Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Combining Cooperative Learning and Conflict
Resolution Techniques to Teach Information
Systems
Danilo Sirias
To cite this article: Danilo Sirias (2005) Combining Cooperative Learning and Conflict
Resolution Techniques to Teach Information Systems, Journal of Education for Business, 80:3, 153-158, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.80.3.153-158
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.3.153-158
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 19
ecause of their nature, Introduction to Management Information Sys-tems (MIS) courses are challenging for the instructor. First, MIS has a multidis-ciplinary content, encompassing research from different subject areas (Banville & Landry, 1989; Bensabat & Weber, 1996). If topics are not presented in a meaningful, logical, and interrelated manner, students easily may become confused and overwhelmed. To add to the level of complexity, MIS touches every function of an organization (Jacobs & Whybark, 2000). A traditional Introduction to MIS class covers aspects in organizational functions, such as human resources, accounting, market-ing, and financial information systems. The functional coverage can be so broad that Hershey (2003, p. 480) went so far as to suggest that the MIS course can be used “to help solve the functional inte-gration problem” faced by business schools around the world. Furthermore, all areas of MIS are changing at light-ning speed, making class preparation a difficult task.
Yet another problem could come from the fact that students in an introductory MIS course may have different levels of knowledge about computers. A class may have students with a high level of programming skills in different comput-er languages togethcomput-er with students who have only very basic computer skills,
making it more difficult for the instruc-tor to decide on the appropriate level of technological depth for the course. In short, teaching MIS entails covering a relatively large, ever-changing subject, as well as addressing an audience with different levels of knowledge.
Cooperative Learning Model to Teach MIS
Having students with different levels of computer knowledge as well as dif-ferent expectations in the same class can be an advantage for the instructor if he or she exploits the various levels of expertise and combines them into a syn-ergistic learning experience. This
premise has been used in support of the use of teamwork in the business envi-ronment, and the same principle can be applied to classroom learning. With this approach, the instructor allows students to bring their individual perspectives into the class. Group learning exercises for MIS have been recommended in the academic literature (Fellers, 1996a). The theoretical background underlying learning in teams is captured under the cooperative learning model, in which “students work together in unstructured groups and create their own learning sit-uation” (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998, p. 28). In an MIS class, students can bring their specific expertise to the table and work together in teams to solve business problems with informa-tion technology.
The literature covering the advan-tages of cooperative learning is vast. For example, Slavin (1990) suggested that students understand better when they interact with each other. Whipple (1987) argued that ideas coming from different points of view can result in new, shared knowledge. Cooperative learning has been associated with improved creativity, better ideas, enhanced critical thinking, and higher content retention (Schlechter, 1990). David and Roger Johnson compiled a list of over 300 studies favorably com-paring cooperative learning with other
Combining Cooperative Learning
and Conflict Resolution Techniques
to Teach Information Systems
DANILO SIRIAS
Saginaw Valley State University University Center, Michigan
B
ABSTRACT. Teaching Introduction to Management Information Systems (MIS) courses is a formidable chal-lenge entailing coverage of a relatively large, ever-changing subject, as well as finding the right balance for an audi-ence with different levels of knowl-edge. The literature suggests that cooperative learning, through which students work and learn together as teams, is a viable strategy for teaching MIS effectively. One strategy to sup-port cooperative learning in an MIS class is teaching through case studies. In this article, the author proposes a method for teaching MIS within a cooperative learning environment in which students solve conflicts embed-ded in minicases.
learning approaches (Johnson et al., 1998). In fact, cooperative learning is not confined to the classroom; it also has been used for training in companies (Newstrom & Lengnick-Hall, 1991).
To be effective, cooperative learning activities should include the following five elements (Johnson & Johnson, 1989):
1. Positive group interdependence 2. Team interaction
3. Individual accountability 4. Development of social skills 5. Group or team processes
Positive group interdependence means that one student succeeds only if the other students succeed. Hence, stu-dents have two responsibilities: (a) to learn and understand the material and (b) to make sure everyone else learns the material (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Positive interdependence can be achieved through different approaches, including positive goal interdependency, positive reward interdependency, tive resource interdependency, and posi-tive role interdependency (Johnson & Johnson).
To facilitate crosspollination of ideas among students, instructors should make use of team interaction. Many times, one student’s idea helps trigger a chain of ideas from other students, increasing not only the volume of ideas, but also their quality. Distributing tasks among group members who work inde-pendently is not enough to promote interaction. Instructors also need to schedule time for students to work in small groups during class (Siciliano, 2001) and provide incentives for them to work outside the classroom.
Individual accountabilityis the third essential element of cooperative learn-ing. In the first element, positive interde-pendence, some structure is put in place for students to help each other. How about students who tend to be “free rid-ers”? They need to be encouraged to do their share of the work through individ-ual exams, random quizzing of students, or any other approach that teachers feel is appropriate.
The fourth element, and the focus of this article, is the development of social skills, which include (a) accepting and trusting the other team members, (b)
communicating effectively, and (c) resolving conflicts constructively. To be successful in their professional life, business students, especially IS special-ists, must possess excellent people skills (Lee, Trauth, & Farawell, 1995). Fellers (1996b) indicated that cooperative learn-ing is an excellent mechanism for intro-ducing students to these people skills.
Finally, students must be vigilant with their team processes, looking for mechanisms to improve the quality of their interactions and techniques to enhance each other’s learning skills. The purpose is “to determine if the goals are achieved and to maintain effective working relationships among members” (Siciliano, 2001, p.11).
Teaching With Minicases
A recommended methodology that makes use of cooperative learning in an MIS class is teaching through case stud-ies (Granger & Lippert, 1999). Cases are widely used in business courses because they provide an opportunity for students to simulate real-world situations and improve their problem-solving skills. The instructor can design cases so that business problems can be attacked from different perspectives, including a techni-cal one. Case studies for teams not only mirror the reality of the workplace and enhance practical skills but also make use of pedagogical strategies such as the cooperative learning model.
However, regular case studies may be too large to be used as part of a regular class session. To solve this situation, an instructor can use minicases, which have a maximum length of one page, are very focused, and have solutions related to relevant information technology (IT) concepts. Analysis of minicases offers students many advantages. First, it pro-vides relevance to the material being studied. Furthermore, students gain knowledge about IT applications to dif-ferent business situations and learn about the impact that IT can have in business (Mukherjee & Cox, 2001). The instructor should seek to provide mini-cases that can be worked in interdisci-plinary teams of three or four students; such teams provide an ideal environ-ment for participation within a group (Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995).
Case studies generally contain some type of conflict or dilemma (Stringer, 1999) involving decisions such as whether a firm should buy or invest in something or whether it should central-ize or decentralcentral-ize operations. IT solu-tions have been developed to solve or deal with some of these conflicts faced by businesses. As I have mentioned, one of the key elements in successful coop-erative learning is the development and use of social and small-group skills such as conflict management (Lancaster & Strand, 2001). In fact, Mintzberg’s (1973) classical study revealed that managers spend a significant amount of time dealing with issues related to con-flict management. Research conducted by Luthans, Rosenkrantz, and Hen-nessey (1985) on successful managers confirmed Mintzberg’s findings. In this article, I propose a method for teaching MIS within a cooperative learning envi-ronment in which students solve con-flicts embedded in minicases. There are many methodologies dealing with con-flict resolution approaches (Jameson, 1999), but in this article I focus on a process based on the theory of con-straints (TOC).
Conflict Resolution and the Theory of Constraints
The theory of constraints (TOC), a management philosophy developed by Goldratt (1990, 1997), “suggests that all systems are similar to chains—or to net-works of chains” (Dettmer, 1997, p.11). Because the strength of a chain is deter-mined by its weakest link, one of the basic assumptions of the TOC is that for a system to improve, it must focus on its constraints (any process that prevents the system from achieving its goals within an organization). Thus, the man-ager’s goal is to construct a description of a system in such a way that he or she can determine the key leverage points and which type of intervention is needed to cause a desired result.
The heart of the TOC, at this point in its development, is a set of logical tools known as the thinking processes (TP). These tools—used to analyze complex systems—are based on strict logical procedure and have been used in myriad business applications. TP tools include
the current reality tree, the cloud, the future reality tree, the negative branch, the prerequisite tree, and the transition tree. Specific details about the TP are available in the literature (Dettmer, 1997; Scheinkopf, 1999). In this article, I will show how one of the tools (the cloud) can be used to teach MIS.
The Cloud
Placing students in groups does not mean that they automatically will acquire the ability to resolve conflicts. Students need to be taught those process skills (Wehrs, 2002). Tools that can help students deal systematically with conflicts can enhance not only cooperative learning but also students’ future activities as professionals. In the TOC, the cloud is a necessity-based thinking tool (Scheinkopf, 1999) used to represent conflicts. The cloud, used in many business situations as a prob-lem-solving technique (Smith, 2000), can serve as a framework to include the essential elements of a conflict in a minicase. This framework suggests that any conflict should include a minimum of five elements: a common objective (A), two needs (B and C), and two wants (D and D’). I present the structure of the cloud in Figure 1. A common objective (A) represents something that both parties in the conflict agree is important. At least two needs (B and C) are required for achievement of the common objective. Within a conflict, each side “owns” a need. However, one of the sides in the conflict argues that to achieve Need 1 (B), he or she must achieve Want 1 (D). The other side insists that to achieve Need 2 (C), he or
she must achieve Want 2 (D’). The con-flict comes from the fact that D and D’ cannot coexist.
The cloud offers the essential compo-nents that students need to come up with creative solutions to solve a minicase. First, the cloud clearly shows the root of the conflict represented by the two wants. Moreover, the needs provide information pertaining to the reasons why each side insists on what it wants. Also, it shows that there is a good rea-son, the common objective, why the conflict must be resolved. Students can focus on finding ways to satisfy the two needs with alternative wants that do not necessarily collide. In this article, I also discuss how students can use the cloud to find creative solutions to problems.
Using the Cloud to Teach
The instructor can use the cloud as a vehicle to help students analyze cases, hold discussions, and find IT solutions themselves. For preparing the class, I recommend the following steps:
1. Select or write an appropriate mini-case.
2. Assign the minicase for discussion in interdisciplinary groups.
3. Ask students to define the conflict and describe the “features” that a tech-nology should have to resolve the dilemma.
In Step 1, a minicase—with a “solu-tion” involving a predetermined infor-mation system—is selected. Examples of technologies that I have introduced in class through this procedure include database management systems, data mining, expert systems, and virtual
pri-vate networks. To be able to use the cloud, the instructor should make sure that the minicase contains some type of dilemma. If a minicase with an embed-ded conflict is not available, the litera-ture suggests a methodology for writing one (Sirias, 2003).
Next, to obtain the benefits of using cooperative learning, the instructor assigns the minicase to interdiscipli-nary teams of three or four students per group. Interdisciplinary groups allow each student to hear different points of view on the problem being solved. I have noticed that business students tend to attempt to solve problems by giving managerial solutions, such as “evaluate the compensation system,” “analyze the cost-benefit of the alternatives,” and so forth. On the other hand, computer-oriented students tend to look for the “gadget” that will solve the problem. The instructor could emphasize that in their future workplace, students proba-bly will encounter similar biases regarding problem solving among peo-ple with different approaches. Learning how to communicate successfully in a highly diversified environment can be a useful skill in the marketplace.
Finally, students “write the cloud” that best captures the dilemma presented in the minicase and propose a solution to the problem. At the end of the discussion, teams can present their “wish list” regarding the type of technology that they think will solve the conflict. Then the instructor concludes the session, improving on the student’s findings.
An Example
The following minicase (taken from Sirias, 2003, p. 356) illustrates the pro-cedure:
John Rakow, head of the underwriter department at Frankem Insurance, has been swamped over the last years with complaints from customers. About 30% of the customers think that the time it takes to process an insurance application is too long. The situation is getting even more delicate as he has learned that some insurance agents do not want to recom-mend Frankem services (even though their prices are competitive) because their smaller competitors are able to respond faster. John is presenting his case to Alice Smith for a third time. Alice is in charge of making personnel decisions. John Common
FIGURE 1. The cloud.
thinks that he needs to increase his department’s personnel by at least 35% to cope with the current demand. Alice clearly understands John’s concerns but she has made some projections, and according to her calculations the expected benefits do not justify hiring more under-writers. She feels that the department will increase expenses without a good return on investment. Both want the business to be successful, but a creative solution is needed to ensure that objective. Can you help John and Alice?
The first step is to determine the wants. Students should be instructed to look in the minicase for two actions that cannot coexist. Examples are “buy puter software” and “do not buy com-puter software,” “centralize operations” and “decentralize operations,” “out-source” and “do not outsource.” During a discussion, wants are generally the first elements to be verbalized, making them the most visible side of a conflict. In the cloud, wants should be written with a verb at the beginning of the sen-tence, signaling the actions desired by each side in the conflict. In our exam-ple, the wants are “hire more ers” and “do not hire more underwrit-ers.” These are D and D’ on the cloud.
The next step entails finding the needs. The best way to solve a dilemma is to find a win-win solution. The problem is that, by definition, the wants cannot coexist, making it very difficult to find a win-win solution if each side in the con-flict focuses only on the wants. It is nec-essary to look deeper. The needs repre-sent the reason(s) behind the wants. A useful technique for determining the needs is to list the advantages of achiev-ing the wants. A summary of the advan-tages of each want is a good representa-tion of the needs. For example, the advantages of hiring more underwriters could include having quicker processing, more satisfied customers, less delay, more capacity, and so forth. All these advantages could be summarized in a sentence such as “Customers know the results of their applications in a few days.” The same can be done for the other want (“Do not hire more under-writers”). An example of a need for this want could be “Keep expenses under control.” Notice that the two needs could—at least in theory—coexist, open-ing the possibility for a win-win solution.
For complete definition of the conflict, one more step remains, that of determin-ing a common objective. So far, we have determined the wants and the needs, which moves us closer to a potential win-win resolution to the conflict. Even though a conflict exists, a common objective that both parties can agree on could be found. Verbalizing a common objective—what would be accomplished if both needs are satisfied—is vital to provide an incentive for both parties to solve the conflict satisfactorily. Most business cases will have a common busi-ness objective—such as fairbusi-ness, satis-faction, effectiveness, or efficiency— related to the well-being of the organization (Jameson, 1999). In this example, I use “Have a successful busi-ness.” I present the final cloud for this example in Figure 2.
Completing the cloud is just the first phase that students perform when analyz-ing a minicase. The second phase is find-ing a win-win solution to the conflict. Instructors can reemphasize that the cloud is a good representation of a prob-lem, clearly stating the wants, the needs, and a higher-level goal referred to as the common objective. In this context, a win-win solution is defined as an action that will result in the satisfaction of both par-ties’ needs. To accomplish this, the stu-dents must find a way to break the logical connection between any of the needs and its corresponding want. Assumptions are the bridge for reaching that destination.
Assumptions
Assumptions are beliefs logically connecting needs and wants. Some type of mental model—a miniparadigm—
supports the idea that a need can be sat-isfied only with a given want. Achieving a need with an alternative want can be accomplished by taking an action that could be assisted through the use of technology and that makes the assump-tion invalid. Therefore, assumpassump-tions are the seeds that generate creative ideas. Assumptions can also serve as a guide for searching for technological solu-tions that, although they may be avail-able for solving a specific problem, are unknown to a manager.
How does one go about finding assumptions and generating creative solutions? Some of the assumptions con-necting Need B and Want D can be revealed when the students try to answer the question, “Why must we have the specific Want D in order to achieve a Need B?” The same logic applies to the connection between C and D’ in the cloud. For example, let us analyze the following logical connection: “To avoid damaged books, I must prohibit students from drinking inside the library.” An assumption being made is that students will spill beverages on the books. A pos-sible “technological solution” that makes the assumption invalid could be to require the use of spill-proof contain-ers. Another assumption is that books will be damaged if liquids are spilled on them. To invalidate that assumption, we could wrap each page with plastic. Also, managerial solutions could be explored as a vehicle for finding win-win solu-tions. An assumption is that students are not motivated to prevent damage. Stu-dents can explore solutions, such as that of giving a $1,000 fine to any student who damages a book. Assumptions can serve as catalysts for students to use
Common objective: Have a successful business.
Need 1:
Customers know the results of their applications in a few days.
Need 2:
Keep expenses under control.
Want 1:
Hire more under-writers.
Want 2:
Do not hire more underwriters.
FIGURE 2. Frankem’s cloud.
their creative juices and find innova-tive—“out of the box”—solutions.
Going back to the original example, we can explore some assumptions. The cloud in Figure 1 suggests that for cus-tomers to know the results of their applications in a few days (B), we must hire more underwriters (D) for the fol-lowing reasons:
• Current employees cannot do the jobs of underwriters, and
• Other types of employees cannot replicate the expertise needed to accel-erate applications.
In surfacing these or similar assump-tions, students can come to the realiza-tion that a particular type of software that captures the expertise of an under-writer could be a potential solution to this dilemma. At the end of the session, the instructor can introduce the concept of expert systems—the purpose of this minicase—and provide more details about the topic. To demonstrate rele-vance, the instructor could ask students for similar examples in which expertise is needed. By “inventing” the solution themselves, students are more likely to retain and understand the material suc-cessfully. Of course, the discussion could lead to suggestions of other potential technical or managerial solu-tions, which would add even more inter-action to the class. It would not be a sur-prise if students come up with solutions that did not occur to the instructor.
In short, using the cloud to teach with minicases entails finding wants, needs, and a common objective. Then, students surface assumptions as a vehicle to find win-win solutions to the dilemma pre-sented in the minicase. At the same time, students learn a systematic approach for resolving conflicts within their groups and in their personal lives.
Conclusions
Using minicases helps make MIS classes more relevant. First, students see the connection between IT and a busi-ness environment, rather than seeing technology as an isolated entity. This perception has been confirmed by the students’ comments in my evaluation. One student wrote, “I liked . . . how he attached business cases to IT problems,
and [then] presented [how] new tech-nologies solve the problems.” Also, computer-oriented students have a chance to test their technical knowledge through practice and share with their team members and the class as a whole. Business-oriented students learn how to analyze situations that can be solved with technology, and, in the process, they interact with other students who may have different perspectives and areas of expertise. In many cases, stu-dents come up with different solutions to the problem posed in the case, mak-ing the environment fertile for discus-sion and debate. This crosspollination can be very beneficial (Whipple, 1987).
The use of a graphic organizer, such as the cloud, has many advantages. Graphic organizers provide a very prac-tical way to take clear and precise notes (Sakta, 1992). After completing the cloud, students have a clear picture of the important elements of the minicase, including the assumptions leading to the solution. Such enhanced note-taking can lead to better performance (Katayama & Robinson, 2000). In addition, instruc-tors can use such diagrams as a tool for grading by assigning points or percent-ages to each entity in the cloud, the assumptions, and the solutions found by the group. A grade can be assigned accordingly. Yet another advantage is that the graphic structure provided by the cloud allows students to solve prob-lems quickly and efficiently.
Future Research
Because the results of this study are only anecdotal, additional research, such as an experiment, is necessary for testing the benefits of using the cloud process to teach MIS. Other questions pertain to the possibility of applying the same methodology to other business subjects, such as marketing and organizational behavior, in which assigned cases also involve conflicts. One important issue is whether students can transfer the skill of solving conflicts systematically to areas outside their academic lives.
REFERENCES
Banville, C., & Landry, M. (1989). Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Communications of the ACM,32(1), 48–60.
Bensabat, I., & Weber, R. (1996). Research com-mentary: Rethinking “diversity” in information systems research. Information Systems Research,7(4), 389–399.
Dettmer, W. (1997). Goldratt’s Theory of Con-straints.Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press. Fellers, J. W. (1996a). Teaching teamwork: Exploring the use of cooperative learning teams in information systems education. DATA BASE,
27(2), 44–60.
Fellers, J. W. (1996b). People skills: Using the cooperative learning model to teach students “people skills.”Interfaces,26(5), 42–49. Goldratt, E. (1990). What is this thing called the
Theory of Constraints? Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.
Goldratt, E. (1997). Critical chain. Great Barring-ton, MA: North River Press.
Granger, M. J., & Lippert, S. K. (1999). Peer learning across the undergraduate information systems curriculum. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,18(3), 267–285.
Hershey, G. L. (2003). A different focus and con-tent for the core information systems course for business school majors. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 479–493.
Jameson, J. K. (1999). Toward a comprehensive model for the assessment and management of intraorganizational conflict: Developing the framework. The International Journal of Con-flict Management,10(3), 268–294.
Jacobs, F. R., & Whybark, D. C. (2000). Why ERP? A primer on SAP implementation.
Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooper-ation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998).
Coop-erative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change,30(4), 26–35. Katayama, A. D., & Robinson, D. H. (2000).
Get-ting students “partially” involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. The Journal of Exper-imental Education, 68(2), 119–133.
Lancaster, A. K., & Strand, A. S. (2001). Using the team-learning model in a managerial accounting class: An experiment in cooperative learning. Issues in Accounting Education,
16(4), 449–567.
Lee, D. M. S., Trauth, E. M., & Farwell, D. (1995). Critical skills and knowledge requirements of IS professionals: A joint academic/industry investigation. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 313–340. Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use
of information technology to enhance manage-ment school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly,19(3), 265–291.
Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S. A., & Hennessey, H. W. (1985). What do successful managers really do? An observation study of managerial activi-ties. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
21(3), 255–270.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row.
Mukherjee, A., & Cox, J. (2001). Using electronic quizzes to promote self-reliance in minicase analysis in a decision support systems course for MIS majors. Journal of Education for Business,
76(4), 221–225.
Newstrom, J. W., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1991). One size does not fit all. Training & Develop-ment,45(6), 43–48.
Sakta, C. G. (1992). The graphic organizer: A blueprint for taking lecture notes. Journal of Reading,35(6), 482–484.
Scheinkopf, L. J. (1999). Thinking for a change.
Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Schlechter, T. M. (1990). The relative instructional efficiency of small group computer-based train-ing. Journal of Educational Computing,6(3), 329–341.
Siciliano, J. I. (2001). How to incorporate coop-erative learning principles in the classroom: It’s more than just putting students in teams.
Journal of Management Education, 25(1),
8–20.
Sirias, D. (2003). Writing MIS minicases to enhance cooperative learning: A theory of con-straints approach. Journal of Information Sys-tems Education,13(4), 351–356.
Slavin, R. E.(1990).Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, D. (2000). The measurement nightmare.
Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Stringer, D. (1999). Case writing 101. Training & Development,53(9), 52–57.
Wehrs, W. (2002). An assessment of the effective-ness of cooperative learning in Introductory Information Systems. Journal of Information Systems Education,13(1), 37–49.
Whipple, W. R. (1987). Collaborative learning: Recognizing it when we see it. Bulletin of the American Association for Higher Education, 40(2), 3–7.
