case study based group discussion

A Step-by-Step Guide To Case Discussion

By ashi jain.

Join InsideIIM GOLD

Webinars & Workshops

• Compare B-Schools

• Free CAT Course

Take Free Mock Tests

Upskill With AltUni

CAT Study Planner

Are you comfortable in Decision Making in a given situation How aptly you analyze the situation with a logical approach How much time do you take in arriving at a decision How good are you in taking the rightful course of action

Solved Example:

Hari, the only working member of the family has been working an organization for 25 years. His job required long standing hours. One day, while working, he lost his leg in an accident. The company paid for his medical reimbursement.

Since he was a hardworking employee; the company offered him another compensatory job. He refused by saying, ‘Once a Lion, always a Lion’. As an HR, what solution would you suggest?

Identification of the Problem:

Obvious: accident, refusal of job, only earning member, his attitude, and inability to do his current job Hidden: the reputation of the company at stake, the course of action might influence other employees

Action Plan:

As an HR, you are first expected to check the company records and find out how a similar case has been dealt with in the past. Second, you need to take cognizance of the track record of the employee highlighted by the keyword ‘hardworking’.

Given the situation at hand, he is deemed unfit for his current role. However, the problem arises because of his attitude towards the compensatory job. Hence, in such a case, counselling is required.

Here, three levels of Counselling is required: 1.   Ist level is with Hari 2.   IInd level of counselling is required with the Union Leader (if any) to keep the collective interest and the reputation of the company in mind 3.   IIIrd level of counselling is required with his family members as they constitute of the afflicted party

If the counselling does not work, one should also identify a contingency plan or Plan B. In this case, the Contingency Plan would be – hire someone from his family for a compensatory role.

Note that the following options are out of scope and should be avoided: 1.   Increase Hari’s salary so that he gives in and agrees to do the compensatory job 2.   Status Quo – do not bother as long as the Company is making a profit 3.   Replace Hari with someone else

1. Pinpoint the key issues to be solved and identify their cause and effects

2. Start broad and try to work through a range of issues methodically

3. Connect the facts and evidence and focus on the big picture

4. Discuss any trade-offs or implications of your proposed solution

5. Relate your conclusion back to the problem statement and make sure you have answered all the questions

1. Do not be anxious if you are not able to understand the situation well or unable to justify the problem. Read again, a little slowly, it will help you understand better.

2. Do not jump to conclusions; try to move systematically and gradually.

3. Do not panic if you are unable to analyze the situation. Listen carefully to others as the discussion starts, it will help you gauge the problem at hand.

All the best! Ace the GDPI season.

Related Tags

FMS Delhi Summer Placements 2024: Median Stipend at 3 Lakhs

Mini Mock Test

CUET-PG Mini Mock 2 (By TISS Mumbai HRM&LR)

CUET-PG Mini Mock 3 (By TISS Mumbai HRM&LR)

CUET-PG Mini Mock 1 (By TISS Mumbai HRM&LR)

MBA Admissions 2024 - WAT 1

SNAP Quantitative Skills

SNAP Quant - 1

SNAP VARC Mini Mock - 1

SNAP Quant Mini Mock - 2

SNAP DILR Mini Mock - 4

SNAP VARC Mini Mock - 2

SNAP Quant Mini Mock - 4

SNAP LR Mini Mock - 3

SNAP Quant Mini Mock - 3

SNAP VARC Mini Mock - 3

SNAP - Quant Mini Mock 5

XAT Decision Making 2020

XAT Decision Making 2019

XAT Decision Making 2018

XAT Decision Making -10

XAT Decision Making -11

XAT Decision Making - 12

XAT Decision Making - 13

XAT Decision Making - 14

XAT Decision Making - 15

XAT Decision Making - 16

XAT Decision Making - 17

XAT Decision Making 2021

LR Topic Test

DI Topic Test

ParaSummary Topic Test

Take Free Test Here

Life of indian mba students in milan, italy - what’s next.

By InsideIIM Career Services

IMI Delhi: Worth It? | MBA ROI, Fees, Selection Process, Campus Life & More | KYC

How to calculate the real cost of an mba in 2024 ft. imt nagpur professors, mahindra university mba: worth it | campus life, academics, courses, placement | know your campus, how to uncover the reality of b-schools before joining, ft. masters' union, gmat focus edition: syllabus, exam pattern, scoring system, selection & more | new gmat exam, how to crack the jsw challenge 2023: insider tips and live q&a with industry leaders, why an xlri jamshedpur & fms delhi graduate decided to join the pharma industry, subscribe to our newsletter.

For a daily dose of the hottest, most insightful content created just for you! And don't worry - we won't spam you.

Who Are You?

Top B-Schools

Write a Story

InsideIIM Gold

InsideIIM.com is India's largest community of India's top talent that pursues or aspires to pursue a career in Management.

[email protected]

Follow Us Here

Konversations By InsideIIM

TestPrep By InsideIIM

• NMAT by GMAC
• Score Vs Percentile
• Exam Preparation
• Explainer Concepts
• Free Mock Tests
• RTI Data Analysis
• Selection Criteria
• CAT Toppers Interview
• Study Planner
• Admission Statistics
• Interview Experiences
• Explore B-Schools
• B-School Rankings
• Life In A B-School
• B-School Placements
• Certificate Programs
• Katalyst Programs

Placement Preparation

• Summer Placements Guide
• Final Placements Guide

Career Guide

• Career Explorer
• The Top 0.5% League
• Konversations Cafe
• The AltUni Career Show
• Employer Rankings
• Alumni Reports
• Salary Reports

Copyright 2024 - Kira9 Edumedia Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved.

Tips for Discussion Group Leaders

Once the program begins, each discussion group is assigned a leader who serves as the facilitator for each case study. Here are some tips for leading an insightful and productive exchange.

• Before you begin, make sure that all members understand the value of the discussion group process. You may find it helpful to have a brief conversation about the Discussion Group Best Practices listed above.
• Think of yourself as a discussion facilitator. Your goal is to keep the group focused on moving through the case questions. Don't feel that you need to master all the content more thoroughly than the other group members do.
• Guide the group through the study questions for each assignment. Keep track of time so that your group can discuss all the cases and readings, instead of being bogged down in the first case of the morning or afternoon.
• The study questions are designed to keep the group focused on the key issues that will contribute to an effective discussion in the larger classroom meeting. Don’t let your peers stray too far into anecdotes or issues that aren't relevant.
• If a subset of your living group appears to be dominating the discussion, encourage the less vocal members to participate. They'll be more apt to speak up if you ask them to share their unique perspectives on the topic at hand.
• If you have questions about how to handle a specific situation that may arise in your group, please reach out to the faculty or staff for assistance. We’re here to help you get the most out of your group discussions.

What happens in class if nobody talks? Dropdown down

Professors are here to push everyone to learn, but not to embarrass anyone. If the class is quiet, they'll often ask a participant with experience in the industry in which the case is set to speak first. This is done well in advance so that person can come to class prepared to share. Trust the process. The more open you are, the more willing you’ll be to engage, and the more alive the classroom will become.

Does everyone take part in "role-playing"? Dropdown down

Professors often encourage participants to take opposing sides and then debate the issues, often taking the perspective of the case protagonists or key decision makers in the case.

What can I expect on the first day? Dropdown down

Most programs begin with registration, followed by an opening session and a dinner. If your travel plans necessitate late arrival, please be sure to notify us so that alternate registration arrangements can be made for you. Please note the following about registration:

HBS campus programs – Registration takes place in the Chao Center.

India programs – Registration takes place outside the classroom.

Other off-campus programs – Registration takes place in the designated facility.

View Frequently Asked Questions

Subscribe to Our Emails

MBA admission: How to crack case-based group discussions?

• By:Surbhi Jain
• Date: 2018-11-27 14:13:32

Case studies or caselets are now an integral part of admissions to the MBA. Often, candidates should analyze small files during a group discussion (GD), instead of general topics. The idea is to examine the candidate's point of view, logical approach, quick thinking, and his problem-solving attitude before finalizing his/her candidature for the MBA program. The caselets do not require any prior knowledge of the subject. It is considered an effective way of judging the management qualities of a candidate required for admission to the B-School.

Read More- Predict your Percentile/Score through CAT Percentile/ CAT Score Predictor 

Although the Top management institutes (IIMs) have suppressed the group discussions, various leading business schools still continue to conduct case-based GDs some of the institutes are- XLRI-Jamshedpur, SPJIMR, Mumbai and NMIMS, Mumbai, etc. So what happens in a caselet? Mentors will give 10 minutes to the candidates to read a case summary followed by 10 minutes to write whatever we understood after that there will be a group discussion of 20 minutes. Let us figure out more about GD-based case studies in management institutes:

A case study is all about analysis because everyone gives the same information and therefore starts from the same base.

The case study topics are mainly related to current affairs. Current socio-economic environment, government policies, innovations, global economic climate or socio-political debates prevalent in popular media. Learn about as many case study topics as possible.

The purpose of these case-based GDs is to judge the knowledge, communication skills, leadership qualities and the ability of the candidate to make logical arguments and convince the opposing party, qualities needed to be a good manager.

Read more- GD/PI Tips for MBA Colleges in India

Here are some tips for solving case-based group discussions:

Refer to the topics covered in the GDs of your target institute. You can collect this information online or from coaching institutes. Take note of the topics covered over the years, it is very likely that the topics will go in the same direction this year as well.

Read newspapers, journals, magazines and watch current affairs programs to find out what's going on around you. Case-based GDs typically focus on business and economic issues that affect the social and political climate. Read editorials and articles based on hot topics, so you can use them while making your point of view during GD.

Meet up with your friends who are also MBA aspirants, form a group and hold a case-based group discussion. Exchange ideas, observe and develop confidence.

  In case-based GDs, around five minutes are given to prepare, so use this time wisely. If the case is about a topic where the decision is to be made, quickly think of points to back your ‘to’ or ‘for’ stand and choose one. If the subject is such that a decision has already been made and the group has to decide whether it is right or wrong, re-choose aside after quickly weighing your points.

What should be the right approach?

Approach which can identify the crux of the problem, can logically analyze it and can suggest an alternate course of action to solve it, is the right approach.  Know the steps that will lead you to solve it

Step1:  Attentively read the caselet, following the important points Step2:  Understand the objectives of the organization Step3:  Get to the core of the problem and its causes  Step4:  Identify and focus on the obstacles and constraints of the issue in achieving the desired goals Step5:  Find out the alternatives, analyze them and pick out the relevant ones. Step6:  Filter all of the alternatives and choose the most appropriate one. Step7:  Frame the course of action to implement the decision

Read more- CAT Score vs CAT Predictor

A few don’ts for caselet exercises-

• Do not be anxious and hyper even if you are not able to fully understand the situation or unable to identify the problem at first. read again it a little slowly, it will help you better understand.
• Do not jump on the conclusions; try to move step by step.
• Do not panic if you are unable to find an appropriate solution. Your analytical skills, the logical process of identifying the problem and the moving towards its solution will also be evaluated.
• Do not be in a hurry to speak without arriving at some logical analysis and solution strategy. When you speak, be relevant and to the point.

For more details and guidance you can reach at 7772954321 | 8818886504 and write us at [email protected]

Related Blog

SNAP 2022 - Know about it All (SNAP 2022 Eligibility, Important dates, Exam Pattern, Syllabus, Admit Card, Application Fees)

SNAP 2022 - Know about it All! (SNAP 2022 Eligibility, Important dates, Exam Pattern, Syllabus, Admit Card, Application Fees)

CAT 2018 Important dates, fees, Procedure & Eligibility

CAT 2018 Important dates , Procedure & Eligibility   

Student login

Forgot password.

Colege login

College login.

Channel Partner Login

Join now for free

By clicking submit button, I agree to the terms of services and privacy policy .

Thanks for the registration, We have sent an email with verification link please verify your account.

And also please verify your mobile number enter otp here

Register here to get in touch with hundreds of colleges on our platform.

• News and Notifications
• Refund & Cancellation Policy
• Terms and conditions
• Privacy Policy
• College Predictor
• Best MBA Colleges in Delhi
• Best MBA Colleges In India

Have a Question

• +91 77729 54321
• [email protected]
• 24x7 Dedicated Custome Care Support -->

Head Office

405, Vibrant Twin Tower, Manorama Ganj, NH3, AB Road, Geeta Bhawan Square, Indore, Madhya Pradesh 452001

Phone: 964 444 0101 | 777 295 4321

Time: Mon-Sat:09:30AM - 06:30PM

Mumbai Office

Mumbai Office no. 303, Hari Om Plaza, M G Road, Near SGNP Main Gate, Sukurwadi, Borivali East, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400066

Phone: 771 881 7500 | 977 000 7700

© BookMyColleges.com. All Right Reserved. 2024

Stay Updated About All the Latest MBA News, Exams and B-schools.

You never know this might be what you have been looking for all around. get it now , exam details.

• Utility Menu

GA4 tagging code

• Demonstrating Moves Live
• Raw Clips Library
• Facilitation Guide

Structuring the Case Discussion

Well-designed cases are intentionally complex. Therefore, presenting an entire case to students all at once has the potential to overwhelm student groups and lead them to overlook key details or analytic steps. Accordingly, Barbara Cockrill asks students to review key case concepts the night before, and then presents the case in digestible “chunks” during a CBCL session. Structuring the case discussion around key in-depth questions, Cockrill creates a thoughtful interplay between small group work and whole group discussion that makes for more systematic forays into the case at hand.

Barbara Cockrill , Harold Amos Academy Associate Professor of Medicine

Student Group

Harvard Medical School

Homeostasis I

40 students

Additional Details

First-year requisite

• Classroom Considerations
• Relevant Research
• Related Resources
• CBCL provides students the opportunity to apply course material in new ways. For this reason, you might consider not sharing the case with students beforehand and having them experience it in class with fresh eyes.
• Chunk cases so students can focus on case specifics and gradually build-up to greater complexity and understanding. 
• Introduce variety into case-based discussions. Integrate a mix of independent work, small group discussion, and whole group share outs to keep students engaged and provide multiple junctures for students to get feedback on their understanding.
• Instructor scaffolding is critical for effective case-based learning ( Ramaekers et al., 2011 )
• This resource from the Harvard Business School provides suggestions for questioning, listening, and responding during a case discussion .
• This comprehensive resource on “The ABCs of Case Teaching” provides helpful tips for planning and “running” your case .

Related Moves

Experiencing the Case as a Student Team

Regulating the Flow of Energy in the Classroom

Designing Focused Discussions for Relevance and Transfer of Knowledge

Search form

• Table of Contents
• Troubleshooting Guide
• A Model for Getting Started
• Justice Action Toolkit
• Best Change Processes
• Databases of Best Practices
• Online Courses
• Ask an Advisor
• Subscribe to eNewsletter
• Community Stories
• YouTube Channel
• About the Tool Box
• How to Use the Tool Box
• Privacy Statement
• Workstation/Check Box Sign-In
• Online Training Courses
• Capacity Building Training
• Training Curriculum - Order Now
• Community Check Box Evaluation System
• Build Your Toolbox
• Facilitation of Community Processes
• Community Health Assessment and Planning
• Section 4. Techniques for Leading Group Discussions

Chapter 16 Sections

• Section 1. Conducting Effective Meetings
• Section 2. Developing Facilitation Skills
• Section 3. Capturing What People Say: Tips for Recording a Meeting
• Main Section

A local coalition forms a task force to address the rising HIV rate among teens in the community.  A group of parents meets to wrestle with their feeling that their school district is shortchanging its students.  A college class in human services approaches the topic of dealing with reluctant participants.  Members of an environmental group attend a workshop on the effects of global warming.  A politician convenes a “town hall meeting” of constituents to brainstorm ideas for the economic development of the region.  A community health educator facilitates a smoking cessation support group.

All of these might be examples of group discussions, although they have different purposes, take place in different locations, and probably run in different ways.  Group discussions are common in a democratic society, and, as a community builder, it’s more than likely that you have been and will continue to be involved in many of them.  You also may be in a position to lead one, and that’s what this section is about.  In this last section of a chapter on group facilitation, we’ll examine what it takes to lead a discussion group well, and how you can go about doing it.

What is an effective group discussion?

The literal definition of a group discussion is obvious: a critical conversation about a particular topic, or perhaps a range of topics, conducted in a group of a size that allows participation by all members.  A group of two or three generally doesn’t need a leader to have a good discussion, but once the number reaches five or six, a leader or facilitator can often be helpful.  When the group numbers eight or more, a leader or facilitator, whether formal or informal, is almost always helpful in ensuring an effective discussion.

A group discussion is a type of meeting, but it differs from the formal meetings in a number of ways: It may not have a specific goal – many group discussions are just that: a group kicking around ideas on a particular topic.  That may lead to a goal ultimately...but it may not. It’s less formal, and may have no time constraints, or structured order, or agenda. Its leadership is usually less directive than that of a meeting. It emphasizes process (the consideration of ideas) over product (specific tasks to be accomplished within the confines of the meeting itself. Leading a discussion group is not the same as running a meeting.  It’s much closer to acting as a facilitator, but not exactly the same as that either.

An effective group discussion generally has a number of elements:

• All members of the group have a chance to speak, expressing their own ideas and feelings freely, and to pursue and finish out their thoughts
• All members of the group can hear others’ ideas and feelings stated openly
• Group members can safely test out ideas that are not yet fully formed
• Group members can receive and respond to respectful but honest and constructive feedback.  Feedback could be positive, negative, or merely clarifying or correcting factual questions or errors, but is in all cases delivered respectfully.
• A variety of points of view are put forward and discussed
• The discussion is not dominated by any one person
• Arguments, while they may be spirited, are based on the content of ideas and opinions, not on personalities
• Even in disagreement, there’s an understanding that the group is working together to resolve a dispute, solve a problem, create a plan, make a decision, find principles all can agree on, or come to a conclusion from which it can move on to further discussion

Many group discussions have no specific purpose except the exchange of ideas and opinions.  Ultimately, an effective group discussion is one in which many different ideas and viewpoints are heard and considered.  This allows the group to accomplish its purpose if it has one, or to establish a basis either for ongoing discussion or for further contact and collaboration among its members.

There are many possible purposes for a group discussion, such as:

• Create a new situation – form a coalition, start an initiative, etc.
• Explore cooperative or collaborative arrangements among groups or organizations
• Discuss and/or analyze an issue, with no specific goal in mind but understanding
• Create a strategic plan – for an initiative, an advocacy campaign, an intervention, etc.
• Discuss policy and policy change
• Air concerns and differences among individuals or groups
• Hold public hearings on proposed laws or regulations, development, etc.
• Decide on an action
• Provide mutual support
• Solve a problem
• Resolve a conflict
• Plan your work or an event

Possible leadership styles of a group discussion also vary.  A group leader or facilitator might be directive or non-directive; that is, she might try to control what goes on to a large extent; or she might assume that the group should be in control, and that her job is to facilitate the process.  In most group discussions, leaders who are relatively non-directive make for a more broad-ranging outlay of ideas, and a more satisfying experience for participants.

Directive leaders can be necessary in some situations. If a goal must be reached in a short time period, a directive leader might help to keep the group focused. If the situation is particularly difficult, a directive leader might be needed to keep control of the discussion and make

Why would you lead a group discussion?

There are two ways to look at this question: “What’s the point of group discussion?” and “Why would you, as opposed to someone else, lead a group discussion?”  Let’s examine both.

What’s the point of group discussion?

As explained in the opening paragraphs of this section, group discussions are common in a democratic society.  There are a number of reasons for this, some practical and some philosophical.

A group discussion:

• G ives everyone involved a voice .  Whether the discussion is meant to form a basis for action, or just to play with ideas, it gives all members of the group a chance to speak their opinions, to agree or disagree with others, and to have their thoughts heard.  In many community-building situations, the members of the group might be chosen specifically because they represent a cross-section of the community, or a diversity of points of view.
• Allows for a variety of ideas to be expressed and discussed .  A group is much more likely to come to a good conclusion if a mix of ideas is on the table, and if all members have the opportunity to think about and respond to them.
• Is generally a democratic, egalitarian process .  It reflects the ideals of most grassroots and community groups, and encourages a diversity of views.
• Leads to group ownership of whatever conclusions, plans, or action the group decides upon .  Because everyone has a chance to contribute to the discussion and to be heard, the final result feels like it was arrived at by and belongs to everyone.
• Encourages those who might normally be reluctant to speak their minds .  Often, quiet people have important things to contribute, but aren’t assertive enough to make themselves heard.  A good group discussion will bring them out and support them.
• Can often open communication channels among people who might not communicate in any other way .  People from very different backgrounds, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, from different cultures, who may, under most circumstances, either never make contact or never trust one another enough to try to communicate, might, in a group discussion, find more common ground than they expected.
• Is sometimes simply the obvious, or even the only, way to proceed.  Several of the examples given at the beginning of the section – the group of parents concerned about their school system, for instance, or the college class – fall into this category, as do public hearings and similar gatherings.

Why would you specifically lead a group discussion?

You might choose to lead a group discussion, or you might find yourself drafted for the task.  Some of the most common reasons that you might be in that situation:

• It’s part of your job .  As a mental health counselor, a youth worker, a coalition coordinator, a teacher, the president of a board of directors, etc. you might be expected to lead group discussions regularly.
• You’ve been asked to .  Because of your reputation for objectivity or integrity, because of your position in the community, or because of your skill at leading group discussions, you might be the obvious choice to lead a particular discussion.
• A discussion is necessary, and you’re the logical choice to lead it .  If you’re the chair of a task force to address substance use in the community, for instance, it’s likely that you’ll be expected to conduct that task force’s meetings, and to lead discussion of the issue.
• It was your idea in the first place .  The group discussion, or its purpose, was your idea, and the organization of the process falls to you.

You might find yourself in one of these situations if you fall into one of the categories of people who are often tapped to lead group discussions.  These categories include (but aren’t limited to):

• Directors of organizations
• Public officials
• Coalition coordinators
• Professionals with group-leading skills – counselors, social workers, therapists, etc.
• Health professionals and health educators
• Respected community members.  These folks may be respected for their leadership – president of the Rotary Club, spokesperson for an environmental movement – for their positions in the community – bank president, clergyman – or simply for their personal qualities – integrity, fairness, ability to communicate with all sectors of the community.
• Community activists.  This category could include anyone from “professional” community organizers to average citizens who care about an issue or have an idea they want to pursue.

When might you lead a group discussion?

The need or desire for a group discussion might of course arise anytime, but there are some times when it’s particularly necessary.

• At the start of something new . Whether you’re designing an intervention, starting an initiative, creating a new program, building a coalition, or embarking on an advocacy or other campaign, inclusive discussion is likely to be crucial in generating the best possible plan, and creating community support for and ownership of it.
• When an issue can no longer be ignored . When youth violence reaches a critical point, when the community’s drinking water is declared unsafe, when the HIV infection rate climbs – these are times when groups need to convene to discuss the issue and develop action plans to swing the pendulum in the other direction.
• When groups need to be brought together . One way to deal with racial or ethnic hostility, for instance, is to convene groups made up of representatives of all the factions involved.  The resulting discussions – and the opportunity for people from different backgrounds to make personal connections with one another – can go far to address everyone’s concerns, and to reduce tensions.
• When an existing group is considering its next step or seeking to address an issue of importance to it . The staff of a community service organization, for instance, may want to plan its work for the next few months, or to work out how to deal with people with particular quirks or problems.

How do you lead a group discussion?

In some cases, the opportunity to lead a group discussion can arise on the spur of the moment; in others, it’s a more formal arrangement, planned and expected.  In the latter case, you may have the chance to choose a space and otherwise structure the situation.  In less formal circumstances, you’ll have to make the best of existing conditions.

We’ll begin by looking at what you might consider if you have time to prepare.  Then we’ll examine what it takes to make an effective discussion leader or facilitator, regardless of external circumstances.

Set the stage

If you have time to prepare beforehand, there are a number of things you may be able to do to make the participants more comfortable, and thus to make discussion easier.

Choose the space

If you have the luxury of choosing your space, you might look for someplace that’s comfortable and informal.  Usually, that means comfortable furniture that can be moved around (so that, for instance, the group can form a circle, allowing everyone to see and hear everyone else easily).  It may also mean a space away from the ordinary.

One organization often held discussions on the terrace of an old mill that had been turned into a bookstore and café.  The sound of water from the mill stream rushing by put everyone at ease, and encouraged creative thought.

Provide food and drink

The ultimate comfort, and one that breaks down barriers among people, is that of eating and drinking.

Bring materials to help the discussion along

Most discussions are aided by the use of newsprint and markers to record ideas, for example.

Become familiar with the purpose and content of the discussion

If you have the opportunity, learn as much as possible about the topic under discussion.  This is not meant to make you the expert, but rather to allow you to ask good questions that will help the group generate ideas.

Make sure everyone gets any necessary information, readings, or other material beforehand

If participants are asked to read something, consider questions, complete a task, or otherwise prepare for the discussion, make sure that the assignment is attended to and used.  Don’t ask people to do something, and then ignore it.

Lead the discussion

Think about leadership style

The first thing you need to think about is leadership style, which we mentioned briefly earlier in the section.  Are you a directive or non-directive leader?  The chances are that, like most of us, you fall somewhere in between the extremes of the leader who sets the agenda and dominates the group completely, and the leader who essentially leads not at all. The point is made that many good group or meeting leaders are, in fact, facilitators, whose main concern is supporting and maintaining the process of the group’s work.  This is particularly true when it comes to group discussion, where the process is, in fact, the purpose of the group’s coming together.

A good facilitator helps the group set rules for itself, makes sure that everyone participates and that no one dominates, encourages the development and expression of all ideas, including “odd” ones, and safeguards an open process, where there are no foregone conclusions and everyone’s ideas are respected.  Facilitators are non-directive, and try to keep themselves out of the discussion, except to ask questions or make statements that advance it.  For most group discussions, the facilitator role is probably a good ideal to strive for.

It’s important to think about what you’re most comfortable with philosophically, and how that fits what you’re comfortable with personally.  If you’re committed to a non-directive style, but you tend to want to control everything in a situation, you may have to learn some new behaviors in order to act on your beliefs.

Put people at ease

Especially if most people in the group don’t know one another, it’s your job as leader to establish a comfortable atmosphere and set the tone for the discussion.

Help the group establish ground rules

The ground rules of a group discussion are the guidelines that help to keep the discussion on track, and prevent it from deteriorating into namecalling or simply argument.  Some you might suggest, if the group has trouble coming up with the first one or two:

• Everyone should treat everyone else with respect : no name-calling, no emotional outbursts, no accusations.
• No arguments directed at people – only at ideas and opinions .  Disagreement should be respectful – no ridicule.
• Don’t interrupt .  Listen to the whole of others’ thoughts – actually listen, rather than just running over your own response in your head.
• Respect the group’s time .  Try to keep your comments reasonably short and to the point, so that others have a chance to respond.
• Consider all comments seriously, and try to evaluate them fairly .  Others’ ideas and comments may change your mind, or vice versa: it’s important to be open to that.
• Don’t be defensive if someone disagrees with you .  Evaluate both positions, and only continue to argue for yours if you continue to believe it’s right.
• Everyone is responsible for following and upholding the ground rules .

Ground rules may also be a place to discuss recording the session.  Who will take notes, record important points, questions for further discussion, areas of agreement or disagreement?  If the recorder is a group member, the group and/or leader should come up with a strategy that allows her to participate fully in the discussion.

Generate an agenda or goals for the session

You might present an agenda for approval, and change it as the group requires, or you and the group can create one together.  There may actually be no need for one, in that the goal may simply be to discuss an issue or idea.  If that’s the case, it should be agreed upon at the outset.

How active you are might depend on your leadership style, but you definitely have some responsibilities here.  They include setting, or helping the group to set the discussion topic; fostering the open process; involving all participants; asking questions or offering ideas to advance the discussion; summarizing or clarifying important points, arguments, and ideas; and wrapping up the session.  Let’s look at these, as well as some do’s and don’t’s for discussion group leaders.

• Setting the topic . If the group is meeting to discuss a specific issue or to plan something, the discussion topic is already set.  If the topic is unclear, then someone needs to help the group define it.  The leader – through asking the right questions, defining the problem, and encouraging ideas from the group – can play that role.
• Fostering the open process . Nurturing the open process means paying attention to the process, content, and interpersonal dynamics of the discussion all at the same time – not a simple matter. As leader, your task is not to tell the group what to do, or to force particular conclusions, but rather to make sure that the group chooses an appropriate topic that meets its needs, that there are no “right” answers to start with (no foregone conclusions), that no one person or small group dominates the discussion, that everyone follows the ground rules, that discussion is civil and organized, and that all ideas are subjected to careful critical analysis.  You might comment on the process of the discussion or on interpersonal issues when it seems helpful (“We all seem to be picking on John here – what’s going on?”), or make reference to the open process itself (“We seem to be assuming that we’re supposed to believe X – is that true?”). Most of your actions as leader should be in the service of modeling or furthering the open process.

Part of your job here is to protect “minority rights,” i.e., unpopular or unusual ideas.  That doesn’t mean you have to agree with them, but that you have to make sure that they can be expressed, and that discussion of them is respectful, even in disagreement. (The exceptions are opinions or ideas that are discriminatory or downright false.)  Odd ideas often turn out to be correct, and shouldn’t be stifled.

• Involving all participants . This is part of fostering the open process, but is important enough to deserve its own mention. To involve those who are less assertive or shy, or who simply can’t speak up quickly enough, you might ask directly for their opinion, encourage them with body language (smile when they say anything, lean and look toward them often), and be aware of when they want to speak and can’t break in.  It’s important both for process and for the exchange of ideas that everyone have plenty of opportunity to communicate their thoughts.
• Asking questions or offering ideas to advance the discussion . The leader should be aware of the progress of the discussion, and should be able to ask questions or provide information or arguments that stimulate thinking or take the discussion to the next step when necessary. If participants are having trouble grappling with the topic, getting sidetracked by trivial issues, or simply running out of steam, it’s the leader’s job to carry the discussion forward.

This is especially true when the group is stuck, either because two opposing ideas or factions are at an impasse, or because no one is able or willing to say anything.  In these circumstances, the leader’s ability to identify points of agreement, or to ask the question that will get discussion moving again is crucial to the group’s effectiveness.

• Summarizing or clarifying important points, arguments, or ideas . This task entails making sure that everyone understands a point that was just made, or the two sides of an argument.  It can include restating a conclusion the group has reached, or clarifying a particular idea or point made by an individual (“What I think I heard you say was…”).  The point is to make sure that everyone understands what the individual or group actually meant.
• Wrapping up the session .  As the session ends, the leader should help the group review the discussion and make plans for next steps (more discussion sessions, action, involving other people or groups, etc.). He should also go over any assignments or tasks that were agreed to, make sure that every member knows what her responsibilities are, and review the deadlines for those responsibilities.  Other wrap-up steps include getting feedback on the session – including suggestions for making it better – pointing out the group’s accomplishments, and thanking it for its work.

Even after you’ve wrapped up the discussion, you’re not necessarily through. If you’ve been the recorder, you might want to put the notes from the session in order, type them up, and send them to participants. The notes might also include a summary of conclusions that were reached, as well as any assignments or follow-up activities that were agreed on.

If the session was one-time, or was the last of a series, your job may now be done. If it was the beginning, however, or part of an ongoing discussion, you may have a lot to do before the next session, including contacting people to make sure they’ve done what they promised, and preparing the newsprint notes to be posted at the next session so everyone can remember the discussion.

Leading an effective group discussion takes preparation (if you have the opportunity for it), an understanding of and commitment to an open process, and a willingness to let go of your ego and biases. If you can do these things, the chances are you can become a discussion leader that can help groups achieve the results they want.

Do’s and don’ts for discussion leaders

• Model the behavior and attitudes you want group members to employ . That includes respecting all group members equally; advancing the open process; demonstrating what it means to be a learner (admitting when you’re wrong, or don’t know a fact or an answer, and suggesting ways to find out); asking questions based on others’ statements; focusing on positions rather than on the speaker; listening carefully; restating others’ points; supporting your arguments with fact or logic; acceding when someone else has a good point; accepting criticism; thinking critically; giving up the floor when appropriate; being inclusive and culturally sensitive, etc.
• Use encouraging body language and tone of voice, as well as words .  Lean forward when people are talking, for example, keep your body position open and approachable, smile when appropriate, and attend carefully to everyone, not just to those who are most articulate.
• Give positive feedback for joining the discussion .  Smile, repeat group members’ points, and otherwise show that you value participation.
• Be aware of people’s reactions and feelings, and try to respond appropriately . If a group member is hurt by others’ comments, seems puzzled or confused, is becoming angry or defensive, it’s up to you as discussion leader to use the ground rules or your own sensitivity to deal with the situation. If someone’s hurt, for instance, it may be important to point that out and discuss how to make arguments without getting personal.  If group members are confused, revisiting the comments or points that caused the confusion, or restating them more clearly, may be helpful.  Being aware of the reactions of individuals and of the group as a whole can make it possible to expose and use conflict, or to head off unnecessary emotional situations and misunderstandings.
• Ask open-ended questions .  In advancing the discussion, use questions that can’t be answered with a simple yes or no.  Instead, questions should require some thought from group members, and should ask for answers that include reasons or analysis.  The difference between “Do you think the President’s decision was right?” and “Why do you think the President’s decision was or wasn’t right?” is huge.  Where the first question can be answered with a yes or no, the second requires an analysis supporting the speaker’s opinion, as well as discussion of the context and reasons for the decision.
• Control your own biases .  While you should point out factual errors or ideas that are inaccurate and disrespectful of others, an open process demands that you not impose your views on the group, and that you keep others from doing the same.  Group members should be asked to make rational decisions about the positions or views they want to agree with, and ultimately the ideas that the group agrees on should be those that make the most sense to them – whether they coincide with yours or not.  Pointing out bias – including your own – and discussing it helps both you and group members try to be objective.

A constant question that leaders – and members – of any group have is what to do about racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks, especially in a homogeneous group where most or all of the members except the leader may agree with them.  There is no clear-cut answer, although if they pass unchallenged, it may appear you condone the attitude expressed. How you challenge prejudice is the real question.  The ideal here is that other members of the group do the challenging, and it may be worth waiting long enough before you jump in to see if that’s going to happen.  If it doesn’t, you can essentially say, “That’s wrong, and I won’t allow that kind of talk here,” which may well put an end to the remarks, but isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind.  You can express your strong disagreement or discomfort with such remarks and leave it at that, or follow up with “Let’s talk about it after the group,” which could generate some real discussion about prejudice and stereotypes, and actually change some thinking over time. Your ground rules – the issue of respecting everyone – should address this issue, and it probably won’t come up…but there are no guarantees.  It won’t hurt to think beforehand about how you want to handle it.

• Encourage disagreement, and help the group use it creatively .  Disagreement is not to be smoothed over, but rather to be analyzed and used.  When there are conflicting opinions – especially when both can be backed up by reasonable arguments – the real discussion starts.  If everyone agrees on every point, there’s really no discussion at all.  Disagreement makes people think.  It may not be resolved in one session, or at all, but it’s the key to discussion that means something.

All too often, conflict – whether conflicting opinions, conflicting world views, or conflicting personalities – is so frightening to people that they do their best to ignore it or gloss it over.  That reaction not only leaves the conflict unresolved – and therefore growing, so that it will be much stronger when it surfaces later– but fails to examine the issues that it raises.  If those are brought out in the open and discussed reasonably, the two sides often find that they have as much agreement as disagreement, and can resolve their differences by putting their ideas together.  Even where that’s not the case, facing the conflict reasonably, and looking at the roots of the ideas on each side, can help to focus on the issue at hand and provide solutions far better than if one side or the other simply operated alone.

• Keep your mouth shut as much as possible .  By and large, discussion groups are for the group members.  You may be a member of the group and have been asked by the others to act as leader, in which case you certainly have a right to be part of the discussion (although not to dominate).  If you’re an outside facilitator, or leader by position, it’s best to confine your contributions to observations on process, statements of fact, questions to help propel the discussion, and clarification and summarization.  The simple fact that you’re identified as leader or facilitator gives your comments more force than those of other group members.  If you’re in a position of authority or seen as an expert, that force becomes even greater.  The more active you are in the discussion, the more the group will take your positions and ideas as “right,” and the less it will come to its own conclusions.
• Don’t let one or a small group of individuals dominate the discussion .  People who are particularly articulate or assertive, who have strong feelings that they urgently want to express, or who simply feel the need – and have the ability – to dominate can take up far more than their fair share of a discussion.  This often means that quieter people have little or no chance to speak, and that those who disagree with the dominant individual(s) are shouted down and cease trying to make points.  It’s up to the leader to cut off individuals who take far more than their share of time, or who try to limit discussion.  This can be done in a relatively non-threatening way (“This is an interesting point, and it’s certainly worth the time we’ve spent on it, but there are other points of view that need to be heard as well.  I think Alice has been waiting to speak…”), but it’s crucial to the open process and to the comfort and effectiveness of the group.
• Don’t let one point of view override others , unless it’s based on facts and logic, and is actually convincing group members to change their minds.  If a point of view dominates because of its merits, its appeal to participants’ intellectual and ethical sensibilities, that’s fine.  It’s in fact what you hope will happen in a good group discussion.  If a point of view dominates because of the aggressiveness of its supporters, or because it’s presented as something it’s wrong to oppose (“People who disagree with the President are unpatriotic and hate their country”), that’s intellectual bullying or blackmail, and is the opposite of an open discussion.  As leader, you should point it out when that’s happening, and make sure other points of view are aired and examined.

Sometimes individuals or factions that are trying to dominate can disrupt the process of the group. Both Sections 1 and 2 of this chapter contain some guidelines for dealing with this type of situation.

• Don’t assume that anyone holds particular opinions or positions because of his culture, background, race, personal style, etc .  People are individuals, and can’t be judged by their exteriors.  You can find out what someone thinks by asking, or by listening when he speaks.
• Don’t assume that someone from a particular culture, race, or background speaks for everyone else from that situation .  She may or may not represent the general opinion of people from situations similar to hers…or there may not be a general opinion among them.  In a group discussion, no one should be asked or assumed to represent anything more than herself.

The exception here is when someone has been chosen by her community or group to represent its point of view in a multi-sector discussion.  Even in that situation, the individual may find herself swayed by others’ arguments, or may have ideas of her own.  She may have agreed to sponsor particular ideas that are important to her group, but she may still have her own opinions as well, especially in other areas.

• Don’t be the font of all wisdom .  Even if you know more about the discussion topic than most others in the group (if you’re the teacher of a class, for instance), presenting yourself as the intellectual authority denies group members the chance to discuss the topic freely and without pressure.  Furthermore, some of them may have ideas you haven’t considered, or experiences that give them insights into the topic that you’re never likely to have.  Model learning behavior, not teaching behavior.

If you’re asked your opinion directly, you should answer honestly.  You have some choices about how you do that, however.  One is to state your opinion, but make very clear that it’s an opinion, not a fact, and that other people believe differently.  Another is to ask to hold your opinion until the end of the discussion, so as not to influence anyone’s thinking while it’s going on.  Yet another is to give your opinion after all other members of the group have stated theirs, and then discuss the similarities and differences among all the opinions and people’s reasons for holding them. If you’re asked a direct question, you might want to answer it if it’s a question of fact and you know the answer, and if it’s relevant to the discussion.  If the question is less clear-cut, you might want to throw it back to the group, and use it as a spur to discussion.

Group discussions are common in our society, and have a variety of purposes, from planning an intervention or initiative to mutual support to problem-solving to addressing an issue of local concern.  An effective discussion group depends on a leader or facilitator who can guide it through an open process – the group chooses what it’s discussing, if not already determined, discusses it with no expectation of particular conclusions, encourages civil disagreement and argument, and makes sure that every member is included and no one dominates.  It helps greatly if the leader comes to the task with a democratic or, especially, a collaborative style, and with an understanding of how a group functions.

A good group discussion leader has to pay attention to the process and content of the discussion as well as to the people who make up the group.  She has to prepare the space and the setting to the extent possible; help the group establish ground rules that will keep it moving civilly and comfortably; provide whatever materials are necessary; familiarize herself with the topic; and make sure that any pre-discussion readings or assignments get to participants in plenty of time.  Then she has to guide the discussion, being careful to promote an open process; involve everyone and let no one dominate; attend to the personal issues and needs of individual group members when they affect the group; summarize or clarify when appropriate; ask questions to keep the discussion moving, and put aside her own agenda, ego, and biases.

It’s not an easy task, but it can be extremely rewarding.  An effective group discussion can lay the groundwork for action and real community change.

Online resources

Everyday-Democracy . Study Circles Resource Center. Information and publications related to study circles, participatory discussion groups meant to address community issues.

Facilitating Political Discussions from the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education at Tufts University is designed to assist experienced facilitators in training others to facilitate politically charged conversations. The materials are broken down into "modules" and facilitation trainers can use some or all of them to suit their needs.

Project on Civic Reflection provides information about leading study circles on civic reflection.

“ Suggestions for Leading Small-Group Discussions ,” prepared by Lee Haugen, Center for Teaching Excellence, Iowa State University, 1998. Tips on university teaching, but much of the information is useful in other circumstances as well.

“ Tips for Leading Discussions ,” by Felisa Tibbits, Human Rights Education Associates.

Print resources

Forsyth, D . Group Dynamics . (2006). (4th edition).  Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. 

Johnson, D., & Frank P. (2002). Joining Together: Group theory and group skills . (8th edition).  Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

• Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

bok_logo_2-02_-_harvard_left.png

Case Study At-A-Glance

A case study is a way to let students interact with material in an open-ended manner. the goal is not to find solutions, but to explore possibilities and options of a real-life scenario..

Want examples of a Case-Study?  Check out the ABLConnect Activity Database Want to read research supporting the Case-Study method? Click here

Why should you facilitate a Case Study?

Want to facilitate a case-study in your class .

How-To Run a Case-Study

• Before class pick the case study topic/scenario. You can either generate a fictional situation or can use a real-world example.
• Clearly let students know how they should prepare. Will the information be given to them in class or do they need to do readings/research before coming to class?
• Have a list of questions prepared to help guide discussion (see below)
• Sessions work best when the group size is between 5-20 people so that everyone has an opportunity to participate. You may choose to have one large whole-class discussion or break into sub-groups and have smaller discussions. If you break into groups, make sure to leave extra time at the end to bring the whole class back together to discuss the key points from each group and to highlight any differences.
• What is the problem?
• What is the cause of the problem?
• Who are the key players in the situation? What is their position?
• What are the relevant data?
• What are possible solutions – both short-term and long-term?
• What are alternate solutions? – Play (or have the students play) Devil’s Advocate and consider alternate view points
• What are potential outcomes of each solution?
• What other information do you want to see?
• What can we learn from the scenario?
• Be flexible. While you may have a set of questions prepared, don’t be afraid to go where the discussion naturally takes you. However, be conscious of time and re-focus the group if key points are being missed
• Role-playing can be an effective strategy to showcase alternate viewpoints and resolve any conflicts
• Involve as many students as possible. Teamwork and communication are key aspects of this exercise. If needed, call on students who haven’t spoken yet or instigate another rule to encourage participation.
• Write out key facts on the board for reference. It is also helpful to write out possible solutions and list the pros/cons discussed.
• Having the information written out makes it easier for students to reference during the discussion and helps maintain everyone on the same page.
• Keep an eye on the clock and make sure students are moving through the scenario at a reasonable pace. If needed, prompt students with guided questions to help them move faster.  
• Either give or have the students give a concluding statement that highlights the goals and key points from the discussion. Make sure to compare and contrast alternate viewpoints that came up during the discussion and emphasize the take-home messages that can be applied to future situations.
• Inform students (either individually or the group) how they did during the case study. What worked? What didn’t work? Did everyone participate equally?
• Taking time to reflect on the process is just as important to emphasize and help students learn the importance of teamwork and communication.

CLICK HERE FOR A PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

Other Sources:

Harvard Business School: Teaching By the Case-Study Method

Written by Catherine Weiner

Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository

Create a Case Method Group Activity to Engage Students in Critical Thinking

Tags: Adult Learning , Assessment , Assignments , Blog , Case method , Cognitive Theory , Collaborative Learning , Community of Inquiry , Critical Thinking , Discussions , Experiential Learning , Google , Learning Activities , LMS , Problem-Based Learning , Scaffolding , Social Media , Video , Wiki

Description

The case method group activity is an instructional design strategy that involves faculty members providing one or more case studies to which groups of students respond. The case(s) could be a real-life case or simulation. It could be description of key concept(s) applied, a story or scenario, an actual case study, a problem or mystery, a performance, a visual, or an example.

The case method in online learning as an intervention presents students with ill-structured, real-world derived problems with multiple solutions (Choi & Lee, 2009). In a group activity this case method has the potential to harnesses the effectiveness of collaborative learning (Kolb, 1984) and group activities provide a space for collaborative problem solving, fostering a constructivist learning environment with potential to build a community of learning (Jonassen, 1997). The teaching facilitator can influence learners’ engagement in and adoption of the activity by communicating the relative advantage of key features of the online environment (Karamanos & Gibbs, 2012), as well as mapping and intervening in the group interactions to keep students focused on the problem (Etmer & Koehler, 2014). This mapping creates a plan for instructors to scaffold (or build in techniques to progressively support students to greater levels of learning independence and effective group interactions). Introduction of scaffolds and learning resources, perhaps additional readings and activities, presented at later stages of problem solving were associated with deep meaningful learning and critical thinking (Choi & Lee, 2009).

Because the case reflects a real-life situation, as the group members interact with each other, they should uncover multiple solutions, perspectives, or methods of analyzing the situation, with no single right answer. This divergence is important to encourage for fostering deeper levels of learning and critical thinking (Choi & Lee, 2009). A guiding question for the lesson can offer some parameters for faculty to map and scaffold activities, guiding students’ interactions as they engage with others in their groups about the case. This guiding question should depend on the purpose of the instruction (University of Illinois, 2015). The process of a faculty member scaffolding activities should result in more than one individual or group deliverable associated with it and a corresponding timeline for each. Consider, too, whether each component will have a group or individual grade (Carnegie Mellon University, 2015).

Link to example artifact(s)

As an example of the case method group activity, a faculty member teaching an industrial/organizational psychology course divided the students into groups based on time zones and created a discussion forum for each group. They completed a learning team charter to establish their group covenant. The parameters for the group activity were well-defined: students completed a group charter to agree on expectations for each member’s contribution to the group, the faculty provided an explanation of the purpose of the group activity for learning the material and succeeding in the course. The faculty explicitly stated how the quality of interactions and ideas derived from the group conversation and supported with evidence could contribute to the success of individual assignments.

The faculty provided the same case scenario across each group discussion forum. The case described in writing a company whose strict hierarchy and “us” (management) versus “them” (workers) mentality had led to a dysfunctional workplace environment with punitive acts from management and passive aggressive behaviors from employees. The faculty prompted students to analyze the situation using management and leadership approaches and theories from the course as a group by midway through the course, brainstorm as a group solutions to remedy the situation by applying key course concepts from middle to the end of the course, and submit an individual solution to the problem the case presented as the final assignment.

The faculty member interacted with each group several times throughout the course in their discussion forums, guiding them to consider important motivational and management theories (like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and McGregor’s theory x and y) to analyze the behavioral dynamics of management and the employees in the case. Additionally, a rubric was associated with each component presented prior to the assignment to set expectations and utilized by the faculty member for grading. To assess critical thinking, elements from the AASU Value rubric were incorporated into the individual solution activity rubric (2017). Students were graded individually even though they were interacting as a group for their mid-course analysis of the scenario, as a group on the solution brainstorming activity for a group grade, and individually on their submissions of their individual solution to the case.

Students’ critical thinking improvements and favorable reaction provided good evidence for the success of the case scenario activities in this course. During the discussion, students often related the scenario to their own real-life experiences in workplace settings. As the discussions progressed, students began identifying these experiences with key concepts, referring and citing course content, and this habit transferred to their individual solutions to the case presented in their papers. Some students developed a clear thesis for their perspectives, recounting nuances of the situation in the scenario (such as the organizational structure and emerging management styles) to substantiate their position. Even fewer students gave multiple solutions and explained why one is better than another. Students generally responded positively to the course and case scenario format. They indicated that they appreciated the real-life examples from other students and expressed that the group discussion contributed development of their individual submissions. Satisfaction with the course, as indicated on students’ end-of-course reviews, was high to very high.

Applying this case method group activity strategy to other disciplines should result in similar success, strengthening students’ critical thinking skills. This strategy is definitely generalizable, as the aim is for students’ collaboration for achieving the course or module objective(s) associated with the activity/assignment (University of Illinois, 2015), guiding students to:

• Identify key concepts reflected by a case, • Situate a case within a given system, • Summarize or recapitulate a case, • Generalize patterns or symbolic representations within a case, • Generate plausible causes that result in a case, • Analyze the components of a case, • Assess or judge the appropriate application presented in a case scenario, • Solve a problem that the case presents or that the faculty presents about the case Any discipline where students would benefit cognitively from collaboration to achieve one of the above objectives could apply this strategy: create a case method group activity to engage students in critical thinking.

Individual Paper Case Study Rubric

Case Study Rubric for Group Collaboration Discussion

Instructor: Revathi Viswanathan Course: Biotechnology

Students were asked to discuss case studies relating to their subject, and Edmodo was used as a learning platform for handling them. The purpose of integrating the technological tool was to encourage students to actively participate in the teaching and learning process even beyond their classroom. Besides this, Edmodo, as an application could be accessed both in a computer and a mobile, which in turn helps teachers to post resources, initiate discussions, create small groups, and enroll students to do collaborative tasks.

As part of the classroom based research, the students were put in small groups, and inputs for case study was posted as video files and reading texts to each group in the Edmodo page. Each group was given guidance on holding case study discussions. The preliminary discussion was initiated through brainstorming questions, which encouraged students to get to the important issue or aspect of the case study. For example, the following questions were posted related to the case study on ‘ Regenerative medicine- Current therapies and future directions’:

• What do you know about regenerative medicine?
• How does it help common man?

Similarly, one of the groups discussed ‘Genetic Engineering of Animals: ethical issues, including welfare concerns’ and the following questions were asked:

• Discuss how ‘deletion of genes, or the manipulation of genes already present’ affects the animals.
• What do you think about this as a biotechnology student?

After a few dialogues online, it was felt that most of the students could not identify the main aspect of the case study and the teacher researcher had to intervene by posting guidelines for discussing a case study (Source: https://plato.acadiau.ca/courses/Busi/IntroBus/CASEMETHOD.html#CASEMETHOD ). They were told about the process by which a case study has to be analysed. They were asked to look for issues that are stated in the case study, critically read and see how the issue is handled in depth. Then, they had to look for opening paragraph, background information, specific area of interest covered, specific problem stated, alternatives given and the conclusion drawn from the discussion, in the case study.

Besides posting these tips for handling case studies, the teacher explained the components of a case study (stated above) in the class. It was felt that this online collaborative activity had to be handled by following the online collaborative theory advocated by Harasim (2012). According to her, a teacher plays an important role (in an online collaborative learning scenario) in the process of knowledge construction among students, by providing inputs and integrating the core concept along with the subject domain. In this context, it must be stated that the teacher researcher had already brought in the integration of biotechnology related case studies for discussion. However, considering the extent to which they could use the subject knowledge for discussing the given case study, it was evident that the students expected teacher’s intervention. In other words, the teacher had to draw their attention to the main issue of the case study by posting a few specific (case study related) questions.

For example, the group which was working on the case study, ‘Genetic engineering of animals’, were asked to focus on the specific concepts. The following question was posted in Edmodo group page:

• How does it affect an animal when it is genetically modified or genetically altered or genetically manipulated or transgenic, and biotechnology-derived
• How will the animal cope with when it is modified?

The extent to which the students of respective groups (group A & B) could discuss the case study by using their subject knowledge was evaluated by comparing two groups (both before-the-intervention and after-the-intervention of the teacher) using Causal-Comparative method. The analysis of performance of the group members was done with the help of the rubrics, ‘Undergraduate Case Analysis Rubrics’ (Source https://www.onlineethics.org/File.aspx?id=31203&v=859a7ffb ). The frequency polygon drawn for both groups (Figures 1 and 2) and the ANOVA test scores evaluated showed variation, particularly in group A’s performance (ie before and after teacher’s intervention).

It was evident that students’ application of subject knowledge in their discussion had promoted communicative ability. Further, it proved the application of online collaborative theory in encouraging students to contribute to online discussions.

Link to scholarly references

Association of American Colleges & Universities (2017). Critical thinking VALUE rubric. Retrieved from  https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/critical-thinking

Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center (2015). How can I assess group work? Retrieved from  https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/instructionalstrategies/groupprojects/assess.html

Choi, I., & Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: Classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development , 57( 1 ), 99-129.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9089-2

David, H. J. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development , 45( 1 ). Retrieved from  http://www.webkelley.com/HBS/ID%20Models%20for%20Well-Structured.pdf

Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2014). Online case-based discussions: Examining coverage of the afforded problem space. Educational Technology Research and Development , 62( 5 ), 617-636.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9350-9

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth I nstructional-design theories and models: Volume II (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from  https://www.savoiabenincasa.gov.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1999-Jonassen.pdf

Karamanos, N., & Gibbs, P. (2012). A model for student adoption of online interactivity. Research in Post-Compulsory Education , 17( 3 ), 321-334.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2012.700108

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from  https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Kolb-Experiential-Learning-Experience-as-the-Source-of-Learning-and-Development-2nd-Edition/PGM183903.html

University of Illinois. (2015). Online teaching activity index: Case study or case based index. Retrieved from  www.ion.uillinois.edu%2Fresources%2Fotai%2Fcasestudies.asp&token=yz%2BG1QALcwhrBLaVIIOV1qkwVJCS27mZAH624RoGdAc%3D

Post Revisions:

• August 7, 2020 @ 20:33:26 [Current Revision]
• August 7, 2020 @ 20:33:26
• October 2, 2019 @ 14:57:03
• September 30, 2019 @ 18:49:58
• September 30, 2019 @ 18:46:31

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Med Educ

Can case-based discussions in a group setting be used to assess residents' clinical skills?

Rakel f. johansen.

1 Steno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark

René B. Nielsen

2 DEFACTUM, Koncern Kvalitet, Central Denmark Region, Denmark

Bente V. Malling

3 Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University, Denmark

Hanne Storm

4 Diagnostic Center, Regional Hospital Silkeborg, Regional Hospital Central, Jutland, Denmark

Associated Data

The purpose of this study was to explore residents' and assessors' perception of a new group assessment concept.

This qualitative study consists of observations of four group assessment sessions, followed by semi-structured interviews with six residents and four assessors (specialists in internal medicine), who all volunteered to be interviewed. All residents at a medical department (eleven to fifteen each time) and four assessors participated in four group assessments, where the residents' clinical skills were assessed through case-based discussions. An external consultant (an anthropologist) performed the observations and the interviews. Notes from the observations and the interviews were analyzed using an inductive approach.

Eight of the ten interviewed participants preferred group assessment to individual assessment. Results from the interviews suggested that the group assessments were more consistent and that the level of discussion was perceived to be higher in the group discussions compared to the one-to-one discussions. All residents indicated that they had acquired new knowledge during their assessment and reported having learned from listening to the assessment of their peers. Assessors similarly reported gaining new knowledge.

Conclusions

The residents and assessors expressed very favourable attitudes toward the new group assessment concept. The assessment process was perceived to be higher in quality and more consistent, contributing to learning for all participating doctors in the department. Group assessment is feasible and acceptable, and provides a promising tool for assessment of clinical skills in the future.

Introduction

Along with the implementation of competency-based education, workplace-based assessment (WPBA) has been widely adopted in many countries. 1 - 4 Although the validity and reliability of WPBA methods has been discussed, evidence for their utility seems well-established for a number of assessment methods including case-based discussions (CbDs). 5 - 8 Case-based discussions are well suited to assess trainees' clinical reasoning, decision-making and application of medical knowledge in patient care. 6 - 9 The assessments also contribute to learning, especially if the assessments include formative feedback. 8 , 10 Thus, many specialties have included CbD in their assessment program. 5 , 7 , 8 , 11

The validity of WPBAs, including CbDs, is increased by choosing assessors who are most fit to judge the performance 12 ; their value also depends on trainer enthusiasm 13 , 14 and the training of the assessors. 15 - 21 Assessor training is especially important for the assessment to be perceived as more than a tick-box exercise by both trainees and assessors. 6 , 7 , 14 , 15 , 22 , 23 The reliability of CbD also increases with the number of assessments and assessors involved. 5 , 24 Furthermore, the involvement of multiple assessors may lead to fairer assessment, due to decreased risk of bias that could be caused by personal relations. 16

However, using many assessments and assessors might not be possible in a busy clinical environment even if the organization supports the use of WPBA. Implementation of CbDs and other WPBA methods needs to be feasible, as it takes a practical approach and involves the users. 6 , 12 , 17 - 20

Organizational support is necessary to ensure that WPBAs are not just perceived as an additional workload and that they are used for relevant rather than easily assessable training activities. 19

Most trainees appreciate the educational value of CbDs. However, more emphasis on the planning of these assessments is required. 20 , 24 , 27 , 33 It has been suggested that the educational value and content of CbDs could be improved by providing ring-fenced time for these in both specialists' and residents' job plans to ensure sufficient time for the assessments. 7 , 11 , 13 , 21 , 23

Educational setting

In Denmark, which is the setting of this study, outcome-based education with mandatory WPBA, based on the seven CanMEDS roles, was implemented in 2004. In order to become a specialist, a doctor must go through a 2-year internship followed by four or five years of specialty training. All residents have an educational supervisor appointed for each rotation who is responsible for the resident's educational program and the assessment of their clinical skills in that particular rotation. One-to-one CbDs between resident and supervisor are a mandatory part of the evaluation of residents' clinicals skills.

Rationale and study aim

Drawing on knowledge of the factors that increase the effectiveness of WPBAs, and in particular CbDs, the idea for a new "group assessment" concept took shape. The group assessment concept was created to increase the quality of CbDs used for assessing residents` clinical skills, and to make sure that the assessments were performed in a manner that was time- and cost-efficient.

In a medical department, mandatory one-to-one CbD assessments between the resident and the supervisor were therefore experimentally replaced by quarterly group assessment sessions. The aim of this study was to explore the residents' and assessors' perception of the new group assessment concept.

Study design

This study used a qualitative design consisting of observation of group assessment sessions, followed by semi-structured interviews with four specialists and six residents.

Participants and setting

The study took place in a large multidisciplinary medical department. Group assessments were performed every third month over a year (four times in total), where every session lasted for 5 hours. All residents at the medical department participated (eleven to fifteen residents each time) as participation was mandatory. The residents were all five years or less from becoming medical specialists in rheumatology, endocrinology, cardiology, gastroenterology, or pulmonology. Four assessors and a moderator, all of whom were medical specialists, participated in each group assessment. Author HS served as a moderator at all of the sessions. An anthropologist (author RBN) observed the sessions and performed the interviews.

The study did not need formal ethics approval according to Danish law (Act on Research Ethics Review of Health Research Projects). 25 However, all residents and specialists who volunteered to be interviewed received oral information about the study and gave verbal consent to participate, in agreement with national guidelines. 25 Only the anthropologist had access to the interview data, and the participants were anonymized by designating them as resident 1-6 and assessor 1-4.

The schedule for the group assessments was sent out a year in advance; and three months before every meeting, the residents were reminded about the 3-4 predefined topics of the forthcoming session. The assessment group, who were medical specialists within the topic for the next session, were also invited to participate ( Appendix 1 ).The group assessment sessions were scheduled and booked in the doctors' job plans.

The sessions took place in the departments' conference room with IT solutions available to present patient data. On the day of the group assessment, residents took turns presenting a clinical case within each of the day's topics (approximately 1 hour discussion for each topic), followed by a short discussion between the moderator and the assessors after each topic where the residents' performance was assessed.

All of the residents and specialists who participated in the sessions were later invited for interview; six residents and four assessors volunteered.

Data collection

The data included two separate components: anthropologist observations and semi-structured interviews. The anthropologist observed the group assessment three times. The observations included observation of the structure and process, number of cases, the number of questions and comments, the placement of the participants, conversations, use of mobile phones/iPads, length of breaks and so on. The data from observations are field notes.

On the basis of observation of the first group assessment, the anthropologist developed an interview guide ( Appendix 2 ). Thirty-minute semi-structured interviews using the interview guide were carried out. The interviews included topics such as experience with and attitude towards group assessment, comparison/experience with one-to-one assessment, the structure of the group assessment, preparation, outcome, case presentation and more.

All of the interviews and field notes were transcribed verbatim. The data were thematically categorized 26 according to the interview guide by the author RBN, who read the material and identified main themes and sub-themes.

The categorization, themes and sub-themes were discussed with author HS until consensus was reached. Qualitative guidelines were followed to ensure transparency. 27 , 28 Quotations that most accurately illustrated the sub-themes were selected and translated from Danish into English. Table 1 shows the themes and sub-themes with examples of statements belonging to the themes.

Observations of the group assessment are presented, followed by findings from the interview data which are divided into four major themes.

Observation of the group assessment

Clinical cases were discussed with both peers and the assessors. The moderator kept track of time and made sure that all residents participated in the group discussion and the presentation of cases. The four assessors and moderator together assessed the residents' skills, and feedback was given during the discussion of the case. Notes and mandatory standard assessment forms were used for the assessment.

The anthropologist could not evaluate the medical content of the discussion, but a case could result in a discussion of many other aspects than the core medical content of the case, such as social background, ethics, and communication. This generated lots of input from both residents and assessors. Many of the presented cases were known by several of the doctors, who could provide different perspectives. The number of doctors who took part in the discussion after each case presentation varied considerably, and there was also great variation in the amount of time used on each case discussion (from 2 to 20 minutes). The assessors were also active to varying degrees, especially with respect to follow-up questions for assessment of satisfactory clinical competencies of the resident, suggesting a different understanding of the role of assessor, which was confirmed during the interviews.

It was noticed that the moderator played a powerful role in ensuring that all topics were discussed and that all residents participated in the case presentations and subsequent discussions.

After each topic, the assessors and the moderator discussed in private the performance of the residents and came to a consensus on whether their competence should be approved. If a resident did not perform sufficiently, a one-to-one assessment together with the educational supervisor was arranged. The results of the assessment were communicated to both the resident and the educational supervisor at a later point in time to avoid humiliating the resident in a group forum.

Interview data

Preparing for the group assessment and case presentation.

The residents felt that they had plenty of time to gather and prepare cases, as the topics and dates for the group assessments were sent out a year in advance, with the following reminder three months prior to the next group assessment:

"You know what the topics are, so bear this in mind if you encounter an interesting patient. You want to find a case with many interesting aspects that you think will be of interest to all your colleagues." (resident 5)

The residents remembered the cases by making notes about them and reading the notes again before the group assessment. The assessors were a bit nervous about what to expect prior to the first group assessment, but found they did not really need to prepare:

" The first time I was unsure about what to expect, but I think it went well… I found out that I knew the things I should know, and it did not require much preparation." (assessor 3)

The residents themselves selected the cases they wanted to present. As some pointed out, this could result in them choosing cases where they felt confident about their own knowledge. Several residents stated that there might be a tendency to pick out cases that were rare and intriguing:

"There has been a tendency to pick good and exciting cases. However, in our field we should be better at presenting what is difficult or unclear, because that is what we often encounter in our daily clinical work…." (resident 1)

Other residents, on the contrary, stated that they were more likely to present difficult cases where they had been unsure about what to do. Yet another resident stated that she chose to present a case within her own specialty that she thought was important for all doctors to have some knowledge about.

Assessment, resources, and approval of competences

It was often stated that it could be difficult to assess all of the residents at the same time. Someone might hide in a group, not necessarily because he/she lacked the required competences. This could be due to their personality, as some are more introvert and reserved, while others are extrovert and like to be heard:

"You are in a forum, where one might feel a bit exposed. You are together with specialists from the department, and everybody has that basic fear: one does not want to present oneself as professionally ignorant." (resident 1)

Many doctors acknowledged the ability of the moderator to steer the meeting and in ensuring everyone was heard. The length of the group assessment was regarded as suitable and many emphasized that the sessions were relaxed with a good and safe environment that was not exam-like. Since there were several assessors, many found that the assessment was more consistent. Although it took time to plan the group assessments, both the residents and assessors felt that they were more resource-efficient and manageable than one-to-one assessments.

As the meetings were scheduled during working hours, it was highly appreciated that group assessment made approving competences straightforward. One resident pointed out that previously having competences approved often became a hunt for signatures, without proper assessment or feedback:

 " I think this is much better than the way it works in other places. We have to have these signatures, so many signatures… It is a bit of a hunt for signatures, without anyone really going into the depth with anything." (resident 4)

Professionalism, learning and interdisciplinarity

The residents especially appreciated professional discussions in an interdisciplinary environment. They found it professionally enriching and educational to meet with doctors from other specialties to discuss common challenges. They also mentioned that the group assessments provided insights into the other doctors' skills that could inspire them to become just as skilled:

"You get a better insight into the other doctors' skills, and this can serve as inspiration to become just as skilled as them." (resident 5)

For the assessors, the assessment process had a greater focus than the professional discussions, but they also acknowledged that the doctors gained more knowledge from the group assessments than the one-to-one assessments. The extra time available to discuss cases was greatly appreciated. As one assessor put it:

 "…. I think we all felt it was a luxury to have time for discussion. Because we all learn from each other, no matter if you are a resident or an expert. But the expert is not an expert in all medical fields, so in that way it is mutually beneficial, although the assessment is about them [the residents]. As such, I think they get greater knowledge than in the one-to-one assessments." (assessor 2)

Both residents and assessors thought that group assessments were rewarding for all. Most participants looked forward to the next group assessment, because they gained new knowledge and insights during the sessions. Group assessments made it possible to discuss more cases (around 24 cases in a session) compared to the number of cases covered at the one-to-one assessments (usually three to four). Furthermore, the presence of residents and assessors from different specialties provided more perspectives and interdisciplinary knowledge. One resident thought the concept was a stroke of genius:

" The basic idea to meet four times a year and have competences assessed in a forum where residents and specialists are gathered is an excellent idea. It shows that this is something that needs to be done, and there is a setting and a deadline for the assessment." (resident 1)

Overall perspective on the group assessment concept

Eight of the ten doctors who were interviewed preferred group assessment to the one-to-one CbDs, while two residents preferred the individual one-to-one assessments, provided there was enough time for case discussion;

"I think I would personally benefit most from the one-to-one assessment. But it [group assessment] is a good way to have your competences assessed." (resident 2)

The residents acknowledged the value of individual supervision received from their educational supervisor, but for the approval of core internal medicine competences, group assessment was considered superior by most.

Many of the doctors therefore suggested that group assessment should be tried out and subsequently implemented at other departments, to replace the mandatory one-to-one CbD assessments of key competences.

By introducing group assessment, it seems that some of the obstacles associated with one-to-one CbDs for assessment of clinical competences can be overcome. By including many assessors, it is likely that there is less subjectivity and bias in the assessment process 16 ; additionally, specialists who are best suited to assess particular competences are asked to participate. 12 Furthermore, including assessors and residents from different specialties raises the level of discussion, and gives a broader perspective on the cases and required skills. For instance, the emphasis may be quite different when it comes to a discussion of "dizziness" if you are a cardiologist or a geriatrician.

The assessors understood their role as assessors differently, so perhaps using assessors who were already familiar with the concept could have improved the group assessment. 29 However, discussions among the assessors regarding whether or not a resident had the necessary competence to get approval contributed to the assessor's knowledge and skills as assessors and led to a common understanding of the concept of CbD, and how it was to be used in this specific department. The need to be trained as an assessor has been recommended by several authors. 15 , 30 , 31 The introduction of this group assessment concept thus provided a learning opportunity for the assessors regarding the use of CbD. Whether this led to an increase in the quality of other assessments in the department was beyond the scope of this study. However, the general agreement on the pass/fail level obtained through discussions among the assessors does lead to higher uniformity and probably makes the assessments fairer.

The residents themselves chose the cases that they wanted to present. As pointed out by the residents, they might present cases where they had performed well, so CbDs alone might not give a reliable picture of a resident's competences. However, the interviews showed that residents also chose cases where they had been in doubt. Further studies are needed to answer the question of how residents choose cases for CbDs.

One of the difficulties reported by the assessors was the variation in the residents' contribution to the discussions, which might lead to more introvert residents being overlooked. All assessors stressed the importance of the moderator in making sure all residents were active. Besides this, the moderator should steer the conversation and ensure group effectiveness. These are all competences ascribed to a good facilitator. 32 In the opinion of the assessors, the moderator plays a crucial role in the group assessments' success.

The group assessment concept provided ring-fenced time for the assessment of residents' clinical skills. Dedicating 4x5 hours for group assessment and gathering many of the doctors in the department may seem an unaffordable solution. It requires planning to ensure that residents and specialists are not scheduled to do other tasks, and that the residents have enough time to find cases. This requires an open-minded head of department, willing to invest time on education. However, the investment seems to be worthwhile, as initiatives like these increase attention on specialty training and place specialty training on the agenda of clinical departments. 19 Thus, the introduction and implementation of group assessments is an example of how new initiatives in health care can succeed if local solutions are accepted. It might reflect the freedom in interpreting and implementing competency-based medical education to make it fit locally, as recently called for by Dagnone and colleagues. 20

To our knowledge, similar studies regarding group assessment of residents` clinical skills have not been made, but the concept may resemble practice-based small group learning (PBSGL) where groups of doctors gather to discuss cases from daily clinical work, and case presentations are often followed by topic review and discussions of the related evidence-based publications to identify implications for changes in practice. 33 The concept is widely used by general practitioners and seems to be a promising method of continuing professional development. 33 In this study, it was found that group assessments enhanced the learning experience of both residents and assessors and may also have contributed to continued professional development of the assessors.

Limitations

A limitation of the study was that residents and assessors volunteered for the interview, and so doctors who were either very fond of or dissatisfied with group assessment might be more likely to volunteer. This might have given either more positive or more negative results. However, there were both positive and negative evaluations expressed in the interviews. Thus, the results seem to reflect reality.

Another limitation is that only one of the authors of this paper performed the data analysis. However, the categories and themes were discussed and agreed by two of the authors (HS, RBN), who also attended all the group assessment sessions.

Furthermore, it is difficult to consider the generalizability of the results from this study, since only one department participated. It might not be possible to implement group assessment in all departments or in all specialties. However, most specialties have general competencies and many specialties use CbD in their assessment program, and, as such, it might be interesting to try implementing the concept in other specialties and departments.

The group assessment concept seems to offer an acceptable, feasible and efficient model for CbD used as a formative assessment of residents' competences in internal medicine. It reduces the effect of interpersonal relations between residents and supervisors and thereby minimizes bias. It provides busy clinicians with time to engage in teaching/assessment activities. The amount of knowledge, skills, input and inspiration grows with the number of residents and medical specialists. Thus, group assessment serves as a tool for assessing clinical skills, and facilitates learning for all of the participating doctors in the department.

The group assessment concept with the goal of assessing residents' competences, together with mutual learning, could serve as an inspiration for other departments, specialties, and countries. Further studies are required to investigate the value of group assessment as a tool for assessing doctors' clinical skills.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all of the doctors who participated in the group assessments, and, in particular, the doctors who volunteered in the interviews. We would also like to thank the head of the Medical Department, Diagnostic Center, Silkeborg for their openmindedness in trying out a new concept.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

Supplementary file 1.

Appendix 1. Topics discussed every third month with participating residents and assessment group specialists

Supplementary file 2

Appendix 2. Interview guide

The Free 30-Day CAT RC Course

"It is designed to help you excel in the upcoming CAT 2024 exam"

-By Lavleen Kaur Kapoor. Over 2,00,000+ Subscribers

No thanks >

Thanks for subscribing to our 30-Day CAT RC Course! Check your inbox for Day 1: RC Passage.

Easy Topics on Group Discussion, GD Topics with Question and Answers 2023

Group discussion is the final step in the admission process for MBA which is followed by Personal Interview (PI). There are 1000s of candidates for MBA admission. It gets difficult to judge each and every person on the basis of interview. Therefore, GD is conducted to select some candidates out of many.

Earlier, a topic was given to the 7-10 students and they were supposed to discuss on that topic for 10-15 minutes. Nowadays, most of the B-Schools are giving thumps up to case study based group discussion. 

What is Case Study based Group Discussion (CSGD)?

In this type of group discussion, a case or a situation is given to the students. Some time is given to the students to understand the case which is related to the real corporate world situation. They are supposed to evaluate the case/situation. They have to look for the problem and the main cause. Then, students are supposed to discuss their points with the group members and give their solutions.

It is the most effective way to judge the candidate’s managerial qualities:

• Logical and Analytical Skills
• Leadership Skills
• Interpersonal Skills
• Decision making skills
• Situation handling ability
• Communication skills
• Perspective
• Creative and Innovative

How to solve case studies based GD?

• Read and understand the case thoroughly.
• Do the SWOT analysis
• Look for the problem and the cause from where the problem had arise.
• Either look at the situation by stepping into their shoes or can think from the third party point of view. Analyze the problem from different dimension and then come up with 3-4 possible solutions.

Group discussion

Group discussion is conducted by Institutes to test –

• Oratory skills
• Interpersonal skills
• Leadership skills.

Group Discussion is commonly called as GD. It is conducted post entrance exams. Group of eight to ten students are given a topic. You have to speak face to face while making eye contact with each other. 

As the name suggests, GD is a discussion and not a debate. Proper decorum must be maintained. You should be open all kinds of ideas. Voice should not be raised at any time. The GD panel judges your overall personality during this round.

• 1 What is Group Discussion ?  
• 2  Latest Topics for Group Discussion  
• 3 Skills required for Group Discussion  
• 4 Tips and Tricks for Group Discussion  

What is Group Discussion?

GD is a platform where you are expected to discuss on an assigned topic and put forward your point of view at your turn so that a meaningful discussion takes place and group can come up with logical take away message as conclusion. 

MBA entrance examinations test you only for qualitative skills hence, the other skills which are needed for the selection of a good candidate is soft skills.

During jobs in organizations, communication plays a vital role to nurture Brand and thereby satisfy customers hence, GD is conducted to assess you on above parameters because MBA institutes look in you as future successful managers.

Because of the above reasons GD is conducted as a group to test your Verbal Communication Skills , attitude, interpersonal skills, body language and top of all how do you conduct yourself in a group and besides these qualities you are also tested for your entrepreneurial traits.

Skills required for Group Discussion

The skills that are usually assessed in a Group Discussion are:

• Communication Skills
• Motivational Skills
• Team Building Skills
• Clarity over Ambiguity
• Divergent Thinking
• Listening skills
• Presentation Skills
• Analytical / Logical skills

What is Case Study GD? Solved Case Studies for MBA Group Discussion

So, it's important to assess your current strengths in all these areas and accordingly put efforts to strengthen your weaknesses.

GDs are used to assess certain group skills that cannot be evaluated in an interview . These include reasoning ability, leadership ability, Inspiring ability, flexibility, creativity/out-of-the-box thinking, social skills , listening and articulation skills, situational handling ability, interpersonal ability to function as a team player, body language and attitude. These are the skills which are very much required to become a successful professional which in turn works as an asset for the institutes at time of campus placements.

Another important reason for institutes to keep GD as an elimination round is because of the crowd factor. At the peak time of admissions, an institute has to deal with 1000s of aspiring students. In a GD, they can analyze upto 15 aspirants in 10 minutes.

Most of the institutes use Group Discussions as the next step in the selection process after written examination. Thus, Group Discussion is an important criterion for selection and rejection of candidates. It is used during admissions and campus placements. 

GD is a great tool to gauge communication abilities of students via group activity. Usually the group members are given a topic or a situation. They get a few minutes to think and engage in a healthy discussion with fellow group members.   

Topics can be from a wide range of issues. They could be related to –

• Current events
• Business news

The wider your reading interests, the better prepared you will be prepared. A Group discussion tests how you function as a team.

• 1  Do’s and Don’ts  
• 2  Role of the Evaluator in Group Discussion  
• 3  Purpose of Group Discussion  
• 4  Traits required  

Tips and Tricks for Group Discussion

Here are some tips for effective participation in a GD:

• Assert – Be assertive.
• Articulate – Work continuously towards articulating your ideas into meaningful sentences to make the best impact. Speak clear and crisp.
• Emphasize – Use non-verbal communication to emphasize points.
• Initiate – If possible, take initiative to begin the discussion.
• Involve – Take active part throughout the GD.
• Listen – Be an attentive listener.
• Quality – It's not 'how much' you say, but 'what' you say that's important.
• Speak – Try and get a chance to speak. If you don’t get a chance make your chance.
• Structure – Structure arguments logically and justify your stand.
• Summarize – Summarize the discussion effectively.
• Understand – Understand the topic before attempting to contribute.

To prepare for a group discussion, keep track of happenings around the world. Having an all-round knowledge leaves a good impression on Panelists. Inculcate the habit of reading newspapers and magazines. Watch interesting documentaries and series on television. This gives a wider perspective on issues. 

Your intelligence, general knowledge and core competencies are measured through the aptitude test. The group activity helps judge you as a team player.

You will have to pursue the following points if you want to be successful in a group discussion. The points are as follows:

• Make sure that you read as much news as possible. Generally, the topic is chosen from some of the current happenings. Hence you should make sure that you have a look at all of them.
• Make sure that you speak loudly and clearly . This is one of the most important things and you could find yourself in difficulty if you do not speak loudly and clearly in a GD.
• You should know that you are not really bounded to think in one way. You are free to think on your own and put forward some new ideas. It is good for your chances and also for the GD since new ideas will definitely make it interesting.
• You should know what the topic is really about. If you have some confusion then you should wait for some time and let the other speak at first. When the matter is quite clear and the GD is in midst then you should start speaking with new ideas in mind.

Traits required

Traits institutes are looking for in an MBA aspirant:

Knowledge about the subject can never be replaced in a GD. No matter how good you might be communicating, but if your sentences don't reflect that you are knowledge bank then it's probably not going to work out. You are required to talk in a GD but inputs that don't contain any substantial value will not help in any way. One has to keep himself updated by knowing what all is happening around the globe.

Alertness and presence of mind:

In a GD you are required to carefully listen to the other person's thoughts. You should keep an argument, example, supportive statement, or fact ready to pitch in. This shows your alertness. It also suggests that you give importance to group members views. It means you are a good listener. 

Remain calm, composed and not sound aggressive. Assertiveness always helps win brownie point.

Out of the box thinking:

Yes! This the something that can help you get further selected because this reflects that you have a different way of looking at things. You need to be creative and have to put points that might amaze the panel. Remember, while working there are times when we need to find out solutions to the problem in a better way, thinking out of the box helps you finding smart and good solutions at times

Do’s and Don’ts

• Group strength is usually 8 to 12 members
• When the group discussion topic is announced and if you do not get the topic properly, just request to repeat the topic. Do not show surprises.
• Correctly saying what you want to say- speaking effectively and efficiently is very important.
• General Principles
• Be a good listener
• Do not use high vocabulary
• Never use technical language while speaking
• Not knowing is not a problem, do not try to bluff

Things to avoid

• Do not criticize on religion
• Do not get personal with anyone
• Do not criticize foreign policy of India
• Never ever try to bluff

Role of the Evaluator in Group Discussion

Admission selection panel evaluates GD which is usually a group of 8 - 10 MBA aspirants who vie with each other to impress upon selection panel. Most of the time the prime objective of the evaluator is having following parameters:

• How the candidate communicates?
• The inter personal skills of the candidates
• How a candidate menuovers of the subject of the GD and how he concludes?
• The leadership quality is judged
• How the candidate adapts with cross questions during GD?

Purpose of Group Discussion

Post cut off list each institute conducts GD to evaluate MBA aspirants for the soft skills with following objectives:

• To know the communication skills of MBA aspirants
• To judge body language of the candidates
• To understand top of mind personality of the candidates
• To understand attitudinal attributes of the candidates
• To understand attributes of positivity of the candidates
• To understand the Entrepreneurial traits of the candidates
• To understand the institute fit quotient of the candidate

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Are case-study based group discussion and topic group discussion different? A . Yes, topic group discussion is about general awareness and case-study group discussion is all about how analytical thinking you have and how you deal with the situation. 

Q2. What are the current topics for CSGD? A . This type of GD is not based on the current topics but on a case which is related to real life situation. Candidates have to understand what the case is about and they have to come up with their solutions.

Q3. From where can I get the case study samples? A . You can visit our website for the case study samples: https://www.mbarendezvous.com/case-studies/1.html

• 1 How Can You Differentiate Yourself Among Group Of People
• 2 Social Media Has Exposed Politicians
• 3 Tips on Taking Initiative in GD
• 4  Vote bank politics is still dividing India

Latest Group Discussions Topics with Answers

• Old Books Have Become Irrelevant In IOT Present
• Computing habits have spoiled language skills
• Politicization of scams will produce more scamsters
• Bank Scams are reaction of fragile system
• Is the youth of India Confident or Confused?
• Hard work or Smart work?
• Women Empowerment is limited to debates?
• Bharat & India - 2 different strokes?
• Who is performing better- India or Indians?
• GD Topic: Problems unite us, Religion divides us
• Hard work embedded with smart work leads to success
• Is India ready for e-commerce?
• Cricket has spoiled other streams of Indian Sports
• Peer pressure can make or mar your future

Latest Topics for Group Discussion

CRICKET HAS SPOILED OTHER STREAMS OF INDIAN SPORTS

Number of participants: 5

Time: 20 Mins

Rahul Reddy Started:

Good Morning everyone, it is my pleasure to be seated with you all for this exciting discussion. Let's fully participate in this and try to come up with a concrete end remark.

I think, it is not justified to think cricket as a national obsession. It is the one game through which we Indians are able to hold our heads high. We won two world cups and have been on top in tests for two odd years. Whatever it has brought is quite appreciable. 

India has been winning gold in other sports as well. Abhinav Bindra won gold in Olympics. The Indian hockey team has won 8 golds in past. All achievements are highly appreciated. But it is also a fact that it happened when TV's and internet are on full bloom. 

In 1983 when India won the world cup, television was just gaining popularity. Even then the cricket fever was high. Thus, it is more popular than any other sport. 

Every Indian wants to play cricket in streets. It is in Indian blood and no media is required for cricket. Cricket is, and will be the most popular sport in India. I hope other sports also do well.

Smriti Nigam said:

Hello everyone, I do agree with my friend here.

Even I don't think that cricket have hurt any other sports. Cricket is interesting, fuels excitement, inculcates patriotic feeling. How can it be the "SPORT'S" fault? 

I think it is just because cricket has a very interesting format. Thus, it has become so popular and loved by all. It is followed as a religion. The cricketers are worshiped as God in our country. 

The fame that cricket has given to India, cannot be ignored. As far as other sports are concerned, they have not lost their importance. Be it tennis, badminton or hockey they are still very popular. But yes, it is a fact that cricket is more popular and followed by more people.

Himanshu said:

Good Morning friends,

I don't think cricket as a national obsession is a deterrent to other sports. Cricket has got popularity because of the legends cricket has given to us – Sunil Gavaskar, Kapil Dev, Sachin Tendulkar, etc. It is because of the achievement of these people; cricket is appreciated in India. 

Recently, Rajyawardhan Singh Rathore won silver in Olympics for shooting. Post that we won lots of medals in shooting. If we want other games to be equally appreciated, then we need legends in them too. I believe if other sports also produce great players; then they will get as much appreciation as cricket in this country.

Mayank Aggarwal said:

Hello Friends, As the topic suggests, that cricket is detriment to other sports, I quite agree with it. It is because:

• Cricket game is promoted by the way of advertisement. Cricket sport stars get different kinds of products to endorse. 
• Match between India and Pakistan has a cult fan base. The way it is advertised definitely makes it detrimental to other sports. It also hampers national peace to certain extent. In newspapers, most of the sports page are filled with cricket news

So, along with cricket, the Indian media too, is playing the role of detriment to other sports of India. Media has the highest power today in our country. If it wishes, it can change the shape of sports too.

Abin Thomas said:

Hello everyone,I don't think that cricket is a detriment to other sports. But it is the bias towards cricket. This is what is destructing other sports. Most people are unaware that India has teams in Hockey, Rugby, Soccer, Basketball, etc. It feels mortified that a nation like India does not support its athletes. 

I hope that we will recognize our athletes of all games and supports them in their respective sports.

Rahul Reddy said:

As I suggested, according to me cricket is not at all detrimental to any other sports. It is suppressed by us. I believe we are totally responsible for it. There is no comparison between two sports. Each has its own charm and significance. How can cricket suppress the other sports? 

It is just that Indian people are crazy about the cricket. So, the comparison lies not in sports but in our thinking. Few days ago, the Economic Times conducted a survey to find out who inspires the people in the field of sports and the results announced that almost -

43% people inspires with S R Tendulkar 35% people inspires with M S Dhoni 11% people inspires with S. Nehwal 04% people inspires with Vijendra Singh 04% people inspires with A. Bindra

This survey observed that a total of 78% people inspired by the cricketers, that shows the craziness of the people towards cricket.

Well, I personally feel that obsession with cricket is a detriment to other sports. It is because of the way it is promoted. Just like a movie is hyped and all of us go to watch it. But on the same time some epic movie just gets neglected because of poor advertisement. 

Also, it is not the case that there is less talent in other sports. If other sports are unable to match up to the expectations, it is because of improper training and meagre monetary help.

Well friends, I like and support cricket a lot. However, I feel that unintentionally cricket has come to a point from where it is becoming detrimental to other sports. 

How many of us watch other sports played by Indian sportsmen and sportswomen? I am sure only a handful! Why is it so? One definite reason is the hype that cricket gets through the media. People not only watch the match with shear attention but also the pre-and post-match shows. 

Another reason is the monetary investment by the Government and by business individuals. This lures the youth to pursue cricket. Lastly, I would say that the Government should take necessary measures to allow other sports to flourish.

Abin Thomas Concluded:

Now, if we conclude our discussion I would like to highlight the main points that were discussed.

First: Majority of us agreed that the Game of Cricket, in itself, is not spoiling other streams of sports but it's the audience that goes crazy for its favorite sport.

Second: Media should give as much exposure to other sports as much it does to cricket.

Third: Government and Corporate people need to fund other sports as well so that they could get better training and bring home as much popularity as cricket does.

Almost there! Please complete this form and click the Download button to gain instant access

Never miss any updates from us .

Subscribe for Important updates, Free Mocktest and News.

Useful Resources

• Testimonial
• Web Stories

Learning Home

Not Now! Will rate later

Solved GDs Topic

How Solved GDs can help:

• What are the types of GD Topics asked?
• How to handle controversial GD Topics?
• What kind of ideas should be generated before the GD starts?
• What are the different kinds of viewpoints that can be covered?
• What should be my standpoint in the discussion?
• How should I defend my stand?
• How can facts be used as supportive arguments?
• When should I enter the discussion?
• How should I initiate the discussion?
• How to conclude the discussion in the best possible manner?
• Decisive Interview, GD & Essay prep
• GD: Topics 2021
• GD: Approach
• GD: Do's and Don'ts
• GD: Communications
• Solved GDs Topics

GD Introduction

• Types of GD topics: Techniques
• GD: Ettiquette
• GD: Content
• Solved Case Studies

Solved GD Topic:

Points in favour:, points against:, conclusion:.

• Group Discussions
• Personality
• Past Experiences

Most Popular Articles - PS

100 Group Discussion (GD) Topics for MBA 2024

Top 50 Other (Science, Economy, Environment) topics for GD

5 tips for starting a GD

GD FAQs: Communication

GD FAQs: Content

Stages of GD preparation

Group Discussion Etiquettes

Case Study: Tips and Strategy

MBA Case Studies - Solved Examples

Practice Case Studies: Long

Practice Case Studies: Short

5 tips for handling Abstract GD topics

5 tips for handling a fish market situation in GD

5 things to follow: if you don’t know much about the GD topic

Do’s and Don’ts in a Group Discussion

5 tips for handling Factual GD topics

How to prepare for Group Discussion

Goseeko blog

• Computer Engineering
• Electronics Engineering
• Civil Engineering
• Scholarships
• Hiring News

What is Group Discussion?

Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance. – robert quillen.

Meaning and Concept

Group Discussion is a combination of two words ‘Group’ and ‘Discussion. Group means many people are working together to achieve some targets. ‘Discussion’ means exchanging ideas between two or more than two people, which is generally a face-to-face interaction. It is a process of talking between people to reach a specific decision. It is also defined as a conversation about a specific topic. The end product of group discussion can be a particular decision, enhanced knowledge, actions, an argument, doubt-clearing, disagreement, etc.

Group Discussion or GD is a type of discussion that involves people sharing ideas or activities. People in the group discussion are connected with one basic idea. Based on that idea, everyone in the group represents his/her point of view.

GD is a discussion that tests the candidate’s skills, such as leadership skills, communication skills, social skills and behavior, politeness, teamwork, listening ability, General awareness, confidence, problem-solving skills, etc.

The Group Discussion is generally the next level after the entrance exam to pursue a professional degree. In the case of recruitments, Group Discussion can be the starting or at the end, depending on different companies or organizations.

Importance of Group Discussion

Group Discussions are an essential part of testing candidates in the organizations, recruitment process, etc. It also plays an important role in improving the skills of a candidate.

Types of Group Discussion

There are two types of Group Discussion::

Topic-Based Group Discussion

Case Study Based Group Discussion

There are few candidates in a group, where each group is given any topic. The group members discuss the topic, which is called a topics based Group Discussion.

The topic-based Group Discussion can be further classified as:

Controversial Topics

Knowledge-Based topics

Abstract Topics

Conceptual topics

The Case study based Group Discussion is generally followed by the MBA Institutes, such as IIM, etc. In such a discussion, a problem is given, and the participants are asked to resolve them. The preparation time is also higher as compared to other discussions. The panelists test the teamwork and decision-making skills of the participants.

The participants need to be active and updated with the things around them. It also tests the observation capability of the participants. The example of Case study based topics can be ‘Discussion between boss and manager’.

In short, the aim of GD is to bring together a set of thoughtful like minded people on a common platform in order to exchange ideas, providing an occasion to display not only the learning, but understanding and to enhance knowledge by absorbing the thoughts and viewpoints of other people.

What is the Definition of Communication?

What is assertiveness, you may also like, what is proxemics, what is communication process, what are communication barriers.

Please wait...

• MBA Admission Predictor
• MBA ROI Calculator
• CAT College Predictor
• MBA Strength Finder
• Program Finder
• Career Calculator

Types of Group Discussion

Types of GD based on the Topics Assigned

The Team-Based Group Discussions are an element of the admissions process. The discussing team will have a prompt and a purpose to work together and achieve a tangible result. This blog discusses different categories of GD based on the assigned GD topics .

Different types of topics distributed to participants for GD are Factual Topics, Abstract Topics, Argumentative Topics, Opinion based Topics, Current Affairs, and Case studies

It is necessary to understand the aspiration of the panelists when they have assigned a topic to the group. The assigned topic gives sufficient cues about how the discussion should be conducted. Here are the types of GDs based on how they should be conducted, depending upon the topics assigned. Understanding this will help you drive your GD in the right direction. In reference to the topic asked, GD can be of the following types:

GD task may be allocated to you to:

• Create a new situation – form a coalition, start an initiative, etc.
• Discover cooperative arrangements in the groups
• Discuss or evaluate an issue, for a better understanding
• Create a plan
• Discuss policies and policy changes
• Study laws, regulations and some developments, etc.
• Arrive at an action
• Solve a problem
• Resolve a conflict
• Plan some work or task

Subscribe Free For Trending GD Topics (Solved)

Types of group discussion (gd), group discussions can be divided into 3 types:.

The matter for these types of Group discussion is based on current affairs or static matters. Students are advised to be thorough with these and read newspapers daily to be up to date. Also, these discussions are not time bound.

In this student are given situations especially out of a business and will be judged on how they reach a solution to the problem. They will be required to analyse the situation and give their views.

This kind of discussion gives no outline of the topic, which means no one knows which direction to take. The participants must use innovative strategies and ideas to steer the discussion. The topic could be one word or a sentence, but no one usually knows what to say on that or what the panel might like.

Contrary to what is understood, Group Discussions do not differ on difficulty level. A good weightage is based on it and the panel makes sure only the one deserving get through

Are You Gearing Up For Your WAT-GD-PI Rounds?

WAT-GD-PI is an important phase that decides the conversion of your MBA call. Preparation of GD rounds requires a proper plan and strategy. So, understand the offer of admission and know that your performance in GD needs to have a structured groundwork.

Group Discussions are a methodology used by management institutes to gauge certain personality traits and skills required in a candidate. For a Group Discussion, the group of candidates may range from 5 to 15 members. Candidates are given a topic or a situation, given a few minutes to ponder over the topic, and then asked to discuss it with each other for 10 to 20 minutes.

Conclusion:

For an effective GD, make good statements. Keep practicing Mock GDs with peers under supervision. Be polite and composed throughout the discussion. Be assertive and maintain decorum. Use informative words, use hand gestures, and initiate the discussion. Try to conclude the discussion too as it is a token of leadership talent.

Popular Articles

• When to begin MAT preparation?
• Top MBA Colleges Accepting MAT Score
• How to Prepare For MAT?
• What is the difference between MAT and CAT exams?
• What is Group Discussion?
• 20+ Group Discussion (GD) Topics 2024
• Top MBA Entrance Exam in India

Talk to Current Students

Explore more.

• Upcoming MBA Entrance Exams
• Top 100 Colleges of India
• Top 50 Colleges of India
• Top Colleges in Delhi NCR
• Top Colleges in Jaipur
• Top Colleges in Indore
• Top Colleges in Pune
• Top Colleges in Mumbai
• Top Colleges in Hyderabad
• Top Colleges in Bangalore
• Top Colleges in Ahmedabad

MBA Placements

• IIM Placements 2024
• Best MBA Colleges Placement Wise

Forgot Password

Please enter your email address or mobile number. We will send verification code for reset password.

Login to MBAROI

Enquire Now