CASE STUDY AND DISCUSSION METHODOLOGIES

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 classroom.

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 student’s 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/projects/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 cleargoals; 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 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).

34. 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.

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 person’s 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