AECT07 SSR PBL - Home - College of Education Krajcik et al., 1994; Murray & Savin-Baden, 2000) have described the unique challenges teachers face when implementing project- or problem-based

Fostering Socioscientific Reasoning through PBL 1

Running Head: FOSTERING SOCIOSCIENTIFIC REASONING THROUGH PBL

Fostering Socioscientific Reasoning in Problem-Based Learning:

An Examination of Teacher Practice

Krista D. Glazewski

New Mexico State University

Peggy A. Ertmer

Purdue University

Address Comments and Questions to: Krista D. Glazewski New Mexico State University Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction MSC-3CUR Las Cruces, NM 88003 [email protected]


Abstract

Although many educators (Grant & Hill, 2006; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway,

1994; Murray & Savin-Baden, 2000) have described the unique challenges teachers face when

implementing project- or problem-based learning (PBL) in the classroom, few have detailed how

teachers manage to attend to students’ critical learning needs during the implementation process.

Furthermore, little is known regarding how teachers support diverse learners in these contexts.

To address this gap in the literature, we examined the PBL implementation strategies of a

middle-school science teacher to determine the extent to which she supported students’

socioscientific reasoning in PBL related to research and information-gathering, content learning,

group collaboration, and self-directedness. Furthermore, we sought to understand the

effectiveness and impact of her strategies.

While the teacher employed a variety of support strategies, she was ultimately

disappointed with student performance. We suggested that the students may have been more

successful with the use of additional strategies, such as incorporating feedback to bolster

students’ research efforts, employing reflection techniques to support content learning,

structuring journal entries, conducting whole group discussions to foster more effective group

processes, and fading the scaffolding to facilitate student self-direction.


Fostering Socioscientific Reasoning in Problem-Based Learning:

An Examination of Teacher Practice

Rapid increases in knowledge in several disciplines, the explosion of technology

into daily affairs, and technological advances are changing the workplace and

placing new demands on individuals. Managing one’s learning and learning to

solve new problems are important capabilities in a variety of settings (Gredler,

2004, p. 232).

Teachers today are faced with enormous pressures to guarantee students’ mastery of a

growing body of content knowledge (Gredler, 2004) while simultaneously assuring that students

are prepared to enter a highly skilled and collaborative workforce (Murray & Savin-Baden,

2000). Even as employers are calling for workers who can think critically, collaborate on

interdisciplinary teams, and direct their own learning processes (Dundis & Benson, 2003),

students are being required to demonstrate their mastery of facts, concepts, and skills through

achievement on state-mandated standardized tests. In order to address these dual, and often

conflicting, needs, many teachers have turned to learning models that stress students’ active

construction of knowledge (Howard, McGee, Schwartz, & Purcell, 2000) and that engage them

in meaningful problem solving (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Jonassen, 1993;

Mergendoller, Maxwell, & Bellisimo, 2006).

One curricular model designed to help students learn both content knowledge and higher-

order thinking skills is Problem-based learning (PBL). As noted by Hmelo-Silver (2000),

“Problem-based learning (PBL), with its dual emphasis on strategies and content, is well suited

to helping students construct usable knowledge because it situates learning in real-world


problems” (p. 42). In other words, PBL models are advocated to provide students with the

opportunity to construct knowledge that is flexible and applied within a given context.

The PBL curriculum is organized around a series of ill-structured problems that

encompass authentic, discipline-based content. Students learn to analyze these problems in order

to identify what information they need, how to integrate facts and concepts from different

disciplines and sources, and how to evaluate the strength of their proposed solutions. In addition,

the curriculum is structured so as to foster group work, self-directed learning, critical thinking,

and self-reflection (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006). Based on these characteristics, PBL is

frequently heralded as a powerful means to attain sustained and transferable learning (Kolodner

et al., 2003; Savery, 2006). That is, when used effectively, teachers can expect to increase their

students’ problem-solving and critical thinking skills without sacrificing students’ mastery of

relevant content knowledge (Murray & Savin-Baden, 2000; Mergendoller et al., 2006).

However, PBL does not always result in the types of learning outcomes desired,

specifically related to students’ deep understanding of subject-matter content (see Barron et al.,

1998). That is, the learning that occurs depends, to a great extent, on how well students focus on

the critical issues, abstractions, and principles embedded in the problems (Kolodner et al., 2003),

as opposed to how well they complete a series of activities. In science, for example, this is

particularly relevant because students have a tendency to hold misconceptions, have difficulty

comprehending science terms and concepts, and struggle to develop strong arguments.

These difficulties are particularly evident when students attempt to address socioscientific

problems; that is, problems that require them to consider scientific or technological issues of

specific social significance and that comprise a range of trade-offs, concepts, and considerations

in order to arrive at informed conclusions (Sadler, 2004). Such issues stem from


“biotechnological advances such as cloning, stem cells, and genetically modified foods and

environmental challenges such as global climate change [and] land use decisions” (Sadler &

Zeidler, 2005, p. 112). Engaging students in these issues reflects a “science as citizenship”

emphasis (KolstØ, 2001, p. 291), and comprises a difficult task. “When making up one’s opinion

about a socioscientific issue, one … makes interpretations of the statements and factual claims

offered. The quality and adequacy of such interpretations depend in part on the general

knowledge possessed by the decision maker … [which] include[s] knowledge of the nature of

science and scientific knowledge” (KolstØ, p. 292). In other words, students must interpret and

apply technical information, relate conceptual understanding, and discuss relevant social

implications, all of which represent complex processes.

In addition, PBL learning outcomes are mediated by students’ abilities to work in groups

and to be self-directed. Although researchers have suggested that learning is more effective

when “students work in groups, verbalize their thoughts, challenge the ideas of others, and

collaborate to achieve group solutions to problems” (Johnson, Suriya, Yoon, Berrett, & La Fleur,

2002, p. 379), these are skills that not all learners, especially K-12 learners, have developed. In

order for students to work together productively, teachers must guide and support students’

initial efforts to manage their small group work (Brush & Saye, 2001).

Similarly, while empirical evidence suggests that students who have learned from PBL

curricula employ more effective self-directed learning strategies than students who have learned

from traditional curricula (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006), it is not clear if this is an outcome or

a requirement. In fact, Ertmer, Newby, and MacDougall (1996) have suggested that these self-

directed learning skills are a prerequisite to students’ success in PBL environments, as opposed

to an automatic outcome. That is, if students enter the PBL process without these skills, teachers


should expect to nurture and support their initial and ongoing development (Ertmer et al., 1996:

Kolodner et al., 2003).

It is especially important to nurture these skills among students who are low-performing

or have special needs. Though research on problem-based curricula has concentrated primarily

on gifted or advanced students (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Gijbels, Dochy, Van den Bossche, &

Siegers, 2005; Pedersen & Liu, 2003), more recent findings suggest that a wide-range of learners

can experience success with inquiry-based experiences (Belland, Ertmer, & Simons, 2006;

Bottge, 2001; Palincsar, Maggnusson, Collins, & Cutter, 2001). Learners typically need more

structured support and guidance throughout the problem-solving process, and it is important for

the teacher to provide structured guidance as support (Palincsar et al.). Among other things, this

includes utilizing specific strategies that help students master 1) the skills and knowledge

necessary to solve the problem (i.e., problem-solving skills), 2) the strategies for conducting

effective searches for relevant information, 3) the content knowledge embedded in the problem,

4) the strategies for working successfully in groups, and 5) the ability to be self-directed (i.e., to

direct, monitor, and evaluate their own learning).

Some of these strategies may already exist within a teacher’s repertoire (e.g., running a

good discussion; helping students set goals) and thus, be applied more or less automatically

during PBL implementation. However, other strategies may be less familiar to teachers (dealing

with misconceptions; maintaining students’ focus on the overarching goal / problem; placing

strong emphasis on content knowledge within a problem-based approach) and, consequently,

much less utilized during typical classroom instruction. Although many educators (Grant & Hill,

2006; Krajcik et al., 1994; Murray & Savin-Baden, 2000) have described the unique challenges

teachers face when implementing project- or problem-based learning in the classroom, few have


detailed how teachers manage to attend to students’ critical needs during the implementation

process.

There is little guidance available regarding how to support teachers in their efforts to

facilitate students’ learning during PBL units. Without this information, novice PBL teachers can

easily fall into the trap of thinking that just because these approaches are interesting and

engaging, students are learning the things they need to learn. Unfortunately, teachers may

gravitate toward those activities that are most familiar (e.g., finding resources), rather than those

that are most productive for learning (e.g., tying information searches to specific questions that

need to be answered) (Brush & Saye, 2000, 2001; Brinkerhoff & Glazewski, 2004; Ertmer &

Simons, 2006).

To address this gap in the literature, this exploratory research examined the PBL

implementation strategies of a middle-school science teacher to determine if / how she supported

students’ needs related to research / information-gathering, content learning, group collaboration,

and self-directedness. This research was conducted during the fifth year of Tech-Know-Build

(TKB), a five-year, federally funded project aimed at supporting pedagogical change among

teachers in combination with a one-to-one student laptop initiative. In this context, teachers at a

local middle school adopted problem-based learning as a primary pedagogical focus. Every

teacher agreed to teach at least one technology-enhanced PBL unit during each academic year.

Teachers were also provided with summer and academic year professional development

opportunities to support their efforts. This specific study examined one particular science

classroom in-depth in an attempt to answer the following research questions:

1. How does a middle school science teacher support inquiry specifically related to student

research, content learning, collaboration, and self-directedness?


2. How does the teacher evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies in supporting student

performance among students characterized as low performing or special needs?

Method

Research Design

In an attempt to understand the teacher’s instructional approaches, we employed an

interpretive case study design, which involves description and evaluation to illustrate and

uncover the complexities of a situation (Merriam, 1998). Within this context, data were used to

examine and interpret given events toward the intent of building stronger theory and

understanding. Observations with the participants were overt, and each visit focused on

uncovering specific teacher strategies and their subsequent influence on students.

Participants and Setting

Data were collected in a rural, Midwest middle school science classroom in April 2005.

The teacher, Mrs. Jamison1, was regarded as one of the exemplary participants in the TKB

project given her 17 years of teaching experience, which included significant experience with

inquiry-based approaches that readily transferred to the PBL method. Furthermore, this teacher

had been recognized with several external grants and awards, the most recent of which included

the 2006 Computer Educator’s Teacher of the Year award from the state in which she lived.

Of the 20 students in the class, eight were identified as special needs with an IEP or 504

plan. Another seven were classified as “low” performing, based on their overall state

standardized test performances (not passing or barely passing). Twelve of the students were

female, and eight male.

Data were gathered during the facilitation of a 2-week unit entitled “Genes, Dreams, and

Reality: The Human Genome Project,” which the teacher developed as a PBL investigation for 1 All participant names have been changed.


students to complete in the weeks following instruction about genetics and its role in human

growth and development. Students met for one 60 minute class period, each day of the week.

The teacher’s intended purposes for the unit were three-fold: 1) to reinforce the genetics-related

content she had previously taught using didactic instruction and to give students a “context” in

which to apply their understanding, 2) to promote effective, domain-specific questioning, and 3)

to view the complexities of the Human Genome Project from a variety of social and scientific

perspectives. In short, Mrs. Jamison wanted students to realize that there are “multiple sides to

every issue,” and “there are things in science that are not settled or definite.”

The teacher assigned students to one of six teams; each team represented a different

stakeholder group: doctors, scientists, religious leaders, teachers, private citizens, or lawyers

(representing mothers trying to determine the father of their child). The central problem required

students to assume a position on the human genome project (for or against) based on their

stakeholder perspective, outline a plan for promoting their position, and argue their case before a

“judge” who would award the winning group three million dollars to further their position /

cause. Students were asked to develop a promotional brochure outlining their position and

prepare for a debate that would take place on the final day of the unit.

Procedures

In-class facilitation of the unit took place during seven of the 10 class periods; two days

were reserved for “consultation” field trips with local religious leaders (Christian, Muslim, and

Jewish), while the final day was reserved for the debate. To capture the strategies that Mrs.

Jamison used as she interacted with students, we videotaped each of the in-class sessions, placing

an elevated video camera in a corner of the classroom and a wireless microphone on the teacher


to capture her movements and discussions with students. Due to technical difficulties, only six of

the in-class sessions were recorded along with the final debate on the tenth day.

The video data were viewed in their entirety and selected video clips were transcribed for

analysis. Selected clips included each day’s whole-class introductory discussion and conclusion

(if applicable), and specific student/group-to-teacher interactions that were complete in nature

(i.e., not interrupted before the conclusion of the discussion) and particularly representative of

the diverse range of teacher-student interactions. In total, six whole-class discussions and 22

student/group-to-teacher interactions were transcribed. Additionally, the entire debate class

session was transcribed. This yielded a total of 1,041 transcribed conversational “turns,” with a

turn defined as a change in speaker.

Data Analysis

Transcriptions were examined using a constant comparative method, adapted for use with

case studies (Merriam, 1998), and with specific attention given to the types of interactions

present. We visited each interaction multiple times, first to define the various events in each

interaction and then to classify the events. An event was defined as a specific exchange with one

primary purpose or theme. Classification categories were defined initially by our research

questions (e.g., collaboration, self-directed learning), though events in the data informed and

refined the categories. For example, our category of self-directedness had been identified in the

literature as a critical component of PBL. Thus, we started with this theme as a result of our

literature study, and looked for its expression (or lack thereof) in the data. In contrast, when it

became clear that students were having considerable difficulty translating content into

information relevant to the end product (i.e., the debate or brochure or both), we examined

different examples of this in the literature.


Using this process, we classified various types of support offered by the teacher into our

four primary category schemes (research / information gathering, content learning, group

collaboration, and self-directness) and revisited the transcriptions a final time to classify events

within each interaction. As might be expected, any given interaction usually consisted of

multiple events, and not all events fit within the scheme.

Results and Discussion

This research study was designed to understand how this middle school teacher supported

student science inquiry in the context of a PBL project that focused on contextualizing student

understanding related to the study of genetics and expressing the various socioscientific

implications of the Human Genome Project. Furthermore, we sought to understand more deeply

the effectiveness of various strategies in helping students perform successfully. Strategies related

to each category (e.g., research / information gathering, content learning, group collaboration,

and self-directedness) are described in more detail below.

Research / Information Gathering

The teacher used a variety of techniques to support students’ research and information

gathering efforts,. After a problem orientation activity, the teacher described what was expected

of each group in terms of two final products: a brochure and a debate. She made clear that

students should start with the brochure, emphasizing specific information that should go into this

product (e.g., information about DNA, definition of the human genome project, benefits /

drawbacks of the human genome project, a position statement from the stakeholder perspective,

and a rationale for the three million dollar request). Once students began their research, she

referred them to any number of resources when they came to her for assistance.


For example, prior to the unit, the teacher developed a series of resource notebooks for

student reference. These notebooks were kept in the classroom and organized by topic: What is

the Human Genome Project?, Benefits, Drawbacks, and the like. The resources were printed

primarily from websites. The teacher described the purpose of these notebooks in her interview,

commenting that because sometimes students would forget their laptops or the batteries would

die, she did not want this to delay their research. Furthermore, based on past experience, she

found that some students preferred having information organized by topic that they could read on

paper rather than from a computer screen.

To help with organization, there were several days for which the teacher developed

guides or prompts to stimulate effective research efforts. For example, on the fifth day of the

project, she developed an outline for students to follow, and displayed it on the overhead. This

outline stated, “Brochure Suggestions: Looking back over your research notes, fill in the

following information: Disadvantages [space for 5 items] Benefits [space for 5 items].” In

offering suggestions to the class, she stated:

As you go through your research, just fill in the blanks. What are 5 concerns / drawbacks / bad things about the genome? And then what are 5 good things? Now, does it have to be exactly 5? No. It can be more, it can be less, depending on the point of view that you guys have chosen to take … The first job your group needs to do today is research—fill this out [indicates information on the overhead] and use it for your brochure. Your brochure is step one in this process. Next week, … you’re going to have time, then, to work on step two, which is how you’re going to use the information in your brochure to convince [the judge] that you deserve the 3 million dollars. Step one, research, fill this out [indicates overhead], use it to fill out your brochure. And then, we will take the next step from there. You need to sit with your group and stay with your group.

This prompt became a point of reference that the teacher used during subsequent student

interactions throughout the class period, as this exchange illustrates:

Student: … I’m still a little bit like lost on this whole project. But I don’t know how to get information about like where do people, why would people want the information about DNA and stuff, I like I don’t know where to get information.


Teacher: A lot of it’s just common sense. Have you guys listed all your good things yet? Okay, … I kind of gather you’re working on the bad. Student: Yeah. Teacher: What if that information gets out? Right, you’re private citizens, correct? Student: Yeah. Teacher: Okay. Student: Like I wanted to, I had no clue where to go. Teacher: Go to your brain. Student: Ah… Teacher: What is it that— you’re a private citizen, and let’s say for example, your DNA is tested for a genetic disorder. Okay, let’s just say it runs in your family, and you have a concern, you want to know if you could possibly end up with this genetic disease. What could be a bad thing about that? Student: Like if people found out what would be a bad thing? Teacher: Yeah. [short pause] Well, what if you found out? Student: It might ruin my life, I don’t know. Teacher: It, not necessarily ruin your life, but it’s certainly going to shift what you think about all the time. Student: Yeah. Teacher: Cause you’re going to focus on ‘oh my gosh, what happens when this disease hits me, yada yada yada,’ right? Student: Uh huh Teacher: What happens if your employer finds out? Student: He might fire you. Teacher: He might fire you, absolutely, you could lose your job; you could lose your family. Then, what about your kids? Do you know your kids have it? No. You start worrying about your kids and your family.

Taken together, these two interactions demonstrate how the teacher relied on specific prompts to

guide students and then used these throughout the course of students’ research.

In addition, there were numerous occasions in which the teacher guided students’

research specific to their stakeholder topic and position. Students tended to have tremendous

difficulty targeting their research to their assigned stakeholder. This problem appeared to be a


consistent across every group. The interaction above demonstrates this problem with the private

citizen group, and the example below demonstrates this problem with the doctor group:

Student: I can’t find anything for like, considering we’re the doctors’ points of view, I don’t know. Teacher: What viewpoint have you taken? Yes or no—are you— do you agree with it or disagree with it [the human genome project]? Student: We’re for it. Teacher: So you do want to use it? OK, then at that point, then you need to search for websites—let me see if I can spell [typing into the students’ laptop computer] —human genome project and medicine. Because at this point…what you need to understand is, how do you suppose a doctor would use this human genome project? Student: [no response] Teacher: How is it that a doctor would take the sets of DNA and use it to their benefit? Student: To help people. Teacher: [nodding] Specifically by doing what? Student: To, um, make them better and to know— Teacher: To make them better— Student: —and, to know, to know what’s going on. Teacher: [nodding] to know what’s going on. Internally. Inside. So you as a doctor probably want to do stuff like [reads from the screen] gene therapy or medicines that can be used to help people with genetic disorders that otherwise wouldn’t— Student: But how, exactly are we supposed to put it into a brochure? That’s the part that I don’t understand. Teacher: Now what you’re going to have to do is go through all of your research and decide, what are good things about the human genome project as a doctor—you’ve already given me several. … You know you can help stop people’s suffering... You know what’s going on internally—what’s going on inside. Then, you have to list out what are some bad things. And that’s where some of your research is going to have to come in… OK, what you need to do is go in to some of these websites …how is it that doctors can use the human genome project to help people. And that is something that if you want to go into, ask [types on the computer and speaks] ‘How can the human genome project help people?’ [waits for results] There you go and you can go into something like that. And you can go into Ask.com if you want to. That’s not a problem at all. But you’re then going to have to go in and figure out good things and bad things, and do your brochure.


This event, representative of numerous similar events, highlights the teacher’s attempts to

support students’ developing ability to assume the perspective of their assigned stakeholder for

their research. However, this perspective taking represented a difficult task for students

throughout the project and during the debate. In fact, after groups presented their preliminary

arguments during the debate, the teacher expressed her disappointment with the quality of

students’ research and thinking: “Ladies and gentlemen, let me just make an observation, and

I’m not going to speak for [the judge]; however, this has been the absolute weakest we have seen

all day. These presentations were not practiced. Overall, the information was weak…”

The teacher attempted to support student research through a variety of resources, though

students struggled to find relevant information throughout the project. In fact, for these students,

this strategy did not appear sufficient. While the teacher spent significant time interacting with

each group, this interaction did not ultimately translate to student success when it came to the

debate. With science content, students often struggle with technical concepts, and this particular

unit appeared to present specific difficulty for students. Though they had numerous resources at

their disposal, the teacher judged their final performance to be poor. This judgment begs the

question of what additional strategies could be used to support students in their research.

First of all, ongoing feedback is important in any instructional setting, but especially in

open-ended, problem-solving domains. Iterative forms of feedback serve to deepen

understanding and improve product quality (Barron et al., 1998). Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1974)

suggested that in order for feedback to be effective, experts should possess two theoretical

models: one that specifies a deep conceptual understanding and another that reflects the desired

performance (and, by extension, the learner’s current level of performance). Though the teacher

in this study regularly examined student journals and provided whole-group feedback to the


class, it is likely that direct feedback on students’ performances—not solely related to their

ideas—would have provided stronger support. For example, each group could have rehearsed

their presentations as one way to obtain input that would potentially refine their thinking and

arguments before participating in the final debate.

Closely related to students’ struggles with research / information gathering is the

difficulty students had translating their conceptual understanding into the final products, which

we discuss in more detail below.

Content Learning

Though not typically advocated in PBL models, this teacher emphasized content learning

through didactic instruction prior to the PBL investigation. In so doing, she expressed her desire

to provide students with a context within which they could apply their knowledge and

understanding. However, students had considerable difficulty translating their content

understanding, which consisted primarily of verbal information, into effective socioscientific

decisions. For example, one student, representing the teacher stakeholder group, requested

specific assistance following a discussion in which Mrs. Jamison reviewed the structure and

composition of DNA with the student:

Ellen: I don’t really, like, know the whole thing about the human genome project. I know about the DNA and stuff, but I don’t know— Teacher: OK, let me pull up a chair. … OK, what else? … Ellen: OK, what I was asking was, like, what’s, the whole human genome project? Teacher: OK. … Ellen: Like, I know it’s about, like, DNA and stuff like that, but— Teacher: And what has it done—When did it begin? Ellen: 1990. Teacher: Very good. Ellen: And ended 2003. It took 14 years. Thirteen. … But then, like, what did they do with it?


Teacher: Ah, good question. What did they do with it? Ellen: I don’t know. Teacher: If they know our DNA sequence, what is it that they can use from that information to help? Ellen: Oh, like the viruses—er, not the viruses. Like, diseases. What diseases you don’t have. What diseases you do have or you might have. Teacher: They can predict diseases. What else? Ellen: What color your eyes are. Teacher: [nodding]. Um-hm. Ellen: What special traits you have. Teacher: Ah, I like that better. OK, what else? Ellen: Well, I guess to kind of go along with that, how you get diseases or how you can see if you have Down’s syndrome. Teacher: Or— Ellen: There was a question on the chat thing, like, how do you get Down’s syndrome. … Teacher: OK, and help people deal—what did you tell me? Deal with certain diseases such as Down. … OK, now, we can go from here [points to the brochure]. Teachers blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Use what—use that reply that you just got. And then go into your second page and do your benefits and drawbacks. And as a teacher you probably need about half and half. Regardless of what you think.

Though it appears that Ellen arrives at a stronger understanding as a result of this

interaction, she and her group mates are unable to reflect their understanding in the debate, as

this excerpt from her group’s presentation demonstrates:

Leticia: We believe humans hold their own genetic information. Like we don’t think other people should have your genetic information, except for you, because that’s uh, private stuff. Like well it’s not necessarily private, but if your like boss had it and he didn’t want you working for him, he could like accuse you, or whatever, saying you’re going to have a heart attack or whatever and he doesn’t want you working for him. And, um, we plan to donate, if we win, we plan to donate our money to hospitals and charity. Ellen: If we uh, also if we win $3 million, we would … use some of that money to try to answer more questions that people would ask us.


Though the teacher had worked with this group and helped members to arrive at an

understanding regarding what they should incorporate, the students could not effectively

represent their conceptual understanding, nor assume the perspective of their assigned

stakeholder group. In fact, their primary argument (genetic information should be private) is

more appropriate for the private citizen group rather than the teacher group.

In another example from the debate, a different group—lawyers representing women who

want to find the fathers of their children—also had difficulty relating content knowledge to the

project:

John: We are the lawyers … trying to find out the father of the women who have had children and don’t know who the father is. We are for the human genome, cause we need to find out who the father is without a doubt, and so we are for it, and—yeah—we’re—we’re for it. Sarah: A question that some people have is what is the human genome project? It’s a thirteen-year project. It’s coordinated by the US Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health, and the goal, some of the goals are to identify twenty thousand, twenty five thousand genes in the human DNA, find out ATCG, which is adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine. Put info in databases; data analysis tools need to be improved; related technologies are transferred to private sectors; talk over ethical, legal, and social issues from project; have committees, meetings, and discussions. And another thing, another question people might wonder is what is DNA, it’s deoxyribonucleic acid, a chemical found in the nucleus of cells, carries instructions for making structures, materials, body need, body needs, it’s for the body to function. And how does it work? Uh, A is connected to T, T is connected to A, C is connected to G, G is connected to C. And outside of the ladder is sugars and phosphate, and where does it occur? In the nucleus of cells. Darcy: Sometimes if you are missing a piece of your DNA or your body had an extra one, your body has no clue what to do with it. So you may have a problem with mutations or diseases that may occur in the body. Um, not all can be stopped but some can if you know exactly what it is that is wrong. So the human genome project may be able to help with that, to find out some antidote or something we can do to help. Um, if we can.

While this group lists some specific (and possibly relevant) things they could use the

money for, they do not effectively connect the content to, or use it to support, their position.


Furthermore, they conclude by suggesting that more research needs to be done to help with

diseases, which is generally out of the scope of their group’s purpose.

It is important to remember that one of the key reasons researchers advocate the PBL

model is to help learners gain a deeper, more flexible understanding of content through the

process of tackling a problem. However, it is often difficult for students to connect their inquiry

activities to content learning and project performance. In this class specifically, students had

difficulty leveraging conceptual understanding and logic to develop and support their arguments

in the debate.

The process of understanding and supporting argumentation in science is widely

researched. Sadler (2004) discussed this phenomenon in the context of informal reasoning, which

finds application in socioscientific contexts where students discuss social implications associated

with scientific issues or technological advances. Sadler cited Means and Voss in arguing that

“Informal reasoning assumes importance when information is less accessible, or when the

problems are more open-ended, debatable, complex, or ill-structured, and especially when the

issue requires that the individual build an argument to support a claim” (p. 514). However, as

Sadler noted, insufficient conceptual understanding may hinder informal reasoning, while strong

conceptual understanding may lead to stronger informal reasoning.

One way to support conceptual understanding, and, by extension, informal reasoning, is

through reflective prompts and activities. Reflection “helps students make connections between

the problem-solving goals, the process involved in achieving those goals, and the content … It

pushes them to consider how they are applying what they know and what they are learning”

(Kolodner et al., 2003, p. 506). Within the Web Inquiry Science Environment (WISE; Lin, Clark,

& Slotta, 2003), students are prompted to connect their research and ideas to the inquiry project


through such prompts as, “How do we use all of this information to solve the problem?” (p. 527)

or, more generically, “Right now, we’re thinking …” (Davis, 2003). Effective, meaningful

reflection requires guidance and support, especially since learners often find it difficult to devote

sufficient attention to reflection (Krajcik et al., 1994).

Group Collaboration

Many students had difficulty cooperating with their group members at various times

throughout the unit. There were two primary ways that the teacher addressed conflict: through

written prompts and direct intervention.

At the end of almost every class session, the teacher asked students to respond to one or

more prompts in their daily journals. For example, at the end of the third day, the teacher asked

students to write about how the project was going with their group members. Mrs. Jamison

addressed students’ frustrations through whole-class discussions and directions, such as this

statement on day four:

My guess is—and I did not take exact numbers—but three-quarters of the journal entries that I read last night expressed concerns about one of two things. Absences, or people not staying with their group, running around the room, talking to people, messing with other people, etc., etc. ... A large portion of points for this project are for your class use of time. If you can’t handle that, you’re automatically going to drop your grade down to a B, B minus, C, C plus without ever doing anything else. And I will tell you that looking at the grades, none of you can afford that. The other drawback to this is if you let your group down, this is nothing that you can go back and fix. If you let your group down and not — don’t do what you need to do for this project, you’ve let two, possibly three other people down. … Now I realize there are some very diverse personalities in there. Rather than using that as a bad thing, use it as a good thing. If someone happens to be really, awesomely fantastic at finding clip art, send them on their way. Have them find it for you. If someone—Stephanie, shut your lid—happened to be good at typing and/or summarizing information, finding information, have them go back and do that. If someone is really good at organizing and putting things together, have them do that. This is not one of these things where I want to hear people whining, “Well, they’re not doing their part.” OK, what is their part? And as a group, you need to figure out what each of you are good at. And you all have wonderful things—wonderful talents that you can use for this.


Though the teacher emphasized to the class that they should resolve their own

disagreements, this example indicates that she provided little information regarding how to do

this, other than the general suggestion related to “using their diverse personalities as a good

thing.” While the teachers’ comments functioned, possibly, to motivate the students to work

together, without the knowledge of how to do this it is unlikely they could translate that

motivation into specific group structures or strategies. Brush and Saye (2001), drawing on

research in cooperative and collaborative learning, noted that in order for students to work

together effectively, specific group structures must be in place. These include “positive

interdependence, individual accountability, group goals and rewards, and methods for providing

students with opportunities to learn and practice group management and decision-making skills”

(p. 335). So, despite encouraging students to “figure out how to work together,” a number of

them still came to the teacher with specific conflicts during group work time, as the following

example illustrates:

Josh: Who am I going to work with? Now my group hates me because they don’t want to be religious leaders —[inaudible] Teacher: You guys gotta figure it out because this is worth 200 points. …Go ahead and go over here and let’s see who you’ve got. Josh: I don’t want to work with them… Teacher: Leah, I need you down here. Amy: Me and Leah’s not coming the day of it [the debate]. Teacher: That’s your choice but you’re gonna lose 200 points. Josh: And I’m going to get— Teacher: You know, let me be real blunt: there are a lot of things that are going to happen in your life that you don’t like but you gotta get over it. …You may choose not to do this. That is certainly your prerogative. Amy: No, no, no. We… Teacher: Don’t interrupt! Amy: Sorry


Teacher: You may choose not to do this but it’s not going to be a very wise decision because you’re going to be out 200 points. On the other hand if you choose not to work together, you are probably gonna end up failing anyway. Because how in the world can you do this, try to convince a judge that you need money for your particular project, your particular idea, if you do not work together? You will work together or we can start bringing in your parents to sit with you and make sure that you do. That is our option. Figure it out, work through this; when you were assigned the Manamana Bay [previous project] parts some of you did not like those, and then you got up on the witness stand and you did a magnificent job and/or you were a lawyer and did a really awesome job. Work through this, be mature about it, and figure out how you are going to work together as a group. There will be no changes in groups and there will be no changes in topics.

Group conflict arises as a theme in almost every collaborative learning situation, and

techniques for addressing conflicts are numerous. In this case, the teacher’s primary approach

was to place the burden of responsibility back on the students, and follow through with poor

grades for underperforming groups. While Mrs. Jamison provided opportunities for the students

to reflect on their small group work via journal entries, this activity could readily be extended to

facilitate reflection on how to address the various conflicts and problems that were arising. For

example, Brush and Saye (2001) described how a high school teacher asked students to use their

journals not only to describe what they had accomplished and what they were struggling with

that day, but also to reflect on ways to improve their group processes. Whole group discussions

that focus not only on describing the conflicts that are occurring, but on strategies for working

together and resolving those conflicts, may help students become more capable of managing

small group work (Ertmer & Simons, 2006).

In this study, conflicts were numerous, yet each group completed the final project.

However, as has been noted earlier, the groups were unable to meet the teacher’s standards of

quality for the final debate. Perhaps, by providing more support to help students manage their

small group work, students could have been more successful. However, other difficulties,


previously noted, as well as those related to being self-directed may also have contributed to

students’ relatively weak performances on the final product.

Student Self-Directedness

One the teacher’s primary goals was to foster effective, domain-specific questioning in

the context of this project, which reflects a goal consistent with promoting student self-direction.

However, based on our observations, there were few, if any, overt strategies used to support

student self-direction during this unit. Rather, the teacher spent considerable time guiding and

prompting students with specific directions, such as the following representative example from

day six:

Now, [here are] ten questions [displayed on the overhead]. …These 10 things need to be well defined in your presentation. In your brochure as well, but definitely in your debate presentation. And the first three are really pretty basic. [Mrs. Jamison spends several minutes going explaining what is meant by each question]

1. What group do you represent? 2. Is your group for or against the Human Genome Project? 3. What is the Human Genome Project about? 4. Describe some ways that genetic information could be misused. 5. Describe some ways that genetic information could be beneficial. 6. Who owns and controls genetic information? 7. Who should have access to personal genetic information, and for what should it be

used? 8. What will your group do with the $3 million if you are able to convince the judge? 9. If your group does not get the $3 million, how do you plan to continue your

campaign? 10. What kind of information about the Human Genome Project does your group plan to

share with the world?

In an exchange with the religious leaders group later that same class period, Mrs. Jamison

attempted to guide students to understand how they might view the issue from both sides:

Amy: Something doesn’t make sense. Something doesn’t make sense. Teacher: Which is what? Amy: If we’re against the human genome project, how can we list benefits? Teacher: Because there’s always two sides to an issue. And part of this project is to help you broaden out your thoughts, your decisions, and maybe think of a


viewpoint that you might not have thought of otherwise. There’s always two sides, at least two sides, usually three or four. … Leah: [enters the conversation] Mrs. Jamison, you know how we’re religious leaders? Should we have benefits because we can only think of one? Teacher: Oh, absolutely. Amy: That’s what I just asked her. Teacher: If you think about it—for example, the Catholic church. The Catholic church does not argue with the human genome project itself. It’s more concerned about how it’s going to be used. They don’t want it to be used to decide who’s going to be born and who’s not going to be born. Or, to treat something that may not be treated, or start messing with embryos that may or may not have the correct [in quotes] characteristics. [students proceed to work on their own, but solicit the teacher’s help again after several minutes]

Amy: We’re confused. Teacher: About what? Leah: Benefits. Amy: We don’t know benefits. Teacher: OK, benefits means good or bad? Amy: Good. Teacher: Exactly [looks over student notes] OK, so where are we? We are religious leaders, right? Leah: Um hum. We already have drawbacks. [brief interruption] Teacher: OK, benefits. This means a good thing. If, if from a religious leader’s standpoint— Amy: It’s bad. Teacher: In some cases, yes. But in some other cases— Leah: Is it like abortion, kind of? Teacher: Well, no. But certainly a woman who found that her child had the genes for Tay-Sachs disease, which is a horrible, horrible disease in which a child’s body can’t break down fat, it collects in the brain and it literally squeezes the brain off. The child dies before seven, goes blind, I mean, it’s just horrible. A mother could choose that. [brief interruption] Teacher: OK the good things. The good things about the human genome project according to religion may be what?


Amy: [shrugs] I don’t know, that’s why I’m confused. Teacher: OK, tell you what. Let me go find an article that I gave to second hour and it’s got a lot of information on it. Let me find it, print it, and I’ll be right back. [leaves group, goes to computer to find article]

In this example, the students attempted to follow the teacher’s template for discussing

both sides of the issue from their group’s perspective, but were unable to think of specific

reasons why they, as religious leaders who were against the Human Genome Project, might

consider issues in favor of it. During the final debate, this group asserted that they were against

the project because it diverts funds away from other good causes (such as helping to alleviate

“human suffering”), and because religious leaders fear that genes might become associated with

“sinful behavior,” which would eliminate “personal responsibility for sin.” While this group

provided strong rationale for their position, they (along with the other groups), were unable to

thoughtfully present both sides of the issue.

The fact that the majority of students in this class were either underperforming “normal”

students or students with special needs deserves particular consideration when discussing self-

direction. Although researchers have examined the performance of low-achieving students in

problem-solving settings (e.g. Bottage, Heinrichs, Chan, & Mehta, 2003; Swanson, 1990), few

have explored how these students manage and control their learning in PBL contexts. The

teacher in our study incorporated numerous supports, but failed to reinforce the importance of

these supports and had few strategies to fall back on when these proved unsuccessful.

Supporting self-direction among students is a difficult task, and not one that teachers tend

to do intuitively. On the contrary, many teachers seem to spend a lot of time giving students the

tools and scaffolds to manage the environment rather than teaching them to manage the

environment themselves. To be sure, scaffolds are a key component of any environment,


especially ill-structured problem-solving environments, but an important component of

scaffolding is the fading process that allows students to eventually perform the task

independently. Fading is fundamental to the scaffolding process. “Once the learner has a grasp of

the target skill, the master reduces (or fades) his participation, providing only limited hints,

refinements, and feedback to the learner, who practices successively approximating smooth

execution of the whole skill” (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989, p. 456). For example, rather

than giving students the ten questions to guide their organization of their debates, she could have

presented five examples, and asked students to generate five additional examples in their small

groups, while providing additional guidance. This strategy may have both cued them to the

importance of these guiding questions as well as assisted with the integration in their debate

presentations. While it takes significant time to guide students in the process toward becoming

more self-directed, it is time well-spent in the long run.

Summary and Conclusion

Socioscientific problem solving represents an authentic learning context in which to

engage students with a wide-range of ability levels, though increased attention should be given to

the support provided to students. This study investigated the extent to which expressions of

support for student research / information gathering, content learning, group collaboration, and

self-directness were present in the strategies of a middle school science teacher during her

facilitation of a socioscientific PBL unit. While the teacher employed a variety of support

strategies, she was ultimately disappointed with student performance. We suggest that the

students may have been more successful with the use of additional strategies, such as

incorporating feedback to bolster students’ research efforts, employing reflection techniques to

support content learning, structuring journal entries and whole group discussion to foster more


effective group processes, and fading scaffolding to facilitate student self-direction.

Nonetheless, the teacher is to be commended for attempting to engage students in such complex

problem solving, especially given the special needs represented among many of the students in

the classroom.


References

Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L. Bransford, J. D.

& The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding:

Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 7, 271-311.

Bottage, B. A. (2001). Building ramps and hovercrafts – and improving math skills. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 34(1), 16-23.

Bottage, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Chan, S. Y., Mehta, Z. D., & Watson, E. (2003). Effects of video-

based and applied problems on the procedural math skills of average- and low-achieving

adolescents. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18, 5-22.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,

experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brinkerhoff, J., & Glazewski, K. (2004). Support of expert and novice teachers within a

technology enhanced problem-based learning unit: A case study. International Journal of

Learning Technology, 1, 219-230.

Brush, T. & Saye, J. (2000). Design, implementation, and evaluation of student-centered

learning: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79-100.

Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-

centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10, 333-356.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft

of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and

instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.


Dundis, S., & Benson, S. (2003). Building more effective virtual teams: An examination of the

task variable in online group problem-solving. International Journal on E-Learning,

October-December, 24-38.

Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., & MacDougall, M. (1996). Students’ approaches to learning from

case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. American Educational

Research Journal, 33, 719-752.

Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the

efforts of K-12 teachers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 41-

56.

Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Siegers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based

learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research,

75(1), 27-61.

Grant, M.M., & Hill, J.R. (2006). Weighing the rewards with the risks? Implementing student-

centered pedagogy within high-stakes testing. In R. Lambert & C. McCarthy (Eds.)

Understanding teacher stress in the age of accountability (pp. 19-42). Greenwich, CT:

Information Age.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2000). Knowledge recycling: Crisscrossing the landscape of educational

psychology in a problem-based course for preservice teachers. Journal on Excellence in

College Teaching, 11(2&3), 41-56.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?

Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning

facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 22-40


Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Schwartz, N., & Purcell, S. (2000). The experience of

constructivism: Transforming teacher epistemology. Journal of Research on Computing in

Education, 32, 455-465.

Jonassen, D. H. (1993). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured

problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research & Development,

45(1), 65-94.

Johnson, S., Suriya, C., Yoon, S W., Berrett, J. V., & LaFleur, J. (2002). Team development and

group processes of virtual learning teams. Computers & Education, 39, 379-393.

Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J. Crismond, D., Fasse, J. G., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan,

M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle school science

classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12,

495-547.

KolstØ, S. D. (2001) Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science

dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.

Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for

helping middle school science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary

School Journal, 94, 483-497.

Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based

instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49-69.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Murray, I., & Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Staff development in problem-based learning. Teaching

in Higher Education, 5(1), 107-120.

Neville, A. J. (1999). The problem-based learning tutor: Teacher? Facilitator? Evaluator?

Medical Teacher, 21, 393-401.

Northwood, M. D., Northwood, D. O., & Northwood, M. G. (2003). Problem-based learning:

From the health sciences to engineering to value-added in the workplace. Global Journal of

Engineering Education, 7, 157-164.

Palinscar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M, & Cutter, J. (2001). Making science accessible

to all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly,

24, 15-32.

Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). The transfer of problem-solving skills from a problem-based

learning environment: The effect of modeling an expert’s cognitive processes. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 26, 353-380.

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of

research, 41, 513-536.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of

socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-21.

Simons, K. D., Klein, J. D., & Brush, T. R. (2004). Instructional strategies utilized during the

implementation of a hypermedia, problem-based learning environment: A case study.

Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15, 213-233.


Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306-314.

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1974). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Documents

AECT07 SSR PBL - Home - College of Education Krajcik et al., 1994; Murray & Savin-Baden, 2000) have described the unique challenges teachers face when implementing project- or problem-based