ENGINEERING CASES IN THE CLASSROOM

One of the best ways to enhance learning with Engineering Cases is by means of classroom discussion. This mode of instructor-student and student-student interaction is not a familiar one to most Engineering educators. This paper outlines some of the principles of conducting Engineering Case discussions that will optimize student learning.

The style of conducting class discussions for engineering cases is a very personal thing. There is no "correct" approach to case discussion. The style will vary from teacher to teacher, from class to class and even from case to case. Eventually each instructor must develop their own style, using those techniques that best suits them and seem to achieve their objectives.

The following are some techniques and principles that can be used to get the most from case discussions. These represent methods that from my experience and from the experience of others, have proven to be effective. Though most of these principles did not originate with me, they have become so much a part of my method that I can no longer distinguish that which I have been told from that arrived at by self-discovery. I owe much to exchanges with my colleagues, Henry Fuchs, Bob Steidel, Karl Vesper and Charlie Smith, who have used the Case Method.

For this purpose I shall define an engineering case as a written account of an engineering activity as it was actually carried out. A good case tells the true story of a real engineering experience, usually from the point of view of the participants. In addition to the narrative a typical case provides detail background such as: original calculations and drawings; budget and schedule limitations; availability of material resources and technical facilities; the all important human element, the people involved in doing the job, their capabilities, their interactions with one another and the organization. The case may have several parts with each terminating at some critical decision point.

For class discussion the written case is assigned to be read before the discussion period. Sometimes, questions to be considered are assigned at the same time.

The objectives of all learning is to change the student's performance in certain situations. In most instances this is done via lecturing and problem assignments. The objective is to give the students information about a body of knowledge and to train them to respond in a prescribed manner to specific types of problems. With case discussion the student vicariously experiences the activity in the case and is involved in the resolution of the problems and issues therein. The objective is to develop independent thinking and decision making skills through practice. In case discussions the emphasis is on the practice of skills rather than the acquisition of knowledge.

In a well run case session it should appear to the student and to the outside observer that the students do all of the thinking, most of the talking, and make for themselves the relevant dis- coveries. Ideally this should be so. The objective strived for is that students originate the ideas, organize the discussion, establish priorities, and cover the material in the time available without interference from the instructor. Rarely is this achieved although good discussion leadership may make it seem so. The students become actively involved so that the discussion is emo- tionally satisfying, intellectually productive, and sometimes brilliant enough to provide new insights. The instructor must unobtrusively manipulate the discussion so that it becomes all of these things to the student.

By having the students wrestle with the issues in the case along with their peers they learns to think, to detect useful information, to recognize false arguments, to construct a coherent problem definition, to see more than one side of a situation, to decide which is best, and on this basis formulate and defend a course of action. To develop these skills it is essential that the student be actively involved in this practice. The opportun- itY to practice these skills is comparatively uncommon in most engineering curriculum. From experience students have been conditioned to regard the instruction period as a time for absorption or recitation. Students expect their instructors to provide them with "answers" or approve the "correct answer" when presented. Students usually concern themselves with providing the response that the teacher wants in order to earn a good grade. In case discussion the student and the instructor are faced with a new experience where this pattern no longer applies. The instructor's continual task will be to fight against this pattern which the students expect and feel most comfortable with.

The student must be made to recognize that successful treatment of engineering situations often means dealing with an accumulation of facts and feelings that must be treated as a whole. To these facts and feelings they are expected to apply their engineering ability and native intelligence. They must deal with both the technical and managerial issues. Students should not be allowed to view the cases as examples of good, bad or preferred en- gineering. The solutions arrived at by the principals in the case should be seen as only one of many possible solutions.

The most important condition for all learning is the interest of the learner. It is therefore essential in case discussion that the students not only be interested in what the instructor has to say but they must be interested in what the other students have to say. The interest in the case under discussion and the objectives of the course must be continuously maintained.

Although case discussion should seem completely freewheeling and apparently unstructured, a structure for systematic discussion usually emerges through which the discussion progresses (1) Review of the case content, (2) Statement of the problems, (3) Collection of the relevant information, (4) Development of alternatives, (5) Evaluation of alternatives, (6) Selection of a course of action, and(7)Scheduling of recommended solutions.

The first step is most essential. The case must be reviewed to ensure that the entire class is seeing the same situation. Thus class discussion usually starts by the instructor asking "What is going on here? What are the facts in the Case?" Only when the class has agreed to the facts of the case can discussion proceed and yield fruitful results.

The discussion can then move through the remaining structure albeit at an uneven pace. Often the discussion jumps back and forth between stages but in the end the drift of the discussion forward through the structure takes place. In many instances the later stages may never be reached. Still the prime objective is not to solve the specific problem in the case but to be involved in the process of solution.

In some instances the discussion may turn to criticizing or evaluating the engineers or engineering activity ill the case. This is an attractive pitfall, everyone likes to be a "Monday Morning Quarterback" with "20/20 hindsight". It is possible for students to develop a hypercritical or negative attitude, therefore the instructor must make a conscious effort to redirect the class's attention toward positive action. One way is to ask them to put themselves into the engineer's shoes and decide what to do next. Or the class can be asked to justify the engineer's action.

Once the students have moved through the structure they are faced with the need to make decisions. This should always be the final goal. Dissecting the case and analyzing it is not enough. Engineering and Design are decision making processes. The student must learn to make decisions and defend them among their peers.

As the case discussion develops the instructor's role is to provide leadership and management. The instructor is not simply a source of knowledge or judgement. The instructor must carefully follow the discussion and provide various services to the class. The instructor keeps the discussion orderly. The instructor must ensure involvement of the entire class in the discussion. Questions or comments are interjected which lead to advancement in thinking and which clarify the relevance of the discussion up to that point. They must somehow expose the inter-relationships and patterns of the various contributions. The instructor must be constantly aware of timing to ensure that the discussion period is usefully employed.

The question of timing is most critical and least appreciated in discussion leadership. If the discussion is not moving fast enough proper use will not be made of the time available. If it moves too quickly a part of the class may not understand what is going on or the treatment may be superficial. The instructor must exercise control but not too rigidly. The instructor must sense and keep out of the way when the class is on the verge of making discoveries new to themselves or to the students. Unpredictable developments distinguish real learning; the instructor must not stifle them or thereby stifle the learning. To provide this tim- ing the instructor must focus on the ebb and flow of the discussion rather than simply on the subject matter of the case.

The relationship between the student and the instructor, and between the students must be different than in the traditional forms of instruction. Students are no longer led or helped by their instructor they are left to stand on their own. The instructor no longer becomes the source of the "right" answer, they do not judge whether the student's answer is 'correct'. Instructor establishes themselves as a colleague and by their be- haviour proves it. They participates as an equal where the students are conditioned to expect them to assert their superiority. Thus because of the preconditioning due to the traditional student-instructor relationship the instructor must be careful when expressing opinions. They must emphasize that theirs is just another opinion and may not be correct for the situation at hand. In the early stages this confuses the students but eventually they will recognize that this participation is all they really need.

To achieve their objectives with the case method the instructor gives up the accustomed role of expert. This is difficult since it means they must move from a position of virtual unassailable security to one much more insecure. Experience has shown that students do not abuse the situation, they recognize that this position is taken for their benefit. The instructor works from this more vulnerable position to build a cooperative informal relationship between themselves and the students. In spite of this the instructor is responsible for stimulating the discussion towards the objective of the course without seeming to force it. They keep the discussion free yet directs it, a difficult but not impossible task.

During the discussion the instructor must operate at three levels as a participant in the case discussion, as a guide to direct the discussion toward the objectives of the course, and as an evaluator of the students, the discussion, and the class situation.

The instructor uses primarily four tools for the logical development of the case which, when used creatively and flexibly, promotes discussion without relieving the student of the responsibility of doing the work. They may (1) ask questions, (2) restate and summarize what has been said, (3) give their own opinion, and (4) provide additional expertise.

The questions used to promote and guide case discussions are not the kind used in the ordinary teaching situation. Well prepared questions by the instructor designed to get at the core of the case problem serve to limit thinking, to box in the discussion, and to defeat the purpose of the case method. Questions which call attention to an error or short coming on the part of the student inhibit participation. Questions designed to expose the amount of preparation will not generate useful discussion. Questions designed to show the instructor's superiority usually have to be answered by the instructor.

The most useful questions are those phrased on the spot in response to the immediate situation. Depending on where the discussion is at, the questions can be to open new avenues of discussion without setting its course (What has happened here?),to clarify what has been said (Could you explain that further?), or to invite elaboration (Would you like to add to that?). Technical questions can be used to sort fact from opinion, to distinguish what is from what may be, to identify preconceptions or generalities (Is that always true? Does this apply in this case? Can you be more specific?) Questions can be used to promote discussion between members of the class (Do you agree with that statement? Is that what you would do?)

As the discussion develops the question can be more pointed and directive. Students can be asked to consider new and different approaches. Questions can be directed towards the assumptions and physical laws on which the case is founded, (Can we model that?). Questions can be used to uncover relationships and interconnections between points brought out by different students or by different cases (How do these relate to one another? Is this consistent with what we said last time?). Phrasing should be used to force the students to come up with ideas and conclusions from their own resources. But care must be taken that the phrasing does not indicate the answer.

When discussion has gone beyond the student's capacity to deal with the case more directive questions can be asked (What would you do now?). Students dislike making decisions or propose action in the face of inadequate information. The situation is unfamiliar and frustrating. At this point the questions are to force them to make recommendations and to take responsibility for them. If students refuse to make decisions on the basis of the information available they can be asked to outline what information they need and how to go about getting it. They can then be asked to assess if what they asked for is reasonable. As long as the student is kept wrestling with the problem the questions are productive. Questions are not used to fish for specific material or to implant ideas. Even if the problems in the case are not resolved or the answers not those expected by the instructor, education of the students has taken place.

Finally, questions can be overused. A free flowing discussion is preferred therefore questions should be infrequent. The questions should come casually as a natural response to what has been said. They should be used subtly and inconspicuously. The discussion should not degenerate to a series of questions by the instructor with responses from the students. It should be re- membered that the prime purpose is to keep the discussion flowing along its apparently natural course.

Restatement is the means by which the instructor marks, clarifies, and makes usable the discussion that has taken place. Free flowing discussions are fast moving, disordered, and touch many points. The instructor can slow down and clarify the discussion by occasionally rephrasing in their own words what has been said, or summarize the discussion to that point. Alternately a student can be asked to make the restatement or summary. This allows the less aggressive student to participate in the discussion.

The purpose of the restatement is to collect the various inputs together and to clarify them by rephrasing them. Further discussion can then proceed from a common understanding. With the restatement the students have an opportunity to examine, correct, and extend the new version of their remarks.

The instructor must take care not to distort the student's comments, nor should they anticipate what the student meant. Similarly the restatement should not suggest approval or disapproval of the contents. The instructor may point out new facets - but in such a way that the student does not feel their meaning has been distorted - to correct or clarify the statements when the instructor feels they may be distorted or misinterpreted.

Restatements to assist understanding must be used sparingly or students may become dependent on it. They should be used only where careful listening to what has been said indicates that re- statement can be useful. Restatement should never be used as a device for accenting important points.

Restatement and summary are opportunities to recognize the contributions of individuals. Acknowledgements will indicate that ideas originate from different parts of the class and that pro- gress is dependent on everyone's participation.

In some cases the instructor can add to the discussion and help achieve course objectives by expressing their own opinions and conclusions. This is a rather heavy handed approach. Students could come to anticipate the instructor's presentation as the correct interpretation and thus nullify the usefulness of their own participation. The case approach works best with a minimum direct injection of the instructor's opinion.

Ideally the instructor's opinions and conclusions are introduced only when the students have wrestled with a problem and have come to a conclusion, but express dissatisfaction with it. Then they may turn to the instructor and request an opinion. If the instructor gives their version too early, they risk terminating the discussion and disagreement. If they lecture at length they will exceed the student's ability to absorb and relate the material to the case.

Once the proper atmosphere and relationships have been established, and there is a free exchange of ideas, the instructor may more readily express an opinion without fear of it being treated as inviolable. They should circumvent this possibility by conscious effort. They must always specify which of the remarks are simply opinions, which are facts from the case, and which are physical laws. The instructor's opinions or conclusions should not be used to correct a student solution. Their statements should be introduced to the common pool of knowledge from which the group will choose the most satisfactory.

Finally, where special technical information is required, the instructor can supplement the discussion with short "mini-lectures" designed to give the students technical information they cannot be expected to have or which is not readily accessible to them. As with instructors' opinions, the lectures should be used sparingly and only after the class has wrestled with the problem and expressed a need for the material. Mini-lectures should not be used to refresh the students memory of material covered elsewhere in the curriculum, and with which they should be familiar.

Thus the case discussion is guided by the instructor by carefully weaving together questions, restatements, opinions, and the occasional lecture. These are used delicately and sparingly. The instructor's most useful tool is silence. If the discussion is proceeding in a useful and orderly manner the instructor need say nothing. It must always be remembered that it is the student's participation that is sought not the instructor's.

It is not difficult to create the necessary classroom environment; it is mostly one of attitude. If left to themselves students will sort out the structure for group activity and somehow regulate participation so that discussion will progress toward the greatest usefulness to the participants. K. R. Andrews suggests that the instructor's most difficult job is to avoid the "seven pedagogical sins of condescension, sarcasm, personal cross-examination, discourtesy, self-approval, self-consciousness and talkativeness."

While preserving the classroom environment the instructor must guide the discussion toward the objectives of the course and take care that the discussion serves as a new and useful learning experience for the student and for the instructor. The guidance must be flexible and responsive so that the students reach their own conclusions not the instructor's.

The instructor must be continually analyzing the developing classroom situation. They must look ahead to anticipate fruitful new areas of discussion. Because of new students inputs each case development will be somewhat different. Because of this it is often advantageous to use different cases from year to year so that the instructor does not begin to anticipate previously arrived at conclusions and their participation does not lose its freshness and spontaneity.

Un-distorted communication and mutual understanding are only possible when adverse criticism is not explicitly or implicitly involved. Self-consciousness, emulation, and anxieties of all sorts must be put aside by the student and instructor. The instructor must suspend judgement on the student's opinions or if they cannot he must avoid communicating those judgements. The instructor's first concern must be to nurture an atmosphere of informal friendliness that will permit students to work their way to competence. The instructor's comments or attitudes must not stifle the free flow of ideas or discussion.

With practice the students and instructor can become a productive self-motivated group. The instructor should listen to all views with demonstrated intentness for the purpose of understanding, not for criticising its relevance and importance. By questions, the instructor must show interest and help the students make their point or clarify their thinking. The instructor's approval or disapproval must not limit the discussion or insist upon an identical formal approach to every case. If initially uncommitted interest is shown in everything said the class will recognize that as individuals they can voice an incomplete idea or an unconventional approach without fear of disapproval. Once the right level of rapport has been established, the instructor can then become more directive and critical, and still preserve the necessary relationships for free exchange.

The first few case sessions from the instructors point of view should be primarily be used for establishing the proper environment. The case material should only be considered as the medium for doing so. As confidence and mutual respect develops, the emphasis can be turned toward the course objectives.

It will often occur that students will give up and ask for answers to the case problems. The instructor should, as far as possible, return the responsibility for answers to the students. They should insist upon having the students ideas first. Students should evaluate their own responses, determine why they are dissatisfied, and what should be done about it. Only then should the instructor's answers be given and even then in a miserly fash- ion. Questions should only give clues, opinions should be given only to be evaluated. Sometimes it is useful to provide partially incorrect or incomplete answers, especially if in correcting them the students are lead to the correct solution.

Sometimes the case discussions collapse and the instructor cannot get anywhere with the case. The class efforts may be listless and lack enthusiasm. If the proper relationship has developed between the class and the instructor, the focus of the discussion can be turned from the problem in the case to the problems with the discussion. With this new focus the students may find they consider the case irrelevant; they may discover that they are not happy with their participation, or their roles in the discussion, or they may find that they don't understand the objectives of the case or the course. Discussions around these difficulties are as useful as discussions of the case problems. Even in these discussions the instructor must retain the role of discussion leader; they must help the students discover their difficulties and help them find their own way out.

It is normal in any case discussion that a small portion of the class will carry the bulk of the discussion. It is the responsibility of the instructor to draw out the other members of the class. By this means they can discover whether a student is not participating because they cannot contribute, because they are too shy, or because they are not aggressive enough to express their opinion. This forced participation also assures that every- one is involved even when not participating directly in the discussion since they may be called on to contribute at any time.

Role playing is a useful device for sustaining interest or providing a change of pace. The case is used as a background for a discussion or meeting to resolve some critical issue. Students are asked to participate as principals in the case. The instructor also takes on a role usually that of a mediator. Students quickly identify with the roles they are asked to play and discussion is lively and informative. Advance notice of the specific roles individuals are expected to play ensures proper participation.

The physical location of the instructor has considerable bearing on how the discussion takes place. If the instructor stands in front of the class on a podium they will find that almost the entire discussion will be directed there with the class waiting for instructor's response. If the instructor moves down into the class or away from the usual focus of the classroom the students are forced to face one another and discussion will flow more easily between class members. Once a lively discussion has been kindled the instructor may beneficially withdraw from the attention of the class.

Most classrooms designed for lectures are poorly arranged for case discussion. If possible the seating should be rearranged into a "U" or a circle. This permits the instructor to interact more directly with the students from the centre or preferably from the outer periphery. Alternately with smaller classes the students can be seated around a conference table. In this case the instructor should find and occupy a low priority seat.

In case discussions, the blackboard is used as a writing or sketch pad for the group. When a students finds difficulty in expressing themselves verbally, they should be invited to use the blackboard. This puts the student at the focus of the class. From there a number of students can be enticed to the blackboard to present new ideas or modify existing ones. When the discussion requires listing of ideas, data, conclusions, etc, a student should be asked to do so at the blackboard permitting the instructor to move off "centre stage". Thus the blackboard serves not only as a medium for presenting and recording ideas but as a tool for focusing attention away from the instructor and to the problem at hand.

Preparation for a case discussion class is often more demanding than preparation for a lecture. Firstly, the instructor must become thoroughly familiar with the case and with any auxiliary information. The instructor must anticipate where the case discussion may lead and be prepared to deal with all possible scenarios. If the case is in several parts, they must be familiar with where the case is going so that in developing the discussion the class should at least touch on the direction in which the case actually develops. Finally they must be prepared to throw all of these preparations overboard when the actual discussion opens unanticipated but more useful and exciting directions.

One device for case preparation is to make a list of 20 to 30 questions that would be fruitful avenues to pursue during the discussion. The questions are not used directly but their preparation serves two purposes. Firstly, in formulating meaningful questions one is forced to think more deeply about the issues in the case. Secondly, the questions form a rough guide which anticipates the directions that the discussion should take. When the discussion bogs down or an issue becomes exhausted the list is available as a source of new issues to be considered.

The role of the instructor in case discussion we see is different from that of the lecturer. They do not teach. The instructor does not expose, uncover or reveal new material or insights for the students. Rather they prepares the environment and manages the learning situation so that the students learn by exercising those talents they have for discovering new insights for themselves, for making decisions, and for operating as a self reliant engineer. The instructor does this by staying out of the way as much as possible and by establishing situations where the student must do these things.

The methods described herein are not all inclusive. They are not even self consistent. Each class is different and each must be handled in its own way.

1. The Case Method At The Harvard Business School, M. P. McNair, McGraw-Hill, 1954