DEVELOPING AN ANDRAGOGYMODEL FOR ISIIT EDUCATION

William R. KingUniversity ofPittsburgh

Yogesh MalhotraSyracuse University

ABSTRACT

The existing pedagogy model that is used in much of formal education is argued to be inferior to a "mix" of pedagogyand andragogy on the basis of extant learning theories. A set of propositions, which may be thought of either asprescriptions or as the bases for hypotheses to be empirically tested, are derived from six principles that reflect theevolution oflearning theories. A "portfolio" ofeducational nrthodologies is presented to illustrate how the andragogymodel can complement the pedagogy model in IS/IT education.

ISIIT practitioners are prototypical ofthose for whom thehalf-life of ideas, systems and solutions is ever declining,Much that is learned during their formal educationrapidly becomes obsolete (Dansereau, 1978). Sincemany ISIIT academic programs adopt a "teaching"perspective rather than a "learning" perspective. thereappears to be systemic deficiencies in current educationalpractices thatexacerbate these problemsofobsolescence.Academics are certainly aware of this issue (Ireland etal., 1993). Some of them (e.g, Ives & Rubin, 1993;Trauth et aI., 1993) have attempted to address it indiscipline-specific contexts, but little attention has beengiven to the learning needs of people who operate in theISIIT context, to assessments of the basic assumptionsunderlying current ISIIT pedagogy, and to developingnew practical models of ISIIT education that are basedon extant learning theories.

THE LEARNING NEEDS OFISIIT PRACTITIONERS

Much is known, or can be reliably projected, about thechanging demands that are being faced by post-industrialorganizations (Davidow and Malone, 1992; Drucker,1993; Huber, 1984). Central to these changing demandsis the dramatically increased volume and significance ofinformation and knowledge that results from increasinglyturbulent environments and the increased pace of

Volume 3, Number1

business activities. ISIIT practitioners in these organi­zations must create technology-enabled processes thatfacilitate sophisticated decision-making and rapidinnovation. Decision making and innovation in theseorganizations will not emphasize "uniform procedures,objective measures ofperformance, and center/peripherysystems of control," but rather "flexible procedures,differentiated responses, qualitative appreciation ofcomplex processes, and decentralized responsibility forjudgement and action" (Schon, 1983: 338). A model offormal education which is better snited to these neworganizational environments than is the current model ofIS/IT education could reduce the dissonance betweenformal education and the needs of the workplace(Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

ANDRAGOGY VERSUS PEDAGOGY

One such educational model that may better meet theneeds of modem IS/IT practitioners is that of andragogy.The andragogy model for education is antithetical to thetraditional pedagogical model. "Pedagogy," derivedfrom Greek paid- (meaning "child") and agogos(meaning "leading") means the art and science ofteaching children. Andragogy, derived from Greek andr­meaning man, implies "the art of science of helpingadults learn" (Knowles, 1984: 6). The two models arebased on different assumptions about the role of learners

1

and the role ofeducators in the education process. TableI shows the differences between the pedagogy andandragogy models (based on Knowles, 1984: 1-21) interms of the concept of the learner, the role of thelearner's experience, and the learner's readiness,orientation and motivation. Generally, the andragogymodel assumes more of the learner and places moreresponsibility for learning on the learner than on theteacher.

Clearly, a wholesale adoption ofthe andragogyparadigmpresumes a mature adult learner-an assumption thatmight not be valid at the undergraduate level. Therefore,

. the argrunent made here may be taken to apply primarilyto the graduate level where most students are moreexperienced and more mature. At all levels, some "mix"ofandragogy and pedagogy is undoubtedly the practicalsolution. However, since much of formal education isbased 00 the pedagogy model, educators should assess

andragogy for the benefits that it can bring at both thegraduate and undergraduate levels.

THEORETICAL BASES FOR A NEWAPPROACH TO ISIIT EDUCATION

Knowledge about evolving human learning theories mustbe understood and addressed if an effective newparadigm for IS education is to be developed. Learningtheories focus on learning as a process. A frameworksuggested by Merriam and Caffarella (1991: 121-139) ishelpful in comparing various theories, their assumptionsabout the nature of learning and the relative effectivenessof various strategies for enhancing learning. Thisframework identifies four broad "orientations" tolearning: behaviorist, cognitivist, humanist, and sociallearning. Table 2 summarizes the key ideas of these fourorientations and those ideas that may be adopted fromeach to develop a new learning paradigm for ISIIT.

2

TABLEtCONTRASTING THE ASSUMPTIONS:PEDAGOGY VERSUS ANDRAGOGY

(BASED ON KNOWLES, t984)

PEDAGOGY ANDRAGOGYThe Concept of Learner is dependent on the teacher who Learner is self-directing. In fact, the

the Learner decides what should be learned, how and psychological definition of 'adult' iswhen it should be learned, and whether it "One who has arrived at a self-concepthas been learned of being responsible for one's own life,

of beina self-directinz."The Role ofthe Learners enter the educational activity The volume and quality of the learner's

Leamer's with little prior experience that is ofmuch experience is increasingly a source ofExperience value as a resource for learning. their self-identity and is a rich resource

for Iearninz,The Learner's Readiness is a function of age and Readin~stolearnisafunctionofaneed

Readiness to advancement to the next grade level. to know or do something in order toLearn perform effectively in some aspect of

their lives.The Learner's Subject-centered orientation to learning; Life-centered, task-centered, or problem-Orientatinn to learning as a process of acquiring centered orientation to learning.

Learning prescribed snhject matter content. Importance of organizing learningexperiences (the curriculum) around lifesituations rather than according tosubiect matter units.

The Learner's Motivation from external pressures from Internal motivators-self-esteem,Motivatinn to parents and teachers, competition for recognition, better quality of life, greater

Learn grades, the consequence of failure, etc. self-confidence, etc. are more potent thanexternal motivators.

Journal ofInformatics Education and Research

TABLE 2LEARNING ORIENTATIONS

Representative Applicability to ISKey Ideas References Andrologieal

Education• Focus on behavior as Guthrie 1939,1940;Hull, 1943; • Readiness ofstudentto

product of learning Skinner, 1938; Thorndike, excel.• Stimulus-response (SR) 1965; Watson, 1930; Tohnan, • "Drive" related to the

with stimuli from 1967 degree to whichenvironment student can take

• Law of effect advantage of andra-

Behaviorist • Law of readiness gogy• Frequency • Cognition requires that• Recency students learn about

· Drive environment and• Expectancy develop a cogni-tive• Cognition map

• Learning as a cog-nitive Bode, 1929; Hergenhabn, 1988; • Focus on complexphenomenon Piaget, 1970 realities.

• Focus on "wholes," or • Student"comes to see"Gestalt

gestalts cognitive1y after(cognitive)exploring alternatives

• Information processaooroaches to learninz

• Human growth and Knowles, 1980; Merriam and • Self directedness ofdevelopment Caffarella, 1991; Maslow, 1970 adults in pursuing

• Behavior as a conse- learningHumanistquence of human choice • Value ofexperience in

• Self actualization learning• Focus on social settingin Bandura, 1986; Hergenhabn, • Importance of social

which learning occurs 1988 groups in learning• Learning from obser- • Use of vicarious bases

vatian for observing otherSocial • Visualization of conse- people, their behaviorLearning quences and conse-quences

• Attention-retention-rehearsal-mati vationcvcle

APPLYING THE LEARNINGTHEORIES TO ISIIT EDUCATION

The behaviorist view of learning is directly applicable torepetitive situations in which there is not much variationin the response required by the environment. Clearly, the

Volume 3. Number 1

post-industrial organization reqnires a wide range ofdifferentiated responses to stimuli. Nonetheless, thebehaviorist orientation is important because it underliesmuch of current educational practice in which theeducator's role is to design an environment that evokesdesired behavior and which suppresses undesired

3

behavior. From this behaviorist foundation emanatepractices such as the systematic design of instruction,behavioral objectives, the concept of the instructor'saccountability for learning, programmed instruction,competency-based education, etc. (Merriam andCaffarella,1991: 128). Vocational and skills training inwhich the learning activity is broken down into severaltasks with each task having one 'correct response' is alsobased on this orientation (Cross 1981: 233). Since someamount of skills training is appropriate in ISIITeducation-such as learning representative software-awholesale rejection of this view is not warranted.However, it is more appropriate at lower levels ofeducation than at levels at which learners are preparingto enter real-world organizations.

The Gestalt view is more directly appropriate to the post­industrial context in its focus on the individual as thelocus of control over learning. This suggests thatindividuals must be the focus of learning, withorganizational systems enabling improved or fasterlearning by individuals. The Gestalt emphasis on"wholes" [such as complex realities and integratedprocess-technology contexts] rather then "parts" [such asabstract models or specific software or technologies]suggests the appropriate design of contexts foraddressing learning needs.

The humanistic approach contributes to a new learningapproach through Maslow's (1970) viewofmotivation interms of "self-actualization." Self-actualizationrepresents a person's desire to be all that he or she iscapable ofbecoming. Themotivation to learn is intrinsicto the learner, and self-actualization is the primary goalof learning. Ifan organization is to operate successfully,the "organization" (i.e., its systems, procedures. etc.)carmot be responsible for learning; the self-actualizationbasis of individual motivation is essential.

The social learning perspective, with its accounting forthe learner, the behavior and the environment, can alsocontribute to better ISIIT education. The notions that theindividual's behavior is a function of anenvironmentalinteraction and thatbehavior influences theenvironmentcan be considered to be a central precept of the learningorganization (Bandura, 1986; Senge, 1990; King, 1996).

PRINCIPLES FOR A NEW MODELFOR ISIIT EDUCATION

The foundation for a new model of IS education maybe sununed up in six principles:

4

replacing the learning assumptions of pedagogy withthe assumptions of andragogy,

• incorporating the interplay between the environment of"practice" and that of "theory and research" intoformal education,

• developing a learning approach that cycles betweencomplex reality and abstraction,adopting a holistic viewpoint rather than multiplecompartmentalized foci,focusing on critical thinking skills and "information &knowledge literacy,"

• focusing on "learning how to learn."

The Assumptions of Andragogy

Knowles' (1980, 1984) andragogy model of learningviews the learner as a "mutual partner" in diagnosinglearning needs, formulating objectives, designing apattern of learning experiences and evaluating results.This model suggests that the learning group should besmall enough so that all participants are involved inplanning all phases of the learning activity. The primaryrole of the educator is that ofa facilitator and coordinatorof the learning process. In contrast, in learning modesthat are primarily educator-directed, teachers display theproducts of their own learning skills in the form of"arguments and interpretations they present in lecturesand discussions." In learner-directed modes, educatorsshare the" ...process by which... [they] interrogate texts,compare different interpretations of phenomena ... ordiscover patterns in seemingly chaotic evidence"(Kurfiss, 1988: 3-4).

The Interplay Between Management Practice andManagement Theory and Research

There are two important "knowledge environments"within which ISIIT education exists and of which ISIITeducators must be continuously cognizant. Theseenvironments are"practice" and "theory and research."Practice reflects the body of knowledge that has beenaccumulated based on the experience of practitioners.This knowledge is embedded in the minds of individualsand in business processes and practice. Its artifacts are"best practice" repositories. practitioner-authoredmanagement books, benchmarking studies, practitionerjournal articles and other forms of explicit knowledgeinto which previously-tacit practitioner knowledge hasbeen transformed. Theory and research is knowledgethat is deve.loped through the creation and testing oftheories and through empirical research. It is madeavailable in textbooks and as articles inresearchjournals.

Journal ofInformatics Education and Research

The interaction between practice and theory and researchis of great importance in IS/IT edncation. Practiceincorporates the results of research and theory just astheories are developed, modified and tested based on theresults achieved by practitioners (Drucker, 1994). Thisinterplay between the two environments must beincorporated into IS/IT education ifonly because it existsin the real-world in which students will need to operate.However, this interplay has also been argued to be themost effective way of educating professionals (Trauth et.aI., 1993). If ISIIT education were to be conducted inisolation from these two interacting environments, itwould be sterile and ineffective.

The Complexity-Abstraction Cycle

Despite the pervasive view that regards "managingcomplexity" (Schon, 1983: 141) as the scarce skill inpost-industrial organizations, most pedagogicalapproaches initially focus on abstractions ofreality. Theassumption is that reality is too complex to be the focusof attention, so that one must first understand abstractmodels and their application to "nominal" problemsbefore one is prepared to cope with the complexity ofreal-world problems.

There is ample evidence that an approach which firstintroduces problems and issues in the contextofcomplexreality, then proceeds through abstraction, and then seeksto apply abstract solutions to complex reality is superiorto one which begins with abstractions which, in practice,may ignore or de-emphasize the complexities of real­world implementation (Diggory, 1972; Jantsch, 1973).An initial focus on the exploration of complex realisticissues, problems or situations can provide the motivationfor learning as well as the context for identifying relevanttheories, abstract models, and datasets. Ausubel (1967:222) suggests that learning is meaningful only when itcan be related to concepts which already exist in aperson's cognitive structure; newknowledge isprocessedby the learner "only to the extent that more inclusive andappropriately relevant concepts are already available inthe cognitive structure to serve a subsuming role or toprovide definitional anchorage."

A learning approach that cycles from complexity [toprovide a familiar context and a motivation to learn], toabstraction [to afford study of the theories, models anddata that may be useful], and back to complexity [tomodify the abstractions in the light of real-worldcomplexity and implementation issues] is also based onthe idea that "a kind of knowing is inherent in intelligentaction" (Schon, 1983: 50). Schon emphasized thesignificanceof"reflection-in-action" as"central totheart

Volume 3, Number 1

by which practitioners sometimes deal with situations ofuncertainty, instability, uniqueness, andvalue conflict."Such a process is characterized by thinking about what isbeing done, how well it is working and how it fits in the'bigger scheme of things;" while assessing why it isbeing done and what other alternatives are possible.Underscoring the intimate relationship between learningand action, Argyris (1993) offers three reasons for thislinkage: (a) the context-sensitive nature oflearning, (b)the dynamically changing nature of the contexts, and (c)the formulation of policies and routines [based onprevious learning] to guide further action. As observedby Schon (1983: 338), "Reflection-in-action tends tosurface not only the assumptions and techniques but thevalues and purposes embedded in organizationalknowledge. "

A Holistic Viewpoint Versus Mnltiple Compart­mentalized Foci

Ackoff (1979) suggests that "Managers are notconfronted with problems that are independent of eachother, but with dynamic situations that consist ofchanging problems that interact with eachother. ..managers do not solve problems: they managemesses." Churchman (1994) criticizes the discipline­bound focus that is endemic to most curricula byobserving that "the current division ofhuman knowledgeinto disciplines in managerially 'stupid' and 'blocks off'inquiry into critical issues because the issues don't fitinto the disciplines."

Learning may be potentially enhanced if it is conducted,at least in part, in terms ofa holistic approach that allowsfor interdisciplinary analysis and for the application ofmodels and theories from various disciplines. This iscomplementary to the previous point dealing with thecomplexity-abstraction cycle in that introducing issuesthat are reflective of the real-world motivates learners toconsider options rather than prematurely "homing in" onthe theory or approach that is provided by a singlediscipline. Learners that do not find the availabletheories and techniques to be adequate to deal with anissue will be motivated to search for new options ratherthan to distort the issue to fit the 'tools' that are currentlyavailable to them.

Senge (1990) describes the process ofholistic thinking as'the art of seeing the forest and the trees'. He suggeststhat the art of systems thinking lies in seeing throughcomplexity to the underlying structures generating.change. Rather than ignoring complexity, the emphasisof this approach is on organizing complexity into a'coherent story' to illuminate the causes ofproblems and

5

developing enduring remedies to such problems.Learning may be enhanced Ibrough this approach even incontexts that are much simpler than those pertaiuing tocomplex issues. This appears to be the case even inlearning new software or computer applications:

One cauuot understand a technology withouthaving a functional understanding of how it isused. Furthermore, that uuderstanding mustincorporate a holistic view of the network oftechnologies and activities into which it fits,rather then treating the technological devices inisolation (Winograd and Flores, 1986).

Critical Thinking and Information Literacy

Critical thinking applies to " ...questions that carmot beanswered defiuitely and for which all the relevantinformation may not be available." It is "... aninvestigation whose purpose is to explore a situation,phenomenon, question or problem to arrive at ahypothesis or conclusion about it that iutegrates all

. available information... " (Kurfiss, 1988: 1-2). Criticalthinking has two general components: reflective andanalytical. The reflective component is characterized bythe process of "reflection-in-action;" the analyticalcomponent underscores the ability to do very complexreasouing by thinking from diverse perspectives.

Critical thinking may be contrasted with rote learuing inthe role played by factual information or knowledge.Rote learuing focuses on knowledge of facts, whereascritical thinking de-emphasizes facts and insteadaccentuates "information and knowledge literacy"-theability to recoguize an information or knowledge needand then to locate, evaluate and effectively use theneeded informationlknowledge.

Despite the close relationship between informationliteracy andinformation resources suchas computerizedsystems, our current easy access to information maysometimes represent a double-edged sword. As abyproduct of the easy availability of information,practitioners may encounter the problem of too muchinformation rather than too little information. Often, thechallenge lies in being able to identify "what is importantand what is not important, what variables to focus on andwhich to pay less attention to..." (Senge, 1990: 128).Uuderscoring the relationship between informationliteracy and lifetime learuing, the American LibraryAssociation Presidential Comruittee ou InformationLiteracy observed that:

6

Ultimately,information-literatepeople are thosewho have learned how to learn. They knowhow to learn because they know howknowledge is orgauized, how to findinformation, and howto useinformation insucha way that others can learn from them. Theyare people prepared for lifelong learuing,because they can always find the informationneeded for any task or decision at hand (1989).

Learning How to Learn

Bruner (1965) and Gagne and Briggs (1979) mergedlearuing theory with theories of instruction to uuite whatis known about learuing with the best way to facilitate itsoccurrence. Bruner (1965) emphasizes learning Ibroughdiscoverywhichhe defines as: "amatter of rearrangingor transforming evidence in such a way that one isenabled to go beyond the evidence so reassembled toadditional new insights." Gagne and Briggs (1979) havelinked the acquisition and processing of knowledge interms of the "learning how to learn" concept, which hasbeen defined by Smith (1982) as involving, "possessingor acquiring, the knowledge and skill to learn effectivelyin whatever learning situation one encounters."

Riegel (1973, 1976), Kramer (1983), and Labouvie-Vief(1980), have proposed types of thought processes thatmay operate in concert with (or be more advanced than)the formal system of logical thought proposed by Piaget(1970). Two themes from this work are the dialectic andrelativistic natore ofthought. Dialectic thought explainsthe contradictory nature of human thought and action.Whereas ''formal operational thinking" involves theeffort to find fundameutal fixed realities-"basicelements and immutable laws"-dialectical thinking"attempts to describe fundamental processes of changeand the dynamic relationships Ibrough which changeoccurs" (Basseches, 1984). Relativistic thought impliesa shift from viewing knowledge in dualistic terms [aseither right or wrong] to an acceptance of the notion thatthe context of knowledge is as important as theknowledge itself.

Within the broad spectrum ofthe transition from Piaget's(1970) formal logical thought to more complex notionsof learuing, the learner's perception of the role of theinstructor changes from authority figure to that ofexpertand guide. Learners at the "higher end" ofthe continuumview knowledge in a contextual sense, search forrelationships between ideas and view instructors asfacilitators of this process.

Journal ofInformatics Education and Research

OPERATIONALIZINGTHEANDRAGOGY MODEL

This perception of the educator-learner relationship canbe operationaiized using Rogers' (1983) notion thatsignificant learning leading to personal development hasfive characteristics.

I. Personal involvement-the affective and thecognitive aspects of a person should be involved inthe learning event.

2. Self-initiated-a sense of discoverymustcome fromwithin.

3. Pervasive-the learning makes a difference in thebehavior, the attitudes, perhaps even thepersonality, of the learner.

4. Evaluated by the learner-the learner can bestdetermine whether theexperienceis meeting a need.

5. Essence is meaning-when experiential learningtakes place, its meaning to the learner becomesincorporated into the totalexperience.

The challenge in operationalizing an educational modelbased on these principles may be thought of as one ofdesigning a "learning society" in which "there is anatural tendency for people to learn and ... (inwhich).. .learning will flourish ifnourishing,encouragingenvironments are provided" (Cross, 1981:229).

Propositions for Operationalizing the AndragogyModel

Various approaches have been created and used in ISIIT 'to meet some of the requirements of the andragogylearning paradigm. These approaches are based on thepremise that the closer learners are to the real-lifesituations, the more likely it is that they will develop theabilities needed outside the classroom (Marsick, 1990:244). The value of such 'experiential' learning lies in itsproviding learners with "freedom to make judgements,and' responsibility for the consequences of choice andaction" (Marienau and Chickering, 1982). They are alsobased on the general premise that experience plays asignificant role in learning and can facilitate the ability tolearn in a self-directed fashion:

This is encouraged by the opportunity to seereal consequences of one's, actions, to feel theexhilaration of success as well as the frustrationof failure... adults can develop functional skills

Volume 3, Number1

and attitudes necessary for effective adult life.These includeskillsof interpersonalinteraction,group processing, intracultural communication,coping with ambiguity... or judgement incomplex situations." (Gilley, 1990: 261).

Based on Rogers' (1983) characteristics, a number ofpropositions for improved IS/IT learning have beenidentified. These propositions may be taken to beprescriptive, but they may also serve as the bases fordeveloping testablehypothesesfor those whodesire to doresearch concerning IS/IT learning.

• Theory and practice must interact in any effectivelearning context. Theory is understood best in thecontext of practice and practice can only be trulyunderstood in relationship to theory (Raelin, 1993).

• IS/IT students must understand technology,business, and their interactions (Bongiorno,1993).This was identified as the most important humanresource issue of the 19908 in a survey of seniorbusiness managers (Mallach, 1989).

• Cross-functional interdisciplinary learningexperiences, environmental contexts andanalyticalframeworks are superior to simple abstractunidimensional approaches (Emmett, 1992; Reeve,1992).

There is a need for the active involvement ofstudents in issue and problem formulation ratherthan merely in problem solving. The formulation ofproblems and issues and the generation ofalternatives is an inherently creativeprocess whileproblem solution is primarily an analytic one. Manyeducational programs have tended to focus on theleft half of the brain, which is analytic and processesinformation in a serial fashion, and to focus less onthe right side, which is holistic and processesinformation in a parallel fashion (Runge, 1994).

• "Action learning" that deals with complex realissues (Prideaux, 1992;Wills, 1993) can effectivelycomplementmore traditional classroom approaches.

• There is a need to "break loose" from theneoclassical economics paradigm to incorporate"things that are not easy to measure" such asquality, customer satisfaction, and employee moraleinto the thinking of students (Kaplan & Norton,1996; Lataif, 1992).

7

• The process of learning is at least as important as thesnbstance that is taught. "The answer is for businessschools to worry less about what is taught and moreabout how they teach" (Economist, 1991; 13-14).

• Oral and written communication skills should bemade a routine part of everyday learning (Gross,1993; Currid,1993; Down & Liedtka, 1994).

Illustrative Learning Methods

Learning methodologies that have proved to be useful forbegirming to operationalize the andragogy model basedon these propositions are described below. (All of thesemethods have been used by one or both of the authors).A 'portfolio' of such approaches might constitute a wayto begin an experiment with the andragogy model forIS/IT education.

I. Self-organizing self-directed teams2. Multidisciplinary team projects in industty3. Focused monitored internships in industry4. Scenario plarming5. Issue analysis6. Strategic assumption analysis7. Computerized simulations8. Non-computerized simulations9. Complex interactive cases10. Knowledge management systems11. Student-led courses

Self-Organizing Self-DirectedTeams. In theMBA-MSin MIS "double degree" program at the Katz GraduateSchool of Business at the University of Pittsburgh,entering students are given a four-day intensiveworkshop related to teams, teamwork and team-building.The workshop includes having the students organize intotemporary teams on several occasionsto experience thebenefits and costs of various approaches. Then, at theend of the workshop, they organize themselves into 12­person teams that will remain intact for nearly a year.The tearns must decide how they will operate andorganize their work in a variety of projects that they areassigned. invarious required courses. Eachteam memberreceives the team grade in these projects. Some tearnsdecide to pursue other functions and activities aswell-s-study groups, social events, team projects in non­team oriented courses, etc. Each team also sends arepresentative to serve on a central body that meets withvarious faculty to assess problems and progress as wellas to exchangeinformation concerning "best practices"among teams. In this way, teams can learn from theexperience of others, thus facilitating sharing of ideasacross various groups and individuals. The result is a

8

learning experience that variesgreatly from team to team,since a small proportion of teams have great difficulty,while some truly become 'learning organizations.'Although this team-based approach is relatively new andonly partially evaluated, it is believed to be a majorcontributor to student learning (Kilmann, 1996).

Multidisciplinary Team Projects in Industry. Variousschools have used multidisciplinary team projects asdevices for operationalizing some of the precepts ofandragogy. Real-world problems are assigned bybusiness firms and teams are selected from amongvolunteer students. In this instance, teams are typicallyneither totally self-organizing, nor totally self-directed.As such, this team project method fits nicely with theself-organizing teams discussed above.since it servestogive the students a range of different team experiences.Typically, instructors first assess a real-world project orproblem and then organize multidisciplinary tearns toreflect the mix of skills and backgrounds that appear tobe needed in order to address it. Instructors reviewprogress with teams, sit in on project reports to thesponsoring firms and generally act as advisors to theteam about both content and process issues. Generally,theseprojects constitute a course or courseelement forwhich a grade is given. The grade is usually based on theinstructor's assessment of individual and teamperformance as well as on the c1ient-company'sevaluation of the project. These project courses aregenerally considered to be valuable by everyone, but ofcourse, their use must be limited and focused. Typically,many more students volunteer than can be utilized.

Focused Monitored Internships in Industry.Internships are 3-4 monthperiods that individual studentsspend in industty. Although, the term is widely appliedto "summer jobs" undertaken in the midst of a degreeprogram, here we refer to highly-focused c1osely­monitored projects that are conducted by individualstudents in a business setting for academic credit. Afaculty advisor provides guidance and advice andmaintains contact with the client firm. This sort ofinternship is much like a thesis project since it requiresthe formulation and solution of a real-world problem aswell as the production of oral and written reports on theproject. The context of these reports must includeidentification of the "academic" material that wasconsidered and/or used-tools, techniques, theories,concepts, etc.-as well as an evaluation of theirapplicability, relevance and utility.

Scenario Planning. In scenario planning, students,working in teams, create scenarios for assessingalternative paths for the evolution of a situation, a

Journal ofInformatics Education and Research

technology, or a contemplated action-for example, acompany going into a new business or expandinginternationally in its currentbusiness (Bloom& Menefee,1994; Tenaglia & Noonan, 1992). A scenario is " ... ascript-like characterization of a possible future presentedin considerable detail, with special emphasis on causalconnections, internal consistency and concreteness"(Schoemaker, 1991:549-550). Scenariosare widely usedin business planning to describe a range of alternativepaths for the evolution of a complex interacting set offactors. Often, four scenarios are employed to depict thedynamics of the evolutionary paths, but as few as two-a"best" and "worst" case-s-can be useful to portray thereasonable range of uncertainty that may be associatedwith an activity of interest. The purpose of scenarios isto depict reasonable alternative paths under variousassumptions concerning the factors that may influencethe development of the focal activity, the relativeimportance of various factors, the reactions of variousstakeholders who can influence its development, themajor uncertainties that are involved, and the concepts,data, analyses, frameworks and theories that may beuseful.

Issue Analysis. The focus of issue analysis is neither avalidated theory, which academics would often prefer tobe the basis for learning, nor a currently useful practice,which the practitioner would often prefer. Rather, "anissue is an evolving state, the reality and importance ofwhich is widely accepted, but whose specificmanifestations and timing are subject to dispute byreasonable people" (King, 1982). For instance, an issuemight be "the impact of new information technologies onsociety in thenew millennium." Everyone realizes thatthis impact will be significant, but the specifics of howchanges will evolve, which areas they will impact, whatother changes they will induce, etc., are open toargument. Using scenarios, the evaluation of such issuescan be usefully explored without the need to predict thespecific technological innovationsthat maydrive change.

Strategic Assumption Analysis. SAA was introducedby Mitroff, et al: (1979) as an extension of DialecticInquiry (D!), which is based on the assumption that thepaceofbusinessoftenforcesmanagers tomakedecisionsbefore all desired data can be collected (Churchman,1971; Mason, 1969). DI is an adversarial problem­forming methodology which is especially suited totreating ill-structured and/or difficult-to-define issues.Participants in an SAA exercise establish at least twovery different (antithetical) and maximally challengingviews so that everything that one view takes for grantedas a basic and reasonable assumption, the other intenselychallenges. The intent is to assist the participants in

Volume 3, Number1

understanding of the role of underlying assumptions inthe problem definition (Mulligan, et al., 1996).

Computerized Simulations. Simulations have beendeveloped to enable the participants to gain decision­making experience in a risk-free environment. Businesssimulation games allow for learning in various areas,ranging from goal setting, to strategy formulation todecision making. They also facilitate the learning ofvarious abstract models and analytical techniques in aninteractive, collaborative, quick-feedback, risk-neutralenvironment (Faria& Dickinson, 1994). With increasinguse of multimedia technologies that can integrate text,graphics, video and sound, these games are now beingcreated as self-contained comprehensive vehiclesneeding little or no instructor intervention (Ives andJarvenpaa, 1996).

Non-Computerized Simulations. In simulations of thisvariety, enabling and supportive computer software maybe used, but a simulated "world" does not exist withinthe computer. Rather, students are asked to pursue goals,perform tasks, etc. while communicating with otherindividuals and teams using software such as LotusNotes. Instructors establish the simulated situation andguide and control the evaluation of the process byproviding suggestions and responding to needs fortheories, concepts, or techniques as they arise throughreferences, lectures, written materials ordemonstrations.Help may be provided in the form of "hints" if specificuseful data are not requested. In this way, experientiallearning is complemented with traditional delivery ofinformation and knowledge.

Complex Interactive Cases. Cases have been used inbusiness education for decades. However, complexinteractive cases entail more data than could ever beuseful in addressing a situation. As such, they simulatethe real world of infinite irrelevant data and test thestudents information literacy-theability to identify,findand use relevant data, theories and models. Somemultimedia cases have been developed which allowstudents to be active participants in the data collectionprocess. For example, to select individuals to be"interviewed" and to see and hear video clips of theirviews on various subjects-as well as to seek data inother forms (Upton & Seet, 1997). This processsimulates the task of a consultant who enters anorganization and must speak with various individuals,gather data and otherwise seek information in order toidentify a problem or diagnose a situation. The majordifferences between these cases and traditional ones is:(a) the wealth of available data (b) their interactive natureand (c) the fact that data are not presented as a predefmed

9

whole; rather students must use information literacyskills to identify data that may be relevant.

Knowledge Management Systems. Knowledgemanagement (KM) systems have potential for use inISIIT education. The "core" of knowledge managementfocuses on the explication, capture and dissemination oftacit knowledge that exists in the minds of people orwhich is embedded in organizational processes (King,1999). While such systems are primarily developed inbusiness contexts. experiments areunderway forcreatingthem in educational situations. Knowledge may then betransferred from advanced students to novice students aswell as from faculty to students. An "organizationalmemory" may be created for the ever-changing body ofstudents who are enrolled in a particular program.Students might thereby use the KM system to accessknowledge generated by students who have graduatedand moved on to other organizations as well asknowledge created by still-active students with whomthey are not directly involved.

Student-Led Courses. Some courses may be offered ina manner in which groups of students play the traditionalrole of the instructor in that they make the presentationsof course topics. Student groups are challenged toperform sufficient research to deliver a lecture on atopic. The iostructor plays the role of advisor andfacilitator. Other students are encouraged to askquestions and to give their own views on the topic. Theinstructor can also ask questions, give hislher point ofview and summarize at the end of the discussion period.This approach may not work well in highly-technicalareas. However, in courses dealing with topics of whichpeople are widely aware, but which they have notthoroughly studied-such as the learning organization,quality, continuous improvement, etc.-this approachcan be valuable in eliciting diverse viewpoints and inclarifying different prior perceptions.

EVALUATING PEDAGOGY AND ANDRAGOGY

While many business schools have adopted student teamsin one or more ofthe formats described above, generallythis has been done to directly meet the wishes of industrywhere such skills are in great demand. Unfortunately,this variety of motivation may make teamwork merelypart ofthe "content" ofmanagement education. It can beargued that businesses implicitly understand thatteamwork leads to improved learning and to the creationof learning organizatious, so that teamwork is not just afad currently being promoted in business firms.However, the elements of tearns and teamwork that aretreated here are not merely responses to the requirements

10

of business firms. Rather, tearns and teamwork areconsequences of the application of learning theories, sothat whether ornotteams remain infavorinbusiness, thevalue of teams in education will continue.

Many skeptics who are devoted to the traditional "sageon a stage" teaching approach, evaluate the approachesdescribed above as emphasizing process over content.As a result, they tend to believe that there is so muchcontent that needs to be mastered that such emphasis onprocess results in an inefficient learning experience.Andragogy approaches do emphasize process to a greaterdegree than do traditional methods, and in some waysthey may be relatively inefficient. One is not assured tobe mastering specific explicit knowledge when acomplex situation is being assessed and a problem isbeing formulated and solved. Such a process may beinefficient, especially as compared to the traditionalapproach of studying the abstractions which formknowledge structures and for which testing andevaluation can be readily performed. However, it can beargued that since one can never transmit sufficientknowledge, trade-offs between processes aimed at"learning how to learn' versus the transmission ofincremental factual knowledge will always favor theandragogy approach. Of course, this has not beenempirically verified, so that there is a real need tocomparatively evaluate traditional learning approachesversus those of andragogy.

The primary issues to be dealt with in comparing the twoapproaches are:

i. Are students motivated to learn to a greater degreethrough the andragogy approach?

ii. If so, do they therefore learn more efficiently?iii. Does the andragogy approach produce more

effective learning, i.e., greater scope, greater depth,etc.?

iv. Do any benefits offset the losses of efficiency thatmay result from spending time at the beginning ofthe process in experiencing complex realitydomains?

v. How does retention and the ability to applyknowledge in new unfarniliar situations compare forthe two approaches?

vi. How can the best "mix" ofpedagogy and andragogybe desigued for groups of students who may not beappropriately experienced/mature for a "pure"andralogical approach?

Until each of these questions is empirically addressed,some will continue to be skeptical about andragogy.However, evidence is being amassed as education

Journal ofInformatics Education and Research

inexorably moves from pedagogy to andragogy,sometimes without recognizing that it is doing so. Ifthose who are experimenting with various new methods

will seize the opportunity to make comparativeevaluations, the validity ofthese theories and approachescan be tested.

REFERENCES

Ackoff, R. (1979). "The Future of OperationalResearchIs Past." Journal ofOperational Research Society,30:93·104.

American Library Association Presidential Committeeon Information Literacy (1989). InformationLiteracy Report: The National Forum onInformation Literacy, Chicago: American LiteracyAssociation.

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for Action: A Guide toOvercoming Barriers to Organizational Change,San Francisco: Josey-Bass,

Ausubel, D. P. (1967). "A Cognitive Structure Theory ofSchool Learning." In L. Seigel (Ed.), Instruction:Some Contemporary Viewpoints (p. 222). SanFrancisco: Chandler.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations ofThought andAction: A Social Cognitive Theory. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Basseches, M. (1984). Dialectical Thinking and AdultDevelopment. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bloom, M. J. & Menefee, M. K. (1994). "ScenarioPlanning and Contingency Planning." PublicProductivity and Management Review, 17:223-230.

Bode, H. B. (1929). Conflicting Psychologies ofLearning, NY: Heath.

Bongiorno, L. (1993). "Raise Your Hand IfYou're SureStrategy Is Being Taught in American BusinessSchools." Journal ofBusiness Strategy, 14:36-41.

Bruner,J. (1965). "In Defense ofVerbal Learning." InR.C. Anderson & D. P. Ausubel (Eds.), Readings inthe Psychology ofCognition (607-608). New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Churchman, C. W. (1971). The Design of InquiringSystems, New York: Basic Books.

Churchman, C. W. (1994). "Management Science:Science of Managing and Managing of Science."Interfaces, 24:99-110.

Volume 3, Number I

Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as Learners: IncreasingParticipation and Facilitating Learning, SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Currid, C. (1993). Goals for IS Should Include Vision,Purpose, and Passion." InfoWorld, 15:60.

Dansereau, D. (1978). "The Development of LearningStrategies Curriculum." In H. F. O'Neil, Jr. (Ed.),Learning Strategies (1-29). New York: AcademicPress.

Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998). WorkingKnowledge: How OrganizationsManage What TheyKnow, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Davidow, W. H. & Malone, M. S. (1992). The VirtualCorporation, New York: Harper Collins.

Diggory, S. F. (Ed.) (1972). Information Processing inChildren, New York: Academic Press.

Down, K. O. & Liedtka, J. (1994). ''What CorporationsSeek in MBA Hires." Selections, 10:34-39.

Drucker, P. (1994). "The Theory of the Business."Harvard Business Review, 94:95-104.

Drucker,P. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society: 19-47. NewYork: HarperCollins.

Economist, (1991). "MBAiling: Have Business SchoolsLost Touch with Business?" April 20: 13 -14.

Emmell, A. (1992). "Making the Grade." CW,5:56-61.

Faria, A. J. & Dickinson, J. R. (1994). "SimulationGaming for Sales Management Training." JournalofManagement, 13:47-59.

Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles ofInstructional Design, (2nd ed.), New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Gilley, J. W. 1(990). "Demonstration and Simulation."In M.W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult Learning Methods:A Guide for Effective Instruction (261-281).Malabar, FL: Kreiger.

11

Gross, H. (1993). "Business Communication."Communication World. March: 21-25.

Guthrie, E. R. (1939). "The Effect of Outcome onLearning." Psychological Review, 46:480-484.

Guthrie, E. R. (1940). "Association and the Law ofEffect." Psychological Review, 47:127-148.

Hergenhahn, B. R. (1988). An Introduction to Theoriesof Learning. (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Huber, G. P. (1984). "The Nature and Design ofPost-industrial Organizations." Management Science30:928-951.

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles ofBehavior. New York:Appleton-Century.

Ireland, R. D., Ramsower, R. M. & Carini, G. R. (1993)."Business Trends-andTheir ImpactonEducation."Baylor Business Review, I I: 1-25.

Ives, B. & Rubin, R. (1993). "Educating Tomorrow'sBusinessLeaders about InformationandInformationTechnology." MIS Quarterly, 18:2-4.

Ives, B. & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1996). "Will the InternetRevolutionize Business Education and Research?"Sloan Management Review, Spring: 33-41.

Jantsch, E. (1973). "Forec.astingand SystemsApproach:A Frame of Reference," Management Science. 19:1355-1367.

Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996). "Using theBalanced Scorecard as a Strategic ManagementSystem." Harvard Business Review, January­February: 75-85.

Kilmann, R. H. (1996). "Management LearningOrganizations: The Enhancement of BusinessEducation for the Twenty-first Century."Management Learning, 27.

King, W. R. (1982). "Using Strategic Issue Analysis."Long Range Planning, 15: 45-49;

King, W. R. (1996). "IS and the Learning Organization."Information Systems Management, 12: 78-80.

12

King, W. R. (1999). "Integrating KnowledgeManagement withISStrategy." Information SystemsManagement, 16: 70-72.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The Modern Practice ofAdultEducation: From Pedagogy to Andragogy, (2nded.),New York: Cambridge Books.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in Action. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kramer, D. A. (1983). "Post-formal Operations? A Needfor Further Conceptualization." HumanDevelopment, 26: 91-105.

Kurfiss, J. G. (1988). "Critical Thinking: Theory,Research, Practice and Possibilities." SHE-ERICHigher Education Report 42, Washington, DC:Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1980). "Beyond Formal Operations:Uses and Limits of Pure Logic in Life-spanDevelopment." Human Development, 23: 141-161.

Lataif, L. E. (1992) "MBA: Is the Traditional ModelDoomed?" Harvard Business Review, 70: 128.

Mallach, E. G. (1989). "Mba Programs Are Wasted onMostIS Professionals." Computerworld, May I: 21.

Marienau, C. & Chickering, A. W. (1982). "AdultDevelopment and Learning." In B. Menson (Ed.),Building on Experiences inAdultDevelopment. NewDirections for Experiential Learning (16: 62-84).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marsick, V. J. (1990). "Case Study." In M.W. Galbraith(Ed.), Adult Learning Methods: A Guide forEffective Instruction (225-246). Malabar, FL:Kreiger.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2nded.). NY: Harper & Row.

Mason, R. P. (1969). "A Dialectical Approach toStrategic Planning." Management Science. 15:B403-414.

Merriam, S. B. & Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning inAdulthood: A Comprehensive Guide, San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

Journal ofInformatics Education and Research

Mitroff, I. I., Emshoff, J. R. & Kilmann, R. H. (1979)."Assumptional Analysis: A Methodology forStrategic Problem Solving." Management Science,25: 583-593.

Mulligan, P., Halten, K., & Miller, J. (1996). "FromIssue-based Planning to Hoshin: Different Styles farDifferent Situations." Long Range Planning. 29:473-484.

Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic Epistemology. New York:Viking.

Prideaux, G. (1992). "Making Action Learning MoreEffective." Training andManagement DevelopmentMethods 6:1.09-1.16.

Raelin, J. A. (1993). ''Theory and Practice." BusinessHorizons, 36: 85-89.

Reeve, J. M. (1992). "Graduate Management Educationin Transition." Survey ofBusiness 28: 3-5.

Riegel, K. F. (1973). "Dialectic Operations: The FinalPeriod of Cognitive Development." HumanDevelopment. 16: 346-370.

Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80's.Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Runge, L. D. (1994). "The Manager and the InformationWorker of the 1990s." Information Strategy: TheExecutive's Journal. 10: 7-14.

Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1991). "When and How to UseScenario Planning: a Heuristic Approach withIllustration." Journal ofForecasting. 10: 549-564.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: HowProfessionals Think in Action. New York: BasicBooks.

Volume 3, Number1

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The An &Practice ofThe Learning Organization, New York:Doubleday.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). Behavior of Organisms.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Smith, R. M. (1982). Learning How to Learn: AppliedLearning Theory for Adults. Chicago: Follett.

Tenaglia, M. & Noonan, P. (1992). "Scenario-basedStrategic Planning." Planning Review. 20: 1219.

Thorndike, E. L. (1965). Animal Intelligence. NewYork: Hafner Press.

Tolman, E. C. (1967). Purposive Behavior in Animalsand Men. New York: Follett.

Trauth, E. M., Farwell, D. W., & Lee, D. (1993). ''TheIS Expectation Gap: Industry Expectations VersusAcademic Preparation." MIS Quarterly 17:293-303.

Upton, D. & Seet, R. (1997). Paciftc Dunlop China (A):Beijing (Multimedia Case). Boston: HarvardBusiness Publishing.

Watson, J. (1930). Behaviorism. New York: Norton.

Wills, G. (1993). "Your Enterprise School ofManagement." Journal of ManagementDevelopment. 12: 7-14.

Winograd, T. & Flores, F. (1986). UnderstandingComputers and Cognition: A New Foundation ofDesign. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

13

14 Journal ofInformatics Education and Research