Beginning class with FUN

I woudl like to begin class on a fun note. One way to do this is to to have one person introduce themselves in five minutes, in a unique and interesting way, using the computer to show information, facebook, youtube. pictures, etc.
I see this as adding a positive feeling to the class. It would get everyone out of their "shell" -- their view of starting a dreary four-hour block of Cluster. It also serves to help students get to know other students better.

I only have about 16-17 days of class in a quarter (not a problem in semesters). How could I cover all students? Could this be optional? Would it be fair to provide participation credit as incentive, and base it on the level of interest and excitement of the class (i.e. 1, 2 or 3 points)?

How to get students to read

Chapters come with core questions.

1. Suggest to class that the quizzes will be formulated around those questions.
2. Formulate the quizzes around those questions.

How:

1. Review the learning objectives for each chapter.
2. Rework the PowerPoint slides so they outline important questions, and satisfy the learning objectives
3. Formulate the quizzes around the chapters.

Evaluate Fit of Hardware, Software and DataCom chapters

Cluster Task Force suggests that content from the disciplines be aligned towards supporting the Cluster experience, which revolves around

1. Business Plan
2. Industry Analysis
3. Publicly traded company analysis
4. Real Client

Concepts being included will need to show how they support the cluster learning outcome. Along these lines, the discussion in Chapter 4 seems to be somewhat tangential. E.g. bits, bytes, protocol, etc. We may need to revisit Ch. 4 & 6.

Agenda for Final Meeting

Attending: Vic, Gabe.We discussed items of interest for a later meeting with all three of us.

1. How did the delivery of combining chaters 4 with 6 and 5 with 7 go? The biggest concernwas whether students were able to garsp database concepts in half a session
2. How did the combination of chapters 11 and 12 go?
3. Use Lewicki's Learning Assessment to ensure MIS 202 was not violating any key issues in learning assessment.
4. Reducing the homework load: it is likely that students are not doing HW independently since it often competes with their other deliverables.

• should we have some chapters that do not have homeowrk assignments?
• Or reduce load by condensing the question and introducing a discssion that gets students to start the homework at the end of the class session? The notion here is that if they begin it independently and can see how to proceed, they would be more compelled to complete it themselves, and with less effort. 

End of Spring - Status Report

MIS Cluster faculty (Gabe, Mike & Vic) met at the end of the Spring Quarter, to discuss the text  adopted at the beginning of Winter 2011. We discussed the following issues.

1. Hot Topics: Should we yank them, weigh them differently, or change delivery?
• Hot Topics were being delivered with inconsistent effectiveness (rigor, engagement and learning outcomes)  
• Delivery of critical content content could go badly. e.g. a student would take five minutes to incoherently read a crowded PowerPoint slide (this is actually worse - because the incoherent disrupts students who would have otherwise read the slide)
• Yet, they provided a change of pace (different educational channel, entertainment)
• Hot topics in most sections went well, and in fact, improved between Winter and Spring 
• Hot topics provided a venue for covering topics that were not covered by the text.
• CONCLUSION: We decided to keep Hot Topics in for now, but require an instructor review before it would be presented. 
2. Using an Updated Text: We have adopted the newly published second edition Kroenke's MIS Essentials text book for Fall 2011, and had the following points of discussion.
• Semester version of Cluster would 
1. require a strong integrative component 
2. without a reduced load on student/faculty and
3. not carry the typical 1/3 course credit. To accomplish an increased level of integration while still reducing the load from the current state, course content may need to condense.
• Issues and concerns:
1. The first video case did not fit well -- fortunately the new text uses a different one.
2. As can be expected, we liked content in some chapters more than others. The less liked chapters were: 
• Ch. 4: Hardware  & Software - too techy
• Ch. 5: Database Processing - too techy
• Ch. 6: Data Communication - too techy
• Ch. 7: Enterprise Systems - some abstract topics
• Ch.11: Information Security Management - not all topics are relevant
• Ch. 12: Information Systems Security - some topics techy, not all relevant
3. Suggestions were to: 
• Combine chapters 4, 5 & 6, since most content in these were marginal. Downside: too much to combine.
• Combine chapters 4 & 6, and chapters 5 & 7. Mike will be piloting this in the Summer, and will provide feedback  
• Combine chapters 11 & 12.
3. Summer Pilot: Mike will be piloting the new text in the summer with Sara Shanfelt. We expect to meet before school to review any issues. Tasks include: 
• Refine course objectives
• Create course outline
• Review lectures and their concurrence with learning objectives
• Review homework assignments and their concurrence with learning objectives
• Review quizzes and their concurrence with learning objectives
• Ensure quizzes and their concurrence with learning objectives

Hot Topics in MIS

We need eight hot topics. Mike and I came up with a few, some of which we deicided to carry over from last quarter. We both agreed that the ones on Information Security did not have a lot of depth. We expect this list to be dynamic and change it based on how well it was received. Wikipedia may be one of the better sources of information for several topics, but it often has a lot of etraneous information. It could be the a good source if we can have focused questions to help students read through it. 
I believe that we should require one base article (on which we base five point quiz) - provided by faculty and and three supplemental articles to use for further discussion. Students/faculty pick supplemental articles, which  article must be recent i.e. "hot" (at least within the last year). These contribute towards the students's preparation.

The host team should do a 5-10 minute presentation piece and a 5-10 minute interactive piece, on which they receive a team grade worth 40 points maximum. The entire class take the quiz of five questions, worth 10 points, following the presentations. There would typically be two presentations per lecture.

1. Business, Management and Web 2.0

Base article: Business and Web 2.0

Supplement: 10 tips for managing Web 2.0

+ two more supplements of your choice

2. The "Business" of Social Networking

Base article: The Importance of Using Social Networking for Business 

Supplement: Social Networking for Business

+ two more supplements of your choice

3. RFID: The Internet of Things

Base article: The Internet of Things

Suggested Supplement: RFID is Just the Tip of the Iceberg
+ two more supplements of your choice

4. Issues for the Future of the Supply Chain

Base article: Building the Supply Chain of the Future

Suggested Supplement: The Challenges ahead for Supply Chains 

+ two more supplements of your choice

5. E-commerce

Base article:

Supplement: 

+ two more supplements of your choice

6. Cloud Computing
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing

7. Viral Marketing

MIS Cluster: in class distractions

How should distractions be handled? I saw one students read the text while I was lecturing, during class. This was noticed during a lecture in which the class would take the quiz after the lecture. It is possible that students were reviewing the previous chapter in preparation for the quiz that was to follow.

Others have their hands together under the table as if texting on their phone. Should I feel responsible for not having an engaging class? I feel that I should let them know that if I perceived them to not be paying attention to the lecture, that I would call on them, with the assumption that their attention was divided because were capable of multi-tasking, and therefore capable of participating in class discussion.