I was fascinated to read Kirsten Passyn and Judi Billups’s paper when it was first submitted to Journal of Marketing Education (Passyn & Billups, 2019). Case teaching is widely used in marketing; Crittenden and Crittenden (2006, p. 85) estimated that 80% of marketing capstone courses include cases, and Crittenden and Wilson (2006, p. 85) reported that 76% of marketing departments are teaching cross-functional cases. However, even with such widespread use of cases, there is little rigorous empirical research on how best to teach with cases to maximize student learning. My understanding of the unique challenges of case-based learning research has grown through my own teaching and research (Bacon, 2006; Bacon & Quinlan-Wilder, 2011, 2014) and from reading many papers on case teaching that were not accepted for publication as the editor of Journal of Marketing Education and a member of the editorial review boards of Academy of Management Learning and Education and Journal of Management Education. While interesting, most of these papers had methodological deficiencies. Passyn and Billups’s methodology overcomes several of these deficiencies, and they subsequently provide valuable insights into case learning and recommendations for case teaching. I see opportunities to build on Passyn and Billups’s work and substantially advance our knowledge about how students best learn with case analysis. My purpose in this commentary is to highlight some of the strengths of Passyn and Billups’s study that may not be obvious to those who are newcomers to this type of research. I will then present some areas for improvement in future research. One of the significant strengths of Passyn and Billups’s work is the use of actual measures of student learning. Many authors have contributed thoughtful conceptual work on how case teaching can be done and its potential benefits (e.g., Bailey, 2002; Christensen & Carlile, 2009; Crittenden, Crittenden, & Hawes, 1999; Gamble & Jelley, 2014; Garvin, 2007; Greenhalgh, 2007; Pitt, Crittenden, Plangger, & Halvorson, 2012; Stewart & Winn, 1996). However, relatively few papers have measured the effectiveness of their proposed methods, and when they do, the measures used are usually indirect or perceived learning measures (e.g., Dröge & Spreng, 1996; Karns, 2005). Research that uses measures of actual learning are quite rare. I know of only a few published articles in marketing or management education journals that use direct measures of learning in assessing alternative approaches to case teaching (Abernethy & Butler, 1993; Desiraju & Gopinath, 2001; Loewenstein, Thompson, & Gentner, 2003; Riddle, Smith, & Frankforter, 2016). This shortcoming substantially limits progress in this area. As I have commented before (Bacon, 2016), actual learning and perceived learning are quite different constructs, and they are often confused in our literature. Passyn and Billups’s use of direct measures is a welcome exception in this regard. A second important strength of Passyn and Billups’s study is their use of experimental designs, and not just the one group, pre-post design, but a design with multiple treatment groups. Too often in business education studies, I see prepost designs with no control or comparison group. Such designs can show that the intervention is better than nothing, but such findings are rarely a contribution beyond common sense. For example, it is not surprising if an author finds that taking an extra class period to run an experiential exercise on a particular topic improves knowledge of that topic. Taking extra time and using any reasonable means (including cases or lecture) will probably improve learning on that topic. However, when a study identifies significantly different outcomes across two reasonable approaches for obtaining the same learning outcomes, the result is a far more substantial contribution. Ideally in this regard, interventions should be comparable in time commitment and use of student resources (time, energy, and preparation). In two experiments, Passyn and Billups contrast outcomes across reasonably comparable treatment groups, including differences in the length of the 875281 JMDXXX10.1177/0273475319875281Journal of Marketing EducationBacon research-article2019

中文翻译：

---

在基于案例的学习研究中前进：关于“如何改进书面案例分析和减少评分时间：一页，两种情况的方法”的评论

我很着迷于Kirsten Passyn和Judi Billups的论文首次提交给《营销教育杂志》（Passyn＆Billups，2019）时阅读。案例教学在营销中被广泛使用；Crittenden和Crittenden（2006，p。85）估计80％的营销成功案例都包含案例，Crittenden and Wilson（2006，p。85）报告76％的营销部门正在教授跨职能案例。但是，即使案例的使用如此广泛，也很少有严格的经验研究来研究如何最好地利用案例进行教学以最大程度地提高学生的学习能力。通过我自己的教学和研究，我对基于案例的学习研究所面临的独特挑战的理解不断增强（培根，2006年；培根和昆兰·维尔德，2011年，（2014年），并阅读了许多案例教学论文，但这些论文并未被市场营销杂志（Journal of Marketing Education）的编辑以及管理学习与教育学院和《管理教育杂志》（Journal of Management Education）编辑审查委员会的成员所接受。尽管有趣，但大多数论文都存在方法论上的缺陷。Passyn和Billups的方法克服了其中的一些不足，随后为案例学习和案例教学建议提供了宝贵的见解。我发现有机会在Passyn和Billups的工作基础上发展，并大大提高我们对学生如何通过案例分析进行最佳学习的知识。我在这篇评论中的目的是要强调Passyn和Billups的研究的某些优势，对于那些刚开始从事此类研究的人来说可能并不明显。然后，我将介绍一些在未来研究中需要改进的地方。Passyn和Billups的工作的重要优势之一是使用实际的学生学习量度。许多作者在如何进行案例教学及其潜在收益方面进行了周到的概念性工作（例如，Bailey，2002； Christensen＆Carlile，2009； Crittenden，Crittenden，＆Hawes，1999； Gamble＆Jelley，2014； Garvin，2007； Bill，2007）。 Greenhalgh，2007年； Pitt，Crittenden，Plangger和Halvorson，2012年； Stewart＆Winn，1996年）。然而，相对较少的论文已经衡量了所提出方法的有效性，并且当他们这样做时，所使用的措施通常是间接或感知的学习措施（例如，Dröge＆Spreng，1996； Karns，2005）。使用实际学习方法进行的研究非常罕见。我只知道在市场营销或管理教育期刊上发表的几篇文章，这些文章使用直接的学习方法来评估案例教学的替代方法（Abernethy＆Butler，1993； Desiraju＆Gopinath，2001； Loewenstein，Thompson，＆Gentner，2003； Riddle ，Smith和Frankforter，2016年）。该缺点大大限制了该领域的进展。正如我之前评论过的（Bacon，2016年），实际学习和感知学习是完全不同的结构，在我们的文学作品中常常将它们混淆。在这方面，Passyn和Billups使用直接措施是一个受欢迎的例外。Passyn和Billups的研究的第二个重要优势是他们对实验设计的使用，而不仅仅是一组，即后期设计，而是具有多个治疗组的设计。在商业教育研究中太频繁了，我看到没有控件或比较组的帖子设计。这样的设计可以表明干预总比没有好，但是这种发现很少是超出常识的贡献。例如，如果作者发现花额外的课时对特定主题进行体验式练习可以提高对该主题的了解，就不足为奇了。花费额外的时间并使用任何合理的方式（包括案例或讲座）可能会改善有关该主题的学习。但是，当一项研究在获得相同学习结果的两种合理方法中发现明显不同的结果时，其结果将做出更大的贡献。理想的是，在时间投入和学生资源（时间，精力和准备）的使用上，干预措施应具有可比性。在两个实验中