The Many Faces of Inductive By Michael Prince Teaching and Learning and Richard Felder

This study examines the effectiveness and implementation of different inductive teaching methods, including inquiry-based learn- ing, problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based teaching, discovery learning, and just-in-time teaching.

cience courses are tradition- chological research that provides strong with a challenge and then learn what ally taught deductively. The support for inductive teaching methods. they need to know to address the instructor first teaches students The literature also demonstrates that challenge. The methods differ in the relevant theory and mathemati- inductive methods encourage students nature and scope of the challenge and Scal models, then moves on to textbook to adopt a deep approach to learning in the amount of guidance students exercises, and eventually—maybe— (Ramsden 2003; Norman and Schmidt receive from their instructor as they gets to real-world applications. Often 1992; Coles 1985) and that the chal- attempt to meet the challenge. the only motivation students have to lenges provided by inductive methods learn the material, beyond grades, is the serve as precursors to intellectual de- Inquiry-based learning vague promise that it will be important velopment (Felder and Brent 2004). In inquiry-based learning (also known later in the curriculum or in their ca- Inductive teaching methods come as inquiry-guided learning or guided reers. Failure to connect course content in many forms, including discovery inquiry), students are presented with to the real world has repeatedly been learning, inquiry-based learning, a challenge (such as a question to be shown to contribute to students leav- problem-based learning, project- answered, an observation or data set ing the sciences (Seymour and Hewitt based learning, case-based teaching, to be interpreted, or a hypothesis to 1997; Kardash and Wallace 2001). and just-in-time teaching. Few stud- be tested) and accomplish the desired A better way to motivate students ies have examined these methods as learning in the process of responding is inductive teaching, in which the a group. Prince and Felder (2006) to that challenge. As with all inductive instructor begins by presenting stu- provide an extensive analysis of the methods, the information needed to dents with a specific challenge, such conceptual frameworks and research address the challenge would not have as experimental data to interpret, a bases for inductive teaching, review been previously covered explicitly in case study to analyze, or a complex applications of inductive methods lectures or readings, although it would real-world problem to solve. Students in engineering education, and state normally build on previously known grappling with these challenges quickly the roles of other student-centered material. Inquiry has frequently recognize the need for facts, skills, and approaches, such as active and coop- been found to be more effective conceptual understanding, at which erative learning, in inductive teaching. than traditional science instruction point the teacher provides instruction This paper briefly reviews the distin- at improving academic achievement or helps students learn on their own. guishing features of the principal in- and the development of thinking, Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) ductive methods, describes illustrative problem-solving, and laboratory skills survey extensive neurological and psy- applications in the sciences, discusses (Smith 1996; Haury 1993; McReary, practical issues of implementation, Golde, and Koeske 2006; Shymansky, Michael Prince ([email protected]) is and suggests resources for instructors Hedges, and Woodworth 1990; Rubin a professor in the Department of Chemi- who wish to use one or more inductive 1996; Oliver-Hoyo and Allen 2005; cal Engineering at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Richard Felder methods in their own teaching. Oliver-Hoyo et al. 2004). Colburn ([email protected]) is the Hoechst (2006) recommends focusing inquiry- Celanese Professor Emeritus of Chemical and Inductive teaching methods based activities around questions Biomolecular Engineering at North Carolina What inductive methods have in com- that call for experimental investiga- State University. mon is that students are presented tion, involve materials and situations Copyright © 2007, National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). Reprinted with permission from Journal of College of 14 Journal College Science Teaching Science Teaching, Vol. 36, No. 5, March/April 2007. somewhat familiar to students, and has the defining characteristics of instructor either provides it or guides pose a sufficient level of challenge to those methods, and use inquiry-based the students to obtain the required promote skill development. learning as an umbrella category for information themselves. Inquiry-based methods have been any other inductive approach. Several examples of PBL imple- used in many different disciplines, mentations are given in chapters of the including physics (Fencl and Scheel Discovery learning edited volume of Duch, Groh, and Al- 2005; McDermott 1995; Thacker et In discovery learning, students are len (2001). In Chapter 18, Susan Groh al. 1994; Heflich, Dixon, and Davis confronted with a challenge and left outlines a series of problems in a case 2001), biology (Chamanay and Lang; to work out the solution on their own study called “Winter Woes” that she Londraville et al. 2002), and chemis- (Bruner 1961; French 2006). The used in a general chemistry course. try (Jalil 2006; Lewis and Lewis 2005; instructor may provide feedback in The students are given several sce- Oliver-Hoyo, Allen, and Anderson response to student efforts but offers narios having to do with a cold and icy 2004; Oliver-Hoyo and Allen 2005). little or no direction before or during winter day: their car is running rough The POGIL (Process-Oriented those efforts. The lack of structure and (Could water have gotten into the fuel Guided Inquiry Learning) website guidance provided by the instructor lines at the prevailing weather condi- (www.pogil.org) contains reports of and the trial and error consequently tions? What can be done if it did?); implementations on several campuses, required of students are the defining they need to choose from among instructional materials for different features of discovery learning relative several salts with different costs to use branches of chemistry, and a video to other inductive methods. This ex- for de-icing a sidewalk; and they need showing an implementation of the treme form of inductive teaching was to select from among several desalina- method in an introductory chemistry developed for precollege education and tion processes to purify the city’s wa- class. ChemConnections (http://mc2. has rarely been used in undergraduate ter supply after a retaining wall failed cchem.berkeley.edu) surveys inquiry- classes, and there is little empirical evi- and tons of rock salt were carried into based instructional modules developed dence for its effectiveness in that set- the reservoir. In Chapter 21, Barbara at the University of California at Berke- ting. (There is significant evidence for Williams presents a first-year physics ley for the first two years of the chem- the benefits of involving undergraduate problem in which someone stands on istry curriculum. The ChemCollective students in independent research [Sey- a scale in an elevator and the students (www.chemcollective.org/find.php) mour et al. 2004], but undergraduate must figure out how the scale readings archives resources for inquiry-based research does not usually qualify as would vary as the elevator moves up chemistry instruction, including virtual discovery learning because the advisor and down. laboratory experiments, concept tests, typically provides significant structure PBL originated, and is exten- problem scenarios, and simulations. Lee and guidance.) sively practiced, in medical education (2004) reports on a series of inquiry- More common than pure discov- and other health-related disciplines based courses in different disciplines ery are variants such as guided discov- (Savin-Baden and Major 2004). PBL at North Carolina State University, ery, in which the instructor provides problems in chemistry and physics including chemistry and physics in some structure and support (Spencer (among other fields) and guidance on large classes (Oliver-Hoyo and Beich- and Jordan 1996). Depending on the how to use them are given in Duch, ner 2004), microbiology (Hyman and nature of the initial challenge and the Groh, and Allen (2001) and on web- Luginbuhl 2004), and wood and paper extent of the guidance, these variants sites maintained at the University of science (Kirkman et al. 2004). would typically fall into one or another Delaware (www.udel.edu/pbl) and Any instruction that begins with of the other categories that follow. Samford University (www.samford. a challenge for which the required edu/pbl), both of which provide links knowledge has not been previously Problem-based learning to many additional resources. provided technically qualifies as in- In problem-based learning (PBL), stu- A meta-analysis of the effective- quiry-based learning, and the scope of dents—usually working in teams—are ness of problem-based learning was the inquiry may vary from a portion confronted with an ill-structured open- published by Dochy et al. (2003). of a single lecture to a major term ended real-world problem to solve, and Their results suggest that students may project. In this sense, all inductive take the lead in defining the problem acquire more knowledge in the short methods are variants of inquiry, dif- precisely, figuring out what they know term when taught conventionally but fering essentially in the nature of the and what they need to determine, and are likely to retain knowledge longer challenge and the type and degree of how to proceed to determine it. They when taught with problem-based learn- support provided by the instructor. We formulate and evaluate alternative so- ing. The results for skill development will adhere to common usage by us- lutions, select the best one and make consistently favored PBL instruction. ing the terms problem-based learning, a case for it, and evaluate lessons Prince (2004) examined several meta- project-based learning, and discovery learned. When they identify the need analyses and concluded that PBL learning to refer to instruction that for instruction on new material, the improves students’ skill development,

March/April 2007 15 retention of knowledge, and ability to tion of the data. The culmination of entirely in teams, students may be less apply learned material, but it does not the project is normally a written or equipped to work independently. have a statistically significant effect on oral report summarizing what was Project-based learning falls be- academic achievement as measured done and what the outcome was. tween inquiry and problem-based by exams. Prince and Felder (2006) Project-based learning implementa- learning in terms of the challenges cite studies reporting a robust posi- tions in science curricula have not it poses to instructors. Projects and tive effect of PBL on development of been extensively reported, although the knowledge and skills needed to a variety of problem-solving skills, some of the applications cited in this complete them may be relatively well conceptual understanding, ability to article for inquiry-based learning defined and known from previous apply meta-cognitive and reasoning could be considered project-based parts of the curriculum, which lessens strategies, teamwork skills, and even as well. Several implementations of the likelihood of student resistance, class attendance. service learning (a form of project- and they may be defined in a manner Problem-based learning is argu- based learning in which the projects that constrains students to territory fa- ably the most difficult to implement involve some type of community ser- miliar to the instructor, which further of all the inductive teaching methods. vice) have been reported in chemistry reduces the difficulty of implemen- It is time-consuming to construct au- courses (Draper 2004; Kesner and tation. Projects are usually done by thentic open-ended problems whose Eyring 1999; O’Hara, Sanborn, and student teams but they may also be solution requires the full range of Howard 1999). assigned to individuals, which avoids skills specified in the instructor’s Strictly speaking, in project- many logistical and interpersonal learning objectives, so instructors based learning students mainly apply problems but also cuts down on the are advised to use problems that have previously acquired knowledge and range of skills that can be developed already been developed and tested, if the final product is the central focus through the project. The challenge such problems can be located (e.g., of the assignment, while in problem- of project-based learning is to define at the University of Delaware PBL based learning, students have not projects with a scope and level of dif- Clearinghouse). PBL gives students previously received formal instruction ficulty appropriate for the class, and if the responsibility of defining the in the necessary background mate- the end product is a constructed device knowledge and skills they need to pro- rial and the solution process is more or if the project involves experimenta- ceed with each phase of the problem, important than the final product. In tion, the appropriate equipment and and so instructors must be prepared practice the distinction between the laboratory and shop facilities must be to go in directions that may not be two methods is not necessarily that available. Hybrid (problem/project- familiar or comfortable. Moreover, clean, and instructional programs based) approaches encompass all of PBL involves a spectrum of instruc- have recently adopted approaches that the difficulties associated with both tional features likely to provoke are hybrids of both methods (Kolmos, methods and so can be particularly student resentment and resistance, personal communication; Tan et al. challenging to implement. including complex problems that 2003; Galand and Frenay 2005). have no unique solutions, the need Studies comparing project-based Case-based teaching for students to define for themselves learning to conventional instruction In case-based teaching, students what they need to know to solve them, have yielded results similar to those study historical or hypothetical cases and the logistical and interpersonal obtained for problem-based learning, involving scenarios likely to be en- problems that inevitably arise when including significant positive effects countered in professional practice. students work in teams. Instructors on problem-solving skills, conceptual Students are challenged to explore who lack the subject knowledge and understanding, and attitudes to learn- their existing preconceptions and self-confidence that normally come ing, and comparable or better student modify them to accommodate the only with extensive experience and performance on tests of content realities of the cases (Lundeberg, training could easily find themselves knowledge (Thomas 2000; Mills and Levin, and Harrington 1999). Com- overwhelmed by the negative re- Treagust 2003). Mills and Treagust pared to typical problems used in sponses of their students. (2003) note, however, that students problem-based learning, cases tend taught with project-based learning to be relatively well structured and Project-based learning and hybrid may gain a less-complete mastery rich in contextual details, and stu- (problem/project-based) methods of fundamentals than conventionally dents apply material that is already Project-based learning involves as- taught students acquire, and some of somewhat familiar (Lohman 2002). signments that call for students to the former students may be unhappy Cases are most commonly produce something, such as a process over the time and effort required by thought of in the context of law or product design, a computer code or projects and the interpersonal con- and management science education, simulation, or the design of an experi- flicts they experience in team work. but they have also been used exten- ment and the analysis and interpreta- Moreover, if the project work is done sively in science (Herreid 1997).

16 Journal of College Science Teaching The National Center for Case Study tive methods only to problem-based thinking required on the assessment Teaching in Science (http://ublib.buf- learning if instructors must create and task, the more likely that case-based falo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/case. analyze the cases themselves. teaching will produce greater gains html) at the University of Buffalo Studies have shown that relative in student understanding.” Studies of archives case studies in the physical, to conventional teaching, case-based the effect of case-based instruction on chemical, and biological sciences, instruction significantly improves the acquisition and recall of factual mathematics and computer science, student retention (Fasko 2003), rea- knowledge are inconclusive (Fasko medicine, engineering, psychology, soning and problem-solving skills 2003; Katsikitis et al. 2002). and ethics. Another website (http:// (Levin 1997; Fasko 2003), higher- edr1.educ.msu.edu/references/view- order skills on Bloom’s taxonomy Just-in-time teaching article.asp), developed jointly at the (Gabel 1999), the ability to make In just-in-time teaching (JiTT), stu- University of Buffalo and Michigan objective judgments (Dinan 2002), dents respond electronically to con- State University, summarizes articles the ability to identify relevant issues ceptual questions before each class, assessing both case-based instruction and recognize multiple perspectives and the instructor adjusts the lesson and problem-based learning in many (Lundeberg et al. 1999), and aware- to react to misconceptions revealed different fields. ness of ethical issues (Lundeberg, by students’ responses. Since the The key to case-based instruc- Levin, and Harrington 2002). Lun- conceptual questions involve material tion is having cases that are clear deberg and Yadav (2006) carried not yet covered in class, the method and realistic and encompass all of the out a meta-analysis and concluded qualifies as inductive. JiTT was de- teaching points the instructor wishes that cases have a positive impact on veloped jointly by physics faculty at to convey. Constructing such cases faculty and student attitudes, class Indiana University-Purdue University can be extraordinarily time consum- attendance, and faculty perceptions Indianapolis, the U.S. Air Force Acad- ing. Using case-based instruction of learning outcomes. They also note emy, and Davidson College, and can may therefore be considered moder- that the reported comparisons of the be combined with almost any in-class ate in difficulty (roughly comparable effectiveness of case studies versus active learning approach (Modesitt, to project-based learning) if suitable traditional instruction depend strongly Maxim, and Akingbehin 1999; Novak prewritten cases are available, and on the assessment tasks and that “the et al. 1999). The Just-in-Time Teach- second in difficulty among induc- higher the level of knowledge and ing website (http://webphysics.iupui.

Table 1 Instructional demands imposed by inductive teaching methods.

Method Required resources Planning time and instructor involvement Student resistance

Inquiry None Small Minimal

Cases (individual) Cases Small (existing cases); considerable (original cases) Minimal

Project-based Facilities for Small (same project, no facilities maintenance); moderate Minimal (individual) experimental projects (different projects, facilities maintenancea Web-based course Moderate (continual need to adjust lesson plans to reflect Just-in-time teaching Moderate management system student answers to pre-class questions)

Cases (teams) Cases Considerable (team managementb) Considerableb

Facilities for Project-based (teams) Considerable (team management, facilities maintenancea) Considerablea,b experimental projects

Problem-based Problems Considerable (existing problems), extensive (original problems)b Majorc

Hybrid (problem/ Problems, facilities for Considerable (existing problems), extensive (original problems)a,b Majorc project-based) experimental projects a Assuming that experimental facilities are required for student projects and that the instructor (as opposed to a technician) is involved in maintaining them. b Assuming that cooperative learning principles are followed for team projects. If, for example, students can self-select teams and the instructor makes no effort to assess individual knowledge and performance or to intervene in team conflicts, the demands on the instructor are the same as for individual assignments using the same method. c Resistance follows both from the burden of responsibility for their own learning placed on students and the additional demands imposed by cooperative learning. Hybrid methods may also involve problems of facilities maintenance.

March/April 2007 17 edu/jitt/jitt.html) provides information require more planning and possibly teaching of any type can easily be and resources for JiTT. more resources, and are more likely overwhelmed by the additional chal- An assessment of the effectiveness to arouse student resistance and inter- lenges imposed by inductive methods. of JiTT in physics instruction (Novak personal conflicts (Felder and Brent Instructors with little or no experience et al. 1999) showed normalized stu- 1996). The less explicit instruction using inductive methods are advised to dent gains on the Force Concept In- and guidance students are given be- avoid the more difficult ones (see Table ventory of 35–40%, and JiTT reduced fore and while they are addressing a 1), and methods that call for extensive student attrition by 40% compared to challenge, the greater the resistance is teamwork should automatically be con- traditionally taught physics courses. likely to be. Moreover, instructional sidered difficult. This rule of thumb is Marrs and Novak (2004) found that methods that call for the use of coop- particularly true for untenured assistant the use of JiTT in a large-enroll- erative (team-based) learning pose ad- professors, who can ill afford the exces- ment introductory biology course for ditional problems, such as the needs to sive time demands and negative student nonmajors led to improved pretest- assess individual student performance ratings that often accompany inexpert posttest gains, course retention, class in a team environment and to equip implementations of difficult methods. preparation, classroom interactivity, students to deal with the interpersonal and student study habits, and Slunt and and communication problems that 3. Are resources (e.g., PBL problems, Giancarlo (2004) found that JiTT led inevitably arise in teamwork. case studies, or just-in-time teaching to improved student performance and Table 1 compares the relative de- exercises and the computer facilities engagement in general chemistry and mands of the methods discussed in the needed to process them) available for organic chemistry courses. preceding sections. The resources listed the subject you are teaching? Just-in-time teaching is some- are only those that are difficult to pre- The more resource-intensive the what demanding to implement, for pare or costly to obtain. The suggested method, the greater the need for exist- several reasons. It requires prepara- levels of difficulty refer to the difficulty ing resources or external support to tion of conceptual questions prior for the instructor, not the students. implement it. Instructors should be to every lecture and a web-based We propose that instructors con- mindful of the time demands of each course management system that can templating adoption of an inductive method and take advantage of existing tabulate students’ responses for the method consider the following ques- resources, experienced colleagues, instructor to review. It also requires tions, and base their selected method and teaching center consultants who flexibility on the part of instructors, on the answers. can offer tips on implementing the who must adjust their lesson plans for method and dealing with problems each lecture in reaction to students’ 1. What are your instructional objec- that arise in its use. n responses and could end up follow- tives for the course or specified topic? ing significantly different schedules Are at least some of them at high References for different classes. The overall dif- cognitive levels? Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, and ficulty of implementation depends If instructional objectives are at a R.R. Cocking, eds. 2000. How considerably on the ease of use and low cognitive level, requiring almost people learn: Brain, mind, expe- reliability of the course management exclusively rote memorization of rience, and school. Washington, software and on whether the questions facts or mechanical substitution into DC: National Academy Press. already exist or must be made up by formulas, there is no reason to use an Available online at www.nap.edu/ the instructor. inductive method. Low-level mate- books/0309070368/html. rial is most effectively and efficiently Bruner, J.S.1961. The act of discov- Selection and implementation of taught by giving students a study ery. Harvard Education Review 31 an inductive teaching method guide for tests that specifies what (1): 21–32. While studies supporting the differ- they should memorize and the types Chamanay, K., and E. Lang. Teaching ent inductive methods vary in both of calculations they might be required cell biology today: Incorporat- quantity and persuasiveness, the col- to perform on tests, and providing ing contemporary issues into a lective evidence favoring inductive examples and practice (in and out of collection of teaching modules. teaching over traditional deductive class) in the calculations. Project Kaleidoscope. www.pkal. pedagogy is unequivocal. Induction org/documents/TeachingCellBi- is supported by widely accepted 2. How experienced are you with ac- ologyToday.cfm. educational theories, cognitive sci- tive or inductive teaching and using Colburn, A. 2006. What teacher ence, and empirical research. student teams? Are you on a tenure educators need to know about Inductive methods are not trivial track but not yet tenured? inquiry-based instruction. Paper to implement, however. Relative to Inexperienced instructors who are still presented at the annual meeting traditional deductive teaching, they trying to figure out how to deal with of the Association for the Educa- impose more logistical problems, the routine problems associated with tion of Teachers in Science, Ak-

18 Journal of College Science Teaching ron, OH. Available at www.csulb. Galand, B., and M. Frenay. 2005. try: Lead paint analyses. Journal edu/~acolburn/AETS.htm. L’approche par problèmes et par pro- of Chemical Education 76 (7): Coles, C.R. 1985 Differences between jets dans l’Enseignement Supérieur: 920–23. conventional and problem-based Impact, enjeux et defies [Problem- Kirkman, A.G., M.V. Byrd, H. Ja- curricula in their students’ ap- and project-based learning in higher meel, and J.A. Heitman. 2004. The proaches to studying. Medical education: Impact, implementation, challenge of implementing an in- Education 19(4): 308–09. and challenges], Louvain-la-Neuve: quiry-guided approach in a highly Dinan, F. 2002. Chemistry by the case. Presses Universitaires de Louvain. A technical curriculum. In Teaching Journal of College Science Teach- video of Professor Frenay presenting and learning through inquiry: ing 32 (1): 36–41. (in English) a description of the Lou- A guidebook for institutions and Dochy, F., M. Segers, P. Van den vain curriculum and summarizing instructors, ed. V.S. Lee, 143–56. Bossche, and D. Gijbels. 2003. the assessment and evaluation of its Sterling, VA: Stylus. Effects of problem-based learning: effectiveness can be viewed online Lee, V.S., ed. 2004. Teaching and A meta-analysis. Learning and at http://video.aau.dk/lectures/I20/ learning through inquiry: A guide- Instruction 13: 533–68. I20_UCPBL.html. book for institutions and instruc- Draper, A.J. 2004. Integrating proj- Haury, D. 1993. Teaching science tors. Sterling, VA: Stylus. ect-based service-learning into an through inquiry. (ERIC Document Levin, B. 1997. The influence of advanced environmental chemistry Reproduction no. ED 359 048). context in case-based teaching: course. Journal of Chemical Edu- Heflich, D., J. Dixon, and K. Davis. Personal dilemmas, moral is- cation 81 (2): 221–24. 2001. Taking it to the field: The au- sues or real change in teachers’ Duch, B.J., S.E. Groh, and D.E. Allen. thentic integration of mathematics thinking? Paper presented at the 2001. The power of problem-based and technology in inquiry-based annual meeting of the American learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus. science instruction. Journal of Educational Research Association, Fasko, D. 2003. Case studies and Computers in Mathematics and Chicago. Quoted in Lundeberg et method in teaching and learning. Science Teaching 20 (1): 99. al. 2002, 89. Paper presented at the annual meet- Herreid, C.F. 1997. What is a case? Lewis, S.E., and J.E. Lewis. 2005. De- ing of the Society of Educators and Journal of College Science Teach- partment from lectures: An evalu- Scholars, Louisville, KY. ing 27 (2): 92–94. ation of a peer-led guided inquiry Felder, R.M., and R. Brent. 1996. Hyman, M., and G. Luginbuhl. 2004. alternative. Journal of Chemical Navigating the bumpy road to stu- Inquiry-guided learning and the Education 82 (1): 135–39. dent-centered instruction. College undergraduate major in the depart- Lohman, M. 2002. Cultivating prob- Teaching 44 (2): 43–47. Available ment of microbiology. In Teaching lem-solving skills through prob- online at www.ncsu.edu/felder- and learning through inquiry: lem-based approaches to pro- public/Papers/Resist.html. A guidebook for institutions and fessional development. Human Felder, R.M., and R. Brent. 2004. The instructors, ed. V.S. Lee, 129–41. Resource Development Quarterly intellectual development of science Sterling, VA: Stylus. 13 (3): 243. and engineering students. Pt. 1: Mod- Jalil, P.A. 2006. A procedural problem Londraville, R., P. Niewiarowski, els and challenges; Pt. 2: Teaching in laboratory teaching: Experi- R. Laipply, and K. Owens. 2002. to promote growth. Journal of Engi- ment and eExplain, or vice versa? Inquiry-based laboratories for neering Education 93 (4): 269–77; Journal of Chemical Education 83 introductory biology. Society for 93 (4): 279–91. Pt. 1 available online (1): 159–63. Integrative and Comparative Biol- at www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Pa- Kardash, C., and M. Wallace. 2001. ogy 42 (6): 1267. pers/IntDev-I.pdf; Pt. 2 available The perceptions of science classes Lundeberg, M., B. Levin, and H. Har- online at www.ncsu.edu/felder-pub- survey: What undergraduate sci- rington. 1999. Who learns what lic/Papers/IntDev-II.pdf. ence reform efforts really need to from cases and how? The research Fencl, H., and K. Scheel. 2005. En- address. Journal of Educational base for teaching and learning gaging students. Journal of College Psychology 93 (1): 199–210. with cases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Science Teaching 35 (1): 20–24. Katsikitis, M., P.J. Hay, R.J. Barrett, Erlbaum Associates. French, D. 2006. Don’t confuse inquiry and T. Wade. 2002. Problem- Lundeberg, M., K. Mogen, M. Ber- and discovery. Journal of College versus case-based approaches in gland, K. Klyczek, D. Johnson, Science Teaching 35 (6): 58–59. teaching medical students about and E. MacDonald. 2002. Foster- Gabel, C. 1999. Using case studies to eating disorders: A controlled com- ing ethical awareness about human teach science. Paper presented at parison. Educational Psychology genetics through multimedia-based the annual meeting of the National 22 (3): 277–83. cases. Journal of College Science Association for Research in Sci- Kesner, L., and E.M. Eyring. 1999. Teaching 32 (1): 64–69. ence Teaching, Boston. Service-learning general chemis- Lundeberg, M.A., and A. Yadav. 2006.

March/April 2007 19 Assessment of case study teaching: Oliver-Hoyo, M., D. Allen, W.F. Hunt, Education 81 (7): 985–88. Where do we go from here? Pts. 1 and J. Hutson, and A. Pitts. 2004. Effects Smith, D. 1996. A meta-analysis of 2. Journal of College Science Teach- of an active learning environment: student outcomes attributable to the ing 35 (5):10–13; 35 (6): 8–13. Teaching innovations at a research teaching of science as inquiry as Marrs, K.A., and G. Novak. 2004. I institution. Journal of Chemical compared to traditional methodol- Just-in-time teaching in biology: Education 81 (3): 441–48. ogy. PhD diss., Temple University. Creating an active learner class- Oliver-Hoyo, M., and R. Beichner. Spencer, J.A., and R.K. Jordan. 1996. room using the internet. Cell Biol- 2004. SCALE-UP: Bringing in- Learner-centered approaches in ogy Education 3: 49–61. quiry-guided methods to large medical education. British Medical McCreary, C.L., M.F. Golde, and R. enrollment courses. In Teaching Journal 313: 275–83. Koeske. 2006. Peer instruction in and learning through inquiry: Tan, O.S., P. Little, S.Y. Hee, and J. Con- the general chemistry laboratory: A guidebook for institutions and way, eds. 2002. Problem-based learn- Assessment of student learning. instructors, ed. V.S. Lee, 51–69. ing: Educational innovation across Journal of Chemical Education 83 Sterling, VA: Stylus. disciplines. Singapore: Temasek Cen- (5): 804–10. Prince, M. 2004. Does active learning tre for Problem-Based Learning. McDermott, L.C. 1995. Physics by work? A review of the research. Tan, O.S., R.D. Parsons, S.L. Hinson, inquiry. New York: John Wiley Journal of Engineering Education and D. Sardo-Brown. 2003. Educa- & Sons. 93 (3): 223–31. tional psychology: A practitioner- Mills, J.E., and D.F. Treagust. 2003. Prince, M., and R.M. Felder. 2006. researcher approach (an Asian Engineering education—Is prob- Inductive teaching and learning edition). Singapore: Thomson. lem-based or project-based learn- methods: Definitions, comparisons, Thacker, B., K. Eunsook, K. Trefz, and ing the answer? Australasian and research bases. Journal of Engi- S. Lea. 1994. Comparing problem Journal of Engineering Education. neering Education 95 (2): 123–38. solving performance of physics stu- www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/ Ramsden, P. 2003. Learning to teach dents in inquiry-based and traditional mills_treagust03.pdf. in higher Education. 2nd ed. Lon- introductory physics courses. Ameri- Modesitt, K.L., B. Maxim, and K. don: Taylor and Francis. can Journal of Physics 62 (7): 627. Akingbehin. 1999. Just-in-time Rubin, S. 1996. Evaluation and meta- Thomas, J.W. 2000. A review of research learning in software engineering. analysis of selected research re- on project-based learning. San Ra- Journal of Computers in Math- lated to the laboratory component fael, CA: Autodesk Foundation. ematics and Science Teaching 18 of beginning college level science. (3): 287–301. PhD diss., Temple University. Resources Norman, G.R., and H.G. Schmidt. Savin-Baden, M., and C.H. Major. ChemCollective—www.chemcollec- 1992. The psychological basis of 2004. Foundations of problem- tive.org/find.php. problem-based learning: A review based learning. Maidenhead, UK: ChemConnections—http://mc2. of the evidence. Academic Medi- Open University Press. cchem.berkeley.edu. cine 67 (9): 557–65. Seymour, E., and N. Hewitt 1997. Database of research articles— http:// Novak, G.M., E.T. Patterson, A.D. Talking about leaving: Why under- edr1.educ.msu.edu/references/ Gavrin, and W. Christian. 1999. Just- graduates leave science. Boulder, viewarticle.asp. in-time teaching: Blending active CO: Westview. Just-in-time teaching—http://web- learning with web technology. Upper Seymour, E., A.-B. Hunter, S.L. physics.iupui.edu/jitt/jitt.html. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Laursen, and T. DeAntoni. 2004. National Center for Case Study Teach- O’Hara, P.B., J.A. Sanborn, and M. Establishing the benefits of re- ing in Science, University of Buf- Howard. 1999. Pesticides in drink- search experiences for undergradu- falo—http://ublib.buffalo.edu/li- ing water: Project-based learning ates in the sciences: First findings braries/projects/cases/case.html. within the introductory chemistry from a three-year study. Science The POGIL project—www.pogil.org. curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education 88 (4): 493–534. Problem-based learning (University of Education 76 (12): 1673–77. Shymansky, J., L. Hedges, and G. Delaware)—www.udel.edu/pbl. Oliver-Hoyo, M., and D. Allen. 2005. Woodworth. 1990. A reassessment Problem based learning (Samford Uni- Attitudinal effects of a student-cen- of the effects of inquiry-based sci- versity)—www.samford.edu/pbl. tered active learning environment. ence curricula of the 60’s on student SCALE-UP (Student-Centered Ac- Journal of Chemical Education 82 performance. Journal of Research in tivities for Large Enrollment Un- (6): 944–49. Science Teaching 27 (2): 127–44. dergraduate Programs)—www. Oliver-Hoyo, M., D. Allen, D, and M. Slunt, K.M., and L.C. Giancarlo. 2004. ncsu.edu/PER/scaleup.html. Anderson. 2004. Inquiry-guided Student-centered learning: A com- Workshop Physics—http://physics. Instruction. Journal of College Sci- parison of two different methods dickinson.edu/~wp_web/wp_over- ence Teaching 33 (6): 20–24. of instruction. Journal of Chemical view.html.

20 Journal of College Science Teaching