Students Perception of Interdisciplinary, ProblemBased ... - CEAD

Research in Food Science Education

Students’ Perception of Interdisciplinary, Problem-Based Learning in a Food Biotechnology Course Betsy L.L. Ng, Kueh C. Yap, and Yin K. Hoh

Abstract: Students’ perception of 8 criteria (rationale of the problem; interdisciplinary learning; facilitator asked essential questions; learner’s skills; assessments; facilitation procedures; team’s use of resources [team collaboration], and facilitator within a problem-based learning context) were assessed for a food biotechnology course that was part of a 3rd year biotechnology program. The mean score for “perceived learner’s skills” was the lowest whereas those for “facilitation” and “facilitator” were the highest. Selected qualitative comments from students were also analyzed. This study demonstrated interdisciplinary learning as the students could make meaningful connections across different science disciplines. Further investigation is needed to develop possible strategies to accommodate the challenges in making meaningful connections across science disciplines as well as to develop a defined hybrid method for analysis of students’ responses.

Introduction Unlike conventional instruction, students participating in problem-based learning (PBL) are active participants in their own learning and they engage in the problem-solving process. Particularly for higher learning, PBL provides students with skills that are critical for life-long learning, including critical thinking, problemsolving, and ability to apply their knowledge to new situations. Such skills are important in adapting to the ever-changing needs of business and industry. How PBL is implemented depends on the context in which learning is to take place and the preparedness of the student (Massa 2008). Besides problem-solving and acquiring meta-cognitive skills, PBL also aims to help learners construct their own knowledge in a collaborative learning environment (Barrows 1996). PBL is a pedagogical approach to interdisciplinary learning and development socially and collaboratively. Vygotsky’s (1997) zone of proximal development put forward the concept of social situatedness that describes the development of individual intelligence requires a social and cultural embedding. Such intelligence is viewed as dynamic, as a real-life problem usually requires one to demonstrate perspective-taking and solving based on more than one discipline. PBL includes interdisciplinary learning components that need to be clearly defined in the context of a study. Interdisciplinary learning is important as it requires students’ understanding in every related discipline and the application of knowledge to solve

the real-life problem. An interdisciplinary study can be defined as integrative study that brings 2 or more disciplines to form an integrated understanding of an issue. Interdisciplinary learning is pertinent in problem-based context as students who are self-directed learners are able to construct their own knowledge through a deeper assimilation of cross-disciplinary concepts (Kitto and Griffiths 2001; Ivanitskaya and others 2002). To assess the interdisciplinary learning, students must demonstrate the ability to engage in perspective-taking; develop structural knowledge pertaining to the course problem; integrate knowledge and modes of thinking drawn from 2 or more disciplines; and produce an interdisciplinary understanding of a problem. As a distinctive approach to learning, interdisciplinary study guides students beyond simpler forms of knowledge acquisition to “a deeper assimilation of cross-disciplinary concepts” (Ivanitskaya and others 2002, p. 97). Since food biotechnology encompasses a rich opportunity to study interdisciplinary learning in PBL context, we would like to evaluate students’ perception of interdisciplinary PBL in a food technology course. Such a course allows students to make connections between major concepts related to different science disciplines such as genetics, microbiology, and molecular cell biology. This study aims to evaluate students’ perception toward learning in a PBL course in food biotechnology.

Materials and Methods

Course description The biotechnology program was conducted in a 100% PBL MS 20100162 Submitted 2/15/2010, Accepted 8/30/2010. Authors are with Natl. Inst. of Education, Nanyang Technological Univ., 1 Nanyang Walk, context with food biotechnology as one of the core courses. Each Singapore 637616. Direct inquiries to author Yap (E-mail: kuehchin.yap@ course was scheduled for 1 d per week for 15 wk. The 3rd-year nie.edu.sg). students taking biotechnology were randomly assigned to each class and each class had a maximum of 25 students. Each class 4 Journal of Food Science Education r Vol. 10, 2011

 c 2010 Institute of Food Technologists® doi: 10.1111/j.1541-4329.2010.00111.x

Students’ perception in a food biotechnology course . . . was assigned the same problem. The students were presented with a problem and were asked to identify 3 areas: what they know; what they do not know; and what they need to find out. Students were encouraged to use online resources such as e-books and journals to research and prepare slides for the presentation. They were given sufficient time to discuss and prepare their presentation during the day. Students divided the learning issues among themselves and each member in the team had to present individual slides at the final meeting of the day. Each presentation took about 10 to 15 min and the facilitator asked each team questions. Their peers were also encouraged to ask questions. The facilitator provided oral feedback to each team after the team completed their presentation. The team presentation was rated using a 5rating (rudimentary; satisfactory; commendable; exceptional; and not rated) rubric: Statement of strategy for proposed solution to problem; information collation and analysis; rationale for problem solving strategy; ability to address questioning; and ability to compare. This PBL assessment made up 60% of the student course grade while the remaining percentage was based on the 4 written tests with an allocation of 10% each. The evaluation of students’ performance included both formative and summative assessments. The food biotechnology course is compulsory for the 3rd-year students and it thus was selected for this study. In this course, students learned about the importance as well as the applications of industrial and food biotechnology. This course provides students with a series of 15 problems over a period of 15 wk such that they could make meaningful connections from previous science courses. Examples of the problems were transgenic crops production, genetic-modified food production, beer production, and food fermentation. These problems required students’ application of their 2nd-year science courses such as genetics, molecular and cell biology (MCB), recombinant DNA (rDNA), and microbiology.

Participants The subjects of this study were 3rd-year biotechnology students enrolled in a food biotechnology program at a tertiary institution in the 1st semester of 2009. Three classes with a total of 69 students were involved in this study. In each class, there were 5 teams of students of 4 to 5 members that were formed by the students themselves. Their ages ranged from 19 to 20 y old. They stayed in the same PBL class throughout the 15-wk experience. In each class, every student had previously taken courses such as microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry in their 2nd year of the biotechnology program. PBL class contact The class contact time with a facilitator involved a 1-h problem introduction and team discussion, 1-h team-and-facilitator discussion, and a 2-h team presentation and closure of the problem. Self-directed learning (SDL) periods allowed students interacted with one another within their teams without the facilitator in class. The 1st 1-h contact and 2nd 1-h contact periods were followed by 1-h SDL and 1.5-h SDL periods, respectively. During the 1st 1-h contact period, the students were presented with the problem and the facilitator asked them to begin the problem-solving process in terms of “What do we know,” “What do we don’t know,” and “What we need to find out?” Students were then given 10 min for team discussion, followed by the facilitator going through the points from each team. Students were then dismissed to fulfill the learning task with the understanding that they would return the following class period (1 h) to share Available on-line through ift.org

their findings and ideas to the facilitator. During the 2-h SDL period, student discussions were allowed for further synthesis of information and teams were allowed to work independently to prepare the final solution to the problem. Each team submitted a final product in the form of a PowerPoint presentation during the 2-h contact period.

An example of problem One of the problems in this industrial and food biotechnology module was designed to introduce the application of hybridization of plants to obtain better production of improved crops. The objectives of this problem are for students to learn how biotechnology had influenced traditionally plant breeding and how transgenic plants are created. The problem of the day titled “Food for Thought” was duplicated in the following: “Timmy glanced at the rows and rows of mini plantlets that were recently produced as a result of the work that was performed in his labs at MoMoneto Inc. The senior management had held firm to their belief that the hybridization of 2 plants, both with desirable traits, would result in a profit-generating crop for the company. Five years had passed and screening of the variants took longer than Timmy had expected. However, many of the generated hybrids exhibited unexpected traits or lower yields. Timmy knew that the members of the senior management wanted their billion dollar plant fast. He looked at his resource materials and found a list of well-characterized genes that could result in the production of improved crops. He wondered if there was a better method than to leave things to chance.” In this problem, the students were supposed to understand the differences between traditional and transgenic plants; how to produce transgenic plants and explain with examples of them for food production. The facilitator posed the problem to the students; encouraged the students to share their prior knowledge on hybridization and crop production; and asked the students questions pertaining to the problem-learning objectives. This problem encompasses several science disciplines that these 3rd-year students had taken in their year 2; namely, genetics, MCB, and rDNA modules.

Students’ perception using rubric A postactivity rubric (Figure 1) was administered to obtain students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of PBL learning. The rubric includes 8 criteria with 4-score ratings. The highest score rating is 4, which depicts the best and positive evaluation. These criteria were used to evaluate students’ perception of their learning and to provide direction for the facilitator to improve both learning and facilitation. The 8 criteria of this rubric were adapted from an online resource and modified according to the objectives of this study (Jacobs 2000). For example, the criterion of interdisciplinary learning focuses on how students can take more than one perspective and then apply their prior knowledge. The score of 4 indicates that the student has excellent knowledge from various disciplines and is able to apply well in solving the problem. The score of 3 indicates that the student has moderate knowledge from Vol. 10, 2011 r Journal of Food Science Education 5

Students’ perception in a food biotechnology course . . .

Figure 1–The postactivity rubric for students.

various disciplines and is moderately able in solving the problem. The score of 2 indicates that the student is struggling to make meaningful connections among the disciplines and is not able to apply in solving the problem. The score of 1 indicates that the student should revisit what disciplines were covered and how they can apply in solving the problem. The 1st criterion is essential as it determines if students had understood the rationale of the problem and its learning outcomes. This criterion in turn relates to the next one, interdisciplinary learning to find out if students could then make meaningful connections to what they had learnt previously in their 2nd-year science modules. Criterion 3 explores the way a facilitator asked essential questions and how this would guide students beyond simpler forms of knowledge acquisition to a deeper assimilation of science concepts. This is an important relationship between facilitator’s inquiry and students’ learning. Criterion 4 refers to students’ skills acquired at PBL. PBL research showed that graduates from PBL curricula had better diagnostic and communication skills; as well as demonstrated greater responsibility and ability to cope with uncertainty (Koh and others 2008). The assessment criteria were based on students’ PowerPoint presentations; how they answered the questions asked by the facilitator; and active participation as a team player within their team discussion.

6 Journal of Food Science Education r Vol. 10, 2011

Criterion 6 emphasizes the facilitation procedures and if they had followed a clear and logical sequence. This is essential to establish whether students had understood the intention of the facilitation and how these procedures could guide them to have a better understanding to the problem and how they could interrelate from and across science disciplines. The facilitation procedures are thus important in exploring how they could help in enabling students to make meaningful connections and to include multiple perspectives. The use of team’s resources (criterion 7) is relevant to fulfill the learning outcomes of the problem. It is team collaboration such that each member will share resources and research findings. Online resources are tools that provide scaffolding and opportunity to actively “fish” for authentic real-world information in the content area (Khong 2008), as well as offer a lot of the latest, real-world information. These increase students’ motivation in research. The last criterion is to explore if the facilitator will affect students’ learning. This is related to one’s facilitation skills in developing students’ meta-cognitive skills; skills needed to take responsibility for planning, monitoring, and evaluating their own learning (Massa 2008). Finally, selected students’ feedback was consolidated so as to understand their ability to engage in perspective-taking and their integration of knowledge and modes of thinking drawn from 2

Available on-line through ift.org

Students’ perception in a food biotechnology course . . . or more science disciplines. These qualitative comments were se- plinary PBL was met. On the other hand, those of criteria 3, 6, lected based on the students’ ability to relate this module through and 8 showed that students’ perception of the facilitator’s role, fainterdisciplinary learning. cilitation procedures, and facilitator was crucial to their learning. These criteria were further discussed in the following sections. Analysis of data Students’ score-ratings (3.07 ± 0.65) for the perceived rationale Descriptive statistics (SPSS 16.0, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Ill., of the problem showed that the student’s perception of rationale U.S.A.) were used to examine the distribution of ratings for each of the problem and the understanding of the learning objectives criterion of the rubric. Tukey’s post hoc approach in SPSS was used were good. The rationale of the problem needs to be clear so that to compare the differences between perceived variables and classes students do not have difficulty in comprehending the given con(1, 2, and 3) on the ratings of the 8 criteria. The significant level tents. Students can then understand the learning outcomes and was set at P = 0.05. To determine whether the mean scores for can also understand the problem from multiple perspectives ofthe 8 criteria are significantly different, 1-way repeated measures fered by different disciplines and experiences. Fundamental goals ANOVA using SPSS was carried out. Huynh–Feldt correction for of interdisciplinary PBL are the appreciation of truths and the the violation of the sphericity assumption was used to determine multiplicity of perspectives in all areas of knowledge (Murray and the significant differences (P < 0.05) among the 8 mean scores. Summerlee 2007). There might be a correlation to students’ inGiven that there was a significant difference on criteria, a post hoc terdisciplinary learning and their understanding of the problem, analysis was then carried out. but further research needs to be conducted. The mean score for interdisciplinary component and learning (criterion 2) was 3.20 ± 0.81. Students generally agreed that they Results and Discussion had learned how to apply their prior knowledge from the 2nd-year Over 80% of students (N = 69) strongly agreed or agreed for the 7 criteria of the rubric (Table 1). One of the criteria, facilita- science modules and applied them effectively in this module. The tion procedures, had over 90% of all students giving ratings of 3 mean scores for each class (data not shown) differed in terms of and 4. This indicates that the pedagogical approach in this course their interdisciplinary learning. This might be due to the different was overall well received by the students. Students’ ratings indi- learning styles of learners in terms of how they could make meancated that their learning skills could be improved and more effort ingful connections from other science disciplines. The students could be put in. Learners’ skills included students’ process skills, were asked about their understanding of interdisciplinary PBL afknowledge, and reasoning skills. The overall mean score (Table 2) ter they had presented. Selected students’ responses were presented is highest for the perceived facilitation procedures, followed by the in Table 3. Students could cross-relate and apply what they had facilitator criterion. The lowest overall mean score is lowest for learned in their 2nd-year science modules into this biotechnology the perceived learner’s skills. The post hoc analysis showed that module effectively. Interdisciplinary learning is essential in the problem-based conthe highest mean score for the criterion facilitation procedures was significantly different (P < 0.05) from the mean score on all text. The students agreed that their fundamental modules (in year 2) and prior knowledge had greatly helped in this 3rd-year the other criteria. The means for criteria 2, 4, 5, and 7 showed that students took module. Five of 6 students agreed that their understanding in this ownership of their own learning and the success of interdisci- food biotechnology module was enhanced based on year 2 modules (such as rDNA and MCB). Further qualitative research could be conducted to explore the interdisciplinary components within Table 1–Distribution of student responses for the 8 criteria. a module and how students apply interdisciplinary learning in their Criteria 4 3 2 1 Total module (and/or course). The overall mean score for students’ perception of their skills is 1. Rationale of problem 23.19 62.32 13.04 1.45 100 the lowest, 2.88 ± 0.53 (Table 2). Students did not seem to acquire 2. Interdisciplinary learning 40.58 43.48 11.59 4.35 100 3. Facilitator asked 43.48 43.48 10.14 2.90 100 precise skills (including presentation and processing skills) and did essential questions 4. Learner’s skills 7.25 75.36 15.94 1.45 100 not agree that they had addressed essential questions related to the 5. Assessments 6. Facilitation procedures 7. Team’s use of resources (team collaboration) 8. Facilitator

18.84 76.81 18.84

65.22 17.39 66.67

14.49 2.90 13.04

1.45 2.90 1.45

100 100 100

56.52

33.33

7.25

2.90

100

Note: Rating scale is described in Figure 1.

Table 3–Selected students’ feedback about their perception of interdisciplinary PBL. Student 1

Table 2–Overall students’ perceptions of the course. Criteria 1. Rational of problem 2. Interdisciplinary learning 3. Facilitator asked essential questions 4. Learner’s skills 5. Assessments 6. Facilitation procedures 7. Team’s use of resources (team collaboration) 8. Facilitator

N Meana 69 3.07 69 3.20

2 Standard deviation Minimum Maximum 3 0.65 1.00 4.00 0.81 1.00 4.00

69

3.28

0.76

1.00

4.00

69 69 69 69

2.88 3.01 3.68 3.03

0.53 0.63 0.68 0.62

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

69

3.43

0.76

1.00

4.00

4 5 6

a Using Huynh–Feldt correction, the means were different from each other.

Available on-line through ift.org

Self-evaluation comments “My modules learnt in year 2 were pretty helpful, as modules like MCB, rDNA and Genetics gave me a lot of foundation to understand year 3 problems more clearly.” “Knowledge from 2nd modules such as rDNA, MCB, Micribiology (MBIO), Genetics has definitely helped me to better my understanding of this module.” “I would say that some of my 2nd year modules can be applied in this module. For example, rDNA, MCB. . . understanding the basics for example how the cell works and understanding the different components in a cell really does help me understand this module better!” “As for this module, I realised that there are a couple of modules which has helped me to understand the topics. Some of them are rDNA and MCB.” “From the past modules I have taken up, the ones I have made it involved in this module are Genetics, rDNA and MCB.” “Genetics and rDNA are two modules I can recall and make use in this module.”

Note: MCB stands for molecular cell biology; rDNA stands for recombinant DNA.

Vol. 10, 2011 r Journal of Food Science Education 7

Students’ perception in a food biotechnology course . . . problem. Most students tend to be weak in this area. Unless students can appreciate their own skills and weaknesses as well as use feedback from others to find ways to improve their performance and participation, it is a challenge to develop the required learners’ skills and to appreciate the reciprocal responsibility to themselves and each other (Murray and Summerlee 2007). The overall mean score for perceived assessment is 3.01 ± 0.63 (Table 2), indicating that students were satisfied with the assessments given as the activities were directly correlated to their competency level and relevant to their learning outcomes. This criterion focuses on the perception of students of how the facilitator assessed them in terms of their ability to answer essential questions; their competency in specific skills (including interdisciplinary learning and process skills); as well as achieving the learning goals and purpose of the problem. This rubric criterion may not be comprehensive to demonstrate students’ understanding of assessments as it has to be more descriptive. It would be beneficial to conduct interviews or to get open-ended feedback from students in terms of how they perceived assessments. The overall mean score for perceived team’s use of resources is 3.02 ± 0.62 (Table 2), indicating that the students did use appropriate online resources to fulfill the learning outcomes of the problem. The team’s use of resources displayed the coordination and collaboration of the team members. In PBL, team collaboration is important as students discuss individual findings and share the relevant resources. The significant difference (P < 0.05) in team’s collaboration between 2 classes (data not shown) is likely due to the dynamic make-up of group learning. PBL is a dynamic process. Hence, the same problem might not generate same responses from different groups. Some groups might answer the problem faster than the others. Because of the unique and dynamic nature of each group, the time devoted to a specific problem could not be set arbitrarily (Murray and Summerlee 2007). The teammates whom they worked with could also affect the individual student’s learning and motivation. Empirical studies revealed that students and staff experience motivational, emotional, and interpersonal challenges during group work (Burdett 2003; Wright and Lander 2003). Among the 8 criteria, the highest overall mean score (3.68 ± 0.68) was for facilitation procedures (Table 2). This indicates that the facilitation procedures had followed a clear and logical sequence. The next highest mean score (3.43 ± 0.76) was for the students’ perception on the facilitator indicating that the facilitator had presented the problem in a clear, consistent format, and error-free. Students agreed (3.28 ± 0.76) that the facilitator asked essential questions that were clear to them and enabled transitions among questions The transitions among questions were necessary as they provided adequate time for students to process the information, to think through, and share their findings. The role of a facilitator is crucial to students’ learning as the way one facilitates affects how students learn. According to Murray and Summerlee (2007), the key to the success of PBL is the role of the facilitator(s). It is critical that the facilitator does not convey contents and provide necessary background. Rather, the facilitator needs to be mindful always to stimulate the discussion through asking open-ended questions (Rhem 1998). There might be a relationship between these 2 criteria and this will be further investigated in the future studies.

students’ perceptions toward the course, their learning, facilitation, and facilitator. The rubric can be further improved and strengthened to link between theory and practice in interdisciplinary learning. PBL is a dynamic learning, and possible strategies to accommodate the challenges among students with different learning styles may be investigated. Further investigation is needed in fostering students’ skills to make meaningful connections across various disciplines or science-specific disciplines. Some of the limitations faced in this research were the class size, total sampling size, and class homogeneity. The class size was limited to a maximum of 25 students and the total sampling size for the 3 classes was only 69. Each class was considered to be homogenous as it was made up of 3rd-year biotechnology students. The educational backgrounds were similar as they had taken similar modules throughout their biotechnology course. However, this preliminary study provides a platform for a class intervention in the future research. Future study will include a larger sample size. Finally, the class grouping of students was randomly assigned to the facilitator, which also contributed to class homogeneity. Nevertheless, it is well known that PBL can be advantageous over the conventional learning strategies in taking multiple perspectives, generating greater understanding of science concepts, and making connections across science disciplines, thereby fostering interdisciplinary learning. This study was a preliminary study and future investigations would be required to explore the analysis of students’ responses data. A quantitative and qualitative analysis would be helpful to determine the students’ interdisciplinary learning in problem-based context. Finally, the challenges faced by the methods presented need to be identified and addressed.

References Barrows HS. 1996. Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond. In: Wilkerson L, Gijselaers WH, editors. New directions for teaching and learning: Vol 68. Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. p 3–13. Burdett J. 2003. Making groups work: university students’ perceptions. Intl Educ J 4(3):177–91. Ivanitskaya L, Clark D, Montgomery G, Primeau R. 2002. Interdisciplinary learning: process and outcomes. Innov High Educ 27(2):95–111. Jacobs HH. 2000. Available from: http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/ concept2class/interdisciplinary/implementation_sub1.html. Accessed Feb 16, 2010. Khong LYL. 2008. Using evidence-based research to enhance authentic learning in Singaporean pre-service teachers. Intl J Learn 15(5):1447– 9494. Kitto SK, Griffiths LG. 2001. The evolution of problem-based learning in a biotechnology course. In: Duch BJ, Groh SE, Allen DE, editors. The power of problem-based learning. Sterling, Va.: Stylus Publishing. Koh GCH, Khoo HE, Wongm ML. 2008. The effects of problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: a systematic review. Can Med Assoc J 178:34–41. Massa NM. 2008. Problem-based learning (PBL): a real-world antidote to the standards and testing regime. N Engl J High Educ 22(4):19–20. Murray J, Summerlee A. 2007. The impact of problem-based learning in an interdisciplinary first-year program on student learning behaviour. Can J High Educ 37(3):87–107. Rhem J. 1998. Problem-based learning: an introduction. Natl Teach Learn Forum 8:(1):1–4. Vygotsky LS. 1997. Educational psychology. Boca Raton, Fla.: St Lucie Press. Wright S, Lander D. 2003. Collaborative group interactions of students from two ethnic backgrounds. High Educ Res Dev 22(3): Conclusions The rubric to evaluate the learning outcomes of the food 237–52.

biotechnology course is an alternative approach to understand 8 Journal of Food Science Education r Vol. 10, 2011

Available on-line through ift.org