Technology and Case Pedagogy: The Tail Wagging the Dog?

© 2013 Gina Vega and Rebecca Morris for NACRA Proceedings

Technology and Case Pedagogy: The Tail Wagging the Dog?

Gina Vega, Salem State University

Rebecca Morris, U of Nebraska, Omaha

Interest in the use of technology with cases is increasing as it becomes easier and easier to access

sophisticated applications on handheld devices and their ubiquity expands. The general popular

consensus at the frequent workshops and sessions presented at case-related conferences within

the past several years seems to endorse the use of technology to the greatest extent possible when

teaching with cases. This means: video, multimedia, simulations, smart phone apps, and any

other technology-enhanced method at one’s disposal to engage today’s learners more actively

with the material at hand. Although cases have earned kudos for their ability to bring to life

business situations and enhance students’ abilities in analysis and reflective judgment, the

current movement towards embracing technological solutions to pedagogical challenges troubles

us. We question the conclusion that technology is the answer in terms of teaching and learning

effectiveness.

According to Nicholson, Nicholson, and Valacich (2008), “presenting information in a more

vivid or more interactive learning environment will significantly increase satisfaction with the

learning environment as well as interest in the topic” (2008:185). Their research is based on the

Task-Technology Fit model developed in the 1990s to facilitate the use of appropriate electronic

technology in the workplace. The model posits that the tools must fit the task, a basic intuitive

assumption that works well in the workplace, but less intuitively in the learning environment. In

short, sometimes technology enhances and sometimes it detracts, regardless of the apparent “fit”

to the learning task.

TTF and learning environments

In learning environments, the benefits of technology are less apparent than in the workplace. One

reason for this is the impact of cognitive load; that is, the amount of information and stimulation

that a person can use profitably before attention and focus decrease. The principle of limited

capacity suggests that “extraneous information should be omitted to preserve learners’

attention/resources” (Burke, 2007: 416).

Therefore, the use of multiple stimuli can backfire, resulting in cognitive overload. The use of

multiple media and multiple styles or methods of input can have exactly this negative result

when not managed carefully. Researchers generally accept the value of combined text, narration,

and visual stimuli (Mayer, 2001; Speaker, 2004) in terms of holistic learning, as long as

redundancy is avoided (Burke, 2007). The value-added of the technological facilitation must be

clear and distinct. Providing the same information in multiple formats does not enhance

learning. Deep learning occurs only with active learning, not with the passive learning that often

occurs with technology.

What do we want students to learn?

We generally adhere to Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) and its more current updates (see Anderson

and Krathwohl, 2001), recognizing that cases are not the best learning vehicles at the lowest


learning levels (Knowledge and Comprehension), but excel at the intermediate and higher

learning levels (Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation). If our goal is to encourage

higher level thinking via cases, we must incorporate technology with caution.

What Is the Question?

According to Stephen Ehrmann (1995), decisions related to the use of technology in the

classroom are often founded on answers to the wrong questions. Instead of asking: “What are

our overarching goals, the real purpose of education,” we ask: “What is the best way to get

students to answer the questions we base their grades on.” Instead of questioning how to best

develop skills for lifelong learning that can be put to use profitably over the long term (work life

and professional success), we question how to gain success in the short term (a good grade on a

project, a high GPA, notice on the school’s dean’s list). Grades have been shown to have a very

low correlation with work achievement after graduation (Kanfer, Wolf, Kantrowitz and

Ackerman, 2010). We question whether the goal of improving student grades is a worthwhile

one to pursue. We prefer to identify ways to teach that have the most favorable learning

outcomes.

Variability in teaching methods, teaching skills exhibited by instructors in a wide variety of

institutional settings, and access to what may be called “the latest technology” today and

“yesterday’s technology” tomorrow play havoc with our natural tendency to seek the best way to

teach with cases. As a result, it is natural for us to come logically to the wrong conclusions; that

is, more technology equals more learning.

Is Technology the Answer? Maybe Not. . .

According to Alvi (2011), technology may not be the answer once we identify the correct

question. Alvi suggests that we simply do not know enough about the value of omnipresent

computing to suggest that technology always adds value to traditional teaching methodologies.

However, he suggests, we must find a way to make our peace with the fallout from the frequent

use of technological digital solutions to analogous problems.

Technology’s main claims to value are speed and efficiency. These two are the answers to a

specific kind of question, one that revolves around the shortest distance between two points and

the most cost- or effort-minimizing solutions, both of which are lower level learning goals.

Critical thinking, the educational buzz-phrase du jour, has never been suggested as one of the

strengths of technologically-enhanced pedagogy. In addition, critical thinking requires time,

effort, and analytical skills, none of which derive from technology. Cases are excellent vehicles

for developing critical thinking skills, and an insightful case analysis does take time and effort,

employing all the analytical skills and techniques a student has absorbed over the length of the

educational trajectory. Technology might not inhibit learning with cases, but it does not appear to

augment it either.

In a 2010 interview in the Chronicle, Nicholas Carr claimed that “multimedia actually impedes

learning rather than enhances it, simply because it divides our attention” (Parry, July 4, 2010).

The distractions offered by technology may do more to keep students from learning than the

technology itself does to enhance the quality of their learning. We have become used to doing


more than one thing at a time, but despite our propensity to multitask, multitasking does not

always result in quality outcomes. It results in multiple outcomes of varying quality.

Or Maybe So. . .

Lowerison, Sclater, Schmid and Abrami (2006) conducted an extensive study (1,966

undergraduate and graduate students) of computer technology, active learning, and perceived

course effectiveness. Their findings indicated that students who use a lot of computer

technology have greater success in active learning environments. This helped to move learners

from a passive learning state into a more assertive and engaged model of learning. The research

focused on seven key areas: learner preferences, course structure, active learning, time on task,

type and frequency of computer application used, overall perceived effectiveness of computer

technology use inside and outside of class, and context of computer technology use. Overall, the

students in the Lowerison et al study concluded as follows. The extensive use of computer

technology:

“Helped me to be more actively engaged in my learning.

Made it easier for me to review material that I did not understand in class.

Helped me to organize course materials and integrate them in a way that was meaningful

for me.

Helped me set realistic learning goals.

Allowed me to think in new ways about the course material.

Increased my confidence that I could learn the material.

Increased my interest in the subject matter in this course.

Made course content more personally relevant.

Was appropriate to my needs and level of understanding.

Increased my interactions with other students and/or the instructor.

Was flexible enough to allow for individual differences in learning.

Made it easier for me to express opinions and engage in discussion” (p. 418).

These valuable outcomes tempt us to extend “computer use” to “use of technology” overall,

since today’s learners (and instructors) function without technology only rarely. The ubiquity of

technological tools such as laptops, tablets, smart phones, and other portable devices has created

an environment where being without computing technology sets you far behind the curve. Even

Lowerison et al found that limited use of computing technology had a negative impact on the

perceived effectiveness of the course and on active learning. In other words, the participants in

their survey liked to work with computers despite student resistance to taking on more

responsibility for their own learning via the use of their computing tools.

The argument for and against the increased use of technology in the classroom appears both

inevitable and irresolvable.

Data

Using an informal survey instrument at two case conferences (CASE Association, May 2012 and

NACRA, October 2012) and online through eech.com (Summer 2012), we asked faculty about

the incorporation of technology into their case teaching. The results were equally ambivalent as


the preceding research results would suggest. Almost all respondents claimed that technology

associates learning with fun and provides an opportunity to collaborate with colleagues.

However, they also felt that there was insufficient technical support at their schools to

incorporate technology easily into their case teaching, that the tools required to develop the

technology were difficult to use and took too long to master, and that it all cost too much.

The benefits these respondents identified included adding depth and richness to case information,

making the material more interesting, engaging students and bringing cases to life. Technology

is “natural” for students to use, part of their daily life, they claimed. Technology gives students

additional contact with other students and new channels for communication.

The drawbacks identified were unsurprising—lack of access by some students, too expensive,

superficial and distracting. Many respondents indicated that student distraction was a major

concern when incorporating technology.

What Can We Do with Technology?

Despite Boyd’s assertion in 1997 that “multimedia case studies containing text, photo-quality

images, sounds, animations and video clips will be commonplace by the year 2000,” the format

of business cases has not changed much in almost a century. Cases utilized in business schools

in 2012 tend to look and function much like the cases utilized in the Harvard Business School in

the nation’s first MBA program in 1910. Students read text-based descriptions of decision

scenarios supplemented with static graphs, financial statements and a rare photograph. Although

most of us carry significantly more computing and communication capabilities in our pockets

(our “smart” phones) than was used in controlling the Apollo space craft, little of this technology

has had an impact on case delivery. Of the 13,000 cases listed on the Harvard Business

Publishing web site in 2011, only 28 are classified as multimedia cases bringing “the case

narrative to life through animated charts, audio and video segments” (HBP website). Ecch

(European Case Clearing House), the largest case distributer internationally, lists 169 multimedia

cases among its more than 43,000 offerings. Other notable examples of the use of technology on

case delivery include:

1. Video Cases: This type of case often takes the format of a network feature news story.

The video medium is used to communicate the case scenario, background information

and decision maker interviews. Students either watch the video in class or on their own

prior to class discussion. Printed background materials or industry notes may accompany

the video presentation. An example of this form of case would be the Frog’s Leap

Winery Case by Peter Rainsford presented at the 1999 NACRA meeting.

2. Mixed-Media Cases: This type of case combines the traditional text-based case with one

or more alternative forms of media. Short video clips may be embedded in the text to

demonstrate visual aspects of the manufacturing process or to demonstrate usage of the

product. Interviews with key players are also often incorporated through video or audio.


a. Harvard Business Publishing: Although listed as multimedia cases on the HBP

website, these cases are more appropriately classified as mixed-media cases. No

tools are provided to support student analysis or decision making.

b. Darden Business School: Of the 145 cases listed on the web site for strategic

management, only three are listed as multimedia cases. The cases use a web-

based interface to incorporate text, animation, photos and videos. No additional

tools are provided to assist students in developing recommendations or decisions.

c. PowerPoint Cases: XanEdu offers instructors the ability to have PowerPoint

Presentations converted to streaming video that can be accessed over the web.

This form can also include text materials that can be printed.

d. New platforms: Graphic novels and smart phone applications might utilize

different formats and platforms to communicate case information integrating a

variety of mixed-media components.

3. Multimedia Cases: Multimedia has been defined as the “use of a computer to present and

combine text, graphics, audio, and video with links and tools that let the user navigate,

interact, create and communicate” (Hofstetter, 1993). Multimedia cases are distinguished

from mixed-media cases through the incorporation of tools that allow students to gather,

process and communicate information and ideas. Not only are students able to choose

from a variety of media in gathering information, multimedia cases permit them to utilize

an embedded expert system or decision support system in analyzing the case or in

developing or evaluating alternative solutions. The expert system uses analytical or

decision tools to assist students by structuring their thinking processes. Boyd’s 1997

article describes one such case where the multimedia format uses a decision tree

approach to help students work through possible solutions.

4. Case/Simulation Hybrids: This type of case combines traditional text-based cases with

computerized simulations of decision outcomes. Students study the decision-based case

and then input values into a simulation program to see the results of their recommended

course of action. McGraw-Hill offered this type of product in the 1990s. Students read a

Business Week article about a company and were then asked to make decisions about a

series of variables relevant to the decision focus of the article. The computer simulated

the outcome of the student’s recommendations and provided a brief explanation of the

results.

5. Nonconventional Cases: This category includes any technologically based case format

that has not been previously covered. Advancements in technologies and technological

tools make the producer’s imagination (and perhaps monetary and temporal budgets) the

only limitation. Examples of possibilities in this realm include the use of virtual

environments such as Second Life or video games to simulate a decision-making

scenario.

Clearly, the technological tools at our disposal permit the creation of many new forms for cases

that can be offered to students on a variety of platforms. However, the most sophisticated and

elegant technologies may or may not enhance student learning.


Xtranormal Role-Plays: A Technologically Enhanced Case Pedagogy

Role-playing has been frequently utilized as an alternative to traditional case discussions. In

role-plays, students assume the role of one of the stakeholders in the case situation and interact

with other students playing the roles of other case stakeholders. The improvisational role-play

can bring abstract situations to life for students and provides a “fresh” alternative to the

traditional teacher-led case discussion. Proponents of the technique argue that role-plays “can

dramatically and immediately galvanize a sleepy class into one charged with attention and the

electricity of concentrated learning” (Clawson, 1997). Role-playing is associated with higher

levels of student involvement and preparation in case discussions (Comer & Vega, 2006), (Lund

Dean & Forniciari, 2002), (Prat, 2012), (Rollag, 2012), (Uslay, 2007) (Weiss, 2003) that may

overcome the diminishing returns for students of “yet another” case discussion (Lincoln, 2006).

Student involvement has been strongly linked to improvements in learning in a number of studies

(Bigelow, Seltzer, Buskirk, Schor, & Keleman, 1998) and AACSB International states “the most

effective learning takes place when students are actively involved in their educational

experiences” (AACSB International, 2012, pg. 57). AACSB 2012 guidelines further encourage

faculty to adopt active learning approaches “that are suited to their subject matter” (AACSB

International, 2012). Thus, faculty interest in role-playing as an alternative case pedagogy may

reasonably be expected to increase.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Role-Playing

Role-playing has been found to cause students to “think more deeply, more quickly, and more

emotionally” (Clawson, 1997) than when presenting their analysis in the abstract as part of

traditional discussions. Role-playing “places problems in a life-like setting” while providing

“for testing ideas and hypotheses about human behavior” (Kidron, 1977). The technique

provides students with an “opportunity for genuine contemplation” of the issues as the role

player thinks up good arguments to support his or her role (Kidron, 1977). When students are

asked to take on roles opposite from their own perspectives, role-playing can strengthen “the

students’ abilities to empathize with, experience and understand others’ perceived reality”

(Clawson, 1997). Role-playing also permits students to play devil’s advocate within the

relatively safe confines of the classroom. Students are more likely to glean important insights in

the action of a role-play than if the instructor simply pointed out illogical arguments.

The common theme in the benefits of role-plays is in making abstract discussions about issues

come alive. However, this improvisational aspect of role-plays can also become one of its

drawbacks. By making the discussions live, role-plays are not easy to construct or facilitate.

Casting the roles can make or break the learning experience. Some students may be intimidated

by the experience and may not wish to be put on the spot in front of their peers (Kling, 2000),

(Little, 1990). Others may release their inner “Thespian” and over dramatize the situation,

behaving in ways that are inconsistent with the role or the situation. Although there are many

articles with suggestions for conducting effective role-plays (e.g. Clawson, 1997), the

instructional effectiveness of role-plays like any other pedagogical technique can decline upon

repeated exposures of students to the same technique.


It is the authors’ contention that technology may provide a way to overcome some of the

drawbacks of role-plays while actively engaging the Millennial student who tends to have a high

comfort level with technology as well as significant access to sophisticated digital processes.

Many students prefer to write their responses instead of speaking in class. Some students

process information more slowly than others, and the sometimes hectic pace of classroom

participation keeps them from doing their best work. This is particularly important for students

for whom English is not their first language (Vega, 2013). An innovative use of computerized

animation technology may also provide sufficient classroom variety to maintain active student

involvement and enhanced learning.

Xtranormal

Xtranormal is a free text-to movie web service that allows users to make animated movies by

simply typing the dialogue for each character. A text-to-speech engine then converts the

dialogues into voices. Users can choose which of more than 60 dialects the character will use

and whether to add gestures, facial expressions and sound effects or to simply allow the artificial

intelligence in the software to take over. The company’s tag line is “if you can type, you can

make movies.” The finished product can be published in YouTube, Facebook or Xtranormal’s

own site. Video clips can also be pasted into PowerPoint presentations.

Costs are minimal in terms of money, skills and time. Users buy points that permit them to

“cast” predesigned characters and sets from Xtranormal’s Web library. No photo or video

editing skills are required beyond drag and drop. A finished film can be created in minutes.

Leslie Allison, creator of a 4 ½ minute Xtranormal video with over 650,000 hits on YouTube

spent $5 and 90 minutes creating her film entitled, “So You Want to Get a PhD in the

Humanities” (Parry, 2011).

Xtranormal is gaining wide acceptance for instructional videos and classroom use (Parry, 2011)

and many university libraries are using Xtranormal to produce video user guides for their clients,

students and faculty alike. Xtranormal’s web site encourages educators to use it for teaching

languages, making history “cool” or civic debates “fun” (Xtranormal, 2012). Xtranormal has

been used to introduce social skills to grade school students (PRWeb, 2012), to teach creative

writing in Spanish to high school students (Technology and Education Box of Tricks, 2009) and

to replace term papers in a contemporary urban issues and educational policy course at San

Diego State University (Rant Video Blogging, 2012). A freshman international business major

at Northwestern University summarized the benefit of Xtranormal, saying, “I think that

Xtranormal can definitely be beneficial for both students and faculty. The characters in the

videos engage the viewer’s attention and provide both the creator and audience with an

entertaining and enjoyable element to the learning and teaching experience” (Rant Video

Blogging, 2012). The educational use has increased to the point that Xtranormal now offers

group subscription rates for educators.

What Should We Do with Technology?

To avoid being hoodwinked by the allure of what we can do with technology to enhance our

student learning, we suggest that the best use of technology with cases pertains to identifying the


most value-added method of case delivery based on our hypothesized criteria. This method may

be low-tech, take advantage of existing technologies, or be ready for new, as yet not-widespread

technological innovations. Our focus is primarily on learner preferences and overall perceived

effectiveness of several technologies.

We also believe that many aspects of case pedagogy should be retained regardless of the

technology that is utilized to deliver the case. These include those elements that are long-

standing best practice in case research and writing such as:

1. Cases must be factual. We believe that the complicated situations found in the real world

are better learning vehicles for students than fictional accounts.

2. Cases must focus either on an unresolved decision/issue or on a deep analysis of the

behavior of case protagonists and the consequences of that behavior. Students should be

compelled to develop recommendations, solutions or alternatives for the focal firm. This

type of focus elicits critical and creative thinking skills that are important in students’

professional development.

3. Cases must offer multiple possibilities for solutions/recommendations. Students will be

unwilling to engage with case materials in whatever form they are presented if a simple

straightforward or singular solution is possible.

By affirming these best practices in case research and writing, we can then move to an

exploration of the best fit of technology to case delivery. When is it appropriate to utilize

technology in cases? Which technologies are more likely to result in the favorable learning

outcomes most associated with case pedagogy?

Student preferences and skills

One element that we often overlook is the level of technical knowledge that our students enjoy.

Their years of video gaming and playing MMRPGs have left them jaded for the tamer

environments provided by simulations and similar classroom games. Proserpio and Gioia (2007)

characterize today’s students as learning differently from past generations. They claim that

“Students now expect rich, interactive, and even ‘playful’ learning environments (Proserpio &

Gioia, 2007: 73). Technology-facilitated learning fits well within these parameters and assists

students in complex problem solving. However, we recommend caution in the wholesale

adoption of technology and/or the endorsement of gaming to teach critical thinking, even if our

students do enjoy games and find them fun.

Generational Impacts

The students under consideration by Alvi and Lowerison et al were Millennnials, the current

generation of college student born between 1981 and 2001 who are the most computer-literate

generation to enter the workforce (Nicholas, 2008). We prefer to avoid the typically judgmental

evaluation of the traits and characteristics of the Millennials, but we do acknowledge that this

generation differs significantly from the generations that are teaching them. Frequently called

“Digital Natives,” Millennials are not only technologically savvy, they are have access to more

kinds of gadgets, software applications, and electronic-enabled information than any previous

generation. Their perspectives on “free” access to the intellectual property that earlier

generations have fought to protect, their easy and apparently innate ability to work technology


that comes without instructions (earlier generations swore by manuals), and their willingness to

connect with one another, openly disregarding earlier attempts to protect individual privacy, all

make for frequent disconnects with the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers who are their instructors in

the classroom.

The classroom? Even that has changed the digital generation. They often find themselves

learning through distance programs, online courses, and hybrid structures that remove them from

face-to-face communication with peers and faculty. Working alone, coupled with uniquely high

access to technology via the Internet, creates an environment that is conducive to technologically

mediated learning processes. Nicholas’ (2008) study showed nearly 90 percent of undergraduate

respondents learned from video clips related to course material, suggesting that video can be a

helpful adjunct to more traditional teaching methods.

A study of post graduates in an optometric program (Eubank and Pitts, 2011) compared learning

styles across several generations and confirmed that today’s Millennial learners are accustomed

to rapid acquisition of information and have little patience with the more labor-intensive methods

of knowledge acquisition that have been the mainstay of the Gen X and Boomer classrooms.

They claim that the ever-increasing presence and continuously improving cell phone technology

has even obviated some of the necessity for laptops or desktop computers. The study references

Kolb’s Learning Styles and concludes that today’s learners tend toward a vastly different

learning style than students of only twenty years earlier. Today’s students show dramatic

increases in Divergers and Accommodators and parallel decreases in Convergers and

Assimilators. Simply stated, today’s learners prefer to learn via concrete experimentation,

imagination, and intuition rather than the abstract conceptualization and logical application of

information preferred by earlier generations.

Regardless of our personal response to these findings, the evidence seems clear: we can no

longer depend solely on our old teaching methods, content delivery mechanisms, skills and

settings to achieve effective learning results.

Criteria for the Use of Technology with Cases

Efficiency of content delivery—The inclusion of technology in case delivery must

provide a means of communicating case information more efficiently than traditional

narrative text. This is the concept of a “picture is worth a thousand words.”

Effectiveness of content delivery method—Technological components must enable the

author to communicate case information more effectively than traditional narrative. For

example, a student might develop a better understanding that a manufacturing process is

potentially hazardous, dirty and noisy by watching a video clip of the process than by

reading about it. Alternatively, a student could observe nonverbal behaviors of an

executive in an interview video that communicate volumes about the veracity of that

executive’s statements.

Purpose of the learning—The technology approaches to cases we have identified seem

better suited for the learning of complex, multi-faceted concepts than for more simple or

straight-forward concepts. The strategic management case involving a complex decision

in an unfamiliar industry might be better suited to a technology-based case than a


problem set that asks students to value a treasury bond. Technology-based cases may

also provide a better approximation of a real-world decision setting in that students must

synthesize vast amounts of information and determine what information is pertinent

rather than having the case writer do it.

Learner-centered/Instructor-centered—Technology-based cases are more suited for

learner-centered rather than instructor-centered approaches. The learner must accept

more responsibility for his/her learning in some of the technology-based case approaches

since he/she explicitly controls the exploration of the information. In a multi-media case,

the learner chooses whether to click on an embedded interview video or to follow a

hyperlink to additional information. The case-writer controls the flow and sequence of

information in a traditional text-based case while the instructor may control the

discussion flows in the classroom. The tradeoff here seems to be between facilitating a

variety of learning styles/approaches with the technology-based case versus facilitating a

more uniform outcome in the traditional text-based case.

Motivational factors—Technology-based cases may be more engaging for tech-savvy

Millennial students in that they utilize technology platforms (such as the web and video

interfaces) that students find entertaining. We suspect that this engagement may result as

long as the technological components are perceived as novel or unique. If technology-

based cases are used exclusively in the context of a single course or widely in a student’s

academic program, we would anticipate less engagement over time.

Learner preferences/response to modalities offered—Most research on the effectiveness

of technology-based cases emphasizes the use of different modalities to appeal to various

learning styles. For example, visual learners may find the use of animations and video to

enhance their learning. This may impose a higher level of difficulty on the case writer as

he/she may need to incorporate the same information into the case in different ways to

appeal to the various learning preferences and styles of the user. Reliance on a single

modality may mean that some learners miss important information.

Collaborative/individual learning models—Technology-based cases may facilitate more

collaborative learning by explicitly incorporating email and discussion boards into the

case platform itself. Although students utilizing traditional text-based cases could avail

themselves of these same tools, the technology-based approach is more likely to trigger

collaborative learning as students utilize the incorporated case tools.

Conclusion: Not yet, not always, not only

According to Boyd (1997), Harvard Business School committed to produce 500 multimedia

cases between 1996 and 2001. This did not happen. We suspect that the costs and lead times for

developing technology-based cases exceeded the perceived learning value of such approaches.

Despite improvements in technology tools and computing support, we wonder whether the

renewed promise of case delivery via digital technology is any better in 2013.

Technology-based cases have been touted in the past as a pedagogical panacea, but it seems to us

(and others such as Webb, Gill and Poe (2005)), that it is not technology per se that enhances


learning outcomes, but the fit of the supporting technology with the model of learning. If we

believe the today’s students’ learning preferences are completely different from those of past

generations, the relevance of traditional text-based case delivery may need to be examined.

What technologies offer the best promise for learning for tomorrow?

We hope to trigger critical thinking about the case method and the appropriate role of technology

in communicating case information. By better understanding the appropriate fit of technological

solutions to learning goals, participants may better channel their own experiments with new

approaches to case pedagogy.

References

AACSB International. (2012). Accreditation. Retrieved June 4, 2012, from AACSB International: http://www.aacsb.edu

Alvi, S. (2011). Proceed with caution: Technology fetishism and the millennial generation.

Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Vol. 8, No. 2. 135-144.

Anderson, L. W. and David R. Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning,

Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn

& Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group)

Bigelow, J. D., Seltzer, J., Buskirk, W. H., Schor, S. G., & Keleman, K. (1998). Management Skills in Action: Four Teaching Models. Journal of Management Education , 23, 355-376.

Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive

Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

Boyd, C. (1997). A hypermedia strategic management case—Design, use and student reaction.

Journal of Education for Business, 72, 6. 375-379.

Burke, L.A. (2007). Lessons learned from instructional design theory: An application in

management education. Business Communication Quarterly, Vol 70 [4]. 414-430.

Clawson, J. G. (1997). Role-Playing. University of Virgina Darden School Foundation. Charlottesville: Darden Business Publishing.

Comer, D. R. & Vega, G. (2006). Unsavory Problems at Tasty’s: A Role Play about Whistle

Blowing. Journal of Management Education, 30 (1), 251-269.

Ehrmann, S.C. (1995). Asking the right questions: What does research tell us about technology

and higher learning? Change, 27 2. 20-27.

http://www.aacsb.edu/

http://www.amazon.com/Taxonomy-Educational-Objectives-Handbook-Cognitive/dp/0582280109/bigdogsbowlofbis/


Eubank ,T.F. & Pitts, J. (2011). A comparison of learning styles across the decades. Optometric

Education, 35, 2. 72-75.

Hofstetter, F.T. (1993). Design and construction of a multimedia technology case. Techtrends,

38,2. 22-24.

Kanfer, R., Wolf, M.B., Kantrowitz, T.M., & Ackerman, P.L. (2010). Ability and trait complex

predictors of academic and job performance: A person-situation approach. Applied

Psychology, 59(1), 40-69.

Kidron, A. G. (1977, July). The Effectiveness of Experiental Methods in Training and Education: The Case of Role Playing. Academy of Management Review , 490-495.

Kling, J. (2000). Want to Communicate Better? Try Role Playing. Harvard Management Communication Letter , 3-5. Boston, MS, USA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Lincoln, D. J. (2006). Student Authored Cases: Combining Benefits of Traditional and Live Case Methods of Instruction. Marketing Education Review , 16, 1-7.

Little, L. (1990). Beyond Role-Play: Character Immersion in the Organizational Behavior Class.

Journal of Management Education, 14 (4), 46-53.

Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, R.F. & Abrami, P.C. (2006). Are we using technology for

learning? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 34(4) 401-425.

Lund Dean, K. & Forniciari, C. J. (2002). How to Create and use Experiential Case-Based

Exercises in a Management Classroom. Journal of Management Education, 26 (5), 586-

603.

Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambriadge University Press.

Nicholas, A.J. (2008). Preferred learning methods of the Millennial Generation. The

International Journal of Learning, 15, 6. 27-34.

Nicholson, J., Nicholson, D. & Valacich, J.S. (2008). Exmaining the effecsw of technology

attributres on leanrning: A contingency perspective. Journal of Information Techynology

Education, Vol. 7, 185-204).

Parry, M. (2010). Linked In with: A writer who questions the wisdom of teaching with

technology. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 4, 2010.

http://chronicle.com/article/Is-Technology-Making-Your/66128/ (Retrieved November 22,

2011).

Parry, M. (2011). So You Think an English Professor's Life Is a Cartoon. Chronicle of Higher Education , 57 (20), p. A9.

http://chronicle.com/article/Is-Technology-Making-Your/66128/


Prat, N. (2012). Teaching Information Systems With Cases: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Computer Information Systems , 52 (3), 71-81.

PRWeb. (2012, February 1). Nashville Special Education Students. Retrieved June 4, 2012, from PRWeb: prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9155745.htm

Rant Video Blogging. (2012, March 31). Xtranormal Powers Higher Education Learning. Retrieved June 4, 2012, from http://www.rantvideoblogging.com/xtranormal-powers-higher-education-learning/

Rollag, K. (2010). Teaching Business Cases Online through Discussion Boards: Strategies and

Best Practices. Journal of Management Education, 34 (4), 499-526.

Speaker, K. (2004). Student perspectives: Expectations of multimedia technology in a college

literature class. Reading Improvement, 41, 241-254.

Technology and Education Box of Tricks. (2009, November 1). Xtranormal in the Classroom. Retrieved June 4, 2012, from http://www.boxoftricks.net/2009/11/xtranormal-in-the-classroom/

Uslay, C. (2007). Case Analyses with Extensive Student Involvement: Management Versus Consultanta Case Method (MCM). Marketing Education Review , 17 (1), 21-27.

Vega, G. (2013). The Case Writing Workbook: A Self-Guided Workshop. Armonk, NY: M.E.

Sharpe.

Webb, H.W., Gill, G. & Poe, G. (2005). Teaching with the case method online: Pure versus

hybrid approaches. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3, 2. 223-250.

Weiss, S. E. (2003). Teaching the Cultural Aspects of Negotiation: A Range of Experiential

Techniques. Journal of Management Education, 27 (1), 96-121

http://www.rantvideoblogging.com/xtranormal-powers-higher-education-learning/

http://www.rantvideoblogging.com/xtranormal-powers-higher-education-learning/

Technology and Case Pedagogy: The Tail Wagging the Dog?

Documents