Problem- and case-based learning in science: An introduction to distinctions, values, and outcomes

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 364-372

  Allchin, Douglas ^a  

^a SHiPS Resource Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COOPERATION; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; PROBLEM BASED LEARNING; SCIENCE; STUDENT; TEACHING;

COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; SCIENCE; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

EID: 84883862689     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.12-11-0190     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Allchin D (1996). How not to teach history in science. J Coll Sci Teach 30, 33-37. Reprinted in The Pantaneto Forum 7 (July 2002). www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue7/allchin.htm (accessed 8 November 2012).
2. Allchin D (1997). The power of history as a tool for teaching science. In: History and Philosophy of Science: A Means to Better Scientific Literacy?, ed. A Dally, T Nielsen, and F Reiß, Loccum: Evangelische Akadamie Loccum, 70-98. See also www1.ships.umn.edu/tool.htm (accessed 8 November 2012).
3. Allchin D (2004). Pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Sci Educ 13, 179-195.
4. Allchin D (2009a).Debating Galileo's Dialogue: The 1633 Trial, Minneapolis, MN: SHiPS Resource Center. www1.galileotrial.net (accessed 8 November 2012).
5. Allchin D (2009b). Debating Rachel Carson's Silent Spring:ThePresident's Committee on Pesticides, 1963, Minneapolis, MN: SHiPS Resource Center. pesticides1963.net (accessed 8 November 2012).
6. Allchin D (2012). The Minnesota Case Study Collection. New historical inquiry cases for nature of science education. Sci Educ 21, 1263-1282.
7. American Chemical Society (2006). Chemistry in the Community, 5th ed., New York: Freeman.
8. Barnes LB, Christensen CR, Hansen A (1994). Teaching and the Case Method, 3rd ed., Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
9. Barrows HS (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Med Educ 20, 481-486.
10. Barrows HS (1994). Problem-Based Learning Applied to Medical Education, Springfield: Southern Illinois University Press.
11. Barrows HS (1998). The essentials of problem-based learning. J Dental Educ 62, 630-633.
12. Bonwell C, Eison J (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom, AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.1, Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass.
13. Butler R, Inman D, Lobb D (2005). Problem-based learning and the medical school: another case of the emperor's new clothes? Adv Physiol Educ 29, 194-196.
14. Cliff WH, Nesbitt LM (2005). An open and shut case? Contrasting approaches to case study design. J Coll Sci Teach 34, 14-17.
15. Conant JB (1947). On Understanding Science, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16. Craven JA (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. Int J Sci Educ 24, 785-802.
17. Crawford B (2012). Moving the essence of inquiry into the classroom: engaging teachers and students in authentic research. InIssues and Challenges in Science Education Research: Moving Forward, ed. KCD Tan and M Kim, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer25-42.
18. Dochy F, Segers M, Van den Bossche P, Gijbels D (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: a metaanalysis. Learn Instruct 13, 533- 568.
19. Duch B, Groh S, Allen D (2001). The Power of Problem-Based Learning, Sterling, VA: Stylus.
20. Dunn E, Driscoll M, Siems D, Karnak D (2009). Darwin, the Copley Medal and the Rise of Naturalism, New York: Longman.
21. Eberlein T, Kampmeier J, Minderhout V, Moog RS, Platt T, VarmaNelson P, White HB (2008). Pedagogies of engagement: a comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 36, 262-273.
22. Fisher R, Ury W, Patton B (1991). Getting to Yes, 2nd ed., New YorkPenguin.
23. Gentner D, Colhoun J (2008). Analogical processes in human thinking and learning. In: Towards a Theory of Thinking, ed. B GlatzederV Goel, and A Muller, Berlin: Springer, 35-48.
24. Gentner D, Loewenstein J, Thompson L(2003).Learning and transfera general role for analogical encoding. J Educ Psychol 95, 393-408.
25. Goldman AI (1999). Knowledge in a Social World, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26. Goldman AI (2002). Pathways to Knowledge: Public and PrivateOxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27. Gonzales NA (1998). A blueprint for problem posing. School Sci Math 4, 448-456.
28. Hagen J, Allchin D, Singer F (1996). Doing Biology, Glenview, ILHarperCollins.
29. Herreid CF (1998). Sorting potatoes for Miss Bonner. J Coll Sci Teach 28, 236-239.
30. Herreid CF (2003). The death of problem-based learning? J Coll Sci Teach 32, 364-366.
31. Herreid CF (2005). The interrupted case method. J Coll Sci Teach 354-5.
32. Hmelo-Silver CE (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 16, 235-266.
33. Irwin AR (2000). Historical case studies: teaching the nature of science in context. Sci Educ 84, 5-26.
34. Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1991). Learning Together and Alone, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35. Jonassen DH (1997). Instructional design models of well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving. Educ Technol Res Dev 45, 65-94
36. Jungck J (1985). A problem-posing approach to biology education Am Biol Teach 47, 264-266.
37. Klassen S (2006). The application of historical narrative in science learning: the Atlantic cable story. Sci Educ 16, 335-352.
38. Kolodner JL, Hmelo CE, Narayanan NH (1996). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 1996
39. International Conference on Learning Sciences, ed. DC Edelson and EA Domeshek, Charlottesville, VA: American Association for Computers in Education, 188-195.
40. Kuhn TS (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41. Latour B (1987). Science in Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42. Lederman NG, Wade P, Bell RL (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science. Sci Educ 7, 595-615.
43. Leonard WH, Penick JE, Speziale B (1998). Bio Comm: Biology in a Community Context, Cincinnati, OH: Thomson.
44. Leonard WH, Penick JE, Speziale B (2008). BioComm: Biology in a Community Context, Armonk, NY: It's About Time/Herff Jones Education Division.
45. Longino H (1990). Science as Social Knowledge, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46. Lunberg MA, Levin BB, Harrington HL (1999). Who Learns What from Cases and How? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47. Major CH, Palmer B (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of problembased learning in higher education: lessons from the literature. Acad Exchange Quart 5.
48. Mayer R (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. Am Psychol 59, 14-19.
49. Michael J (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Adv Physiol Educ 30, 159-167.
50. Minstrell J, Kraus P (2005). Guided inquiry in the science classroom. In: How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom, ed. MS Donovan and JD Bransford, Washington, DC: National Research Council, 475-513.
51. Mix MC, Farber P, King KI (1996). Biology: The Network of Life, 2nd ed., Glenview, IL: HarperCollins.
52. Montgomery K (2010). Debating Glacial Theory, 1800-1870, Minneapolis, MN: SHiPS Resource Center. glacialtheory.net (accessed 8 November 2012).
53. Nash LK (1951). An historical approach to the teaching of science. J Chem Educ 28, 146-151.
54. National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.
55. Osborne J (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science 328, 463-466.
56. Panitz T (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: comparing the two definitions helps understand the nature of interactive learning. Cooperative Learn College Teach 8. See also http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm.
57. Postlethwait JH, Hopson JL (2003). Explore Life, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
58. Savery JR (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdisc J Prob-Based Learn 1, 9-20.
59. Scharmann LC, Smith MU, James MC, Jensen M (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. J Sci Teach Educ 16, 27-41.
60. Schommer M (1990). Effects of belief about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. J Educ Psychol 82, 498-504.
61. Schwartz RS, Lederman NG, Crawford BA (2004). Views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Sci Educ 88, 610-645.
62. Schwartz T, Bunce DM, Silberman RG, Stanitski CL, Stratton WJ, Zipp AP (1997). Chemistry in Context, 2nd ed., Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown/American Chemical Society.
63. Seker H, Welsh LC (2005). The comparison of explicit and implicit ways of using history of science for students understanding of the nature of science. Paper presented at the Eighth International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference (IHPST), held July 2005, Leeds, UK.
64. Solomon J, Duveen J, Scot L, McCarthy S (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: action research in the classroom. J Res Sci Teach 29, 409-421.
65. Solomon M (2001). Social Empiricism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66. Tewksbury BJ (1999). Beyond hazards and disasters: teaching students geoscience by probing the underlying influence of geology on human events. Sci Educ 8, 645-663.
67. White H (1992). Introduction to biochemistry: a different approach. Biochem Educ 20, 22-23.
68. Wong SL, Hodson D, Kwan J, Yung BHY (2008). Turning crisis into opportunity: enhancing student-teachers' understanding of nature of science and scientific inquiry through a case study of the scientific research in severe acute respiratory syndrome. Int J Sci Educ 30, 1417-1439.