Author Archives: WMillhiser

On September 22, 2009, we held the first of a three-part series on teaching with case studies. In the interest of furthering the discussion, I’ve tried to summarize questions that were raised by panelists and audience members. We’d be delighted to hear your comments. Thanks to all who contributed.

1. If the class discussion is a central part of learning with cases, what percent of a student’s course grade should be participation? How does one assess participation?
2. The answer to #1 at Harvard Business School (HBS) is 50%, based on quality and frequency of comments. Is such emphasis on class participation fair to all learning styles? How can we encourage involvement? (I like Leah Schanke’s answer posted on this blog in 2008.)
3. Some students will attempt to dominate case discussions while others will speak without adding value. How should we moderate?
4. How should students prepare for a case discussion? HBS’s answer is the “4 Ps” (preparation, presence, promptness, participation; see [1] for details). Do other models encourage as deep or deeper reflection?
5. Most cases are written about a situation faced 5 or 10 years ago. (a) Should we give students closure as to how the situation was actually resolved? (b) Should we (or the students?) report on the health of the company today? (c) Should we seek links between (a) and (b)?
6. How should one prepare to teach a case? Is preparation time-consuming?
7. HBS’s answer to #6 is this: read the case and teaching note and develop a set of specific teaching goals and have a clear idea of general topics and diagrams that you will lay out on the white board and prepare questions that encourage greater depth and analysis. (Source: [1], p. 3) This answer implies that the instructor leads the discussion. Are other debriefing models equally effective (e.g., student-led discussions, etc.)?
8. What is the “right” number of cases in an introductory class? (In [1], see p. 2, especially, “Because other techniques do other jobs well … use case discussions to accomplish what they can do better than other pedagogical methods.”)
9. Are case-intensive courses appropriate for full-time and part-time (evening) programs alike? Similarly, since our executive classes often meet in 3-hour blocks, are two case discussions per class effective?
10. Some colleges have set up case publishing divisions and teach all classes using the case method. For example, the Richard Ivey School of Business at the Univ. of Western Ontario is one such publisher; my colleagues at Ivey tell me that even their introductory undergraduate classes consist of about 30 case studies in 30 meetings. What’s more, Ivey promises its undergraduates the following compelling advantage: “Experiencing over 400 real world business cases in the HBA Program will give you the knowledge, skills and judgment to perform at an entirely different level when you enter the workforce. It’s a true simulation of the realities of business.” (source) Sounds great! But is this approach supported by pedagogical research, a desire to write and sell case studies, or both?
11. Are cases more effective than other innovative methods for creating “deep learning” such as games and simulations? (Panelist David Birdsell’s definition of case study includes games and simulations; however, since management simulations are often not based on real companies nor real data, I consider this a different instructional category.)
12. May we reuse a case next semester? Alternatively, should we rotate through a number of similar cases on a given topic so that any particular case is used once every 3-4 semesters? Regardless of frequency, is it OK to distribute your analysis of a case? (My opinion? See this post.) Finally, the analyses for many popular business case studies are now available “for hire” on the web (for example, see the disturbing hits on this Google search for one of my favorite cases). How do we contend with this?

Please ignore the above emphasis on business cases; that’s just what I know. Furthermore, I am in no way endorsing anything by HBS nor Ivey. I’m sure some of these will receive further reflection at the Oct 20^th and Nov 17^th sessions.

—–

[1] Shapiro, B.P. 1985. “Hints for Case Teaching.” Harvard Business School Publishing, case 9-585-012 (free to faculty; downloadable at hbsp.harvard.edu).

[2] Barnes, L.B., C.R. Christensen, A.J. Hansen. 1994. Teaching and the Case Method, Harvard Business Publishing, p. 41.

When I left industry to be a teacher in the mid 1990s, I took a class on “mathematics teaching methods” at a local college. The instructor, now the Emeritus Professor of Mathematics Richard Evans to whom I owe much gratitude, taught that prior to an exam, one should give students a “study guide” or “review sheet.”

As most know, a study guide is a simple document that articulates what content you feel is important, describes what you will be assessing on the exam, and helps students focus their studying/review in the form of a checklist. When done right, the study guide is not “spoon feeding” nor teaching to a test, rather, a way of helping students define and prioritize what could be a seemingly boundless cloud of new material from the book, lectures notes, homework and other sources. It eliminates one of the causes of variance in exams scores—the students not knowing what’s covered.

Before every exam, I write about a page, usually in bullet form, which is posted on Blackboard. The last 10 minutes of the class prior to the exam is dedicated to discussing this guide.

I see the study guide as a contract that states the material to which I am committing on the exam, and from which I am not allowed to deviate too broadly when writing questions. For example, occasionally I write what I consider to be a “good” exam question that later must be vetoed upon consulting my study guide (“that just wouldn’t be fair”). From the students’ point of view, the study guide gives an opportunity to spend time preparing the “right stuff” and a chance to succeed on the exam. (Who doesn’t like to work hard and achieve something?)

With the students dialed in to what I want to assess on the exam, this permits me to write challenging (and often open-ended) questions that allow me to drill down to understand exactly what students do and do not know. But open-ended questions in assessment will be a topic for a future post.

As many know, there are ongoing committees in both the Weissman and Zicklin Schools working toward improving the quantitative skills of our undergraduates. A central question I’ve heard in both committees is how much calculus, probability and statistics an undergraduate college student should study. On this point, Harvey Mudd College mathematician Arthur Benjamin argued for much more of the latter at this year’s TED conference. I am not necessarily endorsing nor agreeing; just sharing…

www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_changing_math_education.html (3 minutes)

Some of us mentor doctoral students. I had a positive experience as a student, but I understand from others that there can be a great deal of variance in the quality of the relationship from the points of view of both the professor and student. There’s apparently so much variance that the graduate student senate of which I was a member from 2000-2004 published a “how-to” guide (“A Mentoring Guidebook for Faculty: helping graduate students grow into respected professionals and trusted colleagues”; pdf; general webpage). It is with their gracious permission that I am posting the above links for others who might benefit. The authors tell me that their guide is an adaptation of those of Michigan (“How to Mentor Graduate Students: A Guide for Faculty at a Diverse University“) and Univ. of Washington (“How to Mentor Graduate Students: A Faculty Guide“). Of interest?

Did you see “Disadvantages of an Elite Education” (American Scholar, 2008) in which former Yale professor William Deresiewicz contrasts the education at Yale and Cleveland State, an inner-city university much like Baruch? The article was unexpectedly thought provoking. For example, consider this:

“[S]tudents at places like Yale get an endless string of second chances. Not so at places like Cleveland State. My friend once got a D in a class in which she’d been running an A because she was coming off a waitressing shift and had to hand in her term paper an hour late.

“That may be an extreme example, but it is unthinkable at an elite school. Just as unthinkably, she had no one to appeal to. Students at places like Cleveland State, unlike those at places like Yale, don’t have a platoon of advisers and tutors and deans to write out excuses for late work, give them extra help when they need it, pick them up when they fall down. They get their education wholesale, from an indifferent bureaucracy.”

It’s not that I agree with all the arguments in the essay, but Deresiewicz asks an important question: where do you fall on the spectrum of “indifferent” to “pampering”? The essay also gives one newfound appreciation for our students.

There was another recent attack on the elite colleges—Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Chris Hedges’ 9-Dec-2008 essay “The Best and the Brightest Have Led America Off a Cliff“—but skip it if you are looking for uplifting news.

(more…)

I’m sure many have seen “At M.I.T., Large Lectures Are Going the Way of the Blackboard?” by Sara Rimer in the 13-Jan-09 New York Times (p. A12); it’s worth sharing again here. Here’s an excerpt.

“The physics department has replaced the traditional large introductory lecture with smaller classes that emphasize hands-on, interactive, collaborative learning. Last fall, after years of experimentation and debate and resistance from students, who initially petitioned against it, the department made the change permanent. Already, attendance is up and the failure rate has dropped by more than 50 percent.”

Such a change was hastened by a $10M donation. Food for thought.