CASE STUDY AND DISCUSSION METHODOLOGIES. ACTIVE or STUDENT-CENTERED learning, is opposed to passive or TEACHER- CENTERED learning.

CASE STUDYAND

DISCUSSIONMETHODOLOGIES

ACTIVE or

STUDENT-CENTERED learning,is opposed to passive

or TEACHER-

CENTERED learning.

In the traditional teacher-centered model,the teacher has a priest-like role, asconveyor of knowledge and wisdom; therole of student is apprentice to the master.

In active learning, the teacher acts like a servant leader (Greenleaf 1977), that is, someonewhose goal in leadership is to facilitate the flourishing of a person, and not to use others asa means of reinforcing status or power.

Traditional Model of Learning

Medium

Sender

Receiver

Content Content Content

Con

tent

Teacher-Centered Model

the goal of teaching is to conveya certain amount of content orinformation to students; or aset of skills that are classroomcontextual.

This traditional approach works reasonablywell under two conditions:

1. an intelligent, motivated, andcharismatic teacher.

2. an intelligent, highly motivated,student who already sharesinterest in the subject matterwith the teacher.

In typical graduate classes, this is 95% of thestudents; in typical undergraduate classes, thismay be less that 25%.

Yet where do we learn most of ourteaching from? Graduate School

Consequently, we often teach ourstudents as if they are or will becomegraduate students in our particulardiscipline.

In some cases this is clearly appropriate, butin many cases it is not.

In those cases, we should teach the discipline to students not to train them as scholars in thediscipline, but for the significance the disciplinemay have on their lives.

What really happensin a teacher-centeredclassroom.

Student-Centered Learning focuseson what is often called “deep learning” or “activelearning” as opposed to “surface learning” or “passive learning” (Marchese 1999)

Surface learning is learning informationnecessary to do well on the kind of assessment ofthe learning which measures surface learning.

Deep learning occurs when a studentfinds a meaningful connection withthe content being taught.

Active learning theorists argue the following ranking of pedagogies for effective learning:

From most to least effective:Experiential learning

Real problem solvingService learningCooperative learning

DiscussionCase StudyPeer-led/group discussionSocratic discussionTeacher-centered discussionQuestion-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 informationBeing conveyed.

Peer-led discussion has poorer results thanExpert-led discussion

Question-and-answer: This is the most frequently employed form of discussion. This involves teacher-directed questions, posed to the student audience, or student questions posed to the teacher.

--the instructor is the focus of the discussion,

VARIETIES OF 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 decision-making 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 StudyCase Study PedagogyBarrows, 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 scienceshttp://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/teaching/teaching.htmlHerreid, 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).

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.

Bibliography cont’d

Example Case StudyResponsibility in the Exxon Valdez Oil SpillContent Material

Responsibility is determined bythree conditions:

ACCOUNTABILITY

VOLUNTARINESS

CAUSATION

establishing that the person did theaction which is the proximate causeof the event or outcome

CAUSATION

determining that the action and itsoutcome violated a norm, duty, or lawthat existed between the agents in question.

ACCOUNTABILITY

establishing the degree of both innerand external control of the actions (mens rea).

VOLUNTARINESS

Thus, ideally, to show that someonewas responsible for an action or anoutcome, one should show that theperson did the action which causedthe event; and in doing so, violatedsome norm, and, that the persondid 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 inthe causal sequence to the event.

SALIENT: the cause which is mostsignificant in accounting for the event;the efficient cause.

RELEVANT: a cause which is related to the event in a manner that makes the eventprobable.

Accountability

To be accountable or blamed, theremust be a duty, norm, or law thatobligates you in some manner to performor to avoid the action in question.

Being held accountable requires youto answer before an authority whoseduty is to ensure that such normsare adhered to.

Voluntariness is the degree ofinner and external control wehave over the events which havecaused the event in question.

According to Aristotle, humanaction can be classified in thefollowing manner, according tothe kind and degree of voluntarinessin it.

VOLUNTARYINVOLUNTARY

Deliberate Impulsive

with ignorance

out of ignorance in ignorance

reckless negligent

under duress