The transition from surface to meaningful collaboration in online case-based learning : an activity-theory perspective

The use of cases for teaching and learning, while increasingly popular, is a challenging endeavour for both students and instructors. This paper introduces a model which encapsulates the issues involved in online case based learning. The authors argue that, unlike traditional case discussions, students in an online case discussion environment must not only be acquainted with the case method itself, but must also develop productive team relationships. Since this is a complex task even for students in a conventional face-to-face environment, the requirements for meaningful collaboration within a computer mediated communication, where students have little or no experience with the technology and must develop the necessary method and media skills in parallel, can be a time intensive and emotionally draining experience. Our model uses an Activity Theory (AT) perspective to analyse the mediators required during electronic Case-Based Learning (eCBL) and identifies the sub-activities instructors can implement to facilitate meaningful online case discussions. Case-based learning and meaningful participation Case-based learning, first introduced around 1870 at the Harvard Law School, was originally designed to help students build a broader understanding by using real court cases to illustrate legal principles (Merseth, 1991). The concept was then successfully transferred to Harvard’s Graduate School of Business Administration, where cases led to a problem-centred teaching approach in which questions were derived from real life (ibid.). Information Systems (IS) education has rather different requirements, with a major challenge being the integration of technology theory with business analysis – it has not always been possible to see how cases can be used most effectively to supply this need. Gendron and Jarmoszko (2003) have, however, developed a framework for an undergraduate MIS course which shows that the case method is an excellent way to balance hands-on topics with technology theory. In general terms, case-based learning (CBL) claims to develop high-order reasoning skills, to bring real world examples into the classroom, to allow students to learn by doing, to foster constructive and independent thinking; and to bring organisational impacts, social values and ethical issues to the forefront of IS education (Gragg, 1940; Hackney et al., 2003). Reviewing the case method, Dooley and Skinner (1977) made the point that much of the discussion concerning case based teaching and learning was flawed because there is no single, exclusive definition of how to use cases, so that instructors are referring to a multiplicity of pedagogical techniques when they say they use cases. How the method is implemented is strongly related to the instructors’ own pedagogic philosophies, their views on how students learn; and their perception of their responsibility for student activities (Dooley & Skinner, 1977). A second strong impact factor is the case material selected, the case related tasks and the forms of assessment (Reynolds, 1978). If case assessment clearly favours a predefined set of answers, other issues become less relevant (Argyris, 1980). In his influential article ‘Because wisdom can’t be told’ Gragg (1940) compared lectures with case-based teaching, finding that the greatest benefit of the case method is stimulating students’ thinking and collaboration in order to analyse a number of interpretations of a single problem. The focus on collaboratively constructing insight is part of a fundamental distinction between two assumptions about learning: the acquisition metaphor, which views knowledge as a set of concepts readily available for transfer; and the participation metaphor, in which knowledge consists of shared activities, being an object of multi-perspective evaluations (Sfard, 1998). ‘Meaningful participation’ is therefore the true collaborative effort to understand and critically reflect on varying interpretations of a problem, rather than a search for a single, approved solution. The acquisitionist view is deeply rooted in the western understanding and implementation of the educational system and has shaped today’s students’ expectations of what course work should comprise (Sfard, 1998). For us to be able to discuss meaningful participation effectively, we found a major issue to be addressed was the student’s understanding of learning activities which, in addition to quantitative performance measurements (such as number of words, references, or postings), requires the adoption of qualitative measures such as critical evaluation of contributions, dealing with uncertainty and making decisions based on incomplete information. Attempts to analyse or model case based learning (CBL) have thus far been somewhat limited, concentrating on single phenomena such as the design of case scenarios (Ward, 1998), collaborative decision taking (Parent et al., 2002), selection of case material (Somervell et al., 2004), or the structuring of case material (Dabbagh & Denisar, 2005). A more comprehensive approach including the analysis of cognitive, social, teaching and discourse processes was undertaken by Heckman & Annabi (2005) – though these authors have limited their model to asynchronous, text-based learning interactions. Jonassen & Hernandez-Serrano (2002) discuss the creation of content libraries in case-based reasoning; and Jarz et al. (1997) describe a virtual environment where learners navigate through multimedia enhanced cases. Both these models, however, focus on the presentation of the case material. Our model is concerned with collaborative electronic case-based learning (e-CBL), which requires instructional designers to: create opportunities for online communication; formulate tasks which lend themselves to discussion; and support learners in their media choice and group management tasks. Focusing on collaborative and mediating effects, the model provides a different lens for analysing online CBL by defining learning activities as central design criteria. The theoretical perspective we have chosen is based on social constructivism and stresses the importance of shared meaning construction, multiple perspectives on information, and learners’ engagement in guiding their own learning (Jonassen, 1999). In this paper we initially present a perspective of case-based learning based upon Activity Theory, adapting Engeström’s classic diagram to the instructor’s and learner’s perspective and showing how this enriches our understanding of the social and contextual aspects of CBL. We then introduce our own theoretical model of the online CBL environment, discussing the role of artefact mediation in the learning process and proposing a view of how this might be used to develop a model of online CBL based on Engeström’s activity systems. An Activity Theory view of case discussions To enable the development of a broader model, capable of integrating the various findings from CBLrelated research, we took an activity-theoretical approach to the analysis and design of case-based learning. Activity Theory (AT) states that acting is a precursor to learning, thus supporting constructivist and social views of learning, as opposed to the cognitive approach which emphasises the development of the individual through instruction (Barab et al., 2003; Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). Our use of a social perspective for our model development does not devalue the cognitive research approach (Anderson et al., 2000), but is simply the consequence of choosing a broader analytical context as a result of observing learners in situ (Nardi, 1996). Central elements of Activity Theory Based on an analysis of the literature Lazarev (2004) identifies the following main characteristics of activities which are the primary unit of analysis in AT: (1) activities define humans’ relationship with their environment; (2) activity implies free design and choice of goals; (3) activities are shaped by socio-cultural programs which are themselves the product of activities; and (4) activities are open to development and are primarily accomplished in conjunction with others. Applying the concept of activities to learning brings the agency of learners (i.e. their responsibility for their own learning) to the forefront of the discussion about what can and can not be achieved by instructional design. Repkin (2003) questions the effectiveness of today’s educational system where more and more courses are developed in response to an ever-growing demand for highly skilled employees. Interpreting learning as a goaloriented, contextualised activity provides a new perspective on education. Applied to CBL, goal-orientation substitutes for the memorising of content pre-specified by the instructor, answers to collaboratively identified issues in a particular case where the application of knowledge is simultaneously put into context and, more importantly, generated from analysing that context. Here learners ultimately determine their own learning needs to understand the situation presented in the case. But, as Repkin (2003) clearly states, not every activity is learning, only those activities which provoke a change in the agent. Although it is not always easily discernible, activities which merely strive to reproduce quantitative conditions for a good mark (e.g. meeting the required number of pages) would appear to imply less internal change than activities attempting to make sense out of the issues identified. The contradiction of activity goals is described by Engeström (1987) as the primary contradiction of commoditization: the conflict between ‘use value’ and ‘exchange value’. Engeström vividly evokes Leontiev’s village physician who, in healing people, not only decreases his source of income but may also be asked to upgrade his practice to meet his patients’ expectations of more up-to-date treatment! There are clear parallels with the situation facing students in a case-based learning e