Millie Yun Su, Senior Lecturer at Singapore University of Social Sciences. Research interests: Innovation management, practice-based view, entrepreneurial bricolage, strategic human resource, and qualitative research
I have always been inspired by seasonal professors leading case discussion in the classroom. They have knowledge at their fingertips; they orchestrate debates, and students are like puppets voicing their opinions like in a symphony. I want to develop that skill; therefore, I signed up for the Ivey Case Method Workshop in Hong Kong. I thought that I could learn all about the techniques and tricks of case teaching from the Workshop, but I realized that what I needed to learn is far more important than techniques. In fact, in order to learn to control the classroom, I need to learn to enjoy the teaching process in the classroom. Teaching can be enjoyable, which is cultivated through daily practice of 3-Lesson-Learned and letting go of psychological barriers.
Silence Has a Purpose
Treat silence as a purpose to make students become a better decision maker. The first thing I learned about case teaching is that we need to make our students work through complex situations and think through alternatives. However, this work makes students uncomfortable in the classroom and also put us as instructors in a tough position.
The very first session at the teaching workshop, Andreas the instructor put on his professorial hat to lead a discussion of his favorite case “Carrefour China, Building a Greener Store,” as if we were his MBA students. Andreas opened the discussion by asking us to identify what happened to David Monaco, the protagonist of the case. He asked, “Does Monaco have a choice? And why is this objective important?” I said, “Carrefour wanted to build a green store in China to obtain legitimacy, institutional and market legitimacy.” Andreas saw an opportunity to push me to clarify whether market legitimacy was important in this case. It put me on a hot seat and made me think harder and see the puzzle. After some struggle, the class came to agree that it’s actually obtaining institutional legitimacy, not market legitimacy as Carrefour’s strategic objective in China.
The next question was, “What were the paths to pursue that objective?” Andreas used the white board to map out all options and wanted us to work through the options available. To his favor, Chang and Lu were not convinced that any of the choices were viable, which made it easy for Andreas to structure a debate among us. It took another round of debate and discussion till the opposing students reluctantly came to agreement with the majority.
The take-away from this experience is that as instructors, we want to learn how and when to push students so that they can work to think through the alternatives. Instructors would fall into the trap of succumbing to students’ silence and discomfort and gave away answers too quickly, but in fact, that discomfort has a purpose, which is to make them think through the alternatives. As Andreas put it, the process is to guide students to assess complex situations and be able to make “informed decisions under ambiguity.” And putting students in the position of decision making trains students to be better decision makers.
The Art of Inductive Teaching Comes from 3LL
Three approaches instructors can use for leading case discussion, short-cycle process, long-cycle process, and unstructured approach, and the instructor can choose one out of the three methods depending of his/her experience, teaching objective, and allowable time. The common objective among the three approaches is that we need to ask students “what, when, why, and how,” such as what is the decision to be made, when should it be made, why it needs to be made, and how.
The difference between short and long cycle approach is that the long cycle approach allows time to explore alternatives and establish decision criteria. The short-cycle approach is good for instructors who begin to adopt case teaching method, even though some may find the short cycle approach to be too structured, because discussion has a clearer structure. On the other hand, the long-cycle approach allows students to tease out the complexity of the case, and the instructor can use those complexities to introduce concepts/ frameworks that they want to teach.
Lastly, the unstructured approach, though seem unstructured, is the one that requires instructor to be disciplined. The instructor structures a beginning, middle and end for the discussion. The instructor would begin with a question to set the tone for the discussion, and allows students to express their views. In the middle of the discussion, instructors orient students’ attention to analyze the problem. This is the time when the instructor needs to be disciplined in active listening to students’ responses, and to aggregate their inputs into a theme, and then introduce concepts/ principles that students need to learn from the discussion. This approach requires both the instructor and students to actively co-construct knowledge and the instructor is teaching concepts inductively to the students rather than feeding them. This approach is suitable for experienced instructors who know the students’ responses in advance and can be in absolute control of the discussion.
I find this approach requires the most discipline for the instructor, because it is easy to go off tangent in the discussion and lose focus on the teaching objectives. The instructor needs to anticipate what kind of responses students would offer and help students to relate their responses to the concept that the instructor wants to teach. The rule of thumb is that the instructor needs to aggregate 3 things, concepts, principles, or perspectives that he/she makes sense from the students’ responses. This is why LS always makes us to come up with 3 Lesson Learned (3LL) as the fundamental skill to sharpen our ears.
“Don’t be Afraid”: Being Empowered by Letting Go
Throughout the workshop, Andreas repeatedly said, “Don’t be afraid.” I was intrigued by why Andreas kept on encouraging us “not be afraid.” What Andreas was referring was the psychological barriers that instructors have on stage, and we need not be afraid of the stage but show our personalities. When we are on stage, we could be vulnerable because we could be judged and challenged. We also need to surrender our control of the class to students because we don’t know what responses will come from the students. At the same time, we play many roles as an expert, a facilitator, and a teacher. Some of us could be scared to show our personalities; some of us don’t have strong opinions because they are afraid of being judged.
However, when you’re leading a case discussion, a good discussion requires the instructor to dramatize the case. Leading a case is like directing a movie. Instructors need to build up suspense, construct roles among students to see who can play pros and cons. Instructor sometimes can be the devil and simulate protagonist and antagonist views of the case. These drama effects intrigues the audience attention and motivate them to contribute. To do so, instructor needs not be afraid to show their emotions and personality. Rather, showing our emotions actually empowers us.
Throughout the PhD years, no one taught PhD students how to teach and what it takes to be a good teacher. Teaching could be seen as a privilege or it could be seen as a burden. To some institutions, teaching is seen as unimportant or “less respectable” than research. However, it is a matter of perspective. I see that a synergy between teaching and research is the Holy Grail of academic life. This synergy is possible when we learn how to enjoy the classroom and use classroom as a test bed for research ideas. And only by letting go of the psychological barrier can allow one to enjoy teaching.
Silence Has a Purpose
Treat silence as a purpose to make students become a better decision maker. The first thing I learned about case teaching is that we need to make our students work through complex situations and think through alternatives. However, this work makes students uncomfortable in the classroom and also put us as instructors in a tough position.
The very first session at the teaching workshop, Andreas the instructor put on his professorial hat to lead a discussion of his favorite case “Carrefour China, Building a Greener Store,” as if we were his MBA students. Andreas opened the discussion by asking us to identify what happened to David Monaco, the protagonist of the case. He asked, “Does Monaco have a choice? And why is this objective important?” I said, “Carrefour wanted to build a green store in China to obtain legitimacy, institutional and market legitimacy.” Andreas saw an opportunity to push me to clarify whether market legitimacy was important in this case. It put me on a hot seat and made me think harder and see the puzzle. After some struggle, the class came to agree that it’s actually obtaining institutional legitimacy, not market legitimacy as Carrefour’s strategic objective in China.
The next question was, “What were the paths to pursue that objective?” Andreas used the white board to map out all options and wanted us to work through the options available. To his favor, Chang and Lu were not convinced that any of the choices were viable, which made it easy for Andreas to structure a debate among us. It took another round of debate and discussion till the opposing students reluctantly came to agreement with the majority.
The take-away from this experience is that as instructors, we want to learn how and when to push students so that they can work to think through the alternatives. Instructors would fall into the trap of succumbing to students’ silence and discomfort and gave away answers too quickly, but in fact, that discomfort has a purpose, which is to make them think through the alternatives. As Andreas put it, the process is to guide students to assess complex situations and be able to make “informed decisions under ambiguity.” And putting students in the position of decision making trains students to be better decision makers.
The Art of Inductive Teaching Comes from 3LL
Three approaches instructors can use for leading case discussion, short-cycle process, long-cycle process, and unstructured approach, and the instructor can choose one out of the three methods depending of his/her experience, teaching objective, and allowable time. The common objective among the three approaches is that we need to ask students “what, when, why, and how,” such as what is the decision to be made, when should it be made, why it needs to be made, and how.
The difference between short and long cycle approach is that the long cycle approach allows time to explore alternatives and establish decision criteria. The short-cycle approach is good for instructors who begin to adopt case teaching method, even though some may find the short cycle approach to be too structured, because discussion has a clearer structure. On the other hand, the long-cycle approach allows students to tease out the complexity of the case, and the instructor can use those complexities to introduce concepts/ frameworks that they want to teach.
Lastly, the unstructured approach, though seem unstructured, is the one that requires instructor to be disciplined. The instructor structures a beginning, middle and end for the discussion. The instructor would begin with a question to set the tone for the discussion, and allows students to express their views. In the middle of the discussion, instructors orient students’ attention to analyze the problem. This is the time when the instructor needs to be disciplined in active listening to students’ responses, and to aggregate their inputs into a theme, and then introduce concepts/ principles that students need to learn from the discussion. This approach requires both the instructor and students to actively co-construct knowledge and the instructor is teaching concepts inductively to the students rather than feeding them. This approach is suitable for experienced instructors who know the students’ responses in advance and can be in absolute control of the discussion.
I find this approach requires the most discipline for the instructor, because it is easy to go off tangent in the discussion and lose focus on the teaching objectives. The instructor needs to anticipate what kind of responses students would offer and help students to relate their responses to the concept that the instructor wants to teach. The rule of thumb is that the instructor needs to aggregate 3 things, concepts, principles, or perspectives that he/she makes sense from the students’ responses. This is why LS always makes us to come up with 3 Lesson Learned (3LL) as the fundamental skill to sharpen our ears.
“Don’t be Afraid”: Being Empowered by Letting Go
Throughout the workshop, Andreas repeatedly said, “Don’t be afraid.” I was intrigued by why Andreas kept on encouraging us “not be afraid.” What Andreas was referring was the psychological barriers that instructors have on stage, and we need not be afraid of the stage but show our personalities. When we are on stage, we could be vulnerable because we could be judged and challenged. We also need to surrender our control of the class to students because we don’t know what responses will come from the students. At the same time, we play many roles as an expert, a facilitator, and a teacher. Some of us could be scared to show our personalities; some of us don’t have strong opinions because they are afraid of being judged.
However, when you’re leading a case discussion, a good discussion requires the instructor to dramatize the case. Leading a case is like directing a movie. Instructors need to build up suspense, construct roles among students to see who can play pros and cons. Instructor sometimes can be the devil and simulate protagonist and antagonist views of the case. These drama effects intrigues the audience attention and motivate them to contribute. To do so, instructor needs not be afraid to show their emotions and personality. Rather, showing our emotions actually empowers us.
Throughout the PhD years, no one taught PhD students how to teach and what it takes to be a good teacher. Teaching could be seen as a privilege or it could be seen as a burden. To some institutions, teaching is seen as unimportant or “less respectable” than research. However, it is a matter of perspective. I see that a synergy between teaching and research is the Holy Grail of academic life. This synergy is possible when we learn how to enjoy the classroom and use classroom as a test bed for research ideas. And only by letting go of the psychological barrier can allow one to enjoy teaching.
沒有留言:
張貼留言