Educationally critical aspects of a deep understanding of the concept of an information system

ABSTRACT

This study identified and compared a deep understanding of the concept of an information system (IS) with the various levels of understanding of a group of undergraduate IS students. The aim was to identify aspects of the concept of an IS that were educationally critical to that development of a deep understanding. The study was significant in that the educationally critical aspects of the concept of an IS have not been researched previously. Yet, without addressing these aspects in teaching and learning the development of a deep understanding is unlikely.

The nature of a deep understanding of the concept of an IS was established from the literature. For effective practice, an IS should be conceptualised as a social system supported by embedded information technology. A group of undergraduate students were interviewed and completed questionnaires about their understanding of the concept of an IS before, during and after a year of study. The student data was analysed using phenomenographic research techniques. Six qualitatively different levels of understanding of the concept of an IS were described. The students' levels of understanding were found to differ from the desired understanding with respect to a number of educationally critical aspects. These differences involved both social and technical aspects of an IS and the relationship between the social and technical aspects.

The identification of the educationally critical aspects of the concept of an IS was significant in that learning tasks can now be designed which enhance students' likelihood of developing an appropriate understanding.

REFERENCES

• 1: Steven Alter, A general, yet useful theory of information systems, Communications of the AIS, v.1 n.3es, March 1999
• 2: Paul Beynon-Davies, Information systems development, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., Indianapolis, IN, 1989
• 3: Booth, S.J. (1992). Learning to program: A phenomenographic perspective. ( G6teborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 89). G6teborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
• 4: Booth, S.J. (1994). On phenomenography, learning and teaching, In R. Ballantyne & C. Bruce (Eds.), Proceedings of Phenomenography: Philosophy and Pracace (pp.3-6). Brisbane, Queensland: QUT Publications and Priz)fing-
• 5: Booth, SJ. (1997). On phenomenography, learnin~ and teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 16 (2), 13.5-157.
• 6: Checkhnd P. and Holwell, S. (1995). Information systems: The big idea, Systemgsts, 17 (1), 7-13.
• 7: Peter Checkland , Sue Holwell, Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1998
• 8: Roger Clarke, Extra-Organisational Systems: A Challenge to the Software Engineering Paradigm, Proceedings of the IFIP 12th World Computer Congress on Education and Society - Information Processing '92 - Volume 2, p.564-570, September 07-12, 1992
• 9: Cope C.J., Horan, P., & Garner, M. (1997). Conceptions of an information system and their use in tcachin.g about IS. Journal of Informing Science, 1 (1), 7-19.
• 10: Chris Cope , Pat Horan, Toward an understanding of teaching and learning about information systems, Proceedings of the 3rd Australasian conference on Computer science education, p.188-197, July 08-10, 1998, The University of Queensland, Australia [doi>10.1145/289393.289420]
• 11: Cope, C. (2000). Educationany critical aspects of the experience of learning about the concept of an information system. Phi) thesis IOn-line}. Available: http://ironbark.bendigo.latrobe.edu.an/--cow./copethesis.pdf
• 12: Davenport, TJ-I., Eccles, tLG., & Prusak, L. (1992). Information politics. Sloan Management Review, 34 (I), 53-65.
• 13: Falkenberg, E.D., Hesse, W., Lindgreen, P., Nilsson, B.E., Han Oei, J.L., Rolland, C., Stamper, ILK., Van Assehe, F.J.M., Verrijn-Stuart, A.A., & Voss, K. (1996). A Framework of Information Systems Concepts. Report of the IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group FRISCO.
• 14: Gurwitseh, A. (1964). The field of consciousness. Pittsburgh: Duquense University Press.
• 15: KPMG. (1999). Runaway projecls - cause and effects, Software World (UK), 26 (3), 3-5.
• 16: Land., F. F. (1992). The information systems domain. In IL Galliers (Ed.), Information systems research: issues, methods and practical gu~lelines (pp. 6.-13). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
• 17: Marton, F. (1998). Towards a theory of quality in higher education. In B.Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher educaaon (pp. 177-200). Camberwell, Vic., Australia: AusWalian Council for Ech~cational Research.
• 18: Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1996). The learner's experience of learning. In D.R. Olson & N. Tozranee (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp.534-564). Oxford: Blackwell.
• 19: Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). 1.earning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbattm.
• 20: Sahraoui, S. (1998). Is information systems education value neulral? Journal of Computer Information Systems, 38 (3), 105-109.
• 21: Wand, Y., & Weber, tL (1995). On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal, 5, 203-223.
• 22: Weber, R. (1996). A neglected aspect of the information systems curriculnm" What is an information system? In D.Amott, K. Dampney, & A. Scollary, (Eds.). The Australian Debate on Information Systems Curriculum. Proceedings of the Australian Information Systems Curriculum Working Conference (pp.71-75). Melbourne: Monash University, Department of Information Systems.
• 23: Winter, M.C., Brown, DJ-I., & Checldand, P.B. (1995). A role for soft systems methodology in iaformation systems development. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 130-142.