Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
The Effectiveness of Computer-Based “Game
Show” Formats in Survey Courses: A QuasiExperiment
Alan A. Brandyberry
[email protected]
Department of Management and Information Systems
Kent State University
Kent, Ohio 44242, USA
J. Harold Pardue
[email protected]
School of Computer & Information Sciences
University of South Alabama
Mobile Alabama 36688
ABSTRACT
The confluence of computers and integrated projection systems in the classroom has opened new avenues for course
content delivery in an active learning format. This paper first discusses the concepts of active learning and play in a
pedagogical context. Next, the implementation and subjective results of a generic computer-based game show for
delivering course content in introductory survey courses is presented. This paper then describes the employed
methodology and statistically tests certain aspects of the course related to the effectiveness of this implementation. The
results of this quasi-experiment using five sections of an upper-division MIS (Management Information Systems)
survey course spanning three academic terms strongly support the research hypotheses that the game show format
increases student learning and improves student perceptions of the overall quality of the course. The implications of
this research for educators are discussed. The game show application was developed by the authors and is available for
download as freeware.
Keywords: Classroom technology, course content delivery, computer-based, game show, survey course, play,
education.
1. INTRODUCTION
Introductory survey courses have characteristics that
pose special challenges to the instructor in keeping
students interested and engaged. Students often enroll
in these courses primarily to satisfy graduation
requirements rather than to satisfy an inherent interest
in the subject. In addition, these courses are often
very vocabulary oriented. Finally, because of the vast
amount of information that must be covered in a
survey course, breadth is often emphasized over
depth.
In recent years a general call to move from heavy
reliance on lecture-based instruction to a richer, more
active, technology enhanced learning environment has
emerged (Shapiro 1998; Benjamin, et al 1999).
Nowhere is this call to action more needed than in
introductory survey courses.
Collectively these
courses occupy a large number of credit hours in the
curriculum and often constitute the core.
The
importance of effective teaching techniques in these
courses cannot be underestimated.
109
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
As computers and integrated projection systems
become more common in the classroom, the
opportunities for implementing more interactive
methods of content delivery are increasing. This
paper describes and tests the effectiveness of a
computer-based game show format for course content
delivery. The contribution of this paper is twofold.
First, it provides a useful example of implementing
classroom technology to create an active learning
environment in introductory survey courses. Second,
the effectiveness of this format is tested. Although the
use of advanced technology in the classroom is
generally considered positive, care must be taken to
document the effectiveness of these implementations.
It is tempting to place the hurdle to justify the use of
classroom technology at the level of “do no harm,”
but
there
are
considerable
costs
associated with acquiring and maintaining classroom
technology that should be weighed against the
benefits. The importance of careful and appropriate
implementation can be demonstrated with an analogy
from industry. Many reported failures during the
early years of implementing computer technology in
industry have been attributed to “automation for
automation’s sake” or implementing computer
technology simply because it is available. These
failures due to inappropriate implementation can cast
unjust doubt on the benefits of these computer
technologies (Melnyk & Narasimhan 1992).
Although many of these shows are widely distributed
throughout the international community (Jeopardy is
available in 43 countries), the details of these games
may not be familiar to all. The majority of the game
shows discussed in this paper have World Wide Web
sites available to those who may want to investigate
the details of these show formats.
A popular game show format for general content
delivery is Jeopardy. This format has been used for
geometry, chemistry, and social studies (Saunders
1987; DeChristopher 1991; Fisher 1996). The game
show format To Tell the Truth has been used in
teaching literature and medicine (Brown-Guillory
1988; Hafferty 1990). Wood (1992) uses a game
show format similar to The Price is Right to teach the
concept of probability. Daigle and Doran (1998) use
a college bowl format to teach computer history.
2. BACKGROUND
Psychologists,
anthropologists,
sociobiologists,
historians, and educators have thoroughly researched
the nature of play and its relationship to learning
(Rogers and Sawyer 1988). Play is nearly universal
among mammals. Studies show that play stimulates
the growth of synapses and through practice enables
us to stabilize our learning (Carvey 1977; Wilson
1978). One definition of play is “something that is fun
but purposeful” (Mann 1996). Because it is fun, play
is an intrinsically motivating activity. “Educational”
games are fun but purposeful. Games, as a form of
play, provide a means of practicing skills with reduced
consequences. For example, understanding can be
tested and refined without the risk of receiving low
marks on an exam. Games can take many forms.
This study explores an educational adaptation of the
television-based “game show” format.
Pedagogical research stresses the importance of active
learning (Association of American Colleges 1986;
Astin 1984; Miller 1988). The major premise of this
paper is that games are an effective form of active
learning because they engage students in the process
of content delivery. Students are active participants in
the process, not passive vessels receiving knowledge.
The element of fun makes games a powerful form of
learning because they are intrinsically motivating.
Witness the ubiquitous juxtaposition of “fun” and
“learning” in the promotional materials for
educational software.
A review of the pedagogical literature reveals several
examples of using game show formats taken mainly
from American television to teach particular concepts
or as a generic vehicle for course content delivery.
110
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
so that everyone in the class can consider the question.
When the “Pick Player” button is clicked, a student is
randomly selected. The randomizing process weights
the probability of a student being selected according
to the number of questions they have previously been
asked. This results in the situation where a student
who has received fewer questions has a greater chance
of receiving the next question but all students have
some chance of selection. If the selected student is
absent, this is recorded by clicking the absent button
and another student is selected. The student then
attempts to answer the question before time expires.
The instructor then displays the answer and
determines if the student’s answer is correct, partially
correct, or incorrect. The judgement is recorded in the
database, and the next question is displayed.
3. THE CLASSROOM GAME SHOW
The concept of television game shows was used as a
basis to develop and implement a computer-based
learning tool for course content delivery.
A
discussion of the format, software, implementation,
and classroom experiences follows. In addition, the
goals of this implementation are used to develop
hypotheses to test the effectiveness of this effort.
3.1 Description of Game Show Format
The game show and design of the software
(Brandyberry and Pardue 2001) was based on a
generic question/answer format.
Among current
television game shows it is most related to Jeopardy
but lacks its peculiarities such as phrasing the answers
in the form of a question.
In order to add to the feeling of “play,” a
light-hearted atmosphere is maintained.
Although the instructor is central to this,
certain features of the software help
maintain the atmosphere. For instance,
when the
To begin, current students, questions and answers are
entered into a database via manual entry or by
uploading a comma-delimitated text file (easily
created from a spreadsheet file). During the game, the
instructor clicks the “Pick Question” button to
randomly select a question from the selected
categories (often text chapters) to be covered that
session (see Figure 1 – note that the actual program
makes extensive use of color to maintain atmosphere).
The question is displayed before a student is selected
111
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
incorrect response).
However, the entertainment
aspect of the format was also perceived to be a major
influence. The comments on course evaluations
(objective course evaluation results are analyzed in a
later section) were very positive. Of students who
choose to make optional comments concerning the
game show format, all but one was positive. Most
comments were related to the format being a fun
alternative to traditional activities and that the game
show aided them in motivating themselves to keep up
with the assigned material.
“Correct!”, “Partial Correct”, incorrect (“Sorry”), or
“Absent” buttons are clicked, the program randomly
plays sound files selected for each button. These
could be as simple as buzzer and chime sounds but the
use of sound clips from popular television shows and
movies are especially effective.
The software allows substantial customization. In
addition to changing students and questions, the
instructor can change between multiple courses,
course sections, and texts. Different categories or
chapters may be selected with multiple selections
simultaneously used in one session. Questions can be
asked sequentially by question number or in a random
fashion. This allows for a structured format where
topics are introduced in a logical sequence or a
randomized review format. The score values for
correct, partially correct, incorrect, and absent can be
modified as can the time allowed for each response.
Sound files to be played for certain actions can be
added simply by storing them in a specified file
folder.
3.3 Hypotheses
In addition to describing the game show format and its
implementation, an objective of this research was to
measure and test its effectiveness. The goals of the
implementation were to improve the level of student
learning and to improve the students’ perception of
the course. These goals were used to determine the
effectiveness of the implementation.
The
measurement of student learning was operationalized
as student performance on exams and the
measurement
of
students’
perceptions
was
operationalized as the results of course evaluations. It
is important to note that the concept of “learning” is
complex and exam scores provide a limited measure
of this. This resulted in the formulation of two
hypotheses.
3.2 Implementation and Classroom Experiences
Certain aspects of the implementation of this format
in the classroom do not involve the software and is at
the instructor’s discretion. For instance, may the
students consult their books or notes? For the MIS
survey course used for the pilot implementation of this
format, it was decided that students were permitted to
consult only handwritten notes of their own creation.
The text, printed lecture notes, photocopies of notes,
and other related materials were not permitted. In
addition, the instructor may decide to include “minilectures” or discussions between questions.
A
question often introduces a topic but doesn’t fully
explain it.
Where this occurred, the instructor
provided additional information before the next
question was asked. Questions were both definitional
and conceptual and could be answered in a sentence or
two in an open-ended format. Multiple-choice and
other objective formats were not used but would be
simple to implement with the software.
H1: Treatment group will display greater learning than
control group
H2: Treatment group will have a more positive
perception of the course than control group
The next section describes the methodology used to
test these hypotheses.
This is followed by a
discussion of the data analysis and results.
4. METHODOLOGY
This study used a quasi-experimental design. A selfcritical use of this design is recommended where the
experiment is conducted in the field and “randomized
treatments are not possible” (Campbell & Russo 1999,
p. 81). Although great care was taken to isolate the
treatment effect, it must be recognized that in the
classroom numerous subtle factors can influence
outcomes. Because actual classes were used, students
self-selected into one group or the other through
normal registration procedures and were not randomly
assigned. To reduce any effects of this potential
source of sample bias, students were not informed of
the treatment prior to or during registration. This
information was not disclosed until the first day of
class in the context of the syllabus. A total of five
course sections of an upper-division MIS survey
The instructor’s subjective assessment of this
implementation is entirely positive. The students
appeared to be very engaged in the process and most
appeared to be entertained. In addition, it was also a
greatly improved experience for the instructor, both
from an entertainment perspective and from the
satisfaction derived from seeing students enjoying the
learning process. This assessment is supported by
dramatically increased attendance and in student
comments on course evaluations. Attendance was
undoubtedly partially stimulated by the use of extra
credit points to reward the top performers (being
absent when your name comes up equated to an
112
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
group. Hypothesis 1 was tested using a one-tailed ttest and a factorial Type III sum of squares test.
Hypothesis 2 was tested using a one-tailed t-test. The
following section describes the data analysis and
summarizes the results.
course spanning three academic terms (to minimize
any effects of the non-random selection process) were
included in the study. Because the MIS field changes
so rapidly, the course content and materials could not
be held constant for more than three terms. One
approach to controlling possible sample bias is to
compare the sample grade point average (GPA) mean
for each group to the population GPA mean. Because
of privacy issues, this information was not available
for the subjects and the control could not be implemented. However, the instructors perceived no reason
to suspect that the groups were not academically
representative of the population. Additionally, it is
believed that the variety of scheduled course offerings
further reduced any possible effects of the nonrandom selection process.
5.1 Student Learning
Arithmetic means were calculated for exam scores by
treatment group and instructor (see Table 1). The
means reveal that the treatment group consistently
scored higher than the control group on all three
exams (5.9%, 4.5%, and 4.7% respectively). Before
examining the statistical significance of the increase,
the effect of instructor bias was tested. A simple t-test
conducted on the three exam scores between instructors for the control groups showed no significant
difference (minimum P>t = 0.6610).
4.1 Subjects
The subjects in this study were undergraduate,
business students who had enrolled in the upperdivision MIS survey course at a regional campus of a
state university. The course is required of all business
students.
The significance of the treatment effect was tested in
two ways, a one-tailed t-test between groups and a
factorial Type III sum of squares test. The results of
the t-tests (shown in Table 2) confirm that the treatment group scored significantly higher than the
control group on all three exams.
4.2 Experimental Design
This experiment involved two instructors (both at the
Assistant Professor rank with substantial experience
teaching the course) and five course sections spanning
three consecutive academic terms. Course sections
were divided into three control groups and two
treatment groups.
To minimize effects due to
differences in teaching style, both instructors used a
common set of course materials including the same
texts, lecture notes (PowerPoint slides), syllabus,
supplementary materials, and exams. The only
difference was the addition of a description of the
game show in the treatment group syllabus.
To further test the possible influence of instructor
bias, a factorial design was employed and an Fstatistic computed for instructor treatment. A Type III
sum of squares test, SS(Game Show | Instructor), is
appropriate since it measures the “extra” effect of the
treatment with the instructor effect accounted for
(Montgomery 1997, p. 164). The results of these tests
are shown in Table 3 and confirm that there are
significant differences on the test scores attributable to
the game show treatment with the instructor treatment
controlled for. In addition, it is confirmed that the
instructor did not significantly affect exam scores.
5.2 Student Perceptions of the Course
To measure the change in student perception due to
the treatment effect, the difference between the item
means on end-of-term course evaluations for the
treatment and control groups were computed for the
instructor who was involved with both treatment and
control groups. All 26 items reflected a nominal
positive change, 17 were statistically significant (see
Table 4). The Likert scale questions employed are
actually ordinal measures. However, it is common
and has been shown to be fairly robust to treat these as
interval in analysis (Emory & Cooper 1991, p. 222).
Therefore, this approach is taken so that means and ttests may be employed and the clarity of the results
maintained.
The results strongly support the
hypothesis that the treatment groups had a more
positive perception of the course than the control
group. Although not all questions address issues
logically linked to the game show format, the increase
4.3 Dependent Variables
The dependent variables were student scores on three
standardized multiple-choice exams and student
responses on standardized course evaluation forms.
The objective format of the exams eliminated grading
bias. Students were not informed that identical exams
were used across sections and care was taken to
maintain a secure exam environment. There was no
overlap between the exact game show questions and
the exam questions. The course evaluation instrument
was developed at the University level to measure
students’ overall perceptions of a course, course
content, instruction methods, and the instructor.
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
In general, we expected the treatment group to display
significantly greater learning and have a significantly
more positive perception of the course than the control
113
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
seen in all areas can be attributed to an overall
improved perception of the course. Questions that
dealt primarily with classroom delivery universally
displayed strong positive change.
Most
encouragingly,
the
questions
Instructor 1
Instructor 2
Table 1. Exam scores for treatment and control groups.
Control
Treatment
Exam 1: 74.4%; n = 102
Exam 2: 76.5%; n = 99
Exam 3: 70.0%; n = 102
Exam 1: 75.1%; n = 50
Exam 1: 80.5%; n = 55
Exam 2: 76.1%; n = 50
Exam 2: 80.9%; n = 55
Exam 3: 69.2%; n = 49
Exam 3: 74.4%; n = 55
Table 2: T-test results for differences on exam scores. a
Treatment Control
Treatment
Mean
Mean
Sample Size
Exam 1
80.45
74.62
55
Exam 2
80.92
76.39
55
Exam 3
74.44
69.73
55
a
α is set at 0.05 for all tests in this study
Control
Sample Size
152
149
151
T-value
4.2303
2.6906
2.8638
P>T
0.0000
0.0039
0.0023
Table 3. Factorial analysis results (Type III SS) for differences on exam scores. a
F-value
P>F
Game Show Treatment
9.87
0.0019
Exam 1
Instructor Treatment
0.19
0.6639
Game Show Treatment
5.32
0.0221
Exam 2
Instructor Treatment
0.06
0.8142
Game Show Treatment
6.51
0.0114
Exam 3
Instructor Treatment
0.19
0.6633
a
The F-statistic, analogous to a two-tailed t-test in the hypothesis tested, is less powerful than the one-tailed t-test in
Table 2. The resulting p-values are expected to be approximately twice the p-values found in the t-tests above without
any effect from the instructor treatment.
Table 4. Significant results (α = 0.05) for tests for changes in mean evaluation scores.
Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The instructor presented challenging and stimulating material
The instructor inspired interest in the subject
The instructor displayed enthusiasm in teaching the subject
The instructor motivated me to do my best work
The instructor used examples and illustrations effectively
The instructor explained what is expected of students
The instructor was an effective speaker
The instructor maintained an atmosphere in the class that encouraged learning
The instructor made clear how my work was to be evaluated
The instructor gave helpful feedback on my performance
The instructor provided students with the opportunity to answer questions
The material was summarized in a manner that helped me learn
The instructor encouraged students to participate in class discussions and/or
activities
The work assigned to be completed outside of class contributed to my
114
Treatment
Mean –
Control Mean
0.43
0.76
0.94
0.55
0.54
0.48
0.61
0.44
0.52
0.58
0.61
0.50
1.15
0.61
T-Value
1.78
2.72
3.69
2.10
1.80
1.80
2.04
1.72
1.82
2.24
2.07
1.71
4.03
2.06
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
15
16
17
understanding of the subject matter
The course as a whole was good
Overall, the instructor presented the subject effectively
Overall, I learned a lot in this course
0.72
0.82
0.92
2.83
3.41
3.64
addressing the overall perception of the effectiveness
of the course and instructor all showed significant
positive changes (e.g. questions 15, 16, 17).
profession by developing and making available
applications unlikely to be developed by commercial
enterprises.
The results of the data analysis show that the
treatment group (game show format) scored higher on
all three exams and evaluated the course more
positively than the control group. These results
support the hypotheses of greater learning and more
positive course perceptions in the treatment group.
8. REFERENCES
Association of American Colleges, 1986, “A New
Vitality in General Education.” Task Group on
General Education.
Astin, A. W., 1984, “Student Involvement: A
Developmental Theory for Higher Education.”
Journal of College Student Personnel, 22, pp.
297-308.
Benjamin L. T., B. Nodine, R. Ernst and C. BlairBroeker (Eds.), 1999, Activities handbook for the
teaching of psychology, Vol. 4. American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
USA.
Brandyberry, A. A. and J. H. Pardue, 2001,
“Classroom
GameShow”
(Software).
[http://babbage.bsa.kent.edu/Gameshow.htm].
Brown-Guillory, E., 1988, “Integrating Television
Game Shows and Reader-Response Criticism.”
Exercise Exchange, 34(1), pp. 42-43.
Campbell, D. T. and M. J. Russo, 1999, Social
Experimentation. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks.
Carvey, C., 1977, “Play and Learning.” In B. Tizard
and D. Harvey (Eds.), The Biology of Play.
Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp. 74-99.
Daigle, R. and M. V. Doran, 1998, “Facilitating
Bloom’s Level 1 Through Active Learning and
Collaboration.” JISE, 9(3), pp. 3-6.
DeChristopher, M., 1991, “Scientific Jeopardy: Recall
Made Palatable.” Science Activities, 28(3), pp.
35-37.
Emory, C. W. and D. R. Cooper, 1991, Business
Research Methods. 4th Ed., Irwin, Homewood,
IL.
Fisher, M. E., 1996, “Let’s Play Jeopardy! Today’s
Topic: The Electoral College.” Update on LawRelated Education, 20(3), pp. 37-39.
Hafferty, F. W., 1990, “To Tell The Truth: An InClass Learning Exercise for Medical Students.”
Teaching Sociology, 18(3), pp. 329-336.
Mann, B. L., 1996, “Serious Play.” Teachers College
Record, 97(3), pp. 447-469.
Melnyk, S. A. and R. Narasimhan, 1992, Computer
Integrated Manufacturing: Guidelines and
Applications from Industrial Leaders. Business
One Irwin, Homewood, IL.
6. LIMITATIONS
As with any empirical study, there are limits to the
degree results can be generalized to a broader
population. This study examined only one game show
format in only one MIS introductory survey course.
To generalize to all game show formats and
introductory survey courses, a cross-format, crossdisciplinary study would be needed. Although exams
are among the most common methods used to evaluate
the level of learning demonstrated by a student, they
are an imperfect and incomplete measure of learning.
The higher exam scores achieved by the students
exposed to the game show format certainly support
the inference that these students learned more,
however, a more exhaustive study including a detailed
analysis of all aspects of learning would be necessary
to make a definitive statement. Finally, the quasiexperimental format did not permit a blind study from
the perspective of the instructors. Further, only one
instructor used the treatment in class. These design
limitations are moderated by there being a strong
career-oriented motivation on the part of the
instructors to have any class (treatment or control)
show positive results in both student outcomes and
course evaluations.
7. CONCLUSION
The findings of this study support the hypotheses that
students who participate in a game show format will
perform significantly better on exams and will have a
more positive perception of the course. This suggests
that active learning in the form of well-structured
purposeful computer-based games can be an effective
vehicle for the delivery of survey course content.
One implication of this study is the observation that
the increase of computing technology in the classroom
provides the more technically capable educators an
opportunity to add to the tools available to their
61
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
Statistics). His current research interests include trust
in e-commerce environments, web-based HCI, open
source software development, and CIS education and
curriculum development. His articles have been
published in the Journal of Information Systems
Education, the Journal of Computer Information
Systems, the Journal of Psychological Type, System
Dynamics Review, the Engineering Economist, and
the Journal of Engineering Education. His articles
have been published and presented at The Americas
Conference on Information Systems, Decision
Sciences Institute, Winter Simulation Conference, and
Association for Computing Machinery Conference.
His general teaching areas are in e-commerce,
database, and thin-client development.
Miller, G. E., 1988, The meaning of general
education: The emergence of a curriculum
paradigm. Teachers College Press, Colombia
University, New York.
Montgomery, D. C., 1997, Design and Analysis of
Experiments, 4th Ed. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Rogers, C. S., and J. K. Sawyer (Eds.), 1988, Play in
the Lives of Children. National Association for
the Education of Young Children, Washington,
DC.
Saunders, H. M., 1987, “Place Your Geometry Class
in ‘Geopardy.’” Mathematics Teacher, 80(9), pp.
722-725.
Shapiro, A. M., 1998, “Promoting Active Learning:
The Role of System Structure in Learning from
Hypertext.” Human Computer Interaction, 13(1),
pp. 1-35.
Wilson, E. O., 1978, On Human Nature. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.
Wood, E., 1992, “Probability, Problem Solving, and
‘The Price Is Right.’” Mathematics Teacher,
85(2), pp. 103-109.
Dr. Alan Brandyberry is an
Assistant
Professor
of
Information Systems in the
Department of Management
and Information Systems at
Kent State University. His
current
research
interests
include the adoption of
information
technology,
electronic
commerce
facilitated
supply-chain
linkages, and justification of information technology
investments. His research has been published in
journals such as Decision Sciences, The International
Journal of Technology Management, Industrial
Mathematics, and the Malaysian Journal of Management Science. His teaching interests include database
design and development, application and systems
development, and electronic commerce.
Dr. Harold Pardue is an
Associate
Professor
of
Computer and Information
Sciences in the School of
Computer and Information
Sciences at the University of
South Alabama. He received
his Ph.D. in MIS from the
Florida State University in
1996
(support
area
in
62
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
63
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
Call for Submissions
Refereed Articles
The Journal of Information Systems Education is seeking original articles on current topics of special interest to IS
Educators and Trainers. Research or application oriented articles that describe curriculum, pedagogy, professional
development or educational facilities issues will be considered for publication in the journal. Possible topics include:
course projects/cases, lecture materials, curriculum design and/or implementation, workshops, faculty/student
intern/extern programs, hardware/software selection, industry relations, etc. All manuscripts will be refereed by a
rigorous evaluation process involving at least two blind reviews by qualified academic, industrial, or governmental
computing professionals. Submissions will be judged not only on the suitability of the content, but also on the
readability and clarity of the prose.
All manuscripts selected for publication must maintain a high standard of content, style and value to the readership.
An important criterion for acceptance of a manuscript for publication is the relevance of the work to the
educational/training environment and its potential usefulness for advancing the quality of IS education or training.
Submission of Manuscripts
The Journal of Information Systems Education will accept only original contributions that have not been previously
published or submitted elsewhere for review/publication. In an effort to reduce the reviewing cycle time, JISE is
moving to electronic submissions on all submissions. Electronic submissions are preferred To submit electronically,
please include a Word or RTF file of your submission as an e-mail attachment addressed to [email protected]. In the
body of your e-mail message include the author(s) name(s), contact information for the corresponding author, and the
title of your submission. Your submission will be acknowledged promptly via return e-mail. All contributions must be
submitted in English and will be printed without charge.
Prior to publication, authors will be required to transfer copyright and sign a Transfer of Copyright Agreement form,
sent with the acceptance letter. The copyright agreement enables the Association for Information Technology
Professional's Special Interest Group for Education to protect the author's copyrighted material. Authors reserve all
proprietary rights, as well as the right to reproduce and use all or portions of their manuscripts in future works.
Manuscripts should include an abstract (200-350 words), a list of 2-7 keywords to identify the subject content, body of
text divided by section headings, concluding remarks, and reference endnotes. Reference endnotes should appear at
the end of the article, sequenced in the order cited in the article.
The paper should not normally exceed 12 double-spaced pages, including all sections, figures, tables, etc. However,
EDSIG reserves the right to consider longer articles of major importance to the IS field.
Call For Teaching Tips
The Journal of Information Systems Education is soliciting teaching tips for a regular column on "Teaching Tips."
Contributors will be acknowledged by having an edited version of their tips with their name and affiliation published in
the Journal. Tips should be from one paragraph to two pages long and should address the contributor's experience
using the tip (both what works and what didn't work).
All contributions should be directed to
Dr. Albert L. Harris, Editor; JISE
Department of ITOM
Appalachian State University,
Boone, NC 28608
Phone (828) 262-6180
Fax (828) 262-6190
64
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
65
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
Author Guide for Preparing Your JISE Paper
Author's Name
E-mail address, if desired
University Department, University Name
City, State Zip, Country
and
Second Author's Name
E-mail address, if desired
Group, Company, Address
City, State Zip, Country
ABSTRACT
The abstract should summarize the content of the paper. Try to keep it below 250 words and do not include equations
or references in it. If you use abbreviations in the paper, e.g., CIS, use the full meaning of the abbreviation in the
abstract, e.g., Computer Information Systems. The manuscript should be printable on 8.5" x 11" paper. All diagrams,
figures, etc. must be in black and white only since the Journal does not have the ability to generate colors. Depending
on our ability to use your electronic format, it is not possible to use the printed copy; therefore, the electronic readability of copy is of critical importance.
Keywords: Author guide, manuscript, camera-ready format, instructions for authors, paper specifications
1. IMPORTANT INFORMATION
1)
The paper typically should be limited to no more than
twelve (12) pages. This includes the bibliography,
figures, diagrams, tables, appendices, etc. Contact the
editor if your paper exceeds 12 pages.
2)
The final revised paper should be sent via email directly
to the editor at [email protected].
3)
2. PREPARATION OF MANUSCRIPTS
4)
2.1 General Appearance
The text of the Journal is English. Your paper must not
contain corrections nor should it contain page numbers,
headers or footers. This document is printed in the
format that should be used in the paper.
5)
On the first page, the distance from the top edge of
the paper to the top of the first line of type (the title) should be 1.5 inches. The title should be in 18point type.
On the second and subsequent pages, the distance
from the top edge of the paper to the top of the first
line of type should be I inch.
The text is to be in two columns, with a 0.3-inch
column separation. The width of each column
should be about 2.85 inches.
The bottom margin should be 1.25 inches on all
pages. This is to allow for the insertion of page
numbers.
Left and right margins should be 1.25 inches.
3. RECOMMENDED POINT SIZES
On 8.5" x 11" paper (the Journal size) we require a font
size of 9 points. Some technical formatting programs
print mathematical formulas in italic type, with subscripts and superscripts in a slightly smaller font size.
This is acceptable. If the font produces a paper that is
difficult to read, we may apply a slightly larger font size
to your paper.
You should use Times New Roman typeface (font) for
the paper.
2.2 Specifications
The printing process may require that the paper be
photographed. To ensure that all papers give an appearance of consistency and uniformity, you should adhere
to the following specifications.
66
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
4. HEADINGS
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Major headings are to be column centered, numbered, in
a capitalized bold font as shown in this document.
Acknowledgements should follow the text just before
the references.
4.1 First-level Sub-headings
First level sub-headings are to be numbered, in a bold
font, and run in at the beginning of the paragraph. No
blank line is to appear between the sub-heading and the
test.
7. FOOTNOTES
Footnotes should be typed in single-line spacing at the
bottom of the page and column where it is cited.
Footnotes should be rare. Note the exception on the first
page with the placement of email addresses.
Sub-subheadings: Sub-subheadings are to be in a bold
font and run in at the beginning of the paragraph.
8. CONCLUSIONS
Title: The title should be centered across the top of the
first page and should be of point size 18.
The enhancements to information systems education is
identified or repeated here. DO NOT repeat the abstract
or portions of it.
4.2 Authors’ names and Addresses
The authors’ names and addresses should be centered
below the title. These lines should be in 12-point size. If
two or more authors are from the same institution, list
the individual author names above the common affiliation.
9. REFERENCES
Ashby, W. Ross [1956], An Introduction to Cybernetics.
Methuen Press, London.
Dumdum, U. Rex and William I. Tastle [1998], "Towards a Broader Competency-Based IS Education:
A proposed Improvement Package for Analysis of
Case Studies." Proceedings of ISECON'98, October 15-18, pp. 28-33.
4.4 Keywords
Select four to seven keywords that capture the essence
of the paper. List the words in decreasing order of
importance from left to right.
4.5 References
List all references at the end of the paper in alphabetical
order by primary author last name. When citing references in the text, type the last name and date. The
citation should appear in parentheses such as is shown
here (Ashby 1956). Groups of citations should appear in
a single set of parentheses separated by semi-colons. If
two or more papers are cited that were written by the
same author, separate the years with commas.
Notice that papers are enclosed in quotation marks. The
primary author is listed by last name, followed by
secondary authors, who are listed by first name. In
the event all authors are co-equal, list them in alphabetical order. These references utilize the hanging indent format. No space line is to be placed between references.
10. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Illustrations: All halftone illustrations should be
original clear black and white prints. Do not supply
copies. Show the illustration in the manuscript, but
include an individual print of the illustration (figure,
table, etc) on a separate page, just in case!
The authors are encouraged to submit brief biographies
and a black and white passport type photo for inclusion
in the journal. Pictures should be in .JPG format.
5. FORMULAE
Author biography and photograph (head only) are
printed at the end of the article but before any attachments or appendices.
All equations must be typed utilizing a suitable processor. They should be numbered consecutively throughout
the text, at the flush-right edge of the equation, enclosed
in parentheses.
67
68
Individual Subscription Request
Please enter my subscription for the Journal of Information Systems Education.
Name ________________________________________________________________________
Title ____________________________________Telephone (______) ____________________
Mailing Address _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
City ________________________________State ______________ Zip Code ______________
Country ____________________Fax (_____) ________________
E-mail _______________________________________________________________________
Please check the appropriate categories:
This subscription is a
renewal
new order
Prices (checks or money orders in U.S. dollars, drawn on a U.S. bank)
Outside the United States
Within the United States
(includes Air Mail Postage)
Annual Individual Subscription-$50.00
Annual Individual Subscription-$65.00
Date Subscription Begins:
Next Issue
First issue after __________________________
Payment by check or money order in U.S. dollars must be included.
Amount enclosed: $ ______________
Send to: Dr. Albert L. Harris, Editor JISE
Department of ITOM, Raley Hall
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608 U.S.A.
All e-mail inquiries should be sent to: [email protected]
69
70
Library Recommendation
(Please Print, complete and forward this form to your Librarian)
Dear ____________________________________ (librarian ' s name )
I recommend that ____________________________________________(library's name) subscribe to the following publication.
[ ] Journal of Information Systems Education (JISE) ISSN 1055-3096 (US$ 100.00/Year)
I have indicated the benefits of the above journal to our library:
(1 = highest benefit; 2 = moderate benefit; 3 = little benefit)
1 2 3 REFERENCE: For research articles in the field of information systems.
1 2 3 STUDENT READING: I plan to recommend articles from the above to my students.
1 2 3 PUBLICATION SOURCES: This journal is suitable to my current research agenda.
1 2 3 PEER EVALUATION: This journal is highly regarded by my peers around the world.
Questions and Orders should be forwarded to:
Dr. Albert L. Harris
Department of ITOM, Raley Hall
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608, USA
Tel: 828-262-6180; Fax: 828-262-6190
URL: http://www.jise.appstate.edu
E-mail: [email protected]
71
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 12(2)
72
Membership Application
Limited to membership only in the Education Special Interest Group of AITP
Please complete all sections of the application. □ CDP
(PRINT OR TYPE LEGIBLY)
□ CCP
□ CSP □ Former EDSIG Member
□ ACP □ Former Student Member
______________________________________________________________________________
Name: First
Middle Initial
Last
______________________________________________________________________________
Employer Name:
Your Title
DeptlDiv.
______________________________________________________________________________
Employer Address:
City
State/Prov. Zip + 4/Postal
______________________________________________________________________________
Homee Address:
City
State/Prov. Zip + 4/Postal
Send Mail to: □ Home □ Company
AITP may include my name and address for mail list rentals: □Yes □ No
Business Phone:_________________________
Home Phone: ______________________________
Fax: ___________________________ E-Mail Address: _______________________________________
A subscription to the Journal of Information Systems Education is included with your membership dues.
$ 65.00 Due with this Application
Contributions or gifts to the Association of Information Technology Professionals (AITP dues) are not tax
deductible as charitable contributions. However, they may be tax deductible as ordinary and necessary
business expenses.
Specify Payment Method: □ Visa □ MasterCard □ Check □ Money Order
Card Number __________________________________ Expiration Date: _____________________
I hereby make application for membership in AITP. I agree to comply with the requirements of the Bylaws
and Code of Ethics and all regulations adopted by the Association.
Applicant's Signature: _____________________________________
Date: ______________________
Sponsor's Name: ___________________________________________________
(PRINT LEGIBLY)
Association of Information Technology Professionals
P .0. Box 388130, Chicago, IL 60638
Canadian Funds to P .0. Box 172, Park Ridge, IL 60068
847-825-8124 800-224-9371 FAX 847-825-1693 [email protected] www.aitp.org
73
74