Teaching with Cases in a Participatory Classroom Environment

Vanessa Magness, Ph.D  

Our advanced financial accounting course at Ryerson plays a significant role in reshaping students’ understanding of the accounting discipline. It is a case course, designed to wean them away from the view that an appropriate solution will always emerge, as long as the debits and credits are correctly aligned. In its earlier days, the course ran with four midterms (all cases) plus a final exam. Although a case was discussed each week, the delivery style was more or less lecture-centred. When I took over this course, I wanted to make major changes in both the delivery style, and in the evaluation structure. My reasons were as follows:  

• the course had a singular mandate - to teach case skills;  

• much of the content was covered in earlier courses, making weekly three hour "lectures" redundant;  

• the midterms ate into the time that could have been devoted to new material.  

I thought the mandate of this course could be broadened to include the development of team building and oral presentation skills. These are common themes throughout the literature on competency based accounting programs, and it seemed the course would lend itself well to a format involving group discussion. An opportunity for new skills development could be incorporated into the course, but only if some of the midterms were eliminated.  

Having taught the course only once, I decided to implement the changes over two semesters. I began by dropping two midterm exams, and introducing a group assignment. This assignment consisted of a case study to be presented to the class, and submitted in written form. Each group was allotted approximately 15 marks which they were free to allocate amongst themselves as part of their mark for this work. I changed the schedule to include a single period lecture, with a two hour class later in the week for the purpose of group discussion. A ten percent mark was factored into the overall evaluation scheme for each student based on participation during the entire semester.  

The elimination of two midterms freed up time for the group presentations, but left no room for new material. The third time I taught the course, I dropped another midterm. This created a problem for most of the students. They needed to hone their case skills, and a single midterm was not sufficient practice to prepare them for the final exam. I resolved this problem by allowing any student to write up the weekly case in advance, and submit it for review. I reviewed each submission, assigned a "mock mark", and provided written feedback as to how the paper could be improved.  

The Results

It’s too soon to comment on the overall performance for the winter 2001 semester. A comparison of fall 2000 to winter 2000 results showed a slight increase in the average final grade in the fall, although the marks were not particularly high.  

There was also a slight decline in the failure rate. This is at least partly explained by the use of participation marks, and the group assignment which tended to help the weaker students. With the introduction of those "mock marks" in the winter 2001 semester, I received about a dozen weekly submissions. The marks for these papers showed steady improvement, with averages of 36%, 39%, 45%, and 65% on the first four cases. Obviously these marks must be interpreted with caution.  

Students were on their honour to abide by the time limits assigned to each case. What I was really interested in, was the comparative midterm exam performance of those students who wrote the practice cases, with those who did not. In my first two semesters, performance on the first midterm was abysmal. An average of about 50% was not unusual. This time around, I calculated a separate average for the 14 students who submitted at least two practice cases prior to the midterm, and for the 16 who did not. While the first group included some very low marks, and while some of the remaining students had relatively high marks, the averages were revealing. The students who handed in at least two practice cases had a midterm average of 69%. The average for the rest of the class was 55%.  

With regard to the group-assigned mark allocation, I expected some students to complain they had been unfairly graded by their peers. The results so far have been surprising. While I know through the grapevine, that there was indeed some dissention, no students complained to me directly. I conducted an anonymous survey that solicited their opinions of the group experience. While there was some grumbling about team members not pulling their weight, overall, most of the comments were positive.  

Formal feedback from the course evaluation forms is not available yet. Informally, students have told me they like the flexibility to decide whether or not to hand in a weekly case. Furthermore, they attribute their success on the midterm to the written feedback I provided on the "mock" assignments. For me, the grading load has become manageable, in contrast to my experience when the course ran with four midterms. I found the students adapted very quickly to the change in format. During one of the case discussions the first time I taught this course, I asked for ideas/opinions on the treatment of research and development costs, and received dead silence in reply. They had clearly bought into the view that their role was to sit, listen, and take notes. When I asked the same question during the same class in each of the following two semesters, several students were ready to offer opinions and instigate a class discussion.  

We have an internship program at Ryerson, and because this course is the first to break students away from the debit/ credit mold, I am often called upon to recommend students for work placement. Potential employers are concerned, not just with technical ability, but also attitude, and conduct. The new structure of the course enables me to assess these behaviours. For this reason, I believe this course makes a significant contribution to the accounting program.  

For more information, contact Vanessa Magness, School of Business Management, Ryerson University (vmagness@ryerson.ca).