RESEARCH AND
A Comparison of Case Study and
Traditional Teaching Methods for
Improvement of Oral Communication
and Critical-Thinking Skills
By Lynnette Noblitt, Diane E. Vance, and Michelle L. DePoy Smith
This study compares a traditional
paper presentation approach
and a case study method for the
development and improvement
of oral communication skills and
critical-thinking skills in a class
of junior forensic science majors.
A rubric for rating performance
in these skills was designed on the
basis of the oral communication
competencies developed by
the National Communications
Association for college students.
The results provided evidence that
case studies are a more effective
approach for teaching scientific
oral communication skills.
26
Journal of College Science Teaching
TEACHING
S
cientists must be able to
communicate scientific and
technical issues to a vari-
ety of professional and lay
audiences in both oral and writ-
ten form. In todays collaborative
workplace, scientists are frequent-
ly called on to work in teams that
include a variety of nonscientific
participants. Scientific researchers
are continually required to justify
research and development needs to
funding entities. Promotion within
corporate, academic, and other en-
tities inevitably requires the ability
to communicate outside the scien-
tific community. Furthermore, sci-
entists are increasingly called on
to explain scientific research and
its broader implications to various
nonscientific communities to in-
form the general public and even
influence the government.
Undergraduate science curricula
often focus primarily on problem
solving, computation, and scientific
concepts. Such a skill set, however,
is not broad enough to encompass
all the tasks and challenges sci-
ence students will encounter in
their careers. Science curricula that
provide students with significant
opportunities to improve their com-
munication skills will provide a
useful service. Development of such
communication skills must be spe-
cifically focused on conveying sci-
entific concepts to both scientific and
nonscientific audiences. Students
must understand the importance
and relevance of communicating
scientific concepts to a nonscientific
audience and should be encouraged
to identify possible hurdles that such
an audience will encounter.
Purpose and background
of study
The purpose of this study is to com-
pare two teaching methods, a tra-
ditional paper presentation method
and a case study method, to teach
oral communication and critical-
thinking skills. The course is part of
the curriculum of the Forensic Sci-
ence Program at Eastern Kentucky
University. This program was es-
tablished in 1974 and is one of only
16 undergraduate forensic science
programs in the United States that is
accredited by the Forensic Science
Education Programs Accreditation
Commission. The forensic science
program has a strong chemistry and
molecular biology focus with addi-
tional skills specific to forensic sci-
ence added to the curriculum. The
program has always recognized the
need for forensic scientists to be
both scientifically competent and
able to effectively communicate
difficult technical concepts to lay
persons who make up juries. Thus,
a course entitled Expert Witness
Testimony has been a part of the
program since its inception.
Students take the Expert Witness
Testimony course in the second se-
mester of the junior year. This semes-
ter is a communication intensive
semester in the program. Students
give technical oral presentations in
two forensic science classes to an
audience of their peers, as well as
three speaking sessions during the
Expert Witness Testimony course.
The Expert Witness Testimony
course is intended to familiarize
students with courtroom procedure
and the role of the expert witness.
A more important goal, however, is
to have the students assimilate and
apply knowledge gained from previ-
ous forensic science courses and to
communicate results, concepts, and
conclusions at a level that would be
understandable to a jury. The goals
of this course are directly related
to the Eastern Kentucky University
Quality Enhancement Plan, which
strives to develop informed, criti-
cal, and creative thinkers who com-
municate effectively.
The case study instructional
method is a well-established instruc-
tional tool with extensive literature
(Camill 2006; Gallucci 2006; Her-
reid 2005, 2006). In the case study
approach, students are provided
with true or realistic stories that
form the basis for study. This ap-
proach has been used most often in
law, medicine, and business schools,
but has become more common in
college-level science courses in re-
cent years. The use of the case study
approach is an excellent fit for the
Expert Witness Testimony course,
which combines law and science.
Although there is a great deal of
literature about the case study ap-
proach and examples of case stud-
ies, there is much less written about
the assessment of the effectiveness
of case study teaching (Lundeberg
and Yadav 2006a, 2006b). A na-
tional survey of faculty perceptions
provided evidence that case-based
instruction is perceived by faculty
to be effective in improvement of
student critical thinking and ability
to grasp the big picture (Yadav et
al. 2007). A meta-analysis of the ef-
fects of problem-based learning on
student performance indicated that
the case study method has little ef-
fect on accumulated knowledge but
did improve students application of
knowledge and higher-order think-
ing (Dochy et al. 2003).
There is very little published work
on the use of case studies to improve
students oral communication skills.
Previous studies have noted that
faculty perceive that the case study
method does strengthen student
communication skills. However,
these observations are intertwined
with faculty perception of the overall
level of student class participation,
not specific components of basic
oral communication skills. This
study attempts to clarify and confirm
these findings through focusing on
defined student learning outcomes
related to oral communication that
are measured using appropriately
designed instruments.
Methodology
The study compares the oral com-
munication performance of students
in the course taught using two dis-
tinct formats: case study and non-
case study. In both course formats,
students were given virtually iden-
tical lectures on legal concepts re-
lating to expert witness testimony
and oral presentation skills. In the
noncase format, students selected
a research paper from a group of
about 20 published, peer-reviewed
papers that instructors had selected
so that they would be appropriate
for the students. The papers repre-
sented a variety of topics in foren-
sic science that students had been
exposed to in course work. Instruc-
tors then asked students questions
about the research and calculations
described in the paper and basic
background scientific concepts.
Students were required to answer
so that a layperson could under-
stand their conclusions. No further
context was provided to the stu-
dents. The students had about three
weeks to prepare for their first tes-
timony session.
In the case study format, instruc-
tors assigned students an expert
role to play in a mock trial simu-
lation/case study. The mock trial
case study was largely based on a
case the American Mock Trial As-
sociation (AMTA) used during the
20062007 competition year (used
in this course with permission from
AMTA). Instructors gave all stu-
dents an identical case packet that
contained materials such as court
filings and witness affidavits that
related to the case. Whereas the
original AMTA case focused only
minimally on scientific information,
instructors adapted the case packet
to include raw data related to the
students scientific background.
Five different data sets were pre-
pared (DNA, bullet comparison,
solid-dosage drug identification,
blood alcohol determination, and
gunshot residue analysis). Students
selected the topic of their choice.
To prepare for class, students had
May/June 2010 27
research and teaching

to perform calculations on the given
raw data and integrate their find-
ings with other facts in the case.
The given raw data was designed
to force students to make decisions
regarding the types of calculations
to perform and to come to scientifi-
cally sound, defensible conclusions
based on the data. Two sessions on
different days were needed to ac-
commodate the testimonies of all
students.
Students also watched video-
taped performances of other stu-
dents playing roles of attorneys and
other witnesses, including a series
of eyewitnesses and a forensic
science supervisor. Students then
testified as expert witnesses who
worked for the forensic science
supervisor. Instructors, acting as at-
torneys, asked the students a series
of questions related to the scientific
theory behind the data analysis,
the approach used to analyze the
data, and ultimate conclusions in
the case. Once again students were
required to answer the questions so
that a layperson could understand
their conclusions.
Participants
The two student groups included
in this study shared many simi-
larities, and great care was taken
to control the study populations.
All students involved in the study
were second-semester juniors in
the Eastern Kentucky University
Forensic Science Program. As re-
quired in the program, the students
had completed a core of approxi-

TABLE 1
Scoring rubric for communication assignment.
4 3 2 1
Critical-thinking Accomplished Competent Developing Beginning
or communication
factor Exceeds course Meets course Incomplete in Inadequate in
expectations objectives meeting course meeting course
objectives objectives

Critical thinking: Message is fully Message is Message is supported Message is not

effectively researches supported and supported with by information but supported with
information challenges listener(s). relevant information. may at times be accurate, relevant, or
inaccurate. recent information.

Critical thinking: Message is logical and Message is logical and Message structure Message is not well
effectively organizes easy-to-follow and easy to follow. is somewhat logical, organized; is difficult
information compelling. but listener(s) may to follow.
struggle to follow.

Critical thinking: Orally cites Orally cites research in Uses research to Fails to use outside
effectively integrates research that adds the message. support message support and/or fails
information insights in the sometimes. to acknowledge
message. supporting
information.

Critical thinking: Strategically uses Tailors language and Understands needs Uses inappropriate
adapts oral communication for nonverbal cues to the of audience but not communication so
communication styles context. listener(s). consistently adapts. that listener(s) are
to contexts distanced.

Oral communication: Language free Language is appropri- Language is usually Inappropriate,

successfully of serious errors, ate and free of serious appropriate to unethical, and/or
implements verbal appropriate, and errors. context; may contain potentially offensive
delivery unusually interesting. some errors. language is used.

Oral communication: Nonverbal cues are Nonverbal cues Nonverbal cues Speaker is largely
successfully strategically used support and do not are sometimes unaware of the use or
implements nonverbal to emphasize the distract from message. incongruent or importance of nonver-
delivery message. distracting to bal cues.
message.

28
Journal of College Science Teaching

mately 40 credit hours of natural
science courses, along with 1015
hours of upper-division forensic
science courses. All students had
also completed a course in oral
communication as part of the East-
ern Kentucky University General
Education Program.
The treatment of the students in
each class format was also carefully
controlled. Both groups of students
were presented with the same series
of lectures and in-class activities on
legal concepts, cases, and proce-
dures. The students were given the
same information on communica-
tion goals and skills. The textbook
and other reading assignments were
identical. Exams and written assign-
ments for both student groups were
very similar and focused on identical
substantive information and higher-
order thinking skills.
The course instructors knew
all of the students, so it was not
possible to rate the students in
a completely blind manner (i.e.,
without any knowledge of whether
or not the students were in the case
or noncase class). The instructors
attempted to rate the students as
objectively as possible, but this is a
potential source of bias in the study.
A total of 56 students were included
in the study.
Rubric instrument
To assess student performance of
oral communication and critical-
thinking skills in the Expert Witness
Testimony course, instructors had
to design an appropriate evaluation
tool. The instructors chose to devel-
op a rubric that would encompass
the many oral communication and
critical-thinking skills that students
were expected to demonstrate dur-
ing oral performances. The validity
and ultimate reliability of the rubric
A Comparison of Case Study and Traditional Teaching Methods
Figure 1
Comparison of mean scores for case and noncase groups for each
rubric factor. **P < 0.01. ***P < 0.001.
Case study
6
5.3 5.4
5 ** 4.5 ***
3.8
Mean score
4
3
2
1
0
1 2
were carefully monitored through-
out the design process.
The rubric was an analytic,
task-specific scoring rubric with
10 factors for evaluation. Each of
the 10 factors had four performance
levels for the oral presentations.
The factors were based on the oral
communication competencies the
National Communications As-
sociation developed for college
students (Morreale, Rubin, and
Jones 1998). Instructors adapted
these competencies to encompass
additional substantive goals for the
course, including fulfilling legal
requirements for expert witnesses
and demonstrating mastery of sci-
entific and technical knowledge
appropriately.
Six of the 10 factors in the rubric
were selected for inclusion in this
study. These factors were identi-
fied as observable on videotaped
performances, reliably measurable
by instructors, and indicative of
the oral communication and related
Noncase study
5.4 5.4
5.2
4.8
*** ***
***
***
3.9
3.6
3.2
3
3 4 5 6
Rubric factor
critical-thinking goals of the course
(Table 1). The other 4 factors were
not evaluated either because we did
not have data available or the fac-
tors were not relevant or observable
when the noncase study was used.
The first factor included in this
study was the students ability to
effectively research information for
message production. Students were
expected not only to review data that
was within their area of technical ex-
pertise, but also to conduct sufficient
background research to explain the
data and related concepts to a layper-
son and to answer specific instructor
questions. Students were considered
to have conducted effective research
if they could answer all questions
on the given data correctly, reach
scientifically defensible conclusions,
and further explain concepts using
appropriate vocabulary and imagery
so that laypersons could understand
the discussion.
The second factor studied was the
students ability to effectively orga-
May/June 2010 29
research and teaching
nize information for message pro-
duction. Whereas instructors asked
questions in the order they chose,
students were responsible for ef-
fectively organizing their responses
so that laypeople could understand
the content and consequences of the
testimony. Students were consid-
ered to have effectively organized
information if their oral responses
and related visual aides enabled
laypeople to follow the testimony
and reach appropriate conclusions
based on the testimony.
The third factor studied was
the students ability to effectively
integrate information required for
message production. Students were
responsible for reaching conclusions
about the given data and for inte-
grating reasons for the conclusions
along with suggestions for further
action. Students were encouraged
to focus on storytelling and other
techniques to simplify and clarify
the overall message. Students were
considered to have effectively inte-
grated the material and arguments if
they could successfully convey to a
layperson the interpretation of the
data and the conclusions.
The fourth factor studied was the
students ability to adapt their com-
munication style to the appropriate
context. In both teaching methods,
students were asked to explain sci-
entific and technical information
to a lay audience and lead them
to a specific conclusion. Students
were considered to have effectively
adapted their communication style
to the lay audience if they used ap-
propriate nonscientific vocabulary
or carefully explained all scientific
terms, described scientific concepts
in a concrete and accessible fashion,
and incorporated appropriate visual
aides and nonverbal cues.
The fifth factor studied was the
30
Journal of College Science Teaching
students ability to implement ap-
propriate verbal delivery skills. The
students were required to use correct
grammar, pronunciation, and word
choice. Students were further en-
couraged to use inflection, repetition,
and varied speaking speed to engage
the lay audience and effectively
convey the message. Students were
considered to have effectively imple-
mented such verbal skills if they used
correct grammar and pronunciation
while using other voice modulation
and speaking skills in a manner that
assisted in message production while
not being distracting.
The final factor studied was the
students ability to implement ap-
propriate nonverbal delivery skills.
Students were required to use
nonverbal communication such as
hand gestures, movement, and facial
expressions to assist in message
production. Students were con-
sidered to have effectively imple-
mented such skills if their nonverbal
delivery resulted in highlighting,
emphasizing, or otherwise assisting
in message production while not
being distracting or detrimental to
the overall presentation.
Scoring procedure
Reliability of rubric scoring was
established using a variety of meth-
ods discussed in assessment litera-
ture (Moskal and Leydens 2000;
Moskal 2003; Zimmaro 2004).
Prior to scoring, instructors chose
individual performances to serve as
anchor performances that would
guide future study scores. The an-
chor performances were chosen for
each of the applicable four perfor-
mance levels for each factor as-
sessed. The evaluators carefully
discussed each anchor performance
and defined general characteristics
of each performance that would
define that score for the specific
factor. Each student performance
had been videotaped in class. Two
evaluators reviewed the videotapes
and rated each student performance
separately on the basis of the anchor
performances. After scores were
assigned, the evaluators compared
scores to confirm interrater reliabil-
ity. More than 95% of the scores
were identical or only a single scor-
ing level apart. Consequently, the
total of the direct and deposition
average scores of the two evalu-
ators were used for the statistical
analyses (yielding possible scores
from 2 to 8). This approach simpli-
fied the model by removing the de-
pendency between deposition and
direct scores for each student and
produced a response variable that
was more continuous in nature.
Results
The data analysis for this paper was
generated using SAS software, Ver-
sion 9.1 of the SAS System for Win-
dows (SAS Institute, 20022003).
The SAS software MIXED proce-
dure was used to analyze the follow-
ing model: yijk = + i + j + ()ij +
eijk where yijk is the measure of score
of the kth student in the ith teaching
method group for the jth rubric, i
is the main effect of the teaching
method group, j is the main effect
of the jth rubric, ()ij is the Group
Rubric interaction, and the eijk are
the residual errors, assumed uncor-
related for observation on different
subjects, but within subjects to have
some variance-covariance struc-
ture. Using various criteria such as
the Akaikes Information Criterion
and Schwarzs Bayesian Criterion,
the compound symmetry variance-
covariance structure was chosen to
analyze the data. Satterthwaite ap-
proximation for the denominator

degrees of freedom was used for
the F and t statistics.
The overall model, both main
effect terms, and the interaction
term were all statistically significant
(P < .0001). Given the statistically
significant interaction term, the two
teaching methods for each rubric
factor were compared. These results
are presented in Figure 1. For each
factor, the average case teaching
method score was significantly
higher than the average noncase
teaching method score.
Discussion
The rubric scores clearly indicate
that students critical-thinking and
communication skills improved
greatly when using the case study
method rather than the paper pre-
sentation method. Although not
all rubric factors improved to the
same extent, students demonstrated
improvement in all areas. Such im-
provement is particularly impres-
sive in light of the greater difficulty
that was presented to students in the
case method.
The first rubric factor studied,
the students ability to effectively
research information for message
production, showed modest im-
provement when implementing the
case method in lieu of the traditional
paper presentation. Although this
factor was the least improved of all
those studied, this may not be unex-
pected because the level of research
students were required to conduct
for the case study method may have
been slightly broader and more com-
plex than for the traditional paper
presentation. In the paper presenta-
tion, students were given data for
which calculations had already been
performed and peer reviewed. The
students only needed to understand
what decisions were made when
A Comparison of Case Study and Traditional Teaching Methods
performing calculations and why. In
the case method, however, students
had to decide what calculations to
perform, formulate their own con-
clusions, and gather resources to
support their conclusions. Despite
this more challenging task, students
were more successful in identifying
the research required and success-
fully conducting this research.
The second rubric factor, the stu-
dents ability to effectively organize
information for message produc-
tion, showed some improvement.
Although the paper presentation
assignment provided students with a
clear outline of the material that was
to be covered, students struggled to
organize material from the paper into
an oral presentation that was acces-
sible to a lay audience. Although
students were taught how to design
visual aides in the paper presenta-
tion assignment, they often merely
copied figures from the paper and did
not use these figures in a manner that
effectively organized the material.
In the case method, students were
required to answer questions about
their own calculations that were
based on their own research and
problem-solving process. It appears
that such deeper thought and un-
derstanding of the material enabled
students to better master the material
and organize it in a manner that was
accessible to laypersons.
The third factor, the students
ability to effectively integrate infor-
mation required for message produc-
tion, was greatly improved using the
case study method. Although both
groups of students were taught a
series of techniques to integrate in-
formation into a coherent accessible
message, only those students in the
case method were able to success-
fully implement these techniques.
Students using the case study meth-
od were able to reach conclusions
about the given data and integrate
reasons for the conclusions with sug-
gestions for further action that were
understandable to a lay audience.
Students in the paper presentation
method struggled to suggest any-
thing not specifically mentioned in
the paper. It appears that the paper
may have stifled the students ability
to think critically and create addi-
tional conclusions. The case study,
however, seems to have supported
such student efforts.
The fourth factor, the students
ability to adapt their communica-
tion to the appropriate context,
was also greatly improved with the
case study method. Although in
both methods, students were given
scientific information in a form ac-
cessible to a scientifically educated
audience, only students in the case
method were successful in adapting
this information to a lay audience.
It appears that students in the paper
presentation felt bound to the text
of the paper and were unable to
adapt to the new audience. Such
adaptation requires students to think
deeply and critically about the mate-
rial and recast the information for
the new audience. The case study
seems to have provided the support
and encouragement students need
for adaptation.
The fifth factor, the students
verbal delivery of the material, also
improved slightly using the case
study method. Whereas students in
both the paper presentation and case
study method struggled with word
choice, grammar, and pronuncia-
tion, the students in the case study
method did show some improvement
over the paper presentation method.
The reasons for such improvement
are not immediately clear. Instruc-
tors believe that the case study may
May/June 2010 31
research and teaching
have emphasized the importance of
appropriate grammar and pronuncia-
tion to students through the formal
atmosphere that was provided by
the courtroom setting. The improved
word choice may also be a direct
result of the improved adaptation
that students demonstrated in the
case method format.
The final factor, the students non-
verbal delivery of the materials, also
improved using the case method. Al-
though both groups of students were
taught the same material on the im-
portance of nonverbal communica-
tion such as gesture and eye contact,
students in the case study method
were better able to implement ap-
propriate nonverbal communica-
tion. Once again the reasons for this
improvement are not immediately
obvious. Instructors believe that this
improvement may be largely due to
many students choosing to use visu-
als aides when participating in the
case study method. When using these
visual aides, students often chose to
stand and move around the class-
room when testifying. This allowed
students to engage in more natural
nonverbal communication than those
who remained seated throughout the
presentation. Although students in
the paper presentation method were
also encouraged to use visual aides
and to leave their seat when appropri-
ate, very few chose to do so.
Conclusion
In summary, the case study method
promoted improved critical think-
ing and communication skills for
all rubric factors investigated. Par-
ticular improvement was noted in
the students ability to adapt scien-
tific information to a lay audience
and to integrate a message through
presentation of the scientific in-
formation. Instructors found that
32
Journal of College Science Teaching
such improved performance is par-
ticularly noteworthy in light of the
greater difficulty of the case study
assignment. It appears from this
study that students can both think
more deeply and critically about
scientific and technical informa-
tion when provided real-life con-
text surrounding the material. This
additional context can also provide
the means for promoting improved
communication skills as well other
professional skills that were not di-
rectly studied in this research. n
References
Camill, P. 2006. Case studies add
value to a diverse teaching portfolio
in science courses. Journal of
College Science Teaching 36 (2):
3137.
Dochy, F., M. Segers, P. van den
Bossche, and D. Gijbels. 2003.
Effects of problem-based learning:
A meta-analysis. Learning and
Instruction 13 (5): 533568.
Gallucci, K. 2006. Learning concepts
with cases. Journal of College
Science Teaching 36 (2): 1620.
Herreid, C.F. 2005. Using case studies
to teach science. www.actionbio
science.org/education/herreid.html.
Herreid, C.F. 2006. Start with a story:
The case study method of teaching
college science. Washington, DC:
NSTA Press.
Lundeberg, M.A., and A. Yadav.
2006a. Assessment of case study
teaching: Where do we go from
here? Part I. Journal of College
Science Teaching 35 (5): 1013.
Lundeberg, M.A., and A. Yadav.
2006b. Assessment of case study
teaching: Where do we go from
here? Part II. Journal of College
Science Teaching 35 (6): 813.
Morreale, S., B. Rubin, and E.
Jones. 1998. Speaking and
listening competencies for
college students. Washington,
DC: National Communication
Association. www.natcom.
org/nca/files/ccLibraryFiles/
FILENAME/000000000085/
College%20Competencies.pdf.
Moskal, B.M. 2003. Developing
classroom performance assessments
and scoring rubrics<em>Part
II. ERIC Digests (ED481715).
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/
data/ericdocs2sql/content_
storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/7d/
ee.pdf.
Moskal, B.M., and J.A. Leydens,
J.A. 2000. Scoring rubric
development: Validity and
reliability. Practical Assessment,
Research, and Evaluation 7
(10). http://pareonline.net/getvn.
asp?v=7&n=10.
SAS Institute. 20022003. Version 9.1
of the SAS System for Windows.
Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Yadav, A., M. Lundeberg, M.
DeSchryver, K. Kirdin, N. A.
Schiller, K. Maier, and C.F. Herreid.
2007. Teaching science with case
studies: A national survey of faculty
perceptions of the benefits and
challenges of using cases. Journal
of College Science Teaching 37 (1):
3438.
Zimmaro, D.M. 2004. Developing
grading rubrics. Austin: University
of Texas at Austin, Instructional
Innovation and Assessment. www.
utexas.edu/academic/mec/research/
pdf/rubricshandout.pdf
Lynnette Noblitt is an associate profes-
sor in the Department of Government,
Diane E. Vance (diane.vance@eku.
edu) is an associate professor in the De-
partment of Chemistry, and Michelle L.
DePoy Smith is an assistant professor
in the Department of Mathematics and
Statistics, all at Eastern Kentucky Uni-
versity in Richmond.
Copyright of Journal of College Science Teaching is the property of National Science Teachers Association and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.