SMR v1.0 References

These are the references that accompanied my Scientific Merit Review form for the first review. While the indentation normally required is not possible in this format, the information is listed in APA 6th edition format.

REFERENCES

     Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing. San Francisco: Pfeiffer

     Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D., & Vines, J. M. (2008). Learning objects, learning objectives and learning design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 389-400. DOI: 10.1080/14703290802377265

     Armson, G., & Whiteley, A. (2010). Employees' and managers' accounts of interactive workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(7), 409-427. DOI: 10.1108/13665621011071091

     Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1248-1289. DOI: 10.3102/0034654309333844

     Boot, E., Merrienboer, J., & Veerman, A. (2007, December). Novice and experienced instructional software developers: Effects on materials created with instructional software templates. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(6), 647-666. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-006-9002-9

     Bradley, J. (2010). Promoting and supporting authentic online conversations - Which comes first - The tools or instructional design? International Journal of Pedagogies & learning, 5(3), 20-31.

     Choi, I. & Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: Classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 57(1), 99-129. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-008-9089-2

     Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

     Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning and teaching in a complex world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

     Ehlers, U. F. (2009). Web 2.0 - e-learning 2.0 - quality 2.0? Quality for new learning cultures. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 296-314. DOI: 10.1108/09684880910970687

     Figl, K. (2010). A systematic review of developing team competencies in information systems education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(3), 323-337.

     Gregoriades, A., Pampaka, M., & Michail, H. (2009). Assessing students' learning in MIS using concept mapping. Journal of Information Systems education, 20(4), 419-430.

     Hetzner, S., Gartmeier, M., Heid, H., & Gruber, H. (2009). The interplay between change and learning at the workplace: A qualitative study from retail banking. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(5), 398-415. DOI: 10.1108/13665620910966802

     Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2009). Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: The Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOESS). Educational Technology, Research and Development, 57(2), 147-168. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-008-9094-5

     Keirns, J. L. (1999). Designs for self-instruction: Principles, processes and issues in developing self-directed learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

     Lavy, I. & Yadin, A. (2010). Team-based peer review as a form of formative assessment - The case of a systems analysis and design workshop. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(1), 85-98.

     Mager, R. F. (1997). Making instruction work or skillbloomers: A step-by-step guide to designing and developing instruction that works, 2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

     Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Designing effective instruction, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

     Palvia, S. & Palvia, P. (2007). The effectiveness of using computers for software training: An exploratory study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(4), 479-489.

     Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models, vol. II (pp. 5-29). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

     Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

     Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill.

     Vaughan, T. (2008). Multimedia: Making it work, 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Scientific Merit Review, v1.0

This was my first attempt at the new Scientific Merit Review form for my PhD dissertation in IDOL with Capella University. It's a new format that hopefully will help me to expedite the process. I'm posting my first attempt here. In a later post, I'm going to share some of my own analysis. The form has been submitted by my mentor and committee chairperson to the Chair of the Instructional Design for Online Learning specialization for approval. This first approval is primarily for the topic. The next submission is to the SMR board for approval of the research. Here's what I have so far:

1.2 Proprosed Dissertation Title:  Impact of a Constructivist Approach to Software Training Design

1.3 Research Topic:  This study will explore the effect of the application of constructivist design elements to productivity software training.

1.4 Research Problem:  Behavior modeling is the most common pedagogical approach to software training; however, it is inefficient and ineffective in a business environment where the user must become proficient in a relatively short amount of time.

1.5 Research Purpose:  The intent of this study is to provide data showing whether a constructivist approach incorporating several tools such as interactive online learning, concept mapping, learning objects, instructional software templates, case-based learning, team competencies, and peer review can help the user become more proficient with productivity software use in a shorter amount of time.

1.6 Research Question(s):  To what extent does a constructivist approach to software training impact user proficiency?

1.7 Literature Review Section:  Constructivist theory fosters problem solving and conceptual development and is intended for ill-defined or ill-structured situations where the learner assumes ownership for the problem. Instruction designed from this theory often consists of experiences that promote or facilitate knowledge construction and is active and authentic. It uses related cases or worked examples toenable case-based reasoning and provides learner selectable information. It often incorporates cognitive tools that provide scaffolding for the required skills and also provides social/contextual support for the learning environment, including conversation and collaboration tools.
     Constructivism has its roots in the cognitive and developmental perspectives of Piaget, the interactional and cultural emphases of Bruner and Vygotsky, and the contextual nature of learning found in Jonassen, among others.
     The literature review for this study will be primarily directed to adult learning and software training, especially in a corporate environment, although key principles will be culled as well from higher education and even secondary education environments. Key topics and themes will include collaborative learning, ill-structured problem solving, authentic instruction, and workplace learning as applied to software training.

1.8 Need for the Study: One commonality in may studies about the effectiveness of different instructional design approaches is the tendency on the part of the learner to engage in "surface" learning. Learners tend to assimilate just enough "factual" data in order to pass whatever "test" is used to verify their successful achievement of the learning objectives or goals. Especially in business or corporate settings, they experience a general introduction to the topic, which is usually their job and more often than not involves the use of computer software with which t hey are usually unfamiliar. They are expected to become more proficient with time and experience. In cases where a more seasoned worker is required to mentor or peer-coach them, this creates a further drain on productivity until the "new" person is able to function on their own. This study will explore ways in which instructional design of software training based on constructivist theory instead of behavior modeling can enhance the learner's proficiency expeditiously.

2.0 Methodology:  This study will employ a descriptive approach. It will begin with the design, development, and implementation of a tutorial for productivity software using constructivist principles and techniques for presentation. The training will be placed in an online venue for interaction with a volunteer sample. Following completion of the tutorial, or a portion thereof, the learner will be asked to complete a Level 1 survey on the merits of the training or lack thereof. The results will be analyzed using descriptive statistics with SPSS.

In my next post, I will list the references for the current state of my literature view.

SWTng 13: Team-Based Peer Review

     This will be the last article for now. It is by Lavy and Yadin (2010) in the Journal of Information Systems Education and is titled "Team-Based Peer Review as a Form of Formative Assessment--The Case of a Systems Analysis and Design Workshop." It has 37 references and the following keywords: peer review, team-based peer review, formative assessment, SOLO taxonomy, and systems analysis and design. Here is the abstract:

The present study was carried out within a systems analysis and design workshop. In addition to the standard analysis and design tasks, this workshop included practices designed to enhance student capabilities related to non-technical knowledge areas, such as critical thinking, interpersonal and team skills, and business understanding. Each task was reviewed and assessed by both the students and the instructor. The main research study objective was to examine the effect of team-based peer-review on the students' learning process in an information systems workshop. What is presented is data referring to the grading process, to students' enhanced learning reflected in the narrowing gap between the instructor's and the students' grading, as well as the students' reflections demonstrating their perception of the workshop's components.

     The relevance of this article to my study lies in the peer review part. It is the non-technical aspects mentioned in the abstract that I am interested in promoting, the demonstration and augmentation of the learners' understanding of the ways that the use of technology can develop new organizational processes and achieve organizational goals. After all, technology will be an essential tool in their work. The problem is that in many team-based exercises, either the team descends to the level of the least capable person on the team or one or a few really sharp people carry the load while everyone else watches. Control of the team effort is essential, even if it means identifying a project manager. The television program The Apprentice, where a group of people vie for one spot on Donald Trump's staff as his personal apprentice, often demonstrates this principle where one person on the team is the project manager and the project literally sinks or swims based on their force of personality to get the others to do what is necessary to successfully complete the task. Enter the "team-based peer review" or "TBPR," a form of evaluation where the students engage in reviewing and evaluating their fellow students' projects. Something similar happens in Donald Trump's "board meetings" where the different team members evaluate each other's contribution to the project both before and after the winner is announced. It can sometimes get pretty "bloody." In this case, the evaluation happened in the context of a workshop based on the "SOLO (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes) taxonomy (Biggs and Collis, 1982)" which "elevated students' overall understanding of the processes to a higher level of abstraction" (p. 85).
     "The SOLO taxonomy is a hierarchical model suitable for measuring learning outcomes of different subjects, levels, and for assignments of various lengths (Biggs and Collis, 1982)" (p 87). It encompasses five levels: Pre-structural, Uni-structural, Multi-structural, Rational, and Extended abstract. At the pre-structural level, the student lacks the ability to perform the task; there is insufficient understanding. At the uni-structural level, one of a few aspects of the task to be performed is taken into account. There is some understanding. At the multi-structural level, more aspects of the task are taken into account; however, the student still lacks the "full picture." At the rational level, all aspects are understood and integrated as a "whole." The student exhibits understanding of the parts, as well as the relationships between them. In the extended abstract level, the whole derived at the previous level is conceptualized at a higher abstract level so that it can now be used in different settings.
     As applied to the workshop, at the first level the student lacks the understanding required for the task. Either the "story" is not clear or many of the principles of analysis are still missing. At the second level, The student understands some aspects of the process principles (gathering requirements, analysis, design, programming, testing), but w/he still lacks understanding of the business situation expressed by the "story." In level 3, the principles are clear and the student has started to implement these principles in designing a suitable solution for the customer. At level 4, All aspects of the solution are clear and were used for preparing the third and fourth documents. The last level allows the student to understand the solution concept and provide proper feedback for her/his fellow students' solutions. The student develops an abstract understanding of the steps and procedures required for designing a useful and complete solution.
     With respect to my study, level one is when the developers walk in. They may have never used authoring software before, let alone ours. They are domain specialists (subject matter experts, SMEs) who are being asked to put their knowledge in an online instructional artifact. At this point they are unable to perform the task. At level two, the developers have begun to understand some of the process principles. They should know what the major components are though they may not understand how they interact at the program level. They require frequent to constant supervision to ensure successful development. They are not able to create at the concrete or abstract level. At level 3 they clearly understand the basic principles of how data is input into the authoring tool. They can follow the basic steps to build a frame. However, they still lack the "full picture" and probably don't understand how branching works or the finer points of why and how interaction happens among the main components of the instructional software they are developing. They still require some supervision and assistance in putting major blocks of the puzzle together but can be trusted to complete discrete components with minimal oversight. At level four (the ideal target level for successful training), the learner understands both the parts and the relationships between them. They can successfully create instructional software with minimal supervision and rework. Level 5 allows the student to understand the overall concept of instructional software development and provide proper feedback for his/her fellow developers' courseware. The student at this level develops an abstract understanding of the steps and procedures required for designing and useful and complete course and should be a supervisor.
     Back to the confines of this article, in the workshop the students' evaluations of each other were initially very different from those of the instructor; however, with practice and experience, they soon came to resemble those of the instructor, minus the instructor's advanced experience in the field.

REFERENCES

Biggs, J. B., and Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic Press.

Lavy, I., and Yadin, A. (2010). Team-based peer review as a form of formative assessment - The case of a systems analysis and design workshop. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(1), pp. 85-98.

SWTng 12: Learning Object Evaluation Scale

     Article number twelve by Kay and Knaack (2009) is titled "Assessing Learning, Quality and Engagement in Learning Objects: The Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOES-S)," published in Educational Technology, Research and Development. With 92 references, the keywords include assess, evaluate, learning object, middle school, quality, scale, and secondary school. Here's the abstract.

Learning objects are interactive web-based tools that support the learning of specific concepts by enhancing, amplifying, and/or guiding the cognitive processes of learners. Research on the impact, effectiveness, and usefulness of learning objects is limited, partially because comprehensive, theoretically based, reliable, and valid evaluation tools are scarce, particularly in the K-12 environment. The purpose of the following study was to investigate a Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOES-S) based on three key constructs gleaned from 10 years of learning object research: learning, quality or instructional design, and engagement. Tested on over 1100 middle and secondary school students, the data generated using the LOES-S showed acceptable internal reliability, face validity, construct validity, convergent validity and predictive validity.

     Learning objects are at the heart of the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) criterion that is required for every training course used in the Department of Defense (DoD) under Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL). Although this study deals with middle and secondary school students, the principles of learning objects remain constant. Their application to andragogy vice pedagogy may require some adjustment for learning style. As summarized in the abstract, learning objects act on the cognitive processes of learners, often through visual aids such as 2D and 3D graphics, photos, and animations or videos. This is especially important when training a technical task. Similarly, visual learning objects can have great impact on the behavioral and affective domains, such as through demonstration of a procedure or depicting the potential results of a safety violation. Significantly, learning objects offer the capability of reuse in a variety of situations, minimizing redundancy and duplication of effort.
      This research is about the evaluation of learning objects, which takes place mostly in the design and development phases in a formative analysis. However, little research can be found that incorporates the user's input as part of a  summative analysis with regard to learning objects. Thus, most often they fall into the easy to use category. There are some repositories that use content experts to evaluate the quality of the objects after they have been developed, but "the number of evaluators is usually limited, the assessors have limited background in instructional design, and the end user does not enter the feedback loop in a significant way" (p. 148). Most evaluation has been done at the level of higher education. Little has been done in the K-12 arena, and the article does not deal at all with technical education incorporate or military training.
     The definition of  what is a learning object is key to this study. Original definitions focused on characteristics such as accessibility, adaptability, use of metadata, reusability, and standardization. Contemporary definitions emphasize qualities such as interaction and the degree to which the learner actively constructs knowledge. These technically based and learning-based definitions have been replaced for this study with a pedagogically based definition that is a composite of both. It includes interactivity, accessibility, a specific conceptual focus, reusability, meaningful scaffolding, and learning.
     Three aspects of each learning object were assessed in the study through student feedback: (1) how much they learned; (2) the quality of the learning object; and (3) how much they were engaged with the learning object. Students were asked in an open-ended format to comment on what they liked and disliked about the learning object. Total response included 1,922 comments which were categorized into the 3 main constructs and analyzed using a coding scheme. Each comment was also rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Two raters were used and their ratings compared; differences between their ratings were discussed and revised as necessary.
     Next, student performance was assessed based on their exposure to the learning objects using several different tests that surveyed learning at different levels. Finally, the teachers who selected the learning objects were surveyed with a similar instrument to that used with the students to determine their perspective on (1) how much their students learned; (2) the quality of the learning object; and (3) how much their students were engaged with the learning object. The results were not as reliable statistically as those for the student evaluation. However, the focus of the research was to investigate an approach for evaluating learning objects that related most to students.
     The key features of learning objects that were most supported by the responses to the study included interactivity, clear feedback, and graphics or animations that support learning. Design qualities most supported included effective help, clear instructions, transparency of use and organization. With reference to engagement, overall theme can impact positively or negatively on learning. There was also a low but significant correlation among student evaluations of learning, quality, and engagement and learning performance. Ultimately, however, "[l]earning objects are simply tools used in a complex educational environment where decisions on how to use these tools may have considerably more import than the actual tools themselves" (p. 161).

REFERENCES

Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2009). Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: The Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOES-S). Educational Technology, Research and Development, 57(2), 147-168. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-008-9094-5

SWTng 11: Change and Learning at Work

     Article number 11, by Hetzner, Gartmeier, Heid, and Gruber, is titled "The Interplay between Change and Learning at the Workplace: A Qualitative Study from Retail Banking." It is published in the Journal of Workplace Learning with 41 references and the author-supplied keywords professional education, performance management, and workplace learning. Here's the abstract (p. 398):

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse employees' perception of a change at their workplaces and requirements for learning and factors supporting or inhibiting learning in the context of this change.
Design/methodology/approach - Data collection included personal face-to-face semi-structured interviews with ten client advisors inthe retail-banking department of a German bank. The interviews took place during a time when the participants' workplaces were affected by a drastic change, namely the implementation of an integrated consulting concept. The data were analysed by a qualitative, content analysis approach, adapting Billett's framework for analysing workplace changes.
Findings -  Challenges and requirements for learning as a consequence of the workplace change were analysed. The results show that the employees realised many affordances of the modification of work routines, especially concerning work performance, professional knowledge, and professional role. Thus, employees recognised the change as an opportunity for the acquisition of knowledge and competence development.
Originality/value - This paper contributes to the understanding of workplace change's effect on employees' knowledge, work routines and professional development.

     The tenuousness of the organizational structure in most workplaces combined with the fluctuation in the very nature of the job or product have created a situation today where workers must constantly adapt their workplace knowledge to new conditions, procedures, and peers. "Learning to cope with new requirements means employees must modify existing work routines or establish new ones (Becker, 2004; Becker et al., 2005; Hoeve and Nieuwenhuis, 2006)" (p. 398). "However, effective learning in change situations does not occur automatically, mainly due to the tension between needing to keep up the pace and ensure job performance efficiency on one hand, and time-consuming learning activities on the other (Eraut, 2004)" (p. 399). This is most commonly seen in supervisors' unwillingness to release employees to training for fear their absence will derail the production schedule. This frequently results in a search for a "quick fix" to most problems that arise, which is often both a symptom and a cause of superficial learning. Trainers are turning to informal learning processes more and more. In order for the workplace to function as the learning environment, the employees' participation must be active. One of the major stumbling blocks to employee acceptance of change is their perception of inability to influence even the change process, let alone the change itself that is impressed upon them from on high. This article looks at two factors: (1) "how employees perceive a change at their workplaces and the requirements for learning"; and (2) "which factors support or inhibit learning in the context of this change" (p. 399).
     First, the authors look at a workplace learning perspective on workplace changes from the individual perspective, the individual from a contextual perspective, and then formulate conclusions for a study on workplace changes and workplace learning. The result is a qualitative study that investigates the interrelation between change in the workplace and workplace learning (p. 401).
The change context of the study  involves a new concept for client advising in the retail-banking department of a German bank. Advisers went from specializing in a small number of products to working with a larger number of products. Also, their interaction with the client was scripted with little room for adjustment or modification.
     The researchers formulated two questions to guide their inquiry: (1) How did the employees perceive the change and what were the resulting requirements for learning? and (2) Which factors were perceived as supportive or inhibitive for learning in the context of the change? They conducted semi-structured interviews with ten client advisers, all of whom had the same exposure to the change, worked on the same functional area, and had at least five years' experience in retail banking.
     Responses to question 1 were categorized according to routineness, intensity, multiplicity, complexity, and artifacts and external tools. Responses to question 2 were categorized under discretion, accessibility, homogeneity, working with others, and status of employment. While the employees found the challenge invigorating, the tangible rewards for their efforts, aside from keeping their jobs, were not forthcoming. However, there was evidence that each employee adapted the learning process to their learning style and the new requirements. However, the most important conclusion was that "As learning at work is basedon negotiations between the individual and the social context (Billett, 2008), a communication strategy is recommended that explains to the employees the learning requirements involved and the resulting individual benefits, such as professional development, rather than just the necessity and reasons for change" (p. 411).

REFERENCES

Billett, S. (2008). Emerging perspectives on workplace learning. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, and

     A. Etelapelto (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on learning through work (pp. 1-15). 

     Rotterdam: Sense.

Hetzner, S., Gartmeier, M., Heid, H., & Gruber, H. (2009). The interplay between change and 

     learning at the workplace; A qualitative study from retail banking. Journal of Workplace 

     Learning, 21(5), pp. 398-415. DOI: 10.1108/13665620910966802

SWTng 10: Assessing Learning with Concept Mapping

     Article ten by Gregoriades, Pampaka, and Michail (2009) is titled "Assessing Students' Learning in MIS using Concept Mapping," published in the Journal of Information Systems Education with 47 references and the author-supplied keywords MIS internationalization, concept mapping, learning assessment, and knowledge gaps. Here is the abstract:

The work described here draws on the emerging need to internationalize the curriculum in higher education. The focus of the study is on the evaluation of a Management Information Systems (MIS) Module, and the specification of appropriate course of action that would support its internationalization. To realize this goal it is essential to identify the possible learning needs of the two dominant cultural groups that compose the university student population in Britain, specifically European and Asian (UUK, 2005). Identification of knowledge pattersn among these cultural groups is achieved through the application of a concept mapping technique. The main research questions addressed are: (1) How to internationalize the MIS module's content and teaching methods to provide for students from different cultural backgrounds? (2) What are the main gaps in knowledge of students in MIS? The paper presents the results of this study and proposes actions needed to streamline the current teaching methods towards improving the quality of the students' learning experience.

     The driving focus of this research is how to internationalize curriculum to match the ethnic diversity of today's student body. However, the use of concept mapping to accomplish this is what I am interested in. A form of concept mapping has been used with domain specialists who develop instructional software but have little or no experience in instructional design. Frequently, their efforts become a tribute to everything they know about the topic, but lack any organization that would benefit long-term learning, real-world application, or even logical branching of the material. Thus, I am interested in the possibilities of application for use of concept mapping techniques in software training. In this research, it is used to evaluate students' level of learning and identify commonalities and gaps in knowledge between the two target groups, British students (representing Western European culture) and Chinese students (representing Asian culture).
     The two groups are identified as having different learning styles based on their approach to memorization. The Chinese style is base primarily on rote learning, perhaps because of the need to memorize the multitude of characters that make up their written language (pictograms). The British style, on the other hand, tends to be more reflective with less passive memorization. Thus, the intent is to identify knowledge gaps or misunderstandings among both groups with regard to the subject matter (MIS).
     The research followed student participation in an MIS module of instruction and used four steps: (1) introduction of concept mapping to students; (2) assessment of student understanding of concept mapping; (3) student preparation of a concept map of their understanding of the MIS module in 30 minutes on paper; and (4) analysis of the models based on students' origin and level of prior Information Systems (IS)/Information Technology (IT) experience. A master concept map key was previously developed based on the same MIS module. Student concept maps were compared to this key. The students maps were scored from three perspectives: (1) a holistic approach was used to assess the students' overall understanding of the module; (2) a relational approach was used to asses the quality and number of propositions specified in each model; and (3) an existential approach was used to assess the existence of concepts in the map compared to the master key. In the holistic method, each map was assigned a score between 1 and 10. In the relational method, some relationships between concepts were coded with low importance, some medium, and some high; each was weighted with a value of 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Color-coding was used to identify them on the key. The relations between concepts, or propositions, "were multiplied by their corresponding weighting factor and subsequently summed before reaching the final relational score of each map" (p. 423). Total score for the key was 282. In the existential method, if a correct concept from the master key was included in the student map, it was assigned a score of 1. If not, it received a 0. Again, a weighting score was applied and a total score of 59 arrived at for the existential method. These three possible scores (10, 282, and 59) were each given a percentage value and then averaged into an overall score with a range of 0-10.
     The main finding of interest to me is the low scores on the relational assessment. "Low performance is attributed to the difficulty in identifying relevant relationships among concepts and specifying them with correct propositions, which is a first indication of surface learning (Biggs, 2003)" (p. 424). Many learners are content simply to learn the facts of a matter and not understand why they are facts. They often lack the logic and critical thinking skills to put two and two together, let alone come up with four as the sum. Thus any software training must embed logic and critical thinking in its content. Questioning strategies also must assess higher levels of cognition rather than simple knowledge recall, e.g. "What must you add to x to make z, and what will happen if you don't?" The rest of the discussion and conclusions pertained to internationalization of the curriculum, which is outside the scope of my study.

REFERENCES

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Gregoriades, A., Pampaka, M., and Michail, H. (2009). Assessing students' learning in MIS using concept mapping. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(4), pp. 419-430.

UUK. (2005). Select committee evidence, Treasury Committee, Impact of China on the world and UK economy.

SWTng 9: Developing Team Competencies

     Article number nine by Kathrin Figl of the Vienna University of Economics and Business is titled "A Systematic Review of Developing Team Competencies in Information Systems Education," published in the Journal of Information Systems Education with 122 references. Author-supplied keywords include team competencies, team projects, curriculum development, and information systems education. The abstract follows (p. 323):

The ability to work effectively in teams has been a key competence for information systems engineers for a long time. Gradually, more attention is being paid to developing this generic competence as part of academic curricula, resulting in two questions: how to best promote team competencies and how to implement team projects successfully. These questions are closely interwoven and need to be looked at together. To address these questions, this paper identifies relevant studies and approaches, best practices, and key findings in the field of information systems education and related fields such as computer science and business, and examines them together to develop a systematic framework. The framework is intended to categorize existing research on teams and team competencies in information systems education and to guide information systems educators in supporting teamwork and promoting team competencies in students at the course and curricular level in the context of teaching in tertiary education.

      Working in teams has always been an essential element of development efforts in Information Systems (IS). The same is equally important in instructional software development (ISD); the team often consists of instructional designers, graphic artists, subject matter experts, and software programmers, among others, so the correlation should be very close. In a team effort, the labor is divided among the members in a way that is complementary. Each team member works to their strength, not their weakness. This includes the ability to work effectively in a team. Technical competence is insufficient in this environment. Social competencies, such as communication skills and the ability to work together with others, are also important. Training in instructional software development should prepare the developers "to work effectively in teams and foster collaborative skills necessary in the workplace" (p. 323). This should be considered a critical skill and should drive the development of training curricula for instructional software development.
     Team competencies can be either specific or generic and related each way to the team or to the task. Team-generic team competencies are transportable to other teams; task-generic team competencies are transportable to other tasks. Team-specific or task-specific team competencies are applicable only to the corresponding team or task. "For IS curricula, team-generic, task-contingent and transportable team competencies are especially relevant, since graduates may apply for jobs in different companies and have to work within different teams in their job" (p. 324). This should also be true for ISD curricula. Team skill competencies can be broken down into major sub-skills, including group decision making/planning, adaptability/flexibility, and interpersonal relations.
     The purpose of training in team competencies is to enhance individual knowledge, skills, and attitudes that improve team effectiveness when applied in context. A review of the literature identified three levels at which instruction in team competencies could be enhanced: the course level, the instructor level, and the curriculum level. At the course level, the following background topics were culled from the literature (pp. 326-327):

• The importance of team projects in IS education
• Basics of team projects and their positive effects
• Team projects as training for team competencies

     Specific activities for promoting teams and team competencies at the course level include the following (pp. 327-331):

1. Building teams for team projects
1. Team size
2. Team composition
3. Team roles
2. Raising awareness
3. Team building activities
4. Dealing with social loafing and promoting positive interdependence
5. Supporting the team process
6. Reflection of teamwork
7. Feedback on teamwork
8. Assessment of teamwork
9. Additional team competencies training
1. Lecture-based input
2. Exercises, e.g. icebreaker games, communicating requirements, active listening, role plays, and pair-programming
10. Measuring the effect of interventions on teamwork competencies
11. Evaluative studies on the effectiveness of team competencies training

     At the instructor level, the primary intervention should be training and supervision for course instructors (pp. 331-332).
     At the curriculum level, students should gain expertise in three basic types of  interaction: competition with peers, working independently of peers, and working cooperatively with peers (pp. 332-333).
     Whatever the approach that is used, it should be systematic in supporting and promoting team competencies in the context of either IS or ISD.

REFERENCE

Figl, K. (2010). A systematic review of developing team competencies in information systems education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(3), pp. 323-337.