Undergraduates' Lived Experience of Project-/problem-Based Learning in Introductory Biology

Adv Physiol Educ 46: 162–178, 2022.
First published January 6, 2022; doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021
EDUCATION RESEARCH
Undergraduates’ lived experience of project-/problem-based learning in

introductory biology
Audrey Webster,1 Alana Metcalf,1 Lauren Kelly,1 Ave Bisesi,2 Miranda Marnik-Said,1 Carol Colbeck,3
Robert Marine,3 Marcelo Vinces,2,4 Amy Campbell,1 and Taylor Allen1
1
Biology Department, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio; 2Center for Learning, Education, and Research in the Sciences, Oberlin
College, Oberlin, Ohio; 3Organizational Change Consultants, Sequim, Washington; and 4Weinberg College Adviser,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Abstract
Recommendations for enhancing scientific literacy, inclusivity, and the ecosystem for innovation call for transitioning from
teacher-centered to learner-centered science classrooms, particularly at the introductory undergraduate level. Yet little is docu-
mented about the challenges that undergraduates perceive in such classrooms and the students’ ways of navigating them. Via
mixed methods, we studied undergraduates’ lived experience in one form of learner-centered teaching, hybrid project-/problem-
based learning (PBL), in introductory organismal biology at a baccalaureate institution. Prominent in qualitative analyses of stu-
dent interviews and written reflections were undergraduates’ initial expectation of and longing for an emphasis on facts and
transmission of them. The prominence diminished from semester’s middle to end, as students came to value developing ideas,
solving problems collaboratively, and engaging in deep ways of learning. Collaboration and personal resources such as belief in
self emerged as supports for these shifts. Quantitative analyses corroborated that PBL students transformed as learners, moving
toward informed views on the nature of science, advancing in multivariable causal reasoning, and more frequently adopting
deep approaches for learning than students in lecture-based sections. The qualitative and quantitative findings portray the PBL
classroom as an intercultural experience in which culture shock yields over time to acceptance in a way supported by students’
internal resources and peer collaboration. The findings have value to those seeking to implement PBL and other complex-learn-
ing approaches in a manner responsive to the lived experience of the learner.
causal reasoning; epistemology; learning approaches; problem-based learning; project-based learning
INTRODUCTION some studies have examined students’ experience of PBL in

professional school (for review, Ref. 9) and secondary school
Learner-centered instruction aligns with ways people learn (e.g., Ref. 10), undergraduates’ lived experience of PBL in in-
deeply and ways instructors can teach inclusively to advance troductory biology courses has not been a focus of study to
equity in learning and outcomes (1–3). Consequently, such our knowledge. Rather than a purely descriptive account of
instruction is emphasized in reports and recommendations students’ inner experiences, we undertook an interpretative
on transforming undergraduate education in science, tech- phenomenological study, transcending the particulars to get
nology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; e.g., Refs. 4, 5). at the meaning behind the experiences, since it is the mean-
Understanding students’ experience in a learner-centered ing that might benefit faculty seeking to implement PBL or
classroom is critical, since in such an environment the other forms of learner-centered instruction. We additionally
instructor’s role is to guide learning in a way responsive to used quantitative methods as a form of triangulation to gauge
students’ shifting emotions, motivations, and impasses rather trustworthiness of the qualitative findings. Before presenting
than to transmit information. To advance understanding of findings, we briefly describe PBL, consider key facets of class-
students’ lived experience in a transformed classroom, in an room culture and the notion of culture shock, and offer our
introductory organismal biology course we studied how mixed-methods purpose statement.
undergraduates negotiate hybrid problem-based and project-
PBL and Motivation for Implementation
based learning (PBL). Evidence of PBL’s potency to promote
deep learning is compelling (e.g., for review on project-based Drawing on earlier writings, we use PBL to mean learning
learning at postsecondary level, Ref. 6; for review on problem- prompted by projects and problems that elicit a purposeful
based learning at postsecondary level, Ref. 7; for review of intellectual inquiry motivating deep learning approaches
PBL in primary and secondary schools, Ref, 8). Although (11–13): “The essential point is that while the activity is in
Correspondence: T. Allen (taylor.allen@oberlin.edu).

Submitted 29 March 2021 / Revised 29 November 2021 / Accepted 23 December 2021
162 1043-4046/22 Copyright © 2022 the American Physiological Society.

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/advances (002.003.138.029) on June 14, 2023.
UNDERGRADUATES’ EXPERIENCE OF PBL
process the child or children so feel the purpose that it oper- facts or evolving, interrelated information) (for an overview of
ates as an inner urge to define the end, guide the pursuit, epistemologies in a STEM classroom, see Ref. 24; with respect
and supply the drive” (Ref. 13, p. 284). In PBL, an engaging, to cultural differences across disciplines, see Ref. 25). The PBL
open-ended or intentionally loosely structured challenge— classroom represents a culture in which knowledge is con-
problem or project—is used to capture the intrinsic and deep structed by learners rather than transmitted by instructor.
motivations of students, who formulate learning goals, Knowledge is justified individually by the learner or group of
explore solutions, reconcile alternatives, and synthesize learners drawing on evidence rather than by authority. The
findings. For recent reviews, see Ref. 6 on project-based PBL classroom thus reflects epistemological stages advanced
learning, Ref. 14 on problem-based learning, and Ref. 15 on beyond that termed “basic dualism” by Perry (26) and
the relationship between problem-based learning and prob- “received knowledge” by Belenky et al. (27), in which an in-
lem-oriented project work. Biggs et al. (16) suggested prob- structor or other authority figure transmits unassailable infor-
lem-based learning as an antidote to the surface approaches mation. Reflective of this advanced epistemology, knowledge
to learning elicited in undergraduate classrooms (see also itself in the PBL classroom is interrelated and complex (e.g., in
Ref. 17). Empirical support for this suggestion exists. For its tentativeness and socio-cultural embeddedness) rather
example, Dolmans et al. (7) conducted a meta-analytic study than a collection of unchanging facts. When learners under-
of PBL situated primarily in professional schools such as en- stand the complexity and interrelatedness of scientific knowl-
gineering, nursing, or medicine. The meta-analysis revealed edge, they are considered to hold informed or expert views on
a positive small mean effect size of PBL on students’ adop- the nature of science (e.g., Ref. 28). To a student familiar with
tion of strategies and motivations characteristic of deep only the lecture-based classroom, PBL is culturally foreign,
learning. and immersion in it becomes an intercultural experience akin
In the implementation of PBL, the project or problem to studying abroad.
invites multiple potential solutions and calls on students col- Intercultural experiences can present real difficulties and
laboratively to identify and acquire the knowledge or skills consequently elicit three interconnected kinds of adjust-
required for successful solution. The process is richly scaf- ment, termed the ABCs: affect (i.e., feelings), behavior (i.e.,
folded, with the instructor creating the conditions conducive skills and behaviors bearing on ability to fit in), and cogni-
for learners’ construction of understanding and develop- tion (e.g., identity, values, self and other perceptions) (29,
ment of skills. One condition for such deep or complex learn- 30). Each kind of adjustment links directly or indirectly to
ing is thought to include the instructor’s posing questions stress, as captured in the term “culture shock.” Affective or
that bring students to an impasse, or cognitive disequili- psychological adjustments are explained directly through
brium. The impasse is resolved through reasoning causally, models of stress and coping (31), applicable to negative and
making predictions or conceptual comparisons, assimilating positive events alike, since both act as stressors (32).
new knowledge, and abstracting and transferring prior Adjustments of skills and behaviors—those needed for
knowledge. Although critical for deep learning (18), an “skilled performance” or facility in day-to-day situations—
impasse is associated most immediately with confusion, reflect social or cultural learning (e.g., Ref. 33). A clumsily
giving way to engagement or delight upon resolution but navigated encounter in the new culture prompts not only de-
shifting to frustration if the impasse persists (19). Thus, a velopment of new skills (behavioral adjustment) but also
second condition for deep learning is the instructor’s man- feelings of awkwardness and distress, thus linking the be-
agement of students’ confusion so that the impasse is pro- havioral category to the affective. The theoretical foundation
ductively resolved by the learners through effortful of the cognitive category of adjustment is drawn in part from
reasoning (19). In PBL as in other complex-learning envi- studies on identity (e.g., Ref. 34). Feeding into identity are
ronments, the responsive instructor continually makes values, attitudes, and expectations. Shifts in any of these can
diagnoses of students’ thinking, motivations, and emo- be transformative, yet, in calling into question a previously
tions and provides appropriate feedback to promote posi- accepted value, attitude, or expectation, an adjustment of
tive outcomes (20–23). Knowledge of students’ lived identity is stressful (e.g., in context of international study,
experiences of PBL would aid instructors in making diag- Ref. 35). The stress associated with these cognitive, behav-
noses accurate and feedback effective, yet such knowledge ioral, and affective adjustments during an intercultural expe-
is lacking at the introductory level in undergraduate life rience underlies culture shock.
sciences. To fill this gap, the present study sought to bring The notion of culture shock owes much to Oberg’s descrip-
to light student experiences in a PBL introductory course tive and atheoretical framing (36) of a person’s adjustment
on organismal biology. during an intercultural experience. Oberg envisioned four
stages in an extended intercultural experience:
Classroom Culture and Epistemologies
1) honeymoon (or fascination), when all seems new and
Classroom culture plays a role in shaping student experi- exciting;
ences, and culture differs between PBL and traditional, lecture- 2) culture shock, when confusion, anxiety, homesickness,
based classrooms. Culture includes, for example, pedagogical or anger can arise as new ways conflict with old ways;
approach (e.g., deductive or inductive), students’ motivations 3) recovery, when understanding of the new culture deep-
and strategies for learning (e.g., surface or deep), classroom rit- ens and sense of distress lessens; and
uals (e.g., students seated facing the instructor or facing one 4) adaptation (or acceptance), when cultural differences
another), and epistemological beliefs of instructor and students and similarities between old and new are accepted and
(e.g., believing knowledge to comprise unchanging, unrelated appreciated.
Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org 163

Empirical studies (29) suggest deviations from the undergraduates in an introductory organismal biology
sequence envisioned by Oberg. For example, research with course centered on PBL?” The philosophical perspective of
students studying abroad has cast doubt on the existence of a our mixed-methods approach is primarily interpretive.
honeymoon: even as soon as 24 hours into a study-abroad
program, distress can be strong and euphoria absent (Ref. 37; Mixed-Methods Purpose Statement
see also Ref. 29, p. 80–81). Despite shortcomings, Oberg’s With the intent to uncover undergraduates’ lived experi-
framework for an intercultural experience captures well the ence of PBL in an introductory biology course, we began
sense of an emotional upheaval that changes over time. The with qualitative analysis of students’ comments on end-of-
notion of culture shock has proven useful in understanding semester course ratings solicited by the institution. Analysis
the intercultural experience of international students, as well suggested that PBL represents for students a cultural shift in
as tourists, international workers, immigrants, and refugees learning approaches and ways of thinking. To understand
(for review, Ref. 29). To our knowledge, culture shock has not the nature of this cultural shift, we broadened the research
been used as a lens for understanding undergraduates’ to encompass a convergent mixed-methods approach, with
responses to a shift to learner-centered teaching independent qualitative and quantitative strands pursued concurrently in
of foreign travel. the same course context. Qualitative data came from stu-
Thus, we used this lens to study learners’ evolving emo- dents’ written reflections on their learning in the PBL course
tions in introductory biology centered on PBL. Emotions at semester’s middle and end as well as from interviews with
contribute to a richly interconnected system with motiva- a subset of the participants who volunteered shortly after
tions, learning strategies, engagement, and achievement (for semester’s end. The prompt for the written reflections, as
concise review, Ref. 38; for extensive treatment, Ref. 39). For well as some questions in the interview guide, explicitly
example, enjoyment positively predicts subsequent aca- framed the PBL classroom as an intercultural experience and
demic achievement, and the relation is reciprocal: achieve- explored the nature and extent of students’ perceived adjust-
ment predicts enjoyment (40). Motivation and self-regulated ments. Quantitative data comprised students’ responses on
learning are mediating or explanatory variables for the rela- published instruments. These allowed tests of three hypoth-
tion (41). It is this interconnected system that the PBL in- eses that arose from the initial qualitative analysis of com-
structor monitors to shepherd learners responsively through ments given on end-of-semester ratings. The hypotheses
impasses. hold that associated with PBL are 1) a shift toward deep-
learning motivations and strategies, 2) a shift toward
Research Question and Approach to It informed or expert views on nature of science, and 3) a
strengthening of causal reasoning. We administered the
Knowledge of the goals and emotions of undergraduate
instruments to students in PBL-based and lecture-based sec-
life science students in PBL is scant. Research that has
tions of the course. We linked quantitative and qualitative
been done on postsecondary students’ inner experiences
strands via convergent and holistic triangulation (47): con-
of PBL appears focused primarily on its use in professio-
vergent in the sense of identifying agreement between quan-
nal courses (for review, Ref. 9). The findings of Abrandt
titative and qualitative data; holistic in the sense of
Dahlgren and Dahlgren (42) suggest that students’ per-
obtaining a fuller understanding from the two strands than
spectives depend on field. For example, Swedish com-
from one individually. The rationale for pursuing the two
puter-engineering students in semesters 3 and 6 of a
strands was to obtain the corroboration and elaboration
four-year program leading to a Master’s degree wrestled
afforded by convergent, holistic triangulation.
with how to understand the relevant information in PBL.
Physiotherapy students in semesters 2 and 5 of a five-se-
mester program leading to a Bachelor’s degree grappled MATERIALS AND METHODS
with delimiting the challenge and deciding what to learn.
Context (Course, Participants, and Instructor)
Students’ uncertainty about what to know surfaced in
studies involving medical students: by Khoo et al. (43) in The protocol of the initial qualitative study was deemed
Singapore, Maudsley et al. (44) in the United Kingdom, exempt by the Institutional Review Board (IRB letter 13 May
and Walling et al. (45) in the United States. One published 2015). The protocol was subsequently amended to permit
study offers insights on United States undergraduates’ expansion of the qualitative strand and introduction of the
experience of an introductory biology course taught quantitative strand in the research design. The amendments
with inquiry-based learning, a learner-centered form of were approved (IRB letters dated 1 February 2016 and 31 May
instruction related to PBL in being inductive. This work 2018). Participants provided written, informed consent. The
found that students expected didactic teaching and per- naturalistic study was conducted in an introductory organis-
ceived the inquiry-based approach as frustrating and mal biology course at a private liberal arts institution. Taught
threatening to grades (46). each semester in typically three sections of 30–40 students
The paucity of knowledge on the ways undergraduates each, the course has no prerequisite, is open to all students,
experience and negotiate PBL in introductory life science fulfills certain general education requirements, and is the first
courses, in combination with the importance of such required course for the major in biology regardless of scores
knowledge for instructors seeking to implement PBL, on Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate
prompted our investigation. As a first step toward filling (IB) exam. Students on their own freely choose the section
the gap of knowledge, we took the following as our over- into which they enroll. Each year, one or two sections of the
arching research question: “What is the lived experience of course use hybrid project- and problem-based learning,
164 Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org

designated here PBL. Each PBL section is collaboratively 1) building a physical model of a cell and elaborating scal-
taught by two physiologists, each with 25 yr of teaching ex- ing inaccuracies;
perience, including the use of PBL in advanced undergradu- 2) mapping photosynthesis and muscle contraction to one
ate courses. Other sections are lecture based and given by or more core concepts of biology (4) and arguing in writ-
experienced professors. The PBL sections are marked in the ing for this mapping in a manner that is persuasive and
course catalog as using inquiry-based learning, with group- two-sided (50) as well as relational (51);
based problem solving in class. All sections of the course 3) formulating causal loop diagrams of xylem transport in
share an associated laboratory. Some comparisons are made trees and blood flow in humans and then using the dia-
between the PBL students and those in lecture-based sec- grams to evaluate drought for trees and postural
tions, designated here as “lecture students.” Table 1 offers a changes for humans; and
portrait of the PBL and lecture students. 4) evaluating the scientific merit and broader impact of
The use of research-based teaching practices in PBL ver- physiological research on the bodily toll of psychosocial
sions of the course was characterized with the Teaching stress and historical trauma (e.g., Japanese-American
Practices Inventory (48). The inventory has a maximal score incarceration during World War II; racism).
of 67, distributed among 8 categories. Points accumulate on The course typically comprised PBL four units, each span-
the basis of implementation of research-based practices; ning three or four weeks. In teams, students collaboratively
thus, higher scores reflect more extensive use of these prac- defined their knowledge gaps and learning goals pertaining
tices. The following lists category and score for PBL sections: to the multiweek project and managed the team’s effort with
timelines and self-defined responsibilities for products. For
1) course information (5 out of maximum of 6 points);
each class session, the instructor set the readings and learn-
2) supporting materials (2 out of 7 points);
ing objectives. Prior to a class session, students submitted
3) in-class features and practices (12 out of 15 points);
responses to queries on the readings. The responses
4) assignments (6 out of 6 points);
informed “just-in-time” teaching, e.g., taking the form of a
5) testing as well as feedback to and from students (10 out
scaffolded worksheet for completion by teams in class or,
of 13 points);
alternatively, a minilecture followed by multiple “think-pair-
6) other measures of learning, e.g., use of pre-/postconcept
share” activities. Some sessions were set aside for “jigsaw”
inventories or surveys (9 out of 10 points);
discussions, for development of skills (e.g., causal loop dia-
7) training and guidance of teaching assistants (3 out of 4
gramming), or for collaboration on the projects. Scaffolding
points); and
addressed scientific content, as well as skills, ranging from
8) collaboration and sharing in teaching (6 out of 6 points).
management of projects (e.g., timelines) to development of
Observations by a researcher trained with Classroom visual logic models (e.g., spider and causal loop diagrams).
Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS; Ref. Scaffolding also prompted students’ making connections to
49) yielded the following portrait, based on two PBL class prior knowledge or current events and news.
sessions in 2015 (research year 1): students spent 44% time
receiving information, 34% working, and 22% talking to Collection of Qualitative Data
class; the instructor spent 51% presenting, 44% guiding, and The first phase of the study involved qualitative analysis
5% doing administration. of students’ comments on institutional end-of-semester rat-
ings forms and began with the second offering of the course
Orchestration of PBL
in the PBL format, in 2015 (research year 1). Analysis of the
In PBL, a purposeful project or problem organizes and comments gave shape to the mixed-methods approach taken
motivates learning. The following gives examples of PBL in the second phase of research, encompassing 2016, 2018,
units used in the introductory biology course: and 2019 (research years 2, 3, and 4). The research was
Table 1. Characteristics of PBL and lecture students

PBL 2015, % of 78 students at PBL 2016, 2018, 2019, % of 187 Lecture 2016, 2018, 2019, % of 141
semester’s start and end students at semester’s start students at semester’s start
Sex: female (binary choice) 60 66 58
First generation 5 8 12
Hispanic 10 8 10
White 80 74 77
Black 6 9 10
Asian 9 12 11
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 1 1
Native American 0 1 4
Class standing
First year 83 79 91
Second year 13 16 7
Third or later year 4 5 2
First phase of research spanned 2015 and included only project-/problem-based learning (PBL) students (research year 1). Second phase
spanned 2016, 2018, and 2019 and included comparisons between PBL and lecture students (research years 2, 3, and 4). Of the 187 PBL
students in years 2016, 2018, and 2019 at semester’s start, 6 withdrew, giving a total at semester’s end of 181. Of the 141 lecture students
in years 2016, 2018, and 2019 at semester’s start, 5 withdrew, giving a total at semester’s end of 136.

Table 2. Timeline of collection of data

Research Year 1: 2015 PBL (2 Research Year 2: 2016 PBL (2 Research Year 3: 2018 PBL (2 Research Year 4: 2019 PBL
Assessment or Data sections: 38 and 40 students) sections: 35 and 37 students) sections: 36 and 43 students) (1 section: 30 students)
Comments from students’ 85% completed form
ratings of teaching form,
at semester’s end
Written reflection, at semes- 84% offered reflections at
ter’s middle and end middle; 99% at end
Interview, 2 mo after semes- 16% interviewed, first-come
ter’s end basis
R-SPQ-2F, at semester’s 85% completed survey (100% 95% completed survey (100%
end of 34 lecture students of 27 lecture students
completed survey, too) completed survey, too)
SUSSI, at semester’s start 92% completed Imagination 68% completed Imagination, 80% completed
and end and Observation Scales Observation, and Society Imagination and
(94% of 34 lecture stu- Scales (78% of 27 lecture Society Scales (91% of
dents completed scales, students completed 75 lecture students
too) scales, too) completed scales, too)
Multivariable causal reason- 68% completed survey 73% completed survey
ing, “reading improve-
ment problem”
The number of subjects in a particular assessment typically falls short of enrollment. Some students at time of data collection were
minors, unable to give consent. A few students opted out. Some students gave incomplete responses, notably in the reasoning assess-
ment, which asks for written explanations in addition to Yes-No answers. Some scales of instruments were omitted in particular years.
The interviews were limited in number. Across years in which two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) was administered,
overall participation by project-/problem-based learning (PBL) students was 90% (136 of 151 students across 2016 and 2018); in parallel
lecture sections of the course, participation was 100% (34 of 34 in 2016 and 27 of 27 in 2018). Across years in which one or more scales of
Student Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry Questionnaire (SUSSI) were completed, overall participation by PBL students
was 80% (144 of 181), and by lecture students it was 90% (122 of 136). For the “reading improvement problem,” overall participation was
70% (76 of 109 PBL students in 2018 and 2019).
spread over multiple years to avoid survey/assessment fa- they lacked anonymity and were collected only at semester’s
tigue among students. Table 2 presents the timeline and in- middle. The anonymous reflections received from the 79
formation on percentage of students participating in the PBL students in 2018 numbered 66 (84% of enrollment) at
research. semester’s middle and 78 (99%) at semester’s end.
After semester’s end in 2015 (research year 1), we obtained After semester’s end in 2018 (research year 3), external
students’ anonymous written comments on institutionally consultants (C. Colbeck and R. Marine) invited the 79
administered end-of-semester ratings of teaching. The insti- PBL students from the two PBL sections to participate in
tutional ratings form is numerical and covers workload, stu- interviews. Fifteen responded and scheduled interviews;
dents’ learning, instructor’s enthusiasm, grading, rapport, two were no-shows. Thirteen completed interviews and
and organization. The form comprised two pages, each offer- consent forms (1 consented orally as recorded on Zoom).
ing space for comments. The pages had been separated by Table 3 presents characteristics of the 13 volunteers. The
the time of our receiving them. The two-sheet form was pro- external consultants conducted interviews via videocon-
vided to each of the 78 students, 66 (85%) of whom returned ference (Zoom). The interview protocol had six short-
the sheets to the Biology Department. Of the 132 sheets (= 2 answer questions and four open-ended prompts (see
66), 78 had comments. APPENDIX ).
Qualitative analysis from the first phase of research
guided choice of methods and methodologies in phase 2. In
particular, phase 1 suggested that students found PBL to rep- Table 3. Characteristics of 13 volunteer interviewees
resent a cultural shift associated with deepened learning (research year 3)
approaches and altered understanding of the nature of sci-
11 in first year (85%)
ence. Thus, the second phase of research had two compo-
Class standing 2 in later years
nents, one qualitative (described subsequently) and one
quantitative (described in Collection and Analysis of Sex 9 female (69%) and 4 male
Nationality 4 international (31%)
Quantitative Data). Intended primary major 5 biology and/or biochemistry (39%)
At semester’s middle and end in 2018 (research year 3), we 6 other science (46%)
solicited students’ anonymous written reflections (150–250 2 social science (15%)
words each) on the transition to PBL. To frame the reflection, Career goals 5 medicine (39%)
5 research (39%)
we offered Oberg’s suggestion that people encountering a
2 teaching (15%)
different culture often progress through four stages: fascina- 2 undecided (15%)
tion (“honeymoon”), hostility (“culture shock”), recovery, Course grade 11 A or A (85%)
and acceptance (36). In a pilot experiment, in research year 2 2 lower than A (15%)
(2016), students correlated their experiences with this frame- One student had multiple goals; thus, sum exceeds number of
work without problem. Data from the pilot were set aside: subjects, and percentages exceed 100.

Analysis of Qualitative Data deidentified all data before transmission to the principal in-
vestigator. The principal investigator gathered written quali-
Students’ anonymous written comments and reflections tative data anonymously. Undergraduates largely unfamiliar
were studied via qualitative research drawing on content with literature on PBL and pedagogy coded the written quali-
analysis (52) and interpretative or hermeneutic phenomenol- tative data. These steps, in combination with the congruence
ogy (53). Through this research, themes emerge from system- among perspective, methodology, and other key facets of the
atic coding and categorizing of textual data; thus, content qualitative strand, promoted soundness of the approach and
analysis and interpretative phenomenology are ideal for elu- trustworthiness of the findings.
cidating the emergent meanings of individuals’ lived experi-
ences, as well as patterns and themes within these Collection and Analysis of Quantitative Data
experiences (e.g., Ref. 54, p. 54–77; Ref. 55, p. 9–10). Our pri-
We administered three published instruments: the
ority was to keep the analysis true and rooted in the stu-
Student Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry
dents’ voices; thus, we used in vivo coding (also called literal
Questionnaire (SUSSI; Ref. 28) as a metric of scientific episte-
or verbatim coding), in which codes are taken from the
mology, in particular, understanding of the nature of sci-
research participants’ actual words (56). Furthermore, to
ence); the revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire
heighten the likelihood of honoring the students’ voices, as
(R-SPQ-2F; Ref. 16) as a metric of learning approaches; and
well as to enhance trustworthiness of the findings, a team of
as an assessment of multivariable causal reasoning, the
four undergraduate researchers performed the coding and
“reading improvement problem” of Kuhn et al. (58). Table 2
categorizing. One of the team had enrolled in a lecture sec-
presents the timeline and information on percentage of stu-
tion of the course; another had enrolled in a PBL section as
dents participating in the research. The anonymous surveys
well as an advanced biology course centered on PBL. Others
were given in the laboratory component of the course in
of the team had not taken any section of the course. The
semesters in which a PBL section of the course was offered.
principal investigator managed the codebook (with codes,
We collected responses from PBL students and lecture stu-
their descriptions, and examples) and temporally coordi-
dents. To lessen likelihood of survey/assessment fatigue
nated the iterations and refinement of coding by the under-
among students, we used selected scales of SUSSI and omit-
graduate team. Similarly coded data defined categories,
ted the qualitative, open-response portions.
from which the themes were elucidated. Cohen’s kappa pro-
Central tendency of distributions of scores on R-SPQ-2F
vided a measure of interrater reliability.
and SUSSI is reported as mean (SD) to permit comparison
Qualitative data from the interviews were also coded, with
with published work. We used nonparametric statistical tests
effort to capture the students’ voices through quotations.
and measures of effect size (Mann–Whitney test and
The interviewing and coding were done by external consul-
Wilcoxon signed-rank test; probability of superiority and
tants (C. Colbeck and R. Marine) with extensive experience
Cliff’s d). The estimate of probability of superiority can range
in qualitative research on science pedagogy.
from 0 to 1 and reflects the tendency of scores from one
Soundness of Qualitative Approach group to exceed another group’s scores. Cliff’s d gives the dif-
ference between two tendencies: the tendency of scores from
In line with the methodological guidance of Lockwood et group 1 to exceed those of group 2 minus the reverse tend-
al. (57), we sought congruence in key facets of the qualitive ency. Cliff’s d can range from 1 (nonoverlapping distribu-
research to ensure a sound qualitative research strand: tions, with all group 1 measures less than group 2 measures)
1) the primarily interpretative philosophical perspective to þ 1 (nonoverlapping distributions, with all group 1 meas-
aligned with the primarily phenomenological research ures greater than group 2 measures). Nonparametric estima-
methodology of the qualitative strand; tors of effect size are discussed by Cliff (59) and Grissom and
2) this methodology aligned with the overarching research Kim (60). Both estimators are calculated from the Wilcoxon–
question (how students experience PBL and why they Mann–Whitney U statistic, which was determined with vas-
experience it as such); sarstats.net and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
3) this methodology also aligned with our qualitative data software and checked by hand.
collection methods (extended, anonymous, free written
response; confidential, semistructured interviews); Soundness of Quantitative Approach
4) the reporting of findings (inclusion of frequent and
Evidence for face validity, content validity, and reliability
infrequent codes and categories in tables) agreed with
of SUSSI is presented by Liang et al. (28), and evidence for va-
the methodology; and
lidity and reliability of R-SPQ-2F is given by Biggs et al. (16).
5) in being offered with intention to inform instructors
Factor structure of R-SPQ-2F with our sample population
about range of lived experiences potentially encoun-
was studied via confirmatory factor analysis in R of the four
tered in the PBL classroom, the interpretation aligned
factors proposed by Immekus and Imbrie (61). Model fit to
with methodology, overarching research question, and
the pooled data was evaluated with chi-square statistic, root-
philosophical perspective.
mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative
Additionally, participants’ voices are represented by inclu- fit index (CFI), and standardized root-mean-square residual
sion of illustrative quotations in RESULTS. We sought in several (SRMR). The factor structure proposed by Immekus and
ways to lessen the influence of the positionality of the princi- Imbrie was judged to fit satisfactorily: P = 0.005, SRMR =
pal investigator, who also was one of the PBL instructors. 0.06, CFI = 0.926, and RMSEA = 0.049. The four-factor struc-
External consultants conducted interviews confidentially and ture proposed by Biggs et al. (16) fitted less well, e.g., with

RMSEA = 0.078 and SRMR = 0.086. With respect to SUSSI, qualitative research to probe a cultural contrast, students’
data were insufficient for confirmatory factor analysis; corre- experience of it, and their ways of navigating it.
lation plots (not shown) supported the published factor Additionally, the themes—in particular, theme 1 on learn-
structure (28). We omitted the open-ended questions of ing environment and theme 2 on deeper learning—
SUSSI and used only the numerically scored ones; this omis- prompted quantitative surveys in subsequent research
sion might have threatened the instrument’s validity. The years of students’ learning approaches, views on nature of
development and use of the “reading improvement prob- science, and causal reasoning.
lem” by Kuhn et al. (58) offer evidence for its face validity.
Emergent Themes from Written Reflections by PBL
Students (Research Year 3)
RESULTS At semester’s middle and end in research year 3 (2018), we
asked students to reflect anonymously in writing on their
Emergent Themes from End-of-Semester Comments of
adjustment to PBL. The previously analyzed end-of-semester
PBL Students (Research Year 1)
comments from research year 1 (Table 4) gave evidence of a
How did students experience PBL? To answer this ques- cultural shift for the students; thus, to frame their reflection,
tion, we first analyzed PBL students’ anonymous comments we offered Oberg’s suggestion (36) that people encountering
on institutional end-of-semester course-rating forms (in a different culture often progress through four stages: fasci-
research year 1, 2015). Eighty-five percent of the students (66 nation (“honeymoon”), hostility (“culture shock”), recovery,
of 78) completed the two-sheet form, and 78 sheets had com- and acceptance. In a pilot experiment, in research year 2
ments. Table 4 gives the themes that emerged from coding (2016), students expressed no difficulty correlating their
and categorizing students’ written comments. Theme 3 experiences with this framework. In the full, postpilot
(course format not as expected), with associated in vivo experiment in year 3, the reflections totaled 66 (84% of 79-
codes such as “weird” and “not traditional,” suggested that student enrollment) at semester’s middle and 78 (99%) at
students were experiencing a cultural shift. Themes 2 and 5 semester’s end. As shown in Fig. 1, the stages into which stu-
(on deeper learning and accountability) similarly suggested dents placed themselves at semester’s end, relative to semes-
that PBL culturally contrasted to previous courses in terms ter’s middle, shifted away from culture shock and toward
of collaboration, nature of thinking expected, and learning recovery and acceptance. The shift is statistically significant
approaches elicited. The themes motivated subsequent by evaluation with chi-square statistic (P < 0.001).
Table 4. Content analysis of comments on end-of-semester students’ ratings of teaching (research year 1—2015)
% of 78 Comment-Containing Sheets
Themes Representative In Vivo Codes That Include the Theme Representative Quotes
1: Class/professor fostered good Excitement, supportive, fuels class 40 Sheet 104: “Good rapport, good
learning environment—Students enthusiasm, responsive, construc- class vibe.”
felt safe and comfortable asking tive, approachable, positive learn-
questions and making mistakes. ing environment, makes me want
to try hard
2: Deeper learning—Students Learned a lot, actually learned, 27 Sheet 81: “I think that I grew a lot as
reported learning a lot, even absorbed more than I thought, a thinker and began to understand
though some were surprised con- learned how to think, grew as a the basis of many biological
sidering they did not feel like thinker, structure helped me learn processes.”
they were. more, thinking about things in new
ways
3: Course format not as expected— Weird, different, not enough, not 24 Sheet 6: “It was weird how projects
Students’ previous science prepared, confusing, not tradi- seemed like they shouldn’t count
courses impacted the way they tional, lacking basic knowledge for much because of the type of
expect a science class to be work, but then they did.”
taught, and students did not
adapt well to a format with more
active learning.
4: Connectivity—Students struggled Discontinuous, jumped around, side- 19 Sheet 69: “I never quite understood
to see the connections among tracked, scattered, lack of flow, the connections trying to be
topics. irrelevant, random drawn between the 5 parts of the
course, in other words, to me the
course often felt discontinuous &
jumped around a lot.”
5: Accountability—The nontradi- Desire accountability, exams provide 10 Sheet 8: “Having one exam (and
tional course format did not foster incentive, didn’t need to remem- only about a month in) creates lit-
accountability for the information ber anything, no studying needed tle to no incentive to come to
learned, like an exam-based class class/pay attention/do work. I of-
would. ten felt completely unaccountable
for knowing the material.”
Coding scheme was developed by L. Kelly and then separately used by A. Metcalf; hence, no interrater reliability is given. The anony-
mous ratings form comprised 2 separate sheets with numerically scored questions and room for comments. The form was provided to
each of the 78 students, 66 of whom returned the sheets to the Biology Department. Of the 132 sheets (= 2 66), 78 had comments.

and help as well as on perceived changes in self as learner

and thinker.
For clarity’s sake in the interviews, students’ past learning
experiences were considered “home culture” and PBL a
“new culture.” Although suggesting a difference between the
two cultures, the terms gave free rein to the students to
define for themselves the cultural distance—whether absent,
small, or large—between the two. Coding of the responses
gave rise to six themes, relating to the students’ struggles
and challenges in PBL as well as to growth and transforma-
tion over the semester-long course:
1) ambiguous expectations;
2) desire for concrete feedback from instructors on what is
important, on how to frame projects;
Figure 1. Stages of an intercultural experience into which students placed
themselves at semester’s end, relative to semester’s middle. The shift 3) dichotomy between desiring facts and learning for
away from culture shock and toward recovery and acceptance between understanding;
semester’s middle and end is statistically significant by evaluation with 4) discontinuity between class (PBL) and lab (conventional);
chi-square statistic (P < 0.001). Occupancy of the honeymoon or fascina- 5) relative benefits of group or individual work; and
tion stage was zero. Some students placed themselves between 2 stages,
6) belief in own self (perseverance, grit, resilience).
signified by “between” in the graph. PBL, project-/problem-based learning.
Participants numbered 66 at semester's middle and 78 at end, from enroll- Within the interviews, surfacing most frequently was a
ment of 79.
yearning for instructors to specify clear requirements for
what should be learned, how that learning should be dem-
onstrated, and how instructors would assess the work
Changes between semester’s middle and end emerged, (theme 1):
too, from content analysis of the reflections, yielding eight
themes (Table 5). The two most prominent themes at mid- Student 3: “. . . at times, I didn’t know what to take
semester were appreciation for higher-order thinking (theme notes on. Theirs [the PBL instructors’ course] was
1), balanced by dislike of the class orchestration (theme 2). mostly a problem based, so I didn’t know what part of
Theme 2 encompassed students’ citing excessive emphasis it was content-based, and what part was answering
on high-end cognition, insufficient clarity on what to know, the problem.”
and absence of the expected survey of facts. At semester’s Student 4: “We didn’t really know what we were sup-
end, this theme, along with several others—theme 5 (diffi- posed to know and what we weren’t supposed to know.”
culty synthesizing and making connections), theme 6 (am-
biguous expectations), and theme 7 (longing for facts)—
Paralleling this was a desire by some students for more
diminished in prominence. Positive themes such as 1
extensive and more specific feedback on projects, in par-
(higher-order thinking), 4 (role of self in learning), and 8 (col-
ticular, concrete reassurance that the student was taking a
laboration) grew in prominence. Suggestive of recovery and
relevant or appropriate approach to a project or problem
acceptance, the shifts in prominence of themes from semes-
(theme 2):
ter’s middle to end paralleled shifts in occupancy of stages
mentioned in the previous paragraph and depicted in Fig. 1.
Student 11: “I also did go to the professors’ office hours
The analysis gave shape to a temporal process of transforma-
a couple of times—also around the tests [projects were
tion in students, one leading to an enhanced appreciation
at times called tests] usually to bounce ideas off of
for the complex, collaborative learning environment of PBL
them and get their feedback on where we were headed
and a growing epistemological awareness of the learner’s
if there was a new direction we should consider or a
active role in learning and constructing meaning.
direction that we shouldn’t keep heading in. That sort
Emergent Themes From Oral Interviews With Students of thing. Just being able to get feedback while going
After the Course (Research Year 3) through the process was very helpful.”
As portrayed by themes from the written comments
As they experienced the new culture of PBL, some stu-
(Table 4) and reflections (Table 5), inner, subjective experi-
dents found themselves drawn between desiring facts and
ences of students in PBL include an expectation for facts and
wanting to engage in deeper learning (theme 3):
their transmission; yet another is transformation as a thinker
appreciative of synthesizing, evaluating, and analyzing. To
illuminate more fully these inner experiences and contradic- Student 10: “Another frustrating thing, when you are
tions, shortly after the end of the semester external consul- doing project-based things and more critical thinking,
tants (C. Colbeck and R. Marine) invited students from the the expectations for what you are supposed to get out of
two 2018 PBL sections (research year 3) to participate in that are inherently more ambiguous than more fact-
interviews. The first 13 who volunteered were interviewed; based classes. That’s kind of my motto. I am an intel-
these constituted 16% of the two sections’ enrollment. The lectually curious person and I want to get as much as I
prompts invited responses on sources of stress, satisfaction, can out of courses, but as somebody who is going to be

Table 5. Content analysis of students’ reflections at semester’s middle and end (research year 3—2018)
% Reflections, Including Theme
Themes Representative in Vivo Codes Middle (n = 66) End (n = 78) Representative Quotes
1: Higher-order thinking Understanding in depth, enhance learning, 52 77 Sheet 9 midsemester: “I am also partly in
(engaged in and personal growth, enjoy, value, appreciate the phase of adaptation, because I do
appreciated) advantages, preferable, challenge, have appreciate the advantages of this type
to work to understand, interesting, fasci- of learning, and I believe that it allows
nating, exciting, more true to the real us an opportunity to develop better
world mastery of the material.”
2: Dislike of class (lec- Too fast, too difficult, too much applying 52 38 Sheet 166 end of semester: “. . . it was
tures, group work, lab and higher-order thinking, not enough really hard to synthesize important in-
time); unmet small graded assignments, lack of linear formation when it wasn’t clear what
expectations progression, not enough lecture/memori- was important.”
zation, hard to find time for group work
outside class, disconnect between lecture
and lab, not enough feedback on home-
work and exams
3: Negative feelings Behind, panic, unprepared, lacking knowl- 36 38 Sheet 15 midsemester: “Sometimes in
(unprepared, inad- edge, disadvantaged, less/not confident, class I find it slightly frustrating that I
equate, lost, frustrated) worried, struggling, inadequate, frus- do not have enough basic information
trated, confused, don’t understand, lost to draw larger conclusions.”
4: Role of self in learning, Motivated, effort on my part, my own doing, 33 59 Sheet 103 end of semester: “However, I
coming to understand attend office hours, go to peer tutors/ have realized that internal motivation is
and taking own role in review sessions, collaborate with other essential to thriving in this type of class
learning students, make study habits work, change and I must cultivate it again in myself.”
learning techniques, actively read and
absorb readings, take detailed notes,
review notes, ask questions
5: Hard to synthesize and Connections not apparent, can’t see how 32 8 Sheet 10 midsemester: “I would also say
make connections material relates, small pockets of knowl- that this kind of teaching method is
edge, disjointed, jumping around, not nice because it forces students to talk
much continuity, hard to synthesize about the issue and try to make sense
of it rather than just copying down
facts, but it still feels like I am really
learning a lot about certain systems
without knowing how to piece it all
together.”
6: Ambiguity or ambigu- Hard to understand what is being asked, 29 15 Sheet 123 end of semester: “It would
ous expectations: want- lost, confused, unsure, basis of grading have been helpful to receive rubrics so
ing to know what to unclear, lack of feedback on homework, that we knew what we were being
know and how to dem- progress or success unclear, direction of graded on and what you were looking
onstrate knowing class unclear for in terms of content and detail.”
7: Longing for emphasis Greater reliance on memorization/discus- 26 19 Sheet 151 end of semester: “I think we
on facts and transmission of basic concepts, desire for linear need that regurgitation skill to be built
sion of them learning and structure, memorized facts FIRST before you start asking the big
as basis for cohesive body of knowledge, questions like you did in class and on
desire to keep track of what is known and exams.”
what needs work
8: Collaboration and role Very engaged, helpful, synthesize, gain per- 20 32 Sheet 14 mid-semester: “Approaching
of peers spectives, collective exploration, common and tackling new content is easier
understanding, enjoy, appreciate, read when you work with peers and allow
more thoroughly, deeper understanding, space for discussion.”
help improve learning, decrease stress
Number of enrolled students was 79; n represents number of reflections, each from a distinct participant. Interrater agreement meas-
ured by Cohen’s kappa was 0.81.
assessed, it’s really hard to take courses when you are back to each other. Seeing it that way was really big for
unsure of the expectations.” me because it made me a lot more interested in it; in
kind of unravelling how everything works and seeing
For some students, a preference for unambiguous expecta- that everything was connected made the random
tions was balanced by enjoyment in developing ideas, engag- details that you didn’t care about before more relevant
ing in problem solving and new ways of learning, and and interesting.”
finding relevance:
The epistemic tension—sometimes among students, some-
Student 9: “The causal loop diagrams were definitely times within a single student—between desiring facts on one
different than how I had thought before. Usually you hand and enjoying high-end cognition on the other extended
think of things in a flow—one thing leading to another. to the conventionally taught laboratory. Some students liked
But I think it makes sense that everything connects the clarity of its expectations and the laboratory instructor’s

frequent feedback; others preferred high-end cognition and Student 3: “I wish the class wasn’t so heavy on group
found the laboratories less interesting and similar to high work. Every single assignment encouraged group work
school laboratories in emphasizing memorization (theme 4): —even the homework assignments were made for group
work. I agree that working in groups is important and
Student 12: “I got more consistent feedback during the is a good skill to learn, but I think it is also important
lab portions that I was doing OK. In the non-lab, it was to work individually. I never got the opportunity to
only at the very end that I could be sure that I had done work individually. I don’t like the fact that all the
enough. . ..” exams were group projects. I would have preferred
Student 8: “So the lab was much more high school like individual exams.”
memorization.”
Thus, the interviews gave insights on the challenges of
Regardless of their preferred approach to learning, stu- PBL—perceptions of ambiguous expectations and an em-
dents who commented on laboratories wanted the course phasis on high-end cognition and collaborative learning.
and laboratory to align, rather than to pull in opposite Yet, some interviewees also revealed personal resources
directions. for navigating the challenges: their openness to new
Interviews gave rise to a theme on individual and group experiences and their beliefs in their own perseverance
work (theme 5). As was the case for themes 1 and 3, comments (theme 6). For example, student 3 is “always open to
relating to theme 5 mentioned transformation over the semes- something new.” Student 8 said, “I’d had challenging
ter. Most of the interviewees had had some prior experience classes before and gotten through them, so I knew I was
with group work, although less intensive than the collabora- going to get through on the other side, no matter what.”
tive component of the course. Two students (students 5 and 7) Student 9 said, “If I wanted to learn, I had to do it the way
had favorable beliefs about group learning already, indicat- this class was teaching it. Otherwise, I just wasn’t going to
ing, for example, that working with others is better than work- learn.” Similarly, student 10 said, “There were some stu-
ing alone (student 7). Others were less positive but found dents who were like, ‘what is going on?’ With learning,
value or satisfaction in group work in the course: there is some struggle required. I think that resilience
helped me quite a bit.”
Student 2: “And I felt that the material we ended up
Approaches to Learning in PBL (Research Years 2
submitting was so much better than what I would have
and 3)
done on my own. And that was better because I would
know more and know how to put things together and The PBL students’ inner experience of adjustments and
how to write things. Because as an individual, I would transformations suggested actual changes of learning
have my own way of writing and of approaching ques- approaches and views on nature of science, but would a dif-
tions and putting details on paper. But being in a ferent research methodology corroborate these changes? We
group, I would go, ‘Oh I would have missed this detail,’ analyzed students’ responses on the revised two-factor
but being with the others would always help me to Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F; Ref. 16). Table 6
know more and more how I should lay out my work, presents descriptive information on the basis of the previ-
how I should present my work when I am writing. And ously reported factor structure of the R-SPQ-2F (61), which
sometimes I would go, ‘This is awesome! This is so was supported by our confirmatory factor analysis with all
much better than what I would have come up with!’” data pooled from research years 2 and 3. The scores in the
table are based on a 5-point range, with 1 meaning “never
Other students talked of changes in themselves as a result or only rarely true of me in this course” and 5 meaning
of the course in terms of being more talkative and more open “always or almost always true of me in this course.” For
to differences (student 5) or becoming less shy and reaching comparison and reference, Table 6 also presents data from
out more to others (student 8). Finding times when their students in lecture sections of the same course and semes-
groups could meet was a challenge mentioned by a number ter. Our aim was not to pit PBL against lecture in a
of students, and some students wished for less group work randomized, controlled study but rather to have a refer-
overall: ence or norm reflecting lecture sections of the course.
Table 6. Approaches to learning in PBL and lecture (research years 2 and 3—2016 and 2018)
Deep Motive Deep Strategy Surface Motive Surface Strategy
PBL 3.19 (0.88; n = 135) 3.16 (0.68; n = 135) 2.34 (0.81; n = 136) 2.58 (0.71; n = 136)
Lecture 3.06 (0.84; n = 61) 2.86 (0.72; n = 61) 2.56 (0.85; n = 61) 2.74 (0.83; n = 60)
z 1.05 2.63 1.71 1.19
P2-tailed 0.29 0.009 0.09 0.23
PPBL>lecture 0.55 0.62 0.42 0.45
Rows for project-/problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture provide mean (SD; n) to allow comparison to published studies, because of
common use of mean in reporting central tendency of distributions of scores on two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F).
Mann–Whitney test used to evaluate significance of difference between the two distributions (PBL and lecture) in each column. For deep
strategy, the probability of superiority, PPBL>lecture, has a 95% confidence interval lower limit of 0.58 and upper limit of 0.66. Cliff’s d is
0.24. Number of participants given by n.

Table 7. Nature of science beliefs of PBL and lecture students gauged with three SUSSI subscales at semester’s
start and end (research years 2, 3, and 4—2016, 2018, and 2019)
Imagination and Creativity Observations and Inferences Society and Culture
Start End Start End Start End
PBL 3.37 (0.83; n = 145) 3.78 (0.87; n = 144) 4.15 (0.52; n = 120) 4.14 (0.60; n = 120) 3.86 (0.75; n = 79) 4.12 (0.70; n = 78)
Lecture 3.33 (0.92; n = 122) 3.35 (0.91; n = 122) 4.10 (0.70; n = 53) 4.08 (0.65; n = 53) 3.85 (0.67; n = 89) 3.89 (0.71; n = 89)
Rows for project-/problem-based learning (PBL) and lecture provide mean (SD; n, number of participants), because of frequent use of
mean in reporting central tendency of distributions of scores on Student Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry Questionnaire
(SUSSI). Imagination and creativity subscale administered in research years 2, 3, and 4 (2016, 2018, and 2019). Observations and infer-
ences subscale administered in research years 2 and 3 (2016 and 2018). Society and culture subscale administered in research years 3 and
4 (2018 and 2019). We varied the administration to lessen “survey/assessment fatigue.”
Based on the Study Process Questionnaire, PBL students student’s change was 0.59, with 95% confidence interval
reported adopting deep strategies more often than lecture of [0.54; 0.63]. This probability of superiority corresponds
students, and this finding supports the trustworthiness of to Cliff’s d of 0.17, again indicating that the distribution of
the qualitative analyses. scores for PBL students exceeds the distribution for lec-
ture students, albeit with some overlap. By the Mann–
Beliefs on Nature of Science (Research Years 2, 3, Whitney test, the PBL distribution of pre-to-post change
and 4) differed from the other distribution: z = 1.93, and two-
To examine whether PBL students shifted in views on na- tailed P = 0.05. Thus, supporting the trustworthiness of
ture of science, we administered the Student Understanding the qualitative analyses, the quantitative results point to
of Science and Science Inquiry (SUSSI) questionnaire (28). PBL students’ shifting in their views on the nature of
We used three scales of SUSSI, each represented by four science.
questions answerable on a 5-point range, with 1 indicative of
a naive view and 5 an expert or informed view (Table 7). Multivariable Causal Reasoning in PBL (Research Years
Also, we extended the testing over three research years, with 3 and 4)
typically two scales used per year.
When scored on a 5-point range of SUSSI’s “imagination To test whether PBL students’ reasoning strategies
and creativity in scientific investigations” scale, PBL stu- adjusted over the semester, we examined at semester’s start
dents shifted 0.41 points (SD 0.78; n = 144 participants) to- and end students’ multivariable causal reasoning on the
ward informed or expert views; lecture students showed no “reading improvement problem” of Kuhn et al. (58).
gain (mean 0.01 points; SD 0.76; n = 122 participants). For the Although cloaked in a real-world setting, the problem alge-
pre-to-post change, the probability of superiority, i.e., the braically distills to the following:
probability that a randomly chosen PBL student’s change absence of A; B; and C yields no product
would exceed a randomly chosen lecture student’s change,
was 0.64, with 95% confidence interval of [0.61; 0.68]. This A and B produce 2X
probability of superiority corresponds to Cliff’s d of 0.29,
indicating that the distribution of scores for PBL students A and C produce X
exceeds the distribution for lecture students, with some
overlap. By the Mann–Whitney test, the PBL distribution of B and C produce X
pre-to-post change differed from the lecture distribution: z =
4.05, and two-tailed P < 0.001. A and B and C produce 2X
In a qualitatively similar manner, PBL students shifted
B produces X
0.24 points (SD 0.70; n = 78 participants) toward informed
or expert views on the social and cultural embeddedness The problem asks for students’ reasoning on whether A
of science scale; lecture students showed no gain (mean produces X, whether B produces X, and whether C produces
0.03 points; SD 0.66; n = 89 participants). For the pre-to- X. The three-question problem was completed in full at the
post change, the probability that a randomly chosen PBL two time points by 76 of 109 students in the PBL course in
student’s change would exceed a randomly chosen lecture 2018 and 2019. At semester’s start 32% of the 76 subjects
Table 8. Improved multivariable causal reasoning by PBL students (research years 3 and 4)
% Students Correctly
Reasoning on All Three % Students Correctly % Students Correctly % Students Correctly % of Errors That Were % of Errors That Were
Questions Reasoning on Two Reasoning on One Reasoning on Zero Underattribution Overattribution
Semester’s start 32 18 37 13 58 42
Semester’s end 45 13 29 13 47 53
Probability of superiority of end-of-semester distribution with respect to semester’s start was 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.54 to 0.84)
with ties omitted and 0.57 (0.49 to 0.66) with ties included. For Wilcoxon signed-rank test, W = 191, number of signed ranks (ns/r) = 29, z = 2.06,
and 1-tailed P = 0.02. Seventy-six of 109 project-/problem-based learning (PBL) students in research years 3 and 4 completed the survey.

reasoned correctly on the set of three problems, and at picked score from the experimental group will exceed a ran-
semester’s end 45% did so (Table 8). Errors made by students domly picked score from the control group. The probabilities
included overattribution (e.g., reasoning that C produces X reported in Table 6 suggest a roughly comparable efficacy of
since X occurs in each case in which C appears) and underat- PBL at the introductory biology level in a liberal arts setting
tribution (e.g., indicating that insufficient information exists (e.g., the probability of 0.62 for the case of adoption of deep
to reason about A or C, since neither was studied in isola- learning strategies). The gain in deep learning approaches has
tion). For the distribution of correct answers (Table 8), the practical importance. Deep approaches reflect curiosity and
null hypothesis of no difference between the two time points mindful engagement in which ideas are related, patterns
was not supported by the data (P = 0.02 for directional extracted, and principles discerned (for review, Ref. 62).
Wilcoxon signed-rank test, with W = 191, number of signed Eliciting deep approaches thus aligns with recommendations
ranks (ns/r) = 29, z = 2.06, and probability of superiority of for transforming undergraduate education in the sciences to-
end-of-semester distribution 0.69 if ties omitted and 0.57 if ward data-supported practices (e.g., Refs. 1, 2, 4, 5).
ties included). In offering evidence that PBL students A similar argument could be made about the gains in
improved in their multivariable causal reasoning, the quan- understanding the nature of science (Table 7): the shifts
titative data supported the trustworthiness of the qualitative detected with SUSSI were associated with small effect sizes
analyses. in an absolute sense but valuable in a practical one.
Epistemological understanding influences the acquisition of
DISCUSSION new knowledge and the use of knowledge in reasoning (63).
Published reports suggest that undergraduate biology class-
How do introductory biology undergraduates experience rooms have had better success advancing students’ episte-
PBL? Understanding this experience is important, for it can mological understanding in courses for nonmajors than in
serve as a navigational aid for instructors seeking to imple- courses for majors, the latter of whose understanding of the
ment PBL in a way responsive to learners, tapping the poten- nature of science has been observed at times to become
tial of PBL to promote deep learning. The results show that more “novicelike” (e.g., Refs. 64, 65). Advancing students’
students experience PBL as a cultural shift, a transformative understanding of the nature of science might offer one solu-
one associated with affective, behavioral, and cognitive tion for stemming the loss of students from STEM. For exam-
adjustments. The adjustments reflect the cultural distance ple, some high-performing STEM students abandon majors
being navigated. in STEM because of perceived lack of creativity in these stud-
ies (66). Our analyses gave evidence of PBL students shifting
What Adjusted and Transformed? toward an informed understanding of the nature of science,
Themes emerging in students’ written reflections (Table 5) particularly on the role of creativity and imagination through-
point to growth in three broad areas over the course: out a scientific investigation. Thus, the PBL environment
might be suited for nurturing and sustaining the interest of
1) recognition of the role of self in learning (e.g., theme 4
STEM students seeking to find creativity in science.
and its rise in prominence at semester’s end);
Science and experimentation go hand in hand. In which
2) skills and comfort in collaboration (e.g., rise of promi-
ways might the gains that students achieve through PBL
nence of theme 8 at semester’s end); and
map to skills and competencies foundational to experimen-
3) high-end cognition (e.g., theme 1 and its rise of promi-
tation, the heart of science? One framework of experimenta-
nence at semester’s end).
tion (67) delineates seven skills and competencies: 1)
Themes from the interviews also gave evidence of stu- identifying a gap or limitation of current understandings; 2)
dents’ self-awareness of a beneficial transformation in their formulating an hypothesis and research question; 3) plan-
thinking and collaborating (e.g., interview theme 3, on ten- ning a feasible, ethical experiment that answers the ques-
sion between desiring facts and learning for understanding, tion; 4) conducting the experiment; 5) analyzing results; 6)
and interview theme 5, on relative benefits of group or indi- drawing inferences and conclusions; and 7) communicating
vidual work). Corroboration also came from the quantitative findings. Four of these (identifying gaps, formulating ques-
survey data, showing a shift toward expert views on the na- tions, analyzing, and inferring) involve a deep approach to
ture of science (Table 7). The shift exceeded that observed learning, i.e., one that seeks meaning, relates ideas, and rea-
with students in lecture-based sections of the course. Also, sons with evidence (62). PBL nurtures such an approach, as
multivariable causal reasoning improved (Table 8), and strat- indicated by qualitative and quantitative strands of our
egies for deep learning were more frequently adopted by the research, e.g., themes 1 and 5 (on high-end cognition) in the
PBL students than by lecture students (Table 6). students’ reflections (Table 5) and the gain in multivariable
Although modest in magnitude, the positive effect sizes of causal reasoning (Table 8), as well as adoption of deep learn-
learning gains qualitatively aligned with values reported for ing strategies (Table 6). Supporting the skills of inquiry, anal-
other contexts in which PBL has been studied. A meta-analy- ysis, and inference is epistemological understanding (for
sis by Dolmans et al. (7) of 21 studies showed an average effect review, Ref. 68), and PBL supports the advancement of this,
size of 0.11 on enhancement of deep learning associated with too. Again, qualitative and quantitative strands give evi-
PBL when integrated across a curriculum or in a course, gen- dence, e.g., the reflection theme 4 (Table 5) on growing epis-
erally in professional schools such as engineering, nursing, or temological awareness of the learner’s role in constructing
medicine. This effect size is based on standardized mean dif- meaning, as well as the shifts in understanding the nature
ference between experimental and control groups. Its value of of science (Table 7). We might supplement the framework
0.1 corresponds to a probability of 0.53 that a randomly with the skill of collaborating and the characteristic of

persistence. Both are nurtured through PBL, as evidenced by collaboration (Table 5; primarily theme 8, secondarily theme
interview themes 5 and 6 on group work and perseverance, 4), as does one of the themes from the interviews (theme 5, on
as well as by reflection theme 8 on collaboration (Table 5). relative benefits of group or individual work).
What About the PBL Culture Provokes Stress? What Do Students Experience as Supports in the PBL
Classroom?
Acculturation psychology recognizes adjustments in affect,
behavior, and cognition in response to an intercultural experi- Collaboration and cooperative learning are thought to
ence, and the PBL students did show such adjustments. The influence not only cognitive development but also cognitive
theoretical basis differs among the three categories of adjust- elaboration, motivation, and social cohesion (for review, Ref.
ment (e.g., Refs. 29, 30), yet the categories are interrelated, and 70). The social aspect arises in our qualitative analyses, par-
each links directly or indirectly to stress (e.g., Refs. 31, 32). ticularly theme 8 of Table 5 (on collaboration) and theme 5 in
Attention to the stressors and threats to mental health faced the interviews (theme on relative benefits of group or indi-
by students is increasingly important as rates of mental health vidual work). Students highlighted having favorable beliefs
struggles among undergraduates rise (69). For the PBL stu- about group learning, connecting more with other people,
dents, high-end cognition was suggested as a key stressor by being more talkative and more open to differences, becom-
patterns in the qualitative data, especially themes 2, 3, 5, and 6 ing less shy, and reaching out more to peers and the instruc-
emerging from students’ reflections (Table 5). Codes for these tor. The value of a strong social support network is amply
themes speak to stress and distress: e.g., “too much applying” borne out in research on physical and mental health (e.g.,
(theme 2, on dislike of class), “lacking knowledge” (theme 3, on Ref. 71) as well as well-being (72). With reference to accul-
feelings of inadequacy and frustration), “connections not turation psychology, a social network can nurture devel-
apparent” (theme 5, on the difficulty of synthesis), and “lost” opment of culturally appropriate skills and counter
(theme 6, on ambiguity). Similar experiences are revealed in loneliness and isolation (e.g., Ref. 29, p. 147–151). In this
themes emerging from the interviews (e.g., theme 1, on ambig- sense, the social component of PBL appears valuable, even
uous expectations, and theme 2, on desire for concrete feed- if not essential for the development of conceptual mastery
back) as well as end-of-semester ratings of teaching (Table and transferability (73).
4; theme 3, on unexpected class format, and theme 4, on Which additional factors did PBL students experience as
struggles to see connections). The students’ experiences supportive? The qualitative analyses revealed one factor to
mirror those uncovered in studies with medical students be students’ belief in their ability to persevere and to succeed
(43–45). The desire among some students for didactic (Table 5, theme 4, on role of self in learning, and theme 6,
teaching and the frustration at its absence echo under- belief in own self, from the interviews). Another factor was
graduates’ experience of an introductory biology course perceiving the class to be a safe space in which to make mis-
taught with inquiry-based learning (46). takes (Table 4, theme 1, on good class environment). These
Relatedly, the PBL undergraduates’ reflections and their two factors find parallels in the work of Cavanagh et al. (74),
themes recall a particular epistemological perspective that who observed that students’ trust in the professor and stu-
Belenky et al. (27) called “received knowledge: listening to the dents’ growth mindset correlate with commitment to active
voices of others.” This perspective mirrored the epistemological learning.
position defined as “basic dualism” by Perry (26). About learn-
ers holding a “received knowledge” perspective, Belenky et al. Implications
(27) wrote, “They equate receiving, retaining, and returning the We consider four implications. PBL offers an intercultural
words of authorities with learning. . .” (p. 39). Also, “They want learning experience in which transformation as a thinker
to know exactly what they are expected to do—what they are occurs. Transformation and change are stressful (32), and
‘responsible for’” (p. 42). Belenky et al. (27) and Perry (26) noted the responsive instructor needs to take stock of student moti-
that learners in college develop in their epistemology, leaving vations and emotions in addition to achievements. Our find-
behind dualistic views. The downward shift in prominence of ings suggest that the social dimension of PBL is a strong
themes 2 (on dislike of class), 5 (on the difficulty of synthesis), support worth cultivating. This suggestion aligns with litera-
and 6 (on ambiguity) in Table 5 from semester’s middle to end ture on the role of social interaction and peer collaboration
suggests epistemological development over the semester. in epistemological development (e.g., Ref. 27), intercultural
Evidence for this development comes also from increased adjustment (e.g., Ref. 29), and well-being (e.g., Ref. 72). It
prominence of theme 4 (role of self in learning) of Table 5 at also echoes the social-psychological ideas of Lewin and
semester’s end as well as from the interview theme 3 (dichot- Kelman that “it is easier to change a person as part of a group
omy between desiring facts and learning for understanding). than as an isolated individual” (Ref. 75, p. 17).
With respect to epistemological development within the Acculturation psychology would suggest additional strat-
PBL students, one conclusion of Belenky et al. (27) appears egies (Ref. 29, chapter 11) for supporting students entering a
germane: “For the received knowers, being thrust into roles of different classroom culture. These include helping students
responsibility for others helps erode the belief that they are to understand the new culture so that cognitions such as
dependent on ‘them’ for ‘truth’. . . it is the act of giving rather expectations can be better matched to experiences. An
than receiving that leads them to a greater sense of their example of this strategy is given by Deslauriers et al. (76),
capacity for knowing. . .” (p. 47), Collaboration within PBL who developed an intervention calling students’ attention to
puts students into these roles. Two of the emergent themes in the distinction between actual learning and feeling of learn-
PBL students’ reflections refer to the support afforded by ing. Another strategy targets affect by nurturing the

students’ personal resources such as resilience and tolerance in which feelings, behaviors, and cognitions shift, as they do
of ambiguity (for specific interventions, see Refs. 77, 78). Yet in other experiences more obviously intercultural such as
another focuses on behaviors by guiding development of study abroad.
skills appropriate for the new culture. Two final limitations are worth noting, since, like other
The lived experience of PBL makes a positive shift over limitations, they open new avenues of investigation. The
the academic term: culture shock yields to recovery and ac- present work lacked collection of identifying information
ceptance. Knowledge of this positive shift can give hope to that would have allowed correlation of qualitative
learners struggling with the complex learning environment with quantitative data. Correlation would have allowed ex-
of PBL as well as to instructors providing appropriate feed- amination of whether higher levels of distress relate to indi-
back to promote positive outcomes among students. vidual students’ traveling a greater cultural distance in their
The lived experience of PBL aligns with the desires of adjustment to PBL. A prediction from acculturation psychol-
some high-performing students who abandon STEM studies ogy is that distress should parallel the extent of cultural dis-
for the arts and humanities. These students have “high toler- tance (81–83). Another limitation in this context is the
ance for ambiguity and complex problems” and seek “crea- absence of information about individual students’ mental
tivity, open-ended inquiry, opportunity for interpretation, health, social support, identity (e.g., expectations, values,
and intellectual space for ‘play,’ as one woman characterized and attitudes; see Ref. 84), and personal resources such as
it” (66). Thus, PBL might be considered as a strategy for sus- self-efficacy and tolerance of ambiguity. These all play a role
taining students’ interest and persistence in STEM. in psychological well-being of students (Ref. 29, chapter 7).
One prediction from acculturation psychology would be an
Limitations and Opportunities for Future Study accentuation of adjustment difficulties in depressed stu-
dents (85) or those with limited social support networks (Ref.
The factors suggested as supportive in acculturation psy-
29, p. 148–151).
chology and revealed as supportive by the PBL students con-
cern social dimensions. Not studied in our research, but Conclusions
worth future characterization, is the extent to which various
social dimensions influence students’ experience of PBL as This project studied the adjustments of undergraduates
well as contribute to students’ affective, behavioral, and cog- in introductory biology taught by PBL. Qualitative and
nitive adjustments. Social dimensions include social proc- quantitative data revealed transformations of the stu-
esses and discourse. Contributing to the former is the way dents in their learning strategies and their understanding
team members’ roles and relationships emerge, as well as of role of peers and self in learning. The data also brought
the ways ideas are developed and conflict is resolved. A to light as a significant stressor the epistemic pull toward
study by Cross and Clayburn Cross (79) with a design team facts and clear expectations, but also toward high-end
suggested that social processes bear upon technical and cognition and development of skills in support of it.
cognitive processes. Discourse has multiple facets, too, Collaboration and personal resources (belief in self) were
which play psychological or social functions (80). Our important in mitigating this stressor and supporting the
research lens did not bring into view these potentially sup- students in their intercultural experience and transforma-
portive dimensions. tion. Since emotions underlie motivation, learning strat-
Also, the naturalistic design of our research prevented egies, and achievement, the findings have value to those
conclusions about causal linkages. Concordance of the quali- implementing PBL in a way responsive to the lived experi-
tative findings (which relate to inner experiences and proc- ences of the learner.
esses) with the quantitative findings (which reflect starting
and ending points of the processes) suggests causality, but a APPENDIX
rigorous test is left to an experimental study, e.g., controlling
for student backgrounds. The design of the research also pre- The interview protocol had six short-answer questions and
vented uncovering experiences particular to students of one four open-ended prompts:
group or another (e.g., women). Moreover, students in our Questions 1–4: Age? Year at Oberlin? Major or intended
investigation might have social, economic, or educational major? Current career goals?
characteristics that would limit transfer of inferences and Question 5: Prior learning experiences with project-based
conclusions to other contexts. Factors shaping these charac- or problem-based learning, as well as with learning in
teristics include the institution’s admissions process and stu- teams?
dents’ self-selection of the course section into which they Question 6 [asked at end of interview]: If you are comfort-
enroll. We sought to enhance transferability of findings and able doing so, please share with me the grade earned in
their trustworthiness through rich description of qualitative course.
findings, by mixed methodology, and by an undergraduate Prompt A: Viewing the course as a new culture and your
coding team to keep the analysis rooted in the students’ prior biology experiences as your home culture, please
point of view. Although cautioning that a phenomenological describe the gaps that you sensed between the two cultures.
study arrives at one possible interpretation of a human expe- Describe the similarities.
rience, van Manen (53) suggests that success of a study is sig- Prompt B: In the new culture, what were the sources of
naled by capturing something universal or essential of the stress for you? What were the sources of satisfaction for you?
experience. We think that the themes brought to light in this Prompt C: Which skills, beliefs, and resources were partic-
report get at the heart of PBL as a transformative experience ularly helpful in adapting to the new culture?

Prompt D: Describe any differences you see as a result of 11. Bagley WC. Dangers and difficulties of the project method and how
this course in yourself as a learner. Yourself as a thinker. to overcome them—a symposium. II. Projects and purposes in teach-
ing and in learning. Teach Coll Rec 22: 288–297, 1921.
Yourself as a person.
12. Bonser FG. Dangers and difficulties of the project method and how
to overcome them—a symposium. III. Dangers and difficulties of the
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS project method. Teach Coll Rec 22: 297–305, 1921.
13. Kilpatrick WH. Dangers and difficulties of the project method and
We thank David Egloff, Laura Helper, Marta Laskowski, Ross how to overcome them—a symposium. I. Introductory statement:
Peacock, and Pamela Snyder for offering ideas, resources, infor- definition of terms. Teach Coll Rec 22: 283–288, 1921.
14. Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning: what and how do stu-
mation, or critiques. We thank also the editor and the anonymous dents learn? Educ Psychol Rev 16: 235–266, 2004. doi:10.1023/B:
reviewers for generative critiques and suggestions. EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3.
15. Servant-Miklos V. Problem-oriented project work and problem-
based learning: “mind the gap!” Interdiscip J Probl Learn 14: 28596,
GRANTS 2020. doi:10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28596.
16. Biggs J, Kember D, Leung D. The revised two-factor study process
Funding in support of undergraduate research assistantships was questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. Br J Educ Psychol 71: 133–149, 2001.
received from Oberlin College and its Biology Department. doi:10.1348/000709901158433.
17. Gow L, Kember D. Does higher education promote independent
DISCLOSURES learning? High Educ 19: 307–322, 1990. doi:10.1007/BF00133895.
18. VanLehn K, Siler S, Murray C, Yamauchi T, Baggett WB. Why do
only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cogn
No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the Instruct 21: 209–249, 2003. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2103_01.
authors. 19. D’Mello S, Graesser A. Dynamics of affective states during complex
learning. Learn Instr 22: 145–157, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS 2011.10.001.
20. Lepper MR, Woolverton M. The wisdom of practice: lessons
learned from the study of highly effective tutors. In: Improving
T.A. conceived and designed research; C.C., R.M., M.V., and T.A. Academic Achievement, edited by Aronson J. Boston, MA:
performed experiments; A.W., A.M., L.K., A.B., M.M.-S., C.C., R.M., Academic Press, 2002, p. 135–158. doi:10.1016/B978-012064455-
A.C., and T.A. analyzed data; A.W., A.M., L.K., A.B., M.M.-S., C.C., 1/50010-5.
R.M., A.C., and T.A. interpreted results of experiments; T.A. prepared 21. Perkins DN, Salomon G. Teaching for transfer. Educ Leadersh 46:
figures; T.A. drafted manuscript; A.W., A.M., L.K., A.B., M.M.-S., C.C.,
22–32, 1988.
R.M., M.V., A.C., and T.A. edited and revised manuscript; A.W., A.M.,
22. Slavich GM, Zimbardo PG. Transformational teaching: theoretical
L.K., A.B., M.M.-S., C.C., R.M., M.V., A.C., and T.A. approved final
underpinnings, basic principles, and core methods. Educ Psychol
version of manuscript.
Rev 24: 569–608, 2012. doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9199-6.
23. Woolf B, Burleson W, Arroyo I, Dragon T, Cooper D, Picard R.
REFERENCES Affect-aware tutors: recognizing and responding to student affect.
Int J Learn Technol 4: 129–164, 2009. doi:10.1504/IJLT.2009.
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. How 028804.
People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, DC: 24. Felder RM, Brent R. The intellectual development of science and
National Academies Press, 2018. doi:10.17226/24783. engineering students. Part 1: models and challenges. J Eng Educ 93:
2. National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, 269–277, 2004. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00816.x.
Experience, and School (expanded edition). Washington, DC: The 25. Becher T. The significance of disciplinary differences. Stud High
National Academies Press, 2000. doi:10.17226/9853. Educ 19: 151–161, 1994. doi:10.1080/03075079412331382007.
3. Theobald EJ, Hill MJ, Tran E, Agrawal S, Arroyo EN, Behling S, et 26. Perry WG. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the
al. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented College Years. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.
students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and 27. Belenky MF, Clinchy BM, Goldberger NR, Tarule JM. Women’s
math. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117: 6476–6483, 2020. doi:10.1073/ Ways of Knowing. New York: Basic Books, 1986.
pnas.1916903117. 28. Liang LL, Chen S, Chen X, Kaya ON, Adams AD, Macklin M,
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vision and Ebenezer J. Assessing preservice elementary teachers views on the
Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action, nature of scientific knowledge: a dual-response instrument. Asia
Washington, DC: AAAS, 2011. Pac Forum Sci Learn Teach 9: 1, 2008.
5. PCAST (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 29. Ward C, Bochner S, Furnham A. The Psychology of Culture Shock.
Technology). Engage to Excel. 2012. https://obamawhitehouse. London: Routledge, 2001.
archives.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports [2021 Nov]. 30. Zhou Y, Jindal-Snape D, Topping K, Todman J. Theoretical mod-
6. Helle L, Tynja€la
€ P, Olkinuora E. Project-based learning in post-sec- els of culture shock and adaptation in international students in
ondary education—theory, practice and rubber sling shots. High higher education. Stud High Educ 33: 63–75, 2008. doi:10.1080/
Educ 51: 287–314, 2006. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6386-5. 03075070701794833.
7. Dolmans D, Loyens S, Marcq H, Gijbels D. Deep and surface learn- 31. Lazarus R, Folkman S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York:
ing in problem-based learning: a review of the literature. Adv Health Springer, 1984.
Sci Educ Theory Pract 21: 1087–1112, 2016. doi:10.1007/s10459-015- 32. Holmes TH, Rahe RH. The social readjustment rating scale. J
9645-6. Psychosom Res 11: 213–218, 1967. doi:10.1016/0022-3999(67)
8. Condliffe B, Quint J, Visher MG, Bangser MR, Drohojowska S, 90010-4.
Saco L, Nelson , E. Project-based learning: a literature review. New 33. Argyle M. Social Interactions. London: Methuen, 1969.
York: MDRC, 2017. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED578933.pdf 34. Tajfel H. Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the
[2021 Nov]. Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press,
9. Bate E, Hommes J, Duvivier R, Taylor DC. Problem-based learning 1978.
(PBL): getting the most out of your students—their roles and respon- 35. Brown L, Brown J. Out of chaos, into a new identity. Existent Anal
sibilities: AMEE Guide No. 84. Med Teach 36: 1–12, 2014. 20: 341–361, 2009.
doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.848269. 36. Oberg K. Culture shock: adjustment to new cultural environments.
10. Hatch RW. Dangers and difficulties of the project method and how Pract Anthropol 7: 177–182, 1960. doi:10.1177/009182966000700405.
to overcome them—a symposium. V. Student reactions to the pro- 37. Ward C, Okura Y, Kennedy A, Kojima T. The U-curve on trial: a lon-
ject method. Teach Coll Rec 22: 306–310, 1921. gitudinal study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during

cross-cultural transition. Int J Intercult Rel 22: 277–291, 1998. 61. Immekus JC, Imbrie PK. A test and cross-validation of the Revised
doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00008-X. Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire factor structure among
38. Pekrun R. Emotion and achievement during adolescence. Child Dev western university students. Educ Psychol Meas 70: 495–510, 2010.
Perspect 11: 215–221, 2017. doi:10.1111/cdep.12237. doi:10.1177/0013164409355685.
39. Pekrun R, Linnenbrink-Garcia L (Editors). International Handbook 62. Marton F, Sa €ljo
€ R. Approaches to learning. In: The Experience of
of Emotions in Education. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2014. Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher
40. Putwain DW, Becker S, Symes W, Pekrun R. Reciprocal relations Education (3rd (Internet) ed.), edited by Marton F, Hounsell D,
between students’ academic enjoyment, boredom, and achievement Entwistle N. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Centre for Teaching,
over time. Learn Instr 54: 73–81, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc. Learning and Assessment, 2005, p. 39–58.
2017.08.004. 63. Kuhn D. How do people know? Psychol Sci 12: 1–8, 2001. doi:10.1111/
41. Mega C, Ronconi L, De Beni R. What makes a good student? How 1467-9280.00302.
emotions, self-regulated learning, and motivation contribute to aca- 64. Miller MC, Montplaisir LM, Offerdahl EG, Cheng FC, Ketterling GL.
demic achievement. J Educ Psychol 106: 121–131, 2014. doi:10.1037/ Comparison of views of the nature of science between natural sci-
a0033546. ence and nonscience majors. CBE Life Sci Educ 9: 45–54, 2010.
42. Abrandt Dahlgren M, Dahlgren LO. Portraits of PBL: students’ expe- doi:10.1187/cbe.09-05-0029.
riences of the characteristics of problem-based learning in physio- 65. Ding L, Mollohan K. How college-level introductory instruction can
therapy, computer engineering and psychology. Instr Sci 30: 111–127, impact student epistemological beliefs. J Coll Sci Teach 44: 19–27,
2002. doi:10.1023/A:1014819418051. 2015. doi:10.2505/4/jcst15_044_04_19.
43. Khoo HE, Chhem RK, Gwee MC, Balasubramaniam P. Introduction 66. Holland DG, Harper RP, Hunter AB, Weston TJ, Seymour E. The
of problem-based learning in a traditional medical curriculum in processes and consequences of switching, including the loss of
Singapore—students’ and tutors’ perspectives. Ann Acad Med high-performing STEM majors. In: Talking about Leaving Revisited,
Singap 30: 371–374, 2001. edited by Seymour E, Hunter AB. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019.
44. Maudsley G, Williams EM, Taylor DC. Problem-based learning at doi:10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2_10.
the receiving end: a ‘mixed methods’ study of junior medical stu- 67. Pelaez N, Anderson T, Gardner S, Yin Y, Abraham JK, Bartlett E,
dents' perspectives. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 13: 435–451, Gormally C, Hill JP, Hoover M, Hurney C, Long T, Newman DL,
2008. doi:10.1007/s10459-006-9056-9. Sirum K, Stevens M The basic competencies of biological experi-
45. Walling A, Istas K, Bonaminio GA, Paolo AM, Fontes JD, Davis N, mentation: concept-skill statements. PIBERG Instructional Innovation
Berardo BA. Medical student perspectives of active learning: a Materials, Paper 4, 2017. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/pibergiim/4.
focus group study. Teach Learn Med 29: 173–180, 2017. doi:10.1080/ [2021 Nov].
10401334.2016.1247708. 68. Sandoval WA. Understanding students’ practical epistemologies
46. DeFeo DJ, Tran TC, Gerken S. Mediating students’ fixation with and their influence on learning through inquiry. Sci Educ 89: 634–
grades in an inquiry-based undergraduate biology course. Sci Educ 656, 2005. doi:10.1002/sce.20065.
30: 81–102, 2021. doi:10.1007/s11191-020-00161-3. 69. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
47. Turner SF, Cardinal LB, Burton RM. Research design for mixed
Mental Health, Substance Use, and Wellbeing in Higher Education:
methods: a triangulation-based framework and roadmap. Organ Res
Supporting the Whole Student. Washington, DC: National Academies
Methods 20: 243–267, 2017. doi:10.1177/1094428115610808.
Press, 2021. doi:10.17226/26015.
48. Wieman C, Gilbert S. The teaching practices inventory: a new
70. Slavin RE. Research on cooperative learning and achievement:
tool for characterizing college and university teaching in mathe-
what we know, what we need to know. Contemp Educ Psychol 21:
matics and science. CBE Life Sci Educ 13: 552–569, 2014 [Erratum
43–69, 1996. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0004.
in CBE Life Sci Educ 14: co2, 2015]. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-02-0023.
71. Cacioppo S, Capitanio JP, Cacioppo JT. Toward a neurology of
49. Smith MK, Jones FH, Gilbert SL, Wieman CE. The classroom obser-
loneliness. Psychol Bull 140: 1464–1504, 2014. doi:10.1037/
vation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): a new instrument
to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE Life Sci a0037618.
Educ 12: 618–627, 2013 [Erratum in CBE Life Sci Educ 13: 359, 2014]. 72. Ryff CD. Well-being with soul: science in pursuit of human poten-
doi:10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154. tial. Perspect Psychol Sci 13: 242–248, 2018. doi:10.1177/
50. Wangerin PT. Multidisciplinary analysis of the structure of persua- 1745691617699836.
sive arguments. Harv J Law Public Policy 16: 195–239, 1993. 73. Pease M, Kuhn D. Experimental analysis of the effective compo-
51. Biggs J, Collis K. Towards a model of school-based curriculum de- nents of problem-based learning. Sci Educ 95: 57–86, 2011.
velopment and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy. Aust J Educ doi:10.1002/sce.20412.
33: 151–163, 1989. doi:10.1177/168781408903300205. 74. Cavanagh AJ, Chen X, Bathgate M, Frederick J, Hanauer DI,
52. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content Graham MJ. Trust, growth mindset, and student commitment to
analysis. Qual Health Res 15: 1277–1288, 2005. doi:10.1177/ active learning in a college science course. CBE Life Sci Educ 17:
1049732305276687. ar10, 2018. doi:10.1187/cbe.17-06-0107.
53. van Manen M. Researching Lived Experience. Albany, NY: State 75. Baron RM. The contributions of Herbert C. Kelman: reinvigorating
University of New York Press, 1990. Lewin and anticipating dynamical systems models. In: The Social
54. Hein G. Learning in the Museum. London: Routledge, 1998. Psychology of Group Identity and Social Conflict, edited by Eagly
55. Tishman S, McKinney A, Straughn C. Study Center Learning: An AH, Baron RM, Hamilton VL. Washington, DC: American
Investigation of the Educational Power and Potential of the Psychological Association, 2004, p. 3–19.
Harvard Art Museum’s Study Centers. 2007. http://www.pz. 76. Deslauriers L, McCarty LS, Miller K, Callaghan K, Kestin G.
harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Study Center report Tishman et al. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to
pdf. [2021 Nov]. being actively engaged in the classroom. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
56. Saldan ~ a J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los 116: 19251–19257, 2019. doi:10.1073/pnas.1821936116.
Angeles, CA: Sage, 2009. 77. Quoidbach J, Mikolajczak M, Gross J. Positive interventions: an
57. Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: emotion regulation perspective. Psychol Bull 141: 655–693, 2015.
methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta- doi:10.1037/a0038648.
aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13: 179–187, 2015. doi:10.1097/ 78. Shankland R, Rosset E. Review of brief school-based positive
XEB.0000000000000062. psychological interventions: a taster for teachers and educators.
58. Kuhn D, Katz J, Dean D. Developing reason. Think Reason 10: 197– Educ Psychol Rev 29: 363–392, 2017. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-
219, 2004. doi:10.1080/13546780442000015. 9357-3.
59. Cliff N. Dominance statistics: ordinal analyses to answer ordinal 79. Cross N, Clayburn Cross A. Observations of teamwork and social
questions. Psychol Bull 114: 494–509, 1993. doi:10.1037/0033- processes in design. Design Stud 16: 143–170, 1995. doi:10.1016/
2909.114.3.494. 0142-694X(94)00007-Z.
60. Grissom R, Kim J. Effect Sizes for Research: Univariate and 80. Stubbs MS. Discourse Analysis: the Sociolinguistic Analysis of
Multivariate Applications (2nd ed.). London: Routledge, 2012. Natural Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983.

81. Babiker I, Cox J, Miller P. The measurement of cultural distance and sojourners. Int J Intercult Rel 15: 209–225, 1991. doi:10.1016/0147-
its relationship to medical consultations, symptomatology and exam- 1767(91)90030-K.
ination performance of overseas students at Edinburgh University. 84. Eddy S, Brownell SE, Thummaphan P, Lan MC. Caution, student ex-
Soc Psychiatry 15: 109–116, 1980. doi:10.1007/BF00578141. perience may vary: social identities impact a student’s experience in
82. Searle W, Ward C. The prediction of psychological and sociocultural peer discussions. CBE-Life Sci Educ 14: ar45, 2015. doi:10.1187/
adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. Int J Intercult Rel 14: cbe.15-05-0108.
449–464, 1990. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(90)90030-Z. 85. Ying YW, Liese L. Initial adaptation of Taiwan foreign students to the
83. Ward C, Searle W. The impact of value discrepancies and cultural U.S.: the impact of pre-arrival variables. Am J Community Psychol 18:
identity on psychological and sociocultural adjustment of 825–845, 1990. doi:10.1007/BF00938066.


Undergraduates' Lived Experience of Project-/problem-Based Learning in Introductory Biology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Undergraduates' Lived Experience of Project-/problem-Based Learning in Introductory Biology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Undergraduates' Lived Experience of Project-/problem-Based Learning in Introductory Biology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adv Physiol Educ 46: 162–178, 2022.

First published January 6, 2022; doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021

Undergraduates’ lived experience of project-/problem-based learning in

causal reasoning; epistemology; learning approaches; problem-based learning; project-based learning

INTRODUCTION some studies have examined students’ experience of PBL in

Correspondence: T. Allen (taylor.allen@oberlin.edu).

162 1043-4046/22 Copyright © 2022 the American Physiological Society.

Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org 163

164 Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org

Table 1. Characteristics of PBL and lecture students

Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org 165

Table 2. Timeline of collection of data

166 Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org

Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org 167

168 Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org

and help as well as on perceived changes in self as learner

Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org 169

170 Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org

Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org 171

172 Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org

Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org 173

174 Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org

Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org 175

176 Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org

Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org 177

178 Advances in Physiology Education doi:10.1152/advan.00042.2021 http://advan.physiology.org

You might also like