1. An Action Learning Approach For Increasing Critical Thinking Skills In An Information Systems Capstone Course Alan Burns School of CTI DePaul University aburns@cs.depaul.edu Thomas Janicki Cameron School of Business UNC at Wilmington janickit@uncw.edu

2. Presentation Outline Research Problem Theoretical Frameworks Action Learning Method Implementation Survey Results Conclusions / Future Directions Questions

3. Research Problem Three overlapping areas –Demands of the IS capstone –Asynchronous learning mode –Many instructional methodologies Can the capstone course, requiring interaction and feedback, be delivered asynchronously (e.g. distance learning)?

4. Demands of the IS Capstone Content varies, but usually multiple objectives: –Integrate all IS knowledge acquired during program –Based on business policy and strategy –Develop critical thinking skills Delivery typically by case method (Thompson, 2000) –Mix of lecture and case study discussions –Case studies serve as a proxy to practical experience and a vehicle for developing analytical skills –Relies on openly interactive and sometimes argumentative student input to orchestrate discussion of management situations in which there are frequently no definitive correct answers

5. Theoretical Frameworks Traditional learningResource based Teacher AsExport modelFacilitator / guide SourceTextbook as primary source Variety of sources/media PrimaryFacts as primaryQuestions as primary Information isPackagedDiscovered Emphasis onProductProcess Assessment isQuantitativeQualitative / Quantitative Traditional vs. Resource-based Learning (Rakes, 1996)

6. Theoretical Frameworks Action Learning (Revans, 1982) –Action learning encompasses several variants, but essentially it is a form of learning where emphasis is placed on action through experience or "by doing".

7. Theoretical Frameworks Action Learning –Some tenets (Smith and O’Neil, 2003) Participants tackle real problems without a "right" answer; Participants meet in small, stable learning groups Participants hold intermittent meetings over a fixed program cycle; Problems are relevant to a participant's own workplace realities; A supportive collaborative learning process is the group; Process is based on reflection, questioning, conjecture and refutation; and Participants take action between meetings to resolve their problem.

8. Theoretical Frameworks Static model of learning (Dilworth, 1998) L = P + Q + R, where L=Learning, P=Programmed Instruction, Q=Questioning and R=Reflection.

9. Theoretical Frameworks Process model of learning (Vat, 2002) –Four iterative stages of activities performed by IS students as they explore a problem: Analysis –Students organize their knowledge prior to the study of the problem. –Students encouraged to devise a specific statement about the problem to define the boundaries of their knowledge. Research –Collection of information (journal articles, textbooks, interviews, etc.) relevant to the problem, where students teach themselves as they research the issue they face. Reporting –Students become “experts” who report their findings to one another to help focus their investigation, clarify their knowledge and refine their problem-solving strategies. Feedback –Introduced from the instructor and fellow students at the end of each stage.

10. Action Learning Method Traditional Case Method approaches P lecture  R eflection  P case  Q case  R eflection P case  Q case  R eflection  P lecture Action Method approach Q project  P lecture  R eflection Q project  F eedback, instructor  P lecture  F eedback, student  R eflection

11. Implementation of the Method Assignments –Semester-long Research Paper Topic Proposal Detailed Outline Peer Review PresentationPaper –Class Participation

12. Survey Method Measured Student Perception of Learning with 6 items (adapted from Hiltz et al., 2000): –Helped me learn a lot of factual material –Improved my ability to communicate clearly –Increased my critical thinking skills –Improved my ability to integrate facts –Improved my ability to critically analyze written material –Helped me learn to see relationships between ideas Five Point Scale, where –5=Significant, 4= Above average, 3= Average, 2 = Below average, 1= Well below average. Five Assignments types –Lectures –Case Study Discussions –Paper/Project assignment –Critiquing other students' work –Receiving peer reviews For Synchronous and Asynchronous sections of capstone

13. Summary of Results Synchronous (Traditional) Synchronous (Asynchronous) n28 students25 Lectures4.024.01 Case Study Discussions 4.083.89 Paper/Project4.28 Critiquing other students’ work 3.923.82 Receiving peer reviews 3.513.43 Averages of 6 items for Student Perception of Learning Scale: 5=Significant, 4= Above average, 3= Average, 2 = Below average, 1= Well below average.

14. Questionnaire Results Traditional learning Resource based n28 students25 Project (Q) increased critical thinking skills 4.294.42 Project (P)4.294.23 Feedback (F) to others 4.183.92 Feedback (F) from others 3.683.44 Questions for the Proposed Action Learning Model Scale: 5=Significant, 4= Above average, 3= Average, 2 = Below average, 1= Well below average.

15. Conclusions No significant difference between the ALN and traditional student sections were observed on the questions related to increases in critical thinking skills. No significant difference between the ALN and traditional student sections were observed on the questions related to increases in critical thinking skills. –Introduction of active learning model may have helped to increase the skill set for ALN students.

16. Potential implications for the classroom Case study may be used effectively in a capstone distance education course if: –Students get involved in providing feedback directly to other students –The instructor provides guidance to the framework of analysis –Emphasis on critical thinking skills is embedded throughout the curriculum

17. Limitations Exploratory research Need to increase the number of subjects Contrast to traditional class Have a pre and post test to measure “critical thinking skills”

18. Questions Is method viable? Is there a difference between DL and regular classroom students? Future direction—how to integrate dynamic and process model?