Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 215–225 | Cite as

Student Performance in a Multimedia Case-Study Environment

  • Bjørn H. K. Wolter
  • Mary A. Lundeberg
  • Mark Bergland
  • Karen Klyczek
  • Rafael Tosado
  • Arlin Toro
  • C. Dinitra White


Does an online, multimedia case study influence students’ performance, motivation, and perceptions of science in collegiate level biology classes, and if so, how? One hundred and eight students in 5 classes from 4 campuses in the United States and Puerto Rico participated in data collection (performance tests, surveys and focus group interviews). Pre- and post-test results increased after students participated in the learning environment (F(1, 80) = 17.256, p ≤ 0.01, η2 = 0.177). Student confidence in their knowledge also increased. During focus group interviews students reported that the project was a good learning experience (95 %), would help with future classes or careers (87 %), and stimulated student curiosity by demonstrating the application of theoretical knowledge in real-world situations (64 %). The learning environment motivated students by making material relevant, which resulted in better performance. This pedagogical tool is not instructor dependent, and is adaptable.


Pedagogy Case-based instruction College biology Performance 



The authors wish to thank and acknowledge the work of Chi-Cheng Lin, professor of computer science at Winona State University, in developing the software used in this study.


  1. Acker JC, Hughes W, Fendley Jr WR (2002) Implementing a recursive retention assessment system for engineering programs. Paper presented at the 42nd annual forum for the association for institutional research, Toronto, Canada (2–5 June)Google Scholar
  2. Aikenhead GS (2002) Cross-cultural science teaching: “Rekindling traditions” for Aboriginal students. Can J Sci Math Technol Educ 2(3):287–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aikenhead GS (2006) Science education for everyday life: evidence-based practice. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Aikenhead GS (2007) Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, pp 881–910Google Scholar
  5. Astin AW, Astin HS (1993) Undergraduate science education: the impact of different college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences. University of California at Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  6. Astleitner H, Wiesner C (2004) An integrated model of multimedia learning and motivation. J Educ Multim Hyperm 13(1):3–21Google Scholar
  7. Augustine N, Barrett C, Cassell G, Chu S, Gates R, Grasmick N et al (2006) Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. The National Academy of Sciences, The National Academy of Engineering, and The Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Bergland M, Lundeberg M, Klyczek K, Sweet J, Emmons J, Martin C et al (2006) Exploring biotechnology using case based multimedia. Am Biol Teach 68(2):81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyatzis RE (1998) Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  10. Burrowes PA (2003) A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: Lord’s contructivist model put to the test. Am Biol Teach 65(7):491–502Google Scholar
  11. Clark DB, D’Angelo CM, Menekse M (2009) Initial structuring of online discussions to improve learning and argumentation: incorporating students’ own explanations as seed comments versus an augmented-preset approach to seeding discussions. J Sci Educ Technol 18(4):321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  13. Dale E (1969) Audio-visual methods in teaching. Dryden Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Dekkers J, Delaeter J (2001) Enrolment trends in school science education in Australia. Int J Sci Educ 23(5):487–500Google Scholar
  15. Eiseman J, Fairweather J (1996) Evaluation of the National Science Foundation undergraduate course and curriculum development program: final report. SRI International, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Ertmer PA, Newby TJ, MacDougall M (1996) Students’ responses and approaches to case-based instruction: the role of reflective self-regulation. Am Educ Res J 33(3):719–752Google Scholar
  17. Fairweather J (2008) Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Board of Science Education, National Research Council, The National Academies, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Fairweather J, Paulson K (2008) The evolution of scientific fields in American universities: disciplinary differences, institutional isomorphism. In: Valimaa J, Ylijoki O (eds) Cultural perspectives in higher education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Felder RM, Felder GN, Mauney M, Hamrin CE Jr, Dietz EJ (1995) A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. III. Gender differences in student performance and attitudes. J Eng Educ 84(2):151–163Google Scholar
  20. Felder RM, Felder GN, Dietz EJ (1998) A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. V. Comparisons with traditionally-taught students. J Eng Educ 87(4):469–480Google Scholar
  21. Fisher D, Fairweather J, Amey M (2003) Systemic reform in undergraduate engineering education: the role of collective responsibility. Int J Eng Educ 19(6):768–776Google Scholar
  22. Fisher P, Zeligman D, Fairweather J (2005) Self-assessed student learning outcomes in an engineering service course. Int J Eng Educ 21(3):446–456Google Scholar
  23. Gregerman SR (2008) The role of undergraduate research in student retention, academic engagement, and the pursuit of graduate education. The Board on Science Education, National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  24. Herreid CF (1994) Case studies in science—a novel method of science education. J Coll Sci Teach 23(4):221–229Google Scholar
  25. Herreid CF (2001) The Maiden and the Witch: the crippling undergraduate experience. J Coll Sci Teach 31(2):87–88Google Scholar
  26. Herreid CF (2005a) Using case studies to teach science. Education: classroom methodology. American Inst. of Biological Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Herreid CF (2005b) Using novels as bases for case studies: Michael Crichton’s state of fear and global warming. J Coll Sci Teach 34(7):10Google Scholar
  28. Herreid CF (2006a) “Clicker” cases: introducing case study teaching into large classrooms. J Coll Sci Teach 36(2):43–47Google Scholar
  29. Herreid CF (ed) (2006b) Start with a story: the case study method of teaching college science. NSTA Press, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Hmelo CE (1998) Problem-based learning: effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine. J Learn Sci 7(2):173–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hmelo-Silver CE (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 16(3):235–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hmelo-Silver CE, Duncan RG, Cinn CA (2007) Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educ Psychol 42(2):99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hurd P (1989) Science education and the nation’s economy. In: Champagne AB, Lovitts BE, Calinger BJ (eds) Scientific literacy. AAAS, Washington, DC, pp 15–40Google Scholar
  34. Kagen DM (1993) Context for the use of classroom cases. Am Educ Res J 62(4):129–169Google Scholar
  35. Kardash CM, Wallace ML (2001) The perceptions of science classes survey: what undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address. J Educ Psychol 93(1):199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koballa TR Jr, Glynn SM (2007) Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, pp 75–102Google Scholar
  37. Kolodner JL (1993) Case-based Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  38. Kolodner JL, Gray JT, Fasse BB (2003) Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: rituals and practices in Learning by Design™ classrooms. Cogn Sci Q 3(2):119–170Google Scholar
  39. Kuh G, Kinzie J, Schuh J, Witt E (2005) Student success in college: creating conditions that matter. Association for the Study of Higher Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuh G, Kinzie J, Buckley J, Bridges B, Kayek J (2007) Piecing together the student success puzzle: research, propositions, and recommendations. Association for the Study of Higher Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Kumar DD, Sherwood RD (2007) Effect of a problem based simulation on the conceptual understandings of undergraduate science education students. J Sci Educ Technol 16(3):239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Labov JB, Singer SR, George MD, Schweingruber HA, Hilton ML (2009) Effective practices in undergraduate STEM education, part 1: examining the evidence. CBE Life Sci Educ 8(3):157–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee K (2007) Online collaborative case study learning. J Coll Read Learn 37(2):82–100Google Scholar
  44. Lee H-S, Linn MC, Varma K, Liu OL (2010) How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? J Res Sci Teach 47(1):71–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lord T (2007) Society for college science teachers: revisiting the cone of learning—is it a reliable way to link instruction method with knowledge recall? J Coll Sci Teach 37(2):14–17Google Scholar
  46. Lundeberg MA (2008) Case pedagogy in undergraduate STEM: research we have; research we need. The Board on Science Education, National Academy of SciencesGoogle Scholar
  47. Lundeberg MA, Levin BB, Harrington H (eds) (1999) Who learns what from cases and how: the research base for teaching and learning with cases. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., MahwahGoogle Scholar
  48. Lundeberg MA, Fox PW, Brown AC, Elbedour S (2000) Cultural influences on confidence: country and gender. J Educ Psychol 92(1):152–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lundeberg MA, Mogen K, Bergland M, Klyczek K, Johnson D, MacDonald E (2002) Case It or else!: fostering ethical awareness about human genetics through multimedia-based cases. J Coll Sci Teach 32(1):64–69Google Scholar
  50. Lundeberg MA, Kang H, Wolter BHK, delMas R, Armstrong N, Borsari B (2011). Context matters: increasing understanding with interactive clicker case studies. Educ Technol Res Dev. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9182-1
  51. Marbach-Ad G, Seal O, Sokolove PG (2001) Student attitudes and recommendations on active learning: a student-led survey gauging course effectiveness. J Coll Sci Teach 30(7):434–438Google Scholar
  52. McConnell DA, Steer DN, Owens KD, Knight CC (2005) How students think: Implications for learning in introductory geoscience courses. J Geosci Educ 53(4):462–470Google Scholar
  53. McDonald J, Dominguez L (2005) Moving from content knowledge to engagement. J Coll Sci Teach 35(3):18–22Google Scholar
  54. Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT (2005) How college affects students: a third decade of research, vol 2. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  55. Prince MJ (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ 93(3):223–231Google Scholar
  56. Prince MJ, Felder RM (2006) Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J Eng Educ 95(2):123–138Google Scholar
  57. Prince MJ, Felder RM (2007) The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. J Coll Sci Teach 36(5):14–20Google Scholar
  58. Richardson V (1993) Use of cases in considering methods for motivating students. In: Harrington H, Thompson M (eds) Student motivation and case study manual. Appalachian State University, BooneGoogle Scholar
  59. Savery JR (2006) Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdiscip J Prob Based Learn 1(1):9–20Google Scholar
  60. Schreiner C, Sjøberg S (2004) Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education)—a comparative study of students’ views of science and science education. Acta Didactica, University of Oslo. Retrieved from
  61. Seymour E (1995) Revisiting the “problem iceberg”: science, mathematics, and engineering students still chilled out. J Coll Sci Teach 24(6):392–400Google Scholar
  62. Seymour E (2002) Tracking the processes of change in U.S. undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Sci Educ 85(6):79–105Google Scholar
  63. Seymour E, Hewitt NM (1997) Talking about leaving: why undergraduates leave science. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  64. Sjøberg S, Schreiner C (2005) Perceptions and images of science and science education: some simple results from ROSE—a cross-cultural study. In: Claessens M (ed) Communicating European research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 151–158Google Scholar
  65. Smith TM, Emmeluth DS (2002) Introducing bioinformatics into the biology curriculum: exploring the national center for biotechnology information. Am Biol Teach 64(2):93–99Google Scholar
  66. Sokolove PG, Marbach-Ad G, Fusco J (2003) Student use of internet study rooms for out-of-class group study in introductory biology. J Sci Educ Technol 12(2):105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S (2007) MEGA4: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol Biol Evol 24:1596–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tobias S (1990) They’re not dumb, they’re different: stalking the second tier. Research Corporation, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  69. Welch WW, Walberg HJ (1967) Are the attitudes of teachers related to declining percentages of enrollments in physics? Sci Educ 51(5):422–436Google Scholar
  70. Wolter BHK, Kang H, Lundeberg MA, Herreid CF (2009) Using personal response systems (“clickers”) with case studies in large lecture classes to impact student assessment performance. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association 86th Annual Conference, San Diego, CA (13–17 April)Google Scholar
  71. Wolter BHK, Lundeberg MA, Bergland M (2009) What makes science relevant? Student perceptions of experiences with multimedia case learning experiences in ecology and health. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association 86th Annual Conference, San Diego, CA (13–17 April)Google Scholar
  72. Wolter BHK, Lundeberg MA, Kang H, Herreid CF (2011) Students’ perceptions of using personal response systems (“clickers”) with cases in science. J Coll Sci Teach 40(4):70–75Google Scholar
  73. Wuensch KL (2007). Inter-rater agreement. Retrieved 3 October, 2009, from
  74. Yadav A, Lundeberg MA, DeSchryver M, Dirkin K, Schiller NA, Maier K et al (2007) Teaching science with case studies: a national survey of faculty perceptions of the benefits and challenges of using cases. J Coll Sci Teach 37(1):34–38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bjørn H. K. Wolter
    • 1
  • Mary A. Lundeberg
    • 2
  • Mark Bergland
    • 2
  • Karen Klyczek
    • 2
  • Rafael Tosado
    • 3
  • Arlin Toro
    • 4
  • C. Dinitra White
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of Wisconsin-River FallsRiver FallsUSA
  3. 3.School of Medical TechnologyUniversidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico-MetropolitanSan JuanUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiologyUniversidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico-San GermánSan GermánUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiologyNorth Carolina A&T State UniversityGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations