Development of INFO 102

(from meeting with Allan Sylvester, 13/12/06)

2/3 and 3/3 2004:
Same course outlines.
Low class attendance.
100% programming – no information systems (too much Comp Sci, not enough IS).

2/3 2005:
Change to front half of course.
Allan Sylvester entered tutoring role.
Instructor led lab session model.
New division between programming and IS – 75% IS, 25% programming.
Large project handed in late in course. High prevalence of plagiarism. Feedback given back to students only two days before they sat the exam – very little room for student improvement.

3/3 2005:
Project three marked in two parts (both reflect change to IS concepts):
Part 1 by software inspection to counter plagiarism and to pick up on student learning gaps early.
Part 2 written component.
This led to earlier feedback to students within 24 hours.
Worked for a small summer course.

Feedback from 1/3 INFO 241 - lecturers had to re-teach much of the basics as students had forgotten a lot of it (exp Comp Sci)
Management and marketing – required greater retention of skills è taught less at greater detail, especially lab teaching.

2/3 2006
Written component incorporated into the final exam.
Staggered hand in and feedback of final project.
2^nd half teaching order re-grouped to equip students with skills required for labs. Tight lecture/lab coordination at start then diverges (Lectures moved more towards IS “people and organizations”. Labs stay technical.

3/3 2006
Projects 1 & 2 turned into in-class tests – test course content from start/previous test.
1^st test – scenario given prior (1 week) to the test so students can prepare, but problem unknown. This was to stop plagiarism and memorization of answers.

Meeting at SIM

Met with Val Hooper, Allan Sylvester and Tom at SIM. Discussed at length the paramaters which the study will undertake.

Discussed the staffing structure of INFO courses:


Selected meeting notes:

The study will be aimed towards a July information systems conference - results of continual improvement process, teaching of programme out of lecture theatre and into the lab.

SIM is currently undertaking a change in learning paradigm and teaching language from Visual Basic Application to C-Sharp. This will bring IS courses into line with each other. These have the same priciples and IS concepts, but are more advanced. The change of language is guided by industry statistics.

102 Experiance - students taking 102 and changing major (into INFO).

INFO Courses have to be at the cutting edge, but do students perseive this?

During 2006, less was taught at a greater depth. This was intended to make the flow-through to 241 smoother. 102 improvements lead to changes in how 241 is taught. A large number of students in 241 become tutors in 102. A large number of tutors in 102 move on to postgraduate study.

Changes to INFO 102

1 Introduction

1.1 INFO 102 – Information Systems Development – is an introductory course in information systems, examining the nature of IS system development life cycle from a practical perspective. It is a complimentary follow-up course to INFO 101 – Foundations of Information Development, and is required for a major in Information systems and electronic commerce.

1.2 It is run in trimesters two and three (summer), and has done so since 2004.

1.3 In trimester 2, 2006, the demographic make up of INFO 102 varied greatly from the wider university population. 40% of the students in 102 were enrolled as international students, while in the wider student body only 17% were. 4% of students in INFO 102 identified as Maori (compared with 9% of the VUW student body), and less than 2% identified as Pacific Islanders (compared with 4% for VUW). The number of Chinese students has declined inline with the New Zealand tertiary sector’s downturn in the Chinese market.

1.4 *MATURE STUDENTS?*

1.5 Enrolment figures have fluctuated between 202 and 267 in regular trimester, and 42 and 52 in summer trimester (figure 2). Its enrolment peak in Trimester 2 2005 follows a significant marketing and recruitment drive for the co-requisite course INFO 101 at the beginning of trimester 1 2005.

1.6 *PASS RATES?*

1.7 Trimester 3 2006 was the 6^th iteration of INFO 102. The faculty members associated with INFO 102 were motivated to improve the delivery and content of the course after if was plagued with low attendance and poor performance. Enhancements are on-going, and centred around improving student attendance, higher and deeper student engagement in class activities, improved performance in assessment, and greater retention of students in the second year of the degree.

2 Course Objectives

2.1 The course objectives for INFO 102 remain largely unchanged:

2.1.1 Introduce students to the stages of the SDLC and their relevance to the creation of an effective information system

2.1.2 Enable students to understand and apply requirements analysis, data modelling and process modelling

2.1.3 Provide students with an understanding of relevant design issues, including user interfaces, physical and logical design, data storage, and implementation; and

2.1.4 Enable students to understand and apply methods for translating process design into IS software, using a designated programming platform (VBA - Visual Basic for Applications).

2.2 The exception is the 4^th iteration, where objective 4 made reference to “MS Access” as well as Visual Basic, and objective 2 has reference to “alterative methods for requirements analysis” removed. These variations may be linked to time constrains associated with summer courses.

3 Assessment

3.1 Assessment consists of three assignments, a tutorial attendance/participation mark, and a final examination/test. The weightings of these vary from iteration to iteration (figure 3).

3.2 Most minor changes in assessment weighting are a result of the condensed time-frame in summer trimesters.[JG1] For example, iterations 4 and 6 have a greater weighting allocated to the first two assessments, and less weighting allocated to the final exam/test.

3.3 Assignment three varies greatly in the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th iterations, compared to the first three iterations.

3.3.1 During iteration 4, assignment three was changed from “programming” to “development”, and was broken into two parts; practical and written (allocated 15% and 10% respectively). It was changed back to “programming” in iterations 5 and 6.

3.3.2 During iteration 5 and 6, assignment three was broken into 4 parts, with due dates staggered throughout the second half of the course (see figure 4). This helped both advanced and novice students in different ways. Advanced students were able to complete the tasks early, allowing them to focus on the exam earlier. Novice students were able to get assistance and valuable feedback as they progressed, allowing them to correct any mistakes as they went.

Figure 4: Staged marking of the project assignment

	Task 1	Task 2	Task 3	Task 4
Week 7	Can be completed and marked
Week 8		Can be completed and marked
Week 9			Can be completed and marked
Week 10	Model answer given			Can be completed and marked Model answer given on last teaching day
Week 11		Model answer given
Week 12			Model answer given

4 Mandatory Course Requirements

4.1 The mandatory course requirements for terms in the 1^st iteration were:

4.1.1 Correctly enrolled in the course

4.1.2 Attend at least four out of the five tutorials

4.1.3 Attend at least five out of the six workshops

4.1.4 Achieve at least 40% of the possible marks for the exam

4.1.5 Achieve a weighted average over all assessments of at least 50%

4.2 Attendance at all tutorials and workshops was compulsory in order to achieve terms in the 2^nd iteration. This was discontinued in the 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th iterations.

4.3 Attendance at workshops was not required during the 5^th and 6^th iteration.

4.4 Attaining at least 40% of the possible marks for the exam was not required and the weighted average mark for all assessed items was changed from 50% to a “pass”[JG2] in the 6^th iteration.

---

[JG1] Is this a valid statement?

[JG2]One and the same?

Learning Objectives for INFO 101 & 102

Downloaded first five course outlines for INFO 102 - 2/3 2004 - 2/3 2006 and 11 INFO 101 outlines - 1/3 2003 - 2/3 2006. Will follow up with current - 3/3 2006 - outline with Allan.

Learning objectives remain unchanged throughout, but significant changes to course content. I will document these changes next.

Meeting with Tom and Allan

Met with Allan and Tom to discuss the progress of the INFO 102 project. Discussed at length the evolution of the INFO 102 course:

2004 2/3 First half of course was well received, second half not as well received. This was also seen in 3/3.

2005 2/3 it was realized that the course was essentially a IS course with Com Sci content. As a result, the teaching of programming was moved from the lectures to the labs, while the lectures focused on IS. Due to the nature of assessment, there was also little feedback before the exam. Many students were learning the skills in order to complete the project as they went along.

2005 3/3 assessments marked in labs, more feedback on progress.

2006 2/3 Term project was broken into 4 parts, so students could receive regular feedback on their progress.

2006 3/3 In order to alleviate plagiarism issues with take home assignments, it was replaced with an in-class test. The relevant information for the test was given out two weeks prior.

Meeting with Allan Sylvester

Met briefly with Allan Sylvester to discuss contacting tutors for INFO 102. Emailed all tutors the following email, all of which were delivered according to the "delivery receipt". Responses slow. Will follow up email next week with second email, followed by phone call.


EMAIL:

Dear {tutors name},

As you may be aware, the Victoria University Teaching and Development Centre is currently undertaking research into the teaching of Information Management 102. As a {tutor}/{former tutor} for this paper, we would appreciate your feedback and perceptions of how the paper was taught. In order to gage this, we will be running a focus group with past and present INFO 102 tutors.

Could you please indicate whether or not you would be willing to participate in the focus group, and if so, when you would be available next week or the week after (I am looking at running the focus group in the evening at Rutherford House, Pipitea Campus).

I look forward to hearing from you.

Warmest regards,