THE FACILITATION AND USE OF STUDENT TEAMS IN THE CASE

ANALYSIS PROCESS

Victoria L. Crittenden, William F. Crittenden and Jon M. Hawes

Cognitive psychology views learning as a problem-solving process, and the case method has evolved as an excellentmechanism for developing the critical thinking skills essential to effective decision making. Focusing upon the student-ledapproach to case teaching, we present a framework for helping students develop skills for improving the group case process.The intent of the approach is to increase interest in student-led presentations, from the perspectives of the presenting teamand the audience. The focus is on providing an educational environment that allows students to develop the interpersonal,analytical, oral communication, and written communication skills demanded by contemporary organizations.

The case method has evolved as an important meansof teaching and learning about marketing and otherbusiness topics. Many academics would argue that eventhough the lecture method is effective for learning aboutfacts and principles, the case method should also beused "because wisdom can't be told" (Gragg 1951). Inother words, just knowing about marketing is not ad-equate preparation for a career in the field. The recipi-ent of a sound collegiate business education does notlearn exclusively to know. This person learns in order toact. The student must have opporturuties to practice solv-ing marketing management and strategy problems andmaking decisions.

Educating students in the practice of solving market-ing problems and making business decisions followsthe cognitive leanung school of thought. Specifically,the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, developed byBenjamin Bloom (1956) and his associates, provides apoint of reference when helping students through theproblem solving/dedsion-making process. Bloom's tax-onomy has six levels (arranged in hierarchical order):

• Knowledge• Comprehension• AppUcation

Analysis• Synthesis• Evaluation

The cumulative nature of the hierarchy is exhibited inour business school curriculums. For example, a

VICTORIA L. CRITTENDEN p.B.A., Harvard Business School) isAssociate Professor and Chairperson of Marketing, Carroll School ofManagement, Boston College.

WILLIAM F. CRITTENDEN (Ph.D., University of Arkansas) is Asso-ciate Professor of Management, College of Business Administration,Northeastern University.

JON M. HAWES (Ph.D., University of Arkansas) is Professor of Market-ing, Fisher Institute for Professional Selling, University of Akron.The authors thank the MER reviewers for their helpful comments.

principles of marketing course is the first marketingclass students take in the marketing curriculum (i.e.,knowledge). Students then build on their marketingknowledge by taking higher level marketing courses(i.e., knowledge to comprehension). Aftercomprehending the technical content of marketing,students begin to apply this knowledge in marketingsituations. According to Bloom's hierarchy, studentswould then pass through higher order cognition levelsuntil reaching analysis, synthesis, or evaluation levels.At these levels, students are able to use critical thinkingin their decision making.

The case method is an excellent mechanism fordeveloping the critical thinking skills essential foreffective decision-making (McEwen 1994), and is a formof action learning (i.e., learning through experience)(Smith & Peters 1997). Having evolved during the 1920sat the Harvard Business School, several approacheshave been tried during the refinement of the case analysisprocess in the marketing and business educationcurriculums. Our purpose here is to present acomprehensive method of case teaching that reinforcesthe cognitive learning process.

Irutially, we describe two approaches to case teaching.Because student groups are a common method of caseanalysis, we then present a framework for facilitatingteam interactions in the case analysis process. Finally,we suggest a method of group communication that bothstrengthens communication skills and enhances theinteraction process in case presentations.

Approaches to Case Teaching

Two pedagogical approaches have evolved with theuse of case teaching: (1) professor-led and (2) student-led (Droge and Spreng 1996; Lamb and Baker 1993).

Marketing Education Review, Volume 9, Number 3 (Fall 1999).

Marketing Education Review

Lamb and Baker (1993) suggest the professor-ledapproach as most appropriate when the course objectiveis to use cases to disseminate/illustrate marketingconcepts, and that the student-led approach isappropriate when the course objective is to developanalytical and communication skills. A perusal ofmarketing management/marketing strategy syllabiprovided in instructor manuals, however, suggests thatmany marketing classes utilize both approaches to casediscussions rather than an either/or approach to caseteaching. This might suggest that professors have mulfiplelearning objectives in classes that utilize the case method.For example, some cases could be used to illustratemarketing concepts, while others are used to facilitateanalytical and communication skill development.

The Professor-Led Approach

The initial use of business cases followed the profes-sor-led approach. In this approach, the instructor di-rects the case discussion and tends to lead the discus-sion down paths that allow the applicafion of businessconcepts and away from areas that are irrelevant.Rangan (1995) suggests that case teachers use one offour styles in the professor-led approach: (1) lecturinga case, (2) theorizing a case, (3) illustrating a case, and(4) choreographing a case. Lecturing a case occurs whenthe professor follows his/her predetermined sequencethrough the case discussion. The professor uses the caseas a means of conveying conceptual and/or theoreticalknowledge when theorizing a case. Illustrating a casetake places when the case is used to depict importantmanagement issues. Finally, when choreographing a case,students draw conclusions and make recommendationsbased on their own inductive processes, with the pro-fessor serving to nudge the student in directions thataddress important topics.

Regardless of the style utilized by the professor, twonecessary components of this approach are student prepa-ration and class parfidpation. Student benefits include:

• Understanding the strengths and weaknesses ofmodels and theories when pracfically applied;

• Getting out of the habit of being a receiver offacts, concepts, and techniques and into the habitof using a comprehensive framework of analysisthat involves problem diagnosis, alternativeevaluation, and recommendafion development;

• Solving problems, as opposed to relying on theprofessor or a textbook for the "right" answer;

• Leanung about a wide range of firms and theinherent complexity of business dedsions—^pro-viding a basis for comparison that might take alifetime of personal experience to develop;

• Developing the ability to identify and compre-hend the main and subordinate ideas in writtenmaterial;

• Developing the ability to separate personalopinions and assumptions from material in thecase and to distinguish between fact and opin-ion in the case;

• Developing reasoning and logic skills;• Enhancing communication skills when sharing

one's analysis and recommendafion in the ckss-room setting; and

• Dealing with construcfive crifidsm and learn-ing from it.

While this method of case discussion providestremendous learning opportunities for students, it is notwithout problems. A major complaint about the methodrevolves around what many refer to as "air-time." Thatis, it is difficult to allow all students to contribute duringone case discussion. Students complain that they areprepared for class, but do not get the opportunity toparfidpate due to dass size, class length, and / or professorselection of students. Another common complaint isthat students may get air-time when they have very littleto contribute. A major by-product of these concerns isthat students sometimes attend class under prepared,thus taking the risk that they will not get called on. Also,some introverted students may not reach their potenfialin the dass, in that their verbal skills are not improvedupon since they generally opt not to parfidpate.

Further,foreffecfiveleamingandtomaintainmofivafion,students should receive timely feedback on the defidendesand posifive aspeds of their dassroom contribufions.Effecfive parfidpafion grading in the professor-led casediscussion often requires a prodigious memory asinstrudors later recall and grade ideas presented duringdass. The evaluafion requirement is further complicatedby the attenfion the instrudor must pay to the discussionfiow and the teaching of sequential classes.

Just as important, it has long been expressed thatmethods emphasizing individual contribufions yieldexcellent individual performers, but poor managers (cf.Livingston 1971).

To enhance the case learning process, as well as com-pensate for some of the aforementioned professor-ledproblems, academics have begun to intertwine the stu-dent-led approach to case learning with the professor-led approach.

The Student-Led Approach

The student-led approach to case analysis is a methodby which students lead the case discussion, such as anindividual student or a group of students leading the

16

Fall 1999

dass through the case analysis. This approach offerssimilar benefits to those found in the professor-ledapproach. Droge and Spreng (1996), however, idenfifyadditional benefits to the student-led approach. Theycategorize these additional advantages into two groups:(1) behavioral skills (e.g., oral communication,persuasion, leadership) and (2) attitudinal dimensions(accepting responsibility, taking risks, exercisinginitiative). These two categories of advantages fall intothe framework offered by the action learningenvironment. That is, action learning emphasizespersonal responsibility for learning and resolvinglousiness, organizational, and sodal problems (Smithand Peters 1997; Torbert 1972).

Although Droge and Spreng (1996) argue that havingone group of students present a case to the class is aversion ofthe professor-led approach to the case methodbecause the professor sfill controls the process, groupcase analysis/presentafion is generally categorized asone form of the student-led approach to case analysis (cf.Lamb and Baker 1993). Team presentafions of cases andgroup written case analyses have evolved as a generallyaccepted format for teaching by the case method. In astudy of business policy/ strategic management teachingstyles, team presentations were used by 64 percent ofprofessor respondents and group written analyses wereused by 54 percent of the respondents (Alexander et al.1986).

Shaw (1971, pp. 80-82) suggested a number of benefitsto using the group method:• Presence of group members increases motiva-

tion levels of individuals,• Group judgments are generally superior,• Groups produce more and better solutions, and• Groups learn faster.

In addition, it is generally recognized that committees,groups, and teams are common in the corporateenvironment. The practice of working with others issomething that academidans can provide students inthe classroom environment (cf. Smith and Peters 1997).Sharp (1995) suggested that allowing students to workin groups sensitizes students to both cultural and ethnicdifferences in situations where the case is multi-culturaland/or the group is diverse. In classrooms with aconsiderable amount of cultural and / or ethnic diversity,it is important that the groups are diverse in theircomposition, which may place parameters upon thegroup formation process. In classrooms without suchdiversity, the professor has to build the diversity into theclass environment through careful case selection.

Unfortunately, the team experience can be veryfrustrating for students. Too often professors receivecomplaints about students who are not contributing to

the group project. Unequal contribution by groupmembers can lead to detrimental conflid within the group,further degrading group actions. Additionally, the day-to-day management of group meetings (e.g., compatiblemeeting times, productive discussions) can lead to tensionwithin groups and a disUke of the group process.

Given the proliferation of the team approach to caseanalysis, we propose a method of fadlitating successfulinteractions in the group case analysis process. Theadvantages found in an effective group environmentcan serve to improve students' abilities to analyze,synthesize, and evaluate marketing information.

Improving Interpersonal Dynamicsin the Group Process

Effective team interactions depend upon success atvarious stages of the team process. Initially, studentsmust idenfify the group of students with whom theywish to work, or if not given the choice, the group towhom they are assigned to work. After group formation,class time should be devoted to discussing behavioraland interpersonal issues that arise in any form ofteamwork. The professor can add structure to the groupdynamic by requiring that each team member serve in atleast one offidal role in the group. Appropriate roles anddescriptions are determined and defined by the group.Finally, peer evaluation forms can serve as an importantfeedback mechanism for each member's contributions.

Group Formation

Group formation is an important element of asuccessful team experience. Too frequently, teamformation is not given the attenfion and time it deserves.Guidance in this effort must encourage students not toutilize friendship as the guiding force in idenfifyingpotential team members. The goal is to form a team withmembers having common objecfives and complementaryskills. However, the professor may need to place diversityconstraints upon the group formation process in orderto simulate the cultural and/or ethnic environment inwhich businesses operate.

We suggest that students consider the following in anattempt to improve the group's cooperative effort:

1. Do group members have similar grade objectives?2. Do group members have similar topical interests?3. Do group members have complementary talents,

resources, and organizational skills? For example,do each of the potential members possessstrengths in various funcfional areas of business(i.e., is someone strong in accounting? finance?marketing? organizational behavior? operations?)

17

Marketing Education Review

4. Do group members have schedules that will per-mit frequent meetings to plan case strategy andto conduct the necessary casework activities?

5. Can group members be trusted to fulfill obliga-tions?

6. Can group members be expected to work to-gether in an effective, harmonious, and cordialmanner?

7. Will group members motivate and encourageeach other to achieve to their potential?

8. Will the group composition allow the team to learnfrom various cultural and ethic perspectives?

In executive and graduate programs it may be benefidalto have a knowledgeable program manager establishinitial groups. This parallels the corporate experience,where employees seldom get to choose their co-committee or group members. It also enables the programmanager to ensure group diversity. However, when leftto the individual selection process, students can learnfrom the formation dedsions that are made.

Once the group is formed, however, it is not withoutpotential problems. While team member selection isimportant, interactions within the group are equallyimportant. Without prior experience with all individualsin the group, it is hard to gauge how team members willreact to each other and to the workload of the caseproject. This can be likened to the interviewing andhiring process. Someone may have been excellent in theinterview process and have a high GPA. However, thedynamics in the workplace may make it virtuallyimpossible for this same person to be successful on thejob. Therefore, it is important to address group dynamicsas soon as the group formation is complete.

Group Dynamics

Many students are unaware of potential problemsthat can arise when a group is working closely on aproject. Even those students who have experience ingroup case analysis generally have not analyzed whatdid and did not work in a previous group and whyproblems may have occurred. Therefore, it is importantto provide students with an opportunity to explore andexamine interpersonal problems that can arise in thecontext of group dynamics.

Lemer (1995) developed a method that we have usedsuccessfully. She recommends using examples of studentbehaviors that have been frustrating to students anddescribes five of these students (Appendbc A). Using avariation of Lemer's method, we suggest distributingthese descriptions to each individual student in theclass. During class time, students are asked to read eachof the profiles and think about two questions: (1) Do you

see yourself in any of these descriptions? (2) Have youever worked in groups with members portrayed by theprofiles? This part of the exerdse takes around tenminutes to complete.

The second part of the group dynamic exerdse is agroup exerdse. After reading and thinking about theprofiles individually, students are asked to get in thegroups in which they will be working for the caseassignment. In another variation of Lemer's format,groups are asked to address the following questions: (1)What problems do group members, such as thoseportrayed in the profiles, present? (2) Were some"problem" individuals with whom you are familiarmissing in the profiles? If so, how would you profilesuch individuals? (3) What are strategies for dealingwith "individual" problems? Completion of the groupcomponent of the exerdse takes around 20 minutes.

The next part of the group exerdse is a general classdiscussion about the profiles. Utilizing the professor-ledapproach to class discussion, the professor writes eachof the profiled names across the top of the board. Then,individual students are called upon to provide strategiestheir group thought of for dealing with individualproblems. The pros and cons of each strategy are alsodiscussed briefly. This is a 10-15 minute exerdse. Avariation of this part of the exerdse is to frame thediscussion as several mini-cases and to utilize classdiscussion time in much the same manner as a student-led approach to cases. Time for this approach might beconsiderably longer than the professor-led approachsince the professor is less able to control the effort spenton discussing each mini-case.

Completion of the group exercise involves theidentification of individuals who should be included inthe initial profiles. Generally this aspect of the groupexerdse relies upon students drawing from previousgroup experience. One of the most popular additionalprofiles has centered on a group member's socialinteractions. Aptly named "Sodal Sonya," this person isso busy sodalizing that it is hard for her/ him to get anywork done. Students tend to like Sodal Sonya, but arenot always sure how to manage her/him. Time for thiscomponent of the exerdse depends upon the remainingtime for class discussion.

This class exercise has proven to be a productive wayto openly discuss the dynamics of group interaction.While it does take class time, student learning from thein-class exercise will not only help students in theassigned case project, but will also add to their abilitiesas co-workers later in life and in other group assignments.Further, by preempting some group problems, thetechnique can help avoid the need for professionalintervention.

18

Fall 1999

Managing the Group Project

While the onus of the group case analysis is upon thestudent team, it is imp'ortant to provide students with aframework for managing the process. One method ofdoing this is requiring that students take on particularroles within the group- Role suggestions include (but arenot limited to and students should be encouraged toidentify their own context-spedfic roles):• Reports Manager—responsible for ensuring the

overall quality of the final report• Presentation Manager—responsible for oversee-

ing and monitoring the preparation of the pre-sentation material

• Meeting Mana^er^-responsible for schedulinggroup meetings, including location

• Process Manager^^iesponsible for monitoringthe overall "process" of the project includinggroup dynamics, deadlines, meetings, etc.

• Devil's Advocate^responsihle for ensuring thatall sides of an issue are considered before acourse of action is selected

• Research Manager—responsible for compilingsecondary research, if a part of the project

Approximately one week after the group dynamicexerdse, each student group is required to submit a teamorganization form.TVus form ^sts tV»e rok titles that \hegroup has dedded upon, a brief description of each role,and an explanation for why a particular person is theright person for his/her role(s). Each team member hasto have at least one assigned role. However, it is importantto stress that the role does not supplant activeinvolvement in the entire case analysis process. That is, allmembers are equally responsible for the analysis of caseinformation and for recommendations. However, thisdoes allow for students to play on individual strengthsthat should improve the group process as a whole. Froma learning perspective, specialization in such process-related areas allows students to collectively evaluatewhether or not a person's strengths are real or perceived.

Peer Evaluation

A major problem with group projects is the imbalanceof individual student contributions. While an early focuson group formation, group dynamics, and roleassignments goes far in motivating all students tocontribute equally, free-riders are often a fact of life inboth education and the workplace (Bonnici and Luthar1996). As such, there may be a need for a formal peerevaluation. While peer evaluations may appear similar toa reward / punishment structure, such an evaluation is notunlike what corporations require on an annual basis for

most, if not all, of its employees. Some faculty, preferringto emphasize the mutual accountability of teamwork, mayonly allow peer evaluations when explidtly requested bya member of the ^oup and only when convinced thatextraordinary effort has been made to establish a cohesiveteam. Conversely, some instructors use the peer evaluationexclusively as a learning tool to aid members'understanding of the experienced group dynamic.

Most instructor manuals to accompany casebooksprovide samples of peer evaluation forms. Standardizedpeer evaluation forms Can be modified to meet classrequirements, including the role assignment. Forexample, the following Likert-scaled statement can beadded to a standard form:

The team member fulfilled the project role as de-fined by the team at the beginning of the semester(or as re-defined later in the project).

An interesting twist to the standard peer evaluationform is to ask the following open-ended questions:

Did any of your team members remind you of NolaNo-Can-Meet, Seldom-Seen Steve, Do-It-All Dottie,Always-Right Artie, or Quiet Quentin? If so, whoand why?

Would you like to profile any of your team membersby describing individual behavioral issues that wereencountered during the group process? If so, please

pseudonym (similar to those in the previous ques-tion and used in the classroom exercise), and a briefdescription of this person.

It is important to tell students, at the beginning of thesemester, if a peer evaluation will be used to evaluateindividual contributions to the case project. Additionally,students should be aware of what they will be evaluatedupon (including fulfillment of role assignment).

Increasing the Interest Level in Student-LedPresentations

Student-led presentations, and in this context groupcase analyses/presentations, allow students to combinereal-world issues with the appropriate business theoryin order to present ideas to a larger community. From acommunications perspective, Rogers and Rymer (1998,p. 10) suggest that cases do the following:

Provide the context for communicating.Enable active learning.Present communication as a sodal action.Show the collaborative nature of communication.Integrate spedal topics like intercultural com-munication and ethics.Indicate communication effectiveness as con-tingent, and

19

Unfortunately, student-ways gamer the level of enlike to see in thedeemed as one-wayteam disseminatingmay be boring to observepresentations may result i

cursory skim-throughFocusing upon

communication skills.

presentations. Videotapetheir videotape and

(1996) attempt to develop ctheir marketing case stucdebates. Student teams anmultiple oral presentatiorvotes from their student

method, there arecase. The presersta

and presents the

sasoiui

A goal of the

which are important in(Torbert 1972). Lamb andevaluate their own action(1996) and Droge and Sprefrom external constituentstudent-led presentationsthe range of cognitive le^Bloom eta l (1956).

A Variation ojStudent-Led Approac

Amari (1999) reportsonseek in graduating colleg

the pi leam aoinga

lonssKilisin

ill-;! each other inn -eekine to win

• 1 P I i K "

nalv/es and

riuneiHlation,{ *(~' turn m tocase sohition.

aasize

uderUstoid Lutharfeedback

' method,'.:> employ

leeesl:

/ersthese ten

characteristics are:inierpersonal skills, analytical skills, and writtencommunication skills. The student-led method suggestedhere incorporates both oral and written communicationskills along with analytical skills, while the classroomexercises and assignments described in the previoussections address interpersonal skill development. Beloware suggestions for enhancing written and oralcommunication skills using the student teams.

Written Communication Skills

Student teams can be required to submit a two-pagememo (with up to one page of exhibits) that has beenprepared for the decision-maker in the case. The focus ofthe memo is the course of action recommended by thestudents. The space constraints of a two-page memoforce students to move away from rehashing/summarizing text from the case.

Aside from learning how to make good marketingdecisions, one goal of the written component of the caseanalysis is to instil! in students the notion that managersdo not have time to read long, drawn out reports. Rather,students must learn exactly what needs to be said.Restricting exhibits to one page againlimited amount of tiiue a manager hasreading material. Appesidix B shows a checklist that canbe provided to sludenl decision makers inwritten <'ase analyses.

A suggestion lo improve oral con'smunication is tohave Ehe assigned team make a presentation to the classand Ihe class, in turn, critiques and formally questionsthe presenters. A variation of this approach has twostudenl groups presenting the same case. Creativity isoften enhanced as students strive to differentiate theirpn^sentations. The peer-groupcritique by non-presentingstudents remains essentially the same. Hither formatreinforces the notii)n that managers have to possess theability to make and defend decisions to both peers andsuperiors (van der Pool 1999).

ihe oral communication component of this actionlearning approach to a group case presentation followsthe presentation approach presented by Lamb and Baker(1993), without the videotaping component The studentgroup assigned the case has to make a 20-30 minutepresentation. Depending upon instructor preference,groups may be required or encouraged to use state-of-the-art visuals (e.g,, PowerPoint). Additionally, audiencemembers cannot interrupt the presenting team in orderto ask questions.

20

Fait 1999

A variation on this approach would have thepresentation group being excused, immediately afterpresenting, from the class for ten minutes. During this10-minute interval, the remaining students assembleinto their term-long groups. Each group has to preparea short critique of the presentation and come up withtwo questions to ask the presenting group. Two groupsare then randomly selected to each present a threeminute critique of the presentation (blank transparenciesand markers are provided). This type of critique aids inthe development of the students' listening skills andtheir ability to evaluate the content of oral presentations(cf. Bonnid and Lutharl996).

After the 10-minute interval, the presenting group isinvited back into the classroom and the critiquing groupsprovide feedback to the presenting group (cf. Torbert1972). Typically the critiques begin with what thecritiquing group liked about both presentation style andanalysis content, followed by recommendations forimprovement both in presentation style and analysiscontent. The remainder of the class time is devoted toallowing each of the remaining groups to ask at least oneof their questions to the presenting group. Studentsleam to ask questions in a professional manner as well aspractice defending their positions. Additionally, thepresenting group practices the ability to think quicklyand modify the team's position should audiencecomments persuade such modification.

The two questions prepared by each group are alsowritten down and submitted to the professor whoincorporates the daily activity into each student'sparticipation grade. (An absent group member does notreceive credit even though the group turned in the dailyassignment.) The group, then, is actually "graded" onthe quality of questions asked, with all group membersreceiving the same grade as long as they are in attendance.For example, questions that students could haveanswered themselves by thoroughly analyzing the casebefore attending class might receive a zero, whereasquestions that build on the material presented by thepresenting team would receive a high grade. The gradingscale can be simple (check plus, check, check minus,zero) with feedback on deficiencies requiring minimaltime. This component in the presentation processaddresses the issues of free-riding and the skimming ofcases when not the presenting team.

This type of presentation format is participative andattempts to overcome the one-way presentationcomponent inherent in many student-led presentations.The student audience has to be continually evaluatingwhat is being said, rather than being passive listeners.The presenting group cannot merely present the caseanalysis, answer any questions (which generally would

come from the professor), and then sit down. This is anactive leanung experience for presenters, the audience,and the professor. Additionally, the method adheres tothe hierarchical stages of cognitive learning by buildingon knowledge gained in the marketing core course andtaking students full-cycle through the evaluation stage.

ConclusionCognitive psychology views learning as a problem-

solving process (Assael 1998, p. 119), withBloom's (1956)taxonomy of knowledge, comprehension, application,analysis, synthesis, and evaluation providing aframework for educational purposes. Marketingeducators must help their students understand marketingconcepts in order to act upon marketing problems. In thespirit of action learning, the classroom can be achallenging environment for students to practice boththe art and science of marketing decision-making.

The critical thinking that accompanies the grasp of adiscipline requires activities such as analysis, synthesis,and evaluation and the ability to perform these in groupsor teams. We believe that team student-led case analysisfacilitates these higher levels of learning (as described byBloom and other learning theorists) better than moretraditional approaches to case teaching.

Contemporary organizations want to hire graduateswho possess strong analytical ability and can expresstheir recommendations and analysis clearly (orally andin writing). Additionally, new-hires have to relate wellwith both colleagues and customers. Through the use ofgroup case analysis, marketing educators can simulatethe practice of solving marketing management / strategyproblems in a corporate environment. With the formatpresented here, students are counseled in techniques formanaging the group process, from team selection toreducing potential conflict. Additionally, studentspractice their presentation skills, while also exercisingtheir listening and evaluative skills. The methodspresented here for improving the process of group caseanalysis facilitate the student's abiiity to workin a groupand to communicate in a manner conducive to aconstantly changing business environment.

ReferencesAlexander, Larry D., Hugh M. O'Neill, NeU H. Snyder and James B.

Townsend (1986), "How Academy Members Teach the BusinessPolicy/Strategic Management Case Course," Journal of Manage-ment Case Studies, (Winter), 334-344.

Amari, Dan (1999), "Communication Skills Reign Over ComputerSkills," The Northwest Phoenix, via University Wire, (January 19).

Assael, Henry (1998), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, 6"" edi-tion, Cincirmati, OH: South-Westem College Publishing.

21

Marketing Education Review

Bloom, Benjamin S., M.D. Englehart, E.J. Furst, W.H. Hill and D.R.Krathwohl (1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook1: Q>gnitive Domain, New York: David McKay Company.

Bonnid, Joseph and Harsh K. Luthar (1996), 'Peer Evaluated Debates:Developing Oral Communication Skills Through Marketing CaseStudies,' Marketing Education Review, (Summer), 73-81.

Droge, Cornelia and Richard Spreng (1996), 'Enhancing Involve-ment and Skills with a Student-Led Method of Case Analysis,"Journal of Marketing Education, (Fall), 25-34.

Gragg, Charles L (1951), 'Because Wisdom Can't Be Told,' HarvardBusiness School Note #9-451-005.

Lamb, Charles W. and JuUe Baker (1993), 'The Case Method of In-struction: Student-Led Presentations and Videotaping," Mar-keting Education Review, (Spring), 44-50.

Lemer, Linda D. (1995), 'Making Student Groups Work,' Journal ofManagement Education, (February), 123-125.

Livingston, J. S. (1971), 'Myth of the WeU Educated Manager,' HarvardBusiness Review, Qanuary-Febniary), 85-86.

McEwen, Beryl C. (1994), 'Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in Busi-ness Education,' Journal of Education for Business, (November/December), 99-103.

Rangan, V. Kasturi (1995), 'Choreographing a Case Class,' HarvardBusiness School Note #9-595-074.

Rogers, Prisdlla S. and Jone Rymer (1998), 'Business and Manage-ment Communication Cases: Challenges and Opportunities,'Business Communication Quarterly, (March), 7-25.

Sharp, Helen M. (1995), 'Challenging Students to Respond toMulticultural Issues: TheCase-Study Approach,' Business Com-munications Quarterly, (June), 28-31.

Shaw, M. E. (1971), Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small CroupBehavior, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Smith, Peter A.C. and V. John Peters (1997), 'Action Learning Wortha Closer Look,' Ivey Business Quarterly, (Autumn), 63-67.

Torbert, William R. (1972), Learning From Experience: Toward Con-sciousness, New York: Columbia University Press.

van der Pool, Lisa (1999), 'Outlook Stays Strong for Job Seekers,'Purchasing Magazine, (February 11), 147.

Appendix AStudent Profiles

Nola No-Can-Meet. No matter what time the group picks to meet, Noia has something else to do. She complainsall the time about her busy schedule and how she really cannot find the time to meet with the group. "You goahead and decide what you want me to do and then just let me know," she will say. She is ready to help, sheassures you, but just has too much to do to actually go to a meeting. If someone complains about her lack ofparticipation, she will probably tell you that she offered to help but that nobody asked.

Seldom-Seen Steve. Steve has made no attempt to contact anyone in his group. He has not been in class lately,and no one has seen him. No one is sure how to get in touch with him. Everyone just assumed they wouldcontact each other in class. Time is running out, and no one knows what to do about Steve.

Do-lt-M Dottie. Dottie wants to make sure everything gets done a certain way, and so she does it herself. Ifsomeone else offers to help, she will tell him or her not to worry and that everything is under control. There islittle input from others in the group, and that is just fine with Dottie. She would rather do things herself than turnthem over to someone else. After all, she reasons, they might not do as good a job.

Always-Right Artie. Artie has good ideas and is quick to express them in the group. He is less likely to listen toother ideas, particularly when they differ from his own. He tends to insist on doing things his way even whenothers in the group disagree. Because of his take-charge attitude, he is likely to get his way even when the groupdoes not quite agree with him.

Quiet Quentin. Quentin, on the other hand, has some good ideas, but he is so quiet that many of his ideas neverget aired. He is always prepared and comes to meetings, but he never quite becomes a part of the discussion.That is unfortunate because the group would benefit from his knowledge and viewpoints if only he could bringhimself to speak up.

Source: Lerner, Unda D. (1995), "Making Student Groups Work," Journal of Management Education, (February), 123-125.

22

Fall 1999

Appendix BA Written Case Anaiysis Checklist

Can you answer "yes" to each of the foilowing questions?

Problem

1. Is the case problem (opportunity) correctly identified?2. Is the problem description accurate?3. Does the problem definition have a reasonable degree of breadth?

Situation Analysis

1. Were the relevant facts or data examined?2. is the analysis of case facts and data appropriate to the case problem and alternatives?3. Was your interpretation of case facts and data accurate?4. Can the analysis fit succinctly into a bulleted, SWOT analysis?

Alternatives

1. is there a complete identification of alternative solutions to the stated problem(s)?2. Are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative clearly evaluated?3. Did the identified alternatives demonstrate creative thinking?

Recommendation

1. Was a clear decision made as to the most appropriate alternative?2. Is the selected alternative a logical and reasonable choice, given the defined problem and the firm's situation?3. Is the decision sufficiently supported and justified?

Implementation

1. Are the plans necessary for implementing the recommendation specified clearly and succinctly?2. iHave questions about who, what, how, when, and where of the implementation been answered?3. Is the cost of the implementation justified in relation to the value of the recommendation?

23