Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Systems Model, many students still find the ideas difficult to grasp when they attempt to turn
them from theory to practice (Anderton, in Espejo & Harnden, 1989). Iterative approaches
with action research foundations seem to many students to be inappropriate in a world where
time and cost are crucial factors. Participative design raises questions of who owns and
controls the systems, how many people need to be involved in the process, and visions of
unmanageable scope and complex ethical issues. Many of the softer approaches appear to
offer a somewhat philosophical, “thinking about rather than doing” flavor that is perceived
by students as being interesting from an intellectual and academic viewpoint but perhaps of
less value in the real world.
Convincing students that thinking about the systems development process in general
is as valuable a skill as knowing the steps in a specific systems development approach is not
an easy task but is considered by the author to be essential part of the educational process.
This approach can be difficult to manage in an educational setting, with increasingly narrow
or specialist foci accompanied by course outlines that are specific and increasingly appear
to be almost legal contracts, where process and deliverables have to be specified in
considerable detail. Students entering the Masters course discussed here typically have
been exposed to previous educational experiences that have had a strong positivist leaning,
and where single, correct answers are acceptable or even desirable. An interpretive approach
that leads to different conclusions being drawn by different thinkers, even though they start
from the same set of materials, can pose problems for those students who still feel that a single
view of the world should be achievable. Some students are convinced that there is a “right”
answer and attempt to extract this from the member of staff, and they sometimes feel that broad
responses from staff or presentation of “on the other hand” statements are sometimes a sign
of evasiveness or equivocation. There is thus a need to help students appreciate that even
if the starting point for exploration of a subject is predicated upon the argument that reality
is purely a social construction, it is still possible to offer a considered opinion based upon
the application of critical thinking, reflection, and argument. This requires that students
examine their own beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, and problem-solving styles and develop
skills in presenting persuasive arguments that demonstrate their ability to take a critical and
balanced view of the world.
Students sometimes raise the issue that if the process and outcomes of the course are
socially constructed around the beliefs of individuals, then surely this means that any idea
that they generate in accord with the belief system of the lecturer may be at risk of subjective
marking. The response to this question is that the quality of argument presented is the key
to obtaining higher marks, and this issue of presentation of credible arguments forms the core
theme in the course. If students can be helped to identify and reflect on their own belief
systems and biases, carry out rigorous inquiry, and ultimately develop a structured argument
for a given position, then there should be no issue of conflict with a personal belief held with
the marker. The demonstration of the strength of the argument presented, the depth of the
literature used, the recognition of internal personal processes, and critical reflection are the
sole bases for the assessment of the outcomes.
The remainder of this chapter outlines a number of strategies that have been used with
Masters students studying a subject titled “Information Systems Development Methodolo-
gies” (ISDM) in efforts to support the approaches to learning outlined above.
