Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 99–129 | Cite as

Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: classroom management problems for prospective teachers

Research Article

Abstract

This design-based research study is aimed at two goals: (1) developing a feasible case-based instructional model that could enhance college students’ ill-structured problem solving abilities, while (2) implementing the model to improve teacher education students’ real-world problem solving abilities to deal with dilemmas faced by practicing teachers in elementary classrooms. To achieve these goals, an online case-based learning environment for classroom management problem solving (CBL-CMPS) was developed based on Jonassen’s (in: Reigeluth (ed.) Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 1999) constructivist learning environment model and the general process of ill-structured problem solving (1997). Two successive studies, in which the effectiveness of the CBL-CMPS was tested while the CBL-CMPS was revised, showed that the individual components of the CBL-CMPS promoted ill-structured problem solving abilities respectively, and that the CBL-CMPS as a whole learning environment was effective to a degree for the transfer of learning in ill-structured problem solving. The potential, challenge, and implications of the CBL-CMPS are discussed.

Keywords

Case-based learning Constructivist learning environment design Design-based research Ill-structured problem solving Teacher education Classroom management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Part of this study was supported by a Learning Technologies Grant offered by the Office of Instructional Support and Development (OISD) at The University of Georgia. The authors wish to thank Yi-Chun Hong and Jungsoon Choi for their assistance in data analysis. The assistance of Saif Altalib, Yun-Shuang Chang, Christa Harrelson, Ron Braxley, Vincent Argentina, and David Millians on the development of the CBL-CMPS system and the audio cases is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are extended to Drs. Janette Hill, Seock-Ho Kim, and Thomas Reeves for their thoughtful feedback on an earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. Ayers, W. (2001). To teach: The journey of a teacher (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bidel, T. R., & Fischer, K. W. (1992). Beyond the stage debate: Action, structure, and variability in Piagetian theory and research. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 100–140). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D. (1993). Who ya gonna call? Thoughts about teaching problem solving. In P. Hallinger, K. Leithwood, & J. Murphy (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 171–191). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognitive development (Vol. 3, pp. 77–166). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction, essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–493). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.Google Scholar
  10. Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392–431). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
  12. Ericsson, K. A. (2003). The acquisition of expert performance as problem solving. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 31–83). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(2), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Grant, C., & Gillette, M. (2006). Learning to teach everyone’s children: Equity, empowerment, and education that is multicultural. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  17. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 117–138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Harrington, H. L., Quinn-Leering, K., & Hodson, L. (1996). Written case analyses and critical reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris, C. R., Pinnegar, S., & Teemant, A. (2005). The case for hypermedia video ethnographies: Designing a new class of case studies that challenge teaching practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 141–161.Google Scholar
  21. Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of case libraries on problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, W. B. (1988). Developing expert system knowledge base in technical training environments. In J. Psotka, L. D. Massey, & S. A. Mutter (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: Lessons learned (pp. 21–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandoz-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 4, 222–232.Google Scholar
  30. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lundeberg, M. A., Levin, B. B., & Harrington, H. L. (1999). Reflections on methodologies and future directions. In M. A. Lundeberg, B. B. Levin, & H. L. Harrington (Eds.), Who learns what from cases and how: The research base for teaching and learning with cases (pp. 231–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Science, 15(2), 153–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meacham, J. A., & Emont, N. M. (1989). The interpersonal basis of everyday problem solving. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 7–23). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  34. Merseth, K. K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 722–743). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Moore, W. S. (2002). Understanding learning in a postmodern world: Reconsidering the Perry scheme of intellectual and ethical development. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 17–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Perry, W. G. (1968/1999). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Science, 13(3), 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: New paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 183–214). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. The Journal of the Learning Science, 13(3), 387–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & MaGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1–30). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  45. Shulman, J. H., & Mesa-Bains, A. (Eds.). (1990). Diversity in the classroom: A casebook for teachers and teacher educators. San Francisco: Research for Better Schools.Google Scholar
  46. Sinnott, J. D. (1989). A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for everyday and abstract problem solving. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 72–99). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  47. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1996). Two epistemic world-views: Prefigurative schemas and learning in complex domains. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, s51–s61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  49. Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning (pp. 169–183). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Desing-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tippins, D. J., Koballa, T. R., & Payne, B. D. (2002). Learning from cases: Unraveling the complexities of elementary science teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  52. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  53. van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4c/id-model. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 50(2), 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Voss, J. F. (1987). Learning and transfer in subject-matter learning: A problem-solving model. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(6), 607–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Voss, J. F. (1988). Problem solving and reasoning in ill-structured domains. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 74–93). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Voss, J. F. (1991). Informal reasoning and international relations. In J. F. Voss & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 37–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  59. Voss, J. F., Wolfe, C. R., Lawrence, J. A., & Engle, R. A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensh (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 119–157). Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Whitehead, A. N. (1929/1967). The aims of education and other essays. New York, NJ: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  62. Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Science, 2(4), 367–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wood, P. K. (1983). Inquiring systems and problem structures: Implications for cognitive developments. Human Development, 26, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Young, M. F., Barab, S. A., & Garrett, S. (1999). Agent as director: An ecological psychology perspective on learning by perceiving-acting systems. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 147–171). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  66. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  67. Zsambok, C. E., Klein, G. (Eds.). (1997). Naturalistic decision making. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional TechnologyThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Elementary and Social Studies EducationThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations