An Examination of the Effectiveness of Case Method Teaching Online

Abstract

This article discusses the effectiveness of the case method when teaching online by comparing synchronous and asynchronous communication technologies with respect to how well they each embody Chickering and Gamson’s Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. The authors also present their empirical study of the effectiveness of different online case discussion methods with respect to student learning and satisfaction. The empirical findings suggest that student satisfaction and perceived learning are affected by the type of technology used to implement the case method online. The technology used for case discussions in an online course seems to matter, especially with respect to how well it enhances students’ engagement and interaction with the instructor and their fellow students.

Keywords

case method seven principles of good practice distance learning online case discussions online pedagogy

In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of courses offered in an online or distance learning format, with more than 5.6 million students taking at least one online class during the fall 2009 semester (Allen & Seaman, 2010). In addition to being the primary component of online-only degree programs and being offered in programs for nontraditional learners, online courses are increasingly being offered at traditional, residential universities. According to Allen and Seaman’s 2010 report, 63% of chief academic officers believe that online education is an important strategy in their long-term planning. There are a number of possible reasons for the explosion of online course offerings, including evolving technologies that enable the effective delivery of online courses, cost pressures faced by universities, and demand by students for more online course offerings (Allen & Seaman, 2010). As more online management courses and degree programs are developed, it is important to understand what makes particular pedagogical approaches effective for teaching management courses and whether or not these approaches can be replicated in an online teaching environment. This research study is a step in that direction.

In this study, we focus on the well-accepted case method of teaching, which, because of its interactive and group-based nature, seems particularly ill-suited to an online format. The first question we sought to answer was how a case discussion–based course could be delivered effectively in an online-only format. To help answer this question, we will detail how the case method embodies the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Erhmann, 1996; Chickering & Gamson, 1987), which were set forth as a framework for improving undergraduate education. We will then compare how well different technologies used for online case discussions support these Seven Principles. Because there are several technological tools that can be used to facilitate case discussions in an online teaching environment, we also present a study that we conducted that empirically examined the effects of these different technologies on student satisfaction and learning. We present the results of our data collection and our reflections on what these results suggest regarding the implementation of the case method in an online environment.

Online Case Discussions and the Seven Principles of Good Practice

Since the late 1800s, case method teaching has been the primary instructional pedagogy for law courses and subsequently became a tool of business and medical education from the early to mid-1900s (Kimball, 1995). Barnes, Christensen, and Hansen (1994) identified several key factors in teaching effectively with the case method. Of significance is the concept that the skilled instructor is not the center of the classroom. Rather, the instructor gives a certain amount of control to the students and leads them with guiding questions and challenges their arguments. It is the student discussion itself that provides the valuable learning content. Furthermore, the cases themselves are real-life administrative problems with real variables and real-world endings (Barnes et al., 1994).

We propose that the case method is effective largely because it embodies the “Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education,” which were developed in response to the question of how to improve undergraduate education and, subsequently, how to implement them using technology (Chickering & Erhmann, 1996; Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The Seven Principles suggest a set of guidelines for instructional development aimed at supporting student learning. The Principles emphasize student engagement and suggest several ways to increase engagement, such as interactivity, between the instructor and student as well as among students themselves, active learning techniques, and the availability of prompt feedback. These Principles have been cited by several authors as a means for developing and assessing online courses and programs (Bangert, 2005; Bangert & Easterby, 2008; Billings, 2000; Suen, 2005; White, Roberts, & Brannan, 2003).

The question we examine here is whether the case method can be used in an online course in a way such that it supports the Seven Principles as well online as it does in a face-to-face classroom. To address this question, we will briefly discuss some of the technologies that can be used to implement the case method of teaching in an online setting, in particular, the different synchronous and asynchronous methods used for online communication. We will then compare these methods using the Seven Principles of Good Practice to understand how best to implement the case method of teaching in a distance learning environment.

Synchronous and Asynchronous Methods

Computer mediated communication can be categorized as either synchronous or asynchronous interactions that occur by using different processes. Online synchronous interactions are sometimes considered as closely replicating face-to-face meetings, but participants are in different physical locations bridged using some sort of technological interface. Synchronous interactions occur between participants at the same time from remote locations using “live” chat tools that can incorporate text, audio and or video using tools such as Wimba Live Classroom, Go To Meeting™, Skype™, and numerous other combinations of tools. Synchronous tools such as Live Classroom are generally composed of some or all of the following applications: a central website to log into the software, text chat tools, content sharing options, collaborative tools, polling functions, audio/video sharing options, personal status icons, and a list of active students/participants. Asynchronous interaction occurs between different participants at different times and can use such tools as Twitter, discussion boards, emails, assignment tools, podcasts, blogs, and wikis as well as prerecorded messages using combinations of audio, video, or PowerPoint. Many of the asynchronous options have been readily available online for several years, whereas the synchronous tools have continued to emerge and grow in their sophistication and capabilities.

Synchronous and asynchronous communication methods each have their advantages and disadvantages based on their level of inherent media naturalness and the specified communication task (Hrastinski, 2008; Kock, 2004). Synchronous methods more closely resemble in-class case discussion conditions because all participants, including the instructor and the students, are present and are involved in the discussion simultaneously. Additionally, with synchronous methods, the case discussion usually has a clearly defined time frame or class period, as does a case discussion in a classroom-based course. On the other hand, asynchronous methods for teaching cases online have the advantage of giving students the opportunity to take the time to provide thoughtful, critical responses (Hrastinski, 2008; Rollag, 2010). To evaluate the effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous technologies for carrying out case discussions, we next compare them based on how well they support each of the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Erhmann, 1996; Chickering & Gamson, 1987).

The Seven Principles of Good Practice

In this section, we compare case discussion teaching in the traditional face-to-face classroom with online case teaching using both asynchronous and synchronous technologies. We discuss how well each of these three case teaching formats embodies each of the Seven Principles of Good Practice.

1. Encourages contact between students and faculty

The very nature of case discussion fosters a dialogue between the student and faculty member. The faculty member poses questions to facilitate the understanding of a specific case. As the student responds, the instructor then models answers or poses additional questions, providing many opportunities for student–faculty interaction. In a traditional classroom setting, students come face-to-face with the instructor on a regularly scheduled basis, thus forcing a high level of contact. In this setting, the contact is both visual and auditory, as students and faculty are physically present in the same location and the contact occurs throughout the class period. When taught online, the case method also can involve a high level of interaction and dialogue, which helps management students learn and understand the course content successfully (Rollag 2010; Webb, Gill, & Poe, 2005). Most online communication tools encourage student–faculty interactions, with synchronous online communication methods encouraging a high level of contact, as the students and faculty are present at the same time, albeit virtually. Synchronous technologies can provide a high level of contact that is not limited to audio/video but can include emoticons, text chat, and other forms of immediate engagement. Asynchronous methods such as discussion boards, wikis, and various types of blogs, such as text, video, and audio, encourage student–faculty contact, yet the contact is less immediate and tends to occur intermittently rather than simultaneously, usually over a period longer than a defined class period. However, it should be noted that the convenience of participating in asynchronous activities is appreciated by students (Lin & Overbaugh, 2007). Regardless of the technologies used, guidelines and instructions clarifying the communication channels are extremely important for an online course to be successful (Graham, Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, & Duffy, 2000; Powers, Burrows, & Powers, 2001).

2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students

Discussing cases as a group provides opportunities for interaction among students, allowing the exchange of ideas that can cultivate reciprocity and cooperation among students. Cases often include topics that spur emotive reactions, thereby potentially increasing dialogue, which the adept faculty member can use to build a sense of community within the class. When dialogue is expected and encouraged in a class, students will take advantage of this expectation and build on each other’s arguments and ideas. When discussing a case in class or synchronously online, students are in the same “place” at the same time, which facilitates their interaction. Cooperation and reciprocity among students can also occur in case discussions conducted online using asynchronous methods, such as a discussion board. However, because asynchronous interaction may not occur with as high a degree of immediacy, it may sometimes engender less student–student interaction. Furthermore, immediacy in communication, especially with instant messaging technologies, has been identified as supporting student cooperation, with students “less likely to feel emotionally and intellectually isolated” (Chen Wang & Morgan, 2008). Another drawback to asynchronous discussion boards is that it is possible for students to log in, post their own comments, and leave without having read the postings of other students. The instructor must design the assignment in such a way that students need to read and respond to their peers’ posts in order to complete the assignment successfully. The instructor may wish to monitor postings throughout the discussion period, asking follow-up questions, and, at times, directing students to address previous comments. With synchronous methods, students are present simultaneously, making it less likely that they will fail to hear or see their classmates’ comments without the instructor’s prompting.

3. Uses active learning techniques

Case discussions inherently embody active learning, regardless of the communication method used to conduct the discussion. Whether in the classroom, on a discussion board, or in a virtual class setting, case discussions require a high level of student engagement, as they require students to remain involved in the constantly evolving discussion.

Students do not learn much just sitting in classes listening to teachers, memorizing prepackaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are learning, write reflectively about it, relate it to past experiences, and apply it to their daily lives. (Chickering & Gamson, 1987, p. 5)

Through interactive case discussions, a student can learn how to argue effectively for a particular position and articulate and defend this position. Regardless of the setting, online or face-to-face, it is the faculty member’s responsibility to create a learning environment that challenges the students to participate actively.

4. Gives prompt feedback

The case discussion method provides prompt feedback to students from the instructor as well as from fellow students. In the face-to-face classroom, as well as with synchronous online discussions, each time students participate in the discussion, they receive immediate feedback on their input in the form of the next person’s comments, whether it is the instructor or another student who replies. This immediate feedback allows students to be readily aware of how well their comments have furthered the progress of the discussion. Although asynchronous discussions limit the degree of immediate feedback, feedback can still be given promptly, by both the instructor and fellow students, in the form of follow-up postings. Online instructors have also reflected that asynchronous feedback, although not as immediate, may sometimes have a greater student impact than in the face-to-face or synchronous classroom (Kim, Smith, & Kyungeun, 2008; Meyen, Aust, Bui, & Isaacson, 2002).

Additionally, when grading in an online environment, it may be easier for the faculty member to observe student interaction because it is difficult for students to “hide” their participation and demonstration of their understanding of the case (Rollag, 2010). When online teaching is structured in such a way for the faculty member to provide ongoing feedback, it allows many opportunities to provide the support needed to guide students (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996).

5. Emphasizes time on task

Preparing students to use their time wisely and keep up with readings, assessments, and discussions is of critical importance to student learning and the success of the course (Chickering & Erhmann, 1996; Chickering & Gamson, 1987). In a case discussion, the student must be ready to respond and demonstrate in front of the class that he or she has read and synthesized the learning materials. If a student does not spend adequate time preparing for a case discussion, his or her lack of preparation will be evident to everyone participating in the discussion. Such a public display of a student’s lack of preparation is a strong incentive to spend more time on task.

One way in which asynchronous case discussion methods may be better than in-class or synchronous methods is in how well they emphasize time on task. Case discussions via an asynchronous discussion board require students to post written responses to comments and questions as the discussion moves forward. Because postings normally remain available for the class to see throughout the discussion period, students may be more likely to compose a thoughtful, well-reasoned written answer to the discussion board, whereas in a fast-paced, real-time classroom setting they may be more inclined to make “off the cuff” remarks. Additionally, as noted by Rollag (2010), asynchronous discussion methods allow students more time to develop a well thought out response.

6. Communicates high expectations

High expectations are communicated by the use of the case method because the desired outcome is to think like a professional. The case method promotes high expectations by requiring that students begin to think like managers, using a high level of critical thinking and comparative skills (Barnes et al., 1994). Students respond to demonstrate to the instructor and the rest of the class that they not only understand the case and course material but can also provide coherent arguments to support their conclusions. The use of case discussions sets the tone for a higher level of interaction, critical thinking, and evaluation from the students. Use of the case method communicates these high expectations regardless of the format used to discuss the case.

7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

In the traditional face-to-face case discussion, the student must rely entirely on asserting his or her statements verbally, often in a highly competitive, fast-paced environment. This format does not accommodate multiple learning methods. For example, students who are slow to respond or do not feel confident thinking on their feet in class may benefit from a different format. Some students, especially those who are shy or introverted, feel a great deal of pressure when required to participate in a face-to-face case discussion. In the online environment, both synchronous and asynchronous tools provide such students with a buffer, of sorts, between themselves and the rest of the class. Not being physically visible may give them more freedom to express themselves without as much social pressure. Even in synchronous online class settings, students are able to “hide” behind their computer screen, which gives some students the confidence to participate more actively. Asynchronous communication methods may provide an even better way for such students to become actively engaged in a case discussion (Rollag, 2010). Allowing students to select from a variety of communication methods would permit them to select a method that could meet their personal learning style (Graham et al., 2000).

In summary, the case method can be an effective teaching method, whether taught in the traditional face-to-face classroom or online using synchronous or asynchronous technologies. However, different online technologies better address each of the Seven Principles. Table 1 summarizes this comparison of in-class, face-to-face case discussions with online case discussions using asynchronous and synchronous communication methods with respect to how well the communication methods embody each of the Seven Principles. Next, we will discuss how we empirically assessed the effectiveness of different technologies for using the case method online.

Table 1.

Comparing the Effectiveness of Case Discussion Methods Using the Seven Principles

	Case Discussion Method
Seven Principles	Face-to-Face	Asynchronous	Synchronous
Encourages contact between students and faculty	*	+	*/+
Develops reciprocity/cooperation among students	*	+	*
Uses active learning techniques	*	*	*
Gives prompt feedback	*	+	*
Emphasizes time on task	+	*	+
Communicates high expectations	+	+	+
Respects diverse talents and ways of learning	Ο	*	+

Ο = does not embody this Principle; + = embodies this Principle; * = embodies this Principle to a great degree.

An Empirical Evaluation of Case Discussion Formats in an Online Environment

As we have discussed thus far, there are multiple methods that can be used to integrate case discussions into an online learning environment. Over the past several years, one of the authors has used a number of these case discussion methods in an online version of a course in strategic management, a course that traditionally makes heavy use of the case method as a learning tool. The instructor had taught this senior-level capstone course for approximately 10 years in the in-class format, and when setting out to teach the course online, her objective was to structure the course such that case discussion and analysis were the primary method of learning, as it was in the face-to-face course. The online course consisted of narrated PowerPoint lectures that covered most course material, online quizzes that assessed students’ learning of the content in the text and lectures, and cases that were used in several different ways.

We conducted two different empirical studies to understand better how different online methods of case discussion affected students’ satisfaction and perceived learning. The first analysis compared overall student satisfaction with the course when different methods (synchronous or asynchronous) were used to discuss cases. The instructor taught the same course online multiple times, using two different course formats for case discussions. We then compared students’ evaluations of the course across the two different formats. In the second study, we examined students’ ratings of different cases within the same online section of the course, comparing students’ ratings of cases that were discussed or analyzed using different methods (asynchronous discussion board, team analysis assignments, individual written assignments). Thus, although both our empirical analyses assessed students’ ratings of different types of online case analysis methods, our first study compared the level of student satisfaction with the course across different course sections with different course formats, whereas the second study assessed different case analysis methods within a single course section, using the same set of students.

Study 1: Comparing Student Satisfaction With and Without Synchronous Case Discussions

Method

With respect to the first study, which looked at the differences in student satisfaction across online sections of the same course that were taught using different case discussion formats, the instructor taught the class online four times, twice using Wimba Live Classroom and twice using only asynchronous methods for case discussions. Each time the course was taught, multiple cases were discussed during the course using either the asynchronous discussion board or the synchronous tool, Live Classroom. For all sections of the course the institution provided technical support for the students and the instructor.

When the synchronous tool, Live Classroom, was used for case discussions, four different cases were discussed using the Live Classroom method over the course of the term. Additional cases were also analyzed using other methods that were available in the institution’s Learning Management System (discussion board, individual written responses to questions, team assignments). During the two course sections that were taught without the Live Classroom synchronous discussion tool, the instructor employed all the previously mentioned case discussion methods, and one or two additional cases were discussed using the asynchronous discussion board.

During the last week of the semester, students were asked to complete an online course evaluation form voluntarily and anonymously. The online course evaluation procedure is standard across all courses at the university. Questions on the evaluation form used in this study included questions required by the faculty member’s department as well as questions required by the distance learning department. The instructor received student responses approximately 3 weeks after course grades were submitted. Seventy-two students completed the course evaluation form across the four sections, for a response rate of 55.8%.

Several of the items included in the evaluation form addressed student satisfaction, which students rated on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 equals the lowest rating and 5 equals the highest rating. Mean comparison tests were conducted to compare the means of the student satisfaction items between the sections in which cases were discussed using the Live Classroom synchronous discussion tool and those sections in which cases were discussed solely using an asynchronous discussion board.

Results

The instructor who designed and taught all four sections of the course, both with and without the synchronous discussion tool, had approximately 10 years of experience teaching this course in the traditional classroom setting and anticipated that students would react more positively to the course when it included live, synchronous group discussions. However, that was not the case, as indicated in Table 2. For several items, the level of student satisfaction differed significantly between the courses using the synchronous case discussions and the courses using the asynchronous discussion board. In all cases, for items that had significant differences in student ratings, the ratings were higher for the courses taught using the discussion board and lower for the courses taught using the synchronous Live Classroom.

Table 2.

t Tests of Mean Differences in Student Ratings of Satisfaction

	Live Classroom	Discussion Board	t Value
Overall degree of satisfaction with the course	4.16	4.59	2.04*
This online course comparable/better than on campus	3.76	4.47	3.12**
Overall satisfaction with distance learning process	4.03	4.44	2.11*
Overall satisfaction with tech assistance	4.06	4.06	−0.01
Overall rating for instructor	4.28	4.55	1.61

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Some of the student comments the instructor received over the course of the term and on the student evaluations indicated that some students did not like the synchronous discussion method for a variety of reasons. Some mentioned that the technology was difficult or inconvenient to learn. Others noted that they did not like having to participate in a discussion at a set time, given that it was an online class. These negative reactions may in part be attributed to the students’ overall attitude toward technology and their belief as to whether or not the Live Classroom tool was easy to use and worthwhile (Long, 2008; Martins & Kellermanns, 2004). The results in Table 2 indicate that students were less satisfied with the distance learning process when the Live Classroom tool was used, which may indicate that it was more difficult to use. It should be noted that students’ ratings of their satisfaction with technical assistance did not differ significantly between the two course formats, so technical support does not explain the results. Our finding supports previous research that has proposed that online asynchronous feedback, although not as immediate, may sometimes have a greater student impact than the face-to-face or synchronous online classroom (Kim et al., 2008; Meyen et al., 2002; Rollag, 2010).

Other students had positive reactions to the synchronous discussion method in their comments. Several students commented that they appreciated the interactive nature of the live discussions, especially in an online learning environment, and it helped them understand the material better (first and third of the Seven Principles—encourages contact between students and faculty; uses active learning techniques). Other students appreciated the synchronous discussions for an entirely different reason. These students, who said they normally were reluctant to participate in class discussions, felt more comfortable participating in a discussion when they were not physically present in a room with the other students but could participate more anonymously. This result suggests that online synchronous discussion technologies may present a better opportunity for shy or self-conscious students to engage actively in class discussions. As such, this method seems to respect diverse ways of learning (seventh of the Seven Principles) more so than does the traditional in-class discussion.

Study 2: Perceived Student Learning Across Different Case Discussion Methods

Method

In the second study, we assessed perceived student learning across different case discussion methods. The instructor administered an additional survey to the students at the conclusion of the course, which was not affiliated with the standard course evaluation that students complete for every management course they take. Rather, it was a separate web-based survey designed by the instructor that students completed online through a link on the course website. The instructor explained that it was part of a research project she was conducting to evaluate online course offerings. In this survey, students were asked to evaluate each of the cases that were used during the term for discussion or analysis with respect to how much the case contributed to their learning of the course material. Cases were used in three ways during the course in which this survey was administered.

One set of cases was discussed as a class using the asynchronous discussion board. For these three cases, the instructor posed initial questions. Then, after a number of students posted comments to these initial questions, the instructor made comments on students’ postings and posed additional questions based on student comments, thus incorporating Principles 1 through 6. The discussion board was open for approximately 2 days. Students were graded based on the quality and quantity of their postings to the discussion board.

A second set of cases was used for team assignments. Each of these two cases served as the basis for multiple team assignments as new material was covered in the course. The first case was used for four team assignments during the first half of the term, whereas the second case was used for three additional team assignments during the second half of the term. Team members collaborated to complete and hand in a single team written response to a set of questions that required them to apply the analysis tools covered during that module of the course, consistent with Principles 2, 3, 5, and 6. The names of all team members who participated were listed on the assignment, and a single team grade was given to all team members listed. At the end of the term, students had an opportunity to complete a peer evaluation on which they rated their team members’ contributions to the team assignments. These peer evaluations had the potential to influence a student’s final individual grade for the team assignments.

For a third set of cases, students handed in individual written responses to analysis questions relating to the current course material. Students completed these three case assignments on their own and received individual grades on them, which addressed Principles 1 and 3. The grades were based on how well students used the strategic analysis tools learned in the course to answer the questions.

On the course survey, students rated each case separately on a scale of 1 to 5 with respect to how well it helped them learn the course material (1 = not at all, 5 = very well) and whether it should be used in the future (1 = no way, 5 = definitely). The ratings were aggregated to form scales for the following: (a) cases discussed using the discussion board, (b) cases used for team exercises, and (c) cases used for individual written assignments. Paired t tests were performed to determine whether there were significant differences in students’ perceptions of how the three sets of cases contributed to their learning of the course material and students’ opinions on whether the cases should be used again in the future.

Results

As shown in Table 3, students responded that they learned significantly more from the cases discussed using the discussion board and those used for team assignments than they did from the cases for which they completed individual written assignments. Webb et al. (2005) also noted a similar effect in their study, noting that “treatments incorporating some degree of online discussion had significantly superior results” (p. 244). These results suggest that students learn more from assignments that better incorporate the Seven Principles of Good Practice. As discussed previously and as indicated in Table 1, the discussion of cases using the discussion board embodies all the Seven Principles, especially the use of active learning techniques and respect for diverse talents and ways of learning. Additionally, the discussion board encourages student interaction with the instructor and other students, develops student cooperation, gives prompt feedback, and communicates high expectations.

Table 3.

t Tests of Mean Differences in Student Ratings of Cases Grouped by Asynchronous Method

	Contributed to Learning of Material	Should be Used in the Future
Discussion board method	4.18^a	4.21^a
Team exercise method	4.12^a	4.13^a
Individual written response method	3.67^b	3.91^b

Same letter superscripts indicate no significant difference between groups; different letter superscripts indicate significant differences between groups. Thus, a mean with superscript “a” is not significantly different from other means in that column with superscript “a” but is significantly different from a mean with superscript “b”.

Although the use of team written case assignments was not included in Table 1, this method of case analysis in an online setting also embodies many of the Seven Principles. For example, it obviously develops a great deal of reciprocity and cooperation among students, as they must work together to develop a single, team response. As such, working in teams also communicates high expectations.

It is likely that students reported greater learning from the cases analyzed on the discussion board and in teams, because these methods embodied more of the Seven Principles than did the preparation of individual written responses to strategic questions. This finding is consistent with the attributes of the Seven Principles. The cases that were used in ways that incorporated more of the Seven Principles seem to have resulted higher levels of perceived student learning.

It is interesting to note that although students indicated that they learned more from the cases discussed on the discussion board and those used for the team case assignments, in a separate question they responded that they prefer not to use these methods. The course survey also asked students to evaluate each of the general components of the course, including the online topic lectures, the cases discussed using the discussion board, the team case assignments, and the individual written responses to case questions. Students rated each course component with respect to how much it contributed to their learning of the course material (1 = very little, 5 = a great deal) and how it should be used in the future (1 = much less, 5 = much more). As shown in Table 4, students indicated that they would prefer less use of the discussion board and the team assignments and that these components of the course contributed less to their learning than did the lectures and individual written responses to cases. This result is a direct contradiction of their responses in Table 3 regarding how much they learned from each case. Thus, it appears that the cases used in these interactive manners helped students learn, but the methods, themselves, were not viewed favorably by students. The increased level of engagement required by interactive online teaching methods, although seemingly not as popular with the students, is supported by the first, second, third, fifth, and sixth of the Seven Principles in addition to being required by many educational governing bodies (Frey, 2010; Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009; Middle States Commission, 2011).

Table 4.

t Tests of Mean Differences in Student Ratings of Course Components

	Contributed to Learning of Material	Should be Used in the Future
Topic lectures	4.24^a	3.88^a
Cases used for individual written responses	4.24^a	3.75^a
Cases used for team exercises	3.60^b	2.79^b
Cases discussed using discussion board	2.96^c	2.63^b

Limitations and Future Research

The results presented here have important implications for future research in online teaching, despite some of the limitations of the current study. Although this study used data from four sections of the same course, the sample is still relatively small, so future research should be conducted using larger samples. Additionally, a single instructor taught all four sections at the same university. Although this aspect of the research design is positive in that it effectively controls for instructor and setting, it also introduces within-instructor error, as this instructor may prefer or simply be better at some teaching methods than others. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other instructors and/or universities. In particular, the results may vary for different instructors, who may be more or less adept at using the case method and at incorporating into their teaching technologies such as those examined in this study. Thus, future research designs should include multiple instructors with varying levels of experience with technology. Alternatively, a research design could include treatments using the online discussion board both with and without instructor interaction to assess the impact of instructor interaction versus only student–student interaction.

This study relied on data supplied by student respondents, which affects the results in several ways. Level of learning was measured by students’ own perceptions of their learning, which may not be an accurate measure, although researchers have argued that college students should estimate the amount they learn with considerable accuracy (Halic, Lee, Paulus, & Spence, 2010). Furthermore, perceived learning may be influenced by other factors. For instance, students’ perceptions of their learning may have been influenced by the grades they received on different assignments. In this study, the grading procedures were similar across the different case analysis formats, taking into account both quality and quantity of comments, but students may have found the assignments for some case formats to be more difficult than other formats. Researchers may want to consider surveying students with respect to their satisfaction with and perceived learning from assignments before the grades for those assignments are distributed. Different cases were used in the different formats as well, and students may react differently to cases depending on their level of interest in the focal company of the case. Thus, it may be important to include a measure of student interest in the company as a control variable.

The results of this study suggest several avenues for future research. In particular, studies of students’ response to different technologies should include in the research design additional variables that we did not measure here but that the results suggest may be important. For instance, in our comparison of face-to-face and online case discussion methods, we suggested that students spend more time thinking about and formulating responses for an online discussion board than for in-class or online synchronous discussions, where their responses may be more “off the cuff.” Future studies should measure time on task for these different methods of case discussion to support this conclusion empirically. We also suggest that some students prefer online case discussions because they are more comfortable participating when they are not physically present and, thus, feel less visible. Studies in this area would benefit from the measurement of some personality variables, such as introversion or self-confidence. As the last of the Seven Principles suggests, different personalities or ways of learning may respond differently or have different preferences with respect to the various methods of case discussion, an idea that has been supported by previous research on technology mediated learning (Soh & Subramanian, 2008).

Much of our research here is based on the Seven Principles of Good Practice, and we draw conclusions from our results using this same lens. However, we do not directly measure the Principles or how well they were embodied in the courses studied here. In the future, we plan to include measures of the Principles, using instruments developed and used by Bangert (2005; Bangert & Easterby, 2008), in order to confirm some of our findings regarding the effectiveness of different methods of online communication.

Conclusions

Advances in technology have led to a proliferation of online management course offerings, as well as a number of ways course content can be delivered to students in an online setting. Some courses lend themselves well to simple online delivery, particularly those that consist mainly of lectures, readings, and exams. However, many management courses are best taught using various forms of interaction, including discussions, teamwork, and presentations. The challenge management faculty face is how to design online offerings that are as effective online as they are in a face-to-face classroom situation. Here, we have argued that the case method is effective in the traditional classroom in large part because it embodies many of the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. We also demonstrated that cases can be used in a number of ways in an online management course such that they embody many of the same Seven Principles, and thus contribute to a valuable learning experience.

We had anticipated that the most effective way to teach strategy online would be to use technology to replicate the in-class case discussion experience as closely as possible, using a synchronous discussion tool. However, students reported that they were more satisfied with the course without the live, synchronous discussions, and that they learned a great deal from cases analyzed using both the discussion board and team assignments. This result suggests that it is not necessary, or perhaps not even advisable, to attempt to replicate the in-class experience in a distance learning setting. When students enroll in an online class, they are not expecting an in-class experience, so it is not necessary to try to deliver a precise replica of the in-class experience. What seems to be most important in an online class is to build in a level of interactivity between the instructor and the students and between the students, themselves. We should note that student satisfaction and learning were quite high, regardless of the discussion method used for cases, with students’ evaluations of most survey items being greater than 4 on a 5-point scale, as shown in Table 2.

Our findings support the importance of building into an online course the research-based Seven Principles of Good Practice. Students learn when they are engaged, but their engagement is not predicated on face-to-face contact in the traditional classroom sense. Rather, it can be built into online courses in various ways that have a significant impact on student satisfaction and learning. Although technology matters to some extent, what seems to matter even more is how the technology is used to enhance the level of engagement by the students and the degree to which they interact with both the instructor and their classmates.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allen

I. E.

Seaman

(2010). Class differences online education in the United States, 2010. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

Bangert

A. W.

(2005). Identifying factors underlying the quality of online teaching effectiveness: An exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 17(2), 79-99.

Bangert

A. W.

Easterby

(2008). Designing and delivering effective online nursing courses with the Evolve electronic classroom. Nurse Educator, 26(2), 99-105.

Barnes

L. B.

Christensen

C. R.

Hansen

A. J.

(1994). Teaching and the case method. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Billings

D. M.

(2000). A framework for assessing outcomes and practices in web-based courses in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(2), 60-67.

Chen Wang

L. C.

Morgan

W. R.

(2008). Student perceptions of using instant messaging software to facilitate synchronous online class interaction in a graduate teacher education course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(1), 15-21.

Chickering

A. W.

Ehrmann

S. C.

(1996, October). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3-7.

Chickering

A. W.

Gamson

Z. F.

(1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Frey

J. P.

(2010). Online education in higher education in New York. State Education Department, University of the State of New York. Retrieved from http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2010Meetings/March2010/0310hed1.htm

10.

Graham

Cagiltay

Lim

B.-R.

Craner

Duffy

T. M.

(2000). Teaching in a web based distance learning environment: An evaluation summary based on four courses (CRLT Technical Report No. 13-00). Retrieved from http://crlt.indiana.edu/publications/workpapers/crlt00-13.pdf

11.

Halic

Lee

Paulus

Spence

(2010). To blog or not to blog: Student perceptions of blog effectiveness for learning in a college-level course. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 206-213.

12.

Hrastinski

(2008). Asynchronous and synchronous E-learning: A study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered that each supports different purposes. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55.

13.

Kim

Smith

Kyungeun

(2008). Assessment in online distance education: A comparison of three online programs at a university. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring111/kim111.html

14.

Kimball

B. A.

(1995). The emergency of case method teaching, 1870’s-1990’s: A search for legitimate pedagogy. Bloomington: Poynter Center, Indiana University.

15.

Kock

(2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward E-communication tools. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions, 48, 117-130.

16.

Lin

S. Y.

Overbaugh

R. C.

(2007). The effect of student choice of online discussion format on tiered achievement and student satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 399-415.

17.

Long

L. K.

(2008). Online training: The value of capturing trainee reactions. Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(1), 21-37.

18.

Martins

L. L.

Kellermanns

(2004). A model of business school students’ acceptance of a web-based course management system. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 7-26.

19.

Means

Toyama

Murphy

Bakia

Jones

(2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

20.

Meyen

E. L.

Aust

R. J.

Bui

Y. N.

Isaacson

(2002). Assessing and monitoring student progress in an e-learning personnel preparation environment. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 187-198.

21.

Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2011). Distance education programs interregional guidelines for the evaluation of distance education (Online learning; 1st ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Author.

22.

Powers

Burrows

Powers

(2001). Using the case method in distributed environments: Opportunities and challenges. Paper presented at the proceedings of the17th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI.

23.

Rollag

(2010). Teaching business cases online through discussion boards: Strategies and best practices. Journal of Management Education, 34, 499-526.

24.

Soh

P.-H.

Subramanian

A. M.

(2008). Is usage a missing link in explaining the perceived learning outcome of technology-mediated learning? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 50-66.

25.

Suen

(2005). Teaching epidemiology using WebCT: Application of the Seven Principles of Good Practice. Journal of Nursing Education, 44, 143-146.

26.

Webb

H. W.

Gill

Poe

(2005). Teaching with the case method online: Pure versus hybrid approaches. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3, 223-225.

27.

White

Roberts

V. W.

Brannan

(2003). Returning nurses to the workforce: Developing an online refresher course. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 34, 59-63.