case study in critical thinking a fish story

• Previous Article

Introduction

Conclusions, author contributions, acknowledgments, competing interests, supplemental material, using case studies to improve the critical thinking skills of undergraduate conservation biology students.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Guest Access
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Ana L. Porzecanski , Adriana Bravo , Martha J. Groom , Liliana M. Dávalos , Nora Bynum , Barbara J. Abraham , John A. Cigliano , Carole Griffiths , David L. Stokes , Michelle Cawthorn , Denny S. Fernandez , Laurie Freeman , Timothy Leslie , Theresa Theodose , Donna Vogler , Eleanor J. Sterling; Using Case Studies to Improve the Critical Thinking Skills of Undergraduate Conservation Biology Students. Case Studies in the Environment 5 February 2021; 5 (1): 1536396. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/cse.2021.1536396

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Critical thinking (CT) underpins the analytical and systems-thinking capacities needed for effective conservation in the 21st century but is seldom adequately fostered in most postsecondary courses and programs. Many instructors fear that devoting time to process skills will detract from content gains and struggle to define CT skills in ways relevant for classroom practice. We tested an approach to develop and assess CT in undergraduate conservation biology courses using case studies to address both challenges. We developed case studies with exercises to support content learning goals and assessment rubrics to evaluate student learning of both content and CT skills. We also developed a midterm intervention to enhance student metacognitive abilities at a light and intensive level and asked whether the level of the intervention impacted student learning. Data from over 200 students from five institutions showed an increase in students’ CT performance over a single term, under both light and intensive interventions, as well as variation depending on the students’ initial performance and on rubric dimension. Our results demonstrate adaptable and scalable means for instructors to improve CT process skills among undergraduate students through the use of case studies and associated exercises, aligned rubrics, and supported reflection on their CT performance.

Educating the next generation of professionals to address complex conservation and environmental challenges involves more than teaching disciplinary principles, concepts, and content—it also requires cultivating core competencies in critical thinking (CT), collaboration, and communication [ 1 , 2 ]. CT skills are key desired outcomes of college and university education [ 3 ] and can strongly influence how students make life decisions [ 4 ]. Unfortunately, college graduates in the United States appear to lack strong CT skills despite several years of instruction [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. This may be due to overreliance on teaching and assessment approaches that emphasize mastery of large volumes of content and offer few opportunities to think critically while acquiring and using knowledge [ 8 , 9 ]. Courses that take an alternative approach, using active, collaborative, or inquiry-based approaches to learning could contribute to both long-term retention of knowledge and CT skills [ 10 , 11 , 12 ].

Using case studies to support active, inquiry-based approaches can be especially effective [ 13 , 14 ]. Case study pedagogies are well suited to supporting the development of CT skills because of their sustained focus on a theme with applications in a specific setting and the opportunity to emphasize distinct steps in the processes of understanding and analyzing issues that comprise essential CT skills. Creating exercises that foster CT using a case study approach combines strengths from both inquiry-based and case study–based best practices.

While definitions vary, CT is broadly recognized as “a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues and evidence before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion” [ 15 ]. CT involves higher-order thinking skills, as well as a suite of concrete capacities, including the ability to select, analyze, infer, interpret, evaluate, and explain information, as well as draw conclusions based on varied and conflicting evidence [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Not confined to specific analytical tasks, strong CT skills support the ability to think in a complex manner and to process and assess diverse inputs in a constantly changing environment [ 17 ]. This capacity is essential to effective decision-making, problem solving, and adaptive management in conservation research and practice, particularly in addressing the tradeoffs and multiplicity of perspectives at the core of environmental concerns.

CT has been a focus of K–12 educational and cognitive researchers, who show that explicit instruction can enhance learning of CT skills [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Unfortunately, adoption of these ideas and practices has been slower in tertiary STEM education [ 22 ]. Educators in undergraduate science classrooms rarely prioritize explicit direct instruction in CT skills or their assessment, fearing compromising the time available for “coverage” of content [ 6 , 23 ]. Thus, many instructors rely on teaching and assessing core content, assuming the CT skills will automatically develop along with deeper disciplinary knowledge [ 17 , 24 ]. Further, educators typically lack training on CT instruction [ 25 ]. Perhaps not surprisingly, on average, very small or empirically nonexistent gains in CT or complex reasoning skills have been found in a large proportion of students over the course of 4-year college programs [ 6 , 7 , 26 ].

Besides the potential to enhance learning outcomes, an emphasis on CT skills through more active and collaborative learning can also promote equal opportunity in STEM and boost completion rates. It has been shown that these approaches to teaching and learning can enhance learning for underrepresented groups in science [ 27 ] and could also boost performance and hence retention in the field in the midst of current high attrition rates in STEM [ 28 ].

Our experience running faculty professional development programs in diverse contexts over several years [ 29 ] has shown that faculty in diverse learning contexts seek and welcome evidence-based guidance on teaching and assessment practices that promote CT. Given only informal preparation on building CT skills and a curricular focus on essential disciplinary concepts, instructors often search for guidelines on how to incorporate these practices while supporting the simultaneous learning of concepts. Case studies can provide a particularly strong way to support the enhancement of CT skills that are adaptable for individual instructors.

To better understand the investment in time and effort needed for conservation students to learn process skills and for faculty to develop efficient teaching tools, we designed a multi-institutional study on three fundamental process skills: oral communication [ 30 ], data analysis [ 31 ], and CT. These different skills were selected to match the diverse interests of the participating faculty and were targeted by different faculty in different “arms” of the study (in different institutions, courses, and groups of students) to allow for comparison among results. Here we report on the results for CT. A key component of this portion of the study was the use of case studies to foster both content and skill development.

Our study design built on evidence showing that case study exercises help reinforce concept knowledge, as well as cognitive skills, and further, that repetition and reflection [ 32 ] support development of higher-order thinking skills. We investigated three questions: (1) Does instructor emphasis on CT skills—providing metacognitive support for reflection on their performance at light and intensive levels—influence the magnitude of individual CT skill gains? (2) Do students show similar responses for the different dimensions of CT learning, or are any of them more challenging than others? and (3) How does our intervention influence students at different initial achievement levels?

To address these questions, we first created and validated instructional materials in the form of case study exercises and assessment rubrics designed to develop and assess four main dimensions of CT skills (see below) and piloted these materials in diverse classroom settings across five institutions. We assessed student learning using a common rubric to score CT performance on two case study–based exercises, and using an independent assessment of CT skills (The Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) [ 33 ]), applied at the start and end of each course. To address the frequent concern of instructors regarding trade-off with content learning, we investigated these questions while also measuring content gains. A key aim of this study was to develop and use approaches for active teaching using case studies that instructors can readily adopt as part of their regular teaching practices.

Developing, Validating, and Implementing Assessment Tools

Between April and July 2011, we created and validated a set of instructional materials based on case studies designed to develop CT skills (Instructional Unit for CT skills). The Instructional Unit consisted of (1) Case Study Exercise 1 on amphibian declines, with a solution file, (2) Case Study Exercise 2 on invasive species, with a solution file, (3) a pre/post content knowledge assessment for each exercise, (4) a student’s pre/post self-assessment of their CT skills, (5) our CT Rubric, and (6) the files associated with the intensive versus light Teaching Intervention, including a third brief Case Study on climate change used in the intensive intervention, with a solution file. The complete Instructional Unit as used in the study, as well as updated versions of the case studies, can be downloaded from the website of the Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners (NCEP). 1

Development and Validation of the CT Rubric and Case Study Exercises

To evaluate student CT performance, we developed a rubric based on elements found in existing and available rubrics (e.g., Washington State University’s Guide to Rating Critical & Integrative Thinking from 2006, and Northeastern Illinois University CT Rubric from 2006) and the VALUE Rubric for CT [ 34 ]. The resulting rubric included descriptions of four performance levels (from 1 to 4) for four dimensions of CT: (1) explanation of issues or problems, (2) selection and use of information, (3) evaluation of the influence of context and assumptions, and (4) reaching positions or drawing conclusions. The final rubric drew on broadly validated rubrics and was adapted by a core group of eight participating project faculty at a workshop in 2011. Using a collaborative and participatory approach to rubric development, we sought to validate rubric content, ensure familiarity of faculty participants with the rubric, and minimize scoring differences among project participants.

We then developed two exercises based on real-world case studies, as recommended by the Vision and Change Report [ 1 ]. Case study topics were selected to correspond to core topics that could be incorporated into all courses with minimal syllabus disruption. We developed Case Study Exercise 1 with a focus on threats to biodiversity, specifically on understanding the causes of amphibian declines. We adapted Case Study Exercise 2 on the topic of invasive species, specifically on rusty crayfish in the Eastern United States, from a version previously published by the NCEPs ( http://ncep.amnh.org ). Each case study exercise contained three main parts: (1) a short introduction and instructions to the exercise, (2) the case study, and (3) a section with questions designed to prompt students’ CT skills in relation to the case. Each case study exercise was designed to teach conservation biology content in alignment with the CT skills assessed in the rubric; it included questions and tasks intended to elicit student performance in each of the four CT dimensions described in the rubric.

Implementation of the Case Study Exercises and CT Interventions

Between August 2011 and August 2013, we implemented the Instructional Unit following the experimental design shown in figure 1 in upper-level conservation biology courses given at five U.S. higher education institutions ( table 1 ). Case Study Exercise 1 was administered within the first 2 weeks of class as a preassessment and Case Study Exercise 2 was administered within the last 2 weeks of class in the term as a postassessment (see figure 1 ). To guide and facilitate data collection, we provided each professor with a scoring guide to assign points to answers to each question in the case study exercise and a spreadsheet to enter points. Scores from specific questions were assigned to one of the four CT dimensions. Professors then reported these final scores on each dimension of the rubric to the students. Scores from both case study exercises contributed toward students’ grades.

Experimental design and main questions within and across terms. The discontinuous arrow between Light and Intensive Teaching Interventions (TI) indicates an interchangeable order. Abbreviations are as follows: CAT = Critical Thinking Assessment Test; CE Ex = case study exercise. Not all students completed all components, so total sample size differs in our analyses of these data. N ranged from 52 to 82 for completion of the pre-/postcase study exercise content assessments for the specific case studies, with N = 113 total for the light teaching intervention and N = 103 total for the intensive teaching intervention. For CT skill gains across the case study exercises, N = 216. For the pre- and postcourse student-self assessments, N = 76 for the light and 79 for the intensive teaching intervention. N = 78 for the light and 71 for the intensive teaching interventions for the pre- and postcourse CAT tests.

Institution Type, Student Level, Class Size, and Term When the Instructional Unit With the Intensive (ITI) and/or Light (LTI) Teaching Intervention Was Used for Each Participating Course.

a Following the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/ .

b Class size = average number of students enrolled in ITI and LTI sections of the course.

We evaluated whether students gained CT skills, content knowledge, and self-confidence in their skills in courses that used the Instructional Unit with one of two levels of teaching intervention: light and intensive. The intervention differed in the amount of time spent in class and the level of reflection required from the students. In the light intervention, students were only given the CT rubric and their scores from the first exercise, while in the intensive intervention, students received the same and also worked in groups around the CT rubric on an additional case over a single class period, followed by individual reflection on how to improve their performance in CT. Using both interventions in the same course, but during different academic terms, we investigated whether the intensity of emphasis on CT in a course influences students’ overall CT gains.

In addition, we conducted an independent assessment of CT gains under the two interventions. At the beginning and end of each course, we administered the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT), a published, validated instrument developed by the Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning at Tennessee Tech University (CAIL at TTU [ 33 ]; see figure 1 ). The CAT is a 1-h written test consisting of 15 questions that assesses student performance in evaluation and interpretation of graphical and written information, problem solving, identifying logical fallacies or needs for information to evaluate a claim, understanding the limitations of correlational data, and developing alternative explanations for a claim. These CT dimensions were comparable to those we evaluated in our rubric, particularly those under Evidence, Influence of context and assumptions , and Conclusions .

Further, to examine whether explicit instruction in CT skills was more influential than explicit instruction in other skills, the CAT assessments were also given in the other two arms of the study that evaluated interventions designed to improve data analysis [ 31 ] and oral communication skills [ 30 ]. Unfortunately, only one instructor in the oral communication study applied the CAT instrument, so we restricted comparison to the data analysis study, where four instructors applied the CAT in their courses.

We scored batches of completed CAT tests in nine full-day scoring sessions, including only tests for which we have both a pre- and postcourse test from the same student ( N = 290 total; CT study, N = 149; data analysis study, N = 141). In each session, we scored a sample of tests from across multiple institutions, study arms, and intervention levels, and each test was assigned a numerical code so that all scoring was blind. Following CAT procedures, scoring rigorously adhered to CAT scoring rubrics and was discussed by the scoring group as needed to ensure inter-scorer reliability. The CAT tests and scores were then sent to Tennessee Tech University for independent assessment, cross-validation, and analysis. For 2 of the 15 questions, the CAT scoring performed by our team was more generous than norms for these assessments performed nationally, but otherwise scores fell within those norms (results not included; analysis performed by CAIL at TTU). However, this did not affect the use of this tool as an independent assessment of CT skill gains because the scoring sessions were internally consistent and apply to both pre- and postcourse scores.

The project received an exemption from the AMNH Institutional Review Board (IRB 09-24-2010) and the Stony Brook University IRB (265533-1), and the other institutions operated under these exemptions.

A total of 217 students from five upper-level Conservation Biology courses completed both case study exercises over one term. We excluded one student who obtained the maximum score on both exercises while using the light intervention because no improvement was possible, leaving us with N = 216 students in this study. To assess CT skills, content knowledge, and self-confidence, we calculated changes in student performance using normalized change values ( c ) [ 35 ] and compared pre- and postassessments with paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests [ 36 ]. The two teaching intervention groups (light and intensive) were assessed independently. Changes in the proportions of students scoring in a given quartile before and after the interventions were analyzed using χ 2 tests. We tested for the effect of instructional emphasis using the light versus intensive intervention with a linear mixed-effects model. Online Appendix 1 has additional description of these analyses.

Because we found no differences among courses given at the different institutions, and CAT test samples were homoscedastic, a repeated-measures ANOVA was used on data pooled across institutions. This ANOVA tested overall differences across teaching interventions, across instructional units, and effects on gains for specific skills measured in the CAT. All calculations and statistical analyses were performed in R [ 37 ].

Gains in CT Skills as Measured by Performance Over the Instructional Unit

Most students gained CT skills in each term, as measured by their relative CT performance on the two case study exercises ( figure 2 ). In terms where a light intervention was used ( N = 113 students), 81 students (72%) gained CT skills (positive c value), improving their performance, on average, by 34%. With the intensive intervention ( N = 103 students), 79 students (77%) gained in skills, improving by 37% ( table 2 ).

Percent scores for Case Study Exercises 1 and 2 used as pre- and postassessment of critical thinking skills, respectively, under the light and intensive teaching interventions (TI). Asterisks indicate significant differences ( p < .001) tested with the paired Wilcoxon paired signed rank test. In addition, differences in the percent scores were not equally distributed across quartiles in both the light ( N = 113; X 2 = 23.415, p = .0005) and intensive comparisons ( N = 103; X 2 = 31.893, p = .0005), and the contingency tables indicated shifts in frequency from the bottom quartile before the intervention to the highest quartile after the intervention.

Overall Average Gains for Conservation Biology Courses That Used the Instructional Unit for Critical Thinking With the Light (LTI) and Intensive Teaching Interventions (ITI).

Notes: n.s. = no significant gains between Case Study Exercises 1 and 2 using a paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

a Percentage of students that gained skills in parenthesis.

b average normalized gains ± mean standard error.

** Highly significant, * significant.

Significant shifts in performance between the first and second case study exercises were notable in both the light and intensive intervention, based on χ 2 analysis that indicates shifts in frequency from the bottom quartile before the intervention to the highest quartile after the intervention. We found no significant effect of the level of intervention on mean skill gains ( N = 216 students; F (1,216) = 1.359; p = .18). However, the level of intervention was associated with differential gains when students are grouped by initial level of performance, above or below the median; only in the intensive intervention did those performing above the median also show significant gains ( table 2 ). Under the light intervention, 54 students scored below the median of 66%, and 59 scored equal to or above the median in Case Study Exercise 1. Students below the median had greater gains than students with scores equal to or above the median. Students below the median improved their performance by an average of 41%, with 81% of them showing gains ( table 2 ). Students equal to or above the median improved their CT skills by an average of 27%, with 63% of them showing gains.

Under the intensive intervention, 48 students scored below the median score of 64%, and 55 scored equal to or above the median score in Case Study Exercise 1. Students below the median improved by an average of 44% with 90% of them showing gains, while students equal to or above the median improved their CT skills on average by 29% with 65% of them having gains ( table 2 ).

A detailed analysis shows students improved their levels of performance in most of the four dimensions of CT defined for this study. However, achievement level varied among dimensions ( figure 3 ). Surprisingly, for Explanation of the issues to be considered critically , students decreased their level of performance under both interventions ( v = 1542; p < .0025, with Bonferroni correction). In the case of Evidence and Influence of context and assumptions , students significantly improved regardless of which intervention was used ( v = 524 and 39; p < .0025; see figure 3 ).

Distribution of students’ performance within the four levels of proficiency for critical thinking skills (1 = lowest, 4 = highest) when using the instructional unit with the light ( N = 113 students) and intensive ( N = 103 students) teaching interventions. Asterisks indicate significant differences ( p < .0025) and n.s. indicates no significant differences ( p > .0125) between the rubric scores for Exercises 1 (preteaching intervention) and 2 (post teaching intervention), tested with the paired Wilcoxon test, Bonferroni corrected.

Student Content Knowledge, CT Skills, and Self-Confidence

Students gained content knowledge related to the topics of both case study exercises under the light and the intensive intervention, with gains greater than 26% from pre- to postexercise (see table 3 ). Gains in concept knowledge associated with both case studies were greater than 35% for the light teaching intervention and similarly high for the first case study in the intensive teaching intervention group.

Average Gains in Students’ Content Knowledge Measured as the Average Normalized Change ( c ave ) While Using Exercises 1 and 2 of the Instructional Unit With the Light (LTI) and Intensive Teaching Interventions (ITI).

Note: p values are for the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test on the percentages of the pre- and postcontent scores.

In addition, there was a marginally significant correlation between gains in CT skills and content knowledge ( N = 136 students; ρ = .161; p = .06). Students who showed greater gains in CT skills also showed greater gains in their content knowledge in the topic areas that were the focus of the case studies.

Based on individual self-assessment questionnaires, we found average gains in student self-confidence with CT skills of 21% regardless of intervention. Increases were statistically significant for some of the self-assessment questions, under the intensive intervention only ( figure 4 ). Our results indicate no correlation between gains in CT skills and self-confidence ( N = 155 students; ρ = .049; p = .5).

Frequency distribution of students’ self-assessed confidence levels with their critical thinking skills when using the instructional unit with the light ( N = 79 students) and intensive ( N = 76 students) teaching interventions. One and two asterisks indicate significant differences between pre- and postassessment scores with p < .0125 and p < .0025, respectively, and n.s. indicates no significant differences ( p > .0125) tested with the paired Wilcoxon test, Bonferroni corrected.

Gains in CT Skills as Measured by the CAT Instrument

We also evaluated differences in CT gains as measured by the CAT instrument, both within the CT study arm described here, and the additional arm of the larger study focused on data analysis skills [ 31 ].

Students gained CT skills in both the light and the intensive intervention, with a significant interaction effect of teaching intervention as students had greater gains in the intensive intervention (repeated measures ANOVA: F (1,147) = 4.081, p = .045; figure 5 ). Significant gains were seen with the light intervention for two questions related to the ability to summarize the pattern of results in a graph without making inappropriate inferences, and the use of basic mathematical skills to help solve a real-world problem, with effect sizes of 0.28 and 0.35, respectively. Over all 15 questions, CT gains were moderate, with an effect size of 0.19 ( table 4 ). Under the intensive CT intervention, significant gains were seen in five different questions, with effect sizes ranging from 0.32 to 0.38, and overall gains across the 15 questions were large, with an effect size of 0.49 ( table 4 ).

Comparison of gains in total CAT scores administered pre- versus postcourse by teaching intervention, as measured by the CAT instrument, across all institutions. Scores (SD indicated between parentheses) of the light teaching intervention were 20.00 (5.87) precourse and 21.22 (6.71) postcourse; scores for the intensive intervention were 19.39 (5.74) precourse and 22.37 (6.30) postcourse. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of teaching intervention (Light/Intensive) and test administration (pre-/postcourse) on the CAT total score for courses using the CT Unit, showing a significant interaction of Teaching Intervention and pre-/postcourse administration ( F (1,147) = 4.081, p = .045). Students in the Intensive Intervention made greater gains on the CAT total score than students in the light intervention.

Specific CT Skills Identified in CAT Questions in Which the Students in This Study Showed Significant Gains.

Notes: The specific CAT question numbers are given, with a brief description of the CT skill addressed by the question. The pre- and postcourse means, probability of difference, and effect sizes are given only for those cases in which there was a significant difference observed.

Students using the CT Instructional Unit showed greater increases in CAT scores than those in the data analysis arm of the study ( F 1,290 = 9.505, p = .002), a pattern driven by the results of the intensive teaching intervention. Students in the Intensive Teaching Intervention treatment of the CT arm of the study had significantly higher gains in CAT scores than those in the data analysis arm of the study ( F 1,148 = 11.861, p < .001). There was no significant difference in student CAT scores for those in the light teaching intervention of the two arms of the study ( F 1,142 = 2.540, p = .113).

Our study adds to recent literature on effective approaches for teaching and learning of CT skills (e.g., [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]), an essential outcome of college and university education. Our pedagogical intervention hinges on the use of case studies to foster both content knowledge and CT skills, with support of an assessment rubric. We show that educators can foster measurable gains in CT over the course of a single term or semester by giving students an opportunity to practice these skills through case study exercises at least twice and reflect on their performance midway through the term, using a rubric that provided an operational definition of CT.

We chose a case study approach because real-world problem solving involves making decisions embedded in context [ 14 , 38 ]. Learning how to think critically about information available in its context and evaluating evidence through identifying assumptions and gaps to arrive at strong inference is better supported through lessons presented in case studies, rather than as abstract principles alone. A key to our process was to help students identify the steps they are taking—enhancing their metacognition—through naming specific skills in formative rubrics. In this way, we specifically targeted enhancing their CT skills while gaining concept knowledge about conservation.

Does Instructor Emphasis on CT Skill Affect the Magnitude of Individual Skill Gains?

The light and intensive interventions used in our study differed in level of engagement with a rubric specifically designed to promote and assess CT skills—a type of formative rubric use. Rubrics are generally designed with assessment and grading in mind and developed to fit a specific assignment; however, they have great potential to help with process skill development [ 39 ]. In this study, students were given the detailed rubric after completing the first case study exercise and were encouraged to locate their performance on the rubric. In the intensive intervention, students were further tasked with using the rubric to evaluate and improve sample answers to an additional, short case study.

The formative rubric use allowed us to align assignments to the dimensions of a given skill, in line with the principles of backwards design [ 40 ] and constructive alignment [ 41 ], and to identify the components where students struggle the most, as areas to target. Our results provide support to the benefits of rubric use [ 39 , 42 ]. Using a rubric to codify and operationalize a complex skill like CT seems to help both educators and learners. Our results are concordant with those of Abrami et al. [ 18 ] and Cargas et al. [ 19 ], as we show that “corrective feedback on a common rubric” aligned with relevant, authentic tasks supported learning, and that the simple act of sharing a rubric with the students may not be sufficient by itself [ 43 ]. We encourage others to make use of available collections of rubrics, such as those generated by the VALUE initiative [ 15 ].

The rubric allowed us to provide qualitative feedback to students as they practiced—an anchor for student reflection—and to analyze gains quantitatively. Furthermore, the unit as a whole was designed to promote self-reflection, which has been shown to increase students’ ability to monitor their own selection and use of resources and evidence [ 44 ]. Self-reflection was also found to increase oral communication performance in a parallel arm of our study [ 30 ].

Finally, using case study exercises aligned to the rubric but designed to encompass topics relevant to course content, we were able to assess the learning of content while practicing CT skills. Our results support previous findings [ 45 ] that students can experience simultaneous gains in knowledge and skills, even when instructional materials and class time are dedicated to CT skill development. Indeed, we found student content knowledge gains were positively correlated with their CT skill gains, although this was marginally significant. Taken together, our results suggest that cultivation of CT skills not only does not compete with content knowledge gains but that the focus on CT skills may well enhance content knowledge.

Do Students Show Similar Responses for the Different Dimensions of CT Learning?

Formative rubric use provided insights into which dimensions of CT are more challenging to students, providing valuable feedback to educators. Our results indicate that some dimensions of CT are more challenging to improve than others. A finer examination of the CT gains shows that the changes driving our results stem from two dimensions in our rubric: selection and use of evidence and recognition of the influence of context and assumptions (see figure 3 ). Several aspects of the CT Instructional Unit are likely to have enhanced outcomes in these dimensions, such as the fact that both exercises were based on case studies where students were asked to explain how a change in context would change their course of action or conclusions. Case studies are considered valuable for science teaching because they can reflect the complexity of problems and professional practice in social-environmental systems [ 14 , 38 ]. Cases present concepts and connections among them in a specific context, therefore highlighting the influence of context and assumptions, and require students to evaluate the information being presented and to select the most useful or relevant evidence for a particular task or decision. Our results support previous studies showing case studies can enhance CT skills and conceptual understanding by design [ 45 , 46 , 47 ].

Student performance did not significantly improve in the remaining dimensions of our CT rubric. In the case of ability to clearly and comprehensively explain the issue , overall students showed a loss ( figure 3A ). This dimension was unique in that students were already high achievers at the outset of the term, and the slight loss may correspond to noise along a dimension in which students were already at maximum performance levels. Alternatively, exercise structure could have played a role. The instructions for Case Study Exercises 1 and 2 were not identical in the questions relating to this dimension. Case Study Exercise 1 scores were derived from three separate questions ( What problem are amphibians facing? Summarize the Climate hypothesis; Summarize the Spread hypothesis ), while Case Study Exercise 2 scores rested on a single answer ( Write a paragraph for your supervisors describing and explaining the problem Bright Lake is facing and why it is important to address it ). Despite the former scores being averaged, having separate questions may have offered more opportunities for achievement in the first exercise and fewer in the second, resulting in an observed loss in this dimension. This was the only rubric dimension for which the number of questions contributing to a dimension’s overall score varied between case study exercises.

Finally, the most challenging dimension for students was the ability to make judgments and reach a position, drawing appropriate conclusions based on the available information, its implications, and consequences. No significant gains and the lowest rates of achievement were observed for this dimension, which maps to higher-order cognitive tasks or higher Bloom’s taxonomy levels, and has also been shown to be the most challenging for students in a broader science context [ 48 , 49 ]. In a review of student writing in biology courses, Schen [ 49 ] observed that students were often adept at formulating simple arguments but showed limited ability to craft alternative explanations or to engage with other more sophisticated uses of available information. Our results mirrored this observation, as students generally only made simple use of information. Becker [ 50 ] found similar patterns in student performance and further showed that explicit instruction in constructing arguments based on evidence resulted in students developing more accurate and more sophisticated conclusions. Again, our results spotlight the importance of explicit instruction in CT. Focusing student attention on how to sift among details presented in case studies to draw inferences and conclusions and on expressing their arguments with clear connection to the evidence within case studies may be necessary steps for students to have significant gains in these more advanced aspects of CT.

Similarly, gains in CAT scores were not randomly distributed throughout questions or dimensions of CT. Students significantly improved their CAT scores in questions measuring the ability to evaluate and interpret information, think creatively, and communicate effectively. Conversely, students did not gain in their capacities to use information critically in drawing conclusions (e.g., identify additional information needed to evaluate a hypothesis , use and apply relevant information to evaluate a problem , or explain how changes in a real world problem situation might affect the solution ). The results of the CAT and our case study assessments were broadly similar, with many significant gains seen in CT, except in those dimensions that required more sophisticated reasoning. Together, these results suggest that more, and perhaps different, instructional attention is needed to help students achieve certain specific dimensions of CT (see also [ 11 ]).

How Does the Intervention Affect Students at Different Achievement Levels?

Students with lower initial performance (i.e., below the median in the first exercise) gained more than those with a higher performance (above the median). These differential CT gains suggest that distinct mechanisms for improvement may be at play. We hypothesize those students who were initially least proficient in CT were assisted by the combination of repeated practice (two case study exercises) and calling attention to the components of CT through the rubric-driven intervention, along with self-reflection. Using similar instructional activities could enhance performance or retention in science courses in general [ 51 ], given links between process skills and risk of failing introductory biology [ 52 ]. We further hypothesize that for higher achieving students, the greater emphasis on metacognition in the intensive intervention may be critical to promote gains in performance. Simply prompting students to reflect on their learning may be insufficient [ 53 ], as many students need support in implementing metacognitive strategies despite being familiar with them, such as purposeful peer interaction [ 54 ]. The combination of repeated practice and reflection through the intervention’s in-class discussion may have helped students engage more effectively with their learning.

Students showed significant gains in CAT scores under both interventions, although significantly higher under the intensive intervention. Importantly, because the students took the CAT at the end of the course, the CAT measured their response to both exercises plus the intervention , which, in the case of the intensive intervention, included practice in improving responses to a short case study exercise in alignment with the CT rubric. This contrasts with the instructional assessment, which measured gains corresponding only to the midterm teaching intervention as measured by improvement in scores for the second case study exercise. Thus, as measured by the CAT, the whole unit improved CT skills among these students over the term in both interventions, while the extensive discussion of CT skills that was part of the intensive intervention improved CT performance even further.

Advancing CT skills has proven to be challenging for many institutions. The CAT test has been used in over 250 institutions around the world [ 55 ], but few have observed gains in CT overall (see [ 11 , 56 ]), although some have found an effect on individual CT dimensions [ 19 , 57 ]. We consider the inclusion of case study–based exercises to be an important factor in activating student learning and fostering strong CT gains among students in our study.

The CAT assessments were also given in another arm of the overall study that evaluated interventions designed to improve data analysis skills [ 31 ], enabling us to compare CT gains when directly targeted (in the CT arm of the study) to when they were not (the data analysis arm of the study). Only students in the CT arm of the study showed notable CT gains under a light intervention, and the gains were greater under the intensive intervention in the CT arm than in the data analysis arm. The intensive intervention was designed particularly to foster student capacity to reflect on their own learning, or metacognition, as this skill has been shown to improve academic performance [ 53 , 58 ]. Thus, the independent CAT assessment shows that explicit instruction in CT, coupled with repeated practice and reflection, is effective in improving student CT (see also [ 57 ]). Importantly, the CAT results imply that by developing CT in a conservation biology context, students are also enhancing their ability to apply that CT skill to other domains of their learning, such as the more general tasks required in the CAT.

Implications for Future Research and Scaling

While the results of this study are promising, our approach could be subjected to further testing. A limitation of the study was the lack of collateral data collection, such as GPA averages or overall course grades, which would have allowed for additional comparison of the student populations in each intervention. Differences in course achievement among classes, however, would not affect our interpretation of the effect of the intervention because the CT gains were observed between exercises in each term and are an internal comparison within the same student population within a given course. Our study did not use a treatment and control design or randomly assign students to the interventions. An approach based on multiple linear regression at the student level [ 59 ] could be a helpful alternative.

Adoption of the approach presented here was successful in a variety of contexts and situations. The institutions in this study varied in size and type, class size, and instructor; they included those ranked as R1, MA-granting and undergraduate only, private and public, a Minority Serving Institution, part-time and residential, and with class sizes between 10 and 60 students (see table 1 for details). Despite this variation, in 9 of the 10 classes, we observed an increase in students’ CT performance over a term, under both light and intensive interventions.

Our study shows educators can foster measurable gains in CT over the course of a single term or semester by giving students an opportunity to practice at least twice and reflect midway using case study exercises aligned to both course content and a rubric that provides an operational definition of CT. Despite the brevity of the interventions, the study has provided valuable new findings on student performance in different dimensions of CT and shows promising results from instructional approaches that can be easily adapted and integrated into a variety of courses and contexts. Importantly, the study design also allowed us to work together as a team with diverse faculty in the design and application of assessment materials, which served as a professional development for faculty that can help “close the loop” between assessment and future teaching practice.

CT underpins the kind of leadership capacity needed in society today, including “ethical behavior, the ability to work with diverse populations, and the ability to think from a systems perspective” [ 17 ]. These skills are essential for conservation biology researchers and professionals because of the multidisciplinary nature of challenges comprising various forms of evidence [ 60 ], the potential for consequences to diverse stakeholders, and the high prevalence of trade-offs among alternative scenarios. Encouraged by the results of this study, we urge educators to explore these and other approaches to target CT explicitly in their learning activities and teaching practice.

ALP, AB, NB, and EJS developed the study framework. ALP, AB, MJG, NB, BJA, JAC, CG, MC, TT, DSF, DV, and EJS contributed to development of the instructional units. ALP, MJG, LMD, BJA, JAC, CG, DLS, MC, DSF, LF, TL, and DV implemented the CT study in their classrooms and collected data for the study. AB, LMD, and ALP performed the data analysis. ALP, MJG, and AB led the writing of the manuscript, with contributions from EJS, LMD, and NB. All authors contributed to CAT scoring sessions and to the discussions that supported writing of the manuscript. The study was made possible by an NSF grant to EJS, ALP, and NB.

We are grateful to all study participants, those who helped score the CAT, and K. Douglas and N. Gazit for key assistance. We thank G. Bowser, A. Gómez, S. Hoskins, K. Landrigan, D. Roon, and J. Singleton for their contributions to the initial design and the original authors of the NCEP materials adapted for this study. The Biology Education Research Group at UW provided helpful input in initial discussions.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Martha J. Groom is an editor at Case Studies in the Environment . She was not involved in the review of this manuscript.

This project was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) CCLI/TUES Program (DUE-0942789). Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect NSF views.

Appendix 1. Supplementary Information on Methods.

Both versions can be downloaded by registering as an educator on http://ncep.amnh.org . To find the original versions used in the study, which also include all instructions given to participating faculty, see “NSF CCLI / TUES Instructional Unit: Critical Thinking.” For classroom-ready, updated versions of the case studies, see “Applying Critical Thinking to an Invasive Species Problem,” and “Applying Critical Thinking to the Amphibian Decline Problem.” These cite more current literature and have been edited for clarity.

Supplementary data

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link to 'Using Case Studies to Improve the Critical Thinking Skills of Undergraduate Conservation Biology Students' and will not need an account to access the content.

Subject: Using Case Studies to Improve the Critical Thinking Skills of Undergraduate Conservation Biology Students

(Optional message may have a maximum of 1000 characters.)

Citing articles via

Email alerts, affiliations.

• Recent Content
• All Content
• Special Collections
• Info for Authors
• Info for Reviewers
• Info for Librarians
• Editorial Team
• Prize Competition
• Online ISSN 2473-9510
• Copyright © 2024

Stay Informed

Disciplines.

• Ancient World
• Anthropology
• Communication
• Criminology & Criminal Justice
• Film & Media Studies
• Food & Wine
• Browse All Disciplines
• Browse All Courses
• Book Authors
• Booksellers
• Instructions
• Journal Authors
• Journal Editors
• Media & Journalists
• Planned Giving

About UC Press

• Press Releases
• Seasonal Catalog
• Acquisitions Editors
• Customer Service
• Exam/Desk Requests
• Media Inquiries
• Print-Disability
• Rights & Permissions
• UC Press Foundation
• © Copyright 2024 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Privacy policy    Accessibility

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

Definition and Introduction

Case analysis is a problem-based teaching and learning method that involves critically analyzing complex scenarios within an organizational setting for the purpose of placing the student in a “real world” situation and applying reflection and critical thinking skills to contemplate appropriate solutions, decisions, or recommended courses of action. It is considered a more effective teaching technique than in-class role playing or simulation activities. The analytical process is often guided by questions provided by the instructor that ask students to contemplate relationships between the facts and critical incidents described in the case.

Cases generally include both descriptive and statistical elements and rely on students applying abductive reasoning to develop and argue for preferred or best outcomes [i.e., case scenarios rarely have a single correct or perfect answer based on the evidence provided]. Rather than emphasizing theories or concepts, case analysis assignments emphasize building a bridge of relevancy between abstract thinking and practical application and, by so doing, teaches the value of both within a specific area of professional practice.

Given this, the purpose of a case analysis paper is to present a structured and logically organized format for analyzing the case situation. It can be assigned to students individually or as a small group assignment and it may include an in-class presentation component. Case analysis is predominately taught in economics and business-related courses, but it is also a method of teaching and learning found in other applied social sciences disciplines, such as, social work, public relations, education, journalism, and public administration.

Ellet, William. The Case Study Handbook: A Student's Guide . Revised Edition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2018; Christoph Rasche and Achim Seisreiner. Guidelines for Business Case Analysis . University of Potsdam; Writing a Case Analysis . Writing Center, Baruch College; Volpe, Guglielmo. "Case Teaching in Economics: History, Practice and Evidence." Cogent Economics and Finance 3 (December 2015). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2015.1120977.

How to Approach Writing a Case Analysis Paper

The organization and structure of a case analysis paper can vary depending on the organizational setting, the situation, and how your professor wants you to approach the assignment. Nevertheless, preparing to write a case analysis paper involves several important steps. As Hawes notes, a case analysis assignment “...is useful in developing the ability to get to the heart of a problem, analyze it thoroughly, and to indicate the appropriate solution as well as how it should be implemented” [p.48]. This statement encapsulates how you should approach preparing to write a case analysis paper.

Before you begin to write your paper, consider the following analytical procedures:

• Review the case to get an overview of the situation . A case can be only a few pages in length, however, it is most often very lengthy and contains a significant amount of detailed background information and statistics, with multilayered descriptions of the scenario, the roles and behaviors of various stakeholder groups, and situational events. Therefore, a quick reading of the case will help you gain an overall sense of the situation and illuminate the types of issues and problems that you will need to address in your paper. If your professor has provided questions intended to help frame your analysis, use them to guide your initial reading of the case.
• Read the case thoroughly . After gaining a general overview of the case, carefully read the content again with the purpose of understanding key circumstances, events, and behaviors among stakeholder groups. Look for information or data that appears contradictory, extraneous, or misleading. At this point, you should be taking notes as you read because this will help you develop a general outline of your paper. The aim is to obtain a complete understanding of the situation so that you can begin contemplating tentative answers to any questions your professor has provided or, if they have not provided, developing answers to your own questions about the case scenario and its connection to the course readings,lectures, and class discussions.
• Determine key stakeholder groups, issues, and events and the relationships they all have to each other . As you analyze the content, pay particular attention to identifying individuals, groups, or organizations described in the case and identify evidence of any problems or issues of concern that impact the situation in a negative way. Other things to look for include identifying any assumptions being made by or about each stakeholder, potential biased explanations or actions, explicit demands or ultimatums , and the underlying concerns that motivate these behaviors among stakeholders. The goal at this stage is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the situational and behavioral dynamics of the case and the explicit and implicit consequences of each of these actions.
• Identify the core problems . The next step in most case analysis assignments is to discern what the core [i.e., most damaging, detrimental, injurious] problems are within the organizational setting and to determine their implications. The purpose at this stage of preparing to write your analysis paper is to distinguish between the symptoms of core problems and the core problems themselves and to decide which of these must be addressed immediately and which problems do not appear critical but may escalate over time. Identify evidence from the case to support your decisions by determining what information or data is essential to addressing the core problems and what information is not relevant or is misleading.
• Explore alternative solutions . As noted, case analysis scenarios rarely have only one correct answer. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that the process of analyzing the case and diagnosing core problems, while based on evidence, is a subjective process open to various avenues of interpretation. This means that you must consider alternative solutions or courses of action by critically examining strengths and weaknesses, risk factors, and the differences between short and long-term solutions. For each possible solution or course of action, consider the consequences they may have related to their implementation and how these recommendations might lead to new problems. Also, consider thinking about your recommended solutions or courses of action in relation to issues of fairness, equity, and inclusion.
• Decide on a final set of recommendations . The last stage in preparing to write a case analysis paper is to assert an opinion or viewpoint about the recommendations needed to help resolve the core problems as you see them and to make a persuasive argument for supporting this point of view. Prepare a clear rationale for your recommendations based on examining each element of your analysis. Anticipate possible obstacles that could derail their implementation. Consider any counter-arguments that could be made concerning the validity of your recommended actions. Finally, describe a set of criteria and measurable indicators that could be applied to evaluating the effectiveness of your implementation plan.

Use these steps as the framework for writing your paper. Remember that the more detailed you are in taking notes as you critically examine each element of the case, the more information you will have to draw from when you begin to write. This will save you time.

NOTE : If the process of preparing to write a case analysis paper is assigned as a student group project, consider having each member of the group analyze a specific element of the case, including drafting answers to the corresponding questions used by your professor to frame the analysis. This will help make the analytical process more efficient and ensure that the distribution of work is equitable. This can also facilitate who is responsible for drafting each part of the final case analysis paper and, if applicable, the in-class presentation.

Framework for Case Analysis . College of Management. University of Massachusetts; Hawes, Jon M. "Teaching is Not Telling: The Case Method as a Form of Interactive Learning." Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education 5 (Winter 2004): 47-54; Rasche, Christoph and Achim Seisreiner. Guidelines for Business Case Analysis . University of Potsdam; Writing a Case Study Analysis . University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center; Van Ness, Raymond K. A Guide to Case Analysis . School of Business. State University of New York, Albany; Writing a Case Analysis . Business School, University of New South Wales.

Structure and Writing Style

A case analysis paper should be detailed, concise, persuasive, clearly written, and professional in tone and in the use of language . As with other forms of college-level academic writing, declarative statements that convey information, provide a fact, or offer an explanation or any recommended courses of action should be based on evidence. If allowed by your professor, any external sources used to support your analysis, such as course readings, should be properly cited under a list of references. The organization and structure of case analysis papers can vary depending on your professor’s preferred format, but its structure generally follows the steps used for analyzing the case.

Introduction

The introduction should provide a succinct but thorough descriptive overview of the main facts, issues, and core problems of the case . The introduction should also include a brief summary of the most relevant details about the situation and organizational setting. This includes defining the theoretical framework or conceptual model on which any questions were used to frame your analysis.

Following the rules of most college-level research papers, the introduction should then inform the reader how the paper will be organized. This includes describing the major sections of the paper and the order in which they will be presented. Unless you are told to do so by your professor, you do not need to preview your final recommendations in the introduction. U nlike most college-level research papers , the introduction does not include a statement about the significance of your findings because a case analysis assignment does not involve contributing new knowledge about a research problem.

Background Analysis

Background analysis can vary depending on any guiding questions provided by your professor and the underlying concept or theory that the case is based upon. In general, however, this section of your paper should focus on:

• Providing an overarching analysis of problems identified from the case scenario, including identifying events that stakeholders find challenging or troublesome,
• Identifying assumptions made by each stakeholder and any apparent biases they may exhibit,
• Describing any demands or claims made by or forced upon key stakeholders, and
• Highlighting any issues of concern or complaints expressed by stakeholders in response to those demands or claims.

These aspects of the case are often in the form of behavioral responses expressed by individuals or groups within the organizational setting. However, note that problems in a case situation can also be reflected in data [or the lack thereof] and in the decision-making, operational, cultural, or institutional structure of the organization. Additionally, demands or claims can be either internal and external to the organization [e.g., a case analysis involving a president considering arms sales to Saudi Arabia could include managing internal demands from White House advisors as well as demands from members of Congress].

Throughout this section, present all relevant evidence from the case that supports your analysis. Do not simply claim there is a problem, an assumption, a demand, or a concern; tell the reader what part of the case informed how you identified these background elements.

Identification of Problems

In most case analysis assignments, there are problems, and then there are problems . Each problem can reflect a multitude of underlying symptoms that are detrimental to the interests of the organization. The purpose of identifying problems is to teach students how to differentiate between problems that vary in severity, impact, and relative importance. Given this, problems can be described in three general forms: those that must be addressed immediately, those that should be addressed but the impact is not severe, and those that do not require immediate attention and can be set aside for the time being.

All of the problems you identify from the case should be identified in this section of your paper, with a description based on evidence explaining the problem variances. If the assignment asks you to conduct research to further support your assessment of the problems, include this in your explanation. Remember to cite those sources in a list of references. Use specific evidence from the case and apply appropriate concepts, theories, and models discussed in class or in relevant course readings to highlight and explain the key problems [or problem] that you believe must be solved immediately and describe the underlying symptoms and why they are so critical.

Alternative Solutions

This section is where you provide specific, realistic, and evidence-based solutions to the problems you have identified and make recommendations about how to alleviate the underlying symptomatic conditions impacting the organizational setting. For each solution, you must explain why it was chosen and provide clear evidence to support your reasoning. This can include, for example, course readings and class discussions as well as research resources, such as, books, journal articles, research reports, or government documents. In some cases, your professor may encourage you to include personal, anecdotal experiences as evidence to support why you chose a particular solution or set of solutions. Using anecdotal evidence helps promote reflective thinking about the process of determining what qualifies as a core problem and relevant solution .

Throughout this part of the paper, keep in mind the entire array of problems that must be addressed and describe in detail the solutions that might be implemented to resolve these problems.

Recommended Courses of Action

In some case analysis assignments, your professor may ask you to combine the alternative solutions section with your recommended courses of action. However, it is important to know the difference between the two. A solution refers to the answer to a problem. A course of action refers to a procedure or deliberate sequence of activities adopted to proactively confront a situation, often in the context of accomplishing a goal. In this context, proposed courses of action are based on your analysis of alternative solutions. Your description and justification for pursuing each course of action should represent the overall plan for implementing your recommendations.

For each course of action, you need to explain the rationale for your recommendation in a way that confronts challenges, explains risks, and anticipates any counter-arguments from stakeholders. Do this by considering the strengths and weaknesses of each course of action framed in relation to how the action is expected to resolve the core problems presented, the possible ways the action may affect remaining problems, and how the recommended action will be perceived by each stakeholder.

In addition, you should describe the criteria needed to measure how well the implementation of these actions is working and explain which individuals or groups are responsible for ensuring your recommendations are successful. In addition, always consider the law of unintended consequences. Outline difficulties that may arise in implementing each course of action and describe how implementing the proposed courses of action [either individually or collectively] may lead to new problems [both large and small].

Throughout this section, you must consider the costs and benefits of recommending your courses of action in relation to uncertainties or missing information and the negative consequences of success.

The conclusion should be brief and introspective. Unlike a research paper, the conclusion in a case analysis paper does not include a summary of key findings and their significance, a statement about how the study contributed to existing knowledge, or indicate opportunities for future research.

Begin by synthesizing the core problems presented in the case and the relevance of your recommended solutions. This can include an explanation of what you have learned about the case in the context of your answers to the questions provided by your professor. The conclusion is also where you link what you learned from analyzing the case with the course readings or class discussions. This can further demonstrate your understanding of the relationships between the practical case situation and the theoretical and abstract content of assigned readings and other course content.

Problems to Avoid

The literature on case analysis assignments often includes examples of difficulties students have with applying methods of critical analysis and effectively reporting the results of their assessment of the situation. A common reason cited by scholars is that the application of this type of teaching and learning method is limited to applied fields of social and behavioral sciences and, as a result, writing a case analysis paper can be unfamiliar to most students entering college.

After you have drafted your paper, proofread the narrative flow and revise any of these common errors:

• Unnecessary detail in the background section . The background section should highlight the essential elements of the case based on your analysis. Focus on summarizing the facts and highlighting the key factors that become relevant in the other sections of the paper by eliminating any unnecessary information.
• Analysis relies too much on opinion . Your analysis is interpretive, but the narrative must be connected clearly to evidence from the case and any models and theories discussed in class or in course readings. Any positions or arguments you make should be supported by evidence.
• Analysis does not focus on the most important elements of the case . Your paper should provide a thorough overview of the case. However, the analysis should focus on providing evidence about what you identify are the key events, stakeholders, issues, and problems. Emphasize what you identify as the most critical aspects of the case to be developed throughout your analysis. Be thorough but succinct.
• Writing is too descriptive . A paper with too much descriptive information detracts from your analysis of the complexities of the case situation. Questions about what happened, where, when, and by whom should only be included as essential information leading to your examination of questions related to why, how, and for what purpose.
• Inadequate definition of a core problem and associated symptoms . A common error found in case analysis papers is recommending a solution or course of action without adequately defining or demonstrating that you understand the problem. Make sure you have clearly described the problem and its impact and scope within the organizational setting. Ensure that you have adequately described the root causes w hen describing the symptoms of the problem.
• Recommendations lack specificity . Identify any use of vague statements and indeterminate terminology, such as, “A particular experience” or “a large increase to the budget.” These statements cannot be measured and, as a result, there is no way to evaluate their successful implementation. Provide specific data and use direct language in describing recommended actions.
• Unrealistic, exaggerated, or unattainable recommendations . Review your recommendations to ensure that they are based on the situational facts of the case. Your recommended solutions and courses of action must be based on realistic assumptions and fit within the constraints of the situation. Also note that the case scenario has already happened, therefore, any speculation or arguments about what could have occurred if the circumstances were different should be revised or eliminated.

Bee, Lian Song et al. "Business Students' Perspectives on Case Method Coaching for Problem-Based Learning: Impacts on Student Engagement and Learning Performance in Higher Education." Education & Training 64 (2022): 416-432; The Case Analysis . Fred Meijer Center for Writing and Michigan Authors. Grand Valley State University; Georgallis, Panikos and Kayleigh Bruijn. "Sustainability Teaching using Case-Based Debates." Journal of International Education in Business 15 (2022): 147-163; Hawes, Jon M. "Teaching is Not Telling: The Case Method as a Form of Interactive Learning." Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education 5 (Winter 2004): 47-54; Georgallis, Panikos, and Kayleigh Bruijn. "Sustainability Teaching Using Case-based Debates." Journal of International Education in Business 15 (2022): 147-163; .Dean,  Kathy Lund and Charles J. Fornaciari. "How to Create and Use Experiential Case-Based Exercises in a Management Classroom." Journal of Management Education 26 (October 2002): 586-603; Klebba, Joanne M. and Janet G. Hamilton. "Structured Case Analysis: Developing Critical Thinking Skills in a Marketing Case Course." Journal of Marketing Education 29 (August 2007): 132-137, 139; Klein, Norman. "The Case Discussion Method Revisited: Some Questions about Student Skills." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 30-32; Mukherjee, Arup. "Effective Use of In-Class Mini Case Analysis for Discovery Learning in an Undergraduate MIS Course." The Journal of Computer Information Systems 40 (Spring 2000): 15-23; Pessoa, Silviaet al. "Scaffolding the Case Analysis in an Organizational Behavior Course: Making Analytical Language Explicit." Journal of Management Education 46 (2022): 226-251: Ramsey, V. J. and L. D. Dodge. "Case Analysis: A Structured Approach." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 27-29; Schweitzer, Karen. "How to Write and Format a Business Case Study." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-write-and-format-a-business-case-study-466324 (accessed December 5, 2022); Reddy, C. D. "Teaching Research Methodology: Everything's a Case." Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 18 (December 2020): 178-188; Volpe, Guglielmo. "Case Teaching in Economics: History, Practice and Evidence." Cogent Economics and Finance 3 (December 2015). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2015.1120977.

Writing Tip

Ca se Study and Case Analysis Are Not the Same!

Confusion often exists between what it means to write a paper that uses a case study research design and writing a paper that analyzes a case; they are two different types of approaches to learning in the social and behavioral sciences. Professors as well as educational researchers contribute to this confusion because they often use the term "case study" when describing the subject of analysis for a case analysis paper. But you are not studying a case for the purpose of generating a comprehensive, multi-faceted understanding of a research problem. R ather, you are critically analyzing a specific scenario to argue logically for recommended solutions and courses of action that lead to optimal outcomes applicable to professional practice.

To avoid any confusion, here are twelve characteristics that delineate the differences between writing a paper using the case study research method and writing a case analysis paper:

• Case study is a method of in-depth research and rigorous inquiry ; case analysis is a reliable method of teaching and learning . A case study is a modality of research that investigates a phenomenon for the purpose of creating new knowledge, solving a problem, or testing a hypothesis using empirical evidence derived from the case being studied. Often, the results are used to generalize about a larger population or within a wider context. The writing adheres to the traditional standards of a scholarly research study. A case analysis is a pedagogical tool used to teach students how to reflect and think critically about a practical, real-life problem in an organizational setting.
• The researcher is responsible for identifying the case to study; a case analysis is assigned by your professor . As the researcher, you choose the case study to investigate in support of obtaining new knowledge and understanding about the research problem. The case in a case analysis assignment is almost always provided, and sometimes written, by your professor and either given to every student in class to analyze individually or to a small group of students, or students select a case to analyze from a predetermined list.
• A case study is indeterminate and boundless; a case analysis is predetermined and confined . A case study can be almost anything [see item 9 below] as long as it relates directly to examining the research problem. This relationship is the only limit to what a researcher can choose as the subject of their case study. The content of a case analysis is determined by your professor and its parameters are well-defined and limited to elucidating insights of practical value applied to practice.
• Case study is fact-based and describes actual events or situations; case analysis can be entirely fictional or adapted from an actual situation . The entire content of a case study must be grounded in reality to be a valid subject of investigation in an empirical research study. A case analysis only needs to set the stage for critically examining a situation in practice and, therefore, can be entirely fictional or adapted, all or in-part, from an actual situation.
• Research using a case study method must adhere to principles of intellectual honesty and academic integrity; a case analysis scenario can include misleading or false information . A case study paper must report research objectively and factually to ensure that any findings are understood to be logically correct and trustworthy. A case analysis scenario may include misleading or false information intended to deliberately distract from the central issues of the case. The purpose is to teach students how to sort through conflicting or useless information in order to come up with the preferred solution. Any use of misleading or false information in academic research is considered unethical.
• Case study is linked to a research problem; case analysis is linked to a practical situation or scenario . In the social sciences, the subject of an investigation is most often framed as a problem that must be researched in order to generate new knowledge leading to a solution. Case analysis narratives are grounded in real life scenarios for the purpose of examining the realities of decision-making behavior and processes within organizational settings. A case analysis assignments include a problem or set of problems to be analyzed. However, the goal is centered around the act of identifying and evaluating courses of action leading to best possible outcomes.
• The purpose of a case study is to create new knowledge through research; the purpose of a case analysis is to teach new understanding . Case studies are a choice of methodological design intended to create new knowledge about resolving a research problem. A case analysis is a mode of teaching and learning intended to create new understanding and an awareness of uncertainty applied to practice through acts of critical thinking and reflection.
• A case study seeks to identify the best possible solution to a research problem; case analysis can have an indeterminate set of solutions or outcomes . Your role in studying a case is to discover the most logical, evidence-based ways to address a research problem. A case analysis assignment rarely has a single correct answer because one of the goals is to force students to confront the real life dynamics of uncertainly, ambiguity, and missing or conflicting information within professional practice. Under these conditions, a perfect outcome or solution almost never exists.
• Case study is unbounded and relies on gathering external information; case analysis is a self-contained subject of analysis . The scope of a case study chosen as a method of research is bounded. However, the researcher is free to gather whatever information and data is necessary to investigate its relevance to understanding the research problem. For a case analysis assignment, your professor will often ask you to examine solutions or recommended courses of action based solely on facts and information from the case.
• Case study can be a person, place, object, issue, event, condition, or phenomenon; a case analysis is a carefully constructed synopsis of events, situations, and behaviors . The research problem dictates the type of case being studied and, therefore, the design can encompass almost anything tangible as long as it fulfills the objective of generating new knowledge and understanding. A case analysis is in the form of a narrative containing descriptions of facts, situations, processes, rules, and behaviors within a particular setting and under a specific set of circumstances.
• Case study can represent an open-ended subject of inquiry; a case analysis is a narrative about something that has happened in the past . A case study is not restricted by time and can encompass an event or issue with no temporal limit or end. For example, the current war in Ukraine can be used as a case study of how medical personnel help civilians during a large military conflict, even though circumstances around this event are still evolving. A case analysis can be used to elicit critical thinking about current or future situations in practice, but the case itself is a narrative about something finite and that has taken place in the past.
• Multiple case studies can be used in a research study; case analysis involves examining a single scenario . Case study research can use two or more cases to examine a problem, often for the purpose of conducting a comparative investigation intended to discover hidden relationships, document emerging trends, or determine variations among different examples. A case analysis assignment typically describes a stand-alone, self-contained situation and any comparisons among cases are conducted during in-class discussions and/or student presentations.

The Case Analysis . Fred Meijer Center for Writing and Michigan Authors. Grand Valley State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Ramsey, V. J. and L. D. Dodge. "Case Analysis: A Structured Approach." Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 6 (November 1981): 27-29; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2017; Crowe, Sarah et al. “The Case Study Approach.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 11 (2011):  doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-100; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 1994.

• << Previous: Reviewing Collected Works
• Next: Writing a Case Study >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

• Effective Teaching Strategies

Guiding Students to Think Critically Using Case Studies

• February 21, 2014
• Laura Trujillo-Jenks, PhD

One of the best practices in teaching and learning is the use of a three-part case study, or a scenario-based story, to help students deepen their understanding of a concept. The three parts of a case study are a scenario-based story that focuses on a specific, hypothetical problem, supporting literature that aligns with the main themes of the story, and guiding questions that help the learner gain the most from understanding the concepts and objectives of the case study by applying critical and higher order thinking skills.

A scenario-based story is a situation, problem, or issue that is used to help students grasp the learning objectives of a lesson. For example, in an educational leadership law course that I teach, one day I might create an elaborate scenario that focuses on several problems and issues that also align with the lesson’s objectives and concepts. Another day, the scenario could be a short one- to two-sentence story that is used at the beginning of class to engage students in reviewing key concepts and prepare them for the day’s lesson, or at the end of a lesson to review what was discussed during class. Finally, I might present a scenario-based story through a video or news story. There are many great videos on YouTube and many great news stories all over the Internet that offer up scenarios that are easily accessible and provide a visual that may help stimulate learning.

Supporting literature that aligns with the main themes of the case study helps students focus on what is important. This literature can be the texts and supplemental material that are required for students to read for a course, or, for example, it can be state and federal codes that must be followed. Then, the guiding questions are created and used to help students think about the different outcomes that could occur and possibly prepare for confronting an issue in the real-world. These questions can be as elaborate or straightforward as needed.

Like a book study, a case study can provide the necessary platform for students to communicate and collaborate about a situation that concerns a certain group. They can be used to help a group of learners or others focus on a specific concept, or they can help those solve a problem. Additionally, they can be used to analyze a current practice, like an ineffective policy. Although case studies are not a new teaching method, they are a method that can be useful, providing an opportunity for students to think outside the box. Through the use of a case study, students can actively engage in applying learned concepts, objectives, and knowledge to hypothetical situations by using critical and higher order thinking skills to answer tough questions.

Below are brief examples of the three types of case studies that I’ve used in my graduate course:

1. Elaborate Case Study: A high school senior is caught cheating on an exam. A passing grade on this exam is essential, since the exam grade will be applied to the senior’s overall GPA. The teacher respects the student and counts the student as a favorite, especially since the student was accepted to attend Harvard. The teacher decides to ignore the policy and does not report the student’s cheating, and allows the grade to be averaged with the student’s GPA.

• What are the implications of the teacher not reporting the cheating?
• How would you have handled this situation differently?

2. One- to Two-Sentence Case Study: You are on campus late one night working on paperwork when you hear laughter and loud talking down the hall. As you approach the raucous, you enter a classroom to find three teachers and their spouses drinking beer.

• What do you do next and is your decision based on ethics or fear?

3. Video/News Story Case Study: Please view the assigned videos. As you watch them, keep in mind what you have learned about student speech and academic freedom.

• Are there any student speech or academic freedom issues?
• Has the student code of conduct been violated with these dances?

Dr. Laura Trujillo-Jenks is an assistant professor in the Department of Teacher Education at Texas Woman’s University.

Stay Updated with Faculty Focus!

Get exclusive access to programs, reports, podcast episodes, articles, and more!

• Opens in a new tab

Welcome Back

Username or Email

Remember Me

Already a subscriber? log in here.

• Arts & Humanities
• Communications

Chapter 7 On Course Strategies for Creating Success in College and in Life

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Case Studies

Case studies are the pathway that links in-class subject matter to patterns of thinking that are used in the field or workplace. They can be used as a guide to facilitate engagement and critical thinking skills. Case studies are beneficial in that they help improve an individual’s decision-making skills as well as develop problem-solving skills. When used in the discussion setting, students can absorb and challenge other student’s views. The use of case studies as a teaching strategy helps the student blend key concepts, ideas and subject matter into their problem-solving processes to tackle issues that are prevalent, engaging and useful. Case studies can also be memorable and an effective tool in drilling in key concepts.  

Though case studies can be highly effective, student uncertainty and confusion is a potential barriers to success. Some tips include:

• Make sure students have the necessary background knowledge. Case study is best used to take a topic to a higher level, not for introducing a concept.
• Start small. Get students used to analyzing cases in a group discussion.
• As you make your case study activities more complex, provide scaffolding such as clear expectations, analytical tools, checklists or rubrics.

Here are three examples of case studies:

• A Food Safety and Nutrition class examines the real-life problem from a news report of contaminated food reaching the consumer. Students could examine the causes and prevention methods.
• In a class on assessment and treatment, a psychology professor presents a case of a patient who displays characteristics of dysfunctional behavior. The students discuss assessment and treatment options applying key concepts and material previously provided.
• A more complex case might involve a company for which the stock price has suddenly plummeted. Teams of students could analyze the company from different perspectives and develop marketing, sales, manufacturing plans to boost the company's market value.

Overall, case studies can be beneficial to both professors and students, as they offer a space for a higher degree of thought process and facilitate critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Bonney, K. M. (2015). Case study teaching method improves student performance and perceptions of learning gains. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4416499/

Carnegie Mellon University. (n.d.). Case Studies - Eberly Center - Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/teach/instructionalstrategies/casestudies.html

Faulkner, P. E., & Williams-Wheeler, M. (2018). Case Studies: A teaching strategy for promoting critical thinking in the 21st century agricultural student. NACTA Journal. Retrieved from: https://www.nactateachers.org/images/TeachingTips/4_Case_Studies_A_Teaching_Strategy_for_Promoting_Critical_Thinking_in_the_21st_Century_Agriculture_Student.pdf

Mostert, M. P. (2007). Challenges of case-based teaching. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ821490.pdf

Using case studies to teach » Center for Teaching & Learning | Boston University. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2019, from https://www.bu.edu/ctl/teaching-resources/using-case-studies-to-teach/

Marine Critical Issues: Case Studies

Students use case studies to examine human impacts on marine ecosystems. They evaluate case studies in terms of an area's history, geography, habitats, species, stakeholders, human uses and impacts, and management goals.

Oceanography, Earth Science, Biology, Ecology, Geography, Human Geography, Physical Geography

Loading ...

This resource is also available in Spanish .

Humans are having a negative impact on marine ecosystems due to pollution, overfishing, habitat destruction, and other unsustainable practices. Analyzing case studies of human impacts on marine ecosystems helps students to understand the critical issues facing the world's oceans today, as well as the positive effects that the establishment of marine protected areas can have on the health of the ocean.

Informal Assessment

Assess students based on their responses to the discussion questions and the completeness and accuracy of their worksheets.

Extending the Learning

Using their worksheet Marine Ecosystem Critical Issues: Case Studies as a guide, have students research, create, and present a case study for a local aquatic or terrestrial protected area.

Prior Knowledge

• Marine ecosystems, interrelationships, and human impacts

Recommended Prior Activities

• Marine Protected Areas: Case Studies
• MPA Designation and Management
• Protecting the Ocean

1. Activate students’ prior knowledge and build background.

Remind students that Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are areas of the marine environment that are protected by laws in order to preserve their natural and cultural resources. In order to establish and manage MPAs, case studies are created. Ask: What are case studies? Elicit from students that case studies outline important information about an area’s history, geography, habitats, species, human uses, and management goals. Case studies also describe threats to the area and explain why the area should be protected. The goals of such protection focus on restoring ecological balance to the area. Case studies help stakeholders understand how humans impact the area and what can be done to restore ecological balance and sustainably manage the area’s cultural and natural resources. Ask: Who are stakeholders? Remind students that stakeholders are people, organizations, or political entities interested in and/or affected by the outcome of management decisions.

2. Use Apo Island as an example case study of human impacts on a marine ecosystem.

Distribute the Marine Ecosystem Critical Issues: Case Studies worksheet and read aloud the directions. Review the categories of information in the chart, making sure that students know what components of the case study they need to record. Explain that for Case Study #1: Apo Island, they will view a video and work together as a class to complete the chart. For Case Study #2: Galápagos Marine Reserve, they will review a written case study and work in small groups to complete the chart. Show students the video, “EcoTipping Point Success Stories: Apo Island” (6 minutes, 30 seconds) and have them take notes on their worksheets as they watch. After the video, discuss the information students recorded. Ask:

• What happened as a result of Apo Islanders changing their fishing practices and establishing an MPA?
• What do you think would have happened if they did not establish the MPA or change the way they used their island’s ocean resources?

3. View the National Geographic video “Galápagos” to build background.

Tell students that they will watch a short video (4 minutes, 30 seconds) to learn about the Galápagos Islands and the establishment of the Galápagos Marine Reserve. As they watch, focus their attention by telling them to look for examples of the case study information they will record in their charts. Tell them to think about the human impacts that threatened the habitat and organisms of the Galápagos and eventually led to the establishment of the MPA.

4. Review the Galápagos Marine Reserve Case Study.

After viewing the video, divide students into small groups and distribute copies of the handout Galápagos Marine Reserve Case Study. Have students read through the case study and complete the charts on their worksheets. Have groups share the information they recorded for each of the case study components in their charts. Next, ask students to brainstorm the human impacts (threats) that led to the creation of the Galápagos Marine Reserve as a MPA. Ask: Why did the Galápagos MPA need to be protected? List student responses on the board. Then ask students to recall the human impacts that led to the creation of Apo Island’s MPA. Draw a circle around the impacts that are the same as those threatening the Galápagos. Underline impacts that are different from those threatening the Galápagos. Lead a discussion about the similarities and differences between the two case studies, including the human impacts that threaten the balance and sustainability of their marine ecosystems.

5. Have students reflect on what they have learned.

• Based on the two case studies, what was done to address human-induced threats and restore balance in the marine ecosystems?
• Do you think more could or should be done to protect the habitat and organisms of the Galápagos and Apo Island? Why or why not?
• If the establishment of a MPA results in so many positive changes that benefit the people and the ocean, why are there not more MPAs throughout the world?

Learning Objectives

Students will:

• identify and describe human impacts to marine ecosystems
• summarize case study information, including the history, geography, habitats, species, human uses, stakeholders, and management goals for different MPAs
• discuss human actions that can be taken to restore balance to threatened marine ecosystems and species

Teaching Approach

• Learning-for-use

Teaching Methods

• Discussions

Skills Summary

This activity targets the following skills:

• Information, Communications, and Technology Literacy
• Communication and Collaboration
• Understanding
• Acquiring Geographic Information
• Organizing Geographic Information

Connections to National Standards, Principles, and Practices

National Geography Standards

• Standard 14 : How human actions modify the physical environment
• Standard 8 : The characteristics and spatial distribution of ecosystems and biomes on Earth's surface

National Science Education Standards

• (9-12) Standard F-3 : Natural resources
• (9-12) Standard F-4 : Environmental quality
• (9-12) Standard F-5 : Natural and human-induced hazards

Ocean Literacy Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts

• Principle 6e : Humans affect the ocean in a variety of ways. Laws, regulations and resource management affect what is taken out and put into the ocean. Human development and activity leads to pollution (such as point source, non-point source, and noise pollution) and physical modifications (such as changes to beaches, shores and rivers). In addition, humans have removed most of the large vertebrates from the ocean.
• Principle 6g : Everyone is responsible for caring for the ocean. The ocean sustains life on Earth and humans must live in ways that sustain the ocean. Individual and collective actions are needed to effectively manage ocean resources for all.

Preparation

What you’ll need.

Materials You Provide

Required Technology

• Internet Access: Required
• Tech Setup: 1 computer per classroom, Projector, Speakers
• Plug-Ins: Flash

Physical Space

• Large-group instruction
• Small-group instruction

Other Notes

Before starting the activity, download and queue up the videos.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Educator Reviewers

Expert reviewers.

Special thanks to the educators who participated in National Geographic's 2010-2011 National Teacher Leadership Academy (NTLA), for testing activities in their classrooms and informing the content for all of the Ocean: Marine Ecology, Human Impacts, and Conservation resources.

Last Updated

January 22, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

The Application of Critical Thinking to Short Story Analysis: An Experiment on a New Teaching Process

• Le Minh Ha Faculty of Foreign Languages – Technical Education, Nong Lam University of HCMC, Vietnam https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3448-0903

Attempts have been made to integrate critical thinking into many disciplines to improve thinking quality and enhance learning outcomes. Although many studies have indicated positive effects when applying critical thinking to teaching literary works in varied ways, further research is needed to develop practical approaches that solve the problems of students’ passive learning and low interest in literature courses. The author of the study developed a process named R.A.I.S.E-U.P, transforming critical thinking qualities into a practical procedure for teaching short stories at the tertiary level. The aim of the current study is to measure the effects of the experiment on this teaching process conducted in a literature class of 35 English major students at Nong Lam University. Qualitative data were collected through interviews for content analysis. The results showed positive feedback on the experiment both in students’ engagement in class activities and improvement of critical thinking quality. The findings consolidate the teaching approach to apply critical thinking to literary analysis.

Author Biography

Le Minh Ha is a lecturer of linguistics and literature at the Faculty of Foreign Languages – Technical Education, Nong Lam University of Ho Chi Minh University. His interests are students’ workload, learning autonomy, critical thinking, and student-centered approach.

Al-Mahrooqi, R., & Roscoe, A. A. (Eds.). (2012). Literature teaching in the EFL context: New perspectives. Sultan Qaboos University Academic Publication Board.

Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical Thinking. Fastback 385. Phi Delta Kappa, 408 N. Union, PO Box 789, Bloomington, IN 47402-0789.

Chapple, L., & Curtis, A. (2000). Content-based instruction in Hong Kong: Student responses to film. System, 28, 419-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00021-X

Cojocariu, V. M., & Butnaru, C. E. (2014). Asking questions–Critical thinking tools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 128, 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.112

Bui,T. K.A, & Nguyen. T. Y.P. (2018). Teaching with Developing Learners’ Competencies Orientation and Problems in Managing the Process of Teaching Literature in Vietnam. American Journal of Educational Research, 6(7), 915-921. Retrieved from http://www.sciepub.com/education/abstract/9276

Dahlin, E. (2021). Email interviews: A guide to research design and implementation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211025453

Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking: a proposed basis for research in the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability. Harvard Educational Review 32:81-111.

Esplugas, C., & Landwehr, M. (1996). The use of critical thinking skills in literary analysis. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 449-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01256.x

Gulsah Kuleki, Esin Kumlu. (2015). Developing critical thinking skills in English language teaching classes through novels. International Journal of Language Academy. Volume 3/2:76-90. Retrieved from https://oaji.net/articles/2015/505-1435393110.pdf

Hasan, A. M., & Hasan, Z. F. (2019). Students’ perception towards literature integration in the English language departments at Duhok and Zakho Universities. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(4), 130-152. Retrieved from http://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/view/5734

Hiner, A. (2013 a). Critical thinking in the literature classroom, Part I: Making critical thinking visible. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 28(1), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryct20132813

Hiner, A. (2013 b). Critical thinking in the literature classroom, part II: Dickens’s Great Expectations and the emergent critical thinker. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 28(2), 53-59. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryct201328210

Ho, T. M. L., & To, M. T. (2022). Delegating Critical Thinking Skills in Learners through Effective Questioning Technique in the Class. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 2(3), 13-31. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.22232

Khatib, M., & Mehrgan, K. (2012). Achieving critical thinking skills through reading short stories. Advances in digital multimedia, 1(3), 166-172.

Nguyen, T. K. Thu (2022) A study of Vietnamese teachers’ perceptions and practice in teaching English literature in the context of English as a lingua franca. Educational Sciences, 2022, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp. 3-13. https://doi.org/10.18173/2354-1075.2022-0039

Nguyen, H. T. N. (2019). Experiencing the integration of critical thinking in teaching literary works. Tra Vinh University Journal Of Science; ISSN: 2815-6072; E-ISSN: 2815-6099, 9(2), 165-178. https://doi.org/10.35382/18594816.1.2.2019.168

Nosich, G. (2012). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the disciplines (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Paul, R and Elder, L.(2008). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008. Retrieved from https://www.criticalthinking.org/files/Concepts_Tools.pdf

Phạm Phương Hoài. 2018. Phát Triển tư duy phản biện trong dạy học văn qua hình thức thảo luận Socratic. Giáo dục Thời Đại. Retrieved from http://rgep.moet.gov.vn/tin-tuc/phat-trien-tu-duy-phan-bien-trong-day-hoc-van-qua-hinh-thuc-thao-luan-socratic-4698.html .

Phạm, T. T. H. (2019). Một số biện pháp phát triển năng lực văn học cho học sinh phổ thông đáp ứng yêu cầu của chương trình giáo dục phổ thông môn Ngữ văn (2018). Retrived from http://repository.vnu.edu.vn/handle/VNU_123/95233

Phạm, T. T. H. (2019).Một số biện pháp phát triển năng lực văn học cho học sinh phổ thông đáp ứng yêu cầu của chương trình giáo dục phổ thông môn Ngữ văn (2018). Proceedings of 1st international conference on innovation of teacher education: Twenty years of development:a model for inter-institutional teacher training. Retrieved from https://repository.vnu.edu.vn/bitstream/VNU_123/95233/1/KY-0592.pdf

Phillips, C. R., Chesnut, R. J., & Rospond, R. M. (2004). The California critical thinking instruments for benchmarking, program assessment, and directing curricular change. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68(4), 1–8.

Guleker, R. (2015). Instructional strategies to foster critical thinking: Self-reported practices of the faculty in Albania. International Journal of Teaching and Education, III, 4, 6-14.

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). A statement presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987. Retrieved on 25/05/202,1 from https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Stapleton, P. (2002). Critical thinking in Japanese L2 writing: Rethinking tired constructs. ELT Journal, 56(3), 250-257. doi: 10.1093/elt/56.3.250

Tran, T. B. T., & Vuong, T. K. (2023). Factors Affecting Learner Autonomy in Tertiary Level English Learning: A Study at Van Lang University. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 3(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.23311

Tran, T. D. (2022). Teaching and Learning Literature in the English language curriculum in Vietnamese university education: problems and solutions. Psychology, 12(5), 253-262. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5542/2022.05.005

Copyright (c) 2023 Le Minh Ha

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

The copyright of all articles published in the International Journal of TESOL & Education (ijte) remains with the Authors, i.e. Authors retain full ownership of their article. Permitted third-party reuse of the open access articles is defined by the applicable Creative Commons (CC) end-user license which is accepted by the Authors upon submission of their paper. All articles in the ijte are published under the CC BY-NC 4.0  license, meaning that end users can freely share an article (i.e. copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt it (i.e. remix, transform and build upon the material) on the condition that proper attribution is given (i.e. appropriate credit, a link to the applicable license and an indication if any changes were made; all in such a way that does not suggest that the licensor endorses the user or the use) and the material is only used for non-commercial purposes. 

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License  that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository, in a journal or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Similar Articles

• Ho Thi My Linh, To Minh Thanh, Delegating Critical Thinking Skills in Learners through Effective Questioning Technique in the Class , International Journal of TESOL & Education: Vol. 2 No. 3 (2022): Special issue: New Trends and Innovations in Language Teaching and Language Policies
• Batool Abdul-Mohsin Miri, Mahdi Kadhim Kareem, Mariam Naji Mazloum Al-Ghazawi , The Iraqi EFL Learners' Awareness of the Role of Reading Literature in their Creative Writing , International Journal of TESOL & Education: Vol. 4 No. 1 (2024): TESOL & Education
• Vu Ngoc Cuong, Exploring Students' Perceptions of Debates for Enhancing English Communication and Critical Thinking: A Swinburne Vietnam Study , International Journal of TESOL & Education: Vol. 3 No. 4 (2023): TESOL & Education
• Toru Yamagami, The Impact of L2 Motivational Self System and Students’ Perceptions of English Proficiency on Attitudes toward Translanguaging , International Journal of TESOL & Education: Vol. 3 No. 1 (2023): TESOL & Education
• Tran Luu Hoang Ngoc Van Trang, An Analysis of Negative Verbs’ Equivalents in a Vietnamese Translation of ‘The Call of the Wild’ , International Journal of TESOL & Education: Vol. 2 No. 1 (2022): Volume 2, Issue 1
• Kartika Nuswantara, Eka Dian Savitri, Hermanto, Ni Wayan Suarmini, Gita Widi Bhawika, Investigating the Relationship between Home Literacy Environment (HLE) Activities and Emergent Literacy Skills Development , International Journal of TESOL & Education: Vol. 2 No. 3 (2022): Special issue: New Trends and Innovations in Language Teaching and Language Policies
• Nguyen Tat Hiep, Non-English-major students' Attitudes toward English Learning and Teaching via Video Conferencing , International Journal of TESOL & Education: Vol. 2 No. 1 (2022): Volume 2, Issue 1
• Tran Thi Mai, Integrating 21st Century Skills into Translation Classroom from Students' Perspective , International Journal of TESOL & Education: Vol. 3 No. 1 (2023): TESOL & Education
• Nguyen Hoa Mai Phuong, Using Scaffolding to Improve Online Group Presentation in English Literature Classes: An Action Study at Van Lang University , International Journal of TESOL & Education: Vol. 2 No. 4 (2022): Volume 2, Issue 4, 2022
• Ngoc Hong Phuong Vu, Ha Thanh Le, Understanding students’ opportunities and challenges in a curriculum vitae writing process: Activity system as an analytical tool , International Journal of TESOL & Education: Vol. 2 No. 2 (2022): Volume 2, Issue 2

1-10 of 70 Next

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Information

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Make a Submission

Publication frequency.

The International Journal of TESOL & Education (ISSN: 2768-4563) will publish 4 issues per year in February, May, August, and November.  The ijte will publish manuscripts as soon as they are accepted. The journal volume is defined by the year of publication of articles.

Tips for publication

Social Media

Youtube Channel