An Instructional Innovation That Embeds Group Learning in Case Teaching: The Table Case Method

Although combining case study teaching with group learning is a popular approach for teaching business courses, pedagogical challenges arise, particularly in undergraduate classes. To address these challenges, we developed an instructional innovation called the Team-Based Learning and Evaluation (TaBLE) Case Method, which increased student engagement and deepened learning in an undergraduate introductory management course. The TaBLE Case Method is built upon specific principles of team-based learning, and comprises phases that meld together individual preparation and group participation before, during and after class. Our evaluation of the TaBLE Case Method highlights how it enhances group learning by: increasing student motivation to prepare, attend and engage; creating individual accountability for group goals; fostering critical thinking and creative debate; and making theory-practice links more visible. We also discuss the method’s “shadowsides” and limitations, and provide guidance on how the method can be adapted for a variety of class sizes and delivery modes.

Case studies are well established for teaching a business way of thinking (Bridgman et al., 2018;Reynolds, 1978) and are widely used in undergraduate and postgraduate business education around the world (Becheikh et al., 2022;Lundberg et al., 2001).The traditional approach for teaching case studies is the Socratic method pioneered by Harvard Business School (Desiraju & Gopinath, 2001;Dooley & Skinner, 1977), which has been criticized for limiting student learning by being overly instructor-centric (Argyris, 1980;Siciliano & McAleer, 1997).This criticism is most prevalent in undergraduate teaching compared to MBA and executive teaching, where an instructor may be able to facilitate vigorous discussion among managers and executives in the context of a focal case (Garvin, 2007).In comparison, undergraduate students, who tend to lack confidence and business experience especially early in their degree programs (Hendry et al., 2017), and students from non-Western cultures (Becheikh et al., 2022) often struggle to make connections between management theory and practice when cases are taught using instructor-centric Socratic methods (Lundberg & Winn, 2005).This has prompted calls for the use of theory in the case method to be rejuvenated (Bridgman et al., 2018) and for the development of student-centric instructional innovations for teaching cases (Desiraju & Gopinath, 2001;Lebron et al., 2020).
A popular pedagogical solution is to combine case teaching with group learning, which is also described as collaborative learning or team learning in the management education literature.It should be noted that, in this article, we use the term "group learning" to distinguish the general process of group learning in student teams from "team-based learning" as a specific model of group learning pioneered by Michaelsen et al. (2004).Within this literature, "group learning" is defined as three or more students working interdependently on a task to accomplish a shared learning goal for assessment purposes (Huang et al., 2022;Rafferty, 2013).Examples of instructional approaches that seek to incorporate group learning in case teaching include students working in teams to write case analyses and give presentations (Garvin, 2007;Pessoa et al., 2022), lead case discussions in class (Siciliano & McAleer, 1997), compete in live case competitions (Lebron et al., 2020), and act out role plays of cases (Lund Dean & Fornaciari, 2002).
Yet despite these advances, a recent review of the extensive research conducted on teams in management education concluded that instructional approaches for group learning, including in case teaching, are not as effective in encouraging student learning outcomes as educators would like (Morgan & Stewart, 2019).This is because the instructional innovations in case teaching fail to ensure two necessary conditions that enable student learning in groups: (1) group goals and (2) individual accountability for team outputs (Slavin, 1988).These conditions help to foster cooperation in tasks to accomplish mutual goals (Rafferty, 2013) and to counter social loafing (Schippers, 2014).Thus, there continues to be a pressing need for new instructional approaches that improve learning in teams (Bacon & Stewart, 2019) and which are anchored in teams applying management theory to analyze business cases (Bridgman et al., 2018).
Responding to this need, we present an instructional innovation that embeds group learning in case study teaching in a way that fulfills the two necessary conditions and, as a result, motivates students to work together to connect management theory and practice in the context of a focal case.Our instructional innovation is the Team-Based Learning and Evaluation (TaBLE ) Case Method, which we developed by adapting Michaelsen et al.'s (2004) principles of "team-based learning" to case study teaching.In contrast to the general concept of group learning that we use in this paper, we distinguish "team-based learning" as a more precise term that describes a specific model of group learning processes in student teams, which involves repeating phases of pre-class preparation, readiness assurance tests, and application of course concepts (Michaelsen et al., 2004).
The paper is structured in four sections.First, we provide the theoretical background to embedding group learning within case teaching.Second, we present our instructional innovation of the TaBLE Case Method and describe its distinctive features for solving the various pedagogical challenges associated with combining case teaching with group learning.Founded on student teams discussing theory-practice connections in the context of a focal case study, the TaBLE Case Method melds together five phases of individual preparation and group participation before, during and after class.Third, we report an evaluation of the TaBLE Case Method's effectiveness as an instructional innovation to give management educators confidence to adapt it for use in their own classrooms.Specifically, the TaBLE Case Method is evaluated for how it improved student learning following implementation in an introductory management course in an Australian university.Fourth, we offer conclusions on the TaBLE Case Method and how it might be used by educators to embed group learning in case teaching in other courses.

Theoretical Background
The literature on the case study method is dominated by the Socratic approach to learning wherein an instructor (1) raises issues, (2) challenges students to apply theory to resolve the case issues, and (3) prompts "the advancement of discussion . . . in the service of thinking" (Lundberg & Winn, 2005, p. 275).Emphasis is placed on students recognizing different concepts in the case and selecting theories and models appropriate to the situation (Becheikh et al., 2022;Lundberg et al., 2001).Specific learning objectives for case teaching range from familiarization with knowledge and techniques, building skills in analysis and synthesis, and developing values and attitudes (Dooley & Skinner, 1977;Pessoa et al., 2022).
The literature is divided on the effectiveness of case discussion in promoting student learning.Some scholars argue that learning is deepened if students compete during class discussion to unravel the managerial dilemma (Berger, 1983) and the instructor establishes a mindset of improvisation and multiple interpretations (Aylesworth, 2008;Greenhalgh, 2007).Others contend that instructor control of classroom interactions may discourage double-loop learning which hinges on students re-examining past learning and personal experience in the context of the case (Argyris, 1980;Whetten & Campbell Clark, 1996).Moreover, learning is stifled when the instructor adheres rigidly to prepared case notes and/or engages in minimal questioning and drawing out of student responses (Lundberg & Winn, 2005).
To resolve these problems, refinements to the Socratic method have sought to incorporate group learning as a means of encouraging greater student participation in case learning processes (Bacon & Stewart, 2019).Group learning offers many potential benefits, including more creative problem solving (Goltz et al., 2008), deeper application of management concepts to practice (Irving et al., 2019;Wright & Gilmore, 2012), more insightful evaluation and critique (Borredon et al., 2011;Kalliath & Laiken, 2006), and greater synthesis of content knowledge (Hansen, 2006).Achieving these types of positive learning outcomes from group tasks associated with case study analysis hinges on two essential conditions (Slavin, 1988).First, the assigned task is perceived as a shared goal that benefits all members (Bacon, 2005).Second, each student feels individual accountability for team outputs (Slavin, 1988).If these two conditions are unmet, learning is inhibited.Teams can divide up the work, which reduces each individual student's exposure to all aspects of the task (Ashraf, 2004), and less conscientious students may practice social loafing (Schippers, 2014).
Instructional approaches for incorporating group learning into case teaching accommodate for these two conditions to varying degrees.The most popular approach is to assemble students into instructor-assigned or self-selected teams (Bacon & Stewart, 2019;Chapman et al., 2006;Pearlstein, 2021) and ask team members to jointly analyze a business case study, with their findings reported in a group oral presentation and/or group written report (Garvin, 2007;Pessoa et al., 2022).Several obstacles can hinder the impact on group learning of this approach.Formal individual accountability is often absent.Although peer evaluation of team members may help to deter social loafing (Brutus et al., 2013;Ferrante et al., 2006;Johnston & Miles, 2004;Ohland et al., 2012), peer evaluation methods are not always well received by students and may be time-consuming and resource-intensive for instructors to administer.Moreover, the case presentation or report is typically designed as group project that allows a high degree of specialization of labor (Bacon, 2005).That is, each team member can specialize by applying only a few concepts to the case and/or by focusing on narrow aspects of the case company's management and operations.While this allows students to complete the task efficiently by parceling the workload, individual learning suffers because students narrowly fragment, rather than comprehensively synthesize, theory and practice in the context of the case (Bacon et al., 1998).
Other instructional approaches have tried to facilitate group learning by refining the in-class discussion aspects of the Socratic case method.A key example of this is the McAleer Interactive Case Analysis (MICA) Method.This method involves student teams administering and leading the discussion of the case study while the instructor evaluates individual participation (Siciliano & McAleer, 1997).However, research shows this method offers marginal improvement in encouraging active participation compared to the traditional Socratic method (Desiraju & Gopinath, 2001).Management educators have suggested various improvements, including requiring student teams to argue contrary positions following a devil's advocate process (Pearce, 2002), combine analysis and synthesis in experiential exercises (Maranville, 2011), act out cases as role plays (Lund Dean & Fornaciari, 2002), compete in live case competitions (Lebron et al., 2020), and write their own cases (Ashamalla & Crocitto, 2001;Vega, 2010).Yet these approaches, while very creative, have yet to resolve the challenge of embedding group learning in case teaching in a way that effectively combines group goals and individual accountability.
We propose that the principles of team-based learning developed by Larry Michaelsen offer a way forward for developing an instructional approach for teaching case studies that engages group learning processes (Michaelsen et al., 2004).This set of principles has become very popular for designing group learning activities and assessment tasks (Michaelsen et al., 2004) and empirical studies support the effectiveness of team-based learning in business courses (Hernandez, 2002).Michaelsen's team-based learning principles addresses the two essential conditions of group goals and individual accountability through repeating phases of pre-class preparation, readiness assurance tests, and application of course concepts.Students are made accountable for both individual and group work and receive frequent and timely feedback.Group tasks promote both learning and team development by not requiring complex outputs which groups can divide up and complete as individuals outside of class.According to Michaelsen et al. (2004), learning is best achieved when individuals and groups work on the same task; when individuals and groups are required to make a specific choice; and when groups report choices simultaneously.In the next section, we describe how we drew upon Michaelsen's team-based learning principles to develop the TaBLE Case Method that moves beyond the instructor-centric Socratic case method to embed group learning in case teaching.

Team-Based Learning and Evaluation (Table) Case Method
The TaBLE Case Method is an instructional innovation that applies Michaelsen's team-based learning principles to case study teaching.Team-based learning models are typically built upon "readiness-assurance tests" in the form of a multiple-choice quiz (Michaelsen et al., 2004).The TaBLE Case Method adapts this model by designing the readinessassurance tests around case study applications and theory-practice statements.More specifically, students engage in individual pre-class preparation and in-class group tasks which are integrated around (1) a focal business case study of relatively short length (five pages) and (2) a set of four statements that connect different theoretical concepts to the case.These statements are written by the instructor to capture the relevant concepts and theories from the week's syllabus and lectures that students need to understand and apply.
We developed the TaBLE Case Method as an instructional innovation to teach the tutorial program in a very large introductory management course at a university in Australia.The method was originally developed by the first author when course enrolments were in excess of 1000 students and the course was delivered in a typical lecture and face-to-face tutorial model.Each week, students were expected to attend (1) a large lecture in which the instructor introduced relevant management theory (multiple lectures delivered each week) and ( 2 1. Below, we describe these phases in more detail. Phase 1: Individual Preparation (Pre-Class).The aim of the first stage of the TaBLE Case Method is to encourage individual students to prepare for class by beginning to make some initial connections between management theory and practice.This aim is accomplished by students undertaking three individual preparation tasks: (1) reading the focal case study, (2) analyzing four statements applying theoretical concepts to the case, and (3) choosing the statement that they judge to be the best fit.Forcing students to make a choice among four statements, all of which could be correct, pushes them to think more deeply and critically about how aspects of theory connect to the focal case study.
When selecting the case study or writing their own case narrative, the instructor should ensure the case description is sufficiently rich and informative to allow the possibility for students to apply all of the concepts included in the statements in meaningful ways.To illustrate, we use the case example of the Amazon corporation and the weekly syllabus topic of "external and internal environment" in an introductory management course.A set of four statements, which connect theoretical concepts associated with this topic to the Amazon case, are presented below (see Appendix B for details of the full case and Appendix C for the guide provided to TAs).
Phase 2: Individual Readiness Assurance (in-Class).The second phase of the TaBLE Case Method occurs in class.The aim of this phase is individual readiness assurance, in which each student demonstrates their understanding of the statements in the context of the focal case study.Being able to compare the theory-practice connections underpinning each statement evidences preparation and shows a student's readiness to move on to the next in-class phase of engaging in group discussion.Before the start of the class session, the teaching assistant sets up the classroom with tables and chairs to sit students in teams.Based on our experience, the optimal class size overseen by one TA is a class of 24 students and the optimal team size is 4 students (i.e. a class of 24 students is divided into six groups of four team members).The TA also prepares one worksheet per team (A4 or US Letter Size), which has ruled lines marking a center box (for recording the team consensus after discussion) surrounded by four corner sections (for recording individual readiness assurance) (see Appendix D for a template of the blank worksheet).
Students arrive in class and join their assigned team, positioning their chairs around the table in a way that allows each person to write simultaneously in their designated "readiness assurance" corner of the worksheet.The TA introduces the session and invites students to begin the individual readiness assurance test by writing their name in their corner along with a short response on every statement.In our Amazon example, students connect theory to the Amazon case by writing bullet points indicating their opinion and justification of statements A, B, C, and D and noting the statement they agree with most strongly.
In a 1-hour class session, the TA takes up to 5 minutes to settle the class and then allocates 5 minutes to the individual readiness assurance phase.This is sufficient time for students to concisely summarize what they

Amazon case example: Theory-practice statements Prior to attending your class session, read the case study about Amazon and evaluate the statements below. Select the one statement you agree with most strongly (either A, B, C, or D).
You must be able to justify your selected statement by drawing on theory from the lecture and readings and applying it to the Amazon case study.
A. Amazon is successful because it adapts to the general environment.B. Amazon is successful because it influences its task environment.C. Amazon is successful because it has a strong connection between its invisible and visible corporate culture.D. Amazon is successful because its corporate culture is responsive to the external environment.
perceive to be their "best" argument for or against each statement using relevant concepts and terminology applied to the specifics of the case, which justifies their "forced choice" among the statements.The TA can quickly judge whether or not a student has prepared some points of justification in advance of class.They can accommodate for this in grading if students are being assessed.
Phase 3: Team Application Discussion (in-Class).The aim of the third phase of the TaBLE Case Method is to deepen learning of theory-practice connections in the context of the focal case study through small group discussion to reach consensus on the team's forced choice.Students come to see that their individual pre-class preparation generates only a partial understanding of the application of theory to the case.By discussing, comparing, and being forced to choose among the statements with their team members, students are able to clarify, enrich, and nuance their understanding of course theory.
The TA announces the start of the team application discussion phase, directing teams to discuss and agree their consensus position before recording their written justifications in the rectangle marked at the center of the worksheet.Students begin by sharing their individual starting positions on the four statements with their team members.In our Amazon example, the members of a team might indicate two preferences for statement B, one for statement C, and one for statement D. Team members then discuss and debate these starting positions in order to reach a well-reasoned consensus position on the one statement that team members agree is the "best fit" of management theory to the practical context of the focal case company.The TA moves around different teams, asking questions to probe team member's understanding of the theory and how it links to the focal case.The TA can also play devil's advocate by challenging teams to consider different perspectives and avoid premature settlement that stifles critical debate within and among the full set of statements.Continuing our Amazon example, this might involve the TA advocating for the rejected statement A and urging team members not to mindlessly shift their support to the more popular statement B.
The TA observes how the teams manage their own interactions and can model the team discussion behaviors they would like the team to emulate.This can involve asking quiet team members to express their opinion on the statement and encouraging dominant members to give others an opportunity to speak.The TA can also remind students the discussion is an opportunity for students to actively listen, learn from each other, and to be open to insights that may differ from an individual student's viewpoint.
In a one-hour class session, the TA allocates 25 minutes to the team application discussion phase.This is sufficient time for teams to discuss and agree their position and record their team justifications on the worksheet (see Appendix E for a completed worksheet).
Phase 4: Position Defense and Formative Feedback (in Class).The aim of the fourth phase of the TaBLE Case Method is to synthesize learning of theorypractice connections through teams defending their chosen position on the four statements in a whole-class debrief.At the end of the team application discussion phase, the TA leads the class through a discussion of all four statements.In the example of the Amazon case, the TA could have noticed that statement B is very popular among multiple teams.As such, the TA might initially call on these teams to defend their choice of statement B before inviting teams with opposing views to offer critique and mount an argument for an alternative statement.The TA allows for back-and-forth exchange between teams that have taken opposing positions on a statement.The TA will also synthesize different themes across the teams regarding chosen statements and justifications but does not suggest there is one correct answer.In this way, the class debrief provides an opportunity for the TA to give generalized wholeclass feedback on the theory-practice connections illuminated by the focal case study.In a one-hour class session, the TA allocates the final twenty minutes to the debrief and defense of team positions, collecting worksheets at the end of class.
Phase 5: Feedback and Reflection (After Class).The aim of the fifth and final phase of the TaBLE Case Method is to encourage students to reflect on the ways they have engaged with course theory and made connections between theory and practice when working with the focal case study by receiving target team-specific feedback on their performance.Michaelsen et al.'s (2004) team-based learning model recommends holding students accountable for individual and team outputs.The worksheet used for the TaBLE Case Method provides the TA with a written record of student's individual preparation (corners for individual readiness assurance) and the team outputs (center rectangle for consensus).In addition, the group dynamics and contributions of individual students to their team are observable to the TA as they move around the classroom and speak with different teams (see Appendix F for an example summary marking sheet used by a TA to record their observations of team discussions).After class, the TA can combine the worksheet with their own observations to assess individual contributions and team performance, thereby providing students with important feedback for self-reflection and modification of learning behaviours.An example of a marking rubric that can be used to assess individual contributions and team outputs is provided in Appendix G.

Evaluation of Effectiveness of Table Case Method
The TaBLE Case Method has been implemented successfully for almost a decade in the undergraduate introductory management course in which it was first developed.Following its initial introduction, average student ratings of TA performance improved to above 4.5 on a 5-point scale.Course results also improved.By motivating students to engage actively, critically, and thoughtfully with management theory throughout the semester, students were better prepared for the final exam and demonstrated a deeper understanding of essential concepts and theories.The proportion of high-achieving students increased from 9% pre-TaBLE to 15.5% post-TaBLE, based on the same course instructor and same exam format and level of difficulty.The improved student performance has been maintained across seventeen semesters of course delivery with six different course instructors.
Given the TaBLE Case Method has been used to teach the course tutorial program for such a long time period, there have been opportunities to evaluate its adaptability to different class sizes.We have successfully adapted the method for class sizes from 10 to 30 students according to enrolment, space and timetabling demands, which requires adjusting team sizes so that some students work in team of three members.We have occasionally used the TaBLE method in class sizes of up to 72 students when scheduling make-up classes to accommodate for timetabling problems.We have found scaling up to larger class sizes can be done effectively if there are additional TAs to ensure sufficient oversight of the discussion phase (one TA per 24 students is optimal in our experience) and provided the room is sufficiently large with good acoustics for teams to work effectively and for TAs to roam, probe, and assess.We have also experimented with processes of team formation.We have found that students are most satisfied with the TaBLE method when they are able to "trial" working with different people in the first 2 weeks of classes before permanent teams are formed in the third week.
In addition, we have explored the method's adaptability to online delivery modes.During the pandemic, we taught the TaBLE Case Method via Zoom using breakout rooms for team discussion and a Google document for the worksheet.In experimenting with online delivery over several semesters, we found that smaller class sizes of less than 20 students per TA are more effective for online teaching as the TA needs to take a more active role in facilitating team discussion.Moreover, when using the method in a synchronous hybrid classroom, our experience indicates the TaBLE Case Method works best when team composition distinguishes between delivery modes.Forming separate teams among students working online overseen by at least one TA, and teams of students working in the physical classroom facilitated by another TA, tends to be more effective than mixing delivery modes.More details about how to adapt the TaBLE Case Method for various class sizes, timings, and online delivery mode are provided in Appendix H.
To formally evaluate the effectiveness of the TaBLE Case Method, we collected empirical data after the second iteration of its inclusion in the course.Two focus groups were conducted with students at the completion of the course tutorial program.Each focus group involved seven student participants and lasted 90 minutes.Participation was voluntary and students were assured their participation would not affect their course grade.Student focus group participants comprised nine females and five males and included both domestic (10) and international (4) students.A third focus group lasting two hours was held with five TAs, while an additional three TAs were interviewed individually.To assure participant confidentiality, an independent research assistant was employed to conduct all focus groups and interviews.We undertook data analysis by engaging in thematic coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2014), which entailed reading through the focus group and interview transcripts to identify themes that related to the effectiveness of the TaBLE Case Method.Our analysis generated four key insights into the effectiveness of the TaBLE Case Method as an instructional innovation for group learning and case teaching.
First, the evaluation data indicates that TaBLE increases student's motivation to actively engage in group learning during assessment weeks but is less impactful in non-assessment weeks.TAs noted how "adding the carrot" of summative assessment motivated students to invest time and effort in reading the case study and making notes prior to class.The student focus groups confirmed high levels of motivation to prepare for and attend class during assessable weeks.One student described how they did "a lot more preparation going into this tutorial than I've ever done for another tutorial but the marks pay off for that."Another remarked "I usually don't prepare for tutes but I did this time because it was counted."Engaging students in non-assessable weeks was more difficult.For most students and groups, motivation to prepare and attend dropped significantly when they weren't being formally assessed.As one student explained, "Because there's so much preparation that goes into the tutorials for the assessable weeks, we just couldn't be bothered going to the non-assessable weeks."Only conscientious students remained fully engaged in TaBLE-administered tutorials in the absence of immediate summative assessment: "I went to all of the tutes even if it wasn't an assessable week just because we could see what happened and how we could use it in future weeks for assessment." Second, the evaluation data supports that the TaBLE Case Method lays a foundation for group learning by arousing student's feelings of individual accountability for group goals.TAs noted that students "come to class motivated" to contribute to the shared task of analyzing the case study, even though "at the start, they can't really get away from just reciting theory."The student focus groups also expressed how the At the same time, the data indicates that feeling pressured by TaBLE's individual accountability has a shadow-side.Anxious students often "over prepared" when they first began working with the TaBLE Method.In one focus group, a student evocatively described how, at the beginning of the semester, some team members "were over-killing" by investing excessive hours in preparation because "we weren't sure how much our group members were going to do, so we tried to ensure we'd have enough to compensate."Assessment-feedback cycles and TA guidance were vital in helping students to clarify and manage course workload expectations and prevent feeling overwhelmed.A student recalled, "As the tutes went on I did less work as I learned how to answer the questions.By the last few, I was doing half an hour preparation and getting better results than the beginning when I spent hours." Third, the evaluation data shows the While these quotes highlight the potentially powerful group learning benefits of the application discussion phase of the TaBLE Method, the evaluation data also pointed to several limitations that could undercut them.One key limitation is behavioural.Students admitted in the focus groups that sometimes teams rushed to reach and record their consensus position rather than prioritising exploration and debate of alternative perspectives: "it was more rush, rush, rush . . .just write" (student focus group).While TAs were provided with detailed tutorial guides with suggested discussion points for each statement as well as probing questions to play devil's advocate, the data shows that TAs were not always able to prevent rushing behaviour.Another limitation is cultural.The focus groups suggested international students tended to feel less comfortable with TaBLE's application discussion phase than domestic students because of language difficulties.Notably, though, TAs reported that international students exhibited a greater margin for learning improvement over the semester, especially when paired with domestic students.A final limitation is student learning styles.TAs described how some students struggled to accept that a case study has no single correct answer and resisted creatively inferring theoretical insights when information in the case was limited.One tutor said, "[Some students] took a bit of getting used to the tutorial design-that they had to actually talk and had to actually write something." Fourth, the evaluation data highlights how by combining group learning with case study analysis, the TaBLE Case Method helps to integrate and progress student learning by making the connection between management theory and practice more visible.Students start the course unfamiliar with the concept of the business case study and cope by holding theory separate and distinct from the case.As they attend tutorials each week and repetitively apply the steps in the TaBLE Case Method to new business cases, students respond to formative and summative feedback by changing how they approach the case study.Student focus groups described how "TaBLE assessments are much better way to learn, focus on case studies and how to apply and discuss theory makes it stick a lot more" and "TaBLE learning tasks help cement/revise and build knowledge and interlink ideas."TAs noticed how students demonstrated more integrated and sophisticated understanding of management theory over time as they learned to use course theory to explain situations and actions in the case and to connect management theory and practice in a meaningful way: Previously students understood the course [as] twelve disconnected lumps of material. . . .What I find with this [TaBLE case] structure is that there is that bringing it together. . . .They have a more integrated understanding.It's not just twelve separate chapters [in a textbook].It's management.They seem to understand that better because they can see the application of theory to practice.Because management is more abstract.It's not one and one equals two.It's an abstract idea and students do often find it difficult.And so if you don't know the application of it, [then] it's just theory.(TA, interview) By using case studies, it allows them to see the theories in practice because the majority of them have never worked in a formal organisation and so they've never had exposure to it.So they read the course theory . . .and then they read the case and they can see the application and the light bulb comes on.(TA focus group) Overall, the results of our evaluation of the student and TA focus group and interview data provides evidence of the effectiveness of the TaBLE Case Method in improving student motivation and engagement in learning management theory.Applied discussion among student teams in the context of a case also supports more integrated understanding of theory.

Conclusions
In this paper, we presented the TaBLE Case Method as an instructional innovation to assist management educators who use case studies and/or group activities in their teaching.Several problems plague the traditional instructorcentric Socratic case method, especially in undergraduate teaching, and the common pedagogical solution of combining case teaching with group learning can also fall short because of challenges in creating group goals and individual accountability for team outputs (Slavin, 1988).The TaBLE Case Method helps to overcome these pedagogical challenges through a teambased learning process founded on student teams discussing theory-practice connections in the context of a focal case study, which melds together five phases of individual preparation and group participation before, during and after class.Our evidence shows the TaBLE Case Method motivates undergraduate students to prepare for and attend class (especially when the case activity is assessable), fosters their engagement in critical thinking and creative debate (if students can avoid rushing to consensus, overcome language barriers and become comfortable with the concept that multiple answers can be "correct") and deepens their understanding of the connection between management theory and practice.
We have seen dramatic and sustained improvements in student learning since adopting the TaBLE Case Method in our undergraduate teaching context.However, our evaluation data shows that implementation is not without challenges.We recommend that management educators carefully consider the characteristics of their student cohort when assessing the suitability of the TaBLE method for their own teaching context.If the cohort consists of many students with language difficulties or from disciplinary backgrounds that assume "correct" answers, the method will likely require additional scaffolding to nurture group learning processes (Pessoa et al., 2022).Before applying the TaBLE Case Method, we also encourage management educators to reflect on its implications for the role of instructors and TAs as a "guide on the side" rather than a "sage on the stage" (King, 1993).For instructors who enjoy demonstrating their deep expertise of theory and knowledge of the case through Socratic case teaching (Lundberg & Winn, 2005), this may be an uncomfortable role shift.For instructors who oversee large teaching teams of TAs such as doctoral students who lack confidence and teaching experience (Bonner et al., 2020), the TaBLE Case Method can be a very effective instructional approach when time and resources are invested in (1) training, mentoring and peer-coaching TAs in the different phases of the method, and (2) sharing communication channels and moderation practices within the teaching team to maintain consistency in classroom practices and grading standards.
The TaBLE Case Method can be incorporated into courses in a variety of ways.In the introductory management course that we describe here, students learn about course theory in a lecture, read a case study and then apply theory to the case via the TaBLE Case Method in tutorials.The method could also be used in a flipped classroom context where students engage with a textbook reading or online content before attending class to discuss a case in their teams.We can also imagine the method working well in postgraduate and MBA settings, especially at the beginning of their studies when MBA students are first introduced to management theory and may be questioning the relevance of abstract concepts for decision making and problem solving in their real world of practice (Bridgman et al., 2018).There is also potential to use the TaBLE Case Method as a stepping stone to prepare advanced students to undertake more complex case analyses and/or independent projects later in their studies (Desiraju & Gopinath, 2001).The method is likely to be especially generative in specialist courses like ethics or sustainable management, where students are required to critically engage with diverse perspectives on business.
Overall, we believe the TaBLE Case Method offers an important advance on traditional methods for case study teaching by resolving common pedagogical challenges associated with combining learning with cases and group learning.As an instructional innovation that guides and motivates students to connect theory and practice in critical, creative and meaningful ways, the TaBLE Case Method responds to calls for the rejuvenation of the case method (Bridgman et al., 2018).We invite management educators to adapt our method for use in their own courses and classrooms.

Appendix A
Example Schedule of Tutorial Assessment.

Date
Lecture Tutorial Week

Tutorial schedule:
Time Activity

×.00
Remind students about how the tutorial will run (5 minutes) Hand out the worksheets to the teams and tell students they have 30 minutes to complete the activity.Make any adjustments required to tutorial teams.

×.05
Students provide evidence of preparation (5 minutes) Students should spend 5 minutes writing their individual responses in the boxes around the outside of the worksheet.After the first 5 minutes is up, remind students that they should move onto the group discussion phase of the activity.Keep emphasizing the purpose of the individual component is evidence of preparation and the bulk of the marks for the exercise are for the group discussion leading to the group consensus in the middle of the box.

×.10
Discussion and recording of consensus (25 minutes) Move around the teams to help deepen the discussion and to help students learn how theoretical concepts from this week's topic can be applied in practice.Notes that will help you to probe and challenge are included at the end of this lesson plan.Instruct students that you want them to support their chosen statement by applying specific theoretical concepts from the lecture to the case.You might suggest to students that a good approach is for them to write a point of theory and then give example/examples from the case to illustrate that point and to do that for four points of theory.At the bottom of the consensus box, they need to include points about why they have excluded certain statements.You should help teams to manage their time by reminding the class at regular intervals how much time they have left.

×.35
Facilitate whole-class debrief (20 minutes) Conduct a whole class debrief calling on different teams to explain and justify their positions.Keep pushing them to connect theory and practice which is what students need to do in order to receive full marks in tutorial assessments.In addition, you will also have the opportunity to fill any gaps which may have been exposed in student understanding of course concepts.This is important from a learning perspective as both assessable and non-assessable tutorial topics are examinable in the final exam.Point out if teams are being inclusive or if they need to ensure everyone has a voice.If a student and/or group were underprepared, it is appropriate to tell them they will need to be better prepared in the next assessable tutorial or they will fail.

Guide to Discussion
Statement A: Amazon Is Successful Because It Adapts to the General Environment.Students may need to use their own knowledge of Amazon or make some inferences to argue for this statement.
Adapting involves responding to the external environment through boundary-spanning roles, forecasting, inter-organizational partnerships and mergers and joint ventures.There is not much in the case about adapting.Students may draw on their own research to talk about some of these issues.
The external environment has two layers-general and specific environments.The general environment is the outer layer that is widely dispersed and affects organizations indirectly.Factors in the general environment that students might discuss in relation to Amazon include: • Technological: Students may mention how Amazon has been able to harness technology, especially "real-time ultra-detailed metrics" that allows them to capture customer information.• Socio-cultural: Amazon has been able to respond to socio-cultural trends such as a consumer-oriented society and a growing preference for online shopping.• Economic: In an environment of limited economic growth and wage stagnation, Amazon offers cheaper prices for an enormous variety of products.
• Legal/political: Amazon is required to adhere to employment law in the US which requires the provision of a safe workplace.• Natural: Students may discuss the impact of Amazon's supply chain and shipping practices on the natural environment, for example its role in perpetuating consumerism focused on the ongoing consumption of cheap goods (rather than the reuse of quality goods), the use of plastic in packaging and the fuel required for delivery.
An argument against Statement A relates to the size and market power of Amazon.Students may argue that Amazon is so large that it does not simply adapt to the external environment but has an immense influence over it.
Influencing involves changing the external environment through advertising and public relations, political activity and trade associations.As a technology company Amazon has helped to shape the technological environment (especially online retail but also through the robots it uses in its factories), socio-cultural expectations around privacy (by harnessing customer information to sell people more stuff), the economy (by helping to destroy whole industries), and so on.Students may come up with other examples.
Statement B: Amazon Is Successful Because It Influences Its Task Environment.Students may need to use their own knowledge of Amazon or make some inferences to argue for this statement.
Influencing involves changing the external environment through advertising and public relations, political activity and trade associations.As a technology company Amazon has helped to shape the technological environment (especially online retail but also through the robots it uses in its factories), socio-cultural expectations around privacy (by harnessing customer information to sell people more stuff), the economy (by helping to destroy whole industries), and so on.Students may come up with other examples.
The task environment is closer to the organization and includes those external parties who the organization interacts with on a day-to-day basis and who directly influence its basic operations and performance.Factors in the task environment that students might discuss in relation to Amazon include: • Customers: As a pioneer of online retail, Amazon has influenced customer expectations about what a positive online shopping experience looks like.Students could argue that Amazon is part of the reason that customers are increasingly turning away from Brick and Mortar stores and prefer to buy products online.Because of Amazon, customers expect to be able to search for, receive and return a large range of products efficiently (e.g. to receive an Elsa Doll that they could not find anywhere in NYC in an hour or less).By selling products more cheaply than other retailers, Amazon has also influenced customer expectations about price.• Competitors: In terms of retail, in the US Amazon is largely blamed for falling profitability of Brick and Mortar retailers such as Sears, Macys, Target and Best Buy.In terms of technology, ex-Amazonians end up influencing companies like Facebook and Google when they accept jobs in those companies.• Suppliers: Because of its market power, Amazon has great leverage over its suppliers.It is difficult for suppliers to opt out of distributing their products through Amazon because a shrinking retail sector mean that they do not have a lot of options.• Labor unions/market: Amazon is influencing the skills of people in the labor market.Many ex-Amazon employees have gone on to work for other technology companies or found their own businesses using the skills they developed at Amazon.As a huge company that has adopted robots in its distribution warehouses and has destroyed many of its competitors, Amazon has arguably contributed to the growing unemployment rate in the US.
Prompting questions: Do you think that Amazon's overall impact on the task environment is positive or negative?What are some of the positive impacts?What are some of the negative impacts?Do you think that Amazon adapts to or influences the external environment?
Statement C: Amazon Is Successful Because It Has Strong Alignment Between Its Invisible and Visible Corporate Culture.Students should discuss the elements of invisible and visible culture.
Visible culture includes the elements of daily life inside the organization that can be observed: • Stories (tales about core values): The leadership principles are a form of story about what it means to work at Amazon.The case study states that some Amazon employees "teach them to their children."The tale of the low-level engineer who co-invented the delivery-by-drone project is a story that captures the value that it is the quality of ideas, rather than your place in the hierarchy that signal success at Amazon.• Rituals and rites (celebration of core values): The case study states that "Amazon has rules that are part of its daily language and rituals, used in hiring, cited at meetings and quoted in food-truck lines at lunchtime."• Heroes (people who display core values): A key hero at Amazon is founder Jeff Bezos, who started Amazon as an online bookstore and transformed it into the world's largest online retailer.• Symbols (language and the physical environment that portrays core values): Symbols include the "bare-bones desks" that represent the value of frugality.
Invisible culture includes underlying assumptions and beliefs about how to behave: • The invisible culture of Amazon is encoded in Jeff Bezos' leadership principles (e.g.customer obsession, hire and develop the best, bias for action, think big).
Students who argue for this statement should point to the overlap between the visible culture (encoded in the leadership principles) and the invisible culture (the fact that Amazon staff seem to really believe in these principles).The fact that an employee sounded "exhilarated months later for providing 'Frozen' dolls in record time" suggests a genuine belief in the visible leadership principle of "customer obsession."Students may also argue that employees whose assumptions and beliefs do not match the visible culture end up leaving Amazon.Employees who do not embrace the leadership principle of "frugality" might go and work for Google or Facebook where they have better access to "benefits, like cash handouts for new parents." Those who stay at Amazon are those who strongly identify with the visible and invisible culture, thus strengthening the alignment.An argument against this statement might be that the beliefs of some Amazonians do not match the visible culture as exemplified in leadership principles such as "disagree and commit" and "earn trust."Some women and men with families feel that these principles work to their disadvantage.
Students may also argue that good alignment between visible and invisible culture does not ensure business success, unless the culture is responsive to the external environment or aligned with business performance.
Prompting questions: Would you like to work at Amazon?What elements of the corporate culture are attractive/unattractive to you as a potential employee?Students should be able to easily classify Amazon as either an Adaptability culture or an Achievement Culture because of its external strategic focus.It is clear that Amazon's focus is on relentless striving to please customers, or "customer obsession" (No. 1) rather than on their employees.Compared to other tech companies, Amazon clearly directs little effort towards creating a pleasant place to work, for example by helping employees to achieve worklife balance or offering generous parental leave.
Students may argue that Amazon has an adaptability culture because it is responding to ever changing environment where the economy is unstable and customer preferences change erratically (this month everyone wants an Elsa doll, but this preference could change overnight as customers respond to a new trend).Amazon's analytics means that it is extremely effective at predicting and responding to such trends.
Students may argue that Amazon has an achievement culture.With no real competitors in the online retail space, Amazon is able to treat the external environment as relatively stable.Certainly, the high-pressure environment that encourages critique, disagreement and conflict to get the best outcome for the company seems consistent with an Achievement Culture.
In refuting this statement, students may argue that Amazon has an unhealthy corporate culture that disadvantages women and men with young families, and which puts staff under incredible amounts of stress.A relentless focus on adaptability/achievement is not sustainable over the long term if the best employees prefer to work for other tech companies.Students may also question the ethics of harvesting customer data and if Amazon is focused on making a profit at the expense of customer privacy.Students may link their response to ethical theory and point to the moral rights of employees and customers to health, safety and privacy.Students may argue that Amazon's corporate culture encourages the violation of those rights.
Prompting question: Do you think that Amazon's corporate culture is ethical?

Appendix D: Example Blank Tutorial Worksheet (Provided to Students in Class)
Each week students receive formative in-class feedback in the form of the instructor/TA's engagement in the team discussion and during the whole class debrief.After assessable tutorials students are provided with summative feedback in the form of the above rubric, written comments on their worksheet and a verbal discussion with the instructor/TA in the following class.

Using the Rubric
Group Criteria: Knowledge of Course Theory, Application of Course Theory, Teamwork.The instructor/ TA assigns each team a grade based on the worksheet and their observations of the team discussion.Usually, each student in the team will receive the same score (based on the three group criteria: knowledge of course theory, application of course theory, teamwork) and there is no individual adjustment (i.e. the individual criteria: preparation and participation are not applied).
After the first and second assessable tutorial, team marks are typically in the range of 2 to 3.5 out of 5.By the final tutorial most teams score 5 out of 5.For students who attend all five assessable tutorial, final grades (based on their best 3 tutorials) are typically in the range of 13.5 to 15 out of 15.
Individual Preparation.If a student is not prepared (this is very obvious when the whole class is writing on the worksheets and one student is trying to read the case), an individual adjustment is applied on the preparation criteria, and they are given a mark that is 0.5 marks lower than the team.
If only one student in the team is prepared, they may be given a mark that is 0.5 marks higher than the team.
Individual Participation.If a student fails to participate in the team discussion, the whole team is penalized in the first instance (on the teamwork criteria).They are told that it is the team's responsibility to include team members who may not be speaking up.If the instructor/TA observes efforts by the team to include non-participating students in subsequent weeks and the student still refuses to participate, the individual student is then given a mark that is 0.5 marks lower than the team.
In our experience, only about one student in each class will typically receive an individual deduction in the first assessable tutorial.This is usually enough feedback to modify their behaviour.It is rare that individual deductions are required after the second assessable tutorial.
Students who make exemplary contributions to the whole class debrief may be given a mark that is 0.5 marks higher than the rest of their team.remains about 1: 24, so that each instructor can take responsibility for a maximum of six teams.

Timing of Classes
We have experimented with 60-minute and 90-minute tutorials.While the TaBLE model can be delivered in a 60-minute tutorial, 90-minutes allow for a richer team discussion.However, 90-minute tutorials require more resources (i.e.Teaching Assistant time and classroom space) and may be difficult to arrange in a university where classes are scheduled in one-hour blocks.
A 60-minute tutorial allows for 5 minutes to settle the class, 5 minutes of individual preparation, 25 minutes of team discussion, and 20 minutes of debrief.
A 90-minute tutorial allows for 5 minutes to settle the class, 5 minutes of individual preparation, 60 minutes of team discussion, and 20 minutes of debrief.

Assigning Teams
Consistent with the principles of Team-Based Learning, the instructor/TA assigns students to diverse teams to increase the likelihood of debate among students (Michaelsen et al., 2004).In the first two tutorials, the instructor/TA randomly assign students to teams (usually by numbering them off) so they get the chance to meet and work with different students.
1.At the end of the second tutorial students complete a form with their name and demographic details (e.g.gender, degree-program, domestic/international). 2. The instructor/TA asks students to stand up, take a few steps and then form themselves into diverse teams of 4. This gives the students some discretion over who to work with.Typically, the instructor will need to help a few remaining students form into a team.Students look over their demographic forms to check that they are a diverse group.3. The instructor/TA staples the demographic forms together as a record of who is in each team.The instructor reviews the teams before the next class to ensure they are diverse enough (e.g.so that there is not a team with all female students or all international students) and will make any changes needed.4. At the following tutorial the instructor/TA displays a PowerPoint slide that outlines who is in each team.Consistent with the principles of Team-Based Learning (Michaelsen et al., 2004) teams are permanent and will stay together for the whole semester.This allows team members to practice working together and improve their teamwork over time.

Worksheet
We have trialed using a Google document worksheet in the classroom, which requires students to bring their laptops and allows students to work from a shared electronic document.The advantages are that the time required for individual readiness assurance can be reduced to 2 minutes as students can "cut and paste" their preparation into the worksheet, all students can easily see and contribute to the document, and electronic submission is easier in assessment weeks.
In comparison, the paper worksheet gives the instructor/TA better oversight over which individual students have prepared prior to class.It places the focus of the classroom interactions on the discussion between students (where the learning takes place) rather than on the output of the discussion (i.e. the completed worksheet).Students are forced to discuss and come up with new points together, rather than just cutting and pasting individual preparation into the team section of the worksheet.

Classroom Management
To help students develop their teamwork the instructor/TA guides students towards behaviours such as engagement (including non-verbal cues), collaborative discussion (active listening, seeking out contrary viewpoints e.g.devil's advocate), and equal contribution (talking time, turn-taking) (see Hillier & Dunn-Jensen, 2013).
During the team discussion it is possible for students to overhear the discussion of other teams.Cross-pollination of ideas between groups is typically not a problem as, in our experience, students tend to be quite engrossed in discussing different perspectives on the statements with their own team members.If a TA were to become concerned that a team was deliberately attempting to "game" the activity by listening to and copying the ideas of another team, the TA would probe these students to check their understanding and challenge/ prompt them to use the ideas as a 'jumping off' point for their own debates.

Online Teaching
We adapted the TaBLE model for Zoom classes during the pandemic by using breakout rooms for team discussion and a Google document as a worksheet.In our experience, online delivery of the TaBLE Case Method is less effective than face-to-face delivery for undergraduate learners.This is because the instructor/TA does not have oversight of all the teams, cannot easily pinpoint when students are not contributing and cannot easily intervene to avoid teams becoming dysfunctional.The conversation between students (typically) flows less naturally and students can avoid responding to their teammates by turning off their cameras.We find that tutorials risk becoming instructor centric as some students only participate when the instructor/TA is in the breakout room or when the instructor/TA asks them a question.It is more common for only one to two students in the team of four to complete the worksheet, which rarely happens in a face-to-face context.
To overcome these issues, the instructor/TA requires students to turn on their cameras in breakout rooms (although students do not always comply) and reminds students to contribute to the discussion.Teams are asked to write down the names of students who participate in the discussion on the Google worksheet.Students are told they will only receive a grade if their team members include their name on the worksheet and if the TA hears them speak in the breakout room.In the debrief phase, TAs rely more heavily on cold-calling specific students.As the instructor/TA needs to take a more active role in facilitating team discussion, we recommend smaller class sizes or 90-minute tutorial for online learning.
We speculate that issues associated with student participation in online learning may be specific to our cohort of first-year undergraduate learners (who may feel less comfortable speaking up online) and the norms of our own institutions (where teaching usually takes place in face-to-face modes).For more advanced learners who are comfortable participating in synchronous online discussions (such as in Zoom breakout rooms), the TaBLE Case method is likely to be as effective online as in a face-to-face classroom.

Training and Managing Teaching Assistants
The TaBLE method is scalable to large courses where tutorials are taught by Teaching Assistants.In the context of the very large undergraduate course described in this paper, we have a team of around 10 Teaching Assistants who deliver TaBLE across 40 tutorials.
Our Teaching Assistants include doctoral students and business practitioners who have an undergraduate degree (often but not always in business).They usually have no prior teaching experience when they join our course.Unlike traditional approaches to case teaching, the TaBLE method is not instructor centric.This means Teaching Assistants are only required to have a basic understanding of management theory (which they can get from reading the textbook) and the case (which they can get from reading the case and tutorial guide).As Teaching Assistants play the role of a "guide on the side" (King, 1993) by facilitating student discussion, they are not expected to be experts on the content and will direct students to consult with the course instructor on any questions related to theory that they cannot answer.
To support Teaching Assistants to deliver the TaBLE in a consistent and effective way, we take the following steps: 1. Before classes start, the instructor meets with the whole team of Teaching Assistants to explain the principles of the TaBLE method and set the tone for the semester ahead.2. Teaching Assistants are provided with a detailed weekly tutorial guide (see Appendix C) which outlines the schedule, questions to guide the team discussion and key points to cover in the debrief.3. The instructor teaches the first tutorials on Monday, then provides a weekly email to the whole team of Teaching Assistants.This provides further guidance for delivering the tutorial such as clarifying mistakes in the tutorial guide or providing tips on how to address any statements students struggled with.Teaching Assistants are encouraged to reply to the group email with any tips or questions they have related to the week's material.4. New Teaching Assistants have classes scheduled towards the end of the week.They are required to shadow the instructor or an experienced Teaching Assistant by observing them deliver a tutorial each week before they deliver their own tutorial.This provides an opportunity for them to ask questions before delivering TaBLE. 5.After they have taught two to three classes, the instructor completes a peer observation of new Teaching Assistants to provide feedback on their teaching.6.When marking the first tutorial assessment, new Teaching Assistants moderate their marking with the instructor or an experienced Teaching Assistant.

•
Statement D: Amazon Is Successful Because Its Corporate Culture Is Responsive to the External Environment.To understand the link between Amazon's corporate culture and the environment, students should refer to the following classification: Adaptability culture (External strategic focus, environment needs flexibility) • Achievement culture (External strategic focus, environment needs stability) • Involvement culture (Internal strategic focus, environment needs flexibility) • Consistency culture (Internal strategic focus, environment needs stability)

Table 1 .
TaBLE Case Method.
TaBLE Method encourages students to hold themselves individually accountable to other group members, as this quote illustrates: My group always came with at least something written down and a reason why, which was good because it pressured me to keep doing it after the first couple of weeks when you've got assignments due and you just don't want to.You still do it anyway because you don't want to let them down.(Student focus group) TaBLE Method deepens student learning by inspiring more critical thinking and creative debate among group members about different ways of applying management theory to the case study.As a student explained, "This tutorial forced you to think a lot.It forced you to really explore what you knew, what you didn't know, what you kind of knew but didn't really know.Pushed your boundaries essentially."Other students similarly described how the application discussion phase of the TaBLE Case Method sharpened their thinking and tested their comprehension of course concepts: The [TaBLE] structure, compared to other subjects, made me want to have an opinion because people, especially the teaching assistant, would always have a different opinion.It made me want to have my opinion and exactly know how to back it up.(Focus group) I generally treat tutorials as a [passive] learning exercise where TAs go through the answers, I write them down and figure it out afterwards.Whereas this [TaBLE case method] sort of forced me to think, apply, work as a group, to figure out the answers.So it forced us to work as a group, forced us to pick up on bits of knowledge that we didn't really know we were having trouble with.So, as a result, we definitely started doing a lot more learning during the semester as opposed to later on.(Student focus group)