memo on pre-class exercises to lynda applegate

7/27/2019 Memo on Pre-class Exercises to Lynda Applegate

1/5

'AMAR BHIDEAssistant Professor

TO,FROM,DATE,SUBJECT,

HARVARD UNIVERSITYGRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

GEORGE F. BAKER FOUNDATION

ME MLynda ApplegateAmar BhideOctober 16, 1991Computers in class room

Use of computers in second year

BAKER 423SOLDIERS FIELDBOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02163617-495-6190

Computer communication is at the heart of a teaching experiment I amconducting this year, students are required to log on th e VAX to f i l l in a brief"template" describing and supporting some decision they would take pertaining tothe assigned case. The in i t i a l goal of increasing the level of students'preparation and interest , I would like to believe, has been met. Moreimportantly, I know the exercise has had a deep and unanticipated impact on myc lasses .

In this memo I wil l describe th e mechanics of the experiment, the apparentbenefits and costs, and the issues that might ar ise i f i t were extended to morecourses.

The MechanicsThe typical exercise requires students to take some decision ("I would/would not invest in th e business') and provide three 'bullet point ' reasons.Many exercises are based on th e paper ballots that Howard Stevenson and I usedwhen we taught the course las t year. The ballots that we used to distr ibute a tthe beginning of class have been turned into templates contained in the coursesyllabus (Attachment 1) and in a computer fi le on th e VAX.Students may turn in a paper copy but are encouraged to use the computersystem, and most of them do. Their preference for computer input may beattr ibuted to a simple and elegant system designed by Tom Sonderegger. As theattached memo (Attachment Z) indicates, students need only know how to log on andto remember one key word, ' en t re ' . Self-explanatory menus take care ofthe rest . We did not want to require the students to learn even the l imitedprotocol s of our e-mail, and in fact the system is not bui l t off e-mail.(Although th e menus allow students to send me e-mail, they do not have to knowany special commands to do so.)Remarkably, there were ~ bugs that had to be removed once the system was


2/5

Lynda ApplegateOctober 15, 1991Page 2put into use. Tom's principle was Keep I t Simple Stupid. We had very few bellsand whistles -- th e editor for the template is crude -- and it worked, the f i r s ttime around. Tom ha s since added a few simple features, and they have workedflawlessly, too. And, simplicity of the system has kept the development costsdoWn -- Tom estimates he spent two days, and we did not incur any out-of- pocketexpenseSe

Student responses are due a t 8:15 am on the day of the class , and most areusually in by that time; many actually complete the exercise the previousevening. I get th e responses printed using a simple ' i n s t ruc to r ' s ' menu, inabout 10-15 minutes depending on th e moods of the printer and the systemdownstairs. I can also read the responses off the screen, and wil l often do sothe previous evening.I spend the next couple of hours analyzing and summar1z1ng th e responses.This has turned out to be the most nerve wracking and exciting l ink in thesystem. Bill Sahlman had suggested early on that students might be upset i f theexperiment was merely a control device and did not provide other benefi ts , suchas knowing where others stood on an issue. Accordingly, I had planned to tabulatethe go/no go type results each morning, but l i t t l e else . I thought that I would

s ta r t class by disclosing the vote, and then set up a debate between students whohad expressed different points of view. I would then be able to draw otherstudents into the discussion using my prior knowledge of the i r perspective.After a couple of classes, I saw that th e response printouts, taken as awhole, 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 thenuse the exercise to focus th e class on jus t those issues where there seemed tobe the g r e a t e s ~ ambiguity or confl ic t or the what-to-do matters that have oftento be hurried through at the end?

Therefore, I moved to a policy of, "ful l disclosure". In addition toreporting the "vote", I now prepare summaries of the bullet point reasons, proand con. I f any intriguing comments have been made, I note these as well . I tusually takes about two hours to prepare these summaries and turn them intotransparencies.Instead of th e t radi t ional 'opener' who ' lays out a case ' , th e class star t swith my summary of their comments. Thus in a hypothetical "Treeform' case, Imight, using appropriate transparencies, say: '60% of the class favoredabandoning the opportunity. You expressed th e following concerns about the

financial structure, th e team and the competitive environment... Those whofavored proceeding cited the following reasons To give th e class the i r due"ownership' of th e summary, I try to credi t comments to specific individuals , i fI ca n remember them. Sometimes i f a point appears a l i t t l e obscure I wil l askthe student to explain i t further.Once the basic issues are out of th e way, we can focus on the subtlematters. Fo r example, I might say, 'many of us apparently regard the extent ofdemand for Treeform's products to be a matter of great concern. John, you hadsuggested that th e founders do more market research. What exactly should they

do?" We may then discuss the resources the founders can or should spend, therole of market research in resource strapped startups, and whether the founders


3/5

Lynda ApplegateOctober 15, 1991Page 3can in any way hedge th e risks of inadequate knowledge.

Incidentally, I put summaries of student comments back on to the VAX forthem to look a t , using the same simple menu system.Benefits and Costs

The exercises, I believe, can help a relat ively novice instructor such asme vastly improve the depth and focus of class room discussions. One of th eunavoidable frustrations of case method discussions of general management issuesis that cri t ical problems cannot be addressed without laying out the specific andcomplete situation. Even though well prepared individual students understand thebasic problems. and constraints facing the decisionmaker, these have to be laid out in class, by the class before the subtlet ies canbe addressed. Valuable time is seen to be wasted, perhaps inaccurately, in "chipshots" or "just repeating case facts ."

Summarizing student responses vastly reduces the time spent laying thefoundations of the case discussion. To the extent summaries represent thecollective analyses of the student group, variances in quali ty are also sharplyreduced. The class is protected from the student who is unprepared, lackscommunication ski l ls , or goes off on a tangent. At the same time, the instructoris forewarned about the truly unusual perspective and can more rel iablyincorporate i t into the foundation of the case. ('The most common concerns notedabout the Treeform opportunity were XYZ; we should also appreciate, as Johnpointed out, th e issue K ' ) . All in a l l , in my observation, th e time spent a t th efront end, laying out basic issues and analyses can be cut a t least in ha lf ,arguably with an improvement in quali ty.

Focus can also be improved. Students are sometimes frustrated that the irtake on the case, the issue they perceive to be cr i t i ca l , is given short shri f tand will seek to move the discussion t h e i ~ way. This can be useful sometimes,but may also be disruptive. Acknowledging th e issues that th e students se e asimportant can help the instructor focus, in a non-manipulative way, on theteaching objectives of the case. ('You have identified a lo t of important issuesfacing Treeform; and, indeed, in many startups th e entrepreneur has to f ight manyf i res at once. But given our time constraints, le t us focus on the issue of Xf i r s t . . . ' )

Finally, I believe, that classroom dynamics and atmosphere may be improved.Firs t , we can make th e 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 everyonehas contributed. Second, i t is easier to broaden participation in a nonthreatening way; those who might otherwise be hesitant to speak can be broughtin at points where they are most l ikely to add value. Third, and this findingsurprised me, th e reserved student in class can be ar t icula te , passionate or evenquite funny on a computer. The cold electronic medium, remarkably, encouragesexpressiveness in unlikely individuals I

At what cost? The most obvious is time. The analysis of responses is laborintensive and does not a t a l l reduce my normal preparation for class .Furthermore, I have to develop a teaching plan, on the f ly , between 8:15 and


4/5

Lynda ApplegateOctober IS, 1991Page 411.30 a.m., depending on th e responses I receive. Cognitive overload is anotherissue. I attempt to remember student responses by name, and not alwayssuccessfully. Since I teach one small (50 student) section a t 11.30 a.m., theseproblems of time and memory are not overwhelming. Obviously with two largesect ions, starting a t 8.30 a.m., the approach would have to be modifiedsignif icant ly .

Other subtle problems. The class is less organic and natural ly developedthan through a student opener. There is a r isk of the class breaking intodiscordant parts - - my summary and their discussion - - part icularly i f I failedto communicate that I was summarizing of their comments. Besides, most of thetalking in th e f i r s t 10-15 minutes is done by me, which could have a deadeningeffect on the class . I try to make th e slide session l ively and the classinvolved by including the humorous comments which I invariably receive in th estudent responses. This too entails risks; as one of my students wrote in an email, the exercise could degenerate into a competition of gett ing cute commentsincluded in the summary. The same student also pointed out that the competitivenature of HBS students might lead them to overdo the ' b r i e f ' computer exercise,and send reams of commentary.

The system ruthlessly exposes cases where there i s l i t t l e ground for goingbeyond th e obvious. And i t can come as a shock to th e instructor that "subt le 'issues you expected to discover in class were obvious to most students. Thisr isk, incidental ly can be mitigated by having (B) cases or other addit ional datathat can be introduced in th e middle of class.Technological risks abound. What happens i f th e communications networkbreaks down, or the high speed printer fai ls? Just l as t week, th e laser printer

in our office broke down, and I had to scramble to somehow get my summary s l idesproduced. The overhead projector to o may fa i l . There are lo t of moving partsin th is system which may break down, and I am sure before the term is over, wil ldo so.Another physical problem. the location of screens in Aldrich precludes thesimul taneous use of sl ides. I have therefore given up the use of chalk and boardaltogether and work exclusively with pens and transparencies instead.

Extension to other courses

The exercise may well find useful application in other courses. Tomassures me that they do not take up much CPU time and minimal effor t would berequired to put other courses and assignments up on the system.

I f the methodology is considered worthwhile, here are some suggestions fori t s broader use.

1 . Instructors should f i r s t t es t thei r questions with paper ballots ,without the computer system; this has been crt ical in establ ishing my personalcomfort with th e sytem.2. Early attempts should be confined to small, single sections.Specialized second year electives which draw a core of committed students mightbe ideal to s tar t with.


5/5

I

Lynda ApplegateOctober 15, 1991Page 53. Other safety valves should be used to make the exercises a normal, low

key aspect of class preparation -- for example, the exercises should not begraded and identical responses by study group members should be allowed. And,the exercise shouldn't be used in a l l classes -- I have assignments forapproximately two out of three classes.

Broad use in many large sections would probably require a more seriousinvestment. For example we would probably need much better computer security.Given th e labor intensive process of tabulating and analyzing resul ts that we nowhave, i t would probably be worthwhile investing in more sophisticated software(e.g. Lotus's Notes) so that some of these processes could be automated. Andnaturally no one wil l or should attempt broad USe of the approach before it hasbeen shaken down in small increments.To conclude: I am not claiming that my class discussions now have greatdepth, focus, or passion; I have glimpsed exciting possibi l i t ies, I haven'trealized them. I t is also true that instructors with more ta lent and experiencedon' t need the computer system to help them; but, I believe that th e technologycan, as in other f ields, improve the effectiveness of average talents, such as

mine.

cc: -:Jim Cash~ a r r e n MCFarlan

~ o w a r d StevensonaMike Yoshino i l l Sahlman

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " .' 1 ~ . o t ~ o . q ~

---------

memo on pre-class exercises to lynda applegate

Documents