A high-impact practice is to incorporate experiential learning projects when teaching difficulty subject matters so as to enhance students’ understanding and interest in the course content. But, there is limited research on how to design and execute such projects. Therefore, we propose a framework based on the processes described by the Project Management Body of Knowledge and the instructional characteristics known to influence the quality of student learning experiences. Its effectiveness is evaluated by analyzing a case study of mapping a municipal storm drain system using global positioning system equipment. The results of the evaluation revealed that the project facilitated the students’ understanding of the pertinent technical concepts, helped them realize the importance of teamwork, and provided them with an opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way to enhance a community’s ability to cope with major rainfall events. We develop a process chart based on the framework and expect its use in designing and implementing real-world experiential learning projects in courses will provide a win–win situation for the community, students, and faculty members.
AstaniM. (2006) The MIS capstone course: An active learning approach. Issues in Information Systems17(1): 119–123.
2.
AusterE. R.WylieK. K. (2006) Creating active learning in the classroom. A systematic approach. Journal of Management Education30(2): 333–353.
3.
BoyatzisR. E.KolbD. A. (1995) From learning styles to learning skills: The executive skills profile. Journal of Managerial Psychology10(5): 3–17.
4.
ChiocchioF. (2007) Project team performance: A study of electronic task and coordination communication. Project Management Journal38(1): 97–109.
5.
DrakeJ. R. (2012) A critical analysis of active learning and an alternative pedagogical framework for introductory information systems courses. Journal of Information Technology Education11: 39–52.
6.
FreelandR. M. (2009) The Clark/AAC&U conference on liberal education and effective practice. Liberal Education95(4): 6–9.
7.
GardnerP.GauldC. (1990) Lab work and students’ attitudes. In: Hegarty-HazelE. (ed.) The student laboratory and the science curriculum, London, England: Routledge, pp. 132–156.
Gentry, M., & Gable, R. K. (2001). My class activities: A survey instrument to assess students perceptions of interest, challenge, choice, and enjoyment in their classrooms. Mansfield Centre, CT: Creative Learning Press.
10.
GhaniJ. A. (1995) Flow in human computer interactions: Test of a model. In: CareyJ. M. (ed.) Human factors in information systems: Emerging theoretical bases, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, pp. 291–311.
11.
Gudigantala, N. (2013). An active learning approach to teaching undergraduate introduction to MIS course. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Chicago, IL: Association for Information Systems, pp. 1–9.
12.
HeimG. R.MeileL.TeaseJ.GlassJ.LaherS.RowanJ.ComerfordK. (2005) Experiential learning in a management information systems course: Simulating IT consulting and CRM system procurement. Communications of the Association for Information Systems15(1): 25.
13.
HolstermannN.GrubeD.BögeholzS. (2010) Experiential learning projects and their influence on students’ interest. Research in Science Education40(5): 743–757.
14.
InksS. A.AvilaR. A. (2008) Preparing the next generation of sales professionals through social, experiential, and immersive learning experiences. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education13(4): 47–55.
15.
KoufarisM. (2002) Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research13(2): 205–223.
16.
KuhG. D. (2008) High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter, Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
17.
MichelN.CaterJ. J.VarelaO. (2009) Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly20(4): 397–418.
18.
PfaffT. J.WeinbergA. (2009) Do hands-on activities increase student understanding? A case study. Journal of Statistics Education17(3): 1–34.
19.
PridmoreJ. L.BradleyR. V.MehtaN. (2010) Methods of instruction and learning outcomes: A theoretical analysis of two approaches in an introductory information technology course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education8(2): 289–311.
RooijS. W. (2009) Scaffolding project-based learning with the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK®). Computers & Education52(1): 210–219.
22.
ShernoffD. J.CsikszentmihalyiM. (2009) Cultivating engaged learners and optimal learning environments. In: GilmanR.HuebnerE. S.FurlongM. J. (eds) Handbook of positive psychology in schools, London, England: Routledge, pp. 131–145.
23.
SprouleJ.OllisS.GrayS.ThorburnM.AllisonP.HortonP. (2011) Promoting perseverance and challenge in physical education: The missing ingredient for improved games teaching. Sport, Education and Society16(5): 665–684.
24.
WiliamD.BlackP. (1996) Meanings and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment?British Educational Research Journal22(5): 537–548.
25.
WingfieldS. S.BlackG. S. (2005) Active versus passive course designs: The impact on student outcomes. Journal of Education for Business81(2): 119–123.
26.
WuY.SankarC. S. (2013) Impact of hands-on research experience on students’ learning in an introductory management information system course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education11(4): 335–358.
27.
YairG. (2000) Reforming motivation: How the structure of instruction affects students’ learning experiences. British Educational Research Journal26(2): 191–210.
28.
YinR. K. (2013) Case study research: Design and methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
ZhangX.ZhangC.StaffordT. F.ZhangP. (2013) Teaching introductory programming to IS students: The impact of teaching approaches on learning performance. Journal of Information Systems Education24(2): 147–155.
