Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 337–358 | Cite as

The Effects of Case Libraries in Supporting Collaborative Problem-Solving in an Online Learning Environment

  • Andrew A. Tawfik
  • Lenny Sánchez
  • Dinara Saparova


Various domains require practitioners to encounter and resolve ill-structured problems using collaborative problem-solving. As such, problem-solving is an essential skill that educators must emphasize to prepare learners for practice. One potential way to support problem-solving is through further investigation of instructional design methods that employ case-based reasoning. These learning environments consist of narratives of practitioners as they reason through related ill-structured problems. However, very little research exists about how case libraries impact learning, especially collaborative learning. For this study, 22 participants enrolled in a teacher education program were randomly assigned to two groups as they resolved an ill-structured problem. The results demonstrated that both groups had similar patterns of discussion, but the case library condition collaborated at a higher rate for each of the categories of the content analysis.


Case libraries Collaborative problem solving Online learning Case-based reasoning 


  1. Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1996). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and systems approaches. Artificial Intelligence Communications, 7(1), 39–59.Google Scholar
  2. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1037/a0021017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrows, H. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, S. (2010). Investigating strategies for using related cases to support design problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 459–480. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9144-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks, C. D., & Jeong, A. C. (2006). Effects of pre-structuring discussion threads on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Distance Education, 27(3), 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chernobilsky, E., Nagarajan, A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2005). Problem-based learning online: multiple perspectives on collaborative knowledge construction. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (pp. 53–62). Taipei: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  8. Chinn, C., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C.E. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314–332).Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dabbagh, N., & Dass, S. (2013). Case problems for problem-based pedagogical approaches: A comparative analysis. Computers & Education, 64, 161–174. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dasgupta, C., & Kolodner, J. L. (2009). Designing case libraries to encourage creative design. In Proceeding of the seventh ACM conference on creativity and cognition (pp. 361–362). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1640233.1640301.
  12. Ge, X., & Land, S. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gijlers, H., Saab, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2009). Interaction between tool and talk: how instruction and tools support consensus building in collaborative inquiry-learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 252–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00302.x.
  14. Graesser, A., Lang, K., & Horgan, D. (1988). A taxonomy for question generation. Questioning Exchange, 2(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
  15. Grossman, T. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Ziechner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425–476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henry, H., Tawfik, A., Jonassen, D. H., Winholtz, R., & Khanna, S. (2012). “I know this is supposed to be more like the real world, but…”: Student perceptions of a PBL implementation in an undergraduate materials science course. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(1). doi: 10.7771/15415015.1312
  18. Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of case libraries on problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 19(1), 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 401–412). New York, NY: Spring.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2013). Creating a learning space in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1). doi: 10.7771/15415015.1334.
  21. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94. doi: 10.1080/07370000701798495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Desimone, L. M. (2013). Problem-based learning: An instructional model of collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 370–385).Google Scholar
  23. Hung, W. (2006). The 3C3R model: A conceptual framework for designing problems in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1). doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1006.
  24. Hung, W. (2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 529–552. doi: 10.1007/s11423-011-9198-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hung, W., Jonassen, D. H., & Liu, R. (2008). Problem-based learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 659–670). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Imafuku, R., Kataoka, R., Mayahara, M., Suzuki, H., & Saiki, T. (2014). Students’ experiences in interdisciplinary problem-based learning: A discourse analysis of group interaction. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(2). doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1388.
  27. Jacobson, M., & Spiro, R. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427–445. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Cooperation and the use of technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 659–670). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.Google Scholar
  31. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments, 1st edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 439–457. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Web-enhanced case-based activity in teacher education: A case study. Instructional Science, 37(2), 151–170. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9040-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Developing situated knowledge about teaching with technology via web-enhanced case-based activity. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1378–1388. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kolodner, J. L. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 6(1), 3–34. doi: 10.1007/BF00155578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kolodner, J. L., Owensby, J., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: A project of the association for educational communications and technology, 2nd ed. (pp. 829–861). LEA.Google Scholar
  37. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laffey, J., Tupper, T., Musser, D., & Wedman, J. (1998). A computer-mediated support system for project-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lazonder, A. (2014). Inquiry learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 453–464). New York, NY: Spring.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leary, H., & Walker, A. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1).Google Scholar
  41. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2004). The influence of violations of assumptions on multilevel parameter estimates and their standard errors. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 46(3), 427–440. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2003.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCarthey, S., & McMahon, S. (1992). From convention to invention: three approaches to peer interactions during writing. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174–203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Moore, J. L., & Marra, R. M. (2005). A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59–76. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nussbaum, M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oakes, M. P., & Farrow, M. (2007). Use of the Chi squared test to examine vocabulary differences in English language corpora representing seven different countries. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 22(1), 85–99. doi: 10.1093/llc/fql044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oberlander, J., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2004). Using technology to support problem-based learning. Action in Teacher Education, 25(4), 48–57. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2004.10648296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 23(2), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Reiser, R. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning, 2 ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Savery, J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1).Google Scholar
  55. Schank, R. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1). doi: 10.7771/15415015.1046.
  58. Tawfik, A. A., Trueman, R. J., & Lorz, M. M. (2013). Designing a PBL environment using the 3C3R method. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 4(1), 11–24.Google Scholar
  59. Toker, S., & Moseley, J. L. (2013). The mental model comparison of expert and novice performance improvement practitioners. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(3), 7–32. doi: 10.1002/piq.21152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.) 14th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(1), 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew A. Tawfik
    • 1
  • Lenny Sánchez
    • 2
  • Dinara Saparova
    • 3
  1. 1.Christopher Center (Office – CC 248C)Concordia University ChicagoRiver ForestUSA
  2. 2.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations