CASE STUDY

1
CASE STUDY AND DISCUSSION METHODOLOGIES
2
ACTIVE or STUDENT-CENTERED learning, is opposed
to passive or TEACHER- CENTERED learning.
3
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.
4
Teacher-Centered Model
Traditional Model of Learning
Medium
Content
Content
Content
Sender
Content
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
5
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.
6
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.
7
What really happens in a teacher-centered classroo
m.
8
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.
9
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
10
Dale Cone of Experience
11
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.
12
ISSUES Discussion slows the quantity of
information Being conveyed. Peer-led discussion
has poorer results than Expert-led discussion
13
VARIETIES OF 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,
14
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.
15
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.
16
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.
17
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.
18
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.
19
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.
20
Case Study. Case studies involve a hypothetical
or real life situation, relevant to the course
material, that require a solution.
21
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 students professional or
ordinary life than more abstract discussions.
The disadvantages may emerge depending on the
discussion technique involved.
22
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/proje
cts/cases/teaching/novel.html)
23
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).
24
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,
25

• Herreid (1987/1988) summarizes the qualities of
  good case studies A good case
• tells a story,
• focuses on an interest-arousing issue
• is set in the past five years
• creates empathy with the central characters
• includes dialogue or voice of the participants
• is relevant to the reader
• has pedagogic utility by being conflict provoking
  and decision forcing
• (has generality beyond the situation, and
• is briefly stated.

26

• Herreid also summarizes the cautions in doing
  case studies correctly
• 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
• insure that there is sufficient amounts of time
  set aside for the study of the case
• preparation is essential
• Give more than one case study and be incredibly
  explicit about what you wish them to do
• to have students focus, require that they have a
  product of some sort or another.

27
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)  
28
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.
29
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.
30
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.
31
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.
32
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
33
Bibliography Case Study
Case Study Pedagogy Barrows, H.S. 1986. A
taxonomy of problem-based learning methods.
Medical Education 20481-486. 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/projec
ts/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).
34
Bibliography contd
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
11107-122. 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/Aug41-49.
35
Example Case Study Responsibility in the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill Content Material
36
RESPONSIBILITY
37
Responsibility is determined by three conditions
CAUSATION
ACCOUNTABILITY
VOLUNTARINESS
38
CAUSATION
establishing that the person did the action
which is the proximate cause of the event or
outcome
39
determining that the action and its outcome
violated a norm, duty, or law that existed
between the agents in question.
ACCOUNTABILITY
40
VOLUNTARINESS
establishing the degree of both inner and
external control of the actions (mens rea).
41
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.
42
CAUSATION is established by the following
factors
Was the persons actions the PROXIMATE, RELEVANT
and SALIENT cause of the action?
43
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.
44
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.
45
Voluntariness is the degree of inner and external
control we have over the events which have caused
the event in question.
46
According to Aristotle, human action can be
classified in the following manner, according
to the kind and degree of voluntariness in it.
47
VOLUNTARY
INVOLUNTARY
Deliberate
Impulsive
under duress
with ignorance
in ignorance
out of ignorance
reckless
negligent
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51
(No Transcript)
52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)