The discussion begins broadly-as it does in any case method session- with a framing of the problems so that students first understand the context of the problem fully without the use of any data or models. Once the instructor is satisfied that the qualitative issues have been clearly defined, the analysis narrows, and students identify the specific data and models that may help in resolving the problem.
At this point, the classroom network becomes critical. Using their current understanding of the case (as opposed to the understanding they brought to class), the students are asked to use their laptop computers to select appropriate data and models to support the analysis (that is, to do contextual, dynamic data analysis). If one approach doesn't seem to fit, they try another. As part of the case preparation, the instructor may make some data available on the network or assign data-acquisition tasks to the students. Thus, student preparation includes becoming aware of the types of data that might be appropriate for the case as well as of the various analytical tools and models available.
After allowing the students some time to select the model and approach they think best, the instructor can reach out via the classroom network to retrieve a student's work, distribute it to the other members of the class via the network, and project it onto the classroom screen for the class to critique. The class discussion can involve an in-depth look at the model or technique selected, the assumptions made, and the choices of variables and data. The student being critiqued can be asked to justify his or her thinking and change variables or values as necessary, with the impact readily apparent. The rest of the class can participate actively in the discussion by manipulating the selected student's file to investigate the underlying assumptions and approach used. Furthermore, the discussion can easily be expanded to the full context of the managerial problem to be solved; the data and models selected can be evaluated for their contributions to the overall solution.
A second example concerns the use of the new technology in classroom networks to evaluate student's understanding. If integrated problem-solving is emphasized in class, then examinations that evaluate these strategies must follow. In such a course, so-called objective examinations are inadequate and inappropriate. With a classroom network, open-net examinations (as described by Uday Kamarkar, professor of operations and technology management, and by George Geis, professor of informaion systems, both at The Anderson School at UCLA) are feasible-that is, students can use any information they want, from anywhere its available. The implications are profound. We can now focus examinations on analysis, evaluation, and synthesis in student responses. Networked examinations should help students to internalize concepts at a more complex level and to build new reference points.
Taking advantage of the new technology means developing new evaluation
paradigms that allow for the evaluation of student's abilities to locate
and assess the quality of information, to analyze it, and to apply the
results to their decision making. Creating an examination based on
this new technology requires the investigation of alternative evaluation
methods and further experimentation. It will likely be some time before
faculty learn the best ways to construct examinations for these kind of
courses.