the criticality of transferable skills development and virtual learning environments used in the...

PA

PE

RS

76 July 2011 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj

INTRODUCTION �

Prior research within the project management domain has continuedto advance arguments for the need for radical changes and re-examination of the discipline and profession (Cooke-Davies &Lechler, 2009; Saynisch, 2010). One important change argued for is

the need to realign pedagogical dispensations to fit the new directions beingtaken in the discipline (see Chipulu, Ojiako, Ashleigh, & Maguire, 2011;Ojiako, Ashleigh, Chipulu, & Maguire, 2010). Primarily, the call for new ped-agogical dispensations is being driven by the need to address new develop-ments and challenges within the profession, which include the need for anew mindset (Hartman, 2008), growing complexity in the conceptualizationof projects (Dalcher, 2009), and the much-emphasized requirement for proj-ect managers to be transformed from trained technicians into reflectivepractitioners (Crawford, Morris, Thomas, & Winter, 2006).

Arguments for change in the profession and project management disci-pline have been met to some extent by recognition within the profession thatit needs to shift its emphasis from training toward a greater prominence inlearning (Ramsay, Boardman, & Cole, 1996). Notwithstanding this, the drivetoward a greater focus on learning (and, by implication, teaching) withinproject management is unlikely to be successful without the support of themost important stakeholder in the learning and teaching agenda: the stu-dent (Wearne, 2008). Evidence of the recognition by the student of thischanging agenda (within learning and teaching) is reflected in the widereducation arena by a growing demand for part-time (Jamieson, Sabates,Woodley, & Feinstein, 2009) and practitioner-driven programs (Lester &Costley, 2010).

BackgroundTheories of management control reiterate that the discipline of project man-agement has been traditionally served by principles of management bureau-cracy, control, and hierarchy (Kolltveit, Terje Karlsen, & Gronhaug, 2007), ineffect implying that a rational project management model was no longer

The Criticality of Transferable SkillsDevelopment and Virtual LearningEnvironments Used in the Teaching of Project ManagementUdechukwu Ojiako, University of Southampton, School of Management, Highfield,Southampton, Hampshire, United KingdomMelanie Ashleigh, University of Southampton, School of Management, Southampton,Hampshire, United KingdomJaw-Kai Wang, University of Southampton, School of Management, Southampton,Hampshire, United KingdomMax Chipulu, University of Southampton, School of Management, Southampton, Hampshire,United Kingdom

ABSTRACT �

Studies have found the development of transfer-able skills and the provision of virtual learningenvironments (VLEs) to be crucial to studentswho are learning project management. Takingthese factors into consideration, this articleexplores why project management studentshave emphasized the importance of these twocritical learning and teaching parameters intheir developmental needs. The study was con-ducted utilizing focus groups consisting of 88students in a UK higher education institution.Overall, we found the existence of five criticaland applied themes grouped against transfer-able skills and the provision of VLEs underwhich students’ needs could be classified.

KEYWORDS: student experiences; teach-ing and learning; transferable skills; VLEs.

Project Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, 76–86

© 2011 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20240

tenable. In fact, Pollack (2007) remindsus that this rationalist and instrumen-talist ideology has developed into anobsession with planning. According tothe Project Management Institute (PMI;2000), planning appears extensivelylinked to the failure of projects. Theimplication of these developments wasthat there had become an urgent needto conceptualize project managementin a way that ensured that modern con-textual and subjective ideology wasbuilt into its developing theories. Asexpected, this shifting managementparadigm had implications for projectmanagement education. Of primaryimportance is that long-held assump-tions of the need to “train” project man-agers to effectively use various andemerging “methodologies” began togive way to a realization that the educa-tion of project managers could not beeffective if primarily grounded in tech-nical instrumentality. By recognizingthe limitations of an education philoso-phy rooted in technical instrumentality,scholars such as Berggren andSoderlund (2008) have begun to locatethe discipline in the need to developstudent-oriented learning programsthat emphasize independence and self-motivation.

Studies appear to affirm that anemphasis on learning and teachingwithin the project management disci-pline is unlikely to deliver tangible ben-efits to major stakeholders without aclear articulation of the perceptions ofthe key stakeholders: the students(Wearne, 2008). However, substantialdifficulties exist when attempting toarticulate students’ expectations interms of learning and teaching projectmanagement. Such difficulties includethe emerging differences in studentcohort composition and the significantincrease in diversity (Felder & Brent,2005). This diversity means that stu-dents exhibit varying degrees of per-sonal motivation and attitudes towardtheir learning objectives and aspirations.They also tend to respond differentlyto different teaching environments.

According to Haggis (2006), changes inthe student composition transcend stu-dent profiles in terms of demographicvariables (i.e., age, past educational his-tory, culture, class, and disability). Insome cases, such students, who mayalso be mature, encounter considerablefinancial challenges and perhaps origi-nate from overseas. To address thesechanges and bridge the gap in expecta-tions between students, lecturers (aca-demics), and potential employers,scholars over the years have proposedvarious learning and teaching frame-works (e.g., de Graaf & Kolmos, 2003;Smith, Johnson, Johnson, & Sheppard,2005).

Literature ReviewAlthough it is generally accepted thatdistinguishing between transferableand generic skills is quite difficult toconceptualize (see Confederation ofBritish Industry, 1989), transferableskills are considered to be those thatform the central aptitudes of individu-als that can generally be applied acrossvarious cognitive and subject domains(Cryer, 1998). Transferable skills arecore, but non-domain-specific, skillsthat individuals may exhibit in the formof knowledge and judgment (Cryer,1998; Kemp & Seagraves, 1995).According to the National CurriculumCouncil (NCC; 1990), transferable skillscan be categorized within six majorgroupings—communication, informa-tion technology, numeracy, personaland social, study, and problem-solvingskills. The focus on transferable skillscomes from a growing interest, espe-cially by educational stakeholders, inensuring that students gain the creativereasoning and interpersonal skills thattoday’s employers are increasinglydemanding (see Hodges & Burchell,2003). However, although in greatdemand, research (Crebert, Bates, Bell,Patrick, & Cragnolini, 2004) indicatesthat organizations remain less than sat-isfied with the level of transferable skillsdemonstrated by graduates cominginto the workforce.

Virtual learning environments(VLEs) are extremely popular and a coreelement of education (Jenkins, Browne,& Walker, 2005); they are utilized toenhance the desired student-teacherand student-student participativelearning. For example, a study conduct-ed by Brown and Jenkins (2003) foundthat an overwhelming number of aca-demics (86%) in the United Kingdomreported the existence of VLE facilitiesin their universities. VLEs have come along way as a learning and teachingsupport tool. Initially, with their historyof being a support tool for documentdelivery, VLEs, in the form of blogs andvirtual reality platforms, are increasing-ly being utilized to deliver collaborativelearning and teaching objectives. We also note that numerous studieshave been conducted exploring therelationship and impact of VLEs in the wider management educationdebate (Alavi & Gallupe, 2003), andmore specifically to this study, learningand teaching within project manage-ment (Divjak & Kukec, 2008). In mostcases, these scholars have argued that,from a social constructivist learningperspective (Kim, 2005), students bestconstruct knowledge when it is fullyintegrated into their environment. As aresult, it is posited that the integrationof VLE usage into learning and teachingenhances learning engagement, prima-rily because it encourages the user tobecome a more active participant in thelearning and teaching imperative. VLEsalso have the ability to provide a plat-form for student learners to “experiencephenomena that are not accessible inthe physical world” (Bowman, Hodges,Allison, & Wineman, 1999, p. 5). VLE usealso gives students a greater control oftheir learning agenda (Zhang, Zhao,Zhou, & Nunamaker, 2004). Althoughthese are stated advantages of VLE use,it is also accepted that it presents twomajor pedagogical challenges. First,there are a substantial number of stu-dents who end up struggling with theuse of VLEs (although, in most cases,students are exposed to the application

July 2011 � Project Management Journal � DOI: 10.1002/pmj 77

The Criticality of Transferable Skills Development and Virtual LearningP

AP

ER

S

of technology in social settings, yet areless exposed to the use of technology ineducation; van Raaij & Schepers, 2008).Second, VLEs have also been shown tohave limited application use in disci-plines such as nursing, which placesconsiderable emphasis on learning clin-ical skills through direct participationand observation (Campbell, Gibson,Hall, Richards, & Callery, 2008).

Two critical studies have focusedexclusively on the enhancement of stu-dent learning within project manage-ment. The first, by Ojiako et al. (2010),sought to examine the relationshipbetween learning and teaching and stu-dent experiences. The study, whichinvolved a survey of 197 students study-ing project management at both bache-lor’s and master’s levels, found that atotal of 22 (see Table 1) constituentcomponents had an impact on theexperience of management studentsstudying project management. Fromthese constituent components, usingCategorical Principal ComponentsAnalysis (CATPCA), the authors identi-fied two critical parameters, transfer-able skills and the existence of VLEs, asparamount to student experiences. Afollow-up study by Chipulu et al. (2011)used linear regression to explore theinterrelationship between the parame-ters and found the role of lecturers(academics) to be the major determin-ing factor in discovering to what extentstudents perceived their teaching andlearning experiences as successful.

Design ApproachOne limitation of the studies conductedby Ojiako et al. (2010) and Chipulu et al.(2011) was that, because both studiesrelied wholly on quantitative data, nei-ther provided any contextual insightsfrom students. As a result, the objectiveof this study was to glean more compre-hensive and contextual informationfrom students as to why these two criti-cal parameters, transferable skills andthe existence of VLEs, were seen asparamount to student learning experi-ences.

The study was set in one of thehigher institutions within which the ini-tial studies by Ojiako et al. (2010) andChipulu et al. (2011) were conducted.The preferred research methodologychosen was a focus group, as this repre-sents a form of group interview(Kitzinger, 1994; Powell & Single, 1996)and is a means of improving surveyquestionnaire design (O’Brien, 1993).This methodology also enhances thecommunication between the researchparticipants (Merton, Fisk, & Kendall,1956), which ensures the generation ofrelevant data. Furthermore, it has been

established that focus groups are espe-cially useful when the objective of theresearch exercise is to explore “not onlywhat people think but how they thinkand why they think that way”(Kitzinger, 1995, p. 299).

We commenced the study by identi-fying our research sample as all final-year management students (176) takingthe project management module. Wecontacted the students using the onlineteaching portal (Blackboard). A total of88 students responded to our invitationto participate in the study. In order tolimit systematic biases in the selection


Student Characteristic or Student Variable Name Experience Measured by Variableadapt_more experienced being more adaptable, generally

adapt_views experienced being able to adapt ideas and views

prob_solve_subject subject-specific problem-solving skills

prob_solve_general wider problem-solving skills

communi_with_others development of communication skills with others

communi_ideas development of communication of ideas

ICT_confidence increased confidence in the use of ICT

ICT_info_communi increased confidence in the use of ICT for information dissemination

active_mtd_variety experience of a variety of teaching methods

active_participate level of active participation in learning activities

fback_formative experience of level of formative feedback

fback_summative experience of level of summative feedback

critical development of critical thinking

self_manage experience of self-management of studies

interperson development of interpersonal skills

teach4understand experience of teaching for understanding

stud_teach_relate experience of student/teacher relationships

co_learning experience of cooperative learning

coherent_curric experience of a coherent curriculum

eresources experience of the use of e-resources by the teacher

VLEs student’s experience of virtual learning environments

workload student’s management of workload

Table 1: Student constituent components.


process (see Powell & Single, 1996), thestudents who responded to the invita-tion were divided into groups that weredifferent from their original class (sem-inar) groups. To ensure that the stu-dents had some background informa-tion, we prepared a short brief on the

objectives of the study. We also pre-pared a short summary of the two earli-er studies conducted by Ojiako et al.(2010) and Chipulu et al. (2011), asthese studies formed the theoreticalbasis of the follow-up study to beundertaken. This information was

made available on Blackboard. E-mailreminders were sent to the studentsrequesting that the background infor-mation be read prior to their atten-dance at the focus groups. On the daythe focus groups were scheduled, eachstudent was placed in a designated

Transferable Skills VLE

Frequency FrequencyCategories Subcategories Count Categories Subcategories Count

Pedagogy: Pedagogy:Organization Course design (positive) 3 Organization Course design (positive) 4

Course design (negative) 13 Course design (negative) 9E-resources (good) 1 E-resources (good) 8E-resources (bad) 4 E-resources (bad) 18

Delivery Content Theoretical 5 Delivery Content Theoretical 2Practical (workshop/classes/ 23 Practical (workshop/ 15

labs) classes/labs)

Assessment Group work 10 Assessment Group work 3Individual work 3 Individual work 1Presentation 7 Presentation 2Project/case study 17 Project/case study 12Feedback 7 Feedback 3

Learning Resources Slides/handouts/lecture notes 4 Learning Resources Slides/handouts/lecture 10Journal articles/books 4 notesOnline lectures/video 4 Journal articles/books 8Accessibility 1 Online lectures/video 14

Accessibility 10Flexibility 10

Interactive Environment Social interaction 12 Interactive Environment:Interactive learning 15 Internal Discussion boards/blogs/ 11Interaction with lecturer/ 8 websites

support Blackboard (bespoke 21Real-life exposure (guest 19 learning tool)speakers/industry)

Outcomes Employability 18 External Real-life exposure 5Critical thinking 8 Different software systems 8Self-management/responsibility 8 Face-to-face interaction 11Social skills 5

Outcomes Employability 13Self-management/ 11

responsibilityTechnical skills 9

Technology Effect Workload (increase) 17Workload (decrease) 20Opt out 6More interactive use 10

of technologySocial skills decrease 2

Table 2: Frequency counts for transferable skills and VLEs.


AP

ER

S


group, while the facilitator explainedthe objectives of the study. Generally, thefocus groups were run based on explic-it guidance set out by Powell and Single(1996). We did, however, deviate slight-ly from Powell and Single’s direction byproviding each student with a set ofquestion sheets to serve as a prompt forlater discussion. The question sheetsalso included a written comments sec-tion, where students were encouragedto comment on any other point thatthey felt was not covered in the ques-tion prompts. The question promptswere prepared according to earlierguidance on question framing providedby Krueger (2000), the objective beingto ensure consistency in terms ofunderstanding across a diverse studentcohort.

We adopted a three-stage strategyduring the focus-group exercises. ForStage A, the students were instructed toreflect on the questions provided andmake notes of any ideas or opinionsthey had on each of the questions. Thestudents were advised that they werenot to communicate with other mem-bers of their group during this period.Stage B of the exercise commencedwith the students being advised thatthey have completed the first stage, andthat they could then communicate withother members of their group in orderto share their ideas on the various ques-tions. The students were advised tofocus on their experiences and expecta-tions as students studying the projectmanagement module, and reorganizeinto smaller groups (within their allo-cated focus group) in order to discussthe ideas that they had recorded. Thefinal stage (Stage C) of the exercisecommenced with the students beingadvised to rearrange themselves backinto their original groups while ensur-ing that each member of their team hada clear idea of what ideas other teammembers had presented or discussed.The last exercise involved the studentsbeing advised to put forward a groupview (in addition to their individualopinions noted on the distributed

forms) on why they felt that transfer-able skills and the provision of VLEswere important to their developmentalneeds.

Once we had collated all the ideasthe students had noted, the facilitatorrechecked with all the groups that theideas they had noted represented theiropinions. Confirmation from each groupthat this was the case indicated the com-pletion of the data-gathering exercise.

The data analysis stage of ourresearch commenced with a review ofthe collected forms. Due to illegiblewriting, it was difficult to decipher whatsome of the focus groups had writtendown. As a result, we discarded seven ofthe illegible forms, thus leaving us with81 forms to be analyzed. We employedaxial coding (see Breen, 2006) as ameans of deductively analyzing theusable forms. Our objective was toensure that we were able to examine the

possibility of identifying themes thatwere similar across the participatingcohort. The coding (see Table 2) wasconducted by two researchers. The firstresearcher was also the course modera-tor, and the second was initially notprivy to the study, thus ensuring thatany bias in data analysis was limited.

Initially, the process of data analysisand coding involved the two research-ers working independently. After anidentification theme was developed(utilizing five returned forms each), theresearchers then agreed on a set ofstandard codes that were then appliedto the outstanding forms. We subse-quently initiated a frequency count ofthe emergent themes (Table 2). Thefinal stage of the analysis involved a cal-culation of interrater reliability, whichwas conducted using PSAW 18. Fromthe test (see Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6), weobtained the intraclass correlation

Notes

Output Created 18-Aug-2010 13:15:52

Comments

Input Data C:\Documents and Settings\ bstqmc1\desktop\content analysis\transferable skills.sav

Active Dataset DataSet2Filter �none�Weight �none�Split File �none�Number of Rows in 161Working Data FileMatrix Input

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.

Syntax RELIABILITY/ VARIABLES�Mel Alex /SCALE(‘ALL VARIABLES’) ALL / MODEL � ALPHA /ICC � MODEL(MIXED) TYPE(CONSISTENCY)CIN � 95 TESTVAL � 0.

Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.016

Elapsed Time 00:00:00.046

Table 3: Reliability test for transferable skills.


coefficient (ICC) a values of 0.939 and0.906, respectively, for transferableskills and VLEs. As both values are veryclose to c (unity), we infer the indica-tion of the high reliability of the tworaters (see Breen, 2006).

Results and DiscussionsThe first major parameter consideredwas transferable skills, and based on thefrequency counts, we identified fourmajor themes: (1) pedagogy, (2) learning

resources, (3) interactive environments,and (4) outcomes. For the second majorparameter considered, VLEs, we identi-fied similar themes, although this alsoincluded an extra theme, (5) effect oftechnology. For the first parameter,transferable skills, under the theme pedagogy, we found that a substantialnumber of the students (16%) felt thatcurrent learning and teaching in termsof coursework, workload, and organiza-tion failed to meet their expectations.

Some students noted that “it stillremained unclear how learning projectmanagement directly related to theirability to gain transferable skills beyondclaims being made by both lecturers(academics) and course handbooks.”The challenge, as some of the respon-dents claimed, was to ensure thatlearning and teaching “come alive” byinfusing more interaction with “the realworld.” So far, it was being claimed inthe written comments section, “current

N %

Cases Valid 138 85.7

Excludeda 23 14.3

Total 161 100.0

a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Table 4: Transferable skills—All variables.

Case Processing Summary

95% Confidence Interval

Intraclass Lower UpperCorrelationa Bound Bound

Single Measures 0.886b 0.844 0.917

Average Measures 0.939c 0.915 0.957

Two-way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed.a Type C intraclass correlation coefficients using a consistency definition—the between-measure variance is excluded from the denominator variance.b The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not.cThis estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise.

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient

F-Test With True Value 0

Value df1 df2 Significance

Single Measures 16.509 137 137 0.000

Average Measures 16.509 137 137 0.000

Two-way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed.


Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items0.939 2

Reliability Statistics


AP

ER

S


organization, teaching, and assessmentof project management appears to havefailed to infuse a sense of reality” in thestudent experience. In terms of assess-ments, the majority of the studentsidentified that current assessmentstrategies were “abstract”; they, howev-er, noted that it was “difficult to see howcurrent assessment strategies fitted thedesire of the industry to emphasize the transformation of project managersto reflective practitioners.” For this rea-son, there was a demand for both “moregroup assignments related to real-lifeproject management” and “project-based case studies.” This could beachieved by “setting scenarios/dilemmas/real-life cases that we needto respond to.” In relation to learningand teaching delivery, the students sug-gested that “delivery should be morepractical” in order to ensure that they

were able to deal with the realities of theproject world.

For the second parameter, VLEs,there was a perception among some ofthe students that VLEs were relevantbecause “most [project] organizationsuse VLEs extensively today so beingcomfortable in using them is vital to ourfuture.” The students were mainly of theopinion that the use of VLEs (such as the Blackboard platform) may encour-age “us to apply theory,” and thusensure that they (i.e., VLEs) were notsimply limited to use as a simple docu-ment repository. VLEs were also seen asa tool that would “help internationalstudents” and “allow students to learn intheir own time and space.” Although itappeared, by the suggestion that “weneed more on-line resources” because“no-one uses Blackboard to its fulleffect,” that the use of VLEs in its current

form fell well below the students’ expec-tations, VLEs were seen as a means oforganizing more classes (seminars) in“real time.” The interesting point tohighlight is our findings that studentsrecognized not only the role of the VLEas a learning and teaching tool, but alsoits role in the wider pedagogical debateon transferable skills.

The primary objective of thisresearch was to explore the fundamentalreasons as to why project managementstudents emphasized two parameters,transferable skills and the provision ofVLEs, as critical to their learning, asreported in earlier studies (see Chipuluet al., 2011; Ojiako et al., 2010). The wayin which learning within project man-agement is conceptualized remainsambiguous (Haggis, 2006), especially inan environment where the need todevelop project management learningand teaching frameworks that areadaptable to change has become para-mount (Geist & Myers, 2007). Weobserve that critics of the current dis-pensation within project managementlearning and teaching (Berggren &Soderlund, 2008) appear to continue tofocus on the impact of normativeapproaches of the students’ experi-ences, rather than preparing for futurechallenges that the discipline is expect-ed to face. Scholars (Crawford et al.,2006; Thomas & Mengel, 2008) aretherefore suggesting that through the continued emphasis of the disci-pline on systematic methodologicaland theoretical applications and anappearance of some reluctance toengage students in the development ofthe learning and teaching agenda, it islikely that current imperatives will continue to produce project manage-ment practitioners who are unable todeal with the realities of a complex anddynamic environment. More recently,as a follow-up to these views, scholars(i.e., Berggren & Soderlund, 2008;Thomas & Mengel, 2008) have called forproject management education to bealigned to the realities of the industry andthe experiences of project practitioners

Notes

Output Created 18-Aug-2010 13:16:32

Comments

Input Data C:\Documents and Settings\bstqmc1\Desktop\ContentAnalysis\elearning.sav

Active Dataset DataSet1Filter �none�Weight �none�Split File �none�N of Rows in Working 174Data FileMatrix Input

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.

Syntax RELIABILITY/ VARIABLES�Mel Alex /SCALE(‘ALL VARIABLES’) ALL / MODEL � ALPHA /ICC � MODEL(MIXED) TYPE(CONSISTENCY)CIN � 95 TESTVAL � 0.

Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.016

Elapsed Time 00:00:00.046

Table 5: Reliability test for VLEs.

who work within the real-world projectenvironment. Such calls mean thatlearning and teaching within projectmanagement should focus on develop-ing intuitive (Leybourne & Sadler-Smith, 2006) and tacit knowledge,rather than more formal explicit knowl-edge (Hartman, 2008). Managers withhighly developed tacit knowledge areexpected to be reflective and critical.According to Cunliffe (2002), such man-agers are possibly more disposed to

developing comprehensive (and some-times subjective) solutions to problemsthat bridge the gap between theory andpractice. Other approaches that may beconsidered as a means of enhancingproject management learning andteaching with a view to addressing itsrelevance to practice may include:1. Ensuring that lecturers (academics)

endeavor to explain in detail the rela-tionships between project manage-ment concepts and practice;

2. Encouraging individual subjectivityby emphasizing the need to incorpo-rate context during student assess-ments; and

3. Driving relevance and connected-ness to project management practiceby increasing the use of guest lectur-ers from industry.

ConclusionThe need for this study was justified fol-lowing contextual limitations identified

N %

Cases Valid 174 100.0

Excludeda 0 0.0

Total 174 100.0

a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Table 6: VLEs—All variables.

Case Processing Summary

95% Confidence Interval

Intraclass Lower UpperCorrelationa Bound Bound

Single Measures 0.829b 0.776 0.870

Average Measures 0.906c 0.874 0.931

Two-way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed.a Type C intraclass correlation coefficients using a consistency definition—the between-measure variance isexcluded from the denominator variance.b The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not.c This estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise.


Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items0.906 2

F-Test With True Value 0

Value df1 df2 Significance

Single Measures 10.681 173 173 0.000

Average Measures 10.681 173 173 0.000

Two-way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed.


Reliability Statistics



AP

ER

S

within earlier studies conducted thatexamined learning and teaching withinthe domain of project management. Toensure relevance and to establish a his-torical link to earlier studies, we con-ducted this study using a similar cohortof students to those previously identifiedby Ojiako et al. (2010) and Chipulu et al.(2011). To ensure contextual relevance,we chose to adopt a qualitative researchmethod (focus groups) to gather data. Asignificant advantage of the focus-groupapproach lay in its emphasis on commu-nication between participants; in effect,the students as a significant stakeholdergroup in the learning and teachingimperative were given a “voice” in theresearch. In general, against both param-eters explored—transferable skills andVLEs—we found that the majority of thestudents felt that:• It was unclear how current approach-

es to learning project managementdelivered transferable skills desired bypotential employers.

• Claims being made by both lecturers(academics) and course handbookson the relationship between learningand teaching and the development oftransferable skills remained largelyunproven.

• VLE usage remained below expecta-tions. In light of a general view thatthe current generation of students istechno-savvy, this outcome was sur-prising.

• Current learning and teaching imper-atives (especially with respect tocoursework, assessments, and VLEusage) being used in project manage-ment lacked a sense of reality and,therefore, relevance.

The underlying reason for studentsplacing substantial emphasis on thedevelopment of transferable skills andthe provision of VLEs goes to the heartof the project management learningand teaching agenda. In some studies,for example, it is being argued that thetrue direction in which project man-agement pedagogy should turn is an as yet unspecified entity, thus raising

critical questions on how a viable learn-ing and teaching agenda can be devel-oped in a project (and, in effect, in abusiness world) that is, to a large extent,fluid (Saynisch, 2010; Sense, 2007). Oneposition that could be adopted withinthis argument is that projects (and, ineffect, the wider business environment)have always been fluid and chaotic.This being the case, then scholars in thefield of project management with aninterest in learning and teaching shouldbegin to focus the discipline on learn-ing about an environment that is fluidand dynamic. Another growing interestlies in the need for the discipline tobegin exploring the question of self-identity; in effect, the question of howproject managers not only understandthemselves as individuals, but also howthey perceive their roles. One possiblemeans of encouraging learning in suchdynamic environments may be toemphasize an approach to learning andteaching that is based on constantadjustment in knowledge (both tacitand explicit) development. The objec-tive in this case would be to enhancethe development of the project manag-er as an individual who is able to notonly function competently, but also asone who has the ability to deliver valuefor customers in a dynamic projectenvironment. Overall, our findings callfor further research in four major areas.First, effort should be made to ensurethat current approaches to learningproject management deliver thosetransferable skills desired by potentialemployers. Future research that focuseson ensuring that the desired reality isincorporated into the design of projectmanagement modules is most wel-come. Certainly, such research will ben-efit from the involvement of industrypractitioners. The challenge, however,for the project management professionremains how VLEs can be exploited toensure that students gain a sense of“reality.” As VLEs have a role to play inenhancing redesigned project manage-ment modules, especially in the area ofvisualization, research that focuses on

the enhancement of visualization functionality, especially as relates topedagogy, is desired. Examples of suchprojects are currently ongoing. Onesuch initiative in England is the VirtualNewcastle Gateshead project, which isa joint initiative among the Universityof Northumbria, Newcastle CityCouncil, and Gateshead Council. Inlight of the findings of this study, thefinal aspect of future research that maybe of benefit to the teaching and learn-ing of project management focuses onstudents’ learning preferences. Thisstudy acknowledges that although thenewer generation of students is morecomfortable with technology, the use ofVLEs in teaching and learning is notwidespread. Research has alreadydemonstrated that students have dif-ferent learning preferences. For thisreason, there is a continuing need forresearch that emphasizes/focuses onstudents’ learning preferences withinthe context of VLEs. �

ReferencesAlavi, M., & Gallupe, R. (2003). Usinginformation technology in learning:Case studies in business and manage-ment education programs. Academy ofManagement Learning and Education,2, 139–153.

Berggren, C., & Soderlund, C. (2008).Rethinking project management edu-cation: Social twists and knowledge co-production. International Journal ofProject Management, 26, 286–296.

Bowman, D., Hodges, L., Allison, D., &Wineman, J. (1999). The educationalvalue of an information-rich virtualenvironment. Presence, 8(3), 317–331.

Breen, R. (2006). A practical guide tofocus group research. Journal ofGeography in Higher Education, 30,463–475.

Brown, T., & Jenkins, M. (2003). VLEsurveys: A longitudinal perspectivebetween March 2001 and March 2003for Higher Education in the UnitedKingdom. Retrieved from http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/groups/tlig/vle/index_html


Campbell, M., Gibson, W., Hall, A.,Richards, D., & Callery, P. (2008).Online vs. face-to face discussion in aweb-based research methods coursefor postgraduate nursing students: Aquasi-experimental study.International Journal of NursingStudies, 45, 750–759.

Chipulu, M., Ojiako, U., Ashleigh, M.,& Maguire, S. (2011). An analysis ofinterrelationships between projectmanagement and student-experienceconstructs. Project Management Journal,42(3), 91–101. doi: 10.1002/pmj.20225

Confederation of British Industry.(1989). Towards a Shills revolution—Ayouth charter. Interim report of thevocational task force. London: Author.

Cooke-Davies, T., & Lechler, T. (2009).Project management systems: Movingproject management from an opera-tional to a strategic discipline. Project Management Journal, 40(1),110–123.

Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J., &Winter, M. (2006). Practitioner devel-opment: From trained technicians toreflective practitioners. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 24(8),722–733.

Crebert, G., Bates, M., Bell, B., Patrick,C., & Cragnolini, V. (2004). Developinggeneric skills at university, during workplacement and in employment:Graduates’ perceptions. HigherEducation Research & Development,23(2), 147–165.

Cryer, P. (1998). Transferable skills,marketability and lifelong learning:The particular case of postgraduateresearch students. Studies in HigherEducation, 23, 207–216.

Cunliffe, A. L. (2002). Reflexive dialogi-cal practice in management learning.Management Learning, 33(1), 35–61.

Dalcher, D. (2009). Managing complexprojects: A new model. ProjectManagement Journal, 40(3), 83.

de Graaf, E., & Kolmos, A. (2003).Characteristics of problem-basedlearning. International Journal ofEngineering Education, 19(5), 657–662.

Divjak, B., & Kukec, S. (2008). Teachingmethods for international R&D projectmanagement. International Journal ofProject Management, 26(3), 251–257.

Felder, M., & Brent, R. (2005).Understanding student difference.Journal of Engineering Education,94(1), 57–72.

Geist, D., & Myers, M. (2007). Pedagogyand project management: Should youpractice what you preach? Journal ofComputing Sciences in Colleges, 23,202–208.

Haggis, T. (2006). Pedagogies for diver-sity: Retaining critical challenge amidstfears of ‘dumbing down.’ Studies inHigher Education, 31(5), 521–535.

Hartman, F. (2008). Preparing the mindfor dynamic management.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 26(3), 258–267.

Hodges, D., & Burchell, N. (2003).Business graduate competencies:Employers’ views on importance andperformance. Asia-Pacific Journal ofCooperative Education, 4(2), 16–22.

Jamieson, A., Sabates, R., Woodley, A.,& Feinstein, L. (2009). The benefits ofhigher education study for part-timestudents. Studies in Higher Education,34(3), 245–262.

Jenkins, M., Browne, T., & Walker, R.(2005). VLE surveys: A longitudinal per-spective between March 2001, March2003 and March 2005 for higher educa-tion in the United Kingdom. Oxford,UK: UCISA.

Kemp, I., & Seagraves, L. (1995).Transferable skills—Can higher educa-tion deliver? Studies in HigherEducation, 20(3), 315–328.

Kim, J. (2005). The effects of a con-structivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1),7–19.

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodologyof focus groups: The importance ofinteractions between research partici-pants. Sociology of Health and Illness,6, 103–121.

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Education anddebate—Qualitative research:Introducing focus groups. BritishMedical Journal, 311, 299–302.

Kolltveit, B., Terje Karlsen, J., &Gronhaug, K. (2007). Perspectives onproject management. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 25(1),3–9.

Krueger, R. (2000). Focus groups: Apractical guide for applied research.London: Sage.

Lester, S., & Costley, C. (2010). Work-based learning at higher educationlevel: Value, practice and critique.Studies in Higher Education, 35(5),561–575.

Leybourne, S., & Sadler-Smith, E.(2006). The role of intuition andimprovisation in project management.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 24(6), 483–492.

Merton, R., Fisk, M., & Kendall, P.(1956). The focused interview: A reportof the bureau of applied social research.New York: Columbia University.

National Curriculum Council. (1990).The whole curriculum, curriculumguidance 3. London: NCC/SEAC.

O’Brien, K. (1993). Improving surveyquestionnaires through focus groups. InD. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focusgroups: Advancing the state of the art(pp. 105–118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ojiako, G. U., Ashleigh, M., Chipulu,M., & Maguire, S. (2010). Learning andteaching challenges in project manage-ment. International Journal of ProjectManagement. Advance online publica-tion. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.008

Pollack, J. (2007). The changing para-digms of project management.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 25(3), 266–274.

Powell, R., & Single, H. (1996).Methodology matters—V focus groups.International Journal of Quality inHealth Care, 18, 499–504.

Project Management Institute (PMI).(2000). A guide to the project management body of knowledge



AP

ER

S


(PMBOK ® guide). Newtown Square,PA: Author.

Ramsay, D., Boardman, J., & Cole, A.(1996). Reinforcing learning, using softsystemic frameworks. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 14(1),31–36.

Saynisch, M. (2010). Beyond frontiersof traditional project management: An approach to evolutionary, self-organizational principles and the com-plexity theory—Results of the researchprogram. Project Management Journal,41(2), 21–37.

Sense, A. (2007). Learning within proj-ect practice: Cognitive styles exposed.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 25(1), 33–40.

Smith, K., Johnson, D., Johnson, R., &Sheppard, S. (2005). Pedagogies ofengagement: Classroom-based prac-tices. Journal of EngineeringEducation, 94(1), 87–101.

Thomas, J., & Mengel, M. (2008).Preparing project managers to deal

with complexity—Advanced projectmanagement education. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 26(3),304–315.

van Raaij, E., & Schepers, J. (2008). Theacceptance and use of a virtual learningenvironment in China. Computers &Education, 50(3), 838–852.

Wearne, S. (2008). Stakeholders inexcellence in teaching and learning ofproject management. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 26(3),326–328.

Zhang, D., Zhao, J., Zhou, L., &Nunamaker, J. (2004). Can e-learningreplace classroom learning?Communications of the ACM, 47(5),75–79.

Udechukwu Ojiako is a lecturer in project man-agement at the University of Southampton,United Kingdom. He obtained his PhD in projectmanagement from the University ofNorthumbria, Newcastle, in 2005 as a BritishTelecom-sponsored research student.

Melanie Ashleigh is a senior lecturer in manage-ment at the University of Southampton, UnitedKingdom. She holds a BSc (Hon) and PhD(obtained in 2002), both from the University ofSouthampton.

Jaw-Kai Wang is currently completing his PhDin management in the School of Management atthe University of Southampton. His researchfocuses on what knowledge management activi-ties are influential to R&D teams. His particularinterest is in the role of social networks and theknowledge-transfer mechanism. Previously, hewas working in a technology R&D institute inTaiwan.

Max Chipulu is a lecturer in management scienceat the University of Southampton, UnitedKingdom. He started his career as a mechanicalengineer, working in the maintenance of under-ground copper mining equipment. He holds anMSc and PhD in management science and statis-tics from the University of Southampton. Hisresearch interests are in the area of combinatorialtechniques, probability, and predictive modeling.