Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Work-in-Progress
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1996). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and systems approaches. Artificial Intelligence Communications, 7(1), 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Graesser, A., Lang, K., & Horgan, D. (1988). A taxonomy for question generation. Questioning Exchange, 2(1), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of case libraries on problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 19(1), 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94. doi:10.1080/07370000701798495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments, 1st edn. London: Routledge.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 6(1), 3–34. doi:10.1007/BF00155578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 23(2), 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning, 2 ed. London: Routledge.

  • Savery, J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1).

  • Schank, R. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Christopher Center (Office – CC 248C), Concordia University Chicago, 7400 Augusta Street, River Forest, IL, 60148, USA

    Andrew A. Tawfik

  2. University of Missouri, 303 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Lenny Sánchez

  3. University of Missouri, 111 London Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Dinara Saparova

Authors
  1. Andrew A. Tawfik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lenny Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dinara Saparova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew A. Tawfik.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Success Case

Ms. Linda Calloway is a new teacher at Star Academy, which is located in Murry, IN. She grew up near Murry, but moved to Upstate New York for college. She ended up staying in the area for 8 years teaching second and third grade but missed being by her family. Growing homesick and longing to return to the peace and quiet of her childhood town, she submitted an application to MSD (Murry School District) in early spring. She was surprised to hear such a quick response, but learned that MSD’s student population had grown by more than 35 % during the last 8 years due to a large corporation building its headquarters on the outskirts of the town. Murry’s school principal was eager to hire as many exceptional candidates as possible and would love to have Ms. Calloway join the school staff. Ms. Calloway resigned from her position in Upstate New York and shortly thereafter, packed and moved. She was so excited to be teaching in her hometown.

After arriving to Murry, one of Ms. Calloway’s first priorities was to visit the school, which she prearranged with the principal. All she knew about the school was that Star Academy was one of two elementary schools built in the last 8 years to accommodate the district’s expanding numbers with Star as the most recent one. Although the school just opened its doors 5 years ago, last year it was named one of Indiana’s “blue ribbon” schools for its consistent high performance on the state-wide annual exam.

Pulling into the parking lot, Ms. Calloway was shocked to see such an enormous, stunning facility. She expected to see an attractive school but assumed it would still be a standard bricked building. Instead, green glass panels walled each side of the building with green space surrounding three sides. The school certainly topped many of the school designs Ms. Calloway was used to in New York.

As soon as Ms. Calloway’s school tour ended, she called a good friend of hers who also lives in Murry.

“Michelle, why didn’t you tell me how beautiful Star Academy is? I never expected to see a structure like this in Murry. I can’t believe I get to teach in such an amazing building. Did you know it has a green house in the center of the school?”

“Wow, Linda. That sounds incredible!” responded Michelle. “I’ve never been inside the school, but drove by it when it was first built. It looks nothing like our other schools in town. I remember being shocked to see what it looked, too. It was the talk of the town.”

“Well, I can’t believe all the things the school offers”, Linda adds. “It has state-of-the-art technology. It has a fantastic library. It even has a small playroom and meeting room connected to the office where parents’ small kids can play when they have meetings with the principal or teachers. And get this - the playground is made out of recycled materials! I feel like I’m in a dream. It is so beautiful! I can’t believe I get to teach in it! How did the town afford it?”

“That’s an interesting question. Well,” Michelle continues, “did you hear about the bond? It was a huge topic a long time ago. When J&J Corporation decided to move to our town, the town knew it would expand the job opportunities for the community. To spruce up its image and entice families to not just commute but to live in Murry, the town passed a bond issue. J&J has been great economically for the folks who work there, but I hear Murry gained a lot of debt to rebuild its roads, the Main Street, and new schools like Star. I’m not suggesting a bad decision was made, but a lot of decisions happened in a short window of time that I’m not sure were considered with long-term ramifications. In the meantime, the kids who attend Star sure do love it! I know the kids in the other schools would love to be there! Let’s just hope that J&J decides to stick around for a long time.”

“Wow,” shared Linda. “I didn’t know so much would be done for one business. But, J&J does bring in a ton of jobs. Well, everyone seems to be proud of the school when I visited, and it really seems to have produced an air of excitement in the building. I agree, though, that it’s too bad not all the schools in the district look like it. I guess I’m lucky I get to work in it.”

A few months passed and the school year began. Although Ms. Calloway felt stressed getting used to new programs and curriculum, she was extremely happy to be in her hometown teaching third grade at Star Academy. One of the new instructional supports she loved was the EXCEL test, a new computerized quarterly benchmark test for reading. She thought it assessed a range of skills and strategies and provided her helpful ideas for teaching her students. It especially aided her with small group differentiation.

Even though the school adopted EXCEL last year, this year it decided to implement a new model of using it. During reading time each day, each grade level is required to divide students into homogenous groups based upon common needs found from the test results. Students who perform in the lowest quartile, for example, receive reading instruction from Ms. Calloway and then return to their homerooms for instruction in all other areas. Each reading group stays together until the next six-week term begins.

In mid-November, the second benchmark testing window began. Because each grade level only has 2 days to complete the testing, classroom teachers rearrange their teaching schedules to accommodate the schedule. On the second day of the test, Ms. Calloway noticed one of her students, Loraine, was not completing the test very quickly. Instead, Loraine’s gaze seemed to focus on her keyboard as she slowly stroked the arrow keys to select her answers. Knowing this was unusual for Loraine, Ms. Calloway approached her and asked if she was feeling well. Loraine explained to Ms. Calloway that her family pet died last night from an illness developed the week before, so she was tired and sad and wanted to go home. Ms. Calloway sympathized with Loraine but encouraged her to try her best on the test and reminded her that she would be heading home in just a few hours when the school day ended.

The following week, the EXCEL scores arrived from the company. While looking through the print-outs, Ms. Calloway realized Loraine performed poorly on both days of the exam. Although this was understandable, given the fact that Loraine found it difficult to concentrate on the test due to her pet’s sudden passing away, Ms. Calloway immediately grew alarmed. She knew Loraine would be placed in a reading classroom for the next 6 weeks based upon her current test results.

Although Ms. Calloway was more than certain Loraine can perform better than the scores indicated, she recognized the school policy required all students to receive instruction directly based from the test. It was the only way the school measured reading and could track a direct line between teaching and learning needs. The school felt pressure to remain a “blue ribbon” school, especially after the town poured so much money into it. Demonstration of learning growth assumed a major component of the “blue ribbon” status, in addition to maintaining high scores on the state’s high-stakes assessment.

Ms. Calloway did not want to cause friction with her colleagues or her principal, but she did not feel Loraine should be placed in the wrong reading group. She also started wondering if this type of instructional grouping was a productive method to use across a grade level. She called a friend of hers whom she taught with in New York.

“Hi, Marci. This is Linda. How are you?”

“Hey, Linda” replied Marci. “It’s great to hear from you. I hope you’re feeling settled in and everything. I remember the last time we spoke you were excited about meeting everyone at the school and seeing the building. How’s it going?”

“It’s going great. Really love being home, too. The town and other things have really changed. Look,” responded Linda, “I’m sorry to get to the point. I need your advice.”

Linda goes on to explain the circumstances.

“Hmmm, that sounds like a tough situation,” Marci comments. “Well, in my school, we use computerized assessments for district requirements, but we also use an assessment that allows us to do reading interviews and observations of kids while they read. I really love it. I feel like I learn a lot more than what the computer results tell me. It takes time, but it’s well worth it. But, it doesn’t sound like you can change what your school is doing.”

“You know what,” Linda says, “That’s a good point, though, about thinking of other options. Perhaps over the next few days, I can do some other types of assessments of Loraine’s reading. Maybe that will help. I mean Loraine can’t be the only child out of the whole grade level that is being affected this way by the test. No test is perfect. Maybe at least I can open up the conversation. Everyone here seems to be nice and welcoming of ideas.”

Ms. Calloway hangs up the phone in a better mood and already knows what she’s going to do the next day. The school’s library is filled with tons of wonderful books. The national and state award winners line the tops of shelves. Books are displayed in nooks all around the room. Ms. Calloway takes Loraine into the library and asks her to pick out two books of her choice to read aloud.

Loraine has been wanting to learn about starfish, so she picks out two nonfiction books. Ms. Calloway is thrilled because she knows these books will give her an opportunity to see what strategies Loraine uses with vocabulary and features of nonfiction. Ms. Calloway and Loraine then select one of the reading carpets to sit on and Ms. Calloway explains to Loraine that she would like to audio record Loraine as she reads. Ms. Calloway would not normally make her students read aloud since it can hinder their focus on comprehension, but she wants to share the recording with her third grade team colleagues.

Loraine gives Ms. Calloway permission to record and begins reading the first book aloud. About 10 min in, Ms. Calloway politely asks Loraine to stop since she knows she already has plenty of information to share. She would have rather continued listening to Loraine read, but Ms. Calloway wants to get the recording prepared for her colleagues. Loraine heads back to the room as Ms. Calloway listens to the recording.

During the 10 min, Loraine shows great interest in the topic, stops and talks about the photos and the captions. Also, since Loraine does not know much about starfish, she even asks a few good questions that the text does not answer. Loraine also uses a variety of strategies to figure out unknown words, and her pace is good. Most importantly, Loraine provides solid responses to several of Ms. Calloway’s questions about the text.

Of course, Loraine made several word mistakes along the way as well. She did not understand everything on the pages and got a little lost in the formatting of the text. But, since no one is a perfect reader, Ms. Calloway wasn’t concerned about nitpicking all the things Loraine did right and wrong. What she wanted to do was prove that Loraine should not be in the low reading group, especially because Ms. Calloway was familiar with the curriculum since she is the teacher of that group. Ms. Calloway planned to take the recording to the scheduled team meeting the next day and share why Loraine would not be a good fit for her reading class.

At the meeting, the other third grade teachers loved hearing Loraine read. They agreed she should not be placed in the low group. Ms. Calloway and her team also agreed they would like to try and listen more often to their students read like Ms. Calloway did with Loraine. They admitted they could not do it all the time, but at least to try and select a few students to do it with each week. They also loved that Ms. Calloway took Loraine to the library where the room feels relaxing, nice and quiet. They weren’t sure they would let the kids always choose what books to read for the reading observations, but they understood its significance.

The teachers also talked about what to do to help the current situation with Loraine. The more they talked, the more they realized their own hesitations about grouping kids based upon one test like EXCEL. The school was committed to the program, however, so it was an assessment they had to use. Because the grade level agreed with Ms. Calloway about Loraine’s situation, the team decided to allow her to move to the appropriate reading group for the next marking period. They planned to use Loraine’s scores from earlier in the year to prove their rationale for needing to dismiss the inaccuracy of her most recent set of scores. Regarding the larger problem about the test and what the school must report, etc., the teachers were not quite sure what their next steps would be. They considered requesting a meeting with the principal or to spend time researching other programs. They decided to continue thinking about it and to brainstorm additional options for next week’s team meeting. They hoped they could reach a decision soon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

A. Tawfik, A., Sánchez, L. & Saparova, D. The Effects of Case Libraries in Supporting Collaborative Problem-Solving in an Online Learning Environment. Tech Know Learn 19, 337–358 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9230-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9230-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation