Student Centered Learning in a Large, First Year ... - CiteSeerX

STUDENT CENTERED LEARNING IN A LARGE, FIRST YEAR MANAGEMENT CLASS: HISTORY, REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS John Scott John Buchanan Department of Management Systems Abstract: Our paper follows the introduction and subsequent effects of introducing a degree of independent learning into a first year Management Systems core course. This course introduces a variety of topics in Management Systems, including modelling, forecasting, information systems and quality management and is taught in an interactive style, with frequent use of in-class discussion (or buzz) groups. We recount the history of the course, the processes used to encourage deep versus surface learning, the monitoring and outcomes achieved. Results have shown an increase in the use of effective learning strategies, with some students finding the approach particularly satisfying. However, a significant minority of students have not responded positively preferring, it would seem, more traditional modes of teaching. Concluding remarks explore that aspect and outline a way forward. It’s easier to learn many other things, if you first learn how to learn Ashley Brilliant, Potshot No.3412 Introduction The celebration of high quality teaching of Waikato, and the VITAL initiative, is in part underpinned by the goal of helping students become more intellectually independent. The heightened attention given to this goal of intellectual independence recognizes the powerful and enduring benefits that such independence provides, particularly in work situations characterized by constant change and uncertainty. We too have come to share these views and have modified course objectives and extended our repertoire of teaching approaches in order to encourage students to take greater responsibility for their own learning. Nearly all lectures have been removed from our large, first year management systems course, and small, independent learning groups have become the main vehicle for learning. We are committed to students taking responsibility for their own learning. While independence is emphasised, we also recognise that students need to be able to work interdependently with others. Developing group work competence, therefore, is a further important goal. Our efforts have been informed by the work of several education theorists and researchers (Kolb, 1984; Biggs, 1990), university educators (Boud, 1988; Stephenson, 1980; Bawden, 1988), and also the views expressed by students as they experienced our courses. Furthermore, our personal stance is echoed in legislation that defines the essential character of universities in New Zealand. The legislation states that the primary concern of a university is “with more advanced learning, the principal purpose being to develop intellectual independence” (New Zealand Education Amendment Act, 1990).

Our first attempt with an independent learning approach was in a small fourth year class, where we used learning contracts as the main vehicle (Scott & Buchanan, 1992). The success of this approach, as measured by student enthusiasm and evidence of deeper learning, led us to pursue a student-independence agenda in our first year, compulsory management course (approximately 250 students per semester), which is the subject of this paper. The paper - an updated and amalgamated version of earlier writings - begins with history, course goals, and a description of the course in terms of organisation and actual processes used (Scott & Buchanan, 1992; Scott et al., 1997; Buchanan, 1997; Scott, 1997). We then discuss the results of research conducted both in class and with the same students in subsequent classes. Critical success factors follow conclusions that, while the approach is effective, it needs to be more tempered with the realities of the setting and the changes implied. History and Goals The genesis for the course was the late 80's. The experience was motivated by a building disquiet with the atmosphere and outcomes of teaching/learning in a traditional setting. These motivational influences were twofold. Firstly, it was increasingly recognised that the lecture as a regular means of transmitting knowledge was a poor use of precious contact time between academic staff and students. For instance, if the principal reason for attending class is just to take notes, even the most erudite treatise can be treated with bland enthusiasm by a reluctant attendant. Who benefits? The second influence was the need to produce students capable of performing outside of the class room, for our discipline of Management Systems has a strong process orientation and needs to produce students capable of both problemsolving and opportunity finding. Our belief in the latter became strong enough in itself to overcome the fear of adopting a student-centered learning perspective, even though at the time we knew little about how to go about it. The first formative experiment was in 1990, when a three-week module on forecasting was replaced by in-class worksheets and exercises supplemented by pre-class readings. The remainder of the course was conventionally taught. Relative success extended the approach toward the form of today’s course which we now describe using the contextual components of the Foster framework (Foster, 1993). The mission for the course is to facilitate introductory level learning in the three disciplines contained within Management Systems, in an integrated and practical manner, using studentcentred learning processes. The goals for the course will be considered in the four categories of organizational, personal, content-based and process-based. Organizational acceptance of this new, first year course had been conditional on providing a service module for the BMS degree which contained material on forecasting, quality, and management information systems (MIS). We had support from the Dean of Management Studies to significantly depart from the conventional “lecture-only” mode of delivery. Also there were good incentives in place for us to do a “good job” with the course, since this course was a window to all other courses in the department and our department revenue is based on the number of students taking courses in our department.

We experimented with alternative forms of delivery and since there was no textbook available for our particular mix of content, we produced our own workbook. Consequently, we were able to offer students a variety of ways of working with the course material and make class time driven more by student agendas. In terms of content, the course was to open a window to each of the three subject areas grouped within the Management Systems department. This will be covered further in the following section. Finally for the category of process, we moved to introducing Student-Centered Learning (SCL); trying to encourage more independence with students taking more responsibility for their learning in the course. The writings on autonomous learning (Boud & Prosser, 1980; Bawden, 1988; Packham et al.,1989) on the Systems Programme at the Hawkesbury site of the University of Western Sydney, the learning styles of Kolb (Kolb, 1984), and the results of the SOLO project (Biggs and Collis, 1982; Gibbs, 1992) provided the theoretical and empirical motivation to stimulate deeper as opposed to surface learning in our students. The fact that in our class there were a variety of different learning styles evident (particularly with the class having 15% overseas students) supported an approach which would offer alternative learning pathways. We also wanted students to become accustomed to independence early in their degree so that the amount of independence offered could be increased with each year of study. The particular characteristics of student independence (Boud, 1988) that we focused on as we developed this course were: • working collaboratively with others, through buzz groups and learning cells, • choosing where and when learning can take place (a comprehensive workbook can make attendance at class more optional), • using teachers as guides (classes are much more driven by student responses and any resulting agendas), • engaging in self-assessment (through peer and self marking of in-class tests), • students reflecting on their learning processes (students are encouraged to discuss and describe the processes used to reach conclusions on more open questions in the tests), and • acquiring new teaching strategies and tools (such as the use of transformational tools like rich pictures and mind mapping). While we have become convinced of the need for a SCL approach, it still requires to be sold to students. Our selling points were the New Zealand parliamentary act with its aim to develop intellectual independence, the evidence now available that people gain knowledge and skill more effectively when learning by doing, and the ever increasing rate of change where people change career paths (not just jobs) three times in a working lifetime. These make the skills of learning more important than content. Course Organisation and Content The course content was an introduction to the three areas of Management Systems represented by our department; Management Information Systems (MIS), Management Science (MS) and Operations Management (OM). More specifically, we covered total quality

management as a topical issue representing the OM component. Despite students’ lack of experience in management, quality can be considered from a personal perspective and in terms of their University experience. Forecasting comprised the MS component and it serves as a good introduction to both quantitative and qualitative modelling. This is also one of the service areas of the course, as forecasting is used in several higher courses in the degree. MIS is also a topical and rapidly changing area. The emerging information superhighway and the enormous growth in career opportunities in this area, provide the motivation for it’s inclusion. We consider broad concepts of MIS and adopt a managerial as opposed to a technical, computer science orientation. There is also a short module in the course on Systems Thinking. This, along with two classes on learning skills, opens the course and is used as glue to help bind the course together. In describing the organization of the course , we centre on the three main components of tutorials, the workbook, and assessment. Large tutorials have replaced lectures. “Lecture notes” are in a 500-page workbook, comprising a separate worksheet for each class session. Students are expected to have attempted the relevant worksheet in advance, coming to class to discuss their findings, principally in small groups called buzz groups. Any problems and/or questions that students have, which are germane to the buzz group discussion questions, are ironed out by the lecturer assisted by two or more senior students who move around the lecture theatre responding to raised hands. A typical class begins with an overview comment which is followed by several buzz slots - one for each major issue for the day - with summary comments after each one. In a buzz slot, students discuss in their buzz groups questions from the worksheet. These summary comments are never model answers which students can mindlessly copy, but draw together comments and conclusions collected while interacting with the buzz groups. An agenda can be developed on the spot using an overhead transparency, for commonly occurring questions, making students aware that a particular point/issue will be discussed with the whole class at the end of the buzz slot. This reduces the number of raised hands. Classes typically end looking ahead to the next worksheet. Supplementing the large class tutorials are drop-in tutorials; a place where students can dropin either individually, or in small groups, and get help from a senior tutor. These tutors are provided with notes for all questions but are encouraged to use Socratic dialogue to work with the students rather than provide model answers; again our emphasis on process rather than content. Numbers attending are monitored and additional drop-ins are scheduled according to demand. The comprehensive 500-page workbook provides the course foundation: it is the textbook along with lecture notes and administrative details. It consists of administration and contextual details/scene setting, worksheets for each of the 48 classes, and examples of past exams and tests. A worksheet consists of readings, questions, exercises, summaries and review questions, with ample space for student notes and workings. Margin icons identify common tasks which typically follow a repetitive cycle of doing, reflection, summarizing/ conceptualization, and testing. Using such a workbook approach conveniently brings all course details together under one cover and is relatively easy to alter and rearrange. The resulting classes tend to be more student issue driven, with staff more reactive than pro active. Also, the workbook approach

makes the course quite portable and it can easily be taught at other sites; we have articulation agreements with several polytechnics in other cities. The disadvantage is the overhead associated with developing the workbook (approximately 500 hours). The workbook was in fact built up over several years, with the first version unashamedly crude. Student assistants were also used. Their fresh approach, ideas and energy, were invaluable. Wholesale revision of the workbook occurs every two years. Assessment is partly driven by a University requirement that “60% of assessable material be demonstrably the students own work” and has changed over the years. To meet this, we began with a quiz, an in-class test and a short final exam as the main assessed outputs. The quiz was 25 minutes, with a further 20 minutes for marking. Both peer and self-assessment have been tried with the latter preferred because of the time it takes when using peer assessment to collect, redistribute and then become familiar enough with a stranger's test paper to mark it unassisted. The front cover of the quiz allows students to record comments and note questions they would like a tutor to look at. Random scripts are remarked by tutors to discourage cheating and to validate the process. The test and final examination were open book, with applied questions based on short cases and exercises, rather than questions requiring recall and repackaging. The tests are marked by a “mark-in”; an evening immediately after the test where all the tutors set up a production line to mark all 250 or so scripts. A collegial synergy forms at the mark-in which helps motivation, concentration and keeps spirits high. Students can ask to have their test remarked, on the condition that it will all be remarked, not only the portion under dispute. Finally, two short assignments were also set, comprising 25% of the final grade. The first used rich pictures from the Soft Systems Methodology, typically drawing on a case required later in the course, hence encouraging students to look ahead. The second was a spreadsheet assignment on forecasting, requiring use of the computer lab. By 1997, the assessment had evolved. It now comprises two in-class tests, two short group assignments (forecasting and systems methodologies) based on a case, and a group presentation. This group presentation, which takes place in the third week of the course, has been instrumental in cementing each of the buzz groups. Each of the approximately 60 groups is required to make a 10 minute presentation to the teacher, following a well-defined schedule which includes reflection on their group learning processes for this item of assessment. The in-class tests are no longer open-book because such a structure appeared to dissuade many first year students from study. Instead, students can bring into class one handwritten sheet of A4 paper as their “cheat sheet.” Transformation of knowledge, an important part of deeper learning, is encouraged in the creation of the cheat sheet. A Typical Session We now describe a typical class session. This is a 50 minute session which introduces the topic of quality. This class begins in week seven of the twelve-week course. There are approximately 180 students in the class today (out of a class of 240). The lecture theatre will seat 375, so there is plenty of room to spread out and allow tutor access. Most students are in their first year at University. Students have their workbook with them and around 50% will have read the worksheet in advance and completed the work required. A slightly condensed

version of the worksheet for this class, referred to as Q2, is shown in Appendix 1. Different icons are used in the margin to indicate the type of work. Before class starts, as students are coming in, sitting down and talking, background music is played. We begin the class by reviewing objectives. We move straight on to the questions after the “Zen” reading and discuss students’ definitions of quality. Students break up into “buzz groups” and discuss the questions. The lecturer and two tutors move around the lecture theatre talking with different groups and often writing down on an overhead transparency the thoughts of a buzz group. After 10 minutes, these overheads, which represent the collective wisdom of the class are presented to the class by the teacher and tutors, with some annotation. Students take notes as appropriate. In the next segment, the lecturer briefly expands on the four points of systems thinking and gives some examples. The rowing illustration is briefly mentioned, but there is not enough time to discuss it in any detail. Finally, after taking a few minutes to discuss the quality manifesto in buzz groups, a show of hands is taken to obtain a ranking of the six main points of the declaration. This takes at least 10 minutes. Then students collectively see which points are most valued by them and reflect on that. Further, the wide variation in response underscores the differing perspectives on quality. The class concludes with a brief review of tomorrow's class. Students are exhorted to do their homework and the class ends. Processes Used In early versions of the course, teaching/learning techniques used included: • “Teach-test”, a very informal test covering the week’s work was available in the last class of the week, for students wishing to participate, • Role-play, for illustrating one qualitative method, • A four-stage study cycle, with icons: Reading - material on an idea, or method, to be studied. Thinking - while reading the material, and again when you finish, ask yourself: Are the concepts clear to me? What questions do I have? How can I answer these: Myself, peer, tutor, or bring to class? Review - keeping summary notes of key issues studied. Testing your understanding - exercises, • Peer support groups, and • Alternative, optional, and advanced sections in the workbook. As the course has evolved, we found that matching different learning ideas with the material has been enjoyable, helping to meet our personal goal of variety. Wide use of the ideas encourages students to work in a variety of learning settings. The “Interesting Ways to Teach Series” (Gibbs et al., 1985) has been a rich source of good ideas.

In more recent classes (lectures) we have used: • Debates on open questions, involving either two halves of the lecture theatre with spokespersons to represent groups, or selected teams of staff and students, • Role plays, particularly depicting client/analyst issues, and qualitative forecasting methods (e.g., Delphi), • Buzz groups; a mainstay of the course. Effort is put into forming groups of three that can work together throughout the course. This includes formative experience with different groups in the first two weeks, identifying traits of students you would like to work with, workbook notes on effective buzzing/working together, and “pool rules” (= do’s and dont’s). Buzz groups also fulfill the role of peer support groups , • Interviews with buzz groups who are working well together, using a radio microphone, • Active experiments where students participate in a simple game to demonstrate a particular point, and • Music, as a beginning and ending to a session. For helping students to learn we encourage and include information where needed on: • Working in groups (also see buzz groups below), • SQ3R/Skimming and Scanning, for efficient and effective reading, • Anxieties: identifying three anxieties, pooling them and discussing ways of overcoming, and • Next five minutes: what will you do in the next five minutes of working with this course; helpful as a session ending to get students in the habit of ending one session with a plan of the next. In formative assessment, we use a teach/test approach, with review questions at the beginning of the fourth (last) hour in a typical week. In summative assessment we have tried crosscheck (i.e. peer marking), although we have found self-marking more useful as explained earlier. Finally, for course evaluation we use “like/dislike/change” open questions and “if you had to tell someone else about this course” open questions. We have used the information from these open questions to produce more formal follow up questionnaires. Such a questionnaire has been used one half year later to test how much use is made of learning processes introduced in our course by students in subsequent courses. We typically evaluate during the course, as well as at the end. Fixing or changing a course at the end, using data from an old set of students can be compared to painting your house before you sell it; while you choose one colour, the new owner might prefer something quite different! Outcomes and Research within the Course In the first three weeks of the 1990 offering when only one third of the course was run this way, students seemed to become polarised into the lovers (thanks for the freedom) and the haters (bring back lectures; just tell me what I need to know). Time was given at the end of several classes to allow the latter group to collect at the front of the room and air their feelings. Identifying the opinion-leaders in such a group and addressing their issues, in an understanding manner, proved effective. This helped to counteract the negatives and show how the course could be used to meet the requirements of almost anyone (e.g., the workbook could be easily turned into a course-provided set of lecture notes for those who wanted lectures). However, the need for a little self-discipline and direction could not be avoided!

Unfreezing in a traditional setting, where behaviour norms are well established, can induce anger. It is better to expect this and allow space to capture and deal with it early, than to let it fester with the hope that it will go away. Since these tentative experiments began in 1990 much research, both action and formal, has accompanied the evolution of the course. We summarize some of that now. Quantitative In-Class Feedback Firstly, we describe the student feedback for four separate offerings of this course; 1992 semester B, 1993 semesters A and B, and three years later in 1996 semester A. These offerings have occurred with the same two lecturers in all but half of 1993B. In 1992, when the course was first offered in the new format, we frequently solicited feedback from the students, often in the form of an open-ended questionnaire. One question asked was: “Thinking back on the first six weeks of the course, how would you describe it to a friend? “ From this questionnaire we gathered 24 key phrases about the course that the students had themselves used. These phrases were then used as the basis of the final questionnaire (see Figure 1). Although we had the benefit of longitudinal information, that is, four sets of responses to the same questions, there was surprisingly little variation in response over time. There was no significant difference (using the standard t-test for two samples) between 1993A and 1993B for any of the 24 phrases. However, a few significantly different responses were observed between 1993 and 1992. This was not surprising since at the end of 1992, in response to student feedback through the year, we modified both the course workbook and assessment. We reduced and simplified the material in the workbook; students therefore found the course to be a little easier in 1993. Changes in assessment, providing more assignments and less tests, also produced a significant and positive response. A holistic comparison of responses between 1992 and 1993 suggests a slightly more favourable response to the course in 1992. Despite the course having more “bugs” the first time through and the workbook being more difficult to use, we expect that we brought to the 1992 classes a greater sense of urgency which the students responded to. Here is a situation where the teachers had to practice what they preached. We had exhorted the students to take responsibility for their learning and we were in a situation where we had to learn as we went along and to modify our plans, almost in response to the previous class. As we became more familiar with the course in 1993 and consequently presented a more professional approach, some of the vulnerability which existed in the previous year (and which the students could relate to) was absent. Figure 1 shows the average response over the three early classes to each of the phrases as a bar, with the 1996 results shown as a circle. Overall the response was substantially positive noting that the high scores on phrases 6 and 21 are a result of them being stated negatively. There is a dominant hindsight effect here; students clearly recognized by the end of the course (and unfortunately not often at the beginning) the need to take initiative and prepare in advance of class. Specifically, when responding to phrase 4 (I need to have done some preparation in order for the class to be worthwhile), only 3% of students disagreed. However our casual observation would suggest that around 50-60% of the class actually prepared in advance. Many students learned this after the fact and some paid the price of failure. A challenge we still face is how to help students learn this other than by hindsight. Even relating

the experiences of their peers in previous classes appears to have little effect. However, given that the style of the course differs markedly from other first year courses in the undergraduate management degree, we are encouraged by the responses. Disagree Strongly

Agree Strongly 1

2

3

4

5

I like open book tests (24) I need to have done some preparation (4) The workbook gives me sufficient direction (15) I would prefer a review rather than a preview at the end (23) Buzz groups can be good if I come prepared (1) I would prefer regular tutorials than the drop-in centre (17) A bit hard in places, but no harder than other courses (16) This course is relevant to real business situations (3) The tests were fair, I could demonstrate what I learned (20) The style of teaching is different, but effective (12) Next time I think I would use the drop-in centre more (11) The drop-in centre is helpful (5) Buzz groups are difficult if you don't know how to use them (13) There is definitely too much material in the course (9) I was worried at the start, but now I'm starting to grasp things (7) I got all the help I needed from lecturers and tutors (22) I am learning about how to learn (2) The course is enjoyable (8) I would like more assignments and less tests (18) I work harder for this course than most of my other courses (10) I wish all my courses were structured like this (19) I would rather have lectures (14) I don't know what's going on, so I don't start (6) I don't think I've learned anything (21)

Figure 1 - Mean Responses to Questionnaire The 1996 results are highly correlated (R2 = 0.853) with the earlier 1992/93 results. However, there are a few significant differences. By 1996 students had significantly placed more value on preparation (1), were better learning how to learn (2), definitely knew what was going on (6), agreed that the tests were fair (20), and got adequate help from the tutors and lecturers (22). There is, however, one important, negative significant difference; students were less convinced that the style of teaching is effective (12). We will return to this point at a later stage. No other differences are significant for p