Introducing Case Study Teaching in International Relations and Development Subjects

by

Marianne Hanson, William Tow and Gillian Whitehouse¹
Department of Government, the University of Queensland

 

Rationale for the project

This project grew out of the perception that a more interactive and intellectually challenging approach to teaching undergraduate subjects in international relations and development studies could be devised than the standard lecture/tutorial format that was widely used. Three interrelated teaching problems were at the heart of this endeavour. First, we felt that the complexity and dynamics of international politics could not easily be conveyed in lectures, where we found it important to retain a fairly tight and simplified structure to facilitate note taking and to impart specific positions evident in the literature on the topic. This format tended to be somewhat restrictive when addressing crisis situations (such as the Bosnian conflict) or controversial global issues (such as environmental degradation). Second, although a less formal structure was used in tutorials, we were concerned about the way tutorial discussion easily became locked into tied dichotomies reflecting opposing ideological positions. While we wanted our students to recognise contrasting viewpoints, we felt they also needed a better understanding of the constraints facing national and international political actors, and a more sophisticated appreciation of the indeterminacy of many of the issues under discussion. Third, much of the literature drawn on in teaching our subjects often lacked an Australian perspective on specific issues. While Australia has been involved in activities such as promoting United Nations peacekeeping, nuclear and chemical weapons control, and strategies to assist developing nations, much of this activity is not adequately reflected in the curricula of international relations and development studies programs in Australia. We were keen to enrich our programs with a more concerted focus on Australia's own geopolitical and diplomatic priorities and initiatives

. The introduction of case study teaching appeared to offer a way to address these three problems simultaneously. We were aware of the Pew Case Studies in International Affairs program developed at Georgetown University and sought to investigate whether such a program might be suitable for adaptation for use with our students. The use of interactive case studies would allow a move away from the standard lecture/tutorial format, and provide an explicit focus on the complexity of issues in a palatable form. It would also move students beyond a simplified debate on issues to having to confront the situation as viewed by different political actors in different situations, yet do this in a way that a specific pedagogical goal could be pursued and the direction of the discussion guided by trained case study teachers. Moreover, to the extent that we could include an Australian dimension in the cases we utilised, we would be overcoming some of the limitations of much of the literature with which our students engaged.

Our plan, therefore, was to draw on the expertise and extensive case study material available in the Pew program, but to develop teaching materials and a pedagogical approach explicitly formulated for our own students. In order to effectively implement a case study program we needed to undergo training as case study teachers, and prepare our students effectively for the new method. It was not our intent to replace the standard lecture/tutorial format altogether, as this provided a reliable way of combining the provision of structured information elaborated through small group discussion. Rather we intended to introduce some case study work alongside our standard methods and evaluate the process as it was implemented. Our belief was that a case study program designed explicitly for our students would facilitate learning about international politics in active rather than passive ways, thus enabling better retention and analysis of information that the students themselves have had a role in creating. The outcomes we hoped to achieve by addressing the three problems outlined above were improved knowledge and analytical capacity and a better appreciation of the complexity and contested nature of political action. We believe these skills are central to our students' career prospects.

 

Steps taken to implement the project

Our initial step was to formulate a Project Reference Group (PRG), which included a student representative, tutors, a representative of UQ's Teaching and Educational Development Institute (TEDI), a case study `Master Teacher' (via email) and ourselves as the three academics involved in introducing this method of teaching.

All members of this PRG then took part in a one-week intensive Case Study Training Session delivered by Professor Steve Lamy from the University of Southern California. This session involved discussion of the pedagogical merits of case study teaching, consideration of various forms of assessment of student participation, guidance in the preparation of writing assessments associated with case study teaching, training in how to conduct effective case study sessions, practice sessions (with feedback from Professor Lamy) and a demonstration by Lamy of case study teaching with a group of international relations and development studies undergraduates. The training also included sessions on how to write case studies for our own courses.

Following this training, we commenced a series of trial case study sessions during the remainder of Semester One. What became evident from a very early stage was that students were not used to this method and required some explanation of its purposes and techniques prior to commencing case work. Once these were given, however, and once students had commenced their interaction in case study sessions, there appeared to be considerable enthusiasm for this method. Approximately five trial sessions were completed by tutors and academics and though these only involved small groups of students (approximately twenty, as opposed to the larger numbers we would teach in Second Semester) they were an invaluable means of determining which particular techniques and approaches elicited the best responses from students and which approaches were unfruitful. Receiving feedback from other members of the PRG, who would attend these sessions, was also very beneficial.

Our next stage was the preparation of material to be given to students enrolled in those subjects where case study teaching would be introduced. There were two levels to this: firstly, it required elaboration of the case study method and its objectives, assessment procedures, etc. to students via the relevant subject guides. Secondly, we commenced writing cases which either presented an Australian angle on specific issues (Australian-Indonesian security relations) and/or capitalised on prevailing political issues (such as the Kosovo conflict, the debate over the use of child labour). The cases written by each of the three teams (one academic plus one tutor) involved will be submitted to the Pew Case library for addition to their collection. We were also engaged at this time in developing readings which could accompany the cases we taught, as well as formulating a series of questions and pedagogical styles which would enable our students to relate material they were addressing in specific cases to Australian perspectives and practices. For example, a purchased case which examined the Tiananmen Square killings, while written from an American perspective, was accompanied by literature outlining the Australian government's response to this crisis and while teaching the case, students were encouraged to connect their findings and comments to the Australian response also. This written material was distributed to students over the course of the Second Semester.

The next stage involved the development of preparation exercises for students enrolled in case study subjects in Semester Two. We understood that for most students, learning international relations and development issues through case studies would be a new experience. We believed that it would not be appropriate simply to confront students with case studies without relevant and phased preparation. We felt it was necessary to introduce students to a series of short exercises involving active listening, role playing and small group discussion in order to acclimatise students to the concepts and practices associated with case study learning.

Most of the existing literature on case study teaching reflects the assumption that students will develop specific skills when using the case method. Our contention was that the optimal use of this method also required such skills and that a short acclimatisation program, ahead of formal case study sessions, was vital for initiating these preliminary skills - skills which would be further developed and consolidated by interaction with the cases. This was part of our objective to `add value' to the Pew case study program by devising teacher and student strategies appropriate to our needs. In consultation with TEDI staff therefore, a series of active listening exercises, role playing exercises and short case interactions was devised and applied to each of the three groups of students.

Each individual academic was also involved at this time in developing teaching strategies appropriate to the three or four cases he/she would be teaching. These strategies were designed to encourage students to assess problems from angles they may previously not have considered, to engage critically with the material presented in cases and by their fellow students and to take decisions on specific questions and dilemmas put to them by the teacher. A teaching strategy would typically involve a series of short, factual answer questions, together with a range of more open-ended questions and instructions designed to facilitate interaction and critical thinking. (Such strategies might include questions such as `What are the political/ethical/strategic implications of a the various arguments presented?' `What courses of action are available to governments/groups in this situation?' and `Could a particular outcome have been avoided?') Pedagogical objectives for each case were clearly defined, with the individual teaching strategy constructed to facilitate maximum achievement of this pedagogical objective.

 

Project Findings to Date

To reiterate our basic project intent, case study teaching was adopted to test how effectively we could convey the dynamics and complexities of international politics, avoid the preconceptions and ideological deadlocks often manifested in tutorial environments and introduce a distinctly Australian perspective into the issues under review. Following Professor Lamy's training visit, a fourth implicit, but no less important objective emerged: to introduce an international 'case study teaching culture' already in place throughout much of the United States and growing rapidly in Europe and other selected locales. Indeed, a new international relations staff member scheduled to join our Department in mid-2000 is currently enmeshed in case study teaching and writing seminars under Dr Lamy's supervision at the University of Southern California.

An evaluation has now been conducted through a survey instrument designed by the team members and TEDI staff. A preliminary overview of the survey results is presented below.

Learning Enhancement
A core question was whether we had succeeded in conveying the complexities and dynamics of international politics in an interesting and meaningful way by incorporating case study teaching as an alternative to the usual lecture/tutorial class format. In the data already processed (for 2 out of 3 pilot classes - GT 241 and GT 263), an overwhelming positive response was received on the learning enhancement issue. In GT 241, 21.7 % believed this method 'greatly enhanced' the learning process; and 72.5% felt that process was enhanced 'moderately'. Thus 94.3% felt that at least some learning enhancement had occurred as a result of integrating this method with lectures and tutorials while only 5.7 % believed that process was either not affected or was undermined. Similar results were attained in GT 263 with 47.8% of the students concluding that a great enhancement of learning had occurred and 43.5% felt that at least some such enhancement had taken place. Only 8% believed case studies had little impact on their learning.

The subject convenors were also positive about case study teaching as a learning enhancement process but qualified their endorsement with some caveats related to preparation and pedagogy. One risk is that after preparing a case 'teaching plan', case convenors can become wedded too rigorously to its parameters. As one convenor stated: 'It is sometimes a tricky balance between directing the discussion in line with pedagogical goals and having the flexibility to change tack if other interesting issues are raised.'

Part of the problem may have been related to time constraints relative to developing adequate exploration of the issues to be covered in a particular case. The need to integrate the case study teaching method into the overall subject with lectures and tutorials given time limits was also problematic.

In particular, we were concerned with getting the 'right balance' between traditional teaching modes and experimental ones when they must co-exist in a single subject. Our survey did suggest that we had achieved an appropriate balance (86% in GT 241 and 76% in GT 263 thought that the combination of case studies and lectures was about right). The course convenors concluded that three to four cases per subject was an appropriate balance; however this still involved extra teaching effort and the loss of some content material. We will be considering ways of addressing better integration of different teaching styles while retaining ideal levels of basic subject content.

Widening Students' Perspectives
Another objective underlying the introduction of case study teaching was to encourage students to challenge their preconceptions and introduce them to the complex nuances often involved in policy decision-making. The student feedback on this issue was extremely positive: 93% of GT 241 students believed that they had been assisted in seeing issues from difference perspectives to some degree (with 37.5% believing this skill had been greatly enhanced by the case study method) and 91% of GT 263 students expressing the same opinion (with a very impressive 68.1% expressing that case study teaching greatly enhanced their skill to do so!). Related trends that emerged from student's comments in the survey included a greater opportunity to relate specific policy issues to broader theoretical concepts introduced in lectures and to process and analyse information more efficiently. The key to achieving these goals seemed to be to focus on keeping the flow of the session smooth and its pace manageable. Students could then have time to recognise the legitimacy of alternative policy choices and derive conclusions on policy formulation after giving all possible approaches their due consideration.

The 'Australian Dimension'
At this stage, our introduction of an `Australian dimension' to case teaching has been limited to incorporating questions from an Australian perspective during case sessions and preparing readings which present Australian views on the topic. In the future, we intend to bring in a greater amount of Australian material with cases specifically written for this purpose (one such case, dealing with the Australian-Indonesian bilateral security treaty, has already been completed).

Problems of Implementation
Two major logistical concerns emanated from both the student surveys and from discussions in the Project Reference Group. One was the lack of proper facilities for creating appropriate case study environments. The second was how to divide very large second/third year lecture subjects into considerably smaller groups more facilitative to conducting case study teaching.

It has become clear that we need special facilities, conducive to maximising the effects of student dialogue and interaction. Most students felt that the fixed seating and tiered lecture theatre was a problem in conducting case studies, with particular emphasis given to hearing problems and to the undermining of group work/role playing that could be more 'realistic' in more conducive case study environments.

Group size could be dealt with more immediately, for example by increasing the number of case study teaching sessions each week a case is taught. This implies allocating different types of resources to the process: i.e.: more postgraduate tutors trained in the case teaching method (and thus more Departmental expenditures directed toward this end) to coordinate the extra sessions, teaching relief for course convenors from other subjects and other measures to keep the case study teaching seminar to manageable levels (20-30 as opposed to the 40-50 that were the norm for this semester) The resource issue is particularly critical if course convenors wish to retain lectures and tutorials alongside case study teaching. Greater workload and minimal time to develop adequate exploration of issues must be reconciled with resource constraints.

 

Conclusion

On balance, the Project Reference Group has concluded that the introduction of case study teaching has been a highly positive development. It has instilled a greater sense that instructors and students are mutual stakeholders in the learning process. It has motivated our students to discover and evaluate their own perspectives more actively than was possible in a traditional lecture/tutorial format. It has also allowed us to participate in a very important pedagogical development in the United States and elsewhere.

Given this experience, it is certain that we will continue to offer and develop case study teaching over the next few years. We will continue to refine our methods, however, in accordance to student feedback and demand. Over time, it is expected we can expand this format into other Departmental, Faculty and University sectors and into other tertiary educational environments throughout Australia.

 

Notes

¹   The authors would like to acknowledge the work of Alexandra Siddal, Matt McDonald and Jean-Loius Durand who have been engaged in the case teaching program throughout the semester and who have compiled the results of the evaluation survey.

 

 

 

Teaching and Educational Development Institute,
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland 4072 Australia
    Phone: +61 (7) 3365 2788
Authorised by: ACE Group, Teaching and Educational Development Institute
Modified: 8 March 2002
© 2002 The University of Queensland