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).
Description, brief summary:
The IRAC method is a simple and
easy method for case study analysis. It helps students reach a conclusion with
a simple process, briefing the issue, pointing out the rules, analyzing rules
and reaching a conclusion bases on all of these elements.
This method works with other
studies too, such as, business management, social sciences, and medicine. It is said to be exact only with
law studies.
It is said the process or method if
applied by teachers help develop a sense of analysis in the student. They learn
to make value judgments and conclude based on these.
As an example a case study done by myself;
Case: 911 receives a call at 18:40 telling them that
there has been an accident and that two people have died. Jaime Najera Molina
seems to be the person that has caused the accident, he was taken to the
hospital for a blood test and the results say that he was drunk with 0.90 grams
of alcohol per blood liter. The OIJ receives a video of the accident that was
recorded by a security cam of a nearby business. The video demonstrates that
the driver (Jose Najera Molina) drives at an excessive speed and surpasses the
rest of the cars in line and then collisions with the car of the other multiple
victims killing them.
Issue: Was there negligence or guilt/bad faith in the
accident?
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. There’s to types of negligence, with conscience or without it.
Guilt/Bad Faith requires that the person either had de
the will of committing the crime or that didn’t want to but if it happened, the
person accepted it.
Analysis: As a driver on the public freeway, Jose owed a duty
of due care not to pass other cars in line in a case like this. Jose had a duty
to drive at a reasonable speed and without excess. Jose had a duty to dry sober
under a certain grams of alcohol per liter, which was not met.
Jose had a duty not to expose other drivers to the
risk of collision because of jumping places in line or driving. Jose also had
the duty not to expose others to an unreasonable harm because of driving under
the influence.
Jose is the actual cause of the other driver's injury.
It was foreseeable that another car would be coming from the opposite
direction.
Jose did not have the intention of killing someone
else, although he knew that it was possible that another car could come from
the opposite direction and cause an accident.
Conclusion: Jose is liable for negligence because he
violated a statute of not overpassing other cars in line and not driving under
the influence. He underwent a conscientious negligence because he knew that the
result was possible but he had faith that it would not occur.
Bittner, M. M. (1990). The IRAC method of case study analysis. Social Studies, 81(5), 227
Retrieve date; 2012-04-16
Done by Eric Fernandez