Month: September 2010

The following is a first version of the justificatory knowledge section of my ISDT for emergent university e-learning systems. Still fairly uncertain just how information is meant to go in here and also just how far I should go with the reference to other theories (there are lots) and how much time should be spent looking at the interactions between them.

If you have some literature/theories which support or contradict this approach, will be really happy to hear about it.

Justificatory knowledge

The purpose of the justificatory knowledge component is to provide an explanation of why the ISDT is structured as it is and why it should be expected to work appropriately. Much of the justificatory knowledge that underpins this ISDT has been described previously within the literature review (Chapter 2), the first Webfuse action research cycle (Chapter 4), and earlier in this chapter. To avoid repetition this section provides a summary and brief discussion of the justificatory knowledge underpinning the ISDT for emergent university e-learning systems. This summary is linked specifically to the ISDT’s principles for form and function, and principles of implementation.

The justificatory knowledge described below arose from the experiences obtained and literature read during the design and support of Webfuse. This knowledge described below is not necessarily complete or the only established knowledge – theoretical or otherwise – that could be used to justify the principles of the ISDT. Hovorka and Germonprez (2009) identify as a weakness of design research, the lack of guidance around the interaction between the various kernel theories that make up justificatory knowledge and how the influence of these kernel theories may change during use. To some extent, the context-sensitive, emergent nature of the approach embodied by this ISDT – and its kernel theories – means that such advice is embedded in the justificatory knowledge that supports the ISDT.

Justificatory knowledge for principles for form and function

Table 5.20 provides a summary of the justificatory knowledge and is followed by a brief description. For each the three categories of principles of form and function for this ISDT, Table 5.20 provides pointers to sections of this thesis and references to literature that describe the justificatory knowledge in more detail.

Table 5.20 – Summary of justificatory knowledge for principles of form and function

Principle	Justificatory knowledge
Integrated and independent services	Section 2.3.2 – Software wrappers (Bass, Clements et al. 1998; Sneed 2000)
Adaptive and inclusive architecture	Systems of Systems (Perrochon and Mann 1999) Section 2.3.2 – Best of breed (Light, Holland et al. 2001; Lowe and Locke 2008), Service Oriented Architectures (Chen, Chen et al. 2003; Weller, Pegler et al. 2005), End-user development (Eriksson and Dittrich 2007) Section 4.4.4 – Micro-kernel architecture (Liedtke 1995)
Scaffolding, context-sensitive conglomerations	Constructive templates (Nanard, Nanard et al. 1998) , End-user development (Eriksson and Dittrich 2007)

As summarised in chapter 4, a software wrapper is a type of encapsulation that enables software components to be encased in an alternative abstraction that enables clients, often in a new context, to access the wrapped components services (Bass, Clements et al. 1998; Sneed 2000). As such software wrappers are one example of an approach that provides integrated and independent software services.

Some of the relative advantages and limitations more tightly integrated systems is provided by the enterprise software literature. In this literature, comparisons between tightly integrated systems and best-of-breed approaches have argued that integration involves centralisation of processes and a consequently a tendency to reduce autonomy, increase rigidity, and reduce competitiveness (Light, Holland et al. 2001; Lowe and Locke 2008). The best-of-breed approach, focusing on a more inclusive integration of appropriate packages, increases system flexibility while at the same time requires greater time, skills and resources to integrate diverse applications (Light, Holland et al. 2001). Perrochon and Mann (1999) argue that traditional approaches to system architecture, even those with a focus on adaptivity, are appropriate for greenfield developments due to their reliance on the assumption of design (specify architecture) and then implement. The rise of component-oriented software has created the problem of systems of systems that require the combination of well-engineered components or systems into an overall system they were never, and could never be, designed for (Perrochon and Mann 1999).

The concept of constructive templates (Catlin, Garret et al. 1991; Nanard, Nanard et al. 1998) was developed in response to the difficulty faced by content providers in developing hypermedia structures that followed the known principles of interface and hypermedia design. Constructive templates helped content experts to create well designed hypermedia (Catlin, Garret et al. 1991).

Justificatory knowledge for principles of implementation

The justificatory knowledge for this ISDT’s principles of implementation – summarised in Table 5.21 and briefly described below – draws heavily on what is down about alternatives to traditional, plan-driven software development methodologies as discussed in Section 2.4 and Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 of this chapter.

Table 5.21 – Summary of justificatory knowledge for principles of implementation

Principle	Justificatory knowledge
Multi-skilled, integrated development and support team	Job rotation, multi-skilling etc (Faegri, Dyba et al. 2010), Organisational learning (Seely Brown and Duguid 1991), Situated learning, Situated action, Communities of practice (Seely Brown and Duguid 1991), Knowledge-based theory of organizational capability (Grant 1996)
An adopter-focused, emergent development process	Section 2.4 examines the topic of processes, including a comparison of traditional plan-driven processes (e.g. the SDLC) and learning-focused processes such as emergent development. Additional discussion occurs in Section 5.3.2 Section 5.3.1 introduces the conception of adopter-focused development.
A supportive organisational context	Organisational fit (Hong and Kim 2002), Strategic alignment (Henderson and Venkatraman 1993), Bricolage (Chae and Lanzara 2006), Mindful innovation (Swanson and Ramiller 2004)

Seely Brown and Duguid (1991) argue that the tendency for education, training and technology design to focus on abstract representations that are detached from practice actually distort the intricacies of practice and consequently hinder how well practice can be understood, engendered, or enhanced. The idea of the development team integrated and embedded in the everyday practice of e-learning seeks to improve the learning of both academics and students about how to harness e-learning, and also improve the learning of the development team (and the organisation) about how e-learning is being used. The ISDT seeks to establish a process for supporting and developing e-learning which is situated in shared practice with a joint, collective purpose.

Faegri, Dyba et al (2010) argue that turbulent environments increase the importance of employee skills and competences and that having employees cycle through different jobs – such as developers being on helpdesk – can improve knowledge redundancy, organizational knowledge creation, and other benefits. Faegri, Dyba et al (2010) also cite Keil-Slawik (1992) as arguing that full understanding of software requires experience developing the software. The traditional hierarchical structures associated with the division of labour around the e-learning within universities – e.g. helpdesk and developers organized into separate units within an IT division; learning and teaching experts located in another division focused on learning and teaching; and, faculty academics located academic units – are seen by Grant (1996) to inhibit the ability to integrate knowledge from members of an organisation. Such integration is seen as fundamental to the organisation’s ability to create and sustain competitive advantage (Grant 1996).

There is significant literature (March 1991; Baskerville, Travis et al. 1992; Mintzberg 1994; Bamford and Forrester 2003) in a variety of disciplines that identifies plan-driven processes as the dominant approach in most organizations. This and related literature also examines the limitations this over-emphasis suffers, especially in contexts with rapid change or significant diversity (see Section 2.4). Consequently there is significant literature identifying both the theoretical basis and guidance (Introna 1996; Truex, Baskerville et al. 1999) and practical implementation methods (Beck 2000; Schwaber and Beedle 2002) for more emergent or adopter-based development processes.

An emergent, university e-learning information system is a large-scale information system. In this context, “large-scale” is used in the sense adopted by Chae and Lanzara (2006), as referring to systems that involve both organisational technologies and technological innovations that “comprise and connect multiple communities of practice within an organisation or between organistions”. Literature examining success factors with information systems development (e.g. Ewusi-Mensah 1997; Scott and Vessey 2002) has long considered it vital for senior management to be supportive of and committed to systems development. Brown et al (2007) identify commitment – defined as the resources dedicated to IT, organisational dedication to change procedures, and top management support – as one of two most cited problems in the IS projects they examined and identified it as the factor most cited within the literature.

Organisational fit (Hong and Kim 2002) and strategic alignment (Henderson and Venkatraman 1993) between various aspects of an organisation and its information technology systems and processes have long been argued as critical success factors. A similar importance on having an organisational context that is committed and appropriate to information systems development is also found in approaches that are less traditional or teleological (e.g. bricolage and mindful innovation) and have more in common with the emergent, adopter-focused approach advocate in this ISDT. Collective or organisational bricolage requires the combined effort of several individuals and groups (Chae and Lanzara 2006). An organisation which is mindful in innovating with IT, uses reasoning grounded in its own organisational facts and specifics when thinking about the innovation, the organisation recognises that context matters (Swanson and Ramiller 2004). Within mindful innovation, management have a responsibility to foster conditions that prompt collective mindfulness (Swanson and Ramiller 2004).

References

Bamford, D., & Forrester, P. (2003). Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(5), 546-564.

Baskerville, R., Travis, J., & Truex, D. (1992). Systems without method: the impact of new technologies on information systems development projects. In K. E. Kendall (Ed.), The Impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development (pp. 241-251). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Bass, L., Clements, P., & Kazman, R. (1998). Software Architecture in Practice. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Beck, K. (2000). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change: Addison-Wesley.

Brown, S., Chervany, N., & Reinicke, B. (2007). What matters when introducing new information technology. Communications of the ACM, 50(9), 91-96.

Catlin, K., Garret, L. N., & Launhardt, J. (1991). Hypermedia Templates: An Author’s Tool. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Hypertext’91.

Chae, B., & Lanzara, G. F. (2006). Self-destructive dyamics in large-scale technochange and some ways of conteracting it. Information Technology & People, 19(1), 74-97.

Chen, M., Chen, A., & Shao, B. (2003). The implications and impacts of web services to electronic commerce research and practices. Journal of Electronic Commerce Reseaerch, 4(4), 128-139.

Eriksson, J., & Dittrich, Y. (2007). Combining tailoring and evolutionary software development for rapidly changing business systems. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 19(2), 47-64.

Ewusi-Mensah, K. (1997). Critical Issues in Abandonded Information Systems Development Projects. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 74-80.

Faegri, T. E., Dyba, T., & Dingsoyr, T. (2010). Introducing knowledge redundancy practice in software development: Experiences with job rotation in support work. Information and Software Technology, 52(10), 1118-1132.

Grant, R. (1996). Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 357-387.

Henderson, J., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 4-16.

Hong, K.-K., & Kim, Y.-G. (2002). The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit perspective. Information & Management, 40(1), 25-40.

Hovorka, D., & Germonprez, M. (2009). Tinkering, tailoring and bricolage: Implications for theories of design. Paper presented at the AMCIS 2009.

Introna, L. (1996). Notes on ateleological information systems development. Information Technology & People, 9(4), 20-39.

Keil-Slawik, R. (1992). Artifacts in software design. In C. Floyd, H. Zullighoven, R. Budde & R. Keil-Slawik (Eds.), Software Development and Reality Construction (pp. 168-188). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Liedtke, J. (1995). On micro-kernel construction. Operating Systems Review, 29(5), 237-250.

Light, B., Holland, C., & Wills, K. (2001). ERP and best of breed: a comparative analysis. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 216-224.

Lowe, A., & Locke, J. (2008). Enterprise resource planning and the post bureaucratic organization. Information Technology & People, 21(4), 375-400.

March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for planning, plans, planners. New York: Free Press.

Nanard, M., Nanard, J., & Kahn, P. (1998). Pushing Reuse in Hypermedia Design: Golden Rules, Design Patterns and Constructive Templates. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia.

Perrochon, L., & Mann, W. (1999). Inferred Designs. IEEE Software, 16(5), 46-51.

Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile Software Development with Scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Scott, J., & Vessey, I. (2002). Managing risks in enterprise systems implementations. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 74-81.

Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Sneed, H. (2000). Encapsulation of legacy software: A technique for reusing legacy software components. Annals of Software Engineering, 9(1-4), 293-313.

Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (2004). Innovating mindfully with information technology. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 553-583.

Truex, D., Baskerville, R., & Klein, H. (1999). Growing systems in emergent organizations. Communications of the ACM, 42(8), 117-123.

Weller, M., Pegler, C., & Mason, R. (2005). Students’ experience of component versus integrated virtual learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 253-259.

For the last week or so I’ve been attempting to bring together the principles that underpin the design theory for e-learning that will be the main contribution of my thesis. This post summarises one of the principles of form and function that is emerging from the last week or so. I using this blog post to escape the confines of PhD-ese and see if writing about it can generate some further refinement.

Am aiming for brevity and clarity in the following.

A design theory contains principles for form and function; and for implementation. The following is more form and function, while the previous post is more implementation. There is more to the ISDT than just these two posts.

The problem

The functionality provided by most e-learning systems are in the form of low-level primitive tasks (e.g. upload a document, add a discussion forum, create a quiz). Most e-learning systems provide a fairly large collection of these low-level features. Many of these features, because they are designed for the general case, come with large numbers of options and configuration settings so that the task can be tweaked to the broadest collection of uses.

Consequently, achieving a high-level task (e.g. supporting a discussion forum that encourages student-to-student collaboration, or creating an educationally well-designed course website) requires a significant amount of knowledge, skills and time on the part of teaching academics. Some (perhaps much) of the time spent by teachers in leveraging these low-level, very general features is expended on bridging the gap between the generality of the feature set and the specifics of the context. Much of the time is spent trying to translate and wrangle what is known about good practice into the specifics required to implement it with the low-level feature set of the e-learning system.

I suggest that these difficulties limit the quality and quantity of how these feature sets are used. These difficulties appear to be one of the factors that contribute to the on-going fairly poor quality of most e-learning within formal education settings, especially universities.

Scaffolding, context-sensitive conglomerations as a solution?

The idea is that an e-learning system should provide the ability to create “scaffolding, context-sensitive, conglomerations” of its low-level feature set.

Examples

An example of this is the default course site “conglomeration” used in the Webfuse system. This is the system I designed and forms the basis for my PhD. So you can see where the idea has come from. The default course sites conglomeration was aimed at making it very simple for academics to create a default course site. So simple, in fact, that if they wanted to, they didn’t have to do anything.

Another possible example of a “conglomeration” from my own work could be the Moodle module BIM. BIM is a conglomeration of external blog engines (e.g. WordPress.com and various Moodle features, especially the gradebook. The BIM “conglomeration” is designed to make it simpler for teachers to manage students using individual blogs for assessment and other purposes. It provides a bridge between the external blogs and Moodle’s making/management features.

Moving further afield, the work being done by Desire2Learn with its instructional design wizard provide another approach to the provision of a conglomeration. The “Wizard” approach is used.

Conglomerations

In this context, a conglomeration is essentially a way to group together the existing low-level functionality provided by the e-learning system into something at a much higher level of abstraction. The term conglomeration has been chosen specifically to avoid terms like component, framework, package etc that, at least with some technical systems, refer to fairly specific ways of combining technology features. I’m trying to avoid these terms for a range of reasons, including:

• Non-specificity;
  The aim of the ISDT (information systems design theory) is to provide broad guidance that is not specific to a particular approach or technology.
• Inclusivity;
  Most of the technical approaches to grouping functional (e.g. component-based architectures) are not inclusive. i.e. if you’re using architecture X, you can only group features that are implemented using architecture X. While recognising there’s always going to be a practical need for something like this, with my ISDT I am trying to argue that for e-learning systems, the conglomeration mechanism needs to be as inclusive as possible (e.g. BIM’s reliance on RSS/Atom feeds – loose coupling – rather than a specific API for a particular blog service).
• User focus.
  As part of all this the conglomerations only have to group these features from the perspective of the user. It doesn’t actually mean that they are technically grouped through the use of the same architecture. What’s important is that the user experience with the conglomeration leads them to believe the different bits of low-level functionality are integrated and working together.

Context-sensitive

Context-sensitive implies that the conglomerations know something about and offer support for factors or knowledge that is specific to the context of the people using the conglomeration. i.e. it’s not such a general purpose tool as to require the user to bridge the gap between their context and the tool.

For example, the default course site approach within Webfuse was designed to know about and integrate with as much of the local context as possible. The course synopsis, details about the assessment, staff details etc were automatically drawn from institutional databases and available within the conglomeration. In a more able and educationally enlightened context, the default course site conglomeration might have known about and offered specific support for the use of institutional graduate attributes or course learning outcomes.

Scaffolding

This aspect is still a work in progress and builds somewhat on the context-sensitive attributed. The term scaffolding was chosen because of the connection between this idea and situated/distributed cognition, cognitive apprenticeship etc. The idea is that the e-learning system should be designed in a way to help the teachers (and perhaps students) learn about using the system effectively.

The assumption is that for most teachers using the e-learning system to improve and/or change their teaching practice is a learning process. They haven’t done this before. Rather than treat learning about how to make this change a separate professional development activity, the e-learning embodies/embeds the learning into its conglomerations. In some way, the system adopts an approach that includes situated modelling, coaching and fading.

Collins et al (1991) define it this way

When scaffolding is provided by a teacher, it involves the teacher in executing parts of the task that the student cannot yet manage. A requisite to such scaffolding is accurate diagnosis of the student’s current skill level or difficulty and the availability of an intermediate step at the appropriate level of difficulty in carrying out the target activity. Fading involves the gradual removal of supports until students are on their own.

Am still considering the implications of this addition and how far to take it/interpret it. Potentially this could suggest that the system have a model of the teachers’ abilities and be “intelligent”. I don’t see this as being a requirement. An equally plausible, and probably more likely, approach would be for this diagnosis to be performed by people.

Need to think this through some more and see how much more of the insights offered by the learning theories this idea is based on could/should be used.

References

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator(Winter), 6-11, 38-46.