!

o
o
n
'AMAR BHIDE
Assistant Professor
TO,
FROM,
DATE,
SUBJECT,
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
GEORGE F. BAKER FOUNDATION
ME M
Lynda Applegate
Amar Bhide
October 16, 1991
Computers in class room
Use of computers in second year
BAKER 423
SOLDIERS FIELD
BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02163
617-495-6190
Computer communication is at the heart of a teaching experiment I am
conducting this year, students are required to log on the VAX to fill in a brief
"template" describing and supporting some decision they would take pertaining to
the assigned case. The initial goal of increasing the level of students'
preparation and interest, I would like to believe, has been met. More
importantly, I know the exercise has had a deep and unanticipated impact on my
classes.
In this memo I will describe the mechanics of the experiment, the apparent
benefits and costs, and the issues that might arise if it were extended to more
courses.
The Mechanics
The typical exercise requires students to take some decision ("I would/
would not invest in the business') and provide three 'bullet point' reasons.
Many exercises are based on the paper ballots that Howard Stevenson and I used
when we taught the course last year. The ballots that we used to distribute at
the beginning of class have been turned into templates contained in the course
syllabus (Attachment 1) and in a computer file on the VAX.
Students may turn in a paper copy but are encouraged to use the computer
system, and most of them do. Their preference for computer input may be
attributed to a simple and elegant system designed by Tom Sonderegger. As the
attached memo (Attachment Z) indicates, students need only know how to log on and
to remember one key word, 'entre'. Self-explanatory menus take care of
the rest. We did not want to require the students to learn even the limited
protocol s of our e-mail, and in fact the system is not built off e-mail.
(Although the menus allow students to send me e-mail, they do not have to know
any special commands to do so.)
Remarkably, there were ~ bugs that had to be removed once the system was
,
n
Lynda Applegate
October 15, 1991
Page 2
put into use. Tom's principle was Keep It Simple Stupid. We had very few bells
and whistles -- the editor for the template is crude -- and it worked, the first
time around. Tom has since added a few simple features, and they have worked
flawlessly, too. And, simplicity of the system has kept the development costs
doWn -- Tom estimates he spent two days, and we did not incur any out-of- pocket
expenseSe
Student responses are due at 8:15 am on the day of the class, and most are
usually in by that time; many actually complete the exercise the previous
evening. I get the responses printed using a simple 'instructor's' menu, in
about 10-15 minutes depending on the moods of the printer and the system
downstairs. I can also read the responses off the screen, and will often do so
the previous evening.
I spend the next couple of hours analyzing and summar1z1ng the responses.
This has turned out to be the most nerve wracking and exciting link in the
system. Bill Sahlman had suggested early on that students might be upset if the
experiment was merely a control device and did not provide other benefits, such
as knowing where others stood on an issue. Accordingly, I had planned to tabulate
the go/no go type results each morning, but little else. I thought that I would
start class by disclosing the vote, and then set up a debate between students who
had expressed different points of view. I would then be able to draw other
students into the discussion using my prior knowledge of their perspective.
After a couple of classes, I saw that the response printouts, taken as a
whole, covered most of the obvious issues in the teaching plans. Most students
had usually 'got' most of the basic case issues before we started; why not then
use the exercise to focus the class on just those issues where there seemed to
be the g r e a t e s ~ ambiguity or conflict or the what-to-do matters that have often
to be hurried through at the end?
Therefore, I moved to a policy of, "full disclosure". In addition to
reporting the "vote", I now prepare summaries of the bullet point reasons, pro
and con. If any intriguing comments have been made, I note these as well. It
usually takes about two hours to prepare these summaries and turn them into
transparencies.
Instead of the traditional 'opener' who 'lays out a case', the class starts
with my summary of their comments. Thus in a hypothetical "Treeform' case, I
might, using appropriate transparencies, say: '60% of the class favored
abandoning the opportunity. You expressed the following concerns about the
financial structure, the team and the competitive environment... Those who
favored proceeding cited the following reasons To give the class their due
"ownership' of the summary, I try to credit comments to specific individuals, if
I can remember them. Sometimes if a point appears a little obscure I will ask
the student to explain it further.
Once the basic issues are out of the way, we can focus on the subtle
matters. For example, I might say, 'many of us apparently regard the extent of
demand for Treeform's products to be a matter of great concern. John, you had
suggested that the founders do more market research. What exactly should they
do?" We may then discuss the resources the founders can or should spend, the
role of market research in resource strapped startups, and whether the founders
o
Lynda Applegate
October 15, 1991
Page 3
can in any way hedge the risks of inadequate knowledge.
Incidentally, I put summaries of student comments back on to the VAX for
them to look at, using the same simple menu system.
Benefits and Costs
The exercises, I believe, can help a relatively novice instructor such as
me vastly improve the depth and focus of class room discussions. One of the
unavoidable frustrations of case method discussions of general management issues
is that critical problems cannot be addressed without laying out the specific and
complete situation. Even though well prepared individual students understand the
basic problems. and constraints facing the decision
maker, these have to be laid out in class, by the class before the subtleties can
be addressed. Valuable time is seen to be wasted, perhaps inaccurately, in "chip
shots" or "just repeating case facts."
Summarizing student responses vastly reduces the time spent laying the
foundations of the case discussion. To the extent summaries represent the
collective analyses of the student group, variances in quality are also sharply
reduced. The class is protected from the student who is unprepared, lacks
communication skills, or goes off on a tangent. At the same time, the instructor
is forewarned about the truly unusual perspective and can more reliably
incorporate it into the foundation of the case. ('The most common concerns noted
about the Treeform opportunity were XYZ; we should also appreciate, as John
pointed out, the issue K'). All in all, in my observation, the time spent at the
front end, laying out basic issues and analyses can be cut at least in half,
arguably with an improvement in quality.
Focus can also be improved. Students are sometimes frustrated that their
take on the case, the issue they perceive to be critical, is given short shrift
and will seek to move the discussion t h e i ~ way. This can be useful sometimes,
but may also be disruptive. Acknowledging the issues that the students see as
important can help the instructor focus, in a non-manipulative way, on the
teaching objectives of the case. ('You have identified a lot of important issues
facing Treeform; and, indeed, in many startups the entrepreneur has to fight many
fires at once. But given our time constraints, let us focus on the issue of X
first. .. ')
Finally, I believe, that classroom dynamics and atmosphere may be improved.
First, we can make the foundation laying a truly collaborative exercise,
minimizing internal tension and resentments about tyre-biters and chip shotters.
My summaries represent the broad, collective view of the class to which everyone
has contributed. Second, it is easier to broaden participation in a non-
threatening way; those who might otherwise be hesitant to speak can be brought
in at points where they are most likely to add value. Third, and this finding
surprised me, the reserved student in class can be articulate, passionate or even
quite funny on a computer. The cold electronic medium, remarkably, encourages
expressiveness in unlikely individuals I
At what cost? The most obvious is time. The analysis of responses is labor
intensive and does not at all reduce my normal preparation for class.
Furthermore, I have to develop a teaching plan, on the fly, between 8:15 and
III .... - -.-
I
n
n
Lynda Applegate
October IS, 1991
Page 4
11.30 a.m., depending on the responses I receive. Cognitive overload is another
issue. I attempt to remember student responses by name, and not always
successfully. Since I teach one small (50 student) section at 11.30 a.m., these
problems of time and memory are not overwhelming. Obviously with two large
sections, starting at 8.30 a.m., the approach would have to be modified
significantly.
Other subtle problems. The class is less organic and naturally developed
than through a student opener. There is a risk of the class breaking into
discordant parts -- my summary and their discussion -- particularly if I failed
to communicate that I was summarizing of their comments. Besides, most of the
talking in the first 10-15 minutes is done by me, which could have a deadening
effect on the class. I try to make the slide session lively and the class
involved by including the humorous comments which I invariably receive in the
student responses. This too entails risks; as one of my students wrote in an e-
mail, the exercise could degenerate into a competition of getting cute comments
included in the summary. The same student also pointed out that the competitive
nature of HBS students might lead them to overdo the 'brief' computer exercise,
and send reams of commentary.
The system ruthlessly exposes cases where there is little ground for going
beyond the obvious. And it can come as a shock to the instructor that "subtle'
issues you expected to discover in class were obvious to most students. This
risk, incidentally can be mitigated by having (B) cases or other additional data
that can be introduced in the middle of class.
Technological risks abound. What happens if the communications network
breaks down, or the high speed printer fails? Just last week, the laser printer
in our office broke down, and I had to scramble to somehow get my summary slides
produced. The overhead projector too may fail. There are lot of moving parts
in this system which may break down, and I am sure before the term is over, will
do so.
Another physical problem. the location of screens in Aldrich precludes the
simul taneous use of slides. I have therefore given up the use of chalk and board
altogether and work exclusively with pens and transparencies instead.
Extension to other courses
The exercise may well find useful application in other courses. Tom
assures me that they do not take up much CPU time and minimal effort would be
required to put other courses and assignments up on the system.
If the methodology is considered worthwhile, here are some suggestions for
its broader use.
1. Instructors should first test their questions with paper ballots,
without the computer system; this has been crtical in establishing my personal
comfort with the sytem.
2. Early attempts should be confined to small, single sections.
Specialized second year electives which draw a core of committed students might
be ideal to start with.
I
I
, I
I

n
Lynda Applegate
October 15, 1991
Page 5
3. Other safety valves should be used to make the exercises a normal, low
key aspect of class preparation -- for example, the exercises should not be
graded and identical responses by study group members should be allowed. And,
the exercise shouldn't be used in all classes -- I have assignments for
approximately two out of three classes.
Broad use in many large sections would probably require a more serious
investment. For example we would probably need much better computer security.
Given the labor intensive process of tabulating and analyzing results that we now
have, it would probably be worthwhile investing in more sophisticated software
(e.g. Lotus's Notes) so that some of these processes could be automated. And
naturally no one will or should attempt broad USe of the approach before it has
been shaken down in small increments.
To conclude: I am not claiming that my class discussions now have great
depth, focus, or passion; I have glimpsed exciting possibilities, I haven't
realized them. It is also true that instructors with more talent and experience
don't need the computer system to help them; but, I believe that the technology
can, as in other fields, improve the effectiveness of average talents, such as
mine.
cc: -:Jim Cash
MCFarlan
Stevenson
aMike Yoshino
ill Sahlman


---------