THE USE OF CASE STUDIES IN UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

We develop constructs to evaluate the factors influencing the degree of students' acceptance of cases. In our proposed framework, student acceptance is affected by the case selection, intensity of faculty use, training, course type and level, level of instructor expertise, teaching atmosphere, and the faculty's beliefs about the usefulness of the case method. Our sample includes faculty teaching quantitative or qualitative courses across several disciplines in undergraduate business administration. Responses to a survey are analyzed using factor analysis and regression. The quantitative analysis is complemented by interviews with a subset of expert faculty using a two-round modified Delphi technique. This study may be limited by the fact that it measured faculty perceptions of the degree of students' acceptance of cases, rather than student acceptance directly. Future research might survey students or use students' courses evaluations to validate or contradict our results.

KEYWORDS
Case teaching in business; undergraduate management education; factor analysis; quantitative and qualitative research; modified Delphi technique

Short description of question	Factor
Short description of question	1: Preconception	2: Training	3: Intensity
Cases are better accepted by students (3.4)	0.853	0.031	-0.063
Cases are more practical (3.2)	0.591	0.124	-0.091
Cases are more realistic (3.1)	0.424	-0.215	0.089
Number of cases per semester (1)	0.414	0.081	0.054
Cases represent higher intellectual challenge (3.3)	0.350	-0.306	0.194
Training on the case method (11)	0.182	0.788	0.047
Self-perception of preparedness to teach cases (12)	0.018	0.547	-0.035
Use of teaching note (9)	-0.020	0.497	0.199
Number of pages per case (10)	0.066	0.046	0.764
Hours of preparation per case (5)	-0.229	0.276	0.309
Eigenvalue	2.410	1.978	1.138
Variance explained	0.241	0.198	0.114

Construct	Short description of question	Question number	Scale	Mean	St. Dev.	Coefficient of variation
Preconception	Number of cases per semester	1	1 to 3	1.43	0.70	0.49
	Cases are more realistic	3.1	1 to 4	3.87	0.42	0.11
	Cases are more practical	3.2	1 to 4	3.78	0.59	0.16
	Cases represent higher intellectual challenge	3.3	1 to 4	3.56	0.61	0.17
	Cases are better accepted by students	3.4	1 to 4	3.30	0.76	0.23
Intensity	Hours of preparation per case	5	1 to 4	2.46	0.74	0.30
Intensity	Number of pages per case	10	1 to 3	1.78	0.81	0.45
Training	Use of teaching note	9	1 to 3	2.18	0.77	0.35
	Training on the case method	11	1 to 4	2.75	1.03	0.37
	Self-perception of preparedness to teach cases	12	1 to 2	1.79	0.41	0.23
Selection	Length of case	7.1	Categorical	1.90	0.93	0.49
	Language of case	7.2	Categorical	2.12	0.90	0.43
	Discussion questions in the case	7.3	Categorical	2.25	0.85	0.38
	Whether case has simulations	7.4	Categorical	1.86	0.35	0.19
	Sources	8	Categorical	2.78	0.79	0.28
Type	Qualitative or quantitative course	2	Binary	0.62	0.49	0.78
Acceptance_ perception	Faculty perception on the degree on students’ acceptance of the case method	4	1 to 4	3.15	0.68	0.21

	Q1	Q3.1	Q3.2	Q3.3	Q3.4	Q5	Q10	Q9	Q11	Q12
Q1		0.109	0.194	0.234	0.361	-0.112	0.103	0.101	0.059	0.044
Q3.1	0.195		0.267	0.256	0.404	-0.130	0.101	-0.182	-0.108	-0.136
Q3.2	0.061	0.016		0.146	0.473	-0.179	0.062	-0.047	0.163	-0.031
Q3.3	0.030	0.020	0.124		0.340	-0.124	0.138	-0.188	-0.163	-0.165
Q3.4	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.003		-0.192	0.045	-0.051	0.028	-0.061
Q5	0.186	0.151	0.077	0.163	0.063		0.260	0.221	0.332	0.165
Q10	0.207	0.211	0.312	0.136	0.360	0.018		0.272	0.190	0.067
Q9	0.212	0.074	0.356	0.067	0.344	0.039	0.014		0.385	0.300
Q11	0.321	0.196	0.098	0.097	0.413	0.003	0.065	0.001		0.421
Q12	0.364	0.139	0.403	0.095	0.315	0.095	0.299	0.008	0.000

	Preconception	Training	Intensity
Preconception	1.000	-0.177	0.094
Training	-0.177	1.000	0.192
Intensity	0.094	0.192	1.000

	Estimate	T	Estimate	T	Estimate	T
Intercept	2.991^* *, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	3.980	2.667^* *, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	3.404	2.446^* *, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	3.185
Preconception	0.179^* ***, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	1.600	0.233^ *, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	2.035	0.245^ *, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	2.107
Intensity	-0.382^* *, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	-3.163	-0.429^* *, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	-3.287	-0.391^ *, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	-2.634
Training	0.021	0.171	0.020	0.158	0.018	0.137
Selection_language	-0.295^ *, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	-2.630
Selection_brief			-0.128	-1.081
Selection_source					-0.005	-0.036
Type	0.132	1.158	0.120	1.007	0.119	0.985
Expertise	0.225^* ***, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	1.957	0.243^ *, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	2.022	0.242^* ***, , and *** indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.	1.938
Adj. R squared	0.243		0.169		0.152
F Value	4.419		3.171		2.918

Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administração de Empresas de S.Paulo Av 9 de Julho, 2029, 01313-902 S. Paulo - SP Brasil, Tel.: (55 11) 3799-7999, Fax: (55 11) 3799-7871 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rae@fgv.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] Note: Extraction method = principal axis factoring. Rotation method = Oblimin with Kaiser normalization. For the pattern matrix rotation converged in 8 iterations. Number of question in brackets (questionnaire available upon request).