching elements of problem solving in class.
• We will have some questions on the study guides that encourage problem solving.
• We will make frequent use of the pedagogical tool we call the “Design Challenge” to help structure our discussion of the topics we cover in class.

When we are using the Design Challenge in class, we are working on problem solving. Within the context of the Design Challenge, your instructor may also present other specific concepts related to problem solving – like decision-making. Slides will be marked explicitly to engage you to think about problem solving. Your instructor will also remind you verbally on a regular basis.

• Special Issues
• Conferences
• Turkish Journal of Analysis and Number Theory Home
• Current Issue
• Browse Articles
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting and Indexing
• Aims and Scope
• American Journal of Educational Research Home
• Social Science
• Medicine & Healthcare
• Earth & Environmental
• Agriculture & Food Sciences
• Business, Management & Economics
• Biomedical & Life Science
• Mathematics & Physics
• Engineering & Technology
• Materials Science & Metallurgy
• Quick Submission
• Apply for Editorial Position
• Propose a special issue
• Launch a new journal
• Authors & Referees
• Advertisers
• Open Access

• Full-Text PDF
• Full-Text HTML
• Full-Text Epub
• Full-Text XML
• Phan Thi Thanh Hoi, Dinh Quang Bao, Phan Khac Nghe, Nguyen Thi Hang Nga. Developing Problem-Solving Competency for Students in Teaching Biology at High School in Vietnam. American Journal of Educational Research . Vol. 6, No. 5, 2018, pp 539-545. https://pubs.sciepub.com/education/6/5/27 ">Normal Style
• Hoi, Phan Thi Thanh, et al. 'Developing Problem-Solving Competency for Students in Teaching Biology at High School in Vietnam.' American Journal of Educational Research 6.5 (2018): 539-545. ">MLA Style
• Hoi, P. T. T. , Bao, D. Q. , Nghe, P. K. , & Nga, N. T. H. (2018). Developing Problem-Solving Competency for Students in Teaching Biology at High School in Vietnam. American Journal of Educational Research , 6 (5), 539-545. ">APA Style
• Hoi, Phan Thi Thanh, Dinh Quang Bao, Phan Khac Nghe, and Nguyen Thi Hang Nga. 'Developing Problem-Solving Competency for Students in Teaching Biology at High School in Vietnam.' American Journal of Educational Research 6, no. 5 (2018): 539-545. ">Chicago Style

Developing Problem-Solving Competency for Students in Teaching Biology at High School in Vietnam

Accessing to the general trend of the world, Vietnam is in the process of setting up a new General education curriculum oriented to learner competency development. In that curriculum, problem-solving is one of the common competencies that need to be formed and developed for students. Thus, developing and evaluating problem solving competency is one of the tasks that teachers in disciplines at all levels of learning and need to do. However, in in Vietnam nowadays, teaching of competency approach is still difficult for teachers. In this article, on the basis of research on competency, we have given a problem-solving competency development process in teaching biology at high school as an illustrative example.

1. Introduction

In the current trend of education reform, many countries around the world have built general education curriculums oriented to competency development. Competency approach curriculum answers the question: We want to know what do students know and what they can do ? The leading countries in this field are Australia, Singapore, Korea, China, Japan and many European countries such as Germany, England, Finland, etc.

Since 2000, the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) has started to study a common competency framework with the following criteria: (1) The learning is maximally personalized; (2) Learners can deal with and respond to the rapid transformation of modern society; (3) The school has the opportunity to promote the democracy; (4) It is effective and feasible for many socio-economic contexts. By October 2001, the OECD published the competency framework for high school students in three competency groups that are recognized in a holistic and integrated approach 1 , 2 .

Vietnam is also in the process of reforming its general education curriculum which is built from transfer of content approach to competency approach with a system of common competencies. In order to implement this curriculum, teachers will need to undergo training sessions in order to transform teaching methods, teaching forms and assessment oriented to competency development. This is a difficult period for high school teachers.

Thus, in Vietnam today, it is necessary to have researches on processes, measures for developing competency as well as the ways to assess students oriented to competency development. One of the core competencies that need to be built and developed for students is problem-solving competency.

Researching on problem-solving competency, many authors argued that this competency is built through the problem-solving process and when it is able to solve problems, the efficiency of problem-solving will be increased in diverse situations occurring in human life. There have been many research theories and frameworks on problem-solving, including five theories that have attracted many scientists such as Polya 3 , 4 , (PISA Program for International Student Assessment) 5 , ACARA (Australian Curriculum, assessment and reporting Authority) 6 , O’Neil 7 , ATC21S (Assessment and Teaching of 21st century skills) 8 .

In Vietnam, there were many authors who studied on problem-solving teaching and problem-solving competency. However, there is still a need for specific research applying those views in teaching the subjects as reference materials to help teachers respond to the teaching of the new general education curriculum.

- Definition of competency

In the world, in the researches on competencies, many authors defined competency in different aspects. However, it is possible to define the competency in three trends: The first is that the authors defined competency as a quality of personality. This group includes perspectives of Binet and T. Simon; P.A. Rudich 9 ; Covaliov A. G. etc. In which Covaliov A. G. considered competency as individual psychological traits to be associated with the good result of accomplishing a certain activity 10 . From these perspectives, competency is the inner ability (psychological and physiological quality) of every human being to achieve a certain activity.

The second group is based on the structural component of the competency to define the competency. All definitions under this group confirm that competency is composed of skills. For example: "Competency is the ordering set of skills that affect the contents of a given situation to solve the problem posed by such situation" (Rogiers X. 11 ). T. Lobanova and Yu Shunin 12 , etc. T. Lobanova and Yu Shunin emphasized that " competency " and " skill " should not be considered synonyms. Skill presents ability to do cognitive or behavioral actions in a proficient, accurate and adaptive manner to changeable conditions, while competency means a system of complex actions, including competencies and non-cognitive components (attitudes, emotions, motives, values, and ethics).

The third group defines the competency basing on the origin of competency. The All definitions of this group confirm that competency is formed from activities and through activity the competency can be formed and developed. There are authors having the same opinion with this group such as John Erpenbeck 13 ; Weitnert 14 ; New Zealand education curriculum; Draft general education curriculum of the Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam 15 , etc. Typical definitions from the group's point of view are: "Competency is the ability to manipulate knowledge, experiences, skills, attitudes and excitement to act appropriately and effectively in diverse situations of life "(Thomas Armstrong, 2011) 16 .

In the Deseco project (2002), the authors’ team identified "Competency is as an internal mental structure system, the ability to mobilize knowledge, cognitive skills, practical skills and attitudes, emotions, values, morality, motivation of a person to successfully perform activities in a specific context" 17 .

According to the draft general education curriculum of the Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam (2017): "Competency is an individual attribute which is formed, developed by available quality and learning and training process, allows people to synthesize knowledge, skills, and other personal attributes such as excitement, belief, will, etc. to successfully perform a certain type of activity, achieving desired results in specific conditions " [ 15 ; p. 6].

Types of competency in general education curriculum in Vietnam

The general education curriculum forms and develops the following core competencies for students:

- Common competencies are formed and developed by all subjects and educational activities such as self-control and self-learning competency, communication and co-operation competency, problem-solving competency and creativity;

- Professional competency: Professional competencies are formed and developed primarily through a number of subjects and certain educational activities such as language competency, computational competency, natural and social exploration competency, technological competency, informatics competency, aesthetic competency, physical competency.

In the general education curriculum, it is generally identified three common competencies and 7 professional competencies. Among them, problem-solving competency plays a particularly important role because of the integration in which all the competencies are left. Also, in some general education curriculums that only this competency is focused on developing.

We have developed a problem-solving competency for students in teaching biology in the following steps:

Once the competency to be developed has been identified, the teacher should clearly identify which competency needs to be developed? Including which criteria in its structure and describe the competency as behaviors that can be performed, thereby training students through each behavior and synthesizing behaviors.

- Definition of problem-solving competency

As defined in the Program for International Student Assessment, problem-solving competency is "the ability of an individual to understand and solve problem situations when the solution is not clear. It includes participation in solving that problem - demonstrating the potential as an active and contributing citizenship" 5 .

According to Tu Duc Thao, when dealing with any problem, students must rely on accumulated knowledge and experience, conduct reasoning to find the answer, and also by reasoning, students can generate new ideas. Thus, solving problems allows students to learn and practice thinking. Thinking and problem-solving are closely related; Thinking to solve problems, through problem- solving to develop thinking 18 .

According to author Nguyen Canh Toan, problem-solving is "intellectual activity, considered as complex level and the highest level of perception, as it requires the mobilization of all intellectual competency of the individual. In order to solve the problem, the subject needs to mobilize memory, perception, reasoning, conceptualization, and language using simultaneously with emotions, motives, belief in itself competency and competency of controlling situation" 19 .

Thus, problem-solving competency can be understood as the ability of the individual to mobilize knowledge, skills and personal experience in detecting problems, finding solutions and implementing problem-solving effectively.

- Identification of problem-solving competency structure

In teaching Biology, many authors conducted researches on problem-solving teaching, such as Tran Ba Hoanh - Trinh Nguyen Giao 20 , Ngo Van Hung, Nguyen Hai Chau 21 , Tran Van Kien [ 22 ; 65], the process of problem-solving approach consists of three steps as follows:

- Step 1 - Introduction: In this step, the teacher creates the problematic situation, students detect, identify the problem occuring and present the problem to be addressed.

- Step 2 – Problem-solving: students propose hypotheses, make plans and implement problem-solving plans.

- Step 3 – Conclusion: students draw conclusions about new knowledge.

Table 1. Expression of component skills in problem-solving competency

• Download as PowerPoint Slide Tables index View option Full Size Next Table

Table 2. Tasks of teachers and students when practicing 4 skills of problem-solving competency

• Download as PowerPoint Slide Tables index View option Full Size Previous Table Next Table

In the aforementioned three steps, step 1 will train students with problem exploration and detection skills; Step 2 will train students with hypotheses proposal skills, planning skills and problem solving skills; Step 3 will train students with skills of synthesizing and generalizing knowledge, building knowledge, and drawing lessons learned after solving problem.

Based on the problem-solving steps, we believe that in order to develop the problem-solving competency, students need to be built and developed four elementary skills, namely Skill 1 “Problem exploration and detection"; Skill 2 "Hypotheses formation"; Skill 3 "Planning and problem-solving"; Skill 4 "Problem-solving solutions assessment and conclusion drawing".

When training for the problem-solving competency, it is necessary to practice each problem-solving skill; we give specific activities of teachers and students in the exercise as presented in Table 2 .

Competencies are developed through activities. In order to form and develop problem-solving competency, it is possible to use organizational measures such as using problematic situations, using situational exercises, using practical exercises, using project exercises,...

For each measure, teachers will design a tool that is appropriate for students. Specific examples are given in the following section.

In this article, we choose the measure for developing problem-solving competency: use of problematic situations.

According to the Vietnamese Dictionary, a situation is the happening of an event with which you must cope [ 23 ; p. 1551].

According to Dinh Quang Bao and Nguyen Duc Thanh, a problematic situation is a psychological state of the subject of perception when the subject meets with perceptional contradiction or difficulty. The contradiction or difficulty is beyond the existing knowledge of the subject, implying a something unknown and involving a positive and creative inquiry [ 24 ; p. 3].

In addition, many other authors defined a problematic situation, including I. Lecne 25 , M. I. Macmutop 26 , A. V. Petrovski 27 , Nguyen Ngoc Quang 28 . In spite of their different expressions, the authors affirmed that a problematic situation is filled with a content that needs to be determined and a task that needs to be implemented.

Example of a problemetic situation used to practice problem-solving competency in teaching the Genetics section – Biology for 12 th graders :

Problematic situation: In 1957, Franken and Conrat carried out an experiment of separating the ARN core from the protein coverings of two viral strains A and B. Both the strains were pathogenic to tobacco, but harms on the leaves were different. The ARN core of strain A was mixed with the protein of strain B, and a hybrid virus was created. Infected by the hybrid virus, the tobacco would contract a disease. The isolation ofthe leaf of the infected tobacco would create viral strain A [ 22 ; p116].

Think to answer the following suggested questions:

Question 1: What types of knowledge is the content of this experiment related to?

(This question aims to form the problem detection skill.)

For the question above, students will think and determine the related types of knowledge: Knowledge of genetics, Knowledge of botany and Knowledge of microbiology.

Question 2: Change the content of the situation into a problem question.

Question 3: Mention possible causes to explain why the isolation of the leaf of the infected tobacco created viral strain A, not viral strain B.

(This question aims to form the scientific hypotheses formation skill.)

For this question, students will argue to discover that the hybrid virus has the core of strain A and the covering of strain B, but the next generation is viral strain A, which proves that the core of the virus bears information about the whole structure of the virus. Therefore, the hypothesis is formed as follows: For a tobacco mosaic virus, the ARN core is a matter that bears genetic information.

Question 4: Why have you raised such hypothesis?

For this question, students must use critical thinking skills to prove their points of view. Other students can criticize your point of view.

Question 5: (The teacher raises an assumption): If the isolation of the leaf of the infected tobacco creates viral strain B, not viral strain A, what hypothesis will be raised?

Question 6: What conclusion can be drawn from the result of this experiment?

(Questions 5 and 6 aims to form the skill of assessing a solution to a problem and drawing a concludion.)

Finding an answer to each of the questions above is the use of skills to solve problems in the situation.

In the initial stage, students get instructions from the teacher. When students are familiar with how to solve problems, each student will solve problems on their own or through team discussion.

- Using a problematic situation to develop problem-solving competency for students

When a problematic situation is used to develop problem-solving competency for students, tasks of the teacher and students are shown in Table 3 .

Specific steps are as follows:

In the stage of practicing problem-solving competency, students are continuously in contexts that generate problematic situations, solve problems, and evaluate problem-solving efficiency through the four steps of process on problem-solving competency practice.

Step 1: Problem arising / problem approach

The teacher tells a story to create a perceptional context in which students can identify problematic situations.

Example of the story entitled "Pathogen and antibody ”. When a pathogen penatrates the human or animal body (the inner body environment), the body will create a corresponding antibody to kill the pathogen. In nature, there are billions of types of pathogens, and theoretically there will be billions of corresponding antibodies. An antibody is a type of protein in blood. For the human body, there are only over 100 genes defining antibody protein.

The teacher asks students to study the story to raise situations in terms of various aspects of the story and to choose the situation related to the main content of the lesson. In the context above, it is possible to predict the following ways of inference and corresponding situations:

Way 1: Think about the structure of the antibody. In this way of thinking, students will raise the situation: How is the antibody structured to perform the function of antigen condensation?

Way 2: Think about the pathogenic mechanism of the antigen. In this way of thinking, students will raise the situation: Why can the antigen be pathogenic to the animal body?

Way 3: Think about the expression mechanism of the gene defining antibody protein. In this way of thinking, students will raise the situation: In human cells, there are only over 100 genes defining antibody, but why can a countless number of various types of antibody be created?

Table 3. Tasks of the teachers and students when using a problematic situation to practice problem-solving competency

• Download as PowerPoint Slide Tables index View option Full Size Previous Table

In the above-mentioned different ways of arguments, the teacher asks students to think and choose only situations that are related to the main content of the lesson. As a result, students will come to agree on the most relevant situations to the lesson: In human cells, there are only over 100 genes defining antibody, but why can a countless number of types of various antibodies be created?

Step 2: Practice 4 skills of problem-solving competency

* Problem exploration and detection

- Students analyze and clarify the content of the situation.

If each gene defines a type of antibody, about 100 genes can only create about 100 types of antibody. Thus, the contradiction is in the relationship between gene and antibody protein.

- Students identify the contradiction between the arising situation and the taught knowledge.

Because Biology for 9 th graders was taught, students know that each gene defines and synthesize 1 type of protein. In this situation, the number of types of protein is thousands of times the number of types of gene.

- Students express the situation in 1 question:

The question raised by students is expected as follows: In what way can a gene synthesize various types of protein?

* Hypotheses formation

-Students collect, choose and arrange knowledge contents related to the situation. In this situation, the related knowledge contents are:

+ Structural characteristics of antibody protein

+ Characteristics of a fragmented gene

+ Genetic expression mechanism of a lymphocyte

- Relate the situation to the taught knowledge

Relationship: Gen → mARN → Polypeptide chain →Protein

-Raise a hypothesis to explain the problem

It is possible to raise the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: A gene defines and sythesize many types of mARN; each type of mARN only defines and synthesizes a type of polypeptide chain defining a type of protein.

Hypothesis 2: A gene defines and sythesizes many types of mARN; each type of mARN defines and synthesizes many types of polypeptide chain; each type of polypeptide chain defines a type of protein.

Hypothesis 3: A gene defines and synthesizes many types of mARN; each type of mARN only defines and synthesizes a type of polypeptide chain; many types of polypeptide chain define a type of protein.

Hypothesis 4: A gene defines and synthesizes a type of mARN; each type of mARN only defines and synthesizes a type of polypeptide chain; many types of polypeptide chain defines a type of protein.

Hypothesis 5: A gene defines and synthesizes many types of mARN; each type of mARN defines and synthesizes many types of polypeptide chain; many types of polypeptide chain defines a type of protein.

-Agreement on hypotheses

Students in each team make a discussion with one another and come to an agreement on the raised hypothesis. Depending on awareness of students in each team, they can raise different hypotheses. Excellent students can come to an agreement on hypotheses 3 and 4.

* Problem-solving planning and implementation

- Propose measures for hypotheses testing

For this situation, hypothesis testing are based on applying knowledge of the structure of antibodies (learned in grade 11), on transcription, decode. After that, to make inference to affirm or reject the above hypothesis, and to come to the right conclusion.

- Conducting scientific critical reasoning to support or reject the hypothesis of other groups

Depending on the teaching practice, the teacher may give some questions to orient students' thinking, to help them with scientific argumentation, to find the correct hypothesis. The questions should be as follows:

Question 1: How is the antibody structured? (Review Biology 11)

Question 2: Can a polypeptide produce many types of protein? (Answer: It can. Because each protein can be produced by the interaction among one or many polypeptide).

Question 3: Can a gene synthesize many types of mRNA molecules? (Answer: It can. By cutting introns and linking exons in different ways in segment gene, it is possible to synthesize a variety of mature mRNAs, each of which is decoded into a polypeptide.

Question 4: Can one type of mARN synthesize multiple polypeptide ? (Answer: It cannot, because the genetic code is specific)

* Problem-solving solutions assessment and conclusion drawing

- Students evaluate the effectiveness of hypothesis testing.

In step 3, students verify the correctness of each hypothesis, then evaluate the science of those methods. Because, in many cases, the inference process is logical (or the practical process gives correct results) but the methodology is not suitable, the results are unreliable. Therefore, evaluating the hypothesis testing not only helps students with critical thinking skills but also helps them take the initiative in assessing and conducting researches.

- Students synthesize, generalize knowledge to form new knowledge.

After finding the right hypothesis, students draw conclusions about the relationship among: Gene → mARN → polypeptyde→ Protein.

+ Each gene is capable of synthesizing many types of mature mARN. Each mRNA only synthesizes one type of polypeptide, each of which can produce different types of protein, since each protein can be made up of multiple polypeptide chains interacting with each other by valence bonds or weak bonds (hydrogen bonds, ionic bonds, water resistance bonds, ...).

+ Only about 100 genes regulate the antibodies but they can produce billions of antibodies, because each antibody is made up of four polypeptide chains (two heavy chains and two light chains); Genes regulating antibodies are segment genes, each of which is capable of producing hundreds of different types of mRNA molecules, producing hundreds of different types of polypeptide chains. So, with hundreds of genes, each of which contains hundreds of polypeptide chains which are arranged in different ways, a variety of different antibodies will be created.

- The student confirms the learned knowledge and experience.

+ After solving the problem, students understand the following concepts: What is a segment gene? What is the role of gene segmentation?

+ Students learn that when solving a problem, they need to discover the intrinsic nature of the contradiction followed by the content of knowledge that is relevant to the conflict of the situation, to propose scientific hypothesis and to find ways to verify, evaluate each hypothesis, draw conclusions about the cause of the problem, then form new knowledge.

The purpose of this step is to review the results of the training process, to determine the level of competency development, to draw experience and to continue improving.

To evaluate problem-solving competency, teachers need to design a way of problem-solving competency development and assessment tools.

We identify the problem-solving competency development in five levels as follows:

Level 1: Students begin to know how to detect problems but do not know how to form hypothesis, how to solve problems; how to generalize knowledge and draw experience after solving problems.

Level 2: Students find out problems exactly, know how to form hypothesis, are still confused with finding solutions to problems and have not solved the problems; do not know how to generalize knowledge and draw experience after solving problems.

Level 3: Students promptly find out right problems, form right hypothesis, are still confused with solving problems, do not know how to generalize knowledge and draw experience after solving problems.

Level 4: Students promptly find out right problems, promptly form right hypothesis, solve right problems, are still confused with how to generalize knowledge and draw experience after solving problems, need supports from their teachers and other students.

Level 5: Students promptly find out right problems, promptly form right hypothesis, promptly solve right problems, promptly generalize new knowledge and draw experience after solving problems

For the assessment tool of problem-solving capability, we use problematic situations.

Example 1 : After completing the lesson "Duplication of DNA and Mutagenesis", the teacher may examine the skills of problem-solving competency in the following situations:

Situation: A rare hereditary disease that is expressed to be immunodeficient, slow to grow, slow to mature, and has a small head 4 . Suppose that DNA was extracted from a patient with the above symptoms and DNAs have equal length and other DNA segments were very short but with an equivalent total mass. Scientists have identified that it is caused by mutagenesis that corrupted an enzyme involved in DNA duplication.

Questions for evaluating each skill of problem-solving competency:

Question 1 : Raise a question to clarify the content of this situation.

Answer : Of enzymes involved in DNA duplication, which enzymes involve the function of joining DNA segments?

Question 2: Make an assumption to explain the cause of this problem.

Answer : Gene mutation regulates the synthesis of enzyme DNA ligase causing this enzyme to lose its biological function.

Question 3 : Explain the given hypothesis.

- During DNA duplication, shaped circuit with the direction of 3’ → 5’, the new circuit is synthesized continuously; shaped circuit with the direction of 5’ → 3’, the new circuit is synthesized in Okazaki segments with the equivalent length.

- Of enzymes involved in DNA duplication, only enzyme DNA ligase has the function of linking Okazaki segments to form continuous polynucleotide chains. If this enzyme is damaged its function by mutation, the Okazaki segments will not be connected, thus DNA segments are very short but have the equivalent total mass.

Question 4 : Make a conclusion of the role of enzyme DNA ligase .

Answer : Enzyme DNA ligase has the function of connecting the Okazaki segments to form a continuous polynucleotide chain. If this enzyme is inactivated, it will cause abnormalities in the structure of the genetic materials leading to diseases.

Example 2 : After completing the lesson "Chromosome and Genetic Mechanisms at the cellular level," teachers can examine the skills of problem-solving competency in the following situations:

Situation: In the wild, there are some plants that reproduce by flowering, seeding, and then seeds germinate into seedlings and continue the new cycle (called sexual reproduction); Some other plants reproduce from the roots or from the branches, from the leaves to the seedlings, then the seedlings are separated from the original plant to develop and mature (called asexual reproduction). It is found that with sexual reproduction, flowers have various colors, while with asexual reproduction, flowers have only a few certain colors in the same species.

Question 1: Raise a question to clarify the content of this situation

Question 2: Make an assumption to explain the cause of this problem

Question 3: Explain and clarify the given hypothesis

Question 4: Specify the cause of the diversity of the biological world.

The above examples illustrate the assessment of each skill of problem-solving competency through exercises of evaluating problem-solving competency Assessing each skill of problem-solving competency helps teachers identify skills of which students are weak so that they can take measures to support and train students to strengthen each skill. The most important feature of problem-solving competency is the accuracy and the speed of problem solving. Therefore, besides evaluating each skill, it is necessary to evaluate the result and the speed of problem solving. Exercises should ask students for the final answer without requiring intermediate steps to address the situation.

3. Conclusion

Problem-solving is one of the common competencies in the general education curriculum in Vietnam towards the formation and development of students. There are many researches on this competency in the world such as PISA, ACARA, Polya, etc. In the article, we proposed a four-step problem-solving competency development process, and illustrated those 4 steps by using the problematic situations in teaching Biology in Vietnam with specific actions to help teachers to study and practice in teaching Biology in particular and other subjects in general in order to meet the new general education curriculum.

Published with license by Science and Education Publishing, Copyright © 2018 Phan Thi Thanh Hoi, Dinh Quang Bao, Phan Khac Nghe and Nguyen Thi Hang Nga

Cite this article:

Normal style, chicago style.

• Google-plus

• View in article Full Size

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Research Council (US) Committee on High-School Biology Education; Rosen WG, editor. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow: Papers Presented at a Conference. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1989.

High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow: Papers Presented at a Conference.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

19 Teaching High-School Biology: Materials and Strategies

Rodger W. Bybee

• Whom Are We Teaching Biology?

High-school biology is offered in 99% of high schools in the United States (Weiss, 1987). This is a 4% increase since 1977 (Weiss, 1978). Biology is the most commonly offered science course—35% of all science courses. Half of all science classes relate to the biological sciences (Weiss, 1987). It is safe to say that biology is taken by the majority of high-school students. And for many of those students, biology is the last science course they will take.

It is absolutely essential to consider the demographics of education as we look for a reform of biology education. In All One System , Harold Hodgkinson (1985) presents demographic trends—changes in population groupings that move through the educational system. Hodgkinson summarized his findings (p. 7):

What is coming toward the educational system is a group of children who will be poorer, more ethnically and linguistically diverse, and who will have more handicaps that will affect their learning. Most important, by around the year 2000, America will be a nation in which one of every three of us will be non-white. And minorities will cover a broader socioeconomic range than ever before, making simplistic treatment of their needles. even less useful.

Other national reports serve to remind us that our educational programs at the precollege level must recognize the personal needs of all youth and the aspirations of society. One such report is The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America (Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship, 1988). This report is a counterpoint to the numerous reports that explicitly or implicitly focus on the college-bound student.

Whom are we teaching biology? We are teaching the majority of students. And we must recognize that the majority is a diverse group, with different needs, perceptions, and aspirations. High-school biology should be designed for all students, those who are college-bound and those who will enter the workforce immediately after high school.

• Characteristics of Students

Contemporary research findings about students as learners underlie my discussion of instruction. One finding is that students are motivated to learn science. They are naturally curious about all aspects of the biological world. Whether it is recognizing plants and animals, understanding biotechnology, or investigating ecological systems, students have an interest in their world and seek explanations for how things work.

A second finding is that students already have explanations, attitudes, and skills when a biology lesson begins. Students' explanations, attitudes, and skills may well be inadequate, incomplete, or inappropriate. Contemporary educational researchers use such terms as ''misconceptions" and "naive theories" to characterize the cognitive component of student understanding. Briefly, students interpret instructional activities in terms of what they already know; then they actively seek to relate new concepts, attitudes, or skills to their prior set of concepts, attitudes, or skills. The assimilation of new experiences is based on the students' prior experiences, and it may or may not get "learned" the way the teacher intended. Students' learning is accurately viewed as the process of refining and reconstructing extant knowledge, attitudes, and skills, rather than the steady accumulation of new knowledge, attitudes, and skills.

A third finding is that students have different styles of learning. "Learning style" refers to the way individuals perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment. Learning styles have cognitive, affective, and physical components. While instructional strategies vary between and within projects, they are based on the idea that learning style is an aspect of students' learning and should be recognized in the strategies of teaching.

The fourth finding is that students pass through developmental stages and that tasks influence learning. In the 1960s and 1970s, Jean Piaget's theory was popular, and it influenced curriculum development. Piaget's work concentrated on cognitive development. Current research in the cognitive sciences is, in many respects, an extension of Piaget's theories. Contemporary curriculum development holds a larger view of student development. In addition to cognitive development, we should also attend to the student's ethical, social, and psychomotor development. This broader view of development is important to the selection of instructional methods.

The general view of student learning presented in the four findings is constructivist. In the constructivist model, students reorganize and reconstruct core concepts, or intellectual structures, through continuous interactions with their environment and other people. Applying the constructivist approach to teaching requires the teacher to recognize that students have conceptions of the natural world. Those may be inadequate and need further development. Curriculum developers can design materials and teachers can use strategies so that students encounter objects or events that focus on the concepts, attitudes, or skills that are the intended learning outcomes. Then they can have students encounter problematic situations that are slightly beyond their current level of understanding or skill. The instructional approach then structures physical and psychological experiences that assist in the construction of more adequate explanations, attitudes, and skills. These new constructions are then applied to different situations and tested against other constructions used to explain and manipulate objects and events in the students' world. Briefly, the students' construction of knowledge can be assisted by using sequences of lessons designed to challenge current conceptions and by providing time and opportunities for reconstruction to occur.

• What Should We Teach?

Through most of time, the immense journey of biological evolution has been directed by natural laws. With scientific and technological advances, such as the discovery of DNA and the development of biotechnology, and with the problems of population, resources, and environments—such as famine, destruction of tropical rain forests, and ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere—we have abilities and influences that go beyond our meager understanding and myopic visions. Evolution may now be directed by humans themselves. Here is a clear and profound connection between biology as a pure science and the influence of biology on our global society. Students need an ecological perspective. All other arguments for a particular curriculum emphasis in biology pale in comparison.

A recent editorial in Science (Koshland, 1988) descried the importance of ecological understanding:

Ecology, the study of the delicate balance between species and environment ... shows that evolution has developed clever strategies ... to use resources to maximum effectiveness. Those strategies sometimes involve symbiosis, sometimes tacit agreements on territory, and sometimes murderous aggression, but all are based on the assumption that resources are limited so that the clever and the parsimonious will gain relative to the inefficient and wasteful.

At the end of the editorial, Koshland made a clear connection to human populations:

Most species struggle to overcome poverty of resources and occupy niches that allow a critical number to survive in competition with other species. Modern civilization has upset that process so that many (although certainly not all) humans are living far beyond a survival level. The brain that allowed that situation needs now to curb a primordial instinct to increased replication of our own species at the expense of others because the global ecology is threatened. So, ask not whether the bell tolls for the owl or the whale or the rhinoceros; it tolls for us.

This powerful statement has the implied theme of educating the public about global ecology. The public has an increased awareness and concern related to interactions among individuals, groups of individuals, and the environment. Public attention is directed to these primary units of ecological study. This attention has influenced the growing public concern for ecology and public debate about policies that extend the concern to human ecology.

In biology education, there has been an essential tension between the need to teach "real biology"—the science of life—and the need to achieve educational goals related to personal development and societal aspirations—the science of living. The continuing debate about the primary goals—whether the biology curriculum ought to be a science of life or a science of living—is essential to the continued evolution of biology education. The history of this debate has been described elsewhere (Rosenthal and Bybee, 1987, 1988). I perceive the contemporary resolution of the debate to favor human ecology, which should be the conceptual framework for the curriculum in biology.

The teaching of human ecology is an integrative endeavor among humanists, social scientists, and natural scientists. Separate disciplines—such as biology, sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, philosophy, theology, and history—evolved to improve understanding of the human condition and, we may assume, the human predicament. Now, when problems cut across these disciplines, there is reluctance to transcend the disciplinary boundaries. Such reluctance must be overcome for the very reasons for which disciplines were invented—the cause of human understanding, if not survival. The idea of cooperation among the various disciplines serves to maintain the integrity of disciplines while permitting study of the unifying conceptual schemes of biology and the central issues of human ecology—population dynamics, growth, resource use, environmental practices, and the complex interaction of human populations, resources, and environment (Moore, 1985; Ehrlich, 1985).

To say that generally the biology textbook is the organizing framework for the curriculum and reading the textbook is the dominant method of instruction is not an overstatement. Over 90% of science teachers use published textbooks (Weiss, 1978, 1987). And science instruction tends to be dominated by teacher lectures and reading of the textbook (Weiss, 1987; Mullis and Jenkins, 1988). Any consideration of reforming high-school biology must examine the role of the textbook in instruction.

There is a contradiction associated with the use and review of textbooks. A majority (76%) of science teachers in grades 10-12 do not consider textbook quality to be a significant problem (Weiss, 1987). On the other hand, many educators do consider textbook quality and usability to be problems (Muther, 1987; Carter, 1987; AAAS, 1985; Apple, 1985; Armbruster, 1985; Moyer and Mayer, 1985; McInerney, 1986; Rosenthal, 1984).

Science teachers are clearly satisfied with the quality of textbooks. In a national survey of science education, Weiss (1987) asked several specific questions about the quality of science textbooks. Some of the items that received favorable ratings by a majority of respondents are the following:

• Have appropriate reading level (87%).
• Are interesting to students (52%).
• Are clear and well organized (85%).
• Develop problem-solving skills (61%).
• Explain concepts clearly (74%).
• Have good suggestions for activities and assignments (74%).

Why are the teachers satisfied? The textbooks are meeting teachers' needs and their conceptions of good biology and appropriate biology education. The problem here is similar to that of the biology student who has misconceptions about the energetics of cells or the mechanisms of evolution. The means of changing the misconceptions is likewise similar. There is need to challenge current concepts and introduce biology teachers to perceptions about textbooks that are counter to their own. Then, provide time, opportunities, and examples that allow teachers to reform their ideas.

We may also have to consider the questions that probe beyond those asked in the survey. For instance, the material is clear and well organized; but should we be teaching that material? Or, the textbooks develop problem-solving skills; but which problem-solving skills, and are they really developed? The problem of teacher satisfaction with textbooks is central to any reform of biology education.

Content and pedagogy are central to the textbook situation. One assessment of content is the copyright date of textbooks in use. Seventy-one percent of science classes in grades 10-12 use books with a copyright date before 1983, and 22% before 1980. So one dimension of the content problem is that the information is dated.

Gould (1988) published "The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone," in which two themes were developed. One was the presentation of controversial issues, such as evolution, in textbooks. The second, and more important, was that textbooks in a given market, like tenth-grade biology, are very similar to one another. Gould did an informal review of biology textbooks and had this to say (1988, p. 19):

In book after book, the evolution section is virtually cloned. Almost all authors treat the same topics, usually in the same sequence, and often with illustrations changed only enough to avoid suits for plagiarism. Obviously, authors of textbooks are copying material on a massive scale and passing along to students will considered and virtually xeroxed versions with a rationale lost in the mists of time.

At the end of the article, Gould remarked on the educational effect of cloning (p. 24):

[Textbook cloning] is the easy way out, a substitute for thinking and striving to improve. Somehow, I must believe—for it is essential to my notion of scholarship—that good teaching requires fresh thought and genuine excitement and that rote copying can only indicate boredom and slipshod practice. A carelessly cloned work will not excite students, however pretty the pictures. As an antidote, we need only the most basic virtue of integrity—not only the usual, figurative meaning of honorable practice but the less familiar, literal definition of wholeness. We will not have great texts if authors cannot shape content but must serve a commercial master as one cog in an ultimately powerless consortium with other packagers.

What about pedagogy? The design of textbooks supports the science teachers' increased use of lecture and decreased use of laboratory (Weiss, 1987). One can imagine the situation getting worse, because the feedback within the system will continue to support the trend. More information is added to textbooks, but teachers have a fixed time to cover information. Fewer laboratory experiments are done, because more time is needed for lectures. Somehow, the cycle must be interrupted.

Reforming the content and pedagogy of textbooks is a complicated and complex proposition. Who is in control? Authors? Publishers? State adoption committees? Curriculum developers? Administrators? Teachers? The fact is that all groups are in some control and to some degree controlled. Most of the feedback in the system tends to perpetuate the current situation. It will take the concerted efforts of those within the system to bring about change. How might this happen? We need only look back 30 years to find a historical example. Support for several innovative biology programs, such as those developed in the late 1950s and 1960s, could bring about some change. Those programs incorporated the best scientists and teachers in the design of new textbooks. The original development and field-testing of materials was heavily supported and unencumbered by restraints of the market, adoption committees, and administrative budgets. The science-education community united to develop innovative programs; then the market adapted.

What should we do differently in the 1980s? First, I think several different groups should be developing biology programs. While the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BUSCH) was successful in developing three programs, I think there is need for even more diversity. Second, the projects should be funded by both private and public sources. The reasons for this are to encourage greater diversity and innovation of programs and to provide enough funding for significant innovation, such as the integration of technology (educational software), and major field-testing of the programs. Third, only publishers that are willing to give control of content and pedagogy to the developers should be involved in the projects, and those publishers should be involved throughout the development process. Fourth, development should include implementation of the program. Finally, teacher education at the preservice level should be integral to development and implementation of the new programs.

The use of educational technology has great potential for improving instruction in biology. According to Weiss (1978), computer use increases with grade levels, with approximately 36% of science classes in grades 10-12 using computers. Although the amount of time computers are used is small, at grades 10-12 computers are used primarily for drill and practice, for simulations, for learning content, and as laboratory tools (Weiss, 1987). In contrast to 1977, the 1985-1986 national survey indicated that computers are a part of science education. I assume that the trend toward increased use of computers will continue. Among the justifications for greater use of computers are the demands of an increasingly information-oriented and technological society and use of computers in the workplace (Ellis, 1984).

There have not been sufficient quantities of good software and affordable hardware for computers to have a widespread impact on curriculum and instruction in biology. Individual pieces of software are used as supplements to instruction. But the occasional application of a tutorial or simulation is not enough to bring about the reformation of thinking required to incorporate computer technologies fully into the biology program. As hardware and software evolve, there is reason to believe that they will become integral components of biology education (R. Tinker, unpublished manuscript).

There are three types of software that have immediate and important implications for instruction in biology: HyperCard, microcomputer-based laboratories, and modeling.

Textbooks have reached the point of diminishing returns relative to the amount of information they can reasonably contain for high-school biology. HyperCard is an educational technology that has relevance for the problem of teaching students how to ask questions and get information on selected subjects. They can simply view the information that someone else has organized, or they can "collect" information and organize it in a notebook (Kaehler, 1988).

Biology teachers are concerned that students must "learn" information that teachers do not have time to teach. HyperCard allows the students to gain access to information when they need it, to the depth that they want.

Microcomputer-Based Laboratory (MBL)

MBLs permit the acquisition of data in the laboratory through probes and sensors linked with a computer. This educational application was pioneered by Robert Tinker at Technical Education Research Centers. Data types that might be used in biology instruction include temperature, sound, light, pressure, distance measurement, electrical measurements (such as resistance and voltage), and physiological measurements (such as heart rate, blood pressure, and electrodermal activity).

MBL offers extensions of many current laboratories in biology education. It has several educational advantages, such as immediate feedback for students, capability for long-term collection of data, and easy construction of graphs for display of data. There is little reason not to use this technology in biology instruction.

Models and Simulations

Modeling tools are available in software packages that assist students in quantitative assessment. STELLA is the archetype of this software (Tinker, unpublished manuscript). Modeling applies very nicely to such subjects as population growth, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. Simulations provide students with opportunities to try ideas, change variables, and run hypothetical experiments. Computer technology affords the opportunity for students to investigate topics that they ordinarily could not study.

My discussion of teaching is divided into two sections. The first concerns the laboratory and the second argues for a more systematic approach to instruction. The 1985-1986 national survey indicated that since 1977, science teachers have increased the amount of time in lecture and decreased the time in laboratory activities (Weiss, 1987). There is a need to renew and expand the emphasis on the laboratory and inquiry strategies (Costenson and Lawson, 1987).

Human Ecology and the Biology Laboratory

Human ecology is the conceptual orientation that I recommend for the biology laboratory (Bybee, 1984, 1987). Human ecology as a specific approach to the laboratory is described in Bybee et al. (1981). The following are characteristics of a laboratory program with a human ecological approach. The characteristics describe an orientation and direction for the science laboratory. Table 1 compares traditional and human ecological approaches to the science laboratory.

Comparison of Traditional and Human Ecological Approaches to Science Laboratory.

Study of Significant Problems

Laboratory activities will be related to problems in the human environment. Problems arise from situations that involve a question, discrepancy, or decision concerning the student, society, or the environment. Investigations should be selected that provide opportunities for students to help to define problems significant to them—problems that they think they can and are willing to help to solve (Bybee et al., 1980). Investigations should be oriented toward ways of acquiring information and using that information in making decisions about current personal and social problems. The following subjects could form the basis for study: world hunger and food resources, population growth, air quality and atmosphere, water resources, war technology, human health and disease, energy shortages, land use, hazardous substances, nuclear reactors, extinction of plants and animals, and mineral resources. The selection of subjects is based on surveys of different populations, including American citizens (Bybee, 1984) and science educators in other countries (Bybee, 1987).

Study of Ecosystems

An instructional orientation toward the ecosystem is appropriate. Of necessity, biology teachers will have to include other levels of biological organization, but students can experience and understand many changes in ecosystems, especially as they study them at local levels.

An ecosystems perspective is a good way to integrate various disciplines; it provides a common conceptual framework and language. The perspective could be introduced early in the biology program and thus provide concepts and terminology for the students' continuing study.

Holistic Methods of Study

Ecologists use holistic perspectives in scientific inquiry. Holistic methods can develop the students' ability to identify various interacting parts of systems (subsystems) and to understand the behavior of whole systems. Holistic methods of study are complementary to reductionistic methods, and students should experience the appropriate application and unique strengths of these methods.

Integrative Study

Biology education has held as important goals the development of and the ability to use biological concepts and methods of biological investigation. An orientation toward human ecology expands these goals in an effort to understand and resolve human problems. Human ecology provides experience in decision-making as a means to help students contribute to the eventual amelioration of problems. Decision-making implies some understanding of the social, political, and economic realms, as well as ethics and values. The primary emphasis of biology education programs should be on the concepts and processes of biology and biological investigation. A secondary emphasis is on the application of other disciplines in the cause of understanding and resolving problems.

Development and Learning

Instruction reflecting a human ecological approach should reflect an understanding of students as learners. Obviously, a global perspective of problems related to such issues as population growth or food resources is beyond the grasp of younger children. But local problems and some basic concepts—such as the difference between arithmetic growth and exponential growth—are not too complex for young children. Successful laboratory instruction in human ecology requires recognition of students' cognitive development and learning limitations.

Perspectives of Space, Time, and Causal Relations

Laboratory experiences should expand students' perspectives of space, time, and causal relations. Over the school years, students should extend their ideas of space from local to regional to national to global perspectives. Their ideas of time should extend to the distant past and to the future. Causal relations should extend from simple cause and effect to the complexities of interrelated and interdependent systems with multiple causal relations. In the end, we are trying to develop students with a global perspective who recognize complex interdependences and consider the future of humanity

It is time to place the laboratory back in biology instruction. The justifications for laboratory experience far outweigh the excuses for lecture and discussion (Costenson and Lawson, 1987; Mullis and Jenkins, 1988).

An Instructional Model

One of the major problems in biology education is the need for instruction that integrates textbooks, technology, and laboratory experiences. The instructional model proposed here is based on a constructivist approach and has five phases: engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation. The model includes structural elements in common with

the original learning cycle used in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) program (Atkin and Karplus, 1962) and later discussions and research on the SCIS model (Renner, 1986; Lawson, 1988).

The five phases may be summarized as follows:

This phase of the model initiates the learning task. The activity should (1) make connections between past and present learning experiences and (2) anticipate activities and focus students' thinking on the learning outcomes of current activities. The student should become mentally engaged in the concept, process, or skill to be explored.

Exploration

This phase of the model provides students with a common base of experience within which they identify and develop current concepts, processes, and skills. During this phase, students actively explore theft environment or manipulate materials.

Explanation

This phase of the model focuses students' attention on a particular aspect of theft engagement and exploration experiences and provides opportunities for them to verbalize their conceptual understanding or demonstrate theft skills or behaviors. This phase also provides opportunities for teachers to introduce a formal label or definition for a concept, process, skill, or behavior.

Elaboration

This phase of the model challenges and extends students' conceptual understanding and allows further opportunity for students to practice desired skills and behaviors. Through new experiences, the students develop deeper and broader understanding, more information, and adequate skills.

This phase of the model encourages students to assess theft understanding and abilities and provides opportunities for teachers to evaluate student progress toward achieving the educational objectives.

• AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1985. Science Books and Films , 20(5).
• Apple, M. 1985. Making knowledge legitimate: Power, profit, and the textbook . In Current Thought on Curriculum. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Armbruster, B. 1985. Readability formulations may be dangerous to your textbooks . Educ. Leader. 42(7):18-20.
• Atkin, M., and R. Karplus. 1962. Discovery or invention . Sci. Teach. 29: 45-51.
• Bybee, R. 1984. Human ecology: A perspective for biology education . Monograph Series II . Reston, Va.: National Association of Biology Teachers.
• Bybee, R. 1987. Human ecology and teaching . New trends in biology teaching. UNESCO; 5:145-155.
• Bybee, R., N. Harms, B. Ward, and R. Yager. 1980. Science, society, and science education . Sci. Educ. 64:377-395.
• Bybee, R., P. Hurd, J. Kahle, and R. Yager. 1981. Human ecology: An approach to the science laboratory . Amer. Biol. Teach. 43:304-311.
• Carter, J. 1987. Who determines textbook content? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 16: 425,464-468.
• Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship. 1988. The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America . Washington, D.C.: William T. Grant Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 290 822)
• Costenson, K., and A. Lawson. 1987. Why isn't inquiry used in more classrooms? Amer. Biol. Teach. 48:150-158.
• Ehrlich, P. 1985. Human ecology for introductory biology courses: An overview . Amer. Zool. 24:379-394.
• Ellis, J. 1984. A rationale for using computers in science education . Amer. Biol. Teach. 64:200-206.
• Gould, S. J. January 1988. The case of the creeping fox terrier done . Or why Henry Fairfield Osborn's ghost continues to reappear in our high schools. Nat. Hist. 19-24.
• Hodgkinson, H. 1985. All One System . Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc.
• Kaehler, C. 1988. HyperCard power: Techniques and scripts . Menlo Park, Calif.: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
• Koshland, D. 1988. For whom the bell tolls . Science 241:1405. [ PubMed : 17790026 ]
• Lawson, A. 1988. A better way to teach biology . Amer. Biol. Teach. 50: 266-278.
• McInerney, J. 1986. Biology textbooks . Whose business? Amer. Biol. Teach. 48:396-400.
• Moore, J. 1985. Science as a way of knowing . Human ecology. Amer. Zool. 25:483-637.
• Moyer, W., and W. Mayer. 1985. A consumer's guide to biology textbooks . Washington, D.C.: People for the American Way.
• Mullis, I., and L. Jenkins. 1988. The Science Report Card: Elements of Risk and Recovery . Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.
• Muther, C. 1987. What do we teach, and when do we teach it? Educ. Leader. 23:77-80.
• Renner, J. 1986. The sequencing of learning cycle activities in high school chemistry . J. Res. Sci. Teach. 23:121-143.
• Rosenthal, D. 1984. Social issues in high school biology textbooks: 1963-1983 . J. Res. Sci. Teach. 21:819-831.
• Rosenthal, D., and R. W. Bybee. 1987. Emergence of the biology curriculum: A science of life or a science of living? pp. 123-144. In T. Popkowitz, editor. , Ed. The Formation of School Subjects. New York: Falmer Press.
• Rosenthal, D., and R. W. Bybee. 1988. High school biology: The early years . Amer. Biol. Teach. 50:345-347.
• Weiss, I. 1978. Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies Education . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Weiss, I. 1987. Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education . Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute.

Rodger W. Bybee is associate director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) in Colorado Springs. Before joining BSCS, Dr. Bybee was associate professor Of education at Carleton College. He is principal investigator for the new BSCS elementary-school program, Science for Life and Living: Integrating Science, Technology, and Health.

• Cite this Page National Research Council (US) Committee on High-School Biology Education; Rosen WG, editor. High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow: Papers Presented at a Conference. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1989. 19, Teaching High-School Biology: Materials and Strategies.
• PDF version of this title (4.4M)

In this Page

Related information.

• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Teaching High-School Biology: Materials and Strategies - High-School Biology Tod... Teaching High-School Biology: Materials and Strategies - High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Problem-Centered Supplemental Instruction in Biology: Influence on Content Recall, Content Understanding, and Problem Solving Ability

• Published: 31 January 2017
• Volume 26 , pages 383–393, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Joel Gardner 1 &
• Brian R. Belland 2  

1214 Accesses

5 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

To address the need for effective, efficient ways to apply active learning in undergraduate biology courses, in this paper, we propose a problem-centered approach that utilizes supplemental web-based instructional materials based on principles of active learning. We compared two supplementary web-based modules using active learning strategies: the first used Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction as a framework for organizing multiple active learning strategies; the second used a traditional web-based approach. Results indicated that (a) the First Principles group gained significantly from pretest to posttest at the Remember level ( t( 40) = −1.432, p =  0.08, ES  = 0.4) and at the Problem Solving level ( U  = 142.5, N1  = 21, N2  = 21, p  = .02, ES  = 0.7) and (b) the Traditional group gained significantly from pretest to posttest at the Remember level ( t (36) = 1.762, p =  0.043, ES  = 0.6). Those in the First Principles group were significantly more likely than the traditional group to be confident in their ability to solve problems in the future (χ 2 (2, N  = 40) = 3.585, p =  0.09).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Past, Present, and Future of the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

Word problems in mathematics education: a survey

The Interplay of Cognitive Load, Learners’ Resources and Self-regulation

Allen D, Tanner K (2003) Approaches to cell biology teaching: learning content in context—problem-based learning. Life Sci Educ 2(2):73–81

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Vision and change in undergraduate biology: a view for the twenty-first century . Retrieved from http://www.visionandchange.org

Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Samuel B (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, New York, NY

Google Scholar  

Armbruster P, Patel M, Johnson E, Weiss M (2009) Active learning and student-centered pedagogy imrove student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education 8(3):203–213. doi: 10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025

Article   Google Scholar  

Barclay MW, Gur B, Wu X (2004) The impact of media on the family: assessing the availability and quality of instruction on the world wide web for enhancing the marriage relationship. Presented at the United Nations international year of the family conference. Asia Pacific Dialogue, Kuala Lumpur

Belland B, Glazewski K, Ertmer P (2009) Inclusion and problem-based learning: roles of students in a mixed-ability group. RMLE Online 32(9):1–19

Bland M, Saunders G, Frisch JK (2007) In defense of the lecture. J Coll Sci Teach 37(2):10–13

Brewer C (2004) Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses. BioScience 54(11):1034

Chinn CA, Malhotra BA (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ 86(2):175–218. doi: 10.1002/sce.10001

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. N. p.: Lawrence Erlbaum

Collins JW, O’Brien NP (2003) The Greenwood dictionary of education. Greenwood, Westport, CT

Davis EA, Hodgson Y, Macaulay JO (2012) Engagement of students with lectures in biochemistry and pharmacology. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 40(5):300–309

DiCarlo SE (2006) Cell biology should be taught as science is practiced. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7(4):290–295

Dochy F, Segers M, Van den Bossche P, Gijbels D (2003) Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis. Learn Instr 13(5):533–568

Dori YJ, Belcher J (2005) How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? Journal of the Learning Sciences 14(2):243–279. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3

Ebert-May D, Brewer C, Allred S (1997) Innovation in large lectures: teaching for active learning. Bioscience 47:601–607

Eick CJ, King DT Jr (2012) Nonscience majors’ perceptions on the use of YouTube video to support learning in an integrated science lecture. J Coll Sci Teach 42(1):26–30

Fagen AP, Crouch CH, Mazur E (2002) Peer instruction: results from a range of classrooms. Phys Teach 40(4):206. doi: 10.1119/1.1474140

Francom G, Gardner J (2014) What is task-centered learning? TechTrends. doi: 10.1007/s11528-014- 0784-z

Francom G, Bybee D, Wolfersberger M, Mendenhall A, Merrill M (2009) A task-centered approach to freshman-level general biology. Bioscience 35:66–73

Freeman S, O’Connor E, Parks JW, Cunningham M, Hurley D, Haak D et al (2007) Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education 6(2):132–139. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-09-0194

Frick, T., Chadha, R., Watson, C., Wang, Y., & Green, P. (2007). Theory-based course evaluation: Nine Scales for measuring teaching and learning quality . Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~tedfrick/TALQ.pdf

Gall MD, Gall JP, Borg WR (2007) Educational research: an introduction, 7th edn. Pearson, Boston

Garamszegi LZ (2006) Comparing effect sizes across variables: generalization without the need for Bonferroni correction. Behav Ecol 17(4):682–687. doi: 10.1093/beheco/ark005

Gardner J, Belland B (2012) A conceptual framework for organizing active learning experiences in biology instruction. J Sci Educ Technol 21(4):465–475

Gijbels D, Dochy F, Van den Bossche P, Segers M (2005) Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Rev Educ Res 75(1):27–61

Heitz JG, Cheetham JA, Capes EM, Jeanne R (2010) Interactive evolution modules promote conceptual change. Evolution: Education and Outreach 3(3):436–442. doi: 10.1007/s12052-010-0208-2

Jonassen DH (2000) Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educ Technol Res Dev 48(4):63–85. doi: 10.1007/BF02300500

Kiboss JK, Ndirangu M, Wekesa EW (2004) Effectiveness of a computer-mediated simulations program in school biology on pupils’ learning outcomes in cell theory. J Sci Educ Technol 13:207–213

Kolstø SD (2001) Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Sci Educ 85(3):291–310. doi: 10.1002/sce.1011

Krathwohl DR (2002) A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract 41:212–218

Kuhn D (2010) Teaching and learning science as argument. Sci Educ 94(5):810–824. doi: 10.1002/sce.20395

Lennon RT (1956) Assumptions underlying the use of content validity. Educ Psychol Meas 16(3):294–304. doi: 10.1177/001316445601600303

Lord T (2008) We know how to improve science understanding in students, so why aren’t college professors embracing it? J Coll Sci Teach 38(1):66–70

McDermott LC (2001) Oersted medal lecture 2001: “physics education research: the key to student learning.”. Am J Phys 69(11):1127–1137

Merrill MD (2002) First principles of instruction. Educ Technol Res Dev 50(3):43–59

Merrill MD (2006a) First principles of instruction: a synthesis. In: Reiser R, Dempsey JV (eds) Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp 2–71

Merrill MD (2006b) Levels of instructional strategy. Educ Technol 46(4):5–10

Michael J (2006) Where’s the evidence that active learning works? AJP: Advances in Physiology Education 30(4):159–167. doi: 10.1152/advan.00053.2006

MIT Office of Educational Innovation and Technology. (2011, December 7. TEAL—Technology Enabled Active Learning. iCampus . Retrieved Jan. 2, 2014, from http://icampus.mit.edu/projects/teal/

Nehm RH, Rector M, Ha M (2010) “Force talk” in evolutionary explanation: metaphors and misconceptions. Evolution Education and Outreach 3:605–613

Nelson CE (2008) Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. Integr Comp Biol 48(2):213–225

O’Hara S, Shandas V, Wright E (2000) The costs of technology intensive education: a preliminary analysis of studio physics. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 19(4):379–396

Osborne J (2010) Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science 328(5977):463–466. doi: 10.1126/science.1183944

Polit DF, Beck CT (2006) The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health 29(5):489–497. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147

Prince M (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ 93:223–232

Reuter JG, Perrin NA (1999) Using a simulation to teach food web dynamics. Am Biol Teach 61:116–123

Rifell S, Sibley D (2005) Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: an evaluation of a hybrid course format. Computers and Education 44:217–235

Sanger MJ, Brecheisen DM, Hynek BM (2001) Can computer animations affect college biology students’ conceptions about diffusion and osmosis? Am Biol Teach 63(2):104–109

Schmidt HG, van der Molen HT, Te Winkel WWR, Wijnen WHFW (2009) Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: a meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educ Psychol 44(4):227–249. doi: 10.1080/00461520903213592

Sheskin DJ (2011) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 5th edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

Shute VJ (2008) Focus on formative feedback. Rev Educ Res 78(1):153–189. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795

Smith AC, Stewart R, Shields P, Hayes-Klosteridis J, Robinson P, Yuan R (2005) Introductory biology courses: a framework to support active learning in large enrollment introductory science courses. Life Sciences Education 4(2):143–156

Sugrue B (1995) A theory-based framework for assessing domain-specific problem-solving ability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 14(3):29–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1995.tb00865.x

Thomson. (2002). Thomson job impact study: the next generation of learning . Retrieved from http://www.delmarlearning.com/resources/ job_impact_study_whitepaper.pdf

Vialatte F-B, Cichocki A (2008) Split-test Bonferroni correction for QEEG statistical maps. Biol Cybern 98(4):295–303. doi: 10.1007/s00422-008-0210-8

Villasenor MR, Etkina E (2007) Reformed physics instruction through the eyes of students. Physics Education Research Conference 2006 Vol. 883:105–108. doi: 10.1063/1.2508702

Walker A, Leary H (2009) A problem based learning meta analysis: differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 3(1). doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1061

Watkins J, Mazur E (2013) Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. J Coll Sci Teach 42(5):36–41

Yamanoi, T., Iwasaki, W. (2015). Origami bird simulator: a teaching resource linking natural selection and speciation. Evolution: Education and Outreach . Accessed online at http://evolution-outreach.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-015-0043-6 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Franklin University, Columbus, USA

Joel Gardner

Utah State University, Logan, USA

Brian R. Belland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joel Gardner .

Electronic supplementary material

(DOCX 16 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gardner, J., Belland, B.R. Problem-Centered Supplemental Instruction in Biology: Influence on Content Recall, Content Understanding, and Problem Solving Ability. J Sci Educ Technol 26 , 383–393 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9686-0

Download citation

Published : 31 January 2017

Issue Date : August 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9686-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Instructional design
• First principles of instruction
• Introductory biology course
• Active learning
• Problem solving
• Understanding
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Approaches to Biology Teaching and Learning: From Assays to Assessments—On Collecting Evidence in Science Teaching

• Kimberly Tanner
• Deborah Allen

Search for more papers by this author

BRINGING THE CULTURE OF EVIDENCE TO THE BIOLOGY CLASSROOM

As scientists, we are accustomed to operating in a professional culture of evidence. Evidence is employed in the public discourse of science to support new ideas within a field and refute old ones. We can refer to this form of evidence—thorough, detailed, extensively reproduced and analyzed—as a summative form of scientific evidence. It is this summative form of evidence that is presented in conference proceedings, in journal publications, and, eventually, in the more static context of books. Yet evidence is also collected and used in more local and iterative ways in the daily life of the scientific laboratory. Results from preliminary investigations guide the design of larger-scale studies, and more often than not entire new lines of inquiry have their origins in unanticipated results that emerge from an experiment designed to address a wholly different question. Who among us has not performed the exploratory experiment to guide our ideas and explore areas of interest without the commitment of all the controls and multiple trials that we would require of a more mature experiment? We can refer to this form of evidence—exploratory, preliminary, informative, and instructive for future experiments—as a formative type of scientific evidence, one that is much less publicly acknowledged, although it may be shared and discussed.

Although both formative and summative evidence is the currency of knowledge and decision-making for scientists in the laboratory, evidence of any systematic sort has played a comparatively minimal role for scientists in their teaching practice. In science classrooms, evidence is often employed only summatively , in the assignment of grades for an exam or course and as a necessary means to inform students of a final judgment of their learning. More rarely evidence in science teaching and learning is used formatively , in gauging student understanding, identifying confusions, and guiding instruction on a daily basis. Of all the arenas of learning in schools and universities, one would expect the sciences to embrace fully the culture of evidence, both formative and summative, in the practice of teaching. Yet this is often not the case. How can we as scientists not be driven by such questions as: What do we want our students to learn? How do our students think about biology? and How can we adapt our teaching practices to better align student learning with our goals for student learning? Formative evidence in science teaching, in the form of classroom assessments, can play a key role in allowing scientists to pursue these questions and to bring a culture of evidence to the teaching and learning of science. Below we provide an overview of classroom assessment, as well as descriptions of several key resources that provide additional background information, assessment tools, and analysis techniques for embarking on new ventures in classroom assessment.

WHAT IS CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT? WHAT IS IT NOT ?

“Formative assessment,” “student-centered assessment,” “embedded assessment,” “learner-centered assessment,” and “classroom assessment” (the term we use hereafter) are all monikers that can be used to describe the type of assessment that gives insight into the understanding of the learner, informs teaching practice, and is embedded in the culture of the classroom. In their Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers , Thomas Angelo and K. Patricia Cross ( 1993 ) outline seven assumptions about what classroom assessment is, providing greater definition than simple names can convey (see Table 1 ). Importantly, Angelo and Cross emphasize that central to understanding the role of classroom assessment is the acknowledgment of the interconnectedness of learning and teaching. Effective teaching is fundamentally about student learning. Though seemingly simple, bridging the divide between teacher and student, and between what is taught and what is understood, can be very difficult. To accomplish deep understanding in a discipline, educators must move beyond the traditional practices of telling as teaching and memorizing as learning . Classroom assessment is a key tool in connecting learning to teaching and identifying that which is not being understood by students and what alternative conceptions or misconceptions students hold about the natural world. The practitioner of classroom assessment is anyone who is an instructor, and as such, classroom assessment does not require specialized training but, rather, is within the domain of anyone guiding learning by students. Angelo and Cross complete their list of assumptions by pointing out that classroom assessment is a collaborative effort among teachers and students, in which students are actively engaged in reflecting on their own understanding.

As Paul Black, physicist and assessment specialist, has eloquently expressed time and again, assessment can serve at least three major purposes: accountability, certification, and learning ( Black and William, 1998 ; Atkin, 2002). Assessments in the service of accountability , such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), often involve large-scale, multisite testing efforts that are intended to inform policy and drive reform. Assessments in the service of certification , such as the SAT, the ACT, and the National Medical Board Exam, to name but a few, are examinations that determine educational eligibility or professional licensure. Classroom assessment, however, is neither about accountability nor certification, but rather about assessment in the service of learning . It is perhaps important to articulate further what classroom assessment is not.

Classroom assessment is NOT about proving success. It is wonderful when the results of an assessment show that your students are really“ getting it”! However, more often than not, assessments yield important insights into what students are NOT getting and HOW and perhaps WHY they are not getting it.

Classroom assessment is NOT done for accountability to outside stakeholders. Classroom assessment is clearly focused in the realm of the teacher and the learner, within the relatively intimate and unique setting that is every individual classroom. The outcomes of classroom assessment should be designed to be useful to both the instructor and the students, not to external stakeholders.

Classroom assessment is NOT specifically about grading. Although assessment may be linked with grades, grading in the traditional sense of the numeric labeling of the performance of a student is not the primary goal of classroom assessment.

Classroom assessment is NOT clean, neat, and perfectly orderly. Classroom assessment, by its nature of exploring student thinking, can be messy, can involve several iterations, and is expected to produce different outcomes with different students.

Classroom assessment and its methodologies are NOT identical to scientific research and its methodologies. Often scientists are hindered from conducting classroom assessments because of an expectation that any evidence collected in the classroom must resemble evidence that they collect in their laboratories. It is true not only that the nature of evidence differs in the classroom and laboratory, but that evidence differs widely across the span of scientific disciplines.

As shown in Table 2 , while scientific research and classroom assessment do have commonalities in their reliance on evidence and their generation of new knowledge, they differ in their goals, subjects, and methodologies. By virtue of being grounded in a particular instructional setting, classroom assessment is highly local and not necessarily generalizable. That said, data emerging from classroom assessments can nucleate more extensive and systematic lines of inquiry and lead to classroom-based research, termed “action research,” an ongoing process of systematic, self-study in which individual instructors examine their own students' learning in detail as an evidence base from which to improve their own teaching practice ( Altrichter et al. , 1993 ; Loucks-Horsley et al. , 1998 ).

THE ITERATIVE NATURE OF CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT

As scientists embark on new ventures in classroom assessment, it is important to recognize the iterative nature of the process (see Figure 1 ). Classroom assessments are not an end in and of themselves but, rather, support a process of reflection on student understanding and teaching practice.

Classroom Assessment Is About Asking Questions About Student Learning

The main goal of classroom assessment is to better understand the relationship between what students learn and what we think we are teaching them. As such, classroom assessments are simply methods to aid instructors in answering questions about what and how our students are learning. What do you wonder about what your students are learning? How do you access what your students already know? What misconceptions do they bring with them to the classroom?

Methods for Collecting Classroom Assessment Data Are Guided by the Questions

Just as multiple assays and experimental approaches are available for discovering new knowledge in the laboratory, so are multiple assessment methodologies available for investigating student understanding. Debates have long occurred in the field of educational assessment about the relative richness, validity, and appropriateness of different assessment methodologies, in particular, quantitative versus qualitative instruments ( Sundberg, 2002 ). It is important to realize is that there is no one right approach to classroom assessment. Rather, the choice of assessment methodology should be based on what type of evidence will provide insight into your question about student learning. For example, concept maps are an excellent tool for understanding the breadth of knowledge and connections among concepts held by students on a given topic. However, concept maps are much less appropriate and less effective in assessing students' ability to analyze and interpret experimental data. More appropriate to assess students' skills in evaluating data would be a performance-based assessment in which students are presented with actual data for analysis, collected either by themselves or by the instructor or from scientific research papers by other scientists.

Figure 1. The Iterative Nature of Classroom Assessment.

Analysis of Classroom Assessments Leads to Instructional Choices and New Questions

At their most effective, classroom assessments will inform future instructional choices. Classroom assessments can yield insight into what students already know and what misconceptions they have. These insights can in turn guide the relative emphasis, time spent, and teaching strategies used in building student knowledge. While building that understanding, classroom assessments can continually play a role in probing student ideas, gauging whether misconceptions are being resolved or persisting, and detecting unanticipated conceptual challenges. Unsurprisingly, analysis of classroom assessment data often leads to more questions, not unlike experimental results in the laboratory. Thus, when embarking on classroom assessment, instructors should expect to find themselves engaged in a cyclical venture (see Figure 1 ).

RESOURCES ON CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT TO GUIDE THE WAY

Although interest in classroom assessment may be high, oft-heard statements from colleagues include, “But where would I start with assessment in my classroom?” and “I don't know anything about assessment.” The following resources can provide scientists entry points into the literature on classroom assessment and are widely regarded as rich resources for instructors embarking on their own action research or classroom assessment projects.

An Introduction to College-Level Classroom Assessment

Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, by Thomas A. Angelo and K. Patricia Cross ( 1993 ). This compendium by Angelo and Cross is currently one of the most comprehensive guide to classroom assessment available for college and university instructors. It provides easy entry into the philosophy of formative classroom assessment, as well as describes methodologies available to gather evidence of student learning in the classroom. Making few assumptions about the background of the reader, the guide begins with an overview entitled “Getting Started in Classroom Assessment,” in which the authors make explicit their seven basic assumptions (see Table 1 ). In addition, the reader is prompted to conduct a self-evaluation, “The Teaching Goals Inventory,” to emphasize the centrality of instructional goals in designing classroom assessments. Angelo and Cross then present over 50 different classroom assessment techniques (CATs), derived from the education research literature, their own instructional practice, and the repertoires of other faculty. These techniques are then organized into three sections, identifying tools most appropriate for 1) assessing course-related knowledge and skills, 2) assessing learner attitudes, values, and self-awareness, and 3) assessing learner reactions to instruction. Although some techniques presented are more widely known, such as Concept Mapping, Minute Papers, and The Muddiest Point, many will be novel even to those with extensive experience in classroom assessment, including techniques entitled Defining Features Matrix, Approximate Analogies, and Directed Paraphrasing. Although no single assessment tool is delved into deeply—for example, concept mapping occupies a mere four pages—each is accompanied by an example, a step-by-step procedure, the pros and cons of the particular technique, suggested situations for using the technique, and an alignment with particular teaching goals for which the technique is most appropriate. At first glance, scientists may note that the content areas represented by Angelo and Cross include disciplines as diverse as nursing, economics, anthropology, music, literature, and foreign language. That said, the examples offered, whether or not in a science field, are generally detailed enough to serve as models for the development of a similar classroom assessment in one's own field.

On Classroom Assessment in College-Level Science

The Field-Tested Learning Assessment Guide ( www.flaguide.org ). Developed by the College Level One Team at the National Institute for Science Education (NISE) ( 2003 ), based at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, the Field-Tested Learning Assessment Guide (FLAG) is an excellent and accessible starting point for instructors who wish to expand their knowledge of classroom dynamics and access a variety of assessment tools and resources. The FLAG website gathers in one place assessment techniques specifically designed for courses in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Providing a wealth of well-referenced resources, FLAG is organized into five areas: 1) A Primer on Assessment, 2) Teaching Goals, 3) Classroom Assessment Techniques, 4) Specific Assessment Tools, and 5) Resources in Assessment. Following the general introduction to assessment, the CATs section provides an introduction to general methods of assessment such as attitude surveys, interviews, weekly reports, portfolios, ConcepTests, Minute Papers, and Concept Mapping. The description of each CAT presented is written by a college or university instructor who has implemented the technique, and each CAT underwent a peer review process. For example, three chemistry instructors from the University of Wisconsin—Madison describe their implementation of the ConcepTest assessment tool, a technique originally developed for use in large-class physics lectures by Harvard University professor Eric Mazur ( 1996 ). In employing a ConcepTest, Although the probing question detailed on the website is specific to chemistry, the detailed description of the methodology provides an excellent model for developing ConcepTests as classroom assessments in large classrooms in any content area. The Tools section comprises a database of specific assessment instruments that can be sorted by either discipline or type of methodology. For biologists searching the database, it will become immediately apparent that life scientists are in need of more classroom assessment instruments, perhaps similar to those that have been developed in chemistry and physics ( Klymkowsky et al. , 2003 ). Finally, for the reader who wishes to pursue a particular classroom assessment topic in more depth, the Resources section includes information about other assessment websites, assessment experts in your area of the country, and an annotated bibliography of books on assessment, a limited number of relevant assessment articles, and links to over 30 science education journals. While FLAG is generally congruent with the research and publications of Angelo and Cross (e.g., Angelo and Cross, 1993 ; Cross and Steadman, 1996 ), its strength lies in the fact that it is specific to the content areas of science, mathematics, and engineering. In addition, since FLAG is archived as a Web site, its online accessibility is an asset, though we note that the project is no longer in active development; consequently, the materials available at FLAG are likely to become increasingly outdated.

the instructor presents one or more questions during class involving key concepts, along with several possible answers. Students in the class indicate by, for example, a show of hands, which answer they think is correct. If most of the class has not identified the correct answer, students are given a short time in lecture to try to persuade their neighbor(s) that their answer is correct. The question is asked a second time by the instructor to gauge class mastery. Many variations on this general CAT exist. A video clip illustrating the method is part of this CAT description.

Resources on Classroom Assessment Rubrics and Analysis

Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses, by Mary E. Huba and Jann E. Freed ( 2000 ). In this book, subtitled Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning , Huba and Freed have crafted a detailed, thoughtful, and thorough introduction to employing classroom assessment in the service of student learning. Practicing what they preach, the authors carefully embed throughout the book frequent self-assessment text boxes with questions that prompt the reader to consider prior knowledge and experiences, as well as to strategize about implementation of assessment tools and predict potential outcomes. The forte of this particular resource, though, lies specifically in two chapters. Both Chapter 5, “Using Feedback to Improve Student Learning,” and Chapter 6, “Using Rubrics to Provide Feedback to Students,” provide guidance for the reader on what to do with classroom assessment data once collected, a topic to which the above resources only allude. Specifically, in Chapter 6, Huba and Freed delve deeply into the topic of rubrics, tools that make explicit and public an instructor's criteria for evaluating and scoring classroom assessment data. The authors present three sample rubrics, deconstruct these rubrics, and emerge with a very practical guide for developing useful rubrics for classroom assessments. Once classroom assessment data have been collected and analyzed, the authors go further to discuss approaches to sharing insights from assessments with students. Both their guidelines for effective feedback discussions and their questioning techniques in support of these discussions are unique and useful tools for closing the loop and taking the results of classroom assessments back to students.

Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment, by Barbara E. Walvoord and Virginia Johnson Anderson ( 1998 ). Published in 1998, this resource addresses what for many is a continuing conundrum, namely, how to connect classroom assessment with traditional demands for assigning students grades. Similarly to Huba and Freed, these authors outline strategies for establishing criteria and standards for grading and detail the design of “primary trait analysis scales,” tools for analyzing assessment data similar to rubrics. Unlike Huba and Freed, however, these authors pursue more practical aspects of the intersection between grading and classroom assessment by addressing topics such as“ managing the grading process,” “calculating course grades,” and “making grading more time efficient.” The extent to which classroom assessments and grading overlap is a worthy topic in and of itself, and the curious reader will be rewarded by exploring the ideas presented.

Resources on K-12 Science Classroom Assessment

Everyday Assessment in the Science Classroom, Edited by J. Myron Atkin and Janet E. Coffey ( 2003 ). This collection of essays published by the National Science Teachers Association considers classroom assessment in K-12 science classrooms. While covering some of the same topics as the resource guides described above, this book explores topics that are not addressed in the college-level guides. Most notably, in his essay on “Assessment of Inquiry,” Richard Duschl argues for the importance of listening to student discussion, argument, and debate as a key method of collecting evidence on student understanding of scientific inquiry. Similarly, the importance of scientific discourse, questioning strategies, and teacher listening is highlighted in the chapter entitled “Using Questioning to Assess and Foster Student Thinking,” by Jim Minstrell and Emily van Zee.

Assessment and the National Science Education Standards, Edited by J. Myron Atkin, Paul Black, and Janet E. Coffey ( 2001 ). Produced by two of the same editors as Everyday Assessment in the Science Classroom and published by the National Research Council, this book was published as a companion volume to the National Science Education Standards ( NRC, 1996 ). Compiled as an overview intended for K-12 teachers, it is an interesting cousin to the aforementioned college-level guides. Most informative, and unique among all the resources listed here, are the specific examples describing what classroom assessment looks like in a variety of K-12 classrooms. These examples are predominantly drawn from classroom observations collected by science education researchers and provide a unique view of what daily classroom assessment really looks like, a view that is not widely available for college- and university-level classrooms.

CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT BEYOND THE CLASSROOM

Articulated as the seventh and final assumption about classroom assessment (see Table 1 ) is the potential role of collaboration in the process. There is enormous potential in collaborative faculty groups engaging in the development and examination of science assessments, whether across sections of a single course, across different courses in a discipline, or even across different disciplines in the fields of science and mathematics. Such steps toward collaboration in classroom assessment could begin to establish the use of evidence in teaching as a cultural norm in the sciences. In addition, discussion of classroom assessments with colleagues outside of one's own classroom has the potential to nucleate scholarly efforts in the realm of college science teaching. Classroom assessments, while initiated for the betterment of teaching and learning, can produce unanticipated results and insights of interest to a larger audience. Taken to its logical end, classroom assessments used formatively in science teaching can mature into classroom research in a more summative form. As Patricia Cross writes in Classroom Research: Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching , “Classroom assessment typically answers questions about what students are learning and how well, but it often raises questions about how students learn. Those questions lead teachers to Classroom Research” ( Cross and Steadman, 1996 ). It is at this point that classroom assessments may also play a role outside the classroom in providing evidence for the effectiveness of instructional strategies and promoting the scholarship of teaching ( Cross and Steadman, 1996 ; Sundberg, 2002 ). In this way, endeavors in classroom assessment may lead you to the Instructions for Authors page of this very journal.

• Altrichter, H., Posch, P., and Somekh, B. ( 1993 ). Teachers Investigate Their Work: An Introduction to the Methods of Action Research , London: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Angelo, T.A., and Cross, K.P. ( 1993 ). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers , San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
• Atkin, J.M., and Coffey, J.E., eds. ( 2003 ). Everyday Assessment in the Science Classroom , National Science Teachers Association Press. Google Scholar
• Atkin, J.M., Black, P., and Coffey, J.E., eds. ( 2001 ). Assessment and the National Science Education Standards , Washington, DC: Center for Education, National Research Council. Google Scholar
• Black, P., and Wiliam, D. ( 1998 ). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80 (2),139 -148. Google Scholar
• Cross, P.K., and Steadman, M.H. ( 1996 ). Classroom Research: Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching , San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
• Huba, M.E., and Freed, J.E. ( 2000 ), Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses , Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Google Scholar
• Klymkowsky, M.W., Garvin-Doxas, K., and Zeilik, M. ( 2003 ). Bioliteracy and teaching efficacy: What biologists can learn from physicists. Cell Biol. Educ. 2 ,155 -161. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., and Stiles, K. ( 1998 ). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics , Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press/National Institute for Science Education. Google Scholar
• Mazur E. ( 1996 ). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,253 . Google Scholar
• National Institute for Science Education. ( 2003 ). Field-Tested Learning Assessment Guide . www.flaguide.org . Google Scholar
• National Research Council. ( 1996 ). National Science Education Standards , Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
• Sundberg, M. ( 2002 ). Assessing student learning. Cell Biol. Educ. 1 ,11 -15. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Walvoord, B.E., and Anderson, V.J. ( 1998 ). Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment , San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
• Mary Durham ,
• Blake Colclasure , and
• Tessa Durham Brooks
• Jennifer Knight, Monitoring Editor
• Views of Moroccan University Teachers on Plant Taxonomy and Its Teaching and Learning Challenges 10 November 2022 | Education Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 11
• Building communities of teaching practice and data‐driven open education resources with NEON faculty mentoring networks 23 August 2022 | Ecosphere, Vol. 13, No. 8
• Eight Recommendations to Promote Effective Study Habits for Biology Students Enrolled in Online Courses 29 Apr 2022 | Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 23, No. 1
• An interdisciplinary and application-oriented approach to teach microfluidics 22 January 2021 | Biomicrofluidics, Vol. 15, No. 1
• The Development and Use of Case Studies 5 December 2019
• Erika G. Offerdahl ,
• Melody McConnell , and
• Jeffrey Boyer
• Marilyne Stains, Monitoring Editor
• The effectiveness of formative assessment with understanding by design (UbD) stages in forming habits of mind in prospective teachers 5 April 2018 | Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 983
• Kathleen R. Brazeal ,
• Tanya L. Brown , and
• Brian A. Couch
• Peggy Brickman, Monitoring Editor
• American Society for Microbiology resources in support of an evidence-based approach to teaching microbiology 12 July 2016 | FEMS Microbiology Letters, Vol. 363, No. 16
• Development of a Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience to Introduce Drug-Receptor Concepts 12 May 2016 | Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, Vol. 3
• Jacqueline Carnegie
• Michèle Shuster, Monitoring Editor
• Sarah Miller , and
• Kimberly D. Tanner
• , Monitoring Editor
• Brian A. Couch ,
• Tanya L. Brown ,
• Tyler J. Schelpat ,
• Mark J. Graham , and
• Jennifer K. Knight
• Exploratory study of factors related to educational scores of first preclinical year medical students 1 Mar 2014 | Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 38, No. 1
• Student‐generated reading questions: Diagnosing student thinking with diverse formative assessments 17 December 2013 | Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 42, No. 1
• Hayley Leight ,
• Cheston Saunders ,
• Robin Calkins , and
• Michelle Withers
• Diane Ebert-May, Monitoring Editor
• Jennifer L. Momsen ,
• Tammy M. Long ,
• Sara A. Wyse , and
• Diane Ebert-May
• Robert DeHaan, Monitoring Editor
• Julia I. Smith , and
• Alison Crowe ,
• Clarissa Dirks , and
• Mary Pat Wenderoth
• Marshall Sundberg, Monitoring Editor
• David R. Howard , and
• Jennifer A. Miskowski
• Ron Stevens ,
• David F. Johnson , and
• Deborah Allen , and

© 2004 by The American Society for Cell Biology

Problem-Solving Method in Teaching

The problem-solving method is a highly effective teaching strategy that is designed to help students develop critical thinking skills and problem-solving abilities . It involves providing students with real-world problems and challenges that require them to apply their knowledge, skills, and creativity to find solutions. This method encourages active learning, promotes collaboration, and allows students to take ownership of their learning.

Table of Contents

Definition of problem-solving method.

Problem-solving is a process of identifying, analyzing, and resolving problems. The problem-solving method in teaching involves providing students with real-world problems that they must solve through collaboration and critical thinking. This method encourages students to apply their knowledge and creativity to develop solutions that are effective and practical.

Meaning of Problem-Solving Method

The meaning and Definition of problem-solving are given by different Scholars. These are-

Woodworth and Marquis(1948) : Problem-solving behavior occurs in novel or difficult situations in which a solution is not obtainable by the habitual methods of applying concepts and principles derived from past experience in very similar situations.

Skinner (1968): Problem-solving is a process of overcoming difficulties that appear to interfere with the attainment of a goal. It is the procedure of making adjustments in spite of interference

Benefits of Problem-Solving Method

The problem-solving method has several benefits for both students and teachers. These benefits include:

• Encourages active learning: The problem-solving method encourages students to actively participate in their own learning by engaging them in real-world problems that require critical thinking and collaboration
• Promotes collaboration: Problem-solving requires students to work together to find solutions. This promotes teamwork, communication, and cooperation.
• Builds critical thinking skills: The problem-solving method helps students develop critical thinking skills by providing them with opportunities to analyze and evaluate problems
• Increases motivation: When students are engaged in solving real-world problems, they are more motivated to learn and apply their knowledge.
• Enhances creativity: The problem-solving method encourages students to be creative in finding solutions to problems.

Steps in Problem-Solving Method

The problem-solving method involves several steps that teachers can use to guide their students. These steps include

• Identifying the problem: The first step in problem-solving is identifying the problem that needs to be solved. Teachers can present students with a real-world problem or challenge that requires critical thinking and collaboration.
• Analyzing the problem: Once the problem is identified, students should analyze it to determine its scope and underlying causes.
• Generating solutions: After analyzing the problem, students should generate possible solutions. This step requires creativity and critical thinking.
• Evaluating solutions: The next step is to evaluate each solution based on its effectiveness and practicality
• Selecting the best solution: The final step is to select the best solution and implement it.

Verification of the concluded solution or Hypothesis

The solution arrived at or the conclusion drawn must be further verified by utilizing it in solving various other likewise problems. In case, the derived solution helps in solving these problems, then and only then if one is free to agree with his finding regarding the solution. The verified solution may then become a useful product of his problem-solving behavior that can be utilized in solving further problems. The above steps can be utilized in solving various problems thereby fostering creative thinking ability in an individual.

The problem-solving method is an effective teaching strategy that promotes critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration. It provides students with real-world problems that require them to apply their knowledge and skills to find solutions. By using the problem-solving method, teachers can help their students develop the skills they need to succeed in school and in life.

• Jonassen, D. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
• Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49-69.
• Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. Routledge.
• Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report No. 16-01, University of Michigan. Wojcikowski, J. (2013). Solving real-world problems through problem-based learning. College Teaching, 61(4), 153-156

Top 10 Challenges to Teaching Math and Science Using Real Problems

• Share article

Nine in ten educators believe that using a problem-solving approach to teaching math and science can be motivating for students, according to an EdWeek Research Center survey.

But that doesn’t mean it’s easy.

Teachers perceive lack of time as a big hurdle. In fact, a third of educators—35 percent—worry that teaching math or science through real-world problems—rather than focusing on procedures—eats up too many precious instructional minutes.

Other challenges: About another third of educators said they weren’t given sufficient professional development in how to teach using a real-world problem-solving approach. Nearly a third say reading and writing take priority over STEM, leaving little bandwidth for this kind of instruction. About a quarter say that it’s tough to find instructional materials that embrace a problem-solving perspective.

Nearly one in five cited teachers’ lack of confidence in their own problem solving, the belief that this approach isn’t compatible with standardized tests, low parent support, and the belief that student behavior is so poor that this approach would not be feasible.

The nationally representative survey included 1,183 district leaders, school leaders, and teachers, and was conducted from March 27 to April 14. (Note: The chart below lists 11 challenges because the last two on the list—dealing with teacher preparation and student behavior—received the exact percentage of responses.)

Trying to incorporate a problem-solving approach to tackling math can require rethinking long-held beliefs about how students learn, said Elham Kazemi, a professor in the teacher education program at the University of Washington.

Most teachers were taught math using a procedural perspective when they were in school. While Kazemi believes that approach has merit, she advocates for exposing students to both types of instruction.

Many educators have “grown up around a particular model of thinking of teaching and learning as the teacher in the front of the room, imparting knowledge, showing kids how to do things,” Kazemi said.

To be sure, some teachers have figured out how to incorporate some real-world problem solving alongside more traditional methods. But it can be tough for their colleagues to learn from them because “teachers don’t have a lot of time to collaborate with one another and see each other teach,” Kazemi said.

What’s more, there are limited instructional materials emphasizing problem solving, Kazemi said.

Though that’s changing, many of the resources available have “reinforced the idea that the teacher demonstrates solutions for kids,” Kazemi said.

Molly Daley, a regional math coordinator for Education Service District 112, which serves about 30 districts near Vancouver, Wash., has heard teachers raise concerns that teaching math from a problem-solving perspective takes too long—particularly given the pressure to get through all the material students will need to perform well on state tests.

Daley believes, however, that being taught to think about math in a deeper way will help students tackle math questions on state assessments that may look different from what they’ve seen before.

“It’s myth that it’s possible to cover everything that will be on the test,” as it will appear, she said. “There’s actually no way to make sure that kids have seen every single possible thing the way it will show up. That’s kind of a losing proposition.”

But rushing through the material in a purely procedural way may actually be counterproductive, she said.

Teachers don’t want kids to “sit down at the test and say, ‘I haven’t seen this and therefore I can’t do it,’” Daley said. “I think a lot of times teachers can unintentionally foster that because they’re so urgently trying to cover everything. That’s where the kind of mindless [teaching] approaches come in.”

Teachers may think to themselves: “’OK, I’m gonna make this as simple as possible, make sure everyone knows how to follow the steps and then when they see it, they can follow it,” Daley said.

But that strategy might “take away their students’ confidence that they can figure out what to do when they don’t know what to do, which is really what you want them to be thinking when they go to approach a test,” Daley said.

Data analysis for this article was provided by the EdWeek Research Center. Learn more about the center’s work.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Subscribe Now (Opens in new window)

Your Marine Corps

• Air Force Times (Opens in new window)
• Army Times (Opens in new window)
• Navy Times (Opens in new window)
• Pentagon & Congress
• Defense News (Opens in new window)
• Flashpoints
• Benefits Guide (Opens in new window)
• Military Pay Center
• Military Retirement
• Military Benefits
• VA Loan Center (Opens in new window)
• Discount Depot
• Military Culture
• Military Fitness
• Military Movies & Video Games
• Military Sports
• Transition Guide (Opens in new window)
• Pay It Forward (Opens in new window)
• Black Military History (Opens in new window)
• Congressional Veterans Caucus (Opens in new window)
• Military Appreciation Month (Opens in new window)
• Vietnam Vets & Rolling Thunder (Opens in new window)
• Military History
• Honor the Fallen (Opens in new window)
• Hall of Valor (Opens in new window)
• Service Members of the Year (Opens in new window)
• Create an Obituary (Opens in new window)
• Medals & Misfires
• Installation Guide (Opens in new window)
• Battle Bracket
• CFC Givers Guide
• Task Force Violent
• Photo Galleries
• Newsletters (Opens in new window)
• Early Bird Brief
• Long-Term Care Partners
• Navy Federal
• Digital Edition (Opens in new window)

Marines say no more ‘death by PowerPoint’ as Corps overhauls education

WASHINGTON, D.C. ― Marines and those who teach them will see more direct, problem-solving approaches to how they learn and far less “death by PowerPoint” as the Corps overhauls its education methods .

Decades of lecturers “foot stomping” material for Marines to learn, recall and regurgitate on a test before forgetting most of what they heard is being replaced by “outcomes-based” learning, a method that’s been in use in other fields but only recently brought into military training.

“Instead of teaching them what to think, we’re teaching them how to think,” said Col. Karl Arbogast, director of the policy and standards division at training and education command .

Here’s what’s in the Corps’ new training and education plan

New ranges, tougher swimming. inside the corps' new training blueprint..

Arbogast laid out some of the new methods that the command is using at the center for learning and faculty development while speaking at the Modern Day Marine Expo.

“No more death by PowerPoint,” Arbogast said. “No more ‘sage on the stage’ anymore, it’s the ‘guide on the side.’”

To do that, Lt. Col. Chris Devries, director of the learning and faculty center, is a multiyear process in which the Marines have developed two new military occupational specialties, 0951 and 0952.

The exceptional MOS is in addition to their primary MOS but allows the Marines to quickly identify who among their ranks is qualified to teach using the new methods.

Training for those jobs gives instructors, now called facilitators, an entry-level understanding of how to teach in an outcomes-based learning model.

Devries said the long-term goal is to create two more levels of instructor/facilitator that a Marine could return to in their career, a journeyman level and a master level. Those curricula are still under development.

The new method helps facilitators first learn the technology they’ll need to share material with and guide students. It also teaches them more formal assessment tools so they can gauge how well students are performing.

For the students, they can learn at their own pace. If they grasp the material the group is covering, they’re encouraged to advance in their study, rather than wait for the entire group to master the introductory material.

More responsibility is placed on the students. For example, in a land navigation class, a facilitator might share materials for students to review before class on their own and then immediately jump into working with maps, compasses and protractors on land navigation projects in the next class period, said John deForest, learning and development officer at the center.

That creates more time in the field for those Marines to practice the skills in a realistic setting.

Marines with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 268, Marine Aircraft Group 24, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, fire M240-B machine guns at the Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay range, Hawaii, March 5. (Lance Cpl. Tania Guerrero/Marine Corps)

For the infantry Marine course, the school split up the large classroom into squad-sized groups led by a sergeant or staff sergeant, allowing for more individual focus and participation among the students, Arbogast said.

“They have to now prepare activities for the learner to be directly involved in their own learning and then they have to steer and guide the learners correct outcome,” said Timothy Heck, director of the center’s West Coast detachment.

The students are creating products and portfolios of activities in their training instead of simply taking a written test, said Justina Kirkland, a facilitator at the West Coast detachment.

Students are also pushed to discuss problems among themselves and troubleshoot scenarios. The role of the facilitator then is to monitor the conversation and ask probing questions to redirect the group if they get off course, Heck said.

That involves more decision games, decision forcing cases and even wargaming, deForest said.

We “put the student in an active learning experience where they have to grapple with uncertainty, where they have to grapple with the technical skills and the knowledge they need,” deForest said.

That makes the learning more about application than recall, he said.

Todd South has written about crime, courts, government and the military for multiple publications since 2004 and was named a 2014 Pulitzer finalist for a co-written project on witness intimidation. Todd is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War.

In Other News

VA chief to address bonus scandal next week at House hearing

Va's top leader is expected to face harsh questioning about mistakes made in awarding nearly $11 million in senior executive bonuses last year..

Advocates fear growing backlash against aid for homeless veterans

Activists worry that laws aimed at penalizing homelessness and a lack of support resources will hurt efforts to help veterans..

VA urges mortgage firms to extend foreclosure pause until next year

A moratorium on foreclosures of va-backed home loans is set to expire at the end of the week..

More kosher, halal foods needed in commissaries, lawmakers say

Are commissaries meeting the religious dietary needs of troops and families.

VA says its trust scores among veterans are at highest level ever

More than four in five veterans surveyed said they trust the department's programs and outreach efforts..