This study investigated the role of strategy instruction on solution accuracy in children with and without serious math difficulties (MD) in problem solving. Children in Grade 3 (N = 193) were randomly assigned to one of five conditions: materials + verbal strategies (e.g., underlining the question), materials.

This study uses the theoretical framework of domain-specific problem solving to explore the procedures students use to solve multiple-choice problems about biology concepts. We designed several multiple-choice problems and administered them on four exams. We trained students to produce written descriptions of how they solved the problem, and this allowed us to systematically investigate their problem-solving procedures. We identified a range of procedures and organized them as domain general, domain specific, or hybrid.

We also identified domain-general and domain-specific errors made by students during problem solving. We found that students use domain-general and hybrid procedures more frequently when solving lower-order problems than higher-order problems, while they use domain-specific procedures more frequently when solving higher-order problems. Additionally, the more domain-specific procedures students used, the higher the likelihood that they would answer the problem correctly, up to five procedures. However, if students used just one domain-general procedure, they were as likely to answer the problem correctly as if they had used two to five domain-general procedures.

Our findings provide a categorization scheme and framework for additional research on biology problem solving and suggest several important implications for researchers and instructors. INTRODUCTION The call to reform undergraduate education involves shifting the emphasis in science classes away from rote memorization of facts toward learning core concepts and scientific practices (; ). To develop instruction that focuses on core concepts and scientific practices, we need more knowledge about the concepts that are challenging for students to learn. For example, biology education research has established that students struggle with the concepts of carbon cycling (e.g.,; ) and natural selection (e.g., ), but we know much less about students’ conceptual difficulties in ecology and physiology. Researchers and practitioners also need to discover how students develop the ability to use scientific practices.

Although these efforts are underway (e.g.,;;; ), many research questions remain. As research accumulates, educators can create curricula and assessments that improve student learning for all. We investigate one key scientific practice that is understudied in biology education, problem solving (; ). For the purposes of this article, we define problem solving as a decision-making process wherein a person is presented with a task, and the path to solving the task is uncertain. We define a problem as a task that presents a challenge that cannot be solved automatically ( ).

Problem-solving research began in the 1940s and 1950s and focused on problem-solving approaches that could be used to solve any problem regardless of the discipline (;;;,; ). Despite the broad applicability of these domain-general problem-solving approaches, subsequent research has shown that the strongest problem-solving approaches derive from deep knowledge of a domain (;; ). Domain is a term that refers to a body of knowledge that can be broad, like biology, or narrow, like ecosystem structure and function. This body of literature has developed into a theoretical framework called domain-specific problem solving. We situate our research within this theoretical framework. THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF DOMAIN-SPECIFIC PROBLEM SOLVING Domain-specific problem solving has its origins in information-processing theory (IPT; ). IPT focuses on the cognitive processes used to reach a problem solution and emphasizes the general thinking processes people use when they attempt problem solving, such as brainstorming (; ) and working backward by beginning with the problem goal and working in reverse toward the initial problem state (; ).

Despite the empirical evidence for general thinking processes, one of IPT’s shortcomings as a comprehensive view of human cognition ( ) is that the knowledge base of the problem solver is not considered. Domain-specific problem solving expands IPT to recognize that experts in a particular domain have a relatively complete and well-organized knowledge base that enables them to solve the complex problems they face (e.g., ).

One of the landmark studies showing the differences between the knowledge base of experts and nonexperts, or novices, was conducted in science, specifically in physics. Compared the classification of physics problems by advanced physics PhD students (i.e., experts) and undergraduates who had just completed a semester of mechanics (i.e., novices), identifying fundamental differences.

Chemistry researchers built on Chi’s work to identify differences in how experts and novices track their problem solving and use problem categorization and multiple representations (;; ). Biology researchers built upon this work by conducting similar problem-solving studies among experts and novices in evolution and genetics (;; ). Taken together, these studies established that experts tend to classify problems based on deep, conceptual features, while novices classify problems based on superficial features that are irrelevant to the solution. Domain-specific problem-solving research within biology also has revealed important individual differences within groups of problem solvers.

These studies show that wide variation in problem-solving performance exists. For example, some novices who solve problems about evolution classify problems and generate solutions that are expert-like, while others do not ( ).

This research points to the importance of studying variations in problem solving within novice populations. Given the centrality of the knowledge base for domain-specific problem solving, it is necessary to describe the components of that knowledge base. Domain-specific problem-solving research recognizes three types of knowledge that contribute to expertise. Declarative knowledge consists of the facts and concepts about the domain. Procedural knowledge represents the how-to knowledge that is required to carry out domain-specific tasks. Conditional knowledge describes the understanding of when and where to use one’s declarative and procedural knowledge ( ).

Note that the field of metacognition also uses this three-type structure to describe metacognitive knowledge, or what you know about your own thinking (;; ). However, for this paper, we use these terms to describe knowledge of biology, not metacognitive knowledge. More specifically, we focus on procedural knowledge.

Procedural knowledge consists of procedures. Procedures are tasks that are carried out automatically or intentionally during problem solving ( ). Procedures exist on a continuum. They can be highly specific to the domain, such as analyzing the evolutionary relationships represented by a phylogenetic tree, or general and applicable to problems across many domains, such as paraphrasing a problem-solving prompt (,; ). APPLYING DOMAIN-SPECIFIC PROBLEM SOLVING TO MULTIPLE-CHOICE ASSESSMENT IN BIOLOGY We used domain-specific problem solving to investigate the most common form of assessment in the college biology classroom, multiple-choice assessment (; ). College biology and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses rely on multiple-choice assessment due to large enrollments, limited teaching assistant support, and ease of scoring.

Outside the classroom, multiple-choice assessment is used on high-stakes exams that determine acceptance to professional schools, like the Medical College Admissions Test and Graduate Record Exam. To our knowledge, the framework of domain-specific problem solving has not been applied previously to investigate multiple-choice assessment in college biology. It has become common practice within the biology education community to think about assessment, including multiple-choice assessment, by determining the Bloom’s taxonomy ranking of assessment items (e.g.,;;, ).

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives was built to facilitate the exchange of test items among faculty; it was not based primarily on the evaluation of student work (; ). Bloom’s taxonomy helps educators think about the range of cognitive processes they could ask their students to perform and has served as an invaluable resource enabling educators to improve alignment between learning objectives, assessments, and classroom curricula (e.g., ). When applying Bloom’s taxonomy to assessment items, items are ranked as remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing.

Items ranked as remembering and understanding are grouped as lower-order items; and items ranked as applying, analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing are grouped as higher-order items (; ). Despite the value of Bloom’s taxonomy for instructors, what is not known is the relationship between the procedural knowledge of domain-specific problem solving and the Bloom’s ranking of biology assessments.

This is a critical gap in the literature, because efforts to improve student learning in college science classrooms may be stymied if critical insights about student work from domain-specific problem solving are not linked to our understanding of assessment and curricular design. In the study reported here, we used the theoretical lens of domain-specific problem solving to describe the procedural knowledge of nonmajors in an introductory biology course.

We addressed the following research questions: •. Setting and Participants We recruited participants from a nonmajors introductory biology course at a southeastern public research university in the Spring 2011 semester. One of the authors (P.P.L.) was the course instructor. The course covered four major areas in biology: evolution, ecology, physiology, and organismal diversity.

The instructor delivered course content using lecture interspersed with clicker questions and additional opportunities for students to write and discuss. Students also completed five in-class case studies during the semester; students completed cases in self-selected small groups and turned in one completed case study per group for grading. In addition to group case studies, the instructor assessed student learning via individual exams. Students also received points toward their final grades based on clicker participation. In the second week of the semester, the instructor announced this research study in class and via the course-management system, inviting all students to participate. Students who volunteered to participate by completing an informed consent form were asked to produce written think-alouds for problems on course exams throughout the semester.

One hundred sixty-four students completed an informed consent form. Of the 164 consenting students, 140 students actually produced a written think-aloud for at least one of 13 problems; of the 140 students, 18 did written think-alouds for all 13 problems. The remainder of students did written think-alouds for one to 13 problems. On average, research participants provided written think-alouds for 7.76 problems.

The 164 consenting students represented 73.9% of the course enrollment ( n = 222). The 164 consenting students included 70.8% females and 29.2% males; 20.4% freshmen, 40.9% sophomores, 24.1% juniors, and 13.9% seniors. The 164 students were majoring in the following areas: 3.7% business, 1.5% education, 4.4% humanities, 11.0% life and physical sciences, 5.9% engineering, and 72.3% social sciences. This research was conducted under exempt status at the University of Georgia (UGA; IRB project 201110340). Problem Development. We wrote 16 multiple-choice problems to include in this study. All problems related to material dealt with during class and focused specifically on ecosystems, evolution, and structure–function relationships.

On data analysis, three problems were excluded, because most students were confused by the wording or visual representations or were able to solve the problem correctly with a superficial strategy. Each problem was preceded by a prompt for students to provide their written think-aloud (see Written Think-Alouds section). Each problem was also labeled with a preliminary Bloom’s taxonomy categorization ( ). A summary of all problems, including a description, the preliminary Bloom’s ranking, and the faculty consensus Bloom’s ranking, is provided in.

As an example, one of the final 13 problems is shown in. All other problems are shown in Supplemental Figure S1. Ranking of Problems by Bloom’s Level. We wanted to investigate the use of domain-general or domain-specific procedures in lower-order versus higher-order problems. We asked three biology faculty members who were not investigators in this study to rank the Bloom’s levels of the problems we developed. The biology faculty members were selected because they have extensive teaching experience in college biology and also have experience ranking assessment items using Bloom’s taxonomy.

The faculty used a protocol similar to one described previously ( ). To assist with Bloom’s ranking, we provided them with class materials relevant to the problems, including lecture notes and background readings. This is necessary, because the ranking of a problem depends on the material that students have encountered in class previously. The faculty members independently ranked each problem. Interrater reliability of independent rankings was determined using an intraclass coefficient (0.82).

The faculty members met to discuss their rankings and settled disagreements by consensus. The preliminary Bloom’s rankings and the faculty consensus Bloom’s rankings for problems are reported in. For the remainder of the paper, we use the consensus Bloom’s rankings to describe problems as either lower order or higher order.

Administration of Problems to Students. The 13 problems included in this study were administered to students on exams 1, 2, 3, and the final exam as follows: three on exam 1, three on exam 2 four on exam 3, and three on the final exam. Students’ multiple-choice responses were part of the actual exam score.

They received 0.5 extra-credit points for providing satisfactory documentation of their thought processes. Students did not receive extra credit if we judged their documentation to be insufficient.

Insufficient responses were those in which students made only one or two brief statements about their problem-solving process (e.g., “I chose C”). Students could answer the multiple-choice problem and opt not to provide documentation of their thinking for extra credit.

Students could receive up to 6.5 points of extra credit for documentation of the problem set. The total points possible for the semester were 500, so extra credit for this research could account for up to 1.3% of a student’s grade. Written Think-Alouds. We developed a protocol to capture students’ written descriptions of their thought processes while solving problems on exams based on a think-aloud interview approach. In the think-aloud interview approach, research participants are given a problem to solve and are asked to say aloud everything they are thinking while solving the problem (; ). In the written think-aloud, students are asked to write, rather than say aloud, what they are thinking as they solve a problem.

To train students to perform a written think-aloud, the course instructor modeled the think-aloud in class. She then assigned a homework problem that required students to answer a multiple-choice problem and construct written think-alouds recounting how they solved the problem. We then reviewed students’ homework and provided feedback. We selected examples of good documentation and poor documentation and published these anonymously on the online course-management system. After this training and feedback, we included four problems on every exam for which we asked students to provide a written think-aloud description. We collected 1087 written think-alouds from 140 students (63% of course enrollment, n = 222) for 13 problems. Shows a typical example of a student written think-aloud.

Data Analysis We analyzed students’ written think-alouds using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. We used qualitative content analysis ( ) to identify and categorize the primary patterns of student thinking during problem solving. We used quantitative analysis to determine the relationship between use of domain-general, hybrid, and domain-specific procedures and problem type and to investigate the impact of domain-general/hybrid and domain-specific procedure use on answering correctly. Phase 1: Establishing Categories of Student Problem-Solving Procedures. Independently, we read dozens of individual think-alouds for each problem.

While we read, we made notes about the types of procedures we observed. One author (P.P.L.) noted, for example, that students recalled concepts, organized their thinking, read and ruled out multiple-choice options, explained their selections, and weighed the pros and cons of multiple-choice options. The other author (L.B.P.) noted that students recalled theories, interpreted a phylogenetic tree, identified incomplete information, and refuted incorrect information. After independently reviewing the written think-alouds, we met to discuss what we had found and to build an initial list of categories of problem-solving procedures. Based on our discussion, we built a master list of categories of procedures (Supplemental Table S1). Next, we compared our list with Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives ( ) and the Blooming Biology Tool ( ). We sought to determine whether the cognitive processes described in these sources corresponded to the cognitive processes we observed in our initial review of students’ written think-alouds.

Where there was overlap, we renamed our categories to use the language of Bloom’s taxonomy. For the categories that did not overlap, we kept our original names. Phase 2: Assigning Student Problem-Solving Procedures to Categories. Using the list of categories developed in phase 1, we categorized every problem-solving procedure articulated by students in the written think-alouds. We analyzed 1087 documents for 13 problems. For each of the 13 problems, we followed the same categorization process. In a one-on-one meeting, we discussed a few written think-alouds.

While still in the same room, we categorized several written think-alouds independently. We then compared our categorizations and discussed any disagreements. We then repeated these steps for additional think-alouds while still together. Once we reached agreement on all categories for a single problem, we independently categorized a common subset of written think-alouds to determine interrater reliability. When interrater reliability was below a level we considered acceptable (0.8 Cronbach’s alpha), we went through the process again. Then one author (either L.B.P. Or P.P.L.) categorized the remainder of the written think-alouds for that problem.

At the end of phase 2, after we had categorized all 1087 written think-alouds, we refined our category list, removing categories with extremely low frequencies and grouping closely related categories. For example, we combined the category Executing with Implementing into a category called Analyzing Visual Representations. Phase 3: Aligning Categories with Our Theoretical Framework. Having assigned student problem-solving procedures to categories, we determined whether the category aligned best with domain-general or domain-specific problem solving. To make this determination, we considered the extent to which the problem-solving procedures in a category depended on knowledge of biology.

Categories of procedures aligned with domain-general problem solving were carried out without drawing on content knowledge (e.g., Clarifying). Categories aligned with domain-specific problem solving were carried out using content knowledge (e.g., Checking). We also identified two categories of problem solving that we labeled hybrids of domain-general and domain-specific problem solving, because students used content knowledge in these steps, but they did so superficially (e.g., Recognizing).

Supplemental Table S1 shows the categories that resulted from our analytical process, including phase 1 notes, phase 2 categories, and phase 3 final category names as presented in this paper. Categories are organized into the themes of domain-general, hybrid, and domain-specific problem solving (Supplemental Table S1). Quantitative Analyses of Students’ Written Think-Alouds. To determine whether students used domain-general/hybrid or domain-specific problem solving preferentially when solving problems ranked by faculty as lower order or higher order, we used generalized linear mixed models (GLMM).

GLMM are similar to ordinary linear regressions but take into account nonnormal distributions. GLMM can also be applied to unbalanced repeated measures ( ). In our data set, an individual student could provide documentation to one or more problems (up to 13 problems). Thus, in some but not all cases, we have repeated measures for individuals. To account for these repeated measures, we used “student” as our random factor. We used the problem type (lower order or higher order) as our fixed factor. Because our independent variables, number of domain-general/hybrid procedures and number of domain-specific procedures, are counts, we used a negative binomial regression.

For this analysis and subsequent quantitative analyses, we grouped domain-general and hybrid procedures. Even though hybrid procedures involve some use of content knowledge, the content knowledge is used superficially; we specifically wanted to investigate the impact of weak content-knowledge use compared with strong content-knowledge use. Additionally, the number of hybrid procedures in our data set is relatively low compared with domain-general and domain-specific. To determine whether students who used more domain-general/hybrid procedures or domain-specific procedures were more likely to have correct answers to the problems, we also used GLMM. We used the number of domain-general/hybrid procedures and the number of domain-specific procedures as our fixed factors and student as our random factor. In this analysis, our dependent variable (correct or incorrect response) was dichotomous, so we used a logistic regression ( ). We also explored the correlations between the average number of domain-general/hybrid and domain-specific procedures used by students and their final percentage of points for the course.

Students Use Domain-General and Domain-Specific Procedures to Solve Multiple-Choice Biology Problems We identified several categories of procedures practiced by students during problem solving, and we organized these categories based on the extent to which they drew upon knowledge of biology. Domain-general procedures do not depend on biology content knowledge. These procedures also could be used in other domains. Hybrid procedures show students assessing multiple-choice options with limited and superficial references to biology content knowledge. Domain-specific procedures depend on biology content knowledge and reveal students’ retrieval and processing of correct ideas about biology. Students’ problem-solving procedures while solving multiple-choice biology problems During Correcting, students practiced metacognition.

Broadly defined, metacognition occurs when someone knows, is aware of, or monitors his or her own learning ( ). When students corrected, they identified incorrect thinking they had displayed earlier in their written think-aloud and mentioned the correct way of thinking about the problem.

When students Delayed, they described their decision to postpone full consideration of one multiple-choice option until they considered other multiple-choice options. We interpreted these decisions as students either not remembering how the option connected with the question or not being able to connect that option to the question well enough to decide whether it could be the right answer. Domain-Specific Procedures.

In our data set, we identified six domain-specific problem-solving procedures practiced by students (). Four of these have been previously described. Specifically, Analyzing Domain-Specific Visual Representations, Checking, and Recalling were described in Bloom’s taxonomy ( ). Predicting was described. We identified two additional categories of domain-specific problem-solving procedures practiced by students who completed our problem set, Adding Information and Asking a Question. Adding Information occurred when students recalled material that was pertinent to one of the multiple-choice options and incorporated that information into their explanations of why a particular option was wrong or right.

Asking a Question provides another illustration of students practicing metacognition. When students asked a question, they pointed out that they needed to know some specific piece of content that they did not know yet. Typically, students who asked a question did so repeatedly in a single written think-aloud. Students’ errors while solving multiple-choice biology problems The domain-general errors include Contradicting, Disregarding Evidence, Misreading, and Opinion-Based Judgment. In some cases, students made statements that they later contradicted; we called this Contradicting.

Disregarding Evidence occurred when students’ failed to indicate use of evidence. Several problems included data in the question prompt or in visual representations. These data could be used to help students select the best multiple-choice option, yet many students gave no indication that they considered these data.

When students’ words led us to believe that they did not examine the data, we assigned the category Disregarding Evidence. Students also misread the prompt or the multiple-choice options, and we termed this Misreading.

For example, shows the student Misreading; the student states that Atlantic eels are in the presence of krait toxins, whereas the question prompt stated there are no krait in the Atlantic Ocean. In other cases, students stated that they arrived at a decision based on a feeling or because that option just seemed right. For example, in selecting option C for the stickleback problem (), one student said, “E may be right, but I feel confident with C. Rapidshare Artificial Girlfriend here. I chose Answer C.” These procedures were coded as Opinion-Based Judgment. We identified two additional errors that we classified as domain specific, Making Incorrect Assumptions and Misunderstanding Content.

Making Incorrect Assumptions was identified when students made faulty assumptions about the information provided in the prompt. In these cases, students demonstrated in one part of their written think-aloud that they understood the conditions for or components of a concept. However, in another part of the written think-aloud, students assumed the presence or absence of these conditions or components without carefully examining whether they held for the given problem. In the example shown in, the student assumed additional information on fertility that was not provided in the problem. We classified errors that showed a poor understanding of the biology content as Misunderstanding Content.

Misunderstanding Content was exhibited when students stated incorrect facts from their long-term memory, made false connections between the material presented and biology concepts, or showed gaps in their understanding of a concept. In the Misunderstanding Content example shown in, the student did not understand that the biological species concept requires two conditions, that is, the offspring must be viable and fertile. The student selected the biological species concept based only on evidence of viability, demonstrating misunderstanding. To illustrate the problem-solving procedures described above, we present three student written think-alouds (). All three think-alouds were generated in response to the stickleback problem; pseudonyms are used to protect students’ identities (). Emily correctly solved the stickleback problem using a combination of domain-general and domain-specific procedures ().

She started by thinking about the type of answer she was looking for (Predicting). Then she analyzed the stickleback drawings and population table (Analyzing Domain-General Visual Representations) and explained why options were incorrect or correct based on her knowledge of species concepts (Checking). Brian () took an approach that included domain-general and hybrid procedures. He also made some domain-general and domain-specific errors, which resulted in an incorrect answer; Brian analyzed some of the domain-general visual representations presented in the problem but disregarded others. He misunderstood the content, incorrectly accepting the biological species concept. He also demonstrated Recognizing when he correctly eliminated choice B without giving a rationale for this step.

In our third example (), Jessica used domain-general, hybrid, and domain-specific procedures, along with a domain-specific error, and arrived at an incorrect answer. Domain-Specific Procedures Are Used More Frequently for Higher-Order Problems Than Lower-Order Problems To determine the extent to which students use domain-general and domain-specific procedures when solving lower-order versus higher-order problems, we determined the frequency of domain-general and hybrid procedures and domain-specific procedures for problems categorized by experts as lower order or higher order. We grouped domain-general and hybrid procedures, because we specifically wanted to examine the difference between weak and strong content usage.

As, shows, students frequently used both domain-general/hybrid and domain-specific procedures to solve all problems. For domain-general/hybrid procedures, by far the most frequently used procedure for lower-order problems was Recognizing ( n = 413); the two most frequently used procedures for higher-order problems were Analyzing Domain-General Representations ( n = 153) and Recognizing ( n = 105; ).

For domain-specific procedures, the use of Checking dominated both lower-order ( n = 903) and higher-order problems ( n = 779). Recalling also was used relatively frequently for lower-order problems ( n = 207), as were Analyzing Domain-Specific Visual Representations, Predicting, and Recalling for higher-order problems ( n = 120, n = 106, and n = 107, respectively). Overall, students used more domain-general and hybrid procedures when solving lower-order problems (1.43 ± 1.348 per problem) than when solving higher-order problems (0.74 ± 1.024 per problem; binomial regression B = 0.566, SE = 0.079, p. Most Problem-Solving Errors Made by Students Involve Misunderstanding Content We also considered the frequency of problem-solving errors made by students solving lower-order and higher-order problems. As shows, most errors were categorized with the domain-specific category Misunderstanding Content, and this occurred with about equal frequency in lower-order and higher-order problems. The other categories of errors were less frequent. Interestingly, the domain-general errors Contradicting and Opinion-Based Judgment both occurred more frequently with lower-order problems.

In contrast, the domain-specific error Making Incorrect Assumptions occurred more frequently with higher-order problems. Using Multiple Domain-Specific Procedures Increases the Likelihood of Answering a Problem Correctly To examine the extent to which the use of domain-general or domain-specific procedures influences the probability of answering problems correctly, we performed a logistic regression.

Predicted probabilities of answering correctly are shown in for domain-general and hybrid procedures and for domain-specific procedures. Coefficients of the logistic regression analyses are presented in Supplemental Tables S2 and S3. As shows, using zero domain-general or hybrid procedures was associated with a 0.53 predicted probability of being correct. Using one domain-general or hybrid procedure instead of zero increased the predicted probability of correctly answering a problem to 0.79. However, students who used two or more domain-general or hybrid procedures instead of one did not increase the predicted probability of answering a problem correctly. In contrast, as shows, using zero domain-specific procedures was associated with only a 0.34 predicted probability of answering the problem correctly, and students who used one domain-specific procedure had a 0.54 predicted probability of success. Strikingly, the more domain-specific procedures used by students, the more likely they were to answer a problem correctly up to five procedures; students who used five domain-specific procedures had a 0.97 probability of answering correctly.

Predicted probabilities for students using seven and nine domain-specific codes show large confidence intervals around the predictions due to the low sample size ( n = 8 and 4, respectively). Also, we examined the extent to which the use of domain-general or domain-specific procedures correlates with course performance. We observed a weak positive correlation between the average number of domain-specific procedures used by students for a problem and their final percentage of points in the course (Spearman’s rho = 0.306; p. DISCUSSION We have used the theoretical framework of domain-specific problem solving to investigate student cognition during problem solving of multiple-choice biology problems about ecology, evolution, and systems biology. Previously, research exploring undergraduate cognition during problem solving has focused on problem categorization or students’ solutions to open-response problems (;;;; ). Our goal was to describe students’ procedural knowledge, including the errors they made in their procedures. Below we draw several important conclusions from our findings and consider the implications of this research for teaching and learning.

Domain-Specific Problem Solving Should Be Used for Innovative Investigations of Biology Problem Solving Students in our study used a variety of procedures to solve multiple-choice biology problems, but only a few procedures were used at high frequency, such as Recognizing and Checking. Other procedures that biology educators might most want students to employ were used relatively infrequently, including Correcting and Predicting. Still other procedures that we expected to find in our data set were all but absent, such as Stating Assumptions. Our research uncovers the range of procedures promoted by multiple-choice assessment in biology. Our research also provides evidence for the notion that multiple-choice assessments are limited in their ability to prompt some of the critical types of thinking used by biologists. We propose that our categorization scheme and the theoretical framework of domain-specific problem solving should be applied for further study of biology problem solving.

Future studies could be done to understand whether different ways of asking students to solve a problem at the same Bloom’s level could stimulate students to use different procedures. For example, if the stickleback problem () were instead presented to students as a two-tier multiple-choice problem, as multiple true–false statements, or as a constructed-response problem, how would students’ procedures differ? Additionally, it would be useful to investigate whether the more highly desired, but less often observed procedures of Correcting and Predicting are used more frequently in upper-level biology courses and among more advanced biology students. We also propose research to study the interaction between procedure and content. With our focus on procedural knowledge, we intentionally avoided an analysis of students’ declarative knowledge. However, our process of analysis led us to the conclusion that our framework can be expanded for even more fruitful research.

For example, one could look within the procedural category Checking to identify the declarative knowledge being accessed. Of all the relevant declarative knowledge for a particular problem, which pieces do students typically access and which pieces are typically overlooked? The answer to this question may tell us that, while students are using an important domain-specific procedure, they struggle to apply a particular piece of declarative knowledge.

As another example, one could look within the procedural category Analyzing Visual Representations to identify aspects of the visual representation that confuse or elude students. Findings from this type of research would show us how to modify visual representations for clarity or how to scaffold instruction for improved learning. We are suggesting that future concurrent studies of declarative and procedural knowledge will reveal aspects of student cognition that will stay hidden if these two types of knowledge are studied separately. Indeed, problem-solving researchers have investigated these types of interactions in the area of comprehension of science textbooks (, ).

Lower-Order Problems May Not Require Content Knowledge, While Higher-Order Problems Promote Strong Content Usage Because of the pervasive use among biology educators of Bloom’s taxonomy to write and evaluate multiple-choice assessments, we decided it was valuable to examine the relationship between domain-general and domain-specific procedures and lower-order versus higher-order problems. For both lower-order and higher-order problems, domain-specific procedures were used much more frequently than domain-general procedures (). This is comforting and unsurprising. We administered problems about ecosystems, evolution, and structure–function relationships, so we expected and hoped students would use their knowledge of biology to solve these problems. However, two other results strike us as particularly important. Driver Genie Dia 100. First, domain-general procedures are highly prevalent (, n = 1108 across all problems).

The use of domain-general procedures is expected. There are certain procedures that are good practice in problem solving regardless of content, such as Analyzing Domain-General Visual Representations and Clarifying.

However, students’ extensive use of other domain-general/hybrid categories, namely Recognizing, is disturbing. Here we see students doing what all biology educators who use multiple-choice assessment fear, scanning the options for one that looks right based on limited knowledge. It is even more concerning that students’ use of Recognizing is nearly four times more prevalent in lower-order problems than higher-order problems and that overall domain-general procedures are more prevalent in lower-order problems (). As researchers have discovered, lower-order problems, not higher-order problems, are the type most often found in college biology courses ( ).

That means biology instructors’ overreliance on lower-order assessment is likely contributing to students’ overreliance on procedures that do not require biology content knowledge. Second, it is striking that domain-specific procedures are more prevalent among higher-order problems than lower-order problems. These data suggest that higher-order problems promote strong content usage by students. As others have argued, higher-order problems should be used in class and on exams more frequently (; ). Using Domain-Specific Procedures May Improve Student Performance Although it is interesting in and of itself to learn the procedures used by students during multiple-choice assessment, the description of these categories of procedures begs the question: does the type of procedure used by students make any difference in their ability to choose a correct answer?

As explained in the Introduction, the strongest problem-solving approaches stem from a relatively complete and well-organized knowledge base within a domain (;;; Alexander and Judy, 1998). Thus, we hypothesized that use of domain-specific procedures would be associated with solving problems correctly, but use of domain-general procedures would not. Indeed, our data support this hypothesis. While limited use of domain-general procedures was associated with improved probability of success in solving multiple-choice problems, students who practiced extensive domain-specific procedures almost guaranteed themselves success in multiple-choice problem solving. In addition, as students used more domain-specific procedures, there was a weak but positive increase in the course performance, while use of domain-general procedures showed no correlation to performance.

These data reiterate the conclusions of prior research that successful problem solvers connect information provided within the problem to their relatively strong domain-specific knowledge (; ). In contrast, unsuccessful problem solvers heavily depend on relatively weak domain-specific knowledge (; ). General problem-solving procedures can be used to make some progress in reaching a solution to domain-specific problems, but a problem solver can get only so far with this type of thinking. In solving domain-specific problems, at some point, the solver has to understand the particulars of a domain to reach a legitimate solution (reviewed in; ). Likewise, problem solvers who misunderstand key conceptual pieces or cannot identify the deep, salient features of a problem will generate inadequate, incomplete, or faulty solutions (; ). Our findings strengthen the conclusions of previous work in two important ways. First, we studied problems from a wider range of biology topics.

Second, we studied a larger population of students, which allowed us to use both qualitative and quantitative methods. Limitations of This Research Think-aloud protocols typically take place in an interview setting in which students verbally articulate their thought processes while solving a problem. When students are silent, the interviewer is there to prompt them to continue thinking aloud. We modified this protocol and taught students how to write out their procedures.

However, one limitation of this study and all think-aloud studies is that it is not possible to analyze what students may have been thinking but did not state. Despite this limitation, we were able to identify a range of problem-solving procedures and errors that inform teaching and learning. Implications for Teaching and Learning There is general consensus among biology faculty that students need to develop problem-solving skills (; ). However, problem solving is not intuitive to students, and these skills typically are not explicitly taught in the classroom (; ). One reason for this misalignment between faculty values and their teaching practice is that biology problem-solving procedures have not been clearly defined. Our research presents a categorization of problem-solving procedures that faculty can use in their teaching.

Instructors can use these well-defined problem-solving procedures to help students manage their knowledge of biology; students can be taught when and how to apply knowledge and how to restructure it. This gives students the tools to become more independent problem solvers ( ). We envision at least three ways that faculty can encourage students to become independent problem solvers. First, faculty can model the use of problem-solving procedures described in this paper and have students write out their procedures, which makes them explicit to both the students and instructor. Second, models should focus on domain-specific procedures, because these steps improve performance. Explicit modeling of domain-specific procedures would be eye-opening for students, who tend to think that studying for recognition is sufficient, particularly for multiple-choice assessment.

However, our data and those of other researchers ( ) suggest that studying for and working through problems using strong domain-specific knowledge can improve performance, even on multiple-choice tests. Third, faculty should shift from the current predominant use of lower-order problems ( ) toward the use of more higher-order problems.

Our data show that lower-order problems prompt for domain-general problem solving, while higher-order problems prompt for domain-specific problem solving. We took what we learned from the investigation reported here and applied it to develop an online tutorial called SOLVEIT for undergraduate biology students ( ). In SOLVEIT, students are presented with problems similar to the stickleback problem shown in. The problems focus on species concepts and ecological relationships. In brief, SOLVEIT asks students to provide an initial solution to each problem, and then it guides students through the problem in a step-by-step manner that encourages them to practice several of the problem-solving procedures reported here, such as Recalling, Checking, Analyzing Visual Representations, and Correcting.

In the final stages of SOLVEIT, students are asked to revise their initial solutions and to reflect on an expert’s solution as well as their own problem-solving process ( ). Our findings of improved student learning with SOLVEIT ( ) are consistent with the research of others that shows scaffolding can improve student problem solving (;; ). Thus, research to uncover the difficulties of students during problem solving can be directly applied to improve student learning.

Having a bachelor’s diploma in one among the many disciplines of Engineering will possible open more doorways for you than any other degree program will. It may have 4 or more than four unequal sides, and the looks may be concave, i.e., at the very least one angle is larger than math problem solving examples () 180 degrees. If for instance you’re feeling deeply drawn to the art or historical past of a certain period, then you will have had a previous life experience concerning that specific era. This is a well executed breakdown of the word origin and makes use of by historical past that assist to point its part of speech. Reading by way of hordes of books on many matters would not equal in your knowledge however will even help you to drastically in scheduling for Sitting Word Checklist. If you cherished to receive much more data about kindly check out our own internet site. College students within the United States of America use numerous math related websites every day for training math exercises: Highlights: 1.

Many math websites supply a broad checklist of topics associated to algebra, the place students often face difficulties. The math requirements provide clarity and specificity quite than broad general statements. Regardless of the variations in definitions and requirements for prime efficiency in faculties across and within these research, each of the colleges examined confirmed constructive progress and progress.

Obtaining visitors is one factor, gaining repeat traffic is another. While it is simpler to simply disregard them to arrive at a solution as quick as one is able to, one has to comply with units of pointers. George, one of the Ellicott brothers, was an beginner astronomer. It has four unequal sides, and the looks is concave, i.e., at least one angle is greater than 180 degrees. I now achieve massive breakthrough goals, larger than I had ever dreamt doable and that i do it with the least quantity of effort.

Something that triggers a powerful emotion you have to be thought of intently, not less than to provide you with some inspiration for the numbers that you just pick. The mathematics includes a big range of material. I feel it’s a matter of creating sense of the order that’s within the juggling patterns,” mentioned Jonathan Stadler, a math professor at Capital University in Ohio who started juggling as a teenager. It is a should learn item for any intermediate to advanced pupil who’s working in the sector of chance concept. – initial functions: Until your H1B employment might be at a non-profit research organization or a college, you can not start working any earlier than October 1st, following the April 1st software date. Furthermore, earlier than using the method for regression, you need to first spend some time working with it.

As the service suppliers are accessible online, students need not go in individual to the placement, they will submit their assessments from their PC’s with good internet connection within no time and obtain the required solution for the same. It is typically explained that the appropriate merchandise inside lifestyle comprise the pliability, yet at the time it arrives within the route of web coordinator, this may not be the circumstance. A mathematical advance, no matter how arcane or revolutionary, is instantly recognizable as such and can be flawlessly incorporated within the extant body of knowledge.

See examples in the Math Mammoth Geometry ebook. Why do not college students do homework underneath the brand new coverage, when they can see their grades dropping? Let’s see what is going on.

See examples in the Math Mammoth Geometry ebook. For those who have any issues relating to where along with the way to employ online solutions for maths problems (visit this link ), it is possible to contact us with the page. See what individuals are saying about MoMath.

Throughout tutorial guidelines, collaborating individuals are seen making their different graduation regalia. If the fore a part of the thumb is square, the individual is intelligent in authorized matters and is respected for his acts of justice. If you have any thoughts regarding where by and how to use, you can call us at our own web page. Whether or not you’re a student, webmaster, or business owner, your written work will be improved immediately after you get her company’s service. What did not work? Be it for family or industrial functions; verify the opposite variations of bell & gossett pump that will certainly be helpful in your family or business venture.

Readers will need a solid background in algebra and a few type of topology or evaluation,” he recommends. We also request notification of where the article is getting used so reciprocal links might be thought of. So, what’s being promoted as “naturalistic metaphysics” looks like reheated positivism and faces exactly related objections. No, you wouldn’t use the quadratic components as it’s a cubic equation and not a quadratic equation.

Within the case that you simply just would desire a substitute vehicle, the insurance company would simply use their significance to your distinctive auto, not the things you primarily cited them. If you liked this article and you simply would like to acquire more info relating to i implore you to visit the web-site. This solver is right for: – People who just want to unravel a cube.

In the end, a perfect design for a couple that loves enjoying the serenity and tranquility of the heat summers might not be a really perfect one for a household with young stars who need to carry parties of their yard. You may be contemplating act take a look at prep melbourne fl which can actually assist rather a lot.

If you want to find more info in regards to math solver apk – – stop by our own web-site. Right here is the total operate to start with then we are going to break it down line by line. In enterprise, I was in purchasing and sales, and back then I all the time told the purchasers or departments I worked with that deliveries could be on time. One of the drawbacks to those devises in the beginning was the fact that they were fairly noticeable to the those who were across the wearer and they did not perform properly on a regular basis. Thus, one should be sure that a proper survey and comparison is carried out.

Writer: Andrea J. Stenberg Are you on the social networking site LinkedIn however don’t feel like you’re getting essentially the most out of it? This whole puzzle appears like one thing that should’ve been stored in your puzzle notebook until you’d found out exactly find out how to execute in a way that could be clear, particular, memorable. Some college students understand the idea earlier than the procedure; others learn the opposite approach.

The task is to position the numbers from 1 to 9 in the empty cells in such a means that, in each row, column and 3 × 3 subgrid, every quantity seems only as soon as. There is a powerful relationship between math and music. A brand new variable quantity is allotted if the variable identify has not been seen before by this Solver, unless you pass true for noCreate. This specialization is, as the name implies, a mixture of sociology and criminal justice disciplines. Solve your math problems online. There is a powerful relationship between math and music. Please don’t misunderstand me; I fortunately use Nero to burn all my knowledge and music.

Use auto solver. New fashions have their solver choice set to auto solver by default. They might not bear in mind that they’ve a problem and it’s best for everyone fascinated to have an understanding of the correct treatment for arresting this difficulty. It’s well-known but takes political will to implement. Publishing today by T. Hill, emeritus: I help run this magazine but was not a part of the editorial decision-making here.

— Robert Frederick (@R_E_Frederick) Moreover a decrease in problem solving expertise and judgment, learning disorders may also occur. For every problem that’s an answer if everyone works to genuinely discover an acceptable answer.

When you have any kind of queries regarding in which and how you can use solve any math question (), you’ll be able to email us with the web-page. Math ideas are constructed upon like constructing blocks. Either approach, they did the math. Science, by the best way, is however the finding of an analogy. In addition to enjoying Solitaire, it means that you can have have the computer solve video games that you’ve got misplaced.

It is a way that allows to mechanically compute the pose of an armature such that certain management points on the armature, additionally known as finish effectors, adjust to some given constraints. I could eventually return to nursing.