Use of a Technology-Mediated Learning Instructional Approach For Teaching an Introduction to Information Technology Course

Journal of Information Systems Education, Summer 2005 by Hardaway, Donald E, Scamell, Richard W

The fourth IDD is the "Educational Environment." This dimension represents the facilities and resources in the learning environment. Examples include classrooms, computer labs, software, hardware, support and accessibility. The educational environment consists largely those aspects of the learning environment that are oftentimes constant for the instructor in the short run. For example, it is possible that some changes in this dimension might require an institutional initiative if they involve plant and facilities.

The fifth IDD, "Learner," represents the target of the learning experience. There are a number of instruments that have been developed to measure learning styles and characteristics of a person (e.g., Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), KoIb Learning Style Inventory (LSI), Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD), Embedded Figures Test (EFT) and group version (GEFT), Canfield Learning Style Inventory (CLSI), Instructional Styles Inventory (ISI), Grasha Reichmann Learning Style Scales (GRSLSS), and Cognitive Style Inventory (CSI)). These measures help identify differences between people when it comes to learning such as their approach to learning, their preferences for oral, written or visual representations, and hands-on or active learning versus passive learning.

All rankings provided by the students were assembled using weights of from five to one where five was assigned to the highest ranked item out of the five, four for the second highest ranked item, down to one for the fifth ranked item. Table 3 contains a list of the tabulated "Helped" data mapped into the IDD framework while Table 4 contains a list of the "Hindered" data for the course.

The top ranked item in the "Helped" list (see Table 3) was "Creating our own web pages and book was enjoyable and I learned more" with an aggregate score of eighty-four in a class of thirty seven students. Students considered their compilation of papers as a kind of book and seemed to take pride in their work. The item "Having class time to work on projects" was ranked second in the list with an aggregate score of fifty-five. This seemed to indicate that the students prefer to be engaged and involved in active learning as opposed to passive learning. Another interesting result was the fourth ranked item, "The freedom to build our own chapter outlines," with an aggregate score of forty-nine. Students preferred the freedom to choose the information technology topic to investigate. The item, "The instructor's mini-lectures on each topic," ranked thirteenth with an aggregate score of twenty-one. The class enjoyed being engaged and active while in the classroom. It was suggestive that the students in this course prefer a more student driven TML instructional design.

The highest ranked item on the "Hindered" list (see Table 4) was "More direction on what was expected in the book and presentations" with an aggregate score of seventy-two. This may reflect some uneasiness due to the unstructured nature of investigating information technology topics where no outline or exact identification of topics was provided. The second ranked item, "More instruction in the lab on using the web authoring tool," and third item, "Lab hours are too limited," had respective aggregate scores of fifty-eight and fifty. Collectively these items concern tool training and lab availability and constitute areas where improvements can be made. With respect to the instructional approach used in this class versus a lecture-oriented class, the item, "Have more lectures from the instructor," ranked seventeenth with an aggregate score of six. There was no indication that the lack of formal lectures was a problem for this course.