The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.

- 791 - SERVICE LEARNING PROJECTS –IF THE CLIENT QUITS DOES THE LEARNING STOP? EVIDENCE FROM A GROUNDED THEORY ANALYSIS . Janis A. Warner . Sam Houston State University

Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Published by , 2016-02-11 07:09:03

SERVICE LEARNING PROJECTS – IF THE CLIENT QUITS DOES THE ...

- 791 - SERVICE LEARNING PROJECTS –IF THE CLIENT QUITS DOES THE LEARNING STOP? EVIDENCE FROM A GROUNDED THEORY ANALYSIS . Janis A. Warner . Sam Houston State University

SERVICE LEARNING PROJECTS – IF THE CLIENT QUITS DOES THE LEARNING
STOP? EVIDENCE FROM A GROUNDED THEORY ANALYSIS

Janis A. Warner
Sam Houston State University
College of Business Administration
Management and Marketing Department

PO Box #2056
Huntsville, TX 77341-2056

936-294-4878
[email protected]

Pamela J. Zelbst
Sam Houston State University
College of Business Administration
Management and Marketing Department

PO Box #2056
Huntsville, TX 77341-2056

936-294-3840
[email protected]

Qiannong Gu
Sam Houston State University
College of Business Administration
Management and Marketing Department

PO Box #2056
Huntsville, TX 77341-2056

936-294-1823
[email protected]

Michael D.Glissmeyer
Sam Houston State University
College of Business Administration
Management and Marketing Department

PO Box #2056
Huntsville, TX 77341-2056

936-294-3368
[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Although using client companies for projects in the classroom delivers unparalleled real world
experiential learning, it also places the project in an uncontrolled environment. This paper
compares the Plato’s Taxonomy levels of learning based on students’ reflective papers from two

- 791 -

service learning experiential project classes where one client quits during the semester. Using a
grounded theory approach, the analysis provides evidence that a major negative event, such as
the client quitting the project before the end of the course, does not appear to limit the learning
levels achieved.

INTRODUCTION

The frequently asked recruiting question “Do you have experience?” is a major barrier for many
graduating seniors when interviewing to begin their careers. Classroom projects provide
valuable hands on experiential learning involving skills such as project management (Larsen &
Drexel Jr., 2009) and innovative technologies such as radio frequency identification (RFID)
(Zelbst et al., 2008). However, they do not provide “real world” experience or the community
involvement that service learning can provide. Service learning provides these two valuable
opportunities for the student since it is considered “a form of experiential learning in which
students engage in activities that address human and community needs together with structured
opportunities intentionally designed to promote student learning and development” (Jacoby,
1996, p.5). Service learning has been seen as a way to go beyond the classroom activity linking
it to real-world learning (Govekar & Rishi, 2007). Service learning has also been described as a
way to “create opportunities for students to apply theory they learn in the classroom to real-
world problems and real-world needs” (Kenworthy-U’ren and Peterson, 2005, p.272). Although
service learning is seen as a valuable tool it is not without problems. One major concern might
be that using real clients in an uncontrolled environment is problematic which may lessen or
eliminate the ultimate goal of enhanced student learning. For example, there is the possibility
that a client may “quit” the project when it is too late to replace the client and too early to wrap
up the project deliverables. These concerns may discourage and prevent use of service learning
projects with real world clients. Thus, it is important to understand the impact of major
differences in uncontrollable project contextual issues such as client behavior on achieving one
of the main focal outcomes of student service learning. The goal of this study is to investigate
differences between the learning levels obtained by two classes doing service learning projects,
one having a “successful” project with a client that is present until the completion of the project
and a one with a “unsuccessful” project where the client “quits” the project during the semester.

One framework used to measure student learning outcomes from experiential learning is Plato’s
four levels of learning – imaging, perceptual belief, understanding and insight (Zelbst et al.,
2008). The framework illustrates forms of awareness which can be used to identify levels of
learning or mastery of a concept or field with the final level of insight achieved once the student
is in the workforce (Sower and Fair, 2005). Using data from two Management Information
Systems (MIS) Analysis and Design sections, this study examines the level of learning achieved
in one service project class where a substantial disruptive event occurred mid-semester versus a
second service project class without the disruptive event to determine if there was a significant
difference in the students’ learning outcomes. The level of learning was determined by analysis
of student semester end reflective papers using a qualitative methodology based on the approach
used to compare student learning outcomes when an in-class project is a success versus a failure
(Warner et al., 2010).

A review of Plato’s levels of awareness identifying mastery or learning and service learning
follows. The specific qualitative methodology used for analysis is reviewed. Next, results from

- 792 -

the analysis are discussed. Finally, conclusions, limitations and future research areas are
presented.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Plato’s Levels of Awareness

Plato identified four levels of awareness: imaging (eikasia), perceptual beliefs (pistis),
understanding (dianoia) and insight (noesis) (Plato, 1992). This hierarchy of awareness can be
applied to many fields as: a) familiarity with representations; b) personal experience;
c)theoretical understanding; and d) creative insight (Sower and Fair, 2005). Zelbst et al. (2008)
adapted the hierarchy to guide teaching methodology for radio frequency identification
technology (RFID) using experiential learning. The taxonomy of Plato’s levels of awareness is
as follows.

Imaging, the lowest level of awareness or learning, is based on the representation of concrete
things (Sower and Fair, 2005). In a classroom setting textbooks and lectures can provide these
images (Zelbst et al., 2008) making students aware of the representations associated with the
course concepts.

Perceptual beliefs or personal experience can be introduced through class exercises applying the
images or “concrete things” presented through the textbook and/or lecture. Such hands-on
experience in a controlled setting such as a classroom provides the opportunity for a student to
see how things work for themselves. As an illustration, Sower and Fair (2005) discuss a chemist
who has learned the textbook knowledge of chemistry, i.e. imaging, then applies that knowledge
to hands-on laboratory experience, i.e. perceptual beliefs or personal experience.

Understanding is the next level of learning achieved through the application of the knowledge
learned in previous levels of imaging and personal experience. Zelbst et al. (2008) utilized an in-
class applied experience recognizing that “It is not sufficient for students to have simply ‘heard
about RFID’ to be successful … [in their field] they must ‘understand’ the technology” (Zelbst et
al., 2008, p.420). Service learning projects for project management (Larsen and Drexel Jr.,
2009), banking and economics (Govekar and Rishi, 2007) and nonprofit management course
(Govekar and Rishi, 2007) are examples of outside the classroom applied experiences that have
been used to achieve the understanding level of learning. Understanding is preparatory for
achieving the final level of awareness and learning, i.e. insight.

Plato placed insight as the highest level of awareness. At this level, an individual would use
creativity combined with concrete knowledge to produce entirely new products and/or
applications (Sower and Fair, 2005). Achieving the level of insight means that the student could
use creativity to innovate beyond the current paradigm.

Service Learning

Early philosophical work by Dewey (1938) provided justification for service learning by arguing
that service projects provide a basis for the participants to broaden both educational and civic
views. Service learning, as a subset of the category of experiential education (Colby et al., 2003)
has been defined as “a specialized form of internship where students work in settings established

- 793 -

to meet some social and community need” (Wurtzdorff, 1993, p.33). As an educational approach
service learning can be viewed as a “balanced” pedagogy (Furco, 1996, p.5) where both the
student and the community benefit in a reciprocal relationship. A distinguishing feature of
service learning is the requirement for reflection on the experience typically in the form of a
paper or discussion which enhances the student experience over and above a typical internship
(Govekar and Rishi, 2007).

For business schools, service learning has been viewed as one important way to enhance student
learning of technical, leadership, problem-solving and teamwork skills (Easterling and Rudell,
1997). Dealing with real life, unstructured problems (Zlotkowski, 1996) allows business
students to “connect their roles as professionals with their roles as citizens” (Kenworthy, 1996,
p.130).

METHODOLOGY

A grounded theory methodology used by Warner et al., (2010) was employed for this study. The
grounded theory approach from organizational research is based on the seminal work of Glaser
and Strauss (1967) and is useful when examining and evaluating individual behavior,
relationships and communication (Goulding, 2002). This approach is deemed particularly
appropriate for this study since we are looking at individual learning behavior in a team setting
where relationships and communication are an essential part of the learning process.

Classroom Process

Students in two senior level undergraduate Systems Analysis and Design classes completed
service learning projects involving local real world clients. Both courses were taught by the
same instructor in back to back semesters. Both classes used the System Development Life
Cycle (SDLC) or Waterfall methodology (Valacich et al., 2009) to document the analysis for the
client. The clients were located through the Small Business Development Center based on
perceived need, willingness to work with students and fit with the course objectives. The course
objectives are: 1) Introduction to factual knowledge such as concepts, terminology, tools and
processes; 2) Learning to apply the material to improve thinking, problem solving and decision
making; and 3) Acquiring skills working with others as a team member. The designation Group
A is used for the class with the client that completed the semester and Group B designated the
class with the client that quit after six weeks into the semester.

Imaging

Students in both courses were exposed to the factual knowledge through class lectures, in-class
assignments, handouts and textbook reading assignments. Lectures covered Systems
Development Lifecycle methodology being used, i.e. the processes involved in each of the four
phases of the methodology and tools that were available for completing the phases.

Perceptual

Hands-on experiences and discussions were used to support the perceptual or second level of
awareness or learning. These experiences included in-class assignments that gave the students a
chance to apply the lecture material in a concrete way. Hands-on assignments included mock

- 794 -

client interviewing and constructing a Gantt chart using MS Project to plan the four phases of
SDLC activities necessary for a complete system design and analysis. To foster critical thinking
and allow more of an unstructured, self-directed environment there were some general guidelines
given with specific due dates required for the documentation for each of the four phases.
Debriefing was conducted after each phase’s project documentation was submitted. Thus, the
hands-on experiences were used as building blocks for completing the real world client project
activities.

Understanding

The students were allowed to select team members after a review of each student’s background,
area of interest and work experiences. The teams each had the opportunity to ask questions of
the SBDC consultant for the project client, then interview the project client personally in the
classroom. The teams were then instructed to complete each of the four phases of the SDLC –
Phase I: Project Planning and Selection; Phase II: System Analysis; Phase III: System Design
and Phase IV: System Implementation and Maintenance. Completion of the project included a
project book that analyzed the client’s needs, identified a target issue(s) based on the client
investigation/analysis, documented a system design for the recommended solution(s) to the
issue(s) and provided guidelines for implementation and maintenance of the recommended
solution approach. Throughout the course students were encouraged to “think outside the box”,
be impertinent by questioning everything done at the client, be impartial to find the best solution
for the client not the solution in their area of expertise, and relax constraints to allow the
assumption that anything is possible not just what the client had always done (Valacich et al.,
2009). The goal of this approach was to give the students the opportunity to experience the
process of problem-solving and being creative in a novel situation gaining confidence so that
they might apply their insight for creativity and innovation when they are in the workforce.

Insight

Ultimately, both the class with the client that quit mid-semester and the class with the client that
participated the entire semester were asked to write a reflective paper to evaluate the project on
what they had learned throughout the semester. Although the students were in two different
classes with two different clients they used the same methodology to approach the project,
including identical phases in the same sequence and identical lists of required project
documentation.

Evaluation Process

Students in both courses were required to write a reflective essay at the end of the semester.
Following the grounded theory methodology three raters with background in both classroom
project and experiential learning were chosen to evaluate the reflective papers based on Plato’s
levels of learning. The raters did not include the instructor of the classes. To prepare for the
analysis the raters trained together to ensure they were consistent in their application of Plato’s
levels of learning taxonomy. The raters first completed their reviews of each reflective essay for
each class independently then met to identify differences. The reflective essay ratings based on
Plato’s four levels of learning with the lowest level imaging receiving a 1 through the highest
level insight receiving a 4. When differences between the ratings occurred the raters discussed
the differences and came to a consensus.

- 795 -

DATA ANALYSIS / RESULTS

Criteria were established for the three raters to use for evaluating each student’s reflective essay.
Consensus was reach between the raters as to each essay’s score. We first looked at the mean
and standard deviation. The students in Group A reached an average of 2.58 and Group B
reached an average of 2.5 indicating that both groups had passed the level of perceptual
awareness and were approaching a level of understanding. Students in both groups moved from
an awareness based on a classroom experience to the level of understanding as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary Statistics

Students Summary statistics

(number) Mean Standard deviation

Group A (12) 2.58 1.00

Group B (10) 2.50 0.50

T-test critical value=0.229; P-value=0.821

When comparing the P-value in a t-test for two groups of students (Table 2) shows that the
difference on Plato’s learning levels is not significant.

Table 2: t-Test of Group A and Group B

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Variable Variable
12

Mean 2.583333 2.5
Variance
Observations 0.992424 0.5
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 12 10
df
t Stat 0
P(T<=t) one-tail 20
t Critical one-tail 0.22876
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.410689
1.724718
t Critical two-tail 0.821378
2.085963

The data shown in Table 1 indicates that when a client quits student learning is not significantly
diminished.

The findings on the basis of the data presented in Table 2 indicate that although Group B had a
client that quit during the middle of the semester they were still able to achieve Plato’s level of
understanding. Both groups demonstrated that they were able to take the knowledge gained at the
imaging and perceptual levels and move towards creative and innovative applications.

- 796 -

We categorized each student by the level they reached as can be seen in Figure 1. In reality
Group A had more students remain at the lowest level of awareness, imaging, while Group B had
only one student at that level. At the level of perceptual awareness, Group A had no students
while Group B had 30% of the students reach this level. Group A had 66.7% of the students
reach the level of understanding while Group B had 60% of the students reach that same level.
Group A had 8.3% of the students reach the highest level of understanding which is insight while
Group B had none.

Figure 1: Student learning levels comparison – Group A vs. Group B

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Listening to lectures and reading textbooks, the conventional modes of learning, are particularly
vulnerable to producing superficial understanding (Colby et al.,2003), yet evidence shows a
majority of college courses rely on lectures (Shedd, 2002). Thus, verifying the learning levels in
an experiential learning approach despite the advent of a major negative event during the
semester can provide motivation for instructors to deal with the risks for the greater learning
achieved. This research compares the students’ learning results from two MIS courses in a
college of business. The students in the class where the client quit during the semester
demonstrated the same level of awareness (learning) as the class where the client did not quit.
This finding indicates that educators do not need to be weary of using service learning in a
classroom environment because even if the project does not go as expected students will still
reach the same level of learning as when everything goes as planned. In evaluating the project
of each class using Plato’s forms of awareness we found that:

1) There was no significant difference in students’ learning in the two classes. The average
form of awareness reached was a 2.58 for the class with the client all semester and 2.5 for
- 797 -

the class with the client that quit. The class standard deviations for Group A and Group
B were 1 and .5 respectively.
2) As can be seen in Figure 1 the students in Group B are more tightly grouped between the
levels of perceptual awareness and understanding. Group A seems to be more distributed
across the forms of awareness. However, as can be seen in this figure no students in
Group B reached the highest level.
3) The results from this research suggest that instructors who are planning to adopt a service
learning project for teaching purposes can be confident that students will learn from the
project whether the client quits or not.

In this research we have examined whether experiential learning is harmed when clients involved
in service projects quit. We have examined reflective student essays of a project with a client
that is available throughout the project and compared them to the reflective student essays of a
project in which the client quit during the semester. The objective of this research is to find
evidence of learning during experiential learning experiences in spite of their risky nature.
“Lecture courses often do not support deep and enduring understanding of ideas and are even
less well suited to developing the range of problem-solving, communication, and interpersonal
skills” (Colby et al., 2003, p. 132) which are inherent in real world situations. Our study
supports the argument that learning does not stop in a service learning environment even when a
significantly negative event occurs.

While grounded theory research methodology has been previously used to examine classroom
learning (e.g. Zelbst et al., 2008), as with any research it does have its limitations. One such
limitation for this study is that the sample size of the two groups was relatively small and would
not be sufficient for a quantitative statistical strategy approach. However, our approach for this
study is a qualitative strategy which focuses on the depth and richness of the information
obtained rather than sample size. The use of service learning in business education can be a tool
to resolve the fundamental challenge of how to mix academic rigor with practical relevance
(Godfrey, et al., 2005).

This study did not address methods of limiting or mitigating risks. Future studies might include
strategies for managing the various risks service learning projects inherently face such as dealing
with a client that can not continue participating in the project. Risk management methods such
as the process proposed by Gray and Larson (2008) which involves risk identification,
assessment and response could be adapted to serve this context.

Ultimately, “Student projects can be …one of the best learning experiences a student can
encounter” (Lane et al., 2009). Using a pedagogy of engagement such as service learning
supports “deep understanding, usable knowledge and skills … and a commitment to student
learning as the central criterion of good teaching and conceive(s) of learning as a more active
process than it was once thought to be” (Colby et al., 2003). This study is a step towards
mitigating the concerns of educators regarding the risks inherent in pedagogies of engagement
such as service learning.

References are available upon request from Janis Warner.

- 798 -


Click to View FlipBook Version