Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 267–285 | Cite as

Do cases teach themselves? A comparison of case library prompts in supporting problem-solving during argumentation

  • Andrew A. Tawfik
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Theorists have argued instructional strategies that emphasize ill-structured problem solving are an effective means to support higher order learning skills such as argumentation. However, argumentation is often difficult because novices lack the expertise or experience needed to solve contextualized problems. One way to supplement this lack of experience is through case-library learning environments that provide detailed stories of expert problem solving. In the current study, participants were provided three different variations of case libraries when solving an argumentation task: case library with no prompts, case library with retain prompt (focused on understanding an individual case), and case library with retrieval/reuse prompt (focused on understanding similarities with others cases in the case library). This study found that the no prompt and case library with retain prompts outperformaed the case library with retrieval/reuse prompts. The finding was found on measurements of counterclaim and overall holistic scores on the transfer task. The findings suggest the design of the cases within the library impacts how the participants adopted the case as a vicarious experience and transferred the experience to solve problems.

Keywords

Case-based reasoning Failure-driven memory theory Problem-based learning Ill-structured problem solving Case libraries Contrasting cases Argumentation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their insight and feedback. We would also like to thank Jonathan Davison and Dr. Cindy York for their helpful comments during the review of this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest is present with this study.

References

  1. Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and systems approaches. Artificial Intelligence Communications, 7(1), 39–59.Google Scholar
  2. Abercrombie, S. (2013). Transfer effects of adding seductive details to case-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(2), 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning (Vol. 68, pp. 3–11). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Belland, B. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 401–412). New York, NY: Spring.Google Scholar
  5. Belland, B., & Drake, J. (2013). Toward a framework on how affordances and motives can drive different uses of scaffolds: Theory, evidence, and design implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(6), 903–925. doi: 10.1007/s11423-013-9313-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, S. (2010). Investigating strategies for using related cases to support design problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 459–480. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9144-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boshuizen, H. P. A., Wiel, M. W. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What and how advanced medical students learn from reasoning through multiple cases. Instructional Science, 40(5), 755–768. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9211-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1–2.Google Scholar
  9. Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dabbagh, N., & Dass, S. (2013). Case problems for problem-based pedagogical approaches: A comparative analysis. Computers and Education, 64, 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  12. Eseryel, D., Ifenthaler, D., & Ge, X. (2013). Validation study of a method for assessing complex ill structured problem solving by using causal representations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 443–463. doi: 10.1007/s11423-013-9297-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitzgerald, G., Mitchem, K., Hollingsead, C., Miller, K., Koury, K., & Tsai, H.-H. (2011). Exploring the bridge from multimedia cases to classrooms: Evidence of transfer. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(2), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ge, X., & Land, S. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hung, W. (2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi: 10.1007/s11423-011-9198-1.Google Scholar
  19. Jeong, A. C., & Lee, J. (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology: Journal of the Council for Educational Technology, 39(4), 651–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, J. F., Bagdasarov, Z., Devenport, L., Mumford, M., & Thiel, C. (2012). Case-based ethics education: The impact of cause complexity and outcome favorability on ethicality. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 7(3), 63–77. doi: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.3.63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1256.Google Scholar
  22. Jonassen, D. H., & Cho, Y. (2011). Fostering argumentation while solving engineering ethics problems. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 680–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karacapilidis, N., & Papadias, D. (2001). Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: The HERMES system. Information Systems, 26(4), 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Web-enhanced case-based activity in teacher education: A case study. Instructional Science, 37(2), 151–170. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9040-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Developing situated knowledge about teaching with technology via a web enhanced case-based activity. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1378–1388. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolodner, J. (1991). Improving human decision making through case-based decision aiding. AI Magazine, 12(2), 52–68.Google Scholar
  28. Kolodner, J. L., Owensby, J. N., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 829–861). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545–552. doi: 10.1177/0956797611402512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kurtz, K. J., Boukrina, O., & Gentner, D. (2013). Comparison promotes learning and transfer of relational categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1303–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kurtz, K. J., & Gentner, D. (2013). Detecting anomalous features in complex stimuli: The role of structured comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(3), 219–232.Google Scholar
  33. Lytinen, S. L. (1992). Conceptual dependency and its descendants. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 23(2–5), 51–73. doi: 10.1016/0898-1221(92)90136-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McSherry, D., & Stretch, C. (2011). Learning more from experience in case-based reasoning. In A. Ram & N. Wiratunga (Eds.), Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development (pp. 151–165). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ngu, B. H., & Yeung, A. S. (2012). Fostering analogical transfer: The multiple components approach to algebra word problem solving in a chemistry context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(1), 14–32. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59–76. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nussbaum, M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nussbaum, M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 23(2), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perkins, D., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. Voss, D. Perskins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 105–126. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9007-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Schank, R. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1046.Google Scholar
  45. Tawfik, A. A., & Jonassen, D. H. (2013). The effects of successful versus failure-based cases on argumentation while solving decision-making problems. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(3), 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tawfik, A. A., & Kolodner, J. L. (2016). Systematizing scaffolding for problem-based learning: A view from case-based reasoning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1608.Google Scholar
  47. Valentine, K. D., & Kopcha, T. J. (2016). The embodiment of cases as alternative perspective in a mathematics hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6), 1183–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development (M. LopezMorillas, Trans.). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 3(1), 12–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2014). Where is the evidence? A meta-analysis on the role of argumentation for the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 75, 218–228. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer–supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xiong, N. (2011). Learning fuzzy rules for similarity assessment in case-based reasoning. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9), 10780–10786. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Technology, Research and AssessmentNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options