Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education: A Global Perspective 9811951330, 9789811951336

Table of contents :
Foreword
Preface
Introduction
Contents
Part I Theoretical and Historical Perspective of CBL
1 Research-Based Principles for Case-Based Learning for Teachers’ Professional Development
Theoretical Assumptions of Case-Based Learning in Teacher Education
Literature Review Search
Case-Based Learning Principles
Instructional Design
Video for Case-Based Learning
CBL and Reflection
Contextualising CBL
Methods of Inquiry
Future Directions for Research
Conclusion
References
2 The Case Method and Technology: Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education in a Business School Course
Introduction
A Case Study: DAO1704 Decision Analytics Using Spreadsheets
The Case Method
The Case Method, Technology, and the Seven Principles of Good Practice
Conclusion
References
3 Linking Theory to Practice: Case-Based Learning in Health Professions Education
Introduction
Characteristics of CBL
Development and Implementation of CBL
CBL and Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
Effectiveness of CBL in Health Professions Education
Learning Outcomes
Teacher and Student Perceptions of CBL
Learning Skills Development
Online CBL in HPE
Discussion and Summary
References
4 Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning: Situated Cognition and Collaborative Learning Theory
Introduction
How It All Started: A Brief History of Case-Based Learning in Higher Education
Definition of Case-Based Learning
Cases
Case Method
Educational Theories that Support CBL: Situated Cognition and Collaborative Learning Theory
Situated Cognition Theory
Situated Learning
Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Implications for Case-Based Learning
SCT and Implications for Design
Use of Multimedia
Scaffolding
The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
Cases in CBL
Collaborative Learning Theory
Case-Based Learning in Accordance with Collaborative Learning Theory
Scaffolding in Collaborative Case-Based Learning
Benefits of Case-Based Learning
Relevant Case-Based Learning Practices in Taiwan
Use of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning
Discussion and Conclusion
References
Part II Examples of Technology-Mediated CBL Environments
5 Case-Based Online Learning Environments for Teachers in South Korea
Introduction
Three Approaches to Case-Based Learning
Case-Based Instruction
Case Library as Resource
Community of Practice
Case-Based Online Learning Environments in South Korea
Korea Open CourseWare (KOCW)
EDUNET
Indischool
Discussion
Conclusion
References
6 The Development of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning in China
Introduction
Technology-Mediated Case-Based Instruction in Higher Education: Research Scope
Video-Based Instruction in Higher Education
Theories of Video-Based Instruction
The Practice of Video-Based Instruction
Internet-Mediated Case-Based Instruction in Higher Education
The Study of Online Case-Based Instruction
Online Case-Based Instruction and Distance Education
Intelligent-System-Mediated Case-Based Instruction in Higher Education
Application of Intelligent Systems in the Selection and Updating of Cases
Evaluation of Learners
Instruction to Cases (Zheng, 2011)
Course: Reflection Ability Training for Pre-service Teachers Using Case-Based Instruction
Course Implementation
Differences, Merits, Problems and Way Forward for Technology Supported Case-Based Instruction
Differences Among Three Technology-Mediated Case-Based Instruction
Merits of Technology Supported Case-Based Instruction
Problems of Technology Supported Case-Based Instruction
Way Forward for Technology Supported Case-Based Instruction
References
7 Teachers’ Learning of Classroom Management Using Teacher-Generated Wiki Cases
Introduction
Literature Review
Case-Based Learning
Technology-Enhanced Case-Based Learning
Using Case-Based Learning to Support Beginning Teachers’ Classroom Management
Designing Online Learning Environments for Case-Based Learning
A Case Study of Teacher Perceptions of Wikis for Their Learning of Classroom Management
Perceptions of Technical Affordance
Perceptions of Social Affordance
Perceptions of Pedagogical Affordance
Teacher Perceptions of Peer Influence in Wiki Case-Based Learning
Recent Advancements in Case-Based Learning
Future Directions for Teacher-Generated Case-Based Learning in Singapore
Policy
Teacher Education
Further Research
References
8 Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education: Design and Implementation from a Sociocultural Lens
Overview
Opportunities and Challenges to Equity in TMCBL for Teacher Education: Rightful Presence
Considerations for Equity in Teacher Education
Considerations for Equity in Case-Based Learning
Considerations for Equity in Technology-Mediated Learning
Central Questions for Rightful Presence in TMCBL in Teacher Education
Case Study: Infrastructuring for Participatory Design of Technology-Mediated School Technology Practices with Students
Case Study Background
Research and Design Process
Case Study Design Outcomes
Case Study Questions and Analysis
Case Study Findings
Case Study Conclusions
Implications for TMCBL in Teacher Education
Future Directions
References
9 Learning Analytics to Unveil Design and Learning Strategies in Video Lectures
Background
Design for Video Lectures
Instructor Presence in Video Lectures
Embodiment in Video Lectures
Learning Strategies in Video Lectures
Theory
Evidence
Implications
Conclusion
References
10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning in an Undergraduate Course
Introduction
Literature Review
Learning Engagement in Online Learning
Competencies in Classroom Management
Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning
Research Context
Data Collection and Analysis
Data Sampling and Collection
Data Analysis
Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning and Learning Engagement
Behavioral Engagement
Emotional Engagement
Cognitive Engagement
Affordances and Impacts of Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning
Key Affordances of Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning
Impacts of Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning on Student Engagement
Effects of Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning on the Preparation of Future Teaching
Conclusion
Appendix 1 ZOOM Channel
Appendix 2 ZOOM Channel 2
References
Part III Design for Online Learning
11 Designing Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning and the Orchestration of Cognitive, Technological and Affective Skills
Introduction
Case-Based Learning in an Undergraduate e-Business Course
Enabling Interventions
Scripts: Coordinating Virtual Case Discussions
Scaffolds: Facilitating Critical Thinking
Affordances: Enabling Social Presence
Monitoring: Analyzing Case-Based Learning
Recording Online, Group Sessions: Audio, PowerPoint and Whiteboard
Content Analysis: Explaining Streams of Activities
Interviews: Understanding Localized Conceptions of Online Meetings
Conclusions: Towards Near-Term Course Adaptations
References
12 Design for Online Case-Based Learning Environments
Introduction
A Conceptual Framework for Designing Online Case-Based Learning Environments
Pedagogical Design
Relevant Learning Theories
Pedagogical Approaches
Key Pedagogical Design Components to Consider
Social Design
Technical Design
Context
Specific Considerations for Designing Case-Based Learning Environments
Educational Design Research
The Process of Educational Design Research
Preliminary Research
Prototyping
Assessment
Quality Criteria for Interventions
The Yield of Educational Design Research
Concluding Remarks
References
13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning in Online Settings
Introduction
Literature Review
Instructor Roles in CBL
Ill-Structured Problem Solving
CBL in Online Settings
Facilitating Case-Based Learning in Online Settings
Articulate the Problem Space to Be Addressed During the CBL Experience
Identify and Consider Different Approaches to Format the Experience and to Support and Engage Learners
Generate Appropriate Learning Activities that Align with the Articulated Problem Space
Implement and Monitor Selected Learning Activities
Evaluate, Reflect on, and Adapt the CBL Experience
Conclusion
References
Index

Citation preview

Choon Lang Gwendoline Quek Qiyun Wang   Editors

Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education A Global Perspective

Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education

Choon Lang Gwendoline Quek · Qiyun Wang Editors

Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education A Global Perspective

Editors Choon Lang Gwendoline Quek National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore

Qiyun Wang National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore

ISBN 978-981-19-5133-6 ISBN 978-981-19-5135-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Foreword

Before you lie the book Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education: A Global Perspective. This book discusses a very contemporary approach to learning and learning environments in higher education, namely case-based learning (CBL), and with an emphasis on technology-enhanced learning environments or tools. The approach of CBL fits well with a broader trend of making higher education more authentic and realistic and links to related approaches such as problem-based learning, challenge-based learning, place-based learning, and authentic learning. These approaches, as does CBL, are a response to the call for better links between the theory offered at higher education institutes and the reality of practice in professions. CBL also fits with the need to train students a more modern and broader set of skills that are not just cognitive in nature, but also encompass affective, metacognitive, and life skills and include learning to collaborate in a context of diversity. The recent COVID-19 pandemic also shows the need for and importance of online, hybrid and blended design of learning, a trend to which this book also nicely links, for example by using cases via asynchronous discussion, wikis, or videos. The book shows applications of CBL in different higher education contexts, such as teacher education, economics education, and medical education. What all of these contexts have in common is their strongly applied nature and their need for knowledge to be constantly applied in practical situations and professions. The book also nicely combines theoretical backgrounds of CBL with practical aspects of CBL, and chapters for example discuss various examples of CBL, as well as guidelines for the design of CBL. The title also promises an international perspective on CBL. Expertise and research are brought together from different countries, including Singapore, China, and South Korea. With its contemporary nature, the combination of both practice and theory, its multinational approach and its scientific background, the book lends itself nicely as resource for teachers in higher education, those concerned with teacher education or teacher professional development at universities, as well as students with an interest or

v

vi

Foreword

focus on learning, learning environments and education. I wish you much enjoyment with reading and using this book, and I hope the various cases in it, present you with a good basis for your own learning! Perry den Brok Chair of the Education and Learning Sciences Chair Group, Wageningen University and Research , The Netherlands; Chair of the 4TU Centre for Engineering Education, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Preface

Educators are perennially concerned with searching for better ways to bring about learning. History records the efforts made, evident in a spectrum of pedagogies available, from conservative one-way street type teaching to liberal multichannel participatory modes. In this book, case-based learning (CBL) is offered as an attractive alternative to the traditional didactic instructional approaches which typify one-way street type teaching. Case-based learning, put simply, can apply to any teaching that uses cases or case studies, as its teaching resources. However, there are various permutations, such as case-based approach, case method, and case-based reasoning, all of which are used by the various authors of the book. Formal definitions from the literature do occur in the book, with consensus being that a case is a narrative of a real-life situation, usually complex if not controversial, possessing many aspects and stimulating diverse and divergent viewpoints, which render cases excellent material for discussion. A casebased pedagogy is often a viable strategy in higher-order learning, when students advance beyond rote memorization to thinking on their own, being able to articulate and justify their decisions. It is acknowledged that cases can be conveyed in didactive fashion, so what the book does is look at technology-mediated case book teaching and learning that emphasizes student participation and interaction. This would be when cases and the lessons employ multimedia learning resources like e-texting, videos, and online animation, all of which enable synchronous as well as asynchronous classroom participation . This is in alignment with the age of digital learning, where students as digital natives have more affinity for online functionality and a blended learning pedagogy. Thus, contributors to the book provide a substantive case for not just CBL, but also for the incorporation of technological tools to enhance the use of cases. Case method teaching is now widespread across disciplines. Case libraries have grown, and cases may be presented in a variety of media. Now, as online learning grows, educators are exploring case-based learning in online environments. The primary focus of this work is on the practical issue of design. The use of cases has been in existence since the 1950s when Harvard inaugurated its use in legal, business, and medical education. Thus, case study is no nouveau idea, with no dearth of vii

viii

Preface

literature explaining its purpose and extolling its virtues. Yet design, especially when incorporating digital mechanisms, remains a concern. This provides the main impetus for the book, how best to design, implement and evaluate technology-enhanced case-based learning environments. The book confines its scope to higher education as cases are currently and customarily used for more mature learners. Its reach, however, is global, especially since the contributors represent an international mix. This would be another strength of the book. It is useful in all educational situations across borders. The compendium of articles in the book can be regarded as a synthesis of readings on case study, covering elucidation of case study as a pedagogical concept along with its strengths and weaknesses, both text- and technology-mediated. This would be a handy reference for educators needing a comprehensive and all-rounded view to kickstart further interest in this innovative method of teaching and learning. The book contains articles which establishes the historical and theoretical foundation to case-based instruction, showing how design and teaching of cases generally adhere to the features first used at Harvard, and stamped by principles of educational theory; actual design considerations, highlighting the factors to guide casebased learning design using technology; and lastly showcases examples of various technology-mediated case-based learning environments in the international arena. The articles in the book possess an individual thrust, but support the premise of the book, that case study is possibly a superior teaching approach in many educational fields. Traditional teaching method—top down one-way street—tends to cramp thinking and reflection. Case study, especially when augmented with technology, does the opposite. It liberates and frees students to develop analytical, problemsolving, and reasoned decision-making skills, in order to acquire genuine understanding of their subject for transference to real-world situations. Methods through time differ, but this surely remains among the most crucial of educational goals. Singapore

Choon Lang Gwendoline Quek Qiyun Wang

Introduction

The integration of computers into higher education (HE) classrooms over the past few decades have seen the use of various digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality, augmented reality, networked computers, and mobile technologies which have the power to transform learning. A broad and inclusive definition of the emerging field of digital pedagogy (Baldi¸nš, 2016) is the approaches to effective teaching by appropriately leveraging the affordances of digital technologies (Tan & Subramaniam, 2009), or more simply, pedagogical use of digital technologies (Väätäjä & Ruokamo, 2021). To further the full potential of digital technologies for teaching, the editors have put together a series of compelling book chapters which will enable new structures of knowledge and new ways of knowing (Kelly, 2010). In this book, authors contributed their perspectives and educational experiences in the case-based learning (CBL) research, designs, and implementations from their diverse backgrounds. They came from Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, China, Austria, Australia, the USA, and Hong Kong. The book contains three primary areas of focus. Part I establishes the theoretical and historical perspective to case-based instruction, showing how design and teaching of cases generally adhere to the features first used at Harvard and stamped by principles of educational theory. Part II showcases examples of various technologymediated case-based learning environments in the international arena, including emerging technologies such as eye-tracking technique and 360-degree panoramic videos. Part III shifts to actual design considerations, highlighting the factors to guide case-based learning design using technology. Chapter 1 begins with a systemic review on how CBL is used in teacher education. Key themes that emerged from the review by the Australian-based author were instructional design, video for case-based learning, CBL and reflection, contextualizing CBL and methods of inquiry. These were pertinent to recommendations for the design of case-based learning research in teacher education. Chapter 2 discusses how case-based teaching, in the context of a business course for undergraduates, can be supported by different technologies, and how

ix

x

Introduction

the technology-mediated case method embodies the Seven Principles of Good Practice. The ARCS (“Attention”, “Relevance”, “Confidence”, “Satisfaction”) model of motivation (Keller, 1984) is also briefly introduced by the author from Singapore. In Chap. 3, the author describes the development and implementation of CBL in health professions education (HPE) in countries such as Taiwan, Canada, and the USA. Current literature was reviewed to examine the effectiveness of CBL in HPE in the areas of learning outcomes, teacher and student perceptions, and learning skills development. In Chap. 4, the Taiwanese author provides a brief history of case-based learning and a spectrum of pedagogies used since 2000. The chapter includes the rationale as to why and how CBL is a powerful instructional strategy to complement the traditional didactic instructional approaches. This was supported by trends toward technology-mediated CBL such as learning management systems, and social media platforms, e.g., wiki, as evidenced in Chaps. 1, 2, 5, and 8. In Chap. 5, a group of South Korean researchers and educators focused on casebased design of online learning environments, in which authentic problems and learning resources are provided in the form of multimedia cases for the learners to explore and learn. Areas such as case-based instruction and case library resources will play important roles in teaching and learning. In practice, how such a design can benefit the teaching and learning will be shared from an authentic case taken from South Korean context. In Chap. 6, the Chinese author discusses the cases in the form of video cases, the practice of video-based instruction which includes the sources of how these were developed, and the case instruction practiced in China. Examples of the practices of online case-based instruction are also used in higher education and distance education in Chinese universities. In Chap. 7, the author describes case-based learning as an instructional approach to situate the beginning teachers’ authentic learning of classroom management. The cases are teachers’ real stories encountered, documented, and curated for teacher learning of classroom management via group discussions and reflection. To the beginning teachers (with less than three years of teaching experience) when faced with actual classroom encounters, their classroom management practices require them to link the theory taught to solve actual classroom management problems. This chapter presents two key areas: the development and application of an online resource, a multi-model wiki-based platform of “case-stories” of beginning teachers in Singapore, and the teachers’ perspectives based on their learning experience in the case-based learning supported by wiki. In Chap. 8, the author discusses how technology-mediated case-based learning (TMCBL) might be organized and designed to build the rightful presence of nondominant teachers in the USA. Three broad implications for TMCBL in teacher education are discussed together with a set of guiding principles to inform design processes and practices. In Chap. 9, the author from China focuses on how to effectively design video lectures and strategies that can support the effective learning of students. The design

Introduction

xi

of instructor presence was explored, such as gestures, eye gaze direction, body orientation, and facial expressions. For learning strategies, the impact of embedded verbal social interaction such as messaging was discussed. Findings from the analysis of eye-tracking data can potentially inform the design of video lectures to maximize learning. In Chap. 10, the author from Hong Kong examines how technology-enabled casebased learning, through the use of 360-degree panoramic videos and asynchronous discussion forums, can contribute to teacher training programs. The immersive and engaging learning experience facilitates pre-service teachers’ application of theory into practice in authentic settings. In Chap. 11, the author presents the design elements for technology-mediated case-based learning as well as methods to monitor their impact. Orchestration was introduced as a process to align the design of the learning environment with learners and instructors in case-based learning. The author shares case-based instruction, an example for generating complex learning processes. An example of the teaching of an online business course for the undergraduate using the case-based learning method and challenges would also be shared. In Chap. 12, the author defines the case-based learning environment as a technology-mediated learning space for teaching and learning. A generic framework for guiding the design of case-based learning environments focuses on pedagogical, social, and technical designs and the context in which the designs are implemented. Educational design research was also proposed as a practical method for designing future case-based learning environments in terms of process, quality criteria, and the yield of educational design research in this chapter. In Chap. 13, the author from the USA offers her insights into designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating CBL in online settings, where unique environmental affordances play an important role in creating meaningful learning experiences. Ill-structured problem-solving frameworks are used to guide the design process.

References Baldi¸nš, A. (2016). Insights into e-pedagogy concept development. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 231, 251–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.099 Keller, J. M. (1984). The use of the ARCS model of motivation in teacher training. Aspects of Educational Technology, 17, 140–145. Kelly, K. (2010). A study into the influence that Information Communication Technology tools have on primary pupils’ attitudes towards primary science. Masters thesis, St Patrick’s College, Dublin. Tan, W. H. L., & Subramaniam, R. (2009). Role of scientific academies and scientific societies in promoting science and technology: Experiences from Singapore. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(1–2), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.022674 Väätäjä, J. O., & Ruokamo, H. (2021). Conceptualizing dimensions and a model for digital pedagogy. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1834490921995395

Contents

Part I 1

2

3

4

Research-Based Principles for Case-Based Learning for Teachers’ Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chwee Beng Lee, Fatimah Albedah, and Wei Liu The Case Method and Technology: Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education in a Business School Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hong Ming Tan Linking Theory to Practice: Case-Based Learning in Health Professions Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Binbin Zheng and Brian Mavis Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning: Situated Cognition and Collaborative Learning Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Min-Chieh Chang

Part II 5

6

7

Theoretical and Historical Perspective of CBL 3

17

33

49

Examples of Technology-Mediated CBL Environments

Case-Based Online Learning Environments for Teachers in South Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Young Hoan Cho, Mi Hwa Kim, and Yoon Kang Kim

71

The Development of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xiaoyong Hu

89

Teachers’ Learning of Classroom Management Using Teacher-Generated Wiki Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Choon Lang Gwendoline Quek

xiii

xiv

Contents

8

Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education: Design and Implementation from a Sociocultural Lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Ung-Sang Albert Lee

9

Learning Analytics to Unveil Design and Learning Strategies in Video Lectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Zhongling Pi, Jiumin Yang, and Xinjing Zhang

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning in an Undergraduate Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Yuen Man Tang, Danlin Yang, Ricci Wai-tsz Fong, and Cher Ping Lim Part III Design for Online Learning 11 Designing Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning and the Orchestration of Cognitive, Technological and Affective Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Christian Voigt 12 Design for Online Case-Based Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Qiyun Wang 13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning in Online Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Adrie A. Koehler Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Part I

Theoretical and Historical Perspective of CBL

Chapter 1

Research-Based Principles for Case-Based Learning for Teachers’ Professional Development Chwee Beng Lee, Fatimah Albedah, and Wei Liu

Abstract Case-based learning (CBL) has grown to be an important pedagogical approach in teacher education. While it has gained much research attention, questions about CBL research in teacher education remain largely unexplored. Based on our understanding, there is no current systematic review on the integration of CBL in teacher education. We argue that without a systemic understanding of the current CBL research conducted in the context of teacher education, we may be susceptible to failed attempts or ineffective integration of CBL, leading to unproductive and questionable outcomes. This manuscript describes an exploratory attempt through a review of relevant literature to understand how CBL has been used in teacher education. Several principles for CBL emerged through our synthesis and we have also attempted to make recommendations for future research. Keywords Case-based learning · Instructional design · Problem solving Case-based learning (CBL) has been widely used in practically all fields of education and learning as a pedagogical approach to foster learning in the last several decades. While CBL instruction began at Harvard Law School, it has migrated to business and medical schools and has now become an important aspect of most curricula. The outcomes of its effectiveness have been documented by researchers, ranging from its positive impact on learning to its ability to help learners build autonomy in learning, motivate learners, and shift the practices of teaching and instruction that lie in the epitome of the behaviourist approach to a learner-centred paradigm. Grounded in constructivism, it has been characterised as a problem-centred approach that encourages learners to connect theories and concepts to real-life situations (Kurz et al., 2005). One of the key reasons for CBL to gain attention in instruction is mainly due C. B. Lee (B) · W. Liu School of Education, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia e-mail: [email protected] W. Liu e-mail: [email protected] F. Albedah Saudi Electronic University (SEU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_1

3

4

C. B. Lee et al.

to its emphasis on contextualised learning instead of learning concepts and theories in isolation, and with little or no opportunities for real application. Since its inception, its application has been incredibly extensive and varied, to the extent that its definition and application remain inconclusive as a result of the confusion surrounding the content, form, and functions of cases (Jonassen, 1996). In CBL research, cases have either been used as examples, representing problem situations, or cases as problems for learners to solve (Jonassen, 2004). Adding to this complexity is that several terms are used interchangeably, for instance, ‘case-based methodology’, ‘case-study pedagogy’ (Heitzmann, 2008); ‘case-study method’ (Kunselman & Johnson, 2004); ‘casestudy instruction’ (Haley, 2004; Heitzmann, 2008) and ‘case reading and discussion’ (Shulman, 2004). Regardless of such disparities, CBL continues to play a pivotal role in instruction. In teacher education, CBL is one of the most widely used pedagogical approaches in the last 30 years, and a large body of literature has reported the learning benefits of CBL in teacher education (Angeli, 2004; Butler et al., 2006; Choi & Lee, 2009; Kim & Hannafin, 2008; Yoon et al., 2006). Cases used in CBL serve to help prospective teachers relate learning theories and classroom management principles to teaching practice. Acknowledging the benefits of using cases in instruction, educationists have consistently argued for the use of cases in teacher education (Hashweh, 2004; Heitzmann, 2008; Levin, 2002; Merserth, 1996; Norquist, 2008; Sato & Rogers, 2010; Shulman, 2004) as authentic cases tend to support reflective thinking among teachers in primary to adult education (Levin, 2001). With the burgeoning importance of CBL in learning and teaching, questions about CBL research in teacher education remain largely unexplored. How is CBL being used? What are the design principles of CBL? What cognitive benefits can CBL offer? What are the limitations of CBL research? Based on our understanding, there is no current systematic review on the integration of CBL in teacher education. We argue that without a systemic understanding of the current CBL research conducted in the context of teacher education, we may be susceptible to failed attempts or ineffective integration of CBL, leading to unproductive and questionable outcomes.

Theoretical Assumptions of Case-Based Learning in Teacher Education First and foremost, case-based learning assumes that people learn from cases or rather stories. Rather than teaching abstract concepts or theories to students and getting them to understand a particular field of study, in CBL the cases are at the helm of the instruction. Through examining, reflecting on, and analysing cases, students build their knowledge about certain topics. In the context of teacher education, cases used in CBL are mostly classroom situations or scenarios. The intention of presenting such authentic cases serves the purpose of enabling student teachers to resume the role of experienced teachers and applying classroom management strategies and learning theories into understanding the complexity of classroom teaching.

1 Research-Based Principles for Case-Based Learning …

5

CBL takes its roots from constructivism (Hartfield, 2010) and is well connected with several constructivist theories such as situated cognition, anchored instruction, and cognitive flexibility. In general, the theoretical assumptions of CBL are that it operates in an authentic learning environment, facilitates the construction of shared cognition, encourages multiple perspectives, and fosters reflection as well as other types of thinking essential to analysing and solving problems (Akbulut & Hill, 2020). As a constructivist approach, CBL assumes that learning is contextualised and can be anchored by an authentic problem, issue, or case that provides a platform for prospective teachers to engage in discussion, inquiries, interpretation, and application (Jonassen, 1999). CBL has been mostly used as a form of pedagogical approach in fostering reflection in teacher education (Shulman, 1992; Tripp & Rich, 2012). More specifically, researchers have argued that case-based learning or case-based teaching could possibly foster student teachers’ critical thinking, and build practical knowledge through engaging in self-reflection and bridging the gap between educational theories and practice (Gallucci, 2008; Levin, 2002; Merserth, 1996; Mostert, 2007; Shulman, 2004; Tal, 2010). Although case-based learning can be useful for individual learning, most studies claim that it is most successful with small groups (Booth et al., 2000; Norquist, 2008). Merseth (1996) suggests that cases could be used as exemplars or models of best practices that illustrate theoretical principles, to provide opportunities for analysis of complex teaching scenarios and lastly to foster reflective thinking among prospective teachers. More importantly, CBL tends to be associated with ill-structured problems or rather complex classroom scenarios in which cases are mostly used as problem exemplars, to represent problem situations or to represent problems to learners to be solved (Jonassen, 2004).

Literature Review Search As an exploratory attempt to understand CBL research in teacher education, we set out to conduct an extensive literature search. We first cast a wide net with key words of ‘case-based learning’ and ‘teachers’; we had a hit of several thousand. A second level of search was conducted, and through a systematic search we aimed to identify noteworthy research articles in the field of education related to the topic: ‘Research-based principles for case-based learning for teachers’ professional development’. Basic filtering was automated using online search tools and bibliographic details. First, a basic search was carried out through EBSCOhost using a combination of primary keywords, for example, ‘research-based principles’ AND ‘case-based learning’ AND ‘teachers’ professional development’. Next, Web of Science, Science Direct, PSYINFO, SAGE Journals, and Google Scholar were also used to search for any additional papers of relevance based on the same keywords. A total of 147 papers were found that matched these searches and the topic. Next, a series of filters were applied on the list of search results based on year of publication, type of paper, language, and domain of study. Filters comprised the following:

6

C. B. Lee et al.

1. Type of publication: Journal papers only (e-books were not considered). 2. Year of publication: Between 2010 and 2021 only. 3. Language of publication: English only. Our search effort only included journal articles for strategic purposes as we were only interested in examining research-based articles. We excluded papers that were non-empirical or that only briefly included CBL as a section of their instruction, with no data collected on CBL instruction. Given that CBL has its roots in casebased reasoning (CBR), some CBR-related articles surfaced in our search but were later excluded given that the purpose and pedagogy of CBR are inherently different from those of CBL. In addition, we intentionally searched for articles published in the last 10 years for a more focused attempt. Detailed bibliographic information was logged in an Excel file in a tabular format. Along with the first level of information containing basic information such as author, title, date, publication, abstract, keyword, and citation information, the second level of information included details such as types of research, data courses, context, participants, research questions/focuses, analysis methods, subject, composition of group, and learning environment. A third level of key information was also captured which included: nature of CBL tasks, process of CBL, assessment of CBL, and main findings. Of the 147 papers, 120 were found to be relevant as we excluded conference papers and focused only on journal articles, while others did not have suitable keywords justifying their selection. Next, a detailed literature review was carried out to understand the aim, methodology, findings, and suitability of each paper. After investigating and reviewing these aspects, further filters such as ‘pre-service teacher’ and ‘in-service teachers’ who were only teaching in K-12 settings were applied, which narrowed down the list of research papers. This returned with N = 14 relevant articles. In order to gain a deep-level insight into the use of CBL in teacher education, we reviewed these studies in detail through scrutinizing key points unique to the study. For instance, some studies mentioned detailed instructional design sequencing, while others did not discuss the instructional design of the CBL instruction in detail. We then compared the similarities and differences between studies. The final step was to cluster them according to themes to provide a comprehensive perspective of how CBL is used in teacher education.

Case-Based Learning Principles Our main aim of this review was to gain an overview of how CBL is used in teacher education and what we can learn from such uses. The findings of our literature review are organised according to the key themes and issues that emerged from the final list of studies (n = 14). We then draw from these themes to make recommendations for the design of case-based learning research in teacher education.

1 Research-Based Principles for Case-Based Learning …

7

Instructional Design Instructional sequencing of CBL instruction varied across the reviewed studies. There seems to be no dominant method of sequencing but rather contextualised modes of sequencing were observed. For instance, Baeten et al. (2013) proposed that there is added value from gradually implementing case-based learning compared to lectures, CBL and lectures, and CBL taking turns. In gradually implementing CBL, lectures gradually make way for CBL, and students tend to exert more effort and concentration and work in more organised ways than those in other settings. Anderson (2019) emphasises the use of case-iterative teaching in which students engaged in progressive discovery. They started with bits of incomplete information, then created tentative hypotheses, refined their hypotheses after gathering more information, and engaged in considering and refining their thoughts. Different forms of instructional strategies have been investigated to examine their respective effectiveness in implementing CBL. Zottmann et al.’s (2012) research is on the role of instructional support in the form of multiple perspectives on facilitating students’ analytical skills development in computer-mediated classrooms. This study concludes that students perform the best with audio-only feedback, which speaks to the finding that providing audio feedback promotes the establishment of better rapport between students and educators (Rasi & Vuojärvi, 2018). In terms of group composition, most reviewed studies examined the use of CBL through small groups of learners. For instance, O’ Flaherty and McGarr (2014) organised participants into small groups with different perspectives. In Koc (2011), students worked in groups to engage in video-recorded role playing to simulate classroom memoirs. Gravett et al. (2017) found that having large numbers of students participating in case-based teaching did not compromise students’ learning experience, but opportunities must be provided for students to engage in feedback and debate in small groups, followed by large group reporting. Although the instructional sequencing of CBL in teacher education takes different forms, most researchers would agree on the benefits of the small group strategy as it allows students to engage in the CBL process in which meaningful discussion, debates, and collaborative problem-solving take place. Such findings align with social constructivist principles that suggest the criticality of collaboration for constructing shared knowledge as social interactions is a fundamental factor in knowledge construction. Drawing on social constructivist theory, Beck and Kosnik (2006) argue that it helps to make linkages between pre-service learning, sharing ideas and experiences among those in the learning communities, and bridging the connection between knowledge and everyday practices. Through collaborating in case analysis or interpretation, learners share multiple perspectives, consider alternative perspectives, negotiate meaning, and engage in meaningful discussion that broadens their understanding of how theories and principles could be utilised in teaching practice. At this juncture, there is no strong empirical data to support the argument on the composition of groups in CBL instruction. Specifically, the criteria or parameters for forming effective groups in CBL have

8

C. B. Lee et al.

not been thoughtfully examined. Future research could invest in exploring the effect of various group compositions for CBL as this might provide important information for the instructional design of CBL in teacher education.

Video for Case-Based Learning As we expected, video is the main tool used in the CBL research, although its function varies across studies. Gravett et al. (2017) captured video footage of classroom interactions as one of their data sources for analysing the affordances of casebased teaching for the professional learning of student-teachers. Similarly, Kuzle and Biehler (2015) analysed their video data captured during teachers’ professional development to examine the kinds of practices used to establish and maintain collaboration during and after professional development. Zottmann et al. (2012) presented their experimental group with multiple perspectives in video or audio format with the research aim of exploring how a CBL approach that used digital video cases and relied on computer-based and instructional support encouraged reflections among student-teachers while promoting the development of analytical skills. In another study, Pang (2011) describes a case-based pedagogy with videotaped mathematics lessons and their analytic narratives for prospective teachers to learn how to teach elementary mathematics in Korea. While most studies either use text-based cases or video cases, in Koc’s (2011) study, pre-service teachers engaged in video-recorded role playing to simulate classroom memoirs. These video clips were then analysed alongside reflection papers and case analysis reports. As a key component of CBL instruction, studies have reported that analysing videos could foster teachers’ abilities to evaluate videos of their own or others’ teaching (Brouwer, 2012) especially when videos cases are carefully selected or designed to suit the needs of the learners. The usage of videos in the reviewed studies varies from video as a form of capturing interactions for analysis, for promoting reflective practice, or for representing real-world problems to engage teachers in understanding the complexities of teaching and thus preparing them for their teaching experience in real classrooms. While video is dominantly used in CBL research, we argue that other forms of technologies or a combination of technological tools is crucial in amplifying the pedagogical affordance of CBL. Multiple perspectives of classroom teaching could be represented through a variety of technologies that suit the learning needs of learners and to encourage learners to represent their interpretation of theories and principles in various forms through the affordances of technologies. Exposing prospective teachers to multiple classroom cases or scenarios may provide a catalyst for developing their capacity to analyse complex teaching and learning issues as with little teaching experience they may start with predispositions toward simplifying teaching and situations based on their prior experience as students and identifying issues from a single perspective (Akbulut & Hill, 2020). Regardless of what the cases are used for in CBL instruction, they can be represented through various technological platforms to provide learners with multiple representations of the phenomena or learning points.

1 Research-Based Principles for Case-Based Learning …

9

CBL and Reflection Overall, the literature provides strong evidence of the potential for case-based learning (CBL) to enhance teaching practices when incorporated into teachers’ professional development programs. Primarily, research suggests that CBL facilitates reflection among student-teachers, allowing them to ‘assess the origins, purposes, and consequences of their work on a regular basis [and] understand classroom activities, schools, and curricula within their respective contexts’ (Buschor & Kamm, 2015, p. 234). Similarly, a study by Dikilitas and Mumford (2019) demonstrated connections between reflection facilitated by CBL in teacher training programs and the development of autonomy. The study examined these important outcomes of research reading—a form of reflective practice that facilitates engagement with research, with many benefits: ‘helping teachers make sense of their work, providing a way to talk about their work, providing theoretical justification for actions, and leading to reflection on planning and decision making’ (Dikilitas & Mumford, 2019, p. 254). Research by Osmanoglu (2016) also demonstrates the important role that reflection can play in enhancing teachers’ professional development. Osmanoglu (2016) examined the outcomes of CBL in teacher education programs as ‘a tool for reflection and understanding teaching’ (p. 40), based on student-teachers’ observations of videoed examples of their own or their peers’ teaching practices. Osmanoglu (2016) utilised reflection theory to provide a framework for understanding the relationship between theory and practice in teaching, noting that theoretical knowledge may dissipate during actual teaching practices—beyond the teacher education stage—because there may be insufficient opportunities for them to engage in reflective practice. Many of the participants in this study reflected that they ‘were really able to connect what they had learned theoretically to their actual practice’ as a result of participating in CBL environments (Osmanoglu, 2016, p. 47). Bales and Saffold (2011) examined teachers’ professional development programs based on CBL in urban schools. These authors examined how a pedagogy lab— designed to allow student-teachers to ‘experiment and practice a field of study’— utilised cases to ‘focus on the complexities of a classroom and offer[ed] students an opportunity to connect theory with practice in a supportive environment’ (Bales & Saffold, 2011, p. 962). This study provides further evidence for the use of CBL to facilitate reflection, with the authors finding that the pedagogical process of learning from cases—when coupled with an online discussion board—led to studentteachers engaging in a threaded asynchronous discussion about each case within a safe environment while also being able ‘to chart how their professional practice was developing’ (Bales & Saffold, 2011, p. 962). Bales and Saffold (2011) provides further support for connections between CBL, reflective practice, and professional development that may close the gap between theory and practice. Together, the studies discussed here demonstrate the importance of studying CBL in terms of its potential benefits for teaching practices. With reflection being one of the primary outcomes of CBL, the research discussed so far suggests that all studies

10

C. B. Lee et al.

of CBL should examine connections between the use of cases and teachers’ reflective practice. The concept of reflection can thereby be used as a means to understand how teaching and learning outcomes might be influenced by teachers’ own awareness of their practices. In addition, these studies also suggest that teachers’ reflective practice that is fostered through CBL helps in overcoming the gap between theory and practice. Our review indicated that reflection is the most dominant thinking process that CBL in the field of teacher education research emphasised and advocated. Cases that represent authentic and complex classroom problems have been consistently used in teacher education as they help prospective teachers to be engaged in critical inquiry and analysis in the classroom. We encourage research to be conducted to further explore the different types of thinking processes that may be associated with CBL. For instance, Koc (2011) reported that CBL developed pre-service teachers’ identity building, and Shuster et al. (2020) also suggested that teachers gained confidence and interest through CBL. As a constructivist pedagogical approach, CBL is likely to help learners develop various levels of cognition. There needs to be an effort to explore the types of thinking processes that emerge to foster learning and their interactions in the space of CBL. This is especially true when cases are used as problems for learners to solve in CBL. In such an approach, learners are required to critically analyse situations, identify issues and assumptions underlying different positions, evaluate possible consequences, exercise cognitive flexibility, reflect, and engage in decision making.

Contextualising CBL Although cases are commonly used in teacher education to allow teachers to understand the complexities of classroom teaching and students’ learning processes, researchers have rightfully pointed out that simply exposing school practice to prospective teachers may not necessarily lead to a favourable learning outcome as learners tend to focus on superficial features (Krull et al., 2007). In other words, authentic cases alone cannot promote learning. Kim et al. (2006) highlighted some of the core attributes of successful cases which include the relevance of the cases and whether they are able to engage learners. It is noteworthy that although cases employed are in various forms, both established ones such as written narratives and video clips, and original preservice students’ videotaped teaching during placement and content-integrated cases (Shuster et al., 2020), dilemmas were consistently present. For instance, in O’Flaherty and McGarr’s (2014) study, participants explored and discussed classroom scenarios to prepare them for a 6-week school-based placement. Participants were presented with five ethical narrative dilemmas describing the circumstances of a third party who is faced with making a decision on how to act in the scenario. Similarly, Koc (2012) used dilemma-based cases to help early childhood preservice teachers to connect theory and practice and solve real-world teaching problems, and it was found that

1 Research-Based Principles for Case-Based Learning …

11

dilemma cases indeed had promising capacity to promote theory–practice connections. The frequency of presenting dilemmas as cases in CBL instruction draw from the fact that teachers generally make many decisions in class. Some of these decisions are relatively easy to make for an experienced teacher such as identifying a potential troubled child and deciding on an appropriate intervention, but less experienced teachers may find it challenging to deal with such ill-structured problems as the decision-making process requires the teacher to integrate theory and practice (Korthagen et al., 2001). Through analysing dilemma cases, learners are likely to appreciate the complex nature of classroom teaching. Contextualising the cases according to the context is a critical consideration in CBL instruction. In Celik et al.’s (2012) study, as the context was computer education and instructional technology, pre-service teachers were required to review, analyse, and generate decisions on three cases that presented issues and problems within the computer education teaching context. Several positive findings were reported by the researchers which include participants indicating the relevance to subject matter and opportunities to think as a real teacher, and applying theoretical knowledge to practical situations. In Koc’s (2011) study, pre-service teachers through video-recorded role playing of classroom memoirs learn to connect classroom management theories and principles to classroom situations. The classroom reality was based on their prior schooling experience. The researcher concluded that the video cases situated pre-service teachers’ learning within the relevant context and helped them to build better understanding of the classroom situations based on classroom management principles and theories. Our review indicates that in CBL instruction, cases are carefully considered and contextualised according to the teaching background and prior knowledge of learners to be able to foster reflection, critical thinking, and decision making and enabling learners to bridge theories and practice. Given the complex nature of teaching, dilemma cases do play a critical role in representing classroom realities for engaging learners in classroom decision making. We notice that dilemmas are explained alongside terms such as ill-structured problems and decision making (Koc, 2012). However, according to Jonassen’s (2000) typology of problems, the characteristics of each type of problem solving varies. For instance, in terms of success criteria, dilemmas require the learners to articulate preference with sound justification, whereas in case analysis, there might be multiple or unclear solutions. In CBL research, cases used are mostly dilemmas, cases that require decision making, or cases for analysis. We have yet to fully understand the extent of the effect of various types of cases in teacher education. For effective CBL instruction, empirical studies could be conducted to examine how types of cases foster cognition and influence thinking.

12

C. B. Lee et al.

Methods of Inquiry Qualitative research methods seem to be the dominant research methods used in CBL research in teacher education. Of the 14 articles from the final list, eight were qualitative studies and the rest were mixed methods studies (n = 4) with two studies that used quantitative methods of inquiry. As such, these studies were characterised by the use of focus group interviews, individual interviews, questionnaires, knowledge tests, video data, students’ reflective writings, analysis essays, feedback, and discussions. In Koc (2011), it was reported that student teachers engaged in video-recorded role playing to simulate classroom memoirs. Except for Baeten et al.’s (2013) study that used a quasi-experimental design, most studies were conducted with a relatively small number of participants. Interestingly, most of these 14 studies do not specifically elaborate on their research design except for Rasi and Vuojarvi’s (2018) case study, Anderson’s (2019) and Shuster et al.’s (2020) evaluative case study designs, and O’Flaherty and McGarr’s (2014) and Beaten et al.’s (2013) quasi experimental studies. Most of the reviewed studies were conducted with multiple data resources (n = 12). Only two articles draw on single source data for analysis, respectively interviews (Celik et al., 2012) and students’ essays on the case provided (Koç, 2012). Using various data sources seems to be an inherent practice in qualitative research, and through this approach data from multiple sources enabled triangulation among the findings; thereby a rigorous study can be achieved. For instance, Koc (2011) conducted a qualitative study in which 97 reflection essays of participants were used as the primary data source, and another 28 videoclips and 28 case reports were analysed to triangulate the former findings. While qualitative inquiry conducted with multiple data sources enables the researchers to obtain a comprehensive perspective on the use of CBL in teacher education, it also reflects its limited power in terms of generalisation. To understand whether CBL impacts on or predicts the learning process of pre-service and in-service teachers, more robust statistical analyses need to be considered for more convincing research outcomes. It would be interesting if several conceptual models of CBL in teacher education could be generated from empirical studies to inform the design and integration of CBL in different subject domains or geological contexts. Our review also revealed that most CBL studies have a relatively short period of intervention or CBL instruction. To gain an in-depth understanding of the effectiveness and influences of CBL on teacher education, we suggest that longitudinal studies are to be considered. Based on the reviewed studies, we are not able to confidently conclude that CBL creates a significant impact on teacher education.

1 Research-Based Principles for Case-Based Learning …

13

Future Directions for Research While CBL has been a dominant pedagogical approach across all learning contexts, it’s application and impact remain questionable. Do we fully understand the extent of the effect of various types of cases on teacher education? What are the different types of thinking processes that may be associated with CBL? Do we assume that collaborative work is a key component of CBL regardless of its composition? Are we confident in integrating various types of technologies for an effective CBL integration? What methods of inquiry would be most pertinent for the evaluation of CBL? These are but a few of the questions that need to be answered before we are able to design the most effective CBL intervention. With many unknowns about CBL, we must learn to unravel the nature of CBL. Too much of the CBL research relied on inquiries with findings that cannot be generalised or provide greater confidence for CBL integration. We believe that a systemic approach to integrating and assessing the effectiveness of CBL could answer some of these questions. More precisely, longitudinal design-based research with multiple research methods would provide a more comprehensive understanding of CBL. With the exponential growth of educational technological tools, it is also imperative for teacher educators and researchers to work closely and collaboratively with the industry, exploring the affordances of technological tools as part of the long-term research agenda.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have reported a synthesis of studies on CBL in teacher education. Through an exploratory attempt, we used levels of searching, filtering, and elimination to identify a final list of studies for further analysis and synthesis. Our current review has a few limitations of which one needs to be aware. First, our search resulted in a small number of related articles which may have prevented us from forming a broader perspective of the current practices of CBL research in teacher education. Second, our search terms only included case-based learning and related terms and we did not explicitly search for articles that may have exploited CBL but did not surface in our search. Our initial effort only provides a glimpse of how CBL instruction is used in teacher education. Nevertheless, several principles for CBL emerged through our synthesis, and we have also attempted to make recommendations for future research. There remain many unanswered questions regarding CBL instruction for teacher education that would make it worthwhile to conduct further investigations. For instance, the effect of various types of cases on teachers’ thinking, the types of thinking that CBL could foster, other forms of technologies or a combination of technological tools to amplify the pedagogical affordance of CBL and more robust empirical or longitudinal studies could be conducted to fully examine the effectiveness of CBL instruction in teacher education.

14

C. B. Lee et al.

References Akbulut, M. S., & Hill, J. R. (2020). Case-based pedagogy for teacher education: An instructional model. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/ 8937. Anderson, B. (2019). Teaching development theory with interrupted video case studies. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl. v19i5.25385. Angeli, C. (2004). The effects of case-based learning on early childhood pre-service teachers’ beliefs about the pedagogical uses of ICT. Journal of Educational Media, 29(2), 139–151. https://doi. org/10.1080/1358165042000253302. Bales, B. L., & Saffold, F. (2011). A new era in the preparation of teachers for urban schools: Linking multiculturalism, disciplinary-based content, and pedagogy. Urban Education, 46(5), 953–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911400320. Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2013). Enhancing students’ approaches to learning: The added value of gradually implementing case-based learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0116-7 Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. M. (2006). Innovations in teacher education: A social constructivist approach. State University of New York Press. Booth, C., Bowie, S., Jordan, J., & Rippen, A. (2000). The use of the case method in large and diverse undergraduate business programmes: Problems and issues. The International Journal of Management Education, 1(1), 62–75. Brouwer, N. (2012, April). Self-viewing with structured video guide. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver. Buschor, C. B., & Kamm, E. (2015). Supporting student teachers’ reflective attitude and researchoriented stance. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 14, 231–245. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10671-015-9186-z. Butler, M. B., Lee, S., & Tippins, D. J. (2006). Case-based methodology as an instructional strategy for understanding diversity: Preservice teachers’ perceptions. Multicultural Education, 13(3), 20–26. Celik, S., Cevik, Y. D., & Haslaman, T. (2012). Reflections of prospective teachers regarding case-based learning. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 3(4), 64–78. 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. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11423-008-9089-2. Dikilitas, K., & Mumford, S. E. (2019). Teacher autonomy development through reading Teacher research: Agency, motivation and identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1442471. Gallucci, K. (2008). Learning concepts with cases. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(2), 16–20. Gravett, S., de Beer, J., Odendaal-Kroon, R., & Merseth, K. (2017). The affordances of case-based teaching for the professional learning of student teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(3), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1149224. Haley, M. H. (2004). Implications of using case study instruction in a foreign/second language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 37(2), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720. 2004.tb02201. Hartfield, P. J. (2010). Reinforcing constructivist teaching in advanced level biochemistry through the introduction of case-based learning activities. Journal of Learning Design, 3(3), 20–31. https:// doi.org/10.5204/jld.v3i3.59. Hashweh, M. Z. (2004). Case-writing as border-crossing: Describing, explaining and promoting teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(3), 229–246. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1354060042000204423.

1 Research-Based Principles for Case-Based Learning …

15

Heitzmann, R. (2008). Case study instruction in teacher education: Opportunity to develop students’ critical thinking, school smarts and decision making. Education, 128, 523–541. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Scaffolding diagnostic reasoning in case-based learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 8(1), 48–68. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215–239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500. Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. Pfeiffer. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Situated case-based knowledge: An emerging framework for prospective teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1837–1845. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.025. Kim, S., Phillips, W. R., Pinsky, L., Brock, D., Phillips, K., & Keary, J. (2006). A conceptual framework for developing teaching cases: A review and synthesis of the literature across disciplines. Medical Education, 40(9), 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02544.x. Koc, M. (2011). Let’s make a movie: Investigating pre-service teachers’ reflections on using videorecorded role-playing cases in Turkey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 95–106. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.006. Koc, K. (2012). Using a dilemma case in early childhood teacher education: Does it promote theory and practice connection? Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 3153–3163. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J. P. A. M., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbles, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum. Kurz, T., Llama, G., & Savenye, W. (2005). Issues and challenges of creating video cases to be used with preservice teachers. TechTrends, 49(4), 67–73. Kuzle, A., & Biehler, R. (2015). Examining mathematics mentor teachers’ practices in professional development courses on teaching data analysis: Implications for mentor teachers’ programs. ZDM, 47, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0663-2. Krull, E., Oras, K., & Sisask, S. (2007). Differences in teachers’ comments on classroom events as indicators of their professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1038–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.02.001. Kunselman, J., & Johnson, K. (2004). Using the case method to facilitate learning. College Teaching, 52(3), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.52.3.87-92. Levin, B. (Ed.). (2001). Energizing teacher education and professional development with problem based learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Levin, B. (2002). Dilemma-based cases written by preservice elementary teacher candidates: An analysis of process and content. Teaching Education, 13(2), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1047621022000007585. Merseth, K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 722–744). Simon & Schuster. Mostert, M. P. (2007). Challenges of case-based teaching. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(4), 434– 442. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100632. Norquist, J. (2008). Implementing the case method: An educational analysis required. Karolinska Institutet. O’ Flaherty, J., & McGarr, O. (2014). The use of case-based learning in the development of student teachers’ levels of moral reasoning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.870992. Osmanoglu, A. (2016). Prospective teachers’ teaching experience: Teacher learning through the use of video. Educational Research, 58(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2015.1117321. Pang, J. S. (2011). Case-based pedagogy for prospective teachers to learn how to teach elementary mathematics in Korea. ZDM, 43, 777–789.

16

C. B. Lee et al.

Rasi, O., & Vuojarvi, H. (2018). Toward personal and emotional connectivity in mobile higher education through asynchronous formative audio feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12587. Sato, M., & Rogers, C. (2010). Case methods in teacher education. Elsevier. Shulman, L. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1–29). Teachers College Press. Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice. Jossey-Bass. Shuster, M., Glazewski, K., & Vill, C. (2020). Design, development, and evaluation of a teacher workshop enhanced with DNA institutional cases to impact content knowledge and confidence. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 14(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.14434/ ijpbl.v14i1.28724. Tal, C. (2010). Case studies to deepen understanding and enhance classroom management skills in preschool teacher training. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 143–152. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10643-010-0395-z. Tripp, T., & Rich, P. (2012). Using video to analyze one’s own teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 678–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01234.x. Yoon, S., Pedretti, E., Pedretti, L., Hewitt, J., Perris, K., & Van Oostveen, R. (2006). Exploring the use of cases and case methods in influencing elementary preservice science teachers’ selfefficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10 972-005-9005-0 Zottmann, J. M., Goeze, A., Frank, C., Zentner, U., Fischer, F., & Schrader, J. (2012). Fostering the analytical competency of pre-service teachers in a computer-supported case-based learning environment: A matter of perspective? Interactive Learning Environments, 20(6), 513–532. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2010.539885.

Chapter 2

The Case Method and Technology: Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education in a Business School Course Hong Ming Tan Abstract We discuss the Case Method and how together with technology, embodies the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. The ARCS (“Attention”, “Relevance”, “Confidence”, “Satisfaction”) model of motivation (Keller in Aspects Educ Technol 17:140–145, 1984) is also briefly introduced and though not the main focus, will be touched upon slightly. We do so in the context of a course using Spreadsheets taught to first year undergraduate students at the National University of Singapore Business School. Keywords ARCS model of motivation · Business school · Case method · Hybrid and flipped classroom · Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education · Technology · Undergraduate education · Zoom

Introduction The goal of any business school is to effectively prepare their students for the corporate world. Of the two million bachelor degrees conferred within the United States in 2018–2019, business was the number one field of study, accounting for 19%, or 390,600 degrees (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). Over in Singapore, of the 19,818 degrees conferred in 2020, Business & Administration is the third largest field of study, accounting for 13%, or 2593 degrees (Singapore Department of Statistics, 2022). Hence it is imperative that the undergraduate learning goals are achieved and be relevant. The curriculum in business schools then should be crafted not just to promote student learning but to also meet the needs of businesses by imparting the skills and knowledge required for success in industry (McLelland, 1994; Mohr, 2000; Monks, 1995; Williams, 1992).

H. M. Tan (B) National University of Singapore Business School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_2

17

18

H. M. Tan

Further, it is extremely important that students are able to see value in the content that they are learning, and how they can apply it in the real world. This is “Relevance”, or often when communicated by students, otherwise called “What’s in it for me?” Making the content more relevant leads to an increase in students’ motivation to study (Frymier & Shulman, 1995). On top of that, “Relevance” is one of the four conditions explicated by Keller (1984, 1987) in the ARCS model of motivation that are necessary for motivation. In the context of business undergraduates, one way to build relevance is to develop content that students think can help them in their future careers as managers. Technology plays a key role in this aspect as employees of the twenty-first century are expected to use information technology to solve problems (Galbreath, 1999). Incorporating educational technology tools has also been shown to positively influence students’ overall learning, ability to get a job, and expected job performance (Clarke et al., 2001). Another factor that influences motivation is teacher immediacy. An immediate teacher is one that, for example, constantly goes around the classroom, create eye contact with students, and calls students by their names. Conceptualized by (Mehrabian, 1971) as behavior that communicated approach, teacher immediacy improves students’ motivation since it increases “Attention”, “Confidence”, and “Satisfaction”, all of which are the three remaining conditions needed for motivation listed by (Keller, 1984, 1987) in the ARCS model. These two factors: “Relevance” and “Teacher immediacy” allows the case method to shine. Properly designed cases using technology expose students to real-life business problems and decisions, albeit sometimes stylized or simplified. Cases teach students how to apply theory in practice and how to induce theory from practice. This satisfies the “Relevance” condition. A lesson delivered using the case method allows the teacher to better practice immediacy by offering ample opportunities for the teacher to interact with students, ask questions and move about the classroom (Nohria, 2021). Again, this satisfies the three “Attention”, “Confidence”, and “Satisfaction” conditions in the ARCS model of motivation. These days, students expect a certain amount of technology use in the modules they take. If they perceive that the teacher over or under utilizes technology, student affect for the course and instructor may be negatively affected (Turman & Schrodt, 2005). In this regard, instructors must be careful when bringing technology to their classrooms. Highly immediate teachers might consider incorporating minimal to moderate amounts of technology use into their classroom design, as the appropriate use of technology may enhance student learning (Witt & Schrodt, 2006). Further, college instructors may find that without the skilful and competent use of communication behaviors in the classroom, the use of technology may have very little impact on student outcomes. In this chapter, we discuss how appropriately designed, technology mediated cases enables teachers to conduct lessons teaching technology effectively for undergraduate students at the NUS Business School in Singapore.

2 The Case Method and Technology: Applying the Seven Principles …

19

A Case Study: DAO1704 Decision Analytics Using Spreadsheets DAO1704 Decision Analytics Using Spreadsheets is a core module that all NUS Business School undergraduate students must take regardless of their major. This includes Business and Administration, and Accounting students. Typically taken in their first year, students are taught the theory and skills needed to capture business insights from data for decision making using spreadsheets. The objective of the module is for students to become proficient in the extensive use of Microsoft Excel in the business environment. The course outline is as follows: 1. Understanding Data (six weeks) a. Data management and visualization with Pivot Table* b. Laws of Probability, Bayes’ Theorem, Covariance c. Probability Distributions 2. Managerial Decision Analysis (one week) a. Decision Tree Model and Analysis b. General Method Decision Analysis 3. Simulation Modeling: Concepts and Practice* (one week) a. Random Number Generators b. Using the Sample Data for Analysis c. Computer Software for Simulation Modeling 4. Optimization Models and Their Applications (four weeks) a. Formulating Management Problems i. Linear Optimization Model ii. Nonlinear Optimization Model iii. Discrete Optimization Model b. Computer Software for Optimization Modeling* wherein * indicates that technology (Microsoft Excel) is absolutely required. As can be seen from the course outline, even though the course name hints at a course that is focused on technology (using spreadsheets), much of the content involves no technology at all. In fact, if the “using spreadsheets” part was dropped, the course can still proceed as per normal using majority of the teaching content. Adding to the apparent disconnect, the final examination is a pen and paper examination with no access to Microsoft Excel. Hence as mentioned in the introduction, calibrating the level of technology used and taught in the design of the course content is of utmost importance to ensure that student affect for both course and instructor do not suffer negatively (Turman & Schrodt, 2005).

20

H. M. Tan

The class is taught using the flipped classroom model (Bergmann & Sams, 2012), in which the instructor’s lesson is delivered to the students through videos before and outside the classroom. This is another avenue where technology can be used to deliver lesson. Videos are recorded and published on the online learning management platform for the students to watch. The flipped classroom approach allows for more face-to-face class time to be used for collaborative work, on-site experiential learning, instructor-student interactions for direct clarification and explanations, and skills development. The flipped classroom model is a two-stage process, consisting of an online course in the first stage, and a face-to-face class in the second stage. In the first stage, students watch video lectures prepared for the course topic by the instructor. The theoretical knowledge acquired in the pre-classroom video lectures is aimed to be turned into practice in the face-to-face class time in the second stage, where students use active learning approaches such as cooperative learning activities. In this manner, they can get the information they have acquired in the first stage in more detail in the second stage and have the chance to convert this information into skills (Strayer, 2012). In flipped classrooms, students become more open to collaborative learning and innovative teaching (Bolatli & Korucu, 2020; Herreid & Schiller, 2013; Koh, 2019; Strayer, 2012). This makes the flipped classroom approach a good candidate for teaching using the case method. Finally, due to COVID-19, the face-to-face classroom time was also converted into a hybrid class, where a portion of students attended online while the rest attended physically in class. Both online and offline students connected to Zoom, a popular video conferencing platform, during the face-to-face classroom time. In the second stage of face-to-face class, students go through two to three cases each lesson. Most cases have a premise based on a real-life business problem, with either simplified or stylized fictional scenario based on simple assumptions. For example, one such case provides students with real data of movie budgets and revenues and asks if we should increase the budgets spent on making movies (see Extract 1). Other cases involve showing related videos of real-life business scenarios or newspaper articles to set the premise, followed by a fictional story of the problem (Extract 2). Almost all the cases require the students to work on Microsoft Excel to analyze and justify their decisions for the case. Most cases do not have right or wrong answers but depend greatly on how the students justify their choices (Extract 1 and 3).

Extract 1 Extract from case on movie budgets It seems that producing a movie is becoming more and more expensive. It is no longer uncommon to hear that a movie costs hundreds of millions of dollars to produce. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides holds the record with a budget of $378.5 million. As we know, investors are driven by profit. Why

2 The Case Method and Technology: Applying the Seven Principles …

21

does Hollywood spend more money on making movies? Is it because more expensive movies make more money? The file Movie_Data.xlsx lists financial data on movies released since 1980 with budgets of at least $20 million. Extract 1 shows a case problem used in one lesson of DAO1704 Decision Analytics Using Spreadsheets. Students are also provided a real dataset of financial data on movies and are tasked to analyze that dataset and present their findings with justifications using Microsoft Excel. This case which involves working on data is a common task that students expect to face in their career. This provides “Relevance” for students. As this is the first case in a lesson, instructors may provide some guiding steps to approach the problem.

Extract 2 Extract of story for a case on Human Resource (HR) data December 18, 2017, Denver. It was a chilly winter morning at the headquarters of AJ Technologies & Instruments, one of the largest manufacturers of machine instruments in the world. Andrew Cruise, Chief HR Officer, threw himself into the sofa in his hill-facing office. Staring at the window, his mind was still with the meeting he had with his managers 5 min ago. “Andrew, I think we have done our best. This is a very competitive industry and it is common that people leave for better pays. No way we could stop them. We should focus on recruitment to get the best talents to bring the company forward.” The opinion of David Hills, Senior HR Manager, represented the consensus of all participants. Andrew knew this was not what Mark Strauss, the CEO of AJ, was expecting from him. His first conversation with Mark was still fresh in his mind. “Andrew, we are losing our best and the most experience staff every year. Our revenue has been declining, so has the profit. My staff all blamed the Competitors, who flood the market with their cheap products at all costs. We are losing the market just because we are not good enough, or no longer good enough. Our technology is still the best, but the Competitors are catching up. Our production cost is too high and we need to bring it down. We have to revamp our support service to meet more customized requirements from our clients … I know all these and I know what to do. But, Andrew, I cannot do these without talents. You must help me stop the bleeding.” Getting no clue from his managers, Andrew had to find an alternative solution. After some thoughts, Andrew decided to give his old friend Terry Snow, Founder of Zoro Consultancy, a call.

22

H. M. Tan

Extract 2 shows part of the story provided to students as the backdrop to a HR case. The story sets the context and provides a plausible situation that the students will face in their careers. This provides “Relevance” for students.

Extract 3 Extract from case on HR data Why are our best and most experienced employees leaving prematurely? Have fun with data in “HR_data.xlsx” and use Pivot Table to explore the possible causes of people leaving the company. Fields in the dataset include: . . . . . . . . . .

Employee satisfaction level Last evaluation Number of projects Average monthly hours Time spent at the company Whether they have had a work accident Whether they have had a promotion in the last 5 years Department Salary Whether the employee has left

Extract 3 shows the case that the story in Extract 2 provides the backdrop to. The data is obtained again, from a real source, hence providing “Relevance”. Students work on the problem using Microsoft Excel. There are no correct solutions to this case, and students explore the data and use techniques they have learned before attending the class in the Flipped Classroom model to approach the problem. Even though there are no correct solutions, students often miss the part where the analysis asks them to focus on the “best and most experienced employees”, and makes their recommendations based on analysis of all employees. Each case is conducted first with the instructor giving an introduction about the business problem. The instructor then continues with some leading questions, followed by asking students to put themselves in the shoes of the decision maker and come up with a course of action. The students are then broken into small groups of 4–5 and given time to discuss and work together on the problem. Because the class is hybrid, some students will not be physically present in class. Zoom breakout rooms are used and students both online and physically in class join the breakout rooms for their discussions. During this time, the instructor roams about the classroom to check on individual groups’ progress, and to answer any questions that may have. Finally, the instructor reconvenes the class and asks a few groups to present their solution. On top of providing their own feedback, instructors will also invite classmates to critique each of the work. The process repeats itself until all the cases scheduled for discussion is completed. Because there are multiple cases, the cases are designed in increasing complexity and difficulty. The beginning cases are meant to set the tone of the lesson, and to

2 The Case Method and Technology: Applying the Seven Principles …

23

make sure that all students are familiar with the theory and skills required for later cases. The closing cases are less straightforward. For example, Extract 1 is a much simpler and less open-ended case as compared to Extract 2. Further, when conducting the case in Extract 1, the instructor would provide more guidance as compared to Extract 2. In summary, the technology used here are: 1. Pre-recorded videos hosted online in the learning management system for viewing in flipped classroom approach. 2. Zoom, a video conferencing tool, allowing students who are not physically present in class to attend synchronously and discuss with students in class through breakout rooms and chat functions. 3. Microsoft Excel, which learning to use is one of the main learning outcomes of the module.

The Case Method Harvard Business School pioneered the use of case studies to teach management in 1921 (Nohria, 2021) and commemorated 100 years of case teaching in 2021. Cases provide practical and relevant examples, help ground abstract concepts and theory in easy-to-approach and comparable settings, tell stories that improve attention and retention, stimulate involvement and class participation, and pairs knowledge acquisition with decision making (Barnes et al., 1994; Berger, 1983; Garvin, 2003; Merseth & Lacey, 1993). We will discuss how the case method can be used effectively to deliver a course incorporating different technologies summarized above. We do this by following a framework for improving undergraduate education called the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education and how to implement them using technology (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996; Chickering & Gamson, 1991). We explore how the case method support these Seven principles, and how technology can be used as a lever for these Seven principles in hybrid case teaching. The Seven principles framework have been used by multiple instructors to develop and evaluate courses (Crews et al., 2015; Graham et al., 2001; Henninger & Hurlbert, 2007; Johnson, 2014).

The Case Method, Technology, and the Seven Principles of Good Practice In each of the following subsections, we first briefly describe the individual principle as in (Chickering & Gamson, 1991). We then explain and give examples how technology and the case method can help encapsulate that principle. Technology is used moderately to complement the case discussions and development of the principles

24

H. M. Tan

if possible, and when necessary, such as to achieve the learning outcomes of using Microsoft Excel.

Encourages Contacts Between Students and Faculty Frequent student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most important factor in student motivation and involvement. Faculty concern helps students get through rough times and keep on working. Knowing a few faculty members well enhances students’ intellectual commitment and encourages them to think about their own values and future plans.

The case method is naturally a perfect tool to encourage contact between students and faculty. The most important building blocks for a case discussion are the questions (Guess, 2014). With questions, comes answers and follow-up questions and this back and forth between students and instructor fosters a dialogue between them. The case method involves a high level of interaction and dialogue between faculty and students and is the first way this principle is put in practice. Second, in DAO1704, after the case is introduced, students are given time in their own teams to discuss and work on the problem in excel. The instructor walks around the room visiting the individual teams, further building the contact between the instructor and student, and on a much more personal scale as compared to the entire class. This walking around the room and chatting with students also creates teacher immediacy. Because of the hybrid approach, there will be teams with some members not physically present. Zoom allows the instructor to break the class into virtual breakout rooms where each individual team joins so that all members are present in the virtual room. As instructor goes to each team, technology allows for students not physically present to still have instantaneous communication with the instructor during discussion time through a microphone belonging to a student present physically. In this way, technology facilitates contact between students and faculty. Further, the Zoom chat function also provides shy students who are afraid to speak up in class an alternative way to communicate. Again, this facilitates contact between students and their instructors by allowing them to type their questions and answers instead. An example of when this was extremely useful was a case of a speech impaired student who could then use the chat function to communicate effectively with the instructor and class. Finally, since the cases are done on a computer, students can share their screen and present their work easily to the rest of the class by using the share screen function on Zoom. The instructor can also request for remote control of the student’s computer to correct any mistakes. This technology provides for joint problem solving that can usefully augment the learning, furthering the contact between students and faculty.

2 The Case Method and Technology: Applying the Seven Principles …

25

Develops Reciprocity and Cooperation Among Students Learning is enhanced when it is more like a team effort than a solo race. Good learning, like good work, is collaborative and social, not competitive and isolated. Working with others often increases involvement in learning. Sharing one’s own ideas and responding to others’ reactions sharpens thinking and deepens understanding.

The case method again is a good practice that develops reciprocity and cooperation among students. Students are broken into groups and given time to discuss how to approach the case. This provides opportunities for interaction among students in individual groups, allowing for the exchange of ideas that encourages reciprocity and cooperation between them. In the case method, discussion happens also outside of the small groups and together as a class, both before and after the small group discussions. Further, business cases do not necessarily have a correct solution and discussion of the reasons one outcome is preferred to another also provides avenues for cooperation and reciprocity. Instead of a quiet classroom where students sit in their seats and listens to the instructor a majority of the time, in the case method the majority of the time is spent on student discussion time within their groups. In their Zoom breakout rooms, the technology allows students who are online and physically present to have their discussions together in the same “place” at the same time, which facilitates their interaction. Zoom allows for students to have spontaneous student collaboration, without having to even meet face-to-face. There are multiple ways the same outcome can be achieved in Microsoft Excel. The way the Excel sheet is formatted and set up can be different between students as well. This lack of a fixed template fosters further discussion between students and deciding what is the best practice for their team helps develop reciprocity and cooperation.

Uses Active Learning Techniques Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just by sitting in classes listening to teachers, memorizing pre-packaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, apply it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves.

Business case discussions are on a real-life application of the concepts that were learnt. This allows students to think and see how the abstract mathematical concepts that they have learnt appears in everyday business dealings and decision making. During case discussions, they must be able to use the concepts that they have learnt and apply it to the current case. All these results in high levels of active learning by the students. As can been seen in Extract 1 and Extract 3, the cases are framed as real problems, and students figure out how to apply the mathematical concepts and excel skills that they have learnt to the problem. Because of the Flipped classroom approach, students first study and review the content outside and before the class starts. This maximizes the active learning time

26

H. M. Tan

that occurs in the second stage during class when the cases are being discussed. In this manner, they can get the information they have acquired in the first stage in more detail in the second stage and have the chance to convert this information into skills (Strayer, 2012), providing many opportunities for active learning. For example, students learn how to use excel to perform simple data analysis using skills like pivot table, functions, etc. In class, they are presented cases as seen in Extract 1 and Extract 3, which allows them to apply the skills that they have learnt pre-class on new and more complex data that are “relevant” to them. In the case discussions, students are given a chance to apply what they have learned using Microsoft Excel. This forces them to take the abstract mathematical concepts learned and translate them into concrete applications. The focus here is on learning by doing, and apprentice-like learning. Technologies allow us to enrich and expand these opportunities. For example, instead of referring to statistical tables, students are now able to use technology and Excel functions to get the relevant statistics. All of the above aims to reflects what happens in practice, and further reinforces the “Relevancy” of the content.

Gives Prompt Feedback Knowing what you know and don’t know focuses learning. Students need appropriate feedback on performance to benefit from courses. When getting started, students need help in assessing existing knowledge and competence. In classes, students need frequent opportunities to perform and receive suggestions for improvement. At various points during college, and at the end, students need chances to reflect on what they have learned, what they still need to know, and how to assess themselves.

The case method gives prompt feedback from both the instructor and fellow students. When discussing the solutions as a class, the instructor provides immediate feedback to the class on what was done well and what was not, and how it can be improved. Classmates are also invited to give comments, and each time students participate in the discussion, they get immediate feedback on their inputs from the next person’s comments. Feedback is also provided to students during the small group discussions as the instructor walks around the class from group to group, and within each group from group members. For example, in Extract 3, students often miss the part where the analysis asks them to focus on the “best and most experienced employees”, and makes their recommendations based on analysis of all employees. The instructor gives them immediate feedback on the shortcomings of the analysis, and how they can improve. There are many opportunities to give prompt feedback such as this in case method teaching. Finally, since the cases are done on a computer, students can share their screen and share their work easily with the rest of the class by using the share screen function on zoom. The instructor can also request for remote control of the student’s computer to correct any mistakes. The instructor’s changes are captured and stored in real-time on the student’s computer. The class can see how the instructor takes steps to fix

2 The Case Method and Technology: Applying the Seven Principles …

27

the mistake. This technology provides for joint problem solving that can usefully augment the learning in the form of immediate feedback.

Emphasizes Time on Task Time plus energy equals learning. There is no substitute for time on task. Learning to use one’s time well is critical for students and professionals alike. Students need help in learning effective time management. Allocating realistic amounts of time means effective learning for students and effective teaching for faculty. How an institution defines time expectations for students, faculty, administrators, and other professional staff can establish the basis for high performance for all.

In case discussions, students have a chance to be cold called. She must be ready to respond and demonstrate understanding of the material. This gives students incentives to prepare and look through the material before attending the lesson. During the small group discussion, students again get to practice the concepts when figuring out how to approach the case. Zoom allows the students to share their screens easily with the rest of the class. This again incentivizes students to put in the time during the small group discussions to prepare a solution. The Flipped classroom approach allows students to have access to the content any time as long as they have an internet connection. This allows students to have efficient use of their time both at home learning, and in class. Time can be spent on clarifying concepts rather than transferring knowledge. Long cases are also prereleased online so that students can read them first before attending the class. This allows the instructor to set up the premise quicker rather than having to wait for everyone to first read a case. Students must also spend time to learn how to use Microsoft Excel as the in-class case solutions require them to use Excel as a tool to help in their decision making. This again emphasizes that students spend more time before coming to class to at least know the basics of operating Excel for that topic. Technology can also increase time on task by making studying more efficient. As they increase their proficiency in using Microsoft Excel, students spend less time calculating and looking up tables, and more time modeling and think deeply about the problem. Zoom allows recording of the class as well. Any discussion is captured and students can review them after the class. Instructors can also direct students to the recordings of class to review concepts that were already explained, allowing for more efficient use of class time. If students watch the recordings and understand, instructor’s out of class consultation time can also be more efficiently used for other students’ queries not asked in class. These allow students to make more efficient use of their time on task.

28

H. M. Tan

Communicates High Expectations Expect more and you will get more. High expectations are important for everyone – for the poorly prepared, for those unwilling to exert themselves, and for the bright and wellmotivated. Expecting students to perform well becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when teachers and institutions hold high expectations of themselves and make extra efforts.

The case method communicates high expectations because the students are expected to answer like a professional. Students are forced to think like managers, using a high level of critical thinking and comparative skills (Barnes et al., 1994). They are put in the position of a manager and must justify any decision that they make with sound, logical reasonings, backed up by data that they just analyzed. The case method impresses upon students that they must think deeply about the problem and apply themselves; they must be ready to be challenged about their decisionmaking process and defend their position with analysis. For example, in Extract 3, students are expected not to just analyze all employees, but only the best and most experienced employees. This is communicated to the student if they did not realize this. Groups that do manage to focus on the best and most experience employees are commended, which signals to other groups high expectations. The case method teaches students that they need to think carefully about what the question is asking for, and as an extension, what their future bosses are asking for. As students work must be useful since they will be very likely using these skills in the careers. Microsoft Excel can be messy and disorganized if students do not design it well. Spreadsheets can be hard to understand if not properly commented throughout. Students need to create useful spreadsheets that people can understand. This reinforces the need for excellence and high expectations in the work that they produce.

Respects Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning There are many roads to learning. People bring different talents and styles of learning to college. Brilliant students in the seminar room may be all thumbs in the lab or art studio. Students rich in hands-on experience may not do so well with theory. Students need the opportunity to show their talents and learn in ways that work for them. Then they can be pushed to learning in new ways that do not come so easily.

Students are broken into groups of 4–5 for discussion. These small group discussions allow the instructor to move around to identify weaker students and spend more time explaining and guiding these students in a more personalized manner. This in turn also improves the teacher immediacy factor and promotes motivation in students’ learning. In these discussions, some students would have strengths in Microsoft Excel, while some students are better at the mathematical thinking and formulation. This small group discussions allow students to the opportunity to show what they are good at and teach their peers. This peer teaching is another way of learning that students will be exposed to.

2 The Case Method and Technology: Applying the Seven Principles …

29

The flipped classroom approach still allows students who prefer a lecture style experience to have that. The pre-recorded videos perform this function. However, the flipped classroom approach provides more avenues of learning in class through the case method. Thus, students are exposed to another way of learning which they may find beneficial. The Zoom chat box allows for students an alternative way of communication, especially those who are shy or introverted. These students may find it difficult and stressful to participate in a face-to-face case discussion. They could type a response for everyone to see, or even just in private directly to the instructor. They could even message their teams in private, allowing discussion among themselves. Technology enables different communication methods for students, allowing them to select one that is more suitable for their personal learning style (Graham et al., 2000).

Conclusion We have seen how using technology-supported case-based teaching helps with factors like “Relevance” and “Teacher Immediacy”. On top of that, we also discussed the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education and how the case method embodies the principles. We see how technology-supported cases can be used to facilitate student learning in groups and individuals. Case discussions bring about multiple perspectives and co-construction of ideas, and provides authentic learning. Finally, cases help capture and incorporate the Seven principles in the instruction of business undergraduate students, particularly in the flipped classroom approach and hybrid teaching. Classroom management tools are definitely here to stay. The current practice of using Zoom with physical lessons offers many advantages, such as ease of sharing of content with instructor and classmates which emphasizes time on task and contact with faculty, and allowing prompt feedback. While Zoom was not created for this purpose, we can expect that using a tool specifically tailored for classroom management would further enhance the benefits that it can bring for undergraduate education. In terms of the case method, one future pedagogical approach to case-based learning would be to combine it with peer teaching (Goldschmid & Goldschmid, 1976; Ramaswamy et al., 2001; Stigmar, 2016; Whitman & Fife, 1988). Business school students go on multiple internships, and they can generate authentic cases from their experiences. Not only that, after creating the case, students can conduct and facilitate the class themselves, teaching their peers. Peer teaching can improve performance of students in class (Abdelkarim & Abuiyada, 2016) while not having significant different outcomes from being taught by faculty (Rees et al., 2016). It would be interesting to see how combining it with the case method would enhance students’ learning.

30

H. M. Tan

References Abdelkarim, R., & Abuiyada, R. (2016). The effect of peer teaching on mathematics academic achievement of the undergraduate students in Oman. International Education Studies, 9(5), 124– 132. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n5p124. Barnes, L. B., Christensen, C. R., Hansen, A. J., & Hansen, T. L. (1994). Teaching and the case method: Text, cases, and readings. Harvard Business Press. Berger, M. A. (1983). In defense of the case method: A reply to Argyris. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 329–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/257761. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education. Bolatli, Z., & Korucu, A. T. (2020). Determining the academic achievement of students who use flipped classroom method supported by a mobile application and their views on collaborative learning. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 9(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10. 14686/buefad.631835. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49, 3–6. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Appendix A: Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 63–69. https://doi.org/10. 1002/tl.37219914708. Clarke, I., III., Flaherty, T. B., & Mottner, S. (2001). Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 169–177. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027347530 1233002. Crews, T. B., Wilkinson, K., & Neill, J. K. (2015). Principles for good practice in undergraduate education: Effective online course design to assist students’ success. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 87–103. Frymier, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1995). “What’s in it for me?” Increasing content relevance to enhance students motivation. Communication Education, 44(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03634529509378996. Galbreath, J. (1999). Preparing the 21st centrury worker: The link between computer-based technology and future skill sets. Educational Technology, 39(6), 14–22. Garvin, D. A. (2003). Making the case: Professional education for the world of practice. Harvard Magazine, 106(1), 56–65. Goldschmid, B., & Goldschmid, M. L. (1976). Peer teaching in higher education: A review. Higher Education, 5(1), 9–33. Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Craner, J., Lim, B.-R., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). Teaching in a web based distance learning environment. Center for Research on Learning and Technology Technical Report, 13-00. Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B.-R., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source, 30(5), 50. Guess, A. K. (2014). A methodology for case teaching: Becoming a guide on the side. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 14(6), 113. Henninger, E. A., & Hurlbert, J. M. (2007). Using the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education: A framework for teaching cultural diversity in a management course. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 12(2), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1300/J109v12n02_02. Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66. Johnson, S. (2014). Applying the seven principles of good practice: Technology as a lever—In an online research course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(2), 41–50. Keller, J. M. (1984). The use of the ARCS model of motivation in teacher training. Aspects of Educational Technology, 17, 140–145. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and Use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905780.

2 The Case Method and Technology: Applying the Seven Principles …

31

Koh, J. H. (2019). Four pedagogical dimensions for understanding flipped classroom practices in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 19(4), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2019.4.002. McLelland, D. (1994). Transferring information-seeking skills from education to employment. Education & Training, 36(6), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400919410066000. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Wadsworth. Merseth, K. K., & Lacey, C. A. (1993). Weaving stronger fabric: The pedagogical promise of hypermedia and case methods in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(3), 283– 299. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(93)90044-H. Mohr, J. (2000). The marketing of high-technology products and services: Implications for curriculum content and design. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(3), 246–259. https://doi. org/10.1177/0273475300223008. Monks, K. (1995). Combining academic rigour and transferable skills: A business degree for the 1990s. Education & Training, 37(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400919510079564. National Center for Education Statistics. (2021, January 21). Fast facts. Retrieved from https://nces. ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37. Nohria, N. (2021, December 21). What the case study method really teaches. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2021/12/what-the-case-study-method-really-teaches. Ramaswamy, S., Harris, I., & Tschirner, U. (2001). Student peer teaching: An innovative approach to instruction in science and engineering education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009421231056. Rees, E. L., Quinn, P. J., Davies, B., & Fotheringham, V. (2016). How does peer teaching compare to faculty teaching? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Teacher, 38(8), 829–837. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1112888. Singapore Department of Statistics. (2022, February 25). SingStat table builder. Retrieved from https://tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/table/TS/M850511. Stigmar, M. (2016). Peer-to-peer teaching in higher education: A critical literature review. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(2), 124–136. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136 11267.2016.1178963. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984012-9108-4. Turman, P. D., & Schrodt, P. (2005). The influence of instructional technology use on students’ affect: Do course designs and biological sex make a difference? Communication Studies, 56(2), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00089570500078726. Whitman, N. A., & Fife, J. D. (1988). Peer teaching: To teach is to learn twice (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1988). ERIC. Williams, T. (1992). Validating a degree: Subject relevance and assessment issues in the development of a new degree. Education & Training, 34(3), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/004009192100 13767. Witt, P. L., & Schrodt, P. (2006). The influence of instructional technology use and teacher immediacy on student affect for teacher and course. Communication Reports, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1080/08934210500309843

Chapter 3

Linking Theory to Practice: Case-Based Learning in Health Professions Education Binbin Zheng and Brian Mavis

Abstract Case-based learning (CBL) is a long-established pedagogical method in higher education and has also emerged as a key teaching strategy in health professions education. With a heavy emphasis on bridging theory to practice, CBL has been proven effective as a means of transferring declarative and procedural knowledge, fostering critical thinking and clinical reasoning, improving collaborative learning and life-long learning skills, and engaging students in real-world scenarios in health professions education. This chapter first introduces the definitions and features of CBL as a pedagogical approach in the context of health professions education, as well as its comparison with problem-based learning (PBL). The second part of this chapter reviews current literature examining the effectiveness of CBL in health professions education, such as how CBL influences student knowledge and skills development, the effectiveness of CBL as compared to other pedagogical approaches, and how technologies can support CBL in multiple learning contexts including basic science classrooms, simulation, and clinical settings. This chapter concludes with some implications for how to design CBL activities in both face-to-face and online environments in health professions education. Keywords Case-based learning · Clinical reasoning · Critical thinking · Health professions education

B. Zheng (B) Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Bau Institute of Medical and Health Sciences Education, University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] B. Mavis Office of Medical Education Research and Development of the College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_3

33

34

B. Zheng and B. Mavis

Introduction Case-based learning (CBL) is a long-established pedagogical approach adopted in higher education to help learners see the relevance of theoretical knowledge to practice and apply theories and knowledge to real-life scenarios (Ching, 2014; Shulman, 1992). In health professions education (HPE), educators have realized the importance of integrating clinical cases early in students’ learning; CBL has been increasingly adopted to prepare students for clinical practice (McLean, 2016). CBL can be defined as a pedagogical approach that utilizes clinical cases to help students link theory to practice, engage students in the discussion of specific situations, and encourage inquiry-based learning (Thistlethwaite et al., 2012). CBL is situated in adult learning theory that promotes the development of lifelong learning skills such as independent and collaborative learning, and self-directed learning skills (˙Ilgüy et al., 2014; Nadershahi et al., 2013; Nicklen et al., 2016).

Characteristics of CBL There are a few key features of CBL in HPE. First, CBL is structured around clinical cases, whether real, simulated, virtual, or text-based (Thistlethwaite et al., 2012). Second, CBL emphasizes the integration of basic, clinical, and social sciences (Chan et al., 2008). These sciences are always studied in the context of the clinical case thus instead of viewing disciplines or organ-systems separately, CBL provides students with an integrated and more clinically authentic picture of the patient being discussed. Third, CBL usually involves some level of small group discussions (Brown et al., 2012; Dupuis & Persky, 2008). By discussing a clinical case in the context of the curriculum, students work together to examine the case, formulate diagnoses and develop management plans, making explicit the connection between underlying mechanisms with the identification and treatment of disease (Ferguson, 2006). Fourth, CBL is student-centered, with the teacher in the role of a facilitator. In CBL, the teacher guides the discussion to ensure the learning objectives are met (Li et al., 2014). An experienced facilitator encourages students to engage in critical thinking, problem solving, and decision-making that mirrors authentic cases in the workplace (Brown et al., 2012; Stewart & Gonzalez, 2006).

Development and Implementation of CBL The process of developing CBL starts with a thorough review of the course curriculum by a group of clinical, basic, and social science faculty. For example, Chan et al. (2008) described the process of developing a pilot case-based integrated teaching project in a medical school in Taiwan. To prepare for CBL, a group of teachers

3 Linking Theory to Practice: Case-Based Learning in Health …

35

from various related disciplines met regularly to create a list of major diseases for developing cases. A group leader, often a physician specializing in the disease, then developed a summary of the patient profile and clinical scenario. After that, the entire group would review and revise the patient profile. Teaching materials developed from patient cases were provided to students throughout their five years of learning, with first two years focusing on the social aspects of disease (e.g., historical background, social impact, and humanistic aspects of the disease), third and fourth year focusing on the basic science of the disease (e.g., relevant physiology, biochemistry, pathology, pharmacology and diagnostic approaches), and fifth year focusing on the clinical features of the disease, such as therapeutic interventions, response to treatment and patient outcomes (Chan et al., 2008, p. 953). Similarly, Brown et al. (2012) described the process of developing a CBL pilot project in Canada. The planning stage involved facilitators determining concepts that would be conducive to CBL, and conducted research around the pertinent pathophysiological, clinical, and psychosocial aspects of the patient case. Then, cases were developed including an overview of the case presentation, detailed patient history, test result interpretation, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis (p. 50). A tutor guide also was prepared for facilitators to ensure the quality and standardization of content delivery. In terms of the implementation, students were asked to review the basic physiology and pathophysiology knowledge related to the case before participating in the CBL session. During the session, students reviewed the case and facilitators guided the discussion by probing thought-provoking questions, facilitating students to think about differential diagnoses, and supporting students to interpret test results. In the United States, The University of California, Davis School of Medicine and the University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine both implemented a CBL curriculum (Srinivasan et al., 2007). For both schools, the CBL starts with assigning students with less-than-one-hour of reading materials before class, with a few students receiving specialized articles to present in class to the group. For the three-hour small group CBL session, a patient case is first presented to students through notes. One or two students then interview the standardized patient portraying the case. Faculty and students interviewing the patient could pause to discuss any issues or problems that occurred, while other students provide feedback about the presenting students’ data gathering skills. While the cases usually focus on clinical and basic science knowledge, social sciences such as ethical and culture themes also would be integrated into the discussion. Faculty training for CBL included a facilitator guide one week before the session to familiarize them with learning objectives, guiding questions, answers to those questions, and timemanagement guidance. Each small group consists of two faculty with complementary expertise (e.g., one clinical faculty and one social science faculty) and 7–9 students. In 2016, the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine implemented a new integrated curriculum structured around 93 chief complaints and concerns (C3 topics). Each week the curriculum focuses on a different C3 topic such as chest pain, fever, bleeding or immunizations; all the learning experiences during the week are related to that C3 topic. Cases for each C3 topic were designed by interdisciplinary faculty teams to represent patient concerns either common or important

36

B. Zheng and B. Mavis

in clinical practice. The learning objectives and suggested resources for each C3 topic are provided to the students and faculty in advance through the curriculum management system (https://www.justintimemedicine.com/). A flipped-classroom case-based approach is used to teach basic, clinical and social sciences. The cases discussed in small groups highlight important clinical scenarios and pertinent necessary sciences underlying the pathologic process of the chief complaint. Important to this approach is that it (a) can be led by clinicians and basic science faculty without specific content expertise, (b) adequately and efficiently prepares students for each small group by identifying learning objectives and providing preparatory assignments, and (c) delivers necessary basic, clinical and social sciences in a meaningful and integrated way. Teaching points, discussion questions and strategies to encourage group participation are embedded in the faculty notes for each slide of the case presentation. Faculty also receive a link to video “briefing” that reviews key learning goals and challenging concepts for each session. While most CBL curricula were designed in classroom settings for learning basic science or clinical knowledge, comparatively fewer studies discussed CBL in clinical settings (e.g., Aluko et al., 2018; Stjernquist & Crang-Svalenius, 2007). Considering the uniqueness of interactions between trainee and preceptor in clinical settings—duration is usually shorter with a quick discussion of diagnosis, treatment, and management. Aluko et al. (2018) provided three teaching frameworks for faculty to consider in ambulatory dermatological CBL settings: one-minute preceptor, SNAPPS, and the Aunt Minnie method. One-minute preceptor, which is suggested as more appropriate for novice to intermediate trainees, adopts five “microskills” to guide CBL in clinical settings: elicit trainees’ ideas; probe for supporting evidence; teach general rules; reinforce what was done right; correct mistakes. In addition, SNAPPS is a framework that could be used for more advanced trainees as it is more of a learner-driven approach. This framework includes six steps: (1) Summarize—trainees present a summary about the key elements of the case; (2) Narrow—trainee narrow the differential diagnosis to a few possibilities; (3) Analyze—trainees analyze the differential diagnosis by comparing the possibilities; (4) Probe—trainees probe the preceptor by asking questions about uncertainties or alternative approaches; (5) Plan management—trainees initiate a discussion with the preceptor about action plan; and (6) Select–select a case-related focus question for self-directed learning after clinic. Finally, in the “Aunt Minnie” method, trainee would need to present the patient’s chief concerns and come up with a single diagnosis, followed by preceptor examining the patient and providing trainee feedback with whether agreeing or disagreeing with the trainee’s diagnosis. “Aunt Minnie” method is based on pattern recognition with the purpose of helping trainees generate a mental database to deal with common clinical problems, and this method could be particularly helpful for identifying dermatologic problems (Aluko et al., 2018, pp. 859–860).

3 Linking Theory to Practice: Case-Based Learning in Health …

37

CBL and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Both PBL and CBL are based on a case (or situation), centered around identifying the problem, and seeking knowledge and information to solve the problem (CrangSvalenius & Stjernquist, 2005; Stjernquist & Crang-Svalenius, 2007). These two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, in the way that PBL usually uses cases as the discussion topics and CBL aims at solving problems and coming up with solutions. Despite their similarities, the literature suggests that PBL is more open and unstructured than CBL. PBL focuses on exploration by learners through problem solving as well as independent and collaborative work with peers (Srinivasan et al., 2007). Facilitators provide minimal support and usually do not guide the discussion. Students usually do not prepare in advance; learning happens as the problem unfolds in class (McLean, 2016). When presented with a problem, learners spend time doing research: defining, exploring, and struggling with the problem and related issues, to identify learning issues and ultimately resolve them. In contrast, CBL uses a guided inquiry approach that is more structured. First, students prepare in advance to familiarize themselves with related basic science knowledge, while in PBL students may not know the topic in advance and have little preparation beforehand. Second, compared to PBL, CBL encourages a more structured approach to clinical problem-solving, with facilitators having more direction over the discussion to facilitate student learning. Third, CBL is more goal-oriented with students and facilitators sharing responsibility to achieve learning goals, while PBL is more open-ended and allows erroneous conclusions achieved at the end of learning (Slavin et al., 1995; Srinivasan et al., 2007). Fourth, CBL usually doesn’t involve using additional resources, while in PBL students are given time to look up additional resources to generate questions based on the group discussion. In one overview article comparing PBL and CBL for dental education (Nadershahi et al., 2013), the authors explained that while PBL is mainly focused on the case itself, CBL is more flexible in its use of clinical materials. In terms of the role of teacher and learner, the authors described PBL as more student-driven, while CBL is more of a collaborative process where the teacher and students share the responsibility of teaching and learning (Williams, 2005), and the case conversation between the teacher and the students becomes important in allowing for feedback and feed-forward during learning.

Effectiveness of CBL in Health Professions Education Studies examining the effectiveness of CBL in HPE have looked from different perspectives. In this section, we discuss the findings from current literature in three areas: Learning outcomes, teacher and student perceptions, and learning skills development.

38

B. Zheng and B. Mavis

Learning Outcomes Many studies reported positive findings of CBL compared to other teaching modes, such as traditional lecture-based teaching or independent study (e.g., Damjanov et al., 2005; Jamkar et al., 2006). For example, when comparing CBL with traditional learning in a final-year surgery rotation, Jamkar et al. (2006) found that students scored higher on short-answer questions and extended matching questions, as well as on concept maps. Rybarczyk et al. (2007) examined students’ learning about physiology (i.e., cellular respiration concepts) and found students who were randomly assigned to the CBL group did better than the comparison group (i.e., traditional lecture) in the final assessment, including multiple choice, short answer, true/false, and open-ended questions. In terms of the retention of knowledge, one study (Kulak et al., 2017) found that students in the CBL group outperformed their counterparts on a retention test conducted nine months after learning in an undergraduate biochemistry course. In addition, the higher retention scores were positively correlated with deep learning approaches. However, there were also studies reporting the effect of CBL did not last long. For example, in Grauer et al.’s (2008) randomized study comparing CBL and lecturebased learning in undergraduate veterinary medical school, students in the CBL group scored higher on questions that had higher levels of difficulty, but not on questions with lower- and medium-levels of difficulty during a test one week after learning. This difference disappeared during the second test four months after learning: there was no difference in the CBL students compared to students who attended lectures. However, it is possibly due to the fact the two groups were not fully exclusive from each other: one group also was exposed to the other type of teaching mode occasionally.

Teacher and Student Perceptions of CBL Most literature suggested that CBL is highly valued by health professions students (Thistlethwaite et al., 2012). For example, in Struck and Teasdale’s study (2008) examining CBL in a geriatric medicine rotation, students were very satisfied with CBL mostly due to the interactive and longitudinal nature of CBL. In Chan et al.’s study (2008), more than 80% of the participating teachers agreed that CBL could be used to improve curriculum integration, decrease teaching material duplication, and enhance communication among interdisciplinary experts. A majority of the students were in agreement, while also mentioning that CBL helped them learn better by improving their active and self-directed learning. One study conducted on teachers showed that besides the positive attitudes towards CBL, CBL could also help teachers strengthen their teaching skills and professional growth as medical educators (Suhasini et al., 2017).

3 Linking Theory to Practice: Case-Based Learning in Health …

39

When comparing CBL with traditional lectures, students perceived CBL to be favorable for improving clinical reasoning skills, improving their competence and learning motivation, and beneficial for helping them develop self-learning skills (Jamkar et al., 2006). This is corroborated by other studies (Hashim et al., 2015; Suhasini et al., 2017) that CBL is perceived to be able to promote self-directed learning while also enhancing the development of students’ analytical thinking, clinical reasoning, and decision-making skills. Besides the comparison between CBL and traditional teaching, Srinivasan et al. (2007) also compared the CBL approach with PBL approach at two University of California universities. The majority of students in both institutions preferred CBL as they felt it made better use of the class time with fewer unfocused tangents. The study further suggested that guided inquiry as supported by CBL, rather than open inquiry as supported by PBL, is more favorable for early medical learners and experienced medical teachers. Faculty in this study also preferred the CBL format as they believed that it allowed them to guide students while still having students dominate the discussion, and that the guidance could be especially beneficial for inexperienced students. In another study (Stjernquist & Crang-Svalenius, 2007) comparing CBL and PBL among different years of a Swedish medical school, the authors found that while students had high satisfaction with both methods in earlier years of training, CBL was more highly rated during the clerkship years, as students perceived CBL helpful for clinical problem solving. This was corroborated by another study (Hudson & Buckley, 2004) that found CBL was highly valued when students were first introduced to clinical skills, and it could help build up students’ confidence when facing real-life patients. However, a few studies also mentioned that one complaint from teachers about CBL is the amount of time they need to prepare for the case design and development (e.g., Jamkar et al., 2006; Struck & Teasdale, 2008). Thus, protected time and incentives such as awards or funding need to be provided for faculty to motivate them to design, implement, and facilitate CBL (Struck & Teasdale, 2008).

Learning Skills Development Besides learning achievement and perceptions, a few studies also investigated the use of CBL on students’ learning skills development, such as critical thinking skills (Hoag et al., 2005), higher-order thinking skills (Rybarczyk et al., 2007), problemsolving skills (Baumberger-Henry, 2005), and clinical decision making skills (˙Ilgüy et al., 2014). Hoag et al. (2005) found that although CBL did not have a significant effect on critical thinking skills, students’ attendance for CBL was significantly higher than students in the lecture group. In Rybarczyk et al.’s (2007) study, students in the CBL group showed better higher-order thinking skills compared to students who received traditional lectures, using one content-related question as the measurement. This also was supported by a survey in which a greater percentage of CBL students

40

B. Zheng and B. Mavis

perceived the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills, as well as the ability to apply knowledge from class. Using the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy as the measurement, ˙Ilgüy et al. (2014) compared CBL with lecture-based learning on fourth-year dental students’ clinical decision making. CBL in this study was conducted in small group settings with real patients in the dental clinic. They found that CBL students scored significantly higher than traditional students on two levels of the SOLO taxonomy: relational and extended abstract categories. Other than the effectiveness of CBL on student learning processes and outcomes, studies have also looked into the effect of different structures in the implementation of CBL. For example, Sutyak et al. (1996) examined the role of case structure in a casebased surgical clerkship, by comparing structured cases where all pertinent data and summaries were included in the written scenario and only one diagnosis was plausible, versus unstructured cases where a greater degree of ambiguity was included, students need to obtain pertinent history and exam findings through questions posted by faculty, and multiple diagnoses were encouraged for consideration. The results of this study indicated that in late rotations, the unstructured case group scored higher on multiple choice and differential diagnosis activities; while in early rotations, the opposite results were found. This study further suggested that for students with less experience, greater case structure and clearer emphasis on problem solution might be more beneficial; when students gained more experience, the scaffolding could be taken off gradually and cases could be designed in a more unstructured way to promote clinical reasoning skills.

Online CBL in HPE The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the transition from in-person to online teaching and learning, reshaping the educational landscape. Online CBL has been widely adopted to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and to ensure educational quality (e.g., Thibaut & Schroeder, 2020; Véliz & Cantarutti, 2020). With the facilitation of web-conferencing tools such as Zoom, teachers can assign students to small groups, where they can discuss cases using voice chat as well as written texts, all the while the teacher being able to monitor student work. A variety of collaborative tools such as Google Docs and Padlet can facilitate teamwork. It has been suggested that to ensure online CBL works effectively, it is important to have clear learning objectives, keep cases concise, and encourage student collaboration (Thibaut & Schroeder, 2020). Ease of use and technical stability also are key to successful implementation of CBL in online environments and important to ensure student satisfaction (Hakkarainen et al., 2007). For example, a study by Nicklen et al. (2016) is one of the few that compared face-to-face CBL and a remote-online CBL using WebEx as the webconferencing tool. The results of this study showed no difference on multiple-choice test results between these two groups. While over half of the students also expressed that they did not enjoy the online CBL, the authors pointed out that this is probably

3 Linking Theory to Practice: Case-Based Learning in Health …

41

due to technical issues when a major service interruption occurred during one session of the online CBL and the uneven flow of discussion because of technical lags and turn-taking issues. Besides simply moving CBL from face-to-face to online mode, with the advancement of technological innovations various web-based learning systems have been developed to support online CBL. For example, Ali et al. (2018) described an interactive case-based learning system (iCBLS) that was designed for medical students to support collaborative clinical reasoning skills development. This system provides a platform for clinical faculty to create real-life clinical cases that include patient history information, vital signs information and visualization of vital signs; students can interact with faculty in the Case Formulation module (see Fig. 1 in Ali et al., 2018) to formulate summaries of CBL cases and receive feedback from faculty about their summaries. One benefit of this platform is that students can access the system 24/7 without any geographic limitation. In addition, as medical knowledge and data are stored in a continuous manner in the online system, it helps students develop clinical knowledge and competence, as well as strengthen the longitudinal transfer of knowledge and skills between medical experts and students (Ali et al., 2018). The importance of feedback also was emphasized by other literature researching online CBL. For example, two studies (Kopp et al., 2008; Stark et al., 2011) examined two measures that might impact the effectiveness of learning in a web-based CBL learning environment in undergraduate medical education: example format (erroneous examples vs. correct examples) and feedback format (elaborated feedback vs. knowledge of results feedback). In their studies, knowledge of results feedback refers to the confirmation of the correctness or incorrectness of the given answer, while elaborated feedback refers to feedback that provides additional explanations focusing on conceptual, strategic, and conditional knowledge. Their research found that providing erroneous examples combined with elaborated feedback was most effective for students’ acquisition of diagnostic knowledge (Kopp et al., 2008). In addition, when increasing the complexity of learning material, their second study (Stark et al., 2011) suggested that elaborated feedback became even more important for supporting students’ diagnostic competence, no matter what example format was provided. While implementing online CBL, there also are studies investigating different integration strategies of how cases are presented. For example, Hege et al. (2007) compared five different ways of presenting cases in a web-based CBL system: voluntary cases not related to subsequent exams, voluntary cases related to subsequent exams, mandatory cases that have to be completed to succeed in the course, learning by teaching (i.e., learners create cases for peers), and a combination of two types of voluntary cases. Students showed a highly positive attitude and motivation towards the learning by teaching strategy. However, the authors also noted that this strategy required tremendous time and effort from the tutors to support students’ creation of cases (approximately 15 h/student). This study further suggested that involving students in the case development process could motivate student learning, while having external motivations such as embedding learning objectives in cases is also important for successful online CBL. This is also supported by other studies where

42

B. Zheng and B. Mavis

having students create cases can actively engage students in collaborative learning (e.g., Hakkarainen et al., 2007). In Hakkarainen et al.’s study, students created their own video cases in the online platform; the study found that creating and learning from cases contributed to students’ positive emotional involvement in the learning process.

Discussion and Summary To address the challenges of the gap between classroom knowledge and clinical practice in HPE, CBL has been increasingly used as a pedagogical approach to link theory to practice, engage students in authentic clinical cases that simulate a reallife context, and integrate different disciplines including basic, clinical and social sciences (Chan et al., 2008; Greenberg-Worisek et al., 2019; Thistlethwaite et al., 2012). As a student-centered approach, CBL has been advocated for fostering critical thinking, clinical reasoning and decision making, as well as life-long learning skills such as collaborative learning and self-directed learning (Brown et al., 2012; ˙Ilgüy et al., 2014). While there are many ways to define “case” in educational settings, health professions educators need to keep in mind that a good CBL case should be relevant, realistic, challenging, engaging, and instructional (Kim et al., 2006, pp. 869–873). 1. Relevant: targeting appropriate level of learners, matching the instructional goals and objectives, and making explicit the setting of the narrative; 2. Realistic: providing authentic materials, simulating real-life scenarios by including distractors or non-pertinent features, and disclosing content gradually; 3. Challenging: increasing difficulty of cases gradually, including atypical cases, organizing case information in a non-chronological order occasionally, and presenting multiple cases in a sequence; 4. Engaging: providing sufficient information and complexity to allow different levels of analysis, including voices and perspectives from various stakeholders, and creating multiple decision-making opportunities; 5. Instructional: making connections to prior knowledge, tracking student learning progress, providing timely feedback, and facilitating student learning using teaching aids such as concept maps. In addition to the aforementioned strategies for developing cases in CBL, there are other instructional design elements of CBL that vary among different curricula and would directly impact students’ learning effectiveness. Teachers and instructors should consider elements such as case structures, feedback type, involvement of real patients, and involvement of students in developing cases. By comparing structured and unstructured cases, it was suggested that for students with less experience, providing cases with less ambiguity and more scaffolding could be more beneficial, while for students with more experience, unstructured cases would better promote students’ critical thinking and decision-making skills (Sutyak et al., 1996). Thus,

3 Linking Theory to Practice: Case-Based Learning in Health …

43

students’ prior experience and stages of learning should be taken into account when determining the structure of cases. More scaffolding should be provided during early stages of learning in CBL; scaffolding can be taken off gradually and cases can be more open and ambiguous as students progress. In terms of providing correct versus erroneous cases, while including erroneous examples can promote critical thinking, it also might impose a higher cognitive load on students. However, when erroneous cases are presented together with elaborated feedback from the instructor (particularly focusing on conceptual, strategic, and conditional knowledge), they are effective for supporting students’ diagnostic competence (Kopp et al., 2008; Stark et al., 2011). In addition, involving real patients can provide more authentic, engaging, and transformative learning experiences for students, although it often is more labor intensive (Dickinson et al., 2018). Furthermore, involving students in the case development can be a good strategy to motivate student learning and actively engage students early in the learning process (Hakkarainen et al., 2007; Hege et al., 2007). In summary, having an appropriate instructional design model is essential for supporting students’ complex learning in CBL (Postma & White, 2015). In Postma and White’s study (2016), their CBL was scaffolded by the four-component instructional design (4C/ID) model for complex learning. Originally developed by van Merriënboer and others in the 1990s (van Merriënboer et al., 2002), the 4C/ID model emphasized four interrelated components that are essential for complex learning: (a) learning tasks, (b) supportive information, (c) just-in-time (JIT) information, and (d) part-task practice. This model suggested that learning tasks should be concrete, authentic, organized in simple-to-complex order to be consistent with students’ knowledge level, with scaffolding provided and gradually removed throughout the learning process. Supportive information bridges what learners already know and their work on the learning tasks. It includes cognitive schema to help learners reason within the learning domain, cognitive strategies to guide the problem-solving process, and cognitive feedback that is provided on the quality of performance. Supportive information should be specified per task class and always be available to learners. JIT information could be in the form of teachers or tutors providing directions and assistance during learning, or online learning aids such as help functions, checklists or manuals. JIT information is usually presented when needed and also quickly fades away as learners acquire expertise. Finally, part-task practice provides additional practice for selected recurrent constituent skill in order to reach required level of automaticity (van Merriënboer et al., 2002, p. 43). This chapter also provides some implications for future research in CBL in HPE. First, future research examining the long-term effect of CBL on student learning is needed. Since there are inconclusive findings regarding whether CBL is more effective than lecture-based learning on students’ test results especially on delayed testing (e.g., Grauer et al., 2008; Kulak et al., 2017), it is important to examine the long-term effect of CBL on students’ retention of knowledge. Second, while studies have found that the effect of CBL on student learning could vary based on the difficulty level of questions (Grauer et al., 2008), it would be interesting to examine whether CBL is more beneficial for students’ mastery of higher-level knowledge

44

B. Zheng and B. Mavis

than lower-level knowledge in broader contexts in HPE. Third, while a lot of studies have suggested positive perceptions towards CBL for promoting critical thinking skills, clinical reasoning skills, and self-directed learning skills (e.g., Hashim et al., 2015; Jamkar et al., 2006; Suhasini et al., 2017), studies using validated instruments to actually measure these skills were few; and even among those few studies, inconclusive results were found (Hoag et al., 2005; ˙Ilgüy et al., 2014). As CBL is viewed as a fertile ground for developing those life-long learning skills for future physicians, it is thus important that future studies adopt appropriate and validated instruments to more directly measure students’ development of these skills. Finally, as the shift from face-to-face to online education is inevitable in the aftermath of COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Thibaut & Schroeder, 2020), more research is needed regarding the teaching and learning effectiveness of online CBL, the comparison between online and face-to-face CBL, and useful instructional design principles for online CBL. Furthermore, as learning analytics has become a rapidly emerging topic in health professions education (Chan et al., 2018, 2019), it could be used in online CBL to track student learning progress, provide individualized learning recommendations based on student behavior and responses, predict future performance of learners and inform assessment, and provide important feedback for optimizing online CBL design, such as providing different levels of scaffolding based on students’ performance, and gradually taking off instructional aids when deemed appropriate for individual students.

References Ali, M., Han, S. C., Bilal, H. S. M., Lee, S., Kang, M. J. Y., Kang, B. H., Razzaq, M. A., & Amin, M. B. (2018). iCBLS: An interactive case-based learning system for medical education. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 109, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.11.004 Aluko, A., Rana, J., & Burgin, S. (2018). Teaching & learning tips 9: Case-based teaching with patients. International Journal of Dermatology, 57(7), 858–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ijd.13781 Baumberger-Henry, M. (2005). Cooperative learning and case study: Does the combination improve students’ perception of problem-solving and decision making skills? Nurse Education Today, 25(3), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2005.01.010 Brown, K., Commandant, M., Kartolo, A., Rowed, C., Stanek, A., Sultan, H., Toor, K., & Wininger, V. (2012). Case based learning teaching methodology in undergraduate health sciences. Revue Interdisciplinaire Des Sciences de La Santé—Interdisciplinary Journal of Health Sciences, 2(2), 48. https://doi.org/10.18192/riss-ijhs.v2i2.1521 Chan, A. K., Botelho, M. G., & Lam, O. L. (2019). Use of learning analytics data in health carerelated educational disciplines: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(2), e11241. https://doi.org/10.2196/11241 Chan, T., Sebok-Syer, S., Thoma, B., Wise, A., Sherbino, J., & Pusic, M. (2018). Learning analytics in medical education assessment: The past, the present, and the future. AEM Education and Training, 2(2), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10087 Chan, W. P., Hsu, C. Y., & Hong, C. Y. (2008). Innovative “Case-Based Integrated Teaching” in an undergraduate medical curriculum: Development and teachers’ and Students’ Responses 37(11), 5.

3 Linking Theory to Practice: Case-Based Learning in Health …

45

Ching, C. P. (2014). Linking theory to practice: A case-based approach in teacher education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014. 01.1425 Crang-Svalenius, E., & Stjernquist, M. (2005). Applying the case method for teaching within the health professions–teaching the teachers. Medical Teacher, 27(6), 489–492. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01421590500136154 Damjanov, I., Fenderson, B. A., Hojat, M., & Rubin, E. (2005). Curricular reform may improve students’ performance on externally administered comprehensive examinations. Croatian Medical Journal, 46(3), 443–448. Dickinson, B. L., Lackey, W., Sheakley, M., Miller, L., Jevert, S., & Shattuck, B. (2018). Involving a real patient in the design and implementation of case-based learning to engage learners. Advances in Physiology Education, 42(1), 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00174.2017 Dupuis, R. E., & Persky, A. M. (2008). Use of case-based learning in a clinical pharmacokinetics course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(2). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC2384204/ Ferguson, K. J. (2006). Beyond multiple-choice questions: Using case-based learning patient questions to assess clinical reasoning. Medical Education, 40(11), 1143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2929.2006.02592.x Grauer, G. F., Forrester, S. D., Shuman, C., & Sanderson, M. W. (2008). Comparison of student performance after lecture-based and case-based/problem-based teaching in a large group. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 35(2), 310–317. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.35.2.310 Greenberg-Worisek, A. J., Campbell, K. A., Klee, E. W., Staff, N. P., Schimmenti, L. A., Weavers, K. M., Ekker, S. C., & Windebank, A. J. (2019). Case-based learning in translational biomedical research education provides more realistic and adaptive skills for early-career scientists than didactic sessions. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 94(2), 213–216. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002470 Hakkarainen, P., Saarelainen, T., & Ruokamo, H. (2007). Towards meaningful learning through digital video supported, case based teaching. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1275 Hashim, R., Azam, N., Shafi, M., Majeed, S., & Ali, S. (2015). Perceptions of undergraduate medical students regarding case based learning and tutorial format. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 65(10), 6. Hege, I., Ropp, V., Adler, M., Radon, K., Mäsch, G., Lyon, harold, & Fischer, M. R. (2007). Experiences with different integration strategies of case-based e-learning. Medical Teacher, 29(8), 791–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701589193 Hoag, K., Lillie, J., & Hoppe, R. (2005). Piloting case-based instruction in a didactic clinical immunology course. Clinical Laboratory Science: Journal of the American Society for Medical Technology, 18(4), 213–220. Hudson, J. N., & Buckley, P. (2004). An evaluation of case-based teaching: Evidence for continuing benefit and realization of aims. Advances in Physiology Education, 28(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/ 10.1152/advan.00019.2002 ˙Ilgüy, M., ˙Ilgüy, D., Fi¸sekçio˘glu, E., & Oktay, ˙I. (2014). Comparison of case-based and lecture-based learning in dental education using the SOLO taxonomy. Journal of Dental Education, 78(11), 1521–1527. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2014.78.11.tb05827.x Jamkar, A., Yemul, V., & Singh, G. (2006). Integrated teaching programme with student-centred case-based learning. Medical Education, 40(5), 466–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929. 2006.02438.x Kim, S., Phillips, W. R., Pinsky, L., Brock, D., Phillips, K., & Keary, J. (2006). A conceptual framework for developing teaching cases: A review and synthesis of the literature across disciplines. Medical Education, 40(9), 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02544.x Kopp, V., Stark, R., & Fischer, M. R. (2008). Fostering diagnostic knowledge through computersupported, case-based worked examples: Effects of erroneous examples and feedback. Medical Education, 42(8), 823–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03122.x

46

B. Zheng and B. Mavis

Kulak, V., Newton, G., & Sharma, R. (2017). Does the use of case-based learning impact the retention of key concepts in undergraduate biochemistry? https://doi.org/10.5430/IJHE.V6N 2P110 Li, S., Yu, B., & Yue, J. (2014). Case-oriented self-learning and review in pharmacology teaching. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 348(1), 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAJ.000 0000000000197 McLean, S. F. (2016). Case-based learning and its application in medical and health-care fields: A review of worldwide literature. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 3 https://doi.org/10.4137/JMECD.S20377 Nadershahi, N. A., Bender, D. J., Beck, L., Lyon, C., & Blaseio, A. (2013). An overview of case-based and problem-based learning methodologies for dental education. Journal of Dental Education, 77(10), 1300–1305. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2013.77.10.tb05603.x Nicklen, P., Keating, J. L., Paynter, S., Storr, M., & Maloney, S. (2016). Remote-online case-based learning: A comparison of remote-online and face-to-face, case-based learning—A randomized controlled trial. Education for Health, 29(3), 8. Postma, T. C., & White, J. G. (2015). Developing clinical reasoning in the classroom—Analysis of the 4C/ID-model. European Journal of Dental Education, 19(2), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/ eje.12105 Postma, T. C., & White, J. G. (2016). Developing integrated clinical reasoning competencies in dental students using scaffolded case-based learning—Empirical evidence. European Journal of Dental Education, 20(3), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12159 Rybarczyk, B. J., Baines, A. T., McVey, M., Thompson, J. T., & Wilkins, H. (2007). A case-based approach increases student learning outcomes and comprehension of cellular respiration concepts. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(3), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.40 Shulman, J. (1992). Case methods in teacher education. Teachers College Press. Slavin, S. J., Wilkes, M. S., & Usatine, R. (1995). Doctoring III: Innovations in education in the clinical years. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 70(12), 1091–1095. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199512000-00010 Srinivasan, M., Wilkes, M., Stevenson, F., Nguyen, T., & Slavin, S. (2007). Comparing problembased learning with case-based learning: Effects of a major curricular shift at two institutions. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 82(1), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ACM.0000249963.93776.aa Stark, R., Kopp, V., & Fischer, M. R. (2011). Case-based learning with worked examples in complex domains: Two experimental studies in undergraduate medical education. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.10.001 Stewart, S. R., & Gonzalez, L. S. (2006). Instruction in professional issues using a cooperative learning case study approach. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(3), 159–172 https://doi. org/10.1177/15257401060270030401 Stjernquist, M., & Crang-Svalenius, E. (2007). Problem based learning and the case method–medical students change preferences during clerkship. Medical Teacher, 29(8), 814–820. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01421590701601592 Struck, B. D., & Teasdale, T. A. (2008). Development and evaluation, of a longitudinal case-based learning (CBL) experience for a geriatric medicine rotation. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 28(3), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1300/J021v28n03_08 Suhasini, P., Joshi, K. P., Swaroopachary, R. S., Yamini, D., & Sarma, D. V. H. S. (2017). An effective approach in learning clinical biochemistry—Case based learning. Journal of Education Technology in Health Sciences, 4(2), 62–64. Sutyak, J. P., Spotnitz, A. J., & Mehne, P. R. (1996). Role of case structure and prior experience in a cased based surgical clerkship, 172, 5. Thibaut, D., & Schroeder, K. T. (2020). A case-based learning approach to online biochemistry labs during COVID-19. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 48(5), 484–485. https://doi. org/10.1002/bmb.21408

3 Linking Theory to Practice: Case-Based Learning in Health …

47

Thistlethwaite, J. E., Davies, D., Ekeocha, S., Kidd, J. M., MacDougall, C., Matthews, P., Purkis, J., & Clay, D. (2012). The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME guide No. 23. Medical Teacher, 34(6), e421–e444. https:// doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.680939 van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504993 Véliz, C., & Cantarutti, C. (2020). Transformation of case-based learning workshops into an online modality in a public health course. Journal of Dental Education, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/ jdd.12351 Williams, B. T. (2005). Leading double lives: Literacy and technology in and out of school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(8), 702–706. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.48.8.7

Chapter 4

Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning: Situated Cognition and Collaborative Learning Theory Min-Chieh Chang Abstract A historical and theoretical perspective on Case-Based Learning (CBL) establishes the method as derived from an established and prestigious tradition of education inaugurated at Harvard University. CBL was fed then by the reigning constructivist theories of education, which spun off the two related educational theories of Situated Cognition and Collaborative Learning Theory. These theories will be seen to provide a solid grounding for case-based learning with its main prongs of learning in context, and in groups. These, it will be argued, are currently sought-after educational outcomes where learning stems from real-life situations, student prior knowledge and experience, and can be used and applied. A case study of Taiwan University illustrates the influence of these perspectives on actual case teaching design. Keywords Case-based learning · Collaborative learning theory · Situated cognition

Introduction Case-Based Learning (CBL) is among the many strategies that have been entrusted to use real-life situations as teaching materials to elicit student critical thinking and decision-making skills. It is a far cry from unilinear, teacher-centric textbook teaching methods. This paper looks at how it all started and how it is grounded upon solid educational theories as its primary influences. Taiwan University is a proposed exemplar of the realities of case study teaching.

M.-C. Chang (B) School of Teacher Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_4

49

50

M.-C. Chang

How It All Started: A Brief History of Case-Based Learning in Higher Education Harvard University did inaugurate the use of cases in teaching, but cases were already being used for study by pioneers like Darwin in anthropology and social sciences as far back as the early nineteenth century (Harrison, Birks, Franklin, & Mills, 2017), and even Margaret Meade. However, in the field of education, Harvard Law School takes the credit, led by its Dean, Christopher Columbus Langdell. CBL developed at Harvard from discontent with otiose teaching modes that turned out lawyers who knew about the law but were not good practitioners. Langdell thus found the traditional lecture method useless. Law was such that students needed to apply knowledge, becoming adept at doing so because teaching familiarized them with real-life cases and practice in decision making. Langdell had a hard start, with many students themselves preferring and rebelling in support of the old Dwight Method, a combination of lecture, recitation, and drill (Garvin, 2003). Today, current CBL users would have to bear this in mind. CBL is distinguished by decentralizing the teacher’s role, and students become accountable actors who have to use their voices. Not all would be comfortable with this. Then, too, Langdell utilized the Socratic Method to guide his students to know their cases as well as how to apply them. Answers are never given directly but elicited through an interrogatory style from students’ well of knowledge. Students used to parroting or learning without understanding, or worse, are passive learners, will not do well with CBL. Again, a factor CBL users and designers will need to contend with. At Harvard, Langdell and subsequent successors won, through raising case method to become the signature teaching method in legal and medical education, with Harvard Business School the capstone model for other business schools in the US and across the world, including Singapore. For example, Singapore Management University’s real-life business case studies are a vital prong of its renowned business school curriculum. Case-based approaches have also been in full play since the ‘60 s in business management education at Taiwan universities such as National Chengchi University, Tamkang University, and National Sun Yat-sen University.

Definition of Case-Based Learning Merseth (1996) might be regarded as a guru of a case-based pedagogy in teacher education. Merseth’s seminal article provides us with much of the necessary understanding of this pedagogy. Merseth points out aptly that many terms are used that relate to case-based instruction or pedagogy (p. 725), but two terms are pivotal in teaching, that of cases, and case method. Designers using CBL might note this because we need to determine exactly what a case is, followed by what it means when we use cases in teaching.

4 Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning …

51

Cases Merseth (1996, p. 725) culls her definition from the extensive research undertaken by prominent scholars of case studies, for example, Shulman and Colbert (1987, 1988), Silverman et al. (1992), Wasserman (1994). However, Christensen and Hansen (1987) are the authors of choice for their sound articulation of cases, encapsulating all aspects of one: …a case is a descriptive research document based on a real-life situation or event. It attempts to convey a balanced, multidimensional representation of the context, participants, and reality of the situation. It is created explicitly for discussion and seeks to include sufficient detail and information to elicit active analysis and interpretation by users….

Merseth (1996) asserted that, “A case is a real-life research document which can potentially provide important data and information for discussion” (p. 726). This is similar to Indiana University’s Teaching Handbook (2005) in its perception of cases as narratives or situations that present unresolved and provocative issues, situations, or questions. What must be emphasized is that, as conduits of discussion, cases need to be real, not dreamed up scenarios or hypothetical conjectures. They must be controversial to generate varied opinions and discussions that in turn can generate higher-order thinking. They also need to demonstrate and exemplify principles and concepts that are the teaching points of the lesson. They are, as termed by Garvin (2003), “a chunk of reality” brought into the classroom. Similarly, Boston University for Teaching and Learning, also a diligent practitioner of case studies, emphasize how they can be applied as a theory or concept to real situations.

Case Method The case method is not distinctive or unique to itself. It could be any instructional method that motivates teacher-student interaction, participation, collaboration, student reflection, problem-solving, and decision making. As Merseth (1996, p726) cites Carter (1989), case methods contextualize discussions and encourage reflections (Richert, 1991a, b), and direct learners to ways of thinking. Examples would be any stimulus to the discussion of cases, perhaps role-playing suggested by the cases, or writing of cases itself. The current vehicle of cases is the use of media and technology, which is the thrust of this book. The definitions just laid out point to certain specific features of case-based learning. Student participation is essential, the identifying feature together with decentralization of teacher role and input. The grounded reality of cases, especially when made visual with media, enables students to directly see and experience the knowledge and teaching points of the lesson; the meat and content. Past research has shown that authentic and genuine learning, is more likely to take place through learner participation and immersion in the context of the case.

52

M.-C. Chang

Students should work in groups to collaborate and bounce opinions and ideas off each other, learning to articulate and defend their viewpoints of the case. Thus, in a later part of this work, Collaborative Learning Theory will be examined as another prop to CBL. As students use prior knowledge to sort out cases, and vice versa, transference, and application of knowledge also result. The case, as stated by Williams (2005), a practitioner of this method, stimulates and underpins the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, placing events in a context or situation to promote authentic learning. Learning is no longer abstract or idling and inert but is useable and practical.

Educational Theories that Support CBL: Situated Cognition and Collaborative Learning Theory The definitions above capture the key elements of CBL, which make apparent the influence of learning theories. However, Merseth (1996) tells us in teacher education particularly, that there seems to be some confounding of “multiple definitions and related terminologies” (Merseth, 1996, p. 725). Educational theories are also profuse, “distinct traditions” deriving from different perspectives about how human beings learn (Mayes & de Freitas, 2007). However, currently, there appears to be a consensus about the “psychological fundamentals” (Jonassen & Land, 2000). For example, in this article, SCT and CL are selected for how they guide CBL, but similarities exist, crossing over and overlapping with other prominent educational theories. For example, Sudzina (1997) prefers to link constructivism to case study pedagogy, while Kantar’s (2013, p. 103) review of educational theories underpinning case study looked at behaviorism, constructivism, and cognitivism. Situated Cognition and Collaborative Learning Theory highlight for CBL designers that evolving student aspirations are always crucial considerations in teaching. They also highlight the connection between changes in pedagogy and changes in educational theory, in ways of thinking about human behavior and how students learn. In this article, SCT and CL are offered as sound foundations for CBL. CBL takes much of its philosophy, approach, and features from these two theories. CBL might be seen as one of the methods that exemplify the practice of SCT and CL.

Situated Cognition Theory Situated Cognition Theory (SCT) posits that knowing and doing are an equation, integral to each other, all knowledge being situated in activities, a natural situation, and cemented in social, cultural, and physical contexts. The acquisition of knowledge is inseparable from the context in which this knowledge is obtained. As an aside,

4 Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning …

53

Cobb et al. (1997, p. 152) found that even mathematics, which might otherwise have suffered as an abstract subject, is now also regarded as socially applicable and only adequately understood embedded as it is in social and cultural contexts. SCT affirms that effective learning can best occur in a social context, and the culture from which it originated (Oregon Technology in Education Council, 2007). The removal of knowledge from the social context deprives knowledge of its physical and contextual realities, which would in turn hinder a learner’s flexible application of such learned knowledge in solving real-life problems. Driscoll (2005), for example, a noteworthy challenger to didactic methods of rote memorization, emphasizes that students who just perform on what they learn would find it difficult to solve more complex problems that are related to real-world scenarios. Origins and Brief Background: This theory, as all theories tend to do, arose from dissatisfaction. In this case, it was with content that was removed from reality and context, so much so that knowledge acquisition might have been “pedagogically useful” but had nothing much to do with the learner or what was being learned. The result was that students lacked the ability, and maybe even the interest to use and transfer knowledge (Jenlink, 2013, p. 185). SCT drew from the work of Dewey and others, prominent being Vygotsky (1978, p. 88) with his yen for social learning theory in which interpersonal interaction played a fundamental role in learners’ cognitive development. Vygotsky’s starting point for instruction is the learner’s current knowledge and skills, alongside the assumption that each learner brings experience to the learning situation and existing knowledge can be applied to solve problems that then result in the formation of new knowledge. This resembles constructivist perspectives. Ausubel (1968), a distinguished and renowned educational theorist went all the way to declare: …If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I would say this: the most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him (sic) accordingly.

Pioneer educational proponents were Brown et al. (1989), their main mantra being that effective education needed to consider the “broader context and culture where knowledge is formed: … To help students use and fully synthesize new knowledge, we need to situate the learning process in everyday life…”. Implications for Teaching: SCT’s vision of teaching is that the student needs to be able to use and apply prior learning and experience to now absorb new knowledge and ideas. Whatever strategy a teacher uses, each student will construct their meaning based on an interaction between prior knowledge and current learning experiences. This suggests that all learning modules, all teaching, are like a continuum of both “playback and play forward”, where previous learning directs learners to new learning. Everything is connected in the teaching and learning process. As stated by Jenlink (2013, p. 186), SCT is a unifying process that brings together all participants and components in a dynamic connection. The learner and the known data, and the environment and activity in which learners are engaged when learning occurs, are all part of the unification. It is in part a composite of the interaction among

54

M.-C. Chang

learners, activity, context, and culture in which knowledge is developed and used. Contexts, applicability, and transfer of learning all become terms central to SCT. Some other points can be highlighted to augment the importance of SCT for teaching. The first is that contexts for learning are social, embedded in the reality of an actual society. It is also viewed as participative and interactive. Then, too, if students are to use previous knowledge to inaugurate new knowledge, there is also some inference that guidance is needed in this process. They will need to know how to discern what can be useful for transplanting to a new lesson. Formal terms to encapsulate these features are situated learning, and legitimate peripheral participation. They all coalesce under the umbrella of Situated Learning, but we will briefly sketch them out.

Situated Learning Situated learning is related to Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of learning as inherently a social phenomenon occurring through social development where interpersonal interaction played a fundamental role in learners’ cognitive development. Situated learning took up the thread that what is learned is specific to the situation (context) in which it is learned. The term first came on the scene as an instructional approach attributed to Lave and Wenger (1991), and again the influence of Dewey, Vygotsky, and others (Clancey, 1997). It is evident in the reiterated instances of SCT that students are more inclined to learn by actively participating in the learning experience, and through personal relationships. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, connecting prior knowledge was also important in achieving the subsequent goals of learning. Simply put, situated learning is integrated with activity, context, and culture. This repeats the previous point of SCT where context is never out of the picture. All learning must be embedded in some situation.

Legitimate Peripheral Participation The term “legitimate peripheral participation” ((LLP) was that of Lave and Wenger’s to describe how learners engage in activities of sociocultural practice, and how they become increasingly competent in this practice. Participation provides students with ways to belong to a community of practice. Legitimate peripheral participation refers to the social organization of and control over resources. Getting full access to resources takes time and experience. The word peripheral is used to “distinguish between newcomers and old-timers” (Driscoll, 2005). According to Wenger (1998), all persons e.g., students, learners, and novices, do need to engage in LLP before being able to move onto full participation.

4 Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning …

55

LLP forwards the idea that learning equates with and comes as one becomes increasingly involved in a socio-cultural community. One becomes more experienced, leading to autonomy and independence. Students are like apprentices, Lave and Wenger, (1991) explain further. Learning is best located in a community of practice. Novices to that community grow and develop through LPP (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in the practice. They nibble at the edges, “the peripheral aspects of the practice of the community”, then as they grow more competent, slowly approach and are inducted into the more complex and difficult core. As the beginner or novice moves from the periphery of a community to its center, he or she becomes more active and engaged within the culture and eventually loses the tagline of novice to become an expert or seasoned practitioner. The goal of teaching now is for a learner, part of a community of other learners, to move from the novice stage to independent and autonomous behavior. Situated learning makes social interaction and collaboration mandatory for learning. Some have likened this to Bandura’s ideas about modelling and learning by example. Situated learning may be the antidote to the weaknesses of traditional, abstract pedagogies, where learning miraculously emerges from out-of-context experiences like lectures and books. This means teachers who are trying to apply this theory in their classes will aim to create an immersive environment where skills, new knowledge, concepts, and behaviours, are channelled through the context in which they will be used later. They would try to engage learners in constant social interaction as well as immerse them in a community of practice and culture (Brown & Duguid, 1993). Students then are actively involved in addressing real-world problems, as will be supplied by real-life cases.

Implications for Case-Based Learning While a community of practice is an actual entity, the social context of learning can be narrowed down to become the classroom, the backdrop, to learning. What happens there needs to be a microcosm of society, echoing and reflecting the realities of society. This brings in cases. SCT and its associated concepts of situated learning and LPP stress the context and learner participation. Students are more inclined to learn by actively participating in real-life routines and activities. Cases supply authentic experiences which would give students leeway to scope out ideas, locate underlying concepts and issues, and so on. This facilitates the all-important transfer of learning, as the learning environment is natural, not artificial or contrived, and the learner is engaged in solving authentic, complex, nonroutine problems which are likely to arise in future professional or worklife situations (Jenlink, 2013, p. 186). As the Harvard maxim goes, ‘Law students must think like lawyers.’ SCT or situated learning then seems to be made for CBL. With SCT, the acquisition of knowledge is inseparable from the context in which the knowledge is obtained.

56

M.-C. Chang

Concepts and skills are taught in the context in which they will eventually be utilized, that is, contexts that can also be applied in the real world. With CBL, cases supply the context, with practical skills learned directly from this context in which it is taught, and where it is to be applied.

SCT and Implications for Design The main thread through all discussions of SCT would be that authentic learning, genuine learning, or deep learning, comes from authentic situations and contexts (Harland, 2003): ……. Embedded in Vygotsky’s social constructivist view of development is the idea that learning is the outcome of collaborative problem-solving, and that it is best facilitated through the use of whole and authentic activities. (Harland, 2003, p. 9).

The primary consideration then in design attempts would be the need for teaching and learning contexts that mirror real life as closely as possible, replicating its typical elements and problems while incorporating rich conceptual meanings and encouraging students to explore, discover, acquire and apply the content learnt. In this section, we discuss some factors for consideration. The first is the use of multimedia, scaffolding, and its related zone of proximal development.

Use of Multimedia Technological tools, if available, would seem the best way to expedite entry into a real social culture and context. Technology enables the use of multimedia resources that can duplicate authentic experiences with all the factual and sensory details of real events. Sophisticated and complex multimedia resources like graphics, visuals, and modeling, can more acutely represent the context and complexity of reality. They help learners visualize learning materials which sadly, hard copy books and resources cannot. Not forgetting learners today are more tech-savvy and used to seeing rather than reading, making multimedia resources more suitable to facilitate understanding and the completion of learning goals (Park, 2008). Multimedia, such as sound, graphics, animations and digital video can effectively represent genuine real-world context (McGinn & Roth, 1999; Szabo & Poohkay, 1996). In practice, from an instructional designer’s point of view, this can be translated to the incorporation of case studies and interactive branching scenarios and simulations of real-life settings in which the particular piece of knowledge taught would apply.

4 Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning …

57

Scaffolding SCT promotes a student-oriented pedagogy where teachers are guides and facilitators with students as dynamic participants and protagonists in the learning scheme. Students, though, may need assistance to leap from passive to active learning, as well as to use their past and prior knowledge and experience as the platform for new knowledge acquisition. To use the familiar term contexts, we can say students move from old contexts, or transit from old contexts to learn new ones, and to be able to apply them in new situations. This is where teachers get into the picture, to provide the scaffolding that supports students in their transition. Scaffolding is among the foundation stones in educational pedagogy, and a crucial factor in CBL. It can be postulated that it is the scaffolding that is the pedagogical strategy that upholds CBL. The case that Pea (2004, p. 425) cites illustrates what scaffolding means. According to Pea, the example in Wood et al. (1976, p. 90) teaching a child how to construct a wooden pyramidal puzzle required a “scaffolding” process where the child or novice could learn how to achieve the goal which would otherwise be difficult to attempt on his own. If we applied the concept to CBL, scaffolding would involve the more learned and experienced participants leading the less learned and experienced in identifying approaches to the case, questions to ask, how to make independent and educated decisions, etc. To some extent, scaffolding does seem reminiscent of LPP. To note for design purposes, scaffolding is not the end in itself. It is a building block that enables learners to do a task, or similar types of tasks on their own. Scaffolding is temporary, it diminishes in use as learners mature and become independent, and can think on their own. It should not cripple or stifle students. This would defeat the purpose of SCT and CBL, which is to groom a student to become “an independent and self-regulating learner and problem solver” (Hartman, 2002). Hammond and Gibbons (2005) borrow from Maybin, Mercer & Steirer to elucidate and clarify further. They make a few accurate points about the use of the term. It is bandied about and its mass appeal leads to excessive facile misuse and misinterpretation. Thus, designers should note that scaffolding is not merely assistance rendered to give learners a step up. It is the necessary help without which learners cannot proceed and to guide them towards being able to independently and competently complete such a task.

The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) According to Vygotsky (1978, p. 86), this is that area, space,

58

M.-C. Chang ….. the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problemsolving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers.

As stated by Hammond and Gibbons (2005, p. 13), ZPD is simply the difference between what a learner can do without help and what he or she can do with help. Every learner possesses “upper and lower limits”, a space, area, a “sweet spot” where new learning has a chance to occur. But if the teacher misses the mark and pitches learning at the wrong level, too difficult, or pitched too high, learners lose interest or just give up. ZPD aligns with scaffolding because the zone shifts its parameters from heavy reliance on others toward greater independence as learners acquire skills and knowledge for themselves. As long as CBL revolves around a real-world problem, ZPD is a sound teaching tool. What of cases themselves? What should they be like? What should users of CBL be looking for? Guided by Situated Cognition Theory below, are some suggested guidelines.

Cases in CBL Three ideal criteria are that cases should be authentic and current, be cognitively flexible, and be representative. Authenticity: Authenticity can be physical or cognitive. Physical authenticity refers to the physical context of a case, the actual physical surroundings, environment, where the learned knowledge will be applied. It might be, for example, a hospital, court, or school. Here, cases must also reflect the actual process of professional activity. This would be cognitive authenticity. For example, to enhance the cognitive authenticity of their cases, Theroux and Kilbane (2004) uploaded corporate cases at the same time as events were unfolding in the real company for students to review, analyze, and discuss to promote real-time case methods. If cases are based on real-life situations, events, or problems, then the design must cater to what might be viewed as a limitation. Mainly, cases are relevant and usable only if they are not superseded by time, in short, they become outdated. Continual review and updating, need to then be incorporated as part of the case design. Cognitive flexibility: Real-life problems are complicated, with no clear-cut or rigid parameters, and unconfined domains with what can be termed as ill-structured, unstructured, or just messy. Cognitive flexibility, though, makes cases ideal for learners to wrap their heads around multiple mental concepts and schemas concurrently, while at the same time clarifying issues and questions, brainstorming alternatives to a solution, and finally making a decision. Spiro et al. (1987, pp. 185–188), based on his several years of teaching and researching experience on physiology in medical school, concluded that case-based learning is suitable for such deep learning of unstructured domains. This explains why

4 Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning …

59

case-based learning is more established in subjects where knowledge is unstructured and complex, such as law and medicine Cognitive flexibility theory addresses the aforementioned kinds of difficulties in learning for knowledge application in realworld contexts (Spiro 2015). Representative: Cases selected should represent an exemplar of a class or an example of a larger category. Teachers and students collaborate to explore questions like “What is this a case of?” Or “What are the solutions to the problems raised by this case?” Teachers and students can then move from problem-solving to also extracting specific experiences from each case, as well as the general principles that unify related cases. This works to bridge the gap between theory and practice theory (Shulman, 1996, p. 213). SCT is one brick in the theoretical foundation of CBL. The other is Collaborative Learning Theory.

Collaborative Learning Theory Collaborative learning theory advocates knowledge as a social construct and learning as a socializing process (Panitz, 1996). Collaborative learning emphasizes studentcenteredness, active learning, and collaboration. According to Dillenbourg (1999), collaborative learning refers to a circumstance in which learners interact and learn something jointly. This view was also articulated by Panitz. It can also be viewed as a cooperative type of learning theory because it cannot succeed if participants hold themselves apart and do not work together – do not cooperate. In terms of cooperative learning, Johnson and Johnson (1994) propose five key factors that facilitate the forming of successful collaborative learning experiences. These are, interpersonal and small group skills, positive interdependence, individual and group accountability, together with promotive interaction and group processing. These five conditions are the impetus toward knowledge and resource sharing among group members. Collaborative learning is regarded as successful when learners can come up with multiple perspectives based on inputs from group work and collaboration. Each member gains from making contributions to the discussion and vice versa. Reflection, however, is integral, too, for persons to weigh their ideas in the light of what others think. They can see their mistakes and weaknesses in their judgments and decisions. Research by Hong et al. (2011), for example, found reflection was conducive to reducing mistakes, and errors in decision making, and ensuring a sound end product. Problem-solving will ensure naturally during collaborative learning, coming about as participants think through issues and share thoughts with other group members.

60

M.-C. Chang

Case-Based Learning in Accordance with Collaborative Learning Theory Collaborative learning theory, like SCT, can guide the design of case-based learning. Three principles emerge. Supportive learning community or culture: A supportive community and culture are regarded as prerequisite conditions for CBL. Shulman (1996, p. 209–211), for example, highlighted it as taking precedence over other factors such as activity or agency, reflection, or meta-recognition. When case-based learning is the vehicle, cases can be used to convey a learner’s analysis and reflections on the community. Reciprocal interaction: Case discussion sees teachers play the roles of listeners, facilitators, and guides rather than didactic content experts (Blumenthal, 1991, pp. 8– 9; Lachs, 1984, p. 11). In tandem with the teacher’s role, learners are active and equal participants. They cannot be passive but are counted on to propose multiple perspectives and collaboratively work out solutions. Overhauling the traditional roles of teacher and student sustains reciprocal interaction among learners. Linking practice with theory: Kreber’s (2001) ideas are noteworthy for consideration here. He felt that learners are initially attracted by the concrete experiences and cases represented. They process information primarily at emotional and intuitive levels, making sense of and responding to the situation according to how it feels to them. However, as learning proceeds, teachers rely on the previously discussed scaffolding process using problem-solving techniques to structure the scaffolding. This consists of five steps.

Scaffolding in Collaborative Case-Based Learning Learners first identify issues and problems embedded in the cases, followed by an analysis of the problem and distinguishing it from its surface symptoms and underlying causes. Learners then generate alternative problem-solving strategies and evaluate the effectiveness of each proposed problem-solving strategy to enable them to select the best strategy. Lastly, they complete the process with the development of a plan for implementing the preferred strategy. In designing and implementing a case-based approach, selecting appropriate cases for teaching is a crucial step. Cases here refer to the narratives of real-life situations that contain complex, ill-defined problems, that is problems with no clear goal or solution. In case-based learning, cases supply the raw material for subsequent analysis, decision-making, problem-solving, solution-proposing, theory, or verification of principles. They also serve as the bridge between theory and practice (Christensen & Hansen, 1987; Merseth, 1996, p. 726; Shulman & Colbert, 1987, p. 2; Wassermann, 1994, p. 30).

4 Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning …

61

Benefits of Case-Based Learning Authors such as Shulman (1996), Sudzina (1999), and Wassermann (1994) testify to the benefits of CBL. They highlight benefits such as how it illustrates theory and practice, the linkage of theory with practice, and sensitizing learners to naturally encountered issues that will aid their problem-solving and decision-making skills. Immersion in real-life problems, which may be contemporary and current, would also promote learning motivation and stimulate learner interest. Cultivating critical thinking skills would be a corollary, as would be facilitating the active knowledge construction of learners, improving their ability to accept multiple perspectives or varied opinions, and enhancing teacher-student interaction. Miller and Kantrov (1998) provide two simple analogies of a ‘mirror’ and ‘window’ to vividly explain the benefits of case-based learning. Case-based learning is like a ‘window’ because the learner is only able to identify key issues by reading from the experiences and thinking processes of those involved in the case narrative. Case-based learning is also like a ‘mirror’ because it reflects the case reader’s and discussant’s beliefs and attitudes (p. 5). In a nutshell, case-based learning is intended to develop students’ ability to solve real-world problems using the knowledge, concepts, and skills acquired during a relevant course (McKeachie, 1986). The discussion above showed how Case-Based Learning can be predicated upon two important learning theories, which provide guidelines for how the case approach can be maximized for classroom use. We now follow up with how the theories have been used in the context of CBL in the Taiwanese education system.

Relevant Case-Based Learning Practices in Taiwan CBL is an instructional strategy, which originated from a western context and has become widely adopted in the Asian context. In Taiwan, for example, early application of the case-based approach in higher education tended to see faculties such as Business Management, Law, and Medical Studies using ready-made American or Canadian cases. These were deemed inapplicable to the Taiwanese context which unfairly discounted the effectiveness of the pedagogy itself (Yang, 1975). The situation has in recent years been thankfully remedied with the construction and collection of localized cases based on authentic incidents arising in specific professions. Some examples would be administrative and organizational type cases (Chen, 2012; Situ, 1984), business cases (Lee, 2009; Liu, 1998), teacher education cases (Chang, 2017; Gao, 2002; Lee, 2016), medical education and medical ethics (Tang et al., 2016; Tsai, 2007) and human rights in legal education (Yang and Chen, 2011). Other applications include leisure and sports management curricula (Chow, 2012), information ethics curricula (Yin, 2018), and social work specialty courses (Lin, 2018). Hwa et al. (2013) used case-based learning combined with role-playing in

62

M.-C. Chang

the soil and groundwater training courses. Good quality cases are also selected and developed using a set of criteria constructed by Lee et al. (2016).

Use of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning In keeping with the theme of the book, some updates on multimedia usage in CBL are now provided. Research in the use of CBL has yielded fairly optimistic results. Chang (2008) reports multimedia usage, while Hsu (2005) gives some examples which he constructed, namely, an online case-based learning environment comprising components such as a case library, focus case discussion forum, and video teaching demonstrations for prospective teachers. Chen et al. (2006) used an experimental design to compare the use of the casebased approach in face-to-face and online asynchronous environments. There may not have been significant differences in their cognitive learning gains between the two individual groups of students, one using F2F, the other online asynchronous learning (OAL), but the OAL environment promoted student in-class participation for certain cases. This indicates that OAL is an advantageous tool to generate the usually hard to obtain in-class participation. Wang et al. (2012) used a survey methodology with pre and pro-tests. This study suggested that using a multimedia case-based learning video is a method for medical ethics education. Participants were highly satisfied, and the effect of learning increased. Chang and Tsui (2014) investigate the effects of digital case-based learning on sixth graders’ anti-bullying knowledge, social skills, and empathy. The pretest–posttest nonequivalent-groups design was adopted. The experiment group was significantly enhanced. Chang (2011) utilized online video cases in an Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) course designed for student teachers. Her results showed that ICT knowledge improved through intervention. This suggests that video case-based teaching is an effective and feasible method. CBL users venturing into the use of film in teacher education would be encouraged by the findings of Liu et al. (2012) that support this style of teaching. For them, films contextualize the teaching site, context, and body language of the teacher, conveying tacit knowledge that may be difficult to express in words. This contributes to making a case come across as real and acute, something text-based cases cannot achieve. The discussion then becomes more focused, thorough, and specific. Nonetheless, face-to-face case discussion need not be thrown out, as it is still useful to resolve complex conceptual problems. Whether as traditional texts or technology-mediated, discussions using CBL have altered the traditional course of student–teacher interaction. Passive, lethargic learners are now dynamic and engaged actors in the learning process, a finding supported by the research of Lin (2005). In traditional classrooms, student–teacher interaction tends to follow what is termed the Initiate-Response-Evaluation (IRE) Model. Lin found this changing to an Initiate- Response-Response-ResponseResponse (IRRRR) pattern whenever the case-based approach was used in an inservice teachers’ drama study course. The IRRRR pattern indicates an increase in

4 Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning …

63

participation rates, the same topic engendering different levels and depths of discussion. Lin’s study is corroborated by the findings of Levin (1995). The wiki-based casebased learning was conducted in teacher education research on classroom management by Quek and Wang (2015). In this study, the teachers generated their classroom management cases for an online discussion and incorporate multiple perspectives to problem-solve the challenges faced in their classrooms. The effectiveness of attention to another of SCT’s prongs, case writing, and scaffolding, is investigated by Liu (2012). Pre-service teachers were asked to compose their case studies during their practicum course. The results were positive. Casewriting and scaffolding did promote prospective teachers’ learning, motivation, and interest, enhancing their critical thinking and reflection on their teaching. Problemsolving skills also saw an improvement as did bridging of gaps between theory and practice. In turn, Feng (2012) found the case-based approach helpful in strengthening the links between relevant ethics theories, principles, and future practices when he tried it out in an educational administration ethics course at a Taiwanese university. Such a finding echoes Shulman’s (1986, pp. 4–14) assertion that case knowledge enables learners to connect propositional knowledge with strategic knowledge. Case-based approaches also afforded students vicarious learning opportunities where students can have access to real-life simulations, multiple perspectives, dialogue with others, self-reflection, and thinking. What is important is that effective case-based approaches ensure an equal relationship between teachers and students, as well as the creation of an open environment where students could discuss freely with peers and learn to respect varied viewpoints.

Discussion and Conclusion Given the inherent specificity and realistic characteristics of cases, the article has emphasized how they can be more appropriate vehicles for learning than “abstract and decontextualized statements, concepts and principles” (Shulman, 1992, pp. 23– 24). This however leads to differences in pedagogic outlook and practice. Optimal learning outcomes would now be ideally achieved with collaborative learning rather than authoritative. Research studies cited in the article report that collaborative pedagogies seem best to develop conducive classroom environments and supportive learning communities. Here, open discussion, peer consultation, and collaboration, interdependence, free expression of multiple perspectives, can reign (Allen, 1999, pp. 37–51). Situated Cognition and Collaborative Learning theories provide the theoretical framework for case-based learning. The authenticity of cases and the formation of supportive learning communities have been isolated as standard-bearers of real situation-based collaborative learning. These might be regarded as relatively easy to achieve as digital technologies become more commonplace, and more information and cases become accessible to students (Barber & van Oostveen, 2016).

64

M.-C. Chang

Cases are also available from online forum groups, online newspapers, and websites dedicated to just case collection, each providing multiple contrasting viewpoints. With such accessibility, teachers no longer need to instruct, but to “challenge preconceived notions” (Barber & van Oostveen, 2016, p. 14) elicited from students’ self-directed learning. Therefore, beyond encouraging a collaborative learning environment amongst students, teachers also would have to embrace a change in mindset from that of an “instructor” to a “guide”. The principle of authenticity as featured in SCT carries over into case writing. To be authentic, problems embedded in the cases should be like real life, complex, ill-structured, and interdisciplinary. The event that the case depicts should be representative; that is, it should represent an exemplar of a class or an instance of a larger category. A timely update of the case content is necessary as the usefulness of cases is restricted by temporal and spatial factors. Multi-media cases are comparatively superior to text-based cases. Furthermore, case-based learning should be considered as a collaborative learning process where reciprocally interactive processes such as forming a learning community, question and answer, and role-play have been enacted. In this mode of learning, learners enjoy equal status in participation and are scaffolded to propose solutions through mutually beneficial activities such as proposition of multiple perspectives, collaborative analysis, and reflection. In sum, to optimize the learning gains in case-based learning, its implementation should emphasize real situation-based collaborative learning and learner-community formation. On the flipside, case-based learning only has cognitive rather than physical authenticity. The contents and plots that the cases represent still have some distance from the pressure and restriction experienced by real people in real-life situations (Garner, 2000; Sudzina, 1999). Thus, aside from case-based learning, experiential learning or field learning in the expected professional field is still necessary. For example, physicians still need to go to the hospital for professional preparation; lawyers go to the court for internships; teachers go to school for teaching practicum. This readily explains the reason why Harvard Business School advertises its unique pedagogies for business study as case method and field method respectively. The casebased approach, whilst effective, is simply not enough as a standalone pedagogy given the current digitalized landscape. Technology-enabled case-based learning with the incorporation of learning analytics and Artificial Intelligence would certainly empower the learners towards more innovative and more sophisticated knowledge networks for future work. The trends of using case-based learning have moved from paper and pencil to technology-enabled cases from the 1990s to the present. To support the learners’ visualization of cases and group discussion with cases, learning management systems globally (Cho, Kim & Kim, in Chap. 5) and social media platforms such as wiki were evidenced from research from the 2000s in higher education, medical and business areas, just to name a few (Lee, Albedah & Liu, in Chap. 1; Tan, in Chap. 2; Quek, in Chap. 7). The trend toward using technology-enabled case-based learning with assessment has grown to incorporate learning analytics and has provided support for the learners and the instructors. The digitalization landscape has further provided

4 Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning …

65

another proposed area “case-based assessment” in higher education (Deneen, 2021), and future work involving big data in relation to formative assessment and practices.

References Allen, J. D. (1999). Teaching with cases and lessons learned: The journey of an educational psychologist. In M. R. Sudzina (Ed.), Case study applications for teacher education: Cases of teaching and learning in the content area (pp. 37–56). Allyn & Bacon. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology. A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Barber, W., & van Oostveen, R. (2016). Invisible pedagogy: Developing problem-based learning in digital contexts. In R. Henderson (Ed.), Problem-based learning: Perspectives methods and challenges (pp. 13–26). Nova Science Publishers. Blumenthal, J. (1991). Use of the case method in MBA education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 4(1), 5–14. Boston University for Teaching and Learning. (2022). Case-based learning. Retrieved from http:// www.bu.edu/ctl/guides/case-based-learning/ Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge. Educational Technology, 33(3), 10–15. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Chang, M.-C. (2008). How case method contributes to the abilities of dealing with classroom management issues for student teachers. Journal of Elementary Education Research, 20, 147–176. Chang, M.-C. (2017). Teacher professional growth on case method and classroom management. Higher Education. Chang, Y.-F. (2011). An empirical study of applying online video cases in a technology course for pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 48(4), 589–615. Chang, Y.-J., & Tsui, M.-P. (2014). The effects of applying digital videos in case method instruction on elementary students’ anti-bullying knowledge, social skills and empathy. Journal of Education of University of Taipei, 47, 47–74. Chen, C.-H. (2012). I write therefore I am: A study of the implementation of case writing in educational administration and leadership program. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 8(3), 61–90. Chen, C. C., Shang, R., & Harris, A. (2006). The efficacy of case method teaching in an online asynchronous learning environment. Albert International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 4(2), 72–86. Chow, H.-W. (2012). Case teaching method and its application on leisure and sport management curriculum. Sports Research Review, 121, 40–47. Christensen, C. R., & Hansen, A. J. (1987). Teaching and the case method. Harvard Business School Publishing Division. Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. Cambridge University Press. Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K., Yackel, E., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. W. (1997). Mathematizing and symbolizing: The emergence of chains of signification in one first-grade classroom. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. Deneen, C. (2021, June 17). Using ‘case-based’ questions in assessment tasks. Learning Environments. https://le.unimelb.edu.au/news/articles/case-based-questions-in-assessment-tasks Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

66

M.-C. Chang

Feng, F.-I. (2012). The application of case method in teaching professional ethics in the university—Using the educational administration ethics course as an example. Tzu-Chi Journal of the Educational Research, 8, 1–30. Gao, K. S-F. (2002). Teacher Education: The development and application strategies of teaching cases. Higher Education. Garner, D. D. (2000). The continuing vitality of the case method in the twenty-first century. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2, 19305273. Garvin, D.A. (2003). Making the Case: Professional education for the world of practice. Retrieved from https://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/making-the-case-html Hammond, J., Gibbons, P. (2005). What is scaffolding? In A. Burns & H. de Silva Joyce (Eds.), Teachers voices 8: Explicitly supporting reading and writing in the classroom (p. 11). Macquarie University. Harland, T. (2003). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and problem-based learning: Linking a theoretical concept with practice through action research. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 263–272. Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., and Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(1), Art. 19. Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding & cooperative learning. Human learning and instruction (pp. 23– 69). City College of City University of New York. Hong, J.-C., Yu, K.-C., & Chen, M.-Y. (2011). Collaborative learning in technological project design. International Journal Technology Design Education, 21, 335–347. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10798-010-9123-7 Hsu, S. (2005). Help-seeking behavior of student teachers. Educational Research, 47(3), 307–318. Hwa, M.-Y., Chow, H.-T., & Wang, S.-M. (2013). The instructional design of case method combined with role-playing in the soil and groundwater training courses. Journal of Educational Practice and Research, 26(2), 103–132. Indiana University Teaching Handbook. (2005). Retrieved from https://citl.indiana.edu/files/pdf/ teaching_handbook.pdf Jenlink, P. M. (2013). Situated cognition theory. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara- Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories (pp. 185–198). Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. In J. S. Thousand, R. A. Villa and A. I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning. Baltimore. Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kantar, L. D. (2013). Demystifying instructional innovation: The case of teaching with case studies. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(2), 101–115. Kreber, C. (2001). Learning experientially through case studies? A conceptual analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 217–228. Lachs, A. (1984). Role playing and the case method in business education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 252649). Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge University Press. Lee, C.-T. (2009). Rethinking the teaching strategies in CMPCL of Business Education. Commerce & Management Quarterly, 10(1), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.30083/CMQ.200903. 0006 Lee, T.-L. (2016). The study of using case-based instruction on the course of practicum of special education in teacher education. Journal of Educational and Multiculture Research, 14, 45–79. Lee, Y.-T., Yeh, C.-C., & Chen, W.-T. (2016). A Study on the construction of criteria for good cases. Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 9(2), 89–111. https://doi.org/10. 3966/207136492016080902004 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.

4 Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Case-Based Learning …

67

Lin, C.-Y. (2018). Evaluation research of applying case method to social work speciality course. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 7(8), 234–251. Lin, M.-C. (2005). The influence of case method teaching on the in-service teacher’s drama study: From the perspective of discourse. Paper presented at the Retrospect and Prospect in Arts Education meeting (pp. 162–172). National Pingtung Teacher College, Taiwan. Liu, C.-Y. (1998). Case method teaching in business education. Educational Research & Information, 6(2), 101–114. Liu, M.-C., Lahang, L., and Wang, K. H., (2012). Digital archives of video cases: Inherited learning in aboriginal artistry. Paper presented at International Workshop on Modern Information Technology in Education, YiChang, Hubei, China. Liu, W.-Y. (2012). A study for the case discussion and case writing on pre-service teachers’ content comprehension, reflective thinking and critical thinking (unpublished). Taipei, Taiwan: National Science Council. Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 13–25). Routledge. McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W. M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14–24. McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Teaching tips: A guidebook for the beginning college teacher (8th ed.). Heath and Company. Merseth, K. K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In W. R. Houston & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 722–744). Macmillan. Miller, B., & Kantrov, I. (1998). A guide to facilitating cases in education. Reed Elsevier. Oregon Technology in Education Council (OTEC). (2007). Situated learning. Retrieved from http:// otec.uoregon.edu/learning_theory.htm#SituatedLearning Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative vs. cooperative learning. Retrieved from http://www. londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/collaborative-learning/panitz-paper.cfm Park, H. (2008). The effect on information visualization and structure on mobile learning. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 4(1), 39–48. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451. Quek, C. L., & Wang, Q. (2015). Problem solving of teacher-generated classroom management cases in Wiki-based environment: An analysis of Peers’ influences. In Y. H. Cho, I. S. Caleon, & M. Kapur (Eds.), Authentic problem solving and learning in the 21st century: Perspectives from Singapore and beyond (pp. 327–346). Springer. Richert, A. E. (1991a). Case methods and teacher education: Using cases to teacher education. In B. R. Tabachnich, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Issue and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education (pp.130–150). Falmer. Richert, A. E. (1991b). Using teacher cases for reflection and enhanced understanding. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the 90s (pp.113–132). Teachers College Press. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who : Understand knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Reseacher, 15, 4–14. Shulman, J. H., & Colbert, J. A. (Eds.). (1987). The mentor teacher casebook. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development; Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Shulman, J. H., & Colbert, J. A. (Eds.), (1988). The intern teacher casebook. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development; Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management; Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.

68

M.-C. Chang

Shulman, J. H. (1992). Teacher-written cases with commentaries: A teacher- researcher collaboration. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education. Teachers College Press. Shulman, L. S. (1996). ‘Just in case . . .’: Reflections on learning from experience. In J. A. Colbert, P. Desberg, & K. Trimble (Eds.), The case for education: Contemporary approaches for using case methods. Allyn & Bacon. Silverman, R., Welty, W. M., & Lyons, S. (1992). A catalog of case studies for teacher problem solving. Primis-McGraw-Hill. Situ, T.-S. (1984). The casebook of management and organization. Business School, National Chengchi University. Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W., Schmitz, J., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. C. Britton (Ed.), Executive control processes (pp. 177–199). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spiro, R. J.(2015). Cognitive flexibility theory. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 111–116). Sage. Sudzina, M. R. (1997). Case study as a constructivist pedagogy for teaching educational psychology. Educational Psychology Review, 9(2), 199–260. Sudzina, M. R. (Ed.). (1999). Case study applications for teacher education: Cases of teaching and learning in the content area. Allyn & Bacon. Szabo, M., & Poohkay, B. (1996). An experimental study of animation, mathematics achievement and attitudes toward computer assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 56–69. Tang, K.-P., Kang, Y.-N., Wu, C.-C., Chung, C.-L., Lin, E. Y., & Chen, C.-Y. (2016). The educational implementation of duo-case method in teaching medical ethics on ventilator-dependent patient care. Bulletin of Medical Education Taichung Veterans General Hospital, 20, 3–12. Theroux, J., & Kilbane, C. (2004). The real-time case method: A new approach to an old tradition. Journal of Education for Business, 79(3), 163–167. Tsai, F.-C. (2007) (Ed). Case discussion in Clinical ethics. Orange Well Culture. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wang, P.-W., Chen, R.-C., & Chang, S.-Y. (2012). Assessment of hospital staff satisfaction and training outcome receiving medical ethics education on disclosure using multimedia case teaching video. Journal of Medical Education, 16(2), 9–15. Wassermann, S. (1994). Introduction to case method teaching: A guide to the galaxy. Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University. Williams, B. (2005). Case based learning—A review of the literature: Is there scope for this education paradigm in prehospital education? Emergency Medicine Journal, 22(8), 577–581. https://doi. org/10.1136/emj.2004.022707 Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100. Yang, B-L. (1975). The crystallization of the wisdom of Taiwanese enterprise management casebooks. (Vol. 1–3). Business School, National Chengchi University. Yang, S.-T., & Chen, C.-C. (2011). Utilization of case method of teaching for human rights education: Case study via No.535 Interpretation. Kaohsiung Medical University Journal of General Education, 6, 39–61. https://doi.org/10.6453/KMUJGE.201112.0039 Yin, M.-C. (2018). Effect of implementing the case method on university information ethics curricula. Journal of Education Studies,52(1),17–40.

Part II

Examples of Technology-Mediated CBL Environments

Chapter 5

Case-Based Online Learning Environments for Teachers in South Korea Young Hoan Cho, Mi Hwa Kim, and Yoon Kang Kim

Abstract Case-based learning has been used in the professional development of teachers in South Korea. Beginning teachers can learn from successful cases of teachers with more experience. This chapter shows how cases are used for teacher education in online learning environments including three case-based learning approaches: case-based instruction, case libraries as resources, and communities of practice. A KOCW (Korea Open CourseWare) course, applying the case-based instruction approach, uses cases as problems to solve and as objects of analysis for the distance education of teachers. EDUNET includes a case library in which teachers can search and use video cases of excellent lessons to prepare their own lessons. Lastly, Indischool exemplifies an online community of elementary school teachers where teachers create and share their own cases on a variety of topics and collaboratively solve their case problems alongside socio-emotional interactions. We compared cases in the three online learning environments in regards to their purposes, contents, formats, and functions. Cases are used effectively to enhance pedagogical competencies of teachers in multiple ways. Keywords Case-based instruction · Case library · Community of practice · Online learning environment · Teacher education

Y. H. Cho (B) Department of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea e-mail: [email protected] M. H. Kim Department of HRD, Korea University of Technology and Education, Cheonan-si, Chungcheongnam-do, South Korea Y. K. Kim Gyeonggi-Do Office of Education, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_5

71

72

Y. H. Cho et al.

Introduction Experienced teachers have more stories about their students, lessons, and classroom management than beginning teachers. According to the literature of case-based reasoning, people store their problem-solving experience as cases in their knowledge structure and use them when solving a new problem (Kolodner, 1997). For pre-service or beginning teachers who lack teaching experience, case-based learning can be effective to improve their pedagogical competencies (Helleve et al., 2021). They can develop an in-depth understanding of pedagogical knowledge and skills through analyzing, comparing, evaluating, and solving cases with real-world contexts (Choi & Lee, 2009; Kim & Hannafin, 2009). In case-based learning, teachers not only acquire pedagogical knowledge but also learn how to use it to solve complex and ill-structured problems encountered in real classrooms. A growing number of case-based learning studies have paid attention to online learning environments in which authentic problems and learning resources are provided in the form of multimedia cases (Barnett, 2006; Choi & Lee, 2009; Ulusoy, 2020). Multimedia cases and advanced communication technologies enable teachers to share their vivid classroom experience, learn useful instructional strategies from each other, and critically reflect on their cases of instruction and classroom management (Koehler et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2021). Barnett (2006), for example, provided pre-service teachers with video vignettes of everyday teaching practices in an online learning environment. The video cases were helpful for pre-service teachers to raise questions of learning theories and teaching practices and to asynchronously discuss with in-service teachers.

Three Approaches to Case-Based Learning This chapter explores three approaches to online learning environments that support case-based learning for pre-service and in-service teachers in South Korea. These approaches include case-based instruction, case library, and community of practice. They have different theoretical backgrounds, resulting in different solutions to the issues of what, how, and why cases should be used in online learning environments. Cases can play a variety of roles in learning and teaching. Jonassen (2006), for example, categorized case-based learning in regard to the function of cases in problem-solving contexts. Cases can be used as exemplars, analogues, objects of analysis, problems to solve, and student constructions. To serve the roles, cases include narratives about problems, problem-solving activities, solutions, and/or results. Cases can include successful and unsuccessful problem-solving activities, both of which are beneficial for meaningful learning (Rong & Choi, 2019; Tawfik & Jonassen, 2013). In order to design case-based learning, instructors should consider how cases are used for learning as well as what should be included in cases.

5 Case-Based Online Learning Environments for Teachers …

73

There are different approaches to create, select, use, and evaluate cases. In casebased instruction, instructional designers or instructors create and organize cases as a part of their lesson plan (Choi & Lee, 2009; Koehler et al., 2019). When compared to case-based instruction, the case library allows learners to have more autonomy in selecting and using cases to solve a real-world problem (Hernandez-Serrano & Jonassen, 2003; Kolodner, 2006; Tawfik et al., 2020). Nevertheless, learners seldom play an active role in creating cases when using the case library. In the community of practice approach, by contrast, learners are encouraged to share their own cases of problem-solving activities and to jointly solve learner-generated case problems (Ekici, 2018; Goos & Bennison, 2008). Learners have more autonomy in the community of practice approach than the other approaches. In the following sections, we reviewed previous studies about the three approaches, focusing on teacher education.

Case-Based Instruction In case-based instruction, learners construct their knowledge through carrying out case-related tasks in authentic problem situations and reflecting on their experience (Ertmer & Russell, 1995; Ulusoy, 2020). In teacher education, case-based instruction has been used to overcome the limitation of traditional instruction that presents teaching techniques and learning principles without showing how they can be used in real world contexts (Helleve et al., 2021). By analyzing cases or solving case problems in authentic contexts, beginning teachers can develop pedagogical competencies that are required to solve ill-structured problems in school (Choi & Lee, 2009; Harrington, 1995). For effective implementation of case-based instruction, cases should be developed well to integrate theoretical and practical knowledge in order to elicit discussion about multiple perspectives. In addition, instructional support is necessary to facilitate the application of abstract principles to a specific case and the critical reflection on the events in a case (Koehler et al., 2019). For instance, Harrington (1995) provided question prompts to facilitate analysis of cases about teachers’ problem solving: They were asked to identify and discuss the following: the issues in the case; how they would prioritize the issues; based on that, what it was a case of; how different perspectives might inform the interpretation of the case; what the educator’s solution should be; what the possible consequences to that solution might be; and how they would critique their solution and analysis. (p. 206)

Choi and Lee (2009) developed an online learning environment based on the case-based instruction approach. Pre-service teachers identified and solved an illstructured case problem, explored multiple perspectives on the case problem, applied abstract principles and theories to the given case, and provided comments to the conclusion of the case. Case problems were developed on the basis of real events collected from in-service teachers. To facilitate solving the case problems, the online learning environment provided multiple stakeholders’ viewpoints, different solutions

74

Y. H. Cho et al.

from three experienced teachers, and reading materials relevant to the cases. This learning environment was beneficial for pre-service teachers to generate a coherent argument, consider diverse viewpoints, critically analyze a problem and solutions, and use theories to support their argument. In case-based instruction, videos are often used to illustrate classroom practices because videos can provide more vivid situations along with non-verbal information when compared to texts (Ulusoy, 2020; van Es & Sherin, 2008). Beginning teachers can learn from videos of experienced teachers’ lessons by identifying effective instructional strategies and explaining why they are helpful for students. In addition, videos can show problematic situations or novel events that conflict with beginning teachers’ existing beliefs. Reflection on video cases helps beginning teachers to change their naïve beliefs about teaching and learning (Cho & Huang, 2014). The reflection activity can be enhanced with video annotation tools that allow teachers to select portions of the video and write comments (Rich & Hannafin, 2009). Some video annotation tools also allow beginning teachers to share their annotations with each other for collaborative reflection on video cases.

Case Library as Resource When people encounter a new problem, they try to remember a case from their memory which has a similar situation with the problem (Kolodner, 1997; Schank, 1999). If an appropriate case is found, people will reuse its solution to solve the new problem. They may modify the solution depending on the gap between the new situation and the old case. After solving the new problem, people create or revise indexes of cases according to the results of the problem-solving activity. The indexes should be useful for retrieving old cases that are applicable to a new problem. This process is referred to as case-based reasoning, which is necessary to solve a real-world problem (Kolodner, 1997). Novices who lack professional experience can use cases of more experienced practitioners as resources for case-based reasoning (Tawfik et al., 2019). The cases play the role of a substitute for novices’ direct experience. Hernandez-Serrano and Jonassen (2003) found that learners who received stories of experts while solving ill-structured problems outperformed others who read expository descriptions of problem-solving skills. Cases of experts or experienced practitioners are helpful for case-based reasoning, which in turn facilitates effective problem solving. To support case-based reasoning of beginning teachers, Jonassen et al. (2003) developed a case library in the online learning environment. The case library included experienced teachers’ cases of how to integrate technology into their lessons. Beginning teachers were able to search for cases of experienced teachers in the case library, using a few indexes. The researchers collected stories from experienced teachers about their successful and unsuccessful practices in technology integration. They interviewed experienced teachers with the question prompts that were closely related to the indexes of the case library.

5 Case-Based Online Learning Environments for Teachers …

75

Next, the cases of experienced teachers were indexed in a way to help teachers to efficiently retrieve useful cases from the library. The indexes involved general contexts (school location, teacher experience, etc.), story contexts (grade level, subject, etc.), goals in a story (purpose, level of learning outcome sought, standard), story activities (technologies used, nature of activity, etc.), and outcomes in a story (observation, assessment of learning, and lessons learned). From the case library, teachers searched for cases that were most similar to their technology integration situation by using the indexes of a case-based reasoning engine. The function of the case library can be enhanced through using video cases (So et al., 2009). For instance, the Best Practices database of Arizona State University included diverse video cases about curriculum and teaching in order to help teachers to integrate technology into their teaching practice. One-hour lessons were edited into 15-min video clips that showed both teaching and learning activities. In addition, the video cases were linked to other resources like teacher biographies, lesson plans, teaching materials, and interviews with teachers (Kurz & Batarelo, 2010). Kurz and Batarelo (2010) found that pre-service teachers perceived that video cases were beneficial for their professional development because they could observe specific teaching strategies, associate video cases with supplemental resources, and watch classroom management events. Although a case library usually includes cases of experts and experienced teachers, beginning teachers can contribute to the case library through sharing their teaching experience. Even if the experience is not successful, it can provide other teachers with meaningful learning opportunities because they can discuss what made a lesson ineffective and how to improve the lesson (Rong & Choi, 2019; Tawfik et al., 2019). Beginning teachers can learn not only from reviewing higher-quality cases of lessons but also analyzing lower-quality cases (Tawfik & Jonassen, 2013). The case library needs to include authoring tools with which teachers can create and share their own cases (Kolodner, 2006). The authoring tools should help teachers to reflect on problems encountered in a classroom, curricular and pedagogical solutions generated, the results of their teaching activities, lessons learned from the experience, and future situations for which the lessons can be used.

Community of Practice In a community of practice, it is important for beginning teachers to participate in community practices and develop their identity as a teacher (Graven, 2004; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). As newcomers, beginning teachers need to have “access to a wide range of ongoing activity, old-timers, and other members of the community; and to information, resources, and opportunities for participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 101). Online communities of practice have been developed to help pre-service or beginning teachers to interact with experienced teachers and to share lesson plans, resources, and reflection on their teaching practices (Barab et al., 2001; Goos &

76

Y. H. Cho et al.

Bennison, 2008; Herrington et al., 2006; Xue et al., 2021). Online environments enable teachers to actively interact with each other and build a community without the barriers of time and space. In the community, cases can be used to share diverse classroom practices in authentic contexts and collaboratively solve problems of teaching and learning (Ekici, 2018; So et al., 2009). Beginning teachers can learn from the cases of experienced teachers, which are closely related to their own problematic situations in school. The cases, which reflect the culture and practice of teachers, include the wisdom of how to solve curricular, pedagogical, or classroom management problems. Goos and Bennison (2008) investigated how a community of secondary school mathematics teachers was established and sustained through bulletin board discussions. Beginning teachers as old-timers interacted with pre-service teachers as newcomers in the online community. When the members of the community exchanged questions or negotiated meanings of their joint enterprise, teaching mathematics in school, they often used their own cases: I am tutoring a girl that was at my school. She was in the extension maths class in grade 10 and now is doing [an advanced mathematics subject] in grade 11. And she is hopeless at the distributive and associative laws. (…) Instances like this cause me to doubt the validity of any maths programme which puts context and breadth over a paradigm of “drill and grill”. (…) Mathematics is a fundamental societal construct, and I feel we have pandered too long to issues of relevance and value. (p. 53)

As shown in the example above, cases are used as problem situations as well as evidence to support a claim. Cases encourage members to actively discuss problems and share their knowledge with other members (Barab et al., 2001; Sanders-Smith et al., 2016). By creating and sharing cases, beginning teachers have meaningful learning opportunities to interact with experienced teachers, which is in turn beneficial for the development of their identity in the community. Beginning teachers have more autonomy in creating and sharing cases in the community of practice than the other approaches. Advanced technologies are helpful for teachers to share their cases and problems in their community. So et al. (2009) designed a video case library for teacher communities, using Web 2.0 tools (e.g. Youtube, Blogger) which enabled teachers to easily upload and store their video cases of classroom practices and share their opinions about the cases. Yang (2009) also used blogs as a platform to encourage pre-service teachers to critically reflect on their learning experience in a community of practice. Teacher educators need to provide pre-service or beginning teachers with more opportunities to have access to old-timers and to participate in community practices, using video cases and online platforms.

Case-Based Online Learning Environments in South Korea The three approaches of case-based learning have been used for teacher education in South Korea. First, the case-based instruction approach is applied to online

5 Case-Based Online Learning Environments for Teachers …

77

courses developed for distance education of teachers. In the courses, multimedia cases are used to represent real-world problems and to support problem solving process. Second, KERIS (Korea Education and Research Information Service) provides video cases of lessons through the website, EDUNET (http://www.EDUNET.net), to spread innovative and effective teaching practices all over the country. EDUNET plays the role of a case library which enables teachers to search for video cases of lessons in elementary and secondary schools. Lastly, Korean teachers spontaneously share their cases of teaching practices and discuss pedagogical issues in online communities of practice. Cases are often used when teachers ask help-seeking questions and share their pedagogical knowledge. In the following sections, we analyzed and compared three online learning environments that showed different approaches of case-based learning in South Korea.

Korea Open CourseWare (KOCW) KERIS provides online courses and educational materials (e.g. lecture note, syllabus) to everyone who has access to the Internet. As of September 2019, a total of 5383 open courses of education are provided in Korea Open CourseWare (KOCW, http:// www.kocw.net). Teachers can take the online courses including diverse topics of preschool, elementary, secondary, and special education. A few online courses apply the case-based instruction approach in order to provide real-world problems and encourage beginning teachers to participate in authentic learning activities. In this section, we analyzed the course, Understanding of Children with Special Needs, which applied the case-based instruction approach. Park (2011) found that the online course was effective in improving authentic problem-solving skills of pre-service teachers. The special education course aims to develop values, attitudes, and knowledge about children with special needs as well as competencies for adaptive instruction. The course contains 16 lessons, five of which involve case problems that require pre-service or beginning teachers to solve complex, ill-structured problems about special education children in classroom contexts. For example, Fig. 5.1 shows how a beginning teacher had students collaborate to make a town map in a small group. When discussing how to form small groups, students did not want to work with Student J, a student with special needs, because he had difficulty communicating with other group members. The beginning teacher got Student J to carry out an assignment individually, which was different from the group task that other students carried out. This case problem was followed by two questions, “How would I have Student J participate in the lesson if I were his teacher?” and “How can a teacher help students with special needs to meaningfully participate in general classroom lessons?”. The case above is presented in the form of an animation consisting of figures, speech bubbles, and sounds. The online course uses case problems to provide authentic contexts closely related to learning objectives. In addition, case problems

78

Y. H. Cho et al.

Fig. 5.1 Case problem about a special education student. (http://www.kocw.net/home/cview.do? lid=8c5391b30913b324)

are linked to examples of student works and videos of classroom practices, which provide supplementary information about problem situations. After teachers write their initial opinions to the questions in a case problem, they watch videos that include cases of experienced teachers and their opinions on the problem. The videos help beginning teachers to consider multiple viewpoints on the case problem of students with special needs when they develop solutions. Question prompts are provided to help beginning teachers to analyze the videos. The video cases are followed by individual and collaborative learning activities regarding case problems. Beginning teachers are engaged in learning with multimedia resources, quizzes, and group discussions. Teachers also compare their initial opinions with revised ones about case problems and reflect on what they have learned. Park (2011) found that pre-service teachers who participated in the online course solved real-world problems more effectively than those in a control group for which direct instruction was applied with a textbook. The case-based instruction helped pre-service teachers to define ill-structured problems of special education, analyze strengths and weaknesses of teaching practices, and generate effective solutions to problem situations. The online course was well designed with multimedia cases and provided sufficient supports and resources to guide case-based learning activities.

5 Case-Based Online Learning Environments for Teachers …

79

EDUNET EDUNET is a website (http://www.EDUNET.net) that provides multimedia resources, learning materials, lesson plans, and educational software. KERIS developed the website to facilitate ICT integration in elementary and secondary education in 1996. EDUNET plays the role of a national teaching and learning center for both teachers and students. About 53% of Korean elementary and secondary schools use educational contents and resources in EDUNET (Kim et al., 2021). The website provides teachers with about 2000 video cases along with teaching and learning materials. In order to improve teaching strategies and technology use in class, KERIS has developed video cases that show successful teaching practices in K-12 school. Figure 5.2 shows a video case library in EDUNET that enables teachers to search for video cases with key words, school levels, grades, and subjects. After finding video cases, teachers can sort the cases according to dates, hits, and recommendations. These functions help teachers to find video cases closely related to their interest. Video cases show excellent lessons that were awarded at the national competition of Korean teachers. KERIS collects and edits the lesson videos of teachers who received an award in the national competition. The length of videos is 30–50 min, and they include whole class interaction, group projects, integration of smart devices with teaching, etc. To facilitate understanding of classroom practices, subtitles of the videos show what is happening in class, the purpose of an activity, and teachers’ reflection on lessons. Video cases also provide additional information on the lessons regarding learning objectives, a curriculum, an instructor, and school contexts. Furthermore, teachers can download lesson plans, teaching and learning materials, and assessment tools that were used in video cases. These resources help beginning teachers to understand the teaching practices in video cases and apply what they observed in videos to their own lessons.

Fig. 5.2 Video case library of excellent lessons. (http://www.edunet.net)

80

Y. H. Cho et al.

Beginning teachers can use the video cases of excellent lessons as multimedia resources when they prepare new lessons and explore solutions to pedagogical problems. The video cases also help beginning teachers to reflect on their teaching practices by comparing them with other videos featuring excellent lessons. Kim et al. (2009) found that 36% of teachers used video cases in order to observe excellent lessons in EDUNET; 34% of teachers watched video cases to prepare their lessons; and 28% of teachers intended to learn new instructional strategies from video cases. Although the video case library can be used as a resource for diverse purposes, EDUNET does not provide any specific instruction or activity for teacher education. Teachers have autonomy in selecting and using video cases for their own purposes.

Indischool While KOCW and EDUNET are developed and managed by KERIS that is a government organization, Indischool is an elementary school teachers’ online community (http://www.indischool.com) that is independent from Ministry of Education. An elementary school teacher who wanted to overcome the lack of communication among teachers developed the website in 2000 (Kim, 2008). The needs of collaboration with other teachers encouraged a number of teachers to spontaneously participate in the community of practice. About 114,000 teachers (61% of Korean elementary school teachers) participate in the online community, making it the largest online community of elementary school teachers in South Korea. The community aims not only to share knowledge and resources but also to develop professional identities, values and attitudes toward education, and a sense of community and fellowship (Seo et al., 2011). Indischool helps teachers to collaboratively develop professional competencies by sharing their experience and wisdom with each other. In the online community, teachers share a variety of cases in order to collaboratively solve their pedagogical, curricular, and classroom management problems. There is a menu referred to as Classroom Story that includes the online bulletin boards of Teacher Diary and Education Counseling. In both online bulletin boards, teachers can anonymously interact with other teachers, and they often use nicknames or symbols (e.g., A, B, C) instead of real school, teacher, and student names. In addition, only Indischool members, most of whom are elementary school teachers, have access to the online messages. These conditions allow teachers to share their experiences and concerns frankly and openly. In the Teacher Diary webpage, teachers share their stories about what they conducted in class, what events they observed, what problems they encountered, how they solved the problems, what they reflected on, and so on. Teachers sometimes upload photos or video clips to vividly show teaching and learning activities. In the Education Counseling webpage, teachers ask questions about their problems and concerns about a variety of topics like students, classroom practices, school administration, and teaching careers. More experienced teachers tend to provide advice to the questions and emotionally support beginning teachers. In addition to

5 Case-Based Online Learning Environments for Teachers …

81

the bulletin boards, Indischool includes a few online spaces in which teachers can share their cases, ideas, and resources with other teachers who share similar interests (e.g. afterschool class, special education).

Extract 1 Case Problem of a Beginning Teacher in Indischoola Hello ~ ^^ I am a novice teacher with 4-year teaching experience. I first teach fifth grade students this year ~ I have given students homework and checked their homework next day since my first year in school. I used to scold students who did not complete their homework or require them to make up the homework after school. But, it was seldom effective to have the students make up missed homework after school because they were already taught how to solve homework problems in class … ㅠ.ㅠ I am too tired whenever checking students’ homework. It is also hard to keep scolding students. Finally, I have reduced the number of times to check their homework … Is there any way to have all students do their homework? I ask this question because I have difficulty finding an answer, although I think of the question every day How can I teach students who don’t do their homework? Senior and junior teachers, please give me an advice^^ a

Translated from the message written in Korean at https://www.indischool. com. Extract 1 shows a case problem posted by a beginning teacher. She expected all students would do their homework before her class, but some students kept missing the homework. She tried to address the problem by scolding the students and requiring them to make up missed homework after school. This strategy, however, was not effective in solving the problem. The teacher shared her experience and asked other teachers to give her advice on a way to have all students do their homework. In the case problem, she also used a few emoticons to show her closeness to other community members and her feeling of sadness about the problem situation. Nine teachers replied to the question in the Indischool bulletin board through sharing their experience along with helpful advice. A fifth-grade teacher described what kinds of homework she gave or did not give to students and what she did to reduce the number of students who missed homework. For instance, she gave students enough time to complete their homework, specifically explained how to do the homework, and talked with students about the amount and difficulty of homework. Another teacher claimed that teachers should assign a minimal amount of homework and get children to have the idea that they can do the homework in 30 minutes. In addition, the other teacher suggested not to be angry with the students who missed homework,

82

Y. H. Cho et al.

but to encourage them instead. These teachers shared their ideas and experiences in order to collaboratively solve the case problem in the online community. In the online community, teachers can learn what to do and what not to do for effective teaching from the cases, apply the knowledge to their own class, critically reflect on their teaching experience, and share new findings or issues by writing their experience as cases (Kim, 2008; Seo et al., 2011). Furthermore, teachers can negotiate the meanings of cases and collaboratively explore solutions to case problems. In Indischool, teachers teach each other reciprocally using cases that represent their problem-solving experience in school.

Discussion We analyzed three different approaches of case-based online learning environments for teacher education in South Korea. As shown in Table 5.1, KOCW, EDUNET, and Indischool are different from each other in pedagogical approaches: case-based instruction, case libraries as resources, and communities of practice. The KOCW course helps beginning teachers to understand concepts, principles, and issues of special education and to develop their competencies of adaptive instruction for students with special needs, using the case-based instruction approach. In Table 5.1 Summary of online case-based learning environments for Korean teachers

Pedagogical approach

KOCW: understanding of children with special needs

EDUNET: excellent lesson video

Indischool: classroom story

Case-based instruction

Case library as resource Community of practice

Purpose of case Teaching concepts and principles of special education and developing instructional competencies

Diffusing innovative and effective teaching practices all over the country

Sharing and negotiating ideas, resources, and experiences about teaching and learning activities

Content of case Problem situation of special education and narratives of experienced teachers

Excellent lessons that were awarded at the national competition of Korean teachers

Case problems and resources created by teachers, which include both success and failure experience

Format of case

Animation and video

Video

Text, photo, and video

Function of case

Cases as problems to solve and objects of analysis

Case-based reasoning

Teacher-constructed case

Subject of management

KERIS (government organization)

KERIS (government organization)

Elementary school teachers (non-profit organization)

5 Case-Based Online Learning Environments for Teachers …

83

the online course, teachers solve ill-structured case problems in authentic contexts and analyze video cases of experienced teachers that include their narrative about teaching students with special needs. The video cases of excellent lessons in EDUNET plays the role of a case library. The case library provides helpful multimedia resources when teachers prepare new lessons or explore solutions to their pedagogical problems. From the video cases of excellent lessons, teachers can learn new instructional strategies and apply them to their own class. Lastly, Indischool enables teachers to construct their own cases as problems and resources for their professional development. Teachers as members of the online community not only spontaneously share their success and failure cases but also work collaboratively to solve case problems posted by other teachers in the online community. Jonassen (2006) asserted that the function of cases plays an important role in distinguishing different case-based learning approaches. According to his typology of case-based learning, the KOCW course uses cases as problems to solve and objects of analysis (i.e. case-study method). The online course provides a case problem, which is closely related to learning objectives, in the format of an animation at the beginning of a lesson. Cases are often used to represent authentic problem situations in many studentcentered learning activities like problem-based learning, anchored instruction, and goal-based scenarios (Jonassen, 2006). To solve complex and ill-structured problems in school contexts, teachers should consider multiple perspectives and theoretical approaches toward the problem (Helleve et al., 2021). According to cognitive flexibility theory, it is necessary to develop complex knowledge through analyzing multiple cases linked to abstract themes in order to solve ill-structured problems effectively (Jacobson & Spiro, 1995). In the KOCW course, beginning teachers are guided to analyze cases of experienced teachers, which represent different perspectives on the problem. Choi and Lee (2009) also provided different viewpoints of teachers about the same case problem in order to improve effectiveness of ill-structured problem-solving abilities in online case-based instruction for pre-service teachers. In the case-based instruction approach, cases are beneficial in providing problem situations, contextual information, multiple perspectives, and instructional support. In EDUNET, the video cases of excellent lessons facilitate case-based reasoning when beginning teachers prepare new lessons. To design a new lesson, experienced teachers are likely to remember and apply previous lessons that they have conducted successfully in a similar situation. However, beginning teachers lack previous experience that can be reused for the design of a new lesson. According to the theory of case-based reasoning (Jonassen & Hernandez-Serrano, 2002; Kolodner, 1997; Schank, 1999), cases of experienced teachers can be helpful for beginning teachers because they can use the cases as substitutes to their direct experience when designing a new lesson.

84

Y. H. Cho et al.

Video cases in EDUNET show successful teaching and learning activities, which are helpful not only for beginning teachers but also for experienced teachers who may suffer from the lack of experience in integrating new technologies into teaching. In EDUNET, teachers can search for video cases according to their needs. In addition, the video case library includes information of lessons, lesson plans, and teaching materials that facilitate understanding of video cases. Kurz and Batarelo (2010) found that video cases associated with supplemental resources were helpful for professional development of pre-service teachers. The most prominent difference between Indischool and the other online environments is who constructs cases. In the KOCW course and the case library of EDUNET, teachers solve, analyze, and reuse cases that are developed and organized by others. On the other hand, in Indischool, teachers as community members create and share their own cases in online bulletin boards. Teachers spontaneously share their stories of teaching and learning activities, critically reflect on their classroom practices, ask questions based on their teaching experience, emotionally support teachers who have failure experience, and collaboratively solve case problems. As a result, teachers have more ownership in Indischool than the others, which leads to active participation of teachers (Beisiegel et al., 2018). In addition, Indischool encourages beginning teachers to interact with experienced teachers through teacher-constructed cases, which is essential for learning in the community of practice (Graven, 2004; Wenger, 1998). Beginning teachers can develop their identities as teachers through actively participating in the practices like lesson study, critical reflection, and discussion on pedagogical issues. Teachers openly share their cases about a variety of topics because there is a sense of community among members in Indischool, which is run by teachers themselves (Kim, 2008). In contrast, KOCW and EDUNET are run by the government organization, KERIS, and the users of the websites rarely interact with each other. Instructional designers and subject matter experts develop a small number of cases in the KOCW course, and only excellent lessons awarded in the national competition of teachers are developed into video cases in EDUNET. Although these cases are well designed by experts, they may not sufficiently meet the needs of beginning teachers. Teachers are more likely to find cases that are closely related to their problem situations in Indischool in which they construct cases based on their real experience in class. The failure cases of Indischool can be as beneficial as success cases for improving teaching and learning practices (Rong & Choi, 2019; Tawfik & Jonassen, 2013; Tawfik et al., 2019). Failure cases encourage beginning teachers to collaborate with experienced teachers to discuss why a lesson was not effective and how to improve the lesson.

5 Case-Based Online Learning Environments for Teachers …

85

Conclusion Cases are helpful for the development of teachers’ competencies in a variety of ways. The effectiveness of case-based learning can be fostered with advanced technologies that enable teachers to use cases without the barriers of time and space. This chapter presented three approaches toward case-based online learning environments for teacher education in South Korea: case-based instruction, case libraries as resources, and communities of practice. We analyzed three exemplar websites developed for Korean teachers. Although all cases provide authentic contexts, the functions and contents of cases are varied depending on the case-based learning approaches. In particular, communities of practice allow teachers to have greater autonomy in creating, sharing, and using cases than the other approaches. Teacher-constructed cases in the online community of practice are likely to help beginning teachers to develop their identities and professional competencies through interaction with experienced teachers. Future research is recommended to design online learning environments that help teachers to create useful case problems and resources, reuse cases for a new problem situation, and collaboratively solve a case problem. The effectiveness of case-based online learning environments should be further investigated in terms of the professional development of teachers.

References Barab, S., MaKinster, J., G., Moore, J., A., & Cunningham, J. D. (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the Inquiry Learning Forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 71–96. Barnett, M. (2006). Using a web-based professional development system to support preservice teachers in examining authentic classroom practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 701–729. Beisiegel, M., Mitchell, R., & Hill, H. C. (2018). The design of video-based professional development: An exploratory experiment intended to identify effective features. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(1), 69–89. Cho, Y. H., & Huang, Y. (2014). Exploring the links between pre-service teachers’ beliefs and video-based reflection in wikis. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 39–53. 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, 99–129. Ekici, D. I. (2018). Development of pre-service teachers’ teaching self-efficacy beliefs through an online community of practice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(1), 27–40. Ertmer, P. A., & Russell, J. D. (1995). Using case studies to enhance instructional design education. Educational Technology, 35(4), 23–31. Goos, M. E., & Bennison, A. (2008). Developing a communal identity as beginning teachers of mathematics: Emergence of an online community of practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(1), 41–60. Graven, M. (2004). Investigating mathematics teacher learning within an in-service community of practice: The centrality of confidence. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 177–211.

86

Y. H. Cho et al.

Harrington, H. L. (1995). Fostering reasoned decisions: Case-based pedagogy and the professional development of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 203–214. Helleve, I., Eide, L., & Ulvik, M. (2021). Case-based teacher education preparing for diagnostic judgement. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768. 2021.1900112 Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of case libraries on problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 103–114. Herrington, A., Herrington, J., Kervin, L., & Ferry, B. (2006). The design of an online community of practice for beginning teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1), 120–132. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301–333. Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Typology of case-based learning: The content, form, and function of cases. Educational Technology, 46(4), 11–15. 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. Jonassen, D. H., Wang, F. K., Strobel, J., & Cernusca, D. (2003). Application of a case library of technology integration stories for teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(4), 547–566. Kim, D. (2008). The development process of network-based community of practice for teachers’ knowledge sharing and expertise development: A case study of Indi-School. The Journal of Korean Educational Technology, 24(2), 1–30. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Web-enhanced case-based activity in teacher education: A case study. Instructional Science, 37(2), 151–170. Kim, H. N., Song, U., & Park, S. (2009). A study on the actual state of EDUNET utilization by elementary school teachers. The Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education, 13(3), 371–382. Kim, S. H., Yoon, Y., Noh, E., & Park, S. (2021). Analysis of the online support systems for curriculum organization and implementation in Korea. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 24(1), 29–52. Koehler, A. A., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2019). Developing preservice teachers’ instructional design skills through case-based instruction: Examining the impact of discussion format. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(4), 319–334. Koehler, A. A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2017). Examining the role of Web 2.0 tools in supporting problem solving during case-based instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3–4), 182–197. Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, 52(1), 57–66. Kolodner, J. L. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 225–242). Cambridge University Press. Kurz, T. L., & Batarelo, I. (2010). Constructive features of video cases to be used in teacher education. TechTrends, 54(5), 46–52. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Park, S. H. (2011). The effect of multimedia case-based learning on preservice teachers’ critical thinking and practices. The Journal of Korean Computer Education, 14(6), 19–28. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 52–67. Rong, H., & Choi, I. (2019). Integrating failure in case-based learning: A conceptual framework for failure classification and its instructional implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 617–637.

5 Case-Based Online Learning Environments for Teachers …

87

Sanders-Smith, S. C., Smith-Bonahue, T. M., & Soutullo, O. R. (2016). Practicing teachers’ responses to case method of instruction in an online graduate course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, 1–11. Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge University Press. Seo, K., Choi, Y., & Kim, S. (2011). Sharing instructional materials online: A case study of online teacher community. The Journal of Elementry Education, 24(2), 257–284. So, H.-J., Lossman, H., Lim, W.-Y., & Jacobson, M. J. (2009). Designing an online video-based platform for teacher learning in Singapore. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 440–457. 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. Tawfik, A. A., Kim, K., Hogan, M., & Msilu, F. (2019). How success versus failure cases support knowledge construction in collaborative problem-solving. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(6), 1376–1399. Tawfik, A. A., Kim, K., & Kim, D. (2020). Effects of case library recommendation system on problem solving and knowledge structure development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1329–1353. Ulusoy, F. (2020). Prospective teachers’ skills of attending, interpreting and responding to contentspecific characteristics of mathematics instruction in classroom videos. Teaching and Teacher Education, 94, 103103. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244–276. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Xue, S., Hu, X., Chi, X., & Zhang, J. (2021). Building an online community of practice through WeChat for teacher professional learning. Professional Development in Education, 47(4), 613– 637. Yang, S.-H. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 11–21.

Chapter 6

The Development of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning in China Xiaoyong Hu

Abstract The advantages of case-based learning over traditional, rote methods, have led it from origins at Harvard in the US to Asian universities. Cases function as bridges connecting theory and practice. They can render abstract knowledge more concrete and simplify complicated problems, to motivate students’ zeal for knowledge/further exploration. Case-based instruction (CBI) also makes learning experiences more authentic closely emulating real life situations. Technology has enriched case resources by enabling vivid pictures and imagery. CBI can also be applied in a wider context and with more flexibility. Following a chronological order for which different types of information technology were implemented in CBI, technology-mediated case-based learning can be grouped into videomediated, internet-mediated and intelligent-system-mediated case-based instruction. This paper generates the implementation of the three types of technology-mediated case-based instruction with their research focuses. It also comprehensively describes an authentic technology-mediated case in higher education, as well as summarizes the value and issues of technology-mediated case-based instruction. The context of the article is China. Keywords Case-based instruction · Higher education in China · Technology-mediated · Video and network technology

Introduction Case-based instruction (CBI) can be dated back to the 1980s in China alongside the growth of video technology (Gao et al., 2012). Technology-mediated case-based learning itself was only officially and recently brought into university classrooms. It was first developed in the twenty-first century, when computers became more ubiquitous and the internet increasingly complex. Now network technologies and intelligence systems have further developed and enabled CBI. Instead, CBI can be X. Hu (B) Educational Technology Department, School of Education Information Technology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_6

89

90

X. Hu

regarded as a model for how information technology has been applied to education (Zhu, 2001). The use of computer and network technologies, with artificial intelligence, is increasingly implemented in classroom teaching and training, especially in higher education.

Technology-Mediated Case-Based Instruction in Higher Education: Research Scope The use of information technology in education is unquestioned today. Teaching modes now evolve from the vast uses of technology as more and more teachers and researchers seem captivated by how to maximize the almost infinite uses of technology. In the meantime, there is an increasing number of scholars investigating and studying the topic of technology-mediated case-based instruction. The data collected and analyzed reveals that research into technology-mediated case-based instruction in higher education can be grouped into five categories, as shown in Table 6.1. The more developed of the technologies shown above are video technology and network technology. Intelligence systems may still be in the embryonic stage but are beginning to gain importance in the evaluation stage of CBI. Table 6.1 Summary: Review of research on technology-mediated case-based instruction in higher education Type of research

Research details

Mediated technology

Basic theory research

The definition of CBI

Database & network technology

The theory basis of CBI Teaching model

The process of CBI The tactics of CBI

Video & network technology

The structure of environmental framework of CBI Design and development of instruction system

Development of instruction system Video & network technology Development of management system

Network technology

Development of assessment system Intelligence system Design and development of cases

Case development

Video technology

Development of the case resource library

Video & network technology

Evaluation

The advantages and problems of CBI

Video & network technology

Evaluation of instruction affection of CBI

6 The Development of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

91

The article now reviews research into video-based instruction (VBI) in higher education. It considers the theories of VBI and its practice.

Video-Based Instruction in Higher Education Theories of Video-Based Instruction The video cases referred to are cases structured in a hyper media environment, not defined by linear, singular classroom descriptions and simple cases. The chapter then accordingly views video-based instruction (VBI) as defined by movable words, sound, pictures and videos, which illustrate the contents of the cases and enable students to concurrently see, hear and touch (Qi, 2009a, 2009b). The process of video-based instruction VBI is as below. 1. Sorting and editing videos. Teachers search for videos that fit the required themes, separating them into manageable sections, from which questions and tasks are generated. 2. Watching videos. Students watch the videos after class. Pedagogical strategies are selected that stimulate student thinking and probing of issues and questions. 3. Discussing, evaluating and drawing conclusions in class. Students form groups to discuss the topic at hand, with teachers leading the discussion, allocating and managing time spent. 4. Writing case analysis reports. Reports of the discussion together with an analysis of proceedings, can be done either in groups or individually. They would include the group or individual analysis, case discussion and reflections, together with questions raised with possible resolutions. 5. Teacher evaluation. Teachers also provide feedback on student classroom performance and their submitted reports.

The Practice of Video-Based Instruction Sources of Video Cases Video cases have three primary sources. The first source is of successful cases going in and out of China (Yan & Nie, 2012). These videos may be comparatively long and unedited, necessitating instructors to abbreviate and edit the video catering to differing teaching contexts. Details on video editing follow shortly. The second source of video cases are from television shows, generally news and documentary items. For example, contentious political issues reported in the China Central Television News can be used in political electives (Cao & Gao, 2011).

92

X. Hu

Teachers can also produce their own videos (Weng, 2008). There are difficulties, in production, which requires teachers to be experienced in writing cases, videoing, or even illustrations, e.g., when animation is used. Editing video cases. Some of the video sources described above may require editing. To enable that, technology again comes to the rescue making available tools such as video cutting. Video cutting is used to truncate long video cases into manageable single-skill video cases and integrate them into a different sequence to expedite skill comparisons (Weng, 2008). Another technology is video marking (Yan & Nie, 2012). Computer technology has advanced into online storage and information management enabling video marking which facilitates ease of storage and retrieval of edited case videos. At present, there are numerous designs of library systems using video marking of video cases. Most of these are internet supported such as the case library of Guangxi Normal University (Wu et al., 2009).

Application of Video-Based Instruction in Higher Education Video-based instruction (VBI) has yet to be implemented totally in all courses in higher education. An analysis of the relevant literature of 55 video cases in CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) provides useful information about the use of VBI in China, such as the courses that implement VBI and the challenges faced. Figure 6.1 shows the courses that implement VBI as well as their level of usage. It appears that video case instruction seems to be favored by courses that emphasize practicums, for example, vocational and teaching skill training, as well as various

Fig. 6.1 Percentage of subjects integrated with VBI. Source Adapted from CNKI—China National Knowledge Infrastructure

6 The Development of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

93

humanities courses, for example, political theory, management studies, social work. Noticeable is the lack of use of VBI in science type subjects with one exception, a course in computer science. No video cases also seem to have been involved when teaching Mathematics and Physics. This suggests that VBI may not be suitable for all subjects. It is also possible that there might a lack of motivation in the employment of VBI in the areas of higher education. The research of the 55 video cases also reveals the number of research studies conducted on VBI is increasing yearly. This does demonstrate an increasing interest in and attention to the topic by teachers. However, one issue of concern is that the research conducted seems to be highly repetitive with a startlingly lack of innovation, contributing to the dearth of research conducted on VBI.

Internet-Mediated Case-Based Instruction in Higher Education Research on CBI in higher education has mainly focused on areas like the design of the relevant teaching systems or teaching mode and application of CBI in distance learning.

The Study of Online Case-Based Instruction The Implementation of Case-Based Instruction Differing opinions prevail regarding the implementation of online case-based instruction. Scholars are divided on whether this should incorporate six steps or three steps. The six step implementation process consists of (i) issuing the cases; (ii) creating an appropriate learning context; (iii) raising questions for learners to analyze; (iv) engaging learners in independent study or online collaboration; (v) concluding the case; (vi) evaluating the learning journey (Che & Liu, 2005; Liu, 2006; Liu & Chen, 2005), comprising “preparation, implementation and consolidation” (Liu et al., 2006). 1. A general procedure of CBI emerges when these two views of implementation are integrated consisting of the following steps. Teachers post the tasks and primary cases on the course website or online class forum. Task requirements guide the students to what teachers are looking for, so that students can proceed to research the cases, share their resources and ask questions. 2. Teaching proceeds in the physical classroom where key points of the case are explained to help students understand the more advanced and complex

94

3. 4.

5.

6.

X. Hu

cases, solve students’ remaining problems and generate new thought-provoking questions. Autonomic and cooperative learning flourishes in the ensuing online communication between teachers and students and between students themselves. Students independently search for related cases to study, analyze and evaluate. Ideally an online community environment exists where students post their case analyses, opinions and comments to learn from each other. Students are encouraged to keep an online record of their learning using either wikis or blogs, and to update these regularly to reflect any new developments in their case analysis. Back in the classroom, teachers get students to share their views and questions and in doing so, are able evaluate their students’ learning up to that point. Students’ final scores are given based on their online performance, that is, their posts, comments and records, as well as the classroom learning assessment. Teachers’ feedback and students’ own online records enable students to realize their weaknesses and strengths.

The Online Case Library Various Chinese universities have higher education online case libraries with interactive features and hyperlinks which are accessible via their websites. Examples of online case libraries are the China Cases Centre of Public Management in Tsinghua University, China Forum of Enterprise Management Cases in Renmin University of China and The Cases Library of Law Experimental Teaching Centre in Wuhan University. However, far from being the gold standard of online case libraries, common problems are evident. Most of them charge a fee to use, which can discourage students and teachers from using them. The libraries are not updated so that the majority of the cases are out-of-date. Students are then hesitant to use such antiquated libraries especially when more current cases can be found on the internet. Systemic inadequate technology support can also be problematic. Some hyperlinks, for example, do not direct users to the right page. These issues indicate that while Chinese universities’ movement towards online case libraries is commendable, the host of problems could detract from the true advantages of online case libraries.

Online Case-Based Instruction and Distance Education Online case-based instruction is unquestionably useful to distance learning with the integration of online case teaching and distance education. Table 6.2 shows some Chinese distance education institutions that also engage in CBI.

6 The Development of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

95

Table 6.2 The practice of CBI in distance education The distance education organizations

Teaching practice

China Central Television University (Chen, 2009)

The ‘tri-nuclear’ (as coined by the author) interactive teaching method was brought in to introduce, analyze and discuss cases on the internet successfully since Sep. 2003–Jan. 2004 CBI was employed in management courses since 2009

China Teachers Club (www.teacherclub. com.cn)

Applied CBI as one of the teaching methods when doing distance training to kindergarten teachers

School of distance and continuation education, Taught students majoring in logistics through a variety of instructional strategies such as Beijing University of Communication web-based instruction, multi-media instruction and CBI Naval Web College

Modern distance teaching was developed through online naval cases to cater for the navy of the new type in 2006

Post training of senior school teachers in Guangdong Province 2012

In 2012, the Instructing Centre of Continuation Education, the Audio-Visual Teaching Centre, as well as some training schools and universities in Guangdong province jointly trained the senior school teachers in distance education

Intelligent-System-Mediated Case-Based Instruction in Higher Education An intelligent system is an embedded, internet-connected computer with the capacity to gather and analyze data and communicate with other systems. Intelligent systems are still very much in their infancy stage with regard to the likes of artificial intelligence, but rudimentary intelligent systems such as internet-connected computers are essential to online case-based instruction.

Application of Intelligent Systems in the Selection and Updating of Cases Intelligent systems enable users to automatically match their case search with the cases in the database. They first have to key in words relevant to the case. If there are cases with the exact same key words, the system will list the cases onto the user’s browser. If there are no exact matches, cases including some of the key words will be listed as a suggestion.

96

X. Hu

Case Libraries Case libraries just discussed above are updated using case matching. When users access the cases listed, the system will then update the keywords automatically, which means the case matching is successful. If the cases listed are inappropriate, or case matching is unsuccessful, users will then have to adjust and edit the cases or search words. This means the system decides whether to allow modification based on its knowledge base. If modification is allowed, it records the contents changed and the results revised, otherwise it informs users the modification is not allowed. Figure 6.2 illustrates the mode/process of the intelligence system used in case selection and library updating (Qi, 2009a, 2009b). Another use of intelligent systems in CBI is in the evaluation of learners.

Evaluation of Learners There are various ways to evaluate learners in CBI. The traditional modus operandi is regarded as subjective because the assessment of student performance is based on classroom observation and case analysis reports. Traditional assessment modes tend to be simple and rigid, relying heavily on the final marks from end-term examinations and downplaying student daily performance if not neglecting it completely (Qi, 2009a, 2009b).

Select cases based on

Question

Y The case library (Successful cases)

N

If it is related to question matching

Retained cases Y

Knowledge base (if it is related to question matching) N

Select cases

Case editing

Connect the successful cases with questions

Y Answer to the questions Solution to the problems

Fig. 6.2 Use of intelligence system in case selection and library updating (Qi, 2009a, 2009b)

6 The Development of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

97

What intelligent online systems can do to over-come the above deficiencies of student evaluation, is ensure a more objective and fair assessment. The advantageous ways they can do so are listed below.

Flexibility Student evaluations can be conducted more flexibly and outgoing because it need not be completed in a fixed period of time. Student behaviors can be recorded and quantified in a table format. For example, the system can note how many times the student accessed resources and tasks given, the number of student posts or contributions to the online class discussion. The system can also provide immediate feedback on student performance, for example, online tests can be graded right away after completion. The system relieves teachers of the responsibility of having to be objective in evaluations or having to adhere to a rigid timeline.

Prompt Feedback It takes only seconds for an intelligent system to generate the quantified results of student performance. Knowing their results without delay can effectively motivate students. The feedback may be simple, as in looking for a few key words, but clear and direct, so students get the message. Student learning can also be enhanced when the system shows them responses from their peers to the same tasks.

Timely Supervision and Guidance Students’ learning can be more timely supervised and guided. The system can monitor student behaviors and provide guidance for more study or advance to the next segment only when they have achieved mastery in current tasks.

Accuracy of Assessment The methods for assessment are richer and more varied, yielding more accurate results. During student practice sessions, the system allocates questions based on an individual’s performance which situates a student at his or her level of mastery of a topic.

98

X. Hu

Instruction to Cases (Zheng, 2011) Course: Reflection Ability Training for Pre-service Teachers Using Case-Based Instruction The course focus was on a task-driven pedagogy. Online case resources were also developed to enable pre-service teachers to reflect on their learning. The course aimed to boost pre-service teacher’s understanding of the task-based teaching as well as to skillfully analyze video cases and reflect on their own teaching. It also aimed to analyze and evaluate each other’s teaching using video cases. Teaching methods were case analysis, task-based teaching and heuristic teaching.

Course Implementation Website Development Before Class Development of video cases. A course, “The masking of layers on Photoshop”, was videoed, as the content of the main video case which included resources such as the PowerPoint slides, audio and text materials. The completed main video case was formed by cutting the initial video into sections where the teacher demonstrated task-based teaching. Two shorter video cases were also constructed. One of the shorter video cases was a lecture given by the videographer and editor on how they constructed the main video cases (videoing, editing, cutting, etc.). The other shorter video case contained comments of two experienced teachers who were invited to analyze the course (content, instructor teaching style, etc.). Development of supplementary materials. This teaching of the course was transcribed according to the selective verbatim scripting technique, where the transcriber only records things said confined to a certain focus area. The transcript was saved as a text file named “Classroom teaching procedure.” Various teachers and students were invited to participate in a dialogue to analyze the transcript. The dialogue was recorded, i.e., “Teacher-students dialogue interaction analysis.” Finally, an experienced teacher, was invited to observe and comment on the initial video case, with his comments recorded in a text document “Outline of evaluation.” His suggestions were valuable in developing “The scaffolding of teaching reflection.” Publishing learning resources. The collected materials (videos and texts) were published on the training resources website. Other than the training materials provided, pre-service teachers could also engage in self-learning by reviewing other related literature and teaching cases online. Pre-service teachers could add these external learning resources to the training website.

6 The Development of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

99

The Classroom Video-Based Instruction in Class The teacher introduced the cases and raised questions. After observing students’ self-study materials, the teacher chose and played sections of the main video which demonstrated task-based teaching whilst raising new questions such as the situatedness, meaningfulness and maneuverability of tasks established in the case. Discussion and sharing between the instructor and students. Pre-service teachers were encouraged to share their views, ask questions and discuss their answers. The instructor then concluded the discussion process by elaborating the merits of the task-based teaching as demonstrated in the video case. The teacher questioned and discussed with students again. The teacher then drew pre-service teachers’ attention to the reaction of the students in the video cases. After viewing the video cases again, pre-service teachers were encouraged to spontaneously discuss the students’ reaction to task-based teaching. The invited experts made comments and the teacher concluded the class. Preservice teachers then watched the videos containing the experts’ comments before discussing any drawback of task-based teaching. The teacher concluded the advantages and disadvantages of task-based teaching to indicate the importance of teaching reflection and how video cases can be used to make such reflections.

Online Cooperative Learning and the Evaluation After Class Outside the classroom, pre-service teachers were divided into 9 groups with each group finding one other case of task-based teaching. Group members would then thoroughly discuss and analyze this new case through QQ, a popular chatting tool in China, and a good site for collaboration, before completing the teaching reflection on process. Students could reflect on their own and other groups’ discussion on the tool, thereby enabling the reciprocal studying of teaching reflection methods. The instructor could follow the pre-service teachers’ learning journey through QQ and Wiki whilst making timely comments. After the course, each group was expected to submit a case study report and a reflective thinking journal. The teacher would provide feedback on students’ overall performance based on the physical report, in class discussions as well as their online performance. The class operation process is illustrated in Fig. 6.3.

100

X. Hu

START

1. RESOURCES: Development of case resources website Teachers integrate video cases and develop supplementary materials which were published on the training resources website. Students engage in self-directed learning, search for and share resources on the website.

2. VIDEO: Introduce and watch the classroom cases. The teacher raises questions Teachers guide students to think, discuss and share their opinions by asking questions. Students share their views freely, discuss their reflections and solve problems.

3. RESOURCES: Group cooperative study after class Teachers guide students to think, discuss and share their opinions Students share their views freely, discuss their reflections and solve problems.

4. MULTIMEDIA: Teachers conclude the process and give feedback.

FINISH Fig. 6.3 Illustration of process for pre-service teachers’ course using CBI

Differences, Merits, Problems and Way Forward for Technology Supported Case-Based Instruction Differences Among Three Technology-Mediated Case-Based Instruction Technology-mediated case-based instruction can be divided into video-mediated case-based instruction, internet-mediated case-based instruction and intelligentsystem-mediated case-based instruction. There are some differences among these three types of technology-mediated case-based instruction in case sources, case construction and teaching evaluation.

6 The Development of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

101

Differences in Case Sources The case sources of video-mediated case-based instruction come from videos, which are successful cases, television shows or produced by teachers themselves. The main case sources of internet-mediated case-based instruction come from online case libraries of universities in China. These online case libraries are interactive and hyperlinked, which are convenient for teachers and students to access to through websites. The case sources of intelligent-system-mediated case-based instruction come from the case libraries in general intelligent systems, where teachers and students can directly search and use related cases.

Differences in Case Construction The cases of video-mediated case-based instruction are designed and compiled by teachers, so it is difficult for students to participate in the video compilation process, which may lead to its lack of innovation. The online case libraries of internetmediated case-based instruction have been built, but it fails to be updated for a long time, which leads to the outdated resources of online case libraries. In the case libraries of intelligent systems, teachers and students can edit cases at any time, so as to promote the updating of case database and realize the sharing of resources.

Differences in Teaching Evaluation Video-mediated and internet-mediated case-based instruction are mainly evaluated by teachers according to classroom observation and case analysis reports, and the evaluation results are subjective, while the intelligent system can record learning behaviors more flexibly and conveniently, with timely supervision and feedback on learning behaviors, making the evaluation of learners more objective, fair and accurate. The intelligent-systems mediated had obvious advantages over the other two technology-mediated case-based instruction, but it is still in its infancy stage. When using the case-based instruction of technology-mediated, it should choose the most suitable technology-mediated case-based instruction according to the authentic teaching environment.

Merits of Technology Supported Case-Based Instruction The many benefits of CBI outweigh traditional instruction which hinges rather heavily on teacher-centric pedagogies with limited student input. Textbooks as the main instructional materials also cannot supply/match the reality of cases. This issue of reality forms one of the strengths of CBI.

102

X. Hu

Cases are contemporaneous with real situations and issues, what students are already familiar with, if not can identify with. This makes it easier to establish an effective teaching context able to augment present knowledge with new knowledge, which the cases have demonstrated are realistic and applicable. Students are possibly main beneficiaries of CBI. Cases being “real life” illustrate theories in action and thus better appeal to student interest and activate their motivation to learn and be involved in lessons. Dealing with cases provides opportunities to develop critical and divergent thinking skills as students go about analyzing and dissecting cases. The advantages of traditional CBI are further strengthened when technology and its tools get into the picture. Student familiarity if not love of multimedia is now maximized in the classrooms, enriching case contexts with vivid visuals, sights and sounds, enabling students to live and operationalize the cases. Self-directed learning as an educational goal becomes viable when students engage in web research, a necessary step before discussion of cases. Cases and case resources are already available online either in case libraries or put there by the teacher. Time is freed up for the teacher to attend to more student-centered learning activities such as eliciting discussion, sharing and collaboration. The presentation of cases is followed by online forums or chat groups, for example, QQ mentioned above. Online forums or any online discussion and student collaboration avenue enables students, even the shy and sensitive, to discuss actively, think critically and share information. Student daily performance can now be recorded and analyzed quantitatively. This provides a valid foundation for evaluation of student performance. Continuous assessments are definitely considered to be more scientific, subjective, fair and reasonable.

Problems of Technology Supported Case-Based Instruction Technology supported case-based instruction is a recent phenomenon, and there exist problems in application and research. One problem is that this application mode is a rather basic and rudimentary tool by itself, unless integrated with other teaching modes. But the use of CBI does not mean all other teaching methods must be abandoned. CBI should be implemented with a combination of other methods, such as task-driven or question-probing methods.

Way Forward for Technology Supported Case-Based Instruction In reality, there is inadequate research on basic theories relating to CBI. This limitation, however, only means that now more avenues for further research are made

6 The Development of Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

103

available. Insufficient development and update of case resources can be rectified by calls for increases in funding for construction of the case bank and sharing of resources among universities. Teachers can also be encouraged to come forward to share their experiences with researchers and experts. A related problem here is the low integration in the process of implementing CBI. Based on prior research and teachers’ own teaching experience, the solution is teachers can integrate videos, websites and the intelligence systems to create a new mode of teaching. As with any relatively new teaching mode, there is naturally a lack of practice in higher education users of CBI. Of course, CBI is not omnipotent, but there is ample room for it to be tried and tested in so many subjects. This only requires teachers to be trained to organize CBI and to select suitable teaching modes. The more teachers can see its advantages, and that disadvantages are not insurmountable, CBI can take its place as a useful and viable pedagogy for the twenty-first century.

References Business Management Case Library. Retrieved from http://caselib.drcnet.com.cn/ Cao, B., & Gao, L. (2011). The reflection on case-based instruction of the ideology and politics theory course in higher education. The Theory Teaching of Ideology and Politics, 10, 80–82. Case database of law experimentingteaching lab in Wuhan University. Retrieved from http://law lab.whu.edu.cn/7/ Che, J., & Liu, Z. (2005). Probe into case-based instruction under internet environment. Research on Modern Distance Education, 1, 22–36. Chen, Y. (2009). The application of case-based instruction in modern distance accounting education. Journal of Hubei Radio and Television University, 2, 12–15. China enterprise management case forum. Retrieved from http://www.rbs.org.cn/templates/T_new_ list/index.aspx?nodeid=45 Enterprise logistic management in School of Distance and Continuous Education of Beijing University of Communications. Retrieved from http://gd2012.teacher.com.cn/Indexpages/ProjectIndex. aspx Gao, H., Zhao, G., & Cai, S. (2012). Probe into the application of case-based instruction in scientific courses of senior vocational school. Journal of Information Technology, 8, 225. Liu, X. (2006). The operation process and control of business-management case-based instruction under internet environment. Journal of Hubei Radio and Television University, 6, 34–36. Liu, Y., & Chen, L. (2005). Case-based instruction in the internet environment. Journal of Mudanjiang Normal College, 3, 53–54. Liu, Y., Zhu, Y., & Zhang, F. (2006). Research on the mode of case-based instruction under the internet environment. Education Informatization, 9, 71–73. National training plan. (2012). A distance training project for core teachers of kindergarten. Retrieved from http://train.teacherclub.com.cn/dts/channel/2012sfye_384/public/53003.htm Professional training of senior high schools in Guangdongprovince (2012). Retrieved from http:// disstream.bjtu.edu.cn/jpkc/qywlgl/frame.html?bid=1&cmid=1 Public management case center in Tsinghua University. Retrieved from http://case.sppm.tsinghua. edu.cn:9090/ggalzx/index.jsp Qi, Z. (2009a). Design and creation of video cases. Journal of Shenyang Normal University, 1, 64–66. Qi, Z. (2009b). Educational research on video-based instruction. China Electrization Education, 6, 85–88.

104

X. Hu

Resources development of “Scheming and creation” in Nanning Vocational Technology College. Retrieved from http://116.252.173.100:8008/cy/jiaoxue/zytz/44.html.training Video case website of training. Retrieved from http://www.casevideo.net/ Weng, F. (2008). Teaching resources design and application mode construction based on video cases of pre-teachers. Modern Education Technology, 3, 104–107. Wu, X., Huang, Q., Lei, W., & Luo, M. (2009). The development of classroom teaching video cases database in the internet environment. Assembling and Producing Technology, 11, 180–182. Yan, H., & Nie, Y. (2012). Case selection and edition in case-based instruction. Administrative Forum, 2, 87–91. Zheng, P. (2011). Research on the video cases development and application of teaching reflection for pre-teachers. Dissertation of Master Degree. Zhu, Z. (2001). Informationization of education: The new highland of education technology. China Electrization Education, 6, 5–8.

Chapter 7

Teachers’ Learning of Classroom Management Using Teacher-Generated Wiki Cases Choon Lang Gwendoline Quek

Abstract Beginning teacher classroom management practices require a conscientious attempt to link theory to application in actual classrooms. In reality, however, a gap has been observed between theory and practice in the classroom management of beginning teachers. This chapter presents research on the development and application of an online resource, a multi-modal platform of ‘case-stories’ of beginning teachers in Singapore. A proposed model of Wiki case-based learning (CBL) was conceptualised by adapting Kirschner’s framework of pedagogical, social and technical aspects for use in Singapore teacher education. Preliminary findings and potential future work are presented from the teachers’ point of view. Keywords Beginning teachers · Case-based learning · Classroom management · Teacher-generated classroom cases · Technology-mediated learning environment

Introduction Classroom management is a key component of beginning teachers’ professional competence in schools, laying the foundation for teachers’ conceptual understanding, principles and practices necessary for their effective teaching inside classrooms (Brophy, 1988, 2006; Doyle, 1990; Emmer et al., 2000). However, one of the major challenges that beginning teachers (with less than three years of teaching experience) face is dealing with real-life classroom management problems (Choi & Lee, 2008; Harrington et al., 1996). Classroom management problems involve multi-level interactions and human behaviour in the classroom environment (Doyle, 1986, 1990; Evertson & Weinstein, 2006; Evertson et al., 2003) and they are complex and ill-structured such that no direct solution can be obtained from books (Lee & Choi, 2008). Without an understanding of the heterogeneous and contextually-situated nature of classroom management C. L. G. Quek (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_7

105

106

C. L. G. Quek

problems, beginning teachers who acquire mechanical skills from their textbooks tend to face difficulties applying their learning to actual classroom settings (Choi & Lee, 2008, 2009). One remedy to this issue has been the use of online cases based on real-world problems. These maximise web-enhanced technologies, such as CaseNet and CBL-CMPS (Bronack & Kilbane, 1998; Choi & Lee, 2008; Heitzmann, 2007). With the necessary scaffoldings and learning resources provided for case-based learning (CBL), learners are able to link relevant educational theories with practice, as they now have to justify their rationales for improving their cases. Research reveals many advantages to online CBL, especially in terms of instructional strategies. Kim and Hannafin (2008, 2009) report that teachers who learnt in such online CBL environments showed gains in expert knowledge because they had been provided with the opportunity to envision and articulate their thinking and plans for real-world teaching. Other studies are similarly positive, describing how self-developed CBL environments help the beginning teachers’ classroom management skills (Choi & Lee, 2008, 2009; Lee & Choi, 2008). However, the design and implementation of a CBL environment entails time, energy and resources, so it remains unrealistic for all teacher education programs to jump on the bandwagon. This chapter will show the application of teacher-generated cases for teachers’ learning of classroom management using Wikis to support teachers’ CBL.

Literature Review Case-Based Learning CBL is mainly rooted in constructivism. In a constructivist learning environment, learning happens in an interactive social process where learners can construct meaning through interacting with novel and authentic experience, discussing and analysing using prior knowledge to solve real-world problems (Pena-Shaff & Nicholls, 2004). Following the constructivist pedagogy, CBL emphasises the construction of learners’ knowledge and developing cognitive competencies through analysing and identifying possible solutions to the real-life problem (Harrington, 1995). Learners will learn from experience directly or indirectly and apply skills and knowledge gained from prior experiences or cases to other scenarios (Grauer et al., 2008). As an instructional approach, CBL is usually designed and employed in teaching and learning to engage learners in real-world scenarios and motivate them to learn and bridge the gap between theory and practice (Harrington, 1995). Teachers offer problems and dilemmas to learners that stimulate their instructional environments. Learners then actively participate in the problem-solving process, develop their problem-solving skills and construct knowledge (Wengrowicz et al., 2018).

7 Teachers’ Learning of Classroom Management Using …

107

Compared to the traditional teacher-centred instructional approach, CBL is a more student-centred and collaborative approach which requires intense interaction between participants in the learning environment as they build their knowledge and work together as a group to examine the case (Daher et al., 2017). This approach aims to connect concepts by addressing predetermined learning issues or knowledge deficiencies. In CBL, students become researchers. They gather and integrate information, compare and analyse the case to generate possible solutions. Finally, they decide which are the best solutions (Kulak & Newton, 2014). The teacher will generally work with students and act as a facilitator in the construction of knowledge. The types of CBL can be classified by the degree of variation in elements such as student involvement, group work, integration with lectures, case complexity, supporting information, and the role of the teacher. CBL is similar to problem-based learning. However, compared with problembased learning, the cases in the CBL are more structured, shorter and less complicated. Additionally, the inquiry method in CBL is also more structured (Srinivasan et al., 2007). Learners will have some advanced preparation and guidance in the inquiry process. CBL encourages reflective learning based on authentic tasks. In teaching and learning application, research has shown that CBL is highly effective for facilitating learners’ higher-order thinking skills, such as critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, analytical skills and decision-making skills (Choi & Lee, 2009; Cliff & Wright, 1996). Learners have positive attitudes when solving a problem with authentic contexts and will construct knowledge more actively (Stepich et al., 2001). CBL has been shown to improve the ability to retain and recall prior knowledge and to flexibly apply the accumulated theory to practices (Carlson & Schodt, 1995). The benefits of CBL have been studied widely in many researches. It is especially useful in promoting learners’ active participation, exploration, and application of theoretical knowledge in different contexts (Dabbagh, 2002; Siegel et al., 2000; Williams, 2004). Even for complex cases, learners have also shown their ability to transfer knowledge and critical reasoning.

Technology-Enhanced Case-Based Learning The CBL as an inquiry-oriented and problem-centred instructional approach is helpful to promote learners’ cognitive and professional development, and technology gives more potential to an effective CBL environment (Ertmer & Koehler, 2015; Luo et al., 2018). Interactive elements in a technology-enhanced environment include guiding questions, asynchronous and synchronous discussions and scaffolding features which motivate and encourage active participation and reflective thinking in the case investigation process (Luo et al., 2018). According to Vonderwell (2003), the effective design of online communication environment stimulates beginning teachers to ask more questions and share more real-life experiences compared to the face-to-face classroom environment.

108

C. L. G. Quek

Compared to traditional face-to-face CBL environment, case-based eLearning and online learning support teachers and students by providing new environments with rich cases. This cultivates a more interactive, collaborative and reflective learning culture (Daher et al., 2017). Research shows that participants have positive attitudes towards engagement in the technology-enhanced CBL environment (Forte & Bruckman, 2006). In the online environment, based on the authentic context, participants raise questions, gain support and discuss with peers to solve the problems in their real-life practices. In the meantime, there is more access to the cases in actual educational situations (Jonassen & Hernandoz-Serrano, 2002; Forte & Bruckman, 2006). In a study designed for improving beginning teachers’ Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK), the online case-based discussion between peers was found to significantly improve beginning teachers’ TPACK, but it took time for these participants to get accustomed to CBL as an instructional strategy in the online environment (Saltan, 2017). Thus, the technology-enhanced instructional practices play an active role in developing critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and the ability to construct knowledge to help them prepare well for real live classroom teaching situations. Researchers suggest that social media has the potential to be a knowledge construction tool for learners when they collaborate with peers in the technologyenhanced interactive environment (Brown, 2012; Voorn & Kommers, 2013). Cheng and Chau (2011) pointed out that Wiki is useful in helping teachers construct knowledge; it connects teachers’ critical analysis to authentic teaching cases, motivating teachers to collaborate with peers to solve the problems in different educational scenarios. However, CBL with technology support does not guarantee the effectiveness of such a learning environment, since some cases utilised in traditional CBL scenarios may not be suitable for the online learning environment. Furthermore, researchers reported that even though technology helps students evolve their ideas and develop their cognitive competencies, technology itself may also become a challenge for both teachers and students since they have to be familiar with the functions and procedures of the tools (Lee et al., 2009). Therefore, teachers must strike a good balance between pedagogy and technology usage when they employ technology in the CBL environment. CBL is widely used in many professional education fields. For example, in medicine, law and business education, CBL is considered a useful instructional approach compared to traditional teaching methods (Artan, 2007; Marcus et al., 2004; Williams, 2004). However, the use of cases does not necessarily equate to ideal learning outcomes. It is noted that when the teachers use CBL, they must have a clear purpose and careful consideration. The ways of using different cases may generate different outcomes (Choi & Lee, 2009). The cases should be related to learning activities to trigger learners’ active thinking, discussion and knowledge acquisition.

7 Teachers’ Learning of Classroom Management Using …

109

Using Case-Based Learning to Support Beginning Teachers’ Classroom Management Beginning teachers, especially, possess low competence in classroom management (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006; Jones & Jones, 1998; LePage et al., 2005; Veenman, 1984; Wang et al., 1994). Most teachers do express classroom management concerns, especially the beginning teachers. This suggests the need for further research to improve their classroom management competence. Case methods and CBL in teacher education is nothing new. Pioneer researches carried out in other countries in the field of CBL in teacher education has shown its potential to engage teachers in meaningful learning (Bronack et al., 1999; Choi & Lee, 2008; Silverman, 2000). However, it is seldom applied formally in Singapore’s teacher education. Predicated upon notions of social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), CBL in Singapore’s teacher education represents a highly significant shift from passive practice towards a more active, collaborative and inquiry-based approach. Most teachers spend time and effort in activities such as teaching, interacting with students and making the classroom the immediate environment for learning. Teachergenerated classroom cases are what underpins a case-based pedagogy, and, as one variation of authentic learning, definitely supports beginning teachers’ growth in classroom management skills. In the opinion of Flynn and Klein (2001), Jonassen & Erdelez (2005), case-based pedagogy bridges the gap between theory and practice. Case-based pedagogy relies on the teachers’ contribution of their real-life classroom cases. These cases provide useful and practical teaching resources to enhance their analytical and problem-solving skills (Bronack et al., 1999; Choi & Lee, 2008; Jonassen & Erdelez, 2005). Beginning teachers can learn and develop from the real world, not abstract and imagined situations, enabling them to apply knowledge to real-life classroom settings (Choi & Lee, 2009). CBL can also help them build advanced tacit knowledge, design and plan for their instruction (Wang, 2002). They will need less time to attain maturity as professionals. An inquiry-oriented learning experience expedites their transition to teaching and professional development in a much shorter term that may otherwise need several years’ teaching experience to evolve (Harrington et al., 1996; Kim & Hannafin, 2009).

Designing Online Learning Environments for Case-Based Learning Past research extracts pedagogy, social, and technology, as essential aspects/factors in online learning environment design (Gaver, 1991; Kirschner et al., 2004; Norman, 1999; Wang, 2008, 2009). These three factors were reiterated by Wang (p. 417). These factors are the essential components used to hold up a proposed model of a wiki CBL environment seen in Fig. 7.1.

110

C. L. G. Quek

Fig. 7.1 Proposed model of wiki CBL

To recap briefly, pedagogical affordances refer to the characteristics of the specific educational resource that elicits a particular learning behaviour which could possibly be enacted within the teaching and learning context. They are backed up by cognitive and behaviourist learning theories. Social affordances zero in on aspects of the educational resource that provide social-contextual facilitation relevant to the learner’s social interaction. Examples include online chat groups and video conferencing. Technical affordances refer to the characteristics of the educational resource that expedite learners’ efficient use of the educational resource. Examples include online technical support and error-free and user-friendly resources. This proposed model of Wiki-supported case-based e-learning follows a theoretical design built on Choi and Lee’s (2008, 2009) prior models of CBL. It is highlighted by Quek et al. (2014) in her inquiry into the Singaporean beginning teachers’ own classroom management cases. This model is the main framework for the study and the main focus of this paper: Singapore teachers’ perceptions of Wikis for teacher-generated CBL. The model presents teachers’ engagement in CBL in the writing of classroom cases using the following steps:

7 Teachers’ Learning of Classroom Management Using …

111

1. Read own classroom case individually. 2. Analyse own case individually according to given prompts questions. a. What’s the problem? b. What are the proposed strategies? c. What is the decision? 3. Read peer’s case analysis and comment (Pair Learning). 4. Review own case analysis individually based on peer feedback. 5. Clarify and discuss areas of inconsistency in case analysis with peers (Group Learning). 6. Revise own case analysis individually. a. Propose solutions supported by classroom management theories to own cases. b. Reflect and summarise the decision on own case solution. Through the use of the Wiki environment, all discussions are documented, and all peers are able to revisit their discussion notes. They can also interact with one another by uploading and sharing resources. This promotes reflective learning among the teachers in the Wiki environment.

A Case Study of Teacher Perceptions of Wikis for Their Learning of Classroom Management Quek and Wang (2014a) had teacher-participants post their own written and audio cases, identify problems, discuss and propose solutions with the input of their peers, in respective Google Site Wikis. The findings reveal that technical affordance was perceived to provide the most educationally rewarding experience to this group of teachers among the three affordances (Quek & Wang, 2014a).

Perceptions of Technical Affordance Ease of access and use are some features teachers experienced in the Wikis. Teachers reported that they were able to access the Wiki simply by using their Google emails. Teachers’ reflection logs demonstrated their enjoyment in operating the various functionalities of this online learning environment, such as articulating response via Audacity, Self-guide. Teachers considered these technical functionalities to be secure, easy-to-use and conducive to collaborative learning, hence leading to their highly positive perception towards the technical affordances of CBL supported by the Wiki environment.

112

C. L. G. Quek

Perceptions of Social Affordance Wiki promotes multi-level social interaction among learners, as well as between instructors and learners. Teacher reflection logs revealed that they seemed to concur that the Google Wiki provided them with a safe place to publish comments and obtain feedback from peers, which facilitated their collaborative learning. By enabling them to exchange ideas with peers, Wiki also offered them a way of gaining confidence, motivation and insights. Such advantages may explain the moderately high perception of the teachers towards social affordance.

Perceptions of Pedagogical Affordance Teacher reflection logs were again valuable in providing insights into teachers thinking about case wikis. Sadly, the pedagogical feature of online case environments did not fare so well, with teachers perceiving pedagogy least favourably. Quek and Wang (2014a) postulate this result could be attributed to their online role involving facilitation rather than teaching when using Wikis for teaching. Teachers may have feared losing their control over student learning outcomes. Free Google mail accounts also granted high school students’ easy access to the Wiki anytime and anywhere.

Teacher Perceptions of Peer Influence in Wiki Case-Based Learning Peer contribution has also been investigated in another study by Quek and Wang (2014b). They found that beginning teachers’ peers made quite an impact on the teachers themselves through their apparent contributions at each learning stage of the learners’ online problem-solving process. They were involved in problem identification, strategy proposition and decision making in individual case solutions. The peers not only confirmed the problems faced by themselves, they also helped to highlight other potential problems in the case discussion. Peer input on brainstorming potential strategies to address identified problems afforded teachers a valuable second-person perspective, giving them a wider range of approaches to adopt. Peers also made a substantial contribution to learners’ final case solutions by providing suggestions so as to evaluate the effectiveness of their problem-identification and strategy propositions.

7 Teachers’ Learning of Classroom Management Using …

113

Recent Advancements in Case-Based Learning Recent reports on other beginning teachers’ case-based online environments suggests that the positive views of this mode of teaching and learning are being recognised. The Hybrid Case-Learning (HCL) Model (Strangeways & Papatraianou, 2016) by Australian researchers is an example. Similar to the Wiki CBL discussed above, HCL also focus on teachers’ authentic and genuine learning using cases generated from actual classrooms. Both models also stimulate the learners to narrate and develop their own cases, thereby providing authentic learning pathways for teacher peers to discuss. These are the examples of adopted practices to engage and prepare beginning and in-service teachers in case-based online learning to equip them as soon as possible for real classroom teaching. Through narration and discussion of cases, teachers apply critical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving skills. Teachers’ theoretical knowledge and their classroom management practices could potentially be integrated. This then goes some way towards solving the problem gap between theory and practice as well as improving beginning teachers’ classroom management practices.

Future Directions for Teacher-Generated Case-Based Learning in Singapore If teacher-generated CBL in Singapore is to advance, some considerations may arise in the areas of policy and teacher education.

Policy Net generation teachers’ social and technological competencies require socialoriented technology-mediated learning environments like Web 2.0 to facilitate their professional development in the twenty-first century. The knowledge-based and global-driven market forces call for new generation teachers who are socially oriented and technologically-savvy to explore learning beyond the physical environment and search for alternative pathways to conduct their teaching, both formally and informally. There remains a need to examine and identify the learning needs of these net generation classroom teachers and connect the skills they have with Web 2.0 tools to empower them for successful learning and teaching. Thus, technology-mediated CBL framework and resources for beginning and in-service teacher’s learning at the classroom level and school level should be developed.

114

C. L. G. Quek

Teacher Education Authentic local classroom management cases generated by beginning teachers can be used to bridge the theory–practice gap faced by teachers. Teacher-generated class room cases not only provide rich learning about the secondary classroom reality but also harness beginning teacher competencies in problem-solving and applying classroom management theory to unfamiliar real-life classroom situations. At present, most CBL involves using text-based case studies to initiate discussion and develop decision-making skills. However, a qualitative research by Wangyal et al. (2016) found web-based video cases based on local classroom management case studies to be more authentic and informative, enabling the learners to envision classroom management issues much clearer as compared to text-based cases. Therefore, future teacher training could look into developing such relevant video cases to boost learning.

Further Research Systemic research efforts in designing sustainable CBL environments for preservice and in-service teacher learning are called for. The teacher-narrated classroom management cases constitute a rich, authentic case library, and these cases can be used as learning resources to support teachers’ professional learning. By integrating cases and learning resources in the online learning environment design, teachers can easily access these resources for self-directed and collaborative learning. This way of learning will not only develop teachers’ classroom management competencies but also help develop greater teacher capacity for reflective pedagogy and collaborative learning. Thus, further research on development and documentation of authentic classroom case library and interactive resources that are grounded in the local classroom contexts is recommended.

References Artan, A. E. (2007). Case-based discussions in an educational psychology course: Problem solving processes and interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, USA. Bronack, S. C., & Kilbane, C. R. (1998). CaseNET: Teaching decisions via a web-based learning environment. In SITE 98: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Proceedings (9th, Washington, DC, March 10–14, 1998). Bronack, S. C., Kilbane, C. R., Herbert, J. M., & McNergney, F. F. (1999). In-service and pre-service teachers’ perceptions of a web-based, case-based learning environment. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 8(3), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759399900200066. Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90020-0.

7 Teachers’ Learning of Classroom Management Using …

115

Brophy, J. E. (2006). History of research in classroom management. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 17–43). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Brown, S. A. (2012). Seeing Web 2.0 in context: a study of academic perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.003. Carlson, J. A., & Schodt, D. W. (1995). Beyond the lecture: Case teaching and the learning of economic theory. Journal of Economic Education, 26(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/118 3462. Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2011). A comparative study of using blogs and wikis for collaborative knowledge construction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 38(1), 71–78. Choi, I., & Lee, K. (2008). A case-based learning environment design for a real-world classroom management problem solving. TechTrends, 52(3), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-0080151-z. Choi, I., & Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem-solving: Classroom management problems for prospective learners. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(1), 99–129. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11423-008-9089-2. Cliff, W. H., & Wright, A. W. (1996). Directed case study method for teaching human anatomy and physiology. Advanced in Physiology Education, 15(1), S19–S28. https://doi.org/10.1152/adv ances.1996.270.6.S19. Dabbagh, N. (2002). Assessing complex problem-solving skill and knowledge assembly using webbased hypermedia design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11, 291–322. Daher, A. M., Singh, H. J., & Kutty, M. K. (2017). Differentiating case-based learning from problembased learning after a two-day introductory workshop on case-based learning. Australasian Medical Journal, 10(12). http://dx.doi.org/10.21767/AMJ.2017.3142. Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organisation and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392–431). Macmillan. Doyle, W. (1990). Classroom knowledge as a foundation for teaching. Teacher College Record, 91, 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819009100310. Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C., & Worsham, M. E. (2000). Classroom management for secondary teachers (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9094-5 Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., & Worsham, M. E. (2003). Classroom management for secondary teachers (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice and Contemporary Issues. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 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. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF02504916 Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2006). From Wikipedia to the classroom: exploring online publication and learning. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conferences of the Learning Sciences (pp. 182–188). Bloomington, IN. Gaver, W.W. (1991). Technology affordances. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson, M. Gary, & J. S. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference 1991, (April–May, pp. 79–84). Basic Books. Grauer, G. F., Forrester, S. D., Shuman, C., & Sanderson, M. W. (2008). Comparison of student performance after lecture-based and case-based/problem-based teaching in a large group. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 35(2), 310–317. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.35.2.310. Harrington, H. L. (1995). Fostering reasoned decisions: Case-based pedagogy and the professional development of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 203–214. https://doi.org/10. 1016/0742-051X(94)00027-4.

116

C. L. G. Quek

Harrington, H. L., Quinn-Leering, K., & Hodson, L. (1996). Written case analyses and critical reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(96)890 78-0. Heitzmann, R. (2007). Case study instruction in teacher education: Opportunity to develop students’ critical thinking, school smarts and decision making. Education, 128(4), 523–542. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504994. Jonassen, D., & Erdelez, S. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions about usability of a case library. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(2), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.2005.107 84539. Jones, V. F., & Jones, L. S. (1998). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Situated case-based knowledge: An emerging framework for prospective teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(7), 1837–1845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.025. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Web-enhanced case-based activity in teacher education: A case study. Instructional Science, 37(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9040-7 Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504675 Kulak, V., & Newton, G. (2014). A guide to using case-based learning in biochemistry education. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(6), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb. 20823. Lee, K., & Choi, I. (2008). Learning classroom management through web-based case instruction: Implications for early childhood teacher education. Early Childhood Educational Journal, 35, 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-008-0250-7. 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 and Society, 12(3), 178–190. LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Akar, H., Gutierrez, C., Jenkins-Gunn, E., & Rosebrock, K. (2005). Classroom management. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for the real world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 327–357). Jossey-Bass. Luo, H., Koszalka, T. A., Arnone, M. P., & Choi, I. (2018). Applying case-based method in designing self-directed online instruction: A formative research study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(2), 515–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9572-3. Marcus, G., Taylor, R., & Ellis, R. A. (2004). Implications for the design of online case-based learning activities based on student blended learning experience. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (5–8 December, pp. 577–586). Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordances, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–41. https://doi. org/10.1145/301153.301168 Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers and Education, 42, 243–265. Quek, C. L., & Wang, Q. (2014a). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of wikis for learning classroom cases. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n2 Quek, C.L., & Wang, Q. (2014b). Investigating beginning teachers’ classroom management using teacher-generated cases. (Report No. OER 27/09 GQ). Quek, C. L., Lim, H. L. A., Kang, S., & Wang, Q. (2014). Exploring beginning teachers’ engagement in problem solving classroom management cases in a case-based e- learning environment: A preliminary study. In C. S. Chai, W. Chen, & X. Gu (Eds.) The 18th Global Chinese Conference

7 Teachers’ Learning of Classroom Management Using …

117

on Computers in Education (pp. 110–113). Shanghai, China: Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education. Saltan, F. (2017). Online case-based learning design for facilitating classroom teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(2), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2017.2.308. Siegel, M., Derry, S., Kim, J., Steinkuehler, C., Street, J., Canty, N., Fassnacht, C., Hewson, K., Hmelo, C., & Spiro, R. (2000). Promoting teachers’ flexible use of the learning sciences through case-based problem-solving on the WWW: A theoretical design approach. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 273–279). Lawrence Erlbaum. Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. Sage. Srinivasan, M., Wilkes, M., Stevenson, F., Nguyen, T., & Slavin, S. (2007). Comparing problembased learning with case-based learning: Effects of a major curricular shift at two institutions. Academic Medicine, 82(1), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ACM.0000249963.93776.aa. Strangeways, A., & Papatraianou, L. H. (2016). Case-based learning for classroom ready teachers: Addressing the theory practice disjunction through narrative pedagogy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(9), 117–134. 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), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504915. Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543054002143. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1. Voorn, R. J. J., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2013). Social media and higher education: Introversion and collaborative learning from the student’s perspective. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 59–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSMILE.2013.051650. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wang, F. K. (2002). Designing a case-based e-learning system: What, how, and why. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620210422415. Wang, M. C., Heartel, G. T., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). What helps students learn? Educational Leadership, 51(4), 74–79. Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14703290802377307. Wang, Q.Y. (2009). Designing a web-based constructivist learning environment. Interactive learning environments, 17(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820701424577. Wangyal, T., Wong, A. F. L., & Teo, Y. H. (2016). Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of the Value of Video Cases in Helping Them Learn Classroom Management Skills More Effectively. Paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education Conference. Melbourne, Australia. Wengrowicz, N., Swart, W., Paul, R., Macleod, K., Dori, D., & Dori, Y. J. (2018). Students’ collaborative learning attitudes and their satisfaction with online collaborative case-based courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(4), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647. 2018.1511509. Williams, M. (2004). Exploring the effects of a multimedia case-based learning environment in pre-service science teacher education in Jamaica. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, The Netherlands.

Chapter 8

Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education: Design and Implementation from a Sociocultural Lens Ung-Sang Albert Lee Abstract This chapter considers the implications for the design and implementation of technology-mediated case-based learning (Kim and Hannafin, Teach Teacher Educ 24:1837–1845, 2008a; Kim and Hannafin, Educ Technol Res Dev 56:161, 2008b; Shulman, Case methods in teacher education. Teachers College Press, 1992)— TMCBL—for teachers from nondominant backgrounds based on a recent case study that examined equity-driven efforts to develop school technology practices for students from nondominant backgrounds through their participation in the co-design of technology-mediated educational practices (Lee, Infrastructuring for participatory design: supporting student agency in school technology use. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA, 2019). The chapter will inform TMCBL in the teacher preparation of nondominant backgrounds teachers, who have traditionally been underrepresented in the teaching force, and experience exclusionary learning practices in teacher preparation programs (Brown, Race Ethnicity Educ 17:326–345, 2014; Gordon, J Teacher Educ 45:346–353, 1994). Three recommendations for such TMCBL are offered: (1) pay attention to the assets of nondominant background teacher learners (Yosso, Race Ethnicity Educ 8:69–91, 2016) in the design and implementation of TMCBL teacher education, (2) facilitate the participation of nondominant teachers in the design of TMCBL in teacher education, and (3) advocate for, and create the political and organizational conditions that support (1) and (2). Keywords Case-based learning · Co-design of technology-mediated processes · Equity · Sociocultural lens · Teacher education

Overview This chapter considers the implications for the design and implementation of TMCBL (Kim & Hannafin, 2008a, 2008b; Shulman, 1992) for teachers from nondominant

U.-S. A. Lee (B) University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_8

119

120

U.-S. A. Lee

backgrounds, including those from racial minority groups and immigrant backgrounds, from a recent case study that examined efforts to develop equitable school technology practices for high school students from nondominant backgrounds in the United States through their participation in the co-design of technology-mediated educational practices (Lee, 2019). As such, the chapter seeks to ensure that teachers from nondominant backgrounds who have traditionally been underrepresented in the teaching force, and experience exclusionary learning practices in teacher education (Brown, 2014; Gordon, 1994), are well-served in TMCBL in teacher education. The co-design efforts which the case study is based on took place in a TK-12 public school that serves traditionally nondominant communities in the United States, such as low-income and immigrant background families. By centering the participation of students from such backgrounds in the design of school technology practices, the co-design efforts sought to reverse traditional power dynamics in American schools that exclude stakeholders from nondominant backgrounds from participating in the design of educational practices (Ginwright et al., 2006). The case study of these efforts found that the infrastructures and assets for student participation in co-design and learning were distributed across multiple levels of the school ecology, and that student participation in this co-design effort led to the design and implementation of school technology practices that were built on their sociocultural assets and interests (Lee, 2019). Through existing infrastructures and assets in the school ecology, and the intentional efforts to support student agency in the design of school technology practices, the “rightful presence” (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2019; Squire & Darling, 2013) of nondominant students was cultivated for students to participate in the design process and school technology practices which included a local e-portfolio system and interest-based affinity groups that reflected and built on their sociocultural assets and interests. Drawing from the case study described above, the chapter discusses the implications for equity-focused designs for TMCBL. Following the example of Calabrese Barton and Tan (2019), this chapter uses the concept of “rightful presence” (Squire & Darling, 2013), a framework from studies of borderland and refugee communities that considers the intersection of unjust power hierarchies and legitimate belonging between refugees and their host communities, to consider how teacher education programs utilizing TMCBL might be designed to affirm and privilege the assets and needs of teachers. The chapter suggests that cultivating the rightful presence of teachers in TMCBL requires, (1) paying attention to the assets of nondominant teachers, through conceptual tools such as Yosso’s (2016) Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) framework, in the design and implementation of TMCBL in teacher education, (2) including nondominant learners in the design of TMCBL in teacher education, and (3) advocating for, and creating the political and organizational conditions that support (1) and (2).

8 Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education …

121

Opportunities and Challenges to Equity in TMCBL for Teacher Education: Rightful Presence While there are no studies that directly examine how broader power relations and issues of equity in teacher education constrain TMCBL in teacher education, literature on equity in teacher education and educational technology more broadly suggest the opportunities and possible constraints in building the rightful presence of teachers through TMCBL. This is true especially when learning and the use of technology are viewed from sociocultural perspectives. Sociocultural perspectives on technology use and learning (e.g. Engeström & Sannino, 2010; Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006) view learning and technology use as situated in broader relational, political, cultural, and historical contexts. From this perspective, broader issues of equity, such as those that have found to exclude and marginalize nondominant teachers from professional learning. Such factors likely impact the rightful presence of these teachers in TMCBL, and therefore, the design and implementation of TMCBL must ensure that nondominant teachers can equitably access the affordances of TMCBL. This chapter will explore some TMCBL design and implementation practices that will likely facilitate equitable participation of teachers in TMCBL. The following section discusses possible opportunities and limitations in utilizing TMCBL to support the rightful presence of nondominant teachers.

Considerations for Equity in Teacher Education The literature that examines equity in teacher education can be broadly categorized into two areas of investigation. One strand of research deals with the competencies, knowledge, and dispositions that potential teachers have, or must develop to effectively address issues of equity in education (e.g., Brown & Kraehe, 2010). This literature focuses on how teacher education programs develop instructional practices to prepare teachers that actively address issues of equity in education, and considers what teacher candidates will do once they are instructors. The other strand of literature, which this chapter speaks to more directly, considers how teacher education programs reproduce broader unjust power relations at large that facilitate the exclusion and marginalization of nondominant background teacher candidates in teacher education programs. This strand of research examines the role that teacher education programs play in recruiting, training, and retaining teachers, and suggest that these programs are often hostile spaces for teacher candidates from nondominant backgrounds (e.g., Brown, 2014; Burciaga & Kohli, 2018). Consequently, commonly stated aims to diversify the teaching force have stalled, with the field losing valuable assets that nondominant teachers bring to bear to the profession, such as skills and orientations to effectively serve nondominant communities (Ladson-Billings, 2005). While the literature is rich with studies that point to how case-based learning can be leveraged to train teachers to engage in equity-oriented work in their own teaching

122

U.-S. A. Lee

(e.g., Brown & Kraehe, 2010), it is less common to see how case-based learning can be organized to ensure the equitable participation of minoritized teachers in professional learning. This chapter views the participation of teachers in TMCBL through the lens of rightful presence (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2019; Squire & Darling, 2013) to consider the exclusionary practices in teacher education, and educational designs that seek to redress such exclusionary practices. The framing of rightful presence is derived from studies of migrant communities. It points to the extent to which power imbalances across the migrant and host communities that facilitate the migrant population’s rightful presence (or lack thereof) in the host communities. In contrast to offering only opportunities for migration to the host communities, rightful presence is achieved through intentional efforts to reorganize unjust power relations that render the migrant community’s presence in new contexts socially, culturally, and politically powerless. The framework has been applied to educational settings by Calabrese Barton and Tan (2019), who have used it to consider the ways that STEM learning contexts can, on an ongoing basis, remediate traditional hostility towards minoritized students. The literature on nondominant background teachers’ experiences in teacher training programs suggest that the concept of rightful presence appropriately frames the hostility towards nondominant teachers in professional learning practices (e.g. Brown, 2014; Burciaga & Kohli, 2018). In the North American context, the literature suggests that calls to diversify the teaching profession have mostly led to surface level efforts to recruit minoritized teachers to the profession without evolving practices in teacher education programs to meet the needs of such teacher candidates, evidenced by a teaching labor force that continues to heavily skew towards White teachers (Achinstein et al., 2010). In a comprehensive review of the experiences of preservice teachers of color in teacher education programs, Brown (2014) found that teacher candidates of color in teacher education programs often struggled to leverage their perspectives and knowledge to the detriment of their own development as teachers, as well as the field more broadly that can greatly benefit from their contributions. They point to studies by Burciaga and Kohli (2018), Gomez et al. (2008a, 2008b), Meacham (2000), Nguyen (2009), and Sleeter (2001), who have found that teachers of color need to navigate hostile racial climates in teacher education programs that do not recognize their racialized experiences, and at times, even express explicit prejudice towards such students. Achinstein et al. (2010), suggest that once minoritized teacher candidates complete their training and enter the profession, continue to experience similar issues of isolation, hostility, and lack of support at their schools and the field more broadly, leading to higher rates of turnover among teachers of color. What the literature collectively suggests is that while nondominant background teachers have been actively sought out in teacher education programs, the rightful presence of such teachers in teacher education has not been cultivated. Considering the many assets that nondominant background teachers bring to bear to the profession, including a tendency to teach in schools that serve students also from nondominant backgrounds, express a commitment to social justice in education, and be able to connect learning to students’ existing knowledge (Gomez et al., 2008a, 2008b; Souto-Manning & Cheruvu, 2016), it is particularly important to design teacher professional learning

8 Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education …

123

practices, in this case TMCBL, that cultivates the rightful presence of nondominant background teachers. While not explicitly using the language of rightful presence, a number of studies consider how exclusionary practices may be remediated in professional learning contexts to, instead, recognize and legitimize the assets and needs of teachers. Brown (2014), based on her review of studies on teacher education programs using frameworks from critical race theory (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1999), suggests that creating teacher education programs where nondominant background teachers can thrive require the programs to recognize and respond to the diversity of perspectives, experiences, needs, and competencies. Kohli (2019) and Kohli et al. (2015) found that teacher-led learning spaces aimed at racial literacy development where teachers’ political identities, agency, and development around racial equity issues were explicitly and collectively supported, helped women of color who have experienced marginalization from their traditional teacher education programs develop knowledge and competencies to carry out their equity-oriented educational work and a sense of belonging in the teaching profession. Gupta (2006) found that creating opportunities for minoritized teacher candidates to reflect on their own prior experience, especially those that were rooted in their cultural, familial, and immigrant backgrounds, helped those teacher candidates engage more deeply with the theory taught in the teacher education coursework.

Considerations for Equity in Case-Based Learning The centrality of cases in TMCBL offers opportunities and potential constraints in facilitating the rightful presence of teachers in TMCBL. In case-based learning, learners, on their own, and with others, build and/or analyze complex case narratives in relation to existing theory, the perspectives of others, and the learner’s own experiences, to construct and deepen knowledge on curriculum and instruction (DarlingHammond & Hammerness, 2002). As such, what can be learned through TMCBL largely depends on the sociocultural assets that are available in the context of learning, including the design of the cases themselves, the theoretical framing that are made available to learners, the knowledge base of the participants in the learning, and how the interactions in relation to the cases are facilitated. The core question in casebased learning is, “what is this a case of” (Shulman, 1992), and related questions such as, “whose perspectives are represented in these cases?”, and, “how are certain perspectives made visible and privileged in the learning process?”, have important consequences on what and how teachers can learn through case-based learning. Brown and Kraehe (2010) found that when case-based pedagogy included a diverse mix of case formats built from a range of perspectives and expertise, including perspectives from nondominant backgrounds learners, and guided teachers to reflect on their own methods and assumptions in relation to these cases, leveraged their own experiences and knowledge to develop more complex understandings of how broader issues of equity in social contexts might impact their own teaching. Kim and

124

U.-S. A. Lee

Hannafin (2008a) broadly call this type of knowledge situated case-based knowledge, and suggest that case-based pedagogy offers learners opportunities to build on their own and others’ complex case narratives to consider how their teaching will interact with real-life contexts. Because the meaningful participation of nondominant background teachers can offer more diverse perspectives as a resource for learning, while the availability of more diverse cases and ways to reflect on them can support the participation of nondominant teachers in educational activity, the meaningful participation of nondominant background teachers in case-based learning, and their rightful presence in such learning can be viewed as mutually enforcing of each other.

Considerations for Equity in Technology-Mediated Learning The situated nature of technology use also has implications for the rightful presence of minoritized learners in TMCBL. The use of digital media tools in TMCBL, including visual representation, communication technology, and other collaborative tools (e.g., Brown & Kraehe, 2010; Kim & Hannafin, 2008b) allow learners to engage in, among other things, media production, identity work, and discursive practices that encourage mutualistic learning across learners (Gomez & Lee, 2015; Gomez et al., 2008a, 2008b). Digital technologies also remove certain barriers to learning and information, through its portability, broader range of media, and ability to communicate with a wider audience. However, these benefits come with the caveat that nondominant background teachers must disproportionately contend with a number of factors that can further challenge their legitimate participation in professional learning. It is well documented that minoritized learners experience fewer opportunities to experience technology-mediated learning that position them as agentic knowledge producers (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010), leading to struggles learning related skills. Furthermore, existing digital media and tools such as common search engines tend to reproduce dominant narratives that often render digital tools hostile to minoritized students (Noble, 2013). For example, Noble (2013), through her findings that Google searches algorithms, despite their claim of neutrality, produced search results for terms like “black girls” that reproduced historically racist and sexist tropes, suggest that the design of technology-mediated learning must actively consider how broader exclusionary practices are not reproduced. A number of researchers have responded to such a challenge by developing frameworks and processes that center the sociocultural assets of minoritized learners to reverse some of the exclusionary practices in technology-mediated learning. These include developing new types of learning spaces such as community-based learning centers, pedagogy focused on digital media production that critique society from critical perspectives, and efforts to build curriculum and instruction that build on student assets, such as their out-of-school technology use, political engagement, and cultural practices (e.g. Barron et al., 2014; Morrell et al., 2013; Schwartz, 2015). These types of learning processes reject deficit-based narratives of nondominant background learners, and recognize and build on their sociocultural assets (Yosso,

8 Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education …

125

2016). Such practices have been found to improve student engagement, belonging, and learning outcomes within traditionally hostile learning domains (e.g. González et al., 2005). These practices also transform the learning spaces to consider more agentic and empowered roles for students, take on more democratic conceptions of knowledge, and target broader learning goals beyond traditional domains of learning.

Central Questions for Rightful Presence in TMCBL in Teacher Education The purpose of this chapter is to consider how the rightful presence of nondominant background teachers might be supported in TMCBL. The chapter has so far discussed findings from the literature as they relate to the rightful presence of nondominant background teachers in teacher education, case-based learning, and technology-mediated learning. The literature suggests that TMCB learning has both potential affordances and limitations in cultivating the rightful presence of nondominant teachers in teacher education. Collectively, the literature points to the need to better articulate how TMCB learning and teacher education programs can be made to legitimize and privilege the assets, knowledge, and perspectives of nondominant background teachers. Therefore, this chapter is organized around the discussion of two related questions: 1. What might be the characteristics of teacher education with TMCBL that builds the rightful presence of nondominant background teachers? 2. How might we design TMCBL in teacher education with characteristics that build the rightful presence of nondominant background teachers? While this chapter does not offer findings from a study that directly investigates TMCBL in teacher education, it considers the two questions above through the findings from a study that sought to address a similar problem in education. More specifically, the study investigated the design of technology-mediated educational practices at a public TK-12 school on the western coast of the United States that served students from nondominant backgrounds (Lee, 2019). The study, by developing a participatory design research partnership (Bang & Vossoughi, 2016) with a group of high school students from nondominant backgrounds, examined how local community and organizational assets, design processes, and technology-mediated educational practices created opportunities for nondominant students to become agentic participants in their learning, and shape the broader learning practices and settings of the school.

126

U.-S. A. Lee

Case Study: Infrastructuring for Participatory Design of Technology-Mediated School Technology Practices with Students The following section will introduce a condensed summary of the ethnographic design case study (Barab et al., 2004; Merriam, 1998), Infrastructuring for Participatory Design (Lee, 2019), that informs this chapter’s discussion of rightful presence in TMCBL in teacher education. The case study examined a co-design effort that privileged the voices of nondominant background students in designing and implementing technology-mediated educational practices (Bang & Vossoughi, 2016), specifically those related to a school e-portfolio system, that aligned with the needs and assets of the students and their peers. During a four-year partnership, a group of high school students, with the help of teachers and researchers, designed and implemented a local e-portfolio system (Lorenzo & Ittelson, 2005) that built on the students’ broad sociocultural assets (Yosso, 2016). The study found that building design processes, supported by broader organizational and policy contexts responsive to the needs, goals, and assets of nondominant students, led to the design of an eportfolio system that positioned students as agentic actors and knowledge producers within the learning practices at the school. While the study did not explicitly use rightful presence as a framework, the changes to the design processes and technology practices that resulted from the participatory design project can be viewed as steps towards the rightful presence of students in the school’s technology practices. The following sections will describe, in more detail, the background of the study and its methods, its relevance to concerns in TMCBL for teacher education, the findings from the study relevant to these concerns.

Case Study Background The Infrastructuring for Participatory Design project took part in a universitypartnered community school (Quartz et al., 2017) on the west coast of the United States. The school served historically nondominant groups in the United States, with almost the entire student population were students of color with immigrant backgrounds, many of them English language learners, and many of them considered economically challenged. The neighborhood in which the school was located broadly mirrored the student body, with a residential area comprising mostly immigrant families, although with increased gentrification, many working class people of color were pushed out of their homes. The power relations among immigrant groups were not necessarily even either, with Korean immigrants disproportionately owning many of the businesses, and other immigrants, mostly from Central and South America disproportionately represented in working class jobs. In other words, the community and student body represented a wealth of linguistic, cultural, social, and economic assets, some of which get recognized, and others less so, in dominant narratives of such communities.

8 Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education …

127

The school was founded in 2010 as a university-partnered community school (Quartz et al., 2017) through an agreement between the local school district, the teacher’s union, and the university. The agreement, along with establishing the university partnership structure, also granted the school administrators and teachers a level of autonomy in curriculum, instruction, and school administration that were atypical among district schools at the time. This allowed school teachers and administrators to articulate a strong social justice-oriented mission and a commitment to meet the needs of nondominant students, and develop educational practices through ongoing trial and error that aligned with its core mission. The social justice-oriented mission and a local framework, named the 4 Core Competencies (4CCs), were frequently referred to in faculty meetings and in the classrooms, and students commonly reported that they thought their viewpoints and backgrounds were respected within the school. Educators at the school site used these structures to engage in regular collaborative problem solving that involved multiple stakeholders. Research-practice partnerships were a large part of this learning process, with university researchers often partnering with school stakeholders to collectively address local problems of practice related to their social justice mission. The partnerships were centered around goals such as developing support for English language learners, improving college access, and implementing multidisciplinary culturally-relevant pedagogy. These partnerships were formed through ongoing dialogue between school educators and researchers, with specific organizational structures and practices to vet, initiate, and monitor these partnerships on an ongoing basis. The partnership described in this chapter was typical in the way it was formed through the processes described above in trying to meet local educational needs. At the time the partnership was formed, the school district as a whole had experienced well-publicized challenges in rolling out a 1-to-1 iPad program. An evaluation of the iPad rollout found that most schools that received the hardware along with instructional software did not have the adequate infrastructure, organization, and training to shift teaching practices through the newly acquired tools (Margolin et al., 2014). While the school was able to shield itself from much of the chaos that stemmed from the district-wide efforts, educators at the school also observed that the school had only begun articulating a technology plan that aligned with the school’s broader vision, and that designing concrete practices and implementing them had been challenging. Outside of the school-wide implementation of a typical learning management system that was mostly used to share student grades, it was largely up to individual teachers to consider how emerging digital technologies would fit into their classroom practices. This reflected the broader literature on two levels. First, it reflected findings in the literature that nondominant students tended to have fewer opportunities to utilize technology in educational settings in ways that were informed by constructivist views of learning centered on production, dialogue, and relevance (e.g., Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Second, it reflected findings that introducing technology-mediated practices in schools required knowledge building at the organizational level (Fishman & Pinkard, 2001) and individual level (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Nonetheless, because of existing policy and organizational assets centered on school-level autonomies and social justice-oriented goals, educators at the schools

128

U.-S. A. Lee

identified technology use as an area of growth in their practices, and sought to build processes that would generate technology practices that aligned with the broader school vision. The Infrastructuring for Participatory Design project was initiated in response to the above-mentioned school-level needs and the researcher’s desire to investigate how technology-mediated educational practices can be made more engaging and meaningful to students through student participation in co-design. The project was informed by two broad strands of research. First, the study was informed by critical scholarship that focus on power relations in educational settings (e.g. Delpit, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2006), including the ways in which deficit views of students lead to delegitimization of student assets (Solorzano & Yosso, 2001), especially those like community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2016)—CCW—and funds of knowledge (González et al., 2005) that are unique to the experiences of nondominant students. The project sought to reverse traditional power dynamics in design, research, and schooling by centering the assets of nondominant background students that are typically made invisible in school settings. Such assets have also been found to be generative when students engage in technology-mediated learning (Schwartz, 2015). Second, methods like participatory design research (Bang & Vossoughi, 2016) and youth participatory action research (Cammarota & Fine, 2010), which seek to democratize knowledge creation and develop interventions that meet the needs of local stakeholders, guided the co-design with students. Putting these two strands of research together, it was conjectured that intentional efforts to democratize the design of technology-mediated educational practices through co-design with nondominant students would lead to educational practices that positioned students from asset-based perspectives, design and research processes that leveraged nondominant student assets, and novel educational practices that responded to the unique assets and needs of the local context.

Research and Design Process Through the 4-year project, about 15 students participated in the collaboration at a given time, at first in the advisory class of a teacher who agreed to have her class participate in the partnership, and later, in dedicated elective classes and after school programs that students voluntarily participated in. Such flexible partnerships were made possible through the school’s autonomous governance structures, allowing, at the local level, decisions on the type of electives and partnerships to organize. A teacher and a researcher typically played the role of facilitators and also took care of the administrative tasks to keep the partnership a formal learning space within the school. In these classes, students were asked to articulate their goals, interests, and needs in school and beyond, and to design and implement technologymediated educational designs that responded to these considerations. The work of designing a school e-portfolio system emerged from this framing, after students articulated that the school had lacked ways for students to make their holistic identity

8 Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education …

129

development visible to the school, making it more difficult for educators to offer personalized educational support to the students. The students who participated in co-design were also asked to regularly reflect on the design processes, and to make recommendations that would allow the collaboration to better meet their needs and goals for participation. This practice also led to several important modifications to the design process. For example, the students saw the partnership as an opportunity to develop key collaborative skills that would serve them well in their college and career lives, and asked to create opportunities to engage in small group discussions, give presentations, and collaborate meaningfully with adults. The collaborative processes were modified to meet these needs.

Case Study Design Outcomes Through the design processes refined by students on an ongoing basis, the e-portfolio system was conceptualized, designed, prototyped, and scaled within the school, and shared with broader audiences. As touched on above, with students as key designers, the e-portfolio was designed to capture the students’ holistic identity development within and beyond the school, so that the adults who worked with the students can better support the students in their academic and career trajectories. Ray, who was one of the students who participated in the design and implementation of the e-portfolio system, explained: We have different identities. Teachers only know us as students… they don’t try to get to know you. But through those portfolios, they can get a glimpse of who you are. What other interests you may have. Like when we did it with the 9th graders, I saw students have different conversations about what they want to do. It was new insight about who they are… One of the things that this school implements is that we’re a community. We grow together. That’s not really happening if we don’t know the people around us. Yeah, we can say we grow together, but do we really? We have to get to know each other.

Consequently, the e-portfolio that the students co-designed were personal websites for individual students, where they articulated their personal interests, goals, and achievements within and beyond the school. Ray’s e-portfolio prototype, for example, consisted of stories she had written in her own time as she aspired to study English in college and become a novelist. Her e-portfolio also shared her aspirations to become a novelist, her reviews of novels she had written, and a space where visitors can leave their feedback on Ray’s writing. The e-portfolio system was then implemented, with the help of students who co-designed the e-portfolio, across a number of grade levels within the school. As the e-portfolio system was implemented across the school, the students who codesigned the e-portfolio system found their roles increasingly central to the process, helping them acquire skills and knowledge that they aimed to develop. The students would share their designs and e-portfolio prototypes at the school’s teacher professional development sessions, go into classrooms where the e-portfolios would be implemented and guide their peers through the development of their own e-portfolios,

130

U.-S. A. Lee

while also sharing their designs with teacher candidates at the sister university. Ray, who shared her e-portfolio prototype based on her desire to become a professional writer, described the design and implementation process, and the insight she gained from carrying out these new roles in the following way: So, you know how we were kind of like the guinea pig for the e-portfolio? At first, I felt like a guinea pig. And you would ask us what is working and what isn’t and I would be like, “well, let me tell you what’s not working” … And I really liked being part of something. Especially with people who have high positions, I usually don’t talk to them and wait for them to talk to me. I felt really honored to be part of something big in our school. You get to see them using the thing you decide. Now I see us as mentors. I don’t see us as guinea pigs anymore. Even when we went to help the 9th graders, (teacher name) would ask how to do this, and he’s a teacher, and it’s weird when teachers ask you for help… but to have a teacher ask me for help when I should be the one asking for help, it was like, “wow, I’m actually helping these kids.”

Ray shared an e-portfolio that highlighted her interests and assets to the classes she was supporting to carry out her increasingly central role in the implementation of the e-portfolio system. Her new responsibilities within the school gave her further insights into how she can mentor other students, and her own broader impact in the school community.

Case Study Questions and Analysis The ethnographic case study asked three primary questions: 1. How did infrastructure for design evolve to facilitate student participation and agency in the design of school technology practices? 2. How did students participate in co-design through the context of these design infrastructures? 3. How did the design infrastructures mediate the design and implementation of the school’s technology practices? To address these questions, qualitative data from the participatory design processes and outcomes (fieldnotes, audio recordings, design artifacts, and participant interviews) were analyzed using cultural-historical activity theory (Engeström & Sannino, 2010). Activity theory provided a useful framework because of its attention to the ways that individuals, cognitive and communicative tools such as language and technology, and commonly accepted norms and roles within social units, or activity systems, dynamically orient themselves towards a group’s goals. Activity theory also allowed for the analyses of the relationship between several activity systems, such as those focused on the co-design of school technology practices, and the activity systems of specific academic classrooms. This allowed an analytic focus on how students were positioned in the design and use of technology within the school, how the positioning shifted through co-design, and how the co-design process transformed other activity systems such as in-class work. In addition, Yosso’s (2016) CCW framework, which points to the capital that students develop through their membership in

8 Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education …

131

nondominant social groups (e.g., aspirational capital, resistant capital, navigational capital), was used to consider the student assets and the role they played in the co-design process and outcomes. Analyzing the participatory design processes and outcomes from these framings led to three broad findings relevant to the discussion on TMCBL in this chapter. These included: 1. Nondominant background students made visible and leveraged their sociocultural assets in taking on more agency in the design and implementation of a school e-portfolio system. 2. Student agency in the design process was supported by infrastructures at multiple levels of the school ecology, such as policy and organizational contexts, to the co-design processes, contributed to the meaningful participation of students in the co-design project that led to the increased rightful presence of students in the school’s technology practices. Some of these infrastructures needed to be refined on an ongoing basis. 3. Greater student agency in the design of the school e-portfolio system led to design outcomes that allowed students to make visible assets that are typically not part of school discourse, and facilitated the rightful presence of students in the e-portfolio practices. The following section will provide more detailed insights into these three findings.

Case Study Findings The first finding from the study was that the nondominant students who participated in the co-design efforts leveraged their sociocultural assets in taking on more agency in the design and implementation of school technology practices. In the overall course of the study, students constantly redefined their roles. The first group of students who engaged in the e-portfolio design process simply happened to be advisees of a teacher who agreed to have her students participate in the collaborative work. Yet, these students laid the foundations e-portfolio design and implementation work, articulating the educational needs of students at the school (e.g., “education should help us explore various topics outside of core classes”), conceptualizing a schoolwide e-portfolio as a means to meet some of these needs, and developing an initial e-portfolio prototype where students share their broader interests and aspirations along with key academic accomplishments. As the first group of students graduated and new students carried on the work, they refined the prototype, developed an assessment rubric, planned and led classroom implementation with teachers, and shared their work in broader academic settings, such as university lectures. Students leveraged their community cultural wealth to engage in these processes. For example, Michelle, who developed an e-portfolio highlighting his photography and helped students in several classes develop similar e-portfolios explained how seeing his

132

U.-S. A. Lee

mother’s political activism as an immigrant, and his process of coming out gave him the confidence to share his design ideas to a broader audience. He explained: No idea is a bad idea. Just put it out there. That’s what I think. I might as well say it. It’s not that I don’t care if it fails… I’m ok with learning if it fails. I guess it’s just my personality… I think it came from my mom. I remember very distinctly she took me to a, “s´i se puede march” … I think it was about raising wages for immigrant workers, and it wasn’t as much what we were marching about, but it was just seeing my mom… she was a straight up thug. I love her so much. So, I was like, “ok, damn.” I think my mom always felt like an outsider, and I always felt like an outsider. I mean from a young age, knowing that I was gay and seeing other people disrespecting (me)… My mom reassured me… She would always just reassure me of being myself and not losing who I am. And then I came out and from there I can just be myself more and less afraid to sound dumb and look dumb. I don’t really care anymore. If I look dumb that’s 100% ok because I’ll learn from it. Everything is a learning experience. In my head, everything is a learning experience.

Michelle’s experience demonstrated how his upbringing in an immigrant family and what Yosso (2016) calls resistant capital, the assets that allow nondominant communities to resist unjust social social contexts, directly contributed to his work developing an e-portfolio that met local student needs. Other students similarly reported how their interest-based activities, career aspirations, and ethnic practices informed the ways in which they engaged in the design process. The case study also found that in addition to design processes that built on the assets of the students, infrastructures at multiple levels of the school ecology, including existing policy and organizational contexts, and the ongoing building and refining of the co-design processes, played critical roles in supporting the meaningful participation of students in the co-design process. As explained earlier in this chapter, local policy that was negotiated between the school district, teacher’s union, and the university had led to the inauguration of a school that had the autonomy to make local school decisions, including hiring, curriculum, and administration. The school drew from Deweyan concepts of community schooling (Harkavy & Hartley, 2009), and nurtured a culture and practices to sustain locally grounded design work and partnerships with researchers. Consequently, the educators at the site were accustomed and skilled at conducting inquiry and design to address local problems of practice, and university researchers were regular participants in such processes, being welcomed as authentic partners in these inquiry processes. The collaborative partnership with students described in this case study would not have occurred if the educators had not already identified technology use as an area of growth for the school, and if there had not been structures in place to connect those needs with interests of researchers. The flexible class schedule that allowed for educators to offer unique classes also allowed the collaborations to take place in classes that were specifically designed for this partnership work. Furthermore, the school’s 4 CC social justice framework guided both the conceptualization of the partnership, as well as the e-portfolio design. Finally, when students felt that the collaborative processes were not centering them, the collaborative processes were modified to ensure their needs and goals for participation were being met. For example, when students felt that they wanted to use the co-design work to develop skills that would be useful in their college and career lives, such as collaboration and presentation skills, the co-design processes were modified

8 Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education …

133

to include more opportunities for small group discussions and collaborations, which is where the original concept of the e-portfolio emerged, and presentations for internal and external audiences. As students gained greater agency in the design process through interactions between the broader school policy and organization contexts, development of collaborative practices, and student CCW, the design of the e-portfolios also reflected the broader CCW of students. The e-portfolio prototypes that students participating in the co-design efforts developed, and the template that these students shared with larger classes to implement the e-portfolio across the school centered students’ CCW in telling integrated narratives of the students’ goals, interests broad assets, and academic achievements in relation to the school’s 4 CC social justice framework. Furthermore, the e-portfolios were designed for students to share with supportive adults such as teachers, colleges, and prospective employers to access fuller student narratives to support them more effectively in their career and educational pathways. Ray’s e-portfolio, for example, was designed to center her aspirations to become a professional novelist. Her e-portfolio contained a brief overview of her aspirations to become a writer, several samples of her own writing, reviews of books, and a function for any visitors to the site to contact her to discuss her writing further. While her e-portfolio centered her writing career and explicitly highlighted her strengths as a writer, it was in fact a representation of many more assets that she had developed through her immigration from the Philippines to the United States. Describing how she developed an interest in writing, she explained: I understood a few sentences in English when I first moved here as a 12-year- old… I hated reading when [teacher name] introduced me to fantasy and science fiction… I really started learning English in 9th grade by interacting with friends… I learned to love reading when I heard about a book called the Princess Diaries through the movie, and I kept reading until I finished the series. It was like romance, like a realistic fiction, and I thought, “I might like this genre…” From romance books, I thought it was amazing they can write such incredible things using their imagination. When I was in the Philippines, in 4th grade, I saw my friend write and she was saying “I’m trying to create this story”, and got interested in writing. Then when I read the Princess Diaries, I thought I should try it myself… You can pretty much write about yourself, change the names and no one’s gonna know it’s about you. So, it’s a way to tell a story… You know I don’t have control in my life, so it’s my way of controlling what’s happening. I can make a character laugh or cry. I can do anything and my characters can do whatever they want… Since I’m a romance writer, and a lot of mine (romances) didn’t work out in the past… I take that and extend it into an entire story… and sometimes I use stuff from my friends and my own imagination… I’ve been a member of Wattpad (online writing community) … it’s a community of writers. You don’t have to be an experienced writer. You can comment, share it, do whatever you want. If you get more reads, that’s how you know you’re good.

In Ray’s narrative of how she became to see herself as a writer, it is evident that varied forms of CCW, including her social networks, linguistic development, aspirations to become a writer, and participation in online affinity spaces. Given that Ray’s e-portfolio centered her identity as a writer that was connected to her broader experiences as an immigrant woman of color, it appears that the local e-portfolio system could support, at least in part, the rightful presence of Ray at the school and beyond.

134

U.-S. A. Lee

Case Study Conclusions The study suggests that students built meaningful roles for themselves in the design of school technology practices by leveraging their insights about existing school practices and their broader assets that helped them navigate a complex collaborative project. However, this evidently did not happen in isolation. Much of the infrastructures required to sustain the collaborative design were available in the school ecology prior to the co-design partnership with students. Ultimately, when students had meaningful roles in the design of school technology practices, they designed school technology practices that positioned nondominant students’ experiences as assets and supported the rightful presence of these students in formal school spaces. In other words, the study suggested that, when political and organizational contexts are supportive, and nondominant learners develop legitimate voice in the formation of their learning contexts and practices, technology-mediated educational practices that support the rightful presence of nondominant students can emerge.

Implications for TMCBL in Teacher Education This chapter sought to consider the rightful presence of nondominant learners in teacher education. Existing literature has demonstrated that teacher education can be hostile to teachers who come from nondominant backgrounds, as they fail to create practices that build on their assets and meet their unique needs (e.g., Brown, 2014). The chapter also considered how technology-mediated learning and casebased learning in teacher education might be organized to deepen, or alleviate, issues of equity in teacher education for teachers from nondominant backgrounds, with the understanding that a failure to address these issues can harm teacher education, the teaching profession, and consequently outcomes for students. In order for TMCBL in teacher education to support nondominant background teachers and their rightful presence in learning, this chapter sought to consider two broad questions related to TMCBL in teacher education: What might be the characteristics of teacher education with TMCBL that builds the rightful presence of nondominant teachers, and how might we design TMCB learning in teacher education with characteristics that build the rightful presence of nondominant teachers in TMCBL? To consider these two questions, the chapter drew on findings from an ethnographic case study that examined a participatory design effort that privileged the voices of nondominant students in the design and implementation of a school eportfolio system. In the case study, nondominant background students co-designed an e-portfolio system for their school to make their out-of-school assets and goals more visible to the adults they interact with, conjecturing that such knowledge will allow for the adults to better support them in their academic and career pathways (Lee, 2019). By designing and implementing a technology practice that privileged aspects of their person that were not traditionally seen as part of the formal domains of

8 Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education …

135

school learning (Solorzano & Yosso, 2001), the students transformed learning within the school to better accommodate their out-of-school assets and goals that were often intertwined with their experiences as nondominant students. One can make the case that the students’ rightful presence was supported both in the design process and the educational practices resulting from the co-design efforts. As such, while the original case study did not use the language of rightful presence, it was evident that the case study can provide broad insights into how the rightful presence of nondominant learners can be supported in educational contexts. Three broad implications for TMCBL in teacher education are discussed in this section, which include the need to, (1) pay attention to the assets of nondominant teachers, through frameworks such as CCW (Yosso, 2016), in the design and implementation of TMCBL teacher education, (2) include nondominant learners in the design of TMCBL in teacher education, and (3) advocate for, and create the political and organizational conditions that supports (1) and (2). The first implication from the case study for supporting the rightful presence of nondominant teachers in TMCBL, is the need to develop educational practices that are centered on the assets of nondominant background teachers as described by, for example, Yosso’s (2016) CCW framework. As a pedagogical method that centers the construction and analysis of cases rooted in real life complexities, often from sociocultural perspectives, TMCBL is well-positioned to accomplish this, as it allows for learners to analyze narratives beyond interactions within formal educational settings (Brown & Kraehe, 2010). In practice, this may mean identifying cases that speak directly to the systemic challenges experienced by nondominant communities and their impact on education, or those that include opportunities for learners to consider how the assets of nondominant communities interact with the specific educational domain being studied. Case-based learning in which learners actively construct their own cases from their own experiences in educational spaces (Darling-Hammond & Hammerness, 2002) also present opportunities for nondominant background teachers to draw from assets that are unique to their backgrounds and experiences. These types of refinements to TMCBL broadens the definition of legitimate knowledge and succession in the learning process. In any case, however, the instructors or curriculum must facilitate the analyses and/or construction of cases through frameworks that explicitly consider the experiences of nondominant communities in broader educational systems such as the CCW framework, and must be trained to do so. Instructors and curriculum designers who also share such assets and experiences may be particularly well-positioned to facilitate learning in these ways (Jayakumar et al., 2009), and such skills should be privileged in hiring processes. The Infrastructuring for Participatory Design case study also demonstrated the affordances of collaborating with nondominant background learners to design and implement educational practices, including those for the learner and the educational programs they are part of. Doing so for TMCBL in teacher education is likely to have similar affordances. As was the case in the case study, paying particular attention to the assets of nondominant communities and existing power dynamics between educational programs and nondominant background teachers, is likely an important aspect

136

U.-S. A. Lee

of nondominant background teachers’ participation in the design and implementation of TMCBL in teacher education. For the nondominant background teachers, participating in design efforts offer opportunities to influence the local educational practices to better reflect their own assets, goals, and needs, and give them opportunities to vet and modify hostile educational practices. Making such refinements to educational practices will be critical to their sense of belonging in teacher education. Furthermore, like the students in the case study, it is likely that teachers who take active roles in the design and implementation of their own learning will gain insights into the mechanisms of teacher education, become leaders within their field, and gain a sense of agency and confidence. In other words, nondominant background teachers will be able to convert some of their existing assets into broader forms of capital that can advance their teaching careers (Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011). On the other hand, teacher education programs benefit from the boundary-crossing (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) that occurs between the knowledge base of the nondominant teachers and the knowledge base of the existing system. As with the case study, where students found areas of overlap between the needs of the school and their needs as nondominant background students to design an e-portfolio system that would serve the needs of both, teacher education programs can expand their practices to incorporate the knowledge and needs of nondominant background teachers to make the education they offer more equitable. As is the case with general learning practices, however, including nondominant background teachers in the design of educational practices can be fraught with their own power dynamics, and it is important to pay attention to the context of co-design as it is paying attention to their participation. The final implication for equity in TMCBL for teacher education that will be discussed here is the importance of contexts and processes that support the ongoing refinement and improvement towards the rightful presence of nondominant background teachers. The case study found that the policy and organizational contexts, and the ongoing refinement of co-design processes created supportive contexts for stakeholders to engage in design educational practices for the rightful presence of nondominant background students in school technology practices. Assuming teacher education programs that utilize TMCBL have room for improvement in developing supportive practices for nondominant background teachers (as most would), it is important to advocate for, and develop, contexts that allow local stakeholders to collaboratively refine and improve such practices. At the policy level, teacher education programs can benefit from a level of autonomy that allows them to articulate local measures of success in teacher training and design learning infrastructures and practices that meet the local needs. To meet the needs of nondominant background teachers, however, teacher education programs will need to use these autonomies to articulate explicit goals and strategies that are equity-oriented, much like the way the school in the case study used its 4CCs to organize local innovation. Finally, at the level of collaborative design activity, co-designers will need to refine the collaborative practices on an ongoing basis to ensure that broader power dynamics do not impede the equitable participation of all stakeholders in co-design, and that the needs of nondominant learners are met.

8 Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education …

137

Future Directions This chapter attempted to present a set of guiding principles that can inform design processes and practices of TMCBL in teacher education that can facilitate the rightful presence of nondominant background teachers. While a direct empirical account of such work was not available, an ethnographic case study of a school’s effort to include nondominant background students in the design of a local e-portfolio system generated insights on how the assets and needs of nondominant background learners can be privileged in developing technology-mediated educational practices. Given the urgent need for a diverse teaching force that is capable of, and likely to address broader issues of equity in education, the field of teacher education will benefit from studies that specifically examine how nondominant background teachers participate in the design and TMCBL and how that such participation can facilitate greater equity in teacher learning.

References Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R. T., Sexton, D., & Freitas, C. (2010). Retaining teachers of color: A pressing problem and a potential strategy for “hard-to-staff” schools. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 71–107. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309355994. Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435. Bang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879. Barab, S. A., Thomas, M. K., Dodge, T., Squire, K., & Newell, M. (2004). Critical design ethnography: Designing for change. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(2), 254–268. https://doi. org/10.1525/aeq.2004.35.2.254. Barron, B., Gomez, K., Pinkard, N., & Martin, C. K. (2014). The digital youth network: Cultivating digital media citizenship in urban communities. MIT Press. Brown, K. D. (2014). Teaching in color: A critical race theory in education analysis of the literature on preservice teachers of color and teacher education in the US. Race Ethnicity and Education, 17(3), 326–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2013.832921. Brown, K. D., & Kraehe, A. (2010). When you’ve only got one class, one chance: Acquiring sociocultural knowledge using eclectic case pedagogy. Teaching Education, 21(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1591411. Burciaga, R., & Kohli, R. (2018). Disrupting whitestream measures of quality teaching: The community cultural wealth of teachers of color. Multicultural Perspectives, 20(1), 5–12. Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2019). Designing for rightful presence in STEM: The role of making present practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 616–658. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10476210.2010.500372. Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (Eds.). (2010). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. Routledge. Darling-Hammond, L., & Hammerness, K. (2002). Toward a pedagogy of cases in teacher education. Teaching Education, 13(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047621022000007549. Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. The New Press.

138

U.-S. A. Lee

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. Fishman, B. J., & Pinkard, N. (2001). Bringing urban schools into the information age: Planning for technology versus technology planning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.2190/6HDY-88WM-2QHX-QY3D. Ginwright, S., Cammarota, J., & Noguera, P. (2006). Beyond resistance!: Youth activism and community change: New democratic possibilities for practice and policy for America’s youth. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Gomez, K., & Lee, U. S. (2015). Situated cognition and learning environments: Implications for teachers on-and offline in the new digital media age. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1064447. Gomez, L. M., Sherin, M. G., Griesdorn, J., & Finn, L. E. (2008a). Creating social relationships: The role of technology in preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107314001. Gomez, M. L., Rodriguez, T. L., & Agosto, V. (2008b). Who are Latino prospective teachers and what do they bring to U.S. schools? Race Ethnicity and Education, 11(3), 267–283. https://doi. org/10.1080/13613320802291165. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge. Gordon, J. A. (1994). Why students of color are not entering teaching: Reflections from minority teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5), 346–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719404 5005007. Gupta, A. (2006). Early experiences and personal funds of knowledge and beliefs of immigrant and minority teacher candidates’ dialog with theories of child development in a teacher education classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10901020500534224. Harkavy, I., & Hartley, M. (2009). University-school-community partnerships for youth development and democratic renewal. New Directions for Youth Development, 2009(122), 7–18. https:// doi.org/10.1002/yd.303. Jayakumar, U. M., Howard, T. C., Allen, W. R., & Han, J. C. (2009). Racial privilege in the professoriate: An exploration of campus climate, retention, and satisfaction. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(5), 538–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.303. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT Press. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008a). Situated case-based knowledge: An emerging framework for prospective teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1837–1845. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.025. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008b). Grounded design of web-enhanced case-based activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423006-9010-9. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Kohli, R. (2019). Lessons for teacher education: The role of critical professional development in teacher of color retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022487118767645. Kohli, R., Picower, B., Martinez, A. N., & Ortiz, N. (2015). Critical professional development: Centering the social justice needs of teachers. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 6(2), 8–24. Ladson-Billings, G. J. (1999). Chapter 7: Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of research in education, 24(1), 211–247. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0091732X024001211. Ladson-Billings, G. J. (2005). Is the team all right? Diversity and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105275917.

8 Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning for Equity in Teacher Education …

139

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/001 3189X035007003. Lee, U. S. A. (2019). Infrastructuring for participatory design: Supporting student agency in school technology use (Doctoral dissertation, UCLA). Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Educause Learning Initiative, 1(1), 1–27. Margolin, J., Haynes, E., Heppen, J., Ruedel, K., Meakin, J., Hauser, A., Blum, J., Chavez, S., & Hubbard, A. (2014). Evaluation of the Common Core Technology Project. American Institutes for Research. Meacham, S. J. (2000). Black self-love, language, and the teacher education dilemma: The cultural denial and cultural limbo of African American preservice teachers. Urban Education, 34(5), 571–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085900345003 Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from “Case Study Research in Education.” Jossey-Bass Publishers. Morrell, E., Dueñas, R., Garcia, V., & Lopez, J. (2013). Critical media pedagogy: Teaching for achievement in city schools. Teachers College Press. Nguyen, H. T. (2009). An inquiry-based practicum model: What knowledge, practices, and relationships typify empowering teaching and learning experiences for student teachers, cooperating teachers and college supervisors? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 655–662. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.001. Noble, S. U. (2013). Google search: Hyper-visibility as a means of rendering black women and girls invisible. InVisible Culture, (19). Quartz, K. H., Weinstein, R. S., Kaufman, G., Levine, H., Mehan, H., Pollock, M., Priselac, J. Z., & Worrell, F. C. (2017). University-partnered new school designs: Fertile ground for research– practice partnerships. Educational Researcher, 46(3), 143–146. https://doi.org/10.3102/001318 9X17703947. Rios-Aguilar, C., Kiyama, J. M., Gravitt, M., & Moll, L. C. (2011). Funds of knowledge for the poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining funds of knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 9(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878511409776. Schwartz, L. H. (2015). A funds of knowledge approach to the appropriation of new media in a high school writing classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), 595–612. https://doi. org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1064448. Shulman, J. (Ed.). (1992). Case methods in teacher education. Teachers College Press. Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022487101052002002. Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural Education, 9(1), 2. Souto-Manning, M., & Cheruvu, R. (2016). Challenging and appropriating discourses of power: Listening to and learning from early career early childhood teachers of color. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2015.1121793. Squire, V., & Darling, J. (2013). The “minor” politics of rightful presence: Justice and relationality in city of sanctuary. International Political Sociology, 7(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips. 12009. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. Yosso, T. J. (2016). Whose culture has capital?: A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. In Critical race theory in education (pp. 113–136). Routledge.

Chapter 9

Learning Analytics to Unveil Design and Learning Strategies in Video Lectures Zhongling Pi, Jiumin Yang, and Xinjing Zhang

Abstract How to effectively learn from video lectures has attracted much attention from researchers and educators. Many attempts have been made to apply design principles in creating video lectures that will maximize learning. Relatively little attention has been paid to the learning strategies students use when watching video lectures. Our studies found that learners learn better when an instructor used pointing gestures and continuous gaze guidance; they also learn better when the instructor used direct gaze with a happy facial expression. Furthermore, learners learn better when they were not exposed to others’ messages during viewing video lectures and engaged into explaining to oneself and a peer after viewing short video lectures. The main findings suggest that whether learners can effectively learn from video lectures depends on both video lectures design and their learning strategies. Our findings are discussed in terms of potential application in courses using video lectures. Keywords EEG oscillations · Eye-tracking technology · Learning strategies · Video lectures

Background Video lectures have become a fast-developing trend in online and blended learning classes worldwide. They can be applied to various teaching modes, such as flipped Classroom and case-based learning (CBL). Specifically, they can not only present pure demonstration but also can present cases and create problem situations that provide support for learners’ independent exploration. Till now, thousands of video lectures are available online through Coursera, Udacity, EdX, Khan Academy, Tree Z. Pi (B) Key Laboratory of Modern Teaching Technology (Ministry of Education), Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, China e-mail: [email protected] J. Yang · X. Zhang Faculty of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_9

141

142

Z. Pi et al.

of Wisdom, and so on. Compared to face-to-face lectures, video lectures effectively overcome the restrictions of time and space (Winslett, 2014). They significantly reduce educational costs and open the door for a wider variety of learners to obtain knowledge (Fernandez et al., 2011; Yerrick et al., 2003). Furthermore, they are regarded as powerful learning tools since they can present knowledge through vivid visual and audio forms simultaneously. Hence, more and more educators and researchers pay attention to the learning effectiveness of video lectures (Fiorella et al., 2020; Pi et al., 2020b) Nevertheless, learning from video lectures places a high demand on learners’ working memory, as video lectures present learning information transiently (Ayres & Paas, 2007). In video lectures, the learning information is present and then disappears (Pi et al., 2017a). To understand learning information, learners are not only required to process the presenting information but also needed to memorize the information that has disappeared (Post et al., 2013). In traditional classrooms, an instructor can use speech (e.g., praise, encouragement, inquiry) or embodiment cues (e.g., smile, head nod, body contact) to motivate learners to actively concentrate on studying. Furthermore, the teacher can also assess their learning status by observing learners’ nonverbal cues (e.g., furrowed brow, head scratching, note taking) and adjust their teaching accordingly. Because video lectures lack these features, it is challenging for learners who watch a video lecture to achieve similar performance to those who learn in traditional classrooms in processing the learning information (Lin & Kao, 2018). Therefore, there are two aspects considered to improve learning from video lectures: (1) how to effectively design video lectures; (2) what learning strategies can be used to learn effectively. The following sections review our research on video lectures design and learning strategies. By considering video lectures design, we started from the presenting modes of video lectures, mainly focused on instructor presence. It further explored how to design the instructor image in the video lectures, such as the application of an instructor’s gestures, eye gaze, body orientation, and facial expressions. For learning strategies, we discussed the impacts of embedded verbal social interaction during viewing video lectures and some generative learning strategies.

Design for Video Lectures Instructor Presence in Video Lectures Theory: Instructor presence is believed to have the potential to improve learning from video lectures (Fiorella et al., 2019; Pi et al., 2017b). In line with this assumption, some learning theories (e.g., the social presence theory and social agency theory) have some implications on the benefits of instructor presence in video lectures (Gunawardena, 1995; Mayer, 2014). The social presence theory and social agency theory emphasize the importance of embodiment and social cues in online learning (e.g. an

9 Learning Analytics to Unveil Design and Learning Strategies …

143

instructor’s image). The instructor’s image, gestures, eye contact, and facial expressions enhance learners’ sense of belonging in a course and help fulfill learners’ need to feel connected and perceived as real people, a so-called social presence. The learners’ social presence activates their social response and motivates them to work harder to select, organize, and integrate learning content (Lowenthal, 2009; Mayer, 2014). However, the cognitive theory of multimedia learning suggests that the instructor’s image in video lectures could also distract and overload learners (Harp & Mayer, 1998). From this perspective, the instructor’s image is not essential for learning content and is extraneous material. Processing it might exceed the learner’s cognitive capacity and offset the social advantages of the instructor’s image. The principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning hold that the benefit of including the instructor’s image in video lectures should justify drawing on additional cognitive resources (Mayer & Fiorella, 2014; Sweller, 1994). Taken together, different learning theories hold different perspectives on the roles of an instructor in video lectures. Specifically, from the social viewpoint, instructor presence improves learning from video lectures. In contrast, from the cognitive viewpoint, instructor presence hinders learning from video lectures. Instructor presence certainly has a wide range of impacts on learning from video lectures but is not necessarily for improving or hindering learning. Evidence: The instructor’s on-screen presence, rather than just only voice, has rapidly become a popular feature in video lectures. One of our studies investigated the effects of instructor presence on learners’ attention allocation, analyzed by eyetracking measurements and learning performance (Pi & Hong, 2016). In this study, college students randomly viewed one of four presenting modes of 25-min video lectures on attachment, which was a typical psychological topic. The modes used were: (1) the mode of PowerPoint slides (PPT), in which only synchronized PPT slides were included; (2) the mode of the instructor without PPT slides (Instructor), in which only the instructor was included; (3) the mode of the instructor with PPT slides (Instructor and PPT), in which the instructor and synchronized PPT slides were included; and (4) the mode of the classroom (Classroom), in which the whole learning activity in the classroom was recorded, including the instructor, students and synchronized PPT slides. We found that learners viewing the Instructor and PPT mode showed the highest learning performance, tested by retention and transfer tests immediately after viewing video lectures. Additionally, the fixation data showed that the learners spent much more time looking at the instructor than the PPT slides. The eye movement data suggested that looking at the instructor did not hinder learning from video lectures but facilitated learners’ performance. However, does instructor presence have the same effects on learning from video lectures when taught procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge? Gaining declarative knowledge is different from gaining procedural knowledge in many aspects. Specifically, declarative knowledge is a type of knowledge that could be described as ‘know-what,’ such as facts, theory, and names; procedural knowledge is a type of knowledge that could be described as ‘know-how,’ such as swimming, driving, and playing basketball (Anderson, 1982; Schunk, 1996). Hence, the

144

Z. Pi et al.

primary learning process of declarative knowledge is understanding and remembering knowledge. The main learning process of procedural knowledge is firstly knowing its associated declarative knowledge, and then knowing how to enact the skill via practice. Therefore, learning declarative knowledge is relatively straightforward and requires learners’ lower cognitive skills than learning procedural knowledge (Anderson, 1995). We tested the different roles of instructor presence in video lectures taught procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge (Hong et al., 2018). In the study, half of the participants watched the declarative video lecture without the instructor and the procedural video lecture with the instructor, whereas the resting half of the participants watched the declarative lecture with the instructor and the procedural lecture without the instructor. All videos are shorter than 10 min and lasted around eight minutes. The results confirmed the beneficial effects of having the instructor in the video lectures in some cases: learners performed better and experienced no increase in cognitive load when being taught declarative knowledge, but not procedural knowledge. Furthermore, our study tested whether changes in instructor presence in the video lectures being taught procedural knowledge improved learning (Yi et al., 2019). In this study, learners either viewed a video lecture with the continuous instructor presence (both content and an instructor visible continuously) or a video lecture with the intermittent instructor presence (the instructor hidden when explaining key content). The instructional videos were taught how to make a video using the Camtasia Studio software and lasted about 4 min. It was found that relative to learners in the continuous presence condition, learners in the intermittent presence condition performed better, experienced lower cognitive load, and higher learning satisfaction. The results suggest that when designing procedural knowledge video lectures, an instructor’s intermittent presence facilitates learning. Implications: The research work summarized in this section suggests that compared to presenting only an instructor, the PPT, or delivering the whole learning activity in the classroom, presenting the instructor together with the PPT can better promote learning from video lectures. Previous studies suggest that the presence of the instructor contributes social cues while simultaneously increasing the cognitive load (Gunawardena, 1995; Homer et al., 2008; Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994). Due to the instructor’s presence which provides information beyond what is taught, learners’ cognitive load increases. Furthermore, the learners’ attention is drawn away from the supporting material in the PPT (Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994). Both social benefits and cognitive load affect learning outcomes, and they need to be well balanced (Pi, 2014). It is worth noting that adding the instructor in video lectures did not always have the potential to improve effectiveness, and the potential positive effects were dependent on the type of knowledge being taught and the presenting mode of an instructor. We found that when learners learned declarative knowledge, they required fewer cognitive resources (Yi et al., 2019). In this case, adding the instructor’s image will not increase the learner’s cognitive load. By contrast, when learners learned procedural knowledge or more complex knowledge, they were required a higher level

9 Learning Analytics to Unveil Design and Learning Strategies …

145

of cognitive resources. The instructor’s image increased the cognitive load and may have interfered with learning. According to our study (Yi et al., 2019), one solution is to present the instructor’s image intermittently to reduce learners’ cognitive load and improve their learning performance. In summary, when video lectures teach declarative knowledge, an instructor should be presented all the time. However, when video lectures teach procedural knowledge, the instructor should be intermittently presented. In CBL video lectures, an instructor commonly explains how to solve a problem, similar to procedural knowledge (Gog et al., 2014; Wermeskerken & Gog, 2017). Therefore, the principle of procedural knowledge might be applied to CBL video lectures.

Embodiment in Video Lectures Theory: According to principles based on social cues in multimedia learning (i.e., personalization, image, and embodiment principles; Mayer, 2014), as typical social cues, an instructor’s eye gaze, body orientation, and facial expressions influence learners’ sense of interaction between the instructor in video lectures. For example, when the instructor uses direct gaze (making eye contact with learners sitting in front of the screen) and frontal body orientation, learners believe that the instructor is personally teaching them. This sense will further socially motivate them to concentrate more on the learning process (i.e., selection, organization, and integration), and hence they show better learning performance. Meanwhile, compared with a neutral face, the instructor’s other facial expressions also prime learners to concentrate more on the learning process (Mayer, 2014). Furthermore, the signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning posits that both an instructor’s pointing gesture and gaze guidance can act as the signals (or cues) to direct learners’ attention to the critical information and thus improve their learning performance (van Gog, 2014). Learners’ working memory capacity is limited, with the result being that they can allocate their attention only to a small portion of incoming information at once (Baddeley, 1992). The implication is that video lectures should be designed to reduce extraneous processing, such as visual search on the screen for the content that the instructor is referring to, especially if the information shown on the screen is transient. Adding pointing gestures and gaze guidance in video lectures might reduce learners’ extraneous visual search, as they guide their attention to the key information (Ouwehand et al., 2015; Pi et al., 2019c; van Wermeskerken & van Gog, 2017). Evidence: Eye gaze and facial expressions are prominent cues among embodiment cues. An instructor can utilize their facial expressions to shed light on her mental state (Wang et al., 2019). Recent studies have provided consistent and robust evidence for the positive effects of the instructor’s direct eye gaze, relative to averted gaze, on the learning of students of a wide range of ages (Beege et al., 2019; Leong et al., 2017). Direct gaze in video lectures occurs when the instructor looks towards the camera as if she is looking towards learners sitting in front of the screen. Furthermore,

146

Z. Pi et al.

people generally prefer to see happy faces than neutral faces (Graham et al., 2010). Therefore, direct gaze and happy face are assumed to socially motivated learners to concentrate more on the learning process in video lectures. We conducted a study to test the interaction effect of the instructor’s eye gaze and facial expression on learners’ attention and learning performance in video lectures (Pi et al., 2021, 2022). It included four video lecture formats: (1) direct gaze and happy face; (2) direct gaze and neutral face; (3) averted gaze and happy face; (4) averted gaze, and neutral face. The eye-tracking data analysis included dwell time on slides, the instructor’s face and the instructor’s body, and saccade counts between slides and face, and between slides and body. The findings indicated that attention allocation was affected only by the instructor’s eye gaze, but their learning performance was interactively affected by the instructor’s eye gaze and facial expression. Specifically, when the instructor used direct gaze, students showed better learning performance when she had a happy face; when the instructor used averted gaze, students showed similar learning performance regardless of facial expressions. Furthermore, instructors often use gestures to provide explanations during naturalistic instruction (Goldin-Meadow et al., 2009). Gestures are defined as spontaneous hand movements, often accompanying speech, that are meaningful and convey information to listeners (Goldin-Meadow, 2005; McNeill, 1992). Gestures can be divided into three major categories (Alibali et al., 2014; McNeill, 1992): (a) pointing (deictic) gestures, which indicate objects or locations, typically with an extended finger or hand (e.g., pointing to a flower in the vase to indicate that flower); (b) depictive/representative (iconic and metaphoric) gestures, which depict aspects of semantic content via hand shape or motion trajectory, to either literally or metaphorically evoke a mental image of that shape in listeners’ minds (e.g., representing a geometric shape in the air); and (c) beat gestures, which are simple, up-and-down rhythmic movements that do not depict semantic content, but instead align with the prosody or discourse structure of speech. One of our studies tested how an instructor’s pointing gestures and depictive gestures differentially affected learners’ retention, transfer, and visual attention allocation (Pi et al., 2019b). Learners viewed one of three video lectures, which varied in terms of the instructor’s gestures: pointing gestures, depictive gestures, or no gestures. To analyze whether the instructor’s pointing gestures and depictive gestures had different effects on participants’ visual attention, three areas of interest (AOIs) when the instructor produced pointing gestures or depictive gestures were created: (a) the corresponding learning content areas on the PPT slides according to the areas to which the instructor referred; (b) the instructor area; (c) the whole PPT slide areas to test where the participants look while viewing the video lecture without the instructor’s gestures. This study used eye-tracking to calculate percentage dwell time on the three AOIs and on the whole screen when the instructor produced pointing gestures or depictive gestures. Percentage dwell time means the percentage of total time attending to an AOI (Pi et al., 2019b, 2019c). Furthermore, this study used prior knowledge test, retention test, and transfer test to analyze the effects of the instructor’s gestures on participants’ learning performance.

9 Learning Analytics to Unveil Design and Learning Strategies …

147

The results showed that learners who viewed video lectures learned more when the instructor used pointing or depictive gestures than when they did not use gestures. Interestingly, learners’ level of prior knowledge moderated the effect of the instructor’s gestures on learning performance. The instructor’s gestures had a more positive effect on learners with low prior knowledge. There was a less positive effect on learners with medium and high levels of prior knowledge. Furthermore, the type of gesture differentially affected learners’ visual attention allocation: pointing gestures elicited greater learners’ attention to the content of the corresponding PPT slides, and depictive gestures produced greater attention to the instructor. Besides pointing gestures, many studies on multimedia learning have shown that adding nonhuman cues (e.g., symbolic and color cues) can also direct learners’ attention and thus improve learning (for a review, see Wang et al., 2013). Hence, we examined whether the instructor’s pointing gestures were superior to nonhuman cues in directing learners’ attention and enhancing their learning performance in video lectures (Pi et al., 2017a). In this study, there were three experimental conditions: (1) the pointing gestures condition: the instructor stood next to the PPT slides, and she produced eight pointing gestures toward the PPT slides in the video lecture; (2) the nonhuman cues condition: the video lecture included eight pointing arrows on the same locations in the PPT slides; (3) the no-cues control condition. Similarly, the eye-tracking technique was applied to test the learners’ allocation of visual attention. The results showed that compared to learners who saw nonhuman attentional cues and those who saw no attentional cues, the learners who viewed instructor gestures allocated more visual attention to the contents of the corresponding speech in PPT slides, reflected by longer total fixation duration. Meanwhile, they showed better learning performance when the instructor produced pointing gestures. Among embodiment cues, an instructor’s gaze guidance and body orientation can also play the role of attentional cues. Therefore, we further carried out two studies to address it. One of our studies (Pi et al., 2019c) included four types of video lecture in which the instructor either (a) looked straight into the camera with no gaze shift and without pointing gesture; (b) made occasional gaze shifts and without pointing gesture; (c) looked straight into the camera with no gaze shift and pointed to the relevant areas of the slide, or (d) made occasional gaze shifts accompanied by pointing gestures towards the slides. To analyze the effects of the instructor’s pointing gestures and directed gazes on students’ efficiency of visual search and attention allocation, the study used eye-tracking to calculate (a) the average of first fixation times on 15 AOIs where the instructor was referring to and (b) the average percentage dwell time on the same 15 AOIs. The results indicated that the instructor’s pointing gesture always improved learners’ performance (i.e., retention and transfer), regardless of her directed gaze used in video lectures. Furthermore, her pointing gestures facilitated learners’ visual search and guided them to pay greater attention to the relevant areas of the slide. However, her gaze guidance only improved learners’ efficiency of visual search. Another study tested the directing roles of eye gaze and body orientation (Pi et al., 2020b). It manipulated the instructor’s presence in terms of eye gaze (direct, guided, or averted) and body orientation (frontal or lateral) and tested their effects on learners’

148

Z. Pi et al.

attention allocation (i.e., attention to instructor’s face, attention to instructor’s body, and attention to slides) and learning performance (i.e., retention and transfer). Therefore, learners viewed a video lecture showing an instructor and slides presented to the right side of her, in one of six conditions: (1) direct gaze + frontal body, (2) gaze guidance + frontal body, (3) averted gaze + frontal body, (4) direct gaze + lateral body, (5) gaze guidance + lateral body, or (6) averted gaze + lateral body. It is worth noting that the instructor’s gaze guidance lasted longer than that in our first study on an instructor’s gaze guidance (Pi et al., 2019c). The eye-tracking data showed that learners took significantly more time to process the instructor’s face than body. Meanwhile, the instructor’s eye gaze, relative to her body orientation, played the dominant role in guiding learners’ attention allocation. When the instructor used direct gaze, learners paid greater attention to her face regardless of her body orientation; once the instructor used gaze guidance, they paid greater attention to the slides regardless of her body orientation. Regarding learning performance, the study showed that learners who viewed the video lectures with gaze guidance showed better retention and transfer. Implications: In summary, our studies showed that the instructor’s happy face (relative to neutral face) while looking towards the camera (rather than to the side of the camera) was most effective in promoting learning. The combined effects of these embodiment cues provide new evidence supporting the principles based on social cues in multimedia learning (i.e., personalization, image, and embodiment principles; Mayer, 2014). The findings have practical implications for designing slide-based video lectures: an instructor is encouraged to look straight towards the camera with a happy expression. Besides, both an instructor’s pointing gestures and depictive gestures improved learners’ performance through different mechanisms. Pointing gestures can direct learners to look at the relevant learning content that the instructor was talking about, and depictive gestures help understand the learning content. We further found that the instructor’s pointing gestures were superior to nonhuman cues in improving learning performance and guiding visual attention to relevant content in PPT slides regardless of her use of intermittent gaze guidance. These findings suggest that the instructor’s pointing gestures can be a valuable means to improve learning performance in video lectures, in particular PPT slides with much learning information. The findings have practical implications: instructors are encouraged to use pointing gestures and depictive gestures in video lectures. It was striking that the video lecture instructor’s eye gaze was superior to body orientation in influencing learners’ attention allocation and learning performance. An instructor’s continuous gaze guidance (not intermittent gaze guidance) appears to have more benefits than direct gaze for learning in video lectures with visual learning materials, drawing learners’ attention to the critical information in the learning materials. Based on the findings, the first practical implication for designing video lectures is that an instructor does not need to consider her body orientation. Furthermore, those findings about types of eye gaze have implications for designing video lectures, including that an instructor should not look directly at the camera throughout the

9 Learning Analytics to Unveil Design and Learning Strategies …

149

lecture and should instead use continuous gaze guidance to draw learners’ attention to the learning materials. The implication can also be generalized to CBL video lectures. Two studies testing the role of an instructor’s intermittent gaze guidance also found that the intermittent gaze guidance did not always facilitate case-based learning (i.e., puzzle problem-solving task, and composition of glutamine (C5 H10 N2 O3 ) and construction of the glutamine molecule; Gog et al., 2014; Wermeskerken & Gog, 2017). Taken together, when video lectures present much information at one time, an instructor should use continuous gaze guidance and pointing gestures to direct learners’ attention to the learning content the instructor is referring to. When video lectures present the abstract learning content, the instructor should use depictive gestures to explain the content and look straight towards the camera with a happy expression. The instructor’s gestures significantly benefitted low prior knowledge learners.

Learning Strategies in Video Lectures Theory Many attempts have been made to apply design principles in creating video lectures that will maximize learning (Fiorella & Mayer, 2018; Fiorella et al., 2019). However, relatively little attention has been paid to the learning strategies learners use when learning from video lectures. The benefits of social interaction for learning are in line with several learning theories, such as social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) and the interactive-constructive-active–passive (ICAP) framework (Chi & Wylie, 2014). Both theories hold that co-construction through interaction can achieve the best learning outcomes. Social constructivism suggests that interacting with others provides learners scaffolding and thus inspiration (Vygotsky, 1978). Furthermore, the ICAP framework predicts that when learners interact, they benefit from activities that allow frequent interjections to ask questions and get clarification. These dynamic and ongoing activities have the advantage of allowing learners to incorporate others’ understandings and to make adjustments to their own mental model. These exchanges also allow more frequent revisions of smaller components of knowledge, which might build blocks for large components (Chi & Wylie, 2014). Embedding social interaction into video lectures is becoming popular as an educational tool (Li et al., 2014). In line with social constructivism and the ICAP framework, the essential activity in social interaction is exchanging messages (Chi & Wylie, 2014; Pi et al., 2019a; Vygotsky, 1978). However, when learners have to integrate information from multiple sources simultaneously mentally, such social interaction may trigger the split attention effect. According to the coherence principle of multimedia learning, the extraneous processing of others’ messages reduces the cognitive capacity needed for selecting, organizing, and integrating information (Mayer &

150

Z. Pi et al.

Fiorella, 2014). From this perspective, social interaction (i.e., exchanging messages) but not pausing the video to read the messages might hinder learning performance. Generative learning strategies (that is, non-passive) are other kinds of learning strategies. Generative learning strategies have been shown to promote learning in traditional contexts (Chi et al., 1989; De Backer et al., 2012) and may also be helpful when learning from video lectures (Fiorella & Mayer, 2016; Fiorella et al., 2020). One generative learning strategy is learning by explaining. Using this strategy, learners generate statements to clarify the meaning of the learning material by integrating information from various sources and relating it to their prior knowledge (Chi et al., 1989). One use of the explaining strategy is self-explaining. According to the selfexplanation principle in multimedia learning, self-explaining facilitates learning from video lectures by actively processing information (i.e., selecting, organizing, and integrating; Wylie & Chi, 2014). Therefore, learning by self-explaining might foster a more active learning process than passively viewing video lectures and promote better learning performance. Learning by explaining can also be accomplished by explaining to peers (Roscoe, 2014; Roscoe & Chi, 2008), also called learning by teaching (Fiorella & Mayer, 2016). Learning by teaching is considered a powerful learning strategy (Fiorella & Mayer, 2013; Kobayashi, 2019a; Roscoe & Chi, 2008). It involves not only generating explanations but also giving explanations to others, and both components appear to contribute to the teacher’s learning (Hoogerheide et al., 2016). Learning by teaching can be accomplished in multiple ways (Fiorella & Mayer, 2013; Kobayashi, 2019a). For example, learners explain to an imaginary or anonymous learner via creating a lecture video and providing written explanations. They also can explain to a passive and anonymous learner who listens. Additionally, learners can teach a learner faceto-face by asking and answering questions. The benefits of learning by teaching are called peer tutoring effects. These include cognitive and metacognitive benefits, as well as motivational benefits (Kobayashi, 2019b; Roscoe & Chi, 2008). Regarding cognitive and metacognitive benefits, learners engage in more integration of new and prior knowledge, as well as more monitoring and reconstruction of their understanding, when teaching peers (Roscoe & Chi, 2008).

Evidence Although social interaction and other features of video lectures are diverse, a common component (e.g., in MOOC platforms such as Coursera, edX, and Udacity) involves learners posting online messages that appear onscreen for other learners to read during the lecture. However, the consequences of seeing others’ messages during a video lecture on learners’ attention and learning performance are still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a study to test whether seeing others’ typed messages while viewing video lectures affected learners’ attention and learning performance (Pi et al., 2020a). In this study, learners randomly viewed one of three versions of a video lecture: (a) conventional video lecture as control; (b) video lecture with others’ programmed

9 Learning Analytics to Unveil Design and Learning Strategies …

151

messages appearing onscreen when the instructor was giving demonstrations on course content; (c) video lecture with others’ programmed messages appearing onscreen when the instructor was posing questions. In Experiment 1, participants viewed video lectures without pause and could not post messages themselves. To examine whether seeing others’ messages influenced learners’ attention allocation, this study used eye movement data analysis to measure dwell time and percentage dwell time on different AOIs (i.e., learning content area and others’ messages areas). Eye-tracking data revealed that although seeing others’ messages did not decrease learners’ attention to the learning content, greater attention to others’ messages was associated with lower retention. The results suggest that although learners’ external attention to learning content was not reduced by others’ messages, they used additional external attention to the messages. Furthermore, learners who viewed the conventional video lecture showed higher transfer than those who viewed either video lectures that included others’ messages. In Experiment 2, participants viewed self-paced lectures and could post messages themselves. Experiment 2 duplicated the results of Experiment 1 in a realistic educational setting. The missed benefits of exchanging messages in our study might be explained by that the messages were presented simultaneously as the video was playing regardless of what an instructor was doing (i.e., demonstration or questioning), learners need to invest more cognitive sources to process information. Therefore, it is unlikely that learners could process others’ messages and the slides together or deep thinking the instructor’s questions. Furthermore, we tested the effects of generative learning strategies on learning from video lectures (Pi et al., 2021). There were three learning strategies: passive viewing versus self-explaining versus teaching. It tested the effects of these learning strategies on learners’ EEG oscillations in theta and alpha band power while watching video lectures; self-reported learning experience (motivation and cognitive load) after the video lectures; and learning performance. Neural oscillations in the theta frequency band (4–8 Hz) are well known to correlate with memory (Herweg et al., 2020) and neural oscillations in the alpha frequency band (8–12 Hz) are associated with increases in internal attention-demanding cognitive processes (Fink & Benedek, 2014; Klimesch, 2012). In this study, the video lectures taught English vocabulary words. In the passive viewing condition, participants watched the video and then viewed and read out loud pre-written sentences containing each word; in the self-explaining condition, participants watched the video, created sentences containing each word, and read the sentences out loud; and in the teaching condition, participants watched the video, created sentences containing each word, and orally shared the created sentences as a way to teach a peer face-to-face. The result suggested that both types of explaining were more helpful than passive viewing: EEG oscillations indicated more neural activation related to memory and attention, there was more self-reported motivation and cognitive load, and learning performance scores were higher. Comparisons between the two explaining strategies showed oscillations related to memory and attention were more activated by teaching than by self-explaining; however, the two

152

Z. Pi et al.

groups did not differ on traditional outcome measures (motivation, cognitive load, and learning performance).

Implications Regarding learning via exchanging messages, an interesting finding was that seeing others’ messages on the screen while viewing a video lecture hindered learners’ learning performance. The similar phenomena occurred when learners viewed system-paced video lectures without posting messages and viewed the self-paced lectures with posting messages. The results have clear implications for designing video lectures: If an instructor wants learners to gain better learning performance, they should not present messages while the video lecture is ongoing; if the instructor wants the learning experience to be interaction, then the interaction should take place after viewing the lecture. Regarding generative learning strategies, our study confirmed the benefits of learning by self-explaining and teaching relative to learning by passive viewing, based on both behavioral and neural evidence. These findings of learning strategies have implications for using video lectures in educational settings. Firstly, teaching is an effective strategy for learning from video lectures. Compared with learners who passively view the video, learners who use the strategy of teaching appear to engage more working memory and use more top-down attentional processing, resulting in higher learning performance. Therefore, learners are encouraged to generate explanations and teach a peer face-to-face during pauses in video lectures or after viewing them. Secondly, learners are also encouraged to learn by self-explaining when they are not in the company of peers, as this strategy can also improve their learning performance relative to passive viewing. In summary, learners are encouraged to explain themselves or interact with peers via sharing or seeing others’ messages after viewing video lectures. Regarding CBL, after an instructor shows the case in video lectures, learners can explain the knowledge to better solve a new problem similar to the video lectures.

Conclusion This brief review of video lectures design to design useful video lectures and learning strategies to use of video lectures for learning better. The practical implications for designing and learning from video lectures are as follows: (1) an instructor in video lectures should use continuous gaze guidance and pointing gestures to direct learners’ attention to the referred learning content; (2) the instructor also should use depictive gestures to explain the abstract content and look straight towards the camera with a happy expression; (3) learners should generate explanations themselves after viewing

9 Learning Analytics to Unveil Design and Learning Strategies …

153

video lectures; and (4) learners also can interact with peers via sharing explanations to teach them or reading their explanations to be inspired after viewing video lectures. Although most of our research is conducted in the laboratory, these research results are meaningful for applying video lectures in real environments. The important discovery is that whether learners can effectively learn from video lectures depends on both video lectures design and their learning strategies. In addition, video lectures mostly demonstrate some knowledge, which is slightly different from CBL. In subsequent studies, we can explore whether these results can be applied to CBL video lectures. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62007023; 61877024), and the Social Science Foundation of Shaanxi (2020P021).

References Alibali, M. W., Nathan, M. J., Wolfgram, M. S., Church, R. B., Jacobs, S. A., Martinez, C. J., et al. (2014). How teachers link ideas in mathematics instruction using speech and gesture: A corpus analysis. Cognition & Instruction, 32(1), 65–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013. 858161. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.4.369. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). WH Freeman. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Can the cognitive load approach make instructional animations more effective? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 811–820. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1351. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1736359. Beege, M., Nebel, S., Schneider, S., & Rey, G. D. (2019). Social entities in educational videos: Combining the effects of addressing and professionalism. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.051. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. H., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1. Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00461520.2014.965823. De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2012). Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation. Instructional Science, 40, 559–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9190-5. Fernandez, V., Simo, P., Algaba, I., Albareda-Sambola, M., Salan, N., Amante, B., et al. (2011). ‘Low-cost educational videos’ for engineering students: A new concept based on video streaming and YouTube channels. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27, 1–10. Fink, A., & Benedek, M. (2014). EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 44, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.002. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ced psych.2013.06.001. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9.

154

Z. Pi et al.

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). What works and doesn’t work with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.015. Fiorella, L., Stull, A. T., Kuhlmann, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Instructor presence in video lectures: The role of dynamic drawings, eye contact, and instructor visibility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(7), 1162–1171. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000325. Fiorella, L., Stull, A. T., Kuhlmann, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2020). Fostering generative learning from video lessons: Benefits of instructor-generated drawings and learner-generated explanations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 895–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000408. Gog, T., Verveer, I., & Verveer, L. (2014). Learning from video modeling examples: Effects of seeing the human model’s face. Computers & Education, 72, 323–327. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. First Harvard University Press. Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20(3), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009. 02297.x. Graham, R., Friesen, C. K., Fichtenholtz, H. M., & LaBar, K. S. (2010). Modulation of reflexive orienting to gaze direction by facial expressions. Visual Cognition, 18(3), 331–368. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1, 147–166. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0022-0663.90.3.414. Herweg, N. A., Solomon, E. A., & Kahana, M. J. (2020). Theta oscillations in human memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(3), 208–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.12.006. Homer, B. D., Plass, J. L., & Blake, L. (2008). The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 786–797. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.009. Hong, J., Pi, Z., & Yang, J. (2018). Learning declarative and procedural knowledge via video lectures: Cognitive load and learning effectiveness. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1237371. Hoogerheide, V., Deijkers, L., Loyens, S. M. M., Heijltjes, A., & van Gog, T. (2016). Gaining from explaining: Learning improves from explaining to fictitious others on video, not from writing to them. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ced psych.2016.02.005. Klimesch, W. (2012). Alpha-band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(12), 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012. 10.007. Kobayashi, K. (2019a). Interactivity: A potential determinant of learning by preparing to teach and teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2755. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02755. Kobayashi, K. (2019b). Learning by preparing-to-teach and teaching: A meta-analysis. Japanese Psychological Research, 61(3), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12221. Leong, V., Byrne, E., Clackson, K., Georgieva, S., Lam, S., & Wass, S. (2017). Speaker gaze increases information coupling between infant and adult brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(50), 13290–13295. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702493114. Li, N., Verma, H., Skevi, A., Zufferey, G., Blom, J., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Watching MOOCs together: Investigating colocated MOOC study groups. Distance Education, 35(2), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.917708. Lin, F.-R., & Kao, C.-M. (2018). Mental effort detection using EEG data in E-learning contexts. Computers & Education, 122, 63–79. Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontier for teaching practices (pp. 124–140). IGI Global.

9 Learning Analytics to Unveil Design and Learning Strategies …

155

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 419–447). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978 1139547369.017. Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 336–381). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.017. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press. Ouwehand, K., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2015). Designing effective video-based modeling examples using gaze and gesture cues. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 78–88. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 51–71. Pi, Z. L. (2014). The presenting formats of video podcasts and their effect on learning effectiveness and learning mechanism: An eye tracking study (Unpublished master thesis). Central China Normal University, Wuhan (in Chinese). Pi, Z., & Hong, J. (2016). Learning process and learning outcomes of video podcasts including the instructor and PPT slides: A Chinese case. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1060133. Pi, Z., Hong, J., & Yang, J. (2017a). Effects of the instructor’s pointing gestures on learning performance in video lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 1020–1029. https:// doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12471. Pi, Z., Hong, J., & Yang, J. (2017b). Does image size of an instructor in video lectures make a difference in learning outcomes? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(4), 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12183. Pi, Z., Hong, J., & Hu, W. (2019a). Interaction of the originality of peers’ ideas and students’ openness to experience in predicting creativity in online collaborative groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1801–1814. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12671. Pi, Z., Zhang, Y., Yang, J., Hu, W., & Yang, H. (2019b). All roads lead to Rome: Instructors’ pointing and depictive gestures in video lectures promote learning through different patterns of attention allocation. The Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 43(4), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919019-00310-5. Pi, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhu, F., Xu, K., Yang, J., & Hu, W. (2019c). Instructors’ pointing gestures improve learning regardless of their use of directed gaze in video lectures. Computers & Education, 128, 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.006 Pi, Z., Tang, M., & Yang, J. (2020a). Seeing others’ messages on the screen during video lectures hinders transfer of learning. Interactive Learning Environments, Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1749671. Pi, Z., Xu, K., Liu, C., & Yang, J. (2020b). Instructor presence in video lectures: Eye gaze matters, but not body orientation. Computers & Education, 144, 103713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com pedu.2019.103713. Pi, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhou, W., Xu, K., Chen, Y., Yang, J., & Zhao, Q. (2021). Learning by explaining to oneself and a peer enhances learners’ theta and alpha oscillations while watching video lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 659–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13048. Pi, Z., Chen, M., Zhu, F., Yang, J., & Hu, W. (2022). Modulation of instructor’s eye gaze by facial expression in video lectures. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(1), 15–23. Post, L. S., van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Zwaan, R. A. (2013). Effects of simultaneously observing and making gestures while studying grammar animations on cognitive load and learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1450–1455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.005. Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instructional Science, 42, 327–351.

156

Z. Pi et al.

Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36, 321–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9034-5. Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5. van Gog, T. (2014). The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 317–335). Cambridge University Press. van Wermeskerken, M., & van Gog, T. (2017). Seeing the instructor’s face and gaze in demonstration video examples affects attention allocation but not learning. Computers & Education, 113, 98– 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.013. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wang, F. X., Duan, Z. H., & Zhou, Z. K. (2013). Attention guidance in multimedia learning: The role of cueing. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(8), 1430–1440. (in Chinese). https://doi. org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.01430. Wang, Y., Liu, Q., Chen, W., Wang, Q., & Stein, D. (2019). Effects of instructor’s facial expressions on students’ learning with video lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1381–1395. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12633. Winslett, G. (2014). What counts as educational video? Working toward best practice alignment between video production approaches and outcomes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 487–502. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.458. Wylie, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 413–432). Cambridge University Press. Yerrick, R., Ross, D., & Molebash, P. (2003). Promoting equity with digital video. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31, 16–19. Yi, T., Yang, X., Pi, Z., Huang, L., & Yang, J. (2019). Teachers’ continuous versus intermittent presence in procedural knowledge instructional videos. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(4), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1470020.

Chapter 10

Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning in an Undergraduate Course Yuen Man Tang, Danlin Yang, Ricci Wai-tsz Fong, and Cher Ping Lim

Abstract Based on a case study of an undergraduate course for a teacher education program at a university in Hong Kong, this chapter examines how technologyenabled case-based learning engages pre-service teachers behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally and prepares them for teaching in schools. Qualitative data obtained from individual interviews with four pre-service teachers and online discussion threads were analyzed using a content analysis approach. This chapter describes how the use of 360-degree panoramic videos and asynchronous discussion forums supports the development of pre-service teachers’ problem-solving skills in tackling school students’ undesirable classroom behaviors, enhancing their reflective skills, and consolidating their content knowledge in classroom management. This study sheds light on how technology-enabled case-based learning may contribute to teacher education programs and prepare pre-service teachers for effective classroom management. Keywords Case-based learning · Learning engagement · Online learning · Pre-service teachers · 360° panoramic video

Y. M. Tang · D. Yang Faculty of Education and Human Development, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po District, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] D. Yang e-mail: [email protected] R. W. Fong · C. P. Lim (B) Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po District, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] R. W. Fong e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_10

157

158

Y. M. Tang et al.

Introduction Preparing pre-service teachers for classroom management is one of the key foci in many teacher education programs. One common problem in preparing pre-service teachers for classroom management is the challenge of connecting theoretical knowledge with authentic classroom situations (Munby et al., 2001). This gap between theory and practice has often been identified in initial teacher education (König et al., 2017; Korthagen, 2010, 2017). Without much exposure to authentic cases of classroom misbehavior, it would be a struggle for pre-service teachers to understand how classroom management theories can be applied during their first two years of teaching (Aloe et al., 2014; Barth et al., 2019; Melnick & Meister, 2008). They may fail to tackle classroom misbehaviors or unexpected situations. Exposure to authentic classroom scenarios will therefore be crucial for pre-service teachers to build their classroom management competencies and prepare them for teaching practicum and their future teaching in schools (Jones, 2006; Wolff et al., 2015). Research has highlighted how adopting case-based learning in teacher education programs could better prepare pre-service teachers for classroom management (Elksnin, 1998; McNaughton et al., 2001; Merseth, 1991). By immersing them in real-world cases, pre-service teachers were more likely to apply knowledge to real teaching contexts (Masingila & Doerr, 2002). On the other hand, case-based learning could offer pre-service teachers exposure to a wider range of authentic classroom management problems that enabled them to develop problem-solving skills for future teaching (Elksnin, 1998, 2001). Through conducting case analyses, pre-service teachers were more able to interpret learning situations and subsequently infer appropriate action decisions (Kramer et al., 2020; Tomey, 2003). In short, casebased learning allows pre-service teachers to reflect upon their teaching competencies and develop the critical thinking skills that are indispensable for resolving complex problems in authentic classrooms (Mayo, 2004). However, in general, case-based learning too often involved the use of text-based cases or outdated videos to engage pre-service teachers in analyses and reflections of the classroom scenarios. The lack of immersion in authentic classroom contexts may limit pre-service teachers’ knowledge application in the future. Given the proliferation of integrating technology in higher education, video cases can now be enriched by shooting with a 360-degree camera (Aguayo et al., 2017). As technology advances, 360-degree panoramic videos tend to promote an immersive and 3-dimensional (3D) learning experience for students by allowing them to view the setting from different angles. Since 360-degree cameras are becoming increasingly affordable, portable, and accessible (Aguayo et al., 2017), 360-degree videos are gradually adopted to simulate operative procedures such as laboratory experiments (Schöne et al., 2019; Yoganathan et al., 2018). This emerging technology has also been adopted in teacher education and has proven its usefulness (Theelen et al., 2019). Hence, developing technology-enabled case-based learning for pre-service teachers would be of paramount importance to help immerse them in the authentic teaching contexts for meaningful reflection from different perspectives.

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based …

159

Therefore, based on a case study of an undergraduate course under a teacher education program at a university in Hong Kong, this chapter examines how technologyenabled case-based learning can engage pre-service teachers in their learning experiences and prepare them for their future teaching through experiencing a series of authentic and immersive classroom situations. To be more specific, we attempt to address three questions: (1) How are the affordances of technology-enabled case-based learning package taken up by the pre-service teachers in the course for learning engagement? (2) What impact does a technology-enabled case-based learning package have on pre-service teachers’ learning engagement? (3) How does the technology-enabled case-based learning package prepare pre-service teachers for their future teaching?

Literature Review Learning Engagement in Online Learning One of the most commonly used indicators for measuring learning outcomes in online learning is learning engagement. Learning engagement is often conceptualized as a multi-faceted construct, consisting of three separate, yet interrelated aspects, namely, behavioral, emotional, and cognitive (Archambault & Dupéré, 2017; Fredricks et al., 2004). To elaborate, behavioral engagement refers to students’ participation in activities, such as completing an assignment or attending lessons (Hew, 2016). In an online learning environment, behavioral engagement may be displayed if they complete assignments, such as a learning package, and post responses in a forum. Emotional engagement pertains to learners’ positive emotions toward their instructors, peer learners, or online learning resources (Buelow et al., 2018). Students could be considered emotionally engaged if they are actively involved in a discussion forum and demonstrate a “generally positive outlook about participating in the activities” (Charbonneau-Gowdy & Chavez, 2019, p. 135). Cognitive engagement is defined as students’ evaluation of the course content being relevant and important (Buelow et al., 2018; Helme & Clarke, 1998). In an online learning environment, students are cognitively engaged if they spend time and effort looking for information online to increase their competencies (Charbonneau-Gowdy & Chavez, 2019; Fredricks et al., 2004). Previous studies have employed different methods, such as quantitative selfreports, qualitative interviews, and mixed-methods approaches, to examine online learning engagement. For example, Kucuk and Richardson (2019) adopted a quantitative approach to investigate the structural relationships among online learners’ teaching, social and cognitive presence, engagement, and satisfaction. Besides, Baranova and colleagues (2019) used a mixed-methods approach to study students’ engagement in a newly-introduced integrated learning model and identified the impact of such a model on students’ learning outcomes. Although self-reports allow

160

Y. M. Tang et al.

researchers to collect useful data at a low cost, in the study of engagement, it is also essential to capture the engagement process (Baranova et al., 2019), including why students participate in certain activities and why students engage at different levels. On the other hand, it seems that little research had an in-depth analysis of student behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement in online learning. The present study adopts a qualitative approach, including analysis of discussion forums followed by semi-structured interviews, to capture the overall learning engagement process.

Competencies in Classroom Management Classroom management is a crucial, yet challenging, topic to pre-service teachers. Managing classrooms effectively helps facilitate effective instruction, minimize students’ misbehavior in class, and increase student learning motivation (Jones & Jones, 2004). Despite its importance, classroom management is not often taught systematically and consistently in most teacher education programs (Wallace et al., 2020). Numerous studies have shown that it is necessary to cultivate competencies in classroom management through specifically designed courses in pre-service teacher education programs (Piwowar et al., 2013). The traditional way of classroom management is teacher-centered, with a focus on reducing students’ undesirable behaviors through punishments or rewards and correcting their behaviors such that teachers can resume their teaching activities (Freiberg & Lamb, 2009). Yet, recent literature emphasizes two key competencies in effective classroom management, including problem-solving skills (Kavrayici, 2020) and the connection of theory and practice (Soydan et al., 2018). Therefore, in order to prepare pre-service teachers for future teaching, it is essential to provide opportunities for them to develop problem-solving skills and to connect theory and practice, enabling them to manage their classrooms more effectively. The growing attention to cultivating problem-solving skills and bridging the theory–practice gap among pre-service teachers points to an imperative need to identify good practices in contemporary teacher education courses and programs. This chapter therefore examines a pre-service teacher education course that has leveraged technology to foster pre-service teachers’ understanding of theory-driven classroom management strategies and offer opportunities for them to solve authentic problems with the use of those strategies.

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based …

161

Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning 360-Degree Panoramic Video-Based Case Studies The development of online technology has facilitated teacher education programs to enhance pre-service teachers’ learning experience by adopting technology-enabled case-based learning. In the past, case studies in the context of teacher education tended to use texts and videos only, which often present viewpoints and events in a linear format and from a single angle with two dimensions (Han et al., 2013; Kinzer et al., 2006). As technology advances, video cases can now be enriched by shooting with a 360-degree camera (Aguayo et al., 2017). 360-degree panoramic videos have been increasingly adopted to record teachers’ teaching in classrooms in recent years. Theelen and colleagues (2019) argue that 360-degree videos are more useful than traditional videos in teacher education for watching experienced teachers teach because 360-degree videos enable pre-service teachers to continuously choose their perspective when observing classroom interactions rather than viewing from a fixed perspective, allowing pre-service teachers to better understand classroom dynamics. Experiencing real-life classroom situations through 3D videos may provide students with a sensory and imaginary feeling close to real-life experiences (Ranieri et al., 2020), thereby creating a better sense of realism and allowing students to immerse themselves intensively in classroom situations and perceive a more authentic impact of the relevant situations (Theelen et al., 2019). Such technology-enabled learning makes the learning experience more immersive and engaging. The immersion tends to generate a sense of “being” in the task environment (Ranieri et al., 2020). Watching 360-degree video cases seems to be more attractive to students since it connects students with the “real world” (Olmos-Raya et al., 2018). It also provides a feeling of presence (Yoh, 2001) and a sense of embodiment (Kilteni et al., 2012) in a virtual environment where the student is engaged in a realistic and authentic situation, although he or she is not physically present.

Peer Discussion for Video-Based Cases Apart from 360-degree video cases, asynchronous online peer discussion is another crucial component that actively engages students in technology-enabled case-based learning (Aloni & Harrington, 2018; Chen et al., 2018). Asynchronous online peer discussion, supplemented with face-to-face or synchronous learning activities, allows students to extend the case discussion and reflection outside of the classroom, to connect with peers and the lecturer, and to scaffold their knowledge building (Aloni & Harrington, 2018; Siemens, 2005; Wise & Chiu, 2014). In addition, compared with face-to-face discussions, online peer discussions are more able to engage different types of students, whether introverted or neurotic (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2002; Caspi et al., 2006). Nevertheless, online discussions are also subject to commonly

162

Y. M. Tang et al.

cited problems, including students’ engagement in shallow conversations, posting stand-alone comments, and a lack of attention to peers’ online posts (Dennen, 2008; Wise & Chiu, 2014). Hence, to counter these problems, an instant messaging tool, ZOOM Channel, was adopted in this study in an attempt to facilitate both synchronous and asynchronous discussions. With the recognized affordances of 360-degree videos and asynchronous online peer discussions, technology-enabled case-based learning may be an effective means for engaging pre-service teachers and enhancing their competencies in classroom management.

Research Context The current study was conducted in an undergraduate course called Effective Teaching and Positive Classroom Learning Environment in Semester 1, the academic year of 2020–2021. This course discusses basic theories and practices related to teaching and learning as well as classroom management. In particular, this course aims to cultivate students’ fundamental understanding of the theoretical approach of classroom management and to integrate the acquired knowledge on classroom management to design effective learning experiences for school students. The course lasted for 13 weeks, with a three-hour face-to-face session per week. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, all the sessions were conducted in both online synchronous mode via ZOOM and asynchronous mode with the use of e-learning packages and online learning activities. To enhance the pre-service teachers’ competencies in classroom management, an e-learning package on classroom management was designed and developed. The pre-service teachers were expected to apply key classroom management strategies in an authentic classroom scenario, and reflect upon the appropriateness of different classroom management strategies in various classroom scenarios. The online lesson with the e-learning package in the form of technologyenabled case-based learning consists of two main components, 360-degree panoramic video cases with branching questions and online peer discussion. The 360-degree panoramic video-based cases illustrate different typical classroom management scenarios in school classroom settings, including students not doing their duties, talking in class, performing irrelevant tasks in class, and disturbing other classmates. These 360-videos are intended to provide pre-service teachers with both the teacher’s and students’ perspectives. By observing the teacher’s facial expressions and reactions from the students’ perspective, as well as students’ misbehavior and responses from the teacher’s perspective in the 360-degree panoramic video cases, the pre-service teachers could be immersed in the scenarios and better understand the conflicts and struggles faced by the teacher. Each 360-degree video case comprises different video multiple choice options with theory-driven intervention strategies for managing misbehavior. By using the video option, the pre-service teachers could better visualize how a school teacher in a classroom setting may react to students’ misbehaviors, and thereby enable them

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based …

163

to connect theory with practice in terms of how different theory-driven intervention strategies could be manifested in the classroom. For example, one of the classroom scenarios is that a student did not clean the board. After watching the 360degree video, the pre-service teachers were asked to choose their desirable classroom management strategy from three choices, namely, (1) asking the students to clean the board, which is a logical consequence; (2) asking the class monitor to give the misbehaving students a demerit point, which refers to an arbitrary consequence; and (3) cleaning the board himself/herself which is tolerate/permit (Hue & Li, 2013). The pre-service teachers were asked to apply what they learned in class and inquire about the feasible solutions to the cases of classroom misbehavior as if they were the teacher in the video. Their choices would subsequently lead to different classroom management situations that may trigger different responses from students in the given context. The multi-faceted problem-based questions allow pre-service teachers to ponder over how they should react and how their reactions may affect their students’ subsequent reactions. The second component is online peer discussion in ZOOM channel. ZOOM channel, a built-in group/individual messaging function on ZOOM, is adopted to support students in both synchronous and asynchronous interactions. During class, the instructor provides instructions and guidelines for pre-service teachers to complete the e-learning package, followed by illustrating various cases and facilitating the initial discussion on ZOOM channel. After the individual work on the e-learning package, pre-service teachers were asked to share their reflections on ZOOM channel with their peers. They were also encouraged to come up with alternative theory-driven strategies that may help handle the given scenarios of classroom misbehavior. Apart from enabling peer feedback during the discussion on ZOOM channel, the instructor is also able to join individual group discussions on ZOOM channel to offer formative feedback to the pre-service teachers before consolidating the task in the subsequent lesson. Instructor and peer feedback for the discussion of the video case helps to ask students to reflect and provide feasible strategies to classroom misbehavior as described in the video.

Data Collection and Analysis To recapitulate, this study aims to examine how technology-enabled case-based learning can engage pre-service teachers in their learning experiences and prepare them for their teaching by exploring the affordances of the technology-enabled casebased learning, the impact on pre-service teachers’ learning engagement, and the preparation for their future teaching. To address our research questions, the following paragraphs present the methods we employed for (1) data sampling and collection, including the sampling strategy and the instruments used; and (2) data analysis, including the coding procedures and strategies for validating findings.

164

Y. M. Tang et al.

Data Sampling and Collection This study adopted a qualitative approach to gain a more elaborate understanding of the learning engagement and competencies in classroom management among preservice teachers in Hong Kong. A purposive sampling method was employed to select the participants for this study. The sampling criteria include the enrolment of an undergraduate course called Effective Teaching and Positive Classroom Learning Environment in Semester 1, 2020–2021, completion of the relevant online lesson, and discussion on ZOOM channel. Emails containing the research aims were sent to pre-service teachers who fulfilled the sampling criteria to invite them to share their perceptions on how the lesson with the technology-enabled case-based learning had engaged them in terms of behaviors, emotions, and cognition, as well as its impact on their competencies in classroom management. Four pre-service teachers were invited to participate in this research (see Table 10.1). Semi-structured individual interviews and online discussion threads were collected as data sources in this qualitative study. The semi-structured interviews were conducted at the end of Semester 1, 2020–2021. Four students participated in the interviews in December 2020 and January 2021. Upon signing the informed consent forms, the researchers conducted online interviews with each participant via ZOOM. The interviews were conducted mostly in English with some Cantonese and were audio-recorded with the agreement of each participant. The interviews covered the research questions and each lasted for an hour. Informed by the survey questions of students’ engagement during learning activities by Reeve and Tseng (2011) and Baranova et al. (2019), the questions of semi-structured interviews were designed, including: . What are the most interesting and difficult parts of your use of the technologyenabled case-based learning package, such as learning activities supplemented, their perceptions of using technology, and non-technology case-based learning? . Please describe your behaviors and feelings when you felt engaged in online learning. . What did the instructor’s role play in online learning and teaching? . If you were to teach in the future, how would you tackle classroom misbehaviors and classroom management? . Could you give an example of how you would apply the classroom management theories you learned?

Table 10.1 Details of participants

Participants (P)

Sex

Year

P1

M

2

P2

M

2

P3

F

2

P4

F

2

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based …

165

Apart from the semi-structured interviews, to understand the impact of technology-enabled case-based learning, pre-service teachers’ discussion data was collected from 10 ZOOM channels that were created for various group learning activities in the course. Each channel consists of 6–7 pre-service teachers. With the consent from the pre-service teachers and the instructor, researchers joined the ZOOM channel at the end of Semester 1, 2020–2021, observed and examined the discussions among the pre-service teachers and between the pre-service teachers and the instructor. In particular, researchers looked into the ZOOM channel that the four participants joined. P1 and P2 belonged to the same ZOOM channel, while P3 and P4 joined separate ZOOM channels.

Data Analysis The data from the four interviews were transcribed and parts of the Cantonese were translated by the researcher herself, as it allowed the researcher to add context and notes. Each participant received their transcript to confirm its reliability. At the same time, to increase the internal validity of this study, the strategy of methodological triangulation was adopted (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). This study triangulated qualitative data, including individual interviews and online discussion threads from ZOOM channel. The interviewees’ names were replaced by pseudonyms during the transcription process. The researcher adopted content analysis (Bauer & Gaskell, 2000) and thematic analysis (Creswell, 2014; Stake, 2010) to examine the data line by line of both the interviews and discussion on ZOOM channel and extract specific themes from the interviews. To address the questions about the affordances of the technology-enabled case-based learning package and its impacts, the data was coded and categorized into behavioral engagement, cognitive and emotional engagement with sub-themes.

Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning and Learning Engagement From the qualitative analysis of interviews and discussion on ZOOM channel, most of the participants found themselves cognitively engaged, while some of them felt behaviorally engaged and emotionally engaged.

166

Y. M. Tang et al.

Behavioral Engagement Behavioral engagement is defined as what students, i.e. our pre-service teachers, involved in the learning activity would be doing (Buelow et al., 2018). One of the participants (P1) described that the class was asked to watch the videos and answered the questions about classroom misbehaviors. After that, during class, the instructor gave pre-service teachers a scenario about a series of misbehaviors, and pre-service teachers were asked to find out the causes of the misbehaviors and to solve the problems or find some solutions for the misbehaviors. Pre-service teachers would discuss the scenarios with peers via the ZOOM channel. After class, the instructor replied to our discussions and she pointed out whether or not pre-service teachers were on the right track. Both participants [P1] and [P2] expressed a positive attitude towards the discussions and commented as follows: The discussions were very fruitful because all the classmates participated in the discussions as well. [P1] If the discussions were not very well, then (the instructor) would actively point out some questions to facilitate our thinking, to facilitate our discussions and she would even like to ask if you’re not well participated in the discussion, she would like to encourage you to join discussions. [P2]

In the ZOOM channel (see Appendix 1), in which P1 and P2 participated, the instructor would raise a few guiding questions to help facilitate the discussion. For instance, “how about the disequilibrium then?” or “what is the new thing that you want to teach students…” This ZOOM channel allows the pre-service teachers to feel the teacher’s presence in the discussion, reply to their posts and provide further guidance, which in turn encourages the pre-service teachers to actively participate in the online discussion. While some participants may enjoy using the ZOOM channel with the teacher’s presence, others expressed that the ZOOM channel is not as useful. One of the participants found that the ZOOM channel is similar to an instant messaging application, Whatsapp. Instead of discussing on ZOOM channel, this group of pre-service teachers would discuss separately in a Whatsapp group and the representative would summarize the discussion results and post it on the ZOOM channel. There are two reasons that this participant [P3] refused to discuss on the ZOOM channel. First, it is the discomfort of posting her views when the instructor is in the discussion group. She cited an incident from another course. In other subjects, we have some GE courses. We get an instructor in our WhatsApp group, but we will hold another WhatsApp group without the lecturer. We never talk or talk a bit with the instructors but mostly we will talk or discuss or chat in our group with our lecturer. [P3]

While research shows that teacher presence is one of the key factors of whether pre-service teachers learn effectively, this participant [P3] argued that it may not be the case, yet she articulated that autonomy is important.

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based …

167

If the instructor gives a lot of feedback to us but we didn’t do anything, it is useless. I think autonomy is quite important because the choice is held by us if we choose to do something, then it’s good. And if we don’t do anything, it’s still useless with many supports from the instructor or department. [P3]

Emotional Engagement Emotional engagement refers to students’ affective attitudes toward professors, peers, or even the course in general (Buelow et al., 2018). The participants found that technology-enabled case-based learning increases their learning incentive. For instance, P1 commented, It [the e-learning package] is quite interesting for me because it involves quite a lot of students inside the video and it boosts my learning incentive. [P1]

When being asked about the difference between technology-enabled and traditional text-based case studies, the participants generally prefer videos to texts because videos tend to be more interesting and more vivid which can boost pre-service teachers’ incentives in learning and help to consolidate their understanding of the classroom management theories. I think this [technology-enabled case-based learning] is quite good for us to learn as it [the video] takes a real classroom situation and the multiple-choice or the choice is taking in a video form that is performed of how we have what we have learned in our class. And yes, it’s quite suitable. And it quite fit with our learning. [P2]

Apart from increasing the learning incentive and consolidating theoretical knowledge, another participant explained that technology-enabled case-based learning would make them more curious about another topic, usually beyond what was being taught. In this case, this participant [P4] wanted to learn more about how other teachers tackle special cases of misbehaviors. Although classroom management requires observing the students’ reaction when using different intervention strategies, I want to know more about the underlying principles or reasons that the experienced teachers may have in the real situation. For example, the case being mentioned is quite commonly faced, I would like to learn more about how the teachers deal with some special cases. [P4]

Cognitive Engagement Cognitive engagement relates to students evaluating course content as both relevant and important (Buelow et al., 2018). There are four perspectives that the technologyenabled case-based learning facilitates participants’ cognitive engagement, namely: (1) relation to their own experience, (2) connection of theory and practice, (3) providing teachers’ perspectives, and (4) connection with their future teaching.

168

Y. M. Tang et al.

Relation to Their Own Experience While going through the e-learning package, the participants were reminded of their experience in secondary school. This is a great piece of evidence that participants are cognitively engaged. In addition, they would connect their own experience with the classroom management strategies learned from the course. For example, one of them [P2] connected the secondary school experience with intervention preference, while another participant [P4] reflected on how her former teacher modified the logical consequences and applied them in her secondary classroom back then. I would recall how my secondary school teachers reacted to students’ misbehaviors and would also know more about the intervention preference that I would likely adopt in my future teaching, which I haven’t thought about [it] in the past. [P2] My secondary teachers would stop the students first by telling them to stop talking, or even would ask the problem students to stand up or stand at the back. I thought teachers use different logical consequences randomly, but now I know that teachers modify the logical consequences according to different students’ characteristics and teaching experiences in real situations. Therefore, there is no such perfect answer for the choice of intervention strategies. [P4]

Connection of Theory and Practice Apart from relating to their own experience, one of the participants thought that the technology case-based learning helped him connect the classroom management theories and strategies to the practice of authentic classrooms. The video, together with the multiple-choice exercise, portraying various scenarios of how a teacher would react to the misbehaviors, allows pre-service teachers to visualize and apply the corresponding classroom management strategies to the misbehaviors. We just usually talked about a lot of theories, but you just lack practices. So, I think the video helps you to look for what you really like in practice. So yeah, it’s very helpful for me to understand more about the theories in the real school in real situations. [P1] In this video, I also learned that the real teachers should apply different classroom management strategies to deal with different levels of the misbehaviors in the classroom. Hence, this video provides a particular problem or incident with us to analyze what strategies should better be used. [P3]

During their ZOOM channel discussion of the case, the participants would adopt theories that they learned in class to identify the possible causes of misbehaviors and discuss corresponding intervention strategies (see Appendix 2). The instructor would guide the pre-service teachers by initiating some prompting questions and asking them to think deeply and reflect on the case.

Providing Teachers’ Perspectives All these four participants concurred that the use of 360-degree video cases provides the teachers’ perspectives and creates a realistic virtual reality experience. From the

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based …

169

technological perspective, the 360-degree video allows pre-service teachers to have full control of which angle and which part of the classroom they would like to view, and the perspective is taken from the teacher’s view. Such adoption of technology effectively illustrates and captures what a teacher sees in an authentic classroom. because we have been students for so long, and now we can finally stand in the teacher angle to see how we can react the future teaching. (360-degree video) provides me with a teacher angle to see how a teacher would react in the classroom which is a different experience. [P3] By using the 360 video case, students can control by themselves, and choose the suitable angle they want to see (help the students to see every possible angle in the classroom so as to know what is happening). [P2]

Connection with Their Future Teaching The data shows that the participants would consciously try to connect what they learned to their future teaching. The technology-enabled case study provides preservice teachers with an opportunity to experience an authentic classroom setting with misbehaved students and to select their classroom management strategy to tackle the misbehaviors and to reflect on how they could apply the same in their future teaching. because an e-learning package can showcase a classroom incident with different classroom management strategies used which let us as a student know more about how the real teachers would react to the misbehaviors that we will possibly experience in our future teaching. [P2] It makes me understand more about the real situations that I will encounter in the future, and so it gives me some strategies to deal with this kind of misbehavior which help me to be equipped and to be more well prepared when dealing with this kind of misbehaviors in my teaching career in the future. [P1]

The findings of both the interviews and analysis of discussions on the ZOOM channel reveal that the technology-enabled case-based learning package facilitated the learning engagement of the pre-service teachers. Although not all pre-service teachers would engage behaviorally with the supplemented learning activity of the package, namely the ZOOM channel, most pre-service teachers in this study would complete the learning package. All pre-service teachers in this study felt emotionally engaged with the package as it increased their learning incentives and provided them with an authentic classroom situation to apply for the classroom management theories. All pre-service teachers were cognitively engaged with this package as they would spend time and effort on making various connections with their experience, classroom management theories, teachers’ perspective in an authentic classroom situation, and future teaching. With the above findings, the following section is going to discuss the key affordances of technology-enabled case-based learning, impacts of technology-enabled case-based learning on learning engagement, and the effects of competencies in classroom management in order to prepare pre-service teachers for their future teaching.

170

Y. M. Tang et al.

Affordances and Impacts of Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning The technology-enabled case-based learning package in the current study is to examine the learning engagement of the pre-service teachers in an undergraduate course. From the above findings, it can be observed that the technology-enabled casebased learning package engaged pre-service teachers behaviorally, emotionally, and cognitively.

Key Affordances of Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning There are two key affordances of the package for enhancing pre-service teachers’ learning engagement in the course, namely (1) realism through an immersive learning experience, and (2) social group learning.

Realism Through an Immersive Learning Experience The key affordance of the technology-enabled case-based learning for pre-service teachers’ learning engagement in the course is realism. With the adoption of advanced technology, the 360-degree video allows pre-service teachers to be immersed in the authentic classroom and positioned themselves from a teacher’s perspective observing students’ misbehaviors. The participants highlighted that 360-degree videos are more useful in teacher education than traditional videos for watching experienced teachers teach because 360-degree videos enable pre-service teachers to continuously choose their preferred perspective when observing classroom interactions rather than viewing from a fixed perspective, which can help pre-service teachers to understand classroom dynamics (Theelen et al., 2019). The participants also concurred that the 360-degree videos are effective in visualizing the students’ misbehaviors, as compared with the instructor narrating the scenario verbally or describing it with text, photos, or video. Other multimedia means usually capture only one-angle perspective and illustrate the key learning points that the instructor designs. With the 360-degree videos in a 3-dimensional perspective, pre-service teachers found themselves enjoying the learning autonomy of choosing to take control and focus on which perspective of the whole classroom, rather than a fixed viewpoint.

Social Group Learning Another key affordance of the technology-enabled case-based learning for preservice teachers’ learning engagement in the course is effective social group learning

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based …

171

anytime and anywhere. ZOOM channel allows the discussion of the cases to be conducted in both synchronous and asynchronous modes. On the one hand, it affords real-time interactions between the instructors and students, together with among students. The instructor could guide and facilitate the discussion in synchronous mode. On the other hand, it affords group learning beyond synchronous lessons as the instructor could assign it as an asynchronous task for pre-service teachers to work collaboratively and reflect on each other’s viewpoints. The ZOOM channel affords social contexts and facilitates the discussion of the cases among the preservice teachers and the instructor during the online synchronous ZOOM lesson. The conversations on ZOOM channel can be continued and extended outside the online synchronous lesson in an asynchronous mode. Furthermore, the ZOOM channel creates a space to allow these pre-service teachers to come together as a group and discuss different cases of classroom management, make inquiries about possible solutions and ways of handling student misbehaviors. The ZOOM channel also affords students’ learning space to access the floor simultaneously and time to pause, reflect and respond to one another in order to facilitate group learning. In particular, it is beneficial for students who are shy and unwilling to speak up in face-to-face class to think deeply before articulating their opinions in the online chat.

Impacts of Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning on Student Engagement Student engagement is an important aspect of learning and teaching as it can affect students’ retention and learning (Czerkawski & Lyman, 2016). In the present chapter, a construct with three components was examined, namely, behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement. According to the abovementioned findings, the pre-service teachers would complete the e-learning package, participate in the course activities such as discussions, together with increased learning incentives in classroom management. These are the supporting pieces of evidence demonstrating their behavioral and emotional engagement in technology-enabled casebased learning. Apart from being behaviorally and emotionally engaged, the preservice teachers demonstrated a high level of cognitive engagement when adopting technology-enabled case-based learning. The pre-service teachers perceived that the content of the online lesson was relevant and important to their teacher education as they managed to connect classroom management theories to their former learning experience, to school teachers’ perspective in an authentic classroom situation, and to their future teaching. To elaborate, the technology-enabled case-based learning affords the pre-service teachers to be immersed in the authentic classroom environment, which forms a solid foundation for pre-service teachers to cultivate their cognitive learning engagement. Pre-service teachers could visualize the classroom

172

Y. M. Tang et al.

dynamics such that they could relate the classroom situation with their own experience, connect theory to practice, be provided with school teachers’ perspectives, and connect it with their future teaching.

Effects of Technology-Enabled Case-Based Learning on the Preparation of Future Teaching Case-based learning has been adopted in teacher education programs to prepare teachers for classroom management, yet the traditional approach often uses textbased cases or outdated videos for pre-service teachers to analyze and reflect on the classroom scenarios (Masingila & Doerr, 2002). The lack of immersion in actual classroom contexts may limit pre-service teachers’ knowledge application in the future. The technology-enabled case-based learning is more likely to facilitate the enhancement of pre-service teachers’ teaching competencies in two perspectives, namely (1) enhanced problem-solving and reflective skills, and (2) integration of pedagogical knowledge and practice, which are useful for their future teaching.

Enhanced Problem-Solving and Reflective Skills The technology-enabled case-based learning helps to support the development of pre-service teachers’ problem-solving skills through collaborative reflection among peers. Using the ZOOM channel as an asynchronous task, the discussion allows preservice teachers to reflect and consolidate what they have learned in class over a while. The participants were in favor of the asynchronous online discussion in the ZOOM channel. It allowed them to discuss the cases with time and space limits. They could reflect and learn from peers and their instructor. As suggested by Kavrayici (2020), effective problem-solving skill is one of the key competencies in classroom management which helps to communicate and interact with students. With the authentic case study, the participants were more likely to discuss with peers and consider different possible solutions to tackle the real-life classroom situations and feasible ways of handling in-class misbehaviors with their instructor’s guidance and facilitation in the ZOOM channel. They found that the online discussion helped them to reflect on how to solve the problems of students’ undesirable behaviors, and felt more confident to tackle them in the future. The finding from this study aligns with that in Aloni and Harrington (2018), which discusses that online peer discussion with the videobased cases allows students to empower further learning by extending the discussion outside the classroom, connecting with peers and the instructor, thus scaffolding their knowledge building and reflecting the materials. The spontaneous real-time interaction with peers and the instructor, as well as the extension of the discussion outside of the classroom, is more likely to lead to further clarity of thoughts and ideas. The pre-service teachers started to reflect upon their role as a teacher, and how

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based …

173

they should solve the case by adopting the classroom management theories such as intervention preference and logical consequences. In sum, the technology-enabled case-based learning bridges the gap between the theories they have learned and the classroom management situations they may need to face in the future.

Integration of Pedagogical Knowledge and Practice The technology-enabled case-based learning bridges the gap between theory and practice. Through studying the e-learning package, the pre-service teachers would not only relate the classroom management theories to their experience as a student but also their future teaching. They recalled their secondary school experience of how their former teachers tackled students’ misbehaviors and mapped the experiences with classroom management theories such as intervention preference and logical consequences. In addition, the findings of this study suggest that the technologyenabled case-based learning provides pre-service teachers a professional vision of how experienced teachers handle classroom management issues in authentic classroom situations through the 360-degree video. Instead of viewing passively from a predefined viewpoint when watching traditional videos, 360-degree videos offer pre-service teachers learning autonomy to change their viewpoint as a whole when observing classroom interactions (Theelen et al., 2019). The findings of this study emphasize the importance of easing the transition from classroom management theories to teaching in practice as pre-service teachers could be immersed in the experience, thereby obtaining a better visualization of authentic classroom situations in multi-faceted perspectives.

Conclusion This chapter examines how the technology-enabled case-based learning promoted pre-service teacher engagement in an undergraduate course as a case in point. This study points to the important role of harnessing innovative technologies in casebased learning such that the pre-service teachers could be immersed in the authentic learning experience and learn from their peers through social group learning. Preservice teachers felt mostly cognitively engaged with this technology-enabled casebased learning. Their learning motivation increased, and they would spend more time and effort in extending the case-based learning to their own experience, classroom management theories, and future teaching. Apart from increasing learning engagement, this chapter shows evidence of positive effects on competencies in classroom management, including the enhancement of problem-solving skills and integration of pedagogical knowledge and their teaching practice through synchronous and asynchronous discussion. The technology-enabled case-based learning is beneficial to engaging students with the case and discussion by providing them with an immersive

174

Y. M. Tang et al.

learning experience with authentic teaching context, as well as increasing students’ exposure to peer responses. Our findings carry at least two implications for the potential enhancement of teacher education programs. First, through discussing the case with peers and the instructor with the use of 360º panoramic video case and asynchronous discussion forum, our findings demonstrated that if the technology-enabled case-based learning can be adopted in teacher education programs to create an authentic learning experience, students may be more able to engage in reflections, consolidate their content knowledge on classroom management, and enhance their problem-solving skills in tackling students’ undesirable behaviors in classrooms. Apart from classroom management issues, program administrators and teacher educators may look into how 360º panoramic video cases can be used in other topics or disciplines, e.g. communication in the workplace and counseling, where pre-service teachers have problems putting theory into practice in authentic settings. Future investigations may examine and compare the effectiveness of different means of conducting asynchronous discussion forums as a complement to case-based learning using 360º panoramic video. Second, creating immersive and social group learning environments can facilitate pre-service teachers to connect classroom management strategies in actual classroom contexts and get them prepared for their future teaching. Teacher educators may consider leveraging university-school partnerships to create immersive and social group learning experiences to help pre-service teachers visualize more vividly the challenges they may face in authentic schools settings and make available opportunities for them to apply theory-driven strategies they learned in a safe learning environment before their future teaching. This study has two limitations. First, given the small sample size, a larger-scale study can be replicated for the next step. Second, the present study mainly focuses on the learning engagement of the pre-service teachers in a course that lasted one semester. Future research may be designed as a longitudinal study that examines the delayed effects of technology-enabled case-based learning on pre-service teachers’ classroom management competencies during their teaching practicum and future teaching.

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based …

Appendix 1 ZOOM Channel

175

176

Appendix 2 ZOOM Channel 2

Y. M. Tang et al.

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based …

177

178

Y. M. Tang et al.

References Aguayo, C., Cochrane, T., & Narayan, V. (2017). Key themes in mobile learning: Prospects for learner-generated learning through AR and VR. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(6), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3671 Aloe, A. M., Amo, L. C., & Shanahan, M. E. (2014). Classroom management self-efficacy and burnout: A multivariate meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 101–126. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9244-0 Aloni, M., & Harrington, C. (2018). Research-based practices for improving the effectiveness of asynchronous online discussion boards. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000121 Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). “On the Internet no one knows I’m an introvert”: Extroversion, neuroticism, and Internet interaction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 125–128. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102753770507 Archambault, I., & Dupéré, V. (2017). Joint trajectories of behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in elementary school. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(2), 188–198. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1060931 Baranova, T., Khalyapina, L., Kobicheva, A., & Tokareva, E. (2019). Evaluation of students’ engagement in integrated learning model in a blended environment. Education Sciences, 9(2), 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020138 Barth, V. L., Piwowar, V., Ophardt, D., Krysmanski, K., Kumschick, I. R., & Thiel, F. (2019). The impact of direct instruction in a problem-based learning setting: Effects of a video-based training to foster preservice teachers’ professional vision of critical incidents in classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 95, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.03.002 Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. D. (2000). Qualitative researching with text. SAGE Publications. Buelow, J. R., Barry, T., & Rich, L. E. (2018). Supporting learning engagement with online students. Online Learning, 22(4), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1384 Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K., & Beyth-Marom, R. (2006). The influence of personality on social participation in learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.00 Charbonneau-Gowdy, P., & Chavez, J. (2019). 3-M Model for uncovering the impact of multilevel identity issues on learners’ social interactive engagement online. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.17.2.06 Chen, B., Chang, Y. H., Ouyang, F., & Zhou, W. (2018). Fostering student engagement in online discussion through social learning analytics. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.002 Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends, 60, 532–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11528-016-0110-z Dennen, V. P. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1624–1633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.003 Elksnin, L. K. (1998). Use of the case method of instruction in special education teacher preparation programs: A preliminary investigation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649802100204 Elksnin, L. K. (2001). Implementing the case method of instruction in special education teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/088840640102400204 Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 Freiberg, H. J., & Lamb, S. M. (2009). Dimensions of person-centered classroom management. Theory into Practice, 48, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840902776228

10 Engaging Pre-service Teachers in Technology-Enabled Case-Based …

179

Han, I., Eom, M., & Shin, W. S. (2013). Multimedia case-based learning to enhance pre-service teachers’ knowledge integration for teaching with technologies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.006 Helme, S., & Clarke, D. J. (1998). We really put our minds to it: Cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. In: Teaching Mathematics in New Times (pp. 250–257). Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 320–341. https:// doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12235 Hue, M. T., & Li, W. S. (2013). Classroom management: Creating a positive learning environment. Hong Kong University Press. Jones, V. (2006). How do teachers learn to be effective classroom managers? In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 887–907). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Jones, V. F., & Jones, L. S. (2004). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems (7th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Kavrayıcı, C. (2020). Communication skills and classroom management competency: The mediating role of problem-solving skills. The Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 9(1), 125–137. Kilteni, K., Groten, R., & Slater, M. (2012). The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21(4), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00124 Kinzer, C., Cammack, D., Labbo, L., Teale, W., & Sanny, R. (2006). The need to (re) conceptualize preservice teacher development and the role of technology in that development. International Handbook of Literacy and Technology, 2, 211–233. König, J., Bremerich-Vos, A., Buchholtz, C., Lammerding, S., Strauß, S., Fladung, I., & Schleiffer, C. (2017). Modelling and validating the learning opportunities of preservice language teachers: On the key components of the curriculum for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 394–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315398 Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–124. https://doi. org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092 Korthagen, F. A. J. (2010). How teacher education can make a difference. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36, 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2010.513854 Korthagen, F. A. J. (2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional development 3.0. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.121 1523 Kramer, M., Förtsch, C., Stürmer, J., Förtsch, S., Seidel, T., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2020). Measuring biology teachers’ professional vision: Development and validation of a video-based assessment tool. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1823155. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1823155 Kucuk, S., & Richardson, J. C. (2019). A structural equation model of predictors of online learners’ engagement and satisfaction. Online Learning (Newburyport, Mass.), 23(2), 196–216. https:// doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1455 Masingila, J. O., & Doerr, H. M. (2002). Understanding pre-service teachers’ emerging practices through their analyses of a multimedia case study of practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019847825912 Mayo, J. A. (2004). Using case-based instruction to bridge the gap between theory and practice in psychology of adjustment. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 17(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10720530490273917 McNaughton, D., Hall, T. E., & Maccini, P. (2001). Case-based instruction in special education teacher preparation: Practices and concerns of teacher educator/researchers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(2), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640102400203 Melnick, S., & Meister, D. (2008). A comparison of beginning and experienced teachers’ concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 31, 39–56.

180

Y. M. Tang et al.

Merseth, K. K. (1991). The early history of case-based instruction: Insights for teacher education today. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719104200402 Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877–904). American Educational Research Association. Olmos-Raya, E., Ferreira-Cavalcanti, J., Contero, M., Castellanos-Baena, M. C., Chicci-Giglioli, I. A., & Alcañiz, M. (2018). Mobile virtual reality as an educational platform: A pilot study on the impact of immersion and positive emotion induction in the learning process. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2045–2057. https://doi.org/10.29333/ ejmste/85874. Piwowar, V., Thiel, F., & Ophardt, D. (2013). Training inservice teachers’ competencies in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30(30), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012. 09.007 Ranieri, M., Bruni, I. & Luzzi, D. (2020). Introducing 360-degree video in higher education: An overview of the literature. Human and Artificial Intelligence for the Society of the Future. http:// dx.doi.org/10.38069/edenconf-2020-ac0032. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ced psych.2011.05.002 Schöne, B., Wessels, M., & Gruber, T. (2019). Experiences in virtual reality: A window to autobiographical memory. Current Psychology, 38(3), 715–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-0179648-y Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A theory of learning for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 1–15. Soydan, S. B., Pirpir, D. A., & Ozturk, A. (2018). Pre-school teachers’ classroom management competency and the factors affecting their understanding of discipline. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 18, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2018.73.9 Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Press. Theelen, H., Van den Beemt, A., & Den Brok, P. (2019). Using 360-degree videos in teacher education to improve preservice teachers’ professional interpersonal vision. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(5), 582–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12361. Tomey, A. (2003). Learning with cases. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 34, 34–38. https://doi.org/10.3928/0022-0124-20030101-07. Wallace, T. L., Parr, A. K., & Correnti, R. J. (2020). Assessing teachers’ classroom management competency: A case study of the classroom assessment scoring system–secondary. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(4), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919863229 Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). The impact of rotating summarizing roles in online discussions: Effects on learners’ listening behaviors during and subsequent to role assignment. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.033 Wolff, C. E., van den Bogert, N., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2015). Keeping an eye on learning: Differences between expert and novice teachers’ representations of classroom management events. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248711454 9810 Yoganathan, S., Finch, D. A., Parkin, E., & Pollard, J. (2018). 360 virtual reality video for the acquisition of knot tying skills: A randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Surgery, 54, 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.04.002 Yoh, M. (2001). The reality of virtual reality. In Proceedings Seventh International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, pp. 666–674.

Part III

Design for Online Learning

Chapter 11

Designing Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning and the Orchestration of Cognitive, Technological and Affective Skills Christian Voigt Abstract This chapter presents design elements for technology-mediated casebased learning as well as methods to monitor their impact. It is argued that course designs need to include (static) enabling elements and (dynamic) adaptations to be responsive to changing and emerging learning conditions. The process of continuously monitoring and adapting design elements will be referred to as orchestration, a process that aims to align the design of the learning environment with learners and instructors. Orchestration becomes necessary when previously successful course designs lead to largely different outcomes when repeated. Case-based instruction is a prime example for generating complex learning processes, as critical thinking is required to create an instructional case debate, while authenticity and empathy is needed to make virtual teams work. In view of the multiple layers of case-based learning, designing adequate learning environments needs to include cognitive and affective competencies. Data for this chapter were derived from the author’s work with an undergraduate course, using the case-based learning method to teach current concepts and challenges of implementing online businesses. Keywords Design elements · Orchestration · Technology-mediated case-based learning

Introduction The process of orchestration attempts to respond to and rectify the lack of flexibility usually associated with the use of instructional technology in real-world learning environments. Orchestration as defined by Oser and Baeriswyl (2001) is the combination of planning and managing for learning, with an emphasis on planning as the visible model upfront, and management the requirement to remove or circumvent barriers to learning.

C. Voigt (B) University of Applied Science, Düsseldorf, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_11

183

184

C. Voigt

The proof of a good design, model or framework lies in its applicability to learning settings and its ability to make an impact on learners and instructors. Designing learning is thus always an inherently practical challenge, with the prime need being the shift of educational technology from scientific research to field based research, both with an equal emphasis on innovating and the dissemination of innovation (Dillenbourg et al., 2018; Roschelle et al., 2013). The orchestration metaphor outlined above provides the overarching framework that supports the arrangement of well-known design elements such as scripting, scaffolding and affordances. One other framework is also introduced, that is, a variation of Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) framework for communities of critical online inquiry. This may be seen as providing a more comprehensive evaluation and better understanding of what makes electronic case-based learning successful. For them, learning experiences in virtual teams depend crucially on sufficient levels of microand macro-coordination, critical thinking, and social/affective presence. The work of Dillenbourg et al. (2018) is also of use as an organizing concept for conveying the importance of revisiting upfront design decisions with continuous monitoring and adapting of a design. Dillenbourg emphasizes how constraints and activities extrinsic to learning are important. He suggests three types of design activities, namely, enabling, monitoring and adapting activities that underlie the process of orchestration. These will be discussed in the chapter as relevant on a macro-level, that is, designing activities over a 13-week course duration, and micro-level, that is, designing activities for a virtual meeting of 30 or 60 min. The chapter is organized as follows. The following section presents a brief overview of the learning setting, an undergraduate course in e-business at a major Australian university. The next section describes enabling design activities, including macro-scripts, scaffolds and the provision of technological affordances. This is followed by a description of the researcher’s monitoring activities while evaluating the course design. The chapter concludes with an outlook on learning analytics as a means to make electronic case-based learning a more effective and efficient learning experience.

Case-Based Learning in an Undergraduate e-Business Course This chapter reviews “Introduction to e-Business”, a purely online second year, undergraduate course, with an average enrolment of 55 students between 2004 and 2007. Each course offered between four and five teaching cases. Students had access to conventional communication channels such as email, online forums, text chat as well as to a more powerful virtual meeting room Centra® (Estes, 2004). Typical functionalities provided by such a virtual environment included audio chat, document sharing or collaborative browsing and annotating webpages.

11 Designing Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

185

Learning e-Business with cases can be likened to Harvard Law School’s casebased learning, which originated in 1879. Harvard uses particular cases to teach general principles in a more applied way (Merseth, 1991), while e-Business requires a set of general skills and competencies, which need to be applied to a specific business challenge. Typical e-Business case questions revolve around the use of emerging information technologies, privacy implications or the cross-cultural aspects of operating in a global market. This endows the subject with an especially multidisciplinary character (Raza et al., 2019). When using cases for learning purposes, the benefit is to provide students with an appropriate balance between fundamental, theoretical knowledge and dynamic, technical knowledge. Both forms of knowledge inform each other and show the importance of theory to reflect about current technologies. A classic example are theories about privacy protection (Nissenbaum, 2004), which are still referenced today, versus technologies able to track users online, which evolve and diversify rapidly, including web cookies and profiling users with the help of big data. Competencies most commonly extracted from case-based learning are rather skillbased in areas of analysis and evaluation, critical argumentation, communication and group facilitation, coordination and decision-making skills (Mauffette-Leenders et al., 1999). One distinct element is the use of stories as vehicles to transport facts, experiences and opinions in a contextualized way, so that readers infer meaning from information included in a case together with the way information is presented. Cases as understood in this chapter integrated different media formats such as movie clips, pictures, recorded interviews or relevant newspaper clips and journal articles. A teaching case used in e-Business was “EBAO Technology: An e-Insurance Enabler” (Ru & Crossan, 2001), among the major case studies on clearing houses in Canada and published by the Richard Ivey School of Business. The EBAO case is based on a rapidly growing company in China, both in terms of employees and customers. As the case narrative develops, the CEO and management of EBAO are presented with the actual decisions they have to make. Some examples: How would EBAO be able to sustain its rapid growth in a year full of market downturns? What should EBAO do to fend off competition? How might EBAO evolve a future business model? Through ensuing debate about this case, students recognize the importance of a comprehensive business model in the aftermath of the Dotcom crash. They are also able to demonstrate an understanding of the interplay between short-term business objectives, for example, rapid market growth, and long-term objectives, development into a profitable brand. Using teaching cases such as EBAO was found to improve critical thinking and problem analysis (Zapalska et al., 2018). It was also a motivational boost to learning and engagement because students could discuss relevant problems of real companies which could be relevant to them if they entered or started a company (Hackney et al., 2003).

186

C. Voigt

One drawback made clear, though, of using varying formats of case-based learning was that meaningful case debates in virtual environments by geographically distributed teams were difficult to achieve (Voigt & Swatman, 2006a, b). Critical thinking required trust in peers, arguably a major learning objective for higher education institutions and considered one of the ‘key skills’ for today’s complex workplaces. This, however, stems from the possibility of social or empathetic interaction, which contribute to establishing working relations that then permit open communication should teams disagree about interpretations of cases or about working methodologies and approaches to cases.

Enabling Interventions The previous section indicated that electronic case-based learning could be fairly complex, with even rough edges such as cross cultural and trust issues. Voigt and Swatman (2006a, b) attempted to iron these out by developing a set of activities to promote learner competencies in the methods of case-based learning, as well as their ability to use the various communication technologies in an orchestrated way. With e-Business, instructors and tutors also noticed frequent misunderstandings or inefficiently run online meetings among learners. For example, a lack of logistics, like communicating a need to leave earlier, or preparation in exchanging materials upfront. There could also be uncertainty about an approach to a case debate if preliminary grounds such as identifying issues and evaluating alternative strategies were not covered. Building up such competencies among learners as well as providing activities extrinsic to the actual purpose of learning about e-Business would develop learner awareness of the importance of logistics and need for preparation of online meetings. These would be then necessary preconditions to smooth and successful team debates in a virtual environment. Figure 11.1 illustrates various enabling interventions provided by instructor/s and tutors. The learning design distinguished between media and method competencies, where students were gradually introduced to different communication media, with at least one dry run with text chat, audio conferencing and application sharing. The teams were also involved in general reflection about the electronic-Case Based Learning (e-CBL) method and how it could best be implemented, in view of the team’s learning conditions. The next three sections introduce the role of scripts, scaffolds and affordances as established design elements, as well as enablers of design interventions for e-CBL. At this point it is important to note, that these are upfront, preparatory activities without having access to large amounts of historical data about past case-based learning episodes. However, as indicated in the concluding section, once such data are available, learning analytics allows for more dynamic implementations of scripts and scaffolds (Martinez-Maldonado, 2019).

11 Designing Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

187

Fig. 11.1 Building up media and method competencies

Learning analytics is concerned with “the measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting of learners and their context, for the purpose of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs” (Siemens, 2013, p. 1382).

Scripts: Coordinating Virtual Case Discussions Malone and Crowston (1990, p. 361) define coordination as group members’ skills in managing the interdependencies between multiple activities necessary to achieve a shared objective. When looking at coordination processes in e-CBL, a general distinction is made between coordinating responsibilities and resources outside of meetings (macro coordination); and coordinating interactions during a meeting (micro coordination) (Rummel & Spada, 2005). Both forms of coordination have an impact on learning efficiency, complement one another, and can be supported through scripts. Scripts aim to increase the occurrence of pedagogically desirable interactions and decrease the amount of ‘unproductive’ interactions, which distract learning (Rummel & Spada, 2005). Scripts may contain specifications of: (a) individual and group activities, (b) the sequence of activities, (c) the necessary roles and responsibilities, (d) any required resources; and (e) the rules that regulate variations of a script during run-time (Dillenbourg & Tchounikine, 2007). The means by which scripts can be implemented are varied and can take a more or less flexible form, ranging from learners’ internal process understanding (cognitive model) or the group’s process understanding (social structures), to external process descriptions (action plans) or process help systems (computer-based prompts) (Stahl, 2007).

188

C. Voigt

Fig. 11.2 The case analysis circle, based on Mauffette-Leenders et al. (1999)

A review of how students analyze teaching cases revealed that one of the major deficiencies was the lack of rigor and coherence in their argumentation processes (Wolfe, 1993). The discussion of problems was not necessarily based on the facts provided in the case. Materials and solutions offered did not always connect with the problems identified. Figure 11.2 presents a visual script based on an ideal case discussion process, starting with the facts in a case, a theory-informed analysis and the evaluation of alternative solutions. The author’s experience with in-class case discussions suggests that case discussions rarely proceed in an orderly fashion from facts, to issues, to alternative solutions and finally, to recommendations. Students might start with a problem or a final recommendation, for which they had to look for evidence, connecting issues or solutions to the facts from the case. Consequently, the discussion pattern is presented as a circle entered at any point, but with logical steps that have to be completed to form a coherent argument.

Scaffolds: Facilitating Critical Thinking In this section, critical thinking, a well-known if not mandatory objective in education, is highlighted as an integral presence in collaborative discussion, a prong of CBL, and how it can be achieved with the use of scaffolds. If we view critical thinking as a process of creating and evaluating knowledge in an autonomous, reflective and rational way, then collaboration in CBL classrooms extend beyond sharing of individual knowledge, contributions from different team members, into evaluation and integration of individual insights into a wider group knowledge (Barron, 2000). The author used scaffolds to facilitate critical thinking during case discussion. Originally, scaffolding referred primarily to the work of tutors, who provided just enough support so learners could complete a task (Wood et al., 1976). Later on, templates, visualizations or prompts were added on. What is essential is that the tutor analyses the learner’s situation and estimates the amount of guidance necessary to bring the learner closer to the solution. This means tutors need to develop an

11 Designing Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

189

understanding of the learner’s actual performance level in comparison to the desired skill before they can propose an appropriate intervention. When it comes to online learning environments, we find scaffolding seldom implemented (Pea, 2004). While the choreography of starting or fading/diminishing scaffolds is often left to learners, it is an issue that might be addressed more successfully with scaffolds based on insights gained from learning analytics (Shum & Crick, 2012). In the course design discussed in this chapter, scaffolds took the form of prompts recommended by Paul (1993): . Clarity of thought: Have you understood the group’s case analysis and their recommendations? . Evidence and Values: Is the group’s argumentation based on sound information (facts) or opinions? . Relevance: Do you think the group has covered the relevant issues of the case? . Sources: How do you judge the quality of sources used in the group statement? Are their sources trustworthy? Learning groups exchanged their case reports and used these prompts in order to evaluate their peers’ work, applying the same criteria to their own work for subsequent cases.

Affordances: Enabling Social Presence We now shift focus from the rational or cognitive dimensions of learner interactions to the importance of social or empathic interactions frequently emphasized in theories of collaborative learning and group development for supporting group work and critical dialogues (Motschnig-Pitrik & Mallich, 2004). Social presence is the term given to social interactions in online learning environments, defined as “the ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry” (Rourke et al., 2001). Like critical thinking, social presence is not an end in itself but can also be a means to an end, in this case, the enhancement of case discussions. Too much emphasis on social presence, however, can be counterproductive when it stifles criticism when members fear offending other group members (McConnell, 2002). The general consensus is that social presence cannot be engineered but comes about via the affordances of technology that create the opportunities which engender social interaction (Goodyear & Ellis, 2007). The link between social presence and the affordances of technology was actually already in evidence even before the preinternet era. “Media richness” (Short et al., 1976), for example, is the level of immediacy and intimacy that becomes possible when a specific communication medium is in use. Immediacy builds upon mechanisms to establish a shared meaning like eye contact or gesture, while intimacy depends on the possibility of indicating emotional distance or closeness between speakers (Short et al., 1976).

190

C. Voigt

Voice communication through Centra adds an additional layer of expressiveness to convey individuals’ affective or preferential attitudes. Tone of voice is often important to detect whether someone is stressed, anxious or simply joking (Mehrabian, 1981). Tone of voice as with sharing of personal information, is a means of disclosure, creating social presence.

Monitoring: Analyzing Case-Based Learning Monitoring activities mainly ensure that enabling interventions lead to desired outcomes and, identify and share successful patterns of virtual case debates. Although enabling interventions are meant to create similar starting positions for all groups, the range of usage patterns of collaboration technologies are quite diverse. There are groups who stick with text chat, who extensively use audio communication and, who enjoy the entire gamut of available technologies, including document sharing and annotations. All monitoring activities require ethical standards such as obtaining an informed consent about recording data, and subsequent analysis of the data once they are made anonymous. The purpose of monitoring activities is to encourage reflections at group level about why one interaction pattern is preferred over another. Another purpose would be whether a change to the collaborative process could actually benefit the quality of the case debate, rather than to push for a maximum use of technology. Admittedly, if instructors want to concentrate on teaching, then in-depth analysis of data describing learning processes as is entailed during monitoring would not be practical. But monitoring to some degree would anyway occur in every learning environment, albeit less systematic without an interest in documentation. The author’s experience suggests that a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) can achieve monitoring and support of online groups. Such FAQs would assist, for example, international online groups located in different time zones. What worked for these groups was breaking up the work into sub-questions worked on by groups of two or three students with changing combinations of members. They decided early that not everyone had to be present at all meetings, as long as they all contributed to the work.

Recording Online, Group Sessions: Audio, PowerPoint and Whiteboard Using simultaneous features of the learning environment requires students to concurrently check and understand a range of features they might otherwise have no need for in their day-to-day ICT (Information and Communication Technology) related activities. For example, they would have to know if and what version of Java was

11 Designing Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

191

installed, when to change audio settings, and whether they had the necessary administrative rights to install client software. It was found that even “digital natives”, Prensky’s (2001) term for those that grew up with electronic communication media (e.g. instant messenger, podcasting and Facebook), had varying levels of ICT literacy. This demonstrates the need to monitor the efficacy of technology use in the learning environment. Initially, the primary objective of monitoring virtual case discussions was to ensure the reliability of the software, that is, no frequent breakdowns or communication delays that could seriously disrupt discussion flow. But more currently, media synchronicity—the efficiency of information reuse, or reprocessability (Dennis & Valacich, 1999), has replaced concerns of reliability and immediacy of communication. In the case of electronic case-based learning, notes have to be transferred seamlessly from the medium used for individual preparation, to the shared working space of the team during virtual meetings, to the medium capturing the final case report. Groups first started working with a media mix of PowerPoint (PPT) and electronic Whiteboard. The former was to share results of individual preparation with the group and the latter to capture any new or synthesizing information generated during the online meeting. This scenario had been favored over the shared text-editor because it initially was less bandwidth intensive and faster to learn (Driscoll et al., 2004). A previous version of this workflow, just using PowerPoint and annotating slides, was quickly discarded as it became apparent that annotations were not saved during the recording of the session and switching between slides became quickly cumbersome. Figure 11.3 shows a case in point (names have been altered): Julian presents his issues for the EBAO case (briefly introduced in Section Two) while others make comments or suggestions for follow up discussions. However, distributing individual contributions over several slides made it difficult to connect to each other’s points. The group therefore decided to use an electronic whiteboard, where the first row (a) captured all issues they had identified, and then they used the second row (b) in order to collect their suggestions for possible solutions to the EBAO case (Fig. 11.4). Additionally, the team used stars to mark more fundamental issues during their case debate. Monitoring the processes of virtual case debates reveals an important need of virtual teams: besides the guidance for following the case method (cf. scripts and scaffolds in Enabling Interventions) additional guidance is needed for managing their digital notes. Based on the experience of various groups, the following steps were suggested for managing the flow of information during virtual group discussions: i. ii. iii. iv. v.

discuss everyone’s understanding of the case using individually prepared PPT slides, capture important issues and solutions on the whiteboard, mark broader issues as they may structure the case discussion, match issues with first recommendations, and allocate each issue to a pair of students.

192

C. Voigt

Annotations during meeting

Fig. 11.3 Annotations during virtual case discussion

Fig. 11.4 Use of an electronic whiteboard during the case debate

11 Designing Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

193

Dillenbourg and Traum (2006) describe the use of electronic whiteboards as (a) a napkin or (b) a mock-up. A sketch on a napkin serves as an ad-hoc explanation of a detail, whereas a mock-up is used to examine aspects of the complete product. Monitoring made clear that the more groups advanced from discussing specific case issues to planning for the final case report (a mock-up), the more likely they were to feel the limitations of the whiteboard and its limited editing capabilities. To some extent a first structure of the final case report could be attempted on a whiteboard, but for developing a full argument under each heading, a word processor was more suitable.

Content Analysis: Explaining Streams of Activities Content analysis shifts the focus of monitoring to the actual content of case debates. Content is not limited to subject related matters but also includes verbalization of coordination and social aspects. Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) framework for critical online inquiry is useful here, with the following coding criteria: micro- and macro coordination, critical thinking and social presence. A turn-by-turn content analysis was then applied to the transcripts of virtual case debates and visualized as depicted in Fig. 11.5. The figure is organized by turns in the horizontal axis, while the vertical axis represents the intensity of a coding category, which is expressed through the number of words per turn. Most meetings followed a discernible pattern: Phase One

Phase Two

At the beginning of a meeting, groups would concentrate on microcoordination, i.e. setting up the meeting at a technological and contentoriented level, combined with socializing interactions. This middle phase was primarily dedicated to critical argumentation and micro-coordination of a different kind, e.g. consulting a webpage to clarify a doubt; and.

Fig. 11.5 A turn-by-turn visualization of a virtual case debate

194

C. Voigt

Phase Three As the meeting drew to an end, groups tended to focus on the coordination of outstanding activities and further socializing. It must be stressed that communication technologies are enablers but not determinants of online interactions. Regardless of the medium, individuals can decide on the flow of their discussions, whether to refine or postpone a discussion. Numerous studies have shown that groups communicating with text-based, asynchronous media can still develop social presence and engage in critical debate (Duphorne & Gunawardena, 2005). Yet, a qualitative indication of the value of richer technologies is the higher portion of critical remarks when using audio conversations and shared applications, compared to leaner media such as text. Unlike text chats, virtual meeting rooms afford more possibilities to follow up critical issues collaboratively. Whether by adding to an evolving case report, changing a formulation or checking web resources, richer technologies allow group members to see the immediate effect of their discussions which can spark further ideas and comments.

Interviews: Understanding Localized Conceptions of Online Meetings If we acknowledge that learners’ overall experiences influence the success of using electronic case-based learning, understanding conditions outside the designed course environment is crucial. At the end of the course, six in-depth interviews and a focus group were organized which involved talking about students’ study orientation, their group work experiences and the role technology played for them as online learners. The interviews followed a conversational style where the interviewer imposed his/her agenda as little as possible so as to create a climate that encourages the emergence of issues and comments considered important by the interviewee (Seidman, 1998). The findings of these interviews were structured around sensitizing concepts (McConnell, 2005). Sensitizing topics help to recognize the ambivalence of many assumptions about online learners and their preferences. For example, several comments showed a tension between requests to have group work monitored more closely (to stop free-riders) while simultaneously, students bemoaned the need to coordinate group work. Blumer (1969) mentions that unlike definite concepts, which refer to a specific set of attributes to look for, sensitizing concepts indicate only a direction along which to look—in the above example, a tension between flexible and structured modes of collaborating online. The benefit of developing sensitizing concepts is that they can enhance the existing e-CBL design by highlighting limitations or potential contradictions as perceived by the students. Four topics demonstrate the bigger picture that orchestration has to accommodate: changing expectations about online studies, dealing with different learning expectations in a group, experiencing a virtual group differently, and being an external student with a job and family.

11 Designing Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

195

. The first sensitizing concept that emerged revealed students faced the early challenge of aligning what they were used to from their previous external studies, with a course where course design was unfamiliar. For this case, it involved them having to discuss case studies online. One student commented: I think I have done one previous external course before which wasn’t online in the fashion that this course was. They just handed out hard copies of everything in paper form.

. The course’s reliance on group work was a contentious topic. These concerns, however, were mostly related to general issues where working in groups implies the separation of studying on- or off-line. Students found it difficult to deal with group members who had low expectations or could not make meaningful contributions to the group assignments: I am a mature age student and I always had problems with group work at the university – it doesn’t really reflect real life, where you work in teams that are put together because of their abilities. There are professional expectations. But a random group is a real mixture … some people want to just get through with a Pass and they do the minimum and that’s why I find it an artificial thing.

Or: In a face-to-face meeting, it is very conspicuous if you are sitting there and you don’t say a word and with Centra, you can be in a group and people can talk and you don’t notice that they only said one thing in the whole meeting.

. As expected, rich communication did support the development of affective relationships: I had external courses before and you really had no contact with anybody … but doing assignments online and chat online puts a face, oh well a voice, to the person. It’s much easier to work with a group and actually feel as a part of the course instead of just random.

. An issue the researcher had not yet considered concerned the physical location from which students accessed their online meetings. Even though they had the flexibility to log in from anywhere, the following anecdote highlights the importance of a relatively undisturbed and quiet environment: I am married with three young kids … and I have a full-time job. So, the triangle of study, home and work is always a difficult balance … I guess, when you are going to a tutorial to the university on a particular night, that has a more tangible structure for the people around me, rather than saying ‘I have to duck off to the computer now and you need to be quiet while I do this’.

In-depth interpretation took into consideration those student voices that presented the researcher with a new angle on the data analyzed so far. An important part of this interpretive step was a critical re-examination of the study’s most fundamental

196

C. Voigt

assumption. For example, the desirability of providing advanced educational technologies due to their potential to enable more enjoyable and flexible online collaboration. While this assumption will be unproblematic in most of the cases, some comments opened up alternative interpretations. The richness of audio communication did not only allow for a stronger sense of belonging among group members but it still allowed for individual group members to be quiet and not be noticed. Similarly, while the flexible scheduling of online meetings provided more opportunities for collaboration between group members, it could also conflict with family time and space. Silverman’s (2001) argument that all meaning is constructed locally highlights the importance of considering both theoretically informed as well as student perspectives when designing online courses. Hence, monitoring the way students perceive and interpret design elements of the course, introduce localized interpretations (i.e. interpretations based on experiences with e-CBL over an extended period). Hence, if an e-CBL design suggests online meetings in order to benefit from multiple viewpoints on the case’s issues, locally, this argument can be invalidated by students’ past experiences of unprepared peers and wasted meeting time, and further design intervention might be necessary when using e-CBL in the future.

Conclusions: Towards Near-Term Course Adaptations The chapter presents a number of ways to create enabling conditions upfront and some frameworks and methods to monitor learning processes at multiple layers (technological, cognitive and affective). However, orchestration, defined at the beginning as enabling, monitoring and adapting, happens primarily before a course is offered again or between group sessions when there has been time to adapt materials or technological settings. This highlights an important caveat. Electronic case-based teaching requires shorter reaction times when there is a need to respond to inefficient group processes, but at the same time, orchestration and technologies should not become a burden for instructors or learners. Educational systems are open systems such that there will be always an unpredictable amount of influence from beyond the system’s boundaries. Influencing factors can a person’s current work aligns with one of the cases, a similar case becomes popular in the media or case reports from other groups are circulated, preventing original case discussions. These unforeseen developments are already part of instructors’ learning management challenges. Hence any additional layer of activities such as closely managing more intensive usage of technology for learning, needs to consider both, a positive impact on students’ learning and the limits of ever more complex demands on instructors (Caena & Redecker, 2019). A promising development in addressing the trade-off between an increased need for more flexible orchestration of e-CBL and a lack of resources to do the necessary monitoring and analysis in near real-time, is in the field of learning analytics. Therefore, in the future, digital trails, instructor observations and self-reported data

11 Designing Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

197

are likely to feed learning analytics applications that can identify groups at risk, weaknesses in the management of case debates, or content that might be helpful at a particular point during an online meeting. Existing learning analytics already explore more complex competencies such as creativity, resilience or critical thinking (Shum & Crick, 2012) or support instructors in managing group work (Van Leeuwen et al., 2014). Once learning analytics can encompass the multi-faceted world of virtual learning groups, including data from beyond traditional learning management systems, many activities concerned with enabling and monitoring e-CBL could be automated, freeing instructors’ time for more effective, real-time guidance, rather than providing feedback and analysis after the fact.

References Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism; perspective and method. Prentice-Hall. Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European digital competence framework for educators (Digcompedu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12345. Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1999). Rethinking media richness: Toward a theory of media synchronicity (pp. 1017–1027). Presented at the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Dillenbourg, P., Prieto, L. P., & Olsen, J. K. (2018). Classroom orchestration. In International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 180–190). Routledge. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multi-modal collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 121–151. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/s15327809jls1501_9. Driscoll, J.-A., Bucceri, M., Reed, A., Burgess, R., & Finn, A. (2004). Fast path to success with Centra—Best practices, tips and techniques in live eLearning. Centura Software Inc. Duphorne, P. L., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2005). The effect of three computer conferencing designs on critical thinking skills of nursing students. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1901_4. Estes, E. K. (2004). A product review of Centra 7. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.002. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Routledge/Falmer. Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Students’ interpretations of learning tasks: Implications for educational design. Presented at the ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning, Ascilite Conference 2007 (pp. 339–346). http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/goodyear. pdf. Hackney, R., McMaster, T., & Harris, A. (2003). Using cases as a teaching tool in IS education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14, 229–234.

198

C. Voigt

Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1990). What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems? Presented at the ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 357–370). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/99332.99367. Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2019). A handheld classroom dashboard: Teachers’ perspectives on the use of real-time collaborative learning analytics. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(3), 383–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09308-z. Mauffette-Leenders, L. A., Erskine, J. A., & Leenders, M. R. (1999). Learning with cases. Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario. McConnell, D. (2002). The experience of collaborative assessment in e-learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 24, 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370220130459. McConnell, D. (2005). Examining the dynamics of networked e-learning groups and communities. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507052000307777. Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: implicit communication of emotions and attitudes (2nd ed.). Wadsworth Pub. Co. Merseth, K. K. (1991). The early history of case-based instruction: Insights for teacher education today. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719104 200402. Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Mallich, K. (2004). Effects of person-centered attitudes on professional and social competence in a blended learning paradigm. Educational Technology & Society, 7, 176–192. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119. Oser, F. K., & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. Handbook of Research on Teaching, 4, 1031–1065. Paul, R. W. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world (rev. 3). Foundation for Critical Thinking. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6. https://doi. org/10.1108/10748120110424816. Raza, S. A., Qazi, W., & Umer, B. (2019). Examining the impact of case-based learning on student engagement, learning motivation and learning performance among university students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-05-2019-0105. Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013). Classroom orchestration: Synthesis. Computers & Education, 69, 523–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.010. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Instructional support for collaboration in desktop videoconference settings. In Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 59–88). https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24319-4_4. Ru, T., & Crossan, M. (2001). EBAO Technology: An e-insurance enabler (Case No. 901M54). Ivey Publishing. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley. Shum, S. B., & Crick, R. D. (2012). Learning dispositions and transferable competencies: pedagogy, modelling and learning analytics. In Proceedings of the 2nd International conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 92–101). ACM. Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380–1400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213498851. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analysing talk, text, and interaction (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

11 Designing Technology-Mediated Case-Based Learning …

199

Stahl, G. (2007). The problem of guiding situated collaboration. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 327–335). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_18. van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Brekelmans, M. (2014). Supporting teachers in guiding collaborating students: Effects of learning analytics in CSCL. Computers & Education, 79, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.007. Voigt, C., & Swatman, P. M. C. (2006a). From surface to meaningful collaboration: An activity theory perspective. Presented at the International conference: e-Society 2006a (IADIS), July 13–16. Voigt, C., & Swatman, P. M. C. (2006b). Online case discussions—tensions in activity systems. Presented at the 6th IEEE International conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT), July 5–7. Wolfe, J. (1993). Successful student case analysis strategies. Simulation Gaming, 24, 464–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878193244004. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x. Zapalska, A. M., Nowduri, S., Imbriale, P., Wroblewski, B., & Glinski, M. (2018). A framework for critical thinking skills development across business curriculum using the 21st century bloom’s taxonomy. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 2(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.31532/Interd iscipEducPsychol.2.2.002.

Chapter 12

Design for Online Case-Based Learning Environments Qiyun Wang

Abstract A case-based learning environment is defined as a technology mediated learning space where students can interact with the case and also interact with their peers and the instructor. In this chapter, a conceptual framework for guiding the design of case-based learning environments is presented. The framework focuses on pedagogical, social, and technical designs, and the context in which the designs are implemented. Also, this chapter introduces educational design research as a practical method for designing case-based learning environments. The process, quality criteria, and the yield of educational design research are described. Keywords Case-based learning · Context · Online learning environment · Pedagogical design · Social design · Technical design

Introduction Case-based learning (CBL) requires students to actively analyze information about the cases, identify and find solutions to the problems, then reflect on the experiences encountered in the cases (Ertmer & Russell, 1995). As aptly put by Quek and Wang (2010), CBL is distinguished as a learning method by being inquiry oriented, involving either “self-directed analysis or collaborative knowledge construction of specific situations based on real-world examples.” (p. 783), CBL with its reliance on authentic scenarios and real situation experiences (Williams, 2004) gives this challenging learning method great potential to bridge the usually problematic gap between theory and practice. Another plus, the advent of new technologies, particularly the use of multimedia, virtual reality and augmented reality, now expands the horizons of case-based learning beyond the confinements of physical space onto an online learning environment. An online learning environment can be defined as a technology-mediated Q. Wang (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_12

201

202

Q. Wang

learning space where students interface directly with the case, peers and instructors. Advantages accrue for sure, in particular, the infinite variety of channels afforded by multimedia in the presentation of cases. While educational cases can also be created with case-based learning (Lee et al., 2009), one problem is that, it is almost impossible to represent the realities of a case in all its natural complexity (Jarz et al., 1997). This is surpassed with multimedia technology, where the use of animation, audio, video, and text enables a case to be represented sufficiently vivid. Students are then immersed in an information rich environment, tending to outperform learners inhibited by only single/singular modes (Cisco, 2008). Quek and Wang (2010) also highlight another advantage of online case-based learning. Students can actively identify issues and factors in the cases, interpret, and reflect on the issues involved, complete activities associated with the case, discuss their viewpoints with peers, and provide feedback. The chapter now considers the principles and practicalities in designing online case-based learning environments.

A Conceptual Framework for Designing Online Case-Based Learning Environments Taking its cue from traditional learning environments which consist of pedagogical, social, and technological components (Kirschner et al., 2004), designing a technology-mediated learning environment focuses on pedagogical, social and technical design (Wang, 2008). The context of the designed learning environment merits, however, additional consideration because it provides a targeted situation where the environment would be implemented. Context may also restrict the implementation of the learning environment. Figure 12.1 displays a conceptual framework for designing any online learning environment, useful also as a rough guide in the design of an online case-based learning environment. The following sections will attend to a more detailed description of each design aspect, that is, pedagogical, social, and technical design, and context.

Pedagogical Design Pedagogy, the art and science of teaching, comprises the various strategies, techniques, and rationales teachers follow to deliver instruction or facilitate learning. With online learning environments, pedagogical design must be accompanied by predefined learning objectives to be achieved at the end of the instructional process.

12 Design for Online Case-Based Learning Environments

203

Fig. 12.1 A framework for online case-based learning environment design

This section elaborates the issues arising from pedagogical design. It begins with a discussion and comparison of relevant learning theories that underpin and guide online case-based learning environments. This is followed by a layout of pedagogical approaches in order to extract key principles for use in the design of online case-based learning environments.

Relevant Learning Theories Several dominant learning theories have emerged over the past half-century, comprising conceptual frameworks or systems of belief that describe how information is absorbed, processed, and retained in the learning process. Three such learning theories, the behaviorist, cognitivist and constructivist, are now set out followed by an evaluation of how they measure up as guiding principles for online case-based learning environments. Behaviorist learning theories are developed based on the assumption that human behaviors are learned, gradually developed and shaped as a result of reinforcements such as a stimuli or rewards (Huitt & Hummel, 1997). Behaviorists refuse to speculate on what goes on internally when learning occurs (Funder, 2012) sticking mainly to external observable behaviors as the yardstick for learning. Positive and/or negative reinforcement are used to affect and shape student behaviors. One example of applying the behaviorist learning theory in the design of an online case-based learning environment is when immediate feedback is given to students after they complete

204

Q. Wang

a learning task in a case. This feedback functions as reinforcement by informing students whether their answers are correct or wrong, why, and from which they can correct their misunderstanding and progress in the right direction. Cognitivist learning theories focus on persons as rational beings, who deliberate on inner mental processes to respond to environmental stimuli. This is in contrast to the behaviorist school of thought, where responses can be considered unthinking, automatic, reflexive. Thus, cognitivists assert that actions are the consequences of an individual’s own thoughts and reflections (Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell, 2012). Even though changes in behavior are observable, behaviors are mere indicators of what is occurring in the mind (Crawford & Cook, 2011). Constructivist Learning Theory posits that knowledge is constructed by students themselves rather than transferred from the teacher to students. The goal of instruction is to create conditions for students to interpret information and construct knowledge, and not to deliver information to students (Ally, 2004). Another prong to this learning theory is that effective learning can proceed when students are engaged in authentic learning tasks, that is, tasks that appeal to their interest, tasks they find relevant, can comprehend, such as real-world situations and problems. The onus on teachers then is to create and provide opportunities that enable students to actively explore learning content and construct knowledge. Cognitive constructivists believe that students can construct knowledge individually neither having nor needing discussions with fellow students or the teacher. Comparatively, social constructivists believe that only when students share information, negotiate ideas and discuss with others can they construct accurate and meaningful knowledge (Applefield, Huber, & Moallem, 2001). This makes an essential learning requirement the provision of a social space where students interact with one another (Wang, 2009). Different learning theories impact on the design of online case-based learning environments with quite different outcomes. Say, a case-based learning environment based on behaviorist learning theories would ensure constant feedback be provided to students after the investigation of a case. Typical of such learning environments would be the implementation of tutorial programs where information is first presented using technology, followed by exercises and quizzes, before immediate feedback is given as the conclusion. Cognitive online case-based learning environments would, however, provide students with well-organized cases using multimedia. This would expedite incorporation of new information into students’ existing knowledge structure. Similarly, constructivist online case-based learning environments would provide various authentic cases so that students can construct meaningful knowledge through cognitive and social activities. A social constructivist online learning environment would include online discussion platforms such as forums which would differ from a cognitive constructivist online environment where self-study is more the focus.

12 Design for Online Case-Based Learning Environments

205

Pedagogical Approaches Pedagogical approaches are teaching strategies and/or methods that guide/prescribe how teachers deliver learning content and how students learn. Pedagogical approaches can be divided into two broad categories: teacher-centered and studentcentered approaches. Teacher-centered approaches see the teacher as a decision-maker and controller of learning content, activities and pace. More specific teacher-centered approaches include teacher presentation, demonstration, and discussion in the classroom. The nine instructional events proposed by Gagne et al. (1992) can guide the design of an online case-based learning environment for teacher-centered instruction. In student-centered approaches, passive student responses are replaced by active student interaction. Students also decide their learning tasks, question and complete these tasks independently or in groups. Some student-centered approaches are: problem-based learning, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, case-based learning, and collaborative learning. Scardamalia’s (2002) summary of design principles are for learning environments that support knowledge construction. They are however also applicable in the design of online student-centered case-based learning environments. The design principles include: real ideas and authentic problems; improvable ideas; idea diversity; rise above; epistemic agency; community knowledge, collective responsibility; democratizing knowledge; symmetric knowledge advancement; pervasive knowledge building; constructive uses of authoritative sources; knowledge building discourse; and concurrent, embedded, and transformative assessment.

Key Pedagogical Design Components to Consider Many pedagogical and learning models are available to guide the design of online learning environments including case-based learning environments, but particular attention must be drawn to the following pedagogical design aspects. . Learning objectives: Does the design of the learning environment enable students to achieve pre-defined learning objectives? Are there other expected outcomes to achieve such as increasing student interest in learning a subject, improving student–teacher relationship, or promoting students’ twenty-first century competencies? . Teacher-centered or student-centered: Is the learning environment teacher- or student-centered? Corresponding principles may arise when the learning environment is designed for different purposes. To what extent is learner control allowed? . Case-based or content-based: If the learning environment is case-based, relevant and authentic cases must be involved. If it is content-based, subject content must be linked to students’ existing knowledge and clearly presented.

206

Q. Wang

. Individual learning or collaborative learning: If the learning environment is designed for student individual learning, some activities such as making annotations, individual reflections, and quizzes can be involved. However, if it is designed for collaborative learning, activities such as online discussions, sharing, critique, and peer assessment become more important. . Open or closed space: An open space allows students to add and/or modify resources such as documents or cases, while a closed space only allows the teacher to make necessary changes once it is created. Another consideration is whether the environment allows students to only use materials without contributing additional ones. . Process or product-oriented: Tracking the learning process and monitoring individual contributions of group members is integral to online learning environments. A process-oriented design emphasizes more the recording and analysis components, which enables the teacher to keep tabs on the learning process. Product-oriented designs would be those where the focus is more on students’ final submissions.

Social Design Learning is both a cognitive as well as a social process. Social interaction would be a necessary inclusion of online platform design to compensate for the decrease in opportunities for students to physically meet their peers, as they would easily in faceto-face situations. Social design would aim to create the necessary social environment where students easily interact and communicate with one another (Wang, 2008). This would be achieved by the creation of a socially convenient environment, safe, friendly and comfortable. A socially convenient online case-based learning environment would enable students to communicate easily, through for example, the use of different modalities such as text, audio, and/or video. Each modality may be more suitable at various points during the student’s online learning schedule. Video conferencing, for example, may provide more visual cues than text chat, but students might still prefer text chat if internet speeds are slow, or when they have to interact with unfamiliar people. The environment should also support different modes of communication such as synchronous, asynchronous or a combination of both. Research suggests/indicates all these reap benefits for teaching and learning. With synchronous communication, students share information in real time obtaining immediate responses and/or feedback. With asynchronous communication, students have more time to search for information, think and respond, hence possibly bolstering their critical thinking abilities (Wang & Woo, 2010).

12 Design for Online Case-Based Learning Environments

207

To ensure the provided learning environment encourages students to feel safe and comfortable in their online “homes”, so they can freely open their minds, exchange ideas, discuss cases and concerns, and thus collaboratively construct knowledge, students might be given control over the following: . Identity: They can decide how they want to be known, for example, by their real names, a nickname, or be anonymous. . Privacy: They can control who they allow to access their site. If they allow open access to the public, they can also decide who can view and post comments. If it is closed, that is, for authorized users only, they get to decide who they invite in, who can apply. . Authority: Users will feel safer with complete authority over the posts they create. For example, they would need to be reassured whether they are allowed to save their posts as drafts before being published, and after publication, what they want to do with their posts. . Cyber-wellness: Designers need to establish ground rules for participation to give users some confidence that safeguards are in place to protect them against cyber bullying violence, unsuitable content such as pornography, spams, scams, etc.

Technical Design Other than pedagogical and social design components, technical design is also crucial to online case-based learning environments because they rely so heavily on technology. All importantly, it is technical design that takes care that the online learning environment is useable without difficulty. For a stand-alone computer program, usability would mean ease of learning, use, error-free, and attractiveness. For an online case-based learning environment, usability has additional requirements. It should allow users to easily access the web space at a sufficiently fast speed. Technical support in the face of problems should also be prompt. Technical design would also need to see that the online learning platform supports user friendly multiple devices such as laptops, tablets, and especially with the increasing use of mobile technologies, mobiles, phones and mobile devices, and all sorts of mobile applications. Making available a range of plans or packages to meet the need of the various users might also be another factor in technical design. Figure 12.2 shows the plans of an online video conferencing tool, Zoom. Users can choose the most suitable plan based on the technical affordances in that plan, and the online learning program might then also consider free or trial versions for users.

208

Q. Wang

Fig. 12.2 Various plans of a technological tool

Context Learning always takes place in context, be it physical, like a classroom, or virtual, like an online forum. This makes the boundaries and confines of the context of design significant. Otherwise, theoretically sound learning environments may not function as well when proceeding in an authentic context. Context has also got to do with keeping the specific expectations or needs of intended target users in mind. For instance, an online case-based learning environment designed to teach the English language should involve cases that are customized to suit different students in different contexts. Asians may have different difficulties pronouncing certain vowels compared with people from Africa.

Specific Considerations for Designing Case-Based Learning Environments The conceptual framework presented in Fig. 12.1 can guide the design of online learning environments including cased-based learning environments. In this section, some specific considerations for designing case-based learning environments are summarized. In terms of pedagogical design, a case-based learning environment must include authentic cases that are relevant to students. The cases preferably involve different levels of detail and difficulty to meet the varied needs of individual students. The students work collaboratively in groups and are assessed on the ability of transferring what they have learnt from the cases into other similar situations. Regarding social design, a case-based learning environment must enable students to socially interact with others. Various channels (e.g., text, audio, and video) and modes (e.g., synchronous and asynchronous) of communication are provided in the learning environment for students to choose. The learning environment must enable students to discuss in small groups or as a whole class. In addition, students can decide if their discussions are open for other groups’ members to view or comment.

12 Design for Online Case-Based Learning Environments

209

About technical design, all the expected pedagogical and social design considerations must be fully supported by the technical design. For instance, the cases are presented using proper media like video, animation, and/or virtual reality. The case-based learning environment must be easily accessible using any device. In addition, the learning environment must be aesthetic and preferably enables students to customise its interface. The pedagogical, social, and technical designs must take context into careful consideration. For instance, the cases are rather selected from the local context so that the students see the relevance of the cases, and the cases are properly presented after balancing the conditions and constraints in the local context.

Educational Design Research Previous sections reviewed the fundamental design components, pedagogical, social, technical and context, pertinent to generic online learning environments. This section now looks into the all-important practical implications of design and implementation of a case-based online learning environment. Plomp’s (2013) ideas are particularly useful for designing interventions used in environments with no clear solution to an educational problem. He broadly groups educational design research into Development Studies and Validation Studies. Development Studies is defined as “the systematic analysis, design and evaluation of educational interventions with the dual aim of generating research-based solutions for complex problems in educational practice, and advancing our knowledge about the characteristics of these interventions and the processes of designing and developing them” (p. 16). Validation Studies is defined as “the study of educational interventions (such as learning processes, learning environments and the like) with the purpose to develop or validate theories about such processes and how these can be designed” (p. 16).

The Process of Educational Design Research Figure 12.3 illustrates a typical educational design research process. Educational design research studies can be divided into a preliminary research phase, a prototyping phase, and an assessment phase.

210

Q. Wang

Fig. 12.3 Educational design research process

Preliminary Research This phase is needed to identify the educational problem which will trigger off and determine subsequent phases. Design principles are tentative at this stage, and are derived from an intensive literature review, which decides the design specifications for the first prototype.

Prototyping Here, several iterations are carried out, each including the aspects of design discussed earlier, that is, pedagogical, social, and technical, as well as development, implementation, formative evaluation, and revision designs. In the prototyping stage, development refers to the technical programming of the prototype, implementation means testing the developed prototype with intended target users, and formative evaluation would include expert appraisal, walk through, try-out, and field trial (Nieveen & Folmer, 2013). In the early prototyping phase, qualitative data (e.g. comments and suggestions given by experts or users) are usually collected for improvements of the prototype’s design. Based on the feedback, revision decisions for the following prototype are made, leading to the next iteration. This prototyping process continues, gradually improving the intervention until a satisfactory intervention is formulated.

Assessment The assessment phase aims to examine the quality of the produced intervention. In this summative assessment phase, the intervention will be tested out in practice by intended target users. In this phase, quantitative data are often collected to examine the usefulness of the intervention.

12 Design for Online Case-Based Learning Environments

211

Quality Criteria for Interventions The quality criterion is defined as a checklist of requirements a product (in this case, the online learning environment) needs to meet to be considered a “good enough” product to be formally offered to the consumers, in this case, the students. In an educational design, an intervention like a case-based learning environment is gradually improved through several iterations in the prototyping phase and finally assessed in the assessment phase. During each round of prototyping, formative evaluation activities are involved. In the final assessment phase, a summative evaluation is conducted. In this section, the criteria for investigating the quality of the intervention in the prototyping and assessment phases are introduced. In the process of evaluating an intervention, the quality criteria can shift from validity, to practicality and/or to effectiveness (Nieveen & Folmer, 2013). The intervention should address a problem or need. Therefore, the measure used to test the effectiveness of the intervention must adequately represent all components of the problem being examined, which is often referred to as content validity or relevance. In addition, all components of the intervention should be consistently linked to each other. This is called construct validity. There is a risk, however, that an intervention with high content and construct validity might not be usable in a specific context. Hence, the quality criteria of practicality are applied to measure the extent to which the intervention is usable for a specific group of users in a context. As illustrated in the framework above, the design of any intervention like a case-based learning environment should keep the context in mind so the needs of its intended target users can be met. Practicality is usually examined after the validity of the intervention is confirmed as it is senseless to check the practicality of an intervention that does not address the problem adequately and/or coherently (both of which is easily ascertained by the validity criteria). Effectiveness refers to the extent to which the designed intervention is able to achieve the desired outcomes. A well-designed intervention with high validity and practicality may not turn out to be effective in the end. For example, other factors such as learner readiness and learning support may have an impact on effectiveness of an intervention. Different phases of an educational design research should emphasize different quality criteria. For example, in the preliminary and initial stages of the prototyping phases, more emphasis should be put on validity and practicality, whereas the criteria of effectiveness will become increasingly important in the later stages. Different formative evaluation methods can be used to collect data to meet the various quality criteria. For instance, self-evaluation and expert review is useful for checking the degree of validity; one-to-one and small-group (or micro) evaluations are useful for examining practicality; and field tests should be applied for investigating the effectiveness of an intervention.

212

Q. Wang

The Yield of Educational Design Research Plomp (2013) states educational design research usually has the following twofold yield: product improvement, and knowledge growth. Product improvement refers to the improvement in the quality of the educational product or intervention such as a case-based learning environment after several iterations. The formative evaluation activities and feedback collected in each round should help to improve the quality of the intervention. In addition, educational design research also improves one’s knowledge about how to design similar interventions. Such knowledge is usually presented in design principles in a form of heuristic statements like (van den Akker, 1999, p. 9): If you want to design curriculum X [for the purpose/function Y in context Z], then you are best advised to give that curriculum the characteristics A, B, and C [substantive emphasis], and to do that via procedures K, L, and M [procedural emphasis], because of theoretical and empirical arguments P, Q, and R.

Furthermore, participating in the design research process is often a useful learning journey or a professional development opportunity for practitioners. By working together with researchers and/or experts through several rounds of improvement, practitioners are immersed in the learning-designing-improving process, from which they also gain professional knowledge.

Concluding Remarks Case-based learning often happens in a formal (e.g., a classroom) and/or informal (e.g., an online community) learning environment. This chapter presents a conceptual framework for guiding the design of online learning environments including cased-based learning environments where students investigate cases, discuss ideas, and share understanding. This framework focuses on pedagogical, social, and technical design perspectives. Moreover, it highlights the importance of context, which heavily affects the design and implementation of online learning environments. Moreover, this chapter introduces the educational design-based research approach, which enables an online cased-based learning environment to be gradually developed and improved through iterations.

References Ally, M. (2004). Theory and practice of online learning. http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch1. html Applefield, J. M., Huber, H., & Moallem, M. (2001). Constructivism in theory and practice: Toward a better understanding. The High School Journal, 84(2), 35–53.

12 Design for Online Case-Based Learning Environments

213

Cisco. (2008). Multimodal learning through media: What the research says. http://www.cisco.com/ c/dam/en_us/solutions/industries/docs/education/Multimodal-Learning-Through-Media.pdf Crawford, C. M., & Gannon Cook, R. (2011). Culturally significant signs, symbols, and philosophical belief systems within eLearning environments. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Cases on globalized and culturally appropriate e-learning: Challenges and solutions (pp. 44–72). Information Science Publishing. Ertmer, P. A., & Russell, J. D. (1995). Using case studies to enhance instructional design education. Educational Technology, 35(4), 23–31. Funder, D. C. (2012). The personality puzzle (6th ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. Gagne, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). HBJ College Publishers. Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (1997). An introduction to operant (instrumental) conditioning. In Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta State University. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/ behsys/operant.html Jarz, E. M., Kainz, G. A., & Walpoth, G. (1997). Multimedia-based case studies in education: Design, development, and evaluation of multimedia-based case studies. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6(1), 23–46. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504675 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. Nieveen, N., & Folmer, E. (2013). Formative evaluation in educational design research. In N. Nieveen and T. J. Plomp (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 152–169). SLO. Plomp, T. J. (2013). Educational design research: an introduction. In N. Nieveen and T. J. Plomp (Eds.) Educational design research (pp. 10–51). SLO. Quek, C. L., & Wang, Q. (2010). Supporting beginning teachers’ case–based learning in a technology-mediated learning environment. In C. Steel, M. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Eds.), ASCILITE (pp. 1–4). The University of Queensland. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Open Court. Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Russell, J. D. (2012). Instructional technology and media for learning (10th ed.). Pearson. van den Akker J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training. Springer. Wang, Q. Y. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 411–419. Wang, Q. Y. (2009). Designing a web-based constructivist learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820701424577 Wang, Q. Y., & Woo, H. L. (2010). Investigating students’ critical thinking in weblogs: An exploratory study in a Singapore secondary school. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(4), 541–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9101-5 Williams, M. (2004). Exploring the effects of a multimedia case-based learning environment in re-service science teacher education in Jamaica. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Twente, The Netherlands.

Chapter 13

Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning in Online Settings Adrie A. Koehler

Abstract Case-based learning (CBL) is an established method for preparing learners for their future professions. However, CBL can be challenging for students, as they share ownership in the learning process and for educators, as they balance providing an appropriate amount of support and determining how best to provide this support at crucial points in the process. Furthermore, in online settings, facilitators must consider unique environmental affordances in order to create a meaningful learning experience. In short, as facilitators articulate a CBL problem space, consider different approaches to student a CBL experience, generate appropriate learning activities, and implement, monitor, and evaluate CBL efforts, they must be effective problem solvers, and when designing and implementing CBL in online environments, they must be aware of and use environmental affordances. The purpose of this chapter is to offer insight into designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating CBL in online settings. Keywords Case-based learning · Problem-centered learning · Online learning · Facilitation

Introduction Across different domains (e.g., business, medicine, education), case-based learning (CBL) is considered an effective method for preparing students for their future professions (Barnes et al., 1994; Donner & Harmon, 1999; Goeze et al., 2014). For instance, research suggests that problem-centered methods, like CBL, can lead to increased learner motivation (Yadav et al., 2015), support the development of learners’ comprehension and their abilities to apply understanding to new situations (Wirkala & Kuhn, 2011), and prompt learners to realize connections across diverse experiences (Capon & Kuhn, 2004; Lundeberg & Yadav, 2006). These benefits are possible because of prominent affordances of CBL: “engagement with real-world A. A. Koehler (B) Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0_13

215

216

A. A. Koehler

problems” (e.g., cases are centered on complex problems that simulate future problems of practice), “interaction with diverse perspectives” (e.g., multiple solutions exist for a given problem and considering the ideas of others can broaden a learner’s understanding), and “vicarious participation in professional realities” (e.g., learners can explore extensive professional experiences efficiently in a safe place) (Ertmer & Koehler, 2014). Even though CBL can be a useful method for preparing learners, it can simultaneously be challenging for both learners and facilitators. For instance, learners sometimes struggle to embrace the ownership required to navigate case complexities with limited facilitator guidance (Goeze et al., 2014), and online settings with limited instructor and peer social presence can allow misinterpretations to be perpetuated (Ertmer & Koehler, 2015; Lee et al., 2009). At the same time, to effectively plan a CBL experience, facilitators must make decisions regarding the problem being considered, the structure of collaboration, and strategies to assess the effectiveness of the experience (Rico & Ertmer, 2015). When managing the collaboration, facilitators must balance between offering too much support that prevents a meaningful sensemaking process from occurring and too little support, where learners can feel hopeless (Leary et al., 2013; Mitchem et al., 2008). In short, as learners are making decisions as to how best navigate the complexity involved with CBL, they are completing a problem-solving process, as they must make decisions regarding how to analyze the case and participate in collaborative activities (Koehler et al., 2020). Simultaneously, facilitators are completing a problem-solving process as they create and facilitate CBL. That is, effective CBL facilitators must understand the entire case-facilitation process “from initial planning, to the implementation, and ultimately the evaluation of student learning” (Rico & Ertmer, 2015, p. 98). As more instructors transition to teaching CBL in online settings, they must be mindful of the unique affordances offered by this environment and use them accordingly to boost the effectiveness of the method (Ertmer & Koehler, 2018). Recognizing the simultaneous problem-solving processes going on across student and facilitator efforts during CBL and the growing demand of online teaching and learning, this chapter offers educators guidance on effectively designing and facilitating CBL in online settings. After providing an overview of CBL, specific strategies are suggested for designing and facilitating CBL in online settings.

Literature Review As an instructional approach, CBL “comprises realistic complex situations, presented in narrative form, in which learners are expected to analyze and solve problems through the application of principles, discussion of case components, and reflection on the entire process” (Koehler et al., 2019, p. 319). When participating in CBL, students are prompted to use field-relevant principles to consider important elements of a professional problem of practice and create solutions that work within the specific constraints established by the case (Ertmer & Stepich, 2005). Of these activities,

13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning …

217

“discussion is viewed as the primary vehicle for student learning,” as it offers learners a space to make sense of complex content through the consideration of diverse perspectives and replaces teacher-centered activities common in other instructional methods (Ertmer & Koehler, 2018, p. 641). CBL can take many forms and serve diverse purposes. Commonly, learners consider cases in the form of text narratives, video, or multimedia formats (Goeke, 2008; Goeze et al., 2014; Yadav et al., 2009), and educators use cases to support the development of skills in various areas (e.g., medical education, Donner & Harmon, 1999; instructional design, Ertmer & Koehler, 2018). For instance, business students may be prompted to consider hiring a new employee in a chaotic organizational environment (e.g., high turnover and training costs), when the ideal candidate does not exist (Tawfik et al., 2018). Across these diverse contexts, while a common goal of implementing problem-centered experiences is to develop learners’ problemsolving skills, this goal is not always realized due to student (e.g., underdeveloped self-regulative skills) and instructor (e.g., inexperience with the method) factors.

Instructor Roles in CBL Overall, in problem-centered methods like CBL, the instructor or facilitator carries most of the responsibility for the overall effectiveness of the method: selecting the problem or case to be investigated, creating appropriate activities to investigate the problem (e.g., case analyses), designing initial questions to initiate a discussion with subsequent prompting to direct meaningful collaboration and interaction, guiding reflection at the end of a case, and evaluating the learning resulting from the experience (Ertmer & Koehler, 2015). A meta-analysis considering the relationship between facilitators’ characteristics and learning outcomes suggests that a facilitator’s ability to effectively manage a problem-centered learning experience is not related to content expertise but rather a facilitator’s skills for asking questions, providing scaffolding, and teaching expertise (Leary et al., 2013). Unlike traditional instructional methods that center around the teacher holding the knowledge, CBL requires the facilitator to be an active presence in learners’ sensemaking process by illuminating and coordinating the diverse perspectives of students, providing relevant resources and expert perspectives, and prompting a deep analysis of the content under consideration (Rico & Ertmer, 2015). Commonly, developing effective CBL experiences comprises the following steps: (a) planning the CBL experience (e.g., constructing learning objectives, selecting an appropriate case), (b) implementing the CBL experience (e.g., facilitating collaborative discussions), and (c) evaluating the CBL experience (e.g., considering the quality of materials produced during the experience) (Rico & Ertmer, 2015). Breaking each of these steps down further reveals that within each step, educators have several options for completing the design, implementation, and evaluation processes and

218

A. A. Koehler

thus must make several decisions as they create effective CBL experiences (Choi & Lee, 2009). In short, the required process is ill-structured and can be considered a problem-solving exercise.

Ill-Structured Problem Solving Ill-structured problems can be described as the challenges individuals encounter in daily life that “pose uncertainties in various ways, including the complexity of the problem context; multiple and, often conflicting, perspectives among different stakeholders; diverse solutions or no solution; and multiple criteria for solution evaluation” (Choi & Lee, 2009, p. 101). These types of problems are common in professional settings, such as teaching (Koehler et al., 2019) or design (Ertmer & Koehler, 2018), where many potential solutions exist when preparing learners while constraints are high (e.g., limited resources, diverse needs). Additionally, educators preparing student-centered learning experiences, such as CBL arguably have a more ill-structured design task at hand as compared to other types of learning approaches, as they must develop authentic experiences, guide inquiry, offer personalized feedback, and actively engage and co-construct knowledge with learners (Ertmer & Newby, 2016). Different models have been developed to conceptualize ill-structured problem solving as a process (see Choi & Lee, 2009; Ertmer & Stepich, 2005; Jonassen, 1997), and some researchers have used these models to develop specific problemcentered learning experiences. In their research, to capture the complexity involved with designing a CBL environment, Choi and Lee (2009) adapted and combined Jonassen’s ill-structured problem-solving framework (1997) with his Learning Environment Design Model (1999). By adopting this approach, they were able to create a CBL system that simultaneously guided them to consider the facilitation of specific problem-solving activities and arrangement of resources needed to support the development of these skills.

CBL in Online Settings For more than a decade, student enrollment in online or eLearning courses has steadily increased (Seaman et al., 2018). Courses delivered in this format use “one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously” (Seaman et al., 2018, p. 5). With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, online learning was utilized by many to mitigate disruptions to the teaching and learning process, further increasing enrollments in this format.

13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning …

219

With the growth of online learning, the design, facilitation, and evaluation of online CBL continues to be explored in the research (Holland & Pawlikowska, 2019; Koehler et al., 2020; Major et al., 2021). When creating CBL for online environments, educators should be mindful of the unique aspects of that setting and design accordingly. For instance, learners set the direction of the course as they determine how to interact with content available through the course interface and connect with their peers when completing the often, asynchronous learning activities (Hew et al., 2010; Putnam et al., 2012; Ringler Schubert et al., 2015). While student-directed behavior is necessary in problem-centered experiences like CBL (Law et al., 2020), in online settings, this reality is amplified, as learners are geographically separated from their peers and facilitator. When comparing case facilitation across a face-to-face and an online environment, Ertmer and Koehler (2018) found that students in the online environment created longer responses and contributed more of the content compared to the facilitators. Additionally, while there was some overlap between the strategies facilitators used across these contexts (e.g., clarification and directing student attention), the most common approaches used in each context was different. In the online setting, facilitators spent more effort overcoming the lack of visual and verbal cues (e.g., directing students’ attention, restating and emphasizing important ideas, using students’ names). The authors interpreted some of the differences as related to the specific contextual affordances available in the online environment: Facilitators “restated students’ ideas more frequently in the online environment (due to the ease with which one can quote, or copy and paste, students’ comments as a prelude to making a response)” (p. 654). The key takeaway from this research then is that while CBL in both environments led to effective learning outcomes, the strategies used in the online environment were noticeably different. Additionally, a significant reason for these differences was the communication modes used in each format, synchronous versus asynchronous. In online settings, asynchronous discussions are a common aspect of the learning environment (Hew et al., 2010; Putnam et al., 2012; Ringler et al., 2015). This format offers learners a medium where they can “reflect on questions and revisit posts in a flexible manner in order to build critical thinking and problem-solving skills” (Koehler et al., 2020, p. 66). Therefore, when designing and facilitating CBL in online environments, educators should leverage these unique affordances to maximize learning.

Facilitating Case-Based Learning in Online Settings As a problem-centered learning experience, CBL can be an effective method for facilitating learners’ problem-solving skills across a variety of contexts. Yet, the experience can be challenging for both learners and educators (Law et al., 2020), and much of the effectiveness of the method rests on the ability of the facilitator to plan and implement a meaningful experience (Ertmer & Koehler, 2015). As educators

220

A. A. Koehler

plan, implement, and evaluate CBL, the process is complex and requires problemsolving skills. Finally, when facilitating CBL in online settings, educators should be mindful of additional considerations. Using the idea that the instructional design process is a problem-solving process (Jonassen, 2008), the next sections of this chapter offer guidance on how to best prepare, facilitate, and evaluate CBL experiences in online setting. Using specific ill-structured problem-solving frameworks to guide this process (e.g., Choi & Lee’s, 2009; Jonassen, 1997), guidance is organized using the following steps: 1. Articulate the problem space to be addressed during the CBL experience. 2. Identify and consider different approaches to structure the experience and engage learners. 3. Generate appropriate learning activities that align with the articulated problem space. 4. Implement and monitor selected learning activities. 5. Evaluate, reflect on, and adapt the CBL experience.

Articulate the Problem Space to Be Addressed During the CBL Experience Appropriateness of CBL for Content, Learners, and Environment When considering content for a problem-centered learning experience, course, or curriculum, selecting a problem that is “complex” and “authentic” is important (Jonassen, 2011). If the goals of a learning experience focus on preparing learners to complete a procedural task or memorize content or if major time constraints exist, then, CBL would not be the most appropriate approach for preparing learners, as ample time is necessary to consider multi-layered solutions to a case problem (Savery, 2009). Additionally, when selecting an appropriate problem, educators should consider specific learner attributes: “levels of prior knowledge, experience, reasoning ability, various cognitive styles, and epistemic beliefs” (Jonassen, 2011). Being mindful of these characteristics will help determine appropriate problems to select for the given learning task. For instance, by identifying the “cognitive abilities” of students and their previous experiences, educators can assist with identifying prerequisite knowledge necessary to participate in a learning activity and promote interactive behaviors (Simonson et al., 2015) and whether CBL is a good fit for the current learner levels, what type of case is most appropriate, and whether the necessary support required for facilitating a CBL experience is an appropriate return on the effort required. As students share ownership in the learning process during CBL, educators must consider what that ownership entails. When considering content and learner attributes for an online CBL experience, educators should be mindful of the environment when planning the experience. For instance, deciding the platform(s) for which CBL will be facilitated is necessary.

13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning …

221

Learning management systems (LMS) have become a common mechanism for organizing course content and resources, and the specific features of an LMS and “the user interface through which students and instructors interact influence course design and student experience” (Demmans Epp et al., 2020, p. 3264). However, while an LMS can be an effective way to manage learning processes, features vary across systems and incorporating additional technologies can be useful (e.g., social media, Ioannou et al., 2015). In online settings, where the instructor and students are geographically separated, providing learners access to expectations, a schedule, activities, and resources in an organized and uncomplicated method is essential (Simonson et al., 2015). Finally, CBL is best experienced as a social, collaborative endeavor that occurs between peers, with the instructor, and with others (e.g., experts) (Ertmer & Koehler, 2018). If learners are working independently, then, likely, CBL would not be a good fit. Educators also must consider what tools that learners have available to support meaningful collaboration. As learners’ cognitive load is already high during problem-centered learning experiences, educators should be mindful of how they are providing access to the experience to avoid unnecessarily adding to these challenges (Koehler et al., 2017).

Learning Objectives and Case Mapping Once the targeted content is selected, the facilitator should establish objectives for the learning experience (Rico & Ertmer, 2015). Objectives for an online CBL experience “may not necessarily change simply because an instructor teaches at a distance” (Simonson et al., 2015, p. 134). The format and purpose of the objectives is the same—to guide the direction of the entire learning process by stating the condition under which learning will occur and the expected performance. Thus, while the methods used to facilitate these may vary, the performance expectations do not need to be lowered. Next, based on these objectives, the facilitator should select or create an appropriate case that represents an ill-structured problem and will afford learners the opportunity to deeply consider relevant content in a story format (Freeman Herreid, 1997/1998). When determining what content should be addressed, a helpful activity to complete is to map the potential problem space that can be covered by the CBL experience: Hmelo-Silver (2013) defines the learning space associated with a given problem as having two main components: the targeted problem space and the related conceptual space. The targeted problem space comprises concepts and issues related to the specific case being analyzed, while the related conceptual space goes beyond casespecific content to include associated concepts and alternative explanations. Furthermore, the problem space also includes the specific understanding and goals necessary for solving a given case problem (Ertmer & Koehler, 2014, p. 619; Teasley & Roschelle, 1993). To facilitate the problem space mapping, one approach is to consider the potential problem-solving process learners will be expected to follow. Generally, problemsolving is conceptualized as having two key components: problem finding (e.g.,

222

A. A. Koehler

Table 13.1 Case mapping guidelines Item

Description

Stakeholder attributes . Who are the key stakeholders in the case? – What are their roles and concerns? – What is important to consider about their perspectives? Challenges

. What are the key challenges in the case? – What is important to note about the problem? . Where will students likely be distracted or confused? . What are relationships across these challenges?

Constraints

. What are project variables that impact the key challenge being considered? . What is the relationship between the constraints and the key challenge being investigated?

Solutions

. When considering what an effective solution might look like, what is important to consider? . What are stakeholder needs that must be addressed by potential solutions? . What are constraints that cannot be ignored by potential solutions? . What are relationships that should be considered across solutions?

creating a clear description of the problem being considered including key stakeholders and constraints) and generating solutions (e.g., developing a solution that addresses the identified problem, while working within constraints and considering stakeholder needs) (Ertmer & Stepich, 2005). By mapping this problem space, facilitators can articulate important problem finding and generating solutions considerations and develop collaborative activities that support the potential coverage of this mapped problem space. For instance, a tendency of learners during CBL is to skip fully defining the problem and instead focus on generating solutions for the problem (Koehler et al., 2019; Ng & Tan, 2006). The mapped problem space offers facilitators insight into how to strategically focus learners’ attention on the problem finding process. Table 13.1 provides an overview of key areas to consider when mapping a CBL experience.

Questions to Consider During This Phase . Does the content under consideration represent an ill-structured topic with many potential solutions? . What are key attributes of the learners? . What educational tools are available to the facilitator and learners where content can be shared and the experience can be facilitated? . How will learners have access to diverse perspectives during the learning experience?

13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning …

223

. What are the learning objectives for the experience? . What is a representative map of the problem space that could be covered by the case?

Identify and Consider Different Approaches to Format the Experience and to Support and Engage Learners Case Format CBL can be implemented as a single experience in a course, as a series of experiences across a course, or as an entire curriculum for a program (Jonassen, 2011). CBL can be effective in all of these formats, depending on the specific goals being targeted. Additionally, CBL can be facilitated using a variety of approaches. Commonly, cases are presented in text form, as a narrative recounting a real-world professional event that previously occurred. These narratives can range from a single page to several pages in length (Jonassen, 2011). Typically, these cases are grouped as a collection in a book or a website for a targeted group of learners (e.g., preservice teachers—see Infantino & Wilke, 2019) or focused on a specific topic (e.g., operations management—see MIT Sloan School of Management (2021) Case Study library). Typically, these books can be purchased at a reasonable cost, or other cases are offered as open educational resources, available at no cost. Using a book makes sense in a course where multiple cases will be used. In other instances, educators use video cases as part of their design. Video cases may include clips from real professional settings (e.g., a teacher instructing his classroom, Shin et al., 2019) or scripted encounters performed by actors (e.g., pharmacist and patient interactions, Bourg Rebitch et al., 2019). Regardless of whether the cases are in a text or video format, sometimes educators may want to give learners access to a case library that they can use to support their understanding. For instance, a common challenge encountered by learners participating in problem-centered learning experiences is that they lack relevant contextual experience and knowledge to effectively navigate a problem. To address this, some research suggests that providing learners with access to cases detailing how experts handled similar challenges can improve their performance in a problem-centered experience (Tawfik et al., 2020). Furthermore, comparing the content of these cases suggests that learners using failure-based cases to support argumentation is more effective than accessing success-based cases (Tawfik & Jonassen, 2013).

224

A. A. Koehler

Case Timing and Process The timing of the case in the learning process can vary. Commonly, learners may be asked to complete a case analysis that prompts them to consider key issues in a case. One example of a case analysis format includes prompting learners to consider the following tasks: “(1) identify the key stakeholders in the case and to describe their primary concerns; (2) outline the key design challenges in the case, as well as the specific situational constraints; (3) propose at least two reasonable solutions for the designer in the case; and (4) discuss the pros and cons to each solution/recommendation” (Ertmer & Koehler, 2014, p. 622). The case analysis can happen prior to other course activities (e.g., course discussions) or following specific guided tasks. For instance, Ertmer and Koehler (2014) argue that using such prompts prior to a course discussion can “scaffold students’ case analysis efforts and push them toward responding in a more expert manner than they would without such prompts” (p. 631). In some instances, instead of providing a case for consideration, educators may require learners to create a case from their perspective to provide opportunities for “reflecting on a situation, sorting out its complexities, making connections between its parts, and organizing what one has to say into coherent and memorable chunks” (Tawfik & Kolodner, 2016). Additionally, educators may ask students to share part of the facilitation process. Finally, in other instances, a case is combined with technology designed specifically to lead learners through a step-by-step process (Choi & Lee, 2009; Ge et al., 2010). For instance, Ge et al. (2010) developed a web-based system that introduced learners to a “real-world case study,” a “five-step problem-solving outline,” “question prompts” to focus attention in key areas, “peer review, expert modeling, and self-reflection” (p. 37). Across these different structures, the complexity increases. That is, in most instances, depending on access to materials and resources, implementing a textbased narrative requires less initial effort than supporting the development of student cases or creating a video-based case or an entire system that guides the CBL process. Educators must consider what case resources they have access to, the specific time they have available to design and develop a CBL experience, and how learners in an online environment will engage with these materials.

Additional Resources As noted, when participating in problem-centered learning experiences, learners experience challenges (Law et al., 2020; Tawfik & Kolodner, 2016). As a result, an important step at this point in the CBL planning process is to identify specific strategies that can be used to support common challenges. Law et al. (2020) identified specific areas that learners commonly struggle with during problem-centered experiences: applying prior knowledge, cognitive processing, regulating thinking, unproductive epistemic beliefs, motivation, and navigation between problem identification and solution creation. To proactively address these challenges, educators can provide learners access to resources to support the challenges they will likely

13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning …

225

face. For instance, readings from practitioner journals or research studies can be used to focus learners’ attention on relevant topics in the case and suggest ways of addressing some of the key challenges. While using textbook and traditional learning materials can be helpful, several other resources can be used to support learners’ lack of previous experience or to motivate their interest in the topic (Simonson et al., 2015). For instance, “YouTube offers a vast array of patient case studies and educational videos” that can be used to support nursing education students’ “critical thinking” and “active learning” (Ross & Myers, 2017, p. 340). Other social media can provide learners with access to experts (e.g., professional blogs). In addition to an initial case problem being considered, learners may be given cases to support their analysis. As learners were solving a case, Tawfik and Jonassen (2013) provided students access to cases capturing professionals successfully completing a task like the one in the case or failing at a task similar to the one in the case. As various resources are considered, educators should be mindful of locating ones that will be accessible to online learners. For instance, if a PDF resource is provided, it should be readable by voice recognition software.

Questions to Consider During This Phase . Will CBL be used as a single experience, through multiple cases, or as an entire program curriculum? . What case format will be used (e.g., narrative, video, case library)? . Where will a case(s) be located? If a case will be created, what resources are necessary? Who will create the case? . Who will be responsible for facilitating the experience (educator or learners)? . What are anticipated challenges that learners will encounter when participating in the CBL experience? . What resources will be provided to support learners throughout the CBL experience and how do these proactively address common challenges learners face during CBL? . What are the key lessons learned from the case facilitation? . What changes need to be made for future case implementations?

Generate Appropriate Learning Activities that Align with the Articulated Problem Space Designing CBL Activities Next, based on the specific objectives that have been articulated and the structure selected, educators should design the specific learning activities that will maximize coverage of the targeted problem space. This should include a consideration of both

226

A. A. Koehler

what the learner will be expected to do individually and as part of the collaborative effort of the group. For instance, learners may be asked to complete case analyses individually or with peers or to create another deliverable that aligns with the context of the case (e.g., developing a Gantt chart to get a derailed project back on track). Additionally, discussion is generally considered a central aspect of CBL, and in online settings this is commonly implemented through asynchronous forums (Ertmer & Koehler, 2014, 2015, 2018). However, meaningful discussions do not happen without intentional planning (Koehler et al., 2019), “students’ responses are highly influenced by the structure and type of question prompts used by the instructor” (Ertmer & Koehler, 2014 p. 631), and using a variety of discussion activities (e.g., role play, debate) can foster students’ problem-solving and critical thinking skills (Koehler et al., 2019; Richardson & Ice, 2010). Discussion prompts should be designed to leave room for a variety of ideas to be shared versus expecting all learners to create responses that result in little variance across their ideas. Research suggests that effective discussions offer learners opportunities for practical application, reflective analysis, and consideration of relevant and familiar topics (Zydney et al., 2012). Finally, an important aspect of the problem-centered learning experience that is commonly skipped is reflection (Tawfik & Kolodner, 2016). “Reflection enables designers to examine their thinking, their behaviors, design situations, and concerns from team members and stakeholders” (Hong & Choi, 2011, p. 688). By carefully crafting reflection opportunities during CBL, facilitators can help learners to effectively realize lessons learned from an CBL experience, label these lessons learned, and more readily apply them in future situations (Tawfik & Kolodner, 2016). When designing activities and assignments for an online setting, the Community of Inquiry (COI) framework offers a descriptive look at key elements that should be considered as part of an online learning environment. Specifically, central to this framework are three constructs: . social presence—“the ability of participants to identify with the community (e.g., course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities” (Garrison, 2009 as cited by Garrison et al., 2010, p. 32) . teaching presence—“the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worth-while learning outcomes” (Anderson et al., 2001 as cited by Garrison et al., 2010, p. 32) . cognitive presence—“reflects the learning and inquiry process” that learners use to create and verify understanding (Garrison et al., 2010, p. 32) As educators are designing CBL activities for an online setting, they should intentionally select tools and design experiences that develop not only the instructional aspects of CBL but also the overall online experience along these lines. For example, instead of using a traditional discussion board forum that is included as part of a LMS, learners may be asked to use a tool such as Padlet or VoiceThread that combines textual, video, and audio elements to promote social presence and connections among class members. To promote cognitive presence, educators can incorporate activities

13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning …

227

that prompt higher order thinking, collaboration (e.g., wikis), and individual options (e.g., blogs) to inspire “reflective observation.” Finally, teaching presence can be targeted using instructor created videos (e.g., to provide an overview of the experience or a challenging concept) and clearly stated learning goals and expectations (Fiock, 2020).

Including Scaffolds as Part of CBL As educators are designing CBL activities, they must also intentionally plan for ways to proactively address common challenges faced by learners, and Law et al. (2020) provides direction on how to support the development of prompts and assignments: . To activate prior knowledge, requiring learners to consider relevant previous experience, diagrams and analogies capturing relationships, and multiple-choice questions to focus thinking prior to problem interaction . To support cognitive processing, developing opportunities for thinking to be visualized (e.g., creating problem representations and concept mapping) and providing models of complex systems . To support regulative thinking, including opportunities to guide learners to justify and self-assess their ideas and processes and compare personal approach to expert approach . To support motivation, leading goal setting exercises and offering opportunities for choice in communicating understanding . To support epistemic beliefs, continuously providing opportunities to “purposely examine, monitor, and reflect on their problem representations, solutions, and the alignment between the two” (p. 331) Questions to Consider During This Phase . What individual activities will learners be expected to complete? – How will assignment details and expectations of performance be shared? – What resources are necessary to create these assignments? . What collaborative activities will learners be expected to complete? – How will the structure of activities leave room for multiple perspectives? – How will assignment details and expectations of performance be shared? – What resources are necessary to create these assignments? . What are examples of different scaffolds that can be implemented? What are specific challenges these scaffolds are managing?

228

A. A. Koehler

Implement and Monitor Selected Learning Activities Facilitating Interaction in Online CBL Like any learning experience, while much of the success of CBL will result from the planning and design of online environment and required activities, the way the facilitator manages the live portions of the course will greatly influence the overall experience. In CBL, the discussion comprises the primary medium that must be managed. Overall, the facilitator has the difficult task of guiding the leaners to deeply cover the targeted problem-solving space through “directing and maintaining the collaboration among students,” while offering just the right amount of support (Ertmer & Koehler, 2015, p. 71). In online settings when asynchronous discussions are used, both instructors and learners have the advantage to revisit shared ideas and reflect before crafting their responses, as previous communication is commonly preserved in threads (Cheung & Hew, 2004; Putnam et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2013). For novice instructors, facilitating a discussion in an asynchronous format can be especially helpful, as they may need more time to decide where to strategically jump into the discussion, which can be more challenging in a face-to-face discussion where interactions tend to happen very quickly. To gain a sense of learners’ understanding, perspective, or comfort level during collaborative elements, several tools can help facilitate the process. For example, the facilitator may ask learners to complete an online poll. Previous research suggests that expert case facilitators use a variety of techniques to reach identified goals and to maximize problem-space coverage. Based on Yew and Yong’s (2014) and Schmidt and Moust’s (2000) work, Watson et al. (2018) suggest that competent facilitators are “adept at integrating two effective strategies in their discussion interactions—social congruence and cognitive congruence—along with content expertise.” Each of these areas aligns well with the COI framework previously discussed. That is, similar to social presence, social congruence refers to “interpersonal qualities, such as the ability to communicate informally and empathically with students, and hence being able to create a learning environment that encourages an open exchange of ideas” (Yew & Yong, 2014, p. 796). Like cognitive presence, cognitive congruence is the “facilitator’s ability to present content to students in terms with which they are familiar” (Watson et al., 2018). Finally, “content expertise refers to the facilitator’s relevant content, or subject matter, knowledge” similar to teaching presence (Watson et al., 2018). While a variety of different strategies can be used during CBL to support these three constructs (see Watson et al., 2018), as an example, the top strategies used by one expert are included in Table 13.2. Also, typically, these strategies were combined in a single post by “us[ing] the student’s name (social), repeat[ing] and acknowledge[ing] a student’s idea (social), offer[ing] a summary (cognitive), and provid[ing] formative feedback (expertise).” Additionally, Fiock (2020) offers several examples of specific COI strategies that can be used to meaningfully support CBL facilitation.

13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning …

229

Table 13.2 Strategies used by an expert CBL facilitator Facilitation area

Example

Social congruence

. . . . .

Cognitive congruence . . . . . Content expertise

Acknowledging students’ ideas shared in the discussion Inviting students to join and continue the discussion Using students’ names during the discussion Showing enthusiasm towards topics being discussed Approving students’ ideas in the discussion Emphasizing important ideas Clarifying ideas shared in the discussion Directing students’ attention Providing a contextual example Summarizing context shared in the discussion

. Prompting students to consider additional topics more deeply . Directing questioning of student responses . Tempering instructor expertise to achieve a non-authoritative environment . Connecting content ideas . Providing an alternative viewpoint

Closing the Collaborative Aspect of CBL After coordinating the collaborative aspects, the facilitator should provide closure to the overall experience. While different strategies can be used to accomplish this task, some common options include “(1) summarize the issues left to be resolved, (2) describe insights gained during the discussion, (3) review unexpected developments or findings, (4) list “best” ideas that emerged during the discussion, and (5) reflect on lessons learned from the case story itself, as well as the subsequent discussion” (Ertmer & Koehler, 2015, p. 71). During this phase, the facilitator can emphasize ideas that need further consideration and offer specific guidance on reflective efforts (Watson et al., 2018). To support case-closing efforts, educators can use a variety of tools. For instance, the facilitator may create the summary in video format or ask learners to share lessons learned using a wiki (Koehler & Ertmer, 2016).

Course Organization in Online CBL The design and layout of an online environment is important to consider when implementing CBL. Appropriate font and formatting should be used to clearly communicate content to learners, and the layout should be intuitive. For instance, arranging the CBL experience using a weekly overview, with embedded links to required readings, resources, and activities can help learners access what they need from a single page. Additionally, using consistent design choices across pages will help learners manage the system (Simonson et al., 2015).

230

A. A. Koehler

Questions to Consider During This Phase . Based on the course mapping, what are potential questions that can be constructed proactively that can be used to facilitate the discussion? . What strategies can be implemented to gain a check for understanding? . Based on personal style, what are specific ways to establish social congruence, cognitive congruence, and content expertise? . What are strategies that can be used to efficiently and effectively summarize and highlight key points and unexpected findings? . What tool(s) will be used to provide the discussion wrap-up? . How can lessons learned be collected from participants? . How will CBL content be shared with learners in a way that is clearly and intuitively formatted?

Evaluate, Reflect on, and Adapt the CBL Experience Evaluating a CBL Experience In general, assessing learning resulting from problem-centered methods is challenging (Lundeberg & Yadav, 2006; Saleewong et al., 2012; Yew & Yong, 2014). However, depending on the objectives of the learning experiences, educators can assess several outcomes: “(1) content knowledge and skills within a domain; (2) problem-solving skills (process and reflection); and (3) the development of higherorder thinking skills (metacognitive)” (Savery, 2009, p. 155). Most commonly, higher-order skills, such as problem-solving, are the focus of assessment. In these instances, educators can require learners to develop a product (e.g., case analysis, lesson plan), observe learners’ behavior during the creation of the product and related tasks, and use a rubric to determine the quality of a product (Jonassen, 2011; Koehler et al., 2019). The specific method selected should be shared with learners when the assignment is introduced. As the discussion is a key aspect of the CBL experience, another way to determine the value of the experience is through comparing what was covered in the online discussion to the problem-space that was mapped to guide the design of the overall experience (Ertmer & Koehler, 2014, 2015, 2018). Through this mapping process, the instructor can determine areas of high and low coverage to determine next steps for prompting further reflection and clarifying misconceptions.

Using Data Analytics to Support Evaluation of CBL in Online Settings Throughout the CBL facilitation process, educators potentially have access to a wealth of data to guide decision making and design, as learning unfolds across a variety of technology interfaces (e.g., wikis, LMS, blogs; Costa Pereira Sanches et al., 2020). For instance, commonly LMS offer educators insight into how learners are

13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning …

231

navigating an educational platform: number and timing of logins, time spent within the LMS, number of pages viewed, post length, number of posts, and number of posts read (Demmans Epp et al., 2020). Educators can use these details to determine whether individual learners are progressing and engaging appropriately and gain a sense of key points that are being viewed or missed. If educators adopt social media to support the learning process (e.g., wikis), they can gain a sense of individual learners’ contributions to a collaborative effort. These informational sources can be used to support formative and summative evaluation efforts.

Reflecting and Adapting Determining the value of CBL can be difficult while in the middle of an experience, and using student artifacts and evaluations, mapped discussions, and data analytics offers facilitators to consider broadly the effectiveness of a CBL implementation. Just as reflection is key for learners to make sense of case complexities (Tawfik & Kolodner, 2016), facilitators should spend time reflecting on the design and facilitation to gain lessons learned. Through this process, a facilitator can make adjustments accordingly for future case facilitations.

Questions to Consider During This Phase . What are the most important learning outcomes being considered during the CBL experience? . How will learner performance be evaluated on both individual and group levels? . How will areas that were not sufficiently covered be handled? . What data analytics are available through the selected tools? How can these be used to determine the success of the CBL experience for individuals and the whole group?

Conclusion CBL is a complex method that requires intentionality across planning, implementation, and evaluation. Specifically, to boost the chances of success, educators can take specific steps: 1. Articulate the problem space to be addressed during the CBL experience by determining the appropriateness of CBL for the selected content, targeted learners, and online environment; creating learning objectives; and mapping the case problem space 2. Identify and consider different approaches to format the experience and to support and engage learners by selecting an appropriate case format; determining the

232

A. A. Koehler

timing and process for the case analysis; and locating additional resources to support the learning process and to mitigate challenges 3. Generate appropriate learning activities that align with the articulated problem space and scaffold the process appropriately 4. Implement and monitor selected learning activities through facilitating online interaction; closing the collaborative aspects of CBL; and providing appropriate organization for an online setting 5. Evaluate, reflect on, and adapt the CBL experience using artifacts, observations, and data analytics to support CBL evaluation Additional considerations are necessary to ensure the method is successful given the inherent challenges and affordances resulting from the interaction between CBL as a problem-centered method and an online environment. That is, in CBL, learners commonly experience challenges processing and applying previous knowledge, regulating their thinking and epistemic beliefs, and navigating between identifying problems and generating solutions (Law et al., 2020). In online environments, these challenges can be amplified due to learners’ geographical separation from their peers and facilitator, difficulties with understanding instructional goals, and lack of real-time feedback (Richardson et al., 2015). As learners share ownership in their learning experience in both CBL (Goeze et al., 2014) and online environments (Galustyan et al., 2019; Moore, 2013), CBL in online settings requires thoughtful effort. As courses are increasingly offered in online formats, additional investigation is needed to more fully understand and effectively implement CBL in online settings to meet diverse learner goals and needs. For instance, asynchronous discussions are commonly used as a part of online CBL experiences (see Ertmer & Koehler, 2014, 2015; Sadaf et al., 2021). While discussion offers a way to address a targeted problem space during CBL (Ertmer & Koehler, 2014, 2015), research suggests that students do not always value discussions as a way to support problem solving, read only a small percentage of total posts, and rely on their instructors to determine discussion standards versus seeking an individual approach to maximize personal understanding (Koehler et al., 2020). As discussion plays a central role in CBL, finding new ways to effectively engage learners in the process is worthwhile. Exploring evolving methods such as ungrading (e.g., learners are identified “as experts in their own learning” and self-assess their performance, Stommel, 2020), video modeling (e.g., learners view “a video demonstration of a task being performed by another person” like effectively collaborating, Wijnia & Baars, 2021, p. 70), and social networking analysis (e.g., using learners’ “positions, relations, and interactions” to make sense of their activities, Saqr et al., 2018, p. 2) to promote meaningful interactions and explore the effectiveness of implemented methods is useful. Additionally, considering how emerging technologies can support and transform CBL in online settings is meaningful. For example, research suggests that social media technologies (e.g., Facebook, concept mapping, WhatsApp) offer educators ways to develop learning communities where learners can participate in a familiar, informal space to share ideas and make sense of complex content (Grover et al., 2020; Wu, 2020; Wu & Nian, 2021). Additionally, devices

13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning …

233

like smart phones can be useful to create authentic learning environments, extend the traditional classroom boundaries (Lötter & Jacobs, 2020), and potentially offer case facilitators new ways of overcoming common barriers to case-based discussions. To gain the most from a CBL experience, educators must work intentionally to implement a meaningful learning experience that combines effective use of online environmental affordances and a comprehensive design process. Additionally, emerging technologies have the potential to enhance CBL experiences. Although the time and resource investment is great for educators implementing CBL, the learning outcomes can be very rewarding.

References Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). Barnes, L. B., Christensen, C. R., & Hansen, A. (1994). Teaching and the case method (3rd ed.). Harvard Business School Press. Bourg Rebitch, C., Fleming, V. H., Palmer, R., Rong, H., & Choi, I. (2019). Evaluation of videoenhanced case-based activities guided by the pharmacists’ patient care process. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(4), 544–554. Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition & Instruction, 22(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_3. Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2004). Evaluating the extent of ill-structured problem solving process among pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion and reflection log learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(3), 197–227. https://doi.org.rem otexs.ntu.edu.sg/10.2190/9JTN-10T3-WTXH-P6HN. 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 & Development, 57(1), 99–129. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11423-008-9089-2. Costa, L. A., Pereira Sanches, L. M., Rocha Amorim, R. J., Nascimento Salvador, L. Do, & dos Santos Souza, M. V. (2020). Monitoring academic performance based on learning analytics and ontology: A systematic review. Informatics in Education, 19(3), 361–397. https://doi.org/10. 15388/infedu.2020.17. Demmans Epp, C., Phirangee, K., Hewitt, J., & Perfetti, C. A. (2020). Learning management system and course influences on student actions and learning experiences. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(6), 3263–3297. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/10. 1007/s11423-020-09821-1. Donner, R. S., & Harmon, B. (1999). Problem-based learning in American medical education. In J. Rankin (Ed.), Handbook on problem-based learning (pp. 11–18). Forbes. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9350-9. Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2015). Facilitated vs. non-facilitated online case discussions: Comparing differences in problem space coverage. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(2), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9094-5. Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2018). How context affordances shape facilitation strategies and problem-space coverage: Comparing face-to-face and online case-based discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(3), 639–670.

234

A. A. Koehler

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). Wiley. 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. Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a community of inquiry in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl. v20i5.3985. Freeman Herreid, C. (1997). What makes a good case? Some basic rules of good storytelling help teachers generate student excitement in the classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(3), 163–165. Galustyan, O. V., Borovikova, Y. V., Polivaeva, N. P., Kodirov, B. R., & Zhirkova, G. P. (2019). E-learning within the field of andragogy. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(9), 148–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i09.10020. Garrison, D. R., et al. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. L. Rogers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–355). IGI Global. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009. 10.002. Ge, X., Planas, L. G., & Er, N. (2010). A cognitive support system to scaffold students’ problembased learning in a web-based learning environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 4(1), 30–56. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1093. Goeke, J. L. (2008). A preliminary investigation of prospective teachers’ reasoning about case studies with expert commentary. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(1), 21–35. https:// doi.org/10.1177/088840640803100103. Goeze, A., Zottmann, J. M., Vogel, F., Fischer, F., & Schrader, J. (2014). Getting immersed in teacher and student perspectives: Facilitating analytical competence using video cases in teacher education. Instructional Science, 42(1), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9304-3. Grover, S., Garg, B., & Sood, N. (2020). Introduction of case-based learning aided by WhatsApp messenger in pathology teaching for medical students. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 66(1), 17–22. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_2_19. Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science, 38, 571– 606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2013). Creating a learning space in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 7(1). Retrieved August 16, 2014, from http://docs.lib.pur due.edu/ijpbl/vol7/iss1/. Holland, J. C., & Pawlikowska, T. (2019). Undergraduate medical students’ usage and perceptions of anatomical case-based learning: Comparison of facilitated small group discussions and eLearning resources. Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(3), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1824. Hong, Y. C., & Choi, I. (2011). Three dimensions of reflective thinking in solving design problems: A conceptual model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 687–710. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9202-9. Infantino, R., & Wilke, R. (2019). Tough choices for teachers: Ethical case studies from today’s schools and classrooms. Rowman & Littlefield. Ioannou, A., Brown, S. W., & Artino, A. R. (2015). Wikis and forums for collaborative problembased activity: A systematic comparison of learners’ interactions. Internet and Higher Education, 24, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.001. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problemsolving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 215–239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning …

235

Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge. Koehler, A. A., Cheng, Z., Fiock, H., Janakiraman, S., & Wang, H. (2020). Asynchronous online discussions during case-based learning: A problem-solving process. Online Learning. 24(4), 64–92. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.233. Koehler, A. A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Using web 2.0 tools to facilitate case-based instruction: Considering the possibilities. Educational Technology, 56(1), 3–13. Koehler, A. A., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2019). Developing preservice teachers’ instructional design skills through case-based instruction: Examining the impact of discussion format. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118755701. Koehler, A. A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2017). Examining the role of Web 2.0 tools in supporting problem solving during case-based instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3–4), 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1338167. Law, V., Ge, X., & Huang, K. (2020). Understanding learners’ challenges and scaffolding their Illstructured problem solving in a technology-supported self-regulated learning environment. In M. J. Bishop, E. Boling, J. Elen, V. Svihla (Eds.) Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 321–343). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-361198_14. Leary, H., Walker, A., Shelton, B. E., & Fitt, M. H. (2013). Exploring the relationships between tutor background, tutor training, and student learning: A problem-based learning meta-analysis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1), 40–66. https://doi.org/10.7771/15415015.1331. 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. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 178–190. Lötter, M. J., & Jacobs, L. (2020). Using smartphones as a social constructivist pedagogical tool for inquiry-supported problem-solving: An exploratory study. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 20(4), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2020.1715323. 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. Major, C. A., Burnham, K. D., Brown, K. A., Lambert, C. D., Nordeen, J. M., & Takaki, L. A. K. (2021). Evaluation of an online case-based learning module that integrates basic and clinical sciences. The Journal of Chiropractic Education, 35(2), 192–198. https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE20-3. MIT Sloan School of Management (2021). Teaching resources library. Retrieved from https://mit sloan.mit.edu/teaching-resources-library/case-studies. 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, 331–349. Moore, M. G. (2013). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 84–103). Routledge. Ng, C. S. L., & Tan, C. (2006). Investigating Singapore pre-service teachers’ ill-structured problemsolving processes in an asynchronous online environment: Implications for reflective thinking. New Horizons in Education, 54, 1–15. Putman, S. M., Ford, K., & Tancock, S. (2012). Redefining online discussions: Using participant stances to promote collaboration and cognitive engagement. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 151–167. Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 52–59. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009.

236

A. A. Koehler

Rico, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2015). Examining the role of the instructor in problem-centered instruction. TechTrends, 59(4), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0876-4. Ringler, I., Schubert, C., Friestad-Tate, J., Deem, J., Lockwood, R., & Flores, J. (2015). Improving the asynchronous online learning environment using discussion boards. Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 15–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.26634/jet.12.1.3432. Ross, J. G., & Myers, S. M. (2017). The current use of social media in undergraduate nursing education: A review of the literature. Computers, Informatics, Nursing : CIN, 35(7), 338–344. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000342. Sadaf, A., Kim, S. Y., & Wang, Y. (2021). A comparison of cognitive presence, learning, satisfaction, and academic performance in case-based and non-case-based online discussions. American Journal of Distance Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2021.1888667. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10. 4236/ce.2012.38B007. Saqr, M., Fors, U., & Nouri, J. (2018). Using social network analysis to understand online ProblemBased Learning and predict performance. PLoS ONE, 13(9), 1–20. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib. purdue.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0203590. Savery, J. R. (2009). Problem-based approach to instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. CarrChellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III). Routledge. 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, 70(8), 708–714. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199508000-00015. Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Shin, S., Brush, T. A., Saye, J. W., & Zhang, Z. (2019). Integrating classroom video cases into a teaching methods course: A two-year journey of curriculum redesign. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 10(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v10i1.24647. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (6th ed.). Information Age Publishing. Stommel, J. (2020, February 6). Ungrading: An FAQ. https://www.jessestommel.com/ungradingan-faq/. Tawfik, A. A., Giabbanelli, P. J., Hogan, M., Msilu, F., Gill, A., & York, C. S. (2018). Effects of success vs failure cases on learner-learner interaction. Computers & Education, 118, 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.013. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9294-5. Tawfik, A. A., Kim, K., & Kim, D. (2020). Effects of case library recommendation system on problem solving and knowledge structure development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1329–1353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09737-w. 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, 10(1), 6. Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. Computers as cognitive tools, 229–258. Watson, S. L., Koehler, A. A., Ertmer, P. A., Rico, R., & Kim, W. (2018). An expert instructor’s use of social congruence, cognitive congruence, and expertise in an online case-based instructional design course. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(1). https://doi.org/10. 7771/1541-5015.1633. Wijnia, L., & Baars, M. (2021). The role of motivational profiles in learning problem-solving and self-assessment skills with video modeling examples. Instructional Science, 49(1), 67–107. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/10.1007/s11251-020-09531-4.

13 Planning and Facilitating Case-Based Learning …

237

Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based learning in K–12 education: Is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1157–1186. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0002831211419491. Wu, S.-Y. (2020). Incorporation of collaborative problem solving and cognitive tools to improve higher cognitive processing in online discussion environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(1), 249–272. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/10.1177/0735633119828044. Wu, S. Y., Hou, H. T., Hwang, W. Y., & Liu, E. Z. F. (2013). Analysis of learning behavior in problem-solving-based and project-based discussion activities within the seamless online learning integrated discussion (SOLID) system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 61– 82. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.1.c. Wu, J.-Y., & Nian, M.-W. (2021). The dynamics of an online learning community in a hybrid statistics classroom over time: Implications for the question-oriented problem-solving course design with the social network analysis approach. Computers & Education, 166, N.PAG. https:// doi-org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104120. Yadav, A., Bouck, E., Da Fonte, A., & Patton, S. (2009). Instructing special education pre-service teachers through literacy video cases. Teaching Education, 20(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10476210902878510. Yadav, A., Bozic, C., Gretter, S., & Nauman, E. (2015). Benefits and challenges of implementing case-based instruction: A student perspective. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(6), 1554–1563. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1253.3201. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9306-1. Zydney, J. M., deNoyelles, A., & Seo, K.K.-J. (2012). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 58(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu. 2011.07.009.

Index

A ARCS model of motivation, 18 Areas of interest, 146, 147 Asynchronous, 9, 62, 107, 157, 161–163, 171–174, 194, 206, 208, 219, 226, 228, 232 Asynchronous online peer discussion, 161, 162 Authentic, 4, 5, 10, 29, 34, 42, 43, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58, 61, 64, 73, 77, 83, 85, 101, 107, 113, 114, 132, 158, 159, 161, 169, 171–174, 201, 204, 205, 208, 218, 220, 233

B Beginning teachers, 71–85, 105, 106, 108, 109, 112–114 Bridging theory to practice, 33 Business school, 17–19, 23, 29, 50, 64

C Case-based instruction, 50, 71–74, 76–78, 82, 83, 89, 90, 93–96, 100–103, 183 Case-based learning, 3–13, 33–44, 49–52, 55–64, 71, 72, 76–78, 82, 83, 85, 89, 105–110, 113, 114, 119, 121, 123–125, 134, 135, 141, 145, 149, 153, 157–159, 161–165, 167–174, 183–186, 188, 191, 194, 201–208, 211, 212, 215–220, 222–226, 228–233 Case library, 62, 71–77, 79, 80, 82–84, 92, 94, 114, 223, 225 Case method, 17, 18, 20, 23–26, 28, 29, 50, 51, 58, 64, 109, 191

Classroom management, 4, 11, 29, 63, 75, 76, 80, 105, 106, 109, 111, 113, 114, 157, 158, 160, 162–164, 167–169, 171–174 Clinical reasoning, 33, 39–42, 44 Co-design of technology-mediated processes, 119, 120 Cognitive load, 43, 144, 145, 151, 152, 221 Collaborative learning theory, 49, 52, 59, 60 Community of practice, 54, 55, 72, 73, 75, 76, 80, 82, 84, 85 Context, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11–13, 22, 33, 34, 44, 49, 51–58, 61, 72, 73, 75–77, 83, 85, 89, 91, 102, 108, 110, 114, 121–124, 128, 130, 132–134, 136, 158, 161–163, 165, 172, 174, 187, 201, 202, 208, 209, 211, 217–219, 226, 229 Contextualised learning, 4 Critical thinking, 5, 11, 28, 33, 34, 39, 40, 42–44, 49, 61, 63, 107, 108, 158, 183–186, 188, 189, 193, 197, 206, 219, 225, 226

D Design elements, 42, 183, 184, 186, 196

E E-Business, 184–186 Educational design research, 201, 209–212 EEG oscillations, 151 Enabling interventions, 186, 190, 191 Equity, 119–121, 123, 124, 134, 136, 137

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 C. L. G. Quek and Q. Wang (eds.), Designing Technology-Mediated Case Learning in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5135-0

239

240 Evaluation, 13, 90, 91, 96–98, 100–102, 127, 159, 184, 185, 188, 203, 209–212, 216–219, 231, 232 Eye movement data, 143, 151 Eye-tracking technology, 143, 146–148, 151

F Facilitation, 40, 110, 112, 172, 185, 216, 218, 219, 224, 226, 228, 229 Feedback, 7, 12, 22, 26, 27, 29, 35–37, 41–44, 91, 94, 97, 99, 101, 111, 112, 129, 163, 197, 202–204, 206, 210, 212, 218, 228, 232 Flipped classroom, 20, 22, 23, 29, 141

H Health Professions Education, 33, 34, 37, 40, 42–44 Higher education in China, 34, 61, 64, 89–94, 103, 158, 186 Hybrid and Flipped Classroom, 20, 22–25, 27, 29

I Ill-structured problems, 5, 11, 72–74, 77, 78, 83, 218, 220, 221 Instructional design, 6–8, 42–44, 217, 220 Instructional strategy, 7, 61, 72, 74, 80, 83, 95, 106 Instructor presence, 142–144

L Learning analytics, 44, 64, 184, 186, 187, 189, 196, 197 Learning engagement, 159, 160, 163, 164, 169–171, 173, 174 Learning settings, 184 Learning strategies, 141, 142, 149–153 Legitimate peripheral participation, 54 Lifelong learning skills, 34

M Multiple perspectives, 5, 7, 8, 29, 59–61, 63, 64, 73, 83, 227

N Network technology, 90

Index Nondominant background, 119–126, 128, 131, 134–137

O Online learning, 20, 43, 71–73, 108, 109, 142, 159, 160, 162, 164, 206, 207, 209, 212, 218, 219 Online learning environment, 71–74, 76, 77, 82, 85, 108, 109, 111, 114, 159, 189, 201, 202, 204–209, 211, 212, 226 Orchestration, 183, 184, 194, 196

P Participatory design, 125, 126, 128, 130, 131, 134, 135 Pedagogical design, 202, 203, 205, 208 Pre-service teachers, 8, 10, 11, 63, 72, 74–78, 83, 84, 98–100, 107, 108, 122, 157–174, 223 Problem-centered learning, 217–221, 223, 224, 226 Problem solving, 11, 24, 27, 34, 37, 39, 58, 73, 74, 77, 127, 218, 232

R Reflection, 5, 8–10, 12, 51, 59, 60, 63, 64, 73, 74, 79, 84, 91, 98, 99, 111, 112, 158, 161, 163, 172, 174, 186, 190, 204, 206, 216, 217, 226 Reflective learning, 107, 108 Reflective practice, 8–10

S Seven Principles for Good Practice, 17 Situated cognition, 5, 49, 52, 58, 63 Social design, 206–209 Sociocultural lens, 120, 121, 123, 124, 126, 131, 135 Synchronous, 107, 161–163, 171, 173, 206, 208, 219

T Teacher education, 3–13, 50, 52, 61–63, 71, 73, 80, 82, 85, 105, 106, 109, 113, 114, 119–123, 125, 126, 134–137, 157–161, 171, 172, 174 Teacher-generated classroom cases, 109 Technical design, 201, 202, 207, 209, 212

Index Technology, 11, 17–19, 23–27, 29, 51, 53, 56, 64, 74, 75, 79, 89, 90, 92, 94, 102, 107–109, 119, 120, 158, 159, 161–165, 167, 170, 171, 183, 184, 189–191, 196, 204, 224 Technology-mediated, 18, 62, 89, 90, 100, 101, 113, 119, 124–128, 134, 137, 183, 201, 202 Technology-mediated case-based learning, 62, 89, 113, 119–121, 123–126, 131, 134–137, 183 Technology-mediated learning environment, 113

241 Theory and practice, 9–11, 59–61, 63, 89, 105, 106, 109, 113, 158, 160, 167, 168, 173, 201 360º panoramic video, 174

V Video-based instruction, 91–93, 99 Video lectures, 20, 141–153

Z Zoom, 20, 22–27, 29, 162–166, 168, 169, 171, 172, 175, 176, 207