Case Study

Using case studies in business education to promote networked thinking: findings of an intervention study Matthias Pilz and Lea Zenner

Department for Vocational, Economic and Social Education, Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

ABSTRACT Case studies are central to the way management is currently taught at universities. Among other benefits attributed to the case study method is that it promotes networked thinking by learners. Networked thinking takes account of interactions and repercussions, making it crucial to decision-making within the complex system of rules that shapes current business reality. However, there is virtually no empirical evidence of the extent to which the case study method actually delivers the advantages attributed to it. This paper aims to remedy that gap in the literature. The paper considers the extent to which the case study method promotes networked thinking on the part of students on business and management courses. The research is designed as an intervention study involving pre- and post- testing. The study finds that students who have worked on a case study correctly identify more interactions in post-testing than in pre-testing.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 2 March 2017 Accepted 13 September 2017

KEYWORDS Case study method; case studies; networked thinking; higher education; teaching and learning

1. Introduction

The opportunities that case studies offer for learning and teaching have a long pedigree in university pedagogy (Copeland 1954). Case studies, case study methodology and working with case studies are not, therefore, recent phenomena but have long formed an integral part of university training in the field of economics (Dooley and Skinner 1977; Liang and Wang 2004). Case studies illustrating practice from the world of business were, in fact, being used at Harvard Business School in Boston before the Second World War (Grant 1997; Schmidt 2010). As situation theory approaches1 are increasingly taken both to pedagogy and to curriculum design, the case study as a tool for tackling complex issues through real-life manifestations gained popularity (Boehrer and Linsky 1990; Liang and Wang 2004) and by the early 1970s, case studies had become an integral part of the methodology for teaching business studies (Dooley and Skinner 1977; McFarlane 2015).

Since then, many different definitions and descriptions have been advanced for ‘case studies’, ‘case examples’ and ‘case methods’, all serving the diverse aims and aspirations

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Matthias Pilz matthias.pilz@uni-koeln.de Department for Vocational, Economic and Social Education, Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Science, University of Cologne, Herbert-Lewin-Strasse 2, Cologne 50931, Germany

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2018 VOL. 23, NO. 3, 325–342 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1382467

of their authors. Here, we shall use the commonly adopted definition advanced by Leen- ders, Mauffette-Leenders, and Erskine (2001, 1), who define the case method as ‘a discus- sion-based learning methodology that enables participants, through the use of cases, to learn by doing and by teaching others. A case is a description of an actual issue faced by a person in an organization.’

Case studies are said to promote problem-solving skills, higher order thinking skills or critical thinking skills (f.e. Brooke 2006), which form the basis for networked thinking (Probst and Gomez 1992). Students from business management courses are presumably educated to become decision-makers in a complex world. Networked thinking skills form an essential basis to handle complex situations and hence to make profound and informed decisions (Probst and Gomez 1992).

However, much of the literature fails to illustrate the extent to which the strong focus on the case study method is, in fact, justified. This paper discusses how the case study method in higher education promotes networked thinking. However, our focus on the current research into the use of the case study method reveals that the methodology lacks a sound empirical basis (see also Herreid 2011; Meinhard and Pilz 2016). As Romm and Mahler have already noted, this gap in the research has persisted since 1986: ‘Nor did we find a single attempt to relate theoretically identified teaching goals to specific case study techniques.’ (1986, 678). They continue: ‘There are a few references in the literature… to the lack of empirical evidence supporting the assumed superiority of the case method over more traditional ones.’ (1986, 694). Accordingly, our paper presents an empirical investigation into the use of case studies with the aim of promoting net- worked thinking among students and discusses the findings.

2. Using case studies to promote networked thinking

Criticism has been voiced in the past of the fact that teaching and learning processes in university education are too often based on the assumption that economic decision- making and the business behaviour resulting from it reflect clearly defined problems with a one-dimensional and linear interdependency (Nguyen and Bosch 2014; Vester 2007).

By contrast, for some time now, the findings of cybernetics research in particular have made it clear that that reality can be described only by reference to complex rule systems and that interventions in reality have multi-dimensional consequences (Vester 2007). As constructivist-oriented approaches, these findings have been taken up by researchers into teaching and learning (Dubs 2004). For example, the findings of problem-solving research and studies of expert and novice behaviour show that, alongside other values, the ability to think in systems and to reflect principal and secondary effects is a pre-condition for solving complex and unstructured problems (Dörner 2004). North American researchers in particular have published findings that provide impressive evidence of the fact that tack- ling real situations in the form of problem presentations and both applying and conserving knowledge requires development of networked and multi-dimensional thought structures (Voss and Post 1988).

Swiss experts from the University of St. Gallen Business School in particular have focused especially on the linkage between networked thinking in a context of self-con- tained action and the elements of planning, implementing and monitoring. Using findings

326 M. PILZ AND L. ZENNER

from systems theory, they have developed this linkage into a process for tackling complex problems (Probst and Gomez 1992). For them, networked thinking is ‘an integrative and coalescent thinking that is based on broader horizons, assumes wider contexts, takes mul- tiple influences into account and is less compartmentalised and fragmentary than conven- tional thinking’ (Probst and Gomez 1993, 5). They argue that individual building blocks of networked thinking lead to steps in the methodology of networked thinking, with these individual steps being networked with each other and contributing to problem-solving as part of an iterative process (Figure 1; see Probst and Gomez 1992 for more detail). Probst and Gomez (1993, 8) therefore also call their approach a ‘problem-solving meth- odology’ that helps users ‘not only to arrive at more comprehensive solutions but also to become more confident in their ability to deal with complex situations’ (our own translation).

The result of these approaches is to generate multi-dimensional teaching and learning arrangements in which pedagogically-driven learning processes develop students’ ability to think in systems and processes. Experts in cognitive psychology as well as in business

Figure 1. Six steps to networked thinking (Probst and Gomez 1992, 107).

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 327

pedagogy recommend the use of case studies to promote networked thinking, since they represent a multi-dimensional and complex framework that forms the basis for the devel- opment and application of networked thinking (Liang and Wang 2004; McFarlane 2015; Voss and Post 1988).

In the academic literature on case studies, authors frequently centre their discussions of the pedagogical uses on the ability of case studies to focus the study of complex economic issues on the collective search for decisions. Consequently, elements such as subject knowledge, methodological skills and social skills are involved (Anderson and Schiano 2014; Boehrer and Linsky 1990; Mauffette-Leenders, Erskine, and Leenders 2005; McNergney, Durcharme, and Durcharme 1999; Schmidt 2010). However, decisions are not directly tested in reality but form the subject of reflection against the backdrop of the circumstances represented by reality and, in many cases, compared with other approaches to solutions. In this sense, then, working through a case study may be described as symbolically representative action.

Despite the prime importance of the decision-making and problem-solving processes, differing priorities apply to the learning outcomes associated with using case studies. For example, as students weigh up decisions and solutions, it may be particularly important for them to uncover the full range of problems or to gather information. In this four different types of case study variations can be distinguished (Pilz, Pierenkemper, and Meinhard 2013):

. Case-study-method: students have to identify hidden problems and find solutions for them

. Case-problem-method: students have to find decisions for explicitly named problems

. Case-incident-method: students have to gather information from the case narrative and/or other sources in order to find a solution

. Stated-problem-method: students have to analyse a given solution with respect to given problems and information

While all of the four case studies variations are generally considered to be suitable to enhance networked thinking, we see important differences. The case-incident-method is time extensive compared to the case-study-method and therefore more difficult to implement, whereas the case-problem-method and stated-problem-method already provide the problem and – for the latter – the solution and are therefore less suitable with regard to enhancing decision-making and problem-solving and hence networked thinking skills. We see the case study method as perhaps the most appropriate amongst the four variations to enhance networked thinking skills. Hence, in this research, we will focus on the case study method.

Alongside the promotion of networked thinking skills, the literature on case studies and their use in higher education also explores a wide range of potential advantages and dis- advantages associated with the method. These advantages and disadvantages are seen to arise out of variations in the conceptual analysis of the case study method, of its back- ground and the framework for its use, and/or of authors’ own experience of using it. The list below includes some of the advantages typically attributed to the case study method (Boehrer and Linsky 1990; Grant 1997; Mauffette-Leenders, Erskine, and Leen- ders 2005; McFarlane 2015; Schmidt 2010):

328 M. PILZ AND L. ZENNER

. Case studies are an authentic and practical method because they draw on reality,

. working in groups promotes a range of competencies, critical skills and problem- solving skills,

. the practical relevance of case studies has a positive impact on motivation to learn,

. case studies represent an active teaching and learning method that avoids passive, receptive learning,

. a practical orientation reduces difficulties with transferring learning to subsequent practice in the real world.

As well as these postulated advantages, however, the literature also cites a number of reasons why the case study method should not be used indiscriminately (Anderson and Schiano 2014). In fact, criticism of the method goes so far as to suggest that the case study method’s inductive approach and its use of well-known solution algorithms imply a threat to academic approaches to problem-solving and a decoupling of research from teaching (Shugan 2006).

3. Empirical research findings on the use of case studies

A wide-ranging analysis of the literature reveals a very small number of empirically-based studies (Herreid 2011). There are even fewer empirical findings in the context of under- graduate-level management education, as to how the use of case studies influences the learning process, and the conditions under which its notional advantages can be realised (Lundeberg and Yadav 2007). A comparable range of empirical findings on learning success can be found only in the area of teacher training (for example Harrington 1995; Kleinfeld 1992) and in natural sciences (for example Bonney 2015; Ozdilek 2014), where the case study method has a comparatively recent history.

Smith (1987) provides an overview of empirical findings relating to the use of the case study method. He distinguishes between two major groups of findings, those relating to the ‘cognitive domain’ and those to the ‘affective domain’. The cognitive domain brings together existing empirical findings to suggest that the case study method appears rela- tively ill-suited to delivering knowledge and concepts but well-suited to promoting reten- tion. Despite contradictory findings in some studies, the case study method seems to receive at least qualified approval as a method for developing problem-solving skills among students. The affective domain includes interpersonal skills, values and attitudes. Whereas some contradictory findings exist with regard to the ability of the case study method to affect interpersonal skills, no studies were found that suggest that case studies have an impact on students attitudes or values.

Some studies describe the attempt to relate different teaching methods to each other and to assess which is superior. Depending on the research design and the indicators being measured, such studies often generate contradictory findings (Lundeberg and Yadav 2007). Böcker (1988), for example, compares the case study method with ‘tra- ditional teaching’. The findings point to the case study method being superior to tra- ditional teaching, especially with regards to the reproduction of knowledge, problem solving skills and motivation. However, amongst other factors, Böcker himself stresses that his study is basically explorative with a small sample and requires further research. Against the backdrop of differing forms of the case teaching method, which point to

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 329

fundamental differences in the teaching and learning process, it is not possible to endorse its advantages in any generalised way.

With an explicit reference to management education, and against the backdrop of the historical use of the case study approach, Mesney (2013, 62) argues:

Taken together, no conclusive evidence has, however, emerged from these studies as to the concrete learning accomplishments of the case method or, for that matter, any other method. Results are difficult to compare and conciliate and even the more recent audits con- clude that the evidence is contradictory and indecisive.

To the best of our knowledge, there are virtually no empirical findings on the use of case studies as a method for developing networked thinking. Pilz (2001) investigates the extent to which using case studies can help to promote networked thinking by trainees on voca- tional training courses for commercial occupations. He concludes that there was an improvement in networked thinking during the study, which may be attributed to the use of case studies (Pilz 2001), but acknowledges limitations on the wider applicability of the finding because the experimental design was limited and the sample was small (Pilz 2001). In an intervention study into the promotion of networked thinking as a result of using case studies among trainee biology teachers, Merkel (2012) concludes that using case studies in higher education ‘improves students’ abilities to generate linkage between differing aspects of the subject being taught within alternative courses of action’ (145; our own translation). However, the potential transferability of these find- ings to other fields is limited (Sykes and Bird 1992).

4. Design of the research study

Our intervention study focused on first- and second-year full-time students taking a business/management course at a German university. As is usual in pedagogical interven- tion research, the study was designed to include a ‘treatment’ and pre- and post-testing (see Figure 2) (for example Ryssel et al. 2008). The treatment represented the independent variable, while the ability to engage in networked thinking represented the dependent vari- able (Melnyk and Morrison-Beedy 2012). The aim of the intervention study was to ident- ify possible links between the intervention (working on a case study) and the outcome (improving participants’ ability to think in a networked way).

4.1. The intervention: design of the case study used

The intervention chosen – a case study in the area of tourism – was geared to the case study method and based on a case study outlined in Pilz (2003).

Figure 2. Research design.

330 M. PILZ AND L. ZENNER

The case study focused on the owner of a hotel in the Scottish Highlands. His hotel was initially very successful, but then visitor numbers declined suddenly as a result of both external and internal factors. The owner has borrowed to enable him to carry out some expensive rebuilding and is now having to make substantial loan repayments.

The students’ role is to help the hotel owner. They have to devise a corporate strategy to improve the situation that reflects the hotel as a corporate model, including its public relations and the full range of interacting factors (see Figure 3).

The case study was designed explicitly to promote networked thinking following the problem-solving methodology by Probst and Gomez (1992, 1993) (see Figure 1) and was tailored to the specialist economic knowledge typical of students in the early part of an undergraduate management course.

The case study provided students with the basis on which to collaborate on producing a holistic approach reflecting individual factors – price, the hotel’s positioning with specific groups of clients, competitors, travelling time, capacity, and local tourist activities and attractions – and of the connections between these factors. The corporate model contained the reference values required to process the case study, such as pricing factors, occupancy rates, targeting to a particular clientele, competition, and profit. Further economic values were not mentioned directly but could be deduced from the information provided and were necessary to the successful processing of the case study. For example, the case

Figure 3. The hotel as a corporate model in the case study (Pilz 2003).

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 331

study made no mention of turnover, but this value could be calculated using room rate and occupancy information.

Students’ processing of the case study was supported by five tasks (Schmidt 2010) which were in line with the stages involved in networked thinking methodology (Figure 1). The students were set an initial task involving analysis of the current situation (the ‘Delimiting the problem’ stage). Using targeted stipulation of criteria for analysis, students were instructed to extract all the relevant economic and business data from the case study and to document them in a structured form on the results sheet provided.

Task 2 involved students in the ‘Delimiting the problem’, ‘Establishing the network’ and ‘Apprehending the dynamics’ stages based on the data extracted and establishing which factors had had a negative impact on the hotel’s business. They were required to justify their choice of factors.

The ‘Delimiting the problem’ stage was completed with an analysis of potential (task 3), which served as a bridge to a solution and involved Probst and Gomez’ (1993) stages of ‘interpreting the behavioural’ and ‘determining the control possibilities’. Again using a mixture of pre-set criteria and independently generated criteria, students were required to identify the existing advantages represented by the hotel and restaurant.

Task 4 required students to take account of the findings already established to develop a justified approach to solving the hotel’s problem (the ‘Shaping the control interventions’ stage). This task defined a more or less precise ‘target situation’. Students were required to compare the actual and target situations, reflecting the existing framework, and to formu- late potential decisions that could help achieve the target situation. The final task then required the students to reflect on their own decisions (the ‘Further development of the problem solution’ stage).

The design of the tasks provided considerable scope for students to tackle the case study independently. It did not steer students towards a particular solution, and the exercise was designed to produce tasks that enable students to identify as many linkages as possible and to actively promote identification of propositions. The tasks were designed and arranged so that both multi-dimensional aspects and the total number of opportunities for net- worked thinking increased from one task to the next.

Individual groups comprised between four and six students and each was given the same tasks. Using work sheets to document each group’s findings and its decisions enabled the process of decision-making to be managed. Joint decision-making and justi- fication of proposed solutions in a final presentation, along with a subsequent comparison of findings across groups, enabled students to agree and articulate extensive chains of argument and to reflect thoughtfully, on the basis of evidence, on their own and their peers’ findings within the context of a complex cluster of issues.

The presentation of the approaches the students devised to solve the problems showed that each group had taken account of decisions made and had made links. To ensure that external influence on the test findings was kept to a minimum, the role of the tutor during the case study exercise was confined to moderating discussions within the groups.

4.2. The empirical survey instrument

As a method of establishing relationships between factors, ‘concept maps’ have over recent years proved a particularly appropriate way of exploring networked thinking (Novak and

332 M. PILZ AND L. ZENNER

Cañas 2006; Schaffernicht and Fürstenau 2013; Sowa 2008). By visualising dependency structures in certain areas of knowledge, concept maps enable research subjects to draw conclusions concerning the linkage between individual elements (Fürstenau, Kneppers, and Dekker 2012; Schaffernicht and Fürstenau 2013).

The degree of pre-structuring of a concept map depends on the context within which it is to be used. As well as constructing their own map (the ‘construct-a-map’ approach), users can also complete a partially pre-constructed map (the ‘fill-in-the-map’ approach) or work with a completed or ‘expert’ map (Hardy and Stadelhofer 2006; Ryssel et al. 2008).

The ‘fill-in-the-map’ and ‘construct-a-map’ approaches are particularly well suited to illustrating networked thinking, because they foreground the interaction and networking between different concepts. Unlike the ‘construct-a-map’ approach, the ‘fill-in-the-map’ method enables pre- and post-testing results to be compared (which is required for evalu- ation) and is also time-efficient to use (Bender 2011).

For this reason, the ‘fill-in-the-map’ approach was chosen for the experiment in line with Pilz (2001) (Figure 4) and adapted as far as possible to the specific content require- ments and personal conditions. The learners received a sheet of instructions requiring

Figure 4. Survey instrument (Pilz 2001).

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 333

them to identify the interdependency between individual business aspects of running a hotel and restaurant and to document their findings using a pre-structured work sheet. The major economic influences (‘concepts’), familiar to students from a range of introduc- tory courses in management, were specified and the participants standardised types of potential linkage using a set of arrows. They were able only to mark the arrows with a fixed set of linking words (‘If… goes up, then… goes up’ or ‘If… goes up, then… goes down’). All other influencing factors were assumed to be constant and to have no additional conditions. The specified influences represented the real-life complexity of the hotel and catering sector and the two types of relationship were adequate to enable students to make clear statements about them.

4.3. Carrying out the experiment

The intervention study was conducted over five consecutive semesters in a mandatory course for Bachelors students studying economics and business at a German university. The tutor and the structure of the intervention remained consistent across the five seme- sters; the student cohort size varied from semester to semester but ranged from 18 to 23. Each semester’s study began with pre-testing. The students then tackled the case study as described in section 4.1 above. Finally, post-testing was administered (see Figure 2). Thereby, the design of pre- and post-test was equal. Each cohort of students was allowed exactly the same amount of time to tackle the tests. Pre- and post-testing were carried out anonymously, but because the results had to be correlated, each student was allocated an alias to identify their results.

Evaluation of pre- and post-testing results was standardised using a coder manual. The researchers counted the number of both correct and incorrect propositions. Correct prop- ositions were defined according to a range of criteria: the technical or business correctness, the logic of the statements accompanying the proposition, and linearity – that is, direct dependency without additional conditions. For example, assuming that all other factors remain the same (ceteris paribus), the proposition that ‘If expenditure on advertising goes up, then the number of overnight stays goes up’ is correct. By contrast, the prop- osition that ‘If expenditure on advertising goes up, then turnover goes up’ is incorrect: there is no direct causality between these two factors, and the additional condition – that ‘the number of overnight stays goes up’ – must first be met.

The working hypothesis assumed was that tackling the case study would produce an improvement in students’ networked thinking – that is, on average, each student main- taining or improving his or her error quotient would make more linkages in post- testing than in pre-testing.

5. Findings

We now describe our findings. The results from pre- and post-testing showed a normal distribution. Results were evaluated using central indicators from descriptive statistics. The single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) from pre-testing showed that groups across the five semesters performed comparatively, F(4, 93) = 0.782, p = .0540. There was, therefore, no significant difference between the groups in their level of prior knowledge.

334 M. PILZ AND L. ZENNER

5.1. Results of pre- and post-testing

Evaluation of the pre- and post-testing produced the findings set out in Table 1. Pre-testing generated a total of 1,626 propositions, of which 1,180 were correct and 446

incorrect. Each student involved in pre-testing formulated an average of 12.02 correct prop-

ositions and 4.6 incorrect propositions (an average error quotient (incorrect propositions as a proportion of total propositions) of 27.4%). The standard deviation (4.7 for total prop- ositions) was very high, indicating a wide distribution. This distribution can be attributed to heterogeneous performance within the group and a steep gradient in the number of propositions (the minimum number of total propositions was 5 and the maximum 28). However, considered in isolation, the total number of propositions says nothing about stu- dents’ performance level with regard to networked thinking ability. For example, one student who generated a total of 28 propositions had an above-average individual error quotient (36%), while one who generated just 5 propositions had a below-average error quotient (20%).

Evaluation of the post-test results showed that a total of 2,244 propositions were gen- erated, an average of 22.9 per student, with an error quotient of 29.5%. The post-test analy- sis also revealed a very high standard deviation (6.0); the factors explaining this are similar to those for the findings of pre-testing.

5.2. Comparison and interpretation of the findings of pre-testing and post- testing

Table 2 illustrates the comparison of pre- and post-test findings. Changes illustrate the shift in post-testing results compared with those from pre-testing. The t-test showed that the change in correct, incorrect and total propositions was very highly significant, t (97) =−9.65, p < .001. The change in average error quotient was around 2%.

The findings demonstrate that the use of case studies did promote students’ networked thinking. Post-testing identified significantly more propositions than pre-testing. The

Table 1. Evaluation of pre- and post-test results. Correct

propositions Incorrect

propositions Total

propositions

Pre-testing Main group (n = 98) (total propositions) 1,180 446 1,626 Arithmetic mean (number of propositions per student; SD = 4.7)

12.0 4.6 16.6

Average per student (correct resp. incorrect propositions as a proportion of total propositions) (in %)

72.6 27.4 100

Minimum 3 0 5 Maximum 23 15 28 Post-testing Main group (n = 98) (total propositions) 1,582 662 2,244 Arithmetic mean (number of propositions per student; SD = 6.07)

16.1 6.8 22.9

Average per student (correct resp. incorrect propositions as a proportion of total propositions) (in %)

70.5 29.5 100

Minimum 3 0 11 Maximum 31 19 39

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 335

hypothesis that the use of the case study method promotes networked thinking was, there- fore, borne out.

However, the findings also show a significant rise not only in correct propositions but also in incorrect propositions. The increase in error quotients (incorrect propositions as a proportion of total propositions) was also significantly positive, t(97) =−2.04, p = .022.

To better assess the impact of the treatment and the areas in which errors were located, we then scrutinised the outcome of individual cases more closely, asking questions such as which students recorded particularly high error quotients and whether there was a differ- ence between students’ pre- and post-testing error quotients.

6. Analysis of individual learning gain

Quantity (the number of propositions) and quality (the error quotient) were used to analyse individual learning gain (see also Stoddart et al. 2000). These two variables were dichotomised using the arithmetic mean. Quality was high where the error quotient was low (below the arithmetic mean) (n = 98; pre-testing 27.4%; post-testing 29.5%) and high where the error quotient was high (above the arithmetic mean). The arithmetic mean for the quantity of propositions was 16.6 in pre-testing and 22.9 in post-testing. Applying the arithmetic mean to pre-and post-testing took account of the overall increase in the total number of propositions (see section 6). The four quadrants can be divided according to type of networked thinker: the ‘Networked thinker’ (a high number of prop- ositions and a low error quotient), the ‘Intuitively networked thinker’ (a high number of propositions and a high error quotient), the ‘Cautiously networked thinker’ (a low number of propositions and a low error quotient), and the ‘Non-networked thinker’ (a low number of propositions and a high error quotient).

This produces the following matrix (Table 3): Below, we distribute the results of the pre- and post-testing across the four-quadrant

matrix and then consider the change for each student. The desideratum is a shift into the first quadrant (high quality/high quantity). Movement to the fourth quadrant (low quality/low quantity) represents deterioration in capacity for networked thinking and is, therefore, undesirable.

Table 2. Comparison of pre- and post-testing results.

Comparison of pre- and post-testing results Change in correct

propositions Change in incorrect

propositions Change in total propositions

Main group (n = 98) (number) +402 +216 +618 Arithmetic mean (number per student) +4.1 +2.2 +6.3 Average per student (Arithmetic mean of change in correct resp. incorrect propositions as a proportion of arithmetic mean of correct propositions of the pre- test)

(%)

+34.1 +48.4 +38.0

Table 3. Types of networked thinking. Quality

High Low

Quantity High Quadrant 1: ‘Networked thinker’ Quadrant 2: ‘Intuitively networked thinker’ Low Quadrant 3: ‘Cautiously networked thinker’ Quadrant 4: ‘Non-networked thinker’

336 M. PILZ AND L. ZENNER

During pre- and post-testing, the distribution of students across the matrix was as follows (Table 4):

It is evident that the distribution of students across the individual fields remains rela- tively constant. A rather different picture emerges, however, when shifts between quad- rants are considered (Figure 5). The size of the field symbolises the number of shifts, while the arrow indicates the direction of the shift.

The largest shift was from quadrant 3 to quadrant 1 (eight students). Six students moved from quadrant 1 to quadrant 3 and a further six moved from quadrant 2 to quad- rant 4. The third-largest shift (five students) was from quadrant 1 to quadrant 2, with four students moving from quadrant 4 to quadrant 2 and from quadrant 3 to quadrant 4 respectively. The diagonal shifts (those between quadrants 1 and 4 and between quadrants 2 and 3) can be disregarded, as only two or three students moved in each case. Analysis of the shifts by individual students shows that the most significant shifts were between quad- rants 1 and 3 and between quadrants 2 and 4. Depending on the direction, these shifts represented either an improvement or deterioration on the part of the students involved.

The findings demonstrate that while all students showed greater networked thinking in post-testing (as measured by a significant increase in the number of correct propositions), the thinker-types themselves remained relatively unchanged. The findings demonstrate that while all students showed greater networked thinking in post-testing (as measured by a significant increase in the number of correct propositions), the thinker-types them- selves remained relatively unchanged. These results are in line with former research on teaching and learning theory which showed the existence of four learning styles which are relatively constant for each person but not fixed (Kolb and Kolb 2005). This consist- ency opens further research possibilities with regard to the question of whether there is any relationship between the learning and thinker types in respect of networked thinking.

Furthermore this finding represents potential starting points for designing and imple- menting case studies in management education within universities. To achieve what Bransford et al. (2012, 134) call ‘diagnostic teaching’, or ‘internally differentiating teach- ing’ (for example Tomlinson, Brimijoin, and Narvaez 2008), the teaching and learning materials and teaching notes relating to the case study could be adapted to reflect different types of networked thinking. Pre-testing would enable ‘thinker types’ among the students to be identified; these groups would then receive instructions for tackling the case study and additional materials that had been developed specifically for their ‘thinker type’. Ability grouping – a system within which each group contains at least one student from each thinker type – has the potential substantially to boost learning success with the aim of getting as many students as possible into the first quadrant (‘Networked thinker’) (for example Niggli 2013). Tutor-facilitated reflection on the errors made by

Table 4. Ranking the findings of pre- and post-testing by type of networked thinking.

Quality

High Low

Quantity High Pre-test: 24 Pre-test: 23 Post-test: 24 Post-test: 23

Low Pre-test: 35 Pre-test: 16 Post-test: 31 Post-test: 20

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 337

the students, either within ability groups or within the large group, may also have a posi- tive impact on learning success (for example Schön 2011). However, this relies on a well thought-through implementation of ability grouping.

7. Limitations and implications

The empirical study described here demonstrated that the use of case studies in university teaching promotes networked thinking by students, who are able to generate a signifi- cantly higher number of propositions.

However, scrutiny of the findings against the background of quality (error quotient) and quantity (number of propositions) shows that ‘thinker types’ remain relatively con- stant. There is no clearly discernible positive shift toward being a ‘Networked thinker’, suggesting that there are differing types of networked thinking and that these are relatively clearly defined and not particularly susceptible to change as a result of the case study approach. Adapting teaching and learning materials specifically to promote individual types of thinking may have a positive impact, and this approach could be used to target students representing specific ‘thinker-types’ to enable teaching within universities to be more differentiated.

Nevertheless, the here presented study shows some limitations with regard to the sample and design. The sample is relatively small; including 98 students spread over five semesters. Furthermore the results of the study are not generalisable as it only presents one course from one university. As far as future research is concerned, the measurement of

Figure 5. Consistency and movement of students in the main group according to type of networked thinking.

338 M. PILZ AND L. ZENNER

competency gains should be put on a broader basis and involve larger samples. In addition the design of the pre- and post-test is quite simple using one-dimensional response pos- sibilities (if… then…). By using technical support, such as software, which allows multi- perspective answers (e.g. allowing weak and strong effects) mapping of more complex net- works would be possible in further research. Control of influencing factors outside the testing and treatment is difficult. Nevertheless, questioning of the students gave us the insight that similar treatments with regard to case studies and/or networked thinking have not been realised in parallel lectures at the same time. In the interests of further vali- dation, it would also be interesting to conduct experimental studies with a control group. Furthermore we are aware of the domain specificity of our results (Benner 1982). There- fore future research could also take account of (or investigate?) the correlation between students networked thinking skills and their overall performance. If evidence for a corre- lation between those two variables can be shown, this would also strengthen the signalling effect of the overall performance for employers, because networked thinking abilities are increasingly important for the world of work in general and for management positions especially (Malik 2016; Vester 2007). However, even without these additions and the acknowledged limitations, the data generated in our study provides important pointers to improvements in degree education in the area of management. However, even without these additions and the acknowledged limitations, the data generated in our study provides important pointers to improvements in degree education in the area of management.

Note

1. Situation theory or social efficiency ideology (Schiro 2008, 4 f.) suggests the needs of society to which curriculum content should refer. With regard to business management courses at university level the need in the workplace is the key future life situation which should be underpinned in the curriculum and teaching-learning-process respectively (Pilz et al. 2016; Schiro 2008).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. Dr. Bärbel Fürstenau (University of Dresden) and Dr. Jim Hordern (Bath Spar University) for fruitful discussion and helpful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Anderson, E., and B. Schiano. 2014. Teaching with Cases: A Practical Guide. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Bender, N. 2011. “Die Abbildung vernetzten Wissens zur privaten Ver- und Überschuldung mit Concept Maps” [The Illustration of Networked Knowledge of Private Indebtedness and Over- Indebtedness using Concept Maps]. In Lehr-Lernforschung und Professionalisierung: Perspektiven der Berufsbildungsforschung. [Schriftenreihe der Sektion Berufs- und

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 339

Wirtschaftspädagogik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft (DGfE)], edited by U. Faßhauer, 99–110. Opladen: Budrich.

Benner, P. 1982. “From Novice to Expert.” American Journal of Nursing 82 (3): 402–407. Boehrer, J., and M. Linsky. 1990. “Teaching with Cases: Learning to Question.” In The Changing

Face of College Teaching. [New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 42], edited by M. D. Svinicki, 41–57. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bonney, K. M. 2015. “Case Study Teaching Method Improves Student Performance and Perceptions of Learning Gains †.” Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 16 (1): 21–28.

Böcker, F. 1988. “Lehre mit Fallstudien und traditionelle Lehre im Effizienzvergleich” [Efficiency Comparison of Teaching with Case Studies and Traditional Teaching]. Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis 40 (1): 79–90.

Bransford, J. D., R. D. Sherwood, T. S. Hasselbring, C. K. Kinzer, and S. M. Williams. 2012. “Anchored Instruction: Why We Need it and How Technology Can Help.” In Cognition Education, Multimedia, 2nd ed., edited by R. J. Spiro, and D. Nix, 115–142. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Brooke, S. L. 2006. “Using the Case Method to Teach Online Classes: Promoting Socratic Dialogue and Critical Thinking Skills.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 18 (2): 142–149.

Copeland, M. T. 1954. “The Genesis of the Case Method in Business Instruction.” In The Case Method at the Harvard Bussiness School. Papers by Present and Past Members of the Faculty and Staff, edited by M. P. McNair, 25–33. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dooley, A. R., and W. Skinner. 1977. “Casing Casemethod Methods.” Academy of Management Review 2 (2): 277–289.

Dörner, D. 2004. The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. 15th ed. New York: Basic Books.

Dubs, R. 2004. “Instructive or Constructive Teaching Approaches in the Economic Education?” Journal of Social Science Education 3 (2): 82–94.

Fürstenau, B., L. Kneppers, and R. Dekker. 2012. “Concept Mapping and Text Writing as Learning Tools in Problem-Oriented Learning.” In Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Concept Mapping, edited by A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, and J. Vanhear, 97–104. Malta: University of Malta.

Grant, R. 1997. “A Claim for the Case Method in the Teaching of Geography.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 21 (2): 171–185.

Hardy, I., and B. Stadelhofer. 2006. “Concept Maps wirkungsvoll als Strukturierungshilfen einset- zen” [Effectively Use of Concept Maps as Structuring Aids]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 20 (3): 175–187.

Harrington, H. L. 1995. “Fostering Reasoned Decisions: Case-Based Pedagogy and the Professional Development of Teachers.” Teaching & Teacher Education 11 (3): 203–214.

Herreid, C. F. 2011. “Case Study Teaching.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2011 (128): 31–40.

Kleinfeld, J. 1992. Changes in Problem Solving Abilities of Students Taught Through Case Methods. Chicago: IL.

Kolb, A. Y., and D. A. Kolb. 2005. “Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 4 (2): 193–212.

Leenders, M. R., L. A. Mauffette-Leenders, and J. A. Erskine. 2001. Writing Cases. 4th ed. London: Ivey Publishing.

Liang, N., and J. Wang. 2004. “Implicit Mental Models in Teaching Cases: An Empirical Study of Popular MBA Cases in the United States and China.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 3 (4): 397–413.

Lundeberg, M. A., and A. Yadav. 2007. “Assessment of Case Study Teaching: Where Do We Go From Here? Part I.” In Start with a Story: The Case Study Method of Teaching College Science, edited by C. F. Herreid, 407–412. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Malik, F. 2016. Strategy: Navigating the Complexity of the World. 2nd ed. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

340 M. PILZ AND L. ZENNER

Mauffette-Leenders, L. A., J. A. Erskine, and M. R. Leenders. 2005. Learning with Cases. 3rd ed. London: Ivey Publishing.

McFarlane, D. A. 2015. “Guidelines for Using Case Studies in the Teaching-Learning Process.” College Quarterly 18 (1). http://collegequarterly.ca/2015-vol18-num01-winter/mcfarlane.html

McNergney, R. F., E. R. Durcharme, and M. K. Durcharme. 1999. Educating for Democracy: Case- Method Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Meinhard, D., and M. Pilz. 2016. “Betriebswirtschaftliche Fallstudien in der Hochschullehre – Lässt sich besseres Lernen belegen?” [Business Case Studies in Higher Education – Can Improved Learning be Proved?]. Das Hochschulwesen 64 (1+2): 62–66.

Melnyk, B., and D. Morrison-Beedy. 2012. Intervention Research: Designing, Conducting, Analyzing, and Funding. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Merkel, R. 2012. “Förderung des vernetzten Denkens – Einsatz der Fallmethode im Master of Education” [Promoting Networked Thinking – Use of Case Method in the Master of Education]. PhD diss., Humboldt Universität Berlin.

Mesney, A. 2013. “Taking Stock of the Century-Long Utilization of the Case Method in Management Education.” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 30 (1): 56–66.

Nguyen, N., and O. Bosch. 2014. “The Art of Interconnected Thinking: Starting with the Young.” Challenges 5 (2): 239–259.

Niggli, A. 2013. Didaktische Inszenierung binnendifferenzierter Lernumgebungen: Theorie - Empirie - Konzepte – Praxis [Didactic Staging of Differentiated Learning Environments: Theory - Empiricism - Concepts – Practice]. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

Novak, J. D., and A. J. Cañas. 2006. “The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them.” Florida Institute for Human andMachine Cognition (IHMC). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ viewdoc/download;jsessionid=03D1BFC81F216F9721FA9C87C7C32D55?doi=10.1.1.100. 8995&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Ozdilek, Z. 2014. “Learners’ View About Using Case Study Teaching Method in Undergraduate Level Analytical Chemistry Course.” Journal of Baltic Science Education 13 (5): 695–708.

Pilz, M. 2001. “Der Einsatz von Fallstudien zur Förderung des vernetzten Denkens im Wirtschaftslehreunterricht - Darstellung und Evaluation eines Projektes in der Berufsfachschule” [The Use of Case Studies to Promote Networked Thinking in Economic Education - Presentation and Evaluation of a Project at the Berufsfachschule]. Wirtschaft und Erziehung 53 (6): 193–200.

Pilz, M. 2003. Das Hotel in den Highlands: Eine Ausbildungseinheit zur Förderung des vernetzten Denkens [The Hotel in the Highlands: A Training Unit to Promote Networked Thinking]. 1st ed. Altstätten: Tobler.

Pilz, M., B. Krisanthan, B. Michalik, L. Zenner, and J. Li. 2016. “Learning for Life and/or Work: The Status Quo of Pre-Vocational Education in India, China, Germany and the USA.” Research in Comparative & International Education 11 (2): 117–134.

Pilz, M., S. Pierenkemper, and D. Meinhard. 2013. Using the Case Method to Support Intercultural Learning in Higher Education: Findings From Indo-German Project. New Dehli: Concept Publishing Company.

Probst, G. J. B., and P. Gomez. 1992. “Thinking in Networks to Avoid Pitfalls of Managerial Thinking.” In Context and Complexity: Cultivating Contextual Understanding, edited by M. Maruyama, 91–108. New York: Springer Verlag.

Probst, G. J. B., and P. Gomez. 1993. “Die Methodik des vernetzten Denkens zur Lösung komplexer Probleme” [The Methodology of Networked Thinking to Solve Complex Problems]. In Vernetztes Denken: Ganzheitliches Führen in der Praxis, 2nd ed., edited by G. J. B. Probst, and P. Gomez, 3–20. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Romm, T., and S. Mahler. 1986. “A Three Dimensional Model for Using Case Studies in the Academic Classroom.” Higher Education 15 (6): 677–696.

Ryssel, J., S. Sommer, B. Fürstenau, and J. Kunath. 2008. “The Effect of Different Concept-Mapping Techniques on Promoting Students’ Learning Process in the Field of Business.” In Concept Mapping: Connecting Educators. Proc. of the Third Int. Conference on Concept Mapping,

TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 341

Tallinn, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland (September 22–25, 2008), 238–241. Tallinn: Tallinn University.

Schaffernicht, M., and B. Fürstenau. 2013. “Exploring the Mutual Benefits of Collaboration between Concept Mapping and System Dynamics – a Conceptual Argumentation and some Puzzles.” Paper presented at the 31st International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston, July 21–25. http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2013/proceed/papers/P1096.pdf

Schiro, M. S. 2008. Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Schmidt, S. W. 2010. Case Studies and Activities in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Schön, D. A. 2011. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Farnham: Ashgate.

Shugan, S. M. 2006. “Save Research – Abandon the Case Method of Teaching.” Marketing Science 25 (2): 109–115.

Smith, G. 1987. “The Use and Effectiveness of the Case Study Method in Management Education: A Critical Review.” Management Learning 18 (1): 51–61.

Sowa, J. F. 2008. “Conceptual Graphs.” In Handbook of Knowledge Representation, edited by F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, and B. Porter, 213–237. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Stoddart, T., R. Abrams, E. Gasper, and D. Canaday. 2000. “Concept Maps as Assessement in Science Inquiry Learning – A Report of Methodology.” The International Journal of Science Education 22 (12): 1221–1246.

Sykes, G., and T. Bird. 1992. “Chapter 10: Teacher Education and the Case Idea.” Review of Research in Education 18 (1): 457–521.

Tomlinson, C. A., K. Brimijoin, and L. Narvaez. 2008. The Differentiated School: Making Revolutionary Changes in Teaching and Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Vester, F. 2007. The Art of Interconnected Thinking: Ideas and Tools for a New Approach to Tackling Complexity. München: Malik Management.

Voss, J. F., and T. A. Post. 1988. “On the Solving of Ill-Structured Problems.” In The Nature of Expertise, edited by M. Chi, R. Glaser, and M. Farr, 261–285. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

342 M. PILZ AND L. ZENNER

Copyright of Teaching in Higher Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.