PBL for Ph.D.: A Problem-based Learning Approach to Doctoral Education in Biomedical
Research
by Julie Davis Turner and Steven J. Triezenberg, Van Andel Institute Graduate School
The Van Andel Institute Graduate School in Grand Rapids, MI, was founded in 2005 as
a doctorate training program housed within an independent biomedical research institute. The
school’s mission is to train future leaders in the cellular, molecular and genetic biology of human
disease, with an emphasis on translating such research into effective clinical applications.
The principles underlying the new doctorate program’s design are consistent with those
arising from the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, as reported in the 2008 monograph The
Formation of Scholars.1 According to those principles, a primary function of doctoral education is
to develop scholars who will not only sustain the learning of prior practitioners of the art, but also
mold the practice of that art into its future shape. These are the scholars the Carnegie report
calls “the stewards of the discipline.”
To generate capable stewards of biomedical research, we attempted to structure each
pedagogical experience in ways that rehearse those skills essential to professional scientists.
Although most of the work that leads to a Ph.D. is original research that is eventually compiled
into a dissertation, many programs begin with a core curriculum to establish a foundational
knowledge base upon which the research experience is built. For biomedical research, that core
knowledge spans multiple disciplines, including biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, molecular
biology, pathology and bioinformatics.
The magnitude of information in these fields is overwhelming, so it would be naïve to
expect students to learn all of the content in each area. Moreover, the concepts of these fast-
moving disciplines are not fixed; they are constantly evolving. Thus, it becomes less important
for students to know all of the current facts and more important that they develop research
strategies, critical-thinking skills and evaluation approaches for any research problem they might
encounter. Given that content-focused instructional methods are weak in developing effective
scientific reasoning,2 we concluded that other pedagogical strategies would be needed to most
effectively develop future leaders in biomedical research.
Key skills
We adopted a curricular approach that leads students to the core concepts of the
disparate disciplines in an integrated manner, while also developing key skills for conducting
ASQ Higher Education Brief October 2010 (Vol. 3, No. 5)
www.asq.org
, scientific research. These skills include the ability to:
• Find new information relevant to a particular research question.
• Evaluate the quality of the information.
• Integrate this information into a conceptual model.
• Develop well-grounded hypotheses and specific aims to address the central question.
• Communicate those hypotheses and specific aims in the language and format
customary for this field.
Our approach draws on problem-based learning (PBL) principles, originally developed
for medical education3,4 and also applied to business and law programs.5-7 The essence of this
approach presents the students with a series of carefully selected cases or problems relevant to
the profession. The students—in small groups, guided by a faculty preceptor—use the problem
as the context in which to develop learning issues that drill into the basic concepts underlying
the case. The students then independently explore those issues, sometimes supported by
lectures or readings, returning to the small-group setting to discuss their newfound
understanding of learning issues.
Our adaptation of the PBL approach uses several features of medical-school PBL, but it
differs in specific applications, some of which have been suggested for use at medical schools.8
Rather than semester-long, discipline-specific courses, we organize our first-year curriculum
into month-long modules, each focusing on a different human disease (typically some type of
cancer). Early in each module, we pose a current research question relevant to that disease.
The students’ principal task is to draft a research proposal addressing that question. To
accomplish the task, they are required to search out and understand concepts from various
disciplines necessary for framing that proposal.
Our curriculum seeks to attain progressive and integrative concept and skill
development. To track progressive concept development, we use a concrete concept map for
the entire curriculum in which faculty track particular themes, ideas or concepts throughout
multiple modules. At any given point in the academic year, a student can quickly discern
whether a specific concept has been introduced previously or will be expanded subsequently.
Additionally, the concepts are integrated, promoting learning through interwoven discipline
ASQ Higher Education Brief October 2010 (Vol. 3, No. 5)
www.asq.org
Research
by Julie Davis Turner and Steven J. Triezenberg, Van Andel Institute Graduate School
The Van Andel Institute Graduate School in Grand Rapids, MI, was founded in 2005 as
a doctorate training program housed within an independent biomedical research institute. The
school’s mission is to train future leaders in the cellular, molecular and genetic biology of human
disease, with an emphasis on translating such research into effective clinical applications.
The principles underlying the new doctorate program’s design are consistent with those
arising from the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, as reported in the 2008 monograph The
Formation of Scholars.1 According to those principles, a primary function of doctoral education is
to develop scholars who will not only sustain the learning of prior practitioners of the art, but also
mold the practice of that art into its future shape. These are the scholars the Carnegie report
calls “the stewards of the discipline.”
To generate capable stewards of biomedical research, we attempted to structure each
pedagogical experience in ways that rehearse those skills essential to professional scientists.
Although most of the work that leads to a Ph.D. is original research that is eventually compiled
into a dissertation, many programs begin with a core curriculum to establish a foundational
knowledge base upon which the research experience is built. For biomedical research, that core
knowledge spans multiple disciplines, including biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, molecular
biology, pathology and bioinformatics.
The magnitude of information in these fields is overwhelming, so it would be naïve to
expect students to learn all of the content in each area. Moreover, the concepts of these fast-
moving disciplines are not fixed; they are constantly evolving. Thus, it becomes less important
for students to know all of the current facts and more important that they develop research
strategies, critical-thinking skills and evaluation approaches for any research problem they might
encounter. Given that content-focused instructional methods are weak in developing effective
scientific reasoning,2 we concluded that other pedagogical strategies would be needed to most
effectively develop future leaders in biomedical research.
Key skills
We adopted a curricular approach that leads students to the core concepts of the
disparate disciplines in an integrated manner, while also developing key skills for conducting
ASQ Higher Education Brief October 2010 (Vol. 3, No. 5)
www.asq.org
, scientific research. These skills include the ability to:
• Find new information relevant to a particular research question.
• Evaluate the quality of the information.
• Integrate this information into a conceptual model.
• Develop well-grounded hypotheses and specific aims to address the central question.
• Communicate those hypotheses and specific aims in the language and format
customary for this field.
Our approach draws on problem-based learning (PBL) principles, originally developed
for medical education3,4 and also applied to business and law programs.5-7 The essence of this
approach presents the students with a series of carefully selected cases or problems relevant to
the profession. The students—in small groups, guided by a faculty preceptor—use the problem
as the context in which to develop learning issues that drill into the basic concepts underlying
the case. The students then independently explore those issues, sometimes supported by
lectures or readings, returning to the small-group setting to discuss their newfound
understanding of learning issues.
Our adaptation of the PBL approach uses several features of medical-school PBL, but it
differs in specific applications, some of which have been suggested for use at medical schools.8
Rather than semester-long, discipline-specific courses, we organize our first-year curriculum
into month-long modules, each focusing on a different human disease (typically some type of
cancer). Early in each module, we pose a current research question relevant to that disease.
The students’ principal task is to draft a research proposal addressing that question. To
accomplish the task, they are required to search out and understand concepts from various
disciplines necessary for framing that proposal.
Our curriculum seeks to attain progressive and integrative concept and skill
development. To track progressive concept development, we use a concrete concept map for
the entire curriculum in which faculty track particular themes, ideas or concepts throughout
multiple modules. At any given point in the academic year, a student can quickly discern
whether a specific concept has been introduced previously or will be expanded subsequently.
Additionally, the concepts are integrated, promoting learning through interwoven discipline
ASQ Higher Education Brief October 2010 (Vol. 3, No. 5)
www.asq.org
