• Lin DingEmail author


Though many research-based problem types have been shown effective in promoting students’ conceptual understanding and scientific abilities, the extent of their use in actual classrooms remains unclear. We interviewed and surveyed 16 physics and engineering faculty members at a large US Midwest research university to investigate how university instructors value and use different types of problems in teaching their introductory courses. Most of these instructors valued traditional textbook problems as a useful building block and used them frequently. They also valued non-traditional problems but seldom used them in their introductory courses. The divergence between value and use in part is due to limited resources and experience, time constraints, student reactions, and personal preferences. It is, however, also due to the fact that the beliefs held by some instructors regarding the nature of problem solving deviate from commonly accepted views in educational research. Although on average instructors were hesitant to reduce more than 20 % of course content for research-based materials, they showed great interest in collaborating with educational researchers at a more personal level to increase the use of non-traditional problems in teaching. Our study indicates that instructors need not only research-based problems suitable for their introductory classes, but also assistance in how to effectively implement these problems.

Key words

faculty beliefs and practices introductory engineering introductory science problem solving research-based problems values and use of non-traditional problems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2013_9400_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 17 kb)


  1. Addy, T. M. & Blanchard, M. R. (2010). The problem with reform from the bottom up: Instructional practices and teacher beliefs of graduate teaching assistants following a reform-minded university teacher certificate programme. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1045–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelov, M. A., Friedman, M. B. & Renshaw, A. A. (1999). Introducing engineering design into the first year curriculum. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, 1999. FIE’99. 29th Annual.Google Scholar
  3. Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K. M., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., et al (2009). Learning and scientific reasoning. Science, 323(5914), 586–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brass, C., Gunstone, R. F. & Fensham, P. (2003). Quality learning of physics: Conceptions held by high school and university teachers. Research in Science Education, 33(2), 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bronzino, J. D., Ahlgren, D. J., Chung, C.-L., Mertens, J. D. & Palladino, J. L. (1994). Design and teamwork: A must for freshmen. IEEE Transactions on Education, 37(2), 184–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dancy, M. & Henderson, C. (2007). Framework for articulating instructional practices and conceptions. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 3(1), 010103.Google Scholar
  7. Dancy, M. & Henderson, C. (2009). Pedagogical practices of physics faculty. Paper presented at the 2009 Physics Education Research Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  8. Ding, L., Reay, N. W., Lee, A., & Bao, L. (2011). Exploring the role of conceptual scaffolding in solving synthesis problems. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 7(020109), 1–11.10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.020109
  9. Ding, L., Reay, N. W., Heckler, A. & Bao, L. (2010). Sustained effects of solving conceptually scaffolded synthesis problems. 2010 Physics Education Research Conference. AIP Conference Proceedings, (1289), 133–136. doi: 10.1063./1.3515179.
  10. Ding, L., Reay, N. W., Lee, A. & Bao, L. (2009). Using conceptual scaffolding to foster effective problem solving. 2009 Physics Education Research Conference. AIP Conference Proceedings, (1179), 129–132. doi: 10.1063/1.3266695.
  11. Etkina, E., Murthy, S. & Zou, X. (2006a). Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design. American Journal of Physics, 74(11), 979–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etkina, E., Van Heuvelen, A., White-Brahmia, S., Brookes, D. T., Gentile, M., Murthy, S., et al (2006b). Scientific abilities and their assessment. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 2(2), 020103.Google Scholar
  13. Garrett, R. M., Satterly, D., Gil Perez, D. & Martinez-Torregrosa, J. (1990). Turning exercises into problems: An experimental study with teachers in training. International Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerace, W. J. & Beatty, I. D. (2005). Teaching vs. learning: Changing perspectives on problem solving in physics instruction. Paper presented at the 9th Common Conference of the Cyprus Physics Association and Greek Physics Association.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, V. L. & Cendes, Z. J. (1993). Introducing real world design problems into the undergraduate electromagnetic curriculum. IEEE Transactions on Education, 36(2), 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heller, P. & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 637–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heller, P., Keith, R. & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 627–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henderson, C. (2005). The challenges of instructional change under the best of circumstances: A case study of one college physics instructor. American Journal of Physics, 73(8), 778–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henderson, C. & Dancy, M. H. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020102.Google Scholar
  20. Henderson, C. & Dancy, M. H. (2008). Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Physics, 76(1), 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henderson, C. & Dancy, M. H. (2009). The impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics. Paper presented at the 2009 Physics Education Research Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  22. Henderson, C., Yerushalmi, E., Kuo, V. H., Heller, K. & Heller, P. (2007). Physics faculty beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving. II. Procedures for measurement and analysis. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020110.Google Scholar
  23. Henderson, C., Yerushalmi, E., Kuo, V. H., Heller, P. & Heller, K. (2004). Grading student problem solutions: The challenge of sending a consistent message. American Journal of Physics, 72(2), 164–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209–219). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jonassen, D. H. & Hung, W. (2006). Learning to troubleshoot: A new theory-based design architecture. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 77–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonassen, D. H. & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonassen, D. H., Strobel, J. & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, E. & Pak, S.-J. (2002). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 759–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maloney, D. P. (1982). Fill-in problems. Journal of College Science Teaching, 12, 104–106.Google Scholar
  32. Maloney, D. P. (1987). Ranking tasks: A new type of test item. Journal of College Science Teaching, 16, 510–514.Google Scholar
  33. Maloney, D. P. (1994). Research on problem solving: Physics. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 327–354). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. McDermott, L. C. (1993). Guest comment: How we teach and how students learn—A mismatch? American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 295–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, J. S. (1960). It is important to know what questions to ask. American Journal of Physics, 28(1), 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mullins, C. A., Atman, C. & Shuman, L. J. (1999). Freshman engineers’ performance when solving design problems. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(4), 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petcovic, H. L., Fynewever, H., Henderson, C., Mutambuki, J. M. & Barney, J. A. (2012). Faculty grading of quantitative problems: A mismatch between values and practice. Research in Science Education. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9268-8.
  38. Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching physics with the physics suite. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Sabella, M. S. & Redish, E. F. (2007). Knowledge organization and activation in physics problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 75(11), 1017–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwartz, B. B. (1997). New and effective techniques in physics courses for non-science majors and the training of pre-college teachers. In AIP conference proceedings, vol. 399 (pp. 113–132). American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  41. Southerland, S. A., Gess-Newsome, J. & Johnston, A. (2003). Portraying science in the classroom: The manifestation of scientists’ beliefs in classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 669–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sunal, D. W., Hodges, J., Sunal, C. S., Whitaker, K. K., Freeman, L. M., Edwards, L., et al (2001). Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional development and barriers to change. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sunal, D. W., Sunal, C. S., Mason, C. & Zollman, D. A. (2007). Undergraduate reform in science courses: A review of the research literature. National Study of Education in Undergraduate Science.Google Scholar
  44. Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., Van Werven, H. I. & Dekkers, H. (1997). Teachers’ craft knolwedge and curriculum innovation in higher engineering education. Higher Education, 34(1), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Heuvelen, A. (1996). Experiment problems for mechanics. The Physics Teacher, 33(3), 176–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Heuvelen, A. & Maloney, D. P. (1999). Playing physics jeopardy. American Journal of Physics, 67(3), 252–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wlodarsky, R. (2005). The professoriate: Transforming teaching practices through critical reflection and dialogue. Teaching & Learning, 19(3), 156–172.Google Scholar
  48. Yerushalmi, E., Henderson, C., Heller, K., Heller, P. & Kuo, V. H. (2007). Physics faculty beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving. I. Mapping the common core. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020109.Google Scholar
  49. Yerushalmi, E. & Magen, E. (2006). Same old problem, new name? Alerting students to the nature of problem solving process. Physics Education, 41(2), 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Teaching and LearningThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations