Note on Developing A Case Method Teaching Plan
Robert F. Bruner
(From Case Studies in Finance, Instructor's Manual, 3rd ed.)
The case method educates best when it is student centered rather than
instructor centered. Some case-method teachers recognize this truth and,
minimize their planning for individual classes. Why should one plan? First
and foremost, a plan imposes a discipline on one's own preparation of a
case. Anticipating specific topics of discussion helps target your
analysis effectively. Second, a plan can help anticipate areas of
difficulty for the students. And third, the plan can serve as a compass
for more active discussion leadership if the students' momentum loses its
steam.
From the perspective of the student-centered teacher, the teaching plan is not a script. I have used the suggested teaching plans in this manual and have also departed from them freely, as the needs of the students and my own teaching goals required. Moreover, any time I teach a case, I am bound to tailor the teaching plan in ways suggested by the following questions:
- Whom am I teaching? What are their goals? Needs? Skills? An assessment of the course client is the origin of any plan. For instance, MBA students generally have an appetite for learning hard skills and conceptual frameworks. Business executives, on the other hand tend to want practical solutions to problems they encounter.
- Why is this case in the course? What are my teaching objectives in this session? Many of the cases in this book are rich enough to carry many teaching points. The relevant task of teaching is not maximization, however, but optimization. Shoehorning in all possible teaching points is less desirable than making a lasting impression of a few key points. The selection of specific teaching objectives should be dictated by the needs of the students and the conceptual flow of the course. The success of subsequent cases may depend on consolidation of earlier teaching points or the introduction of new ideas or both.
- What question or statement is the most effective way to open the discussion? I believe this question is the most difficult to answer in developing a teaching plan. A good opener sets the stage, raises the curtain effectively, and builds drama. Bad openers mire the discussion in trivial issues or issues that are substantive but far afield from the objectives of the discussion. The opener should be tailored to the nature of the case: where the case problem is clearly defined and specific figure analysis is to be done, I favor openers that help establish the relevance of the analysis and launch the discussion into the figures. For cases where the challenge is to define the problem, I favor openers that bring out the richness and complexity of the situation.
- What questions are appropriate in the middle of the discussion? Random questioning can send a discussion far off course. Like the opener, questions for the body of the case discussion should be motivated by the teaching objectives of the case and the needs of the students. Regarding student needs, or instance, it pays to pause in the discussion and ask students to define new technical terms that may have come up.
- How should I close the discussion? Some instructors believe that closure (in the form of class consensus or summary of teaching points) is unnecessary. What matters to them is the process of debate that occurred in the body of the case discussion. I prefer a formal closure as a way of concluding any drama that may have been created during the discussion. As the teaching plans in this manual show, one can use devices such as a vote of the class on a decision, the presentation of the epilogue to the case, or a discussion of summary points by either the students or the instructor. Used in this way, the closing is a learning opportunity for the students; indeed, the sharp reversals from expectations in some of the epilogues often leave the most lasting impressions of a case discussion.
The methodology of student-centered teaching has been discussed elsewhere. I highly recommend Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership, edited by C.R. Christensen, David A. Garvin, and Ann Sweet (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1991).