Participative and Practical Goal-setting in Enterprise Systems Learning

References

• Ayyagari R. Hands-on ERP learning: using OpenERP®, an alternative to SAP®. J Inf Syst Educ. 2011;22:123–34.
   Google Scholar
• Corbitt G, Matthews HC. Bird’s eye view of UA in North America. University Alliances Program, SAP; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Becerra-Fernandez I, Murphy KE, Simon SJ. Enterprise resource planning: integrating ERP in the business school curriculum. Commun ACM. 2000;43(4):39–41. doi:10.1145/332051.332066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager J, Mensching J, Corbitt G, Connolly J. Market power of ERP education-an investigative analysis. J Inf Syst Educ. 2006;17:151–62.
   Google Scholar
• Winkelmann A, Leyh C. Teaching ERP systems: a multi-perspective view on the ERP system market. J Inf Syst Educ. 2010;21:233–40.
   Google Scholar
• Zadeh AH, Sengupta A, Schultz T. Enhancing ERP learning outcomes through microsoft dynamics. J Inf Syst Educ. 2020;31:83–95.
   Google Scholar
• Charland P, Léger PM, Cronan TP, Robert J. Developing and assessing ERP competencies: basic and complex knowledge. J Comput Inf Syst. 2016;56(1):31–39. doi:10.1080/08874417.2015.11645798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jewer J, Evermann J. Enhancing learning outcomes through experiential learning: using open-source systems to teach enterprise systems and business process management. J Inf Syst Educ. 2015;26:187–201.
   Google Scholar
• Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Urquhart C, Lehmann H, Myers MD. Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Inf Syst J. 2010;20(4):357–81. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00328.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urquhart C, Fernández W. Using grounded theory method in information systems: the researcher as a blank slate and other myths. In: Willcocks L, Sauer C, Lacity MC, editors. Enacting research methods in information systems: volume 1. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016. p. 129–56.
   Google Scholar
• Lewin K, Dembo T, Festinger L, Sears PS. Level of aspiration. In: Hunt J, editor. Personality and the behavior disorders. New York (NY): Ronald Press; 1944. p. 333–78.
   Google Scholar
• Latham GP, Locke EA. Self-regulation through goal setting. Organ Behav Human Decis Proc. 1991;50(2):212–47. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90021-K.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locke EA. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organ Behave Human Perfor. 1968;3(2):157–89. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(68)90004-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locke EA, Latham GP. A theory of goal setting & task performance. Hoboken (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Locke E, Latham G. Goal-setting theory. In: Miner J, editor. Organizational behavior 1. essential theories of motivation and leadership. New York (NY): Routledge; 1994. p. 159–83.
   Google Scholar
• Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am Psychol. 2002 Sep;57(9):705–17. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.9.705.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locke EA, Latham GP. New directions in goal-setting theory. Curr Directions Psychol Sci. 2006;15(5):265–68. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earley PC, Northcraft GB, Lee C, Lituchy TR. Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Acad Manage J. 1990;33(1):87–105. doi:10.5465/256353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erez A, Judge TA. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(6):1270–79. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindenberg S, Foss NJ. Managing joint production motivation: the role of goal framing and governance mechanisms. Acad Manage Rev. 2011;36(3):500–25. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shalley CE. Effects of coaction expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Acad Manage J. 1995;38(2):483–503. doi:10.5465/256689.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung JH, Schneider C, Valacich J. Enhancing the motivational affordance of information systems: the effects of real-time performance feedback and goal setting in group collaboration environments. Manage Sci. 2010;56(4):724–42. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1090.1129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loock CM, Staake T, Thiesse F. Motivating energy-efficient behavior with green IS: an investigation of goal setting and the role of defaults. MIS Q. 2013;37:1313–32. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.4.15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nah FF, Delgado S. Critical success factors for enterprise resource planning implementation and upgrade. J Comput Inf Syst. 2006;46(5):99–113. doi:10.1080/08874417.2006.11645928.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunk DH. Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol. 1990;25(1):71–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunk DH, Zimmerman BJ. Motivation and self-regulated learning: theory, research, and applications. New York (NY): Routledge; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman BJ, Bandura A, Martinez-Pons M. Self-motivation for academic attainment: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. Am Educ Res J. 1992;29(3):663–76. doi:10.3102/00028312029003663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beranič T, Heričko M. Introducing ERP concepts to IT students using an experiential learning approach with an emphasis on reflection. Sustainability. 2019;11(18):4992. doi:10.3390/su11184992.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruhi U. An experiential learning pedagogical framework for enterprise systems education in business schools. Int J Manage Educ. 2016;14(2):198–211. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2016.04.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angolia MG, Pagliari LR. Experiential learning for logistics and supply chain management using an SAP ERP software simulation. Decis Sci J Innov Educ. 2018;16(2):104–25. doi:10.1111/dsji.12146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox S. Following the action in action learning: towards ethnomethodological studies of (critical) action learning. Action Learn Res Pract. 2009;6(1):5–16. doi:10.1080/14767330902731251.
   Google Scholar
• Yeo RK, Marquardt MJ. (Re) interpreting action, learning, and experience: integrating action learning and experiential learning for HRD. Hum Rese Dev Q. 2015;26(1):81–107. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marquardt MJ, Banks S, Cauwelier P, Ng CS. Optimizing the power of action learning: real-time strategies for developing leaders, building teams and transforming organizations. Boston (MA): Nicholas Brealey; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River (NJ): FT Press; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Kayes DC. Experiential learning and its critics: preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Acad Manage Learn Educ. 2002;1(2):137–49. doi:10.5465/amle.2002.8509336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolb AY, Kolb DA. Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad Manage Learn Educ. 2005;4(2):193–212. doi:10.5465/amle.2005.17268566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds M, Vince R. Critical management education and action-based learning: synergies and contradictions. Acad Manage Learn & Educ. 2004;3(4):442–56. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2004.15112552.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev. 1989;14(4):532–50. doi:10.2307/258557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin RK. Case study research and applications: design and methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York (NY): Routledge; 1967.
   Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ. CASE tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Q. 1993:309–40. doi:10.2307/249774.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brinkmann S. Unstructured and semi-structured interviewing. In: Leavy P, editor. The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 277–99.
   Google Scholar
• Mok HN. Teaching tip: the flipped classroom. J Inf Syst Educ. 2014;25:7–11.
   Google Scholar
• Kuh GD. The other curriculum: out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. J Higher Educ. 1995;66(2):123–55. doi:10.2307/2943909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards A, Edwards C. Computer-mediated word-of-mouth communication: the influence of mixed reviews on student perceptions of instructors and courses. Commun Educ. 2013;62(4):412–24. doi:10.1080/03634523.2013.800217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nance WD. Improving information systems students’ teamwork and project management capabilities: experiences from an innovative classroom. IT Manage. 2000;1(4):293–306. doi:10.1023/A:1019137428045.
   Google Scholar
• Kruck SE, Teer FP. Interdisciplinary student teams projects: a case study. J Inf Syst Educ. 2009;20:325–30.
   Google Scholar
• Woodside JM, Augustine FK, Chambers V, Mendoza M. Integrative learning and interdisciplinary information systems curriculum development in accounting analytics. J Inf Syst Educ. 2020;31:147–56.
   Google Scholar
• Rawlings P, White P, Stephens R. Practice-based learning in information systems: the advantages for students. J Inf Syst Educ. 2005;16:455–64.
   Google Scholar
• Lee AS, Baskerville RL. Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Inf Syst Res. 2003;14(3):221–43. doi:10.1287/isre.14.3.221.16560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landry JP, Saulnier BM, Wagner TA, Longenecker HE. Why is the learner-centered paradigm so profoundly important for information systems education? J Inf Syst Educ. 2008;19:175–80.
   Google Scholar
• Saulnier BM, Landry JP, Longenecker JHE, Wagner TA. From teaching to learning: learner-centered teaching and assessment in information systems education. J Inf Syst Educ. 2008;19:169–74.
   Google Scholar