Facilitation strategies and problem space coverage: comparing face-to-face and online case-based discussions

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 639-670

  Ertmer, Peggy A ^a,b   Koehler, Adrie A ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Case based learning; Exploratory descriptive research; Facilitation strategies; Online discussions

Indexed keywords

EID: 85038632063     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-017-9563-9     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Ainley, M., & Armatas, C. (2006). Motivational perspectives on students’ responses to learning in virtual learning environments. In J. Weiss (Ed.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 365–394). Netherlands: Springer.
2. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.
3. An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53, 749–760. 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.015.
4. Arend, B. (2009). Encouraging critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1), 1–23.
5. Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31, 597–606.
6. Bailie, J. L. (2012). The criticality of verbal immediacy in online instruction: A modified Delphi study. Journal of Educators Online, 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume9Number2/V9N2.htm#VOLUME_9,_NUMBER_2,_JULY_2012.
7. Balaji, M. S., & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum: Empirical research from ‘media richness theory’ perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 1–22.
8. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243–1289. 10.3102/0034654309333844v1.
9. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 815–843. 10.1002/tea.20171.
10. 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. 10.1007/s10459-011-9282-7.
11. Clarke, L.W., & Bartholomew, A. (2014). Digging beneath the surface: Analyzing the complexity of instructors’ participation in asynchronous discussion. Online Learning Journal, 18(3). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/414.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Darabi, A., Arrastia, M. C., Nelson, D. W., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011). Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 216–227. 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.x.
16. Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32, 575–600.
17. 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.
18. 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 (pp. 204–208). Boston: Pearson.
19. Ellis, R. A., Calvo, R., Levy, D., & Tan, K. (2004). Learning through discussions. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1), 73–93.
20. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483. 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1.
21. Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2014). Online case discussions: Examining coverage of the afforded problem space. Educational Technology Research and Development. 10.1007/s11423-014-9350-9.
22. 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, 69–93.
23. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2016). Learning theory and technology: A reciprocal relationship. In N. Rushby & D. W. Surry (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology (pp. 58–76). New York, NY: Wiley.
24. Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2002). Initiating and maintaining meaningful case discussions: Maximizing the potential of case-based instruction. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 13(2/3), 5–18.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Estepp, C. M., Stripling, C. T., Conner, N. W., Giorgi, A., & Roberts, T. G. (2013). An examination of the learning activities, cognitive level of instruction, and teacher immediacy behaviors of successful instructors in a college of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(2), 15–28. 10.5032/jae.2013.02015.
28. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
29. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.
30. Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00244.x/abstract.
31. 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.
32. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2013). Creating a learning space in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 7(1). Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/vol7/iss1/.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 4, 51–55. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2008/11/asynchronous-and-synchronous-elearning.
36. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.
37. Kang, W. C., Jordan, E., & Porath, M. (2009). Problem-oriented approaches in the context of health care education: Perspectives and lessons. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(2), 43–62. 10.7771/1541-5015.1086.
38. Kanuka, H. (2011). Interaction and the online distance classroom: Do instructional methods affect the quality of interaction? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2–3), 143–156.
39. Kienle, A., & Ritterskamp, C. (2007). Facilitating asynchronous discussions in learning communities: The impact of moderation strategies. Behavior and Information Technology, 26(1), 73–80.
40. Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 117–130.
41. Koschmann, T., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 83–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Lachner, A., Jarodzka, H., & Nuckles, M. (2016). What makes an expert teacher? Investigating teachers’ professional vision and discourse abilities. Instructional Science, 44, 197–203. 10.1007/s11251-016-9376-y.
43. Lachner, A., & Nuckles, M. (2016). Tell me why! Content knowledge predicts process-orientation of math researchers’ and math teachers’ explanations. Instructional Science, 44, 221–242. 10.1007/s11251-015-9365-6.
44. Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. B. (2012). Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use. Instructional Science, 40, 857–874. 10.1007/s11251-011-9193-2.
45. Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and experience in teachers’ thinking about cases. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 63–79.
46. Lewandowski, J., van Barneveld, A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Posting with intentionality in online instruction: Supporting instructors’ facilitation efforts. Educational Technology, 56(4), 15–21.
47. 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.
48. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide, or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40, 237–253.
49. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49, 193–213.
50. McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2009). An analysis of higher-order thinking in online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 147–160.
51. McNeill, K., & Pimentel, D. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203–229. 10.1002/sce.20364.
52. Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Sage.
53. 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. 10.1080/01587919.2012.667957.
54. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
55. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
56. 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. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ847602.
57. Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
58. Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–95.
59. Redmond, P., Devine, J., & Basson, M. (2014). Exploring discipline differentiation in online discussion participation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2), 122–135.
60. Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Lim, J., Besser, E., Caskurlu, S., & Mueller, C. (2015). Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16, 256–297.
61. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
62. 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.
63. Salinitri, F. D., Wilhelm, S. M., & Crabtree, B. L. (2015). Facilitating facilitators: Enhancing PBL through a structured facilitator development program. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 9(1), 73–82. 10.7771/1541-5015.1509.
64. Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (2000). What makes a tutor effective? A structural-equation modeling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Academic Medicine, 7, 708–714.
65. Scott, K. S. (2014). A multilevel analysis of problem-based learning design characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. 10.7771/1541-5015.1420.
66. Slagter van Tryon, P., & Bishop, M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education, 30, 291–315. 10.1080/01587910903236312.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. Wang, Y.-M., & Chen, D.-T. (2008). Essential elements in designing online discussions to promote cognitive presence—A practical experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 157–177.
71. Watson, S. L., Koehler, A. A., Ertmer, P. A., Rico, R., & Kim, W. (2017). An expert facilitator’s use of social congruence, cognitive congruence, and expertise in a case-based instructional design course. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. 10.7771/1541-5015.1633.
72. Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2016). Engaging elementary students in learning science: An analysis of classroom dialogue. Instructional Science, 44, 25–44.
73. Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What students learn in problem-based learning: A process analysis. Instructional Science, 40, 371–395.
74. 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.
75. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
76. Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., McConnell, T. J., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2010). Using questioning to facilitate discussion of science teaching problems in teacher professional development. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 4(1), 57–82. 10.7771/1541-5015.1097.
77. Zhu, E. (2006). Interaction and cognitive engagement: An analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instructional Science, 34, 451–480. 10.1007/s11251-006-0004-0.