Evaluation of a course changing from behaviorist to constructivist design. The course eventually based on self learning, the didactical concept "students teach students", and on group work. Herein, the experiences of the changed course design are discussed according to learned lessons. The presentation was held at the 5th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies 2013 in Barcelona, Spain.

1. Institut für Informatik und
Wirtschaftsinformatik (ICB)
The Shift from Behaviourist Lecture Design in a
Technology-Related Field to general Competence
Development – A Case Study
Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger

2. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
2
Course Design Development Over Time
n 1980s: Constructivist designed course on Production
Modelling
n advanced study period
n < 20 students
n group discussions & comprehensive practical training included
n 1990s: Behaviourist designed course on Enterprise
Resource Planning
n introductory study period
n 120-180 students
n frontal lecture
n Results after the change:
n students did not attend the lecture
n students memorised contents instead of comprehending
n 50 % of the students failed the exam

3. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
3
Course Design Development Over Time
n 2008: Lecture Changed to Cognitivist Design
n introductory study period
n 120-180 students
n frontal lecture & voluntary practical SAP training
n extended learning materials w. many additional resources for
self-study
n predefined set of examination questions that required
comprehension instead of content reproduction available from
1st day of lecture; a “random” selection of those questions was
announced to become the actual exam-questions
n students were able to self-learn and free to attend the lecture
n Results after the change:
n many students did not attend the lecture (expected)
n prepared students understood contents
n still 30-40 % of the students failed the exam in lack of sufficient
preparation

4. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
4
Course Design Development Over Time
n 2012: Lecture Changed to Constructivist Design
n introductory study period
n 120 students (in the semester of change)
n introductory and concluding frontal lecture
n 4 block courses consisting of student group-presentations
n students had to collaboratively explore topic in large randomly
formed groups
n … do literature research on selected (given) ERP topic
n … write a scientific-like paper in English language
n … present their results (in English) for the other students
n … (individually) write a self-reflection on their experiences
n … pass an examination (same questions as in the
constructivist approach; just question set was not published
before)
n Students’ attendance in all events was mandatory and
condition for qualification for exam
n Results after the change:
n many students did not attend the lecture (expected)

5. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
5
Course Design Development Over Time
n 2012: Lecture Changed to Constructivist Design
n Results after the 2012 change to constructivist design:
n most students attended the lectures and were qualified for
exam
n groups and individuals did their work
n failure rate in exam below 5%
n But students additionally …
n improved English language skill
n trained presentation techniques
n trained scientific writing
n trained literature research
n got first experiences in group organization and work
organisation in groups

6. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
6
Course Schedule
!

7. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
7
Students’ Self-Reflection – Question 1
1. Collaboration in a Heterogeneous Group of
Unfamiliar People
In this course, you have been forced to collaborate
with more or less foreign students. In this difficult
constellation, you had to find together, divide tasks,
do the work, join the work-pieces to something
complete, and finally, hold the deadlines.
What kind of conflicts did you experience and how
did you solve the conflicts? What was the situation?
How did you react and what was the consequence of
your reaction? Whereto did you like to get with your
reaction? Did your reaction lead to the intended
result? If it did not, what might you have done to do it
better?

8. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
8
Findings from Self-Reflection (Question 1)
n 32/100 students reported work was very effective
n 17/100 students reported having found good way to
distribute work and stick to roles
n 8/100 students reported meetings as positive experience
n 5/100 students reported of significant work efforts in their
groups
n 18/100 students reported that group members did not
respect deadlines
n 15/100 students reported communication challenges
n 14/100 students reported that single group members refused
to do their work
n 6/100 students reported of serious conflicts because of
different attitudes towards work

9. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
9
Students’ Self-Reflection – Question 2
2. Having to Work in English Language
Restricting all students’ outputs on English language
may have been a big challenge. What did you feel
about it? How did you finally cope with the situation
(your strategy – what have you actually done)? Has
your strategy been successful, so that you produced
the best possible result you were able to? What
could you have done better?

10. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
10
Findings from Self-Reflection (Question 2)
n 70/100 students did not experience major difficulties
n 25/100 students expressed the opposite (major difficulties)
n 20/100 students reported that the course was an excellent
chance to improve the English language skill
n 16/100 students reported actually having improved their
English language skill
n 13/100 students found out that their reading skill was too low
to comprehend contents and they had to systematically
translate literature instead
n 8 students reported difficulties in writing English
n 6 students experienced working in English as very time-
consuming
n Most students reported that in preparation of their future
jobs, they should improve their language skill by taking
additional language courses

11. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
11
Students’ Self-Reflection – Question 3
3. Following Formatting and Referencing Rules
In this course, you have been confronted with the
narrowly defined formatting and referencing
conditions any scientific author needs to follow in
order to publish a scientific paper. This might have
been the very first time you experienced such
“narrow minded” restrictions. What did you feel about
it? Did your feelings influence your actions? Did you
experience the task as being simple or was it difficult
for you? Why? Have you finally been happy with the
result you produced? What could you have done
better?

12. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
12
Findings from Self-Reflection (Question 3)
n 33/100 students reported major difficulties in following such
strict rules
n 16/100 students found it very time consuming
n 58 students expressed it was a good chance to prepare for
writing their thesis
n 11 students argued that those rules were hilarious pedantic
n 5 students reported that the completely underestimated the
related efforts

13. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
13
Students’ Self-Reflection – Question 4
4. Learning for the Life
In this course, you have done many things, which
were not directly linked to the actual topic of the
course. What would you say that you have learned in
this course and what else could you have learned, if
you had chosen another strategy to deal with the
situation? What would you do different in similar
situations in the future?

14. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
14
Findings from Self-Reflection (Question 4)
n 19/100 students reported having got a first impression on
how scientific work looks like
n 16/100 students reported that they massively improved their
English skills
n 9/100 students welcomed the chance to hold a presentation
n 8/100 students reported having learned a lot abot work
organization
n 6/100 students found the exercises helpful to improve skills
in literature research
n 6/100 students reported about how they learned to avoid/
solve conflicts in group work
n 80/100 students mentioned the improvement of soft-skills
n 5/100 students complained they did not learn enough about
Enterprise Resource Planning

15. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
15
Conclusions
n The efforts for the instructors were much higher than in a
frontal teaching scenario …
n However:
n Even though some students reported not having learned
enough about ERP, 97.3 % of the students passed the
exam, which used exactly the same questions like used in
the cognitivist setting before.
n Students reported having additionally achieved core-
competences that are relevant for their future
à The result made the higher amount of efforts worthy!

16. Thomas Richter & Heimo H. Adelsberger
16
Thank you for your attention!
If there remained any open questions, do not hesitate
contacting me!
thomas.richter@icb.uni-due.de