facilitating case study discussion

How To Facilitate A Case Study Workshop Session

A case study can be used as part of a training workshop to facilitate a learning point or as part of an assessment programme to gauge candidate’s response and analysis of situations. Case studies can be great for sharing experiences and reaffirming knowledge and understanding.

Here are some reasons to give a case study a try:

• increases awareness of a problem and helps teams formulate possible solutions.
• exchanges ideas and helps team members share past experiences.
• helps to analyse a problem and reach a decision as a team.
• facilitates and reaffirms key learning points.

Pre-printed scenario cards (optional)

Space Required:

Small. Classroom or training room

Group Size:

6 to 16 people

Total Time:

• 5 minutes to introduction and setup
• 10 minutes per case study for analysis and discussion (based on 4 case studies)
• 5 minutes for final review and case study debrief

Case Study Setup

Select the topic or theme that you were like to focus on during the training exercise. Prepare some possible scenarios or research articles related to the subject.

Case studies should be descriptions of events that really happened or fictional but based on reality. When leading the exercise, you can present the case study yourself, provide it in written form or even use videos or audio clips.

When I lead case studies sessions, I normally print the question on a piece of A4 paper and laminate them ready for workshop.

Case Study Instructions

From experience, I have found that a case studies session can be delivered two different ways.

The first way is to simply provide the group with a scenario and let them discuss it together as one big group.

The alternative is to split the group into smaller sub-groups and provide each group with the scenario. Once all groups have an opportunity to analyse and discuss the scenario, ask each group to present their findings back. This is a good way to get participants that are less likely to open up in bigger groups involved.

Look at your group and think about what will work best and give you the results you need.

When leading the case studies session, actively listen to discussion and provide necessary assistance to facilitate (guide) the analysis and discussion in the proper direction. Make sure you lead the discussion towards the learning objectives of the training workshop.

If you have people that conflicting views, then let them argue their points. If the discussion becomes too heated, stop them and summarise the discussion points and move on.

If everyone in the group agrees on something, or the discussion becomes stagnant then try playing devil’s advocate to get participants to look at the scenario from a different point of view.

When introducing the scenario, ask the group to think about the following 5 questions:

• What’s the problem?
• What’s the cause of the problem?
• How could the problem have been avoided?
• What are the solutions to the problem?
• What can you learn from this scenario?

Try to be flexible with your timings. If you need to stop a scenario early because the group become too heated or the group have explored the subject completely, stop them and summarise before moving on. If the scenario leads to valuable learning and you’re running out of time, allow an extra five minutes and skip another scenario.

Tips and Guidance

A good way to lead up to a case study is to present the scenario to the group at the end of the day and ask them to read up on the material and prepare in the evening. The first part of the following days’ workshop should then be the case study.

I like to lead a case study session by simply handed over the question cards and letting the group begin the discussion on their own. At the end of the discussion, I’ll summarise the key points – help them identify why the case study was important to the learning and move on to the next one.

If you’re discussing any sensitive subjects such as child protection etc then it is important to tell the group at the beginning of the case study. Explain that anything discussed exercise must not be mentioned again and if anyone needs to leave for a couple of minutes then they are more than welcome to.

Further Reading

10 Tips for Better Facilitation 

How To Facilitate Group Discussions: The “Gallery” Exercise

Questions? Comments?  Let us know in the comments below!

Related Posts

How To Play The Empire Game: Fun Group Game

Diving into the Depths: How to Play Sharks and Minnows

The Red Light Green Light Game

Thanks! This article helped me a lot!

Glad it was helpful!

Thanks – Helped! Have you any thoughts around case studies which are not based around a problem?

Gigi, I am glad this helped.

Can you elaborate on what you mean about the case studies not being based on a problem?

A big part of the value of this type of exercise is that you can ideally take emotions out of play and analyze an undesired situation or problem neutrally helping your team to better deal with these types of scenarios in real life when emotions could potentially flare up. If the person can realize the bigger picture and be equipped with productive ways to handle the situation then hopefully the outcome with be better in real life.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Session expired

Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.

Free PDF: "5 Fun Team Building Activities"

Five of our favorite team building activities. Easy set up, printable instructions, and review questions.

Your Privacy is protected.

Get 30 of our best Team Building Activities in one PDF eBook!

Tips for Discussion Group Leaders

Once the program begins, each discussion group is assigned a leader who serves as the facilitator for each case study. Here are some tips for leading an insightful and productive exchange.

• Before you begin, make sure that all members understand the value of the discussion group process. You may find it helpful to have a brief conversation about the Discussion Group Best Practices listed above.
• Think of yourself as a discussion facilitator. Your goal is to keep the group focused on moving through the case questions. Don't feel that you need to master all the content more thoroughly than the other group members do.
• Guide the group through the study questions for each assignment. Keep track of time so that your group can discuss all the cases and readings, instead of being bogged down in the first case of the morning or afternoon.
• The study questions are designed to keep the group focused on the key issues that will contribute to an effective discussion in the larger classroom meeting. Don’t let your peers stray too far into anecdotes or issues that aren't relevant.
• If a subset of your living group appears to be dominating the discussion, encourage the less vocal members to participate. They'll be more apt to speak up if you ask them to share their unique perspectives on the topic at hand.
• If you have questions about how to handle a specific situation that may arise in your group, please reach out to the faculty or staff for assistance. We’re here to help you get the most out of your group discussions.

What happens in class if nobody talks? Dropdown down

Professors are here to push everyone to learn, but not to embarrass anyone. If the class is quiet, they'll often ask a participant with experience in the industry in which the case is set to speak first. This is done well in advance so that person can come to class prepared to share. Trust the process. The more open you are, the more willing you’ll be to engage, and the more alive the classroom will become.

Does everyone take part in "role-playing"? Dropdown down

Professors often encourage participants to take opposing sides and then debate the issues, often taking the perspective of the case protagonists or key decision makers in the case.

What can I expect on the first day? Dropdown down

Most programs begin with registration, followed by an opening session and a dinner. If your travel plans necessitate late arrival, please be sure to notify us so that alternate registration arrangements can be made for you. Please note the following about registration:

HBS campus programs – Registration takes place in the Chao Center.

India programs – Registration takes place outside the classroom.

Other off-campus programs – Registration takes place in the designated facility.

View Frequently Asked Questions

Subscribe to Our Emails

Managing a Case Discussion That Goes Awry

Explore more.

• Case Teaching
• Classroom Management

W hen we teach with cases, we face a fundamental tension. As facilitators of case discussions, we are responsible for keeping the class conversation productive and focused. Yet we also want the flow of conversation to be dynamic, driven by students’ interests and insights. We want students to feel like they are majority owners in a case discussion’s success .

The more we empower students, however, the more often the discussion may appear to drift away from a desired destination. The tension between these goals is disconcerting, even for experienced case teachers.

Nevertheless, I recommend that you refrain from taking control of a case discussion at the first sign of disorder. The moments when you step back may generate the best learning moments for your students. I am not proposing that you embrace an “anything goes” attitude in your case classroom. Yet by being mindful of where, when, and how the discussion might drift, you can recalibrate the conversation as needed.

Here I identify four situations that can lead a case discussion awry—and offer strategies for what you can do in each instance. As the case facilitator, you must first assess whether an intervention is warranted (i.e., whether the discussion is really becoming unproductive). If it is, then you need to determine what level and type of intervention will best enable your class to advance the discussion.

1. The class cannot focus on one topic

Students often offer a wide range of disjointed contributions, especially when they are discussing a complex topic or case. The lack of coherence may arise when students want to return to earlier topics, when they believe your question is inextricably linked to other themes or analyses that should be considered first, or when they avoid answering a difficult question.

Here are several approaches you can try to help get everyone on the same page while still ensuring your students feel ownership over the discussion:

Use the board. If you stand next to a board that’s labeled but otherwise blank, students will likely take the hint and focus in on those labels. Write off-point comments on a separate board or section of the board to subtly show students when they’re off track.

Refocus their comments with follow-up questions. This tactic can escalate from subtle clarifying questions such as “Can you expand on that?” to directly asking, “How does that relate to X topic?”

“I recommend that you refrain from taking control of a case discussion at the first sign of disorder. The moments when you step back may generate the best learning moments for your students.”

Pause and reframe the question. If you do so, it is particularly helpful for you to summarize the relevant parts of the discussion so far. You can either mention the points unrelated to the current topic and when they might be addressed (“We have heard some opportunities and threats that we will explore in more detail shortly, but when we look at this list of strengths, have we missed any?”) or omit them, sending a signal that they were off point. The latter strategy risks suppressing students’ desire to contribute, however, so use it judiciously.

Most importantly, understand that a case discussion will seldom go exactly as you expect. Avoid “scripting” every minute when you craft your teaching plan and allot buffer time for unplanned discussion. Be open to discussing topics during class that may initially seem tangential. As time permits, allow students to argue for why the topic is worth discussing. When you dismiss students’ comments outright, you can foreclose some of their best opportunities for learning and engagement, like making connections to other cases and subjects both within your course and with their other courses.

2. The class cannot provide a correct analysis or response

While we often think of case discussions as not having “right” answers, we sometimes need a correct analysis as the foundation, particularly in courses with quantitative content. Students often find these analyses to be challenging and may struggle to develop a good answer during a case discussion. It may feel tempting to provide the answer so the class can quickly move to discussing its implications, but such moments can deprive your students of valuable learning. Before resorting to this option, give the class opportunities to build their knowledge in the discussion as time permits using the following techniques:

Ask your students to submit their analyses before class when possible.

Cold-call a student you think is likely to have the answer. If you prefer not to cold-call, poll students about an aspect of the analysis to find a student who may have the answer or who is likely well positioned to develop it.

Break your question down into smaller pieces to make the analysis feel more tractable and less imposing.

Briefly put students in small groups. If possible, set group membership to distribute expertise. Provide extra help as necessary to facilitate a correct analysis.

3. The class cannot close discussion on a topic

We always want our discussion topics to drive robust conversations that engage students, but occasionally we need or want to move on when students show no sign of slowing down. If you have taught the case before, you will likely be able to estimate the time each part of the case will take to teach. It is also helpful to use key break points in your teaching plan (“I need to wrap topic X up within Y minutes”) to determine when and where to effectively pivot the discussion.

“When you dismiss students’ comments outright, you can foreclose some of their best opportunities for learning and engagement, like making connections to other cases and subjects both within your course and with their other courses.”

When these situations occur, first ask yourself whether you are closing the topic too soon. If you are deliberately transitioning topics before the discussion addresses some major issues, acknowledge that. You have several options if you need to put a definitive end to a topic:

Call on a student to summarize the discussion as a way of wrapping up.

Summarize the discussion yourself, ideally using comments students have made. Then ask a question to start the next topic. If you’re really pressed for time, you can skip the summary.

Use a student comment that’s related to the next topic to prompt the transition to that topic (“You mentioned the recent drop in sales—let’s talk about the rest of the financials”). Be clear that you are moving to a new subject.

Similarly, if you begin to run short of time toward the end of class, assess how important it is to cover the remaining material you have planned for the session. Could it be covered in a later meeting, or does it need to be covered at all?

If class ends without a key topic being covered, spend some time reflecting on why that happened so you can help prevent it from happening again. Perhaps students needed more guidance in advance to prepare the case, or your questions could have been clearer. You can also create an assignment or even discuss the topic during the next class. Exercise caution when using this latter option, however, because it reduces the momentum for the next case discussion and it can muddle students’ preparation and recall.

Managing case discussions can present various additional challenges. Here’s what to do when you suspect students are bringing case solutions to class. And here’s advice for managing a particularly heated or uncomfortable class discussion .

4. You encounter problematic behavior or speech

If students are violating class norms or university polices, the issue is clearly urgent. You must first ensure that no one is being harmed or personally attacked. Our classes need to be safe places for discussion where no individuals or groups are singled out. Address egregious issues immediately, giving students an opportunity to correct the behavior in the moment, if possible, by asking if they would like to rephrase or reconsider their comment.

For less egregious issues, calibrate your own response. Here are some questions you should consider before acting:

Was it clear to everyone that the class norms were violated? Sometimes students are unaware that they are doing anything wrong. This can be a good opportunity to remind them of the shared norms for the course.

Why might this be happening? Is there something happening in the world that is having an impact on students? Is it the last class before a break? Did the students just complete a difficult exam in their previous class? The resulting insight can help you formulate the solution, and the resulting empathy can foster a stronger relationship with and among students.

How much of an issue is this for the class and its learning? New case teachers are especially likely to be distressed by any loss of control in the room. Before acting, consider the gravity of the situation. How disruptive was the issue? Is it likely to escalate if not addressed?

If you decide that you need to address an issue, sometimes showing that you are aware of it is sufficient. This can be a nonverbal cue (walking behind a student distracted by their phone or making eye contact with a facial expression) or mentioned aloud in passing. Other instances may merit a clearer statement or larger discussion. If so, can the incident be used for good? Can students develop soft skills for addressing such situations as a result?

Cede control; your students will rise to the occasion

Unpredictability is a hallmark of good case teaching and student engagement—if everything is known ahead of time, there’d be no need for the discussion. Before you pause and correct course, be sure that things are truly awry and not just unexpected.

For many of us, our fear of losing control can lead to an overly constrained discussion that students do not feel they own. Might your expectations be too rigid? Some of the best learning can come from struggling with a problem or process, even if it takes longer than anticipated. To achieve our goal of having students co-create knowledge, when the discussion needs to pivot, turn to the class first.

Bill Schiano is a professor of computer information systems at Bentley University. He teaches both managerial and technical courses exclusively using discussion and the case method and has done so in online and hybrid formats. Bill regularly facilitates the web-based seminar Teaching with Cases Online .

Related Articles

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• How To Do It: Use...

How To Do It: Use facilitated case discussions for significant event auditing

• Related content
• Peer review
• L A Robinson , general practice facilitator a ,
• R Stacy , research associate a ,
• J A Spencer , senior lecturer a ,
• R S Bhopal , professor b
• a Department of Primary Health Care, Medical School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH
• b Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
• Correspondence to: Dr Robinson.
• Accepted 24 March 1995

An important type of review undertaken routinely in health care teams is analysis of individual cases. This informal process can be turned into a structured and effective form of audit by using an adaptation of the “critical incident” technique in facilitated case discussions. Participants are asked to recall personal situations that they feel represent either effective or ineffective practice. From such review of individual cases arise general standards to improve the quality of care. On the basis of a study of audit of deaths in general practice, we describe how to implement such a system, including forming and maintaining the discussion group, methodology, and guidelines for facilitators. Problems that may arise during the case discussions are outlined and their management discussed, including problems within the team and with the process of the discussions.

Medical audit has traditionally taken place within a group composed of members of the same clinical specialty. However, multidisciplinary teamwork is usual in health care, so clinical audit may be a more effective means of bringing about change within organisations. 1 2 One informal but important type of review that is routinely carried out within clinical teams is analysis of individual cases—for example, as an educational exercise (“random case analysis”) in vocational training in general practice and as a discussion between general practitioner and district nurse after the death of a terminally ill patient. This informal process can be turned into a more structured (and acceptable) method of internal audit using an adaptation of the “critical incident” technique, 3 originally developed in the 1950s. 4 Critical incidents are collected by asking participants to recall situations that they think are examples of good or bad practice in the particular setting being studied. The participants describe what first occurred, the subsequent events, and why they perceived the incident to be an example of effective or ineffective practice. This technique has been used in curriculum development, 5 6 primary care research, 3 7 and development of clinical guidelines. 8 Such discussions are now referred to as “facilitated case discussions” 8 and provide a technique for what has come to be known as significant event auditing 9 or critical event auditing. 10

The aim of facilitated discussions is to identify events in individual cases that have been critical (beneficial or detrimental to the outcome), with a view to improving the quality of care without attributing individual blame or self criticism. The critical events may be clinical, administrative, or organisational. From our experience with primary health care teams in a study which used facilitated case discussions about patients who had recently died, 8 we describe how to use the technique as a method of team audit and outline some of the problems that may arise.

Structure of facilitated case discussions

Forming the group.

The primary health care team, in consultation with the facilitator(s), should initially decide which members will take part in the discussions. Whenever possible and appropriate the group should be representative of the team (doctors, practice and district nurses, practice manager, and ancillary staff), as innovation is much more likely when all who influence care can give their views. 1 All team members should be happy about participating, as viewing the task as a burden may lead to group dysfunction. 11

The core membership should ideally remain constant if a series of discussions is to take place, to promote a safe, comfortable environment in which to encourage critical thinking. Facilitating the discussions is easier if the group is already well established, as regular group meetings in which each member's contribution is recognised and respected probably promote effective teamwork. 12

SIZE OF GROUP

Generally large groups function less well than small groups 13 ; the ideal group comprises eight to 10 people. Case discussions can be facilitated in a singlehanded practice, but as many members as possible of the primary health care team need to participate for useful discussions to take place.

SETTING AND EQUIPMENT

A comfortable, quiet room is essential. Holding the discussions during the day makes it easier for all staff to attend but difficult to avoid routine interruptions.

Relevant discussion points and any decisions made should be documented, so a group secretary should be appointed. The group may wish to audiotape or videotape the discussion. Reassurance about confidentiality, however, will obviously be needed in such cases.

The length of a discussion will vary, but between 20 and 45 minutes will generally be needed for each case. Cases generating emotive topics may need up to an hour. In our study usually two cases were discussed in an hour.

THE FACILITATOR

The group should decide whether to select a facilitator from within the group or to use an external facilitator. The advantages of an external facilitator are outlined in the box. Before the discussion the facilitator should explain his or her role to the group, which is:

To explain the aims and process of the discussion

To structure the discussion—that is, to keep to time, to encourage contributions from all participants, and to clarify and summarise frequently

To maintain the basic ground rules of group discussion—for example, to allow uninterrupted discourse, to encourage participants to speak for themselves (using “I” not “we”), and to maintain confidentiality 14

To facilitate the suggestions for improvement when areas of concern arise and more importantly to encourage participants to accept responsibility for initiating change

To recognise emotion within the discussion, to acknowledge it, and to allow appropriate expression within the group

To remain “external” to the group and to avoid giving unwarranted opinions or colluding with the group during the discussions

Advantages and disadvantages of an external facilitator for case discussions *

• View inline

The process of discussion

All participants should know each other and each other's roles. If the discussion is to be recorded and transcribed then the participants should introduce themselves at each session, so that the transcriber can identify each contributor. The facilitator should reiterate her role and the ground rules of the discussion.

Cases of particular concern or interest may be chosen, or cases may be chosen at random. Randomly chosen cases avoid selection bias. In our experience random cases have also led to findings of interest, and we recommend a mix of both. Ideally the facilitator, or by agreement a member of the group, should prepare a brief, written summary of the case and circulate this to all participants, preferably before the discussion. The participant who has been most involved in the case opens the discussion with a brief summary of his or her recollections outlining good aspects of care first then areas of concern. Other members are then invited to add their observations until everyone, as appropriate, has participated. At this point, the facilitator summarises the discussion, helping the team to identify the good aspects of care and highlighting the areas of concern, encouraging the group members to suggest improvements. The facilitator ends the discussion by requesting final comments and summarising the improvements to be implemented.

Written feedback should be produced as soon as possible after the discussion (see box for example). Ideally regular review sessions should also be held to check that the suggested improvements have been implemented and, if not, to explore the reasons for this.

Example of written feedback after facilitated case discussion*

Potential problems during discussions

Management and resolution of the problems described below, which are common to all kinds of work done in small groups, requires firstly recognition of the problem then effective intervention from a member of the group, or if this is not forthcoming, from the facilitator. 11

PROBLEMS WITHIN THE PRIMARY HEALTH CARE TEAM

Group dynamics.

Primary care teams that are accustomed to meeting regularly and reviewing patient care seem to find facilitated case discussions more rewarding than teams that do not, as the initial process of identifying areas of concern seems to be less threatening. 12 A team that is unaccustomed to meeting regularly or in which there is dysfunction may require help with group dynamics before its members can proceed to case discussion. For example, one of the practices in our study at the end of the project sought further help with team building and communication skills. Incorporating review sessions into the discussions can help to compensate for the possible absence of “finishers” (members of a team responsible for ensuring that the team meets its obligations and deadlines). 15

Hierarchical barriers

Barriers may exist both interprofessionally (for example, between general practitioners and district nurses) and intraprofessionally (for example, between senior and junior partners). A participant may feel undervalued or lack the confidence to provide what may be an essential contribution, and the facilitator should encourage and acknowledge all contributions.

Existing tension

Some degree of tension always exists within an established team. Tension can be used constructively, however, in a safe environment to stimulate critical thought, although the presence of an obstructive or disruptive member will obviously influence the outcome of the discussion. Participants who are “innovators” in the team may meet resistance from the natural “laggards,” producing a conflict of interest. 16 Long standing personality clashes may also surface.

Fear of exposure, blame, or humiliation

During our study, one nurse expressed surprise at hearing a doctor admit guilt and failure in a patient's care but respected him for doing so. Despite continual reassurance that facilitated case discussions are not an exercise in attributing individual blame, some participants may find it difficult to identify aspects of detrimental care, especially if they do not feel comfortable in the group. The facilitator can help to resolve this by encouraging openness—for example, by acknowledging that everyone might be afraid to admit personal failure but that the aim of the group is to be supportive and to develop practical solutions for preventing a similar situation from recurring.

DURING DISCUSSION

Confidentiality and fear of medical litigation.

This problem of confidentiality and fear of litigation may be magnified if the discussions are recorded or if written minutes are taken. Some general practitioners may not wish to have ancillary staff present for fear of litigation or breach of confidentiality. In our study we used a protocol based on advice given informally by medical defence societies (box).

Dealing with emotion

Ideally the facilitator should be sensitive to the range of emotions that may arise, such as sadness, guilt, and anger. These may be expressed directly or indirectly—for example, through flippancy in the discussion—and are most likely to occur in discussions of emotive topics, such as terminal care. The facilitator should acknowledge the presence of emotion and the venting of feelings and should not only provide support but also, more importantly, encourage similar expression from group members.

Collusion is a common and important problem and may arise between facilitator and group as well as among group members. In our study the general practice facilitator tended during the early discussions to collude with the participating general practitioners, acting as general practitioner and accepting their decisions rather than as external facilitator and challenging them. Review of the transcripts with frank and open analysis was needed to solve this problem. One way of challenging collusion in the group is for the facilitator to identify the deficiencies in care and suggest that the group is denying their existence. He or she should then encourage the group to confront the collusion and to recognise the problems identified.

Inability to recognise deficiencies of care

This inability may be due to a combination of factors—for example, fear of humiliation or exposure—or simply to dysfunction within the primary care team. It may simply be, however, that a group does not recognise that different (higher) standards are both the norm and achievable and hence that a problem exists. The facilitator may need to remind the group of alternative methods of care—that is, act as an educator. Some groups are able to cope with the task of recognising problems at an early stage, but most will achieve it as the discussions progress and they become more comfortable as a group.

Protocol for avoiding litigation and breach of confidentiality

As soon as a case has been selected it should be given a code number and only referred to in writing by that number. Specific reference to the patient should be by age and sex only—date of birth is too specific

Any written record of the case discussion should be kept locked away

If the discussion is recorded and the recording subsequently transcribed, the audiotape or videotape should be erased. The health professionals involved should be referred to by their initials only

At the end of a project all written records should be shredded

If any part of a discussion is to be published a fictitious case should be used

Facilitated case discussions based on the critical incident technique are an acceptable method for promoting significant event auditing by primary health care teams. 3 By reviewing individual cases, the team can generate standards to improve the quality of care. 8 Ideally, this requires representatives from all professional groups in the team to promote critical, constructive discussion. Initiating and maintaining change will be more successful if all team members have been instrumental in developing those changes. 17 18 19 This focus on the team is one of the main differences from the critical incident technique as developed by Flanagan, which looked at the practice of individuals. 4

The outcome of facilitated case discussions can be varied and is not necessarily negative or suggestive of the need for change. One case may illustrate that the primary health care team is providing high quality care—for example, in the case of a terminally ill patient dying at home, with the general practitioner and district and specialist nurses in regular attendance and the doctor initiating bereavement support for the family. Such cases are important for building self confidence and self esteem. More commonly, however, discussions will result in a list of concerns, and the primary health care team must determine the ones requiring immediate action. In both our pilot study 3 and the main studies (J Spencer et al, unpublished data) most concerns identified as requiring immediate action were related to communication or organisation. Primary care teams were less forthcoming in identifying clinical deficiencies, perhaps as a consequence of fear of litigation or admission of personal failure.

Following the principles of the “double loop audit cycle” as proposed by Coles (figure), 20 facilitated case discussions are most effective if they are supplemented with review sessions. The initial case discussion allows the group to focus and reflect on an aspect of practice and to develop standards, or theoretical generalisations, to improve that practice—the first loop. The aim of the review session is to encourage the group to transform such generalisations into practical suggestions and to identify individuals with responsibility for implementing such changes—the second loop. As adults learn and implement knowledge more effectively if it is relevant to their daily needs, 21 the group should attempt to place the suggestions in order of importance to their practice.

“Double loop audit cycle” 20

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

As we have described, most problems arising during facilitated case discussions are related to the underlying principles of small group dynamics and the facilitation of such groups. 11 For collaborative audit to be successful, participants may need to develop skills in group facilitation, which can be acquired only within a group format. This process may be easier with the help of an external facilitator with established expertise in facilitating small groups. 11

Admitting to possible inadequacies of care, especially to colleagues, is an extremely stressful procedure for experienced health professionals. In the mid-1980s, however, the Royal College of General Practitioner's initiative on quality stated that the setting of standards and performance review should be incorporated into general practice within a decade. 22 In the 1990s, audit is still largely a voluntary process in primary care, but the future will undoubtedly see a trend towards clinical rather than medical audit, and this will present general practitioners and the primary care team with a greater obligation to incorporate quality improvement strategies into everyday practice. Facilitated case discussions provide an inviting and stimulating method of meeting this obligation.

Acknowledgments

We thank the five study practices for participating in the project, Sharon Denley for typing the manuscript, and Newcastle District Health Authority and Newcastle Family Health Services Authority for their help.

Source of Funding This project was funded by a grant from the Department of Health.

Conflict of interest None.

• Firth-Cozens J
• Spencer JA ,
• Bhopal RS ,
• van Zwanenberg TD
• Flanagan JC
• Waterston T
• Robinson L ,
• Pringle M ,
• Hutchinson A ,
• Russell I ,
• Hobbs FDR ,
• McNichol M ,
• North of England Study of Standards and Performance in General Practice
• Brookfield SD
• Royal College of General Practitioners

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

PREPARING AND TEACHING

10 Facilitating Discussion

…high-quality classroom talk enhances understanding, accelerates learning and raises learning outcomes” (Hattie, 2009 in Hardman, 2016, p. 64)

Facilitating discussions is an important skill for teaching assistants. In this chapter, we will explore some approaches to facilitating discussions, discuss some important elements of the process of developing points/questions for discussion, and creating/keeping engagement.

This chapter’s learning outcomes include:

• the role discussions play in teaching and learning in the university classroom;
• the various types of questions;
• and how different types of questions can be utilized in the facilitation of discussion
• Using questions to facilitate discussion
• Understanding the role instructors/TAs play in facilitating robust discussion

USING QUESTIONS TO FACILITATE DISCUSSION

To question well is to teach well. In the skillful use of the question more than anything else lies the fine art of teaching; for in it we have the guide to clear and vivid ideas, the quick spur to imagination, the stimulus to thought, the incentive to action.” – Charles Degarmo (1911)

Often times, questions are used as a starting point for discussions within the university classroom. You may use questions related to lecture content, reading materials, course activities, or even material related to course assignments.

Developing and asking questions that support productive and critical discussion is no easy task! It is important to carefully craft questions that support student engagement, critical thinking, collaboration, and dialogue.

We will now start to explore how you can develop high quality and effective questions to support discussion in your classroom.

BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a classification system that can be used to organize the skills and objectives set within a course, unit, or lesson.

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a hierarchical system – this means that in order to achieve the learning or skills positioned higher within the hierarchy the knowledge/skills at the lower levels must be accomplished first.

BLOOM’S TAXONOMY: COGNITIVE DOMAIN

Bloom’s taxonomy positions remembering as lower-level thinking. Though it is classified as “lower-level” it is not unimportant as remembering is crucial to understanding and progression towards higher-level thinking. The description provided here (in both the image and the text) are attributed to the Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching.

These descriptions described the revised taxonomy proposed by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001).

• Remember : Recall facts and basic concepts (define, duplicate, list, memorize, state, repeat)
• Understand : Explain ideas or concepts (classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, recognize, report, select, translate)
• Apply : Use information in new situations (execute, implement, solve, use, demonstrate, interpret, operate, schedule, sketch)
• Analyze : Draw connections among ideas (differentiate, organize, relate, compare, contrast, distinguish, examine, experiments question, test)
• Evaluate : Justify a stand or a decision (appraise, argue, defend, judge, select, support, value, critique, weigh)
• Create : Produce new or original work (Design, assemble, construct, conjecture, develop, formulate, author, investigate)

Critics of Bloom’s Taxonomy, however, question the linear progression through knowledge acquisition and skill development from lower-to-higher order thinking. Below is an image by CPI Associate Director Giulia Forsythe which reconceptualizes Bloom’s Cognitive Taxonomy as a circle.

THE QUESTIONING MATRIX

As you prepare to facilitate discussions it is also important to recognize and consider the types of questions you are posing to students and how they relate to the types of knowledge and skills described via Bloom’s Taxonomy.

To do so, consider the following:

• Is the question open (allowing for multiple answers) or closed (yes/no or stated fact response)?
• What is the question asking students to do (e.g. define, paraphrase, evaluate, etc.)?

Determining the question type (open or closed) and what the question asks students to do (relationship to Bloom’s Cognitive Taxonomy) can help you to understand if the questions you ask are likely to yield the kinds of responses and discussion you hope. That is, if you want to check for understanding a closed, knowledge or comprehension based question may serve your purpose well. But if you want to spark a class dialogue on a course content or a class reading, for example, you will need to ask an open-ended question that asks students to demonstrate  evaluation, application, synthesis, or analysis.

The Questioning Matrix can help you to develop questions that spark, promote, and extend discussion among your students.

• Reinforcing student participation : encouraging students to continue contributing to class discussion by acknowledging their contribution
• Probing:  supporting students towards more complex and critical engagements by asking questions that extend the discussion
• Focusing:  at times discussion may seem disconnected to course goals/content you can re-focus the discussion by asking students to clarify the connections between the discussion and course content and encouraging the discussion to stay “on track.”

The seminar leader should respond to students’ answers in such a way as to encourage participation. This is crucial since your response will probably influence both the student offering the comment and those observing the interaction. In many seminars, students are asked to engage in discussion about a topic/idea/reading/method and there are many “eggshell” topics (political, emotional, etc.) that must be discussed in a university classroom. Facilitating these discussions can be difficult.

For more information on facilitating difficult discussions, check out Navigating Difficult Conversations chapter .

suggestions when facilitating discussions

Here’s some suggestions when facilitating discussions:

• Allow students to react to each other’s responses.
• After posing a question and before calling on a respondent, wait a few seconds so all the students can formulate a response and have space and time to think.
• Do not require students to raise their hands before speaking if the class is small.
• Never belittle student questions or responses.
• Do not get sidetracked by individual students: students can be invited to stay after class or stop by during office hours if they wish for further discussion on a topic.
• Do not lapse into lecture; this is one of the single greatest obstacles to student participation.
• When you have a large class, it is best to separate students into small groups: after the students have considered the questions in small groups, it is easier to obtain full participation during a whole-class discussion.

The use of discussion requires that you develop good communication skills. It also requires that you sense the mood and climate of the class. To be effective, discussion should be used for an intended purpose, not simply because it provides a voice for the students. The use of discussion should also be weighed against certain constraints such as time, number of objectives to attain , and physical space. It can be very effective for fostering application and exercising critical thinking and communication skills.

Discussion Exercises

There are a number of ways you can ignite discussion in the classroom.

Try to keep a record of what has been said on the whiteboard or on flipchart paper. You may find that this engages more students as they can see the connections being made while discussing them.

It also allows you to go back to the discussion points and establish if you have covered all that was needed in the seminar.

Methods for Facilitating Discussion

Following are some methods for facilitating discussions:

Case Studies

Method: the facilitator selects a case study that is suitable for the class and presents it to the class. The presentation is followed by discussion of the case study.

TRY THIS: record the crucial details for reference during the discussion, this will provide the students with a visual reference during class and they can photograph it for their notes later.**

Method: first define the topic of discussion with the class. Select six people and allow them six minutes for discussion. The class actively listens to the discussion and prepares to engage in a larger discussion afterwards. You may wish to designate a student or a few students to record the main points given by the initial six people for reference during the larger discussion.

TRY THIS: put the student’s names in a hat so that the students are selected entirely at random.

Committee Work & Reports

Method: Students work in small groups developing interpersonal and organizational skills, completing an assigned task. The groups are provided with a specific task as well as the needed information and resources to complete that task. The groups are given a set period of time to complete the task which is then presented to the whole class. Follow this up with discussion!

Best Practice: make sure that the material for the class is easily able to be broken up into small components that can be handled by different groups. Interpersonal conflicts can arise when personalities clash or if some members find themselves doing most of the work; be ready to jump in to keep the groups motivated.

Experience Discussions

Method: following the presentation or report on the main point of a book/article/life experience students engage in a discussion on pertinent issues and points of view as experienced. This method relies on the experience of the students within the class, some students may require more time to consider the experience and craft a response. Some participants may experience trouble relating to one another.

Asking the Right Kinds of Questions

Asking the right kinds of questions is important. Wilen and Clegg (1994) took five research reviews and identified teaching practices that were positively correlated with student achievement.

The most effective teachers:

• clearly phrase their questions and ask primarily academic questions rather than questions that are procedural, affective or personal
• ask only one question at a time
• attempt to ask questions at both a high and low cognitive level
• try to balance volunteered and non-volunteered responses which keeps students alert but gives them the opportunity to answer
• encourage students to clarify or support their responses which stimulates further thinking
• acknowledges correct responses with praise ; for praise to be effective, it must be genuine, used sparingly, and should be specific

Effective teachers want students to respond to every question in some way, and the object is not to get the “right” answer.

Developing questions to spark and enhance discussion is difficult work. Questioning is an important skill for teaching assistants and is a skill that will take practice to develop.

When developing questions ahead of facilitating a discussion think about whether your questions are closed (having limited or yes/no responses) or open (requiring more critical thought and responses). For more information on the types of questions you can ask see the matrix on the following page.

REMEMBER  

Your questions might not always get a response right away. It is important to allow students some time to think about the question before responding.  Allow your students 5 to 10 seconds to think about the question before rephrasing your question.

When engaging students in discussions, there are 3 techniques that will help you facilitate meaningful, vigorous discussion:

• Reinforcing participation: reinforce student participation in a positive way to encourage future participation – this can be done in both verbal and non-verbal ways.
• Readjusting/Focusing: sometimes student responses may appear unconnected to the class content – try and make connections, encourage students to state the connection they are seeing to provide clarity for their response.
• Probing: student responses may be superficial, encourage more complex thinking and response by probing student responses for more.

(Centre for Teaching and Learning – Illinois University, 2019)

Examples of Probing Questions

(from Effective Teaching in Higher Education by Brown & Atkins, p.73)

• Does that always apply?
• How is that relevant?
• Can you give me an example?
• Is there an alternative viewpoint?
• How reliable is the evidence?
• How accurate is your description?
• You say it is x, which particular kind of x?
• What is the underlying principle then?

The Teaching Assistant Guide to Teaching & Learning Copyright © 2023 by Center for Pedagogical Innovations is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Utility Menu

GA4 tagging code

• Demonstrating Moves Live
• Raw Clips Library
• Facilitation Guide

Structuring the Case Discussion

Well-designed cases are intentionally complex. Therefore, presenting an entire case to students all at once has the potential to overwhelm student groups and lead them to overlook key details or analytic steps. Accordingly, Barbara Cockrill asks students to review key case concepts the night before, and then presents the case in digestible “chunks” during a CBCL session. Structuring the case discussion around key in-depth questions, Cockrill creates a thoughtful interplay between small group work and whole group discussion that makes for more systematic forays into the case at hand.

Barbara Cockrill , Harold Amos Academy Associate Professor of Medicine

Student Group

Harvard Medical School

Homeostasis I

40 students

Additional Details

First-year requisite

• Classroom Considerations
• Relevant Research
• Related Resources
• CBCL provides students the opportunity to apply course material in new ways. For this reason, you might consider not sharing the case with students beforehand and having them experience it in class with fresh eyes.
• Chunk cases so students can focus on case specifics and gradually build-up to greater complexity and understanding. 
• Introduce variety into case-based discussions. Integrate a mix of independent work, small group discussion, and whole group share outs to keep students engaged and provide multiple junctures for students to get feedback on their understanding.
• Instructor scaffolding is critical for effective case-based learning ( Ramaekers et al., 2011 )
• This resource from the Harvard Business School provides suggestions for questioning, listening, and responding during a case discussion .
• This comprehensive resource on “The ABCs of Case Teaching” provides helpful tips for planning and “running” your case .

Related Moves

Experiencing the Case as a Student Team

Regulating the Flow of Energy in the Classroom

Designing Focused Discussions for Relevance and Transfer of Knowledge

Expand your code review knowledge : free course access for the first 50 participants

3 facilitation case studies: better and worse scenarios

Natalya Fursova and Elena Glekova from PandaDoc shared examples of real work situations that arise in companies on a daily basis. Each of them was presented with possible scenarios for how events might develop — and they discussed options, including a “not ideal” possibility and a better possibility in each instance.

In this article

We have already talked about what facilitation is in theory. Now, it's time to get down to business. How does facilitation work in practice? Below, PandaDoc HR Business Partner Natalia Fursova and PandaDoc Scrum Master Elena Glekova discuss how facilitation works using specific examples that were drawn from real situations.

Case 1. How facilitation can help clarify team expectations and secure agreements

Facts: a team has gathered in a small IT company to work on new functionality. The team consists of six people, each with a wide range of expertise in design, programming, and testing. How can facilitation help in these circumstances?

Not the best scenario

A situation arises when the expectations of individual participants regarding joint work are not met. Some team members, for example, prefer to make all architectural decisions individually, without consulting the team. This creates problems for other participants. The tension in the team is growing; there are more and more unspoken issues. The group continues to work in this mode until the next decision made without the input of the whole team leads to a serious user incident. During a discussion of the event, the conversation develops into an open conflict. The conflict is so acute that none of the team members wish to continue working on it.

Better Scenario 1

At the start of the project, the team agrees to hold regular retrospective meetings, during which they will have the opportunity to discuss joint work, how to improve the quality of the product, and collaboration. In one of the first retrospectives, facilitated by a group representative, a case study was made of an employee making a major architectural decision without discussing it with the others. The colleagues discuss why such issues require a collective decision and agree on a new rule for teamwork. After the discussion, the group feels more comfortable, since the risk of repeating an unpleasant situation has been reduced, and the participants have their first experience of creating team agreements.

Better Scenario 2

At the beginning of the work, the team agrees to hold regular retrospective meetings, and also decides to organize an introductory session of expectations alignment. Facilitation is undertaken by a colleague from another team who has experience in conducting similar meetings. In the session, each team member has the opportunity to voice their expectations about how the joint work will be organized. The group then votes to approve those expectations that all members agree with (for example, giving the team two weeks' notice of an upcoming vacation, and making decisions about the application architecture only by agreement of the entire team). The first team agreements are formed in this manner. Expectations the group is not yet ready to agree to are discussed, modified, or postponed until the next meeting. This process allows each team member to develop an understanding of exactly what expectations of teamwork they share.

Case 2. How facilitation can help organize broad discussion and gather opinions

Facts: a company that develops an online application has 30 teams, each of which releases updates for users every two weeks. It is important for each team to get feedback on the released updates from users, other teams, and company management. It is also important for teams to understand which product updates have been implemented in general. How can facilitation help to best organize everything?

Not the best scenario 1 

Each team independently decides how to get feedback and how to communicate their updates and learn about updates from other teams. The result is poorly controlled chaos.

Not the best scenario 2

We gather representatives of all teams, as well as managers and users, in one online event, where each of the thirty teams takes a turn to present the results of their work. Groups lose focus by the fifth presenter, audience engagement drops to a minimum.

Better Scenario

We use the “open space” facilitation method (in this case, in a simplified form). We draw up an agenda grid in advance: the vertical axis shows the numbers of virtual rooms where presentations will be held in parallel; the horizontal axis shows the rounds of discussion. Each team chooses a slot in which to present the results of their work, and writes down their topic in the agenda grid. When the agenda is ready, each participant can choose where they will be during the discussion rounds.

The facilitator in this method organizes an online space, explains or reviews the rules for organizing a meeting, and helps the group regulate the beginning and end of negotiations.

With the meeting organized in this way, the group has a single understandable space for discussion. With several parallel threads, the discussion is more dynamic, and each group has the most relevant audience for its presentation. Each participant independently manages their personal agenda, moving from discussion to discussion, and the inability to attend two parallel meetings is addressed by making video recording of each presentation available to participants.

This is exactly how sprint review meetings are held at PandaDoc. This discussion scheme helps successfully organize and structure a two-hour online meeting attended by 150 to 250 people.

Case 3. What facilitation tools can help an organization make important decisions

Facts: An online book-selling company hosts an annual meeting where executives and key members of the organization can identify the firm's pressing problems and work out solutions. It is assumed that 12 people will take part in the discussion. How can facilitation help optimize this process?

The discussion is not structured, the group has not agreed in advance on who can take on the role of facilitator. Three participants begin to voice their proposals regarding what problems the company should solve first. It looks like the list of problems is quite lengthy. At the same time, several people in the group are unable to voice their ideas because they feel uncomfortable interrupting colleagues. While this is happening, one employee notes that some problems do not seem significant enough for the group to devote much time and effort to them. Some participants are already starting to offer their ideas for solutions to some of the problems voiced. The group switches to discussing these solution options but, ten minutes later, someone suggests that the group decide which of the problems are the most serious. Discussion of various possibilities begins. By the end of the third hour, the general manager of the company unilaterally decides to list on the flip chart several decisions that were made during the discussion. Not everyone agrees with these decisions, but there is simply no desire to discuss further.

The sales manager, with some experience in facilitation, takes over the organization and management of the discussion. After a separate preliminary meeting with the general manager of the company and the heads of some of the departments, he defines the: goal, purpose of the meeting, list of participants, discussion scenario, and other issues. The facilitator chooses "brainstorming," "world café," and "5 fingers voting" as the main techniques that will help the group achieve the goal.

During a short introduction, the general manager reiterates the purpose of the meeting and the desired outcome, and also reminds participants that the facilitator will be taking part in the discussion.

After a quick warm-up where the participants mark their level of readiness to join the discussion from zero to ten, the group proceeds to generate a list of problems through brainstorming. The focus question for the group, which helps guide the thinking, is: “What are the problems that are preventing us from increasing sales?” The online collaboration board serves as a virtual flipchart, and all ideas are immediately visible to the whole group.

Only after all participants have independently written down their ideas does the facilitator invite the group to discuss. Everyone has the opportunity to ask questions, and to clarify the details for themselves. The facilitator monitors how the discussion is going and, if necessary, asks clarifying questions of the participants.

Once all questions have been asked, the group is ready to move on. To figure out which problems the organization will address first, the facilitator suggests:

• Group similar problems; and
• Vote on priority issues using criteria agreed in advance with the general manager (the issue is in our area of ​​influence and the issue requires immediate attention).

Each participant receives three virtual points, which will be their votes. After everyone has made their choice and allocated points to the most critical issues, the group counts the votes and determines a list of the top three issues. An excellent intermediate result of the session! The group is excited and ready to move on.

In order to look for solutions, the facilitator suggests the “world cafe" technique (simplified in this case).

For each problem, something like a “table” is organized — a separate virtual room for discussion of that problem. There will be one volunteer from the group at each “table” during the entire discussion. They will be the "host" — responsible for cataloguing all ideas raised at the "table," and sharing the collected ideas to colleagues who join the "table." Participants are divided into three groups and each group chooses their first "table" for discussion. After twenty minutes, the groups switch places and, at their new “table,” they can add their own ideas to the existing lists. After another twenty minutes, the groups change places again. This way, each participant has the opportunity to work with each of the problems. After several rounds of discussion, each host has a finite list of possible solutions.

The group comes together again and, using the now familiar three-point method, chooses the three most attractive solutions (criterion: the most impactful result with the least effort).

Since the decisions will affect the work of each employee, the facilitator offers to make sure that the group agrees with the top list of decisions that were determined as a result of the vote. The five fingers method helps to quickly find out how much each member of the group agrees with the final decisions, and is ready to put effort into their implementation.

At this point, the group will respond to each of the selected solutions by holding up their fingers as follows:

• Five fingers means full support for the solution and readiness to be the driver of implementation;
• Four — agreement with the decision, willingness to participate in implementation;
• Three — neutral attitude to the decision, but without willingness to participate in implementation;
• Two — disagreement with the decision, desire to discuss;
• One — categorical disagreement with the decision, willingness to do everything necessary to prevent this decision from being implemented; and
• A fist is a signal that such a decision cannot be made by the existing composition of participants.

The first decision collects all fives from all participants. The second decision is five fives and the balance of votes are fours. The third solution is one five, six fours and the rest threes. Based on the vote, no decision raises strong doubts, which means that the goal of the discussion is almost achieved. It is necessary to choose those responsible for the next steps and discuss the deadlines. The group does this quickly, working in three mini-groups for fifteen minutes. The goal has been reached.

From these cases it is clear that, among other things, facilitation is multifaceted and diverse. If its variety intimidates you, start with simple tools — like brainstorming — to quickly generate a list of ideas. Then, having experienced the benefits of facilitation, gradually incorporate elements of it into other discussions.

Pros of facilitation

• Facilitation enables the group to realize the potential of collaborative, collective thinking and make the best use of the time spent on group discussion of issues;
• A well-built discussion structure allows the group to successfully reach the goal without deviating from its planned scenario, and allows all participants to be heard;
• Group discussion provides a broad view of the issues under discussion, and minimizes blind spots: the group's horizons are always wider than those of individual group members;
• During the discussion, the creative potential of many people is applied to the issues in question and, as a result, the quality of the decisions within the organization increases: the wisdom of a well-coordinated group is always greater than the wisdom of any individual member of the group; and
• Members of the group will be more enthusiastically involved in the implementation of decisions in which they took an active part (and agreed with).

We invite you to discuss this topic and ask questions in our Discord channel.

Student Participation and Interaction in Online Case-Based Discussions: Comparing Expert and Novice Facilitation

• Adrie A. Koehler

Discussion is an essential component in case-based learning (CBL), as it offers students the opportunity to consider diverse perspectives, clarify confusion, and construct understanding. As a facilitator bears most of the responsibility for the overall success of CBL, understanding how facilitation strategies influence interactions during discussions is worthwhile. However, previous CBL facilitation research has primarily considered student perspectives during case discussions, without examining relationships between facilitator experience and student interaction and participation. This study combined social network analysis and content analysis to compare the structure of expert and novice instructors’ discussion posts and to consider their relationship to student participation and interaction in online case discussions. Results showed that both the expert and novice instructors used facilitation strategies involving social congruence, cognitive congruence, and content expertise frequently in the discussions; however, when and how they used a combination of these strategies was noticeably different. These differences influenced student interaction. More specifically, students tended to interact with others more actively and densely as a result of questions initiated by the expert facilitator. Suggestions are provided for novice facilitators.

Andersen, E., & Schiano, B. (2014). Teaching with cases: A practical guide. Harvard Business Press.

Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks (Version 0.9.2) [Computer software]. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. https://gephi.org/

Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6

Breiger, R. L. (2004). The analysis of social networks. In M. Hardy, & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 505–526). Sage.

Carolan, B. (2014). Social network analysis and education theory, methods & applications. Sage.

Cela, K. L., Sicilia, M. A., & Sanchez, S. (2015). Social network analysis in e-learning environments: A preliminary systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9276-0

Chng, E., Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Effects of tutor-related behaviours on the process of problem-based learning. Advances in Health Science Education, 16(4), 491–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9282-7

Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.

Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Gijselaers, W. H., Moust, J. H. C., Grave, W. S. D., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2002). Trends in research on the tutor in problem-based learning: Conclusions and implications for educational practice and research. Medical Teacher, 24(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220125277

Doran, P. R., Doran, C., & Mazur, A. (2011). Social network analysis as a method for analyzing interaction in collaborative online learning environments. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 9(7), 10–16.

De Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R. (2007). Investigating patterns of interaction in a networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning: A role for social network analysis. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9006-4

Erlin, B., Yusof. N., & Rahman, A. A. (2009). Analyzing online asynchronous discussion using content and social network analysis. ISDA 2009—Ninth International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, 872–877. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDA.2009.40

Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2014). Online case-based discussions: Examining coverage of the afforded problem space. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 617–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9350-9

Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2015). Facilitated versus non-facilitated online case discussions: Comparing differences in problem space coverage. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(2), 69–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9094-5

Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2018). Facilitating strategies and problem space coverage: Comparing face-to-face and online case-based discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(3), 639–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9563-9

Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2017). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design. Routledge.

Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2002). Initiating and maintaining meaningful case discussions: Maximizing the potential of case-based instruction. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 13(2/3), 5–18.

Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2005). Instructional design expertise: How will we know it when we see it? Educational Technology, 45(6), 38–43.

Froehlich D. E., Waes, S. V., & Schafer, H. (2020). Linking quantitative and qualitative network approaches: A review of mixed methods social network analysis in education research. Review of Research in Education, 44, 244–268. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0091732X20903311

Goeze, A., Zottmann, J. M., Vogel, F., Fischer, F., & Schrader, J. (2014). Getting immersed in teacher and student perspectives: Facilitating analytical competence using video cases in teacher education. Instructional Science, 42(1), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9304-3

Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152.

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Fostering higher knowledge construction levels in online discussion forums: An exploratory case study. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 5(4), 44–55.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1004

Hoey, R. (2017). Examining the characteristics and content of instructor discussion interaction upon student outcomes in an online course. Online Learning, 21(4), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1075

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Towards a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689806298224

Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 5(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1256

Kassab, S., Al-Shboul, Q., Abu-Hijleh, M., & Hamdy, H. (2006). Teaching styles of tutors in a problem-based curriculum: Students’ and tutors’ perception. Medical Teacher, 28(5), 460–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590600627540

Koehler, A. A., Cheng, Z., Fiock, H., Janakiraman, S., & Wang, H. (2020). Asynchronous online discussions during case-based learning: A problem-solving process. Online Learning, 24(4), 64–92. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2332

Koehler, A. A., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2019). Developing preservice teachers’ instructional design skills through case-based instruction: Examining the impact of discussion format. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022487118755701

Kolodner, J. L. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 6, 3–34.

Law, V., Ge, X., & Huang, K. (2020). Understanding learners’ challenges and scaffolding their ill-structured problem solving in a technology-supported self-regulated learning environment. In M. J. Bishop, E. Boling, J. Elen & V. Svihla (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 321–342). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36119-8_14#DOI

Leary, H., Walker, A., Shelton, B. E., & Fitt, M. H. (2013). Exploring the relationships between tutor background, tutor training, and student learning: A problem-based learning meta-analysis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 7(1), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1331

Richardson, J. C., & Alsup, J. (2015). From the classroom to the keyboard: How seven teachers created their online teacher identities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 142–167.

Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Besser, E. D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J., & Muller, C. M. (2015). Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 256–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2123

Rico, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2015). Examining the role of the instructor in problem-centered instruction. TechTrends, 59(4), 96–103.

Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001

Schmidt, H. G. (1994). Resolving inconsistencies in tutor expertise research: Does lack of structure cause students to seek tutor guidance? Academic Medicine, 69(8), 656–662.

Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. (1995). What makes a tutor effective? A structural-equation modeling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Academic Medicine, 70(8), 708–714. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199508000-00015

Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. (2000). Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning: A review of research. In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 19–52). Erlbaum.

Schmidt H. G., Van der Arend, A., Koxx, I., & Boon, L. (1994). Peer versus staff tutoring in problem-based learning. Instructional Science, 22(4), 279–285.

Schmidt, H. G., Van der Arend, A., Moust, J. H., Koxx, I., & Boon, L. (1993). Influence of tutors’ subject-matter expertise on student effort and achievement in problem-based learning. Academic Medicine, 68(10), 784–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00891781

Tawfik, A., Graesser, A., Gatewood, J., & Gishbaugher, J. (2020). Role of questions in inquiry-based instruction: Towards a design taxonomy for question-asking and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 653–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09738-9

Tawfik, A., & Jonassen, D. (2013). The effects of successful versus failure-based cases on argumentation while solving decision-making problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 385–406.

Watson, S. L., Koehler, A. A., Ertmer, P. A., Kim, W., & Rico, R. (2018). An expert instructor’s use of social congruence, cognitive congruence, and expertise in an online case-based instructional design course. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1633

Yang, S., Keller, F., & Zheng, L. (2017). Social network analysis: Method and examples. Sage.

Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What students learn in problem-based learning: A process analysis. Instructional Science, 40, 371–395.

Yew, E. H. J., & Yong, J. J. Y. (2014). Student perceptions of facilitators’ social congruence, use of expertise, and cognitive congruence in problem-based learning. Instructional Science, 42, 795–815.

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions

The DOAJ Seal is awarded to journals that demonstrate best practice in open access publishing

OLC Membership

OLC Research Center

Information

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

• Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

bok_logo_2-02_-_harvard_left.png

Case Study At-A-Glance

A case study is a way to let students interact with material in an open-ended manner. the goal is not to find solutions, but to explore possibilities and options of a real-life scenario..

Want examples of a Case-Study?  Check out the ABLConnect Activity Database Want to read research supporting the Case-Study method? Click here

Why should you facilitate a Case Study?

Want to facilitate a case-study in your class .

How-To Run a Case-Study

• Before class pick the case study topic/scenario. You can either generate a fictional situation or can use a real-world example.
• Clearly let students know how they should prepare. Will the information be given to them in class or do they need to do readings/research before coming to class?
• Have a list of questions prepared to help guide discussion (see below)
• Sessions work best when the group size is between 5-20 people so that everyone has an opportunity to participate. You may choose to have one large whole-class discussion or break into sub-groups and have smaller discussions. If you break into groups, make sure to leave extra time at the end to bring the whole class back together to discuss the key points from each group and to highlight any differences.
• What is the problem?
• What is the cause of the problem?
• Who are the key players in the situation? What is their position?
• What are the relevant data?
• What are possible solutions – both short-term and long-term?
• What are alternate solutions? – Play (or have the students play) Devil’s Advocate and consider alternate view points
• What are potential outcomes of each solution?
• What other information do you want to see?
• What can we learn from the scenario?
• Be flexible. While you may have a set of questions prepared, don’t be afraid to go where the discussion naturally takes you. However, be conscious of time and re-focus the group if key points are being missed
• Role-playing can be an effective strategy to showcase alternate viewpoints and resolve any conflicts
• Involve as many students as possible. Teamwork and communication are key aspects of this exercise. If needed, call on students who haven’t spoken yet or instigate another rule to encourage participation.
• Write out key facts on the board for reference. It is also helpful to write out possible solutions and list the pros/cons discussed.
• Having the information written out makes it easier for students to reference during the discussion and helps maintain everyone on the same page.
• Keep an eye on the clock and make sure students are moving through the scenario at a reasonable pace. If needed, prompt students with guided questions to help them move faster.  
• Either give or have the students give a concluding statement that highlights the goals and key points from the discussion. Make sure to compare and contrast alternate viewpoints that came up during the discussion and emphasize the take-home messages that can be applied to future situations.
• Inform students (either individually or the group) how they did during the case study. What worked? What didn’t work? Did everyone participate equally?
• Taking time to reflect on the process is just as important to emphasize and help students learn the importance of teamwork and communication.

CLICK HERE FOR A PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

Other Sources:

Harvard Business School: Teaching By the Case-Study Method

Written by Catherine Weiner

Facilitated versus non-facilitated online case discussions: comparing differences in problem space coverage

• Published: 17 May 2015
• Volume 27 , pages 69–93, ( 2015 )

Cite this article

• Peggy A. Ertmer 1 &
• Adrie A. Koehler 1  

850 Accesses

42 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The facilitator plays a key role in guiding students’ efforts during case discussions. However, few studies have compared differences in learning outcomes for students participating in facilitated versus non-facilitated discussions. In this research, we used “problem space coverage” as a learning measure to compare outcomes between facilitated (F) and non-facilitated (NF) online case-based discussions. In general, results demonstrated both greater and deeper problem space coverage during facilitated discussions. More specifically, students in the facilitated discussions tended to discuss more aspects of the problem space in more detail, and spent more time on relevant instructional design issues and related solutions than students in the NF discussions. Overall, results illustrate the role of discussion in addressing the targeted problem space during case-based learning while underscoring the role of the facilitator in enabling that coverage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Online case-based discussions: examining coverage of the afforded problem space.

Peggy A. Ertmer & Adrie A. Koehler

The Effects of Case Libraries in Supporting Collaborative Problem-Solving in an Online Learning Environment

Andrew A. Tawfik, Lenny Sánchez & Dinara Saparova

Facilitation strategies and problem space coverage: comparing face-to-face and online case-based discussions

Alder, R. W., Whiting, R. H., & Wynn-Williams, K. (2004). Student-led and teacher-led case presentations: Empirical evidence about learning styles in an accounting course. Accounting Education, 13 , 213–229.

Article   Google Scholar  

Andersen, E., & Schiano, B. (2014). Teaching with cases: A practical guide . Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Andrews, J. (1980). The verbal structure of teacher questions: Its impact on class discussion. POD Quarterly: Journal of Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, 2 (3&4), 129–163.

Bangert, A. (2008). The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20 (1), 34–61.

Barrows, H. S. (1999). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. In J. Rankin (Ed.), Handbook on problem-based learning (pp. 19–26). New York: Forbes.

Budé, L., van de Wiel, M. J., Imbos, T., & Berger, M. F. (2011). The effect of directive tutor guidance on students’ conceptual understanding of statistics in problem-based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (2), 309–324.

Chng, E., Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Effects of tutor-related behaviours on the process of problem-based learning. Advances in Health Science Education, 16 , 491–503.

Choi, I., & Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: Classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57 (1), 99–129.

Dabbagh, N. H., Jonassen, D. H., Yueh, H.-P., & Sanouiloua, M. (2000). Assessing a problem-based learning approach to an introductory instructional design course: A case study. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13 (3), 60–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-8327.2000.tb00176.x .

Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Gijselaers, W. H., Moust, J. H. C., Grave, W. S. D., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Vleuten, C. P. M. V. D. (2002). Trends in research on the tutor in problem-based learning: Conclusions and implications for educational practice and research. Medical Teacher, 24 (2), 173.

Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2000). What directs self-directed learning in a problem-based curriculum? In D. H. Evensen & C. E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 251–262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dundis, S. (2014). Craig Gregersen: Balancing a range of stakeholder interests when designing instruction. In P. A. Ertmer, J. A. Quinn, & K. D. Glazewski (Eds.), The ID CaseBook: Case studies in instructional design . Boston, MA: Pearson.

Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2014). Online case discussions: Examining coverage of the afforded problem space. Educational Technology Research and Development . doi: 10.1007/s11423-014-9350-9 .

Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2014). The ID CaseBook: Case studies in instructional design (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses: The role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23 , 157–186.

Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2002). Initiating and maintaining meaningful case discussions: Maximizing the potential of case-based instruction. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 13 (1/3), 5–18.

Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2005). Instructional design expertise: How will we know it when we see it. Educational Technology, 45 (6), 38–43.

Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., Flanagan, S., Kocaman, A., Reiner, C., Reyes, L., et al. (2009). Impact of guidance on the problem-solving efforts of instructional design novices. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21 (4), 117–132.

Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X., Zurek, S., & Goktas, Y. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly , 21 (1), 17–42.

Fitzgerald, G., Mitchem, K., Hollingsead, C., Miller, K., Koury, K., & Tsai, H. (2011). Exploring the bridge from multimedia cases to classrooms: Evidence of transfer. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26 (2), 23–38.

Flynn, A. E., & Klein, J. D. (2001). The influence of discussion groups in a case-based learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49 (3), 71–86. doi: 10.1007/bf0250491 .

Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (1), 5–18.

Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2006). How the teacher’s role changes in online case study discussion. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17 (2), 141–150.

Hmelo-Silver, C. (2013). Creating a learning space in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem - Based Learning, 7 (1).

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1 (1), 21–39.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., & Day, R. S. (2002). “It’s harder than we thought it would be”: A comparative case study of expert-novice experimentation strategies. Science Education, 86 , 219–243.

Jonassen, D. (2011a). Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem - based Learning, 5 (2), 95–110.

Jonassen, D. H. (2011b). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments . New York, NY: Routledge.

Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (2), 65–77.

Jones, R. W. (2006). Problem-based learning: Description, advantages, disadvantages, scenarios and facilitation. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 34 , 485–488.

Kanuka, H. (2011). Interaction and the online distance classroom: Do instructional methods effect the quality of interaction? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23 (2–3), 143–156.

Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Grounded design of web-enhanced case-based activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56 (2), 161–179.

Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, 52 (1), 57–66.

Kolodner, J. L., & Guzdial, M. (2000). Theory and practice of case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 215–242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and experience in teachers’ thinking about cases. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11 (1), 63–79.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . New York: Sage.

Lu, L., & Jeng, I. (2006). Knowledge construction in inservice teacher online discourse: Impacts of instructor roles and facilitative strategies. Journal of Research on Technology In Education, 39 (2), 183–202.

Lundeberg, M. A., & Yadav, A. (2006). Assessment of case study teaching: Where do we go from here? (Part II.). Journal of College Science Teaching, 35 (6), 8–13.

Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49 , 193–213.

McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2009). An analysis of higher-order thinking in online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46 , 147–160.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitchem, K., Fitzgerald, G., Hollingsead, C., Koury, K., Miller, K., & Tsai, H.-H. (2008). Enhancing case-based learning in teacher education through online discussions: Structure and facilitation. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19 (2), 331–349.

Moore, J. (1997). Teaching by discussion: Dangers and opportunities. In D. Enerson, R. N. Johnson, S. Milner, & K. Plank (Eds.), The Penn State Teacher II: Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn (pp. 42–53). University Park, PA: Penn State University. Retrieved from http://www.schreyerinstitute.psu.edu/pdf/PennStateTeacherII.pdf .

Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33 (1), 5–30.

Ng, C. S. L., & Tan, C. (2006). Investigating Singapore pre-service teachers’ ill-structured problem-solving processes in an asynchronous online environment: Implications for reflective thinking. New Horizons in Education, 54 , 1–15.

Ngeow, K., & Kong, Y. (2003). Learning through discussion: Designing tasks for critical inquiry and reflective learning. The Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication . Digest 185. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d185.html . Accessed 10 Feb 2003.

Palincsar, A. (1999). Applying a sociocultural lens to the work of a transition community. Discourse Processes, 27 (2), 161–171.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8 (3), 80–95.

Rangan, V. (1996). Choreographing a case class . Harvard Business School Publishing. Ref. # 9-595-074.

Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13 , 52–59.

Rico, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (in press). Examining the role of the instructor in problem-centered instruction. Tech Trends.

Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5 (2), 65–86.

Saleewong, D., Suwannatthachote, P., & Kuhakran, S. (2012). Case-based learning on web in higher education: A review of empirical research. Creative Education, 3 , 31–34.

Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Facilitating problem-based learning: illuminating perspectives . Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (3), 77–96.

Schank, R. C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Steele, D. J., Medder, J. D., & Turner, P. (2000) Comparison of learning outcomes and attitudes: Student- versus faculty-led problem-based learning: An experimental study. Medical Education, 34 , 23–29.

Stepich, D. A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). “Teaching” instructional design expertise: Strategies to support students’ problem-finding skills. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 7 , 147–170.

Stepich, D. A., Ertmer, P. A., & Lane, M. M. (2001). Problem solving in a case-based course: Strategies for facilitating coached expertise. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49 (3), 53–69.

Tawfik, A., & Jonassen, D. (2013). The effects of successful versus failure-based cases on argumentation while solving decision-making problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61 , 385–406.

Teasley, S., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1996). Computer and reasoning through talk in the classroom. Language and Education, 10 (1), 47–64.

Wilen, W. (2004). Refuting misconceptions about classroom discussion. Social Studies , 95 (1), 33.

Williams, S. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 , 367–427.

Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What students learn in problem-based learning: A process analysis. Instructional Science, 40 , 371–395.

Yew, E. H. J., & Yong, J. J. Y. (2014). Student perceptions of facilitators’ social congruence, use of expertise, and cognitive congruence in problem-based learning. Instructional Science, 42 , 795–815.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Purdue University, 3144 Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education, 100 N. University St., West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2098, USA

Peggy A. Ertmer & Adrie A. Koehler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peggy A. Ertmer .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ertmer, P.A., Koehler, A.A. Facilitated versus non-facilitated online case discussions: comparing differences in problem space coverage. J Comput High Educ 27 , 69–93 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9094-5

Download citation

Published : 17 May 2015

Issue Date : August 2015

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9094-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Case-based instruction
• Online learning
• Facilitation strategies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Teaching Tips

The Ultimate Guide to Facilitating Classroom Discussions

Get proven strategies, effective techniques and practical tips to facilitate vibrant and enriching classroom discussions in this ultimate guide

Top Hat Staff

Facilitating engaging and meaningful classroom discussions is a fundamental aspect of higher education teaching. Class discussions provide a valuable opportunity for students to actively participate, critically analyze ideas, and develop their communication skills. However, creating an environment that encourages open dialogue and fosters productive discussions can be a challenging task for educators. In this ultimate guide, we will delve into proven strategies, effective techniques, and practical tips that will empower higher education instructors to facilitate vibrant and enriching classroom discussions, with an understanding of how to improve classroom discussions.

Whether you are a seasoned educator looking to refine your discussion strategies or a new instructor seeking guidance on how to kick-start in-class discussion activities, this guide will provide you with valuable insights. We will explore various aspects of facilitating classroom discussions, including setting the stage for productive discourse, preparing for effective discussions, implementing classroom discussion strategies, and enhancing the overall discussion experience for both instructors and students. By following the strategies outlined in this guide, you will be equipped with the tools necessary to create a dynamic learning environment where students actively engage, learn from one another, and develop critical thinking skills that extend far beyond the classroom walls.

Setting the Stage for Productive Classroom Discussions

Creating an atmosphere conducive to fruitful classroom discussions is crucial for student engagement and participation. Here are some strategies to consider:

1. Establishing Ground Rules

To promote respectful and inclusive discussions, one important class discussion strategy is to establish clear expectations and guidelines. Discuss with your students the importance of active listening, speaking respectfully, and challenging ideas rather than individuals. Encourage them to embrace diverse perspectives and create a safe space where everyone feels comfortable sharing their thoughts.

2. Building Rapport and Trust

Nurture a supportive classroom environment where students feel valued and respected. Take the time to learn their names, demonstrate a genuine interest in their ideas, and provide constructive feedback. Encourage collaboration and emphasize the notion that everyone’s contributions are valuable. When students trust that their voices will be heard and respected, they will be more likely to actively participate in discussion strategies in the classroom.

3. Icebreaker Activities

Commence each discussion strategy example with icebreaker activities to help students feel more comfortable sharing their thoughts. These activities can be as simple as a quick classroom discussion strategy or thought-provoking questions related to the topic at hand. Icebreakers not only help students become acquainted with one another but also establish a positive and welcoming atmosphere that sets the tone, serving as a great strategy to engage students in classroom discussions.

4. Setting Clear Learning Objectives

Clearly communicate the learning objectives for each discussion session as a group discussion facilitation technique. When students understand the purpose and desired outcomes, they can better focus their contributions and actively engage with the material. Share with them the skills they will develop through participation in discussions, such as critical thinking, effective communication, and the ability to consider multiple perspectives.

By setting the stage for classroom discourse strategies and activities through ground rules, building rapport, incorporating icebreakers, and defining clear learning objectives, you create an environment that encourages open dialogue and active engagement. In the next section, we will explore effective discussion strategies for preparing and structuring instructional strategies and classroom discussions to achieve the desired learning outcomes.

Preparing for Effective Classroom Discussions

To ensure productive and engaging classroom discussions, adequate preparation is key. Here are some steps to consider:

1. Define Discussion Goals

Before each discussion session, establish clear objectives aligned with the course curriculum and learning outcomes. What specific knowledge, skills, or perspectives do you want students to gain from the discussion? Clearly communicate these goals to students, so they understand the purpose and relevance of the upcoming student-led discussion strategies or whole-class discussion strategies.

2. Selecting Discussion Topics

Choose topics that are relevant, thought-provoking, and aligned with the course objectives. Consider incorporating real-world examples, current events, or controversial issues that will captivate students’ interest and stimulate lively discourse. Aim for a balance between challenging topics that require critical thinking and topics that relate directly to students’ experiences and interests.

3. Preparing Discussion Prompts

Craft classroom discussion starters that encourage critical thinking, reflection, and the exploration of multiple perspectives. Avoid questions with definitive answers, as they may hinder discussion. Instead, pose questions that spark intellectual curiosity, challenge assumptions, or require students to apply course concepts to real-world scenarios. Provide students with clear instructions and guidelines for responding to the prompts to help illustrate why class discussions are important.

4. Resource and Material Preparation

Gather relevant resources, such as articles, case studies, multimedia materials, or primary sources, to support the discussion topic. Share these resources with students in advance, allowing them sufficient time to review and analyze the material. Encourage students to come prepared with notes or questions, fostering a deeper engagement with the topic and facilitating more meaningful discussions.

5. Structuring Discussion Time

Consider the time allocation for discussions carefully. Determine whether the discussion will take place during a single class session or be spread across multiple sessions. If time is limited, plan for focused and concise discussions. If discussions span multiple sessions, create a clear structure or agenda to guide the flow of conversation and ensure that all important points are covered. Top Hat’s classroom discussion tool sparks conversations, where students are encouraged to share their ideas in multiple ways, regardless of class size.

6. Anticipating Challenges and Preparing Strategies

Reflect on potential challenges that may arise during discussions, such as student reticence, dominance by a few individuals, or tangential conversations. Develop strategies to address these challenges, such as incorporating think-pair-share activities to encourage participation, assigning roles or responsibilities to students, or using gentle prompts to refocus the discussion. Being proactive in addressing potential obstacles will help maintain a productive and inclusive discussion environment.

By carefully preparing for classroom discussions by defining goals, selecting relevant topics, crafting discussion prompts, gathering resources, structuring discussion time, and anticipating challenges, you can maximize the potential for productive and engaging exchanges among your students. In the next section, we will explore effective strategies and techniques for implementing classroom discussions to enhance student learning and participation.

Effective Strategies for Classroom Discussions

Employing a variety of discussion strategies can promote active participation, critical thinking, and collaborative learning. Here are several proven techniques to enhance your classroom discussions:

1. Think-Pair-Share

The think-pair-share strategy encourages active engagement and peer learning. Begin by posing a thought-provoking question or prompt. Give students a few moments to individually reflect and generate their ideas. Then, have them pair up with a classmate to discuss their thoughts. Finally, invite pairs to share their ideas with the whole class. This strategy fosters deeper thinking, builds confidence, and provides opportunities for students to learn from one another.

2. Socratic Seminars

Inspired by the Socratic method , this student-led discussion strategy promotes critical thinking and analysis. Select a specific text, case study, or concept as the focus of the seminar. Assign students different roles, such as discussion leader, devil’s advocate, or summarizer, to ensure active participation and a variety of perspectives. Encourage students to pose thoughtful questions, challenge each other’s ideas respectfully, and construct well-supported arguments. As the facilitator, your role is to guide the discussion, ask probing questions, and ensure that all voices are heard.

3. Fishbowl Discussions

The fishbowl discussion technique creates a dynamic learning experience by providing students with an opportunity to observe effective discussion strategies. Arrange chairs in two concentric circles. Select a small group of students to sit in the inner circle as active participants in the discussion while the rest of the class sits in the outer circle as observers. The inner circle engages in the discussion while the outer circle listens attentively. After a set period, the roles can be reversed. This technique allows students to witness effective discussion skills, observe different perspectives, and learn from their peers.

4. Jigsaw Technique

The jigsaw technique encourages collaborative learning and deepens understanding of complex topics. Divide a challenging topic or problem into smaller subtopics and assign each subtopic to a small group of students. Within their groups, students become experts on their assigned subtopic through research and discussion. Afterward, regroup the students, ensuring representation from each initial group, and have them share their findings. This strategy promotes collaboration, allows for comprehensive coverage of the topic, and encourages students to consider multiple perspectives.

5. Incorporating Visual Tools and Technology

Visual tools and technology can enhance classroom discussions by facilitating engagement and interaction. Use whiteboards, interactive displays, or digital tools to capture and organize student ideas during discussions. Online discussion boards, collaborative platforms, or polling applications can extend classroom discussions beyond the physical space, enable asynchronous participation, and promote active engagement.

Remember, it is crucial to select the most appropriate strategy for your learning objectives, the nature of the topic, and the dynamics of your class. Experiment with different techniques, adapt them to suit your specific context and encourage student feedback to continually refine your approach.

In the next section, we will explore additional methods for enhancing classroom discussions by integrating technology, incorporating role-playing, and incorporating reflective practices.

Enhancing Classroom Discussions

To further enrich the classroom discussion experience and maximize student engagement, consider the following strategies:

1. Integrating Technology

Embrace technology tools that can enhance classroom discussions that engage all students. Online platforms, such as discussion forums, video conferencing, or collaborative document sharing, can provide opportunities for students to engage in discussions beyond the confines of the physical classroom. These tools allow for asynchronous participation, encourage thoughtful responses, and enable students to build on one another’s ideas. Additionally, multimedia resources, interactive presentations, or online polling tools can help stimulate discussions and make them more dynamic and engaging. Top Hat’s discussion features allow students to Incorporate video, images or good old-fashioned plain text to spark lively conversations and drive the debate.

2. Role-Playing and Simulations

Incorporate role-playing and simulations to immerse students in real-world scenarios and encourage active participation. Assign students specific roles or characters related to the topic of discussion and have them engage in structured debates, negotiations, or problem-solving activities. This technique promotes critical thinking, empathy, and understanding of multiple perspectives. It also provides a safe space for students to explore different viewpoints and develop their communication and teamwork skills.

3. Reflective Practices

Integrate reflective practices into your classroom discussions to deepen learning and enhance metacognition. Encourage students to reflect on their own contributions, the quality of their arguments, and the effectiveness of their communication skills. Provide opportunities for students to journal or write post-discussion reflections, allowing them to consolidate their learning and identify areas for improvement. Reflection prompts can include questions about what they learned from their peers, how their perspectives evolved, and what strategies they found most effective.

4. Cultivating a Supportive Feedback Culture

Foster a culture of constructive feedback within your classroom discussions. Encourage students to provide feedback to their peers, focusing on the substance of their arguments and the clarity of their communication. Model and reinforce constructive feedback by providing your own comments and suggestions. This feedback culture promotes critical thinking, fosters a sense of community, and helps students refine their communication skills. 

5. Assessing and Recognizing Participation

Implement fair and transparent assessment methods to recognize and evaluate student participation in classroom discussions. Consider criteria such as frequency and quality of contributions, active listening skills, and the ability to build on others’ ideas. Provide timely feedback to students, emphasizing their strengths and areas for improvement. Recognize and celebrate exemplary contributions to encourage ongoing engagement and active participation. Every interaction in Top Hat leads to actionable data you can use to help students and personalize your teaching. Educators can capture results from graded discussions in the Top Hat gradebook, along with quizzes, polls and tests.

By integrating technology, incorporating role-playing, promoting reflective practices, cultivating a supportive feedback culture, and implementing fair assessment methods, you can enhance the quality and impact of your classroom discussions. Remember that flexibility and adaptation are essential; continually assess the effectiveness of your strategies and make adjustments based on student feedback and evolving learning needs.

Facilitating dynamic and meaningful classroom discussions is an art that requires careful planning, a supportive environment, and effective strategies. By implementing the discussion strategies, classroom discourse techniques, and student-led discussion strategies outlined in this ultimate guide, you can foster engaging and transformative learning experiences for your students.

Remember, it’s important to establish ground rules and create a safe space that encourages respectful dialogue. Additionally, adequate preparation, well-crafted discussion prompts, and a variety of discussion strategies will contribute to successful classroom discussions. Don’t shy away from embracing technology and integrating reflective practices to further enhance engagement and learning outcomes.

As an educator, you have the power to create a vibrant and interactive learning environment where students can explore diverse perspectives, challenge assumptions, and develop critical thinking skills. By mastering the art of facilitating classroom discussions, you empower your students to become active participants in their own learning.

So, go ahead and apply these strategies, experiment with different techniques, and continuously seek feedback from your students. With practice and persistence, you will cultivate an environment that fosters rich and engaging classroom discussions, ultimately enriching the learning experience for everyone involved.

Happy facilitating!

Recommended Readings

Educators In Conversation: How to Help Students ‘Do’ Sociology

A 6-Step Exercise for Discussing AI In Education

Subscribe to the top hat blog.

Join more than 10,000 educators. Get articles with higher ed trends, teaching tips and expert advice delivered straight to your inbox.