Ng’ambi, D., & Johnston, K. (2006). An ICT-mediated Constructivist Approach for increasing academic support and teaching critical thinking skills. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (3), 244-253.

244 ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org.

An ICT-mediated Constructivist Approach for increasing academic support

and teaching critical thinking skills

Dick Ng’ambi Centre for Educational Technology, University of Cape Town, South Africa

dngambi@ched.uct.ac.za

Kevin Johnston Information Systems Department, University of Cape Town, South Africa

kjohnsto@commerce.uct.ac.za ABSTRACT

South African Universities are tasked with increasing student throughput by offering additional academic support. A second task is to teach students to challenge and question. One way of attempting to achieve these tasks is by using Information and Communication Technology (ICT). The focus of this paper is to examine the effect of using an ICT tool to both increase academic support to students, and to teach critical thinking skills. A field study comparing a Project Management course at the University of Cape Town over two successive years was conducted. In the second year an ICT mediated constructivist approach (DFAQ web site) in which students acquired project management skills was used to increase support and teach critical thinking skills. Structuration theory, in particular the notion of practical and discursive consciousness, was used to inform our understanding of the role of questioning on teaching project management. The conclusion is that a constructive approach, mediated by an anonymous web-based consultative environment, the Dynamic Frequently Asked Questions (DFAQ) improved support to students and had an effect on student learning of project management and students acquired some questioning skills as evidenced in the examination performance. The efficacy of the approach was evaluated both through an interpretive study of DFAQ artefacts and the performance in the examination. The paper examines relevant literature, details the research objectives, describes a field survey, and the results.

Keywords Constructivist approach, Critical thinking, Thinking Skills, Academic support, Consultative environment, ICT-mediation

Introduction The South African government funding of higher education institutions is based on student throughput, as opposed to intake numbers. The paradox is that increased intake numbers do not translate into increased throughput but rather puts huge constraints on support required to help the students. In order to increase student throughput, institutions need to increase academic support to students. Thus, the immediate challenge institutions are facing is how to provide increased student support both effectively and efficiently. In response to this challenge, many institutions have set up bridging programmes such as Academic Development Programmes (ADP) as a means to increase academic support to students, with an inadvertent aim of increasing student throughput. Given the volumes of students entering universities in South Africa, huge staff resources are required for these bridging programmes to have any effective impact on student throughput. While Academic Development Programmes (ADP) are useful interventions, these programmes are only as successful as they are able to create independent learners, and instil critical mindedness. Universities in South Africa are also faced with the challenge of how to teach critical thinking skills to students whose preparation for higher education was based on teachers as transmitters of knowledge. The Department of Education launched ‘curriculum 2005’ as an attempt to redress this and other problems (Department of Education, 2005). Mindful of the difficulty of teaching critical thinking, our approach was to facilitate the acquisition of thinking skills through using questioning as a learning activity. An IS project management course was appropriate for this

245

investigation because projects in general are not routine, are goal oriented, require coordination of effort, have a start and finish time, and are constrained by budgets (Schwalbe, 2004). For this reason, it was important that students acquired skills that would enable them to think laterally. In view of this background, this project was conceived to explore ways in which Information and Communication Technology (ICT) could be used to increase support to students and to teach them to think laterally. The main research objectives were thus to examine the effect of using purpose built ICT to increase academic support to students, and to teach students critical thinking skills. This paper discusses a field survey in which these two objectives were tackled using ICT at the University of Cape Town (UCT). A special purpose built ICT application designed and develope at UCT was used in the field study. The paper is organised as follows: It begins with a review of relevant literature, outlines the research objectives, and describes the field survey. The field survey is divided into three parts: the methodology; findings and discussion; and the impact on student learning. Background Use of ICT For many years researchers have been suggesting that lecturers should use ICT in new ways, other than simply ‘information giving’ (Nicaise and Crane, 1999). Khine (2003) stated that lecturers could use ICT to facilitate learning, critical thinking and peer discussions. Pratt (2002) suggested that it is possible for ICT to facilitate both teaching and learning. It would be naïve to suggest that ICT are a panacea for under-prepared students, but ICT can be a useful complement to lecturers when carefully integrated into the curriculum. Winn (1989) suggested that educators should use ICT to develop alternatives to the teacher-based education model. Dynamic Frequently Asked Questions (DFAQ) is one such ICT alternative. DFAQ The Dynamic Frequently Asked Questions (DFAQ) tool was designed and developed at UCT as a special purpose question and consultation environment for students (Ng’ambi, 2003; Ng’ambi and Hardman, 2004; Ng’ambi, 2004). DFAQ provided an anonymous medium through which students consulted one another and with a lecturer (Ng’ambi, 2003). DFAQ was an educative, social and communicative space, which dynamically created a knowledge resource from student consultations. When a student posted a question, the lecturer was notified via email and if necessary via Short Message Service (SMS) on their mobile phone. When a question had been responded to, the student was notified via email with an optional SMS notification. The value of the DFAQ lay in the extent to which it supported learning both on and off-campus, as Toohey (1999) suggested. DFAQ consultations were anonymous. DFAQ was available 24 hours a day, and allowed students the opportunity to learn from answers to questions other students had posed. DFAQ thus allowed students to decide when and where to use it. Constructivism Two learning environments were identified in the literature; the traditional learning environment (teacher-centred model) and the constructivist learning environment (learner-centred model). As DFAQ is learner-centred, this paper focuses on the constructivist environment. This paper views a constructivist learning environment as an effective complement to the traditional learning environment. According to Crotty (1998, p58) the term constructivism refers to the epistemological considerations focusing exclusively on ‘the meaning-making activity of the individual mind’ and constructionism focuses on ‘the collective generation [and transmission] of meaning’. Constructivism is used in this paper as a theory to guide

246

understanding of how students acquire critical questioning skills. Karagiorgi and Symeou (2005, p24) asserted, “...in a world of instant information, constructivism can become a guiding theoretical foundation and provide a theory of cognitive growth and learning that can be applied to several learning goals.” In a constructivist learning environment the role of the lecturer shifts from being a source of knowledge to facilitating learning. Khine (2003) argued that students should not be left to explore alone, rather lecturers should provide support, coaching and modelling to the students to make certain learning takes place. Unlike the teacher-centred model, in which lecturers impart knowledge to students, “knowledge for constructivism cannot be imposed or transferred intact from the mind of one knower to the mind of another” (Karagiorgi and Symeou, 2005, p18). DFAQ aimed to encourage learners to continually question, and in so doing become life long learners.

You can teach a student a lesson for a day; but if you can teach him to learn by creating curiosity about life, he will continue the learning process as long as he lives [CP Bedford].

Integrating ICT & Constructivism “The Web is where constructivist learning can take place The web provides access to rich sources of information; encourages meaningful interactions with content; and brings people together to challenge, support, or respond to each other” (Khine, 2003, pp 22-23). However, merely providing students with access to the web does not guarantee constructivist learning. The lecturer is required to provide some guidance, or coaching to allow students to create their own meanings. Russell and Schneiderheinze (2005) argued that a critical factor which shaped how lecturers used ICT to develop learning, was the lecturers academic belief and acceptance of constructivism. Rickards (2003) observed that a problem for many is developing the skills to effectively utilise ICT in a meaningful manner. The challenge that faces lecturers when integrating ICT in their teaching are summed up in the following statement:

When technologies are inserted into the educational environment, they are meant to develop learning abilities in students. However, these technologies do not function in a vacuum. Instead they are coupled to existing tools and concepts in the setting. When teachers attempt to implement a technology innovation in the classroom, they naturally face the complex challenge of fitting together new ideas with deep-rooted pedagogical beliefs and practices (Russell and Schneiderheinze, 2005, p39).

DFAQ was developed as a web based instrument in order to integrate ICT and constructivism. The particular course selected to use DFAQ was a third year Project Management course at UCT. Project Management Schwalbe (2004) reported that the Chaos studies stated that only 28% of ICT projects were successful, 163% experienced time overruns, and 145% experienced cost overruns. In 2001, the British Computer Society reviewed 1027 projects, and found 13% were successful (in terms of scope, time, cost & quality) (Coombs, 2003). Project Management (PM) requires strategic competency and critical thinking skills. Many Project Management text books (Schwalbe, 2004; Marchewka, 2003; Cadle & Yeates, 2004; Hughes & Cotterell, 2002) emphasise the need for developing questioning skills. A traditional project management aphorism, “you know you’re a successful project manager when you survive the project” suggests a need for critical thinking skills in addition to having knowledge about the subject matter. One of the UCT project management students put it this way:

If project management is taught as thoroughly as it is... are the models misleading us? Why do the stats tell us that the chances of us completing a project properly are next to nil? Is it the project team, or the models? or a mix of both? [Anonymous DFAQ posting]

247

Critical Questioning Walton and Archer (2004, p185) explained, “Critical literacy is not about oppositional thinking or an alignment with politically correct positions. Rather, educators should highlight the need for critical evaluation and acknowledge the role of cultural capital as they help students construct and apply meaningful critical frameworks.” Project Management students are expected to actively participate in class by asking questions and sharing personal experiences according to Schwalbe (2004). Critical thinking is a required competency for successful project managers. There is increasing pressure on lecturers to teach critical thinking skills as Hills (1987) pointed out several years ago. While the problem of teaching critical thinking has been identified, few suggestions on how such skills can or should be taught were found. Students need to be taught and trained in how to question. Johnston and Ng’ambi (2004) made several recommendations on using questions to teach critical thinking skills. . An opportunity for critical questioning skills using problem based learning, practical application of project management (e.g. using MS Project) and the scholarly knowledge of project management was spotted. The assumption was that, used in a constructivist learning environment DFAQ would provide opportunities for students to learn from one another while engaging with the scholarly knowledge of project management and acquiring critical thinking skills. Theoretical underpinning Giddens (2000) Structuration Theory (GST) was used in an attempt to understand how students acquire critical thinking skills in a constructivist environment. In terms of GST, students can be said to be knowledgeable agents, as they are knowledgeable about their actions, even if they cannot express that knowledge. Giddens (2000, p35) postulated, “the agent is knowledgeable, with knowledge of most of the actions he or she undertakes. This wealth of knowledge is expressed primarily as practical consciousness.” In this regard, critical questioning skills are a form of practical consciousness. It is questioning that shapes and informs decisions though these questions are not always discursively expressed. This study aimed to get students to be discursive about the questioning. According to Giddens (2000, p5), “discursive consciousness refers to the understanding or knowledge which the agent achieves by reflecting upon his or her actions”. In the context of this study, the reflection process allows students to think about the implications of their actions on the project at hand. Questions are therefore useful tools to foster that reflection. The use of an ICT mediated intervention, provided users access to a deluge of questions posted by other users. The ramifications of this were that reflections were aided by both individual questioning and what others were asking. Giddens put this succinctly, “reflection may occur with the aid of others or as an autonomous act” (Giddens, 2000, p36). In the context of this project, “aid of others” was through messages posted in an ICT mediated environment. Thus, students’ discursive consciousness is achieved through reflection on both their individual messages and those posted by others. Reflection is a meaning making process hence a constructivist activity. Meaning making is an outcome of interpretation of messages. Stohl (1995) categorised messages into three groups: “messages having intentions of senders (what is desired and intended); ostensive message (what is actually verbalized); and receivers’ interpretations (how the reader interprets the message)” (p53). Our argument is that questions are special forms of messages in that a question is an outcome of the sender having reflected on his or her actions. Questions are therefore outcomes of reflection on action and produce other reflections leading to both intended and unintended actions. Both the process of responding to questions and access to questions posted by others tend to demand some action and are invitations for reflection on practical consciousness. Accepting this argument, it seems reasonable to expect that critical thinking would result from a questioning engagement, whereby suggesting that questioning is a potential learning approach. Thus, our premise is that critical thinking skills are an outcome of a constructivist activity on practical consciousness. To the extent that questions are expressions of intentions, they are ostensive messages serving as conveyor belts of intentions. As “conveyor belts” questions are indicators of thought processes which harbour intentions. Therefore access to a collective pool of intentions, gives hope that academic support for learners can be designed that are based on constructivist principles since new meanings are made in the cause of reading others’ questions and responses.

248

A message is not only an expressive vehicle of intention but also is an exercise of power through which resources are mobilised. Questions give power of resource mobilisation to its author. In asking a question, the author mobilises resources in the form of responses and through the phrasing of a question the author shapes the content of the response. The target audience of questions shapes the phrasing of questions and defines the possible sources of responses. Research Objectives The main research objectives were to examine the effects of using ICT to increase academic support to students, and to teach students critical thinking skills. The questions asked were analysed and classified. The academic results of two cohorts of students were examined, the first without the particular ICT support (DFAQ), and the second cohort with the ICT support. Field Survey The choice of the field survey was informed by the need to develop students with critical thinking skills or critical literacy skills. A third year Information Systems (IS) course “Information Technology and Project Management” at UCT was used as the basis of the field survey. Three types of skills are expected of a project management student: knowledge of the body of knowledge (content); skills of using project management tools; and critical questioning skills. While recognising the need for students to have a solid foundation of the body of knowledge, the focus in this field survey was on equipping students with critical and inquiring skills. The course was lectured by the same lecturer (Johnston), and used the same text book (i.e. as a source of the body of knowledge) in 2003 and 2004. The major difference between the two years was the emphasis on developing questioning skills, and the introduction of awarding marks for asking questions in 2004. This was supported by the introduction of the DFAQ environment. The year mark component of the course assessment was modified as in Table 1, to include a mark for participating and questioning, and the essay marks were increased, the final examination mark was unchanged.

Table 1: Course Assessment Course Assessment 2003 2004 Essays & Assignments 10% 16% Workshop exercises April Test Class participation & questioning Final Examination

10% 20% 0% 60%

10% 10% 4% 60%

A minimum of 45% was required for both the year mark, and for the final examination. Once it was decided to incorporate ICT into the Project Management Course to support students and to teach them to question, various software options had to be examined. DFAQ the web-based question environment was selected as it offered an anonymous medium for students to ask and review questions. The students were instructed in class and in handouts on how to ask questions, and how to use DFAQ. DFAQ was thus integrated into the course. Students were made aware of the fact that 12% of their year mark would be for asking questions, and of that 4% was linked to their use of DFAQ. Questions and answers were recorded. The identities of students who asked questions were recorded, but not linked to the question. Students were thus rewarded for quantity rather than quality of questions asked. Academic results of the 2004 students were compared with those of the 2003 students who had completed the course without a questioning mark in the course, and without ICT such as DFAQ. The 2004 students were encouraged and required to pose questions in their essays. These questions could be worth up to 0.2% of a students year mark. Four percent of the year mark was allocated to class participation and

249

questioning. This mark was achieved by asking questions in lectures or on the DFAQ environment. A register was kept of all students who posed questions in class. DFAQ allowed quieter and reserved students to ask and respond to questions anonymously – although a list of email addresses of students who asked questions was kept for notification purposes it was not clear who asked which question. Students were encouraged to ask one-on-one questions to the lecturer, to email questions to the lecturer, and to place questions in the lecturers pigeon hole – all incidences of questions asked were kept. Thirteen percent of the final written examination in 2004 consisted of questions in which students had to pose questions (worth 7.8% of the year mark). Thus a total of 12% of the course assessment in 2004 was for asking questions, rather than answering questions. The DFAQ web-site was used daily by students, not only to ask and respond to questions, but to review answers to previously asked questions. Over 95% of students participated on the DFAQ web site. The DFAQ environment (Ng’ambi and Hardman, 2004) provided the opportunity for students to practice their critical thinking skills. Students found the site easy to use, see Figure 1 for a sample of the user interface. Findings and Discussion The number of questions in all media from the 140 students in 2004 was as follows:

Anonymous web-based via DFAQ 471 Questions in class 88 E-mail questions 15 Face-to-face questions 9 Written questions in pigeon hole zero

This strongly indicates that the students in this class preferred asking anonymous questions via ICT (DFAQ environment). Furthermore, DFAQ offered support to students 24 hours a day. The DFAQ questions ranged from simple concept and course administrative questions to complex scenario based questions.

Figure 1: Part of DFAQ User Interface

There were 561 responses to these 471 questions. Some questions had as many as 6 responses. Of interest, are the frequently referenced questions (hits per question). One question was referenced 44 times – “Should our hypothesis be stated in the introduction and proven in the conclusion?” a second question was referenced 25 times. In all 179 questions were referenced, and 116 were referenced more than nine times (see Figure 2).

250

Figure 2: DFAQ screen showing the number of times questions have been referenced

An analysis of the questions that were posted anonymously suggests that students were becoming critical in their thinking as this question indicates:

At the start of a project - I mean the VERY BEGINNING - the project manager or whoever supplies management with an estimated cost and delivery date for the entire project as part of a business case. How can one know how much something will cost, what staff resources will be required, how long it will take or what exactly needs to be done (outside the usual recipe "analysis" "design" "test" "implement" etc.) BEFORE any analysis has been carried out?? And project success is measured against these "guesses"! In my opinion, a successful PM and their team guess well. Or they have delivered a very similar project previously and are able to learn from their mistakes. Any comments? [Anonymous DFAQ posting]

The above question is indicative of integration between subject knowledge on project management, and acquisition of critical questioning skills. To the extent that the student stated a scenario, posed questions and answered his / her own questions shows that the student constructed his own knowledge as is the case for constructivist environments. Karagiorgi and Symeou (2005, p18) argued that “knowledge for constructivism cannot be imposed or transferred intact from the mind of one knower to the mind of another. Therefore, learning and teaching cannot be synonymous: we can teach, even well, without having students learn.” One can infer from the above student question that students were critically engaging with the course material and raising questions which allowed them to make meanings for themselves. It can be argued that the student worked with the concepts of project management (e.g. estimated time, delivery time, business case, staff resources etc.) to construct new meaning. Crotty (1998) explained that in order to generate meaning, people need to base their assumptions on things and concepts which they already know, or think they know. Some questions were of an inquisitive inquiry type. For example, the question below suggest critical thinking on the concept of Mc Farlan’s Risk Assessment::

Regarding McFarlan's risk assessment, why do we get to prioritise Planning? Should planning always take priority? [Anonymous DFAQ posting]

Several similar critical questions among the 471 questions posted were observed. This was encouraging as it suggests that the DFAQ environment mediated the teaching of critical questioning skills. Some questions though were of procedural nature such as this one:

Hello. I just wanted to ask, How do we add a project buffer into our gantt charts in MS project? [Anonymous DFAQ posting]

251

The significance of the above question is that the student was attempting to relate the concept of project buffer to a project management tool, MS Project. Anecdotal evidence based on teaching experience, suggests that many students struggled to find the relationship between the project management theory and practice. To the extent that procedural questions were asked, could indicate that students were critical of such a relationship.

Where is the line drawn in the acceptable skill level for IS professionals? Talking about the real world now... do we have to multi-skill? i.e. graphics as well as programming... as well as how many languages? [Anonymous DFAQ posting]

One can infer from this question that there is a gap between teaching students general management, change management and project management techniques required to manage the development of a small information systems project, and developing skills to effectively apply the knowledge. There were questions in which students needed clarity or confirmation such as:

About the mini workshop. The scope of the project is small but with further phases, it would include invoicing and sales etc. Should we create the application to be open to expansion for further phases? [Anonymous DFAQ posting]

The above question allowed the lecturer to play the role of a coach, which is consistent with the role of a lecturer in a constructivist environment (Khine, 2003) and in an online discussion forum (Chiang and Fung, 2004). As a coach, the lecturer may post questions or responses in a way that fosters engagement. Chiang and Fung (2004, p312) asserted “In typical online learning discussions, learners often play the role of problem solvers and the educator often plays the role of tutor or coach. The educator observes how learning progresses. In the role of coach, the educator may be involved in posting a guiding problem, providing hints or suggestions in guiding a problem, or interactively joining in the discussion.” In DFAQ an educator may choose to either post messages anonymously or reveal their identities. DFAQ gives an educator access to student knowledge levels as Ng’ambi and Hardman (2004, p195) observe:

Questions serve as important indicators of learners’ current knowledge. By recording learners’ questions in a database, we are able to build up a valuable teaching resource about what it is that the learners think they know and what they struggle with. We can look at the learners’ questions and tailor our materials to meet the needs we see expressed in those questions.

It has already been mentioned that the final written examination in 2004 consisted of questions in which students had to ask questions. In evaluating the impact on students, the type of questions students asked in the exams were analysed. For the sake of brevity only four questions are discussed here. Students were asked to list 5 questions that could be used to determine the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) of ICT (Information and Communications Technology) within Cisco? Below are some of the questions posed:

What are the objectives of ICT for the future within Cisco in terms of business objectives and strategic focus?

What are the critical factors that will need to be met to ensure successful completion of objectives? What variables exist within each factor that will affect the outcome of that factor and the objectives as a

whole? How will these variables be measured, and how often?

The significance of the above questions is that they are indicative of critical thinking skills. The questions are structured such that they build on the previous question and are all open ended. While the DFAQ artefacts (questions and responses) shows that questions acquired critical thinking skills, the questions students asked in the examination give hope that students could apply the acquired skills. It can be inferred from the above that DFAQ increased academic support to students, and was used as a medium for acquiring critical thinking skills, hence meeting the research objectives. This leads to the question, what was the impact on student results as compared to the previous year? Impact on student results The impact on the general academic performance of students was not evident. For example, the percentage of students who obtained first class passes rose dramatically from 1% in 2003 to 6% in 2004. The percentage of second class passes dropped dramatically from 49% to 29%. The number of third class passes remained constant at 46%. The failure rate increased from 4% to 19%. The class average dropped slightly from 60% to 57%.

252

Comparing the results of the same students in another IS course run over the same time period, shows the number of first class passes rising from 11% in 2003 to 14% in 2004 (1% to 6% in PM course) . The percentage of second class passes dropped slightly from 69% to 60% (49% to 29% in PM course). The number of third class passes remained relatively constant at 17% and 18% respectively. The failure rate more than doubled from 3% to 8%. The class average dropped from 66% to 64% (60% to 57% in PM course). While the gap between teaching and learning seems logical, the discrepancy between student learning and academic performance is rather odd. While further investigation is required into the impact of critical thinking skills on academic performance, Haggis (2003) argues that, research findings in the area of academic literacies suggest the need for a shift from a view of success/failure based on ‘ability’ and ‘preparation’, to one that sees study at this level as an apprenticeship into new ways of thinking and expression for students. According to Haggis (2003), new forms of expression take a number of years to develop, and need to be explicitly modelled and explored. Although the focus of this paper is on using ICTs to teach critical thinking skills, student performance is a result of subsidiary awareness as Polanyi and Prosch (1975, p33) argued:

A striking feature of knowing a skill is the presence of two different kinds of awareness of the things that we are skilfully handling. When I use a hammer to drive a nail, I attend to both, but quite differently. I watch the effects of my strokes on the nail as I wield the hammer. I do not feel that its handle has struck my palm but that its head has struck the nail. In another sense, of course, I am highly alert to the feelings in my palm and fingers holding the hammer. They guide my handling of it effectively, and the degree of attention that I give to the nail is given to these feelings to the same extent, but in a different way. The difference may be stated by saying that these feelings are not watched in themselves but that I watch something else by keeping aware of them. I know the feelings in the palm of my hand by relying on them for attending to the hammer hitting the nail. I may say that I have a subsidiary awareness of the feelings in my hand which is merged into my focal awareness of my driving the nail (own highlights)

Using Polanyi and Prosch’s (1975) metaphor, in this project “the hammer” – DFAQ in a constructivist environment, was used to “drive a nail” – critical thinking skills. A field survey was used to watch the “effects of the strokes on the nail as we wield the hammer” and observe the process of acquiring the thinking skills. The impact of the hammer on the nail was assessed in terms of whether the nail “went in”. The subsidiary awareness was the student performance which although highlighted, it was not the focus of the study. Given that performance emerged in “our focal awareness of our driving the nail” our future work will investigate the impact of ICT mediated critical thinking skills on student performance. Conclusion The paper described a field survey in which DFAQ (an ICT based constructivist learning environment) was introduced into an IS project management course in 2004 as a scaffolding tool to support students as well as to facilitate the acquisition of critical thinking skills. The anonymous interaction within DFAQ coupled with the integration of the tool in the course seems to have motivated student participation, and offered increased support. Despite the anonymity and the constructivist learning approach adopted, all the 471 questions posted were either on the theory of project management, use of project management tools, essay writing or course administration such as: I was just wondering, why do the workshops have to be so intense? why don’t we have less work and concentrate more thoroughly on this? Critical thinking skills are not taught by giving students more information or even better books. This survey demonstrated that providing students with an anonymous consultative environment, which is integrated within a course, made the interaction worthwhile. Students acquired critical thinking skills and were able to apply the skills in an examination environment. References Cadle, J., & Yeates, D. (2004). Project Management for Information Systems, England: Prentice Hall. Chiang, C. A., & Fung, P. I. (2004). Redesigning chat forum for critical thinking in a problem-based learning environment: Internet and Higher Education, 7 (4), 311-328.

253

Coombs, P. (2003). IT Project Estimation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in research process, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Department of Education (2005). Building a bright future: Curriculum 2005, Pretoria: Government Printers. Giddens, A. (2000). An Introduction to a Social Theorist, Kaspersen, N. L. (Trans.), Oxford: Blackwell. Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing Images of Ourselves? A Critical Investigation into ‘Approaches to Learning’ Research in Higher Education. British Educational Research Journal, 29 (1), 89-104. Hills, P. (1987). Education for a Computer Age, London: Croom Helm. Hughes, B., & Cotterell, M. (2002). Software Project Management, London: McGraw-Hill. Johnston, K., & Ng’ambi, D. (2004). Every question deserves an answer. In McKay, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Computers in Education, Melbourne: RMIT Business School. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 17-27. Khine, S. M. (2003). Creating a Technology-Rich Constructivist Learning Environment in a classroom management module. In Khine, S. M. & Fisher, D. (Eds.), Technology-Rich Learning Environments, New Jersey: World Scientific, 21-39. Marchewka, J. T. (2003). Information Technology Project Management, USA: Wiley & Sons. Ng’ambi, D. (2003). Students helping Students Learn - The Case for a Web-Based Dynamic FAQ Environment. In Proceedings of the International Association of Science and Technology for Development (IASTED) Conference on Information and Knowledge Sharing, Scottsdale, 293-298. Ng’ambi, D. (2004). Towards an Organizational Intelligent Framework based on Giddens’ Structuration Theory: A case of using an Organizational Memory System - DFAQ. In: IFIP World Congress Proceedings of the Symposium on Professional Practice in Artificial Intelligence, Toulouse. Ng’ambi, D., & Hardman, J. (2004). Towards a knowledge-sharing scaffolding environment based on learners’ questions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35 (2), 187-196. Nicaise, M., & Crane, M. (1999). Knowledge Constructing Through HyperMedia Authoring. In Educational Technology Research and Development, 47 (1), 29-50. Polanyi, M., & Prosch, H. (1975). Meaning, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pratt, N. (2002). ‘Using’ or ‘Making Use Of’ ICT. Ways of Knowing Journal, 2 (2), 40-47. Rickards, T. (2003). Technology-Rich Learning Environments and the role of effective teaching. In Khine, S. M. & Fisher, D. (Eds.), Technology-Rich Learning Environments, New Jersey: World Scientific, 115-132. Russell, L. D., & Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding Innovation in Education Using Activity Theory. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 38-53. Schwalbe, K. (2004). Information Technology Project Management (3rd Ed.), Canada: Thomson. Stohl, C. (1995). Organizational Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Toohey, S. (1999). Designing Courses for Higher Education, Buckingham: Open University Press. Walton, M., & Archer, A. (2004). The Web and information literacy: scaffolding the use of web sources in a project-based curriculum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35 (2), 173-186. Winn, W. (1989). Toward a rationale and theoretical basis for educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37 (1), 35-46.