MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W17120724

Innovation in Legal Studies Education: An Integrated Case Study Approach

2012· article· en· W17120724 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Valenti, J. A. Benson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocratic methodLegal researchLegal educationPopularityEmpirical legal studiesLegal writingMeaning (existential)JuryCurriculumCommon lawEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceLawPsychologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.201
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207