Exploring the Differences Between Experts and Novices on Inquiry-Based Learning Cases
Theorists suggest that problem-solving is an important element to engender higher order learning outcomes. According to case-based reasoning (CBR) theory, learners in inquiry-based learning (IBL) are able to engage in deep learning and retain cases over time, which better prepares them for domain pr...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Formative Design in Learning 2021-12, Vol.5 (2), p.97-105 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 105 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 97 |
| container_title | Journal of Formative Design in Learning |
| container_volume | 5 |
| creator | Tawfik, Andrew A. Gatewood, Jessica D. Gish-Lieberman, Jaclyn J. Keene, Charles W. |
| description | Theorists suggest that problem-solving is an important element to engender higher order learning outcomes. According to case-based reasoning (CBR) theory, learners in inquiry-based learning (IBL) are able to engage in deep learning and retain cases over time, which better prepares them for domain practice. Although various studies have explored the experiences of learners as they engage in IBL , few studies have quantified how experts and novices weigh variables within a case and the degree to which they differ. In this study, experts and novices weighed an array of indices (labels) on a series of IBL) cases. Novices’ questions were also analyzed. Using the structural-function-behavior (SBF) framework, the study found differences on basic understanding (structure) and systems thinking (function); however, no differences on casual reasoning (behavior). Implications for case-based reasoning retrieval and reuse are discussed, as well as IBL. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s41686-021-00062-w |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2932372537</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A706789806</galeid><sourcerecordid>A706789806</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c239t-d2b0e5e939d2fea3d417ddeb3b007c971713d38bd891934900a5c2f8555481bc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtOAjEUhhujiQR5AVdNXA_2MrcuAVFJiG5k3XTaM1gCHWgHkbe345joynTR2_-dnn4I3VIypoQU9yGleZknhNGEEJKz5HSBBiwjIikJF5d_1tdoFMImhqjgacrIAK3mn_tt461b4_Yd8IOta_DgNAQ8hfYE4HBMgG8DVs7gl-bDdneNwwt3OFp_TqYqgMFLUN51VWZxG27QVa22AUY_8xCtHudvs-dk-fq0mE2WiWZctIlhFYEMBBeG1aC4SWlhDFS8it_SoqAF5YaXlSlF17AgRGWa1WWWZWlJK82H6K6vu_fN4QihlZvm6F18UjLBGS9YxouYGveptdqCtK5uWq90HAZ2VjcOahvPJwXJi1KUJI8A6wHtmxA81HLv7U75s6REdsplr1xG5fJbuTxFiPdQ2Hc6wf_28g_1BbYWg0w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2932372537</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Exploring the Differences Between Experts and Novices on Inquiry-Based Learning Cases</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><creator>Tawfik, Andrew A. ; Gatewood, Jessica D. ; Gish-Lieberman, Jaclyn J. ; Keene, Charles W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Tawfik, Andrew A. ; Gatewood, Jessica D. ; Gish-Lieberman, Jaclyn J. ; Keene, Charles W.</creatorcontrib><description>Theorists suggest that problem-solving is an important element to engender higher order learning outcomes. According to case-based reasoning (CBR) theory, learners in inquiry-based learning (IBL) are able to engage in deep learning and retain cases over time, which better prepares them for domain practice. Although various studies have explored the experiences of learners as they engage in IBL , few studies have quantified how experts and novices weigh variables within a case and the degree to which they differ. In this study, experts and novices weighed an array of indices (labels) on a series of IBL) cases. Novices’ questions were also analyzed. Using the structural-function-behavior (SBF) framework, the study found differences on basic understanding (structure) and systems thinking (function); however, no differences on casual reasoning (behavior). Implications for case-based reasoning retrieval and reuse are discussed, as well as IBL.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2509-8039</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2509-8039</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s41686-021-00062-w</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Active Learning ; Assessment ; Case Studies ; Class Activities ; Decision making ; Didacticism ; Discovery learning ; Education ; Educational Methods ; Educational Strategies ; Educational Technology ; Indexing ; Information Sources ; Inquiry ; Inquiry method ; Learning Activities ; Learning and Instruction ; Libraries ; Literature Reviews ; Novices ; Participative Decision Making ; Pattern Recognition ; Persuasive Discourse ; Problem solving ; Qualitative research ; Self Efficacy ; Teaching Methods ; Testing and Evaluation</subject><ispartof>Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 2021-12, Vol.5 (2), p.97-105</ispartof><rights>Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2021</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer</rights><rights>Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c239t-d2b0e5e939d2fea3d417ddeb3b007c971713d38bd891934900a5c2f8555481bc3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9172-3321</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s41686-021-00062-w$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2932372537?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21367,27901,27902,33721,41464,42533,43781,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tawfik, Andrew A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gatewood, Jessica D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gish-Lieberman, Jaclyn J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keene, Charles W.</creatorcontrib><title>Exploring the Differences Between Experts and Novices on Inquiry-Based Learning Cases</title><title>Journal of Formative Design in Learning</title><addtitle>J Form Des Learn</addtitle><description>Theorists suggest that problem-solving is an important element to engender higher order learning outcomes. According to case-based reasoning (CBR) theory, learners in inquiry-based learning (IBL) are able to engage in deep learning and retain cases over time, which better prepares them for domain practice. Although various studies have explored the experiences of learners as they engage in IBL , few studies have quantified how experts and novices weigh variables within a case and the degree to which they differ. In this study, experts and novices weighed an array of indices (labels) on a series of IBL) cases. Novices’ questions were also analyzed. Using the structural-function-behavior (SBF) framework, the study found differences on basic understanding (structure) and systems thinking (function); however, no differences on casual reasoning (behavior). Implications for case-based reasoning retrieval and reuse are discussed, as well as IBL.</description><subject>Active Learning</subject><subject>Assessment</subject><subject>Case Studies</subject><subject>Class Activities</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Didacticism</subject><subject>Discovery learning</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational Methods</subject><subject>Educational Strategies</subject><subject>Educational Technology</subject><subject>Indexing</subject><subject>Information Sources</subject><subject>Inquiry</subject><subject>Inquiry method</subject><subject>Learning Activities</subject><subject>Learning and Instruction</subject><subject>Libraries</subject><subject>Literature Reviews</subject><subject>Novices</subject><subject>Participative Decision Making</subject><subject>Pattern Recognition</subject><subject>Persuasive Discourse</subject><subject>Problem solving</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Self Efficacy</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Testing and Evaluation</subject><issn>2509-8039</issn><issn>2509-8039</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtOAjEUhhujiQR5AVdNXA_2MrcuAVFJiG5k3XTaM1gCHWgHkbe345joynTR2_-dnn4I3VIypoQU9yGleZknhNGEEJKz5HSBBiwjIikJF5d_1tdoFMImhqjgacrIAK3mn_tt461b4_Yd8IOta_DgNAQ8hfYE4HBMgG8DVs7gl-bDdneNwwt3OFp_TqYqgMFLUN51VWZxG27QVa22AUY_8xCtHudvs-dk-fq0mE2WiWZctIlhFYEMBBeG1aC4SWlhDFS8it_SoqAF5YaXlSlF17AgRGWa1WWWZWlJK82H6K6vu_fN4QihlZvm6F18UjLBGS9YxouYGveptdqCtK5uWq90HAZ2VjcOahvPJwXJi1KUJI8A6wHtmxA81HLv7U75s6REdsplr1xG5fJbuTxFiPdQ2Hc6wf_28g_1BbYWg0w</recordid><startdate>20211201</startdate><enddate>20211201</enddate><creator>Tawfik, Andrew A.</creator><creator>Gatewood, Jessica D.</creator><creator>Gish-Lieberman, Jaclyn J.</creator><creator>Keene, Charles W.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IAO</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9172-3321</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211201</creationdate><title>Exploring the Differences Between Experts and Novices on Inquiry-Based Learning Cases</title><author>Tawfik, Andrew A. ; Gatewood, Jessica D. ; Gish-Lieberman, Jaclyn J. ; Keene, Charles W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c239t-d2b0e5e939d2fea3d417ddeb3b007c971713d38bd891934900a5c2f8555481bc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Active Learning</topic><topic>Assessment</topic><topic>Case Studies</topic><topic>Class Activities</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Didacticism</topic><topic>Discovery learning</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational Methods</topic><topic>Educational Strategies</topic><topic>Educational Technology</topic><topic>Indexing</topic><topic>Information Sources</topic><topic>Inquiry</topic><topic>Inquiry method</topic><topic>Learning Activities</topic><topic>Learning and Instruction</topic><topic>Libraries</topic><topic>Literature Reviews</topic><topic>Novices</topic><topic>Participative Decision Making</topic><topic>Pattern Recognition</topic><topic>Persuasive Discourse</topic><topic>Problem solving</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Self Efficacy</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Testing and Evaluation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tawfik, Andrew A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gatewood, Jessica D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gish-Lieberman, Jaclyn J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keene, Charles W.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Academic OneFile</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of Formative Design in Learning</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tawfik, Andrew A.</au><au>Gatewood, Jessica D.</au><au>Gish-Lieberman, Jaclyn J.</au><au>Keene, Charles W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Exploring the Differences Between Experts and Novices on Inquiry-Based Learning Cases</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Formative Design in Learning</jtitle><stitle>J Form Des Learn</stitle><date>2021-12-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>97</spage><epage>105</epage><pages>97-105</pages><issn>2509-8039</issn><eissn>2509-8039</eissn><abstract>Theorists suggest that problem-solving is an important element to engender higher order learning outcomes. According to case-based reasoning (CBR) theory, learners in inquiry-based learning (IBL) are able to engage in deep learning and retain cases over time, which better prepares them for domain practice. Although various studies have explored the experiences of learners as they engage in IBL , few studies have quantified how experts and novices weigh variables within a case and the degree to which they differ. In this study, experts and novices weighed an array of indices (labels) on a series of IBL) cases. Novices’ questions were also analyzed. Using the structural-function-behavior (SBF) framework, the study found differences on basic understanding (structure) and systems thinking (function); however, no differences on casual reasoning (behavior). Implications for case-based reasoning retrieval and reuse are discussed, as well as IBL.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><doi>10.1007/s41686-021-00062-w</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9172-3321</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2509-8039 |
| ispartof | Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 2021-12, Vol.5 (2), p.97-105 |
| issn | 2509-8039 2509-8039 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2932372537 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings; ProQuest Central |
| subjects | Active Learning Assessment Case Studies Class Activities Decision making Didacticism Discovery learning Education Educational Methods Educational Strategies Educational Technology Indexing Information Sources Inquiry Inquiry method Learning Activities Learning and Instruction Libraries Literature Reviews Novices Participative Decision Making Pattern Recognition Persuasive Discourse Problem solving Qualitative research Self Efficacy Teaching Methods Testing and Evaluation |
| title | Exploring the Differences Between Experts and Novices on Inquiry-Based Learning Cases |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T16%3A48%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Exploring%20the%20Differences%20Between%20Experts%20and%20Novices%20on%20Inquiry-Based%20Learning%20Cases&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Formative%20Design%20in%20Learning&rft.au=Tawfik,%20Andrew%20A.&rft.date=2021-12-01&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=97&rft.epage=105&rft.pages=97-105&rft.issn=2509-8039&rft.eissn=2509-8039&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s41686-021-00062-w&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA706789806%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2932372537&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A706789806&rfr_iscdi=true |