This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 27 October 2014, At: 14:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Post-Compulsory EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpce20

Getting students to learn aboutinformation systems project management:an experiment in student-centred learningGeorge Allan aa University of Portsmouth , United KingdomPublished online: 19 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: George Allan (1999) Getting students to learn about information systems projectmanagement: an experiment in student-centred learning, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 4:1,59-74, DOI: 10.1080/13596749900200043

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13596749900200043

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Getting Students to Learn aboutInformation Systems Project Management:an experiment in student-centred learning

GEORGE ALLAN

University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT This article reports on research into the teaching of information systemsproject management using a student-centred approach. The literature contains manyreferences to an unrest in the traditional paradigm of the university lecture where, it issupposed, that knowledge is passed from the learned lecturer to the eager student. Aninvestigation into the theoretical epistemology showed short-falls in the traditionallecture paradigm. Some learning strategies differ significantly from traditional didacticteaching by placing the emphasis on the learner not the teacher. This research addressesthe question ‘Does a student-centred learning approach help in the teaching ofinformation systems project management?’ Research methods are discussed leading tothe choice of a case study approach. A student-centred model was derived and applied toa volunteer group of students, the results are reported, the student-centred learningmethod is evaluated and conclusions drawn.

Shortcomings with Traditional Lecturing as a Teaching Method

The 60-minute lecture is a conceptual corner stone of higher education (HE) andis used almost universally. The one-hour time span is usually for administrativerather than epistemological reasons and the medium for delivery is audio-visual.The main activities are that the lecturer reads/discusses academic points aboutdesigning and developing information systems while the student takes notes.Rudduck (1978, pp. 3–23) sees ‘lecture’ as implying a one-way communicationsystem (Figure 1).

10mmFigure 1. The lecture as a one-way communication system.

This model works in many situations where the lecturer takes steps to makematerial interesting and encourage student participation (Gibbs et al, 1983).However, there is experiential evidence that students find some lectures a wasteof time and the literature contains many references (Cockburn & Ross, 1978;Gibbs, 1982; Andresen, 1994) to an unrest with the traditional lecture, where it

An Experiment in Student-centred Learning

59

Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

is supposed that knowledge is passed from the learned lecturer to the eagerstudent. This pedagogical paradigm often inhibits any eagerness on either sidewith the result that both parties regard the exercise as a chore.

Why is it that some students don’t learn from their computing andinformation systems (IS) lecturers? Could it be that some traditionalist lecturerssee their role as ‘talker’ and the student’s role as ‘listener’ under the suppositionthat if the lecturer stopped talking nothing else would happen? Andresen (1994)suggests that this is far from the case and that it would provide a chance forlearners to wake up, to become active, responsive and engage in learning.Rudduck (1978) observes that student productivity is low when the tutor talkstoo much and higher when the tutor gives a problem area to be discussed,thereby encouraging innovative and creative ideas from the student, rather thangiving solutions. Various theories (Socrates, c. 400 BC; Tribe, 1994; Burr,1996) suggest that students learn best by taking part, being actively involved,by doing things. So, how do we encourage students to learn about computingand in particular learn about IS?

According to Mezirow (1990, p. 1) learning is the process of making anew or revised interpretation of the meaning of an experience. In mosttraditional computer lecturers there is no experience for the student, only talk.How could a student consider the meaning of an experience which has onlybeen talked about? The issue here is that the student is side-lined into being toldabout computing issues – which is then looked upon as teaching IS. Manyeducationalists would argue that there isn’t time to dwell long enough forstudents to live an experience because of pressure to cover a prescribed syllabus.The true issue lies in the difference between teaching and learning.

Let us re-examine the premise of Mezirow – learning is the process ofrevised interpretation. We need to get our students to interpret the IS issues ratherthan simply listen to them being talked about. This could be done by gettingstudents to reflect on IS matters and assess the validity of perspectives, makecritical examinations of causes and consequences.

The Student-centred Learning Theory

There are some learning strategies which differ significantly from traditionaldidactic teaching (Rumney, 1989, pp. 1–210; Dart & Clarke, 1991,pp. 317–335; Gibbs, 1981, pp. 1–11) by placing the emphasis on the learnernot the teacher. Learning becomes a dynamic, interactive process where the maintheme is to learn by doing (attributed to Socrates, c. 400 BC) rather than onlylistening. Would placing the student at the centre of activities help and if so,how is it done? The next question investigated was ‘What is Student-CentredLearning (SCL) and would it lead to a deeper understanding of the lecturematerial?’ Bates & Rowland (1988, pp. 5–20) present two differing viewpointsabout student centred learning. There is insufficient space or time here fordetailed discussion, but the reader is referred to their excellent article. In thetraditional lecture paradigm the student is metaphorically, and sometimesphysically, at one end of an information stream. What does ‘centred’ mean inrelation to the student?

George Allan

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

50mm

Figure 2. The student at the centre of learning.

In Figure 2 ‘S’ represents the student and the elliptic rings represent thedissemination of knowledge. The basic idea is that the student is at the centreand doing the actual learning, with the tutor in the role of facilitator – notlecturer. There appears to be a better chance of learning taking place in thismodel as the student is surrounded by knowledge dissemination rather than atone end of it.

The flaw in Figure 2 is that there appears to be only one student. Nearlyall university classes are groups, where it would be possible to get students tocommunicate and share the experience of their work done between lecturesessions to build on their own and other group members’ knowledge. Owen(1983, pp. 92–95), Rudduck (1978, p. 5), Gregory & Thorley (1947, pp.11–20) and Tribe (1994, pp. 27–29) all put forward supportive arguments forthe advantages of group learning. This is also referred to (Burr, 1996,pp. 71–77) as learning by social interaction. Two important areas which needcareful facilitation are communication and understanding. Moust et al (1987,p. 152) cite several works which support intercommunication as a catalyticstrengthener in the learning process. There is a possible communication channelbetween each person and every other person.

Consider the arrangement in Figure 3. If there are ‘n’ people in the group,theoretically there could be n x (n-1)/2 connections, each one being two-waygiving n x (n-1) channels of communication. This research eventually involved agroup of seven students plus facilitator giving us 8 x 7 = 56 channels. In thisstyle of student-centred delivery one must be prepared for the students tocommunicate with each other as well as with the facilitator. This activity shouldbe monitored and guided in case of wrong information being generated orpassed. Notice the concept of the information being generated. Student opinionsare valued and must be allowed.

An Experiment in Student-centred Learning

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

65mm

Figure 3. Channels of communication.

The Problem and the Experiment

The problem was to get students to learn about information systemsdevelopment and managing IS projects. We approached a part-time MSc cohortin the Department of Information Systems, University of Portsmouth andexplained the wish to do some student-centred research with them. Initially theresponse was favourable but there were to be difficulties. The SCL concept wasexplained as they would make the syllabus and agree the theme for eachlearning session, we would facilitate learning of material selected, they would beexpected to take responsibility for their own learning. After they reflected onwhat SCL meant they did not feel inclined to proceed with anything other thana traditional approach. As part-time students they wanted the traditionalcramming of facts during lectures and were content to attempt the learningduring the week. This was interesting and from a more focused search ofliterature found not uncommon. An argument against SCL is this student view ofa violation of the long established academic practice of being told what to learnand note taking (Owen, 1983, pp. 92–99).

There is also a perception among academic staff that by deviating from thetraditional lecture paradigm the syllabus will not be covered (Tribe, 1994, pp.25–28). This seems to be shared by students who expect a recognisable syllabuswith dictated aims and purposes, and in the concern that this could be a threatto examination results.

Derivation of the Model

At the heart of SCL is the facilitator (Huxam & Cropper, 1994, p. 1) to managethe interrelationships within the groups such that all members have a similaropportunity to contribute; encourage the shy and restrain the dominant for thebenefit of all in the group. We combined some of Owen and Mezirow andconsidered how to apply this to the practical task of getting MSc students to

George Allan

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

reflect and learn about project management. The study of computer projectmanagement leads itself to an interactive approach due to the nature of itsapplication in the commercial world. That is to say, the methods and techniquesof project management are applied to people and events in the real world, solearning these methods and techniques would be better managed in experientiallearning centred on the student rather than in the traditional universityparadigm. Part of that experiential setting should be reflection and discussion(Boud et al, 1985).

Students often feel more comfortable with a rote-like surface learningapproach (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983) – they understand the system and knowthe rules. Owen (1983, pp. 94–97) gives a major constraint in syndicate-basedstudy as the students’ perception of the knowledge they are called on tolearn/acquire; they sometimes have doubts of its legitimacy in helping to passexaminations. He sees the model shown in Figure 4 as a continuing cycle ofexploration.

20mm

Figure 4. Cycle of exploration.

This is agreed in principle and we begin to conceive a model for delivering ourlearning material by adding two processes, as in Figure 5.

20mm

Figure 5. Enhanced cycle of exploration.

We needed to go still further than this for the Project Management students andafter a process of synthesis we derived the model shown in Figure 6 for SCLdelivery of project management material.

42mm

Figure 6. Student-centred delivery model.

An Experiment in Student-centred Learning

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

This is how the material was to be delivered to the Project Managementstudents. Having arrived at the model the next section deals with the researchmethod for applying and evaluating it.

The Research Method

The research question became ‘Does the SCL model encourage students in theirown learning?’ The context of this research – a small group of seven students –limited the options for a research method. This was not a conceptual studytesting a positivist hypothesis, nor conducted on more than one cohort (in thisparticular programme) so could not be considered developmental research. Noattempt was made to seek statistical generalisations therefore large scale fieldexperimentation and survey were inappropriate. None of the normativemethodologies apply here, as the work is interpretative. The choice was betweencase study and action research.

55mm

Figure 7. Action research paradigm.

Cohen & Manion (1994, p. 186) define action research as ‘small scaleintervention in the functioning of the real world and a close examination of theeffects of such intervention’. Essentially, action research is a procedural design‘to deal with a concrete problem located in an immediate situation’ (Cohen &Manion, 1994, p. 192). In this research the immediate situation would equate tothe teaching/learning situation in Project Management, and thesession-by-session observations and recording of activities would be thestep-by-step monitoring necessary in action research. However, action researchis a recursive procedure. This last point is not appropriate to this research as noattempt is made to further refine the model in order to return to the cycle. Suchaction could be the subject of a future study.

Robson (1993, p. 5) defines case study research as ‘a strategy for doingresearch which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporaryphenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence’.

A case study framework is shown in Figure 8. This paradigm appears to bean appropriate method for the present investigation.

George Allan

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

75mm

Figure 8. Case study research paradigm.

The particular contemporary phenomenon equates to the application of themodel, the empirical investigation would be the data collection and analysis, thereal life context is the IS project management teaching/learning situation, andthe multiple sources of evidence would be the various methods of collectingdifferent data for the analysis.

A comparison is made between action research and case studyresearch to clarify the appropriateness of each method.

Participant Action�?

Participant observation��

Concerned with change��

Intentional modification�?

Collaborative�?

Diagnosing a problemX�

Situational��

Action researchCase study

Table I. Case study versus action research attributes.

The question marks in Table I indicate uncertainty. For example, the facilitator isregarded as part of the group, but in true case study the observer is notconsidered a full participator. Another point is that the model was developed tochange student learning but the case study model does not account for this

An Experiment in Student-centred Learning

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

modification. If the research had been to impose the student-centred deliverymodel, investigate effects, refine the model, re-impose and iterate several timesand thereby improve the student learning paradigm over a long period of study,then action research would have seemed appropriate. This research was concernedwith a model and its observable and reportable effect on student responsibility,therefore it was decided that the appropriate research method would be a casestudy.

Application of the Model

The use of the model to deliver course material is seen in two parts as (a) thesession and (b) the student work between sessions. The first part of each session(see Figure 6) is a report by each student summarising their research work sincethe last session. The second part is a group discussion of points reported back toshare all ideas and gain some holism by addressing points felt to needdevelopment or clarification. The hope is that this will lead to an advancementin knowledge. In the third part of each session the group select and agree thetopic to be studied before the next session. Each student would be expected torespond to this and research the agreed topic during the work period. It wasagreed that the facilitator would be available should any student require help.The next section outlines the methods of data collection.

Research Instruments for Data Collection

The data collection was in two subsections, as shown in Figure 9. This articleconcentrates on data A, C and E and reports these results only. Other results andanalyses are available from the author.

60mm

Figure 9. Data collection methods.

George Allan

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Data A. Accounts of the eight sessions

The events in each session were recorded as: theme; discussion and studentreaction as observed by the facilitator (became known as perceived studentreaction [PSR]); theme selected and agreed for next time; reflections by thefacilitator. These accounts and findings are summarised below.

Data C. Repertory grids

At the end of the unit each student was individually interviewed to gauge theirperspectives of the technical content. The data collection method used a versionof Kelly’s constructs (Kelly, 1955; Candy, 1990) where each of the themeschosen to be studied was typed on a postcard and placed face down on atabletop. The student selected three at random and was asked to put twotogether as sharing some common attribute while the third did not. Theattribute is discussed and mapped to represent a spectrum along which thestudent places all the cards in his/her order. For example, if the selectionshowed topics X, Y and Z and a student thought that X and Z were interestingbut Y was not, the spectrum would be from ‘interesting’ to ‘boring’. All cards arenow turned face-up and this student places all the theme topics individually from‘interesting’ at one end to ‘boring’ at the other (ties are allowed). The ranking iscoded from 7 at the high end to 1 at the low end and recorded, the cardscollected, randomised and the process repeated five more times, thus gatheringdata on each student’s perception of IS project management issues. The use ofpersonal constructs made each student reflect on themes covered during the unit.

Data E. Learning Network Diagram

A learning network diagram was designed to collect and display data onpresuppositions, influence on learning, and responsibility. The underlyingprinciple for this data collection method is to focus attention on the threespecific areas: SCL method, learning of project management, amount of studentwork.

Results

Data A – accounts of the eight sessions

Session 1 – the first session. A concept of student-centred learning was reiteratedand the main activities in the proposed delivery paradigm were outlined as (1)students research an agreed topic during the week prior to a session;(2) preparation of a single sheet A4 summary by each student of main findings;(3) present this as first part of next session and listen to other students’summaries; (4) discussion of ensuing points to ‘polish’ the learning; (5) decidewhat to study during the ensuing iteration of the cycle. The students agreed thefollowing themes for study during this unit:

An Experiment in Student-centred Learning

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

� Life-cycle models for developing computer-based information systems� Computer security� Configuration management� Estimating techniques� PRINCE and other project frameworks� Project management tools� Quality control.

Session 2 – life-cycle models for developing computer-based information systems. Thissession started with an invitation for anyone to share their one-page summary,or contribute in any other way which felt comfortable. Perceived studentresponse (PSR) was that they were hesitant and reserved at first as was expected.However, one student came through strongly taking the lead which broke theice and general participation followed with everyone joining in gradually.Discussion included suggestions to improve some traditional life-cycle models,which showed a good level of understanding beyond superficial rote learning.Agreed theme for next week’s study – Project frameworks.Reflections. The group did research and work during the previous week and lotsof learning seemed to have taken place. The group are reading for this unitrather than expecting the traditional jug-of-knowledge approach. The ice isbroken and some form of modus operandi has been established.

Session 3 – project frameworks. PSR – Areas covered by the students includedPorter’s 5 forces and generic corporation strategies; Parson’s tri-level framework;the customer resource life cycle; the impart-value framework; the stakeholderframework. Some students felt that they had too much to deal with individually.There followed discussion on whether to work in small groups. Some wanted tocontinue individually as it was working for them, others were uncomfortable atnot getting through all the work. Agreed theme for next week’s study –Configuration Management.Reflections. Although working as individuals the group has gelled. They arebeginning to take responsibility for the way in which they learn. Could this leadto better ‘learning’? They are researching and reading papers and articles aspresented by the authors. In this session they were led to consider authors’works from an IS point of view. One student displayed a sudden steep increasein understanding why he was reading articles. There was a realisation thatknowledge is about applying other people’s work to your own area.

Session 4 – configuration management. PSR – all had worked hard during the weekand grasped the concept of configuration management (CM). The discussionshowed a surprisingly in-depth understanding of the traditional model of CM.There were expressions of personal dissatisfaction at not managing to read allthe references. The following student quote is interesting: ‘I am spending moretime on this unit than any other option’. This was not said as a complaint, justan honest observation. ‘I wish I spent as much time on all of them.’ When askedwhy they didn’t spend more time on other options the response indicated that

George Allan

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

interest had been inspired by the student-centred delivery method. Agreedtheme for next week’s study – Computer Security.Reflections. The method appears to be working. The students are coming to classprepared, therefore session time can be used in discussions and developing ideasconsolidation and confidence building.

Session 5 – computer security. PSR – the group went straight into discussion of theresearch work they had carried out during the week. There was enthusiasm andkeenness to share what they had read and discovered, with good interaction andlittle need for facilitation. They realise that they have only scratched the surfaceof this topic. Agreed theme for next week’s study – Quality Systems.Reflections. The reserve has gone. They are enthusiastic both with the technicaltopic, the learning method and with the group. They have gained a realisationof how to look for information on their own, which has engendered a keennessto go forward and learn more.

Session 6 – quality systems. The facilitator was absent due to illness and under thetraditional paradigm the session would probably have been cancelled. It isinteresting to observe what the students did in this situation. If nothing, thennothing was lost over the traditional lecturing system; if they had donesomething, anything, then this could be seen as a profit. Five out of the sevenhad progressed; two said that other subjects had needed their attention.Reflections. Does this show that the underlying learning system is working? Hasthe method gone beyond just imparting facts?

Session 7 – a term-paper. PSR – The students had been working individuallydrafting a term-paper on a topic of their choice. A summary of contents waspresented by each author followed by discussion. The issues involved inconstructing and preparing ‘a paper’ were also discussed. Agreed theme for nextweek’s study – Estimating Techniques.Reflections. They felt this had been a valuable experience but needed guidance onhow much time to devote to the activity. This was given by the facilitator in linewith University policy on individual work between lectures.

Session 8 – the final session. PSR – This was the final session with discussion andfavourable comment made on the general structure of the unit. This wasfollowed by data gathering using Kelly’s construct method and quantitativeassessment of the delivery model.Reflections. There were general feelings that the method had been a success inthat they had probably done more hours work on this subject than if taught bydidactic lecture. They had developed an interest in some topics which may nothave happened by merely being told about them. An indicator of success is their‘time spent working’ and ‘interest’.

Analysis of this field work is summarised as follows:

An Experiment in Student-centred Learning

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

� There was initial apprehension at deviating from a traditional lectureapproach. The group appeared to accept the model after session 1 and as theeight sessions proceeded, apprehension gave way to confidence in the SCLmethod.

� The students developed abilities to locate material and read for themselves.From session 4 they were able to search out material unaided.

� Reaction to a limit of one A4 side for a summary of inter-sessional work wasthat this would be insufficient to demonstrate all their findings. It is probablethat the real message was that this small amount of paper could not representthe large amount of work they had carried out.

� Responsibility for learning was demonstrated during and subsequent tosession 6 when five out of seven of the group progressed without direction orfacilitation.

� There was a realisation that knowledge is about applying other people’sthinking to one’s own area.

� The SCL method appeared to inspire student interest in some topics.

Data C – repertory grids

The project management issues which emerged are summarised as follows.There were six instances of a perspective spectrum from whole-project tospecific-parts. ‘PRINCE and other frameworks’ and ‘SDLC’ were regarded at thewhole-project end of the spectrum by all students while at the other end came‘software estimating’ showing these techniques were viewed in isolation fromthe main body of project management. These results concur with student viewsfrom previous traditional deliveries of this material.

Four students had a perspective spectrum from interesting to boring, with‘computer security’ at the interesting end. Five people included a spectrum fromenjoyable to less enjoyable and ranked ‘computer security’ as high. This theme of‘computer security’ was a top selection in both interest and enjoyment spectra, acurious and unexpected result. The past five didactic deliveries of the unit haveincluded ‘computer security’ in traditional lecture format where students havetaken notes and studied handouts in a standard manner. There has not beenprevious indication that this had been found to be an interesting topic. Students’comments reinforced the SCL method as engendering an interest factor in whathave traditionally been considered necessary dry topics.

Low on both spectra was the ‘software estimating’ theme which hadattracted attention as an interesting and participative activity in the past. Could itbe that the SCL method is making some topics more alive than was possible in atraditional lecture? Four students mentioned theory to practice while threeincluded a perspective spectrum from management to operational. Themes of‘SDLC’ and ‘QMS’ were considered theoretical by most but there was a mixtureof feelings about the middle ground.

Six selected a perspective of relevant to irrelevant. Apart from one studentwho had an aversion to software estimating on mathematical grounds, nothingscored below 3. Some people used ranks of 7, 6 and 5 many times over inpreference to lower ranks. Could this indicate a greater student interest in

George Allan

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

project management material, possible instilled and encouraged by the learningmethod?

This data gathering method was felt to be very worthwhile by moststudents. They reported that the exercise made them reflect closely on thethemes covered. This would appear to reinforce a view that the SCL deliverymethod brought a greater awareness of the technical content to students.

Data E – the learning network diagram

The learning network diagram focused the student’s attention on three areas: theSCL method, project management learning, and actual time spent working. Thedata collection part of the diagram is reproduced in Figure 10 with summaryresults.

In a traditional lecture the expectation might be 100% of contact timespent on teaching. These students reported an average expectation from SCL of28% teaching, and 72% learning. The amount of time claimed as spent studyingbetween sessions was higher than their original expectation. The LearningNetwork Diagram showed 3 to 4 hours individual work done between sessions.This may be conservative as the students were reticent about disclosing anyimbalance in the time spent on different options at this stage in their course.They admitted that one side of A4 did not seem much to show for all the effortand work they put in during the week. Could this be their way of bringingattention to the amount of work and effort being expended? (See Figure 10).

All seven students claimed that the model had had a positive influence onlearning. A Poisson distribution was used to test for randomness and foundresults (a), (b) and (c) give value for σ = 1.43 while result (d) gives σ = 1.71which are significantly higher than can be attributed to chance at the 95% level.This suggests that they consider that the model had had an effect on theirlearning.

SCL influenced the way in which six out of seven students workedand learned, they claim in a positive/very positive way and that it willhave a lasting effect on their future work. The time spent working‘out-of-session’ went up from an average of 3 hours to 3.6 hours andthe analysis of this time showed a mean of 38% spent on research,31% on reading, and 17% writing (not listed as high profile activitiesin past cohorts), and 13% on discussion. The increase in time and howthat time was spent indicates a greater responsibility for learning thanpast cohorts who had traditional lectures. This supports a belief thatthis method engenders a better awareness and understanding of ISissues, leading possibly to increased self-confidence in these subjectmatter areas.

An Experiment in Student-centred Learning

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

150mm

Key: -2 = hindrance, -1 = disadvantage, 0 = no effect, 1 = positive effect, 2 = very positive effect

George Allan

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Figure 10. Learning network diagram.

Conclusions

It should be pointed out that this work was a case study, therefore care isneeded in generalising on these results. The main conclusions to be drawn fromthis research are summarised:� Putting students at the centre of interactive learning is more effective than

passive teaching.� There is resistance to and suspicion of any method which deviates from the

traditional lecture paradigm even accepting it as a poor method of teachingfor understanding.

� SCL has a positive influence on learning and engendering a better awarenessand understanding of IS technical issues.

� Students showed a keenness to do individual work, took responsibility fortheir learning which made topics appear more interesting and enjoyable tostudy.

These students were satisfied with the delivery style provided by the SLCmethod. There are many improvements to be made, but it is hoped that theabove evaluation is convincing to the reader that the model did play a part inmaking the learning more active, interesting and enjoyable to the student. Thisevaluation would like to conclude that the SCL method appears to be moresuccessful than a traditional lecturing approach for learning about IS projectmanagement techniques.

Correspondence

George Allan, Department of Information Systems, University of Portsmouth,Portsmouth, Hampshire PO4 8JF, United Kingdom (georgeallan@port.ac.uk).

References

Andresen, L.W. (1994) Lecturing in large groups, SEDA Paper 81. University of NewSouth Wales.

Bates, I. & Rowland, S. (1988) Is student-centred pedagogy ‘progressive’ educationalpractice?, Journal of Further & Higher Education, 12(3), pp. 5–20.

Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D. (1985) What is reflection in learning?, in D. Boud, R.Keogh & D. Walker (Eds) Reflection: turning experience into learning. New York:Nichols Publishing.

Burr, V. (1996) An Introduction to Social Constructivism. New York: Routledge.Candy, P.C. (1990) Repertory grids: playing verbal chess, in J. Mezirow & A.B. Knox

(Eds) Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood, pp. 271–295. California: Jossey-Bass. Cockburn, B. & Ross, A. (1978) Why lecture?, Teaching in Higher Education, 2.Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.Dart, P.C. & Clarke, J.A. (1991) Helping students become better learners, Higher

Education, 22, pp. 317–335.

An Experiment in Student-centred Learning

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Entwistle, N. & Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning. Beckenham: CroomHelm.

Gibbs, G. (1981) Teaching Students to Learn: a student centred approach. Milton Keynes: OpenUniversity Press.

Gibbs, G. (1982) Twenty Terrible Reasons for Lecturing. Oxford Polytechnic Internal Paper.Gibbs, G., Habeshaw, S. & Habeshaw, T. (1983) 53 Interesting Things to do in Your Lectures.

Bristol: Technical Educational Services.Gregory, R. & Thorley, L. (Eds) (1994) Using Group-based Learning in Higher Education,

pp. 11–20. London: Kogan Page. Huxam, C. & Cropper, S. (1994) From many to one – and back. An exploration of some

components of facilitation, Omega International Journal of Management Science, 22,pp. 1–10.

Kelly, G. (1955) The Psychology of Personnel Constructs. New York: Norton. Mezirow, J. (1990) How critical reflection triggers transformative learning, in A.B. Knox

(Ed.) Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood, pp. 1–19. USA: Jossey-Bass.Moust, J.H.C., Schmidt, H.G., De Volder, M.L., Beliën, J.J. & De Grave, W.S. (1987)

Effects of verbal participation in small group discussion, in J.T.E. Richardson, M.W.Eysenck & D.W. Piper (Eds) Student Learning, Research in Education and cognitivePsychology. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education/The OpenUniversity.

Owen, G. (1983) The tutor’s role, in G. Collier (Ed.) The Management of Peer-GroupLearning. Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education.

Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell.Rudduck, J. (1978) Learning Through Small Group Discussion. Guildford: Society for

Research into Higher Education.Rumney, A. (1989) Facilitating learning, in New Directions in Vocational Education.

London: Routledge.Tribe, D. (1994) An overview from higher education, in L. Thorley & R. Gregory (Eds)

Using Group-Based Learning in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.

George Allan

74

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014