Interactive learning in operations

management higher education

Software design and experimental evaluation
Francisco J. Arenas-Marquez, Jose A.D. Machuca and
Carmen Medina-Lopez
GIDEAO Research Group,
Department of Finance and Operations Management,
University of Seville, Seville, Spain
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a computer-assisted learning experience in
operations management (OM) higher education that entailed the development of interactive learning
software, its evaluation in an experimental environment and the formal analysis of the teaching
methods inuence on student perceptions.
Design/methodology/approach The software design follows the constructivist focus based on
widely-accepted educational technology principles. Objective tests of knowledge and subjective
appraisal of the learning process were used in the experiment to compare two educational scenarios
(computer-assisted learning and on-site class). Students perceptions of the softwares technical and
teaching features are also analyzed.
Findings The study shows that the teaching method can signicantly affect students perceptions
of the learning process. The ndings also conrm the pedagogical effectiveness of the software that
was designed and that information communication technologies (ICT)-based methods are an
alternative to traditional methods used in OM education.
Research limitations/implications The experiment involved strict control over various
potential threats to validity. From a statistical point-of-view, the conclusions can only be
generalized in the population analyzed. Nevertheless, the features of the software and the student
prole allow the main conclusions to be generalized to other OM environments.
Practical implications The use and evaluation of interactive software in OM educational
environments are reected on, with emphasis on the inuence that the teaching methodology has on
students attitudes to the learning process. It is of interest for researchers interested in improving
teaching through the use of ICT.
Originality/value There are very few studies on interactive self-learning software for OM and its
effects on student perceptions. This paper is a new contribution to this eld.
Keywords Interactive learning, Information and communications technologies, Experimental research,
Software evaluation from a students perspective, Operations management, Higher education,
Communication technologies
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm
This research has been partially developed as part of the Spanish Ministry of Educations
National Industrial Design and Production Program (Project DPI2009-11148) and the Andalusian
Governments Excellence Program (Project P08-SEJ-03841).
Interactive
learning in OM
1395
Received 30 September 2010
Revised 5 June 2011,
12 March 2012,
27 April 2012
Accepted 3 May 2012
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management
Vol. 32 No. 12, 2012
pp. 1395-1426
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-3577
DOI 10.1108/01443571211284160
1. Introduction and literature review
ICTs offer a new way of producing, distributing and receiving university education
(Orton-Johnson, 2009). During the last decade, universities have become aware of the
advantages of incorporating ICTs into their instruction processes. Indeed, the
Conference of European Rectors considered ICTs to be one of the main external change
factors in universities (Bricall, 2000). In the European sphere, the adaptation of
universities to the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) should also be considered.
The interest shown by the European Union in the latest framework programmes is a
faithful reection of the importance that its member states are affording the study,
promotion and incorporation of the new technologies in higher education
(Medina-Lopez et al., 2011a). Amongst other aspects, this involves a change from a
teaching-based focus to a learning-based focus as facilitated by ICTs (European
Commission, 2002). Therefore, innovation becomes necessary both in the use of
technology and in the application of new methodological approaches ( Juan et al., 2011).
There are numerous studies that address in general terms the importance of
implementing ICTs appropriately both on the institutional level and from the
perspectives of the instructor and the learner and that provide clear insights into the
potential, advantages, disadvantages and critiques of the use of ICTs in teaching (Bates,
2000; Kirkwood, 2009; Lofstrom and Nevgi, 2007; Ma et al., 2000; Piccoli et al., 2000;
Selwyn, 2007; Stensaker et al., 2007; Tang and Austin, 2009; Wang, 2008). There is
widespread consensus that ICTs can help in the design of new learning environments
(Barak, 2007) and that they have potential for extending or even transforming what can
be achieved in higher education teaching (Garrison and Anderson, 2003; Kirkwood,
2009). However, their use must not be an aim in itself; rather, the pedagogical
justications for and implications of using ICTs in teaching and learning need to be
revisited regularly (Lofstromand Nevgi, 2007). The effective integration of ICTs into the
teaching context in which they are to be used is therefore a primary consideration
(Stensaker et al., 2007; Wang, 2008). As Tang and Austin (2009) argue, it is not the
technology, but the instructional implementation of the technology that contributes to
learning effectiveness. In other respects, a central aspect of teaching and learning is the
students own experience of the process (Ginns and Ellis, 2009). For these reasons it is
important to investigate students opinions regarding the technologies in different
teaching contexts. It is also necessary to examine the effective implementation of these
technologies and how the use of ICTs contributes to students learning. This study
analyzes these aspects, focusing on the area of operations management (OM).
It is also important to be mindful of the growing relevance of blended learning
environments in higher education (Abdous and Yen, 2010; Parsad and Lewis, 2008;
Vaughan, 2007) within which ICTs are being developed to complement, not replace,
traditional forms of learning (Mitchell and Forer, 2010). Blended learning environments
integrate ICT-based learning with traditional face-to-face class activities in an
intentional pedagogically valuable manner (Arbaugh et al., 2010; Graham, 2006;
Picciano and Dziuban, 2007). It enables the advantages of both teaching methods to be
benetted from Graham (2006), Harding et al. (2005) and Lopez-Perez et al. (2011).
ICT-based tools have demonstrated their evident potential and pedagogical value in
terms of learning improvements in business education literature (Arbaugh et al., 2009).
A range of studies show that business blended learning courses have fared well in
studies comparing them with classroom and online courses (Klein et al., 2006;
IJOPM
32,12
1396
Terry, 2007; Webb et al., 2005). Online courses, meanwhile, have been demonstrated to
be at least as effective as traditional classrooms in this area, particularly as learners
become more experienced with the medium(Daymont and Blau, 2008; Friday et al., 2006;
Kock et al., 2007; Lapsley et al., 2008). Previous research in this eld also demonstrates
the utility of blended learning environments as an efcient means of executing activities
previouslytethered to the classroomsetting andas a means to allowthe pursuit of higher
levels of learning (McCray, 2000). Ahigh degree of utility, motivation and satisfaction is
perceived from blended learning, which could lead students to have a positive attitude
towards learning (Lopez-Perez et al., 2011). In this line, in an online executive MBA
course, Brower (2003) argued that student engagement can be encouraged by creating
course structures and grading approaches that encourage interaction. May and Short
(2003), meanwhile, state that course design and teaching strategies are the keys to
student success in their learning process in business education contexts that include
ICT-based tools. A number of studies also highlight the fact that instructors play
particularly important roles in online and blended business learning environments
(Arbaugh and Benbunan-Fich, 2007; Arbaugh and Hwang, 2006; Marks et al., 2005;
Williams et al., 2006). This importance can be seen both in their role as course designers
(Arbaugh and Benbunan-Fich, 2006; Hartman et al., 2002), content experts
(Nemanich et al., 2009) and when acting as tutors and moderators (Arbaugh, 2005b;
Brower, 2003; Ivancevich et al., 2009; Walker, 2004).
Research in business education shows that the use of ICT-based tools to complement
face-to-face teaching has been positively linked with course outcomes (Hwang and
Arbaugh, 2009; Klein et al., 2006; Webb et al., 2005). If we focus on learning scores,
Lapsley et al. (2008) recently examined online and classroom-based sections of an
undergraduate course in human resources and they found that when equal experiences
were provided in both learning environments, students on the online course performed
better than the classroom-based students. However, there are also experiences in which
no signicant differences have been found in examination scores across environments
(Friday et al., 2006; McCray, 2000; McLaren, 2004; Merril and Galbraith, 2009). This
would therefore seem to show that there is a variation in learning outcomes in business
disciplines depending on the learning environment used, whether measured by learning
scores or by students perceptions of their learning process.
In other respects, in online or blended business learning environments, a number of
studies have analyzed whether differences might exist in learning perception and
student satisfaction between different disciplines, and signicant differences were
found from one discipline to another (Arbaugh and Duray, 2002; Arbaugh and Rau,
2007). In these cases, OM has been associated with lower student satisfaction with the
delivery medium (Arbaugh, 2005a). However, Friday et al. (2006) found no signicant
difference in examination scores across business disciplines in a study of both
classroom-based and online courses. Recently, Arbaugh et al. (2010) reviewed studies
of online and blended learning in management disciplines during the 1994-2009 period.
The review shows that this emerging eld has experienced dramatic conceptual,
methodological, and analytical advances over the last decade. Nevertheless, the
progress of these advances has been uneven depending on the discipline. Studies
examining courses in organizational behavior and strategic management have seen the
most progress, with courses in human resources, OM, and international management
receiving less attention.
Interactive
learning in OM
1397
In the OMarea, various authors have shown the usefulness of using ICTs and call for
them to be incorporated into the teaching of the discipline. Krajewski (1998) highlights
the need to involve students actively in the learning process and provide them with
access to highly innovative technologies. Studies by Moskowitz and Ward (1998), Hayes
(1998) and Machuca (2000) could be included in this same line. Nevertheless, in the 1990s,
authors like Gross and Raymond (1992) and Coye and Stonebraker (1994) concluded that
the effective use of the computer in the classroomwas far froma reality. Meanwhile, in a
study focusing on the methodology used for teaching OM on ten European MBA
programs, Gofn (1998) concluded that signicant innovation was required to address
the key challenges facing OM teachers. In the case of Spanish universities, a study by
Alfalla-Luque and Machuca (2003) involving 70.5 per cent of OM instructors concluded
that onlya small percentage incorporate ICTintheir classes. It is true that in recent years
Business Administration (BA) and OM higher education do show an increasing use of
some ICT-based educational tools. For example, Slack et al. (2011) encourage the use of
their myomlab, a self-paced virtual learning environment, to support more traditional
face-to-face teaching, whilst the same authors recently released an interactive iPad
version of one of their other OMtexts (Slack et al., 2012). However, as has been stated by
Arbaugh et al. (2010) at the current time OM continues to be one of the business
disciplines that has received less attention in the topic that concerns us.
If we focus onthe teachingexperiences inOMthat make use of ICT-basedtools it canbe
seen that there is a tendency to use games and simulations (Aggarwal and Adlakha, 2006;
Ammar and Wright, 2002; Gonzalez Zamora et al., 2000; Holweg and Bicheno, 2002;
Johnson and Drougas, 2002; Lewis and Maylor, 2007; Machuca and Barajas, 1997, 2004;
McKone and Bozewicz, 2003; Pasin and Giroux, 2011; Rauch-Geelhaara et al., 2003;
Tan et al., 2010; Yazici, 2006). There are, however, fewer studies that present experiences
with virtual learning environments (Greasley et al., 2004; Naslund, 2005; Walker et al.,
2009), interactive learning software (Alfalla-Luque et al., 2011; Balazinski and Przybylo,
2005; Ball and Thornbury, 2004; Lankford and Padgett, 2011; Medina-Lopez et al., 2011a)
or immediate response systems (Yourstone et al., 2008; Ruiz Jimenez et al., 2010). Also, if we
turn our attention to the teaching environment in which these experiences take place, we
see that although we nd some in online contexts (Aggarwal and Adlakha, 2006;
Walker et al., 2009), in most cases the teaching innovations are introduced into hybrid or
blendedlearningenvironments (Balazinski andPrzybylo, 2005; Ball andThornbury, 2004;
Lau and Mark, 2004; Pasin and Giroux, 2011; Rauch-Geelhaara et al., 2003; Wild and
Griggs, 2002).
One of the various ICT-based tools that can be used in online or blended learning
environments is interactive learning software. The opportunities that interactive
software provides can have important implications for training in OM (New, 2003).
However, the literature review shows that little research has been done into its use in
OM training (Alfalla-Luque and Machuca, 2003; Medina-Lopez et al., 2011a; New, 2003)
since, as has been previously stated, when ICT are used, the tendency is to use games
and simulations. The interactive learning software identied in earlier studies tends to
be somewhat underdeveloped and is not usually designed to favor the learning process
with a holistic view of the students pedagogical needs. As a result, it does not favor
independent learning. For example, Balazinski and Przybylo (2005), focus only on the
development of multimedia animation (with and without interactivity). Therefore,
as far as the creation of specic, complex and truly interactive learning teaching
IJOPM
32,12
1398
software for this discipline is concerned, there is still a long way to go. This having
been said, the studies identied on the use of tools of this type in OM address
extremely interesting aspects of the teaching-learning process. Balazinski and
Przybylo (2005), for example, use the application that they develop in a blended
learning context and conclude that its use has signicantly reduced the time necessary
to explain complex manufacturing processes and that it was greatly appreciated as a
helpful tool for understanding said processes. Ball and Thornbury (2004), meanwhile,
state that the use of computer assisted learning (CAL) can be claimed not to have
resulted in a deterioration in performance which could have come from poor study
materials or lack of motivation.
As has already been pointed out, a major issue regarding teaching experience
studies is an analysis of the inuence that the method used has on students
perceptions and attitudes. In general, studies that analyze ICT-based tool use on OM
courses provide proof of students having positive attitudes towards the use of these
tools (Greasley et al., 2004; Alfalla-Luque et al., 2011; Wild and Griggs, 2002). However,
when the results of online OM courses are compared with those of other business
disciplines, they usually present worse outcomes or attrition rates (Arbaugh, 2005a;
Arbaugh and Duray, 2002). Also, although some articles have reported that there were
no differences in outcomes, students on online OM courses may be more likely to drop
out of the course than students on classroom-based courses (Arbaugh et al., 2010).
Analyzing a students perception of his/her teaching-learning process on OMcourses
is especially important for this discipline as students usually consider the subject matter
to be very difcult to understand and outside the scope of their professional interests
(Alfalla-Luque et al., 2011; Cox and Walker, 2005; Fish, 2008; Lankford and Padgett,
2011; Polito et al., 2004; Yazici, 2006). Despite this, works on teaching experiences in OM
that empirically analyze the effect of the methods on students subjective variables are
also very scarce and normally focus on their understanding of the content (Cox and
Walker, 2005; Fish, 2008; Medina-Lopez et al., 2011b; Pal and Busing, 2008; Yazici, 2004),
which is one of the problems traditionally attributed to the discipline ( Johnson and
Drougas, 2002; Yazici, 2006). A second focus, although to a lesser extent, is on some
motivation-related issues (Kanet and Barut, 2003; Marin-Garcia et al., 2009a; Satzler and
Sheu, 2002). This is why, as Arbaugh et al. (2010) and Medina-Lopez et al. (2011b) state,
additional studies are required to assess the causal effects of outcomes in OM courses.
Learning outcomes should be analyzed froma broad perspective. Theymust measure
acquired skills and received knowledge, but the subjective variables that measure the
students perceptions of their learning process should also be considered proxies for the
learning outcome (Lopez-Perez et al., 2011; Marin-Garcia, et al., 2009b; Webb et al., 2005).
Based on the educational literature, the outcomes have been measured objectively
through the learning score (Larson and Chung-Hsien, 2009; Marin-Garcia et al., 2008;
Summers et al., 2005; Sun and Cheng, 2007) and subjectively through students
perceptions of the teaching-learning process, normally linked to aspects such as
perceived learning, difculty, utility, satisfaction and motivation (Alfalla-Luque et al.,
2011; Klein et al., 2006; Larson and Chung-Hsien, 2009; Lopez-Perez et al., 2011; McCray,
2000; Skylar et al., 2005; Sun and Cheng, 2007; Webb et al., 2005).
In view of the above, the use of ICTs in higher education requires a greater
evaluation of the contribution that these tools make to students learning (Ginns and
Ellis, 2009). It is important to investigate students opinions regarding the technologies
Interactive
learning in OM
1399
and the effective implementation of these technologies. Focusing on OM, there is a clear
need for students perceptions and the effect of the different teaching methods to be
studied due to the manifest lack of student understanding and interest in the subject
identied in previous studies. In other respects, despite the interest and potential
offered by interactive learning software in online and blended learning environments,
the literature review shows us that OM is lacking in appropriate interactive
applications. This is why these tools need to be conceived and developed as is being
done in this paper, as a prior step to their incorporation and analysis in the teaching
process. We consider that all these reasons justify the need to investigate the impact of
interactive learning software on OM teaching from the student point-of-view.
The authors research group has previously carried out research into the
development of a range of ICT-based tools for training in BA and OM (business
simulators and self-learning multimedia software) (Gonzalez Zamora et al., 2000;
Machuca and Barajas, 1997, 2004; Machuca et al., 2003). In this paper we present some of
the results of this research, focusing on an application for the interactive teaching of
MRP. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate a CAL experience in OMhigher education
that entailed the development of interactive self-learning software in an experimental
environment and the formal analysis of the teaching methods inuence on student
perceptions. The rigorous design of the experiment spotlighted in this study has enabled
signicant limitations in earlier studies in both the area of business education and in
general to be overcome (Arbaugh et al., 2010; Bernard et al., 2004).
Our research therefore contributes to the literature by:
.
developing an OM interactive self-learning software application;
.
evaluating both the software itself, and the teaching and learning process that it
allows from the student perspective; and
.
all this has been done through experimental research design.
In the following section, the features of the software and its basic working structure
will be briey analyzed. Subsequently, Section 3 will describe the experiment
conducted to evaluate the software. Section 4 will be devoted to an analysis of the
results of the experiment. Finally, in Section 5 we shall set out some of the main
conclusions drawn.
2. General features of the software
The software used in our research enables the basic MRP working structure and the
usual system calculation processes to be studied. This topic is highly relevant in OM
subject programmes (Gofn, 1998; Machuca and Alfalla-Luque, 2002, 2003; Slack et al.,
2004). The interactive application that was designed differs from the classic
problem-solving software (frequently developed from adapted spread sheets) used in
the discipline. This last type of software requires prior training in the techniques and
concepts used. In contrast, the application designed here has an interactive multimedia
design that enables MRP to be studied autonomously.
The interactive application was conceived, produced and assessed by our research
group. The chosen development environment was the Adobe Authorware
authoring tool. The process for developing CAL tools should be founded on a suitable
methodological base for the design of the interface and on appropriate pedagogical
principles that enable a suitable teaching strategy to be established.
IJOPM
32,12
1400
Nevertheless, we frequently nd resources that are built on no assumptions at all; this is
the case of many web-based materials that are basically printed materials, converted
directly to an electronic form (Dalgarno, 2001) which do not stimulate the students
interest (Ball and Thornbury, 2004).
The aim when designing the interface for our interactive software was that it should
be very intuitive and user-friendly, guaranteeing user control over the software and the
concentration of all his/her effort on the learning tasks. For this a consistent
methodological basis was followed founded on recommendations, style guides, and
widely accepted usability norms within the eld of educational technology
(Crowther et al., 2004; Lockyer et al., 2008; Mayes and Fowler, 1999; Nielsen, 2000;
Rubin and Chisnell, 2008; Schneiderman and Plaisant, 2005; Shaw and McAteer, 1995;
Tullis and Albert, 2008; Van den Akker et al., 1999).
We took into account a range of elements from the constructivist approach when we
set about developing the software used in our research and dening the learning
process to be followed by users. In general terms, constructivism assumes that the
person is not only a processor of information, but also a constructor of this depending
on his/her experience, previous knowledge and attitudes towards the content, media,
materials and messages with which s/he interacts (Cabero, 2001). So, according to this
approach, learning involves students individually building on their prior experiences,
and different learning styles must be catered for. It is also generally agreed that this
approach implies that the student is an active and responsible agent in the process of
knowledge construction (Domagk et al., 2010; Evans and Gibbons, 2007; Harris and
Alexander, 1998; Lewis, 1999; Loyens and Gijbels, 2008), whereby more emphasis is
put on learner activity than on teacher instruction.
We can nd different positions when it comes to interpreting and implementing the
basic principles of construtivism and different CAL techniques that are consistent with
each (Dalgarno, 2001). Moshman (1982) distinguishes between three main
interpretations of constructivist theory (endogenous, exogenous and dialectical) that
are widespread in the literature (Bouras and Tsiatsos, 2006; DMello et al., 2010;
Dalgarno, 2001; Dinsmore et al., 2008; Harris and Alexander, 1998; Hyun, 2005;
ODonnell et al., 2002; Raet al., 2008; Segers and Verhoeven, 2009; Veenman et al., 2003).
Endogenous constructivism is the most radical interpretation and lays the emphasis on
the individual character of each students construction of knowledge and stresses
learner exploration. Exogenous constructivism recognizes the role of direct instruction
supported by exercises that entail active cognition, although students must have some
control over the sequence and selection of content and thus construct their own
knowledge representations actively. Dialectical constructivism emphasizes the role of
interaction between learners and their peers in an environment that enables students to
work together while receiving scaffolding provided by teachers and experts in the
subject. As will be seen below, taking the structure, resources and way in which access is
provided to the content into account, our software is basically consistent with what is
known as exogenous constructivismalthough there are also some elements related to the
other interpretations.
Each working session starts with the user identifying him or herself to the system.
A tracking system allows users progress to be logged once they have identied
themselves and thus personalize the application. A main example of MRP structured
into study units is proposed which can be used for the most common lot sizing
Interactive
learning in OM
1401
techniques to be analyzed interactively, the calculations linked to the requirements
explosion process to be made and other important concepts related to inventory and
production planning to be dealt with. Each unit begins with an initial guide, which sets
out all the learning goals that are to be achieved. The interactive analysis of the
instructions in the main example makes up the rst block of content, detailing each of
the inputs into the MRP system and all the planning requirements that are to be carried
out. A very exible navigation system is provided for learning this content that
enables users to have control over their learning sequences and so construct their own
knowledge representations. This system is consistent with exogenous constructivism
(Dalgarno, 2001; Hyun, 2005; Ra et al., 2008) as, although browsing freedom is
maintained at all times, the structure of the software suggests a basic learning route
which aims to avoid those concepts considered to be important being missed and to
appropriately distribute the degrees of difculty of the subject matter. The softwares
freedom to browse is accompanied by systems to guide students study according to
the actions that they have taken (suggesting alternative study routes, recommending
additional exercises on a specic technique, etc.). The guidance systems also prevent
students getting lost and disoriented with regard to content explanation (information
window, stable and intuitive navigation controls, navigation maps that include direct
links to the different contents and provide a clear reference of what has been reviewed
and what not, etc.). The information logged by the tracking system also enables
students to pick up their study in the precise place where they had stopped in a
previous session and to bring up content already reviewed/not yet reviewed.
Interactivity is another important feature of our application. In the eld of multimedia
learning software, interactivity can be dened as the reciprocal activity between the user
and the software in which the students action-reaction depends on the softwares
action-reaction, andvice-versa (Domagk et al., 2010). As stated previously, constructivist
approaches all share the principle that the student plays an active and responsible role
in the process of knowledge construction. From this point-of-view, interactive learning
environments are tools that allow the student to be actively engaged in the
learning process (Domagk et al., 2010; Renkl and Atkinson, 2007) and facilitate deep
learning (Evans and Gibbons, 2007). Interactivity is also considered to be an important
factor in knowledge acquisition and in the success of CAL (Draves, 2000; Evans and
Gibbons, 2007; Sims, 1997). The software that we have developed contains numerous
elements and tools that allowstudents to take decisions or carry out actions that actively
involve them in the learning process. Some of these tools provide basic interactions
(e.g. controls to repeat concepts, move through the weekly programming for each item,
print specic templates or tables or access the initial data). Others are in the form of
hyperlinks to a glossary. The more complex active calculations, play an important role
in the interactive software design and allowgraphics and/or explanatory remarks to pop
up on how certain gures calculated in a formula or table are arrived at. To do this the
student only needs to point the cursor at the corresponding number (Figure 1).
Interactions linked to the self-assessment exercises and questions in our application
need to be highlighted especially. These tools are consistent with exogenous
constructivismespecially and enable students to put their knowledge constructions into
practice and receive feedback on them (Dalgarno, 2001; Ra et al., 2008). Some of the
interactive exercises in the software enable the various concepts associated with the
requirements explosion to be calculated and assessed step by step. Some more complex
IJOPM
32,12
1402
concepts include exercises half-way through the explanations, providing partial
self-assessment of the different steps in the calculation process and the students active
engagement in content explanation. Finally, the interactive multiple-choice questions
can also be considered here. Broadly-speaking, all these interactive exercises and
questions offer help messages when the student makes a mistake and additional
remarks when the student is correct. This last feature is very useful if the student has
keyed in the correct value by chance or mechanically.
The glossary has been designed as an auxiliary hypermedia module that enables the
student to reviewimportant concepts quickly and easily. It can also be used to elaborate
on explanations in the main module and to relate the denition of one concept to other
MRP-related content and even to the general production and inventories planning
process. This auxiliary tool can be said to be consistent with endogenous constructivism
(Dalgarno, 2001; Hyun, 2005), as its navigation system enables content to be reviewed
under complete learner control and without the pedagogical guidance found in the main
body of the software.
Complementary materials are also suggested for each unit (additional exercises and
questions, bibliography, etc.). These resources are held on a web server to facilitate
their update and are accessible through external modules linked to the main body of
the software. Another resource that is accessible through this auxiliary module is an
online debate forum that enables students to hold conversations on different topics.
This tool facilitates social interaction in the students knowledge construction process,
and can be linked to dialectical constructivism (Bouras and Tsiatsos, 2006;
Dalgarno, 2001).
Figure 1.
Exercises and active
calculations
Interactive
learning in OM
1403
The interactive learning software described has been designed to allow independent
learning and so can be used in both a distance learning environment and in a blended
learning environment. In a distance learning environment the software allows the user
to develop effective learning at his/her own rhythm wherever s/he might be. Online
communication tools (like the online debate forum that is included) also facilitate
interaction with other people (instructors or other users), eliminating the isolation effect
and enriching the learning process. However, we consider that the teaching-learning
environment enables the software developed to be better exploited in a blended
learning environment in which it can be used to complement face-to-face class
meetings. The benets of both teaching methods could thus be taken advantage of to
improve students overall learning experience (Ball and Thornbury, 2004; Graham,
2006; Harding et al., 2005; Lopez-Perez et al., 2011). Some of the advantages of blended
learning environments identied by a number of authors include: they provide greater
opportunities to comprehend and extend the knowledge presented (Osguthorpe and
Graham, 2003; Singh, 2010); they provide a more exible use of instructional time to
achieve goals and objectives more successfully (McCray, 2000; Riffell and Sibley, 2003);
they increase the level of active and exible learning strategies which reinforces the
students autonomy in self-paced learning and reection (Chambers, 1999; Cooner,
2010; Graham, 2006; Tam, 2000); they facilitate the review and control of learning
(Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003; Klein et al., 2006); they boost the motivation to study
the subject (Lopez-Perez et al., 2011; Alexander, 1999; Donnelly, 2010; Woltering et al.,
2009), they reinforce student/instructor interaction (Schwartzman and Tuttle, 2002);
they improve students time management (Riffell and Sibley, 2003).
3. The experiment: aims and methodology
The inclusion of the students in the evaluation process is essential for the real
effectiveness of the software to be measured ( Jones et al., 1999; Michaelson et al., 2001).
The process must take into account the aims and educational environments that will
mark its use, measures of the knowledge acquired by the students and their perceptions
when working with the software ( Jones et al., 1999; Virvou and Alepis, 2005). As seen in
the literature review in Section 1, very little research has been done into the use of
interactive multimedia software in OM training. There are also very few studies on
teaching experiences in OMthat enable the effect of the methods on students subjective
variables to be known.
To achieve the objectives proposed in this research, an experiment (Kerlinguer and
Lee, 2000) was opted for which uses a random selection of students to compare two
different MRP teaching-learning methodologies in a controlled work environment. An
experimental design allows a greater degree of control to be imposed on the study
conditions, its internal validity to be raised and the real effects of the independent
variables on the dependent variables to be more properly analyzed (Cohen et al., 2007;
Trochin, 2006). Specically, two scenarios were created with an identical number of
students: an experimental group, set to study MRP autonomously using our interactive
software, and a control group that was trained in the subject in an on-site class (OSC).
The method used with the experimental group can be framed within computer
assisted distance learning (CADL). To prevent any external inuence on the analysis
and to test the softwares suitability as an independent learning tool, the experimental
scenario design replicated an independent learning environment, with no interaction
IJOPM
32,12
1404
between the student and other people whatsoever (either face-to-face or online) during
the teaching-learning process. The online forum included in the application was not
used. Given the importance that the instructor has in this process (Arbaugh and
Benbunan-Fich, 2007; Williams et al., 2006) and that the lack of interaction and visible
contact is mentioned as one of the main disadvantages of distance education
(Bernard et al., 2009; Mullins-Dove, 2006), it would be easy to improve the overall
learning experience of OM students who have made use of our interactive software by
including the use of communication tools and the presence of a teacher, in either an
online or a blended learning environment. However, we considered the experimental
environment designed to be the most suitable for the impact of the interactive software
on the students learning process to be analyzed in a rigorous way. Additionally, for
there to be more experimental rigor, the students only used the software in the
controlled environment of a computer laboratory and during set times.
The OSC in small groups used for the control group was also carefully designed to
enable theoretical-practical teaching guided by the instructor that at all times sought
active student participation. The lack of controlling for course content or instructor
differences is one of the design problems of previous published studies (Bernard et al.,
2004; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006). For this reason, in order that the results could be
compared, the content taught in the OSC was the same as that covered by the software,
including the exercises. Also, all the control group sessions were taught by the same
instructor in order to avoid any bias that a change in instructor might entail. At the end
of each session all the materials were also collected into avoid any bias caused by study
done outside the experimental environment.
We wish to highlight that the control scenario was designed to avoid all the usual
problems that traditional class-based teaching presents in many universities. Some of
these problems are: very large groups (from 80 to 100 students at our university), long
syllabuses that leave the professor with very little time to personalize his/her teaching
for the students in the class or highly theoretical teaching that is not very connected to
the real application of the concepts studied.
The importance of class size and its repercussions on the learning of the students has
long been of interest (Tseng, 2010). Students in smaller classes may receive more
personal instructionby which theyare given a clearer understandingof what is expected
of them and how to achieve it (Scheck et al., 1994). A smaller class also enables students
to feel more at ease and therefore to ask and answer questions and engage in interactive
discussions in class (Arias and Walker, 2004), facilitating better critical thinking
(Raimondo et al., 1990). Moreover, recent studies in the university environment show
that small class size has a signicant positive impact on academic performance (Arias
and Walker, 2004; Fenollar et al., 2007; Johnson, 2010; Kokkelenberg et al., 2008; Tseng,
2010) and students perceptions of the quality of the course (Westerlund, 2008). This is
the reason why the classes designed for the control group were smaller (20 students)
than is usually the case on many universities and more time was allowed for teaching the
concepts (practically twice as long as is normally planned for in our traditional class
teaching). This meant each single student could be attended to in a more personalized
way. The professor also combined explanation of theoretical concepts with the analysis
and solving of numerous problems and real practical cases in class, encouraging the
very active participation of students at all times. As the OSC was to be the yardstick by
whichCADLwas to be judged, we hadto guarantee that students got the highest quality.
Interactive
learning in OM
1405
If CADLcame out of the comparison positively, it would be on its own merits and not due
to any difculties or shortcomings of the control scenario.
For this experiment, a population was sought that was as similar as possible to the
usual OM and, in particular, MRP student prole in business management. At the same
time the students basic knowledge had to be homogeneous in order to eliminate any
possible bias from the experiment due to previous knowledge of MRP and thus comply
appropriately with the requisites for experimental research design. A population of
256 BA students from our university was therefore selected that complied with two
conditions: they were enrolled in at least half of the credits for the third year of the BA
degree and they had not specically taken any OMcourses corresponding to the last two
years of the syllabus.
An 80-student sample was taken from this population. Students were chosen using
a systematic random process stratied by proportional allocation depending on the
average marks in their academic records. As this was research that was experimental
in nature, no students were allowed to volunteer to take part other than those already
included in this random selection. A representative sampling size of 70 individuals was
obtained in the estimation (maximum admitted error of 0.09 with a level of condence
of 95 per cent), although to cover for any possible withdrawals from the course and to
give greater validity to the results it was decided to expand the sample to 80. These
students were then randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups
(40 students per group) maintaining the proportions for each stratum.
As an incentive for students selected in the sampling process to take part, the
experiment was considered as just another activity for assessment on the OM course
that the students were to take the following year (fourth year of the BA degree). The
activity would be assessed in the same way as the experiments nal acquired
knowledge tests irrespective of whether the student was a member of the experimental
group or the control group. The questionnaires that students used for scoring were
quite anonymous in nature and so the students felt free to express their opinions on the
teaching methods used both in the experimental group and the control group.
The experiment required some 25 hours per student which were distributed over
several sessions over a period of three weeks. In the rst session all participants were
given a lecture class on the basic aspects of inventory planning and control and other
aspects of OM required for the subsequent study of MRP. From this moment onwards
the students began to study MRP separately in the two scenarios under the continuous
supervision of the researchers. In the last session of the experiment the students lled
out a questionnaire to score the teaching-learning method that they had followed and
did the nal tests of acquired knowledge.
The questionnaire that was designed included a range of items on the educational and
psycho-pedagogical aspects of the methodology followed (for all participants) and
technical and functional aspects of the software (only for the experimental group). These
items come from other experiments and software evaluation studies that we consider to
be of special interest (Arias et al., 2003; Cabero, 2001; Catenazzi and Sommaruga, 1999;
Collaud et al., 2000; Draper et al., 1994; Hosie et al., 2005; Leacock and Nesbit, 2007;
Marque`s, 2000; Mart nez et al., 2002; Michaelson et al., 2001; SEDISI, 2000; Soh and
Subramanian, 2008). Logically, the wording of some of these items had to be adapted to
the specic characteristics of the software interface developed and the type of research in
question. Experts ineducational technologyhelpedus inthis last taskespecially, andalso
IJOPM
32,12
1406
in the review and rening of the initial questionnaire. In this phase of the research we
were also advised by OM instructors, especially with regard to designing the nal
acquired knowledge tests that were sat at the end of the experiment. Furthermore,
statistics experts supervised the marking scales and the codication of the results.
Additionally, a pilot test was carried out with a small number of BA students which
allowed some details regarding the proposed scores to be claried. The bibliographical
review, the above-mentioned critical judgement of researchers and university lecturers
and the pilot test all support the validity of the measurement instruments that were
designed (Hoskisson et al., 1993; OLeary-Kelly and Vokurka, 1998).
The evaluation process with the students included, rst, an analysis of the interactive
softwares interface and its main interactions. For this, the nal questionnaire asked the
experimental group 25 questions related to their perceptions as users (Table I).
Additionally, in keeping with the literature review that was conducted, subjective
variables linked to students perceptions of the process andobjective measures of acquired
knowledge were also taken into account in order to assess the teaching and learning
process. With respect to the rst of these, members of both scenarios scored 15 items to
measure the incidence of a number of subjective factors involved in the teaching and
learning process (Table II), including perceptions of the design of the teaching methods
(M1-M9) and perceptions of the way the learning process progressed (M10-M15).
Five-point Likert scales were used for all the questions. With regard to the latter, students
were set two tasks by way of a nal examination of acquired knowledge (Table III):
a 16-question test and a nal exercise which involved working with the different lot sizing
techniques and doing the usual calculations in the requirements explosion process.
As far as data analysis is concerned, students t-test was used to establish the
comparison between the two teaching-learning methods both in the analysis of
the effect that the two methods had on each of the items in the questionnaire and in the
nal assessment tests. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was also used
to examine the effects of both methods on the existing interrelationships between
students subjective scores. This statistical test enabled us to determine whether the
method affects students perceptions and attitudes, as a whole, to the learning process.
4. Results
4.1 Scoring of the interactive software interface and its main interactions
This section begins withananalysis of the ndings set out inTable I. The students clearly
conrm that the interactive software is easy to use and that its interface is very intuitive
(items I01-I03), guaranteeing that users have control over the tool and enabling them to
focus their efforts on studying the concepts being taught. The degree of satisfaction of the
students with the various aspects of the softwares interface (I01-I14) can be considered to
be very high, which is a reection of the consistency of the methodological base followed
for its design. In other respects, the high scores for items I15-I17 conrm that the
navigation and tracking systems are appropriate for enabling users to have control over
their learning sequences and build their own knowledge representations. Students also
considered that the software provided themwith suitable guidance (I17) for making their
own way through the application without getting lost and organizing study of the content
at their own speed. All these elements are consistent with the constructivist approach
followed for dening the learning process to be pursued by users, fundamentally in its
exogenous form (Dalgarno, 2001; Hyun, 2005; Ra et al., 2008).
Interactive
learning in OM
1407
Items Mean SD Mode Scales (1-5)
I01 Ease-of-use of the software 4.63 0.540 5 1 (very difcult) to 5
(very easy)
I02 The environment is clear with consistent criteria
for use resulting in easy and intuitive use of the
application
4.50 0.599 5 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree)
I03 The instructions for use are clear
and adequate
4.27 0.960 5
I04 Software aesthetics are homogeneous 4.18 0.675 4
I05 A suitable color combination is used 4.40 0.632 5
I06 The screens are well structured and their design
is clear, aesthetic and attractive
4.32 0.656 4
I07 Button design allows the user to quickly
familiarize him/herself with the
environment
4.40 0.672 4
I08 The screens contain a sufcient amount of
information for them to be understood correctly
4.18 0.636 4
I09 The amount of text on-screen is not excessive
(is not oppressive or tiring, nor results in
rejection, etc.)
4.28 0.716 4
I10 The screens allow the most important things to
be ascertained quickly
4.08 0.829 4
I11 Good use is made of contrast and color with
texts and backgrounds
4.27 0.751 5
I12 The fonts used allow texts to be easily read 4.48 0.640 5
I13 An appropriate font size is used 4.55 0.552 5
I14 The software does not include any elements that
are too fast and make understanding of the
concepts difcult
4.45 0.639 5
I15 The software adequately shows the progress the
student is making in his/her studies
4.33 0.730 4
I16 The software allows the student to take up his/
her studies from the point where s/he previously
left off
4.68 0.616 5
I17 Degree of freedom of organization of study
allowed by application
4.15 0.864 5 1 (heavily controlled) to
5 (very free)
I18 Degree of guidance given when navigating
through the interactive application
4.20 0.608 4 1 (very little guidance)
to 5 (a great deal of
guidance)
I19 Usefulness for learning of table printing 4.43 0.781 5 1 (not very useful) to 5
(very useful) I20 Usefulness for learning of system-entry access
buttons
3.93 0.944 4
I21 Usefulness for learning of interactive glossary of
concepts
3.35 1.145 3
I22 Usefulness for learning of active calculations 4.42 0.712 5
I23 Usefulness for learning of self-assessment
exercises
4.78 0.530 5
I24 Usefulness for learning of self-assessment
multiple-choice questions
4.20 0.853 5
I25 Usefulness for learning of additional problems
on network server
4.02 1.121 4
Table I.
Interface evaluation and
usefulness of a range of
interactions for learning
IJOPM
32,12
1408
Finally, Table I also presents the scores attributed to usefulness for learning the main
interactions proposed by the software (I19-I25). The self-assessment exercises, the
active calculations and the table-printing tools stand out especially. These high scores
conrm that the interactive software enables students to become actively engaged in
the learning process (Domagk et al., 2010; Renkl and Atkinson, 2007), playing an active
Experimental Control t-test
Item Mean SD Mean SD T (DoF: 78)
Item M1. Perceived difculty of the subject matter
being studied 2.40 0.810 2.07 0.729 21.885
Item M2. The different learning goals that are
proposed are clearly dened 4.48 0.554 4.25 0.670 21.637
Item M3. The content is relevant, well-chosen and
expressed clearly 4.38 0.586 4.38 0.628 0.000
Item M4. The information transmitted is adequate
for understanding the concepts dealt with 4.25 0.670 4.28 0.716 0.161
Item M5. The concepts are introduced progressively 4.55 0.552 4.35 0.580 21.580
Item M6. In my opinion, the degree of difculty of the
subject matter was well distributed 4.53 0.640 4.35 0.700 21.167
Item M7. The questions and assessment exercises
are clearly related to the goals and the content 4.53 0.554 4.45 0.597 20.582
Item M8. The software/instructor uses language
which enables the concepts that are expressed to be
understood 4.45 0.597 4.50 0.555 0.388
Item M9. In my opinion, the combination of resources
used to explain the subject matter was correct 4.43 0.675 4.23 0.768 21.237
Item M10. The teaching method adapted to my
rhythm of study 4.20 0.911 3.70 0.966 22.381
*
Item M11. The subject matter being studied was
interesting 4.38 0.774 3.98 0.862 22.184
*
Item M12. The teaching method motivates me to
study 4.30 0.687 3.83 0.844 22.761
* *
Item M13. The teaching method holds my attention/
concentration on the subject matter 4.40 0.744 3.73 0.960 23.514
* *
Item M14. The teaching method helps me learn from
my mistakes 4.35 0.700 3.83 0.844 23.029
* *
Item M15. The teaching method allows me to know
what my level of acquired knowledge is 4.38 0.705 3.80 0.608 23.908
* *
Note: Signicant at:
*
p , 0.05 and
* *
p , 0.01
Table II.
Subjective scores
for the teaching and
learning process
Experimental Control t-test
Mean SD Mean SD T (DoF: 78)
Number of correct answers in nal MRP acquired
knowledge test (16 questions) 9.95 2.320 9.35 2.788 21.046
Mark in nal MRP exercise (marked out of ten
points) 7.33 2.839 7.79 2.329 0.807
Note: Signicant at:
*
p , 0.05 and
* *
p , 0.01
Table III.
Final acquired
knowledge test
Interactive
learning in OM
1409
and responsible role in the process of knowledge construction, which is also consistent
with constructivist approaches (Domagk et al., 2010; Evans and Gibbons, 2007;
Loyens and Gijbels, 2008).
4.2 Perceptions of the teaching and learning process
Table II presents the results for the scores given to a variety of aspects of the learning
process by members of both groups. All the items were given to the students as
statements to which students had to express their degree of agreement, in a band from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), except in the case of the perception of the
difculty of the subject matter (item M1), which was scored using different categories
(1 very easy and 5 very difcult). To facilitate the analysis of the results, these
15 items can be grouped together in two main blocks:
(1) Items M1-M9 are linked to students perceptions of the design of the teaching
method. These scores are connected to the content and the way in which the
content is taught.
(2) Items M10-M15 are linked to students perceptions of the way their learning
process develops. These scores are connected to the way in which students
develop their own acquired knowledge.
An analysis of the results for the rst of these two groups (M1-M9) shows that all the
items for the two teaching methods were scored positively and that the t-test does not
show any signicant statistical differences between the two scenarios. In general terms
it can be seen that the perceived difculty (M1) of the subject matter was not high.
Students in both groups also scored very positively the aspects related to the content
taught (M2-M6), the suitability of the questions and exercises (M7), the language (M8)
and the combination of resources used (M9). These results show that students consider
that both teaching methods are well-designed and suitable for helping with the
understanding of the subject matter. This also reects the effort made to rigorously
adapt the theoretical and practical content included in the software to an OSC scenario
which had to serve as a valid benchmark with which CADL could be compared. In
other respects, although both methods get over the understanding problem
traditionally attributed to OM ( Johnson and Drougas, 2002; Yazici, 2006), OSC-use in
small groups can be difcult in the overcrowded higher education contexts. Interactive
learning software can be used in these contexts to complement traditional class-based
teaching and thus overcome the problem identied in the literature.
The results obtained by the second group of items (related to students perceptions of
the way their learning process develops) are of special interest for our research. It can be
seen that there is a statistically signicant difference in the scores received for CADL
and OSC in all the variables analyzed. CADL is the method that achieves the highest
scores in all cases. The high scores for item M10 in the experimental group conrms the
softwares capacity for facilitating exible and self-regulated training in keeping
with the constructivist focus that shaped its design. In the control group, the sequence
and the rhythm of study were controlled externally by the instructor. The nal mean
presented by this group show that the rate of teaching (set by the instructor)
adapted satisfactorily to the students rate of learning, but not to the same extent as the
software. With regard to items linked to psycho-pedagogical aspects (M11-M13),
although the mean scores of the OSC students can be considered satisfactory,
IJOPM
32,12
1410
the interactive learning environment proposed by the software makes the subject matter
more interesting, motivates students more and helps them to hold their attention more
on the content analyzed. Items M14 and M15 measure the methods ability to assess the
knowledge acquired by the students. In this case, the scores obtained in the control
group can also be considered satisfactory, but they are signicantly lower than those of
the experimental group. To explain this difference it is necessary to take into account the
softwares interactive exercises and its monitoring tools which show a students
progress in real time and provide greater opportunities for learning from mistakes.
These elements of the software were highly valued by the students in the experimental
group (Table I, items I15 and I23) and might explain their high scores for items
M14 and M15.
These ndings are especially signicant in OM which requires teaching-learning
methods that spark interest in the subject matter and in the discipline as students
usually consider it to be outside the scope of their professional interests
(Alfalla-Luque et al., 2011; Cox and Walker, 2005; Fish, 2008; Polito et al., 2004; Yazici,
2006). The ndings conrm that the interactive software has a great ability to motivate
students and this boosts their cognitive engagement (Pintrich, 2003) and the amount of
effort that they are willing to invest in working with it and learning fromit (Leacock and
Nesbit, 2007). Some of the motivating aspects of the interactive software that was
developedare: the high degree of control that students are allowed to have over their own
pace, activities and learning (Astleitner, 2000; Domagk et al., 2010; Glaeser-Zikuda et al.,
2005; Martens et al., 2004); an environment that includes content and activities that are
relevant to learners and which both gain and retain their attention (Keller and Suzuki,
2004; Schraw et al., 2001); and tools that provide opportunities for high levels of
interactivity are included (Tsui and Treagust, 2004).
This section concludes with the results of the MANOVA used to study the effect of
OSC and CADL on the interrelationships between the scoring of items M1-M15. This
test gives a p-level of 0.001 in the Wilks Lambda test (Lambda 0.579; transformed
F 3.102; DoF 15.64). It can therefore be stated that the method used has signicant
repercussions on the concept that the variables in Table II represent, i.e. on the
students perception and attitude sets regarding the teaching-learning process. This
nding therefore conrms that these perceptions can be changed by the teaching
method (Draper et al., 1994; Rinaudo et al., 2003) and, consequently, the vision that
students might have of the discipline can be changed too. This highlights the
importance of choosing methods that are suitable for achieving the training objectives
and improving the teaching-learning process.
4.3 Final acquired knowledge tests
Table III sets out the results for the nal acquired knowledge tests. As can be seen, the
Student t-test does not detect any signicant differences between the experimental
group and the control group in either the number of correct answers in the test or in the
marks for the nal exercise. Therefore, in the teaching-learning environment that was
designed, both methodologies (OSC and CADL) were shown to be equally effective in
helping students to pass the assessment tests that were done. These results are in
keeping with other comparative studies on ICT-based business teaching in which no
signicant differences have been found in examination scores based on the method
used (Coye and Stonebraker, 1994; Friday et al., 2006; McCray, 2000; McLaren, 2004;
Interactive
learning in OM
1411
Merril and Galbraith, 2009). Bearing in mind the ndings connected with these objective
learning outcomes, it can be stated that the use of the interactive software is an option
that is just as effective as the OSC-based teaching in small groups for learning OM and,
therefore, that it represents a real alternative to the latter in this discipline. For these
results to be properly analyzed, the design used in the two teaching scenarios in the
experiment must be taken into account. This will be examinated in the following section.
5. Conclusions
There has been a widespread call for ICT-based methods to be used in OM instruction.
Their use in higher education demands the due evaluation of the contribution that these
tools make to learning (Ginns and Ellis, 2009). For this, an analysis has to be done of
how the students perceptions of the teaching-learning process can be affected by the
teaching method.
This study shows that interactive software can be well suited to the learning of OM.
The software designed supports the study of content with numerous interactions that
facilitate the learning process, turning it into a very active experience. The interactive
application is also very easy to use and the students degree of satisfaction with its
interface is very high, which is a reection of the consistency of the methodological base
that was followed for its design. In other respects, in keeping with the constructivist
approach that led its design, the software gives students a high degree of freedom in
organizing their study and suggests alternative routes, depending on each individuals
learning needs. The softwares navigation and tracking systems give the students
control over their learning sequences and enables them to organize the study of its
content at their own pace, without getting lost. The software also allows students to
satisfactorily monitor the progress that they make in their studies.
The interactive software has been evaluated in an experimental environment and a
formal analysis has been conducted of the teaching methods inuence on student
perceptions of the teaching and learning process. The ndings related to the objective
learning outcomes demonstrate that the interactive software is an alternative to
OSC-based teaching that is just as effective for the learning of content. The ndings of
the experiment also show that the teaching method used can inuence the student
perceptions and, consequently, the vision that students have of OM. To be specic, the
computer assisted learning (CADL) environment achieved scores that were signicantly
higher than the control group (OSC) for students perceptions of the way their learning
process develops (adaptation to the rhythm of study, motivation,
attention/concentration, interest in the subject matter and the ability of the method to
help students learn fromtheir mistakes and knowthe level of their acquired knowledge),
which conrms the pedagogical effectiveness of the software developed. As OM is an
area that is especially in need of teaching methods that not only help the concepts to be
understood and learned, but also awaken interest in both the subject matter and in the
discipline itself, it is even more important that tools such as that used in this research
are used.
The design of the experiments teaching scenarios must also be taken into
consideration when interpreting the ndings. With respect to the control scenario (OSC),
Section 3 stated that this was designed to avoid the usual problems that traditional
class-based teaching presents in many universities, and so much smaller groups were
used and more time was allowed for teaching the concepts. Bearing this design in mind,
IJOPM
32,12
1412
it could be supposed that the results that would be obtained in real traditional lecture
classes may be less satisfactory than those obtained in the OSCinthe experiment. This is
what recent studies in the university environment point to, showing that small class size
has a signicant positive impact on academic performance (Fenollar et al., 2007;
Kokkelenberg et al., 2008; Johnson, 2010) and student perception of the quality of the
course (Westerlund, 2008). In addition, given the repercussions that class size can have
on learning and student performance, the fact that the experimental scenario achieved
similar results to the control group leads us to believe that interactive software-based
learning could achieve better outcomes than traditional learning in real classes.
As for the experimental scenario, it should be borne in mind that in order to prevent
any external inuence on the analysis and to test the softwares suitability as an
independent learning tool, we decided to eliminate any interaction by the student with
other people (both face-to-face and online). Given the importance of the interactions with
instructors in the teaching and learning process, this design introduced a major
restriction into the student learning environment. On this basis, we can consider that the
ndings using the interactive software in this research are very positive, as the students
did not seem to suffer from a lack of interaction with instructors or other students and
not only learned as much as the members of the control group in a totally independent
scenario but, moreover, scored the way their learning process develops better.
It canbe stated therefore that the interactive software that was evaluated is a veryvalid
independent learning tool. In a distance learning environment it enables students to learn
effectively at their own pace wherever they might be. Online communication tools would
facilitate interaction with instructors or other students and would eliminate the isolation
effect, thus improving the learning process. If it was used in the context of a hybrid or
blended learning environment, the students learning process would be further enhanced,
which means that this would be a very valid tool for OM instructors working in
face-to-face classes. In a blended learning environment, the benets of both teaching
methods could be exploited to improve students overall learning experience (Graham,
2006; Lopez-Perez et al., 2011). In this latter case, among other things, studying with the
interactive software would allowthe instructor to have more time available in face-to-face
class meetings to look at key or more complex aspects of the subject matter in greater
depth, provide further examples and case studies, do complementary activities or give
students more personalizedattention. All these aspects wouldenable the OMteaching and
learning environment to be substantially improved, allowing a more exible use to be
made of instructional time toachieve the learningobjectives withgreater success (McCray,
2000; Riffell and Sibley, 2003), reinforce teacher-student interaction (Schwartzman and
Tuttle, 2002) and, at the same time, increase the use of active, exible and self-regulated
learning strategies (Cooner, 2010; Graham, 2006; Tam, 2000) and student motivation to
study the subject (Lopez-Perez et al., 2011; Donnelly, 2010; Woltering et al., 2009).
It can be added that the methodology followed for the design of the software may be
applicable to the teaching of other OM subject courses. As on the professional level
MRP/ERP systems are essentially ICT tools in OM, it might be expected that they could
be adapted for ICT-based teaching, and this has been conrmed in this study. Coye and
Stonebraker (1994) state that OMis one of the business subjects that is most amenable to
CAL and highlight that some subjects MRP, aggregate scheduling and forecasting
could benet especially from this type of learning. Meanwhile, Arbaugh et al. (2010)
state that a growing interest in some OM-related topics such as quality management can
Interactive
learning in OM
1413
be detected in online and blended learning environments. In our opinion, the learning of
any other highly relevant topic in OM training (e.g. Lean/JIT, project management,
process manufacturing, process design, etc.) that justies the efforts required to develop
a tool with these characteristics could benet fromthe use of interactive software like the
one used in this research. For this purpose, it is very important to use a suitable
methodological base for the design of the interface and appropriate pedagogical
principles that enable a suitable teaching strategy to be established.
It can also be added the student population prole used could be similar to that of
other university centers. Both these elements allow us to surmise that the conclusions
of this study could be generalizable to other disciplines and other higher education
environments. Be that as it may, the fact that the results obtained make total sense in
one specic experimental environment should not be lost from sight; therefore, when
extending the experience to other educational contexts it would be essential to take
their own particular peculiarities into consideration (specic features of the software
used, environment, subject matter taught, student prole, etc.).
As already pointed out, there have been very few studies on the use of interactive
software or, broadly-speaking, of the effect of the teaching methodology on students
perceptions within the area of OM. The literature review shows that when ICTs are used
in OM, the tendency is to use games and simulations. Also, the software developed does
not generally have a complex interactive design that enables the independent learning of
its content. Consequently, it is important to create tools which, like the software in this
research, make it easier for students to understandthe concepts andarouse their interest in
OM-related matters, thereby raising their interest both in the discipline itself and in a
future career within the discipline. The results obtained for the interactive software are
especially signicant when we take into account that the literature review demonstrates
that students frequently consider OM to be a subject difcult to understand and outside
their professional interests. It can therefore be concluded that the interactive software
and the teaching methodology that underlies it contribute to overcoming one of the main
difculties attributed to our discipline, and also increase student interest and motivation.
In other respects, the use of interactive software of the type used in this research might
meet the needs of independent learning when studies are combined with some work
activity or have to be done in the workplace. It leads us to also consider the usefulness and
suitabilityof this kindof software for ongoingin-companyOMtraining. This last is also in
keepingwithone of the mainlines of interest inthe training eldinthe EuropeanUnion, as
set out in some of the initiatives in the EUs Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013).
One of the things that these initiatives do is promote projects for developing tools that
enable creative, non-linear learning, the use of ICTs for continuous training and the
creation of new learning models based on these technologies.
The main limitations of this study come from the features of the experimental design
that was used. From a strictly statistical point-of-view, the conclusions can therefore only
be generalized in the population under study and in the educational scenarios analyzed.
Nevertheless, this experimental design enabled a greater degree of control to be asserted
over the studyconditions, greater internal validityto be obtained, andthe real effects of the
independent variables over the dependent variables to be properly analyzed. And, as has
already been justied in these conclusions, we consider that the features of the software,
the learning methodology used and the prole of the students selected enable the main
conclusions of this study to be applicable to other OM environments.
IJOPM
32,12
1414
Taking into account the joint consideration of the various aspects involved in the
teaching-learning process, the ndings of our research can be considered to be very
positive with regard to the use of ICTs in OM teaching and learning. This study
represents a new contribution on the long road that still has to be run. Without losing
sight of its limitations, this study allows reections to be made on the use and assessment
of this type of complex and specic software in OM educational environments. It also
formally analyzes the relationship between the teaching-learning method and students
attitudes towards their learning process. All this could be of interest for researchers
concerned with improving applied teaching-learning methods in OM with the use of
ICTs.
These ndings pave the way for new lines of research. Among other aspects, it
would be very interesting to use the application in a blended learning environment to
analyze improvements in the overall learning experience resulting from the joint use
of the interactive software and face-to-face classes. This would also enable a study
to be conducted of the gure of the teacher as the coordinator/facilitator of the
teaching/learning process. The effect of class size onstudy results could also be analyzed
and a comparison made with the teaching methodology used in real traditional lecture
classes, where groups tend to be larger than those used in the experiment and less time is
available for teaching concepts.
References
Abdous, M. and Yen, C. (2010), A predictive study of learner satisfaction and outcomes in
face-to-face, satellite broadcast, and live video-streaming learning environments,
The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 13, pp. 248-57.
Aggarwal, A.K. and Adlakha, V.G. (2006), Quality management applied to web-based courses,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Alexander, S. (1999), An evaluation of innovative projects involving communication and
information technology in higher education, Higher Education Research & Development,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 173-83.
Alfalla-Luque, R. and Machuca, J.A.D. (2003), An empirical study of POM teaching in Spanish
universities (II): faculty prole, teaching and assessment methods, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 375-400.
Alfalla-Luque, R., Medina-Lopez, C. and Arenas-Marquez, F.J. (2011), Mejorando la formacion en
Direccion de Operaciones: la vision del estudiante y su respuesta ante diferentes
metodolog as docentes, Cuadernos de Econom a y Direccion de la Empresa, Vol. 14,
pp. 40-52.
Ammar, S. and Wright, R. (2002), A demostration of push/pull assembly line, Informs
Transactions on Education, Vol. 2, pp. 1-8.
Arbaugh, J.B. (2005a), How much does subject matter matter? A study of disciplinary effects in
on-line MBA courses, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 57-73.
Arbaugh, J.B. (2005b), Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses?, Academy of
Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4, pp. 135-49.
Arbaugh, J.B. and Benbunan-Fich, R. (2006), An investigation of epistemological and social
dimensions of teaching in online learning environments, Academy of Management
Learning & Education, Vol. 5, pp. 435-47.
Interactive
learning in OM
1415
Arbaugh, J.B. and Benbunan-Fich, R. (2007), Examining the inuence of participant interaction
modes in web-based learning environments, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43, pp. 853-65.
Arbaugh, J.B. and Duray, R. (2002), Technological and structural characteristics, student
learning and satisfaction with web-based courses: an exploratory study of two MBA
programs, Management Learning, Vol. 33, pp. 231-47.
Arbaugh, J.B. and Hwang, A. (2006), Does teaching presence exist in online MBA courses?,
The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 9, pp. 9-21.
Arbaugh, J.B. and Rau, B.L. (2007), A study of disciplinary, structural, and behavioral effects on
course outcomes in online MBA courses, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, Vol. 5, pp. 63-93.
Arbaugh, J.B., Desai, A., Rau, B. and Sridhar, B.S. (2010), A review of research on online and
blended learning in the management disciplines: 1994-2009, Organization Management
Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 39-55.
Arbaugh, J.B., Godfrey, M.R., Johnson, M., Leisen Pollack, B., Niendorf, B. and Wresch, W. (2009),
Research in online and blended learning in the business disciplines: key ndings and
possible future directions, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 71-87.
Arias, J.J. and Walker, D.M. (2004), Additional evidence on the relationship between class size
and student performance, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 311-29.
Arias, M., Gonzalez, L., Navaridas, F. and Santiago, R. (2003), Quality in elearning management
education: a methodology to measure content quality, Proceedings of the XVII AEDEM
Conference, Bordeaux, France.
Astleitner, H. (2000), Designing emotionally sound instruction: the FEASP-approach,
Instructional Science, Vol. 28, pp. 169-98.
Balazinski, M. and Przybylo, A. (2005), Teaching manufacturing processes using computer
animation, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 237-43.
Ball, P. and Thornbury, H. (2004), A student learning environment without the overhead?
Reviewing cost and benets of CAL within a manufacturing course, International Journal
of Engineering Education, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 713-25.
Barak, M. (2007), Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in
undergraduate chemistry courses, Computers & Education, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Bates, A.W. (2000), Managing Technological Change. Strategies for College and University
Leaders, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamim, R.M., Surkes, M.A. and
Bethel, E.C. (2009), A metaanalysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance
education, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 1243-89.
Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P., Fiset, M.
and Huang, B. (2004), How does distance education compare with classroom instruction?
A meta-analysis of the empirical literature, Review of Education Research, Vol. 74 No. 3,
pp. 379-439.
Bouras, C. and Tsiatsos, T. (2006), Educational virtual environments: design rationale and
architecture, Multimedia Tools and Applications, Vol. 29, pp. 153-73.
Bricall, J.M. (2000), Informe Universidad 2000, CRUE, Madrid.
Brower, H.H. (2003), On emulating classroom discussion in a distance-delivered OBHR course:
creating an on-line community, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 2,
pp. 22-36.
Cabero Almenara, J. (2001), Tecnolog a Educativa. Disen o y utilizacion de medios en la ensen anza,
Paidos, Barcelona.
IJOPM
32,12
1416
Catenazzi, N. and Sommaruga, L. (1999), The evaluation of the hyper apuntes interactive
learning environment, Computers and Education, Vol. 32, pp. 35-49.
Chambers, M. (1999), The efcacy and ethics of using digital multimedia for educational
purposes, in Tait, A. and Mills, R. (Eds), The Convergence of Distance and Conventional
Education, Routledge, London, pp. 5-17.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007), Research Methods in Education, Routledge,
New York, NY.
Collaud, G., Gurtner, J.L. and Coen, P.F. (2000), Design and use of a hypermedia system at the
university level, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 16, pp. 137-47.
Cooner, T.S. (2010), Creating opportunities for students in large cohorts to reect in and on
practice: lessons learnt from a formative evaluation of students experiences of a
technology-enhanced blended learning design, British Journal of Educational Technology,
Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 271-86.
Cox, J.F. and Walker, E.D. (2005), Increasing student interest and comprehension of production
planning and control and operations performance measurement concepts using a
production line game, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 489-511.
Coye, R.W. and Stonebraker, P.W. (1994), The effectiveness of personal computers in operations
management education, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 35-46.
Crowther, M.S., Keller, C.C. and Waddoups, G.L. (2004), Improving the quality and effectiveness
of computer-mediated instruction through usability evaluations, British Journal of
Educational Technology, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 289-303.
Dalgarno, B. (2001), Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted
learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 2, pp. 183-94.
Daymont, T. and Blau, G. (2008), Student performance in online and traditional sections of an
undergraduate management course, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management,
Vol. 9, pp. 275-94.
Dinsmore, D.L., Alexander, P.A. and Loughlin, S.M. (2008), Focusing the conceptual lens on
metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning, Educational Psychology
Review, Vol. 20, pp. 391-409.
DMello, K.S., Graesser, A. and King, B. (2010), Toward spoken human-computer tutorial
dialogues, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 289-323.
Domagk, S., Schwartz, R.N. and Plass, J.L. (2010), Interactivity in multimedia learning: an
integrated model, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1024-33.
Donnelly, R. (2010), Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based
learning, Computers & Education, Vol. 54, pp. 350-9.
Draper, S.W., Brown, M.I., Edgerton, E., Henderson, F.P., Mcateer, E., Smith, E.D. and Watt, H.D.
(1994), Observing and Measuring the Performance of Educational Technology, Report by
the University of Glasgows Institutional TILT Project, Glasgow.
Draves, W.A. (2000), Teaching Online, LERN Books, Learning Resource Network, River Falls, WI.
European Commission (2002), European Union Policies and Strategic Change for eLearning in
Universities, Report of the HECTIC Project, European Commission, Brussels.
Evans, C. and Gibbons, N.J. (2007), The interactivity effect in multimedia learning, Computers
and Education, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 1147-60.
Fenollar, P., Roman, S. and Cuestas, P.J. (2007), University students academic performance:
an integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis, British Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 873-91.
Interactive
learning in OM
1417
Fish, L. (2008), Graduate student project: employer operations management analysis, Journal of
Education for Business, September/October, pp. 18-30.
Friday, E., Friday-Stroud, S.S., Green, A.L. and Hill, A.Y. (2006), A multi-semester comparison of
student performance between multiple traditional and online sections of two management
courses, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 66-81.
Garrison, D.R. and Anderson, T. (2003), E-learning in the 21st Century, Routledge, London.
Ginns, P. and Ellis, R.A. (2009), Evaluating the quality of e-learning at the degree level in the
student experience of blended learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 40
No. 4, pp. 652-63.
Glaeser-Zikuda, M., Fuss, S., Laukenmann, M., Metz, K. and Randler, C. (2005), Promoting
students emotions and achievement instructional design and evaluation of the
ECOLE-approach, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 15, pp. 481-95.
Gofn, K. (1998), Operations management teaching on European MBA programmes,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 424-51.
Gonzalez Zamora, M.M., Machuca, J.A.D. and Ruiz Del Castillo, J.C. (2000), SITMECOM 1.0. PC:
a transparent-box multifunctional simulator of competing companies, Simulation
& Gaming, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 240-56.
Graham, C.R. (2006), Blended learning systems: denition, current trends, and future
directions, in Bonk, C.J. and Graham, C.R. (Eds), The Handbook of Blended Learning:
Global Perspectives, Local Designs, Pfeiffer, Zurich, pp. 3-21.
Greasley, A., Bennett, D. and Greasley, K. (2004), A virtual learning environment for operations
management. assessing the students perspective, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 974-93.
Gross, J. and Raymond, B. (1992), POM educational objectives and the use of microcomputer.
Software: survey results and conclusions, paper presented at the POMS Annual Meeting,
Orlando, FL, 18-21 October.
Harding, A., Kaczynski, D. and Wood, L. (2005), Evaluation of blended learning: analysis of
qualitative data, Proceedings of Uniserve Science Blended Learning Symposium, pp. 56-61.
Harris, K.R. and Alexander, P.A. (1998), Integrated, constructivist education: challenge and
reality, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 10, pp. 115-27.
Hartman, J., Lewis, J.S. and Powell, K.S. (2002), Inbox shock: a study of electronic message
volume in a distance managerial communication course, Business Communication
Quarterly, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 9-28.
Hayes, R. (1998), Developing POM faculties for the 21st century, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 94-8.
Holweg, M. and Bicheno, J. (2002), Supply chain simulation a tool for education, enhancement
and endeavour, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 78, pp. 163-75.
Hosie, P., Schibeci, R. and Backhaus, A. (2005), A framework and checklists for evaluating
online learning in higher education, Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 30
No. 5, pp. 539-53.
Hoskisson, R.E., Hitt, M.E., Johnson, R.A. and Moesel, D.D. (1993), Construct validity of an
objective (entropy) categorical measure of diversication strategy, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 215-35.
Hwang, A. and Arbaugh, J.B. (2009), Seeking feedback in blended learning: competitive versus
cooperative student attitudes and their links to learning outcome, Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 280-93.
IJOPM
32,12
1418
Hyun, E. (2005), A study of 5- to 6-year-old childrens peer dynamics and dialectical learning in a
computer-based technology-rich classroom environment, Computers &Education, Vol. 44,
pp. 69-91.
Ivancevich, J.M., Gilbert, J.A. and Konopaske, R. (2009), Studying and facilitating dialogue in
select online management courses, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 33,
pp. 196-218.
Johnson, A.C. and Drougas, A.M. (2002), Using Goldratts game to introduce simulation in the
introductory operation management course, INFORMS Transactions on Education, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 20-33, available at: www.informs.org/Pubs/ITE/Archive/Volume-3 (accessed
20 May 2011).
Johnson, I.Y. (2010), Class size and student performance at a public research university:
a cross-classied model, Research in Higher Education Journal, Vol. 51, pp. 701-23.
Jones, A., Scanlon, E., Tosunoglu, C., Morris, E., Ross, S., Butcher, P. and Greenberg, J. (1999),
Contexts for evaluating educational software, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 11,
pp. 499-516.
Juan, A.A., Steegmann, C., Huertas, A., Martinez, M.J. and Simosa, J. (2011), Teaching
mathematics online in the European area of higher education: an instructors point of
view, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, Vol. 42
No. 2, pp. 141-53.
Kanet, J.J. and Barut, M. (2003), Problem-based learning for production and operations
management, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 99-118.
Keller, J.M. and Suzuki, K. (2004), Learner motivation and e-learning design: a multinationally
validated process, Journal of Educational Media, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 229-39.
Kerlinguer, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000), Foundations of Behavioral Research, Harcourt College
Publishers, San Diego, CA.
Kirkwood, A. (2009), E-learning: you dont always get what you hope for, Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 107-21.
Klein, H.J., Noe, R.A. and Wang, C. (2006), Motivation to learn and course outcomes: the impact
of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 665-702.
Kock, N., Verville, J. and Garza, V. (2007), Media naturalness and online learning: ndings
supporting both the signicant- and no-signicant-difference perspectives, Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 5, pp. 333-55.
Kokkelenberg, E.C., Dillon, M. and Christy, S.M. (2008), The effects of class size on student
grades at a public university, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 27, pp. 221-33.
Krajewski, L. (1998), Motivating students in the operations management class: challenges
for the publishing industry, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 188-93.
Lankford, W. and Padgett, T. (2011), Developing computer interactive learning for production
operations management, Training & Management Development Methods, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 501-6, available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/202598947?accountid14744
(accessed 20 May).
Lapsley, R., Kulik, B., Moody, R. and Arbaugh, J.B. (2008), Is identical really identical?
An investigation of equivalency theory and online learning, Journal of Educators Online,
Vol. 5 No. 1, available at: www.thejeo.com/ (accessed 20 May 2011).
Interactive
learning in OM
1419
Larson, D. and Chung-Hsien, S. (2009), Comparing student performance: online versus
blended versus face-to-face, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 31-42.
Lau, H.Y.K. and Mark, K.L. (2004), The virtual company: a re-congurable open shell for
problem-based learning in industrial engineering, Computers & Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 47, pp. 289-312.
Leacock, T.L. and Nesbit, J.C. (2007), A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia
learning resources, Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 44-59.
Lewis, M.A. and Maylor, H.R. (2007), Game playing and operations management education,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 105, pp. 134-49.
Lewis, R. (1999), The role of technology in learning: managing to achieve a vision, British
Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 141-50.
Lockyer, L., Bennett, S., Agostinho, S. and Harper, B. (2008), Handbook of research on learning
design and learning objects: issues, applications, and technologies, IGI Global, Vol. 2.
Lofstrom, E. and Nevgi, A. (2007), From strategic planning to meaningful learning: diverse
perspectives on the development of web-based teaching and learning in higher education,
British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 312-24.
Lopez-Perez, M.V., Perez-Lopez, M.C. and Rodr guez-Ariza, L. (2011), Blended learning in higher
education: students perceptions and their relation to outcomes, Computers & Education,
Vol. 56, pp. 818-26.
Loyens, S.M.M. and Gijbels, D. (2008), Understanding the effects of constructivist learning
environments: introducing a multi-directional approach, Instructional Science, Vol. 36,
pp. 351-7.
McCray, G.E. (2000), The hybrid course: merging on-line instruction and the traditional
classroom, Information Technology and Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, p. 307.
McKone, K. and Bozewicz, J. (2003), The ISM simulation: teaching integrated management
concepts, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 27, pp. 497-515.
McLaren, C.H. (2004), A comparison of student persistence and performance in online and
classroom business statistics experiences, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Ma, L., Vogel, D. and Wagner, C. (2000), Will virtual education initiatives succeed?, Information
Technology and Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, p. 209.
Machuca, J.A.D. (2000), Transparent-box business simulators: an aid to manage the complexity
of organizations, Simulation & Gaming, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 230-9.
Machuca, J.A.D. and Alfalla-Luque, R. (2002), Un analisis de los programas docentes de
Direccion de Produccion/Operaciones en la Universidad Espanola: Un estudio emp rico,
Cuadernos de Econom a y Direccion de la Empresa, Vol. 11, pp. 149-85.
Machuca, J.A.D. and Alfalla-Luque, R. (2003), An empirical study of POM teaching in Spanish
universities (I): content of POM courses, International Journal of Operations
& Productions Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 15-43.
Machuca, J.A.D. and Barajas, R.P. (1997), A computerized network version of the beer game via
the internet, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 323-40.
Machuca, J.A.D. and Barajas, R.P. (2004), The impact of electronic data interchange on reducing
bullwhip effect and supply chain inventory costs, Transportation Research Part E,
Vol. 40, pp. 209-28.
IJOPM
32,12
1420
Machuca, J.A.D., Gonzalez Zamora, M.M. and Ruiz del Castillo, J.C. (2003), Innovation in POM
teaching and learning: a new generation of business simulators, Proceedings of 10th
International EurOMA Conference, Como, Italy, pp. 939-48.
Marin-Garcia, J.A., Mart nez Gomez, M. and Lloret, J. (2009a), Enhancing motivation and
satisfaction of students: analysis of quantitative data in three subjects of industrial
engineering, WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education, Vol. 6,
pp. 11-21.
Marin-Garcia, J.A., Miralles Insa, C. and Marin Garcia, P. (2008), Oral presentation and
assessment skills in engineering education, International Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 24, pp. 926-35.
Marin-Garcia, J.A., Garcia-Sabater, J.P., Perello-Marin, M.R. and Canos-Daros, L. (2009b),
Proposal of skills for the bachelor degree of industrial engineering in the context of the
new curriculum, Intangible Capital, Vol. 5, pp. 387-406, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.
3926/ic.2009.v5n4.p387-406 (accessed 20 May 2011).
Marks, R.B., Sibley, S. and Arbaugh, J.B. (2005), A structural equation model of predictors for
effective online learning, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 29, pp. 531-63.
Marque`s Graells, P. (2000), Nuevos instrumentos para la evaluacion de materiales multimedia,
Comunicacion y Pedagog a, Vol. 166, pp. 103-17.
Martens, R.L., Gulikers, J. and Bastiaens, T. (2004), The impact on intrinsic computer tasks,
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 20, pp. 368-76.
Mart nez, F., Prendes, M.P., Alfageme, M.B., Amoros, L., Rodr guez, T. and Solano, I.M. (2002),
Herramienta de evaluacion de multimedia didactico, P xel-Bit, Revista de Medios y
Educacion, Vol. 18, pp. 71-88.
May, G.L. and Short, D. (2003), Gardening in cyberspace: a metaphor to enhance online teaching
and learning, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 27, pp. 673-93.
Mayes, J.T. and Fowler, C.J. (1999), Learning technology and usability: contexts for evaluating
educational software, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 11, pp. 485-97.
Medina-Lopez, C., Alfalla-Luque, R. and Arenas-Marquez, F.J. (2011a), Active learning in
operations management: interactive multimedia software for teaching JIT/Lean
Production, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 31-80.
Medina-Lopez, C., Alfalla-Luque, R. and Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2011b), Research in operations
management teaching: trends and challenges, Intangible Capital, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 507-48.
Merril, G.B. and Galbraith, C.S. (2009), Learning outcomes and instructional delivery method in
professional and business related courses: an empirical study controlling for course and
instructor differences, Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 18-38.
Michaelson, R., Helliar, C., Power, D. and Sinclair, D. (2001), Evaluating FINESSE: a case-study
in group-based CAL, Computers and Education, Vol. 37, pp. 67-80.
Mitchell, P. and Forer, P. (2010), Blended learning: the perceptions of rst-year geography
students, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 77-89.
Moshman, D. (1982), Exogenous endogenous and dialectical constructivism, Developmental
Review, Vol. 2, pp. 371-84.
Moskowitz, H. and Ward, J. (1998), A three-phase approach to instilling a continuous learning
culture in manufacturing education and training, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 201-9.
Mullins-Dove, T.G. (2006), Streaming video and distance education, Distance Learning, Vol. 3
No. 4, pp. 63-71.
Interactive
learning in OM
1421
Naslund, D. (2005), Online testing for logistics and operations sciences, Journal of Innovative
Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 357-65.
Nemanich, L., Banks, M. and Vera, D. (2009), Enhancing knowledge transfer in classroom
versus online settings: the interplay among instructor, student, content, and context,
Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 7, pp. 123-48.
New, S.J. (2003), Multimedia for international operations: a case study, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 125-37.
Nielsen, J. (2000), Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity, New Riders Publishing,
Indianapolis, IN.
ODonnell, A.M., Dansereau, D.F. and Hall, R.H. (2002), Knowledge maps as scaffolds for
cognitive processing, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 71-86.
OLeary-Kelly, S.W. and Vokurka, R.J. (1998), The empirical assessment of construct validity,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 387-405.
Orton-Johnson, K. (2009), Ive stuck to the path Im afraid: exploring student non-use of blended
learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 837-47.
Osguthorpe, T.R. and Graham, R.C. (2003), Blended learning environments, Quarterly Review
of Distance Education, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 227-33.
Pal, R. and Busing, M.E. (2008), Teaching operations management in an integrated format:
student perception and faculty experience, International Journal Production Economics,
Vol. 115, pp. 594-610.
Parsad, B. and Lewis, L. (2008), Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary
Institutions: 2006-07, First Look. NCES 2009-044, National Center for Education Statistics,
Washington, DC, available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubSearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid2009044
(accessed 20 May 2011).
Pasin, F. and Giroux, H. (2011), The impact of a simulation game on operations management
education, Computers & Education, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1240-54.
Picciano, A.G. and Dziuban, C.D. (2007), Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, Sloan-C,
Needham, MA.
Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R. and Ives, B. (2000), Knowledge management in academia: a proposed
framework, Information Technology and Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, p. 229.
Pintrich, P.R. (2003), A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 4,
pp. 667-86.
Polito, T., Kros, J. and Watson, K. (2004), Improving operations management concept
recollection via the zarco experiential learning activity, Journal of Education for Business,
Vol. 79, pp. 283-7.
Ra, A., Samsudin, K.A. and Said, C.S. (2008), Training in spatial visualization: the effects of
training method and gender, Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 127-40.
Raimondo, H.J., Esposito, L. and Gershenberg, I. (1990), Introductory class size and student
performance in intermediate theory courses, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 369-81.
Rauch-Geelhaara, C., Jenkea, K. and Thurnes, C.M. (2003), Gaming in industrial management
quality and competence in advanced training, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 155-65.
Renkl, A. and Atkinson, R.K. (2007), Interactive learning environments: contemporary issues
and trends. An introduction to the special issue, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 19,
pp. 235-8.
IJOPM
32,12
1422
Riffell, S.K. and Sibley, D.H. (2003), Learning online: student perceptions of a hybrid learning
format, Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 394-9.
Rinaudo, M.C., Chiecher, A. and Donolo, D. (2003), Motivacion y uso de estrategias en
estudiantes universitarios. Su evaluacion a partir del Motivated Strategies Learning
Questionnaire, Anales de Psicolog a, Vol. 19, pp. 107-19.
Rubin, J. and Chisnell, D. (2008), Handbook of Usability Testing, Wiley, Indianapolis, IN.
Ruiz Jimenez, A., Ceballos Hernandez, C., Garc a Gragera, J.A. and Chavez Miranda, M.E. (2010),
Una experiencia de evaluacion continua en un entorno masicado, in
Jimenez Caballero, J.L. and Rodr guez D az, A. (Eds), Nuevas ensen anzas de grado en la
Escuela Universitaria de Estudios Empresariales de la Universidad de Sevilla, Grupo
Editorial, Seville, pp. 279-94.
Satzler, L. and Sheu, C. (2002), Facilitating learning in large operations management classes
using integrated Lego (R) projects, Production & Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 43
Nos 3/4, pp. 340-5.
Scheck, C., Kinicki, A. and Webster, J. (1994), The effect of class size on student performance:
development and assessment of a process model, Journal of Education for Business,
Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 104-11.
Schneiderman, B. and Plaisant, C. (2005), Designing the User Interface. Strategies for Effective
Human-Computer Interaction, Pearson Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Schraw, G., Flowerday, T. and Lehman, S. (2001), Increasing situational interest in the
classroom, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 211-24.
Schwartzman, R. and Tuttle, H.V. (2002), What can online course components teach about
improving instruction and learning?, Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 179-88.
SEDISI (2000), Metodolog a de evaluacion de productos formativos multimedia, Asociacion
Espanola de Empresas de Tecnolog as de la Informacion.
Selwyn, N. (2007), The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: a critical
perspective, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 83-94.
Sergers, E. and Verhoeven, L. (2009), Learning in a sheltered internet environment: the use of
WebQuests, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 19, pp. 423-32.
Shaw, R. and McAteer, E. (1995), The Design of Multimedia Learning Programs, EMASHE
Group, University of Glasgow, Glasgow.
Sims, R. (1997), Interactivity: a forgotten art, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 157-80.
Singh, T. (2010), Creating opportunities for students in large cohorts to reect in and on practice:
lessons learnt from a formative evaluation of students experiences of a
technology-enhanced blended learning design, British Journal of Educational
Technology, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 271-86.
Skylar, A.A., Higgins, K., Boone, R. and Jones, P. (2005), Distance education: an exploration of
alternative methods and types of instructional media in teacher education, Journal of
Special Education Technology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 25-33.
Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A. and Johnston, R. (2011), Essentials of Operations Management,
Pearson, Harlow.
Slack, N., Lewis, M. and Bates, H. (2004), The two worlds of operations management research
and practice: can they meet, should they meet?, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 372-87.
Interactive
learning in OM
1423
Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A., Johnston, R. and Betts, A. (2012), Operations and Process
Management, 3rd ed., Pearson, Harlow.
Soh, P.H. and Subramanian, A.M. (2008), Is usage a missing link in explaining the perceived
learning outcome of technology-mediated learning?, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 50-66.
Stensaker, B., Maassen, P., Borgan, M., Oftebro, M. and Karseth, B. (2007), Use, Updating and
Integration of ICT in Higher Education: Linking Purpose, People and Pedagogy, Springer,
Amsterdam.
Summers, J.J., Waigandt, A. and Whittaker, T.A. (2005), A comparison of student achievement
and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class, Innovative
Higher Education, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 233-50.
Sun, P. and Cheng, H.K. (2007), The design of instructional multimedia in e-learning: a media
richness theory-based approach, Computers & Education, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 662-76.
Tallent-Runnels, M.K., Thomas, J.A., Lan, W.Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T.C., Shaw, S.M. and Liu, X.
(2006), Teaching courses online: a review of the research, Review of Educational
Research, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 93-135.
Tam, M. (2000), Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: implications for
transforming distance learning, Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 50-60.
Tan, K.H., Tse, Y.K. and Chung, P.L. (2010), A plug and play pathway approach for operations
management games development, Computers & Education, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 109-17.
Tang, T.L. and Austin, M.J. (2009), Students perceptions of teaching technologies, application of
technologies, and academic performance, Computers & Education, Vol. 53 No. 4,
pp. 1241-55.
Terry, N. (2007), Assessing instruction modes for master of business administration (MBA)
courses, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 220-5.
Trochim, W.M. (2006), The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd ed., available at: www.
socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ (version current as of 20 October 2006) (accessed
20 May 2011).
Tseng, H. (2010), Has the student performance in managerial economics been affected by the
class size of principles of microeconomics?, Journal of Economics and Economic
Education Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 15-27.
Tsui, C.-Y. and Treagust, D.F. (2004), Motivational aspects of learning genetics with interactive
multimedia, The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 277-86.
Tullis, T. and Albert, W. (2008), Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and
Presenting Usability Metrics, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Van den Akker, J., Gustafson, K., Branch, R.M., Nieveen, N. and Plomp, T. (Eds) (1999), Design
Approaches and Tools in Education and Training, Kluwer Academics, Dordrecht.
Vaughan, N. (2007), Perspectives on blended learning in higher education, International Journal
on E-Learning, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 81-94.
Veenman, S., Denessen, E., van den Oord, I. and Naafs, F. (2003), Direct and activating
instruction: evaluation of a preservice course, The Journal of Experimental Education,
Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 197-225.
Virvou, M. and Alepis, E. (2005), Mobile educational features in authoring tools for personalised
tutoring, Computers & Education, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Walker, H.L., Gough, S., Bakker, E.F., Knight, L.A. and McBain, D. (2009), Greening operations
management: an online sustainable procurement course for practitioners, Journal of
Management Education, Vol. 33, pp. 348-71.
IJOPM
32,12
1424
Walker, K. (2004), Activity systems and conict resolution in an online professional
communication course, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 67, pp. 182-97.
Wang, Q. (2008), A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching
and learning, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 411-19.
Webb, H.W., Gill, G. and Poe, G. (2005), Teaching with the case method online: pure versus
hybrid approaches, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 223-50.
Westerlund, J. (2008), Class size and student evaluations in Sweden, Education Economics,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-28.
Wild, R. and Griggs, K.A. (2002), Collaborative telelearning: an experiment in remote project
management, E-Service Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Williams, E.A., Duray, R. and Reddy, V. (2006), Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness, and
student learning: a study of the use of teams in online distance education, Journal of
Management Education, Vol. 30, pp. 592-616.
Woltering, V., Herrler, A., Spitzer, K. and Spreckelsen, C. (2009), Blended learning positively
affects students satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning
process: results of a mixed-method evaluation, Advances in Health Science Education,
Vol. 14, pp. 725-38.
Yazici, H.J. (2004), Student perceptions of collaborative learning in operations management
classes, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 80, pp. 110-19.
Yazici, H.J. (2006), Simulation modeling of a facility layout in operations management classes,
Simulation and Gaming, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 73-87.
Yourstone, S.A., Kraye, H.S. and Albaum, G. (2008), Classroom questioning with immediate
electronic response: do clikers improve learning?, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, Vol. 6, pp. 75-88.
Further reading
Broad, M., McDonald, A. and Matthews, M. (2000), Acceptability of accounting learning and
teaching through the world wide web, Discussion Papers in Accounting and Management
Science, Number 00-159, University of Southampton, Southampton.
Chase, R.B. and Zhang, A. (1998), Operations management: internationalization and
interdisciplinary integration, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 663-7.
Hwang, A. and Arbaugh, J.B. (2006), Virtual and traditional feedback-seeking behaviors:
underlying competitive attitudes and consequent grade performance, Decision Sciences
Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Kochman, A. and Maddux, C.D. (2001), Interactive televised distance learning versus on-campus
instruction: a comparison of nal grades, Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 87-91.
Macdonald, J. (2008), Blended Learning and Online Tutoring, 2nd ed., Gower, Aldershot.
Macedo-Rouet, M., Ney, M., Charles, S. and Lallich-Boidin, G. (2009), Students performance and
satisfaction with web vs paper-based practice quizzes and lecture notes, Computers
& Education, Vol. 53, pp. 375-84.
Voos, R. (2003), Blended learning what is it and where might it take us?, Sloan-C View, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 2-5.
Interactive
learning in OM
1425
About the authors
Francisco J. Arenas-Marquez is Assistant Professor of Operations Management and Information
Systems and Technologies and member of the GIDEAO Research Group at the University of
Seville, Spain, Department of Finance and Operations Management. He has a PhD in Business
Administration from the University of Seville. His research involves e-business and the
development and evaluation of interactive software for instruction in operations management and
business administration. He has worked in numerous national and European projects related to
this research line and he is author/coauthor of different publications in this eld. He has been
research visitor at several universities (Nottingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Linkoping).
Francisco J. Arenas-Marquez is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: fjarenas@us.es
Jose A.D. Machuca (www.personal.us.es/jmachuca) is Professor of Operations Management
at the University of Sevilla, Spain, Director of GIDEAO Research Group, former Head of
Department (1982-1992) and former Vice Dean (1983-1989), Vicepresident EurAfrica of POMS
and member of the EurOMA Board. He is Coordinator of the European Thematic Network for the
Excellence in Operations and Supply Chain Management Education, Research and Practice
(Thenexom). His funded research has been carried out as director of three European projects,
seven national projects, and two projects of excellence (Andalusian Research Plan). He is member
of the Editorial Advisory Board of JOM and IJOPM, and of the Editorial Review Board of POM
and IJMTM. He is author/coauthor of eight books, editor/coeditor of eight journal special issues,
and more than 50 articles and 60 book chapters. He has published in journals such as: JOM,
POM, IJOPM, IJPE, JPR, HBR and SDR. He has received the following awards: 2001 Wikham
Skinner Award honoring teaching innovation achievements (POMS); nomination for the 2001
European IST Prize, 2002 MED-Academy of Management-AEDEM Award in Management
Education; Honorable Mention 2002 Instructional Innovation Award (DSI); 2003 POMS and
Indiana CIBER Best Case International Award; 2005 Business Week/ECCH European Best Case
in Operations Management Award; Honorary Doctorate by the Universidad Privada del Norte
(Peru); 2009 Andalucia Research Award-Ibn Al Jatib; and Outstanding Professor University of
Sevilla (2003-2004, 2004-2005).
Carmen Medina-Lopez is Assistant Professor of Production and Operations Management at
the University of Sevilla, Spain, where she has taught for the past ten years in the area of
operations management. Her PhD is also from the University of Seville. She is member of
GIDEAO Research Group. She has participated in a number of research projects sponsored by
the European Union and national institutions. She is author of several articles in academic
journals (including Business History, Production Planning & Control, ESIC Market, CEDE, . . .),
as well as of papers presented to national and international conferences. She has been research
visitor at several universities (Aston University (UK), Sunderland University (UK), Nottingham
University (UK), Glasgow University (UK)). Her main research interests are teaching operations
management particularly with respect to the use of information technologies (IT) and supply
chain management.
IJOPM
32,12
1426
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints