IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/siu/wpaper/23-2007.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Hybrid Approach to Case Teaching

Author

Listed:
  • Swee Liang Tan

    (School of Economics, Singapore Management University)

  • Roy Ng

    (School of Economics, Singapore Management University)

Abstract

We structure case based teaching using a combination of computer-support echnology and in-class activities. We create and design an on-line learning tool, Case Study On-line (CSOL) that enables instructor to structure the delivery of teaching resources and set up assignment tasks in the system. The tool enables tasks to be set in a way that they can be completed sequentially, and learning resources can be accessed only when required by students. Upon submission of their assignments, students can promptly receive instructor’s explanations to the tasks. Follow up activities take place in class, with the objective to promote active learning. The tool was adopted over two semesters in an undergraduate economics course and surveys were conducted among the students to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool. The results of the survey were very positive, providing support to our belief that a system of well-designed case teaching delivery tool, together with classroom activities, is able to increase the level of students’ engagement and interest. The paper helps to address some concerns about teaching methods in undergraduate economics courses.

Suggested Citation

  • Swee Liang Tan & Roy Ng, 2007. "A Hybrid Approach to Case Teaching," Working Papers 23-2007, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:siu:wpaper:23-2007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mercury.smu.edu.sg/rsrchpubupload/10850/CSOL-JETS-9June06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Myra H. Strober & Allen Cook & Kasi Allen Fuller, 1997. "Making and Correcting Errors in Student Economic Analyses: An Examination of Videotapes," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 255-271, September.
    2. Arnold Katz & William E. Becker, 1999. "Technology and the Teaching of Economics to Undergraduates," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 194-199, January.
    3. William E. Becker, 1997. "Teaching Economics to Undergraduates," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1347-1373, September.
    4. Becker, William E & Watts, Michael, 1995. "Teaching Tools: Teaching Methods in Undergraduate Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 33(4), pages 692-700, October.
    5. William E. Becker & Michael Watts (ed.), 1998. "Teaching Economics to Undergraduates," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1643.
    6. William E. Becker, 2000. "Teaching Economics in the 21st Century," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 109-119, Winter.
    7. Roger A. McCain, 1999. "Developing an On-line Textbook: Question-led Teaching and the World Wide Web," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 210-220, January.
    8. Cynthia Benzing & Paul Christ, 1997. "A Survey of Teaching Methods Among Economics Faculty," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 182-188, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Swee-Liang Tan & Roy Ng Jin Hou, 2007. "A Hybrid Approach to Case Teaching," Development Economics Working Papers 22479, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    2. William E. Becker, 2000. "Teaching Economics in the 21st Century," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 109-119, Winter.
    3. KimMarie McGoldrick, 2010. "Advancing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Economics," Chapters, in: Michael K. Salemi & William B. Walstad (ed.), Teaching Innovations in Economics, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Dr. Mohammad Alauddin & Professor John Foster, 2005. "Teaching Economics at the University Level: Dynamics of Parameters and Implications," Discussion Papers Series 339, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    5. Costas Siriopoulos & Gerasimos Pomonis, 2009. "Selecting Strategies to Foster Economists' Critical Thinking Skills: A Quantile Regression Approach," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 8(1), pages 106-131.
    6. Michael K. Salemi, 2003. "A Model Teacher-Education Program for Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 455-459, May.
    7. Santos, Joseph M., 2002. "Peer Pressure: Refereed Journals And Empirical Research In The Undergraduate Economics Curriculum," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19854, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Gerald Eisenkopf & Pascal A. Sulser, 2016. "Randomized controlled trial of teaching methods: Do classroom experiments improve economic education in high schools?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 211-225, July.
    9. Phillip Saunders, 2011. "A history of economic education," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Allgood, Sam, 2001. "Grade targets and teaching innovations," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 485-493, October.
    11. Dahlgran, Roger A., 2001. "Technology In The Agricultural Economics Classroom: Are We On The Right Path?," 2001 Annual Meeting, July 8-11, 2001, Logan, Utah 36175, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Nelson, Robert G. & Wilson, Norbert L.W., 2008. "Evaluating Teaching Methods: Is It Worth Doing Right?," 2008 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2008, Dallas, Texas 6810, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. Cynthia L. Harter & John F.R. Harter, 2004. "Teaching with Technology: Does Access to Computer Technology Increase Student Achievement?," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 30(4), pages 507-514, Fall.
    14. van de Laar, M.M. & de Neubourg, C.R.J., 2004. "Emotions and foreign direct investment: a theoretical and emperical exploration," Research Memorandum 013, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    15. Sam Allgood & William B. Walstad & John J. Siegfried, 2015. "Research on Teaching Economics to Undergraduates," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(2), pages 285-325, June.
    16. Alauddin, Mohammad & Valadkhani, Abbas, 2003. "Causes and Implications of Declining Economics Major: A Focus on Australia," MPRA Paper 50393, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Frank Raymond & Anne Raymond & Myra McCrickard, 2008. "Stuck Behind the Math: Just How Helpful Can One Expect Technology to be in the Economics Classroom?," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 7(1), pages 62-102.
    18. Woltjer, G.B., 2004. "Crude oil: using a large case to teach introductory economics," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    19. Simkins, Scott P. & Maier, Mark H., 2008. "Learning from physics education research: Lessons for economics education," MPRA Paper 9314, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. W. Doyle Smith, 2002. "Applying Angelo's Teacher's Dozen to Undergraduate Introductory Economics Classes: A Call for Greater Interactive Learning," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 539-549, Fall.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technologies-based Instruction; In-class Activities; Scaffolding; Active-based Learning;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:siu:wpaper:23-2007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: QL THor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sesmusg.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.