Figure 1: Stmctnreof study to understandand improvestudentlearning aboutIS .... 1. 1st Year. 2ndYear. 3rdYear. Semester 1. Semester 2. Semester 1. Semester 2.
.—
.—
Toward an understanding of teaching and learning about information systems Chris Cope and Pat Horan Division of Information Technology La Trobe University, Bendigo PO Box 199, Bendigo, 3552 C.Cope@ Iatrobe.edu.au
Abstract
1.
Sytems analystsneeo!a sophisticatedudmmding of the natureof an informationsystem(IS) but they ,mustalso recognise and accommodatea variety of mkrmndtngs among users.New graduatesare not weUprqurdfor thistask We hirve used teadhg principlessuggestedinrecent collations of 20 years of phemnenogrizphic research into studentlearning to structure a studj aimed at understanding ad improving our teachingad our shuiknts’ lehg about 1S. The study draws together important aspects of a @enomenogro..hic perspective on kaming, scholarlykmwledge about thenutureof on IS iwdthe resultsof a cmtinuing empiricalstudy of our studimts’ laming about IS. Bawd on our mdysis of the results to dhte, we hirveproposed a $eactig approuchandsomelearningadbities likely to improveourstudents’learningaboutthenature of an IS. k
htrdtlctiml
hlore than 20 yem of phenomenographic resemh into student Iexning has been collated by Marten “ad Booth [3, S, 9]. One outcome of this reseach has been the suggestion of four practical teaehing principles which are intended to lead to high quality karning outcomes when incorpmated into the design and implerttentAion of learning tasks [3]. A ~ of theprineiples foIlows.
Permission to make-digital/hard copy of all or part of this work for personal ur classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made w distributed for profit or commercial advantage, the copyright notice, the title of the publication and its date appear. and notice is given that copying is by perrrksion of the ACM, Inc. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redisti”bute to lists, requires prior spec”fic permission axrd/or a fee. JKSE98, Brisbane Q-O AUSTRALIA. @N9s, ACM l-ss113-ol&x/9s/ooo7 $5.00
A teacher needs to be aware of: .
●
the content to be taught as it is currently understood and as it is required to k understood by the stu&nts. the learning approaches used by the students to study the content.
2.
A teaeher needs to iden@ the educationally critical aspects of learning about the content. Two questions need to be considered. What aspeeta of the content are critical to improving students’ understanding? What aspects of a learning approach are critical to developing improved understanding of the content?
3.
The learning tasks should enable students to perceive and reflect upon variation in the way the content ean be understood and learnt.
4.
The learning tasks need to have some personal meaning for the student.
This paper deseribes our ecmtinuing researeh which uses these principles in a structured way to improve teaching about information systems (IS). Why are we interested in improving teaching about IS? Recent re-seamhby Urqohart [17] and Tan [15] into conversations between systems analysts and clients during requirements gathering has highlighted tbe importance of the systems analyst holding a sophisticated conception of an IS and being aware of and able to accommodate the less sophisticated conceptions likely to be held by their clients. Our experience of IS eurrieul% supported by Weber [19], is that assisting stu&nts to develop sophisticated conceptions of an IS is an implieic unmonitored part of most IS eurrieula and textbooks. To ensure IS graduates are appropriately prepared for practice we believe that a teaching approach and learning tasks which cause students to explicitly refleet on and question their conceptions of an IS are an essential part of an IS curriculum. We have used the four teaching principles of Booth [3] to structure a study aimed at understanding and improving our teaehing and our students’ learning about the mneept of an IS. The structure of the study is displayed in Figure 1.
*
*
188
———
.—-—
..—
—
2. Stmdy structure and background
*
Appmaeh to lenming *out nuIS 21 Saol.lrly knowledgeabouta phenomenogrnphic paqmbe on learning
.,,.. ,-..,,.-
Conceptionof an IS
22 %riationin the waystudentslean nbonttheconcept ofan Is
24 sehohdy knowledgeabout thecxmeeptof anIS
2.5 Vmiationin the waystudents mneeptnalisean IS
2.6 Educationally eritiealaspectsof theconceptof an Is
2.3 Edueationauy caiticalqects of learningaboutthe mneqt of anIS
‘v
7 Synthesise
+
28 DkbCtiC disciplinary knowledgeabontthe caneeptof anIS
Q
Q o 9 Implement
29 Evahate
Figure 1: Stmctnre of study to understandand improvestudentlearning aboutIS
T.ttertunibered components of the study structure are now described in more detail
2.1 Scholarly knowledge about a phenomenographic perspective on learning Phenomenography is a qualitative research approach designd to ident@ urtd describe the different ways a phenomenon can be concqXualke& perceived or understood ~. In genemlj in-depth interviews am used to question groups of individuals about a particular phenomenon. The researcher attempts to interpret the transcripts of the interviews to identify the qualitatively different conceptions of the phenomenon underlying the transcripts. Phenomenographic studies have consistently shown
that a particular phenomenon can be conceptualised or perceived in a limited number of qualitatively different ways and that an individual can be aware of a number of different conceptions of the same phenomenon and will vary their use of these conceptions with context [7, 11]. Further, the difkrent conceptions of a phenomenon m commonly related in a hierarchy of levels of Understanding. When applied to the phenomenon of learning, phenomenographic research has sought to understand students’ perceptions of their own level of understanding of the content and their approach to learning. Some of the results of this research which are significant in our work are now discussed.
189 .
. ..—
.—
-——
—=.
. — ,: ->
1. Students’ Perceptions have been shown to be
different from the teacher’s or an external observer’s perceptions and vital to the approach students apply to their studies and the quality of tkir krning outcomes [13]. 2. Students’ approaches to learning can be categorised in two qualitatively dMerent ways, known as .mrface and deep approaches. A surfaE ~p~ozch k CIUIUCtiti by a student’s intention to simply complete the task as perceived without attributing meaning to the task in any way. A typical intention of a student adopting a surface approach k SJIOfi-krm memorisation of tie content for late? reproduction in assessment situations. A deep approach in contras~ seeks meaning in the task through trying to relate the task to existing understanding and personal eqtience. 3. There is a strong relationship between sbdents’ approaches to karning and the quality of their learning outcomes. Only through applying deep . approaches are students likely to develop a sophisticated understanding of the content. ‘ihe approach a student adopts will vary with the learning context and depends on an interaction between the student’s perception of the natnre of the task and on hislkr prior experience. A learning context encouraging a deep approach is characteriwl by perceived good teaching, clear goals and some independence in karning [16J. 4. The particular detail of deep aad surface approaches lm been found to vary with subject discipline [3]. For example, a deep approach to learning about computer programming is likely to be different horn a deep approach to learning about IS. A phenomenographic perspective on learning has evolved from phenomenographic studies. -This perspective differs from previous theoretical perspectives such as the behaviouris~ constructivist and cognitivist models which are based on the individual and the world being separate entities with learning involving accnnmiation of knowledge from the outside or construction on the inside [12]. Rather learning involves the development of a relationship between an individual and some phenomenon in the world through the individual changing their own way of expm;encing the phenomenon [9]. The relationship is thought of as a conception. Importantly, conceptions are not fixed in cognitive structure but are reconstituted from our experiences as required and may vary according to task and content. context of this paper learning is thought of as a change from a less sophisticated to a more
In the
sophisticated conception of the phenomenon being studied as a result of an academic learning experience [10]. To bring about learning we need to provide students with learning tasks which provide new perspectives on the phenomenon, perspectives that challenge existing understanding [3].
2.2 Variation in the way students learn about the concept of an IS The type of conceptual learning we are striving for with our IS students reqgires a deep approach. As the specific details of surface and deep learning approaches are subject dependent we need to answer the question, ‘what constitutes surface and deep approaches to learning about IS?’. The empirical study we report on later in the paper tackles this question.
2.3 Educationally critical aspects of learning about an IS Through analysing the different ways our students approach their studies about IS and using our knowledge of a phenomenographic perspective on learning we can ident@ the aspects of the learning context we provide which are critical to students’ perceiving the need to apply a deep approach to learning about IS.
2.4 Scholarly knowledge concept of an IS
about the
The scholarly body of lmowkdge about a phenomenon consists of the most sophisticated conceptions of the phenomenon available at the time. Scholarly knowledge of the concept of an IS centres on a debate between those who consider an 1S to be a social system and those who consider it to be a technical system. Land [6J and Winter, Brown and Checkkmd [20] conceptualise an IS as a human social system supported by a technical system in the form of a computerised data manipulation system. In any IS, information will come from a number of sources, only one of which need be a formal data manipulation system. Land, for example, suggests that information about the quantity on hand of an inventory item could be obtained directly by the user through inspection of the inventory or by asking someone who has inspected the inventory or by looking up the computer records. Many other researchers suggest that we should restrict our view of an IS to a technical system. Wand and Weber [18] take this view to support their attempts to formally model aspects of a technical information system. Backhouse, Liebenau and Land [1] report others who suggest that emphasis on the social dimension will result in unreasonable expectation of systems analysts. Our view is that
190 .—-.
..:.
----7--
.. —-— —
~...,-
9
2.8 Didactic disciplinary of the concept of an IS
our IS students need a detailed understanding of an IS
as a technical systeu but as our graduates a-e prospective systems analysts likely to be working in large business organisations, we would be doing them a great disservice in not having them experience IS as a social system.
It is not sufficient when teaching about a phenomenon like an IS to understand only the relevant scholarly knowledge. We need to turn this knowledge into didactic knowledge, that is, knowledge about the way an IS should be understood by our students and knowledge of the sorts of learning tasks and teaching approaches likely to best assist our students to achieve that understanding.
2.5 Vziriation in the way students conceptualise an M Ourstudents are, initially at least.j urdikely to hold the sophisticatcxil conceptions of a phenomenon descriied in the scholarly knowledge. The primary finding of aU phenomenographic research however suggests that an IS can be conceptualised in a limited number of qualitatively different ways and that the different conceptions can be placed in a hierarchy of sophistication of understanding. Our empirical study identifies and describes the variation in the way our students conceptualise au IS.
2.9 Implementation
3. Our empirical study To identify the variation in our students’ conceptions of an IS and their approaches to learning about IS we are currently conducting a longitudinal study of groups of students taking IS subjects in the Bachelor of Computing at La Trobe University, Bendigo. Our study involves collecting data during a year of coursework about IS (lecture/tutorial teaching mode) at the beginning of the degree and during a year-long IS development project at the end of the degree. Those students who complete their degree in minimum time will be monitored over the full length of their formal IS education. Table 1 shows @e IS subjects studied and the interview times (I).
Through reflecting on the scholarly knowledge of au IS and the diffiient ways our students conceptualise an IS we can dekamine the educationally critical aspects of a sophisticated understanding of an IS. This involves considering two questionx @ what level of understanding of an IS is rquired for theparticukar course or subject being taught? a what is the critical aspect of an IS the students need to understand to reach the reqired conceptual sophistication?
synthesis
Ike we analyse and reflect on the bodies of knowledge wehavejust described to produce didactic knowledge about the concept of an IS.
1st Year Semester 1
Semester 2 I C104 Information Systems
and evaluation
Development of didactic knowledge is an on-going process, with the body of knowledge modified each time we implement the learning tasks we have designed in response to feedback from a structured evaluation of our teaching, our students’ understanding of an IS and their learning approaches.
2.6 Edueationally critical aspects of the concept of an IS
2.7
knowledge
Bachelor of Computing 2ndYear Semester 2 Semester 1 I C201 IS Development Table
1:
Interview
1 3rdYear Semester 1 Semester 2 I Major Project Major Project Part 1 Part 2
I
times
To date we have completed data collection and analysis for the coursework component of the study, that is the semester length subjects C104 Information Systems and C201 Information System Development.
later at the end of the subject C201 Information Systems Development 14 of these students were interviewed again. The remainder had either dropped out or were completing their studies in a longer time.
3.1 Participants
3.2 Data collection
Twenqwhme students taking the subject C104 Information Systems in 1996 volunteered to be interviewed at the beginning of the subject. A year
The data collection involved semi-structured, indepth interviews of 30 - 40 minutes with each student. A set of gui& questions was designed to
191 —-— ——.
..—
.— .
.:.,,...-,
.—
. —.—
provide multiple insights into each student’s conception of an IS and approaches to learning about 1S. Students’ responses to the ~estions were transcribed and the transcripts from the fist and second interviews were combiied to become the pool of data for analysis.
3.3 Data amnnysis We will describe the phenomenographic approach used to ideNi@ the different conceptions of an IS present in the transcripts. Interesting quotes within the transcripts w7ereselected and analysed within tie context of sumounding statements to determhe how an IS must have been conceived for the particular quotes to make sense. Bowden [4] suggests the researcher should ask questions like What does this part of a transcript teIl me about the way the interviewee understands an IS? and ‘How must the interview=pemeive an IS if they are saying this or thaf?’ Tim quotes were then grouped on the basis of representing similar underlying views of an IS. A compa&scmof quotes within each group and between groups was made. Bowden [4] suggests asking ‘Are any differences in the qyotes the result of a fundamentally different understanding of an information system?’ Once the grouping of quotes had been completed the underlying conception for each grOUpv.’asdescribed and each qUOteWm teSted against the description. The process was itemted until the grouping of the quotes aud description of the conceptions were cleaned satisfactory. Finally the different conceptions were studied to detemine if they could be placed in a hierarchy. The next step involved two researchers individually reading each transcript and cksifying the conception of an IS under@ing the transcript as a whole against tie set of draft conceptions. The classifications were compared and difi%ences in the clas.sitication of individual transcripts discussed. A figure representing the amount of agreement between the resemckrs (the interjudge reliability) was calculated An agreement of eighty to ninety percent after consultation between the researchers is required in ordm to claim reliable results [14]. As the interjudge reliability was acceptable the draft set of conceptions bwa.me theresu.lts of the study.
—
.-.-,
Conception 1: A user interface which allows a user to retrieve and view information from a large store of data (database). Conception 2 A set of procedures which inputs data to a database, processes the data and produces information. Conception 3: All the users, procedures and rules related to the collection, input and transformation of data associated with one business fonction and the output and resultant use of relevant information. Conception 4 h organisation-wide set of interrelated information systems accessing a large database. The information systems consist of the people, machines, materials, procedures, discussions and dec~lon making necessary to provide information to people at all levels of an organisation.
4.2 Learning about the concept
Is
of an
Students’ approaches to learning about IS were analysed in a similar way to the different conceptions of an IS. Following Marton and Booth [9] we separately investigated the study teclndqnes stndents used and their intentions in using those techniques and combined the results to identify the different approaches to learning about IS. 4.2.1 Study
techniques
Study techniques were categorised into 3 groups. The categories are descriked and a quote is given to illustrate an important aspect of each technique in Table 2. The three study techniques represent an increasingly sophisticated way of going about studying, corresponding to increased organisation aud effort. The third technique contains aspects of the achieving strategy described by Biggs [2] as ‘comprising those organisational behaviors which are supposed to characterise the model studen~ such as keeping clear notes, planning optimal use of time, and all those planning and organisational activities referred to as “stndy skiUs’’’(199)9). 4.2.2
Study
Intentions
The six study intentions categorised from the transcripts are descriied and a quote illustrating a significant aspect of each intention is given in Table 3.
4. Results
results of the variation in the way students conceptmlisd an IS have been reported elsewhere [-5]. Four different conceptions of an IS in a hierarchy of increasing Ievel of understanding were identified The
The six study intentions represent increasingly sophisticated aims. Virtually all learners adopted study techniques aimed at memorisation. Some attempted to also relate the new material to existing knowledge or make sense of i~ as a by-product of the memorisation or as an aid to memorisation.
192 .
—— : ..,. ... :,..X.
—
Study
.——
technique
.--l
——
.—
Illustrative
L Copy overheads in lectures without thinking about
their content. Use notes from overheads primarily, but also textbooks to find answers for tutorial and assignment questions. Read through notes, tutorials and assignments prior to exams, possibly do a practice exam hoping that the questions will be the same.
____
._
..’::
—
quote
Yeah, so you’ve got a tute question and you look at it and you can’t remember anything that relates to it, how would you tackle it? Well, first thing, I’d look over my notes and if I can’t find it in there, the textbook is plan B.
2. Copy overheads but also listen to what tbe lecturer is saying looking for cues as to what is most important. Tutorials, assignments and past exams provide occasions to vish these notes repetitively during the semester. May prepare in advance for tutorials, use wider resources for finding answers to assignment questions, write assignment answers in D’WIl WOdS aIld ~qae summaries as part of exam preparation.
Do you write down anything of what the lecturer says? (in addition to copying down the overheads) Sometimes yeah. I try to pick up if the lecturer says the same thing over and over.
3.Either listen in lectures only copying down what ~ocsn’tmake sense or copy everything down and then :ead and rewrite in own words at home. More likely to :ead te~fiook before tie lec~e, refite l~~e notes m own words, make summaries, do tutorials in dvance, prepare questions for tutor, synthesise riaterial for assignments and write in own words, use :ourse overviews in exam preparation and do past xams as a way of practicing principles and techniques.
So when you’re writing these notes down is it a question of copying straight off the overheads? Urn, yes aud no, Q for a lot of thiigs I’ll try to get a pictnre or note of the structure of what’s being explaind so a specitic topic, um, what’s the main headings, what’s the sub headings and what’s the information and try to get into my brain so I know how to structure it, uu I find that easier, and then I use shorthand to shorten the length of things down a bit and leave out the bit I already know or have in my thoughts.
Table 2 Study techniques
4.23
Learning
approaches
The different learning approaches tbe group of students adopted in the IS context of the study were derived by cross-tabulating study techniques and study intentions (Table 4). There is a clear relationship here between study technique and study intention. The more sophisticated techniques correspond to the more desirable intentions. The consolidation of Table 4 as represented in Table 5 led to the &scription of 4 different categories of study approach. A surface approach to studying IS in a lecturehutorial context signifies the intended adoption of one of the first two techniques previously descriied in order to gain aud/or memorise pieces of knowledge for later reproduction in assessment situations. A surface achieving approach involves using more sophistical@ wellorganised study techniques with the same intention as a surface approach. A deep approach involves
repetitively going over the subject content trying to botb commit the knowledge to long-term memory and seek its meaning by relating it to existing knowledge, the rest of the subject and/or real-life scenarios. A deep achieving approach is the adoption of sophisticated, well-organised study techniques leading to a relational understanding of the material being taught and in some cases long-term memorisation.
5. Discussion The discussion section of tbk paper firstly ‘aims to consider the educationally critical aspects of the conceptions of an IS and our students’ approaches to learning about IS. We then begin the process of synthesizing the various bodies of knowledge we have reported to suggest some learning tasks which incoqorate the 4 practical teaching principles outlined earlier and which are intended to improve our teaching and our students’ learning about the concept of an IS. -
‘
193 —
—.
—
,27
-..a T
..
:..!.
—
..
Study
—
intention
Illustrative
Just harping on it again, if you think you understand something, what tells you that you think you understand it? Because I’veread it and memorised points, for answering it.
2. To gain, take in, Imowledge for reproduction in assessment situations
And what are you trying to do when you’re thkddng about it? (what the lecturer is talking about) UnL just un&rstand what he’s saying, get to understand more. Why? So. You have the knowledge of it really. How do you know when you do have knowIedge of something? Really you can recall it later on, without using a text book
3. Long term memorisation for later reproduction
And what are you trying to do when you read back over your lecture notes? Tryin g to put it into my long term memory.
4. Long term memorisation leading to a relational understanding (seeking meaning, relating to existing knowledge)
All right now, so you go through this process where you try and memorise and you go through a process where you try to understand. Why do you do both of them? UnL because Q memory is very important like memory I guess is the first step to understanding like, if you can commit it to memory then you can sort of then, even if you don’t understand it you can thiik of questions and try and figure it out in your mind.
5. ReMional understanding as a means to long term memmisation
Does remembering necessarily mean that it makes sense, you could for instance learn a PIN number, put that in long term memory, is that equivalent to making sense of it? UnL generally I don’t remember things, this is just me I don’t remember things that don’t make sense.
6. Reln&onalunderstand.ing to enable successful application in the real world
How would you handle an assignment where you had to go and interview someone? Um I’dprobably prefer ic it’s really more real lifelike it’s sort of kind of similar to what you’ll do once you sort of graduate kind of thing, which is kind of what we’rehere for anyway.
Table 3: Study intentions
2
3
I
1
5
2
1
2
1
0
1
0
2
,
quote
1. Short term memorisation for reproduction in assessment situations
Study technique vs study intention C104 Information SystemS - Semester 1,1996 (n= 23) Study Study Intention Technique 1 2 4 5 3 1 2 1 0 3 0
....
,L,-
6 0 0 2
Tsble 4 Study technique vs study intention
194 .’,
9
—
.—
Study approach C104 Information Systems - Semester 1,1996 (n= 23) Study Study Intention Technique 1 2 4 5 6 I I 3 I I 1 Deep surface 2 (14) (3) 3 Surface Achieving (2) Deep Achieving (4) Table 5: Study approaches
5.1 EducationaUy lemming about IS
critical aspects of
ratler conceptualisation of what needs to happen at the table level in the database.
When considtxing the educationally critical aspects of the different conceptions of an IS we firstly need to consider whzt is an appropriate level of understanding for the particular students we am interested in teaching. At this stage of our research we are interested in the first two IS subjects taken at the beginning of an undergmduate degree. Of importance in this decision is the initial level of understanding of the students. The transcripts of 15 of the 23 students we interviewed were classified as conception 1. We believe that in the early stages of their studies students are more comfortable considering the concrete, technical aspects of an IS as reflected in conception 2. So, at this stage of our research we have tackled the question ‘what are the critical differences in understanding between conception 1 and conception 2 and what are the critical aspects of a learning context which will evoke a deep approach to learning about IS in our students?’.
For students to cope with these educationally critical aspects of the concept of an IS they clearly need to apply a deep approach to their studies. Students neixl to be able to conceptualise a dynamic database, i.e. a series of linked tables with the record pointers in each table changing according to the relationships between the tables in response to processes invoked from a user interface action. Given that 16 of the 23 stu&nts initially interviewed and 10 of the 14 students interviewed at the end of the coursework year were using surface approaches to learning about IS we can safely say that the current Iecturehutorial approach was not addressing the educationally critical aspects of providing a learning context the students perceived as requiring a deep approach. ‘Ihe lectures in particular appear to be a problem. For the stu&nts using study techniques 1 and 2 (17 of the 23) the lectures were not a learning process at all, rather an exercise in recording the material that needed to be learnt later.
Conception 1 involves a focus on the user interface of the systeu in particular the output. The only input considered is some form of unique ID which triggers the required output. The initial loading of data into the dat2base is not conceptualked nor is data maintenance. In facg the database is commonly considered to be static, for example, holders of conception 1 woul~ in general, agree that a printed train timetable is an IS. LMte understanding of the structure of the database is present. Further the processing aspect of the IS is viewed as a black box in conception 1. Conception 2, however, considers the initial input of data to the database and the updating of the database. The structure of the database is discerned and there is some understanding of the processes which convert input to output. We therefore view the critical diftkrences between conceptions 1 and 2 as an understanding of the structure of the database and the processes necessary to input and manipulate data in the database. In particular students need to be able to associate some action cm rhe user interface with an underlying process and understand the subsequent impact of the process on the data in the database. An algorithmic understanding of the processes is not necessary,
The students were perceiving a context associated with these IS subjects which encouraged them to use surface learning approaches. This approach is fi.uther encouraged by a perception in all students we interviewed that the exam would be testing retention of facts and could be passed by memorisation of Iectore notes and answers to tutorial questions. We see two educationally critical aspects of assisting stu&nts to develop a conception of an IS as described in conception 2: 1.
students need to be ma& more responsible for their own learning. Rather than being provided -with written material on the content via a lecture, students need to generate their own notes as a result of research and reflection on participation in experiential learning activities.
2.
students need to perceive that any exam about IS tests conceptu~ understanding. -
In general, any IS teaching approach which relies entirely on the conventional lecturekutorial mode of delivery is unlikely to evoke a deep learning approach in a majority of students.
,
195 ___ —.----
—
—.—.
_—
..__
—..
,..!. ‘,. c“-
5.2 Didactic knmvledge concept of an IS
about
the
We will consider didactic knowledge of learning about an IS in two partx 5.2..1
Encouraging
deep
learning
approaches Ideally we would do away with lectures in IS subjects and replace them by a culture where students expect to undertake pre-reading, both of material placed on the ‘W% and textbooks, prior to attending small group workshops (20-25 stu&nts). The important aspects of a phenomenographic perspective on learning are more easily adapted to small groups. For instance, exposing students to variation in understanding of and approaches to learning about IS is more practical in small groups than in a large lecture. Booth [3] outlines the importance of variation (p.146) ‘By becoming aware of the possibtity of a variation in the ways of experiencing a problem and by considering that variation, one becomes open to the possibility of change.’ Wthi.n a workshop of 25 students for example, five groups of five can consider the problems or activities that have been set. Students are then exposed to variation within the 5 members of their group. A solution from each group can then be displayd to the whole class. Each group can then reflect on the variation in the solutions of the five groups in the room. Equally important is that each group explains how they went about tackling the activity or problem and that all students reflect on the variation in approach to learning the conten~ &other important aspect of a phenomenographic perspective on lesrning appliczible to an IS context is encouraging students to reflect on their learning on a regolar basis. If an important objective of a subject is to develop a more sophisticated conception of a particular phenomenon then students should be asked to consider their conceptions at various times. We have tackled this situation by having students record on butchers’ paper in words or pictores what the phrase ‘information system’ means to them at various times during the subject. Again the responses are shown to the rest of the class for reflection on the variation. A colleague uses concept maps in a similar fashion. This type of activity not only causes the students to become awzre of their conceptions but makes the development of conceptions an explicit part of the subject and also assists the teacher to evaluate the students’ levels of understanding.
5.2.2
Specific
learning
activities.
The learning tasks we have designed to assist students to move from conception 1 to conception 2 need to provide experiences of an IS as a dynamic, technical system. Reflection on these tasks is n* to cause the students to question their idea of a static, structureless database and to help them build an image of the processes typical of an IS and the impact of those processes on the database. The tasks also need to support the general phenomenographic perspectives on learning we have outlined above, including being of personal and/or academic interest to the student. The following two examples describe activities which are completed in small groups with the results from the group work being displayed to the rest of the class for reflection and critical review. Example
1 - A manual IS
One of the barriers to students’ understanding of the processes necessary to maintain a database is the power of modern software and the ease with which data maintenance is accomplished. To remove this barrier we suggest groups of students are introduced to and operate a manual IS pertaining to a real-life situation with which they are familiar. Each group of stu&nts constructs a database on paper, consisting of multiple tables linked in one-to-many relationships. We suggest the addition of an extra column to each table containing a pointer to the current record. A series of data maintenance tasks am required to be applied to the database. These tasks should include situations likely to endanger the integrity of the one -to-many links between the tables. Example
2 - Programmer’s
notes
To encourage students to consider the processes which link inpu~ output and the database we suggest that in addition to designing the look and feel of a user interface, students should be required to prepare detailed notes to a programmer on how the interface should operate. These notes should include how theun&rlying database will change in response to user’s actions. Examples of typical issues the notes to the programmer should deal with include making sure that a record to be * to a table is unique, deleting a record in the one entity of a one to-many relationship and changing the value of a primary key.
196 — ——
.:..~ .... >— .)
. ...,
.,.
,
. ——
6. Cmchlsion In this paper we have dewribed the structure and progress of a study aimed at improving our teaching and OUrStUdeIltS’k%irning abOUtIS. ~thOU@ OUr study is still at an early stage we have already identified problems with our curriculum. We have designed teaching interventions to address these problems. The fhture implementation and a structured evaluation of these interventions is an integral part of the study. We have a ready-made evaluation instrument for our inkxventions in the hierarchies of different conceptions of an IS and approaches to learning about IS developed ftom our empirical study. oar work needs to be constantly iterative as any developments in knowledge about student leaning in general or student learning about IS impacts on the body of knowledge relevant to best teaching about IS and subsequently the qnality of our gmduates.
References [1] 13ackhouse, J., J. Liebenaw tk LanG F. (1991). On the discipline of information systems. Jmnd of Informdon S“stems,1,19-27. (19ss). ksessing student [2] Eiggs, J.13. learning. Australian approaches to Psj’cho@ist, 23(2), 197-205. [3] Booth, S. (1997). On phenomenography, learning and teaching. Higher Education Researchandlkvelopment, 16,2, 135-15S. [4] Eowden, J.A. (1994). The nature of phenomenographic research. In Bowden, J.A. and Walsh, E. (&Is.). Phenomenographic
researck Vm”ations in Method (pp. 43-55). Melbourne RMIT. m Cope C.J., Horan, P. & Gamer, M. (1998). Conceptions of an information system and their use in teaching about IS. Journal of Infonm”ng Science, 1, 1. Lan& F. F. (1992). The information systems [a domain. In IU3alliers @d.). Informatwn
syste~m researckissues, methods andpractical gzddelimes. O.tior& Blaclxvell Scientific Publication 6-13. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography - a research approach to investigating dif%rent aspects of reality. Journalof Thought, 21, 2894. Marten, F., & Booth, S. (1996). The learner’s experience of learning. In D.R Olson & N. Tommce @ds.), l%e hauibook of educationad
humzn devekynnenr:New models of kzrning, leachingandschooliag.Oxfor&BlackWell. [9] Marton, F., tk Booth, S. (1997). Laming Awareness.Mahwr@Nk Erlbaum.
and
..—. —-.—
-.
‘.
[lO]Marton, F. L?zRamsden, P. (1988). What dcts it take to improve learning? In P. Rams&n (E&), Improving Learning: New Perspectives, New York ~ Nichols Publishing, 268-286. [ll]Prosser, M. L%Millar, R. (1989). The ‘how’ and ‘what’ of learning physics, European
Journalof Psychologyof Education,IV, 4, 513528. [12]Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1997). Toward an understanding of individual acts of teaching and learning. Higher Education Research ad
Development, 16,2,241-252. [13]Ramsden, P. (1988). Student learning Improving teaching. In P. Ramsden (Ed),
Improving Learning: New Perspectives, New York ~ Nichols Publishing, 13-31. [14]Stijo, R. (1988). Learning in educational settings: Methods of inquiry. In P. Ramsden (M.). Improving Learning: New Perspectives (pp. 32-48). New York ~ Nichols Publishing. [15]Tan, M. (1994). Establishing mutual understanding in systems design: An empirical study. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 10,4, 159-182 [16]Trigwell, K (1991). & Presser, M. Improving the quality of student learning the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes,
HigherEducation,22,251-266. [171Urquhr@ C. (1997). Exploring analyst-client communication: Using grounded theory techniques to investigate informal requirements gathering. In Lee, A.S., Liebena~ J., & DeGross, J.I. (Eds.). Information Systems and QualitativeResearck Proceedingsof the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research, Philadelphia%Pennsylvania%USA 31st May-3rd June 1997,149-181. [18]WanG Y., & Weber, R (1995). On the deep structure of information systems. Information
SystemsJournal, 5,203-223. [19]Weber, R (1996). A neglected aspct of the information systems curriculum What is an information system? In Arnott, D., Dampney, K,& ScoWry, A.(Eds.). The Australian Debate
*
on Information Systems Curriculum. Proceedings of the Australian Information Systems Curricuhun Working Conference pp. 71-75. [20]Winter, M.C., Brown, D.H., & Checklan~ P.B. (1995). A role for soft systems methodology in information systems development. EuropeanJournalof Information
Systems, 4, 130-142.
197 —.
———
..—.——
______
C,T. -
/: .,
-
