See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262960630

Teaching science with case studies: A national survey of faculty perceptions of

the benefits and challenges of using cases

Article  in  Journal of College Science Teaching · January 2007

CITATIONS READS

120 5,184

7 authors, including:

Aman Yadav Mary Lundeberg

Michigan State University Ringling College of Art and Design
118 PUBLICATIONS   3,026 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   2,692 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mike Deschryver Nancy Schiller

Central Michigan University University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
32 PUBLICATIONS   588 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   1,174 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PD4CS: Leading the Way to CS10K: Assessing a Just-in-Time Professional Development Approach for Teacher Knowledge Growth in Computer Science View project

Professorial Advancement Initiative (PAI) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aman Yadav on 06 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Teaching Science With Case Studies:
A National Survey of Faculty Perceptions of
the Benefits and Challenges of Using Cases
To understandmore aboutfaculty per-
ceptions of the instructionalbenefits of
and barriers to using case studies, we
surveyed 101 sciencefacultyat universi-
ties andcolleges in the UnitedStates and
Canada. The resultsprovided evidence
that, overall, faculty think cases have
a positive impact on student learning,
criticalthinking, andparticipation.
n recent years, a number of National
Science Foundation and National
Research Council reports have
advocated the need to improve
undergraduate science instruction and
enhance science literacy for all students
(e.g., NRC 1996; 2002). Many under-
graduates, especially women and tradi-
tionally underrepresented groups, avoid
higher-level science and mathematics
courses. Students who have switched
from science and mathematics majors
in college report "poor teaching by
faculty" as a significant reason for
switching (Seymour and Hewitt 1997).
Examples of poor teaching in science
at the undergraduate level include an
emphasis on memorizing facts, lack
of application of concepts, dullness,
and failure to encourage connections
among concepts (Kardash and Wal-
lace 2001). Aikenhead (2006) argues
that one of the failures of traditional
science curricula is that "students tend
not to learn science content meaning-
fully (i.e., they do not integrate it into
their everyday thinking)." The lack
of relevance to the everyday world in
traditional science curriculum has led
to declining student enrollment and
disenchantment with science (Aiken-
head 2006).
34 TheJournal of College Science Teaching
By Aman Yadav, Mary Lundeberg,Michael DeSchryver,Kathryn Dirkin,
Nancy A. Schiller,Kimberly Maier,and Clyde Freeman Herreid
One effort to improve the teach-
ing and learning of science involves
instruction through the use of case-
based methods and problem-based
learning. Case-based instructional
methods use realistic or true narra-
tives to provide opportunities for
students to integrate multiple sources
of information in an authentic context,
often engaging students with ethical
and societal problems related to their
discipline (Dori, Tal, and Tsaushu
2003; Herreid 1994; Lundeberg,
Levin, and Harrington 1999). Prob-
lem-based learning is a kind of case-
based instruction that focuses on di-
lemmas in multidisciplinary contexts,
and uses cooperative-learning groups
to engage students in self-directed
study. Although such methods are
used in some university-level courses
in the fields of science, mathematics,
and education, and individual faculty
have written about their use (e.g., Her-
reid 1994), relatively little research
has examined whether or how these
case-based teaching approaches are
being utilized, what science faculty
think the benefits are of case-based
instruction on student outcomes, or
what challenges faculty face when
implementing cases in their own
teaching (Lundeberg, Levin, and Har-
rington 1999).
Our purpose in conducting a
national survey was to investigate the
contexts of using case studies in sci-
ence courses as well as faculty percep-
tions of the benefits and challenges of
using them. Specifically, our research
questions in this study were (1) what
are science faculty's perceptions of the
benefits of case-based instruction on
student learning, critical thinking, and
motivation? and (2) what do science
faculty think are the main obstacles to
implementing case-based instruction
in their own teaching?
Methodology
Participants
Participants were drawn from fac-
ulty who attended one of the training
workshops and conferences conduct-
ed by the National Center for Case
Study Teaching in Science in 2005.
Of the 101 faculty who completed the
online survey, 83% were Caucasian,
7% African American, 3% Asian
American, and 7% Pacific Islander.
Sixty-four percent of respondents
were women. Participants came from
23 states, with Arizona and Michigan
having the highest levels of compara-
tive participation. The majority of the
faculty taught at the university level
(only 4% were high school teachers),
and less than half of the faculty had
tenure (17.6 % were lecturers, 36.5%
were assistant professors, 23% were
associate professors, and 19% were
professors). Twenty-eight percent
of the respondents were relatively
new faculty, having taught 5 years
or less; 25% had taught 6-10 years;
30% had taught 11-20 years; and
17% were very experienced, having
taught over 20 years. The faculty
represented a diversity of science
disciplines, with biological sciences
(44%) and psychology (7%) reported
most often. Twenty-three of the sur-
vey participants attended a two-day
conference, 65 attended a five-day
seminar, and five attended both (eight
did not respond to this question).
More than half of the faculty (55%) student discussion, or small-group Instructionalbenefits
work"). In addition to the Likert-scale The data related to the respondents'
had not used cases in their teaching
items, the survey included open-ended perceived instructional benefits to
prior to attending one of these train-
short-response questions for faculty to students are illustrated in Figures 1-3.
ing opportunities; however, a vast
share their experiences using cases in (Note: Percentages in the following
majority (84%) used cases in the year
following their training. their teaching. Finally, demographic figures do not add to 100% because
information was collected, such as percentages of participants who
the subject matter taught, the level of reported "Neutral" are not shown.
Survey instrument
classes taught, gender, ethnicity, years For items showing only "Agree" in
The final survey was developed based
of teaching, and state or country of the figures, remaining participants
on a review of the relevant literature
residence. The overall reliability (i.e., reported "Neutral.")
and a pilot survey. The literature
Cronbach's alpha of the instrument) As shown in Figure 1, faculty
review included 59 articles from
was 0.83. believed that students' critical think-
peer-reviewed journals related to the
ing increased and their understand-
advantages and disadvantages of case-
Procedure ing deepened when learning via
based instruction and problem-based
One hundred and thirty-nine science case-based instruction. The faculty
learning. An open-ended pilot survey
faculty from 23 states and Canada reported that students in classes using
was given to 152 science faculty who
were invited by e-mail to complete case studies demonstrated stronger
had attended the National Center
an online survey to assess their critical-thinking skills (88.8%), were
for Case Study Teaching in Science
perceptions of the impact of using able to make connections across
workshops in prior years. Research-
case studies and their experiences in multiple content areas (82.6%), and
based principles aggregated from the
teaching with cases. A hyperlink to developed a deeper understanding of
existing literature and responses from
the online survey was embedded in concepts (90.1%). Most of the faculty
the pilot survey were used to develop
the e-mail. One week after the first also agreed that when they used case-
Likert-scale questions for the final
e-mail was sent, a second reminder study teaching, students were better
survey. The survey was then piloted
e-mail message was sent to those who able to view an issue from multiple
with six science faculty to assess the
had not yet completed the survey. A perspectives (91.3%). Open-ended
clarity of the questions; as a result,
third e-mail reminder was sent two answers in the survey corroborate
those that were unnecessary or un-
weeks after to those who still had not these findings that faculty believed
clear were removed or revised.
completed the survey. The final fol- cases helped students connect better
The first page of the online survey
low-up was four weeks after the initial to textbook readings and gain a deeper
asked participants whether they had
e-mail to the participants who had not understanding for why certain statis-
used cases prior and/or subsequent to
completed the survey. This yielded tical procedures were used. Faculty
attending the workshop. Subsequent
the 73% response rate obtained (101 also reported that students would ex-
pages of the survey followed a branch-
participants). tend their case-related research efforts
ing design. For example, ifparticipants
beyond class requirements and even
had not used cases after attending the
Results enrich discussions in other classes.
workshop, they were redirected to the
Use of cases Stated succinctly, one wrote, "I enjoy
demographic portion of the survey.
The participants who had used cases Prior to attending a seminar or confer- having students think critically and
ence on case-study teaching in science, evaluate real data."
in their teaching after attending the
fewer than half of the respondents used As shown in Figure 2, some of
workshop answered additional ques-
case studies. Afterward, 84% reported the potential negative reactions to
tions regarding their experience with
using case studies in teaching. Most case-based learning were refuted by
case-based instruction. They were Although content cov-
(88%) of these faculty used between one this study.
asked about their perceptions of the
and five cases per semester (47% used erage remained about the same,
influence of case-based teaching on students retained
only one or two cases), and a few (12%) faculty reported that
student learning (e.g., "Students have did as well on tests using
used six or more cases per semester. The more and
a better grasp of the practical applica- majority of the
majority ofthese cases took one class pe- case instruction. The
tion of core course concepts"), critical disagreed with the statement
riod or less to complete (66%), and 33% faculty
thinking (e.g., "Students make connec-
tions across multiple content areas"), took two to five class periods. Only 1% that students using cases retained less
of respondents used cases that spanned from class (87.5%) and that students
participation (e.g., "Students take a
more than five class periods. Faculty did worse on tests (65.1%). Instead,
more active part in the learning pro-
were generally writing their own cases faculty reported that students had a
cess when they use case studies"), and
(58%) or modifying cases (35%), and better grasp of the practical applica-
whether they encountered any obsta-
only a few (7%) found, rather than wrote tions of core course concepts when
cles to implementing case-based teach-
or modified, the cases they used. learning via case-based instruction
ing (e.g., "Assessing student learning,

September/October 2007 35
 Stdn erigpretin:Ciia hnig
:• >;•I•!g
m i if • vi ii ii
Students are better able t
to
%%wan Issue torn multip
MrnPectt•e
Student deelop•a deev
understanding of concepi
Students demonstrai
stronier cdittcaJ thinking skill
Students rnake connection a
acroes multiple content area
Students haw Increased the
discussion of ethical issue S
Students haw diilult
maling connections scros
multiple content aee ""
PbiwsagneeEAgr7ee
(91.3%; Figure 3). (Comments from
the open-ended que stions described
how students appreciated the real-
world relevance of case studies: "Al-
most all case studies in class helped
them learn the fundatmental material
and also see better how chemistry
worked in real syst ems." One fac-
ulty member also coommented that
although students sai d they preferred
lecture, their perfor mance on tests
when case study was used was much
better. When asked whether more
content was covered in their class-
room when using cases, only 18.8%
of the faculty agreed, while 33.8%
were neutral and 47.6% disagreed.
As shown in Figure 3, faculty
believed that student participation
increased when using case studies
in their classroom. The overwhelm-
ing majority of the faculty (95.1%)
agreed that students took an active
part in the learning process when
they used case studies and that stu-
dents did not encounter any difficulty
working in small groups (65.1%). The
majority (93.8%) of the faculty using
case-study teaching also agreed that
students were more engaged in the
class when using cases. One faculty
member wrote, "Students become
much more involved when I use a
36 Te Journal of College Science Teaching
! F ! ii l] ii i " ii ' i > •
Srhthat
1 lustrated in Figure 4. Faculty reported
,r
o 20 40 0e
case-study approach. I feel that stu-
dents really want the ability to interact
in the classroom-they want to be
given the opportunity to participate."
However, it is interesting to note that
55% of the faculty were neutral and
17.5% of the faculty disagreed when
asked if attendance increased on the
days when cases were used. This
finding is contrary to other research
that has shown that students tend to
E ý
Students retain less from
Class
Students feelthat what they
are learningIs not applicable
to ther field of study
Students do wome on tests
Students feel that they are not
coverng enough
content
Students are fkstrated by
am•iguity
Students Ind the onmnat
challer4ng
0 20
10DIsagree MAgree
attend class more when cases are used
(Hoag, Lillie, and Hoppe 2005).
- Obstacles to implementing
case-study teaching
The data related to potential obstacles
respondents experienced are il-
lack of preparation time as one of the
main obstacles to case-study teaching,
with only 21.3% faculty reporting that
they experienced no difficulty with
preparation time; 34% of the faculty
reported slight difficulty; 38.3% re-
i ported moderate difficulty; and 6.4%
reported severe difficulty with the
lack of preparation time required for
Susing cases in teaching. Sixty-eight
80 100 percent of respondents also reported
some difficulty in assessing student
learning with the case method. Two
of the free-response comments re-
flected these two concerns precisely.
One faculty noted that the "biggest
challenge is developing objective
assessment tools for evaluating stu-
dents' learning/work on case studies,
because it involves multiple layers:
individual preparation, group partici-
pation, group productivity, individual
productivity." Another stated, "I know
it's an excellent way to approach
teaching and learning, but I still have
difficulty finding time to plan and
. ... I) ..
1
40 s0 80 100
Percent

FIGURE 3
Student learning perceptions: Participation.
Wtudet e
mcv ctivk
takin rM
pailk hetenk•g ocs
wt,hi they use cemestuds
Studets awemwr ewVaged in
corn coume concepts
hxwun•,tis str9ims
0 20
ECDisagmeNEAgr7
giving up 'amount of content."' Lack
of relevant case stucdies was another
main obstacle that faculty reported
in using case studie s, with 58.4% of
the faculty experie ncing moderate-
to-severe difficulty because of lack
of relevant case studlies.
Forty-nine perc ent of the faculty
reported slight-to-in oderate difficulty
from student resistaince. Sixty percent
2l•n indicated that s•tudents found the
case format challenging, while 52.6%
agreed that students were frustrated
by the perceived ambiguity using
cases; however, only 5% and 8.8%,
respectively, within these two groups
had severe difficulty. Free responses
reflected these contrasting experi-
ences as well. While some described
students who responded to case
studies "very positively" and "quite
receptively," others found students to
be "reluctant to try something new" or
demonstrating "a lack of enthusiasm
with some of the cases." This ambigu-
ity may be related to the comments
indicating that students preferred
lecture even when they performed
better on tests of case-based material;
we speculate that the integrated nature
of case-based instruction may be more
difficult for students, especially if it is
new to them. It is also likely that many
faculty involved in this survey were
Teaching Science With Case Studies
Discussion
This national survey of faculty experi-
ences using the case-study method of
teaching in science adds to the litera-
ture by providing data on the context of
case use, as well as faculty perceptions
of the benefits and challenges in using
cases to teach science. The findings
of this survey provide evidence that
case-based instruction is generally
perceived by faculty to be a teaching
practice that can address many of the
problems commonly associated with
teaching undergraduate science. For
example, the faculty believed that as a
result of using cases students increased
critical thinking, made better connec-
4tions across multiple content areas, had
Percent a better grasp of the practical applica-
tions of core concepts, and were better
able to view an issue from multiple
perspectives. These survey results also
still adapting to teaching with cases, indicate that case-based instruction is
which may have led to more uncer- consistent with the National Research
tainty in the classroom for students. Council (1996) principle that learning
Little resistance from colleagues science should be active, involving
was reported, as only 34% ofrespondents "minds-on" experiences in which
noted slight-to-moderate difficulty from students are engaged and interact with
this. Resistance from administrators to teachers and peers.
their using the case-study approach was Most of the obstacles reported
not an obstacle, as 91.5% of the faculty by faculty, while telling, are not in-
reported no such difficulty in implement- surmountable barriers to using case-
;nn e-p _Qhddvtpe9hing based instruction in the classroom.
FIGURE4
Top five obstacles faculty encounter. (Note:For' 'Severe" percentages, partici-
pants indicated experiencing severe difficulty.)
Lck e•tin me I.
euired br your use of cases
kntesctsig
A ssswdent or sme_
studer discussiawn
A tuckef mWmeetCOSA
stuAes
StuhXW
resistwanceftte
me shady approach to
MSeSUMhotcmwMony
s cr
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pemint
IoNDwa* msweDci
September/October 2007 37
 Teaching Science With Case Studies
In fact, it would be expected that
increased use of case-based instruc-
tion would serve to minimize these
obstacles. For instance, concerns
about lack of preparation time with a
new teaching practice are not surpris-
ing. As well, although nearly 60% of
faculty indicated a lack of relevant
case studies as an obstacle, as more
faculty use cases and make them
available to others, this will be less
of a problem in the future. Finally,
as students experience more classes
that utilize the case method and be-
come more familiar with case-based
learning environments, the perceived
student concerns with ambiguity of
expectations and resistance to its use
may decrease.
The results reported in this paper
are limited in terms of the influence
of case-based teaching practices on
student learning, as the data reflect
faculty perceptions only, and no mea-
sures were intended to assess student
learning. Moreover, although the
survey provides evidence that case-
based instruction may be effective in a
variety of learning areas (e.g., critical
thinking and deeper understanding),
it does not provide insights as to
why this may be so, or what specific
characteristics of case-based teach-
ing practice may produce increased
learning in students. Another potential
limitation of this survey is that all sur-
vey respondents had self-selected into
workshops or conferences in which
the goal was to learn about and begin
to integrate case-based instruction
into their own teaching.
The next steps in this particular
line of inquiry should involve exam-
ining whether these methods may
serve to decrease the number of disen-
chanted science students and increase
student persistence in science majors.
In addition, focus groups or inter-
views would be helpful in obtaining a
more in-depth qualitative perspective
from both faculty and students, and
may begin to provide insights into the
specific elements of cases that lead to
increased learning in various areas.
Finally, gathering data about students
who have taken introductory science
38 TheJournal of College Science Teaching
classes that used the case method and
their choice of majors, and comparing
that data to students who have not had
case-based science courses, may pro-
vide empirical evidence of whether
these methods impact persistence in
science education.
More broadly, further research
that specifically assesses the impact
of case-based instruction on student
learning is needed, since there has
been little empirical research in this
area (Lundeberg and Yadav 2006).
Future research needs to explore this
phenomenon by using assessment
measures that directly evaluate student
learning from cases. Such measures of
assessment may include near- and
far-transfer tasks that ask students to
use principles learned from the study
of cases in other novel situations, and
should integrate existing research
that has demonstrated that open-
ended assessment is more effective
in measuring learning outcomes from
case-based instruction than standard-
ized assessments (Dochy et al. 2003).
Finally, given that collaborative learn-
ing is often an essential ingredient
in the use of case-based instruction,
investigations that examine the most
effective size of student groupings
when using case-based instruction
would be informative. m
References
Aikenhead, G.S. 2006. Science educa-
tion for everyday life: Evidence-
basedpractices.New York: Teach-
ers College Press.
Dochy, E, M. Segers, P. Van den Bos-
sche, and D. Gijbels. 2003. Effects
ofproblem-based learning: A meta-
analysis. Learningand Instruction
13 (5): 533-68.
Dori, Y, R. Tal, and M. Tsaushu. 2003.
Teaching biotechnology through
case studies-Can we improve
higher order thinking skills of
nonscience majors. ScienceEduca-
tion 87 (6): 767-93.
Herreid, C.F. 1994. Case studies in
science: A novel method in science
education. Journalof College Sci-
ence Teaching 23 (4): 221-29.
Hoag, K., J. Lillie, and R. Hoppe.
2005. Piloting case-based instruc-
tion in a didactic clinical immunol-
ogy course. ClinicalLaboratory
Science 18 (4): 213-20.
Kardash, C.M., and M.L. Wallace.
2001. The perceptions of science
classes survey: What undergraduate
science reform efforts really need
to address. Journalof Educational
Psychology 93 (1): 199-210. I
Lundeberg, M.A., B.B. Levin, and
H.L. Harrington. 1999. Where do
we go from here? Reflections on
methodologies and future direc-
tions. In Who learnswhatfrom cas-
es and how: The research basefor
teaching and learning with cases,
eds. M.A. Lundeberg, B.B. Levin,
and H. Harrington. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lundeberg, M.A., and A. Yadav. 2006.
Assessment of case study teaching:
Where do we go from here? Part I.
Journalof College Science Teach-
ing 35 (5): 10-13.
National Research Council (NRC).
1996. National science education
standards. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC).
4
2002. Investigating the influence
of standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Seymour, E., and N.M. Hewitt. 1997.
Talking about leaving: Why under-
graduates leave science. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Aman Yadav(amanyadav@purdue.edu)isan
assistantprofessorin the Departmentof Edu-
cationalStudies at Purdue University in West
Lafayette, Indiana.Mary Lundeberg is a pro-
fessorinthe DepartmentofTeacherEducation
andMichaelDeSchryverandKathrynDirkin
are doctoralstudents in the EducationalPsy-
chologyandEducationalTechnologyprogram
at Michigan State University in East Lansing,
Michigan. Nancy A. Schiller is the engineer-
ing librarianand co-directorof the National
Center for Case Study Teaching in Science at
the UniversityatBuffalo.KimberlyiMaieris an
assistantprofessor in the Measurement and
Quantitative Methods program at Michigan
State University. Clyde Freeman Herreidis a
distinguishedteachingprofessorintheDepart-
ment of BiologicalSciences andco-directorof
theNationalCenterforCaseStudy Teaching in
Science at the University at Buffalo.
 COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Teaching Science With Case Studies: A National Survey

of Faculty Perceptions of the Benefits and Challenges of
Using Cases
SOURCE: J Coll Sci Teach 37 no1 S/O 2007

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.nsta.org/college

View publication stats