Abstract
Studies over the past three decades have shown the alignment between teachers' conceptions and approaches to teaching. However, little attention has been given to exploring skill-oriented teaching conceptions and approaches, such as problem-solving (PS). Although teachers' views, beliefs, and understanding of problem-solving have been studied to a certain extent, there has not been a common conceptual ground to study the conceptions of teaching problem-solving in a wider and multidisciplinary context. Therefore, this review article aims to assemble and provide conceptual clarity to the elements teaching problem-solving might constitute to create the foundation for future study. Positing that the way teachers conceive ‘problem’ in instruction, the process of problem-solving, and their role inform the approaches they take to teach PS, this paper provides conceptual grounding and reasoning of each element. To conclude, the paper might be a valuable resource for scholars starting to examine the same topic, as it provides overviews of seminal papers and essential insights into the topic, demonstrating the importance of studying conceptions of teaching problem-solving.
Introduction
Studying teachers' conceptions has had the greatest importance in understanding how they conceive goals of higher education and the courses they are conducting (Gow, Kember, & Sivan, 1993; Lam & Kember, 2004) or what their views are about good teaching (Kember & Kwan, 2000), as well as how they see growth and development in their profession (Åkerlind, 2003). The relevance of this concept was given after inquiring about the interrelationship of conceptions and approaches to teaching (Kember & Kwan, 2000). As illustrated in previous studies, lecturers who conceived teaching as transmitting knowledge were more likely to use content-centred approaches to teaching, while those who conceived teaching as facilitative tended to use learning-centred approaches. In addition, clear relationship patterns have been found between the approaches to teaching described by lectures and the approaches to learning adopted by the students in their classes (Entwistle & Peterson, 2004; Lam & Kember, 2004; Richardson, 2005). It implies that university teachers who use student-oriented approaches to teaching are more likely to have students who adopt deep approaches to studying.
Employing the conceptions of teaching as a theoretical framework has become a subject of interest in exploring the contemporary problem in the realm of higher education, specifically to address the continuous challenge of universities to enhance students' problem-solving abilities. Jonassen (2000) notices that one of the primary sources of this issue is that in educational practices, learners are taught how to solve well-formed instrumental problems, while real-world problems are more ill-structured, uncertain, and interdisciplinary. Woods et al. (1997) recognise students as ‘collectors of sample solutions’ and explain that they do not feel confident solving problems if the wording or context of the problem statement is changed. Furthermore, the research also highlights the lack of attention given to the phase of problem analysis in teaching practice. Thomassen and Stentoft (2020) describe it as the essential part of the process of PS because it involves the stages of identification, analysis, and formulation of the problem. Schon (1991), in his book ‘Reflective Practitioner’, implies the importance of the process of defining the problem and explains that if students are only offered well-defined problems, they will not be able to transfer knowledge in the real-world context they may encounter in their professional lives.
As can be observed, previous studies indicate that insufficiencies in teaching practice might be the potential reasons why students struggle to use problem-solving skills. Given the crucial role teachers play in fostering these abilities and the impact their conceptions have on their teaching methods, it is essential to explore how teachers conceptualise problem-solving. Therefore, this paper aims to provide conceptual clarity of conceptions of teaching and, most importantly, systematise and unveil the possible conceptual dimensions of conceptions of teaching problem-solving.
Literature review method
This work aims to conceptualise and elucidate the notion of CoTPS, filling the existing gap in the literature and providing the framework for future study. Hence, it's crucial to recognise this work as a product of author's personal research interest and perspective to identify and expound upon the dimensions of the concept, develop a comprehensive definition, and enhance scholarly understanding of it. Due to the nature of this conceptual paper, the traditional narrative literature review method was employed. It allowed synthesising different theoretical constructs, ideas, models, and trends within the empirical data (Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006; Robson & McCartan, 2016). Along with this, a narrative (also known as non-systematic) literature review has allowed flexibility within the literature search process and the organisation of the analyses (Kennedy, 2007). As the focus is on synthesising areas of conceptual knowledge and not addressing specific research questions or policy problems, this method has been considered relevant to this review paper (Jesson, Matheson, & Lacey, 2011).
This paper consists of three distinct sections. The selection criteria for the studies included in the first section of the paper (The Origins of the Studies in Conceptions of Teaching) are based on several factors. Firstly, the emphasis is given to the authors who are deemed important due to their pioneering contributions in the field and who have significantly shaped the discourse on conceptions of teaching. Simultaneously, these authors consistently appear on the first page of the search results on major database search websites (Ebsco, Scopus, Web of Science, JSTOR, ERIC). Secondly, focus has been made on the highly cited work between 1990 and 2000, a period when the studies in conceptions have gained the greatest importance. By using advanced search techniques on the aforementioned databases, the following keywords were applied: “conceptions of teaching” OR “conceptions of learning” AND “approaches to teaching” AND “teachers”, OR “academics” OR “educators”. Additionally, a chronological approach has been employed, starting from the emergence of studies to their culmination.
The second section (Studies in Conceptions of Teaching Problem-Solving) aims to review existing research on teaching problem-solving, exploring how researchers approach the concept and whether it is comprehensively studied while also delving into the rationale behind studying teachers' views on teaching problem-solving. In light of these objectives, the focus of the literature search was not restricted to a particular field or education level but rather to a specific timeframe, starting from 2000 to the present. This timeframe was chosen because a review of studies on conceptions dating before 2000 (first section of the paper) did not yield relevant data. Acknowledging that conceptions are often conceptualised as beliefs, views, or perceptions, these terms were utilised as keywords during the literature search. The search was conducted across major academic databases (Ebsco, Scopus, Web of Science, JSTOR, ERIC) using a combination of keywords such as “conceptions,” OR “perceptions,” OR “views,” AND “teachers',” OR “academics,” OR “lecturers,” AND “problem-solving”. Furthermore, to maintain the rigour of the search process, only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were considered for inclusion.
The third section (Dimensions of conceptions of teaching problem-solving) of the paper aims to break down the possible conceptual dimensions of the conception by reviewing the instructional practices and models of problem-solving teaching pedagogy. The priorities were given to the famous theoretical models and designs of problem-centred instruction (Problem-Based Learning, Merrill's first principles of instruction, Constructivist Learning Environments, Situated Cognition Theory, IDEAL, etc.) and the most prolific researchers on this topic. By analysing the theoretical and empirical work done in the field, conceptual knowledge about teaching problem-solving has been accumulated, which can be addressed and studied as CoTPS. The future study aims to establish the model of CoTPS, which will bring additional empirical, evidence-based value to the concept.
The origins of the studies in conceptions of teaching
With the intention to understand the implication of the research on teachers' conceptions of problem-solving, it is pivotal to give a brief overview of studies that explored conceptions of teaching as a notion and is considered an important theoretical construct in pedagogical research in the last few decades.
One of the first authors who studied conceptions is Pratt (1992), who suggested the most cited definition of the concept: “Conceptions are specific meanings attached to phenomena which then mediate our response to situations involving those phenomena… in effect, we view the world through the lenses of our conceptions, interpreting and acting in accordance with our understanding of the world” (p. 204). In his study, Pratt (1992) identified five distinct categories of conceptions, which have shown the diversity and complexity of an individual's beliefs, intentions and actions related to teaching. Gow et al. (1993) found a dichotomy between the teachers' conceptions of the goal of higher education and their practices. Teachers perceived the goal of higher education as fostering students' problem-solving skills, independent learning, and adaptability, but the reported actual teaching practice was found to rely heavily on traditional teaching methods such as formal lectures.
As a follow-up study, Gow et al. (1993) utilised the longitudinal data on student learning behaviour in order to see the relationships between lecturers' conceptions and students' outcomes. They have found out that departments with a focus on knowledge transmission were found to discourage deep learning approaches. Conversely, departments emphasising learning facilitation were less likely to induce surface approaches. Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor (1994) aimed to investigate science teachers' conceptions of learning separate to, but in conjunction with conceptions of teaching. The inconsistency explored between these conceptions indicated that teachers may need to adopt conceptions of teaching consistent with conceptions they have about learning certain subjects. For example, teachers who conceived learning as conceptual development to satisfy internal demands might see teaching as transmitting concepts of the syllabus. This work has been expanded by Prosser and Trigwell (1997) by exploring the significant relationship between university teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning and their approaches to teaching. This seminal work informed the need for change in teaching developmental strategies, as it only focused on teaching techniques. Instead, researchers suggested programmes which could help teachers reflect on and modify their conceptions of teaching and learning for better educational outcomes.
By the end of the decade, Kember (1997) conducted an analysis of the previous studies, which allowed him to develop a model that linked concepts of teaching and teaching approaches with learning outcomes, which has been tested since then. Kember and Kwan (2000) intended to show the possible links between university teachers' conceptions of good teaching, motivation strategies and their teaching approaches. Giving an example of findings, they concluded that teachers who conceived teaching as transiting knowledge adopted a concept-centred approach to teaching and reported using extrinsic motivators in their classrooms. Therefore, conducting this study has shown how these concepts are interlinked and influence each other.
Since the turn of the millennium, research on conceptions has taken varied paths. Researchers have begun to adopt these concepts to address various educational phenomena. The analysis of the previous papers has demonstrated that analysing educators' beliefs and conceptions provides valuable insights into instructional strategies. Importantly, this approach facilitates thorough planning of professional development programmes and identifies areas requiring intervention for effective change implementation.
Studies of conceptions of teaching problem-solving
Teachers' conceptions and beliefs have been considered a significant predictor of their practice. Therefore, studying their views on how students acquire specific skills has been a subject of considerable interest. Especially extensive empirical studies have been conducted to understand how teachers conceive the importance of generic skills, how these skills are taught, and related topics (Barrie, 2006; Jones, 2009; Kember, 2009; Klegeris, Dubois, Code, & Bradshaw, 2019; Räisänen, Pyörälä, & Tuononen, 2022; Tuononen, Hyytinen, Kleemola, Hailikari, & Toom, 2023). Although problem-solving is considered one of the essential generic skills, and most previous studies addressing teachers' conceptions of generic skills have included PS as one of the skill sets, this paper aims to specifically evaluate studies that focus on teachers' conceptions of PS separately. The literature search revealed that most of the studies addressing teachers' conceptions of TPS are associated with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education. Therefore, this chapter focuses on the relevance of these studies and examines how the concept of TPS is conceptualized.
One of the first papers that investigated teacher conceptions of problem-solving discovered that educators categorised problems as either “problematic” or “unproblematic” (Trigwell, Prosser, Marton, & Runesson, 2002). When teachers viewed a problem in instructional design as unproblematic, it indicated their belief in the existence of predetermined, unchanging solutions that students should employ using formulas or theoretical knowledge. Conversely, when teachers considered a problem as problematic, it signified their recognition that the problem was not a given, requiring students to scrutinise, interpret, and make sense of the phenomenon.
Several studies on engineering educators' perceptions of the nature of complex problems have shown that they lack experience and knowledge about the attributes of complex engineering problems (Auer, Hortsch, & Sethakul, 2020; Phang et al., 2018). The outcomes of the studies have shown that teachers have struggled to design complex engineering problems, as they had a very insufficient understanding of the specificity of constructing engineering problems. According to researchers, there are specific attributes of complex engineering problems that educators have not commonly reflected. Specifically, according to Washington Accord, ill-structured engineering problems require ‘in-depth knowledge,’ meaning that students must possess some ground knowledge that they acquire in introductory courses; in addition to this, it is characterised as conflicting, which does not have a straightforward solution, involves multiple stakeholders, calls for abstract and creative thinking, etc. (Auer et al., 2020).
Further, several studies discuss the alignment of teachers' beliefs about problem-solving and their behaviour in maths education (Beswick, 2012; Philipp, 2007; Rott, 2020). For example, one study has demonstrated that when teachers believed that problem-solving is about experimentation and discovering how to solve a problem rather than simply calculating a solution, these beliefs influenced teaching strategy by allowing students to try different approaches rather than pushing them in specific directions. Saadati, Cerda, Giaconi, Reyes, and Felmer (2019) studied Chilean teachers' beliefs about the value of mathematical problem-solving and the possible interplay with their practice. They found that teachers who perceive problem-solving tasks as applicable (utility value) and essential (attainment value) hold student-centred approaches to teaching. Siswono, Kohar, Kurniasari, and Astuti (2016) have discovered that teachers have difficulties with designing problem-solving tasks, as well as determining the steps and strategies of problem-solving, and their beliefs about maths problems are still static/Platonist which means that mathematics is a unified body of knowledge that is discovered, not created and it has more objective structure. The author concludes that learning and knowing the difficulties will help to balance teachers' views and actual knowledge and practice towards mathematical problem-solving with students.
Xenofontos and Andrews (2014) conducted a study to understand beliefs about mathematical problems and problem-solving between Cypriot and English perspective teachers and offered insights into the different cultural and education contexts that share individuals' perceptions of mathematical problem-solving. Cypriot teachers tended to equate problems with word problems, emphasising the importance of a verbal context presented in written forms. In comparison, most English participants emphasised the individual solvers' role in labelling a task as a problem. According to them, a problem only exists if an individual can not apply a direct method to solve it. Both groups converged on the idea that problem-solving is an open process requiring engagement with the problem and a focus on understanding and interpreting the task. However, English teachers stressed the importance of knowing basic mathematics and the ability to perform speedy calculations as prerequisites for problem-solving (Xenofontos & Andrews, 2014).
Reviewing the previous studies has shown the aspects researchers typically explore when delving into teachers' experience of teaching problem-solving. Important conclusions have been made according to this section. Researchers address learning, how educators design problems for their instruction and how they understand the term problem-solving. Most of the papers yielded the importance of studying this concept as it shapes their classroom behaviours. However, it should be noted that in previous studies, no systematic approach to understanding how teachers conceptualise teaching PS is taken. In all the above studies, researchers don't posit that they study conceptions of TPS, but they explore teachers' conceptions about the single aspects of teaching PS, such as either problem or problem-solving process. As a result, this gap suggests the necessity to provide a comprehensive conceptual framework for studying conceptions of teaching problem-solving.
To encourage a more standardised and interdisciplinary exploration of how educators conceptualise and approach teaching problem-solving, the next section of this paper intends to provide conceptual clarity to pillar elements of teaching problem-solving, naming ‘problems,’ the problem-solving process, and the teachers' role in the problem-solving process.
Dimensions of conceptions of teaching problem-solving
Conceptions of ‘problem’
According to the theoretical model of problem-based learning (Gijselaers, 1995), ‘problem’ plays the most significant role in problem-centered instruction. First, it generates the students' interests and engagement, defines the time spent on the task and the effective group work/discussion, and determines their involvement in self-directed learning (Schmidt & Moust, 2000). Therefore, this section of the paper aims to synthesise the knowledge to see characteristics and qualities that distinguish problems from each other. Jonassen (1997), who owns a robust amount of analysis in problem-centred instruction, suggests that structuredness, complexity, and representations distinguish the nature of the problem. Furthermore, Thomassen and Stentoft (2020) expand the attributes of a problem with authenticity, exemplarity, and interdisciplinarity, which will be discussed below.
Structuredness delineates the problems in terms of transparency, interpretation possibilities, or a degree of interdisciplinarity. These parameters distinguish ill-structured and well-structured problems from each other. Well-structured problems are attributed to the limited number of solutions and possess preferred ways to be addressed (pre-defined model, theory, formula, etc). There is less space for unknown concepts but for defined answers. With regard to ill-structured problems, they are discerned as more untransparent, meaning the possibility of predictability could be low. This puzzle allows problem-solvers to expand their knowledge and explore more in each discipline and outside of it. Hence, ill-structured problems are also highly interdisciplinary, enabling learners to look for solutions in diverse areas, such as in the workplace or real-life problem-solving fields (Thomassen & Stentoft, 2020). Finally, the possibility of developing transferable skills distinguishes well-structured problems from ill-structured ones. Problems limited in interpretations do not allow learners to adjust or transfer the knowledge or competencies in different contexts and spaces to solve complex problems (Jonassen, 1997; Jonassen & Hung, 2008).
Complexity is one more considerable parameter that defines the nature of problems. Problems can be interpreted as more complex if the learners need a broad knowledge range. Jonassen labels it ‘breadth of knowledge’ and refers to the range of knowledge that is necessary to acquire a particular concept (Jonassen & Hung, 2008). Along with this, the level of attainment has been shown as an essential factor in defining the difficulty and shows the effort learners need to take to absorb or comprehend the problem. The puzzling nature of the problem can also be explained by the steps necessary to get through to seize the understanding. The degree of comprehension of this type of problem is challenging because the linkage of the concepts is not linear, and grasping the interconnection is perplexing (Jonassen & Hung, 2008).
According to Jonassen (1997), problem representation is the third parameter that constitutes the first two characteristics, and it portrays how to communicate with the learners. How to present the problem, depending on the complexity and structure is the decision the instructional designer or the teacher should make according to the characteristics mentioned above and the objectives of a particular course or class setting.
Along with this, as it was highlighted, authenticity is an important feature that represents the nature of the problem. Considering the goal of problem-centred instruction to provide students with the ability to transfer their knowledge into the real world, it is significant to consider a high degree of authenticity while designing the problem as attributes problems with the features of workplace problems (Thomassen & Stentoft, 2020). Authenticity of the learning experience does not necessarily refer to experiential learning experience where students physically have an opportunity to problem-solve in natural work settings, but dealing with a learning task that is ill-structured, complex, and realistic (Son & Lee, 2020).
To conclude, the nature of the problem is a key element in determining the learning outcomes of problem-centred instruction. Attributing the problem with a certain degree of complexity, structuredness, interdisciplinarity, exemplarity, or authenticity builds different types of problems to achieve specific educational goals. Therefore, it informs us that to evaluate teachers' practice in teaching problem-solving, it is crucial to understand how they conceive problems, identify the criteria they consider important for a ‘good problem', understand their reasoning behind selecting or designing problems, and discern the factors guiding their decision-making.
The conception of the process of problem-solving
The second dimension we claim could define the teachers' approaches to teaching problem-solving is inquiring how they conceptualise the problem-solving process. The actual cognitive, information processing, or situated cognition processes determine the phases in which learners are involved in problem-solving in different instructional design models. Therefore, it shall be recognized as the second essential dimension of studying conceptions of teaching problem-solving.
Information processing theory (Simon, 1981), which merely suggests the process for dealing with well-structured or well-defined problems, underlines three core processes: representation, schema activation, and problem-solution. While constructing the representation, the problem solver seeks to understand the problem by retrieving past knowledge and trying to find the relation between the unknown and the known. As soon as the learner can compile information, the schema is activated, followed by implementing solution strategies. However, if the schema is not activated, the problem-solver must take a ‘general search strategy,’ e.g. planning, monitoring progress, and applying other metacognitive strategies (Gick, 1986).
Mayer (2019), in his book, has shown that problem-solving should not be regarded as a simple process. He describes it as a cognitive process that entails using higher-order thinking capabilities, such as planning, executing, representing, self-regulating, monitoring, etc. (Mayer & Wittrock, 2006, p. 288). Each of these processes also involves complex tasks, e.g., planning occurs when a problem solver breaks a problem into several parts. Self-regulation involves initiating, amending the concepts, commencing it from scratch, etc. Monitoring requires regular observation of the process, documentation, and evaluation. Finally, executing involves implementing the chosen course of action.
Well-regarded researchers in this field (Mourtos, Okamoto, & Rhee, 2004) differentiate problem-solving from exercise-solving, as educators often have wrong ideas about what the former represents. In exercise solving, students are dealing with a well-defined problem that constitutes all known information without further ambiguity. In contrast, in problem-solving, a student is the one who defines the problem. Furthermore, there is no one technique given to the learner to solve the problem, as the problem-solving process might involve adopting different pathways to address the puzzling nature of the problem. In exercise solving, the learner's problem-solving approach is familiar with the methods taught in the book.
Several problem-centred instructional practices, which mainly focus on solving ill-structured problems, inform that problem-solving involves several phases. Merrill (2002) calls the first phase “activation of prior experience.” In the IDEAL model of problem-centred instruction, the first phase is “identifying potential problems” (Jonassen, 2000). The seven-jump Problem-based learning model labels the first phase as “clarifying the concepts and identifying the problem” (Walldén & Mäkinen, 2014). The next phase in Nelson's (1998) collaborative problem-solving model is known as 'analyse the problem and verify causes'; with the given IDEAL model, we can see that ‘defining and representing the problem’ is the next step. In the seven-jump model, we encounter much more detailed and shorter phases; learners brainstorm about the problem, and before starting self-study, they set the objectives. The third and fourth phases of Merrill's instruction are known as ‘demonstration of skills’, ‘application of skills and integration of these skills into real-world activities' (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006). The collaborative problem-solving process continues with developing and implementing the plan and finally ‘monitoring and evaluating the plan.’ The IDEAL model aligns with these stages by exploring possible strategies, acting on those strategies, and looking back and evaluating the effects of those activities (Jonassen, 2000, p. 65). In seven jump models similar to many PBL models, the last steps constitute sharing results, critically analysing, and evaluating them.
Based on these various models of problem-solving, the steps involved in the process of solving ill-structured problems can be summarised in the following way: 1. Defining and analysing the problem involves recognising and understanding the problem, its context, and its complexity 2. Collecting data (learner gathers relevant information and data related to problem 3. Generating potential solutions based on brainstorming 4. Selecting the optimum solution by evaluating the potential solutions 5. Applying the chosen solution 6. Assessing the outcomes and effects 7. Revise the solution and make any necessary adjustments.
As demonstrated, problem-solving is a complex process, and instructional theories of problem-solving are informed by the cognitive process of PS. Examining how teachers perceive this process, including how they articulate the steps if they articulate and how they comprehend the importance and outcomes of constituent phases, will provide insights into their practice.
The conceptions of the role of the teacher
Acknowledging that problem-centred instruction is considered one of the most student-centred learning strategies, where defining a teacher's role is crucial and often controversial (Elen, Clarebout, Leonard, & Lowyck, 2007; Keiler, 2018; McCabe & O'Connor, 2014; Pedersen & Liu, 2003), it will be addressed as one dimension for studying conceptions of teaching problem-solving. Additionally, in the studies of conceptions of teaching, enquiring how teachers conceive their role is the central conceptual question (Kane, Sandretto, & Heath, 2002). In addition to this, as discussed below, the teacher's role in problem-centred instruction is also seen very uniquely, meaning tutor, facilitator, instructor, and coach are the terms that are used to highlight the role teachers hold in different problem-centred instructional practices (Rico & Ertmer, 2015).
To provide a general overview of teachers' actions in learner-centred instruction, Weimer's (2013) principles of the role of teachers will be discussed. Black (1993) points out that the teacher's role in problem-solving is to direct them with questions only after they cannot move forward (as cited in Weimer, 2013). Teachers are not the ones who are supposed to be learning, meaning they do not take ownership of asking and answering questions, guiding discussion, solving problems, building mind maps for students, etc. The following principle sets the importance of widening the opportunities for students to self-discover concepts. Problem-centred instructional practices aim to develop students' self-learning skills and habits with administrative or learning tasks. In addition, one of the prominent roles teachers undertake is designing learning tasks for classroom instruction (Weimer, 2013). As we can see in the previous section, designing the problem is daunting, as it should be the primary tool and vehicle that guides learning. Therefore, the teacher's role encompasses outlining the task involving students grasping the content knowledge and developing skills.
Teachers' roles are extensively discussed in the context of one of the instructional practices of problem-solving (PBL). In PBL instruction, teachers are labelled as ‘tutors,’ and their role is seen as facilitators. To deconstruct this concept, tutors are expected to establish formal rules for turn-taking or discussion, speak when directly addressed in the discussion process, delegate learning responsibility to students, help groups focus on priorities and use time effectively, help students to resolve any conflicts, ask metacognitive questions to enable students to review the learning process critically, validates their contribution, builds trust and collaborative bonds (Weimer, 2013). One study that used a detailed observation process to identify the strategies of facilitation breaks down several vital actions a tutor takes; they are using open-ended, metacognitive questions to help them explore the knowledge limitations, pushing for an explanation, clarifying idea to direct discussion, helping students synthesise data, ensuring all ideas get recording in the process of brainstorming and solution generation (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006, p. 28). Finally, extensive research has been done on the PBL tutor's social and cognitive congruent behaviour, which informs us of the importance of the subject matter expertise of the tutor who knows when to intervene, how to express himself/herself to the level of students' knowledge and most importantly, to have interpersonal skills to the community with students in a formal or informal environment (Schmidt, Rotgans, & Yew, 2011).
As it can be seen, to study CoTPS, it is important to understand not only how educators conceive problems or problem-solving processes but also their roles.
Conclusion
There is significant variation in the practices and pedagogies of problem-solving, and little consensus on how it should be taught. Despite its importance, students often struggle to acquire and demonstrate problem-solving skills. Understanding teachers' conceptions of problem-solving (PS) is crucial for improving educational approaches. This understanding provides insight into how educators perceive and teach PS, how these conceptions are formed and influenced, and whether misconceptions exist. Additionally, it informs professional development initiatives (Åkerlind, McKenzie, & Lupton, 2014; Booth & Woollacott, 2015).
To change how problem-solving skills are taught, it is essential to first change how academics perceive these skills. Building a knowledge base is paramount for this shift. The proposed conceptual framework serves as a foundation for future research on teachers' conceptions of teaching problem-solving (CoTPS), providing a basis for empirical studies to test and expand upon the proposed dimensions. This paper intended to give conceptual clarity to each element by demonstrating that the quality of the problem is defined by its structure, complexity, representation, interdisciplinary, etc. Hence, the degree of each characteristic defines the type of problem students encounter. In addition, compiling the phases of the problem-solving process that different instructional models suggest makes it apparent that it is not an arbitrary process but has sequential, logical development. The final emphasis is placed on the role of the teacher in the process of teaching problem-solving as it has a greater influence on shaping the practice students are engaged in in the problem-solving process.
Reflecting on CoTPS allows educators to gain insights into their teaching practices and identify areas for improvement, with reflection being a key tool for professional development and conceptual change (Åkerlind, 2008; Martin, Prosser, Trigwell, Ramsden, & Benjamin, 2000). Recognising the diverse ways teachers conceive and teach problem-solving can aid academic developers in designing programs that enhance teachers' awareness and practices of teaching problem-solving.
References
Åkerlind, G. S. (2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher variation in meaning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000122242.
Åkerlind, G. S. (2008). A phenomenographic approach to developing academics' understanding of the nature of teaching and learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(6), 633–644.
Åkerlind, G., McKenzie, J., & Lupton, M. (2014). The potential of combining phenomenography, variation theory and threshold concepts to inform curriculum design in higher education. In J. Huisman, & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research II (International perspectives on higher education research) (Vol. 10, pp. 227–247). Emerald Group.
Auer, M. E., Hortsch, H., & Sethakul, P. (Eds.) (2020). The impact of the 4th industrial revolution on engineering education: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on interactive collaborative learning (ICL2019) – volume 1 (Vol. 1134). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40274-7.
Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51, 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6384-7.
Beswick, K. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs about school mathematics and mathematicians’ mathematics and their relationship to practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9333-2.
Black, P. J. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science Education, 21(1), 49–97.
Booth, S., & Woollacott, L. (Eds.) (2015). The scholarship of teaching and learning. Its constitution and transformative potential. In: Scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education. On its constitution and transformative potential (pp. 169–183). Stellenbosch, South-Africa: Sun.
Elen, J., Clarebout, G., Leonard, R., & Lowyck, J. (2007). Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environments: What students think. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510601102339.
Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.009.
Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1–2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2101&2_6.
Gijselaers, W. (1995). Perspectives on problem-based learning. In W. H. Gijselaers, D. T. Tempelaar, P. K. Keizer, J. M. Blommaert, E. M. Bernard, & H. Kasper (Eds.), Educational innovation in economics and business administration: The case of problem-based learning (pp. 39–52). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8545-3_5.
Gow, L., Kember, D., & Sivan, A. (1993). Lecturers’ views of their teaching practices: Implications for staff development needs. Higher Education Research and Development, 11(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436920110203.
Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0899-3467(07)60142-6.
Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1004.
Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. London: Sage.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500.
Jonassen, D., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1080.
Jones, A. (2009). Generic attributes as espoused theory: The importance of context. Higher Education, 58, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9189-2.
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228.
Keiler, L. S. (2018). Teachers’ roles and identities in student-centered classrooms. International Journal of Stem Education, 5, 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0131-6.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X.
Kember, D. (2009). Nurturing generic capabilities through a teaching and learning environment which provides practise in their use. Higher Education, 57, 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9131-7.
Kember, D., & Kwan, K.-P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. In N. Hativa, & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 219–239). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0593-7_10.
Kennedy, M. M. (2007). Defining a literature. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x07299197.
Klegeris, A., Dubois, P. J., Code, W. J., & Bradshaw, H. D. (2019). Non-linear improvement in generic problem-solving skills of university students: A longitudinal study. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(7), 1432–1444. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1659758.
Lam, B. H., & Kember, D. (2004). Conceptions of teaching art held by secondary school art teachers. International Journal of Art Design Education, 23(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2004.00408.x.
Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Benjamin, J. (2000). What university teachers teach and how they teach it. Instructional Science, 28(5), 387–412.
Mayer, R. E. (2019). Problem solving. In Oxford research Encyclopedia of education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.860.
Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287–303). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
McCabe, A., & O’Connor, U. (2014). Student-centred learning: The role and responsibility of the lecturer. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.860111.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024.
Mourtos, N., Okamoto, N., & Rhee, J. (2004). Defining, teaching, and assessing problem solving skills.
Nelson, L. M. (1998). Collaborative problem-solving: An instructional theory for learning through small group interaction (pp. 1–143). Indiana University. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/123128/.
Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 57–76.
Phang, F., Anuar, A., Abdul-Aziz, A., Mohd-Yusof, K., Helmi, S., & Ahmad, Y. (2018). Perception of complex engineering problem solving among engineerıng educators (pp. 215–224). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60937-9_17.
Philipp, R. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–315).
Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369204200401.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01224.x.
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics’ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90024-8.
Räisänen, M., Pyörälä, E., & Tuononen, T. (2022). What factors of the teaching and learning environment support the learning of generic skills? First-year students’ perceptions in medicine, dentistry and psychology. Frontiers of Education, 7, 886052. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.886052.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 673–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500344720.
Rico, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2015). Examining the role of the instructor in problem-centered instruction. TechTrends, 59(4), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0876-4.
Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (4th ed.). Wiley.
Rott, B. (2020). Teachers’ behaviors, epistemological beliefs, and their interplay in lessons on the topic of problem solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(5), 903–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09993-0.
Saadati, F., Cerda, G., Giaconi, V., Reyes, C., & Felmer, P. (2019). Modeling Chilean mathematics teachers’ instructional beliefs on problem solving practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 1009–1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9897-8.
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (2000). Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning: A review of research. In Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 19–51). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. H. J. (2011). The process of problem-based learning: What works and why. Medical Education, 45(8), 792–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04035.x.
Schon, D. A. (1991). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Simon, H. A. (1981). Information-processing models of cognition. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(5), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320517.
Siswono, T. Y. E., Kohar, A. W., Kurniasari, I., & Astuti, Y. P. (2016). An investigation of secondary teachers’ understanding and belief on mathematical problem solving. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 693(1), 012015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/693/1/012015.
Son, J.-W., & Lee, M. Y. (2020). Exploring the relationship between preservice teachers’ conceptions of problem solving and their problem-solving performances. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10045-w.
Thomassen, A. O., & Stentoft, D. (2020). Educating students for a complex future – why integrating a problem analysis in problem-based learning has something to offer. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijpbl.v14i2.28804.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., Marton, F., & Runesson, U. (2002). Views of learning, teaching practices and conceptions of problem solving in science. In N. Hativa, & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 241–264). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0593-7_11.
Tuononen, T., Hyytinen, H., Kleemola, K., Hailikari, T., & Toom, A. (2023). Generic skills in higher education – teachers’ conceptions, pedagogical practices and pedagogical training. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2248003.
Walldén, S., & Mäkinen, E. (2014). Educational data mining and problem-based learning. Informatics in Education, 13, 141–156.
Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. John Wiley and Sons.
Woods, D. R., Hrymak, A. N., Marshall, R. R., Wood, P. E., Crowe, C. M., Hoffman, T. W., & Bouchard, C. G. K. (1997). Developing problem-solving skills: The McMaster problem solving program. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00270.x.
Xenofontos, C., & Andrews, P. (2014). Defining mathematical problems and problem solving: Prospective primary teachers’ beliefs in Cyprus and England. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26, 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-013-0098-z.
