Facilitating deep learning in an information systems course through application of curriculum design principles

This paper reports on the incremental improvement of assessment, learning and teaching activities in a large, first-year, undergraduate course. The changes, made over three years, resulted in the implementation of a student-centered (though individual) assessment strategy that included students in developing and applying the assessment criteria themselves. The outcome was a student-centered course design that required students to engage in deep approaches to learning. Using an action research framework, Meyers and Nulty’s (2008) five curriculum design principles for facilitating deep approaches to learning (the development of which was guided by Biggs’ (2003) 3P model) are used to illustrate how the course was incrementally improved to facilitate deep learning approaches. The paper provides an illustration of how others may pursue similar curriculum design improvements adapted for their own contexts. Introduction One of the key challenges facing educators is how to go about imparting skills and knowledge to the students with whom we engage (Ramsden, 2003). This paper is one response to that challenge. Specifically, the paper reports on an action research project that was undertaken in a first-year course with 400+ students per semester over the period 2005-2007. Its aim is to illustrate ways in which assessment can be more effectively integrated into the teaching and learning strategies we use to achieve deep learning outcomes. The course, "Information systems for the services industries", is a compulsory course for students doing business degrees with majors in tourism, leisure, event, hotel, or sport management at Griffith University, Brisbane Australia. What follows shows how action research was used to change the teaching-learning strategy used in this course from a traditional, didactic, transmissive approach, to one embracing student-centered learning, including student negotiated assessment criteria which were then applied by students in producing the subsequent assignments. As will be seen, this shift served to engender deep learning approaches for students and to improve learning outcomes. Extant research literature has recognized differences between surface and deep approaches to learning for some time, and has advocated deep learning approaches yield better learning outcomes (Biggs, 2003; Marton & Säljö, 1976, 1984). Meyers and Nulty (2008) explain: "Students adopting a deep approach to learning characteristically exhibit: an explicit intent to develop their own understanding of material (Biggs, 2003; Entwistle, 1990); knowledge which is highly structured (Biggs & Collis, 1982; Boulton-Lewis, 1998); an ability to apply their own and other's ideas/concepts to new situations (Ramsden, 2003), and; a highly developed integration of knowledge (Biggs, 2003)." (p.3) They go on to summarize many of the characteristics of learning outcomes attained by students who adopt a deep approach to learning, and point out that "these are the kinds of qualities we would like to help our students aspire to and to develop" (p.2). They then advocate five curriculum design principles (presented later in the literature review) which, when applied, importantly recognize the systemic nature of curriculum components (Biggs, 2003). These principles are presented. This is an important point, because the consequences of seeing curriculum components as a system are that effective teaching requires more than “applying general principles of teaching according to rule; those principles need adapting to your own personal strengths and to your teaching context” (Biggs, 2003, p.6). Thus, this paper details processes associated with embedding general principles to a particular context. Particular features and challenges in that context included how to cater for a diverse student body, large-class teaching, and how to leverage (first-year) students’ comparatively limited experiences. In general terms, the research in this paper addresses the question how can improvements be made to courses in ways that engender deep approaches to learning? As such, it is an illustration of one approach. It is intended to act as a guide to other academics wishing to improve teaching and learning in their courses. Literature Review When considering how learning takes place, the surface-deep categorization developed by Marton & Säljö (1976, 1984) resonates throughout much of the teaching and learning literature (Biggs, 2006; Meyers and Nulty, 2008; Ramsden, 2003). It is suggested that learning takes place through knowledge creation, which occurs through students’ learning activities (Biggs, 2003). Students adopt different approaches to their learning. The surface approach to learning is typically associated with the student attempting to meet course requirements through minimal effort (Biggs, 2003). Typically, in surface learning students focus on ‘the signs’, treat ‘parts’ as separate, focus on ‘essentials’, use memorization, do not connect facts and concepts, fail to distinguish principles from examples, do not separate knowledge from everyday activity, and consider tasks as external impositions (Entwhistle & Marton, 1984; Ramsden, 2003). The deep approach to learning, on the other hand, is typically associated with students engaging in tasks appropriately and meaningfully by using higher-order cognitive processes (Biggs, 2003). Generally when using deep approaches to learning students focus on what is signified (i.e. meaning), relate previous knowledge to new knowledge, knowledge from different courses, theoretical ideas to everyday experience, distinguish evidence and argument, as well as organize and structure content into a coherent whole. Additionally, students are driven by an internal motivational emphasis (Entwhistle & Marton, 1984; Ramsden, 2003). Pivotally, Biggs (2003) argues that it is by discouraging surface learning and encouraging deep learning that teaching is improved. Biggs (2003) advocates adopting active methods that engage ‘non-academic’ and/or less motivated students in the use of higher order cognitions. In this respect assessment plays an important role since it drives the range of learning activities in which students engage (Meyers and Nulty, 2008), thereby affecting both what students learn, and how they learn it (Norton, 2004). Biggs' (2003) 3P model of teaching and learning has been widely used to systematically examine teaching and learning (Trigwell & Prosser, 1997). This model considers teaching and learning in terms of presage (characteristics of the student, course and departmental learning context), process (students’ perceptions of context, students’ approaches to learning) and product (students’ learning outcomes). Following Biggs’ (2003) premise of capitalizing on things within our control, Meyers and Nulty (2008) developed five principles to guide curriculum design in order to facilitate deep learning approaches. According to Meyers and Nulty (2008), teaching materials, tasks and experience should all be: 1. authentic, real-world and relevant; 2. constructive, sequential and interlinked; and should: 3. provide a challenge, interest and motivation to learn, 4. align with each other and the desired learning outcomes; 5. require students to use and engage with progressively higher order cognitive processes. The key focus of Meyers and Nulty’s five principles is the creation and use of a system of curriculum components that results in more active learning through studentcentered engagement. Engaging in Student-Centered Teaching Student-centered teaching is where the students take a central role in the educational process (Paraskevas & Wickens, 2003). Such a strategy breaks from the traditional one-way communication model where “it is supposed that knowledge is passed from the learned lecturer to the eager student” (Allan, 1999 p. 60). In studentcentered learning, students become active participants in the learning process and engage in analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and exploration of values and attitudes (Boud, 1995; Boud, Cohen and Sampson, 2001; Sivan et al, 2000). The literature includes many case studies of student-centered strategies being used to increase student engagement. For example: Lozano et al (2003) implemented a student-centered model in their MBA course; Paraskevas & Wickens (2003) implemented a student-centered ‘Socratic’ method, using questioning as a way to utilize their audience's prior experience in the area being studied; and, in part of a series of studies, Orsmond and others successfully used student-derived marking criteria to facilitate active learning (Orsmond, Merry, & Callaghan, 2004; Orsmond, Merry, & Reiling, 2000, 2002). Notably, the Orsmond et al. series were all conducted with first year students in first year courses. Another example is Allan’s (1999) model for student-centered learning, where the teacher takes on a role as a facilitator instead of lecturer and the student becomes the center of the learning process. Allan reported that this interactive learning model had higher effectiveness than a passive teaching model. In particular, although the use of this model increased student workload, it also made study more enjoyable. Enjoying learning activities, rather than seeing them as external impositions is a sign of deep learning (Biggs, 2003). Finally, Boud, Cohen and Sampson (2001) have edited a book about 'peer learning' which includes six chapters presenting case studies as illustrations. Peer learning involves the use of activities in which students help each other to learn – as such it is axiomatic that it is student-centered. Crucial elements in both a deep approach to learning and student-centered learning are students’ prior experience and knowledge. When using a deep approach to learning, students construct knowledge in relation to what they already know (Biggs 2003). Similarly, student-centered approaches use students’ knowledge and experiences as a basis for students becoming partners in determining assessment processes and criteria, teaching methods, and learning outcomes (Prendergast, 1994). It follows that many of the implementations of student-centered learning have been with students possessing prior knowledge from previous studies or workplace experience (e.g. Lozano et al, 2003; Paraskevas & Wickens, 2003; Prendergast, 1994). Indeed, within the literature there are limited examples of student-centered learning where students have little or no knowledge or experiences associated with the course foci. This raises a question about how to use student-centered approaches to study in first year courses where it can be argued that “Students enter a new subject with minimal experience and little knowledge about it” (Parkinson & George, 2003, pp. 1). Nulty (Under consideration) argues that peer and self-assessment (examples of student-centered approaches to learning) are relatively under-used in first year courses. However, he also argues that this is something that should be corrected. Further, extant literature suggests that when student-centered strategies have been attempted in large classes, some educators have encountered difficulties (Scott, Buchanan, Haigh, 1997). Others have questioned the practicalities of implementation (Sparrow, Sparrow & Swan, 2000). Specifically, Sparrow et al. (2000) suggested that student-centered learning may not be practical or possible in classes of over 30 students due to diversity in student backgrounds, experiences and prior knowledge. Scott et al (1997) found that not all students responded positively to student-centered learning. Alternately, positive outcomes have also been reported, albeit that different interpretations of ‘large classes’ exist within these examples. For example, Barkham and Elender (1995) had 54 students, while Prendergast (1994) had over 100 students. These differing interpretations of ‘large’ need to be considered with regard to the positive and negative outcomes reported from studies in which student-centered learning innovations are tried. Further, there are examples where student-centered approaches to learning have yielded demonstrably positive outcomes with unequivocally large classes, notably including some which involved first year students (Rust, Price, & O'Donovan, 2003; van Hattum-Janssen, & Lourenço, 2006). In summary, the literature reviewed above gives rise to three hypotheses. First, that if students adopt a deep approach to learning their learning outcomes will be qualitatively better than if they adopt a surface approach to learning. Second, that a course can be designed to engender deep approach to learning by ensuring its assessment learning and teaching activities are student-centered. Third, that it is possible to evaluate whether a course is likely to engender deep approaches to learning by the application of five curriculum design principles offered by Meyers and Nulty (2009). What follows reports on a process by which improvements were made to a course that were designed to engender deep approaches to learning through greater use of student-centered assessment, learning and teaching activities. The evaluation of these improvements was through application of the curriculum design principles offered by Meyers and Nulty (2009). Method The research method used in this study was action research. Action research is commonly used in education where academics themselves conduct critical inquiry into their own teaching practice (Zuber-Skerritt, 1992). It is an approach that avoids some of the practical and ethical difficulties associated with conducting educational research in a more traditionally experimental way: e.g. by comparing an experimental 'treatment' group with a 'control' group. The specific focus of this paper is to report on three action research cycles that were undertaken in a large, first-year, undergraduate course. Each cycle was designed to promote deep learning approaches through increasingly student-centered approaches to assessment, learning and teaching. For each cycle, the outcomes are presented and compared to Meyers and Nulty’s (2008) five curriculum design principles. The specific action research elements used through the three cycles in this research were: the identification of problems; implementation of a plan to improve practice (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Whyte, 1989); and, monitoring and reflecting (Jennings, 2001). The strengths of action research are the in-depth and first-hand understanding that the researcher obtains (Benbasat et al., 1987), and the concurrent use of both inductive and deductive research processes in a cyclical manner (Perry & Jensen, 2001). The action research in this paper commenced from an inductive perspective. This perspective was based on student responses to assessment and the course's assessment, learning and teaching activities. Deductive perspectives were informed by the five teaching principles which were used to help make improvements to practice in each successive cycle. In using action research, the researcher (Hornby) and co-authors were aware that this method has been criticized for its potential lack of objectivity, and limited generalizability of findings (Benbaset et al., 1987; McKay & Marshall, 2001). To help counter this, this paper details the teaching context to allow readers to consider the findings in light of this context. However, we also argue that the principle purpose of this paper is to illustrate the merit of both an approach to course improvement, and the potential adoption of comparable methods. For any who follow in our footsteps, the use of action research will help to ensure that any use of the specific methods reported here are adapted to the contexts in which they are applied. As such, our perspective is that the method is intrinsically strong, ensuring that due attention is paid to Biggs' caution reported earlier (Biggs, 2003). An important part of action research is that evaluation takes place. In this study evaluation involved critical reflection and comparison to teaching principles in the extant literature. Critical reflection was associated with consideration of the nature and quality of students' assignments, classroom interactions, student evaluation responses, and the reflections of tutoring staff. Both informal and formal evaluation was undertaken with students and this furthered the researcher’s critical reflections. Implementation The Context The course, “Information Systems in the Services Industries”, is taught to undergraduate students studying tourism, leisure, hotel, event or sport management in their first semester of study. It is delivered to two geographically distant campuses. This course was first offered in 2005 (being developed through the merger of two previously existing courses), with the explicit aim of technologically enabling students by teaching them how to use word processing and spreadsheet software, while simultaneously covering theory about the role of technology in the different industries. Each week, the lecturer delivered a two hour lecture at each of the two campuses. These lectures focused on the theoretical components of the course. Each student also attended one hour weekly tutorial/computer laboratory sessions. These focused on the development of practical skills. Each session had between 20-25 students and was led by the lecturer and numerous sessional tutors. This original course was the target of the first action research cycle. The majority of students taking this course were school-leavers, aged 17-19 years old and undertaking their first semester of tertiary study. Course enrolments across the three years of this study make this a large course – minimum combined enrolments always in excess of 400 students. Details are shown in Table 1. Each student cohort was a mix of domestic and international students, though in different proportions. As summarized in table 1, the percentage of international students at campus A was between 15-18%, with the exception of the second semester offering in 2007, which was 33.4%. Campus B varied from a high of 16.5% in 2006 to a low of 4.4% in 2007. The majority of international students were of Asian origin, mainly Chinese and South Korean.