Case Designs for Ill-Structured Problems

• In Event: 53.081 - Roundtable Session 21
  In Roundtable Session: 53.081-12 - All About Problems: Considerations of Problem-Based Learning Problems for Learning Processes and Outcomes

Abstract

Purposes
The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a comparative analysis of 51 case problems used in five problem-based pedagogical approaches and the implications of this analysis on the selection and generation of ill-structured problems.

Theoretical framework
Ill-structured problems or ISP, defined by Jonassen (2011) as problems that occur in the everyday world and are complex, emergent, and interdisciplinary, are a staple of Problem-Based Learning (PBL). While several guidelines or frameworks for selecting and generating ISP have been provided (e.g., Barrows, 1985; Dolmans, et al., 1997; Schmidt, 1994; Hmelo-Silver, 2002), little research has been done to examine the specific characteristics of ISP used as a stimulus for authentic activity in problem-based pedagogical models (Dabbagh, 2002). This study examined the characteristics of ISP used in five problem-based pedagogical models (PBPM) to better inform the selection and generation of ISP. The following research questions were addressed: Are there differences in the characteristics of ISP across problem-based pedagogical models? How substantive are these differences? What are the specific attributes that make these ISP different? And, how can such differences inform the selection and generation of ISP in education and training?

Methods
The ISP analyzed in this study were student generated in an advanced instructional design course in a graduate instructional design program at a mid-Atlantic university. In this study, student-generated case problems for the PBPM of situated learning (SL), problem-based learning (PBL), goal-based scenario (GBS), learning by design (LBD), and cognitive flexibility hypertext (CFH) were comparatively analyzed.

Data sources
Exemplar case problems were selected from 10 years of offering the annual advanced instructional design course. The data collection resulted in 51 case problems to be analyzed; 16 for CFH, 5 for GBS, 5 for LBD, 9 for PBL, and 16 for SL. A qualitative approach was used to analyze the case problems relying on coding and inductive thematic analyses. A total of 45 characteristics were identified to describe the case problems.

Results
The results of this study revealed that while all case problems were authentic and multi-disciplinary, they varied across six themes for the PBPM examined. Specifically, (a) case problems for CFH, LBD and PBL were more complex and ill-structured than case problems for GBS and SL, (b) case problems for LBD, GBS and SL were situated in more specific and concrete contexts, domains, and roles, while case problems for CFH and PBL were less context dependent and domain specific, (c) case problems for PBL, GBS, LBD and SL were more task and product centric than case problems for CFH, and (d) case problems for CFH and GBS were perceived as promoting more tacit and individually driven cognitive processes and problem solving activities while case problems for LBD, PBL, and SL were perceived as promoting more explicit and collaborative problem solving activities. A major implication of this study is that different kinds of problems are appropriate for different problem-based pedagogical models, and should be used accordingly for PBPM.

Author

• Nada Dabbagh, George Mason University