[Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education] Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Classroom Technologies: Classroom Response Systems and Mediated Discourse Technologies

ENHANCED CLASS REPLAY: WILL

THIS TURN INTO BETTER

LEARNING?

Ferdinando Pennarola and Leonardo Caporarello

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate and discuss an exploratoryresearch about an educational innovation project to be introduced in ahigher education institution. The background of the initiative belongs tothe rolling upgrades of information and communication technologyinfrastructures and services on modern university campuses. The chapterdiscusses the benefits of the decoupling Classroom Replay system, i.e., aclassroom technology that records lectures and makes them available ondedicated online channels as video files or audio podcast. The chapterargues that learners will benefit from the service if a social tagging systemis offered, such that users can quickly browse the files and create their ownlearning path through the recorded material.

INTRODUCTION

Educational institutions compete by offering (a) up-to-date content,(b) advanced educational methods, and (c) better services to their learning

Increasing Student Engagement and Retention using Classroom Technologies:

Classroom Response Systems and Mediated Discourse Technologies

Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume 6E, 143–162

Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 2044-9968/doi:10.1108/S2044-9968(2013)000006E008

143

FERDINANDO PENNAROLA AND LEONARDO CAPORARELLO144

community. This chapter focuses on the latter and explores its implicationson the second, thus highlighting to what degree this form of competitionenhances the attractiveness of the institution to the wider market. Theglobalization of content transforms the contest on educational methods andservices as the main battlefield to fascinate talented students. The enrichmentof educational methods and the improvement of services both require thecooperation of the faculty, who are the indispensable mediating factor in thedelivery of the educational initiative. The project described in this chapter isthe result of a fruitful collaboration between faculty and support staff withina leading university in Italy: it designates the traits of an important researchinitiative, the findings of which can be of future interest to other educationalinstitutions. The technological solutions adopted are described, allowingother interested parties to replicate them and design a similar study. Theresearch described is at its initial stages, thus in this chapter we describe itsunfolding, the literature review supporting our research goal, the researchassumptions and propositions, and some expected outcomes.

Project Background

The case of the OpenCourseWare (OCW) at Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT) deserves attention and brings to some reflections: it is aremarkable story of innovation in higher education, successfully adopted bythe vast majority of MIT faculty – over 90% as their website states. The fullpotential of the OCW project is still unknown and its impact on globaleducation needs to be evaluated. Nonetheless, MIT has a clear vision thatknowledge can work as a public good for the benefit of all, and thethousands of feedbacks received seem to confirm that OCW is improvingeducation and bringing new opportunities to people everywhere. The spiritof open sharing has contaminated many institutions: unsurprisingly, MITstates on its website (ocw.mit.edu): ‘‘we also encourage you to share yourscholarship with others, as hundreds of other universities are already doingthrough their own OCWs.’’

Despite the pioneering efforts of the MIT’s OCW experience, and despiteclear improvements of students’ services, which provides the possibility torewatch missed classes and/or access to a growing knowledge databank,little has been done to explain the expected outcomes of these investments interms of learning impact and the overall quality of the learning processes.

Since 2002, Bocconi University, a leading Italian university with agrowing international reputation, started following, with some differences,

Enhanced Class Replay 145

the MIT experience. In particular, over the last 8 years, part of thetechnology budget was spent in video recording the lectures of the bestteachers. Video files were made available to students through an e-learningweb portal at the end of each lecture: the number of recorded classes percourse ranged from 24 to 36, according to a two to three times per weekschedule, depending on course credit impact. Class feedback provided by theattendees was significantly better compared to similar course evaluations.Students said that they appreciate the feature and the possibility ofrewatching class lectures in preparation of their exams. The video files weremade available together with other learning material provided by theinstructor through the university e-learning web portal services: materialranged from class notes to slides projected in class, cases and exercises andother published articles quoted during lectures. A number of otheradditional features originated from the initiative, including the possibilityto download the content to personal mobile devices.

Despite a strong support from the university leadership, a significantlimitation to the initiative was dictated by serious budget constraints,allowing only a limited number of professional staff to record the lectures.This has led to fewer and fewer lectures being recorded per academic term.During the 2010/2011 academic year a new project was launched to bypassthe above constraints, by cutting the cost of the video recording andconcurrently expanding the best lectures series to a wider number of courses.The project named ‘‘Class Replay’’ originates as a solution to avoid thelimitations of the original idea.

The Decoupling of the Video Recording Systems:The ‘‘Class Replay’’ Project

This project, named Class Replay, is part of a major review of the teachingtechnology infrastructure, currently undergoing at Bocconi University. Acommittee, formed by support staff and representative academics involved inteaching innovation through technology, examined the situation, designedand tested a number of solutions. The authors of the present essay were partof the committee and proposed the research initiative described below.

The Class Replay project takes the lead from the mentioned issues, andaims at spreading – university wide – a hassle free system that will beadopted by a larger faculty body. The objective of the project is to continueproviding a set of post-class services, among which the class recording isthe most relevant. The Class Replays will be made available via the


university e-learning portal. Even though the project aims at providing morelearning resources to attending students only, it will not inhibit non-attending students to browse through the recorded files and access the sameresources. Enrolled, but non-attending students will not be able to use onlythe Class Replays to pass the corresponding exam and gain credits, since theevaluations are made of a variety of tasks – including group workassignments – addressed only to the attending. The Class Replays will beparticularly helpful to those students who will occasionally miss a class; atthe same time, the service works as an additional learning resource to reviewall the material, and rewatch the lecturing and the discussions had in class.

An experimental laboratory classroom was identified and equipped withnew and updated teaching technologies, among which we quote two: (a)powered Wi-Fi coverage that allows all accommodating people tosimultaneously connect to the Internet, (b) an automated, voice activated,360 degrees high definition camera, placed on the ceiling of the classroom,able to record the class scene from any desirable perspective. The softwareprovided to control the camera allowed multiple recording settings, andis able to fit with infinite combination of needs. For example, one of thetested settings was to follow the instructor, identified by wearing a wirelessmicrophone, by monitoring his/her movements around the classroom;another programmed situation assumed ‘‘n’’ classroom scenes (i.e., thecomputer desk, the teacher writing on the blackboard, the instructorinteracting with students in the middle of the amphitheater-like room) andthe camera was able to recognize the situation and switch to the appropriateframing shot. The study of the possible shooting angles and classroomteaching scenes required the full collaboration between the facultyrepresentatives within the committee, the outside technicians, and thesupport staff, with the aim of incorporating a variety of teaching styles andneeds of the wider faculty body of the institution.

The heart of the project is based on the recording technology provided inthe laboratory: it decouples the sources into two separate but interlacedstreams: (a) a video server that stores all the recordings on separate audioand video tracks, which we will call the ‘‘class stream’’ and (b) a visual andaudio recording of all the material shown in class by the teacher through theclassroom networked PC (i.e., slides, websites, video and audio files,documents in various formats, any application software available on thecampus network) which we will call the ‘‘PC stream.’’ Should the teachingfaculty adopt a tablet technology and use it to write with a digital pen, allthe writing will be recorded too, being a substitute of what appears on thetraditional blackboard, and it will be channeled as a PC stream.


The video camera is voice activated and can also point to students thatwant to jump into the class debate with the instructor, and participate withtheir views. Thanks to the full Wi-Fi coverage, designed to load the highestnumber of simultaneous access to the campus network (equal to the numberof classroom seats, in our case the lab classroom accommodates 90), theinstructor can activate a desktop sharing feature from any of the students’devices to the classroom screen. This unleashes a whole new set of teachingpossibilities, among which leveraging the contribution from attendees, byproducing and showing in real time what they have found on their ownnetworked devices (either laptop or tablet) to the instructor and the rest of theclass, and channel it into the PC stream. For example, one possible teaching/learning setting may require students to search for information and/orexamples by browsing web resources: the instructor could ask a volunteer toshare what he/she found with the rest of the class and make it appear on theclassroom screen. All of this learning environment will be properly recordedaccording to the two separated streams of data: class and PC stream.

The Class Replay project assumes that the recorded material will notrequire further post-production (beyond putting a title page at the top andthe end of its segments) and it is made available to students via the campuse-learning web portal at the end of the day. The teacher in class will only berequired to wear and activate a radio microphone and start lecturing, bypressing the start recording button. One advanced version of the project willgive to the teacher an extra remote button that, when pressed, will leave atime mark on the recorded channels. The assumption is that the teacher canmagnify some key learning of his/her lecture, thus allowing users to skip tothe time mark and hyper-navigate any of the recorded material.

The students’ interface is rather straightforward. They will receive theoption of a full, high definition, Class Replay by watching the full streamedclass video (class stream) and/or combining it with the dedicated informationflow recorded from the classroom PC (PC stream). This solution is expectedto have a much greater learning impact: traditional class video recording, withone camera only, was not appropriate when filming the projected slides, orworse, a video in the class. The quality of the shooting was unsatisfactory.Decoupling the two streams of recorded material allows the user to followboth of them on separate windows of the same interface.

As a consequence, the pre-existing service budget, needed to outsourcethe video recording to professional staff, has been brought to zero and asignificant improvement in the quality of the recording has been achieved.The project went through a wide communication and training initiativethroughout the university, and it is being evaluated the possibility of


making this solution a standard feature of every classroom over the next5 years.

Lessons Learned from the Relevant Literature

The Class Replay project is part of a wider movement of literature thatconsiders the opportunities brought by information technology and networkeddevices in the learning environment, and it also matches the requirements ofwell-established methodologies that account for the importance of learning ina blended way. Engaging students to actively participate to class discussions,rather than passively listening to their instructors, is a long establishedevidence of how to enhance the learning process.

For more than a decade, authoritative critics such as Derek Bok (1986)have been calling for a revolution in higher education, with new curricula thatput less emphasis on transmittal of information to passive students and moreemphasis on teaching methods that enable the students to actively build theirown knowledge and skills (Mundell & Pennarola, 1999; Pennarola &Mundell, 2001; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). What we know today is thatlearning is such a fascinating phenomenon that does not take place only intraditional classroom settings: teaching methodologies that allow students tointeract beyond class appointments have been investigated.

In fact, the learning paradigm has shifted from a teacher-centric approachto a learner-centric one characterized by the following elements: (1) contentwill shift from limited to rich, (2) process will move from traditional toexperiential, (3) expected outcomes will move from knowledge acquisition toknowledge creation and integration, (4) location will be more by the courseparticipant, and (5) tools will shift from traditional to blended (Brown, 2003).

The Class Replay project aims at being a non-obstructive technology thatallows the teacher to augment the effectiveness of the overall learningenvironment, either during traditional class hours or after calendaredappointments with students. Within this context, technology – when properlydesigned and adopted – provides a positive support in terms of acceleratingtraditional learning processes and enabling new ones. As a matter of fact,technology for education has made great advances in the last two decades.The technology integration in learning processes allows participants to extendlearning outside the class, promote learners’ critical thinking approach,enhance interaction among participants, and their problem-solving andcollaboration skills (Crocco, 2001; Jonassen, Pfeiffer, & Wilson, 1998; Pope,Hare, & Howard 2005; Wenglinsky, 2005). Thus, technology integration in


learning processes is no longer a ‘‘to-be’’ situation for academics, but it isalready a way to widen learning opportunities and a method of makingeducation (Bauer & Kenton, 2005).

The use of technology for learning offers a variety of opportunities, forboth teachers and students, including instant global communication, real-time access to limitless information, access to environments that can beinaccessible or too expensive in a classroom setting, living a simulatedexperience otherwise costly and time consuming, allowing them to repeat theexperience as many times as necessary (Buckenmeyer, 2010).

In a Ph.D. dissertation given at Fielding Graduate University in 2005,Barry J. Vroeginday showed the existence of ‘‘significant differences in finalexam and overall course scores between the traditional and online learnerstaking nearly identical introductory environmental science courses with thesame instructor’’ (Vroeginday, 2005). Aziz, Khan, and Singh (2010) foundout that using computers promotes students’ learning engagement andincreases students’ interactions ‘‘with fellow students and/or instructors.’’

Nowadays, teachers take advantage of multiple technology-basedlearning tools and lecture-enriching tools, and methodologies. Among thefirst group (technological tools and lecture-enriching tools), projectors,Wi-Fi, laptop computer, PowerPoint presentations, web pages, electronicbulletin boards, video conferencing systems are commonly in place (ECAR,2011; Wright & Wilson, 2009). Among the technology-based learningmethodologies, management simulations and business games are very muchused now. Computer simulations are a method often used for learningpurposes, as such simulations allow to live an experience that providesuseful insights and concepts that are, or will be, discussed during the course(Peluchette & Rust, 2005). Business games support the development ofdifferent abilities just like the ability to process information very quickly andin parallel, the tendency to access information at first instance throughimagery, the embodied empathy for a complex system, and fluency with across-functional affiliation (operating in a team to achieve a common goal).Business games differ from simulations because of the lack of gamedynamics in simulations (like the ‘‘win state’’). Nevertheless, simulationsand business games have many benefits in common.

Although it is easy to figure out the advantages and opportunities offeredby technology integration in learning processes, such integration processmight be very difficult. The real challenge is not just getting some technologyinto classrooms, but understanding how to use the appropriate technologyfor learning purposes (Buckenmeyer, 2010). Indeed, some researches havehighlighted the lag of soft skills needed to successfully integrate technology


in learning processes (Becker, 1994; Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, & Woods,1999; Firek, 2003). This is coherent with a previous research suggesting thatthe availability of technology in classroom is not significantly related to theuse of technology (Buckenmeyer, 2010).

To fully exploit the potential of technology for education, three relevantdriving factors have to be taken into consideration. The first driving factorrefers to the teacher’s level of confidence with the technology itself (Dusick,1998; Mitchell, 1997; Spotts, 1999), and its method of use for learningpurposes. So, time spent on such familiarizing process represents a keyfactor (Dockstader, 1999; Liu et al., 2004). According to Mellon (1999),effective implementation of technology for education requires teachers to beaware of different learning styles and always have ‘‘alternative approaches tothe use of technology’’ considering the fact that some students might preferlearning individually while others in group. Learners, instead, might ownseveral technological tools, but this doesn’t mean they are ‘‘tech-friendly’’ asexpected. In fact, a recent study shows that there is no significant relation-ship between owning a lot of high-tech tools (e.g., smartphones, laptops) andbeing a technology expert (Caporarello & Sarchioni, 2010). Consequently,students may need to be educated on how to get the most out of thetechnological tools they might already have and/or use.

The second driving factor is about the teachers’ ability of shape thetechnology to meet participants’ needs (Craig, Goold, Coldwell, & Mustard,2008; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990). According to Mandell, Sorge, and Russell(2002), teachers are the most important success factor when using andintegrating technology in learning processes. In other words, whatever is thechange in the learning process, it should not begin with the technology, butwith the teacher, who is central to the creation of a technology-integratedenvironment that is learner-centered (Beckett, Marquez-Chisholm, &Wetzel, 2003).

The third driving factor relates to the pivotal role played by the insti-tutional support for integrating technology in learning processes (Boose,2001; Spotts, 1999). Spending too much time in managing the technology(i.e., technological equipment set-up, slow equipment delivery) can fosterbarriers to use technology for learning (Papo, 2001).

In addition to the above considerations, further research (Alavi &Gallupe, 2003) showed that culture – and not cost factors – does represent abig impediment to effective technology-for-education implementation inschools. The fact that some initiatives do not work as expected can be theresult of a refractory culture rather than the inefficacy of the technologyitself.


Technology integration in a learning process requires an intertwinedrelation between technology, pedagogy, and content (Mishra & Koehler,2006). From here, using a pedagogical lens of analysis, when the process oftechnology integration in a learning process is successfully implemented, atleast four pedagogical principles emerge: active learning, mediation,collaboration, interactivity (Jaffee, 1997).

Active learning refers to the students’ interaction with the content thatallows knowledge creation (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). It is demonstrated thattechnology for active learning helps to keep students focused, engaged, andmotivated (Barak, Lipson, & Lerman, 2006). Mediation refers to theinteraction between teachers and students in order to discuss topics andcontent related to the course, solve problems, and respond to questions.The objective of using technology for mediation is twofold: increasing thefrequency and amount of human-to-human interaction between teachers andstudents while meeting the needs of the students’ changing learning styles(Schroeder, 1993).

Collaboration refers to the interaction among students through discus-sions, questions, and information sharing. Technology supported thelearning paradigm shift into a learner-centric rather than teacher-centricone (Caporarello, 2011). Consequently, students’ role changed fromlisteners to collaborators (Jurist, 1999). Also, the teacher’s role changedfrom lecturer to collaborator and facilitator.

Finally, interactivity has the greatest pedagogical potential for technol-ogy-mediated learning processes. Interactivity refers to the process ofbuilding the understanding and knowledge through interaction with otherstudents, teachers, and resources. The use of technology facilitates thatprocess, and also allows customizing content to meet individual needs andlearning style (Pantazis, 2002; Papo, 2001; Sherer & Shea, 2002).

According to a recent study (ECAR, 2011), almost 60% of learners statedthey learn more on a blended learning environment.

Extending the Learning Experience: The InnovativeSocial Tagging Feature

The Class Replay key feature relies mainly on its recording system. Theservice of providing to students the integral recording on multimedia fileshas some limitations, primarily because of the length of the recording (mostof the class sections will be of 90 minutes). Rewatching the recording couldbe perceived as arduous and by someone not very useful either unless the


system will be powered with quick and easy tools to find information in big90 minutes high definition files.

This is the reason why a further enhancement of the system is underdesign, evaluation, and testing. The possibility of marking/tagging the videofiles will increase significantly the usefulness of the recording by givingstudents the opportunity to jump over sections of the recorded material thatare less relevant for the user. The system will allow using tags in either thevideo recording of the class experience (first stream), or the PC stream.

A social tagging system will be made available to students re-viewing thefiles online. The tagging system will allow users to drop a marker in thepreferred position of the file, after naming the marker and choosing a title,and then leaving a comment. Name of the tagging person (only people withregistered credentials will be allowed to tag the files), name of the tag and itsdescription will be made available, transparently, to anyone browsing the file.

We expect to formally keep the tagging feature open to anyone who isbrowsing the lecture files. Nonetheless, since the service is mainly addressed tothe attending students, we would suggest that each instructor using the systemencourage his/her learners to work on the tags during the time window of thecourse, before the end of the class term. The reason for this is to contribute tothe improvement of the browsing of the 90 minutes long files, in preparationfor the evaluation of the learning at the end of the class term.

Together with the markers left by the instructor, which will remain as anoptional feature during the recording of the lecture, we would expect thateach class section, deposited into the Class Replay feature, will appear as amuch richer database of insights regarding the class experience. Tagsprovided by the learners and tags eventually left by the instructor will feedan entirely new post-class learning experience that goes much beyond thetraditional video recording of any university lecture. It is noteworthy to saythat the system being tested is by itself of high interest for non-learningcontexts also.

Why Contribute to the Tagging System? Conceptual Foundations of OnlineCollaboration and Research Propositions

One key aspect of the Class Replay system is the contribution of those thatwill take part to the social tagging feature. In such a way, teachers create alearning context, which facilitates students’ engagement in and activecontribution to learning activities. This is coherent with the social con-structivism theory (Vygotsky, 1962). According to this theory, learning is


first constructed in a social context and then at the individual level (Eggen &Kauchak, 2006).

We assume that, based on the very successful past experiences of theprevious Class Replay services, attending students will like the new one, aswell: nonetheless, the question is how many, and why, will contribute todeposit their tags on the recorded material. This is a fundamental issue ofonline collaboration and learning, and it needs further exploration.

The debate on the impact of information technology use on learningprocesses is ample and it produced many controversies. IT applications canbe designed to support individual or team-based learning (Basaglia,Caporarello, Magni, & Pennarola, 2010), but a fundamental differenceneeds to be underlined: learning-from-computers is substantially differentfrom learning-with-computers. Learning-from-computers occurs when thecomputer is the medium of instruction (e.g., computer-based training).Research comparing the effectiveness of individual learning-from-computersto standard methods of instruction has provided inconclusive results in botheducation (Kovalchick & Dawson, 2004) and information systems (IS)literature (Gupta & Bostrom, 2009). Though initial results in team-basedlearning-from-computer treatments are positive (Kovalchick & Dawson,2004), there have been few such studies in both IS and education. Learning-with-computers occurs when information technology is used as a tool tosupport learning (e.g., use of a website by instructor or use of collaborativetechnology). An educational meta-analysis at the individual level showedthat learning-with-computers had a positive impact (Kulik, 1994). However,an educational meta-analysis of team-based learning-with-computers showsinconclusive results (Strijbos, Martens, & Jochems, 2004). Within the IS field,research results of learning-with-computers studies have been inconclusive atboth individual and team levels. For example, at the individual level, Zhang,Zhao, Zhou, and Nunamaker, (2004) found a positive impact, whereasPiccoli, Ahmad, and Ives (2001) did not, except for an increase in self-efficacy. At the team level, Leidner and Fuller (1997) found a positive impactof the use of collaborative technology, butHiltz, Coppola,Rotter, Turoff, andBenbunan-Fich (2001) and Alavi (1994) did not.

The Class Replay system will turn value to users if it will be used as acollaborative team-based learning tool to enhance learning. This leads toour first research proposition:

RP 1. Over the 90 minutes long media files, users will navigate better ifthey will get value from other peers contributing to the social taggingfeature.


Collaboration will come from peers that substantially participate to theidentical learning environment (the traditional class schedule) being thesystem primarily offered to the attending students.

Even though its origins date far back in time, the modern concept ofonline collaboration is quite recent. Starting from the 1980s, people workingtogether began using machines instead of meeting face-to-face in order tosave time and travel costs. Only a few years later, the idea of physicalpresence was considered old fashioned, with remote connections linkingalmost every corner of the world, drastically reducing distances, andfacilitating collaboration. Internet boom, which in some cases generatedskepticism among users, has been characterized by wild and deregulateduploading: the apparent goal was to move online everything from the realworld, in search for a perfect natural-virtual correspondence.

Thus, the issue of online collaboration can be analyzed under twoperspectives: (1) amplified collaboration in case of a student-centeredlearning approach and (2) collaboration as a result of a mass effect ofnetwork externalities constructs and related findings.

Mundell and Pennarola (1999) found that collaboration can be amplifiedif the learning environment is designed to emphasize the group-based,student-centered learning approach. People need trust more than reality,and the new technologies are consistent with users’ expectancies. Commu-nication and collaboration do not express the same concept, even if the twooften overlap in the common language. While the former is an exchange ofinformation without any long-term goal, the latter is a more structureddialogue with some kind of interaction expected among the parties. To makethe difference clear, we can consider the term collaboration as collaborativevalue creation, which not only implies communication, but also coordina-tion, cooperation, and a common objective, regardless of its voluntarinessnature (Mundell & Pennarola, 1997, 1999).

The Class Replay system needs all of this, since it helps rewinding the classlearning context and highlighting its most important steps. A student-centered approach is characterized by ‘‘an almost complete role reversalbetween teachers and students, putting the latter in the driver’s seat andrequiring teams of students to teach each other based on their particulartalents and experience’’ (Mundell & Pennarola, 1999). Mundell andPennarola (1999) found that the findings for both structural and attitudinalvariables confirm that participants in the course played an active role intheir own learning at both the individual and group level. ‘‘Individuals aremore motivated and learn more when they work in groups, therebyexplaining the synergy that is often created by groups. Giving to groups agreater delegation of autonomy and responsibility creates opportunities for


teaching and learning among groups of students. In integrating the work ofthe separate subgroups into a coherent response to a complex assignment,the students are forced to negotiate to convince the other subgroups toadopt their proposed solutions’’ (Mundell & Pennarola, 1999). Thesefindings lead to the second research proposition:

RP2. The social tagging system will produce higher results if students:

2(a). will be assigned to groups in class and their group composition willbe transparent in the system.

2(b). will be challenged – as a team – to accomplish a learning task byusing the Class Replay system.

Collaborative action and complex interdependencies play a major role(Basaglia, Caporarello, Magni, & Pennarola, 2009; Rheingold, 2008). OpenSourcing is a relevant example of the changing times, in a period where patentportfolios are distributed to the commons and suppliers are treated as anetwork instead of third parties along the value chain: they are trained toproduce better, even if the improved quality will benefit competitors as well(Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). These behaviors, driven by personal interests ratherthan altruism, stress the idea supported by Conlon and Giovagnoli (1998),who argued that ‘‘No organization – no matter how big or how smart –knows as much as two organizations (or as much as an alliance network)’’.Working together along the production line or across distinctive sectors isbeneficial and economically convenient. There are, however, some constitut-ing elements typically characterizing the interaction (Spekman, Kamauff, &Myhr, 1998):

� a voluntary agreement between otherwise independent parties;� the pursuit of collaborative objectives, basically the pooling, transfer anddevelopment of resources; and� a substantial degree of individual based collaboration.

Collaborative value creation, hence, is based on complementary andstrategic resources, regarded as technical instruments, commercial goods,and social capital, pivotal in the analysis. People, in fact, generate furthercollaboration, being a value-creation asset themselves. These other quotedfindings will lead us to the third research proposition:

RP3. Collaborative value creation, enhanced by the Class Replay system,will be higher if students will be free to form their teams, and group theirresources according to their preferences.


Finally, the so-called ‘‘network externalities effect,’’ namely the influencethat one consumer of a product or a service has on the other users (Cowan &Jonard, 2004), must be taken into account. In this very case, the utility of asingle platform not only depends on its actual functionality, but also, andmainly, on the number of individuals that already use the same technology.The ‘‘value’’ or ‘‘power’’ of a network, hence, increases in proportion to thesquare of the number of nodes on the network. The phenomenon, knownas Metcalfe’s Law (Nielsen, 1999), is typical of the telecommunicationenvironment, the Internet, and the social networks. The result is anexponential progression that is clearly steeper than the geometrical returnoffered by collaboration deployment, suggesting a mitigation of the networkeffect by external factors and structural limitations. We believe that theClass Replay system will turn into a success to the extent to which it will bewidely adopted by a large community of users. As a consequence, this leadsto our final fourth research proposition:

RP4. Being the social tagging feature open to anyone that will haveaccess to the system, regardless of the class attendance requirement,groups of attending students will be more motivated to contribute to thetagging feature if the number of the overall users of the system willincrease rapidly short after the publication of the media files.

As a consequence, we plan to heavily advertise the new Class Replaysystem by using a number of strategies that will allow the university tospread out the results of the system and encourage more users to practice thenew services.

The Research Project Design and Implementation

The research project consists in closely monitoring how students will use theClass Replay feature to review material for their learning. Furthermore, weexpect that the magnifying feature used by the teacher will allow tounderline some key aspect of the lecture and/or to emphasize definitions andimportant notions.

We decided to follow a pre-defined path to build this research project andanswer to the above four research questions. The literature we have beenconsulting suggested us the design of a technology-mediated learningexperience (TML) that is in the mainstream of research and findings on thistopic. That is why we want to recall the TML general framework

Fig. 1. Measuring the Learning Outcomes of the Class Replay System.

Adapted from Gupta and Bostrom (2009).


model designed by Gupta and Bostrom (2009) as a departing platform todescribe:

1. how the research will be conducted?2. what are the key elements of the research design that will lead to our

expected outcomes?

The model is replicated in Fig. 1.The research outcomes will be linked to the four research propositions.

Attending students that will use the Class Replay services and system will bestrictly monitored in terms of their learning and take away, not only from acontent perspective but also from an effective point of view, in particularlinked to their group-based experience. Data about students’ behavior andperformances will be collected and analyzed.

The research project will also, consistent with the Gupta and Bostrom(2009) findings, provide a wide platform of individual and group appropri-ation data: we expect to collect a detailed data set on group demographics


and individual characteristics of learners that will participate to theinitiative.

Interdependence among learners will be a key characteristic of therenewed Class Replay system: groups of students will be challenged todeepen their knowledge on the taught subject by reviewing their readingmaterial (as traditional methods do) and the video/multimedia files availablethrough the system.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory research intends to contribute to designing a technologicalsolution to answer and overcome the original problem of the Class Replaysystem, introducing the social tagging feature as an important upgrade ofthe traditional media files distributed online.

The deployment of this classroom technology and services will take placeover an extended period of time allowing the research team to closelymonitor the impact on the learning of students attending regular classes andthose attending the enhanced Class Replay only.

Although still in its initial design phase, we believe that implications ofthis project are many. First, it will open a chapter on the impact on learningof technology-based services that are wide spreading today in manyuniversities. Administrators and faculty can collect data on the real learningimpact and can measure the returns of their investment. Second, it will allowlearners to hyper-navigate course resources instead of sequentially reading/viewing/listening to the whole recorded material, replicating a somewhatwell-known experience of hypertext reading on web pages. Third, the systemwill contribute to the wider field of knowledge construction through longand complex media files, designed to be sequentially viewed, turning theminto more fruitful resources. If successful, the consequences of this solutioncan be extraordinarily important: readers may refer to the huge amount ofvideo streams available on the web, not only provided by the You Tubeplatform – these streams can become a gigantic podium for knowledgebuilding according to personalized needs. We hypothesize that this willinitiate a new perspective in teaching and learning through technology-mediated infrastructures. We hope that readers have increased theirappreciation of the importance of integrating twenty-first-century technol-ogy into the classroom in a way that goes beyond the gee-whiz aspects. Wehope to stimulate educators to deeply rethink the value that can be added byteachers in our fields.


This essay is not to be intended as a definitive statement on the role thattechnology can play in shifting from a pedagogical to an andragogicalparadigm. By sharing one particularly exciting and rich experience, we opena dialogue with management educators about the opportunities for andlimits to integrating information technology into the core technology oflearning. We hope that our 1-year design journey can inspire others toembark on similar adventures.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS

Quarterly, 18(2), 150–174.

Alavi, M., & Gallupe, R. B. (2003). Using information technology in learning: Case studies in

business and management education programs. Academy of Management Learning

Education, 2(2), 139–153.

Aziz, T., Khan, M. B., & Singh, R. (2010). Effects of information technology usage on student

learning: An empirical study in the United States. International Journal of Management,

27(2), 205–217.

Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active

learning in large lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3),

245–263.

Basaglia, S., Caporarello, L., Magni, M., & Pennarola, F. (2009). Individual adoption of

convergent mobile technologies in Italy. Review of Managerial Science, 3(1), 1–18.

Basaglia, S., Caporarello, L., Magni, M., & Pennarola, F. (2010). IT knowledge integration

capability and team performance: The role of team climate. International Journal of

Information Management, 30(6), 542–551.

Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t

happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.

Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers:

Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 26, 291–321.

Beckett, E. C., Marquez-Chisholm, I., & Wetzel, K. (2003). Preparing technology-competent

teachers: A strategy for multicultural schools. T.H.E. Journal, 30(11), 14–24.

Bok, D. (1986). Higher learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom

(Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC.

Boose, M. A. (2001). Web-based instruction: Successful preparation for course transformation.

Journal of Applied Business Research, 17(4), 69–80.

Brown, K. L. (2003). From teacher-centered to learner-centered curriculum: Improving learning

in diverse classrooms. Education, 124(1).

Buckenmeyer, J. A. (2010). Beyond computers in the classroom: Factors related to technology

adoption to enhance teaching and learning. Contemporary Issues in Education Research,

3(4), 27–36.


Caporarello, L. (2011). The paradigm of managerial education: Role of management simulation.

White Paper, SDA Bocconi Learning Lab. Retrieved from http://www.sdabocconi.it/en/

learning-lab

Caporarello, L., & Sarchioni, G. (2010, March 11). Web 2.0 and gen Y: The hidden truth.

Milan, IT, Bocconi University. Translated by Alex Foti. Retrieved from http://

www.viasarfatti25.unibocconi.eu/notizia.php?idArt=6466

Conlon, J. K., & Giovagnoli, M. K. (1998). The power of two: How companies of all sizes

can build alliance networks that generate business opportunities. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2004). Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. Journal of

Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(8), 1557–1575.

Craig, A., Goold, A., Coldwell, J., & Mustard, J. (2008). Perceptions of roles and

responsibilities in online learning: A case study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge

& Learning Objects, 4, 205–223.

Crocco, M. S. (2001). Leveraging constructivist learning in the social studies classroom:

A response to Mason, Berson, Diem, Hicks, Lee, and Dralle. Contemporary Issues in

Technology and Teacher Education, 1(3), 386–394.

Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of technology

integration. T.H.E. Journal, 26(6), 73–74.

Dusick, D. M. (1998). What social cognitive factors influence faculty members’ use of

computers for teaching? A literature review. Journal of Research on Computing in

Education, 31(2), 123–140.

Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-

sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 345–367.

ECAR. (2011). National Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology.

Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1103/ERS1103W.pdf

Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2006). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (7th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’

beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 32, 54–72.

Firek, H. (2003). One order of ed tech coming up y You want fries with that? Phi Delta

Kaplan, 84(8), 596–597.

Gupta, S., & Bostrom, R. P. (2009). Technology-mediated learning: A comprehensive

theoretical model. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 10(9), 686–714.

Hiltz, S. R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., Turoff, M., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2001). Measuring the

importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure,

multi-method approach. ALN Journal, 4, 103–125.

Jaffee, D. (1997). Asynchronous learning: Technology and pedagogical strategy in a distance

learning course. Teaching Sociology, 25(4), 262–277.

Jonassen, D. H., Pfeiffer, W. S., & Wilson, B. G. (1998). Learning with technology:

A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Jurist, R. (1999). The promise of technology. Implications for business teacher education. In

P. A. Gallo Villee & M. G. Curran (Eds.), The 21st century: Meeting the challenges to

business education (1999 NBEA Yearbook, No. 37). Reston, VA: National Business

Education Association.

http://www.viasarfatti25.unibocconi.eu/notizia.php?idArt=6466

http://www.viasarfatti25.unibocconi.eu/notizia.php?idArt=6466

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1103/ERS1103W.pdf

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1103/ERS1103W.pdf

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html


Kovalchick, A., & Dawson, K. (Eds.). (2004). Education and technology: An encyclopedia. Santa

Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In

E. L. Baker & H. F. O’Neil, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training

(pp. 9–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Leidner, D. E., & Fuller, M. (1997). Improving student learning of conceptual in formation:

GSS supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning. Decision

Support Systems, 20(2), 149–163.

Liu, P., Ku, H., Falvo, D., Charsky, D., Cheng, Y., Yeh, H., & Van Buskirk, E. (2004). The

current state of attitude toward computer use for pre-service teachers. In R. Ferdig,

C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings

of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education international conference

(pp. 3469–3471). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Mandell, S., Sorge, D. H., & Russell, J. D. (2002). TIPS for technology integration. TechTrends

for Leaders in Education and Training, 46(5), 39–43.

Mellon, C. A. (1999). Technology and the great pendulum of education. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 32(1), 28–35.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

Mitchell, R. (1997, October). Building a learning society [Interview of Mitchel Resnick]. Wired,

5, 136, 137.

Mundell, B., & Pennarola, F. (1997, January). From instructor-centered to student-centered

learning: Designing virtual interactive business environments. Paper presented at

International Organizational Behavior Teaching Conference, Hong Kong.

Mundell, B., & Pennarola, F. (1999). Shifting paradigms in management education: What

happens when we take groups seriously. Journal of Management Education, 23(6),

663–683.

Nielsen, J. (1999). Metcalfe’s law in reverse. Retrieved from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/

990725.html. Accessed August 2012.

Pantazis, C. (2002). Maximizing e-learning to train the 21st century workforce. Public Personnel

Management, 32(1), 21–26.

Papo, W. (2001). Integration of educational media in higher education large classes. Educational

Media International, 38(2/3), 95–99.

Peluchette, J. V., & Rust, K. (2005). Technology use in the classroom: Preferences of

management faculty members. Journal of Education for Business, 80(4), 200–205.

Pennarola, F., & Mundell, B. (2001). The functioning of student hybrid virtual teams. In

Conference material – Learning challenges in the new millennium, NYU-Stern and ISBM.

Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research

framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS

Quarterly, 25(4), 401–426.

Pope, M., Hare, R. D., & Howard, E. (2005). Enhancing technology use in student teaching:

A case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 573–617.

Rheingold, H. (2008, February). Howard Rheingold: The new power of collaboration [Video file].

Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.

html

Schroeder, C. (1993). New students-new learning styles. Change, 25(5), 21–26.


Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into

classroom practice. New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education.

Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2002). Designing courses outside the classroom. College Teaching, 50(1),

15–20.

Spekman, R. E., Kamauff, J. W., & Myhr, N. (1998). An empirical investigation into supply

chain management: A perspective on partnerships. Supply Chain Management, 3(2), 53–67.

Spotts, T. H. (1999). Discriminating factors in faculty use of instructional technology in higher

education. Educational Technology and Society, 2(4), 92–99.

Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six

steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers and Education,

42, 403–424.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance

model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management of Science, 46(2), 186–204.

Vroeginday, B. J. (2005). Traditional vs. online education: A comparative analysis of learner

outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate University, 2005. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 66, 10A

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, J. (2004). Can e-learning replace traditional

classroom learning-evidence and implication of the evolving e-learning technology.

Communication of the ACM, 47, 75–79.

Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Wright, V. H., & Wilson, E. K. (2009). Using technology in the social studies classroom: The

journey of two teachers. Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(2), 133–154.

Documents

[Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education] Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Classroom Technologies: Classroom Response Systems and Mediated Discourse Technologies