Looking twice means seeing more: Developing pedagogical knowledge through case analysis

Abstract

Is there value in having students analyze a dilemma-based case more than once, for example, both before and after a unit of instruction? Or, if students will only analyze a case once, when should that analysis occur—as a performance measure following instruction or before a unit of instruction to provide a narrative anchor for understanding? To address these questions, sixty-seven undergraduate preservice teachers during two separate investigations worked in pairs to analyze a case before and after units of instruction in an undergraduate Educational Psychology class. In students' pre and post written analysis of the case they used the same situational context (case) to embed different theoretical concepts, and identified more concepts and analyzed the case in more depth in their second analyses. Furthermore, using a case as an anchor for understanding in the beginning of a unit produced more learning than using a case as a performance measure at the end of a unit. Students' reflections on changes in their analyses showed that case analysis affected knowledge: Repeated discussion of complex cases containing classroom dilemmas enabled preservice teachers to find new problems, rethink ideas, consider others' viewpoints and embed theoretical concepts from the perspective of the most recently completed area of study. As a result of this study, we argue that repeated analysis of a case is a viable pedagogical approach and that cases can serve as an “anchor” for subsequent instruction.