Innovation in Legal Studies Education: An Integrated Case Study Approach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractUsing case studies to enhance students' understanding of theoretical concepts is a well-accepted and widely used method in business and management courses. In legal studies, case method has a much different meaning and purpose; students read judicial decisions and, through inductive reasoning, determine judicial precedents that establish our common law. More recently, legal scholars have suggested that using case studies in a manner similar to that of business school classes can be a valuable tool to enhance subjects taught in a law curriculum. This paper supports this view and suggests that an integrated case study can be used in two or more courses. We discuss benefits as well as problems of using a case study in three undergraduate legal studies courses, Legal Research, American System of Trial by Jury, and Mock Trial.I. IntroductionWhen legal scholars refer to case method of legal instruction, Landgellian approach of studying cases combined with Socratic questioning comes to mind.1 Despite its popularity, however, case method has been assailed as inadequately training students for practice of law.2 Among its limitations, case method approach places excessive emphasis on court decisions and ignores way that most people resolve disputes.3 In its place, many legal scholars argue that using case studies, similar to those used in business and economics courses, are better tools for teaching law students to make rational and informed business decisions. Moreover, it has been suggested that a single case study may be used in more than one course.5 This paper discusses use of case studies in business schools and their more recent application in legal studies courses. It then describes integrated use of a case study in three courses in an undergraduate legal studies program.II. USING CASE STUDIES IN BUSINESS PROGRAMSWith their introduction by Harvard Business School in 1925, case studies have been widely used in business schools to provide students with a context in which to apply basic business principles learned in class.6 Almost 100 years ago Harvard Business School Dean Edwin Gay encouraged business school faculty to integrate real-world concepts and experiences in what and how they taught.7 Case studies are particularly effective because they involve real-life, often well known, scenarios or stories where players face issues that require resolution, thus providing students with a chance to test their book learning and to make decisions.8 In a more recent discourse on value of case studies in business education, Professor David A. Garvin notes that case study provides a classroom substitute for experience; it is the vehicle by which a chunk of reality is brought into classroom to be worked over by class and instructor.9 Thus, using case studies redefines traditional educational dynamic in which professor dispenses knowledge and students passively receive.10 A case study allows students to learn by not only simply absorbing facts and theories, but also by exercising skills of leadership and team work to solve real problems.Generally, case studies used in business schools are written by professors at major case study teaching universities, such as Harvard, INSEAD, and Ivey School of Business at University of Western Ontario. Cases typically focus on a focal firm and contain both primary sources of data, such as interviews with managers, and secondary sources, such as press releases and annual report data. 12 They also cover a chronology of significant events and information about company's industry and competitors13 which provide basis for issues that students are expected to analyze and discuss.14Since their introduction almost 100 years ago, advantages and disadvantages of using case studies have been debated. Undoubtedly case study approach has become an indispensable tool in business education courses as they incorporate experiential learning which allows students to reflect real world environment,15 especially in management courses where teaching students things about management is not teaching them how to manage. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».