Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.80.3.153-158

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Combining Cooperative Learning and Conflict
Resolution Techniques to Teach Information
Systems
Danilo Sirias
To cite this article: Danilo Sirias (2005) Combining Cooperative Learning and Conflict
Resolution Techniques to Teach Information Systems, Journal of Education for Business, 80:3,
153-158, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.80.3.153-158
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.3.153-158

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]

Date: 12 January 2016, At: 22:33

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:33 12 January 2016

Combining Cooperative Learning
and Conflict Resolution Techniques
to Teach Information Systems
DANILO SIRIAS
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, Michigan

B

ecause of their nature, Introduction
to Management Information Systems (MIS) courses are challenging for
the instructor. First, MIS has a multidisciplinary

content,
encompassing
research from different subject areas
(Banville & Landry, 1989; Bensabat &
Weber, 1996). If topics are not presented
in a meaningful, logical, and interrelated
manner, students easily may become
confused and overwhelmed. To add to
the level of complexity, MIS touches
every function of an organization
(Jacobs & Whybark, 2000). A traditional
Introduction to MIS class covers aspects
in organizational functions, such as
human resources, accounting, marketing, and financial information systems.
The functional coverage can be so broad
that Hershey (2003, p. 480) went so far
as to suggest that the MIS course can be
used “to help solve the functional integration problem” faced by business
schools around the world. Furthermore,
all areas of MIS are changing at lightning speed, making class preparation a

difficult task.
Yet another problem could come from
the fact that students in an introductory
MIS course may have different levels of
knowledge about computers. A class
may have students with a high level of
programming skills in different computer languages together with students who
have only very basic computer skills,

ABSTRACT. Teaching Introduction
to Management Information Systems
(MIS) courses is a formidable challenge entailing coverage of a relatively
large, ever-changing subject, as well as
finding the right balance for an audience with different levels of knowledge. The literature suggests that
cooperative learning, through which
students work and learn together as
teams, is a viable strategy for teaching
MIS effectively. One strategy to support cooperative learning in an MIS
class is teaching through case studies.
In this article, the author proposes a

method for teaching MIS within a
cooperative learning environment in
which students solve conflicts embedded in minicases.

making it more difficult for the instructor to decide on the appropriate level of
technological depth for the course. In
short, teaching MIS entails covering a
relatively large, ever-changing subject,
as well as addressing an audience with
different levels of knowledge.
Cooperative Learning Model
to Teach MIS
Having students with different levels
of computer knowledge as well as different expectations in the same class can
be an advantage for the instructor if he
or she exploits the various levels of
expertise and combines them into a synergistic learning experience. This

premise has been used in support of the
use of teamwork in the business environment, and the same principle can be

applied to classroom learning. With this
approach, the instructor allows students
to bring their individual perspectives
into the class. Group learning exercises
for MIS have been recommended in the
academic literature (Fellers, 1996a).
The theoretical background underlying
learning in teams is captured under the
cooperative learning model, in which
“students work together in unstructured
groups and create their own learning situation” (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith,
1998, p. 28). In an MIS class, students
can bring their specific expertise to the
table and work together in teams to
solve business problems with information technology.
The literature covering the advantages of cooperative learning is vast.
For example, Slavin (1990) suggested
that students understand better when
they interact with each other. Whipple
(1987) argued that ideas coming from

different points of view can result in
new, shared knowledge. Cooperative
learning has been associated with
improved creativity, better ideas,
enhanced critical thinking, and higher
content retention (Schlechter, 1990).
David and Roger Johnson compiled a
list of over 300 studies favorably comparing cooperative learning with other
January/February 2005

153

learning approaches (Johnson et al.,
1998). In fact, cooperative learning is
not confined to the classroom; it also
has been used for training in companies
(Newstrom & Lengnick-Hall, 1991).
To be effective, cooperative learning
activities should include the following
five elements (Johnson & Johnson,

1989):

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:33 12 January 2016

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Positive group interdependence
Team interaction
Individual accountability
Development of social skills
Group or team processes

Positive group interdependence
means that one student succeeds only if
the other students succeed. Hence, students have two responsibilities: (a) to
learn and understand the material and

(b) to make sure everyone else learns the
material (Johnson & Johnson, 1989).
Positive interdependence can be
achieved through different approaches,
including positive goal interdependency,
positive reward interdependency, positive resource interdependency, and positive role interdependency (Johnson &
Johnson).
To facilitate crosspollination of ideas
among students, instructors should
make use of team interaction. Many
times, one student’s idea helps trigger a
chain of ideas from other students,
increasing not only the volume of ideas,
but also their quality. Distributing tasks
among group members who work independently is not enough to promote
interaction. Instructors also need to
schedule time for students to work in
small groups during class (Siciliano,
2001) and provide incentives for them
to work outside the classroom.

Individual accountability is the third
essential element of cooperative learning. In the first element, positive interdependence, some structure is put in place
for students to help each other. How
about students who tend to be “free riders”? They need to be encouraged to do
their share of the work through individual exams, random quizzing of students,
or any other approach that teachers feel
is appropriate.
The fourth element, and the focus of
this article, is the development of social
skills, which include (a) accepting and
trusting the other team members, (b)
154

Journal of Education for Business

communicating effectively, and (c)
resolving conflicts constructively. To be
successful in their professional life,
business students, especially IS specialists, must possess excellent people skills
(Lee, Trauth, & Farawell, 1995). Fellers

(1996b) indicated that cooperative learning is an excellent mechanism for introducing students to these people skills.
Finally, students must be vigilant
with their team processes, looking for
mechanisms to improve the quality of
their interactions and techniques to
enhance each other’s learning skills.
The purpose is “to determine if the
goals are achieved and to maintain
effective working relationships among
members” (Siciliano, 2001, p.11).
Teaching With Minicases
A recommended methodology that
makes use of cooperative learning in an
MIS class is teaching through case studies (Granger & Lippert, 1999). Cases are
widely used in business courses because
they provide an opportunity for students
to simulate real-world situations and
improve their problem-solving skills.
The instructor can design cases so that
business problems can be attacked from

different perspectives, including a technical one. Case studies for teams not only
mirror the reality of the workplace and
enhance practical skills but also make
use of pedagogical strategies such as the
cooperative learning model.
However, regular case studies may be
too large to be used as part of a regular
class session. To solve this situation, an
instructor can use minicases, which
have a maximum length of one page, are
very focused, and have solutions related
to relevant information technology (IT)
concepts. Analysis of minicases offers
students many advantages. First, it provides relevance to the material being
studied. Furthermore, students gain
knowledge about IT applications to different business situations and learn
about the impact that IT can have in
business (Mukherjee & Cox, 2001). The
instructor should seek to provide minicases that can be worked in interdisciplinary teams of three or four students;
such teams provide an ideal environment for participation within a group
(Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995).

Case studies generally contain some
type of conflict or dilemma (Stringer,
1999) involving decisions such as
whether a firm should buy or invest in
something or whether it should centralize or decentralize operations. IT solutions have been developed to solve or
deal with some of these conflicts faced
by businesses. As I have mentioned, one
of the key elements in successful cooperative learning is the development and
use of social and small-group skills such
as conflict management (Lancaster &
Strand, 2001). In fact, Mintzberg’s
(1973) classical study revealed that
managers spend a significant amount of
time dealing with issues related to conflict management. Research conducted
by Luthans, Rosenkrantz, and Hennessey (1985) on successful managers
confirmed Mintzberg’s findings. In this
article, I propose a method for teaching
MIS within a cooperative learning environment in which students solve conflicts embedded in minicases. There are
many methodologies dealing with conflict resolution approaches (Jameson,
1999), but in this article I focus on a
process based on the theory of constraints (TOC).
Conflict Resolution and
the Theory of Constraints
The theory of constraints (TOC), a
management philosophy developed by
Goldratt (1990, 1997), “suggests that all
systems are similar to chains—or to networks of chains” (Dettmer, 1997, p.11).
Because the strength of a chain is determined by its weakest link, one of the
basic assumptions of the TOC is that for
a system to improve, it must focus on its
constraints (any process that prevents
the system from achieving its goals
within an organization). Thus, the manager’s goal is to construct a description
of a system in such a way that he or she
can determine the key leverage points
and which type of intervention is needed
to cause a desired result.
The heart of the TOC, at this point in
its development, is a set of logical tools
known as the thinking processes (TP).
These tools—used to analyze complex
systems—are based on strict logical
procedure and have been used in myriad
business applications. TP tools include

the current reality tree, the cloud, the
future reality tree, the negative branch,
the prerequisite tree, and the transition
tree. Specific details about the TP are
available in the literature (Dettmer,
1997; Scheinkopf, 1999). In this article,
I will show how one of the tools (the
cloud) can be used to teach MIS.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:33 12 January 2016

The Cloud
Placing students in groups does not
mean that they automatically will
acquire the ability to resolve conflicts.
Students need to be taught those
process skills (Wehrs, 2002). Tools that
can help students deal systematically
with conflicts can enhance not only
cooperative learning but also students’
future activities as professionals. In the
TOC, the cloud is a necessity-based
thinking tool (Scheinkopf, 1999) used
to represent conflicts. The cloud, used
in many business situations as a problem-solving technique (Smith, 2000),
can serve as a framework to include the
essential elements of a conflict in a
minicase. This framework suggests that
any conflict should include a minimum
of five elements: a common objective
(A), two needs (B and C), and two
wants (D and D’). I present the structure
of the cloud in Figure 1. A common
objective (A) represents something that
both parties in the conflict agree is
important. At least two needs (B and C)
are required for achievement of the
common objective. Within a conflict,
each side “owns” a need. However, one
of the sides in the conflict argues that to
achieve Need 1 (B), he or she must
achieve Want 1 (D). The other side
insists that to achieve Need 2 (C), he or

she must achieve Want 2 (D’). The conflict comes from the fact that D and D’
cannot coexist.
The cloud offers the essential components that students need to come up with
creative solutions to solve a minicase.
First, the cloud clearly shows the root of
the conflict represented by the two
wants. Moreover, the needs provide
information pertaining to the reasons
why each side insists on what it wants.
Also, it shows that there is a good reason, the common objective, why the
conflict must be resolved. Students can
focus on finding ways to satisfy the two
needs with alternative wants that do not
necessarily collide. In this article, I also
discuss how students can use the cloud
to find creative solutions to problems.
Using the Cloud to Teach
The instructor can use the cloud as a
vehicle to help students analyze cases,
hold discussions, and find IT solutions
themselves. For preparing the class, I
recommend the following steps:
1. Select or write an appropriate minicase.
2. Assign the minicase for discussion
in interdisciplinary groups.
3. Ask students to define the conflict
and describe the “features” that a technology should have to resolve the
dilemma.
In Step 1, a minicase—with a “solution” involving a predetermined information system—is selected. Examples
of technologies that I have introduced in
class through this procedure include
database management systems, data
mining, expert systems, and virtual pri-

B
Need 1:

D

C
Need 2:

D’

Want 1:

A
Common
objective:

FIGURE 1. The cloud.

Want 2:

vate networks. To be able to use the
cloud, the instructor should make sure
that the minicase contains some type of
dilemma. If a minicase with an embedded conflict is not available, the literature suggests a methodology for writing
one (Sirias, 2003).
Next, to obtain the benefits of using
cooperative learning, the instructor
assigns the minicase to interdisciplinary teams of three or four students per
group. Interdisciplinary groups allow
each student to hear different points of
view on the problem being solved. I
have noticed that business students tend
to attempt to solve problems by giving
managerial solutions, such as “evaluate
the compensation system,” “analyze
the cost-benefit of the alternatives,” and
so forth. On the other hand, computeroriented students tend to look for the
“gadget” that will solve the problem.
The instructor could emphasize that in
their future workplace, students probably will encounter similar biases
regarding problem solving among people with different approaches. Learning
how to communicate successfully in a
highly diversified environment can be a
useful skill in the marketplace.
Finally, students “write the cloud” that
best captures the dilemma presented in
the minicase and propose a solution to
the problem. At the end of the discussion,
teams can present their “wish list”
regarding the type of technology that
they think will solve the conflict. Then
the instructor concludes the session,
improving on the student’s findings.
An Example
The following minicase (taken from
Sirias, 2003, p. 356) illustrates the procedure:
John Rakow, head of the underwriter
department at Frankem Insurance, has
been swamped over the last years with
complaints from customers. About 30%
of the customers think that the time it
takes to process an insurance application
is too long. The situation is getting even
more delicate as he has learned that some
insurance agents do not want to recommend Frankem services (even though
their prices are competitive) because their
smaller competitors are able to respond
faster. John is presenting his case to Alice
Smith for a third time. Alice is in charge
of making personnel decisions. John

January/February 2005

155

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:33 12 January 2016

thinks that he needs to increase his
department’s personnel by at least 35% to
cope with the current demand. Alice
clearly understands John’s concerns but
she has made some projections, and
according to her calculations the expected
benefits do not justify hiring more underwriters. She feels that the department will
increase expenses without a good return
on investment. Both want the business to
be successful, but a creative solution is
needed to ensure that objective. Can you
help John and Alice?

The first step is to determine the
wants. Students should be instructed to
look in the minicase for two actions that
cannot coexist. Examples are “buy computer software” and “do not buy computer software,” “centralize operations”
and “decentralize operations,” “outsource” and “do not outsource.” During
a discussion, wants are generally the
first elements to be verbalized, making
them the most visible side of a conflict.
In the cloud, wants should be written
with a verb at the beginning of the sentence, signaling the actions desired by
each side in the conflict. In our example, the wants are “hire more underwriters” and “do not hire more underwriters.” These are D and D’ on the cloud.
The next step entails finding the needs.
The best way to solve a dilemma is to
find a win-win solution. The problem is
that, by definition, the wants cannot
coexist, making it very difficult to find a
win-win solution if each side in the conflict focuses only on the wants. It is necessary to look deeper. The needs represent the reason(s) behind the wants. A
useful technique for determining the
needs is to list the advantages of achieving the wants. A summary of the advantages of each want is a good representation of the needs. For example, the
advantages of hiring more underwriters
could include having quicker processing,
more satisfied customers, less delay,
more capacity, and so forth. All these
advantages could be summarized in a
sentence such as “Customers know the
results of their applications in a few
days.” The same can be done for the
other want (“Do not hire more underwriters”). An example of a need for this
want could be “Keep expenses under
control.” Notice that the two needs
could—at least in theory—coexist, opening the possibility for a win-win solution.
156

Journal of Education for Business

For complete definition of the conflict,
one more step remains, that of determining a common objective. So far, we have
determined the wants and the needs,
which moves us closer to a potential winwin resolution to the conflict. Even
though a conflict exists, a common
objective that both parties can agree on
could be found. Verbalizing a common
objective—what would be accomplished
if both needs are satisfied—is vital to
provide an incentive for both parties to
solve the conflict satisfactorily. Most
business cases will have a common business objective—such as fairness, satisfaction, effectiveness, or efficiency—
related to the well-being of the
organization (Jameson, 1999). In this
example, I use “Have a successful business.” I present the final cloud for this
example in Figure 2.
Completing the cloud is just the first
phase that students perform when analyzing a minicase. The second phase is finding a win-win solution to the conflict.
Instructors can reemphasize that the
cloud is a good representation of a problem, clearly stating the wants, the needs,
and a higher-level goal referred to as the
common objective. In this context, a winwin solution is defined as an action that
will result in the satisfaction of both parties’ needs. To accomplish this, the students must find a way to break the logical
connection between any of the needs and
its corresponding want. Assumptions are
the bridge for reaching that destination.
Assumptions
Assumptions are beliefs logically
connecting needs and wants. Some type
of mental model—a miniparadigm—

A
Common objective:
Have a successful
business.

supports the idea that a need can be satisfied only with a given want. Achieving
a need with an alternative want can be
accomplished by taking an action that
could be assisted through the use of
technology and that makes the assumption invalid. Therefore, assumptions are
the seeds that generate creative ideas.
Assumptions can also serve as a guide
for searching for technological solutions that, although they may be available for solving a specific problem, are
unknown to a manager.
How does one go about finding
assumptions and generating creative
solutions? Some of the assumptions connecting Need B and Want D can be
revealed when the students try to answer
the question, “Why must we have the
specific Want D in order to achieve a
Need B?” The same logic applies to the
connection between C and D’ in the
cloud. For example, let us analyze the
following logical connection: “To avoid
damaged books, I must prohibit students
from drinking inside the library.” An
assumption being made is that students
will spill beverages on the books. A possible “technological solution” that
makes the assumption invalid could be
to require the use of spill-proof containers. Another assumption is that books
will be damaged if liquids are spilled on
them. To invalidate that assumption, we
could wrap each page with plastic. Also,
managerial solutions could be explored
as a vehicle for finding win-win solutions. An assumption is that students are
not motivated to prevent damage. Students can explore solutions, such as that
of giving a $1,000 fine to any student
who damages a book. Assumptions can
serve as catalysts for students to use

B
Need 1:
Customers know the results
of their applications in a
few days.

D

C
Need 2:
Keep expenses under
control.

D’

FIGURE 2. Frankem’s cloud.

Want 1:
Hire more underwriters.

Want 2:
Do not hire more
underwriters.

their creative juices and find innovative—“out of the box”—solutions.
Going back to the original example,
we can explore some assumptions. The
cloud in Figure 1 suggests that for customers to know the results of their
applications in a few days (B), we must
hire more underwriters (D) for the following reasons:

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:33 12 January 2016

• Current employees cannot do the
jobs of underwriters, and
• Other types of employees cannot
replicate the expertise needed to accelerate applications.
In surfacing these or similar assumptions, students can come to the realization that a particular type of software
that captures the expertise of an underwriter could be a potential solution to
this dilemma. At the end of the session,
the instructor can introduce the concept
of expert systems—the purpose of this
minicase—and provide more details
about the topic. To demonstrate relevance, the instructor could ask students
for similar examples in which expertise
is needed. By “inventing” the solution
themselves, students are more likely to
retain and understand the material successfully. Of course, the discussion
could lead to suggestions of other
potential technical or managerial solutions, which would add even more interaction to the class. It would not be a surprise if students come up with solutions
that did not occur to the instructor.
In short, using the cloud to teach with
minicases entails finding wants, needs,
and a common objective. Then, students
surface assumptions as a vehicle to find
win-win solutions to the dilemma presented in the minicase. At the same
time, students learn a systematic
approach for resolving conflicts within
their groups and in their personal lives.
Conclusions
Using minicases helps make MIS
classes more relevant. First, students see
the connection between IT and a business environment, rather than seeing
technology as an isolated entity. This
perception has been confirmed by the
students’ comments in my evaluation.
One student wrote, “I liked . . . how he
attached business cases to IT problems,

and [then] presented [how] new technologies solve the problems.” Also,
computer-oriented students have a
chance to test their technical knowledge
through practice and share with their
team members and the class as a whole.
Business-oriented students learn how to
analyze situations that can be solved
with technology, and, in the process,
they interact with other students who
may have different perspectives and
areas of expertise. In many cases, students come up with different solutions
to the problem posed in the case, making the environment fertile for discussion and debate. This crosspollination
can be very beneficial (Whipple, 1987).
The use of a graphic organizer, such
as the cloud, has many advantages.
Graphic organizers provide a very practical way to take clear and precise notes
(Sakta, 1992). After completing the
cloud, students have a clear picture of
the important elements of the minicase,
including the assumptions leading to the
solution. Such enhanced note-taking can
lead to better performance (Katayama &
Robinson, 2000). In addition, instructors can use such diagrams as a tool for
grading by assigning points or percentages to each entity in the cloud, the
assumptions, and the solutions found by
the group. A grade can be assigned
accordingly. Yet another advantage is
that the graphic structure provided by
the cloud allows students to solve problems quickly and efficiently.
Future Research
Because the results of this study are
only anecdotal, additional research, such
as an experiment, is necessary for testing
the benefits of using the cloud process to
teach MIS. Other questions pertain to
the possibility of applying the same
methodology to other business subjects,
such as marketing and organizational
behavior, in which assigned cases also
involve conflicts. One important issue is
whether students can transfer the skill of
solving conflicts systematically to areas
outside their academic lives.
REFERENCES
Banville, C., & Landry, M. (1989). Can the field
of MIS be disciplined? Communications of the
ACM, 32(1), 48–60.

Bensabat, I., & Weber, R. (1996). Research commentary: Rethinking “diversity” in information
systems research. Information Systems
Research, 7(4), 389–399.
Dettmer, W. (1997). Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
Fellers, J. W. (1996a). Teaching teamwork:
Exploring the use of cooperative learning teams
in information systems education. DATA BASE,
27(2), 44–60.
Fellers, J. W. (1996b). People skills: Using the
cooperative learning model to teach students
“people skills.” Interfaces, 26(5), 42–49.
Goldratt, E. (1990). What is this thing called the
Theory of Constraints? Great Barrington, MA:
North River Press.
Goldratt, E. (1997). Critical chain. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.
Granger, M. J., & Lippert, S. K. (1999). Peer
learning across the undergraduate information
systems curriculum. The Journal of Computers
in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(3),
267–285.
Hershey, G. L. (2003). A different focus and content for the core information systems course for
business school majors. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 12,
479–493.
Jameson, J. K. (1999). Toward a comprehensive
model for the assessment and management of
intraorganizational conflict: Developing the
framework. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(3), 268–294.
Jacobs, F. R., & Whybark, D. C. (2000). Why
ERP? A primer on SAP implementation.
Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence
is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26–35.
Katayama, A. D., & Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students “partially” involved in note-taking
using graphic organizers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(2), 119–133.
Lancaster, A. K., & Strand, A. S. (2001). Using
the team-learning model in a managerial
accounting class: An experiment in cooperative
learning. Issues in Accounting Education,
16(4), 449–567.
Lee, D. M. S., Trauth, E. M., & Farwell, D. (1995).
Critical skills and knowledge requirements of
IS professionals: A joint academic/industry
investigation. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 313–340.
Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use
of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS
Quarterly, 19(3), 265–291.
Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S. A., & Hennessey, H.
W. (1985). What do successful managers really
do? An observation study of managerial activities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
21(3), 255–270.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial
work. New York: Harper and Row.
Mukherjee, A., & Cox, J. (2001). Using electronic
quizzes to promote self-reliance in minicase
analysis in a decision support systems course for
MIS majors. Journal of Education for Business,
76(4), 221–225.
Newstrom, J. W., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1991).
One size does not fit all. Training & Development, 45(6), 43–48.
Sakta, C. G. (1992). The graphic organizer: A
blueprint for taking lecture notes. Journal of
Reading, 35(6), 482–484.

January/February 2005

157

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:33 12 January 2016

Scheinkopf, L. J. (1999). Thinking for a change.
Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Schlechter, T. M. (1990). The relative instructional
efficiency of small group computer-based training. Journal of Educational Computing, 6(3),
329–341.
Siciliano, J. I. (2001). How to incorporate cooperative learning principles in the classroom:
It’s more than just putting students in teams.
Journal of Management Education, 25(1),

158

Journal of Education for Business

8–20.
Sirias, D. (2003). Writing MIS minicases to
enhance cooperative learning: A theory of constraints approach. Journal of Information Systems Education, 13(4), 351–356.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory,
research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Smith, D. (2000). The measurement nightmare.
Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Stringer, D. (1999). Case writing 101. Training &
Development, 53(9), 52–57.
Wehrs, W. (2002). An assessment of the effectiveness of cooperative learning in Introductory
Information Systems. Journal of Information
Systems Education, 13(1), 37–49.
Whipple, W. R. (1987). Collaborative learning:
Recognizing it when we see it. Bulletin of the
American Association for Higher Education,
40(2), 3–7.