This article investigates the relative merits of two methods of case discussion. The first is the Harvard Case Method (HCM), and the other is the McAleer Interactive Case Analysis (MICA) method. In the literature, MICA has been proposed as a remedy for the weaknesses of HCM. Here, we report the results from an experiment that assesses the relative effectiveness of these two methods. Our results support the claim that MICA is better than HCM. In particular, we find that MICA enhances student participation in case discussions. This is useful, inasmuch as one important component of active learning is participation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, L. D.
, O’Neill, H. M., Snyder, N. H., & Townsend, J.B. (1986). How academy members teach the business policy/strategic management course. Journal of Management Case Studies, 2, 334-344.
2.
Bernhardt, K. L.
(1991). Dynamics of marketing case discussions. Marketing Education Review, 1(3), 43-48.
3.
Bonwell, C. C.
, & Eison, J. E. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
4.
Charan, R.
(1976). Classroom techniques in teaching by the case method. Academy of Management Review, 1(3), 116-123.
5.
Christensen, C. R.
(1989). Teaching and the case method. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
6.
Christensen, C. R.
, & Hansen, A. J. (1987). Teaching and the case method. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
7.
Cohen, P.
(1973). The gospel according to the Harvard Business School. New York: Penguin.
8.
Eisenbeis, H. R.
(1994, spring). Utilizing the facilitator role in case teaching: A personal perspective. Case Research Journal, 121-136.
9.
Fisher, C. F.
(1978). Being there vicariously by case studies. In Ohmer Milton (Ed.), On college teaching.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
10.
Garvin, D.
(1991). Barriers and gateways to learning. In C. R. Christensen, D. Garvin, & A. Sweet (Eds.), Education for judgement. Boston, MA:Harvard University Press (pp. 3-13).
11.
Gilson, C.
(1994). Of dinosaurs and sacred cows: The grading of classroom participation. Journal of Management Education, 18(2), 227-236.
12.
Gioia, D. A.
(1993). Contribution! Not participation in management education. In C. M. Vance (Ed.), Mastering management education. (pp. 22-28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Gopinath, C.
(1999). Alternatives to instructor assessment of class participation. Journal of Education for Business, 75(1), 10-14.
14.
Harris, T. L.
, & Schwann, W. E. (1991). Introduction: Learning as a product, process and function. In T. L. Harris & W. E. Schwann (Eds.), Selected readings on the learning process (pp. 1-28). New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
Knowles, M.
(1990). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf.
16.
Lundberg, C. C.
(1993). Case method. In C. M. Vance (Ed.), Mastering management education: Innovations in teaching effectiveness (pp. 45-51). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
McAleer, G.
(1976). Listening as a way to teach marketing policy. In H. Nash & D. Robin, (Eds.), Proceedings: Southern marketing association 1976 conference (pp. 106-108). Atlanta, GA: Southern Marketing Association and Mississippi State University.
18.
McAleer, G. M.
, & Hale, J. R. (1992, October). Want to increase student participation in marketing case courses? Try the MICA method. Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
19.
Paquette, P. C.
, & Voyer, J. (1996). Instructor’s Manual for ‘The Strategy Process’ by H. Mintzberg & J.B. Quinn, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
Siciliano, J.
, & McAleer, G. M. (1997). Increasing student participation in case discussions: Using the MICA method in strategic management courses. Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 209-220.
21.
Travers, R.M.W.
(1977). Essentials of learning. New York: Macmillan.
