I am a new comer to the world of multi-media. My interest draws from twenty years of working with teachers to write problem-focused narrative cases using the structure of business cases and publishing them in thematic casebooks.  These cases are accompanied with "teaching notes" (guides to the analysis of the accounts) and often classroom artifacts and commentaries by scholars and other teachers.   The cases, which represent a kind of collaborative "teacher research," are used by teacher educators and practitioners to discuss dilemmas of practice as well as by policymakers who can see these dilemmas from the perspective of the teacher.  Research and experience suggests that teacher-authors can benefit from the process of creating their case, and teachers who participate in case discussions gain insights into their teaching and make better judgments when they meet these dilemmas in their own practice.  The cases do not, however, provide a vision of what good teaching looks like.  This became clear when Lee Shulman and I collaborated on a classroom reform effort that failed because the teachers did not have enough models of “that kind of teaching.” 

This experience was the catalyst to my desire to develop cases that might showcase “visions of the possible.” When the Carnegie QUEST project began, I developed a virtual case using the KEEP tool off an excellent seventh grade history teacher, Elizabeth Sharkey, who integrated Jewish studies into her curriculum and challenged her students’ Jewish identity in her classroom, a rare occurrence for a general studies teacher in this context.  The case, which documents a week-long unit, includes video clips of Elizabeth’s teaching and interviews about her goals and rationale of her unit; narrative analyses of her teaching, what she learned from the development process, and a brief auto-biography; narrative and video student reflections about what they learned from the unit; and classroom artifacts.  (To view the website, click on tinyurl.com/eh5t9 to go directly to the case, or insideteaching.org, the Carnegie collection of multi records of practice.) The case is quite complex and has multiple lenses and entry points through which to analyze, which became clear after field-testing it with several groups of Jewish and general educators. So I developed a teaching note that guides potential users through the case because I wanted to illuminate the variety of ways that I learned it could be studied. 

I see this case and others like it as extraordinary tools for teacher education and professional development, for the multiple reasons that participants in this conference have already described in their statements.  But I also have several questions, some of which are included below:

1. 1.How much is “enough” to include in a case?  The materials in my case take about an hour to examine carefully.  As an experienced teacher educator, I like to create rich cases "of many things" and can see a variety of uses for it; one might even design a curriculum around it, using different readings for each theme  (e.g., how to plan units which have consistent goals, instructional activities and multiple strategies of assessment; how to challenge student identity; how to create an ethos of inquiry in which students are both motivated to produce good work and safe enough to teach one another; how to integrate general and Jewish Studies at day schools, etc.)  But is this too much for one case?  Should the cases be more focused on one aspect of teaching so it’s easier to use?  It appears that the Carnegie cases that are used most often have a more specific focus.
   

2. 2.How does/should one use such cases constructively?  My colleagues and I spent years giving numerous seminars in a variety of educational settings on how to develop and use narrative cases constructively.  My hunch is that an extensive professional development effort is even more necessary for virtual cases, if they are to be used appropriately and provide value added to current practice.  In our studies, we have seen dynamic case discussions where no learning occurs; we call these "opinion swaps."  We have also seen case discussions that were harmful (e.g., participant stereotypes before a discussion were strengthened instead of diminished after the discussion).  Are there initiatives that provide the needed professional development to folks who teach practitioners, especially to those new to the world of MRTs?
   

3. 3.What about quality control and the time it takes to examine each case?  Even within the Carnegie collection there are quality variations.  How does one know which ones to focus on?  Should there be some quality control for posting cases?  If yes, who will provide it?  The Carnegie collection includes not only websites of teachers’ practice but also of how teacher educators use sample sites so as to provide visions of how these cases can be used productively. These are terrific sites, but they also take time to examine. 
   

4. 4.What about the cost and resources involved in creating good virtual cases?  Given some purposes, might narrative accounts be more useful?  They are cheaper to develop and, have proven to be valuable professional development tools under the "right" conditions (e.g., high quality case and discussion facilitator).  I raise this question because I have heard some people indiscriminately dismiss narrative in favor of multi-media.  My experience suggests this is faulty.
   

These are not new questions.  Many of the participants in this conference have already begun to address some of them, as is clear from many of their statements.  I just raise the questions to provide a perspective of a novice, new to the world of MRTs.