CASE STUDY
AND
DISCUSSION
METHODOLOGIES
ACTIVE
or
STUDENT-CENTERED learning,
is opposed to passive
or
TEACHERCENTERED learning.
In the traditional teacher-centered model,
the teacher has a priest-like role, as
conveyor of knowledge and wisdom; the
role of student is apprentice to the master.
In active learning, the teacher acts like a
servant leader (Greenleaf 1977), that is, someone
whose goal in leadership is to facilitate the
flourishing of a person, and not to use others as
a means of reinforcing status or power.
Teacher-Centered Model
Traditional Model of Learning
Medium
Content
Content
Content
Sender
the goal of teaching is to convey
a certain amount of content or
information to students; or a
set of skills that are classroom
contextual.
Receiver
This traditional approach works reasonably
well under two conditions:
1. an intelligent, motivated, and
charismatic teacher.
2. an intelligent, highly motivated,
student who already shares
interest in the subject matter
with the teacher.
In typical graduate classes, this is 95% of the
students; in typical undergraduate classes, this
may be less that 25%.
Yet where do we learn most of our
teaching from? Graduate School
Consequently, we often teach our
students as if they are or will become
graduate students in our particular
discipline.
In some cases this is clearly appropriate, but
in many cases it is not.
In those cases, we should teach the discipline to
students not to train them as scholars in the
discipline, but for the significance the discipline
may have on their lives.
What really happens
in a teacher-centered
classroom.
Student-Centered Learning focuses
on what is often called “deep learning” or “active
learning” as opposed to “surface learning”
or “passive learning” (Marchese 1999)
Surface learning is learning information
necessary to do well on the kind of assessment of
the learning which measures surface learning.
Deep learning occurs when a student
finds a meaningful connection with
the content being taught.
Active learning theorists argue the following
ranking of pedagogies for effective learning:
From most to least effective:
Experiential learning
Real problem solving
Service learning
Cooperative learning
Discussion
Case Study
Peer-led/group discussion
Socratic discussion
Teacher-centered discussion
Question-and-answer
Lecture
Dale Cone of Experience
from Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J.D., & Smaldino, S.E. (1999).
Instructional media and technologies for learning. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill.
ISSUES:
Discussion slows the quantity of information
Being conveyed.
Peer-led discussion has poorer results than
Expert-led discussion
VARIETIES OF DISCUSSION
Question-and-answer: This is the most frequently
employed form of discussion. This involves teacherdirected questions, posed to the student audience, or
student questions posed to the teacher.
--the instructor is the focus of the discussion,
advantages
--students get clarification or gather
information they may have missed in the lecture;
teachers get feedback on how well students may be
acquiring information or knowledge.
The disadvantage is that it does not promote much
student-to-student interaction, and does not always
focus on what students might find interesting or
worthwhile about the material; it generally involves
a minimum of engagement in the material.
Teacher-directed discussion:
the teacher poses a problem or issue
The question or issue is set-up for general discussion
in the class;
students are at liberty to respond;
typically such discussions become teacher-mediated.
Advantage:
students who participate have more of an opportunity
to articulate their viewpoints and test their ideas in
the context of the discussion;
The disadvantages
not all students participate, and some, in fact,
might dominate the discussion; the discussion is
still typically instructor-mediated.
Socratic Method. In the Socratic method, the
instructor moves students to a point of discovery, not
by providing answers, but by showing weaknesses or
strengths in student arguments or positions.
The advantages
students are now involved in a process of discovery or
self-discovery.
the disadvantages
it is still somewhat instructor-mediated; it is also
more time-consuming than question and answer or
instructor-directed discussion.
Peer or Group Discussion.
the instructor poses a problem or issue for discussion;
students break into small groups to discuss the matter
with each other.
Usually this also involves a “reporting out” to other
groups, or the class as a whole.
The advantage is that peer-led discussion may
involve deeper learning;
the disadvantages are that discussion may still be
dominated by a few students, and the dynamics of
the group may work against productive
discussion.
Another disadvantage is that the result of the
discussion may not be as good as an expert-led
discussion; it is also more time-consuming than
question and answer or instructor-directed
discussion.
Case Study. Case studies involve a hypothetical or real
life situation, relevant to the course material, that
require a solution.
The advantages of case studies are that they are
engaging since they take on narrative forms; for
this reason, it is thought that real dilemmas are
more effective than hypothetical ones. Because of
their narrative form, case studies may appear
more relevant to a student’s professional or
ordinary life than more abstract discussions.
The disadvantages may emerge depending on the
discussion technique involved.
the case method involves learning by doing, the
development of analytical and decision-making
skills, the internalization of learning, learning how
to grapple with messy real-life problems, the
development of skills in oral communications, and
often team work. "It's a rehearsal for life."
(Herreid http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/teaching/novel.html)
Harvard University has been the leader in
developing cases in business and other fields
(Christensen 1986), and there are also come
excellent case books in the field (J. Erskine et al.
1981; Hutchings 1993). But the evidence for the
effectiveness of case studies has long been noted,
especially for developing analytical and decisionmaking skills (Gragg 1953), cooperative learning
(Merry 1954), and for speaking, debating and
other oral communication skills (Erskine et al.
1981).
There are both advantages and disadvantages to using
case studies in the classroom.
As Herreid points out, the case method cannot solve all
of the ills in the teaching.
It is not the best method to deliver a plethora of
information, concepts, and principles.
However, the case method is ideal to for developing
higher-order reasoning skills,
Herreid (1987/1988) summarizes the qualities of good
case studies: A good case
(1)tells a story,
(2)focuses on an interest-arousing issue;
(3)is set in the past five years
(4) creates empathy with the central characters
(5)includes dialogue or voice of the participants
(6)is relevant to the reader;
(7)has pedagogic utility by being conflict provoking
and decision forcing;
(8)(has generality beyond the situation, and
(9) is briefly stated.
Herreid also summarizes the cautions in doing case
studies correctly:
(1)Make sure the case study exercise has clear goals;
Be sure you know what you want to accomplish in
the case, what facts, principles, viewpoints the
students should cover;
(2)insure that there is sufficient amounts of time set
aside for the study of the case;
(3)preparation is essential;
(4)Give more than one case study and be incredibly
explicit about what you wish them to do
(5)to have students focus, require that they have a
product of some sort or another.
Below are some examples of cooperative learning
strategies (From Center for Teaching and Learning,
Indiana State University
http://web.indstate.edu/ctl/ctl1/teast/understand.html):
Think-pair-share: This is a three step
cooperative structure.
During the first step individuals think silently
about a question posed by the instructor.
Individuals pair up during the second step and
exchange thoughts.
In the third step, the pairs share their responses
with other pairs, other teams, or the entire
group.
Three-step interview. In this technique, each member of
a team chooses another member to be a partner.
During the first step individuals interview their
partners by asking clarifying questions.
During the second step partners reverse the roles.
For the final step, members share their partner's
response with the team.
Round robin brainstorming. In this technique, a
question is generated and students are given time to
think about answers. After the "think time,"
members of the team share responses with one
another round robin style.
Three-minute review. In this technique,
instructors stop any time during a lecture and
give teams three minutes to review what has
been said, ask clarifying questions or answer
questions.
Herreid (1999) summarizes it:
(1) Individual reading assignments are given and read. These
assignments cover the essential facts and principles of the unit.
(2) A short (15-minute) multiple choice and true/false test
covering the central points of the reading is given to individual
students.
(3) Then small groups of students immediately take the same test
together.
(4) Both individual and group tests are scored in the classroom
(preferably using a portable testing scoring machine, for example
Scantron).
(5) The groups of students discuss their answers using textbooks
and may make written appeal to the instructor.
(6) The instructor clarifies points about the test and reading.
Steps 2-6 generally occur in one class period.
(7) Students now apply the facts and principles they have learned
from the reading to a problem or case. This application phase
occupies perhaps 80 percent of the course
Bibliography Case Study
Case Study Pedagogy
Barrows, H.S. 1986. A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical
Education 20:481-486.
Christensen, C. Roland with Abby J. Hansen. 1986. Teaching and the Case
Method. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Division.
Erskine, James A., Michiel R. Leenders, and Louis A. Mauffette-Leenders. 1981.
Teaching with Cases. Waterloo, Canada: Davis and Henderson Ltd.
Gragg, Charles I. 1953. Because wisdom can't be told. In Andrews, Kenneth R.
(ed.). The Case Method of Teaching Human Relations and Administration. (pp3-12)
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Herreid, Clyde Freeman. SUNY Buffalo work on case study in the sciences
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/teaching/teaching.html
Herreid, Clyde. 1997/1998. What Makes a Good Case? The Journal of College
Science Teaching Dec./Jan.: 163-165.
Herreid, Clyde. 1999. The Bee and the Groundhog: Lessons in Cooperative
Learning. The Journal of College Science Teaching. February: 226-228.
Hutchings, Pat. 1993. Using Cases to Improve College Teaching: A Guide to a More
Reflective Practice. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Koschmann, T.D., A.C. Myers, P.J. Feltovich, and H.S. Barrows. 1993/1994. Using
technology to assist in realizing effective learning and instruction. Journal of the
Learning Sciences. Vol 3 (In Press).
Bibliography cont’d
Lewis, Ricki. 1994. Case Workbook in Human Genetics. Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown
Communications, Inc.
Merry, Robert W. 1954. Preparation to teach a case. In The Case Method at the Harvard
Business School. (ed.) McNair, M.P. with A.C. Hersum. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Michaelsen, Larry K. 1992. Team learning: A comprehensive approach for harnessing
the power of small groups in higher education. To Improve the Academy 11:107-122.
Pollatsek, Harriet, and Robert Schwartz. 1990. Case studies in quantitative reasoning:
An interdisciplinary course. Extended Syllabi of the New Liberal Arts Program. Stony
Brook, NY: J. Truxal, M. Visich, Dept. Technology and Society, SUNY/Stony Brook.
Reynolds, J.I. 1980. Case types and purposes. In Reynolds, R.I., Case Method in
Management Development: Guide for Effective Use. Geneva, Switzerland: Management
Development Series No. 17, International Labour Office (Chap. 9).
Stanford, Melvin J., R. Kent Crookston, David W. Davis, and Steve R. Simmons.
Decision Cases for Agriculture. Minneapolis, MN: Program for Decision Cases, Univ.
Minnesota, College of Agriculture.
Welty, William M. 1989. Discussion method teaching. Change July/Aug:41-49.
Example Case Study
Responsibility in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Content Material
Responsibility is determined by
three conditions:
CAUSATION
ACCOUNTABILITY
VOLUNTARINESS
CAUSATION
establishing that the
person did the
action which is the
proximate cause
of the event or outcome
determining that
the action and its ACCOUNTABILITY
outcome violated
a norm, duty, or law
that existed between
the agents in question.
VOLUNTARINESS
establishing the degree of both inner
and external control of the actions
(mens rea).
Thus, ideally, to show that someone
was responsible for an action or an
outcome, one should show that the
person did the action which caused
the event; and in doing so, violated
some norm, and, that the person
did it with some degree of
voluntariness.
CAUSATION is established
by the following factors:
Was the person’s actions the
PROXIMATE, RELEVANT and
SALIENT cause of the action?
PROXIMATE cause: that cause nearest in
the causal sequence to the event.
RELEVANT: a cause which is related to the
event in a manner that makes the event
probable.
SALIENT: the cause which is most
significant in accounting for the event;
the efficient cause.
Accountability
To be accountable or blamed, there
must be a duty, norm, or law that
obligates you in some manner to perform
or to avoid the action in question.
Being held accountable requires you
to answer before an authority whose
duty is to ensure that such norms
are adhered to.
Voluntariness is the degree of
inner and external control we
have over the events which have
caused the event in question.
According to Aristotle, human
action can be classified in the
following manner, according to
the kind and degree of voluntariness
in it.
VOLUNTARY
INVOLUNTARY
Deliberate Impulsive
under duress
with ignorance
out of ignorance
reckless
negligent
in ignorance