Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 18

Proceedings of the 2019 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

Redesigning Method Engineering Education Through a Trinity of Blended Learning Measures


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2019F79

Citation: Proceedings of the 2019 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 18, pages 791797 ()

Full text

Abstract. This paper presents a teaching case of a Blended Learning (BL) approach that was applied to a course on Method Engineering (ME) intended for graduate Business Informatics (BIS) students. The main reason for transforming a Master course on ME from traditional to blended is to take advantage of combining frontal instruction with e-learning based instruction and at the same time reducing lecturers' workload in times of increasing student numbers in BIS and Computer Science (CS) areas. The BL approach consists of three parts, as it consists of the introduction of computer-supported peer assessment, interactive e-lectures, and digital examination. The approach has been reflected upon by course lecturers themselves and it was evaluated through two separate student surveys, from which a variety of positive outcomes can be deduced. Increased generation of feedback, an increase in student motivation, and improved understanding of the course content are three of these outcomes that stand out. On top of student related advantages, especially the BL parts concerning peer assessment and digital examination reduce teaching load. These findings are informative for both education researchers and instructors who are interested in embedding BL in BIS or CS education.


  1. W. W. Porter, C. R. Graham, K. A. Spring, and K. R. Welch, “Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation,” Computers & Education, vol. 75, pp. 185–195, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011.
  2. A. Norberg, C. D. Dziuban, and P. D. Moskal, “A timebased blended learning model,” On the Horizon, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 207–216, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748121111163913.
  3. B. van der Zwaan, Higher Education in 2040: A Global Approach. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press, 2017.
  4. D. Garrison and H. Kanuka, “Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education,” The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 95–105, 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001.
  5. B. Jones, Motivating Students by Design: Practical Strategies for Professors. Blacksburg, USA: Brett D. Jones, 2018.
  6. R. M. Filius, R. A. de Kleijn, S. G. Uijl, F. J. Prins, H. V. Rijen, and D. E. Grobbee, “Strengthening dialogic peer feedback aiming for deep learning in SPOCs,” Computers & Education, vol. 125, pp. 86–100, 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.004.
  7. D. G. Collings, H. Scullion, and P. M. Caligiuri, Eds., Global Talent Management, 2nd ed. New York, USA: Routledge, 2019.
  8. A. De Lucia, C. Gravino, R. Oliveto, and G. Tortora, “An experimental comparison of ER and UML class diagrams for data modelling,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 455–492, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10664-009-9127-7.
  9. R. M. Filius, R. A. de Kleijn, S. G. Uijl, F. J. Prins, H. V. Rijen, and D. E. Grobbee, “Promoting deep learning through online feedback in SPOCs,” Frontline Learning Research, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 92–113, 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i2.350.
  10. N. Unkelos-Shpigel and I. Hadar, “Test first, code later: Educating for test driven development,” in Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops, R. Matulevičius and R. Dijkman, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 186–192, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92898-2_16.
  11. B. Oates, Researching Information Systems and Computing. Thousand Oaks, USA: SAGE Publications, 2006.
  12. A. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, USA: SAGE Publications, 1998.
  13. S. P. Balfour, “Assessing writing in MOOCs: Automated essay scoring and calibrated peer review,” Research & Practice in Assessment, vol. 8, pp. 40–48, 2013.
  14. A. F. Nield and M. G. Wintre, “Multiple-choice questions with an option to comment: Student attitudes and use,” Teaching of Psychology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 196–199, 1986, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1304_6.