Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, E., & Schiano, B. (2014). Teaching with cases: A practical guide. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. (2013). Creating a learning space in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (2011a). Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(2), 95–110.

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2011b). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. W. (2006). Problem-based learning: Description, advantages, disadvantages, scenarios and facilitation. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 34, 485–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Grounded design of web-enhanced case-based activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, 52(1), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49, 193–213.

  • McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2009). An analysis of higher-order thinking in online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Palincsar, A. (1999). Applying a sociocultural lens to the work of a transition community. Discourse Processes, 27(2), 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangan, V. (1996). Choreographing a case class. Harvard Business School Publishing. Ref. # 9-595-074.

  • Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 52–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rico, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (in press). Examining the role of the instructor in problem-centered instruction. Tech Trends.

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitating problem-based learning: illuminating perspectives. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1996). Computer and reasoning through talk in the classroom. Language and Education, 10(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilen, W. (2004). Refuting misconceptions about classroom discussion. Social Studies, 95(1), 33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 367–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What students learn in problem-based learning: A process analysis. Instructional Science, 40, 371–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, 3144 Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education, 100 N. University St., West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2098, USA

    Peggy A. Ertmer & Adrie A. Koehler

Authors
  1. Peggy A. Ertmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adrie A. Koehler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peggy A. Ertmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ertmer, P.A., Koehler, A.A. Facilitated versus non-facilitated online case discussions: comparing differences in problem space coverage. J Comput High Educ 27, 69–93 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9094-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9094-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation