ISECON.2008.Saulnier

8/10/2019 ISECON.2008.Saulnier

1/9

Saulnier Sat, Nov 8, 9:00 - 9:25, Pueblo A

From Sage on the Stage to Guide on theSide Revisited: (Un)Covering the Content

in the Learner-CenteredInformation Systems CourseBruce M. Saulnier

[email protected]

Abstract

This paper addresses the major issues associated with switching from a teacher-centered to alearner-centered educational paradigm in information systems courses. After opening with adiscussion regarding the importance of switching our information systems courses to a learnercentered paradigm, the paper next addresses: faculty attitudes that impede the switch; thefunction of content; the role of the teacher; and the students responsibility for learning.Several strategies and examples are proposed which may be employed by faculty to foster asuccessful transition from a teacher-centered to a more learner-centered course environment.

Key Words: Teacher-Centered, Learner-Centered, Educational Paradigm, Course Content,Faculty Attitudes, Student Responsibility.

1. INTRODUCTION

The really difficult part of teaching is notorganizing and presenting the content, butrather doing something that inspiresstudents to focus on that content to becomeengaged.

--- Robert Leamson (2000)

As it currently stands, content, not teachersor learners, centers the instructionaluniverse. If we aim to be learner-centered,content still needs to be a focal point of theuniverse, but it can no longer be theexclusive center, the only or even mostimportant variable when it comes toinstructional decision making.

--- Maryellen Weimer (2002)

The change of seasons is but a smallreminder of the myriad of changes going onall around us at ISECON, nationally, andglobally. These large-scale, institutional, andeven global changes necessitate a journey ofdiscovery with new directions andparadigms.

The research-based concept of a newparadigm for learning in higher educationwas originally proposed over a decade ago.It was Alison King (1993) who first profiledthe dichotomy of faculty roles (Sage vs.

Guide) in the classroom. In 1995, whenthe term paradigm shift was all the rage,Barr and Tagg extended Kings thesisregarding the role of the professor to theentire college by describing a shift from aninstructional paradigm to a learningparadigm. Then in 1997, Smith and Wallerset forth over a dozen examples of changingparadigms for learning . More recently ,Weimer (2002) provided a comprehensivework on the topic of learner-centeredteaching in the college and universityclassroom, Fink (2003) echoed the need formoving from a content-centered to alearner-centered paradigm, Bain ( 2004)uncovered the effectiveness of challengingstudents existing models or paradigms,helping them transform existingunderstandings into better, more accuratemodels of truth, and Richlin (2006) provideda compendium of research-based methodsto construct college courses to facilitate,assess, and document student learning.

Proc ISECON 2008, v25 (Phoenix): 3114 (refereed) c 2008 EDSIG, page 1


2/9


So why now? Why the emphasis on changingour teaching methods from one-dimensional,unidirectional teaching in which facultyprovide students with content tomultidimensional, multidirectional teachingand learning in which the entire learningcommunity is responsible for both teachingand learning? Beyond mere calls foraccountability put forth by national andregional accrediting agencies, perhaps itspartially because we now live in a rapidlychanging, interconnected world, withincreasingly complex problems that need tobe solved. As Nicholas Taleb (2007) recentlyput forth, we have moved from a stableagrarian society to an increasingly fast-paced technologically-based global societywith populations concentrated in urban areasin which the impact of unexpected events(e.g.; 9/11, the New Orleans floods, and therecent Myanmar cyclones) that have aneffect on the world grows much larger.These events also appear to occur morefrequently because events that might havecreated only a small ripple in a simpler timecan now create widespread havoc in ourinterdependent world characterized byvirtually instant communication.

We now recognize and affirm that highereducation contributes most to society and ismost faithful to its own deepest purposeswhen it seeks to use its considerableintellectual and cultural resources to preparestudents for lives of significance andresponsibility. We seek to develop in ourstudents adequate professional preparationcoupled with the ability and desire to joinothers in an arena of mutual respect toexplore, probe, and engage in ourincreasingly global cultural and intellectualheritage. In doing so, our students shouldbecome both enabled and disposed to bothaddress and work toward the solution of themajor problems of our times.

2. LEARNER-CENTEREDINFORMATION SYSTEMS

COURSES

Earlier this year Saulnier, et al (2008)outlined the basic constructs of the learner-centered paradigm as it applies toinformation systems courses, and Landry, etal (2008) made the case for the learner-centered paradigm being profoundlyimportant for information systems

education. Being learner-centered meansfocusing our attention squarely on studentlearning: what the student is learning, howthe student is learning, the conditions underwhich the student is learning, whether thestudent is retaining and applying thelearning, and how current learning positionsthe student for future learning. Learner-centered teaching shifts the responsibility forlearning to the students and away from theteacher -- when instruction is learner-centered the focus is on what students, notteachers, are doing. Because theinstructional action now features students,this learner-centered orientation accepts,cultivates, and builds on the ultimateresponsibility students have for learning.

Many faculty resist this shift, primarilybecause it forces them to change the waythey think about their profession. They findit threatening to give up some of theircontrol and power -- in the learner-centeredapproach faculty are no longer the solecontent expert. Additionally, many facultyare not at the point in their own teachingdevelopment to entertain these new ideas,particularly the notion that they have toteach less content and include learning skillsand strategies in their classes.

But the faculty attitude that most stronglyinhibits the shift to a more learner-centeredparadigm is the belief that teaching

learning how to learn skills significantlydilutes the intellectual currency of the class.Their belief is that students should alreadyknow how to learn, think, criticize, and formopinions. Students should have learnedthese skills elsewhere, and if they have notlearned them it is the students problem, notthe teachers, to solve. Faculty believe thatteaching such skills is not their job, althoughthey do acknowledge that they arefrequently blamed for students graduatingwithout the critical thinking skills thestudents employers expect.

But this shift in faculty focus needs to occur.Faculty need to develop an integrated,coherent philosophy of education whichfocuses on students long-term learningneeds. They need to make changes in theircourses slowly and systematically, withspecific student learning goals in mind. Theyshould expect to be engaged in a trial anderror process in which they set realistic



3/9


expectations for success based on improvedstudent academic performance. In theprocess faculty need to develop a deeperand more accurate self-knowledge regardingtheir teaching competency, seeking feedbackfrom their students, colleagues, and expertson teaching and learning. This feedbackneeds to be specific to the student learninggoal at hand, not clouded by other coursefactors, and the faculty need to listen to thefeedback.

3. THE FUNCTION OF CONTENT

Another widely held faculty belief thatimpedes the shift to a more learner-centeredparadigm is the need to cover more content.If we perceive that covering content is avalue that we (or others that we teach with)adhere to, then having the discretion todelete some content is not easy to do. But ifwe have to cover a lot of content then it isnot possible to uncover much of it at deeplevels of understanding and learning.

Our need to cover content promotes the useof simple rote memory skills on the part ofour students because thats all that theyhave time to do. There are numerous studiesthat show students retain little of thecontent that they cover in classes, but thisfact has not had much impact on the wayteaching and learning take place. Studiesalso show that students do learn a greatdeal of facts, but that these facts do nottranslate to the students being able to showwhat they understand.

Teachers often see the classroom as adichotomy where they either cover thecontent or have the students engage insome active learning activity. These twoapproaches should not necessarily be seenas mutually exclusive. For the majority oflearners, both students and faculty, contentis learned at a deep level by experiencing it using it. The role of the teacher is tocreate a synergy of content and learningtogether. In designing course activities forour students to interact with the content weneed to ask ourselves, What do ourstudents most need to be successful with thecourse content? How do we get content tomove from an end to a means? Oureducational goal is to have the courseexperience cause a qualitative change in thestudents way of seeing, experiencing,

understanding, and conceptualizingsomething in the real world as opposed to aqualitative change in the amount ofknowledge possessed.

There is simply too much knowledge todayfor our students to learn everything thatthey need to know. We need to think aboutour teaching as one step in the life longprocess of learning that our students willneed to engage in not as a terminalexperience in itself. If we do not teach ourstudents this lifelong learning viewpoint byour own example, they will not adopt thisviewpoint. The reality is that our studentswill have to relearn much of what they aretaught due to the ever changing nature ofour knowledge. Continual learning mustviewed as at the heart of any professionallife, both for our students and for us as well.

Thus, content is not to be covered it isused as a vehicle for students to developtheir learning skills and strategies, both ingeneral and specific to the content. This isconsistent with the Constructivist approachto learning in which learners are seen asconstructing their own knowledge/meaningrather than passively receiving it.Constructivism recognizes that learningoccurs most often in a social setting; thus,the formation of a classroom or onlinecommunity is vital to student success. Inthis community setting learners raise theirown questions and generate their ownhypotheses, seeking feedback from theirfellow learners, both students and faculty, intesting their hypotheses.

Content is used at a metacognitive level topromote student self-awareness. Contentcan and should be used to teach studentsabout learning, to develop student learningskills; i.e., a repertoire of learning strategiesboth general and content specific. Helpingstudents understand how they learn bestand developing confidence in their abilitiesas learners is a key component of learner-centered teaching. Helping students identifytheir strengths and weaknesses as learnersand helping them develop ways to use theirstrengths and improve their weaknesses isvital to this approach.

In this rapidly changing and evolving worldin which we live, teaching as the transferringof information is becoming obsolete. Content



4/9


remains important, but it is no longer of soleimportance information management skillsare at least as important as informationacquisition skills.

Active, first hand student experience is ofvital importance to student learning. Theonly effective way to learn how to thinkcritically about a subject is to engage in theprocess of critical thought about the subject.The best place to teach test taking skills is ina content class where authentic testingsituations occur. And the best way to teachanalysis and design skills is in an authenticenvironment in which the students engagethe systems users in analyzing userrequirements and constructing systems tomeet the users information needs. Teachingthese learning processes in isolation fromcontent is virtually pointless.

4. THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER

What do we need to do to help studentsbetter learn our content? Initially, we needto recognize the developmental nature ofour learners; that their understanding oftheir own learning process is a work inprogress, and that it is in their best interestto be taught how to be a life-long learner.

Our role as educators needs to be to involveour students in the process of acquiring andretaining information, and to involve ourstudents in an examination of the skills andstrategies involved in the processes. Weneed to engage in serious ongoing reflectionon how our actions both in and out of theclassroom impact student learning. The roleof the teacher in promoting student learningis a very different role that the one mostteachers have embraced.

Perhaps the most important initial coursequestion involves the issue of control andpower in the classroom. If our goal is toproduce self-directed learners capable ofdefining their own learning objectives andteaching themselves what they need to learnin order to reach their objectives, then weshould not be surprised that we will need toteach them how to do so. And what betterway to teach them than through theirexperience in our courses.

In the teacher-centered traditional course itis the teacher who decides such fundamental

issues as what students learn, the pace ofcontent coverage, the structure ofassignments, the evaluation criteria, thecourse policies and conditions, and the flowof communication. The course syllabususually addresses most of these issues, andthe syllabus is usually a document notsubject for negotiation. In the traditionalcourse it is the teacher who makes most ifnot all of the important decisions aboutlearning.

But what is the connection between ourclassroom/course policies and how theysupport student learning? Should it come asa surprise that in an environment in whichwe assume the control of the learningenvironment that our students learn verylittle about self-directed learning?

In the teacher-centered course teachersassume control because they believe thatstudents cannot be trusted to makedecisions about learning. Teachers oftenbelieve that students lack the good studyskills or intelligence to make the decisions,or that the students are not well prepared todo so. Teachers often posit that theirstudents are only interested in grades, thatthey do not care about learning, or that thestudents are not even interested in thecontent area. The truth is that our studentsneed instruction on how to take more controlof their learning, but it is not a hopelesssituation. Teachers make all of thesedecisions because they always have, butdoes such a process benefit studentlearning? Do teachers making thesedecisions benefit the teacher more than thelearner?

There are very real benefits to be realized bybringing our students into the process ofdetermining the direction of our courses.Letting students make decisions istantamount to giving our studentsresponsibility for those decisions, thusproviding them with increased responsibilityfor their own learning. And asking forstudent input regarding course policiesprovides students with a sense ofempowerment and responsibility withoutnecessarily letting students make thedecisions. Empowering students to make afew decisions is not the same as letting themmake all of the decisions; for example,letting students choose which assignments



5/9


while the teacher can still control the list ofavailable assignments and the parameters ofeach assignment. While it is true that ourstudents prefer a teacher-centeredclassroom, when the teachers refuse to doso the students will reluctantly do so andthus assume more responsibility for learningin the process.

The real benefits of a learner-centeredclassroom that shares power is that thecourse is owned not just by the courseinstructor, but also by the student. It avoidsthe teacher vs. student attitude bycreating a better learning environment. Theclass belongs to everyone. If a learninglesson does not work we all fix it together.In such an environment students spendmore time on task, yielding greater learning,as students ultimately discover thatknowledge is indeed power. And seeing suchstudent energy the teacher is frequentlyenergized.

There are many time honored techniquesthat as teachers we can use in such a sharedclassroom. We can employ short timeperiods in class to teach specific learningskills, targeting the skills our students needthe most when the teaching/learningmoment is at hand. We can use summarywriting as a study tool, asking students tosummarize what they believe will be on theforthcoming exam. We can introduce specificstudy skills support material as in-class oronline handouts to assist our students inlearning the material and we can bring informer students to share how they beststudied and learned in our class. Afterhanding back our exams and assignments,we can have our students write about theirexam/assignment errors, specifically whythey made the errors and what they can doto improve in the future. Regarding groupwork, we can ask our students to identifytheir best and worst experiences in groupwork and prompt them to adopt groupbehaviors consistent with their bestexperiences. We can have our studentsteach each other.

In a perfect educational system the teacherswould be phased out as our studentsbecome autonomous, self-directed learners.Unfortunately, for most of our students thatgoal of becoming a self-directed learner ismany years away. So our goal as teachers is

to design a set of course activities andassignments that responsibly provide ourstudents with more control over thedecisions that affect their learning. We needto answer for ourselves, given thecharacteristics of our students, whatspecifics we should hand over to ourstudents to do by their own choosing. Weneed to determine when we hand overcertain responsibilities to our students, forthe key is to do so gradually consistent withtheir learning. And we need to determinehow much freedom and power is enough,and as teachers decide for ourselveswhether we need to design a system inwhich we give more power to some studentsthan to others based on individual studentperformance in assuming responsibility fortheir own learning.

Maryellen Weimer (2002) suggests sevenprinciples to guide course the instructortrying to develop learner-centeredclassroom:

1. Teachers Do Learning TasksLess Assign to students some of the tasksof organizing the content, giving examples,summarizing discussions, solving problems,and drawing diagrams, charts, and graphs;

2. Teachers Do Less Telling;Students do More Discovering Give a quizon your syllabus and policies without goingover it first; let students discoverinformation in assigned readings withoutpresenting it first or summarizing it later;

3. Teachers Do More DesignWork Design activities and assignmentsthat move students to new skill levels,motivate engagement in course content bydoing the work of practitioners in thediscipline, and develop self-awareness oftheir learning of the content;

4. Faculty Do More Modeling Demonstrate how a skilled learner (theteacher) continues to learn. Show themdrafts of your articles, notes on your ownreading in professional journals; talk aloudas you solve a problem, thereby revealingand modeling your own thinking process;

5. Faculty Do More to getStudents Learning From and With EachOther Create work for students to do insmall groups in class;

6. Faculty Work to CreateClimates for Learning Create a climate



6/9


that promotes interaction, autonomy, andresponsibility;

7. Faculty Do More withFeedback In addition to assigning grades,use other means of providing frequentfeedback to students.

5. THE ROLE OF THE STUDENT:RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEARNING

Learning skills as sophisticated as thoseneeded to be an autonomous, self-regulatinglearner do not develop through the simpleexposure to content but must be taught. Ourtask is an arduous one: to transform ourpassive students into autonomous learners.

Our challenges are many, including thereality that many of our students lack thebasic skills for college. Many are also busywith other concerns such as jobs, childrenand membership in online communities.These challenges are further complicated bythe reality that most students lackconfidence in themselves as learners andconsequently make unwise learningdecisions. In general, students tend toprocrastinate, seek easy options, and preferextra credit points over deep learning.

In response to these challenges and topromote student responsibility, teachershave made more rules about attendance,assignment deadlines, number of requiredsources, word lengths in papers, and evenmargin sizes. We tend to rely on extrinsicmotivators and frequently resort to regularquizzes on assigned readings and extrapoints for class participation. The short-termresult of such strategies in an improvementin student performance, but the long-termresult appears to be that rule-based policiesand extrinsic motivators perpetuatedependent and passive learners. Our policesfail to create mature, responsible, motivatedlearners.

We seem to be locked in a cycle: The morestructured we make the environment, themore structure students need. The more wedecide for students, the more they expect usto decide. The more motivation we provide,the less they find within themselves. Themore responsibility for learning we try toassume, the less they accept on their own.The more control we exert, the more restivetheir response. We end up with students

who have little or no commitment to andalmost no respect for learning and whocannot function without structure andimposed control. (Weimer, 2002, p. 98)

But it is part of our professionalresponsibility as educators to producegraduates that not only recognize the needto be lifelong learners, but embrace theprocess of becoming so. Just how are we tomove students from where they are towhere we need them to be?

The remedy is not to abandon rules andstructure, which indeed do produce goodresults. But we must understand theliabilities associated with rules and structure,use them carefully, and augment them withadditional approaches that create a climatethat promotes autonomous learning. Weimer(2002) suggests several strategies that wemay/should employ to create a climate thatproduces self-regulated, intrinsicallymotivated learners:

1. The instructor should makethe content relevant, demonstrate its powerto answer questions, and otherwise show itsapparent intrigue.

2. Make the student responsiblefor learning decisions by relying on logicalconsequences of action and inaction, ratherthan punishment. For example, to deal withlateness, present important material orassignments early in the period that you donot repeat, rather than deduct attendancepoints for lateness. Do not summarizechapters if students have not read them. Ifthey arrive unprepared, put the unreadmaterial on a test; give frequent tests.

3. Be consistent inadministering policies. If your syllabus sayslate homework is not accepted, never acceptlate homework despite the heart-wrenchingexcuse offered by the student.

4. Involve students in adiscussion of creating a climate thatpromotes learning. Have this discussionearly in the semester.

5. Obtain feedback on theclassroom climate occasionally and revisitthe discussion of policies and procedures.

6. Employ practices that encourage students to encounter

themselves as learners (p.111). Explain thepurposes and benefits of assignments andprojects; tell students what problems they



7/9


might run into in doing the assignments and esuggest remedies. Help them with timemanagement. With group projects, provideguidance in managing the project, handlinggroup dynamics, and assigning individualresponsibilities.

6. EXAMPLES FROM THE TRENCHES

The general strategy to adopt in developinga learner-centered classroom in anydiscipline is to refrain from delivering thecontent and instead develop specific activelearning activities for the student to interactwith desired content. When the individualstudent or the student team completes theactivity, they will have effectivelydemonstrated their acquisition of thecontent. Specific examples of thedeployment of this strategy may be helpful -- what follows are three specific examplesthat the author has employed in one of hisinformation systems courses:

Information Systems for Competitive Advantage -- One of the key learningobjectives is for students to understand thatthe effective application of informationsystems can assist the organization inobtaining a strategic competitive advantagein the industry. Using Porters four basiccompetitive advantage strategies andPorters Value Chain concept, student teamsworking on a semester-long simulation in anindustry select a competitive advantage fortheir company and specify the reasons fortheir selection. They then assess how theselection of a competitive strategy influencesthe general characteristics of theircompanys information systems.

Small Office Home Office (SOHO)Networks as an Example of LANS Studentteams are provided with a hypothetical casein which they need to establish a network ina three story fraternity house on campus.They are required to explain how a LANcould be used to connect all of thecomputers in the house, asked whether theywould recommend an Ethernet, an 802.11,or some combination of both and justifytheir answer, and asked whether theirinternet connection would be dial-up, DSL,or cable modem, once again justifying theiranswer by indicating the factors involved intheir decision making scenario.

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems Students are sent via a link to the SAPweb site to view a demo titled SAP ERP:Enabling Efficient Sales Order Management.Students then answer questions regardingthe video such as (1) what benefits do ERPsystems provide, citing specific examplesfrom the video, (2) from the product demo,what type of information is available, and(3) what are some of the specific views ortabs that provide the information.

7. CONCLUSIONS

When working toward changing a paradigm,especially one that may have worked well forus as students, it is important to considerthe future what will our studentsemerging careers be, what skills andknowledge are essential for them to beengaged in their professional worlds, andwhat paradigms might they face? Ourteaching behaviors, our expectations we setfor our students, and our students learningbehaviors must evolve to fit our studentsfutures.

We can make the change to a learner-centered paradigm if we remind ourselvesthat our need is to develop a coherentphilosophy of education driven by the idea ofstudent learning. What we need to do is todevelop an approach, not just a set ofpractices, a philosophical pedagogicalcompass that serves as a guide to ourcourse decision making. We can thenproceed to make those changes we deemnecessary in a systematic way with a specificplan in mind, recognizing that we will beembarking on a trial-and-error process. Weneed to set realistic expectations forsuccess, recognizing that our process is oneof continuous improvement in our studentslearning.

Tagg (2003) reminds us that to change ourparadigm from teaching to learning is toview education through a new lens

seeing our work in a different light andhaving diverse experiences as we and ourstudents interact to learn. We will no longerbe assuming the role of Sage on theStage, where students merely watch andlisten and are expected to absorbinformation like a sponge. We will becomemore of a Guide on the Side, a fellow



8/9


learner with our students, modeling theprocess of uncovering new knowledge andconstructing meaning through thedeployment of active learning techniques.For as Chickering and Gamson (1987) toldus more than two decades ago:

Learning is not a spectator sport.Students do not learn much by justsitting in class listening to teachers,memorizing repackaged assignments,and spitting out answers. They must talkabout what they are learning, writeabout it, relate it to past experiences,apply it to their daily lives. They mustmake what they learn part ofthemselves.

8. REFERENCES

Bain, K. (2004). What the Best CollegeTeachers Do. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Barr, R.B. & Tagg, J. (1995). From Teachingto Learning: A New Paradigm forUndergraduate Education. Change:27:12-15.

Boren, D. (2008). Letter to America.Norman, OK: University of OklahomaPress.

Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice inUndergraduate Education. AAHEBulletin: 39(7): 3-7.

Fink, L.D. (2003). Creating SignificantLearning Experiences. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Grunert, J. (2000). The Course Syllabus: ALearning-Centered Approach. Bolton,MA: Anchor Publishing.

Huba, M.E. & Freed, J. (2000). Learner-Centered Assessment on CollegeCampuses: Shifting the Focus fromTeaching to Learning. Needham Heights,MA: Allyn & Bacon.

King, A. (1993). From Sage on the Stage toGuide on the Side. College Teaching:41(1): 30-35.

Landry, J.P., Saulnier, B.M., Wagner, T.A., &Longenecker, H.E. (2008). Why is theLearner-Centered Paradigm soProfoundly Important for InformationSystems Education. Journal ofInformation Systems Education: 19(2):175-179.

Leamson, R. (1999). Thinking aboutTeaching and Learning: DevelopingHabits of Learning with First Year Collegeand University Students. Sterling, VA:Stylus.

Leamson, R. (2000). Learning as BiologicalBrain Change. Change: 32(6):34-40.

McCombs, B.L. & Whisler, J.S. (1997). TheLearner-Centered Classroom and School:Strategies for Increasing StudentMotivation and Achievement. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

OBanion, T. (1997). A Learning College forthe 21 st Century. Phoenix: Ace/OryxPress.

Richlin, L (2006). Blueprint for Learning:Constructing College Courses toFacilitate, Assess, and DocumentLearning. Sterling, VA.: Stylus Press.

Saulnier, B.M., Brooks, N., Ceccucci, W. &White, B.A. (2007). LearningCommunities in Information SystemsEducation: Developing the ReflectivePractitioner. Information SystemsEducation Journal, 5(4).

Saulnier, B.M., Landry, J.P., Longenecker,H.E., & Wagner, T.A. (2008). FromTeaching to Learning: Learner-CenteredTeaching and Assessment in InformationSystems Education. Journal ofInformation Systems Education: 19(2):169-174.

Smith, K.A. & Waller, A.A. (1997). NewParadigms for College Teaching. InCampbell, W.E. & Smith, K.A. (Eds.),Paradigms for College Teaching. (pp.269-281). Edina, MN: Interaction.

Sullivan, W.M. & Rosin, M.S. (2008). A New Agenda for Higher Education: Shaping aLife of the Mind for Practice. Stanford,



9/9


CA: The Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching.

Tagg, J. (2003). The Learning ParadigmCollege. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Taleb, N. (2007). The Black Swan: TheImpact of the Highly Improbable. NewYork: Random House.

Wagner, T.A., Longenecker, H.E., Landry,J.P., Saulnier, B.M., & Lusk, S. (2008).

A Methodology to Assist Faculty inDeveloping Successful Approaches forAchieving Learner Centered InformationSystems Curriculum Outcomes: TeamBased Methods. Journal of InformationSystems Education: 19(2): 181-196.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-CenteredTeaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


ISECON.2008.Saulnier

Documents

Transcript of ISECON.2008.Saulnier