Adv Physiol Educ 39: 327–334, 2015;
doi:10.1152/advan.00082.2015.
How We Teach: Generalizable Education Research
Open problem-based instruction impacts understanding of physiological
concepts differently in undergraduate students
Brandon M. Franklin, Lin Xiang, Jason A. Collett, Megan K. Rhoads, and Jeffrey L. Osborn
Department of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
Submitted 17 June 2015; accepted in final form 4 August 2015
inquiry; low-achieving students; problem-based learning
SEVERAL DECADES AGO,
problem-based learning (PBL) was introduced at McMaster University Medical School, and it challenged the fundamental pedagogical principles of science education and the teaching of physiology (4). The success and
popularity of PBL in medical education were noticed in the
community of undergraduate education where its methods
were adapted to this student population (47, 48). This movement of teaching through problem solving resurrected the
closely related method of guided inquiry-based learning (GIL),
which conveys information to students through the process of
scientific inquiry under more direct instructor supervision and
guidance (13, 23). Both PBL and GIL are rooted in the social
constructivist theories of Dewey (10), and both follow a
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: J. L. Osborn, Dept.
of Biology, Univ. of Kentucky, 101 Thomas Hunt Morgan, Lexington, KY
40506 (e-mail: [email protected]).
cyclical process that reinforces and builds on information
throughout the semester. Students are presented with a problem
or question and a set of “what is known” data from which they
will generate a hypothesis. At this point, the students are given
new data and asked to use critical reasoning skills to rethink
their original hypothesis and discuss it with the class. This
process is dually beneficial for the students; they gain knowledge of the concepts discussed and develop skills in hypothesis
generation and critical reasoning that develop throughout the
semester and can be used throughout their career (Fig. 1).
These methods are successful because many learners don’t
maximally benefit from traditional didactic instructional methods and instead prefer a more active learning style (42).
Recently, controversy has arisen regarding the effectiveness of
PBL and GIL, labeling them as minimal guidance instructional
methods (21). These arguments possess two potentially fatal
flaws. First, while these methods may vary in their level of
instruction, there is always some degree of direct instruction
coupled with significant scaffolding for student instructional
support (5, 18, 37). Second, the study in question selectively
identified literature that supports the authors’ claims while
ignoring the wealth of evidence to the contrary (18, 21). There
exists a significant archive of literature that strongly supports
and advocates for the efficacy of PBL and GIL in medical
school, university, and secondary-school student populations
(11, 19, 22, 31, 32, 40, 44). There is a paucity of data, however,
that addresses the specific level or degree of guidance best
suited for these types of constructivist, discovery-based learning environments.
To address this, a required undergraduate core physiology
course was designed with three different levels of instruction
and predictions were made about potential student outcomes
for each mode of instruction (Table 1). Traditional lecture-style
instruction has been proven to effectively transmit both knowledge and understanding to students but falls short in successfully training students with sufficient problem-solving skills
(11, 41). Constructivist learning models have been shown to be
equally effective at conveying knowledge and understanding
while also improving critical thinking skills and self-directed
learning (19, 20, 22, 25, 39). These previous studies, however,
have not addressed how these methods work on different
populations of students (i.e., low- and high-achieving students)
and whether different levels of guidance, within a constructivist model, will affect these populations differently.
The present study investigated how undergraduate students
with different levels of overall academic history responded to
different modes of instruction in a required upper-level core
animal physiology course. Both declarative knowledge and
critical thinking skills were assessed by multiple-choice (MC)
exam questions and short-answer (SA) exam questions, respectively.
1043-4046/15 Copyright © 2015 The American Physiological Society
327
Downloaded from http://advan.physiology.org/ by 10.220.33.6 on July 28, 2017
Franklin BM, Xiang L, Collett JA, Rhoads MK, Osborn JL.
Open problem-based instruction impacts understanding of physiological concepts differently in undergraduate students. Adv Physiol Educ
39: 327–334, 2015; doi:10.1152/advan.00082.2015.—Student populations are diverse such that different types of learners struggle with
traditional didactic instruction. Problem-based learning has existed for
several decades, but there is still controversy regarding the optimal
mode of instruction to ensure success at all levels of students’ past
achievement. The present study addressed this problem by dividing
students into the following three instructional groups for an upperlevel course in animal physiology: traditional lecture-style instruction
(LI), guided problem-based instruction (GPBI), and open problembased instruction (OPBI). Student performance was measured by three
summative assessments consisting of 50% multiple-choice questions
and 50% short-answer questions as well as a final overall course
assessment. The present study also examined how students of different academic achievement histories performed under each instructional method. When student achievement levels were not considered,
the effects of instructional methods on student outcomes were modest;
OPBI students performed moderately better on short-answer exam
questions than both LI and GPBI groups. High-achieving students
showed no difference in performance for any of the instructional
methods on any metric examined. In students with low-achieving
academic histories, OPBI students largely outperformed LI students
on all metrics (short-answer exam: P ⬍ 0.05, d ⫽ 1.865; multiplechoice question exam: P ⬍ 0.05, d ⫽ 1.166; and final score: P ⬍ 0.05,
d ⫽ 1.265). They also outperformed GPBI students on short-answer
exam questions (P ⬍ 0.05, d ⫽ 1.109) but not multiple-choice exam
questions (P ⫽ 0.071, d ⫽ 0.716) or final course outcome (P ⫽ 0.328,
d ⫽ 0.513). These findings strongly suggest that typically lowachieving students perform at a higher level under OPBI as long as the
proper support systems (formative assessment and scaffolding) are
provided to encourage student success.
How We Teach: Generalizable Education Research
328
OPEN PROBLEM-BASED INSTRUCTION ELEVATES LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS
students in working groups and was provided in a manner that
directed students to explore and seek the type of information required
for problem-solving activities and core questions.
Randomization of Subjects and Grading
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Instructional Groups
Different instructional groups and instructional methods were developed and labeled as follows: “lecture instruction” (LI), “guided
problem-based instruction” (GPBI), and “open problem-based instruction” (OPBI). All students randomly selected the different instructional groups based on their time and availability of course scheduling
and were unaware of the type of instruction offered before course
enrollment. Wet laboratory instruction was also provided for all
students, and the laboratory style instruction was not different for all
groups. To control for classroom instructional ability, the same
professor designed each instructional session and conducted the teaching for all sessions. Student cumulative grade point averages (GPAs)
were not different between instructional groups at the onset of the
course (P ⬎ 0.05). All course materials, such as recommended texts,
access to PowerPoint materials, supplemental reading, website, and
laboratory materials, were identical for all groups of students in the
study.
LI group. The LI group consisted of 47 biology majors with a
cumulative GPA of 3.29 ⫾ 0.53. These students were presented with
information through traditional lecture-style classroom instruction by
a full professor in the University of Kentucky’s Department of
Biology during 75-min instructional sessions held on Tuesday and
Thursday over the 13-wk semester.
GPBI group. The GPBI group consisted of 38 biology majors with
a cumulative GPA of 3.25 ⫾ 0.54. Instructional times for these
students consisted of 75-min sessions that met 2 times/wk (Tuesday
and Thursday) over the 13-wk semester. During class periods, students worked in small, randomly formed groups of three to four on
guided activities and short timeframe tutorials (8 –10 min) designed to
encompass the same concepts covered in the LI group. The instructor
of these sessions had a significant role as a facilitator, providing
selected content to students at the onset of the lesson and providing
unsolicited guidance during their problem-solving activities.
OPBI group. This group contained 35 biology majors with a
cumulative GPA of 3.40 ⫾ 0.53. The instructional design of this
group was somewhat similar to the GPBI group but with marked and
significant differences. Students randomly chose to work jointly in
small groups of three to four on similar and sometimes the same
activities provided to the GPBI instructional group. The major instructional difference of the OPBI group from the GPBI group was that no
formal dissemination of information and guidance was provided
during the initiation of OPBI problem-solving activities. Students
were provided with a core question or series of core questions to begin
the instruction. Information then was provided when solicited by
Assessment
Summative assessment. Student performance was summatively
assessed by three exams that were 50% MC and 50% SA questions.
Students from all three instructional groups (LI, GPBI, and OPBI
groups) took the same exams on the same days. On exams 1 and 2,
there were 60 possible points for MC questions and 65 possible points
for SA questions. Exam 3 had 80 possible points for both MC and SA
questions. The concepts covered on each exam are shown in Table 2.
Exam 1 focused primarily on cell physiology, membranes and membrane potentials, and neuronal function. Exam 2 was the largest unit in
terms of overall physiological content and concepts. This unit consisted of skeletal muscle contraction, cardiovascular, renal, and blood
pressure control. In exam 3, the major focus was on respiration,
acid-base balance, and endocrinology and reproductive physiology.
All exams consisted of 1/3 Bloom’s taxonomy level 1/2 questions, 1/3
Bloom’s level 4/5 questions, and 1/3 Bloom’s level 8 or greater
questions. The week before final exams consisted of a short discussion
of digestion and a more complete component of nutrient and energy
balance. It is important to note that all exams were cumulative and
included conceptual aspects from previous units. This method of
assessment was used to support the different instructional modalities,
thereby forcing students to continually incorporate conceptual understandings of physiology in a holistic manner.
Formative assessment. The LI group had no ongoing or specific
formative assessment conducted between exams. In the GPBI and
OPBI groups, students engaged in daily, nongraded activities and
class discussions. Activities and class discussions by group did allow
the instructor significant indications of conceptual areas requiring
reinforcement or, in some cases, further instruction.
Identification of Academic Performance Groups
To investigate the influence of these different instructional methods
on physiology students with different overall academic proficiencies,
students were divided into three subgroups within each instructional
group (Table 3). High-achieving students were defined as students
with a cumulative GPA of 3.6 or higher at the onset of the course,
average-level students began the course with a cumulative GPA
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00082.2015 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from http://advan.physiology.org/ by 10.220.33.6 on July 28, 2017
Fig. 1. Problem-based learning is a cyclical process where practices and
concepts learned in one exercise must be reused and reinforced in subsequent
activities.
All students enrolling in BIO 350: Animal Physiology at the
University of Kentucky chose one of seven sections. Each section was
assigned one of the three instructional treatment groups (LI group: 3
sections; GPBI and OPBI groups: 2 sections each). During the
enrollment process, students were unaware that different teaching
methods would be used in different sections. At the beginning of the
course, all students were informed of the study and completed an
informed consent. Once informed, students were given the opportunity to switch sections if they preferred an alternate teaching methodology, although no students exercised this option.
All exams and assignments were graded blindly. MC questions
were graded by Scantron scanners and entered into a database by a
graduate teaching assistant. SA questions were all graded by the
professor in charge of the course. Student names and section numbers
were replaced with an unidentifiable eight-digit code on all exam
forms, and exams were shuffled so that they were in a random order
and unidentifiable by instructional group. Answer rubrics were generated for each SA question, and questions were graded in numeric
order with each question for all exams completely graded before
advancing to the next question to be graded. Upon completion of
grading, a graduate teaching assistant resorted the exams by section
number, decoded student names, and entered scores into a database.
How We Teach: Generalizable Education Research
OPEN PROBLEM-BASED INSTRUCTION ELEVATES LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS
329
Table 1. Characterization and potential outcomes of each teaching method
LI
GPBI
OPBI
Instruction
• Traditional lecture-style delivery of
material
• Hands-on laboratory to reinforce core
concepts
• Student-directed learning
• Instructor is more hands off,
providing guidance to students only when requested
• Use of formative assessment
to identify problem areas for
improvement
• Hands-on laboratory to reinforce core concepts
Assumptions about learning
• Students benefit most from systematic
dissemination of content by an expert
Motivations for learning
• Performance on exams
• Overall course score
Assessment
• Summative assessments
-Three exams consisting of both MC and
SA questions
-Five writing assignments stemming
from the laboratory portion of the
course
• Formative assessment
-None
• A combination of instructor-directed
and student-directed learning
• The instructor is more hands on, providing content to students and providing unsolicited guidance during
the problem-solving activities
• Use of formative assessment to identify problem areas for improvement
• Hands-on laboratory to reinforce
core concepts
• Students will benefit most from
problem-solving exercises if the
necessary information is given to
them by an instructor and they are
guided through the problem-solving
process
• Performance on exams
• Overall course score
• More enjoyable and engaging form
of learning
• Students are more motivated to study
before class because of a desire to
contribute meaningfully to their peer
groups
• Summative assessments
-Three exams consisting of both MC
and SA questions
-Five writing assignments stemming
from the laboratory portion of the
course
• Formative assessment
-Student progress monitored on a daily
basis through low-stakes in-class assignments and minipresentations
Potential outcomes
• Content acquisition and understanding
• Performance on exams
• Overall course score
• More enjoyable and engaging
form of learning
• Students are more motivated
to study before class because
of a desire to contribute meaningfully to their peer groups
• Summative assessments
-Three exams consisting of both
MC and SA questions
-Five writing assignments stemming from the laboratory portion of the course
• Formative assessment
-Student progress monitored on
a daily basis through lowstakes in-class assignments
and minipresentations
• Content acquisition and understanding
• Critical thinking and problemsolving skills
• Hypothesis generation and data
analysis and interpretation
• Effective self-directed learning
skills
• Ability to structure knowledge
to efficiently solve a problem
LI, lecture instruction; GPBI, guided problem-based instruction; OPBI, open problem-based instruction; MC, multiple choice; SA, short answer.
between 3.0 and 3.6, and low-achieving students were defined as
students with a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or less at the course onset.
Students of all achievement levels were integrated into each instructional group and received the same instruction.
Statistical Analysis
Exam and final course score are presented as means ⫾ SE of total
points earned. When LI, GPBI, and OPBI groups or high-, aver-
age-, and low-achieving students were compared, we used either
one-way ANOVA with Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc analysis
(for normally distributed data) or Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA on
ranks with Dunn’s test for post hoc analysis (for data not normally
distributed). Effect size between groups was calculated with Cohen’s d. All data are presented as means ⫾ SE unless otherwise
noted. The 0.05 level of probability was used as the criterion for
significance in all data sets.
Table 2. Physiological concepts covered by each exam
Exam 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exam 2
Feedback control systems
Membranes, channels, and transport
Neuronal biophysics
Neuronal transmission
Neuronal integration
Central nervous system and sensory mechanisms
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All previous material
Neuromuscular junction/function
Muscle contraction (skeletal, cardiac, and smooth)
Cardiovascular function
Renal function
Blood pressure control
Ionic and osmotic balance
Exam 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00082.2015 • http://advan.physiology.org
All previous material
Respiration
Acid-base balance
Endocrine function
Sexual reproduction
Digestion and nutrient balance
Energy balance
Downloaded from http://advan.physiology.org/ by 10.220.33.6 on July 28, 2017
• Content acquisition and understanding
• Critical thinking and problem-solving skills
• Hypothesis generation and data
analysis and interpretation
• Students will benefit most if
challenged to seek out the information needed to solve
real-world problems
How We Teach: Generalizable Education Research
330
OPEN PROBLEM-BASED INSTRUCTION ELEVATES LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS
Table 3. Sample sizes for the instructional groups and
achievement levels
LI group
GPBI group
OPBI group
High-Achieving
Students
Average-Achieving
Students
Low-Achieving
Students
14
10
18
25
14
8
8
14
9
RESULTS
General Student Population Exam Performance by
Instructional Group
Effect of PBL on High- and Low-Achieving Student Exam
Performance
Low-achieving students benefited greatly from the open
problem-based style of instruction (Fig. 3, C and D). They
scored better on MC exam questions when instructed by OPBI
(53.33 ⫾ 1.83 points) compared with LI (45.04 ⫾ 2.98 points,
P ⬍ 0.05, d ⫽ 1.166) but not GPBI (48.19 ⫾ 1.52 points, P ⫽
0.071, d ⫽ 0.716), although there was a trend for significance.
There was an increase in MC score for OPBI (45.56 ⫾ 1.69
points) students compared with both GPBI (38.29 ⫾ 2.08
points, P ⬍ 0.05, d ⫽ 1.267) and LI (38.75 ⫾ 2.00 points, P ⬍
Overall Course Performance
Overall course outcome was improved for low-achieving
students instructed by the OPBI method (556.81 ⫾ 20.23
points) compared with the LI (450.56 ⫾ 36.08 points, P ⬍
0.05, d ⫽ 1.265) method (Fig. 4). In fact, while GPA was a
good indicator of overall course performance, with low-achieving students scoring lower (498.38 ⫾ 17.97 points) than both
average-level (573.07 ⫾ 9.07 points, P ⬍ 0.05, d ⫽ 0.979) and
high-achieving (614.30 ⫾ 8.66 points, P ⬍ 0.05, d ⫽ 0.1.547)
students, low-achieving students instructed by the OPBI
method (556.81 ⫾ 20.23 points) exhibited an overall course
outcome not different from that of average-level (P ⫽ 0.315,
d ⫽ 0.283) students (Fig. 5).
DISCUSSION
The present study set out to achieve two primary goals. The
first goal was to characterize and describe two distinctive
varieties of PBL with differing degrees of direct instruction
(Table 1). To be clear, neither of these methods, OPBI or
GPBI, should be considered minimal guidance methods as
there is significant scaffolding in place to ensure student
success. The second goal was to evaluate the efficacy of these
methods on student populations of diverse academic background compared with traditional lecture-style instruction.
Many studies have found that PBL is a more effective method
than LI, particularly when considering critical reasoning skills
Fig. 2. Open problem-based instruction (OPBI) had little effect on overall student exam performance compared to either traditional lecture instruction (LI) or
guided problem-based instruction (GPBI) groups. SA, short answer. *P ⬍ 0.05 compared with the LI group; ^P ⬍ 0.05 compared with the GPBI group.
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00082.2015 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from http://advan.physiology.org/ by 10.220.33.6 on July 28, 2017
Student performance on MC questions for all three exams
and averaged MC scores are shown in Fig. 2A. OPBI students
scored significantly higher on the MC portion of exam 2
(48.18 ⫾ 1.08 points) compared with GPBI (43.64 ⫾ 1.14
points, P ⬍ 0.05, d ⫽ 0.667) or LI (43.75 ⫾ 1.14 points, P ⬍
0.05, d ⫽ 0.617) students. OPBI students tended to perform
better on MC portions of other exams, but no other statistical
significance was found (Fig. 2A). On the SA portion of exams,
OPBI students scored better on average (55.50 ⫾ 1.20 points)
compared with GPBI (49.79 ⫾ 1.75 points, P ⬍ 0.05, d ⫽
0.619) but not LI (50.46 ⫾ 1.62 points, P ⫽ 0.070, d ⫽ 0.540)
students (Fig. 2B). Although there were no statistical differences between LI students and OPBI students on SA exam
questions, OPBI students overall did score higher on every
exam (Fig. 2B).
0.05, d ⫽ 1.267) students on exam 2 (Fig. 3C). OPBI proved to
be of an even greater benefit for low-achieving students on SA
exam questions, with OPBI students scoring much higher on
average (54.63 ⫾ 2.05 points) compared with both LI (38.04 ⫾
3.88 points, P ⬍ 0.05, d ⫽ 1.865) and GPBI (44.33 ⫾ 3.10
points, P ⬍ 0.05, d ⫽ 1.109) students (Fig. 3D).
Focusing on high-achieving students, there were no observable differences on MC exam questions between LI (58.10 ⫾
1.37 points), GPBI (58.67 ⫾ 0.81 points), or OPBI (60.08 ⫾
0.95 points) students (Fig. 3A). These students also exhibited
no difference on responses to SA exam questions between LI
(55.74 ⫾ 1.60 points), GPBI (57.33 ⫾ 1.32 points), or OPBI
(58.83 ⫾ 1.14 points) students (Fig. 3B).
How We Teach: Generalizable Education Research
OPEN PROBLEM-BASED INSTRUCTION ELEVATES LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS
331
and long-term knowledge retention (2, 30, 44, 46). The results
of the present study were not different, as students in the PBL
groups outperformed LI students on assessment directed at
critical reasoning skills (SA exam questions).
There has been some controversy regarding the effectiveness
of constructivist methods and the level of guidance that should
accompany them (18, 21). Leppink and colleagues (24) found
that the added guidance of a GPBI course was moderately
beneficial to novice, entry-level students with little or no prior
knowledge of the course content. The present study found the
opposite to be true in non-novice students, as the OPBI group
performed moderately better than the LI group on assessments
of critical reasoning skills, although GPBI group performance
was generally not different. That is to say, students who have
been exposed to the core concepts in previous introductory
courses and have a knowledge base from which to draw will
benefit more from the open-inquiry environment created by
OPBI as opposed to LI or GPBI. This effect was magnified in
low-achieving students. This group of students, when instructed by the OPBI method, exhibited improved content
acquisition and understanding (MC exam questions) and vastly
improved critical reasoning skills compared with both GPBI
and LI groups (Fig. 3C). These results indicate that typically
low-achieving students are stimulated by the self-directed and
collaborative nature of OPBI and subsequently are able to
achieve a greater level of conceptual understanding of complex
physiological subject matter.
There are five main characteristics of OPBI that may have
facilitated enhanced performance in typically low-achieving
students (Fig. 6). The first is a collaborative, peer learning
environment that encourages students from all academic backgrounds to work together and has been shown to increase
student success in secondary and undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematic education (27, 43). Second, this method of learning includes an inherent sense of
individual responsibility and self-directed learning that not
only garners improved course performance but also establishes
student confidence for success when they enter the professional
environment. One of the biggest obstacles with these learners
is motivating them in the classroom. OPBI provides an environment that motivates these students in both the traditional
way (grades) as well as by creating a demand for knowledge
(need to know) and holding them responsible to their peers.
Next, low-achieving students benefit from the clearly-defined
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00082.2015 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from http://advan.physiology.org/ by 10.220.33.6 on July 28, 2017
Fig. 3. High-achieving students performed just as well on both multiple-choice (MC; A) and SA (B) exam questions regardless of instructional group.
Low-achieving students in the OPBI group performed better on MC (C) and SA (D) exam questions compared with both LI and GPBI groups. *P ⬍ 0.05
compared with the LI group; ^P ⬍ 0.05 compared with the GPBI group.
How We Teach: Generalizable Education Research
332
OPEN PROBLEM-BASED INSTRUCTION ELEVATES LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS
learning goals that are intrinsic of well-designed constructivist
methods (6). Finally, cooperative formative assessments and
instructional scaffolding allows for early identification of problem areas in low-achieving students and provides a preexisting
toolset to address these areas.
The collaborative environment created by OPBI is essential
in regard to elevating the learning strength of low-achieving
students. When students work together, the individual intellectual burden of learning can be diminished by exploiting the
unique skill and knowledge sets of individual group members
(17, 33, 36). This is especially true when low- and highachieving students work together (15). The relationship between the student and instructor is a critical aspect of collaboration within groups, and each has a specific role to play to
best use the group dynamic. The instructor’s role is to ensure
Fig. 5. Low-achieving students had lower final course scores compared with
both high- and average-achieving students. When low-achieving students were
instructed by the OPBI method, they performed as well as average-achieving
students. The maximum possible points are represented by the dashed line.
*P ⬍ 0.05 compared with high-achieving students; ^P ⬍ 0.05 compared with
average-achieving students.
Fig. 6. Key characteristics that make OPBI such an effective tool.
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00082.2015 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from http://advan.physiology.org/ by 10.220.33.6 on July 28, 2017
Fig. 4. Low-achieving students performed better in the course when instructed
by either OPBI or GPBI. The maximum possible points are represented by the
dashed line. *P ⬍ 0.05 compared with the LI group; ^P ⬍ 0.05 compared with
the GPBI group.
that all students are making active contributions to their group
and intervening with leading questions when needed (28, 29).
Students have many responsibilities to the group. They must
contribute meaningfully to the group discussion, not only by
presenting their own ideas but also by listening to the ideas of
other group members and adjusting their opinions and process
of thinking when necessary. Students’ duties extend beyond
the classroom; to effectively contribute to the team, students
must come to class prepared to discuss the day’s topics (12).
The concept of extended learning beyond the classroom
strongly promotes individual responsibility and the development
of self-directed and self-regulated learning skills. As educators,
we have some control over how students develop learning strategies and habits while they are in the classroom, but outside of the
classroom, they must be responsible for their own learning.
Several studies have investigated the ability of students of various
achievement levels to develop self-directed learning skills and
found that low-achieving undergraduate students struggle to develop these skills (1, 35). The development of external study and
learning skills could be one of the key disadvantages separating
low-achieving students from their average- and high-achieving
counterparts. There is substantial evidence, both qualitative and
quantitative, that supports the effectiveness of PBL at developing
self-directed learning skills (8, 20, 25, 45). The results of this study
suggest that the performance of low-achieving students instructed by
the OPBI method is elevated to that of average-achieving students,
who outperform low-achieving students instructed by LI methods
(Fig. 5 and 6). This may be due in part to enriched self-directed
learning skills in low-achieving students in the OPBL group. Interactions with other traditional higher-achieving students likely
contributed significantly to assisting the lower-achieving students
in improved learning skills. These aspects of how OPBI improves
learning in this student group are currently being explored.
To achieve these first two objectives, the course must create
a motivating learning environment that garners interest in
subject matter. It has been shown that low-achieving student
performance is enhanced when interest in the subject matter is
high (7). In addition to traditional motivations, such as passing
examinations and earning high course grades, OPBI approaches this obstacle from a couple angles. First, the problems
and tasks required of students during class periods are intrinsically motivating by creating a need to know and curiosity in
the topics that persist over time (9, 16, 34). Second, the group
How We Teach: Generalizable Education Research
OPEN PROBLEM-BASED INSTRUCTION ELEVATES LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Jacqueline Burke for work and support in the production
of the classroom instructional materials.
GRANTS
This work was partially supported by National Science Foundation Grant
0431552 (to J. L. Osborn, Principal Investigator).
DISCLOSURES
No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the author(s).
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Author contributions: B.M.F., L.X., J.A.C., and J.L.O. conception and
design of research; B.M.F., L.X., J.A.C., M.K.R., and J.L.O. performed
experiments; B.M.F. and L.X. analyzed data; B.M.F., L.X., J.A.C., and J.L.O.
interpreted results of experiments; B.M.F. prepared figures; B.M.F. drafted
manuscript; B.M.F., L.X., J.A.C., M.K.R., and J.L.O. edited and revised
manuscript; B.M.F. and J.L.O. approved final version of manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Albaili MA. Differences among low-, average- and high-achieving college students on learning and study strategies. Educ Psychol 17: 171–177,
1997.
2. Antepohl W, Herzig S. Problem-based learning versus lecture-based
learning in a course of basic pharmacology: a controlled, randomized
study. Med Educ 33: 106 –113, 1999.
3. Barron BJ, Schwartz DL, Vye NJ, Moore A, Petrosino A, Zech L,
Bransford JD. Doing with understanding: lessons from research on
problem- and project-based learning. J Learn Sci 7: 271–311, 1998.
4. Barrows HS. Problem-Based learning: an Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer, 1980.
5. Barrows HS. A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Med Educ
20: 481– 486, 1986.
6. Barrows HS. Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief
overview. New Direct Teach Learn 1996: 3–12, 1996.
7. Belloni LF, Jongsma EA. The effects of interest on reading comprehension of low-achieving students. J Read 22: 106 –109, 1978.
8. Blumberg P. Evaluating the evidence that problem-based learners are
self-directed learners: a review of the literature. In: Problem-Based Learning: a Research Perspective on Learning Interactions, edited by Evensen
D, Hmelo CE. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2000, p. 199 –226.
9. De Volder ML, Schmidt HG, Moust JH, De Grave WS. Problem-based
learning and intrinsic motivation. In: Achievement and Task Motivation,
edited by van derBerchen JH, Bergen TC, deBruyn EE. Berwyn, PA:
Swets North America, 1986, p. 128 –34.
10. Dewey J. Experience and Education. New York: Simon and Schuster,
2007.
11. Dochy F, Segers M, Van den Bossche P, Gijbels D. Effects of problembased learning: a meta-analysis. Learn Instruct 13: 533–568, 2003.
12. Donnelly R, Fitzmaurice M. Collaborative project-based learning and
problem-based learning in higher education: a consideration of tutor and
student role in learner-focused strategies. In: Emerging Issues in the
Practice of University Learning and Teaching, edited by O’Neill G, Moor
S, McMulling B. Dublin: All Ireland Society for Higher Education, 2005,
p. 87–98.
13. Farrell JJ, Moog RS, Spencer JN. A guided-inquiry general chemistry
course. J Chem Educ 76: 570, 1999.
14. Fuchs LS, Fuchs D, Karns K, Hamlett CL, Katzaroff M, Dutka S.
Effects of task-focused goals on low-achieving students with and without
learning disabilities. Am Educ Res J 34: 513–543, 1997.
15. Gabriele AJ, Montecinos C. Collaborating with a skilled peer: the
influence of achievement goals and perceptions of partners’ competence
on the participation and learning of low-achieving students. J Exp Educ
69: 152–178, 2001.
16. Hidi S, Renninger KA. The four-phase model of interest development.
Educ Psychol 41: 111–127, 2006.
17. Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning: what and how do students
learn? Educ Psychol Rev 16: 235–266, 2004.
18. Hmelo-Silver CE, Duncan RG, Chinn CA. Scaffolding and achievement
in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller,
and Clark. Educ Psychol 42: 99 –107, 2007.
19. Hmelo CE. Problem-based learning: effects on the early acquisition of
cognitive skill in medicine. J Learn Sci 7: 173–208, 1998.
19a.Hmelo CE, Evensen DH. Introduction to problem-based learning: gaining
insights on learning interactions through multiple methods of inquiry. In:
Problem-Based Learning: a Research Perspective on Learning Interactions, edited by Evensen DH, Hmelo CE. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2000, p.
1–16.
20. Hmelo CE, Lin X. Becoming self-directed learners: strategy development
in problem-based learning. 2000.
21. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist,
discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ
Psychol 41: 75– 86, 2006.
22. Koh GC, Khoo HE, Wong ML, Koh D. The effects of problem-based
learning during medical school on physician competency: a systematic
review. Can Med Assoc J 178: 34 – 41, 2008.
23. Kuhn D, Black J, Keselman A, Kaplan D. The development of cognitive
skills to support inquiry learning. Cognit Instruct 18: 495–523, 2000.
24. Leppink J, Broers NJ, Imbos T, van der Vleuten CP, Berger MP. The
effect of guidance in problem-based learning of statistics. J Exp Educ 82:
391– 407, 2014.
25. Loyens SM, Magda J, Rikers RJ. Self-directed learning in problembased learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educ
Psychol Rev 20: 411– 427, 2008.
27. Lumpe AT, Staver JR. Peer collaboration and concept development:
learning about photosynthesis. J Res Sci Teach 32: 71–98, 1995.
28. Maudsley G. Roles and responsibilities of the problem based learning
tutor in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Br Med J 318: 657– 661,
1999.
29. Mayo WP, Donnelly MB, Schwartz RW. Characteristics of the ideal
problem-based learning tutor in clinical medicine. Eval Health Profess 18:
124 –136, 1995.
30. McParland M, Noble LM, Livingston G. The effectiveness of problembased learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. Med Educ 38: 859 – 867, 2004.
31. Mergendoller JR, Maxwell NL, Bellisimo Y. The effectiveness of
problem-based instruction: a comparative study of instructional methods
and student characteristics. Interdiscipl J Problem Based Learn 1: 5, 2006.
32. Minner DD, Levy AJ, Century J. Inquiry-based science instruction–
what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984
to 2002. J Res Sci Teach 47: 474 – 496, 2010.
33. Pea RD. Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. Distributed cognitions. Psychol Educ Consider. 47– 87, 1993.
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00082.2015 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from http://advan.physiology.org/ by 10.220.33.6 on July 28, 2017
dynamic motivates the individuals to come to class prepared to
discuss the day’s material so that they can make a meaningful
contribution, thereby stimulating interest, self-directed learning and a more productive classroom environment. Finally,
clearly defined learning goals (i.e., hypothesis generation, data
analysis, and critical thinking skills) help to keep low-achieving students on task, interested, and motivated to learn (14, 15).
Formative assessment and instructional scaffolding are critical to ensure student success in PBL environments, and this is
especially true in low-achieving students (3). The effectiveness
and benefits of scaffolding in constructivist methods has been
eloquently reviewed (18). Formative assessment is an essential
tool for instructors to identify conceptual areas of need, and in
OPBI this is incorporated into daily classroom activities of
small groups and formal class discussions. To maximize the
effect of these tools it is imperative to design them to work
together in a dynamic way, so that scaffolding is responsive to
formative assessment. In conclusion, these data demonstrate
that low-achieving students benefit from the motivating, simulating, and supportive nature of OPBI. This instructional
method promotes success in this population of students. Future
research on this instructional method is designed to help
elucidate the potential mechanisms by which lower-achieving
students improve performance from OPBI.
333
How We Teach: Generalizable Education Research
334
OPEN PROBLEM-BASED INSTRUCTION ELEVATES LOW-ACHIEVING STUDENTS
41. Şendağ S, Odabaşı HF. Effects of an online problem based learning
course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills.
Comput Educ 53: 132–141, 2009.
42. Spencer JN. New directions in teaching chemistry: a philosophical and
pedagogical basis. J Chem Educ 76: 566, 1999.
43. Springer L, Stanne ME, Donovan SS. Effects of small-group learning on
undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a
meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 69: 21–51, 1999.
44. Strobel J, van Barneveld A. When is PBL more effective? A metasynthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms.
Interdiscipl J Problem Based Learn 3: 4, 2009.
45. Sungur S, Tekkaya C. Effects of problem-based learning and traditional
instruction on self-regulated learning. J Educ Res 99: 307–320, 2006.
46. Vernon DT, Blake RL. Does problem-based learning work? A metaanalysis of evaluative research. Acad Med 68: 550 –563, 1993.
47. Wilkerson L, Gijselaers WH. Bringing Problem-Based Learning to
Higher Education: Theory and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
1996.
48. Woods DR. Problem-Based Learning: How to Gain the Most From PBL.
Waterdown, ON, Canada: DR Woods, 1994.
Advances in Physiology Education • doi:10.1152/advan.00082.2015 • http://advan.physiology.org
Downloaded from http://advan.physiology.org/ by 10.220.33.6 on July 28, 2017
34. Rotgans JI, Schmidt HG. Situational interest and academic achievement
in the active-learning classroom. Learn Instruct 21: 58 – 67, 2011.
35. Ruban L, Reis SM. Patterns of self-regulatory strategy use among
low-achieving and high-achieving university students. Roeper Rev 28:
148 –156, 2006.
36. Salomon G. No distribution without individuals’ cognition: a dynamic
interactional view. In: Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, edited by Salomon G, Perkins D. New York:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993, p. 111–138.
37. Schmidt HG. Problem-based learning: rationale and description. Med
Educ 17: 11–16. 1983.
38. Schmidt HG, Loyens SM, Van Gog T, Paas F. Problem-based learning
is compatible with human cognitive architecture: commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educ Psychol 42: 91–97, 2007.
39. Schmidt HG, Rotgans JI, Yew EH. The process of problem-based
learning: what works and why. Med Educ 45: 792– 806, 2011.
40. Schmidt HG, Van der Molen HT, Te Winkel WW, Wijnen WH.
Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: a meta-analysis of
curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educ Psychol
44: 227–249, 2009.