Reference no: EM131095020

A Legal Model for the Social Studies

Not only did the legal profession give educators the instructional technique of case studies, but it also contributed a concomitant method of case study analysis. Although disciplines such as business management, social sciences, and medicine have extensively used the methodology of case studies, students in these disciplines were not provided with a method to analyze a case. Some of these cases required only an individual value conclusion; other cases required a specific conclusion based upon substantive knowledge of the discipline. Still others required both types of conclusions. Only in law classes are students given an unequivocal method for case analysis. According to this method, students recognize a legal issue from the facts in the case and then analyze the facts according to a legal precedent and reach a conclusion.

The underlying assumptions of teaching-effectiveness research can be applied to this topic in a social studies class: Teachers cannot assume that all students on their own will develop a method of case analysis; that initial success will motivate the student to continue the analysis process; and that the students require a clear demonstration or modeling of the case analysis method (Brophy and Good 1986). The social studies literature does not give examples of these analysis methods. Because the use of case studies in the social studies fosters critical thinking, class interaction, and personal initiative, a method of case study analysis warrants the attention of social studies teachers.

When the case study instructional technique is used in the social studies classroom, students are often required to comprehend, assess, and evaluate amounts of information that may be overwhelming. Unfortunately, students do not receive enough practice in the method of case study analysis before they are required to comprehend relationships, generalizations, and patterns. Such a situation is self-defeating for students because without acquiring the rudimentary skills of case analysis, they will not be able to contribute to the lesson at hand.

In addition, students are then expected to make value judgments about the facts, issues, and conclusions of a case study. To make an informed and coherent value judgment, students must first comprehend the facts, recognize the issues that arise from those facts, analyze the facts in relation to the definition or rule of a term, and then reach a conclusion about the analysis. To make a value-laden decision such as "I don't agree with that," the student should first say that the facts produce issue X and then analyze the facts in accordance with each element of the rule in order to make a viable conclusion about whether the issue is proved or disproved. With this procedure, the value decision becomes meaningful to the individual student and to the group participating in the case study discussion. This process of analysis is known as the IRAC method.

The IRAC Method The IRAC method is an instructional tool that can aid students in the comprehension and evaluation of information so that they can make informed value decisions. It is an acronym for Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. Although this is a legal model used to evaluate hypothetical situations in law cases, it is by no means limited to the study of the law. Useful for case studies presented in varied mediums such as narratives, videos/films, or recordings, the IRAC method may be applied to other activities such as defining a term or demonstrating a concept, principle, relationship, analogy, or contrasting idea. Often the instructional focus is on the end result of case study discussion rather than on how to "walk through" a method or approach to be used by the students in the case analysis.

By using the IRAC method, social studies teachers can help their students acquire a process for analyzing a case study. This building block method, which starts with smaller chunks of material, develops understanding relationships. It enhances the immediate application of learning by translating theory into practice to help students enlarge their vocabulary and attain new concepts. The method demonstrates to students that the correct analysis of a case gives them an evaluation and verification tool to assist them in making meaningful value judgments.
Acquisition of a Process to Analyze Case Studies

A case study is a realistic application or demonstration of a theory or principle. The student is required to relate textbook material to a concrete situation and then make a practical judgment. Students can relate to case studies because they understand that they could possibly find themselves in similar situations.

After reading, viewing, or hearing a case, students use the IRAC method to recognize the facts that raise the issues. They then apply the elements of the rule or definition to the facts to verify or disprove the issues in the conclusion.

Students' analytical skills are developed through a systematic mastery of complex problem solving in a rational manner. Students become more aware of their own abilities and limitations and are given the opportunity to practice in a positive environment.

Another variation of this method includes informing students about the entire case-i.e., issues, rules, analysis, and conclusions-and then soliciting their input. In another method, the teacher presents two cases with all of the aforementioned elements and does not tell the students which is the correct one. The teacher then has them choose. The danger in using either of these methods is that the student is slighted. The teacher has done too much work for the students, who are not required to discover the issue, review the rule, and analyze the facts to determine the correct conclusion (Lee 19X3).

An Example of the IRAC Method

Case: John told Sara that his sports car would travel 150 mph on the freeway. John was anxious to impress Sara, so he crossed the double yellow lines to pass the car in front of him. A car was coming from the opposite direction and was forced off the road; the other driver sustained head injuries when his car overturned.

Issue: Has negligence been demonstrated?

Rule: Negligence requires that a duty was owed, that the duty was breached, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of damage.

Analysis: As a driver on the public freeway, John owed a duty of due care not to pass a car when double yellow lines divide the road. John had a duty not to expose this foreseeable plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of harm. John failed to act as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances when he passed a car. John breached his duty of care when he violated a statute not to cross the double yellow lines. John is the actual cause of the other driver's injury; but for John, the accident would not have occurred. It was foreseeable that another car would be coming from the opposite direction. John is the proximate cause of the driver's personal and property damage because there is a connection between John's action and the result.

Conclusion: John is liable for negligence because he violated a statute.

Instead of plunging into the case analysis, the student takes the elements of negligence, applies them to the facts, and builds a relationship so that a conclusion can be reached. The five elements are essential if negligence is to be proved. The student is responsible for verifying each element in the facts that corresponds with the rule. The conclusion will be correct if this method is used.

Translating Theory into Practice

Social studies teachers may assume that students can analyze a case without having had some prior sequential instruction. An IRAC model can be used for vocabulary building and concept attainment, even before students are introduced to a full-blown case. In the following examples, the IRAC method either proves or disproves the issues raised in a government class, a world history class, and an American history class.

Example for a Government Class

Case: Sixty of the 100 senators present voted to cut off the debate on an environmental issue. A petition with sixteen votes had been circulated in the Senate. Senator Brown then spoke for only an hour on this issue the first day after the petition was signed.

Issue: Has cloture been demonstrated?

Rule: The Senate cuts off debate if three-fifths of the senators present vote to do so two days after sixteen senators sign a petition for it; each member may then speak for only one hour.

Analysis: The sixty represent three-fifths of the hundred senators. Senator Brown spoke on the first day after the petition was signed, making it the second day after sixteen senators signed it. Senator Brown spoke for only one hour.

Conclusion: Therefore, cloture was demonstrated.

Example for a World History Class

Case: Elena and her family had moved from El Salvador to the United States. During a current events discussion about natural disasters such as the San Francisco earthquake and Hurricane Hugo, Elena said she heard that certain buildings had been expropriated by the U.S. government during these disasters. Elena also said that her grandfather's farm had been taken by the revolutionary soldiers and that the farm was now owned by one of the soldiers and his family. Elena stated that in the United States, some of the post offices and fire stations had been used by the federal government to provide homes for the disaster victims. She wondered if this arrangement by the U.S. government were comparable to that experienced by her grandfather in El Salvador.

Issues: Was the grandfather's farm expropriated by the government of El Salvador? Were the post offices and fire stations expropriated by the U.S. government? Rule: Expropriate means that the federal government takes private land or possessions from the owner for public use.

Analysis: The grandfather's farm qualifies as land, and we can assume that he owned it or that it was in his rightful possession until he had finished making payments on it. Consequently, it was his private land. If it had been public land, it would have been everyone's land, not just the grandfather's land. We do not know if the grandfather and his family took their personal possessions; the farm supplies, animals, crops, and other farm buildings can be considered possessions and therefore part of the farm. These possessions probably remained on the farm. It appears that both the land and possessions were taken, although either could be taken for expropriation to occur. Elena stated, however, that the farm was taken by a soldier, not the government of El Salvador. That statement would indicate that a private soldier took the farm for his personal use and that the farm was not taken by the federal government for public use.

The post offices and fire stations are public buildings paid for by taxing private citizens. Their use is for everyone; therefore, they are public buildings on public land and are possessions of the public. During the disasters, the U.S. government did not take private land for public use. The U.S. took public land for public emergency use. The buildings were used for their normal purposes after the disaster period.
Conclusion: The farm was not expropriated. The post offices and fire stations were not expropriated.

Example for an American History Class

Case: Responding to the suggestion of his uncle, Phil, an assembler at a ship-building plant in Alabama, decided to move to Michigan to work at a new car plant. Phil moved in with his uncle and applied for a job at the plant. Because the plant was just beginning production, not all workers were hired for a forty-hour week. Phil was told that he could work twenty hours per week until he was hired full time. Phil started working but was told that he could not receive group medical insurance coverage until he was hired on a full-time basis. The group plan applied only to union members for whom the car plant paid 100 percent of the premiums. Phil could not join the union until he worked forty hours per week. Phil's uncle became very angry when he heard about this and urged Phil to take the auto workers union to court because the union was operating a closed shop. Phil was not sure about this. He had read his contract that stated that the union could enforce union shop contracts.

Issues: Did the auto workers union operate a closed shop? Was the auto workers union allowed to enforce union shop contracts?

Rule: The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act outlawed closed shops that required new workers to join a union before they could be employed. This same act allowed a union shop contract that forced new workers to join the union after they accepted employment.

Analysis: The facts state that Phil was hired by the auto firm to work twenty hours per week until he was hired later for a forty-hour week. Phil had nothing in writing to guarantee that he would be hired later for a forty-hour week. Phil did not have to join the auto workers union as a condition for employment. He could not, however, receive medical benefits or join the union until he was scheduled to work forty hours per week. Phil's uncle reached his conclusions before he knew all the facts. Therefore, the auto plant was not a closed shop because the union allowed Phil to be employed, even though he was not a union member (see Garraty and McGaughey 1989).

Phil could have secured medical insurance at his own expense. The auto firm, of course, paid for the cost of the insurance for its full-time employees. It would certainly be to Phil's benefit to have the company pay for the policy rather than his paying the higher cost for individual insurance. Although the union did not physically force the auto firm workers to join the union, it did, by indirect means, require the auto workers to join the union in order to receive medical coverage. In other words, the auto workers union was allowed to enforce union shop contracts.

Conclusion: The auto workers union did not operate a closed shop in defiance of the Taft-Hartley Act. The auto workers did enforce a union shop contract as allowed by the Taft-Hartley Act because Phil would not receive medical coverage if he did not join the union.
Students can use these exercises as self-checking devices to acquaint themselves with what is required to reach a coherent conclusion in a case study. This beneficial technique increases students' "vocabulary of experience," which reduces anxiety about the unanticipated (Gullette 1982). In this manner, students start with simple concept comprehension and build toward more complex relationships.

Stevens (1982) asserts that the case method is inappropriate if a spectrum of cases cannot be presented to show generalizations. Students, however, must first become familiar with the rule or definition before making an informed analysis to reach conclusions to be applied to future relationships.

A Tool for Making Value Judgments

Numerous case studies require students to share their personal values and opinions about an issue. Frequently, this is the most important overall objective of a case study. Little importance is given to the "how to" process of the student's arriving at a conclusionary value statement. Often students pass over the IRAC steps and just make personal value-opinion judgments. Some value-laden questions for case study analysis include: Do you agree with what X did; what would you have done; what are some alternative solutions; and how urgent is each issue? Van Gundy (1981) refers to the deviation between "what is" and "what should be" when students are required only to make value judgments in case analysis. The interpretations may differ from person to person, and incorrect information may render case analysis worthless.

Summary

Case studies can be used in many disciplines, and social studies teachers can aid their students in developing a systematic method to approach case studies. Often students are called upon to give information about a topic and then subsequently state their opinions about how the topics affect them, which is a value statement. Much of the focus of attention in the classroom is upon active student participation rather than upon acquainting the students with a hands-on method for analyzing a case through a step-by-step process. Once students acquire this skill they can transfer it to case study analysis in other classes.

The IRAC method gives the students a frame of reference when dealing with a particular issue. It could be considered a formula because students are required to learn first the definition (rule) of a term, to read the facts of the case to determine if the facts raise the issue, to compare the facts with each element of the rule to establish if the issue is existent or nonexistent, and to give the conclusion.
By using the IRAC method, students will have a working tool that can be used for practicing case study analysis on a smaller scale. In this manner, students move in a linear fashion from simple to more complex. By working through the method, students can immediately see the application of the concept they just learned to the facts of the case study. The students can check themselves to determine if they understand the meaning of a term and how it is practically applied before they are required to assert a value judgment, which could be given on the basis of a misunderstanding of the term and the issue arising from the facts. The IRAC method both creates confidence in students and positively reinforces the acquisition of accurate information.

REFERENCES

Brophy, J., and T. Good. 1986. Teacher behavior and student achievement. In Handbook of research on teaching 3rd ea., edited by M. Wittrock. New York: Macmillan.

Garraty, J., and R McGaughey. 1989. A short history of the American nation. New York: Harper and Row.
Gullette, M. 1982. The art and craft of teaching. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Lee, U. S. 1983. Public management and case study methods. Teaching Political Science (Fall)2:6-14.
Stevens, B. 1982. Educating the nurse manager. Maryland: Lord Publishing.
Van Gundy, A. 1981. Techniques of structured problem solving. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

By MARIE BITTNER
MARIE BITTNER is a professor in the Department of Education at California State University in Chico.