INTRODUCTION
How can we retain computer information systems (CIS) students? A decline in enrollment similar to that which occurred in the 80′s (Mawhinney, Callaghan, & Cale, 1989) is the motivating factor for this question. A google™ search on declining enrollments in information systems brings up reports supporting this trend. DePaul University, for example, had increased undergraduate enrollments “in all colleges but the School for New Learning and the School of Computer Science, Telecommunications and Information Systems” (DePaul University, 2003). A report from the California Community College system listed the top 15 curricular areas of declining FTE’s (Perry, 2003); Computer and Information Science and Computer programming made the list. Our own Computer Information Systems (CIS) and Computer Science programs have fewer students enrolled.
BACKGROUND
A recent comparison study (Jennings, Mahwinney, & Fustos, 2003) confirmed past research (Mawhinney et al., 1989) indicating that students perceive that an IS career provides less work-place interaction than they desire. Lack of understanding regarding an IS career is not uncommon. As Mawhinney et al. (1989) and von Hellens and Nielson (2001) found, students believe that CIS entails working alone and requires a high level of math. Because of the scarce or inaccurate knowledge regarding a CIS degree or career, students may avoid CIS programs.
In addition to a lack of understanding related to what an IS worker does in his/herjob, retaining students within entry-level college IS courses is a problem (Myers & Beise, 2001). Many students feel they are computer literate until they enter an IS program. The skills that they possess and the skills needed within an IS degree are likely to be disparate (Easton & Easton, 2002; Karsten & Roth, 1998). Rather than a sink or swim attitude on the part of colleges and universities, time spent coaching and encouraging students on relevant computer skills for the IS degree may help them feel confident and able to complete the program (Compeau, Higgins, & Huff, 1999). This means more than showing students the benefits of technology or how to use a computer. It may require providing meaningful and relevant learning situations in which to use the technology (Venkatesh, 1999) that are similar to actual work-related scenarios (Gallivan, 2000).
Without an accurate picture, it is difficult for students to understand the work-style of information system professionals. The content of CIS courses is technically-oriented and many students struggle with the content, usually in isolation. This, however, belies the business environment where employees usually work together on projects. Learning should take place in a similar environment. In addition, research suggests that there is a syn-ergistic learning effect within group environments (Ryan, Bordoloi & Harrison, 2000; Savery & Duffy, 1995). For example, better understanding of a system and development of more accurate mental models was found in a group environment (Gallivan, 2000). An unconstructive aspect of such a learning situation is that negative comments may affect the attitude of group members (Gallivan, 2000), or “group think” may stifle creativity.
MAKING THE CASE
Given that the team or group-based projects approach is a ubiquitous part of a career in this field, authentic learning environments could provide students with a more realistic model of the IS field. With authentic learning environments, the necessary information technology skills are embedded in the learning process. Also embedded in the learning process are the soft skills that managers say are lacking in employees, such as problem solving, communicating effectively and working in group environments. (Lee & Trauth, 1995; Todd, McKeen, & Gallupe, 1995).
There is a body of research and theory on the importance of providing authentic and relevant learning environments. This is often within the context of constructivism, an umbrella term that identifies a learning philosophy. Constructivism gained wide-spread acceptance in the educational technology discipline in the early nineties ( Duffy & Jonassen, 1991; Lebow, 1993; Savery & Duffy, 1995; Vanderbilt Cognition and Technology Group, 1990), although it has been in existence in different forms for decades. It is gaining acceptance within information systems and computer science education as well (Ben-Ari, 2001; Boyle, 2000). The Web, in particular, has provided a platform where collaborative learning environments can be supported (e.g., Shang, Shi & Chen, 2001;Vat, 2001).
Cases (Harvard Business School, 2003; Potvin, 2000) or problem-based learning (PBL) (Barrows, 1993, 1985), situated cognition (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991), learner centered (Henson, 2003) and cooperative learning and anchored instruction (Vanderbilt Cognition and Technology Group, 1990) are some of the terms or models that fit within a constructivist paradigm. While some aspects may vary, the overriding principles include active engagement, collaboration and personal relevance. The reasons for learning are embedded within rich, authentic contextually relevant environments (Harvard Business School, n.d.; Lebow, 1993). The outcome is the ability to reason and problem-solve ill-structured situations. These types of environments are more likely to develop ownership on the part of the students involved (Savery & Duffy, 1995) and may promote what Agarwal & Karahanna (2000) call cognitive absorption and Jennings (2002) calls cognitive aesthetics.
The Harvard Case Method (Harvard Business School, 2003) and PBL are probably the most well known examples. Neither Harvard cases nor PBL are new concepts. The Harvard Case Method originated in 1913 (Harvard Business School, 2003). The objective of the case method was to enhancejudgment and decision-making capability and it is widely used because of its success ( Harvard Business School, 2003; Potvin, 2000). Problem-based learning was developed in the mid 50′s for medical education (Savery & Duffy, 1995) and like the Harvard Case Method, provides a student with a problem that they must solve. Most often, when a student resolution has been reached, it is compared to the solution of the company or physician from which the case originated, although this is not always the situation. Whether or not a comparison is made, the goal is for students to acquire the knowledge and skills to solve problems in their respective fields.
Constructivist models are designed for ill-structured material and provide relevant, engaging, authentic contexts from which to draw conclusions. Teachers (or facilitators) are mentors and guides who challenge students to problem-solve; they model higher order thinking skills (Barrows, 2003; Savery & Duffy, 1995). These models all include interaction between peers which is a successful means to engage students (Vanderbilt Cognition and Technology Group, 1990).
They are however, not particularly easy to implement because of the time commitment and the difficulty in distilling a problem into an appropriate case or authentic environment in which to anchor instruction. The problems for Harvard cases come from the business world, such as a company implementing an e-business model. It can take between 1-4 months to develop a case and Harvard Business School (HBS) considers four factors when devising a case (Harvard Business School, 2003):
1. The issues on which the case will focus;
2. The analysis required on the part of students to address those issues;
3. The data required in the case to perform that analysis satisfactorily; and
4. Where the data can be obtained.
Two sites that provide many free cases are the Idea Group Inc. Web site (http://www.idea-group.com/ casespp/login.asp) and the HBS Web site (http:// harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b02/en/cases/ caseshome.jhtml). Idea Group has information systems cases while HBS provides general business cases. In addition, the following links (retrieved February 12, 2004) have either example cases/problems or information regarding this type of learning environment.
• Multidisciplinary case-based learning for undergraduate students: http://www.blackwell synergy.com/links/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0579.2000.040404.x/abs/
• The Center for Problem-Based Learning (PBL) at Samford University:http://www.samford.edu/pbl/
• University of Delaware (a list of links): http:// www.udel.edu/pbl/others.html
• Problem-Based Learning: An Introduction: http:// www.ntlf.com/html/pi/9812/pbl_1.htm
Another potential source for cases is a college’s local business community. Working with a local company to develop a case provides a unique opportunity for students to interact with the company. Student feedback strongly indicates that this opportunity increases the relevance, engagement and desire to implement a worthwhile solution to a problem.
While Harvard cases are based on actual business situations, the conditions developed for problem-based learning come from well-formulated, realistic problems that mirror real-world situations. The following instructional principles (Savery & Duffy, 1995) provide a context from which to create appropriate problems:
1. Anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem.
2. Support the learner in developing ownership for the overall problem or task.
3. Design an authentic task.
4. Design the task and the learning environment to reflect the complexity of the environment they should be able to function in at the end of learning.
5. Give the learner ownership of the process used to develop a solution.
6. Design the learning environment to support and challenge the learner’s thinking.
7. Encourage testing ideas against alternative views.
8. Provide opportunity for and support reflection on both the content learned and the learning process.
Objectives for a problem include specific content learning. Student evaluation can be completed through peer and self-evaluation as well as traditional testing based on the objectives. Traditional testing may help alleviate an instructor’s concerns regarding individual student learning.
FUTURE TRENDS
It is not enough to simply provide a case or problem to be solved. In order for this paradigm to work, students must become a team and team building must be taught. Wells (2002) uses Katzenbach and Smith’s definition of team work: “A team is a small number ofpeople with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.”
A cursory review of articles indicates that many faculty members are using a team approach in their courses. Fewer, it seems, include instruction on how to be a team member. As team work becomes prevalent within the college curriculum, we will likely see more instruction in team building. Without it, students often perceive group work with disdain: With guidance on team building, students are more positive in regard to the experience (Wells, 2002).
Companies have high expectations for CIS graduates (Shawyunm, 1999). It behooves us as educators to provide the business community with students who have had realistic CIS experience, which authentic learning environments provide. Team building concepts could be taught in the ubiquitous entry-level computing course so that students have the skills to work effectively in groups throughout their college term and careers.
CONCLUSION
We discussed the concepts of teamwork, using authentic problems or cases and how this type of model could be applied to courses in an undergraduate CIS program. Using this type of environment in CIS college programs would provide students with real-world skills and an accurate understanding of CIS. With authentic learning environments and team building instruction, the technology and soft skills are embedded in the learning process. By using this learning approach CIS majors experience interesting and varied problems during their student tenure. They enter the work force with immediately usable skills and a realistic understanding of their career of choice.
KEY TERMS
Active Learning: As a group, earners read, write, discuss, or are otherwise engaged in solving problems. Students engage in such higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
Anchored Instruction: Learning is anchored in a real world context. Within this context, learners engage in different activities to solve a problem, such as math calculations or geographic coordinates to travel across a continent or sale a ship.
Cognitive Apprenticeships: Students work in teams on projects or problems with close scaffolding of the instructor. Cognitive apprenticeships are representative of Vygotskian “zones of proximal development” in which student tasks are slightly more difficult than students can manage independently, requiring the aid of their peers and instructor to succeed.
Constructivism: A theory of learning and knowing that holds that learning is an active process of knowledge construction in which learners build on prior knowledge and experience to shape meaning and construct new knowledge (Lambert & Walker, 1995). Important concepts include: (a.) students are active rather than passive learners, (b.) students take responsibility for learning as an individual and within a social setting, (c.) learning must be embedded in contexts that have real-world relevance.
Harvard Case-Based Learning: Students are given a realistic case relevant to the course (information systems, accounting, management, etc.). Students work through the case, in or out of class and decide what should be done. They then meet with the entire class, or in groups and discuss and resolve the case.
Problem-Based Learning: Students are confronted with a well chosen, ill-structured problem that mirrors real-world problems. Students define problems, identify what information is needed and engage in solution generation and decision making.
Situated Cognition: A “situated cognition” theory of knowledge is characterized by the principle that the activity in which knowledge is developed and deployed is not separable from learning and cognition. Rather it is an integral part of what is learned (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989).
