PL EN


2017 | 3 | 2 | 11-32
Article title

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Teaching Information Systems Courses: A Rasch Measurement Approach

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Systems analysis and design (SAND) is an information systems (IS) course that is taught around the world in most higher education management of information systems (MIS) programmes. However, the theoretical nature of this type of course presents challenges for instructors as they devise instructional strategies to convey the abstract concepts that are necessary for their students to understand, such as, how to draw data flow diagrams (DFD) to correctly represent the informational specifications of an IS. Evidence suggests that one of the factors of the low success rates of many IS-design projects in the workforce is due to the graduate recruits’ failure to acquire basic SAND knowledge. While a considerable amount of literature focused on integrating technology into the teaching practices to facilitate the knowledge acquisition, a few investigated its effectiveness to fulfil this particular purpose. This paper reflects on such challenges and proposes an evaluation approach to assess the effectiveness of technology integration in teaching an IS course like SAND. The empirical interpretations represented in this paper are gathered through a series of quasi-experimental 2x3 factorial experiments that were conducted at four higher education institutions and based on the Rasch item response theory and measurement analysis. The preliminary analysis from this study provides reliable evidence to delineate key instructional strategies when designing higher education IS courses.
Year
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
11-32
Physical description
Dates
published
2017-11-10
Contributors
author
  • RMIT University Melbourne
author
  • RMIT University Melbourne
References
  • Adams, R. & Khoo, S. (1996). Quest. Australian Council for Educational Research.
  • Boyle, E. A., Duffy, T. & Dunleavy, K. (2003). Learning styles and academic outcome: The validity and utility of Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles in a British higher education setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 267–290.
  • Branch, R. M. & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 77–87). New York: Springer.
  • Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P. & King, F. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development. Executive summary and model. DTIC Document.
  • Cybulski, J. L. & Linden, T. (2000). Learning systems design with UML and patterns. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(4), 372–376.
  • Fatima, S. & Abdullah, S. (2013). Improving teaching methodology in system analysis and design using problem based learning for ABET. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS), 5(7), 60–68.
  • Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Izard, J. (2005). Overview of test construction. In Kenneth, N. R. (Ed.), Quantitative research methods in educational planning. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
  • Kiviniemi, M. T. (2014). Effects of a blended learning approach on student outcomes in a graduate- level public health course. BMC Medical Education, 14(1).
  • Knowlton, D. S. & Simms, J. (2010). Computer-based instruction and generative strategies: Conceptual framework & illustrative example. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 996–1003.
  • Kock, N. 2006. Systems analysis & design fundamentals: A business process redesign approach. Sage Publications India.
  • Kyei-Blankson, L. & Godwyll, F. (2010). An examination of learning outcomes in HyFlex learning environments. In Proceedings from E-learn: World Conference on E-learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 532-535). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  • McKay, E. (2000). Instructional strategies integrating the cognitive style construct: A meta-knowledge processing model (contextual components that facilitate spatial/logical task performance) (Doctoral dissertation). Melbourne: Deakin University. Accessed 12 February 2010. Retrieved from http://tux.lib.deakin.edu.au/adt-VDU/public/adt-VDU20061011.122556/.
  • Nawaz, A. & Kundi, G. M. (2010). Digital literacy: An analysis of the contemporary paradigms. International Journal of Science and Technology Education Research, 1(2), 19–29.
  • Porto, S. & Aje, J. (2004). A framework for operational decision-making in course development and delivery. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2), 199–215.
  • Rayner, S. & Cools, E. (2011). Style differences in cognition, learning, and management: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.
  • Riding, R. & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3–4), 193–215.
  • Riding, R. J. & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour. London: D. Fulton Publishers.
  • Rob, M. A. (2006). Development of project documentation: Key ingredient in teaching Systems Analysis and Design. Issues in Information Systems, 7(1), 83-87.
  • The Standish Group. 2004. Accessed 10 November 2008. Retrieved from http://www.standishgroup. com/sample_research.
  • Thomas, P. R. & McKay, J. B. (2010). Cognitive styles and instructional design in university learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(3), 197–202.
  • Topi, H., Valacich, J. S., Wright, R. T., Kaiser, K., Nunamaker Jr, J. F., Sipior, J. C. & De Vreede, G.-J. (2010). IS 2010: Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in information systems. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26, 18.
  • Urtel, M. G. (2008). Assessing academic performance between traditional and distance education course formats. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 322–330.
  • Zhang, L.-F. (2004). Field-dependence/independence: cognitive style or perceptual ability?–– validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(6), 1295–1311.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-67c8919e-5fc3-48c1-9be1-e0190aa4aa99
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.