Advertisement

Applying case-based method in designing self-directed online instruction: a formative research study

  • Heng Luo
  • Tiffany A. Koszalka
  • Marilyn P. Arnone
  • Ikseon Choi
Development Article

Abstract

This study investigated the case-based method (CBM) instructional-design theory and its application in designing self-directed online instruction. The purpose of this study was to validate and refine the theory for a self-directed online instruction context. Guided by formative research methodology, this study first developed an online tutorial based on 13 design assumptions synthesized from the CBM literature. The researchers then formatively evaluated the online tutorial as a design instance of CBM through two iterations of design, evaluation, and revision. The major findings included: (1) perceived value of various CBM design features, (2) benefits and limitations of applying CBM in the tutorial design, and (3) validation and revision of a set of generic and context-specific CBM design assumptions. These findings extend our understanding of CBM to the context of self-directed online instruction and provide useful insights and practical guidance to inform instructional design practices.

Keywords

Case-based method Formative research Self-directed online learning Instructional design theory 

Notes

Funding

This study was self-funded, based on the dissertation work of its first author.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

The research protocols has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Syracuse University on September 10th, 2013. IRB # 13-257. Informed consents have been obtained from all participants of the study.

References

  1. Baker, E. A. (2009). Multimedia case-based instruction in literacy: Pedagogy, effectiveness and perceptions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 18(3), 249–266.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, L. B., Christensen, C. R., & Hansen, A. (1994). Teaching and the case method (3rd ed.). Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, C., & Tyson, P. A. (1994). Facilitating mathematics case discussions while preserving shared authority. New Orleans: In Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association.Google Scholar
  4. Belland, B. R. (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. 505–518). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg, E. V. D., Jansen, L., & Blijleven, P. (2004). Learning with multimedia cases: An evaluation study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(4), 491–509.Google Scholar
  6. Boling, E. C. (2007). Linking technology, learning, and stories: Implications from research on hypermedia video-cases. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonk, C. J., & Lee, M. M. (2017). Motivations, achievements, and challenges of self-directed informal learners in open educational environments and MOOCs. Journal of Learning for Development, 4(1), 36–57.Google Scholar
  8. Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for teaching adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Cheek, W. D. (2008). Learning vs. education: A new way to think about preparing the next generation. Kauffman Thought Book 2009. Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Choi, I., Lee, S. J., & Jung, J. W. (2008). Designing multimedia case-based instruction accommodating students’ diverse learning styles. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  13. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deimann, M., & Farrow, R. (2013). Rethinking OER and their use: Open education as bildung. The International Review of Research in Open And Distributed Learning, 14(3), 344–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dooley, A. R. & Skinner, W. (1977). Casing case method methods. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 277–289.Google Scholar
  17. Doyle, W. (1990). Case methods in the education of teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 17(1), 7–16.Google Scholar
  18. Eberly, J. & Rand, M (2003). Identifying and describing perceptual factors used for inferring teacher candidate dispositions from online case-based discussions. Eric Documents, ED 478618.Google Scholar
  19. Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2014). Online case-based discussions: Examining coverage of the afforded problem space. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 617–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2015). Facilitated versus non-facilitated online case discussions: Comparing differences in problem space coverage. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(2), 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., & MacDougall, M. (1996). Students’ approaches to learning from case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 719–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2014). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
  23. Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haggard, S. (2013). The maturing of the MOOC: Literature review of massive open online courses and other forms of online distance learning [BIS Research Paper No. 130]. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/18325/
  25. Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Land, S. M., & Lee, E. (2014). Student-centered, open learning environments: Research, theory, and practice. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 641–651). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrington, H. L., & Garrison, B. (1992). Cases as shared inquiry: A dialogical model of teacher preparation. American Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 715–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris, B. R., Lindner, R. W., & Piña, A. A. (2011). Strategies to promote self-regulated learning in online environments. In G. Dettori & D. Persico (Eds.), Fostering self-regulated learning through ICT (pp. 122–144). Hershey: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herrington, J. (1997). Authentic learning in interactive multimedia environments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Perth: Edith Cowan University.Google Scholar
  29. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2007). Immersive learning technologies: Realism and online authentic learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(1), 80–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Kirkwood, C. W. (2002). Decision tree primer. Retrieved from http://www.public.asu.edu/~kirkwood/DAStuff/decisiontrees/index.html.
  34. Kleinfeld, J. (1992). Learning to think like a teacher: The study of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 33–49). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  35. Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Follett.Google Scholar
  36. Kolodner, J. L., Owensby, J., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Case-based learning aids. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 829–861). Mahwah: LEA.Google Scholar
  37. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 707–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee, S. H., Lee, J., Liu, X., Bonk, C. J., & Magjuka, R. J. (2009). A review of case-based learning practices in an online MBA program: A program-level case study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 178–190.Google Scholar
  40. 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, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowenthal, P. R., & Hodges, C. B. (2015). In search of quality: Using quality matters to analyze the quality of massive, open, online courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(5), 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Luo, H., & Koszalka, T. (2011). Making design decisions visible: Applying the case-based method in designing online instruction. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 2(1),  https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v2i1.1102
  43. Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (moocs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McAninch, A. R. (1993). Teacher thinking and the case method. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merseth, K. K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In John Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 722–741). New York: Macmillan and the Association of Teacher Educators.Google Scholar
  47. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Mishra, S., & Kunwar, A. (2015). Quality assurance for open educational resources: What’s the difference? In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 119–129). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Mitchem, K., Koury, K., Fitzgerald, G., Hollingsead, C., Miller, K., Tsai, H. H., et al. (2009). The effects of instructional implementation on learning with interactive multimedia case-based instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(4), 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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: Penn State University.Google Scholar
  51. O’Neill, D. K., & Sai, T. H. (2014). Why not? examining college students’ reasons for avoiding an online course. Higher Education, 68(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 Framework Definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf
  53. Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models—A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 633–652). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 2, 111–145.Google Scholar
  56. Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  58. Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. Ln J. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1–30). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  59. Song, L., & Hill, J. R. (2007). A conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning in online environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 27–42.Google Scholar
  60. Sykes, G., & Bird, T. (1992). Teacher education and the case idea. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 457–521). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google 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(3), 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tawfik, A. A., Sánchez, L., & Saparova, D. (2014). The effects of case libraries in supporting collaborative problem-solving in an online learning environment. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(3), 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. The Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education. (2004). National Content Standards for Entrepreneurship Education. Retrieved from http://www.entre-ed.org/Standards_Toolkit/index.htm
  64. van Merriënboer, J. J., Clark, R. E., & De Croock, M. B. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang, M. J. (2010). Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using asynchronous tools in blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 830–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Watson, S. L., Loizzo, J., Watson, W. R., Mueller, C., Lim, J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Instructional design, facilitation, and perceived learning outcomes: An exploratory case study of a human trafficking MOOC for attitudinal change. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6), 1273–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wiley, D., & Gurrell, S. (2009). A decade of development. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 24(1), 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Willis, J. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wimmer, M. J., Wilks, D. H., Grammer, R. W., Doerr, R. G., Summers, D. E., & Ressetar, H. G. (2014). Use of patient simulation in problem-based learning for first-year medical students. Medical Science Educator, 24(3), 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wolter, B. H., Lundeberg, M. A., Bergland, M., Klyczek, K., Tosado, R., Toro, A., et al. (2013). Student performance in a multimedia case-study environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(2), 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Young, M. F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Educational Information TechnologyCentral China Normal UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.Department of Instructional Design, Development and EvaluationSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.School of Information StudiesSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  4. 4.Learning, Design, and Technology ProgramThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations