Our Pedagogical Epiphanies: Moments of Clarity in Our Teaching Practice That Created Windows for Change

My Pedagogical Epiphany

Such a realization about the different ways to effectively deliver the course content and how to combine these ways only became apparent to me during the pandemic—a silver lining I encountered during this challenging time (Lund Dean & Forray, 2020, p. 402). When the walls for the course were in effect removed because of the pandemic and I shifted to teaching in a remote synchronous format, I needed to think differently about how I approached my courses and my students.

Prior to the pandemic, for example, I did not provide students with the opportunity to develop their teamwork skills in this course. In fact, it was not even one of my learning objectives. Previous research argues that “the use of teams in large classes to encourage active learning is well-documented” (O’Connor et al., 2021, p. 743). It just did not seem logistically feasible to coordinate teamwork or team assignments with 120+ students in a large lecture hall. After experimenting with online breakout rooms in smaller classes in Fall 2020, I decided to try using them in this online synchronous course—in conjunction with a team project—in Spring 2021. I reserved at least five class sessions, where a portion of class time was dedicated for students to work with their assigned team on a specific activity related to that session’s topic in a breakout room. Most of the activities also contributed to some part of the larger team project. The assigned team structure and the dedicated time in class afforded the same group of four or five students the opportunity to work together to make progress on their team project. After each work session, the students also submitted a deliverable such as team project progress reports (one submission per group). At the end of the semester, the small groups submitted the team project—valued at 10 % of their course grade. The group members also provided individual team member evaluations, where in some cases, the peer feedback increased or decreased individual members’ grades on the project.

For me, the time in class provided the opportunity to engage in “management by walking around” (MBWA; Lussier, 2021, p. 539). I used this time to observe and listen to the groups in terms of how they conducted their team meetings. I could then report on my observations and offer coaching feedback to the larger class, when we reconnected in the main room in Zoom. Additionally, I was available to the groups to find out what was getting in their way or slowing them down in terms of the team project, coaching them when needed, and removing stumbling blocks that were preventing them from being successful with the activities (Lussier, 2021). The teaching assistants and the research consultants from the library (a campus partnership in the team project) also attended our virtual classroom and used this time to provide the groups in the breakout rooms with real-time answers to their questions.

In general, the breakout rooms served as an effective conduit to introduce teamwork and complete a larger team assignment. Some groups were more active in their breakout rooms than other groups. For example, some groups were quiet and opted not to turn on their cameras. Other groups opted to turn on some or all their cameras. Some groups also shared their screen with me, providing me with clear insights into their work session when I visited their breakout room. Some groups decided to meet in-person and sign into the virtual class so that they could still access me, the teaching assistants, and the research consultants in the breakout room. The breakout rooms—during class time—enabled me to introduce teamwork into the course, as well as apply a scaffolding approach (e.g., Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005; Reiser, 2004; Rosenshine & Meister, 1992; Wood et al., 1976) to complete the team project. The deliverables submitted after each work session and the individual team member evaluations at the end of the project (O’Connor et al., 2021) also fostered accountability and served as useful and motivating tactics to keep many group members engaged in the breakout room meetings.

Implications of My Pedagogical Epiphany

At points in this course, I addressed topics of strategy, structure, and innovation, and reminded my students that “[s]tructure commonly follows strategy and tends to change with innovation” (Lussier, 2021, p. 191). However, in many instances, structure will significantly affect strategy in a reciprocal influence. It was only during this time of rethinking my courses that I realized this same message should apply to my course. I asked myself: Can I use my learning objectives to determine the appropriate mode or pedagogical configuration for course delivery, in the same way that a firm might organize resources to align with its strategy? I did not believe that one course mode was necessarily better than another; instead, I had this moment of clarity that the mode should follow the learning goals for the course. For example, one of the course objectives is to: Develop your management and leadership and teamwork skills. I discovered one of the ways that students could develop their management and leadership and teamwork skills was by engaging with their peers in a group setting, creating a team profile and charter, participating in a team building activity, and completing a team project (e.g., Alie et al., 1998; Michaelsen et al., 2002). A remote synchronous class session—particularly in a large-enrollment course—provided a productive space for initiating and facilitating teamwork time in class.

Another one of the course objectives is to: Discuss examples of the internal and external environmental factors of an organization, as well as the management functions in the world around us. I discovered one of the ways that students could discuss examples in the world around us was by conversing in an online discussion forum referencing current events from news stories, as well as drawing on their own observations and experiences. I found the online forums, and perhaps the time provided to engage in this exercise, enabled many students with the space to appropriately research and reflect on examples in the world around us. I found asynchronous coursework provides a means for facilitating these discussions and this level of engagement.

Furthermore, another one of the course objectives is to: Apply management principles to your group projects, student organizations, sports teams, employment opportunities, and your daily interactions with others. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the ways that students could apply management principles was by engaging with their peers and instructor through in-person activities—practicing or demonstrating the principles. So, during this time of change, some aspects of this type of engagement remained. For example, the students could demonstrate how to manage a meeting by drafting a meeting agenda (under the organizing function of management) or practicing stress management by way of a mindfulness exercise (under the leading function of management). I found an in-person class session continued to provide a means for facilitating opportunities for this type of interaction and application.

Considering my moment of clarity, in the Summer 2021, I submitted a request to my department chair and dean’s office to change the course modality based on pedagogical innovations recognized as more effective in the new mode. The chair and the dean accepted my proposal. In Fall 2021, I launched my course in a hybrid format, with approximately 75 or more of the class online asynchronously on certain days or synchronously on certain days and 25% of the class in-person on certain days.

Current State

At this point, I have now taught the course in the new mode in four complete semesters. When we have asynchronous classes, students complete the readings and module coursework independently. We do not meet in-person or on Zoom. That said, I am in my Zoom office during our allotted class time to meet with students who have questions about the course material (another moment of clarity, in how I can make a large class feel small). In fact, regular virtual office hours and “multiple sets of office hours” (O’Connor et al., 2021, p. 750) can aid in facilitating feedback to virtual teams or team representatives. When we have remote synchronous classes, we all meet on Zoom for live class meetings. During these sessions, students work with their assigned team in a breakout room, interact with remote guest speakers and panelists, and participate in some live lecturettes. When we have in-person classes, we all meet in-person for class meetings. There is no Zoom option. During these sessions, students participate in discussions and intentional, interactive exercises related to the course material. I even refer to these in-person sessions as professional development workshops and resume builders, considering the hands-on focus of these sessions. Most sessions also conclude with a graded reflection prompt.

These changes provide me with the opportunity to deliver a large-enrollment course, using asynchronous and synchronous practices that emerged as effective during the pandemic in combination with some of the practices more commonly associated with small enrollment courses. Additionally, this shift to combine online learning and in-person instruction is consistent with findings related to student learning preferences (e.g., Hawk & Shah, 2007), and likely future trends in higher education. Reflections from student learning experiences with technology during the pandemic further indicate “that quality learning experiences can and do occur in practically every combination of learning environment and course modality” and “institutions should continue offering courses in a variety of formats to meet what we expect to be increased student demand for options” (Brooks, 2021, par. 8) and arguably, a demand for “caring, student-centered, and adaptive pedagogies” (par. 10).

It may be too early to effectively garner students’ responses to the changes, as we are still in a transition period relative to the pandemic. There seems to be for some students, a fatigue with online learning and the expectation that the same—arguably, passive—approach that some followed during the height of the pandemic in high school or early college or even on some internships, still applies today. Relatedly, some students shared on my student evaluations of teaching that they still expect a large-enrollment course like this class should meet every class session in-person, and that they should learn by listening to the instructor lecture on the assigned readings for that class session. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, some students (in majors other than business) shared with me in class that they were not accustomed to participating in class. They were most familiar with listening and taking notes during a lecture. So, for this sub-set of students, there is a need for me to continue to clarify and explain the relationship between the course goals and objectives and the course configuration. With my multiple pedagogical approaches, I also try to consider the different learning needs that my students possess. Additionally, there is arguably a need to provide more support around “managing self-paced learning” that “requires motivation and time management” (Leigh & Edwards, 2021, p. 825).

Furthermore, I am finding that I may need to do more to support students in their transition from their previous online learning experience to the class community that I am trying to cultivate—one that also reflects the environment of a hybrid workplace that they may pursue in the future. This may mean providing resources about how to engage in an online class, how to conduct an online meeting, how to build relationships and create “a culture of trust and respect” (O’Connor et al., 2021, p. 748), and even how to develop virtual charisma (Peretz, 2020), to name a few. Because the class format is different from that of other courses, there are also some students who find the schedule confusing initially, and so “multiple forms of clear and consistent communication” was important (O’Connor et al., 2021, p. 747). I have implemented a variety of communication tactics to assist with clarifying how or when we meet: creating a quick reference course schedule that lists the schedule in a color-coded format, sending an e-mail every Sunday that looks at the week ahead, and sending a very brief reminder e-mail before our classes regarding the meeting modality. In addition to these observations, the comments on student evaluations of teaching (see Appendix A) tend to reinforce my intent for and approach to the course design.

The Case Method and Cases

The case method (e.g., Anderson & Schiano, 2014; Andrews, 1953; Charan, 1976; Christensen & Hansen, 1981/1987; Christensen et al., 1991; Dooley & Skinner, 1977; Ellet, 2007; Erskine et al., 1981; McNair, 1954; Stewart & Winn, 1996; Towl, 1969; Wasserman, 1993) focuses on using a case for engaging students in the learning process. Using a case includes: (1) for a portion of a class session to illustrate a specific theory, model, or concept; (2) for an entire class session to provide opportunities for analyzing; (3) for multiple class sessions when the case is appropriate for differing disciplinary topics (Gallos, 1992); or (4) for the complex use of cases (Cohen, 1981) for an extended series of class sessions, including the entire course length, using a single complex, multiple issue, cross-functional case for integrating across functions (Henry, 1958) and/or developing deep learning (Boyce et al., 2001; Egan, 2010; Goodfellow et al., 2016; Quinn et al., 2019). An instructor’s competency in using a case is a function of the pedagogical skills and teaching/learning repertoire of the instructor, as well as the instructor’s experiences in managing and organizing in the business or organizational workplace (Argyris, 1980; Berger, 1983).

The case is a description of an organizing and managing situation. It can be a written case of varying length and complexity, a video case, a spontaneous live case development, and/or a student-generated case (Ashmalla & Crocitto, 2001; Kagan, 1993). Sources of cases include case catalogs from universities such as Harvard, Stanford, and Virginia; journals such as Journal of Case Research, Business Case Journal, American Journal of Case Research, and Journal of Applied Case Research; textbooks containing cases; and internet sources. The case, however, is limited by the perspectives of the case writer or invited guest, as well as the perspectives offered in the case that the students are expected to take: the managers in a for-profit organization or the organizers in a non-profit context. Except where the use of the case is intended to require the students to seek additional information outside of the case (Naumes & Naumes, 1999), many of the more lengthy and complex cases can contain errors and inconsistencies and selectively omit and exclude evidence that could be used to enhance the description and potential analysis of the case situation. Finding and correcting those errors and omissions require a deep familiarity with the case and the development of an erratum and an addendum to the case by the instructor.

The case method and the case are deeply inter-dependent. A highly competent case method instructor can take a mediocre case and make it a highly effective basis for learning. On the other hand, an instructor who is poorly prepared regarding the case and who has limited, or poor pedagogical skills can bungle the use of a very good case.

My Pedagogical Epiphany

During the 1984 to 1985 academic year, I began to sense a vague uneasiness about my capstone course but could not clarify it any further. During the 1985 to 1986 academic year, the sense of unease became stronger and, in a broad sense, pointed to something about the configuration of the course and the students’ responses to the configuration. Then, midway through Fall 1986, the awareness became clear to me in the middle of a class session. The awareness came on me like a wave of realization: the students were not sufficiently prepared for the case discussion and only some were actively engaged. We were leaving much of the analysis potential of the case unaddressed.

I called a timeout to the case discussion and shared my concerns with my students. I expressed my disappointment with their lack of preparation and engagement in the analysis, as well as the quality of their contributions to the analyses. After my remarks, there was silence in the room for about a minute. Then, as if the sharing of my concerns had given them permission to do the same, the students began sharing with me their concerns about the demands of the course. They indicated that I assigned them a new case each week which meant becoming familiar with a new body of evidence each week and developing an analysis from scratch. Furthermore, the time required for the students to prepare the overall analysis for discussion in the class required more time than the students were willing to give. The students all said that they had full-time jobs, families, and other responsibilities. They had to compromise on time allocation somewhere, so they shortchanged the preparation in my course.

I was silent for a minute or so, absorbing what they had said, and trying to think of what to do next. I finally said to them: “It certainly looks like we have some common concerns. What are we going to do about this situation?” I put the emphasis on the we.

There was another silence of several minutes. I waited for my students to respond. Finally, a young woman in the back of the class quietly suggested something that went like: “Why don’t we take one case and develop it in-depth over the rest of the semester? You can pick the case, but we will have just one case to develop a much greater familiarity with the evidence and more time to devote to the analyses and recommendations. And we should be much better prepared to engage in the discussion.”

There were nods and murmurs of support for the idea around the room. Several students openly expressed their support of the idea. I asked how we could approach the need for assessment. Another student suggested that we could do a preliminary analysis halfway through the in-depth analysis. Again, there were murmurs of support for the idea. I then added that I would provide my usual extensive developmental feedback (Shute, 2008) but would give an unofficial scaling grade that did not count. Only the grade on the final case analysis—submitted at the end of the semester—would count. There was enthusiastic support for the idea of a scaling grade on the first analysis that would not count toward their final grade.

I asked each student if there were any more suggestions or any objections. There were none. Then I asked every student if they supported the change. There was unanimous support among all the students for the change. I then picked the case for the next week, gave the students a few hints on where to start their analyses, and dismissed the class.

The rest of the semester went well beyond my expectations. All the students were active participants in the case discussion each week. The quality of their contributions to the discussions was significantly higher than I had previously experienced. They were highly enthusiastic about receiving extensive formative developmental feedback (Shute, 2008) on the preliminary written analysis (with an unofficial scaling grade), administered at the halfway point of the case analysis. Also, the final case analyses were all of varying high quality. At the end of the semester every student encouraged me to discard the new case each week model and change to just two cases for the semester. I was in total agreement with them and did just that for the Spring 1987 semester and beyond.

Implications of My Pedagogical Epiphany

The new 1987 two-case model—what I called the deep analysis of a single complex, multi-issue, cross-discipline case, or deep learning approach (Egan, 2010; Entwistle, 2001; Leonard & Swap, 2004; Lugenbehl, 2003)—as opposed to what I called a surface approach to case analysis, became my pedagogical signature for the next 23 years. Furthermore, the focus of my professional development shifted from the content of the wide strategy domain to the integration (Henry, 1958) and the relational processes domain of effective teaching and learning. My professional reading focused on such questions as “what is learning,” “what is knowing,” “how do we know when someone has learned,” and “what are the teaching and learning processes that generate quality and deep learning.” I developed an extensive library of books and articles on those questions, the case method, and more.

With a more highly focused attention on having the students engaged in the case discussion, I realized in 1990 that I was not giving students developmental feedback on their contributions to the in-class discussions, even though they received a grade for their engagement. After experimenting with several approaches for doing so for a year and discussing the issue with the students, I developed a format of providing each student with one paragraph of developmental feedback and a grade for each class session. I provided each student with a printout each week that accumulated their feedback and grade as the semester unfolded.

In Fall 1996, I once again faced another but smaller crisis. Two of my three sections of the capstone strategy course were not ready to move on to the second case as the quality of their first case analyses was lacking. As a result of that dilemma, I asked each of the two sections to discuss and vote on whether to go on to the second case. One section voted to go on and the other voted to stay with the case we had been working on for the first half of the semester. The latter section worked out so well, that I decided to move from two in-depth but different cases per semester to one case per semester the following semester. I configured the semester with two unofficially graded preliminary case analyses before the final graded case analysis. In weeks 7 and 11, I provided extensive formative developmental feedback (Shute, 2008) before the final case analysis, with the feedback on the second analysis presenting an unofficial scaling grade. Then, in week 14, when the students submitted their final case analyses, I continued to give extensive developmental feedback on the students’ written analyses and their weekly contributions to the case discussion, as well as a formal final grade on the analysis. That course configuration lasted until I retired in 2009.

The deep analysis of two complex, multi-discipline, multi-issue cases over the course of an entire semester (1987–1996) and a single complex, multi-discipline, multi-issue case over the course of an entire semester (1997–2009) gave me the opportunity to engage in several critical pedagogical processes that were only briefly or not at all available under the surface approach. First, that ongoing engagement with a single complex case allowed us to delve deeply into the process of making assumptions that underlie the analyses and proforma projections integral to making recommendations for the future. My students were unfamiliar with the concept of assumptions and how they can shape analyses of the current situation, as well as the proforma financial analyses and the recommendations that flow from them. Second, using a single complex case for the entire semester allowed time for discussing alternative assumptions and examining sensitivity analysis, as well as justifying the assumptions that finally emerged as endorsed by the students. Third, using a single case for the entire semester also allowed the analysis of multiple issues in the case, something that was not effectively possible if analysis of a case was limited to a two-hour session. Fourth, it became clear that many of the students had not learned and/or retained the material and analysis competencies that they had been introduced to and supposedly developed in previous courses. This learning deficit required occasional mini-lectures (Bligh, 1998) to review the missing material and competencies. Fifth, a deep approach to case analysis offered time for group scaffolded learning (e.g., Palinscar, 1986; Pea, 2004; Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005; Reiser, 2004; Rosenshine & Meister, 1992; van de Pol et al., 2010; Wood et al., 1976) when it was apparent that most or all the students needed further development in the deficient area. Formative feedback, examples, storyboarding, smaller parts of the analysis, hints, visual charts and diagrams, and modeling—all part of the rich scaffolding process repertoire—became regular elements of the teaching and learning process in the course. Furthermore, since the students had not yet experienced this deep case approach to learning in the program, it was incumbent on me to scaffold them into this new and demanding semester-long relational process of deep learning. Finally, key to that relationship was developing a safe environment for my students to risk their ideas—even partially thought-out ideas—as well as a culture of respect from me to them, them to me, and among them. This included a comfort level with the use of silence (Zembylas & Michaelides, 2004) for the students and me.

In addition to the considerations described above, the innovating moves to a deep use of a case and a deep approach to the case analysis carried several tradeoffs. First, the students were not exposed to several different firms and industries. The compensating benefits, however, included a deeper exploration of the case evidence and the subsequent extensive development of the analyses. Such deep exploration and extensive development included discussions on assumptions and sensitivity analysis and the effect that assumptions have on the recommendations. Second, instead of two different case analyses for me to grade (mid-term and final) and for the students to do without prior discussion, I had four to grade under the two-case model and three to grade with the single-case model. By way of this approach, the students received extensive developmental feedback (Shute, 2008) without being penalized, and they could address the shortcomings of their analyses before they submitted their final analysis. Finally, I found it increasingly more challenging to find cases for deep analysis. I needed to thoroughly review the cases from every source that I could find. For the students and me, though, these tradeoffs significantly outweighed the shortcomings. Comments on student evaluations of teaching (see Appendix B) reinforce the effectiveness of my deep approach to teaching and learning and pedagogical caring.

Intuition for Change

Bennis (2009) called for “recogniz[ing] the context for what it is—a breaker, not a maker; a trap, not a launching pad; an end, not a beginning—and declar[ing] your independence” (p. 20). More specifically, he argues for “mastering the context,” and that involves listening to (and trusting) the “inner voice” (p. 29) believing in yourself that you can make a difference. As described in the narratives, the context was generally well-defined for both of us. The context in the first narrative shows that despite traditionally teaching a course in-person and the university’s expectation to return to in-person teaching after the height of the pandemic, the pedagogical strategies—enabled by teaching in different modalities during the pandemic—could be put aside (or even forgotten) with a return to a pre-pandemic course delivery modality. Contextual changes, though, offer new opportunities for innovating (Lund Dean & Forray, 2017). The context in the second narrative shows that despite the second author being accustomed to using the case method in his courses, his students slowly emerged as less prepared for and actively engaged in the case discussions over the 14-year period. These circumstances sparked his dissatisfaction with the existing situation, motivating his willingness to risk broaching these concerns with the students.

As we considered our respective contexts, we each experienced a moment of clarity in our teaching practices. Bennis (2009) would refer to each moment as a “hunch, the vision that shows you in a flash the absolutely right thing to do” (p. 98). We followed our instincts to respond to our intuitional awareness (and perhaps, our shared, self-described perfectionism habits) that something was amiss. We moved forward with our instincts, following the “blessed impulse” (Bennis, 2009, p. 99) to identify a means for mastering the context and implementing a new vision for our respective courses and for student learning. For both of us, this meant changing the way we thought about teaching and learning, and ultimately the way that we would deliver our course material and engage with our students in their learning. In retrospect, we credit our willingness to trust the process, to believe that what we were doing would make a difference for our students and for us. We also recognize now that we practiced courage—“the action of doing the right thing” (Paniccia et al., 2019, p. 553). Courage is a process (Vail, 1988), and we embarked on this process of making changes in the face of limited or no direction and encouragement from others to initiate such changes. We further showed responsibility and care for the common good (Paniccia et al., 2019) in our teaching practice.

Intentionality With Change

Considering both of our punctuated moments of clarity, we were intentional in our approaches to design and implement the changes in each of our respective courses. First, the changes we implemented were new for us, and second, the changes we implemented were new for the students. For both of us, we asked our students to engage in courses in fundamentally different ways than they were arguably accustomed to, in terms of how they attended class and completed their coursework.

To facilitate learning in the way that we intended, we needed to be intentional about the changes we were making, and we needed to show our care and support in the change implementation process. For the changes in the course modality, in the first narrative, for example, Jennifer created a Frequently Asked Questions about the course. Jennifer also created a course introduction video, describing the hybrid course mode and meeting schedule, and embedded it into the course orientation materials, located in the course management system. The video explicitly described how and why Jennifer would be using each modality to move throughout the course, highlighting the intentionality of the course design. Such tactics were particularly important for the first couple of times when Jennifer taught the new course, as she responded to questions from the students about her expectations, particularly in terms of how she would engage with the students and how they would engage with her and their classmates. For the changes in the case method process in the second narrative, Tom began the first session with a brief introduction about how to engage in a case discussion. He then discussed the responsibility that students have in fostering a safe environment so that everyone can engage in the analysis. Then, he went directly into the case discussion for the rest of the first session. He devoted the second session to reviewing the syllabus, further describing how to engage in and develop a case analysis, establishing the grading process, and explaining how the course material from the previous 14 courses would be used during the semester. He also provided a list of review articles and books that allowed the students to review what they were expected to use from their previous courses.

Change, Pedagogical Caring, and an Ethic of Care

We saw the innovations in our courses, initiated by our moments of clarity, as opportunities to deliver the courses more effectively, significantly enhancing the engagement of our students in their own learning processes, and notably raising the quality of learning. These motivations reflect pedagogical caring and an ethic of care in the relationships with our students, our courses, and ourselves. For the first narrative, the new approach offered the opportunity to provide flexibility to the students, considering the nature of a hybrid schedule. Also, it offered the potential to provide more one-on-one student-instructor interaction—particularly unique in a large-enrollment course—considering the opportunities to meet with student teams during synchronous sessions and individual students during asynchronous sessions. For the second narrative, the initial change to two cases in a course and, 10 years later, to one case in a course, gave the students a clear opportunity to develop a high level of familiarity with the case evidence. Moreover, submitting preliminary analyses—where there was no grade but there was extensive formative developmental feedback (Shute, 2008)—reflected a significant level of care for student learning. Even after both of us implemented the changes, we continued to show pedagogical caring in monitoring the innovating process: asking for feedback from our students and revising the initial innovations as necessary. The moments of clarity were also temporally extended as further refinements and incremental innovations emerged (or continue to emerge for the first author) to further enhance the initial pedagogical innovating.