The Scherer Puzzle Learning Framework:

Teaching Science Through Systems Thinking

Running Title: Scherer Puzzle Learning Framework

Corresponding Author:

Dean J. Scherer, DC
Professor of Anatomy & Physiology
Oklahoma State University–Oklahoma City
deanjs@okstate.edu
Founder, Scherer Impact

Keywords:
Systems Thinking, Anatomy and Physiology Education, Cognitive Load Theory, Multimodal Learning, Conceptual Learning, Spatial Learning

The Scherer Puzzle Learning Framework

Teaching Science Through Systems Thinking

Dean J. Scherer, DC
Professor of Anatomy & Physiology
Oklahoma State University–Oklahoma City

Abstract

The Scherer Puzzle Learning Framework provides a systems-based approach to teaching complex scientific subjects, especially anatomy and physiology. Instead of emphasizing memorizing isolated facts, this framework helps students build knowledge through gradual organization within conceptual structures. Developed over many years of classroom and lab instruction, the model combines cognitive disequilibrium, hierarchical structure, and multimodal teaching strategies. Students first identify gaps in their understanding and then develop organized frameworks to incorporate new knowledge. As their understanding deepens, new questions emerge, creating a continuous cycle of inquiry. The framework also promotes spatial reasoning, three-dimensional mental modeling, and clinically relevant thinking. This approach aligns with current research in cognitive load theory, multimodal learning, and anatomy education, enhancing retention, comprehension, and application of complex scientific concepts.

Introduction: Teaching Students How to Learn

One of the most persistent challenges in science education is not the subject's inherent complexity but the learning strategies students bring with them. Many students rely heavily on memorization, viewing information as separate lists of terms to memorize for exams and then forget quickly. Although this approach might lead to short-term success, it rarely results in lasting understanding or practical application.

In anatomy and physiology, knowledge is built into highly interconnected systems. Structures are nested within larger structures, and functions arise from relationships across different levels of organization. When students memorize such material without understanding, they often find it to be fragmented and overwhelming.

An important role of the instructor, therefore, is not only to teach content but also to instruct students on how learning itself works. The Scherer Puzzle Learning Framework was created to meet this need by offering a structured method that helps students gradually organize and connect knowledge.

This method aligns with constructivist learning principles, where learners actively build knowledge through experience and integrating new information. This process is supported by dual coding theory, which demonstrates that combining verbal and visual information enhances learning and memory (Paivio, 1990). Research in health sciences education also stresses that organizing and managing cognitive load effectively are crucial for successful learning in complex areas (Ghanbari et al., 2020; Sweller, 1988). Foundational research in learning science similarly highlights the importance of structured knowledge frameworks for promoting deep understanding and transfer (Ambrose et al., 2010).

The Scherer Puzzle Learning Framework as a Model of Scientific Learning

The Scherer Puzzle Learning Framework is built on a key insight: how students learn science mirrors how scientific knowledge itself advances. Scientific discovery seldom begins with certainty; instead, it starts with uncertainty—observations that challenge current understanding. These moments ignite curiosity and propel investigation.

In educational psychology, this state is called cognitive disequilibrium. When learners encounter information that conflicts with their current understanding, a productive tension arises. Instead of signaling failure, this tension acts as the starting point for meaningful learning.

Within this framework, curiosity fuels the development of conceptual organization. Just as the image on a puzzle box guides the assembly of individual pieces, conceptual frameworks assist students in organizing information into meaningful patterns. Individual elements gradually connect, forming a coherent system.

The way knowledge is organized into structured frameworks reflects principles from schema theory and cognitive load theory, which demonstrate that learning improves when information is arranged into meaningful, interconnected structures (Sweller, 1988; Ambrose et al., 2010). Specifically in anatomy education, there has been a growing focus on moving away from memorization toward integrated, systems-based learning approaches (Drake et al., 2009; Estai & Bunt, 2016).

Figure 1. The integrated model of the Scherer Puzzle Learning Framework.

The Puzzle Analogy for Learning Organization

After introducing cognitive disequilibrium, students face a puzzle analogy. When beginning a puzzle, the initial step isn't to place pieces right away but to organize them. Students turn the pieces face up, sort them into groups, and arrange them into identifiable patterns.

Students start by identifying the “corner pieces,” which outline the puzzle’s boundaries. The edges are then assembled to create a framework. Inside this structure, groups of related pieces begin to form, eventually connecting to complete the image.

In this process, the instructor acts as the conceptual “box top,” offering an overview that helps students see how individual pieces of knowledge connect. Students quickly realize that memorizing isolated facts isn’t enough; true understanding comes from recognizing relationships within a larger system.

Figure 2. The Scherer Learning Journey illustrates student cognitive progression.

Applied Example: Multi-Level Puzzle Construction in Anatomical Learning

The practical value of this framework is most evident when used for complex anatomical learning tasks.

An illustrative example is the instruction on the regional organization of the lower extremity within the anatomy laboratory. Students initially study the principal anatomical regions—hip, thigh, knee, leg, ankle, foot, and toes—to establish a foundational framework. These regions function as the “corner pieces,” delineating the boundaries of the system.

Students then learn the relevant anatomical terminology, which functions as organizational anchors, reinforcing spatial and hierarchical relationships.

Once this framework is set up, individual bones are inserted into each section. The process becomes a “puzzle within a puzzle,” where each layer of understanding reveals a deeper organization.

Students then progress to identifying bony landmarks, followed by musculature organized within functional compartments. Each stage builds on the previous one, allowing learners to absorb increasingly complex information without cognitive overload (Sweller, 1988; Ghanbari et al., 2020). Contemporary research on anatomy education further supports structured, spatially organized learning methods (Niu et al., 2025). 

This structured progression reflects established best practices in anatomy education that emphasize integration over memorization and foster the development of clinically relevant understanding (Estai & Bunt, 2016; Drake et al., 2009).

This approach is strengthened through multimodal instruction. Students describe structures, write terminology, and physically identify anatomical features on their own bodies. This combination improves encoding and retention, aligning with dual coding theory and active learning research (Paivio, 1990; Martín-Alguacil et al., 2024; Quek et al., 2024).

An additional benefit is the development of spatial reasoning and embodied understanding, which are increasingly recognized as vital parts of anatomy education (Schaefer et al., 2025; Lyu & Deng, 2024). Developing spatial reasoning is especially important in anatomy education because it directly supports clinical application and the interpretation of structural relationships within the human body (Estai & Bunt, 2016).
Figure 3. Puzzle-based knowledge construction model.

Progressive Hierarchical Construction of Knowledge

To better explain how knowledge develops within this framework, Figure 4 illustrates the hierarchical layering process behind student learning.

Learning begins with fundamental framing through passive input, establishing a conceptual “border” for organizing information (Ambrose et al., 2010; Paivio, 1990).

Learners then identify reference points, such as anatomical landmarks and directional terms, which act as anchors for organization.

Knowledge is then organized into larger structural groups, such as regions and systems, reflecting hierarchical learning design (Niu et al., 2025).

Learners then engage in nested construction, assembling individual components as substructures within the larger framework. This layered method aligns with cognitive load theory by managing complexity through gradual integration (Sweller, 1988; Ghanbari et al., 2020).

Active learning methods—including speaking, writing, drawing, and teaching—facilitate guided reconstruction and enhanced understanding (Martín-Alguacil et al., 2024; Quek et al., 2024).

This process culminates in integration, where knowledge becomes functionally interconnected. Embodied learning further supports this integration by linking cognition with physical interaction and spatial awareness (Schaefer et al., 2025; Lyu & Deng, 2024). Learning is a cycle in which each iteration encourages a deeper understanding and raises new questions.

Figure 4. Progressive hierarchical construction within the Scherer Puzzle Learning Framework.

Figure 5. Instructor-guided progressive layering of lower extremity anatomy.

Recursive Learning and the Feedback Cycle

As understanding increases, new questions emerge, forming an ongoing cycle of inquiry. This process mirrors scientific discovery, where each answer leads to more investigation.

Figure 6. Positive learning feedback cycle.

Hierarchical Organization in Biological Systems

Biological systems are inherently hierarchical. Chemical structures form cells; cells create tissues; tissues develop into organs; and organs assemble into systems. Understanding comes from recognizing connections across different organizational levels.

Figure 7. Hierarchical levels of biological organization.

Conclusion

The Scherer Puzzle Learning Framework illustrates that effective science education should reflect how scientific knowledge is structured. Learning begins with curiosity, progresses through organized stages, and develops through repeated questioning.

By guiding students through layered frameworks of increasing complexity, educators can help them move beyond simple memorization toward deep, systems-level understanding. This approach boosts retention, spatial reasoning, clinical thinking, and meaningful application of knowledge.

Recent anatomy education research highlights the significance of integrated, multimodal, and student-centered learning environments for lasting understanding (Drake et al., 2009; Estai & Bunt, 2016; Quek et al., 2024).

References

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass.

Drake, R. L., McBride, J. M., Lachman, N., & Pawlina, W. (2009). Medical education in the anatomical sciences: The winds of change continue to blow. Anatomical Sciences Education, 2(6), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.117

Estai, M., & Bunt, S. (2016). Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Annals of Anatomy, 208, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2016.02.010

Ghanbari, S., Haghani, F., Barekatain, M., & Jamali, A. (2020). A systematized review of cognitive load theory in health sciences education and a perspective from cognitive neuroscience. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 9, 176. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_643_19

Lyu, C., & Deng, S. (2024). Effectiveness of embodied learning on learning performance: A meta-analysis based on the cognitive load theory perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 116, 102564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102564

Martín-Alguacil, N., et al. (2024). Student-centered active learning enhances performance in anatomy education. Education Sciences, 3(3), Article 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci3030026

Niu, S., Zhang, J., Lin, J., Wang, B., & Yan, J. (2025). Enhancing anatomy education with virtual reality: Integrating three-dimensional models for improved learning efficiency and student satisfaction. Frontiers in Medicine, 12, 1555053. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1555053

Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001

Quek, F. F. (2024). Revolutionizing anatomy education: The current role of digital technologies in enhancing anatomy learning for undergraduate medical students. Cureus, 16(12), e75919. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.75919

Schaefer, M., Bradley, L., Geske, N., Girma, N., & Gjidoda, L. (2025). Moving to learn: Enhancing anatomy education through physical activity and video-based instruction. Anatomical Sciences Education, 18(10), 1138–1146. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.70095

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4