• Kuang-Chao Yu
  • Szu-Chun Fan
  • Kuen-Yi LinEmail author


Problem solving is often challenging for students because they do not understand the problem-solving process (PSP). This study presents a three-stage, context-based, problem-solving, learning activity that involves watching detective films, constructing a context-simulation activity, and introducing a project design to enable students to construct a complete PSP. This study was conducted among 103 eighth-grade students over a period of 14 weeks. The descriptive statistics and structural equation model were used to analyze the students’ PSP performance. Results indicate that context simulation is beneficial for cultivating students’ abilities to establish and analyze questions and then select and develop solutions. In addition, the project design cultivated the students’ ability to evaluate results and apply feedback. Findings from this study demonstrate that context-based learning may effectively enable students to establish a complete PSP.

Key words

context-based learning problem-solving process science detective films technological knowledge 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aduriz-Bravo, A., Izquierdo, M. & Estany, A. (2001). A characterization of practical proposals to teach the philosophy of science to prospective science teachers. In N. Valanides (Ed.), Science and technology education: Preparing future citizens (pp. 37–47). University of Cyprus: Paralimni.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S., Wallace, K., Lucienne, T. & Blessing, L. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arroio, A. (2010). Context based learning: A role for cinema in science education. Science Education International, 21(3), 131–143.Google Scholar
  4. Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S. & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barak, M. & Mesika, P. (2007). Teaching methods for inventive problem-solving in junior high school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chin, W. W. & Todd, P. (1995). On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modelling in MIS research: A note of caution. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conley, D. (2011). Building on the common core. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 16–20.Google Scholar
  8. Crismond, D. P. & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daugherty, M. (2001). Problem solving in appropriate technology. In R. C. Wicklein (Ed.), Appropriate technology for sustainable living: ITEA 50th yearbook (pp. 170–201). Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.Google Scholar
  10. Deek, F. P., Turoff, M. & McHugh, J. A. (1999). A common model for problem solving and program development. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(4), 331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon, R. A. & Brown, R. A. (2012). Transfer of learning: Connecting concepts during problem solving. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 2–17.Google Scholar
  13. Dubeck, L. W., Moshier, S. E. & Boss, J. E. (2004). Fantastic voyages: Learning science through science fiction films (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Efthimiou, C. & Llewellyn, R. A. (2004). Cinema as a tool for science literacy. Physics Education, 16(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  15. Fechner, S. (2009). Effects of context oriented learning on student interest and achievement in chemistry education. Berlin: Logos Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Ge, X. & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Hennessy, S. & McCormick, R. (1994). The general problem-solving process in technology education: Myth or reality? In F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 94–107). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hennessy, S., McCormick, R. & Murphy, P. (1993). The myth of general problem-solving capability: Design and technology as an example. The Curriculum Journal, 4(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem solving in real-life context: An alternative for design in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y. & Tai, K. H. (2012). Applying the BaGua to revitalize the creative problem solving process during a goal oriented contest. Thinking Skills and Creativity. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.09.003.Google Scholar
  23. International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, S. D., Dixon, R., Daugherty, J. & Lawanto, O. (2011). General versus specific intellectual competencies: The question of learning transfer. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering human development through engineering and technology education (pp. 55–74). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kadash, C. (2012, November). Context based simulation in nursing education: a student-centered experience towards pedagogical reform. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation. Madrid, Spain: IATED.Google Scholar
  26. Kelley, T. & Kellam, N. (2009). A theoretical framework to guide the re-engineering of technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 20(2), 37–49.Google Scholar
  27. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P. A. & Janssen, J. (2011). Differential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Labianca, D. A. & Reeves, W. J. (1981). Chemistry and detective fiction: An interdisciplinary program for the non-science major. Journal of Chemical Education, 58(9), 683–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lochhead, J. & Zietsman, A. (2001). What is problem solving? In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd ed., pp. 54–57). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  32. MacKeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult learning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  33. Martinez, M. E. (1998). What is problem solving? The Phi Delta Kappan, 79(8), 605–609.Google Scholar
  34. McCormick, R. (1996). Instructional methodology. In P. J. Williams & A. P. Williams (Eds.), Technology education for teachers (pp. 63–92). Melbourne: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCormick, R., Murphy, P. & Hennessy, S. (1994). Problem-solving processes in technology education: A pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McLellan, H. (Ed.). (1996). Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  39. Michael, K. Y. (2001). The effect of a computer simulation activity versus a hands-on activity on product creativity in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 13(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
  40. Mioduser, D. (1998). Framework for the study of cognitive and curricular issues of technological problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(2), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mioduser, D. & Kipperman, D. (2002). Evaluation/modification cycles in junior high students’ technological problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(2), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murphy, P. & McCormick, R. (1997). Problem solving in science and technology education. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parush, A., Hamm, H. & Shtub, A. (2002). Learning histories in simulation-based teaching: The effects on self-learning and transfer. Computers & Education, 39(4), 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pilot, A. & Bulte, A. M. W. (2006). Why do you “need to know”? Context-based education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 953–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Putter-Smits, L. G. A., Taconis, R. & Jochems, W. M. G. (2013). Mapping context-based learning environments: The construction of an instrument. Learning Environments Research, 16(3), 437–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rahayu, S., Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D., Kita, M. & Ibnu, S. (2011). Understanding acid–base concepts: Evaluating the efficacy of a senior high school student-centred instructional program in Indonesia. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1439–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rose, D. E. (2012). Context-based learning. In N. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 799–802). New York: Springer US.Google Scholar
  48. Shahat, M. A., Ohle, A., Treagust, D. F. & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Design, development and validation of a model of problem solving for Egyptian science classes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1157–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Teaching problem solving as a way of life. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd ed., pp. 451–454). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  50. Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Cognitive psychology (5th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Sutherland, L. (2002). Developing problem solving expertise: The impact of instruction in a question analysis strategy. Learning and Instruction, 12(2), 155–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Terri, E. V. (2005). The effects of a technological problem solving activity on FIRST TM LEGO TM league participants’ problem solving style and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
  53. Trimmer, W., Laracy, K. & Love-Gray, M. (2009). Seeing the bigger picture through context-based learning. Retrieved from
  54. Vermeer, H. J., Boekaerts, M. & Seegers, G. (2000). Motivational and gender differences: Sixth-grade students’ mathematical problem-solving behaviour. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 308–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Voss, J. F. & Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving ill-structured problems. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. Whitten, S. & Graesser, A. C. (2003). Comprehension of text in problem solving. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 207–229). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Williams, B., Spiers, J., Fisk, A., Richards, L., Gibson, B., Kabotoff, W. et al. (2012). The influence of an undergraduate problem/context based learning program on evolving professional nursing graduate practice. Nurse Education Today, 32(4), 417–421.Google Scholar
  58. Williams, P. (2008). Assessing context-based learning: Not only rigorous but also relevant. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wright, P. (2001). School-based issues and appropriate technology. In R. C. Wicklein (Ed.), Appropriate technology for sustainable living: ITEA 50th yearbook (pp. 133–152). Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.Google Scholar
  60. Young, L. E. & Paterson, B. L. (2007). Teaching nursing developing a student-centered learning environment. New York: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  61. Yu, W. F., She, H. C. & Lee, Y. M. (2010). The effects of web-based/non-web-based problem-solving instruction and high/low achievement on students’ problem-solving ability and biology achievement. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(2), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Technology Application and Human Resource DevelopmentNational TaiwanNormal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations