Student Participation and Interaction in Online Case-Based Discussions: Comparing Expert and Novice Facilitation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i4.2901Keywords:
Instructor Facilitation, Learner Participation and Interaction, Case-based Discussions, Social Network AnalysisAbstract
Discussion is an essential component in case-based learning (CBL), as it offers students the opportunity to consider diverse perspectives, clarify confusion, and construct understanding. As a facilitator bears most of the responsibility for the overall success of CBL, understanding how facilitation strategies influence interactions during discussions is worthwhile. However, previous CBL facilitation research has primarily considered student perspectives during case discussions, without examining relationships between facilitator experience and student interaction and participation. This study combined social network analysis and content analysis to compare the structure of expert and novice instructors’ discussion posts and to consider their relationship to student participation and interaction in online case discussions. Results showed that both the expert and novice instructors used facilitation strategies involving social congruence, cognitive congruence, and content expertise frequently in the discussions; however, when and how they used a combination of these strategies was noticeably different. These differences influenced student interaction. More specifically, students tended to interact with others more actively and densely as a result of questions initiated by the expert facilitator. Suggestions are provided for novice facilitators.
References
Andersen, E., & Schiano, B. (2014). Teaching with cases: A practical guide. Harvard Business Press.
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks (Version 0.9.2) [Computer software]. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. https://gephi.org/
Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6
Breiger, R. L. (2004). The analysis of social networks. In M. Hardy, & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 505–526). Sage.
Carolan, B. (2014). Social network analysis and education theory, methods & applications. Sage.
Cela, K. L., Sicilia, M. A., & Sanchez, S. (2015). Social network analysis in e-learning environments: A preliminary systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9276-0
Chng, E., Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Effects of tutor-related behaviours on the process of problem-based learning. Advances in Health Science Education, 16(4), 491–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9282-7
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Gijselaers, W. H., Moust, J. H. C., Grave, W. S. D., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2002). Trends in research on the tutor in problem-based learning: Conclusions and implications for educational practice and research. Medical Teacher, 24(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220125277
Doran, P. R., Doran, C., & Mazur, A. (2011). Social network analysis as a method for analyzing interaction in collaborative online learning environments. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 9(7), 10–16.
De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R. (2007). Investigating patterns of interaction in a networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning: A role for social network analysis. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9006-4
Erlin, B., Yusof. N., & Rahman, A. A. (2009). Analyzing online asynchronous discussion using content and social network analysis. ISDA 2009—Ninth International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, 872–877. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDA.2009.40
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 versus non-facilitated online case discussions: Comparing differences in problem space coverage. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(2), 69–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9094-5
Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2018). Facilitating strategies and problem space coverage: Comparing face-to-face and online case-based discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(3), 639–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9563-9
Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2017). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design. Routledge.
Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2002). Initiating and maintaining meaningful case discussions: Maximizing the potential of case-based instruction. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 13(2/3), 5–18.
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.
Froehlich D. E., Waes, S. V., & Schafer, H. (2020). Linking quantitative and qualitative network approaches: A review of mixed methods social network analysis in education research. Review of Research in Education, 44, 244–268. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0091732X20903311
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
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Fostering higher knowledge construction levels in online discussion forums: An exploratory case study. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 5(4), 44–55.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1004
Hoey, R. (2017). Examining the characteristics and content of instructor discussion interaction upon student outcomes in an online course. Online Learning, 21(4), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1075
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Towards a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689806298224
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 5(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1256
Kassab, S., Al-Shboul, Q., Abu-Hijleh, M., & Hamdy, H. (2006). Teaching styles of tutors in a problem-based curriculum: Students’ and tutors’ perception. Medical Teacher, 28(5), 460–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590600627540
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.v24i4.2332
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%2F0022487118755701
Kolodner, J. L. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 6, 3–34.
Law, V., Ge, X., & Huang, K. (2020). Understanding learners’ challenges and scaffolding their ill-structured 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. 321–342). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36119-8_14#DOI
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), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1331
Richardson, J. C., & Alsup, J. (2015). From the classroom to the keyboard: How seven teachers created their online teacher identities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 142–167.
Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Besser, E. D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J., & Muller, C. M. (2015). Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 256–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2123
Rico, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2015). Examining the role of the instructor in problem-centered instruction. TechTrends, 59(4), 96–103.
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001
Schmidt, H. G. (1994). Resolving inconsistencies in tutor expertise research: Does lack of structure cause students to seek tutor guidance? Academic Medicine, 69(8), 656–662.
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. (1995). 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
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. (2000). Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning: A review of research. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 19–52). Erlbaum.
Schmidt H. G., Van der Arend, A., Koxx, I., & Boon, L. (1994). Peer versus staff tutoring in problem-based learning. Instructional Science, 22(4), 279–285.
Schmidt, H. G., Van der Arend, A., Moust, J. H., Koxx, I., & Boon, L. (1993). Influence of tutors’ subject-matter expertise on student effort and achievement in problem-based learning. Academic Medicine, 68(10), 784–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00891781
Tawfik, A., Graesser, A., Gatewood, J., & Gishbaugher, J. (2020). Role of questions in inquiry-based instruction: Towards a design taxonomy for question-asking and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 653–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09738-9
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.
Watson, S. L., Koehler, A. A., Ertmer, P. A., Kim, W., & Rico, R. (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
Yang, S., Keller, F., & Zheng, L. (2017). Social network analysis: Method and examples. Sage.
Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What students learn in problem-based learning: A process analysis. Instructional Science, 40, 371–395.
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.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
