Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 69–93 | Cite as

Facilitated versus non-facilitated online case discussions: comparing differences in problem space coverage

  • Peggy A. Ertmer
  • Adrie A. Koehler
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The facilitator plays a key role in guiding students’ efforts during case discussions. However, few studies have compared differences in learning outcomes for students participating in facilitated versus non-facilitated discussions. In this research, we used “problem space coverage” as a learning measure to compare outcomes between facilitated (F) and non-facilitated (NF) online case-based discussions. In general, results demonstrated both greater and deeper problem space coverage during facilitated discussions. More specifically, students in the facilitated discussions tended to discuss more aspects of the problem space in more detail, and spent more time on relevant instructional design issues and related solutions than students in the NF discussions. Overall, results illustrate the role of discussion in addressing the targeted problem space during case-based learning while underscoring the role of the facilitator in enabling that coverage.

Keywords

Case-based instruction Online learning Facilitation strategies 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alder, R. W., Whiting, R. H., & Wynn-Williams, K. (2004). Student-led and teacher-led case presentations: Empirical evidence about learning styles in an accounting course. Accounting Education, 13, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, E., & Schiano, B. (2014). Teaching with cases: A practical guide. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, J. (1980). The verbal structure of teacher questions: Its impact on class discussion. POD Quarterly: Journal of Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, 2(3&4), 129–163.Google Scholar
  4. Bangert, A. (2008). The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 34–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrows, H. S. (1999). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. In J. Rankin (Ed.), Handbook on problem-based learning (pp. 19–26). New York: Forbes.Google Scholar
  6. Budé, L., van de Wiel, M. J., Imbos, T., & Berger, M. F. (2011). The effect of directive tutor guidance on students’ conceptual understanding of statistics in problem-based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chng, E., Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Effects of tutor-related behaviours on the process of problem-based learning. Advances in Health Science Education, 16, 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi, I., & Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: Classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(1), 99–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dabbagh, N. H., Jonassen, D. H., Yueh, H.-P., & Sanouiloua, M. (2000). Assessing a problem-based learning approach to an introductory instructional design course: A case study. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13(3), 60–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-8327.2000.tb00176.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Gijselaers, W. H., Moust, J. H. C., Grave, W. S. D., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Vleuten, C. P. M. V. D. (2002). Trends in research on the tutor in problem-based learning: Conclusions and implications for educational practice and research. Medical Teacher, 24(2), 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2000). What directs self-directed learning in a problem-based curriculum? In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 251–262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Dundis, S. (2014). Craig Gregersen: Balancing a range of stakeholder interests when designing instruction. In P. A. Ertmer, J. A. Quinn, & K. D. Glazewski (Eds.), The ID CaseBook: Case studies in instructional design. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  13. Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2014). Online case discussions: Examining coverage of the afforded problem space. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi: 10.1007/s11423-014-9350-9.
  14. Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2014). The ID CaseBook: Case studies in instructional design (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  15. Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses: The role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 157–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2002). Initiating and maintaining meaningful case discussions: Maximizing the potential of case-based instruction. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 13(1/3), 5–18.Google Scholar
  17. Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2005). Instructional design expertise: How will we know it when we see it. Educational Technology, 45(6), 38–43.Google Scholar
  18. Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., Flanagan, S., Kocaman, A., Reiner, C., Reyes, L., et al. (2009). Impact of guidance on the problem-solving efforts of instructional design novices. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(4), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X., Zurek, S., & Goktas, Y. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fitzgerald, G., Mitchem, K., Hollingsead, C., Miller, K., Koury, K., & Tsai, H. (2011). Exploring the bridge from multimedia cases to classrooms: Evidence of transfer. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(2), 23–38.Google Scholar
  21. Flynn, A. E., & Klein, J. D. (2001). The influence of discussion groups in a case-based learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 71–86. doi: 10.1007/bf0250491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2006). How the teacher’s role changes in online case study discussion. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(2), 141–150.Google Scholar
  24. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2013). Creating a learning space in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1).Google Scholar
  25. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., & Day, R. S. (2002). “It’s harder than we thought it would be”: A comparative case study of expert-novice experimentation strategies. Science Education, 86, 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonassen, D. (2011a). Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(2), 95–110.Google Scholar
  28. Jonassen, D. H. (2011b). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-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
  30. Jones, R. W. (2006). Problem-based learning: Description, advantages, disadvantages, scenarios and facilitation. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 34, 485–488.Google Scholar
  31. Kanuka, H. (2011). Interaction and the online distance classroom: Do instructional methods effect the quality of interaction? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2–3), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Grounded design of web-enhanced case-based activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, 52(1), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kolodner, J. L., & Guzdial, M. (2000). Theory and practice of case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 215–242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and experience in teachers’ thinking about cases. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Lu, L., & Jeng, I. (2006). Knowledge construction in inservice teacher online discourse: Impacts of instructor roles and facilitative strategies. Journal of Research on Technology In Education, 39(2), 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lundeberg, M. A., & Yadav, A. (2006). Assessment of case study teaching: Where do we go from here? (Part II.). Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(6), 8–13.Google Scholar
  39. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49, 193–213.Google Scholar
  40. McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2009). An analysis of higher-order thinking in online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Mitchem, K., Fitzgerald, G., Hollingsead, C., Koury, K., Miller, K., & Tsai, H.-H. (2008). Enhancing case-based learning in teacher education through online discussions: Structure and facilitation. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 331–349.Google Scholar
  43. Moore, J. (1997). Teaching by discussion: Dangers and opportunities. In D. Enerson, R. N. Johnson, S. Milner, & K. Plank (Eds.), The Penn State Teacher II: Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn (pp. 42–53). University Park, PA: Penn State University. Retrieved from http://www.schreyerinstitute.psu.edu/pdf/PennStateTeacherII.pdf.
  44. Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ng, C. S. L., & Tan, C. (2006). Investigating Singapore pre-service teachers’ ill-structured problem-solving processes in an asynchronous online environment: Implications for reflective thinking. New Horizons in Education, 54, 1–15.Google Scholar
  46. Ngeow, K., & Kong, Y. (2003). Learning through discussion: Designing tasks for critical inquiry and reflective learning. The Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication. Digest 185. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d185.html. Accessed 10 Feb 2003.
  47. Palincsar, A. (1999). Applying a sociocultural lens to the work of a transition community. Discourse Processes, 27(2), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rangan, V. (1996). Choreographing a case class. Harvard Business School Publishing. Ref. # 9-595-074.Google Scholar
  51. Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rico, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (in press). Examining the role of the instructor in problem-centered instruction. Tech Trends. Google Scholar
  53. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saleewong, D., Suwannatthachote, P., & Kuhakran, S. (2012). Case-based learning on web in higher education: A review of empirical research. Creative Education, 3, 31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitating problem-based learning: illuminating perspectives. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schank, R. C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Steele, D. J., Medder, J. D., & Turner, P. (2000) Comparison of learning outcomes and attitudes: Student- versus faculty-led problem-based learning: An experimental study. Medical Education, 34, 23–29.Google Scholar
  59. Stepich, D. A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). “Teaching” instructional design expertise: Strategies to support students’ problem-finding skills. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 7, 147–170.Google Scholar
  60. Stepich, D. A., Ertmer, P. A., & Lane, M. M. (2001). Problem solving in a case-based course: Strategies for facilitating coached expertise. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tawfik, A., & Jonassen, D. (2013). The effects of successful versus failure-based cases on argumentation while solving decision-making problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Teasley, S., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  63. Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1996). Computer and reasoning through talk in the classroom. Language and Education, 10(1), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilen, W. (2004). Refuting misconceptions about classroom discussion. Social Studies, 95(1), 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Williams, S. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 367–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What students learn in problem-based learning: A process analysis. Instructional Science, 40, 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yew, E. H. J., & Yong, J. J. Y. (2014). Student perceptions of facilitators’ social congruence, use of expertise, and cognitive congruence in problem-based learning. Instructional Science, 42, 795–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options