This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Sains Malaysia]

On: 18 March 2014, At: 02:39

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovations in Education and Teaching

International
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20

Problembased learning in a higher

education environmental biotechnology
course
a

Jeanie Marklin Reynolds & Dawson R. Hancock

Department of English , The University of North Carolina ,

Greensboro, NC, USA
b

Department of Educational Leadership , The University of North

Carolina , Charlotte, NC, USA
Published online: 11 May 2010.

To cite this article: Jeanie Marklin Reynolds & Dawson R. Hancock (2010) Problembased learning
in a higher education environmental biotechnology course, Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 47:2, 175-186, DOI: 10.1080/14703291003718919
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703291003718919

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

Vol. 47, No. 2, May 2010, 175186

Problem-based learning in a higher education environmental

biotechnology course
Jeanie Marklin Reynoldsa and Dawson R. Hancockb*
a
Department
bDepartment

of English, The University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC, USA;

of Educational Leadership, The University of North Carolina,
Charlotte, NC, USA

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

Innovations
10.1080/14703291003718919
RIIE_A_472413.sgm
1470-3297
Original
Taylor
202010
47
dhancock@uncc.edu
DawsonHancock
000002010
&
and
Article
Francis
(print)/1470-3300
Francis
in Education and Teaching
(online) International

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a teaching/learning strategy through which

students learn course content by solving real-world problems associated with the
course material. Although the benefits of PBL have been amply demonstrated in
the medical field and other selected subject areas, few studies have examined
PBLs potential contributions in subjects that combine content from multiple
disciplines. To address this issue, the current study explored the differential effects
of PBL versus lecture-based learning on the achievement, problem-solving skills,
and attitudes toward instructional strategies of undergraduate students enrolled in
a newly created environmental biotechnology course. Data collected through
quizzes, scenarios, surveys, and interviews revealed greater achievement,
problem-solving skills, and positives attitudes toward the learning process of
students exposed to PBL. Potential implications are discussed.
Keywords: problem-based learning; higher education learning

Introduction
When will we ever use this in the real world? is a common refrain among many
college students. In recent years, some educators have developed teaching strategies
designed to reduce the potential incongruence between real world and classroom
requirements. One such strategy is problem-based learning (PBL) (Barrows, 1998,
2001). Active construction of knowledge in response to and in interaction with reallife problems forms the basis of PBL. In that sense, PBL parallels the views of Plato
and Socrates who required students to think, ask questions, retrieve answers, and search
for and debate new ideas in a scholarly environment (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993). PBL
also incorporates John Deweys and Jerome Bruners emphasis on constructivist and
discovery learning in which students actively construct knowledge through self-discovery rather than as a result of the professor disseminating information (Schmidt, 1993).
Although there are varying claims regarding when PBL first evolved, in the 1960s
Barrows (1994) recognised that medical students sometimes failed to apply their textbook knowledge during their hospital internships. In response, Barrows suggested that
medical students anchor their knowledge around clinical problems rather than solely
around books. By working with actual patients, analysing symptoms, and determining
the information they would need to properly diagnose an ailment, Barrows demonstrated that activation of prior knowledge in real-world contexts strengthened
*Corresponding author. Email: dhancock@uncc.edu
ISSN 1470-3297 print/ISSN 1470-3300 online
2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14703291003718919
http://www.informaworld.com

176

J. Marklin Reynolds and D.R. Hancock

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

students reasoning processes when making medical diagnoses. Although the theoretical base for PBL is compelling, little research has been conducted on the impact of
PBL in interdisciplinary courses outside the schools of medicine. However, many
college and university educators believe that students in disciplines other than the
medical field can also benefit from negotiating real-world problems as their primary
vehicle for learning.

Problem-based learning
In a PBL classroom, the professor provides a loosely constructed, real-world problem,
and then relinquishes centre-stage to facilitate the process of students uncovering
knowledge which will lead to a plausible solution. PBL assumes that the professor is
not the only person in the room with noteworthy information; students must use their
own knowledge and experiences in order to solve problems while the professor participates in discussions and often provides mini-lectures to convey pertinent information
that will propel students forward. In other words, the professor encourages students to
become active participants in their learning, creates lessons based on loosely structured problems, reinforces the value of students existing knowledge, stimulates
students initiative, and provides guidance that helps students solve problems
(Samford University, 2005). Although PBL has acquired different forms in many
college and university classrooms, according to Barrows and Kelson (1993) and Duch
(1996), most practices involve the following processes:

A real-world problem is presented to teams of students who assess how

well they are prepared to solve the problem with their previously acquired
knowledge;
The students refine the nature of the problem and outline issues related to the
problem that they do not understand;
The students collectively prioritise the issues and plan who, when, where, and
how these issues will be investigated within the group;
The students collectively attempt to solve the problem, exploring previous
learning issues and establishing new issues as they progress in solving the problem;
The students then synthesise their collective thoughts and decide upon the best
solution to the problem; and
After finishing their work, the students evaluate themselves, their peers, and the
instructional process for the purpose of deciding how they may improve their
performance in the future.

Several researchers have explored the impact of PBL on student achievement and
attitudes. For example, Dochy, Segers, van der Bossche, and Gijbels (2003) metaanalysis of 43 empirical studies of PBL in higher education revealed a robust positive
effect of PBL with respect to both knowledge acquisition and skill development.
Albanese and Mitchells (1993) 20-year meta-analysis of studies comparing PBL and
conventional instruction in medical schools found that: (1) medical students thought
that PBL environments were more nurturing and enjoyable; and (2) graduates of PBLbased programmes performed as well and often better on clinical evaluations. Vernon
and Blakes (1993) five separate meta-analyses of 35 studies from 19 institutions

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

177

found that PBL was significantly superior with respect to students attitudes and
opinions and measures of students clinical performance. In these studies, PBL
increased conceptual understanding, fostered critical thinking through problem
solving, developed attitudes consistent with life-long learning, and enhanced problemsolving abilities that could be applied to real-world situations. However, these studies
focused on students entering the medical and paramedical professions, which not only
have been using the PBL model for many years, but also have instructors who have
established a repertoire of material to support their PBL efforts.
PBL is not merely about the curricular structure, but also about the cognitive and
inquiry processes students must engage in order to solve real-world problems. The
curricular structure of PBL has not always produced positive outcomes. Researchers
have found that PBL can be frustrating for students and professors alike. Students are
sometimes frustrated because they are not completely confident in the process of finding a potential solution without significant direction from their professor. Professors
are sometimes conflicted because it may seem easier to provide definitive answers to
students questions instead of allowing the students to struggle with the process of
uncovering the information on their own. To avoid these negative outcomes, many
professors revert to traditional lecture-based learning.
Lecture-based learning
The lecture, a form of direct instruction, tends to be highly structured and professordirected (MacIver & Kemper, 2002). Although lecture formats vary, three basic
elements usually emerge introduction, information presentation, and lesson ending.
In the introduction, lecturers prepare students for what they are about to learn by
activating relevant prior knowledge around established lesson objectives. During
lesson presentation, professors address a finite amount of information in a logical
sequence and provide students with limited time for questions and feedback or to
practice what they have learned under professor supervision. During lesson ending,
lecturers often summarise key points in the lesson and announce homework
requirements.
Lectures are one of the oldest and most widely used instructional methods in
higher education (Kromrey & Purdom, 1995). Researchers have demonstrated that
lectures are often effective for presenting up-to-date information, succinctly synthesising multiple sources, covering large quantities of material quickly, and focusing on
key concepts and ideas (McKeachie, 2002). Rosenshine (1987) found that students
exposed to lectures spent large amounts of time on academic tasks and often achieved
at high levels. A large number of classroom and laboratory studies support the effectiveness of lectures, particularly if professors are sensitive to students individual
learning needs and adjust their teaching to those needs (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986).
The lecture has been shown as an efficient means to convey information to large
groups (Bligh, 2000). Unfortunately, lecture-based learning in higher education classrooms has sometimes been shown to stymie creative thinking and problem solving
(Hsieh & Knight, 2008; McKeachie, 2002). Students often depend on the professor to
provide them with the information they need in order to succeed in class. During a
lecture, students act as receptacles which are void of knowledge on the topic; through
lecture, the professor fills the students with information (Freire, 2003). As a result,
lecturers sometimes feel compelled to perform the roles of producer, comedian, entertainer, and informer in order to maintain students attention (McKeachie, 2002).

178

J. Marklin Reynolds and D.R. Hancock

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

Relative to lecture-based learning, positive outcomes are more often associated

with PBL than are negative outcomes; however, few studies to date have examined
the impact of PBL in higher education courses that combine content from multiple
disciplines outside the field of medicine. Because the combination of multiple content
areas into one course is often quite challenging, traditional lecture-based learning is
typically practised in these classrooms. One field involving multiple disciplines in
which PBL may contribute to positive learning outcomes is environmental
biotechnology.
Environmental biotechnology
Environmental biotechnology is a relatively new field of study involving the
integration of sciences and engineering to harness the biochemical potential of microorganisms, plants and their component parts to restore and preserve the environment
and to sustain the use of resources. Because environmental biotechnology problems
are often characterised by unpredictable challenges for which there are no off-theshelf solutions, workers in these environments must be creative and innovative
problem solvers. As a result, institutions of higher education tasked to prepare professionals for these environments must ensure that graduates of their environmental
biotechnology programmes are inventive and resourceful (de Camargo Ribeiro & da
Graca Nicoletti Mizukami, 2005). Toward that end, professors teaching environmental biotechnology courses must use instructional strategies that foster the development
of problem-solving skills. PBLs on-going contributions to the enhancement of
students creativity and critical thinking skills in disciplines other than environmental
biotechnology suggest that PBL may yield similar outcomes in environmental
biotechnology classrooms. Very little research has been conducted regarding interdisciplinary PBL programmes outside the medical and paramedical fields. This lacuna is
problematic in that it is difficult to generalise findings from studies conducted within
the medical field because PBL has become a well-established teaching tool within the
context of that particular discipline. As a result, instructors are prepared with a variety
of resources from which to design scenarios and medical students have a better sense
of what PBL is and how it functions to prepare them for their chosen career-path.
Outside the medical field, both instructors and students have few resources and little
prior experience with PBL in their content area. Thereby, there remains a gap in the
current literature regarding interdisciplinary uses of PBL outside the medical field.
Objectives
This study compared the effects of PBL and lecture-based learning on students
achievement, problem-solving skills, and attitudes in an undergraduate environmental
biotechnology course. Based on previous research, we hypothesised that undergraduate students enrolled in an environmental biotechnology course would demonstrate
greater achievement, enhanced problem-solving skills, and more positive attitudes
toward learning when exposed to PBL than when exposed to lectures.
Methodology
Twenty-five junior and senior undergraduate students (nine female and 16 male)
enrolled in an environmental biotechnology course at a large, public university in the

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

179

southeastern USA participated in this study. During the first three weeks of the course,
six students disenrolled for various personal reasons unrelated to this study.
The goal of this interdisciplinary course was for students to learn biology and civil
engineering concepts that would lead to their success in environmental biotechnology
work settings. In accordance with University policy, Internal Review Board permission was obtained and students consented to be a part of the study.
The students met for 80 minutes twice a week for 16 weeks. The course was
conducted in a four-block sequence alternating between lecture-based learning (blocks
1 and 3) and PBL (blocks 2 and 4). Classic activities of lecture and PBL were used in
the course. That is, during the lecture blocks (1 and 3), the professor prepared the
students for what they were about to learn by activating relevant prior knowledge
around established lesson objectives, offered predetermined material while providing
students with limited time to ask questions, and then summarised key concepts before
issuing a homework assignment. During the PBL blocks (2 and 4), students were
presented with a real-world problem at the beginning of the first lesson of the block
and used the remainder of the block to work in groups to solve the problem. At the
end of each PBL block, each group submitted a possible solution to their problem to
the professors.
At the end of each block, each of the three outcome variables students achievement, problem-solving skills, and attitudes toward learning was assessed. Students
achievement levels were assessed using criterion-based, professor-created quizzes
(Appendix 1). The students problem-solving skills were assessed using problembased, real-world scenarios (Appendix 2). Students attitudes toward learning environments used in the course were assessed using a 20-item survey (Appendix 3).
Using an individual interview guide (Appendix 4), external evaluators also conducted
random, semi-structured interviews at the end of each block to better understand
students attitudes regarding the teaching methods. Using a focus group interview
guide (Appendix 5) at the end of the final three blocks, the evaluators interviewed
groups of students to gain immediate feedback on the students perceptions of the
instructional strategies.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for the students achievement assessed
by the criterion-based, professor-created quizzes; problem-solving skills assessed by
problem-based, real-world scenarios; and students attitudes toward PBL and lecture
assessed by the 20-item survey are reported in Table 1.
The paired samples t-test comparing the students achievement levels on quizzes
after the PBL blocks versus lecture-based learning blocks was statistically significant.
That is, students scores on the quizzes after having been exposed to PBL were
significantly higher than were the students scores on the quizzes after the lecture
blocks. Although these differences may not have been causally related, there did
appear to be a relationship between higher achievements during the PBL blocks. As
students stated during the focus groups and interviews: Lectures go too deep into the
material; We get lost on why we are doing this because there is so much information
whereas we get more experience with the material on a need-to-know basis during
PBL.
Similarly, the paired samples t-test examining the students problem-solving skills
assessed with the scenarios after the PBL blocks versus lecture-based learning blocks

180

J. Marklin Reynolds and D.R. Hancock

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and sample sizes of students achievement, problem
solving, and attitudes by learning environment (n = 19).
PBL

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

Mean

SD

Lecture
Mean

SD

Achievement
82.78 8.91 77.07 7.98
Problem solving
86.82 3.03 82.39 7.64
Attitudes
The use of problems
1.74 0.84 2.24 0.73
Working in groups
1.29 0.77 2.58 0.90
Communicating about environmental 1.34 0.80 2.55 0.94
biotechnology with group members
Peers as teachers
1.68 0.82 2.45 0.83
Working individually on assignments 1.74 0.86 2.00 0.88
Class discussions led by professor
1.81 0.95 1.68 0.75
Class discussions led by classmates
2.32 1.04 2.63 0.83
Lectures by the professor
1.86 0.94 1.68 0.61
The coursepack of readings
2.21 0.84 1.95 0.78
The use of electronic resources to find 1.13 0.55 1.95 0.72
information
Library resources, other than
2.26 1.36 2.42 1.03
electronic ones
The use of computers as an
1.16 0.65 1.68 0.78
investigative tool
Communicating literature and/or
1.50 0.87 2.08 0.71
research results
Participating in discussions
1.63 0.74 2.08 0.81
Writing about environmental
1.55 0.81 1.84 0.69
biotechnology
Working collaboratively with
1.32 0.69 2.47 1.02
classmates
Finding relevant information
1.55 0.88 1.81 0.69
Analysing and synthesising
1.44 0.91 1.84 0.75
information
Using computers for information
1.42 0.75 1.78 0.82
retrieval and data analysis
Thinking critically about
1.47 0.82 1.57 0.58
environmental biotechnology issues

Significance Effect size

*
*

0.64
0.58

*
*
*

0.59
1.43
1.28

0.92

1.14

0.67

0.67

0.56

1.13

0.30

0.44

Note: Effect size refers to the magnitude of the difference between the means of the PBL and Lecture
groups expressed on a standardised scale.
*Statistically significant difference at p < 0.05.

was statistically significant. That is, students problem-solving skills after having been
exposed to PBL were significantly greater than were the students problem-solving
skills after exposure to the lecture blocks. After the second block, student comments
during both individual interviews as well as during the focus group interview
indicated that the students felt that they were becoming better problem solvers using
PBL than with lecture. This response was evidenced in comments like the following:
With the PBL scenarios, Im able to apply what I understand before I get out of

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

181

school; In the real world there are multiple answers, just like in the scenarios; and
It [doing the scenarios] made me feel more confident about actually doing my future
job.
The paired samples t-tests examining the students attitudes toward PBL and
lecture after the combined PBL blocks and after the combined lecture blocks were
statistically significant for the following items: the use of problems; working in
groups; communicating about environmental biotechnology with group members;
peers as teachers; use of electronic resources to find information; use of computers as
an investigative tool; communicating literature and/or research results; working
collaboratively with classmates; and use of computers for information retrieval and
data analysis. That is, students believed that the use of problems, working in groups,
communicating about environmental biotechnology with group members, having
peers serve as teachers, using electronic resources to find information, and using
computers as an investigative tool contributed significantly more to their learning
during PBL lessons than did these features during lectures. Similarly, students
believed that PBL lessons contributed more than did lecture lessons to their abilities
to communicate literature and/or research results, work collaboratively with classmates, and use computers for information retrieval and data analysis.
Using qualitative research analysis techniques suggested by Bogdan and Biklen
(2003) and Wolcott (2001), we analysed the students transcribed comments collected
from the semi-structured individual interviews and from the two semi-structured focus
group interviews. This analysis involved organising the data into manageable units,
synthesising them, searching for trends or themes in the data, and determining their
relative levels of importance. The transcriptions from both the interviews and focus
groups were read in their entirety several times to gain a general sense of how the
students felt about the PBL and lecture learning environments. These readings led to
patterned regularities (i.e. patterns of responses that appeared more frequently than
others) specifically related to students attitudes about the learning environments.
Analysis of the qualitative data suggested that students appreciated and learned
more from PBL than from lectures. Representing the opinions of many students
regarding PBL, one student commented, Ive gotten a lot out of it [PBL]. It has reinforced much of what Ive learned in the past and put it in new contexts. Another
student said, Compared to lectures, I think I learn much more when I can work on
problems and talk to others about them.
However, not all of the students in this study were completely appreciative of
PBL. Some students felt that information shared was not always accurate, that they did
not know what to expect for a grade, and that they were not always knowledgeable
enough to solve problems. One student stated, Lecture is just easier because the
professors tell you what is right and what they want you to know and what is going to
be on the test.
Conclusions and implications
Although this was a conservative implementation of PBL, the results of this study
demonstrate the viability of PBL in an environmental biotechnology higher education
course. The results of this study in regard to the students achievement and attitudes
toward PBL are in accordance with the findings of previous studies (Albanese &
Mitchell, 1993; Dochy et al., 2003; Vernon & Blake, 1993). In regard to the
students achievement, the scores on the quizzes after the PBL block were better than

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

182

J. Marklin Reynolds and D.R. Hancock

the scores during the lecture blocks. The quiz grades thereby support the findings of
the previous studies that PBL does seem to enhance student achievement. In addition,
students demonstrated greater problem-solving skills on scenarios after PBL than they
did on the scenarios after lecture. Once again, the scores on the scenarios reinforce the
findings that PBL does augment students problem-solving skills. Regarding student
attitudes, students were favourably pre-disposed to PBL. The favourable reports for
this study were again in alignment with the literature.
In multi-disciplinary fields of study such as environmental biotechnology, institutions of higher education must not only ensure that students graduate with the knowledge and skills required for graduation, but also with the ability to engage in creative
thinking and collective problem solving. PBL enhances learning while improving
ones problem-solving and collaborative skills in settings that approximate real-world
environmental biotechnology settings.
In an interdisciplinary course, it is difficult for each content area to be covered
equitably. It becomes even more difficult when students encounter a new learning
environment while they are learning content outside their field. In this particular study
we explored students in a multi-disciplinary classroom who were exposed to not only
content outside their field, but also to an alternative teaching style, PBL. While the
results of this study are favourable to PBL in the higher education classroom, we also
recognise that the study had a relatively small number of participants and only
spanned one semester. As a result, this study suggests several directions for further
investigation, such as implementing PBL earlier in the individual content areas before
attempting an interdisciplinary approach, and longitudinal studies to determine the
long-term effects of PBL. While no study is definitive, this study revealed the potential usefulness of PBL in environmental biotechnology learning environments.

Notes on contributors
Jeanie Marklin Reynolds completed her PhD in curriculum and instruction at the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte in 2007. Currently, she is the director of English education at the
University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her research interests include pre-service teacher
identity and English/language arts education.
Dawson R. Hancock is chair of the Department of Educational Leadership and a professor of
educational research at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he teaches several
graduate-level research courses. His current research interests include assessment and evaluation, curriculum design, student and faculty motivation, and leadership theory and application.
He has published articles in the Journal of Educational Research, Journal of Educational
Research & Policy Studies, Journal of Research and Development of Education, Educational
Technology Research and Development, Educational Research, Journal of Research on Childhood Education, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, NASSP Bulletin,
College Teaching, The Educational Forum, Teacher Education and Practice, and Journal of
General Education.

References
Albanese, M.A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its
outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 5281.
Barrows, H. (1994). Practice-based learning: Problem-based learning applied to medical
education. Springfield: Southern Illinois University Press.
Barrows, H. (1998). The essentials of problem-based learning. Journal of Dental Education,
62, 630633.

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

183

Barrows, H. (2001). Problem-based learning (PBL). Retrieved May 12, 2005, from Southern
Illinois University PBL Web site: http:/www.pbli.org/pbl
Barrows, H.S., & Kelson, A.M. (1993). Problem-based learning: A total approach to
education. Urbana: Illinois University Press.
Bligh, D.A. (2000). Whats the use of lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education (4th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
de Camargo Ribeiro, L.R., & da Graca Nicoletti Mizukami, M. (2005). Student assessment of
a problem-based learning experiment in civil engineering education. Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 131, 1318.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., van der Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based
learning: A meta-analysis. Learning Instruction, 3, 533568.
Duch, B.J. (1996). Problem-based learning in physics: The power of students teaching
students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 15, 326329.
Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York: Continuum.
Hsieh, C., & Knight, L. (2008). Problem-based learning for engineering students: An
evidence-based comparative study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(1), 2530.
Kromrey, J.D., & Purdom, D.M. (1995). A comparison of lecture, cooperative learning and
programmed instruction at the college level. Studies in Higher Education, 20, 341350.
MacIver, M.A., & Kemper, E. (2002). The impact of direct instruction on elementary
students reading achievement in an urban school district. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 7(2), 197220.
McKeachie, W.J. (2002). How to make lectures more effective. In P. Coryell (Ed.),
McKeachies teaching tips (11th ed., pp. 5269). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Rosenshine, B. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher Education,
38(3), 3436.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Witrock (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376391). New York: Macmillan.
Samford University. (2005). Problem based learning at Samford University. Retrieved May
15, 2005, from http://www.samford.edu/pbl/index.html
Schmidt, H.G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: Some explanatory notes.
Medical Education, 27, 422432.
Vernon, D.T.A., & Blake, R.L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis
of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68, 550563.
Wolcott, H.F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

184

J. Marklin Reynolds and D.R. Hancock

Appendix 1. Sample quiz

Answer the following questions. Each question is worth one-ninth of your grade on this quiz.
1. What is a biosensor?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using each of the following biosensor
detection reporter gene signals fluorescence versus bioluminescence?
3. What is a whole cell array and how would it be used as a biosensor?
4. What is a perceived ethical concern with using existing biosensors in the field?

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

5. What is a restriction endonuclease?

6. What was the gene that Omura et al. wanted to overexpress in their strain? What was their
rationale for wanting to do this (i.e., what was their experimental design strategy)?
7. Explain the conclusions drawn from the results in Table 1 (given on separate sheet)?
8. What did Omura et al. feel was the problem with current mercury-biosensors? To what
degree did their results solve this problem?
9. Belkin indicated that there are two types of bacterial toxicity bioassays. What is the major
advantage of each type?

Appendix 2. Sample scenario

This scenario is based on the following article:
Godia, F., Albiol, J., Montesinos, J.L., Perez, J., Creus, N., Cabello, F., Mengual, X., Montras,
A., & Alsseur, C. (2002). Melissa is a loop of interconnected bioreactors to develop life support
in space. Journal of Biotechnology, 99(3), 319330.
Additional information may be obtained from the following website: http://www.estec.esa.nl/
ecls/melissa/aboutmelissa.html.
1. In the experimental pilot system, the authors described changes in the efficiency of ammonia and/or nitrite removal linked to the spatial distribution of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter
in the packed column.
(a) Assuming you had to continue to use the Biostyr beads, can you suggest an alternate
way to develop the populations in the reactor so that you can better control the relative
locations of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter populations? Explain your method and your
rationale.
(b) Assuming you can change the immobilisation matrix from beads to another base (e.g.
ceramic beads, activated carbon) or that you can change the method of immobilisation
completely from adsorption to something else (e.g., alginate gelation), can you suggest
an alternate way to develop the populations in the reactor so that you can better control
the relative locations of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter populations? Explain your
method and your rationale.
2. The authors also note that some of the bacteria slough off of the biofilm and leave with the
liquid phase.
(a) Suggest a method other than FISH or PCR or culturing that you could use to assess any
population shifts evidenced by the bacteria in the liquid phase over time in the pilot
reactor. Assume that biofilms of both organisms would have an equal propensity for
sloughing.

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

185

(b) Comment on what information you could glean from 2(a). Will your results reflect the
relative number of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria in the reaction at each time
point? Why or why not?

Appendix 3. Student survey

Instructions: Using the scale below, circle the number that corresponds to the extent to which
you agree that the following activities assisted your learning during the most recent block of
this course.

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

Strongly
Strongly
agree Agree Neutral Disagree disagree
1.
2.
3.

The use of problems

Working in groups
Communicating about environmental
biotechnology with your group members
4. Peers as teachers
5. Working individually on assignments
6. Class discussions led by the professor
7. Class discussions led by classmates
8. Lectures by the professor
9. The coursepack of readings
10. The use of electronic resources to find
information
11. Library resources, other than electronic
ones
12. The use of computers as an investigative
tool

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

Instructions: Indicate the extent to which you agree that the most recent block of this course
helped you improve your skills in the following areas.

Strongly
Strongly
agree Agree Neutral Disagree disagree
13. Communicating literature and/or research
results
14. Participating in discussions
15. Writing about environmental biotechnology
16. Working collaboratively with classmates
17. Finding relevant information
18. Analysing and synthesising information
19. Using computers for information retrieval
and data analysis
20. Thinking critically about environmental
biotechnology issues

1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5

186

J. Marklin Reynolds and D.R. Hancock

Appendix 4. Individual interview guide

Please answer the following questions. Your individual responses will not be shared with your
professors and will not impact your course grade in any way.
1. In your opinion, what teaching strategies did the professors primarily use during the last
three weeks of this course (e.g., lecture, problem-based groups, etc.)?
2. How effective were these teaching strategies used by your professors? Explain.
3. What were some of the positive aspects of the teaching strategies used by your professors?
What were some of the negative aspects?

Downloaded by [Universiti Sains Malaysia] at 02:39 18 March 2014

4. Do you want the teaching strategies used by your professors to change during the next block
of this course? In what ways?

Appendix 5. Focus group interview guide

With your group members, please answer the following questions. Your responses will not be
shared with your professors and will not impact your course grade in any way.
1. Which of the most recent classroom strategies have been working? Why?
2. Which of the most recent classroom strategies have not been working? Why?
3. What classroom strategies do you want to experience in the upcoming block of instruction?
Why?