Mar 31, 2010 ... fundamental objective of the ACBSP Annual Edition is to provide a venue for
ACBSP members .... with respect to physical distance between.
Annual Edition Recognizing Excellence in Business Education Volume I
Annette E. Craven, Ph.D., Editor
Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs Bringing Together Those Dedicated to Teaching Excellence
June 1, 2010 Dear ACBSP Members: The inaugural publication of the ACBSP Annual Edition: Recognizing Excellence in Business Education represents ACBSP’s commitment to support the scholarly efforts of its members. The fundamental objective of the ACBSP Annual Edition is to provide a venue for ACBSP members to present their research and findings, engage in scholarly research and inquiry, and support and improve classroom teaching. The topics covered in the 2010 Annual Edition range from Pedagogical Process for Teaching Quantitative Methods to Harnessing Students' Perceptions of Effective Teachers in the UAE to Promote More Effective Learning. These 13 articles represent research from India, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States of America. This publication would not have been possible without: 1) The support of the ACBSP Board of Directors who created and gave direction to the Committee for Scholar-Practitioner Publication. 2) The authors who desired to engage in and share their research and inquiries with the ACBSP community. 3) The members of the Editorial Review Board who found the time to provide professional and courteous feedback to the authors. 4) The Editor for her tireless efforts to work under time constraints, ensure the integrity of a blind, peer-reviewed publication, and to meet the deadline for publishing the 2010 Annual Review. The Committee for Scholar-Practitioner Publications wants to thank you, the reader, for investing the time and effort to read the 2010 Annual Edition to enhance your awareness of the diversity of factors that inhibits or promotes student learning in the classroom. We also invite you to submit your scholarly research and activities for publication in the 2011 Annual Edition.
Patricia Read-Hunter
Barbara B. Murray
Bill Godair
Marty Ludlum
Patricia Read-Hunter, PhD
Bill W. Godair, PhD
Barbara B. Murray, Ed.D.
Marty Ludlum, JD, MA
ANNUAL EDITION, Volume I, ISBN 00-2151-6022 Disclaimer: Neither the Editor nor the Reviewers provided any corrections to authors' final content. Authors were responsible for choosing an acceptable publication style and applying it consistently throughout their articles. Authors were also responsible for providing correct, working URLs and website links within articles, footnotes, endnotes, and references. Articles were formatted with a consistent typeface and heading style, preserving graphics to the extent possible.
EDITOR Annette E. Craven, Ph.D., President-Elect, ACBSP & Professor, Management, University of the Incarnate Word
BOARD OF REVIEWERS Wayne L. Brock, DM, Director of Academic Affairs, University of Phoenix Timothy M. Cunha, JD, Assistant Professor, Business Law & Management, Eastern New Mexico University College Nancy A. Floyd, PhD, Associate Professor of Information Systems, North Carolina Wesleyan College Deborah D. Gaspard, MBA, Instructor, Business Division, Southeast Community College Dave Hinkes, DBA, Chair, Assistant Professor, Management/Marketing, Lincoln Memorial University Rami Khasawneh, PhD, Dean & Professor, College of Business, Lewis University William Laing, PhD, Assistant Professor, Management, Anderson University Nicole L. Cornell Sadowski, PhD, Coordinator-Economics & Finance Majors, York College of Pennsylvania Brian Satterlee, PhD, Professor, Business & Education, Liberty University Lynda Wilson, PhD, Professor, University of Phoenix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
An Examination of Students' Learning Performance in Traditional versus On-Line Courses Using Bloom's Taxonomy, Haseeb Jamee Ahmed, N. V. Desai & Perumal Thirumurthy
Page 1
Eruditio ex Lawyers: A New Path towards Trust and Excellence in Business Education, Randy M. Ataide
14
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Rewarding, Reinforcing, and Improving, Diane Bandow & Barbara D. Minsky
33
An Innovative Three-Year Degree in Business Administration: A Decade of Success, Martin J. Bradley & Steven R. Painchaud
48
Twitter in the MBA Classroom: A Recipe for Success, Pat LeMay Burr & Annette E. Craven
68
The Changing Landscape of Higher Education in Kuwait, Mourad Dakhli, Jeremy Cripps & Athmar Al-Salem
75
Harnessing Students' Perceptions of Effective Teachers in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Promote More Effective Learning, Georgia Daleure
83
Motivational trend of Female MBA students in India: An empirical analysis, P. K. Das & Sujata Mangaraj
91
Instructional Methodology for Management Education: Andragogy or Pedagogy, Saroj K. Datta & Vinita Kaura
109
Pedagogical Process for Teaching Quantitative Methods in Management, Maja Fošner & Martin Lipičnik
117
Assessing the Evidence of Defensible Learning Outcomes by Attribute Control Charts, Hamid Khan
129
Translating Real Business Needs into an MBA Curriculum, Katrin Muff
150
Cultural Diversity and Perceptions of Performance Among MBA Students, Debbie Narver & Bonita Russell
187
the technique of regression analysis and concluded that the contribution of Cumulative GPA to the total test scores was negative and statistically nonsignificant. The contribution of mode of delivery predictor was negative and statistically significant. The impact of interaction effect between Cumulative GPA and mode of delivery on total test scores was statistically significant and positive. The R2 was 31% and adjusted R2 was 24% for our model. The out of sample performance measured through both Akaike Information Criterion (AIC = 0.635473) and Schwarz Information Criterion (SIC=0.815045) established that the model used in this study is robust in predicting out of sample performance. Independent t test was used to compare difference in means of each cognitive skill in the traditional class and online class. The difference in the means of each of the above-mentioned categories was statistically significant at the 5% level of significance. In each category of the three Bloom‟s cognitive skills used in this study, the students in traditional delivery format outperformed their on- line format counterparts.
An Examination of Students’ Learning Performance in Traditional versus OnLine Courses Using Bloom’s Taxonomy Dr. Haseeb Jamee Ahmed, Associate Professor of Banking and Finance Dr. N. V. Desai, CPA, Associate Professor of Economics Professor Perumal Thirumurthy Johnson C. Smith University, Charlotte, North Carolina Abstract: The proliferation of online course is made possible with the integration of internet technology with distance education. However, is the online delivery mode as effective as traditional mode of course delivery? Many researchers have examined the impact of the form of course delivery on overall student learning. This study differs from many of the prior studies due to its focus on measuring relative student learning performance as measured through Bloom‟s Taxonomy between traditional and on-line course delivery mechanism. The three categories (Knowledge, Comprehension, & Application) out of the six categories of Bloom‟s Taxonomy were tested for the principles of macroeconomics classes. The test instrument had thirty-three items containing fifteen in knowledge, eleven in application, and the remaining seven from in the understanding category. Our sample sizes were twenty-two and twelve for traditional and online classes, respectively. On the basis of student performance in a single course that has been offered in both formats in a small liberal arts university in southeastern United States, the authors concluded that student learning outcomes are superior for the traditional brick-andmortar classroom setting compared to the online environment. The study applied
Introduction: Universities and Colleges impart education through three modes of instruction: the Traditional, Online and Hybrid mode. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 933,000 students were enrolled in distance education courses in 2,660 private and public 4-year colleges in 1997-98. This enrollment rocketed to 1,534,000 in 200001 in 2,420 similar institutions; an increase of 64% in enrollment when the number of institutions have declined by 9%. In 2006-07, there were approximately 11,200 college level programs that were designed to be completed totally through distance education; 66 percent of these programs
1
June 1, 2010
were reported as degree programs and remaining 34 percent were reported as certificate programs. (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, (2008)).
classroom contact time is offset by computer-based communication (Terry, 2007).
Online Mode: Online learning provides both asynchronous and synchronous communication. Learning is non-linear in a hyper textual pattern. It is independent of time and has an open environment. Online learning is usually very structured with a sensory of vastness that generates reality and fosters growth/change (Desai, Hart, & Richards, 2008). The online mode of instruction replaces the walls of the class room with a network of computer communication. Online instruction provides flexibility for students in that it reduces the often substantial transaction and opportunity costs associated with traditional campus offerings (Terry, 2007).
The effectiveness of course delivery modes can be measured in terms of student learning outcomes, student attitudes towards learning, student active engagement in learning process, and student satisfaction with learning. The current emphasis on greater accountability in higher education with demonstrated evidence of continuous quality improvement dictates collection of evidentiary assessment data on all four dimensions of teaching effectiveness. Although the courses may be delivered in any of the three modes described above, the effectiveness these three modes of delivery may not be the same. This study on comparative effectiveness of online instruction with respect to traditional faceto-face instruction exclusively focuses on student learning outcomes based on Bloom‟s cognitive learning skills. The taxonomy of educational objectives is a framework for classifying statements of what we expect or intend students to learn as a result of instruction and Bloom‟s taxonomy provides a hierarchy of six increasingly complex cognitive learning skills. After all, the development of mental faculties to learn at six Bloom‟s Taxonomy prescribed hierarchy levels is at the core of academic curricula. The remaining three dimensions of effectiveness are important to the extent that they contribute to the end objective of ensuring that intended learning goals are achieved. The use of technology in learning is not an end by itself, but a means to an end.
Hybrid Mode: The hybrid mode is a potential solution that combines the positive from both modes. Reduced
The purpose of this study is to evaluate effectiveness of online line learning compared to that of traditional learning
Three Modes of Instruction Traditional Mode: Traditional learning provides synchronous communication. Learning is usually linear in a sequential pattern. It is structured by time and the environment is closed. Traditional learning is taught from bound textbooks and tends to filter reality and fosters sameness/stability (Desai, Hart, & Richards, 2008). Traditional mode is characterized by students or faculty interaction via lectures, discussions, and exams on campus at scheduled times and days. People often perceive the personal interaction between students and faculty associated with campus courses as a characteristic that facilitate high-quality learning (Terry, 2007).
2
June 1, 2010
environment on the basis of Bloom‟s Taxonomy. The two delivery modes differ with respect to physical distance between students and faculty, physical separation between student peers, scope of direct instantaneous response, level and quality of faculty-student interaction, and restrictions over assessment. Therefore, this study contributes to the literature in directly comparing three specific cognitive skills of student learning outcomes (knowledge, comprehension, & application) as delineated by the Bloom‟s taxonomy under traditional and e-learning environments
constant. The study revealed that the level of investment in faculty time and interaction is same for equal quality online and traditional courses, but the size of the online courses must be kept limited to a small level in order to satisfy the equal academic standard requirement. The smaller sized online courses suffer from economic disadvantage on a unit cost basis when compared with similar quality larger size traditional courses. Given that most of the costs are instructional costs such as expert faculty compensation, the average unit costs is significantly lower for the traditional bricks-and-mortar courses. Size limitation imposed by equivalent quality standards for online courses prohibits it in taking advantage of any economy of scale. According to the authors, the creativity and innovation in pedagogical techniques such as e-learning should not be allowed to compromise academic value and depreciate the scholarly process.
Literature Review: Distance education is not a new phenomenon; what‟s new is the phenomenal growth of online line course delivery method that has been made possible due to the integration of connectivity of internet technology with distance learning. The mere physical separation of online students from their peers and the faculty leads to a self-study mode of learning that is criticized to be devoid of high level of cognitive interactivity through extensive dialogue and meaningful deliberation to the extent that is available under a traditional mode of course delivery. Obviously, the time flexibility and place independence characteristics of online delivery mode have pushed the envelope thereby creating new opportunities and acute challenges alike. Smith & Mitry (2008) has provided a comparative cost effectiveness of online courses relative to traditional in-class courses using both economic theory and experimental data. The study noted no statistically significant differences in academic learning outcomes between online and traditional courses when the academic quality as measured through curricular rigor, faculty-student interaction intensity, and faculty credential are hold
Prior researchers reached mixed results in comparing traditional mode to online mode of instruction. The results were all over the map: no performance difference between traditional and online modes, online learning better than traditional learning and traditional learning better than online learning. No Performance Difference between Traditional and Online Modes: Schulman and Sims (1999) concluded that the learning of online students is equal to the learning of in-class students. In Schulman and Sims‟ study, they compared the performance of students who were enrolled in five different undergraduate online courses with that of students who were enrolled in traditional in-class courses that were taught by the same instructors.
3
June 1, 2010
The results of Rivera and Rice (2002), Noyes and Garland (2003), and Warren and Holloman (2005) have also revealed that there are no significant differences in the students‟ outcome between a face-toface class and an online class (Anakwe, 2008).
difference in the mean test scores for the students in the midterm examination, but there were significant differences for the final examination and the research paper (Anakwe, 2008). Bryan et al. (2003) concluded that traditional mode is marginally better than online mode for group projects.
Six recent studies (Friday, Friday-Stroud, Green & Hill, 2006; Jones, Moeeni, & Ruby, 2005; Piccoli, Ahmed; & Ives, 2001; Priluck, 2004; Scheines, Leinhardt, Smith &Cho, 2005; Smeaton & Keogh, 1999) reported that there was no student performance difference between WB (Web Based) and TC (Traditional Courses) (Lam, 2009),
Impact of Technology on Learning: Introduction of technology in classroom instruction has been credited to create a learner-centered environment that fosters relevance and excitement. However, the effectiveness of the deployment of technological tools in enhancing student learning is an empirical question that is addressed by a limited number of studies. These studies have provided empirical support in linking application of technology with superior student learning outcomes, although the established positive association of technology use in enhancing student learning is confounded by the congruence of learning styles with the use of technology, attitude towards acceptance of technology, familiarity with technology, and other demographic and behavioral characteristics. Krentler & Willis-Flurry (2005) directly tested the degree of learning enhancement through technology application in six sections of Principles of Marketing class in a southwestern university. The technology use was measured by „meaningful” (measured in terms of a minimum of five sentences of coherent theoretical inputs) student virtual engagement on online threaded discussion boards while the student learning was measured thorough course grade. The 20 months long study also investigated the potential moderating impact of students‟ major, classification, Internet usage and length of course term on the relationship between the use of technology and actual student learning.
Online Learning Better than Traditional Learning: Schulte (1998) discovered that online students scored significantly better than traditional classroom students on exams in a social statistics course (Anakwe, 2008). There are studies showing that students in WB (Web Based) courses achieved better performance than in TC (Traditional Courses). (Bryan, Campbell, & Kerr, 2003; Chou & Liu, 2005; Lockyer, Patterson, & Harper, 2001). Lockyer et al. found that WB (Web Based) students generated higher quality discussion by providing in-depth content and references, whereas TC (Traditional Courses) students generated a higher quantity of discussion (Lam, 2009). Traditional Learning Better than Online Learning: Brown and Liedholm (2002) found that traditional students perform significantly better on exams than do online students in a microeconomics course. Grandzol et al. found that the students‟ performance was lower in some dimensions of learning. The t tests suggest that there were no significant
4
June 1, 2010
Although the authors found statistically significant interacting effects that are limited to students‟ major field of study and Internet usage, the moderating affects of individual characteristics minimizes with the high levels of technological utilization.
taxonomies were developed, the cognitive taxonomy has received the most attention, because it is often seen as the major focus of secondary and post-secondary education (Chyung and Stepich, 2003). Under the cognitive domain, Bloom et al. (1956) identified six different levels of objectives and organized them on the basis of hierarchy (Baker, 2003). The six categories under the cognitive aspect are as follows: (a) Knowledge: which focuses on memorization, recognition, and recall of information; (b) Comprehension: which focuses on organization of ideas, interpretation of information, and translation; (c) Application: which focuses on problem solving, use of particulars, and principles; (d) Analysis: which focuses on finding the underlying organization, and the division of whole into components; (e) Synthesis: which focuses on combination of ideas to form something new, creating something unique whether verbal or physical; and (f) Evaluation: which is the highest level in the taxonomy and focuses on making judgments about issues, resolving disparities or disagreements (Halawi, Pires, and McCarthy, 2009).
Robinson & Hullinger (2008) investigated the quality of online education in three universities in terms of student engagement as measured through academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, and educational enrichment experiences. The time and location independence and flexibility characteristics of online delivery mode makes it a unique candidate to provide a stimulating, provocative, and real-time learning experience for the students. The authors assessed these learning enrichment potential of online education through established key measures of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) instrument. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain: While three categories of
Table 1: Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain (Castle, 2008) Knowledge: Remembering Information Comprehension: Understanding of Information Application: Using of Information in particular and concrete situations Analysis: Breaking down information into component parts Synthesis: Using information and skills to produce new or original work Evaluation: Judging the value of information based on evidence and personal opinion Similar to this study, Halawi, McCarthy, & Pires (2009) evaluated e-learning using WebCT on the basis of Bloom‟s Taxonomy. Using iterative approach to factor analysis, the authors tested a conceptual model of e-learning outcomes that is a function of individual factors
(such as age, gender, educational level, familiarity, study time, computer knowledge, motivation and learning styles) and instructional factors (such as effectiveness of tools, interaction with faculty and ease of use of technology). Although the study failed to establish any
5
June 1, 2010
statistically significant relationships between individual/instructional factors and e-learning, it has successfully applied Bloom‟s Taxonomy as an empirical measure in evaluating e-learning effectiveness. On a similar note, Bissell & Lemons (2006) applied Bloom‟s Taxonomy of educational objectives in evaluating critical thinking skills in an introductory biology course.
course delivery on overall student learning and they have concluded that “No matter how course is produced, how it is delivered, whether or not it is interactive, low tech, or high tech, students learn equally well with each technology and learn as well as their on campus face to face counterparts” (Russell, 1999). However, many of these prior studies are wrought with methodological deficiencies. Howsen and Lile (2008) has specified the following five of methodological limitations: (1) examination was generated by the teacher on record; (2) different examinations were given to traditional versus on-line classes; (3) students were emailed or faxed the exam; (4) problems, assignments and notes varied between on line versus traditional class; and (5) teachers‟ experience varied with respect to traditional versus on line classes.
Methodology Statement of the Problem: This research investigates the effects of student characteristics, such as, GPA, and delivery modes, Traditional and On-Line, on the overall performance of the students as measured through the final exam score in a single course taught by the same full-time faculty. The predicator variables and dependent variable are fully described below. The significance of the study is to understand the performance difference of the students based on GPA and delivery modes using the first three cognitive domain of Bloom‟s Taxonomy: Knowledge, Comprehension and Application.
This study differs from many of these prior studies due to its focus on measuring relative student learning performance as measured through Bloom‟s Taxonomy between traditional and on-line course delivery mechanism. Preparation of Instrumentation: Attempts were made to address the methodological deficiencies cited above, but all deficiencies could not be corrected. The instructor on record wanted to use the result of the test to be part of the final grade so questions from the publisher provided test bank were selected and administered by him. This process imposed a limitation. Therefore, only three categories out of the six categories of Bloom‟s Taxonomy were tested. The test instrument had a total of thirty three items containing fifteen in knowledge, eleven in application, and the remaining seven from in the comprehension category.
Objective of the Paper: The objective of this paper is to compare the relative student learning performance in on-line course delivery method relative to the traditional face-to-face traditional delivery method. The student learning outcomes in cognitive domain are measured in terms of three of the six categories of original Bloom‟s taxonomy, namely, Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Krathwohl, 2002). The primary research question that is examined in this study is: Does the delivery mechanism matter in producing better cognitive skills? Many studies have examined the impact of form of
6
June 1, 2010
Description of the Sample: Most of the students taking the first course in economics (Principles of Macroeconomics) are business majors. There are some social science, education, music business, and information systems majors as well. All the students are African Americans. Most of them are sophomore with few juniors. There are more females in the class than males. This is a required course for the business administration as well as non business administration majors mentioned above.
Same questions were administered in two sections of traditional classroom of forty and fifteen students, respectively, and in the on-line class with twenty-eight students. Students in the online course were informed via email that they are required to take the test during the specified time. To be consistent, the duration of the test remained constant for both the traditional sections and the online class. For the online class, the test was closed automatically at the end of the duration of the test. To overcome the varied teacher‟s experience deficiency cited above, the tests were administered in both the traditional class and online class taught by the same faculty. This particular teaching faculty has twenty-five years of traditional classroom experience compared to five years on-line teaching experience.
Our sample sizes were twenty two and twelve for traditional and online classes respectively. The reduction in the sample sizes could be attributable to two reasons: (1) non availability of cumulative GPA of non business majors, and (2) failure of many students to take the examination on a timely fashion.
The students were informed that the result of this test will be made available to other departmental faculty for the research purposes. The students were assured that their names, test scores and any other information collected would be kept confidential and those who had any objection were allowed to take the test but the pertinent information was withheld.
Self Selection Bias: It is presumed that students have self selection bias towards taking online classes because of the work schedule conflict, lack of reliable transportation, travel time, parking hassle and parking cost on the campus. It is also believed that if students have familiarity with the use of computer technology and if their friends have positive experience on web-based classes, then students would be comfortable to enroll in on-line courses. However, these conditions are not applicable to Johnson C. Smith University student population because most of them stay on campus and few of the students are employed outside the University. Also, the number of online courses offered is limited. Therefore, the self selection bias towards online courses is not prevalent on the campus of Johnson C. Smith University.
As the researchers could not assign treatment randomly they opted to use control variables to the experimental units. This requirement warranted collection of cumulative GPA and demographic information for the each experimental unit. The Cumulative GPA for each student was obtained from the Department of Business Administration and Economics. GPA was substituted in the place of SAT since GPA and SAT are highly correlated. GPA of the student is used as a proxy for all socioeconomic variables like parental education, income and number of children in the family.
7
June 1, 2010
Based on these facts, the researchers concluded that they will not have specification error of omitted variable situation which leads to the inconsistent β estimate. Therefore, Heckman‟s (1979) two-step estimation procedure or full information maximum likelihood estimation procedure will not be applicable in this situation.
The study examines the null hypothesis that the impact of all the three independent variables is zero on the overall performance score in the test. Ho: βi = 0, H1: βi ≠ 0 where i =1, 2, or 3. α = 5% To compare the score on each category of Bloom‟s Taxonomy, independent t test is used.
Statistical Procedure: Many statistical approaches have been used in estimating impact of web based delivery versus traditional face-to-face delivery. The approaches used are ANOVA and ANCOVA. This study will instead use production function approach in determining the overall learning efficiency of the traditional class in comparison to that of on-line course following earlier studies of Coates et al (2004) and Brown and Liedholm (2002). However, this study has not used all the variables they have specified in their models because of the particular nature of the targeted population.
Results of Regression: Yi = 4.565 - .0249X1 - 1.826X2 + .516 X3 Se = (.264) (.268) (.681) (.231) t = (17.297) (-.929) (-2.683) ( 2. 237) R2 = 30.93% P = (.0000)(.3602) (.0118)(.0329) Adj R2 = 24.03 Durbin Watson Stat. = 1.988644 Schwartz Criterion = .815045 Akaike Info Criterion = .635473 Overall Examination of regression: Since we have more than one predictors, we asked the global question:
The following regression equation will be estimated from the collected data by using ordinary least squares.
H0: β1= β2 =β3= 0 H1: at least one β≠0 and we found that probability ( F statistic) was 0.010296.
Y = f (X1, X2, X3) …equation (1) The form of estimation would be: Yi = α + β1X1 + β2X2 +β3 X3 + ε …Equation (2)
So the null hypothesis is rejected at 5% level of significance with (3,30), df. Since at least one of the slopes has to be statistically significant, it needs to be investigated.
Where: Yi = Overall Student Performance Score X1 = Cumulative GPA X2 =0 for traditional class and X2 = 1 for online class X3 = Interaction between GPA and mode of delivering the course materials (traditional VS online) ε = error term
Examination of Individual Slopes: As the preceding regression shows, the partial regression of coefficient of X1 is minus 0.0249 which means, holding all other variables constant the average total score of the student goes down with every unit of increase in cumulative GPA. This
8
June 1, 2010
result is contrary to the assumption that the increase in cumulative GPA should account for increase in student‟s performance in the test and this variable is statistically not significant. This means that the cumulative GPA does not contribute to the student‟s performance in economics test after allowing for other predictors. Quantitative reasoning and abstract nature of Economics are two possible reasons that could be attributed for this performance. Also, the skill set acquired during their first year of college may not be adequate.
(AIC) and Schwarz information criterion(SIC) were calculated. These values are: AIC = 0.635473 and SIC = 0.815045. These criteria show that our model can fairly predict out of sample performance. This model also examines the possibility of autocorrelation and calculated Durbin Watson d statistic. The value of d statistic was 1.988644 which implies there is no autocorrelation in this model. Comparison of Means and variances of cognitive skills between traditional class and online class: The student‟s test performance in each of the cognitive skills with respect to traditional course versus online course were compared. The test statistic used is independent „t‟ test. But in order to use t test it is necessary to test for the equality of variances. Levene’s test for equality of variances produced the following results.
The predictor mode of course delivery was -1.826 which was statically significant at 5% level with 30 df. The reason for this result is that online courses demand self discipline and an ability to understand course materials without much help. Many sophomore students have not acquired the self discipline and motivation. The interaction effect between cum GPA and delivery mechanism was statistically significant at α = 0.05 with 30 degrees of freedom. This predictor positively contributes to the test performance.
Ho: σ2j = σ2k H1: σ2j ≠ σ2k Where: σ2j = Variance of Scores of experimental group in each cognitive skill σ2k = Variance of Scores of control group in each cognitive skill α = .05
The R2 was 31% and adjusted R2 was 24% for our model. The in sample performance of the model can be judged by R2. To address the out of sample performance Akaike information criterion
Table 2: Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances Equality of Variances Variables Assumed F Knowledge Yes 4.012 Understanding Yes 1.595 Application No 6.767 Total Score No 5.267 * = Implies that the hypothesis is rejected at α = .05 level of significance
9
Sig. .054 .216 .014* .028**
June 1, 2010
Independent ‘t’ test: Ho: µj = µk H1: µj ≠ µk α = .05
Where j = 1,2, 3, 4,, k = 1, 2, 3, 4. µj = Scores of experimental group in each skill µk = Scores of control group in each skill
Table 3: t tests: Differences in Bloom’s Taxonomy Scores in Traditional & Online classes Equal Online Class Traditional Class Variances Variables N = 12 N = 22 Assumed Mean SD Mean SD p-value Knowledge 69.33 18.03 85.77 14.03 .007* Yes Understanding 58.25 24.64 79.86 18.57 .007* Yes Application 45.50 29.92 63.91 18.03 .070* No Total Score 59.25 20.92 77.32 12.66 .015* No * = Implies that the hypothesis is rejected at α = .05 level of significance Conclusion: In conclusion, the traditional class has outperformed the online class in each of the three measured categories of Bloom‟s Taxonomy, namely, knowledge, comprehension & application, and the differences in means are statistically significant. This study is consistent with the findings of Brown and Liedholm (2002) and Grandzol, et al. which concluded that traditional students perform better than online students. The proponents of online delivery modes claim that the opportunity for active and collaborative student engagement is greater in e-learning environment, but such an advantage may be offset by lack of challenging academic rigor, consistency, and timely student-faculty interaction in such an environment. The findings of this study are based on comparative student performance in a single course (principles of macro economics) on a single south-eastern campus with homogeneous traditional college age student population that was taught by a single full-time faculty. The use of same faculty teaching both online
and traditional classes helped to minimize instructional quality differences, but the difference in the level and quality of student engagement remains. Also, student performance measure used in this study is limited to three levels of cognitive skills as categorized by the Bloom‟s Taxonomy. Knowledge and comprehension are the two base categories that do not require critical thinking skills and only the third category, application, used in this study requires higher-order thinking skill. The study could be expanded by enlarging the sample size from multiple campuses and use of demographic factors such as age and gender to test the model. Dr. Haseeb Jamee Ahmed is an Associate Professor of Banking and Finance who is currently serving as Chair of the Department of Business Administration & Economics and Sam Walton Faculty Fellow for Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) in addition to his responsibility as Chair of Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Johnson C. Smith University in
10
June 1, 2010
Charlotte, North Carolina. He is the recipient of 2009 Association of Collegiate Business Schools & Programs (ACBSP) International Teaching Excellence Award and Regional Teaching Excellence Award. He serves as an ACBSP Evaluator and Mentor. Previously, he served as Scholarin-Residence at Duke University and New York University and he received various awards such as IBM, Prudential, and Nissan Fellowships. He has been involved with a number of grant activities in workforce development, community development, and social entrepreneurship.
Spain. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and North Carolina Association of Certified Public Accountants. Acknowledgement: We would like to acknowledge Dr. Sunday Ndoh, Professor of Economics, for allowing us to use his classes as research subjects. In addition, a faculty development Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) mini-grant funded the research initiative. References
Dr. N. V. Desai, CPA is an Associate Professor of economics at Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte, North Carolina. He has diversified experience in the industry as well as in academics. He has occupied positions such as head of the department of Business and economics and controller of the University. Dr. Desai was instrumental in guiding ACBSP accreditation for Johnson C Smith University‟s Business program. He has presented and published papers internationally and nationally. He was a Salzburg Fellow in Salzburg, Austria and was a Scholar in Residence at New York University.
Anakwe, B. (2008). Comparison of Students Performance in Paper-Based Versus Computer-Based Testing. Journal of Education for Business, 84, 13-17. Bissell, A., & Lemons, P. (2006) A New Method For Assessing Critical Thinking In The Classroom. BioScience, 56(1). Brown, B., & Liedholm C. (2002) Can Web Course Replace the Classroom in Principles of Microeconomics? American Economic Review, 92(2), May. Castle, A. (2003) Demonstrating Critical Evaluation Skills Using Bloom‟s Taxonomy. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 10(8).
Professor Perumal Thirumurthy joined the ranks of Johnson C. Smith University as a faculty member in January 1985. He won the outstanding business faculty award in December 1985 and also the outstanding faculty award in Social Science division from the Board of Visitors in 1991. He co-authored the award winning paper, “Measuring ecommerce satisfaction: Reward error and the emergence of Micro-Surveys”, presented in the 2006 International Association for the development of the Information Society (IADIS) in Barcelona,
Chyung and Stepich, (2003) Applying the “Congruence” Principles of Bloom‟s Taxonomy to designing Online Instruction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3). Desai, M., Hart, J. & Richards, T. (2008). E-Learning: Paradigm Shift in Education. Education, 129(2), 327-334. Friday, E. Friday-Stroud, S.S., Green, A.L., & Hill, A.Y. (2006). A Multi-
11
June 1, 2010
Journal of Industrial Ergonomice, 31, 411-423.
semester Comparison of Student Performance between multi-traditional and Online sections of two Management Courses. Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management. 8(1). 66-82.
Odhabi, Hamad (2007) Investigating the Impact of Laptops on Students‟ Learning Using Bloom‟s Taxonomy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6).
Greene, W. H. (200). Econometrics Analysis, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Popovich, C., & Neel, R. (2005) Characteristics of Distance Education Programs at Accredited Business Schools. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4).
Halawi, Leila, Pires, Sandra, & McCarthy, Richard (2009) An Evaluation of ELearning On The Basis of Bloom‟s Taxonomy: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Education for Business, July/August.
Rivera, J. & Rice, M. (2002). A Comparison of Student Outcomes and Satisfaction between traditional and web based course offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(3). Retrieved May 20, 2007, from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla /fall53/rivera53.html
Heckmen, J. (1979) Sample Selection Bias As A Specification Error. Econometrica. 47. Howsen, R., & Lile, S. (2008) A Comparison of Course Delivery Methods: An Exercise in Experimental Economics. Journal of Economics and Finance Education. 7(1).
Robinson, C., & Hullinger, H. (2008) New Benchmarks in Higher Education: Student Engagement in Online Learning. Journal of Education for Business, November/December.
Krathwohl, David R. (2002) A Revision of Bloom‟s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice. 41(4).
Russell, T. (1999) The No Significance Difference Phenomenon, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
Krentler, Kathleen, & Willis-Flurry, Laura (2005) Does Technology Enhance Actual Student Learning? The Case Of Online Discussion Boards. Journal of Education for Business, July/August.
Schulman, A. H., & Sims, R.L. (1999). Learning in an Online Format Versus an In-Class Format: An Experimental Study. Retrieved May 20,2007, from http://www.thejournal.com/the/printarticle /?id=14147
Lam, M. (2009). Effectiveness of WebBased Courses on Technical Learning. Journal of Education for Business, 85, 323-331.
Seung-Youn, C., & Stepich, D. (2003) Applying The “Congruence” Principle of Bloom‟s Taxonomy To Designing Online Instruction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3).
Noyes, J. & Garland K. (2003). VDT Versus Paper-Based Text: Reply to Mayes, Sims, and Koone. International
12
June 1, 2010
Smith, D. E., & Mitry, D. (2008) Investigation of Higher Education: The Real Costs and Quality of Online Programs. Journal of Education for Business, January/February.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006-07.
Terry, N. (2007). Assessing Instruction Modes for Master of Business Administration (MBA) Courses. Journal of Education for Business, 83, 220-225.
Warren, L. & Holloman H. Jr. (2005). Online Instruction: Are Outcomes the same? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32, 148-151.
Appendix I Dependent Variable: Total Score Method: Least Squares Included observations: 34 Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
Intercept GPA FACTOR INTERATION
4.565456 -0.249441 -1.826493 0.515866
0.263940 0.268432 0.680779 0.230585
17.29734 -0.929250 -2.682945 2.237202
0.0000 0.3602 0.0118 0.0329
R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood Durbin-Watson stat
0.309380 0.240318 0.314658 2.970298 -6.803039 1.988644
Mean dependent var S.D. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion F-statistic Prob (F-statistic)
13
4.212521 0.361014 0.635473 0.815045 4.479745 0.010296
June 1, 2010
and if the SoB has the capacity, willingness or ability to reform. An example of this criticism is the charge from Joel M. Podolny, the former Dean of the Yale School of Management and present Dean of Apple University who asserts ―Business schools provide students with many technical skills, but they appear to do little, or nothing, to foster responsibility and accountability. Society implicitly trusted MBA‘s to do no harm when it allowed financial markets to operate in a relatively unregulated fashion—but its faith has been betrayed. As a result, there‘s an active distrust of business schools and their graduates‖ (Podolny, 2009, 7).
Eruditio ex Lawyers: A New Path towards Trust and Excellence in Business Education Randy M. Ataide, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Director of the Fermanian Business Center, Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, California Abstract: This paper will examine the allegation that Schools of Business ―drifted‖ into the 2008 global economic crisis through a lack of leadership and reform that culminated in a widespread perception of a breach of trust by the public. It will propose that business schools should consider a philosophical reorientation to embrace elements of what is known as ―the citizenship model.‖ Schools of Business will then be encouraged to incorporate some specific components of graduate legal education, which may lead to significant improvement in business education quality, reputation and trustworthiness. The author, both a member of the California State Bar Association and an alumnus of Harvard Business School, will utilize historical and current research supplemented with practical counsel from four law school and practice tenets. The paper will conclude with a recommendation of collaboration between accreditation agencies and a new organization modeled on the American Law Institute, successfully utilized by the legal academy and profession for nearly a century.
The lack of trust and the criticism by Podolny and others towards SoBs is not generic or without specificity towards particular fields and institutions. ―One of the root problems with business schools is that too many are infected with assumptions that reinforce and bring out the worst in human beings. In particular, the logic and discipline of economics usually rule the roost at business schools‖ (Sutton, 2009, 26). Often, Harvard Business School and other prominent SoBs are singled out for their complicity with comments such as ―I think that the root cause of the problem is a way of thinking and acting by leaders who graduated from the leading business schools worldwide, including Harvard Business School. Therefore, business schools are directly responsible for the current economic and financial crisis, which has led to the biggest contraction in the U.S., because HBS graduates led the nation to the state of collapse‖ (Fryer, 2009, 74). The criticism and evaluation is not limited to U.S. based SoBs, for SoBs across Europe are reconsidering many elements of their programs including
Introduction: For over 20 years research has provided a critique of schools of business (SoB) education, especially for the MBA, and called for significant changes in business school practices. This criticism now serves as fresh fodder for the debate of the relevancy and role of the SoB in causing the global economic crisis,
14
June 1, 2010
curriculum, length of program and partnerships and alliances. In an April 9, 2009 article in The Independent, Professor Chris Bones, Dean of the Henley Business School of the University of Reading, U.K., wrote ―The MBA industry must reform itself. It‘s easy to teach theoretical and quantitative stuff. But you don‘t get a lot of reality and certainly don‘t get today‘s reality.‖
The temptation exists that this criticism and perception of a breach of trust is primarily a concern for the largest and most prominent SoBs such as Harvard Business School, The Marshall School of Business at University of Southern California, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, etc. It is widely believed that the graduates of these large SoBs, in their dominance of Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies and governmental positions, are the institutions who caused the crisis and therefore smaller SoBs, both private and public, will be spared the criticism. However, Administrators, Dean and faculty of the smaller SoBs need to recognize that while the criticism may not be directed at their own roles and institutions, that the impact of the breach of trust of the larger SoBs may be just as if they had indeed participated in causing the crisis. We can reasonably deduce this by the impact of employment on the larger SoBs graduates, many who have been displaced out of Wall Street and major firms towards secondary job markets, ordinarily the domain of the smaller SoBs. The independent MBA Career Services Council, a group composed of dozens of SoBs of all sizes, both public and private, reported that approximately 70% of all SOB‘s noted a significant downturn in employment for graduates (Damast, 2008). An additional risk to the smaller SoBs is the financial consequences of the crisis to the overall institution or University, and it has been predicted that the full impact of the financial crisis will not likely be fully appreciated by universities for many years to come with pressing challenges of liquidity, governmental support, financing of debt, etc. (NACUBO & AGB, 2009). For private Christian Colleges, the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities President recently stated that financial health and long-term viability and the dual
In all fairness, there are variations of this criticism that move beyond the SOB. For example, media icon Steve Forbes of Forbes media has alleged that mark-tomarket accounting was the ―principal reason‖ of the financial crisis (Pozen, 2009, 85), while the Wall Street Journal on September 18, 2008 noted fairly early in the crisis that credit default swaps, excessive credit for both business and consumers, and related factors that transmuted traditional notions of risk were the primary culprits. According to the Washington Post, on March 26, 2009 U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner stated that there was a massive failure in regulatory oversight and would propose plans that included a clear reassertion of regulation of the financial system , a view which has been consistently re-emphasized by senior members of the Obama Administration to the present day. In all likelihood, the crisis was the result of a combination of factors, but the simple reality is that while some may not view the SOB as being the sole or primary cause, few are proclaiming the innocence of the SOB. Indeed, a recent survey of Harvard Business Review readers found that approximately 50% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ―B Schools share a large part of the blame for the current economic crisis‖ (McGrath, 2009, 61).
15
June 1, 2010
impact of costs and market forces are two of the top three issues facing Christian higher education (Corts, 2009).
reasons for this breach of trust, and to seriously consider drawing from the much longer experience of a fellow professional school, the Schools of Law. Certain key elements of graduate legal education and the practice of law may provide significant progress towards restoring trust in the SoB. In doing so, it is desired that likeminded and similarly situated SoBs (such as the membership of an organization like the ACBSP), will be encouraged to initiate further examination of the topic of trust and excellence of contemporary business education and how to restore it.
The SoBs cannot turn a blind eye to these issues. There has also been a call by business leaders to the SoBs to participate in this dialogue as an essential stakeholder, and an effort to ―assemble leading academics in the area of trust to begin to fill the sizable knowledge gap in the understanding of the dynamics of public trust and deliver actionable knowledge to practitioners‖ (Bolton et al., 2009, 7). Some have also called us to reconsider the continuing relevance of the most venerable of SoB prophets, Peter Drucker, by posing the question ―What Would Peter Say?‖ ―His first comment might be ‗I told you so‘—and he would have every right to say that...Drucker rarely named or blamed individuals; he saw root causes in the design of organizations—in their structures, processes, norms and routines‖ (Kanter, 2009, 65). This paper will attempt to validate Drucker‘s critique of organizational design, and while the issues of trust in business education is not a new topic nor are the recommendations contained in this paper necessarily groundbreaking, what is new is the profound shift that has occurred in the public perception of trustworthiness of our graduates and the practices, tools, attitudes and behaviors that they exhibit in the marketplace.
The Loss of Trust: In 2009, The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion conducted a survey that found that citizens were more likely than business executives to express a downbeat opinion on the direction and practices of corporate America, demonstrating that there is a significant gap between the perceptions of business leaders and the public. Key findings of the Marist survey were that more than three-quarters of Americans said the moral compass of corporate America is pointing in the wrong direction, compared to only 58 percent of business executives. Also, a majority of Americans gave corporate America the grades of D or F for honesty and ethics and rated the country's business leadership as "poor.‖ Interestingly, business leaders provided self-grades of C and B marks for their honesty and ethics. Even though there has been a slight rise in public perception of the trustworthiness of business in the past few months, it is likely tied to the tentative economic and stock market recovery, and that nearly 70% of the public believes that it will be ―business as usual‖ when the recession ends.1
Therefore, this paper is an attempt to heed these calls and to spur additional dialogue both internally and externally to the SoB, and the primary focus of this paper will be in asking ourselves if a starting point of the discussion should be the underlying philosophical approach and design of the SoBs. Information will be presented that urges the SoB to understand the depth and
16
June 1, 2010
Why such grim attitudes towards the trustworthiness of businesses and business leaders? Regardless of how one view‘s the critics or defenders of business education, it is useful to remember that trust and trustworthiness is at the heart of the practices of the free market economic system and that the breach of that trust usually has calamitous results. Societal economic trust is what social scientist Francis Fukuyama defines as ―the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms,‖ and is what enables economic prosperity at all levels and variations of the free market. The routine interactions and transactions of our economy, from the simple paying of a bill to the much more complex endeavor of corporate finance are all based upon the foundation of trust and ―indicates that a certain basic level of honesty, practiced as a matter of habit rather than rational calculation, is fairly widespread throughout society.‖ Nobel Laureate economist Kenneth Arrow places these notions of trust as an essential action within the social system: (Trust) is ―extremely efficient; it saves a lot of trouble to have a fair degree of reliance upon other people‘s word … Trust and similar values, loyalty or truth-telling, are examples of what economists would call ‗externalities.‘ They are goods; they are commodities; they have real practical economic value; they increase the efficiency in the system, enable you to produce more goods or more of whatever values you hold in high esteem‖ (Fukuyama 1995, 152).
trust that enormously important and farreaching public policy decisions are being made and will continue to be made that will impact business education and practice for decades to come. In the postEnron era, a 2004 CEO survey on the issue of public trust identified trustworthiness as the most important and overarching ethics issue facing business. Not only did CEO‘s identify ―regaining the public trust‖ as the single most important ethics issue facing business, each of the top five responses cited strongly related to public trust. One of the U.S. Congressional responses to the breach of trust during the early part of this decade was the passage of the SarbanesOxley Act, which President Bush described as ―the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since Franklin Roosevelt was President‖ (Bolton et al., 15). The impact of these ―reforms‖ is high as the annual cost of Sarbanes-Oxley has been estimated to be $35 billion to American companies, while the cost of business compliance with existing governmental regulations is $1.1 trillion, or more than 10% of GDP annually (Covey, 2007, 38-40). Ironically, recent surveys have shown that there has there been no increase in the public level of trustworthiness among firms since the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulatory oversight actions2, and that increasing oversight of firms may actually lead to a reduction in personal attitudes of trustworthiness among employees of businesses (Kramer, 1999, 591). However, the reality of a vastly more regulated business environment is quite likely as 2010 unfolds.
The simply reality that all within the business community face, and one which the SOB‘s cannot ignore for it relates to curriculum, hiring, research and related issues, is that it is upon the question of
Amidst these increasing public and legislative calls for additional regulation of business, it is important to recognize the ultimate source of these cries-the great breach of trust and loss of confidence by
17
June 1, 2010
the public in business organizations, leaders, decision-making and systems. ―At the heart of this question is a deep anxiety about whether or not the public still trusts capitalism to be the best form of social cooperation. Trust and liberty are at the heart of the capitalist concept. As The Guardian columnist Simon Caulkin has observed, ‗Trust is something business can‘t do without …. It isn‘t some fuzzy nice to-have; it‘s the lubricant without which the City [i.e., the London financial markets] and Wall Street are as frozen as a rusted motor. If there is debt or credit, there has to be trust‖ (Bolton et al., 2009, 8). The current lack of trust in business did not occur overnight, nor will it likely resolve itself quickly. However, the evidence is clear that the SoBs were given fair warning by many reputable sources that some correction in our approach to business education was in order.
It is widely believed that the rapid growth of the SoB resulted at least in part from severe criticism directed towards the SoB of the 1950‘s. In an early and intriguing vision of the ―Business School of Tomorrow‖ the SoB was urged to look well into the future, specifically 1980. Professor G.L. Bach of the Carnegie Institute of Technology noted ―the certainty of change and the uncertainty of its direction and outcome‖ and offered the prescription towards ―orderly, analytical problem solving abilities‖ and the integration of ―faculty members brought in, at least experimentally, from other disciplines, especially from the behavioral sciences and mathematics‖ (Bach, 1958, 362-363). Shortly after Bach‘s work, the 1959 issuance of the Gordon and Howell Report created an even greater reaction by SoB leadership. Few could ignore the report which "described American business education as a collection of trade schools lacking a strong scientific foundation‖ (Bach, ibid). This led to a profound and rapid movement towards modeling the SoB along the lines of the traditionally heavily research orientation of other academic departments, with strong focus on quantitative and statistical methods. In short, the SoB made a dramatic and rapid movement towards a scientific paradigm. This movement exists to this very day, and regardless of its shortcomings it must at least be given some credit for the professionalization of the SoB.
Historical Drift: By some standards of measurement one could come to the conclusion that the SoB is one of the greatest successes of the 20th century. Issuance of SoB degrees at both the undergraduate and graduate level and membership in academic associations such as the Academy of Management and publications by SoB faculty has never been higher (McGrath, 2005). Huge amounts of donor gifts to fund SoB programs, the advent and popularity of executive education and the internationalization of the SoB are also frequently cited as but a few examples of positive developments (Pfeffer and Fong, 2002). But past numerical and financial growth for the SoB only delayed or temporarily deflected the criticism. The global economic crisis has clearly changed all of the previous equilibrium.
However, twenty years later the research orientation readily embraced by the SoB began to be seriously questioned. In 1989, Porter and McKibbin noted the conservative nature that had overtaken the SoB, leading to a closed nature just at the moment in time when innovations in curriculum, internationalization, and a
18
June 1, 2010
broader perspective were needed most. They concluded that the SoB was much more likely to ignore the need for change, and predicted that this inability to alter existing power structures and organizations would cause the SoB to ―drift into the 21st century‖ (Cummings, 1990, 695-96). This drift may also stem from challenges to the SoB Deans in the 1980-1990‘s, for they could be coping with a series of unique challenges, sometimes compared to that of a University President more so than other Deans. These challenges could include SoB faculty that becomes ―rationally apathetic‖ i.e., faculty that concentrates on their own personal research and teaching and effectively cede authority to the Dean for primary management and leadership of the SoB (Bolton, 1996, 493).
strategic changes including concentrations, emphases and structures (Segev et al., 1999, 550). With many voices offering conflicting information, recommendations and results, hindsight now provides one the opportunity to conclude that the ―drift‖ of the SoB as it entered the 21st century was foreseeable. While the vestiges of the Bach and Gordon and Howell research clearly remained entrenched in the SoB, formidable and credible voices had articulated for a significant period of time a competing vision to the scientific model of the SoB. But University and SoB leadership seemed generally unable to render significant change, and even when strategic change was implemented the results were unclear at best. Thus, the prevalent and drifting SoB was caught between these two visions and was illprepared to weather the severe storm of the global economic crisis of 2008.
Into this philosophical tug-of-war entered the creation in 1988 of SoB rankings by publications such as Business Week and U.S. News and World Report. Prior to the advent of these rankings, the primary measurement of SoB primacy was through scholarly output using traditional methods of publications in peer-reviewed journals, government agencies or private ―thinktanks‖ (McGrath, 2005). No less than the leading SoB accreditation body, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, has concluded that such rankings have had serious negative effects on the SoB (Duncan, 2005). Regardless of how one views such thirdparty rankings, they have nonetheless placed at least some pressure on SoBs to change and adapt to market pressures, and some schools have attempted to respond to the trends in the rankings. However, indepth research of the 25 leading U.S SoBs of this period in the post-ranking period showed no clear advantage being created through SoBs that initiated various
To be fair, it should be observed that while the SoB is the current recipient of much of the criticism, it was predicted in 1993 that the university generally would struggle as the new century dawned. ―For the foreseeable future, no society or culture is likely to create an entirely new social or cultural institution with the scope or complexity of the modern university. Thus, it is unlikely that the idea of the university in the 21st century will be radically different from the universities we now observe. But there are reasons to believe that opportunities for significant change will be present in the first decade of the 21st century. The university will be bigger, perhaps, but it is unlikely to be better. Indeed we may question if many universities will be good enough for the 21st century‖ (Fincher, 1993, 28, 34). Nonetheless, the vision, operation and
19
June 1, 2010
ultimately the future of the SoB is adrift, and to return to its rightful place as a trustworthy institution and voice for the 21st century, SoB leadership must collectively act with humility and confidence, using either existing structures such as accreditation bodies, or creating new structures if the existing ones are not amenable to re-imagination.
change at their institutions was the shortage of doctoral faculty, ranking more important than rapid changes in the economy, globalization, available resources, and many other considerations (Olian, 2002, 2, 14). In light of the historical position and membership of the AACSB, these findings are predictable, if not disconcerting and prophetic of why the SoB now is viewed as culpable in the global economic crisis. However, whatever shortcomings one may find with the AACSB Report, it appears to be the only accreditation body or association that has collectively acted to research and report on the issues of risk to the SoB.
Drifting into Crisis: In 2001, the AACSB took note of the drift of the SOB and created the Management Education Task Force, which was tasked with ―identifying the challenges that face business schools worldwide and recommending institutional responses.‖ The Task Force‘s 2002 report titled ―Management Education at Risk‖ noted that ―The marketplace for business schools today is characterized by relentless change. Increasing competition from nonaccredited schools and globalization of the business education market are among the root causes of the instability. Management education is at risk, and industry wide leadership is needed to position business schools to respond to emerging priorities and challenges‖ (Olian, 2002, 6). In response to this report, the AACSB leadership in turn created several additional committees that would seek recommendations and actions that AACSB schools could adopt.
In sharp contrast to the 2002 AACSB Report, in 2005, it was alleged that SoBs had adopted an ―inappropriate--and ultimately self-defeating—model of academic excellence ―and that ―curriculum was the effect and not the cause of what ails the modern business school‖ (Bennis and O‘Toole, 2002, 1). Just as the global economic crisis began to take shape in the first few months of 2008, the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley issued its own report on the challenges and risks to the SoB, calling for a ―problem-centered multi-disciplinary approach.‖ As to the issue of teaching, the Haas paper clearly differed from the AACSB: ―Considerable innovation has taken place in MBA teaching, by emphasizing social skills, leadership, teamwork and negotiation, cross-functional thinking, global perspectives, and multicultural sensitivity. However, the dominant role of academically oriented faculty will remain a limiting factor if the subject requires clinical intuition and nuance. Few business academics have ever founded or run a company, served on corporate boards, or conducted significant consulting beyond lectures or limited case studies. Although
However, where the AACSB and its member schools came out on the debate of reform was quite clear. It concluded that ―Even more importantly, the scholarship role of business faculty is an essential and irreplaceable function because societies and markets turn to business schools for knowledge advances that reflect academic traditions of theory and method,‖ and a survey of their member institutions concluded that the leading factor driving
20
June 1, 2010
they can play an important role in separating wheat from chaff, and help build a cumulative knowledge base, they may not get at the core issues that managers struggle with‖ (Schoemaker, 2008, 129).
From this broadly focused report, three general themes emerged at HBS. First, that SoBs inevitably attract competitive, ambitious people with widely variant ethical standards, and the impression is that personal financial gain is often a primary focus of these students. Second, that SoB curriculum needs to be changed and that modern management requires a broader spectrum of knowledge, experience, and skills than is currently taught. Finally, SoBs need to refine the processes of filtering students they admit and provide enhanced ethical training or requirements prior to graduation (Fryer, 2009, 4).
This uneasy tension within the SoBs was shattered on September 15, 2008 when the venerable investment-banking firm Lehman Brothers, tracing its roots back to 1847, filed for bankruptcy protection after the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department refused financial assistance. It was the largest bankruptcy ever in the U.S., but the more important events are what happened in the wake of the Lehman collapse. First, a financial panic threatened to shatter the global free market system, followed by an unprecedented and hugely expensive effort by governments on both sides of the Atlantic to stabilize and repair the damage. While the economic collapse of companies and even countries accelerated, with some level of irony on October 13, 2008, Harvard Business School‘s held its 100th Anniversary Celebration and Global Business Summit and over 2,000 alumni and business leaders attended the multi-day event. Out of this event Harvard Business School entered a reflective period and spent the months of April and May 2009 in a ―fierce, weeks-long debate on the subject among business school professors, business leaders, MBA‘s, HBR readers, and the public at large.‖ The result of this debate was ―How To Fix Business Schools,‖ a comprehensive report of 18 short articles with commentary on five sections including ―Are B Schools to Blame?‖ and ―Blame the Economists?‖ (Fryer, 2009). More than 30,000 readers participated in the discussion.
Thus, we have a list of concerns that need addressing from many of the leading SoBs in the world, as well as from the business community and public at large. Will we be able to act upon these concerns, having shown little capacity for reform in the past? Or rather than addressing individual issues, would it be more appropriate and effective if there were a philosophical and organizational change of perspective? A Citizenship Model: Over 100 years ago, renowned citizen-scholar William Rainey Harper, President of the University of Chicago, proclaimed that ―It is the university that, with impartial judgment, condemns in democracy the spirit of corruption, which now and again lifts up its head, and brings scandal upon democracy‘s fair name.‖ A more contemporary statement of the role of the University, although in no way repudiating Harper‘s vision, is that ―The function of such universities is to preserve, transmit and develop knowledge on the one hand and on the other to produce citizens capable of taking an active, critical part in the governance of their society‖ (Poff, 2007, 26-27).
21
June 1, 2010
created, led and implemented by the highest levels of SoB administration. What is needed is a clearer incorporation of traditional notions of citizenship into the SoBs and their curriculum, voice, vision, scholarly research and activities.
But within the broader scope and mission of a University, what is the unique role of a SoB? Is it independent of or interdependent to the broader institution? Should it exist as being ―above and beyond‖ the methods and practices of the application of its ―arts‖ by its graduates, generally immune to the criticism facing the business community? It would seem not, for ―A business school is a community of scholars committed to organizational excellence, to improving the quality of education offered to students—including present and future corporate executives, and to provide the educational services of business efficiently and effectively. To borrow the phrasing of Manville and Ober, a school of business is a ‗company of citizens‘ engaged in noble work. How business school faculty model their commitment to excellence, how they create ethical and moral relationships, and how they ultimately apply management principles in achieving their missions is critically important—especially in times of profound change‖ (Caldwell et al., 2007, 114-118).
Such ―notions of citizenship‖ inherently rely upon many things but often focus upon several key skills. One is the ability to think and respond critically, demonstrating the capacity to integrate and synthesize vast amounts of materials in a coherent and cogent way. Another key skill is the capacity to reason through morally ambiguous or competing interests and issues, with a clear vision of the higher ideals and values at play in a particular business setting or decision. These do not guarantee a positive result but can enhance the possibility of a result that is viewed as not compromising the trust of the decision makers, systems and institutions. Although not without its critics (Wood and Lodgson, 2002, 59-94), one version of the citizenship model has been offered by Solomon and others. This view urges that the SoBs needs to incorporate elements of the ―Aristotelian Virtue Ethics Model‖ which possesses six key elements (Caldwell and Boyle, 2007, 7):
One possible step towards creating renewed trust and confidence in the SoBs is to recall once again Drucker‘s view that flaws, problems and crises in the business community typically lay in the design of organizations and their philosophical principles that drove the organizational design (Kanter, 2009, 65). But if the existing model is deeply flawed, what is the model that should take its place? Or is the model so flawed to be beyond redemption? I would contend that the existing model, while under great strain, is indeed suitable to function properly in the contemporary business world. However, a philosophical re-orientation is required, and it is likely one that can only be
22
Vision – The ability to correctly identify factors of essential importance for future success and to anticipate future needs and conditions. Relevance – The applicability of concepts and information to practical situations and conditions. Responsiveness – The degree to which individual needs and situations are taken into
June 1, 2010
consideration and responded to on a timely basis. Excellence – The degree to which best practices are followed in meeting the needs of affected stakeholders. Balance – The ability to incorporate the understanding of conflicting demands while pursuing desired outcomes. Integrity – Congruence in matching behaviors with express and implied commitments which make up the duties owed.
Thus, it is argued that SoB reform should instead consider other professional schools as the primary guide to reform. Bennis and O‘Toole have forcefully argued this point with ―Ultimately, however, we believe business schools would reap the greatest benefit from emulating the most innovative law schools. The law is a broad-based activity drawing upon many of the same disciplines relevant to business: economics, psychology, accounting, politics, philosophy, history, sociology, language, literature, and so on. Law schools, however, have not succumbed to physics envy and the scientism it spawns. Instead, they tend to reward excellence in teaching and in pragmatic writing. Research is an important component of legal practice and education, but most of it is applied research, and its validity is not equated with the presence of a scientific patina…Is the research important? Is it useful? Is it interesting or original? Is it well thoughtout, well argued, and well designed? All of these queries seem more appropriate as standards for appraising the work of business school faculties than the narrowly defined standard of scientific rigor‖ (Bennis and O‘Toole, 2005, 7).
The challenge to the SoB is in determining an appropriate organizational form to uphold these elements, and to do so within the larger operating environment of the overall university. Certainly, university functions that focus upon institutional effectiveness, outcomes and related areas would not necessarily object to the specific points of the Virtue Ethics Model and would likely not be opposed to them for the SoB. A greater challenge may be that other academic programs, specifically philosophy, religion, history, pre-law, etc., may perceive that the SoB is infringing upon their own operating purposes. Nonetheless, this should not preclude the SoB from considering the Virtue Ethics Model. And the SoB does not need to look far for another branch of professional education to draw from.
What would such ―emulation‖ of law schools look like? I am proposing that SoBs should consider four specific integrations of legal education and practice into business education, each which clearly relate to the professional fields and practice more so than the dominant academic model now utilized by SOB‘s. These four integrations are:
Eruditio ex Lawyers: Learning from Lawyers: Support for a philosophical change by SoBs has previously been articulated, pointing out that the movement towards the scientific oriented academic units is incongruent with the field of business and management. If correct, this incongruence may predict that some reforms will not produce the desired result of restoring the trust of the SoB.
23
Standardized certification of professional practices. Continuing Education requirements including standardized ethical curriculum
June 1, 2010
stakeholders, this seems wholly insufficient to attain a professional certification and standing compared to other professions. The global economic crisis has also shown that the interpretations of value creation have gone, in too many instances, far astray from acceptable societal and organizational behavior.
Integrated case studies with historical documentation Faculty with high levels of practitioner skills.
First and likely of greatest importance is the creation of long overdue standardized and widely recognized certification of professional practices, particularly in the field of management. It has been continually emphasized as a primary expectation of the SoB since their inception over 100 years ago and the contention that managers are a true profession such as in law or medicine fails any reasonable amount of scrutiny (Kuhrana and Nohria, 2008). While the venerable Peter Drucker strongly objected to such certification and fearing that management certification would cause great damage to the profession and the free-market economy (Drucker, 1954), from the outset his view was criticized for decentralizing and confusing the practice of business management and leadership (Baker, 1955, 458-60) which has continued unabated to the present era. (Gribbins and Hunt, 1978; Kuhrana and Nohria, 2008). It has even been observed that the issue of professional certification is such an unsettled topic that it is unlikely that arguments can be mustered to persuade either side (Hays and Duke, 1996, 426-427).
It has been proposed that the analogous role to the physicians and attorney‘s code for managers is that they should be ―agents of society‘s interests‖ and while the specificity could and should be debated, a sustained effort by the SoBs is needed to bring professional clarity to the field (Kuhrana and Noria, 2008, 5). Of course, for the practice of law in any state the general certification is accomplished through the bar examination of suitable candidates, of which the historical passing rate (in California) is 50% for first-time takers. But the recent phenomenon of specializations within a field such as family law, estate planning, criminal defense, etc. required that another entire set of American Bar Association or state association certification standards is now in effect.3 Developing and implementing a standardized test is a formidable but not impossible task for the SoBs to accomplish, and the debate on this topic needs to move from the academic and practitioner research world into a broader discussion among all stakeholders.
But the question remains: Within the socalled ―professions,‖ while physicians seek health for their patients, and lawyers seek justice for their clients, one must ask without a standardized professional certification and widely agreed to standards, what do business managers and leaders seek? What is business education‘s intention for its practitioners, customers and society as a whole? If the answer is to create value for shareholders and
The second proposal is that of continuing education requirements for business professionals in all SoB disciplines, including standardized ethics curriculum. These activities would also need to include participatory activities with other practitioners. This practice has been long established by law schools, lawyers and bar associations all in concerted action,
24
June 1, 2010
and generally speaking the rule is 25 hours of certified continuing education per compliance period following graduation (usually every 2-3 years), certified by the individual lawyer to the association. To be fair, there is a significant question as to the effectiveness of the dominant curriculum and pedagogy of teaching ethics in law school, noting that ―latent curriculum forces ethical instruction to defeat its own purpose,‖ however no viable alternative pedagogy has yet been widely introduced (Pipkin, 1979, 275). Nonetheless, these ethical requirements have not proven onerous to the practice of law, and some flexibility in reporting and compliance as well as a limited amount of self-study continuing education is allowed as well as online, video and audio options.4
not as far-fetched as perhaps it once might have seemed. The third proposal relates to the use of case studies, long employed by many SoBs, but with an enhancement that business education currently lacks: historical documentation. Case studies have been long recognized in a wide variety of teaching contexts as having utility and it has been forcefully argued that they are the method that is comprehensive and has a clear relationship to common sense. When case studies are done poorly they can become practically meaningless, full of guesswork and misinterpretation, but when used well it is believed that they are the ―most revealing method of all‖ (Olson, 1939, 483). However, business cases lack an essential component that law schools and lawyers have access to: cumulative historical context. One of the primary tools that any law student or lawyer frequently turns to are the historical summaries, often presented chronologically with great detail. Often referred to as ―Restatements‖ they enable a reader to spend as much time as necessary to see the development of a particular tenet or principle of law, using specific laws, cases, commentary and rulings as the driving forces. This broader context allows the student or lawyer to see the genesis, complexities and nuances of a particular result or holding, and is a clear and widely recognized and cited reference. Within the state of California, a large jurisdiction with a high level of complexity, there is its own set of summaries known as ―Witkin‘s Summary of California Law.‖5 Thus, they provide an ―anchor‖ for the legal profession, providing a caution to rapid change in practices and procedures but simultaneously ensuring that the
While continuing education is up to the individual (or firm for whom the individual lawyer is employed), the curriculum reality of law schools nearly always involves extensive clinical requirements such as clerking, legal research, etc., course work on professional responsibility and the operation of the legal certification associations; and professional ethics. Thus, continuing education is precisely that—a continuation of an existing practice that began in the law school and a profession's willingness and ability to hold its members to professional and ethical standards are central to the maintenance of its professional status and privileges. When the basis of public trust in a profession are threatened, when its practitioners are widely perceived to be dishonest, untrustworthy, or insufficiently expert, society will move to undermine that profession's autonomy, increase its accountability, and, in the extreme, limit its exercise or perhaps even abolish it (Pipkin, 1979). This threat to the SoBs is
25
June 1, 2010
foundation of the law is never detached from the contemporary practice.
scientific model is replaced by a more appropriate model rooted in the special requirements of a profession‖ (Bennis and O‘Toole, 2005, 7).
On the other hand, business cases are somewhat artificial and certainly are at best an incomplete history, and even with the use of teaching notes that are sometimes available, they often bear little resemblance to the legal case that inspired their SoB creation and use. It has been observed that in case studies, business students do not have access to ―the knowledge tools necessary to properly assess a case‖ (Mitnick, 2009, 62) as well as creating a sense of personal detachment for the student (Leone, 1989, 706-708). While use of cases is not without its own criticism in law schools, the restatements are useful in trying to establish coherent patterns in the law which ultimately provides a foundation of common understanding.6 By contrast, do we ever try to assemble what actual business practice might tell us about what good managers should do (Mitnick, 2009, 6566)? Thus, the case study supplemented with easily accessible historical restatements should be considered to improve SoB teaching and application.
But can such ―special requirements‖ of a profession realistically be modeled and taught by professors who have never actually participated in their field of expertise? Studies have demonstrated the comparatively large percentage of law professors who have had practical experience in the legal profession. About 67% of law professors have engaged in some form (usually five years or more) of law practice before assuming a teaching position, while the remainder have clerked for judges (nearly always the very rigorous federal system) or been solely engaged in the study and teaching of law. This percentage of professors with practitioner experience (about 75%) is much higher than many SoBs (Fossum, 1990, 510-512). Time and time again, voices from within and outside of the SoB call for this focus upon practical education, and it has been wryly observed that while stories about mice losing their cheese or penguins fleeing melting icebergs sell millions of copies, most of what SoB faculty publish isn‘t even cited by other academics (McGrath, 2009, 58).
Finally, the fourth proposal is for the SoB to utilize faculty with a higher level of practitioner skills, much as law schools do. While there has been progress in this area at some schools in the past decade, as previously noted in the AACSB report, the scholarship role in traditional research and methods remains firmly entrenched as the dominant mindset. This does not mean that we have erred in embracing scientific methods and knowledge but rather that the error has come in rejecting other forms of knowledge and scholarship. ―The distinction between a profession and an academic discipline is crucial. In our view, no curricular reforms will work until the
Each of these four proposals is not groundbreaking in and of themselves, and there is a significant body of material to draw upon to use as examples, discussion pieces and potential action items. Lack of material is not the problem—the will to act by the SoB is. Thus, it is a valid question—how and who should lead the change? In my view, this role should be taken by the accreditation bodies in conjunction with another newly created institution with a long history of service to the legal profession, serving as an
26
June 1, 2010
inspiration and model to the SoB and profession.
practice of business presently lacks, and which could assist the SOB‘s in regaining trust. The American Law Institute (ALI), founded in 1923, occurred after a study conducted by a group of prominent American judges, lawyers, and teachers identified several major defects in American law, namely its uncertainty and its complexity. In a scenario quite similar to the financial crises of our present era, the practice of law in the early 1900‘s had produced a "general dissatisfaction with the administration of justice‖ which at least in part stemmed from the lack of agreement on fundamental principles of the common law, and its application among variant jurisdictions, fields and settings. The study recommended that a lawyer‘s organization be formed "to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work."10
A New Partner for Accreditation Agencies: The mission statements of the two leading SoB accreditation agencies indicate their desire to be a global leader in management education. For the AACSB, its mission is that AACSB International advances quality management education worldwide through accreditation and thought leadership.7 The mission of the ACBSP is that ―ACBSP develops, promotes, and recognizes best practices that contribute to continuous improvement of business education and accredits qualified business programs.‖8 Within legal education, the highest level of American law school accreditation is issued by the American Bar Association (ABA), with more than 400,000 members and several hundred ABA accredited law schools. The ABA provides accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public, with a stated mission ―To serve equally our members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession.‖9 These are obviously noble ideals and worthy goals.
Through diligent efforts over many years, the ALI became the leading independent organization in the United States producing scholarly work to clarify, modernize, and otherwise improve the law with an invitation only membership limited to no more than 4000 highly qualified and respected lawyers, judges, and law professors. The ALI drafts, discusses, revises, and publishes Restatements of the Law, model statutes, and principles of law that are enormously influential in the courts and legislatures, as well as in legal scholarship and education, and in recent years its influence has grown significantly internationally. While obviously composed of a membership widely drawn from the ABA, it exists and operates wholly independent of the ABA.
But beyond accreditation standards, the study and practice of any profession makes use of other organizations and associations which create, interpret, further and sometimes even enforce the professional standards. Continuing education by private and publicly chartered groups, academic research, conferences, academic and practitioner publications, all are active and important stakeholders. But the practice of law has an additional ally which the study and
27
June 1, 2010
Upon its creation, the first major project that the ALI embarked upon was creating the original Restatements of the Law, primarily in the areas of contracts, securities, property and related areas. This was no small task for it took over 20 years to complete the first version, and within a few years of its completion, the second version was undertaken.11 However, the lasting value of the Restatements and their ability to provide stability, consensus and a uniform scholarly and practitioner voice to the practice of law cannot be underestimated, and no doubt this stability has in turn provided a higher level of trustworthiness for the field of law than it would otherwise have.
―clarification, simplification, administration and enforcement‖ role of the ALI. Thus, the SoBs should consider, just as the legal community did nearly 90 years ago, the creation of a joint commission of highly regarded scholars and practitioners who could investigate the possibility of an organization similar to the ALI, but in service to the SoBs, business community and public. While not definitive in all areas of the practice of law, the ALI is widely regarded as having an outstanding reputation and credibility as a powerful voice and arbiter of ideal legal standards, conduct and practice. A similar organization could be a powerful and compelling ally of the existing SoB accreditation agencies.
There is no similar organization that the SoB accreditation agencies can rely upon. The similarly named American Management Association and American Business Persons Associations provides training, seminars, financial services discounts, merchandise discounts but cannot in any way be construed as being a collaborator to the ACBSP and AACSB that the ALI is to the ABA.12 Perhaps the most similar business organization in function to the ALI is the Academy of Management (AOM), with the stated primary mission ―to enhance the profession of management by advancing the scholarship of management and enriching the professional development of its members.‖ However, the AOM‘s membership is far greater with over 18,000 members, and membership is generally available to anyone for a fee that ranges from $65-$185, depending on the status of the applicant, and is a ―memberdriven society.‖13 While there are some similarities to the ALI, the AOM‘s scope of interests, strategic mission and functions, its breadth and scope of mission is too broad as to be comparable to the
Conclusion: This paper is intended to hold accountable the stated missions of our Schools of Business and their accreditation bodies and advocates. This is a stewardship that has been severely shaken by the events of the past few years, and it will take effort, leadership and resources to restore the level of excellence and the bond of trust that society, shareholders and stakeholders expect of our profession. The AACSB clearly states its organizational philosophy through its statement on ―Thought Leadership‖ which holds that the ―AACSB is regarded as the world's most respected and informed voice regarding significant issues in management education.‖14 Similarly, the ―ACBSP will be the global leader enhancing the quality of business schools and programs focused on teaching excellence.‖15 Tested and successful models and tools utilized by the legal academy and practitioners are available for the AACSB and the ACBSP to consider, which would include not only program and practice changes but a new highly
28
June 1, 2010
credible organization based on the American Legal Institute model.
Program as an Enhancement to Business Plan Competitions” appeared in the Summer 2009 edition of The Christian Business Academy Review.
The breach of the public trust now compels additional discussion, consideration and ultimately action to bring a new standard of excellence to business education. It is the primary intention of this paper to ask the SoB leadership to consider these proposals as a useful starting point for reflection, dialogue, and self-examination. Although the work required for such selfexamination is formidable, the importance of SoBs honoring their stewardship and trust-building duties are critical. While financial resources and time may be limited, SoBs have the opportunity to create new value for all stakeholders, with new structures, models and collaborations. Resources will be needed, but the greater need is for clear leadership from the SoBs.
Professor Ataide holds a B.A. degree in Speech Communication, a Masters Degree in Theology and a Juris Doctor degree and completed Harvard Business School‘s Owner-President Management Program in 2006. At Harvard was his class commencement‘s speaker as well as earning the best strategy critique award. References Bach, G. L. (1958) Observations on the Business School of Tomorrow. Management Science 4: (4) 351-364. Bennis, W. G., and O‘Toole, J. (2005). How Business Schools Lost Their Way. Harvard Business Review., May.
Randy Ataide serves as Professor of Entrepreneurship and Director of the Fermanian Business Center at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, Ca., teaching both undergraduates and MBA‘s. He has more than 25 years as an entrepreneur. He has presented peerreviewed papers on entrepreneurship at the Said School of Business at Oxford University; the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP) , Western Association of Schools and Colleges Resource Conference, and the Christian Business Faculty Association Conference, among others. His paper “A Thorny and Unresolved Issue: Are Religious Entrepreneurs Social Entrepreneurs?” is scheduled for a Summer 2010 publication in an edited volume by Dr. Alex Nichols of Oxford with Palgrave MacMillan Publishing. His paper “From Value Creation to Values Creation: The Entrepreneur Enrichment
Bolton, A. (1996) The Leadership Challenges in Universities: The Case of Business Schools. Higher Education 31(4) 491-506. Bolton, R.; Freedman, R. E.; Harris, J.; Moriaty, B.; Nash, L.; & Wing, M. (2009) The Dynamics of Public Trust in Business—Emerging Opportunities for Leaders: A Call to Action to Overcome the Present Crisis of Trust in Business. Arthur W. Page Society and Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics. Caldwell, C. & Boyle, M.. (2007) Academia, Aristotle, and the Public Sphere-Stewardship Challenges to Schools of Business. Journal of Academic Ethics(5), 5-20. Caldwell, Cam; Clapham, Stephen E.; and Davis, Brian. (2007) Rights, Responsibilities, and Respect: A Balanced
29
June 1, 2010
Citizenship Model for Schools of Business. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 105-120.
Legal Profession. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 5(3), 501554.
Casile, M. & Davis-Blake, A. (2002) When Accreditation Standards Change: Factors Affecting Differential Responsiveness of Public and Private Organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 180-195.
Fryer, B., Editor (2009) How To Fix Business Schools: The HBR Debate. Harvard Business Review Special Edition Harvard Business School Publishing. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York: Simon and Schuster, 152.
Corts, P. R. (2009) Top Ten Issues In Christian Higher Education. Council of Christian Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://www.cccu.org/professional_develop ment
Gribbins, R. E. & Hunt, S. D. (1978). Is Management a Science? Academy of Management, 3(1), 139-144. Hays, S. W. & Duke, B. (1996) Professional Certification in Public Management: A Status Report and Proposal. Public Administration Review, 56(5), 425-432.
Covey, S. M. R. (2007). The Business Case for Trust, Chief Executive, 226, 38– 40. June. Cummings, L. (1990) Reflections on Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into the 21st Century? The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 695-96.
Kanter, R. M. (2009). What Would Peter Say? Harvard Business Review. May. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions, Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 591.
Damast, A. (2008). Crisis Hits the Business Schools. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/c ontent/08_47/b4109040188487.htm
Kuhrana, R. & Nohria, N. (2008). It‘s Time To Make Management A True Profession. Harvard Business Review. October.
Duncan, R. B. (2005). The Business Schools Ranking Dilemma: A Report from a Task Force of AACSB‘s International‘s Committee on Issues in Higher Education. AACSB International.
Leone, R. A. (1989, Autumn). Teaching Management without Cases Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8(4), 704-711.
Fincher, C. (1993). The Idea of the University in the 21st Century: An American Perspective. British Journal of Educational Studies, 41(1), 26-45.
McGrath, R. (2009) Academics: Get Real! How to Fix Business Schools: The HBR Debate. Harvard Business Review Special Edition. Harvard Business School Publishing, 26.
Fossum, D. (1980) Law Professors: A Profile of the Teaching Branch of the
30
June 1, 2010
and Theories of Ethical Leadership in Educating Business Students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5, 25-31.
McGrath, R. (2005) No Longer a Stepchild: How The Management Field Can Come Into Its Own. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1365-1378.
Pozen, R. C. (2009) Is It Fair to Blame Fair Value Accounting for the Financial Crisis? Harvard Business Review. November.
Mitnick, B. M. (2009) The Case Against the Case Method. How To Fix Business Schools: The HBR Debate. Harvard Business Review Special Edition. Harvard Business School Publishing, 68-69.
Schoemaker, P. J. (2008). The Future Challenges of Business: Rethinking Management Education. California Management Review, 50(3).
National Association of College and University Business Officers and the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities (2009). The Financial Downturn and Its Impact on Higher Education Institutions. Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/Business_and_Poli cy_Areas/Finance/Financial_Downturn_T oolkit_and_Resources.html
Segev, E., Raveh, A. & Farjoun, M. (1999). Conceptual Maps of the Leading MBA Programs in the United States: Core Courses, Concentration Areas, and the Ranking of the School. Strategic Management Journal, 20(6). Sutton, R. I. (2009). Do Economists Breed Greed and Guile? How to Fix Business Schools: The HBR Debate. Harvard Business Review Special Edition. Harvard Business School Publishing, 26.
Olian, J. (2002). Management Education at Risk: A Report of the Management Task Force to the AACSB International Board of Directors. AACSB International.
Wood, D. J., & Logsdon, J. M. (2002). Business citizenship: from individuals to organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(3), 59–94.
Olson, W. C. (1939) The Case Method. Review of Educational Research, 9(5), 483-490. Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C. T. (2002). The End of Business Schools? Less Success Than Meets The Eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1-2.
Endnotes 1
―Trust in Business Rises Globally, Driven by Jumps in US and Other Western Economies.‖ http://www.scribd.com/full/25827302?access_key=keyx9q37hmaxnm7cevdung (accessed April 15, 2010)
Pipken, R. M. (1979). Law School Instruction in Professional Responsibility: A Curricular Paradox. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 4(2), 247275.
2
2005 World Economic Forum Global Opinion Poll conducted by GlobeScan and the BBT/Gallup Trust in Business Index, October 25, 2007. http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/WEF_trust20 05.html (accessed April 15, 2010) 3
American Bar Association. ―A Concise Guide To Specialty Certification.‖ http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/specialization/downl oads/June2007_Concise_Guide_Final.pdf (accessed November 14, 2009)
Poff, D. C. (2007, November). Duties Owed in Serving Students: The Importance of Teaching Moral Reasoning
31
June 1, 2010
4
California State Bar Association. http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=1 0962&id=5085#education (accessed November 14, 2009) 5
Witkin Legal Institute. http://www.witkin.com/pages/witkin_library_pages/witki n_lib.htm (accessed April 14, 2010) 6
For a brief survey of the Restatement of Contract Law see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restatement_(Second)_of_C ontracts#External_links 7
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. http://www.aacsb.edu/ (accessed November 23, 2009) 8
The Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs. http://www.acbsp.org/p/st/ld/sid=s1_001 (accessed November 23, 2009) 9
American Bar Association. http://www.abanet.org/about/?gnav=global_about_lead (accessed April 17, 2010) 10
American Legal Institute. http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.creation (accessed April 18, 2010) 11
American Legal Institute. http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.institute projects (accessed April 18, 2010 12
American Bar Association. http://www.aba-assn.com/ and http://www.amanet.org/ (accessed April 18, 2010) 13
Academy of Management. http://www.aomonline.org/aom.asp?ID=&page_ID=36 (accessed April 19, 2010 14
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. http://www.aacsb.edu/ (accessed November 20, 2009) 15
Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs. http://www.acbsp.org/p/st/ld/sid=s1_001 (accessed November 20, 2009)
32
June 1, 2010
identified misalignment in University reward systems for faculty and a lack of emphasis necessary to encourage scholarship in teaching and learning. Walker et al. (2008) explained that prestige and attention in large universities frequently emerge as a result of research efforts which would explain why faculty members focus their efforts in this area. This is then mirrored in promotion and tenure decisions; “…. although good teaching is expected, it is rarely privileged” (p. 183), suggesting that teaching and even university service are held in less esteem than research and publication. This paper suggests that there is a need to reinvigorate efforts related to teaching and to provide the different aspects of support necessary to bring effective teaching into the classroom and provide the recognition to sustain continuous improvement.
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Rewarding, Reinforcing and Improving Diane Bandow and Barbara D. Minsky Troy University Abstract: There is a dual disconnect in the reward system of many universities and colleges. The first disconnect is the faculty perception that teaching and service do not count as much toward tenure and promotion as research and publication. The second disconnect is that while higher education is being pressured to measure and improve student learning outcomes which are usually achieved by better classroom teaching, the faculty perception is that there is little support for scholarship of teaching and learning. These perceptions are not refuted by research. This paper provides a review of extant literature which will note some of the current issues and challenges. Suggestions will be offered to assist institutions in beginning to resolve these disconnects.
Boyer (1990) suggested that scholarship must be broader than discovery and should include not only application, but integration and teaching which would in turn foster teaching itself as a serious and scholarly activity. Boyer supported the inclusion of teaching as a scholarly activity and recommended appropriate rewards; he also noted the mismatch and a rewards system which caused professors to be caught between competing interests.
Introduction: Steven Kerr (1995) explained in his classic article that we often reward for one thing while we hope for another. Many of us in business are familiar with this article and have even used it in our classes in an effort to emphasize to our students what organizations do and why it doesn't work. Kerr specifically noted the problem with existing systems and universities where professors are rewarded for research and publication "….while society hopes that professors will not neglect their teaching responsibilities…” (Kerr, 1995, p. 9). Other authors such as Boyer (1990), Edgerton, Portch, Kaufman, Ross and Wergin (1993), Wright (2006), and Walker, Baepler and Cohen (2008)
Edgerton et al. (1993), in a review of information generated by over 50 campus task forces to support the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), discussed the emergence of initiatives in the 1990s which began at Syracuse University with a modest donation from the Sears Roebuck Foundation. In a survey of faculty, department chairs, and deans, each group acknowledged that university priorities favored research too heavily. At that time
33
June 1, 2010
both a recommitment to teaching was urged as well as the need to broaden the definition of scholarship to include creative work that would go beyond the boundaries of peer-reviewed journals. This reflected earlier sentiments that teaching and service should be included as expressions of scholarly work and that faculty members were responsible for the basic tasks of advancing knowledge, applying knowledge, synthesizing and integrating knowledge and representing this knowledge through teaching (Boyer, 1990). These areas were labeled as the “….scholarship of discovery (research), teaching, application and integration” (Russell and Pavelich, 1996, p. A268). However, Edgerton et al. (1993) provided survey research wherein most surveyed agreed that teaching remained undervalued and they recognized the need to elevate the status of teaching. To further confuse the issue, institutions may believe their teaching recognition is perceived as important and emphasized more than it actually is; “An institution’s formal or public statement regarding the relative emphasis to be given to teaching versus research may differ markedly from the actual relative emphasis” (Terpestra & Honoree, 2009, p. 169). Tang and Chamberlin (1997) noted the different perceptions of administration and faculty relative to teaching awards: Administration found the awards to carry prestige, but the faculty disagreed. This supported the indication that the reward structure may be out of balance.
found that there were few criteria for excellence relative to scholarship in teaching or research about teaching, either empirical or conceptual. When considering the perceptual differences between faculty and administration and the lack of criteria for what constitutes excellence in teaching, post secondary education appears to face a paradox of promoting the scholarship of teaching and learning without criteria in place to help determine what deserves recognition, perceptions of reward structures which offer limited rewards for teaching and service and a focus instead on research for tenure and promotion. In addition to the lack of research criteria, Qualters (2009) looked at the difficulty many institutions must face because there is frequently little actual oversight to assess classroom teaching outside of the student evaluations. The authors find student survey data very important because students can inform us about what they like, what they don't like and what may work for them in the classroom-- but they can hardly be considered experts in teaching and learning theory or its application. Indeed, Kramer and Alexitch (2000) found that student evaluations of professors' teaching ability may be biased by factors such as student expectations, gender stereotypes, the gender of the student completing the survey, the gender of the professor, the discipline itself, and a variety of demographic and social variables including quality of teaching, and the structure of the course. In addition, females rated professors higher in sensitivity to student needs and treatment received than did males. Student ratings correlated with how often a professor met with students outside of the class, when the class was scheduled and the size of the class. Thus while student surveys should be a part of faculty evaluations, they must
Walker et al. (2008) discussed how large academic systems in the U. S. publicly support a mission of research, service and teaching in a balanced approach but the academic reward system emphasizes and supports research efforts, especially those which lead to publications. Taylor (2007)
34
June 1, 2010
be balanced appropriately with other considerations.
When confronted with time limitations and choices that must be made, Tang and Chamberlin’s (2003) research at State University locations in Tennessee supported the perception that "….. the reward system emphasizes research" (p. 105) and that when asked to list the traits of an ideal professor, professors rated scholarly research ahead of teaching. This led Tang and Chamberlin (2003) to conclude that…. "teaching is significantly less important than research and receives less weight in tenure decisions than it should….. publish or perish has become the rule" (p.105) They further noted that this creates a strain for professors because they are expected to do one job and yet are evaluated on the basis of how they perform in a different job.
This paper reviews research on the tension and balance between teaching, service and research productivity in an effort to provide a clearer picture of the implications for institutions of higher learning while disconnects appear to exist between what is espoused and what is actually rewarded. The literature and the authors provide suggestions to more effectively manage the SoTL key areas of research, teaching and service which includes an increased focus on teaching to support improved learning outcomes. Background: Boyer (1990) is credited with the concept that scholarship should be broadened to include integration, application, teaching, fostering teaching, and scholarly activity. On page 1 he noted “… there is a recognition that the faculty reward system does not match the full range of academic functions…" and that professors are often caught between competing obligations.
Feldman (1987) provided key research that made a connection between research productivity and scholarly accomplishment in terms of overall teaching effectiveness for faculty members as assessed by their students. His research contributed a comprehensive analysis of previous studies. Feldman found on average “a very small positive correlation” (p. 227) between the two variables of research productivity and scholarly accomplishment. Indeed, the correlations were so small that he noted the variations could be independent of each other. He also found several mediating factors such as course or class specifics, i.e., the size and electivity of the course in addition to pedagogical practices and individual difference variables within the faculty. Feldman (1987) also found teaching effectiveness was dependent on other factors such as the academic rank and age of the teacher, personality characteristics, the general ability of the teacher, leadership, persistence, time and effort as
Walker et al. (2008) explained how SoTL developed as a response to the perception of the over emphasis on traditional research and that the traditional reward structure was weighted toward research. SoTL includes three dimensions, 1) engaging in scholarship, 2) moving scholarship to action and 3) contributing to scholarship. The authors identified the pressing challenge to “elevate and accelerate SoTL performance…. in spite of the static reward structures” (p. 183). With the right support and encouragement faculty will engage in SoTL even if the promotion and tenure structure is unchanged, but a systematic approach is needed to provide proper support for faculty to participate.
35
June 1, 2010
well as the career stage of the individual instructor. All of these and other factors could be contingent variables under certain circumstances. Feldman's research (Feldman, 1987; as cited in Fairweather, 1993) indicated the relationship between teaching effectiveness and scholarly productivity was correlated at about .13. As a result, any argument that good researchers are the best teachers must be questioned because Feldman’s data shows the two are far from synonymous.
relationship in their data between research and exemplary teaching, the research was not about teaching; cautions are again recommended about making assumptions relative to the relationship between teaching and research as previously noted by Feldman. In addition, there were differences between disciplines which were also supported by Feldman (1987); there were practices specific to some disciplines that were not universally applied across post secondary education. Brawer, Steinert, Watters, and WoodDauphine (2006) in Canada found discrepancies between the perceptions of chairs and recipients of faculty awards, with chairs viewing the rewards as prestigious and the recipients with opposing views.
There was no statistical significance to be found in most areas and no statistical significance overall. Feldman (1989) concluded that the quality of research, productivity and accomplishment appear to be unrelated to teaching effectiveness. While there was a small, positive association when research productivity was measured by publication counts, there was no relationship with research productivity that actually benefited teaching. Average correlations did not surpass .21, but there were notably no inverse correlations. Additionally, Feldman (1987, p. 246) noted “research productivity essentially hinders teaching even though there is a positive correlation between effective instruction and productivity”.
Does the Reward Structure Affect Performance? Richardson (2003) noted post secondary education business schools were not meeting the challenges of preparing business students, arguing that the cause could very well be the reward structure for faculty members. However, there is little empirical data regarding the actual percentages different universities require in the three traditional areas of research, teaching, and service for promotion and tenure decisions. There is even less data regarding what effects these differences might have on either individual or organizational outcomes. Terpestra and Honoree (2009) investigated the effects of different emphases on outcomes. Their results, in general, found that institutions that gave equal weight to both research and teaching had faculty who were both more effective in teaching (as defined by performance evaluation ratings, student satisfaction, student knowledge and competency) and significantly more satisfied in their jobs. Schools that emphasized research (either as the sole
The perceptions relative to how teaching is valued is not isolated to the United States; it is international in scope as noted by examples from Canada and Australia. Halse, Deane, Hobson and Jones (2007) found outstanding teachers were engaged in research but there was limited evidence that any of these outstanding teachers disseminated their knowledge about their teaching practices because their publications were in their areas of interest and did not address pedagogy. Even though Halse et al. (2007) found a
36
June 1, 2010
emphasis or with equal weight with teaching) had the most effective teachers and faculty found these schools more appealing (as defined by recruitment and retention figures).
factors such as student learning outcomes. We now look at what students are learning and how they are using the material they have learned as evidenced by the current emphasis from regional accrediting bodies and the focus on outcomes assessment in ACBSP (2009), AACSB (2010) and the Baldrige Criteria (NIST, 2009-2010).
Although there is also a focus on faculty service activities as suggested by the ACBSP (2009) and AACSB (2010) criteria, where service is listed as one of multiple faculty requirements, there is a concern that the requirement for service may detract from research and teaching. Terpestra and Honoree (2009) believed that this focus on service might be counterproductive as service takes time and other resources away from both research and teaching, which they believed to be the most satisfying endeavors to both faculty and students. Tang and Chamberlin (1997) noted that research performance was easier to measure objectively because all one had to do was count the number of publications; they also noted that this approach was not universally accepted. However, they cited Webster (1986) who noted that the publication count has been utilized as the sole criterion for ranking departments or schools in different universities.
It is difficult to measure classroom teaching; it is easier to measure how many publications a professor may generate (Tang and Chamberlin, 1997). Regardless of the issues noted with balance between research, teaching, and service, administrators continue yearly evaluations of faculty members based on these three areas and student evaluations. However, as previously noted, caution is recommended when using student evaluations as a critical aspect of instructor evaluations. Cramer and Alexitch (2000) indicated multiple aspects of student bias in the evaluation of teaching ability in undergraduate courses. Wright (2006) pointed out that external measures of student learning outcomes and student evaluations are often at odds. He reported on a 1996 study by Bryne and Leonhardt that found substantial differences in ratings of teaching performance when comparing corporate recruiters rating the perceived skill of MBA graduates and the MBA students rating their faculty.
Effective Teaching: Quality, Assessment, Measurement, Evaluation: Quality and assessment at the university level seems to be similar to quality and assessment in the business realm. In the 1980’s and 90’s, both groups held a resource-based view of their environments (Koslowski, 2006). Quality was considered a quantitative function of internal resources such as numbers of library books, numbers of Ph.D. faculty, numbers of grants, and other such items. A more contemporary perspective is that quality is assessed by outputs, not inputs, and therefore the primary focus is on
There appears to be little support for faculty to develop competence in classroom instruction. For example, Scott, Lisagor and Marachi (2009) identified numerous challenges; one of the key issues was the lack of faculty incentives to use learning centered instruction. In addition, measures of what constitute “good” or “poor” instruction are actually uncommon (Taylor, 2007). Dew (2009) identified several reasons why measures
37
June 1, 2010
play a very important role in higher education; however, the development of measures for comparison purposes is particularly difficult since they are based on differing missions for each institution. In addition, Dew noted new challenges from accrediting bodies who are now addressing additional areas such as proficiency in information technology and additional faculty development in terms of teaching and assessment (while including adjunct and part-time faculty) which all impact the quality of programs and expand the potential areas of key measurements. Since there is a perception among faculty members (Tang & Chamberlin, 1997) that they are really rewarded by the number of publications, it is difficult for faculty members to justify spending time on improving the SoTL because of the perceived weight that research and publication carries. With the lack of parameters or criteria to determine the quality of the instruction, faculty members may also avoid pursuing the SoTL in part due to the subjectivity; requirements for research and publication are typically specific and clearly elucidated.
(including hours in the classroom) the lower the pay; this is consistently true except for faculty in liberal arts colleges. The author explained that faculty pay was greater when more time was spent on research and scholarly productivity (as measured by refereed publications in either the career or per year).
Post-secondary education has not effectively connected the need to do research to stay current in the classroom. Fairweather (1993) pointed out how faculty members are rarely asked to describe how their teaching and research are related; instead, these areas are managed separately and discreetly because job performance allows different weights to be applied to each category. Fairweather noted that the 1987-88 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) provided a correlation of -.62 between time spent on research/scholarship and teaching/instruction. Typically, the more time faculty members spend on teaching
Aligning Faculty Reward Programs to Support Teaching and Learning: Efforts to enhance teaching are laborintensive and require significant time out of the classroom (Fairweather, 1993). This includes preparation and using course evaluation feedback for improvements in the next class. The time this additional effort takes usually comes at the expense of research. Moreover, he noted spending more time on teaching rather than on research will likely have an adverse impact on faculty careers. While administration may support teaching, faculty are not advised to spend less time on their research which may indicate that the support for teaching does not truly
Traditional teaching formats such as lecturing are no longer acknowledged as the best classroom format by the current generation (Richardson, 2003). Instructors are assuming the roles of facilitators and some bring in experts in the business fields to speak in the classroom. One of the issues is that some faculty members do not know people in their industries to invite; Richardson explains this is quite possibly due to the reward structure because faculty members are not encouraged to get out and mingle in the business community, and faculty members are not rewarded for involvement in professional organizations. At best, “lip service” is given – as Richardson explained: Faculty members choose to spend their time where they will see their best interests served.
38
June 1, 2010
exist. As a result, post secondary education needs to look at difficult tradeoffs between research and teaching.
had to learn new practices for data collection and the application of that data. Some factors which contributed to reduced momentum included a lack of both time and financial resources; however, participants found the accomplishments and positive changes from their efforts far more meaningful than shortages of time and money. Shifting the concept of educational productivity away from such numbers as graduation rates, student headcount and credentials granted and focusing on the product of teaching emphasized that the focus was now on student learning.
Evidence from specific SoTL improvement efforts is available but limited. For example, Bartlett & Rappaport (2009) reported on the Teli and Piedmont projects which were focused on faculty development and long-term impacts over 5 to 6 years. Efforts were focused on curriculum overhaul and although basic courses were the primary focus, there was a broader curricular impact which eventually affected 22% of the courses at Emory University and 9% at Tufts University. Some of the results indicated enduring changes in teaching, research and collaboration. Changes in teaching methods were not addressed as part of the requirements but faculty members indicated new exercises, assignments and course paradigms emerged; interdisciplinary activities increased and collaborations in grant proposals and interdisciplinary teaching were reported by 58% of the Tufts participants and 31% of the Emory faculty along with the development of a collegial sense and collaboration.
Recommendations for a More Balanced Approach: Several areas have been discussed which contribute to a less than desirable focus on the SoTL; these include both data and perceptions about less pay and prestige related to a focus on teaching; more subjectivity and the lack of criteria when assessing effective teaching; changes in teaching formats such as hybrid classes and online classes in addition to traditional face-to face classes, and integrating technology into the classroom; few or limited rewards for teaching excellence, and the trade-offs between teaching and research, including how the faculty service requirement may detract from time allotted for research. While issues about faculty pay are beyond the scope of this paper, there are suggestions and recommendations in the other areas that could be considered to address the continuous program of the SoTL.
One example of alignment efforts using The Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence was recently applied at Auburn University to an adult basic education program (Zeigler, 2005). Obtaining the necessary data required significant efforts in time and resources; one reason why is because managers were not accustomed to using data meaningfully. Some of the key factors described which increased momentum were expanding orientations, revising intake procedures, scheduling based on learner needs, not on teacher availability. Throughout the process all participants
As Richardson (2003) noted, students need to be the focus of our efforts, not the latest fad or idea in research. The authors argue that the SoTL needs to be a priority consideration and recommend using sources of information already available such as business advisory councils, other
39
June 1, 2010
stakeholders such as employers who hired the students and student focus groups to obtain information about what can be improved in the classroom. Faculty, administration and student feedback is simply not enough; other stakeholders must be engaged in the improvement process. Existing research can also make significant contributions such as providing seminars and training sessions for faculty covering such areas as learning theory, teaching theory, and learning styles. What teaching styles are effective for instructors could be one area of consideration as well as what learning styles are most effective for students to help achieve the stated learning outcomes in a course. Numerous examples are available in the literature (e.g., Coldren & Hiveley, 2009; Fatt, 2000; and Neilson, 2008) about tailoring the delivery of instruction to address the diversity of learning styles. Another area for consideration, especially for postsecondary institutions with large nontraditional student populations (i.e., working adults) may also benefit from different approaches which focus on adult learners (Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 2005).
collaboration. Release time, professional development and tuition waivers for faculty as well as peer mentoring and faculty exchange programs could be used to reward those who improve not only their teaching but the quality of the courses and programs which they help develop and may teach. Crane et al. (2009) also observed a new sense of energy around those who are transitioning to a new career; however, the authority structure in academia is very different than structures frequently found in other organizations which require new members to learn the ropes, learn and establish new parameters, and establish a network. Perhaps one of the more effective ways to address service, research and teaching is to add the SoTL to each area similar to the efforts made by Walker et al. (2008). How this addition is made and what it looks like would depend on the mission, vision and goals of each institution but the authors do provide some recommendations. These recommendations include but are not limited to awarding stipends for conferences and professional development related to the SoTL and learning and holding monthly meetings for faculty to discuss teaching and instruction; partnering with others and hold teaching conferences to share findings and best practices; create a committee or cohort around a common problem to facilitate collaboration such as service projects for an organization and conversations focused on program improvement and course improvements; issuance of a formal document from administration supporting committees and groups focused on the scholarship of teaching and learning; create, develop and share a variety of various evaluation methods to assist instructors in finding various sources to
Payne et al. (2003) suggested several possibilities for faculty rewards including merit pay and instructional grants, awards banquets, departmental awards, and certificates for excellence in SoTL and related service to place more emphasis on their importance in promotion and tenure. Competition could be generated between different departments as a result of group efforts to make improvements and provide innovative approaches to teaching and learning. As indicated earlier through the efforts of Bartlett and Rapport (2009) and Walker et al. (2008), group efforts which can involve more faculty can also generate more interest, more input and more
40
June 1, 2010
assist them in the classroom and in their exploration to improve quality in teaching and learning; generate lists of publications and various conferences dedicated to the scholarship of teaching and learning to educate, inform and encourage faculty members. For example, developing service projects for organizations or using clientbased consulting could provide opportunities for other faculty to to assess the effectiveness and distill best practices while at the same time providing opportunities for students to learn how to develop consulting skills and assess project outcomes and personal learning as part of the project.
business school. The importance bestowed on these awards should reflect the true importance the institution places on SOTL. At best, many schools at the present time simply require only evidence of participation in committee work for efforts such as curriculum development, changes, and revised programs with recognition only that service requirements are being met without rewarding better quality and stronger programs. There is a clear need to establish a culture of improvement for teaching that reflects continuous quality improvement as well as administration committed to enforcing this in yearly evaluations.
Activities that can assist in facilitating learning centered instruction were provided by Scott, Lisagor and Marachi (2009). Suggested strategies from faculty members included resources and incentives for faculty to create, develop and implement learning centered instruction, strategies to integrate assessment into learner centered instruction, common language and definitions of learner centered instruction and rewards and recognition for learner centered instruction as well as more faculty development in this area.
Teaching awards must be more than “token gestures” (Edgerton et al., 1993, p. 22). As the authors noted, faculty awards for teaching must have an increased impact in both awards and number. For example, Edgerton et al. noted that “…eight annual awards to a pool of 2,400 eligible faculty’” (p. 22) were less than adequate especially when the benefit of the award itself was modest at best. Recurring themes from survey data included the need for better evidence to justify good teaching related to faculty promotions, using qualitative methods to evaluate teaching instead of only quantitative methods, creating chairs for teaching professorships and creating centers for teaching improvement (Edgerton, 1993). A review of the reward system would identify where faculty members are rewarded for spending their time - and true reform can start with the systems in place.
The authors also suggest that recognition should be provided for faculty who mentor and train others, those who design curriculum, and those who improve the quality in programs and courses. Ingraining the mission, vision and values as well as the culture of an organization can be accomplished through the one-onone relationship that mentoring can provide; this would be preferable than leaving the faculty member to guess at what expectations might be. What this recognition should be is dependent upon the mission, vision and goals of the
Post-secondary institutions would be well served to establish criteria which will identify “good” teaching to reduce the subjectivity inherent in the instructional process. Because the criteria used in
41
June 1, 2010
reward systems are often lacking or ambiguous as noted earlier, recipients may not know or understand exactly why they are receiving awards. Clear criteria would also provide goals and targets for improving individual performance of instructors. Institutions miss an opportunity to publicly reinforce desired behavior when reasons why awards are given are not shared publicly. More transparency is needed in both defining the criteria and explaining how those criteria are used in decisions.
for faculty members, one for research and one for education (as cited in Russell & Pavelich, 1996). Some effort has already headed in this direction in some institutions which recognized the need to have both teaching faculty and research faculty; however, we feel that the research must include teaching and not be focused solely on research in other areas. Research in teaching methods and theory applications are some examples of areas in which faculty could become involved in SoTL. Faculty members could also develop case studies for classroom use and use collaborative groups to conduct research, develop and refine ideas, and encourage publication. Perceptions of trade-offs that would direct faculty to research in their interest areas and away from excellence in teaching should be identified and reviewed. Tang and Chamberlin (1993) noted how stress can develop when faculty are expected to be good teachers but are only rewarded for research and publications. Providing appropriate awards in teaching may provide the emphasis necessary to encourage balance between research and teaching.
Badri and Abdulla (2004) proposed a model that universities can use to identify relevant and important criteria. They give examples of criteria in the three traditional faculty areas of research, teaching and service. Their teaching criteria model is comprised of six areas which include diversification in teaching; efforts in developing courses and methods of teaching; student evaluation of teaching; course files and exams; teaching portfolio; and contributions in conference/workshops related to teaching. Each area is then broken into specific items. For example, efforts in developing courses and methods of teaching includes items such as theoretical courses developed, lab courses developed, web-based teaching materials developed, books translated for the purpose of teaching. This type of model and this level of attention to detail would be of value and assistance in reducing ambiguity and assist in more consistent decision making. Each institution would develop its own set of criteria based on mission, vision and goals. Input could be requested from faculty, administration, students, business advisory councils and other stakeholders.
Boyer (1990) called the faculty to have discussions on teaching procedures, have peers evaluate candidates relative to their essays or teaching philosophies, establish criteria to determine good teaching and to deem significant articles that appear in peer-reviewed journals. Edgerton et al. (1993) suggested that recipients of teaching awards be organized into teaching academies and tasked with the responsibility to improve teaching at the institution. Faculty forums developed and implemented by faculty could discuss teaching and provide opportunities for collaboration and research. By monitoring
Faculty Career Paths and Suggestions: Felder recommended two equivalent paths
42
June 1, 2010
faculty workloads, administration can ensure coherence to the curriculum, improve teaching and assess student achievement at the departmental level. Rewards could be issued on a departmental basis instead of an individual basis which would encourage collaboration and participation. Formal rewards systems would be necessary, especially at the departmental level because informal rewards would not be adequate to address the importance of the SoTL. Edgerton et al. also recommended that outsiders look at peer institutions for ideas and collaborate across institutions; the focus should be on administrative leadership and then on faculty in their respective departments. However, strong academic leadership and faculty leadership with incentives are still insufficient for progress. Other reforms suggested by Edgerton et al. (1993) included peer reviews of departmental teaching evaluations, rewards, and definitions and criteria to evaluate professional service. This cannot be accomplished by the institution alone. Faculty priorities are established not only through department administration but through higher education, government, accrediting and testing organizations as well as other outside organizations and institutions who serve as stakeholders. As a result, a systematic approach would be required to address real change.
focused on developing innovation and creativity, enhancing curiosity and inquiry and addressing student diversity. Scholarship would be required in the criteria for excellence as either empirical or conceptual. The third priority would be to determine excellence, for example, with representative panels containing diverse membership. A fourth criteria was to develop a knowledge management approach that would allow the transfer of practices from one site to another. The final criterion was to explore implications of reward and award plans to make certain they do not polarize teaching and research. Both must be developed with adequate pay structures and facilities focused on supporting teaching. Policies, procedures and practices intended to promote faculty participation in the SoTL may need to be revisited to determine if there were barriers created over time that may impede quality improvement; revisions may be necessary to identify and correct systemic issues which may be hindering institutional progress as suggested by Baldri and Abdullah (2004). Institutions can also improve teaching by refining the mission statement to help balance research and teaching; Tang and Chamberlin (1997) found that faculty members who viewed themselves as researchers with teaching taking second place appeared to be more personally satisfied. If more universities continue to emphasize research, the needs of the state and the students may not be served effectively. The final step for any award or reward program or system is to develop an effective measurement of the system itself. Institutions not only need to implement the change, surveys and feedback are necessary to determine the effectiveness of the change, to determine what else needs to be addressed and to
Taylor (2007) recommended five criteria to establish teaching excellence. She recommended establishing a research strategy which would provide the foundation necessary for establishing research and development priorities. The second recommendation was to establish core criteria which could be common across disciplines and then provide some which would be discipline specific,
43
June 1, 2010
help focus the efforts moving forward to make improvements in the programs or systems. No real progress can be made without feedback from those involved, participation in the changes, and appropriate adjustments which contribute to the success of the institution.
incentives and support it is difficult to promote change and faculty members may not be interested in change because they are not rewarded to do and there may be a lack of incentives to encourage reform (Edgerton et al., 1993). Those who teach in business schools can only imagine the potential if we could focus more on the need to light fires rather than fill the pails (Yeates, 1902).
Conclusion: Potential negative effects of a reward structure that is not effective could include the discouragement of collaboration and collegiality, an unwillingness to take risks and eventually a negative impact on the institution's retention of top-notch faculty. This, in turn would impact the quality of the student graduating from the programs and could deter students from entering a graduate programs (Laursen & Rocque, 2009).
Dr. Bandow is an associate professor of business in the Sorrell College of Business at Troy University in Atlanta, GA. Her current research interests include trust, retention, recruiting, career management, workplace incivility, and IT personnel issues. Dr. Minsky is an associate professor of management in the Sorrell College of Business at Troy University in Dothan, AL. Her research interests include human resource management, perception, values/value congruence, and career issues.
Scott et al. (2009) recommended formal teaching on how people learn in such areas as the order in which information is given to students, how students interpret and potentially misunderstand and how emotions may influence the reception of information. Social dynamics of learning are also important and should be understood by faculty; such information would help faculty make decisions about students working alone or in groups and how different types of conflict may or may not facilitate learning. It is also clear that higher education needs to look very closely at what exactly is being rewarded as opposed to what society expects and what we as educators believe we are producing. Unless changes are made in how we address the SoTL, we will continue on the path Kerr (1995) described without significant changes, telling students what not to do while setting a bad example. Faculty members need to assume responsibility to make the necessary changes along with leadership if the goal is real change. Without proper
References AACSB International (2010). Retrieved March 31, 2010 from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standa rds.asp ACBSP (2009). ACBSP accreditation. Retrieved March 31, 2010 from http://www.acbsp.org/p/cm/ld/fid=73. Badri, M. A. and Abdulla, M. H. (2004). Awards of excellence in institutions of higher education: an AHP approach. International Journal of Educational Management 18 (4), 224-242. December 9, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global Data Base.
44
June 1, 2010
Baldrige National Quality Program (20092010). Education criteria for performance excellence. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Edgerton, R., Portch, S., Kaufman, N. J., Ross, J. R. & Wergin, J. (1993). The reexamination of faculty priorities. Change, 25(4), 10-25. December 22, 2009, from ABI Inform Data Base.
Bartlett, P. and Pappaport, A. (2009). Long-term impacts of faculty development programs: The experience of Teli and Piedmont. College Teaching, 57(2), 73-82
Fairweather, J. S. (1993). Faculty rewards considered: The nature of trade-offs. Change, 25(4), 44- 47. December 22, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Data Base.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Fatt, J. P. T. (2000). Understanding the learning styles of students: implications for educators. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 20(11/12), 31-45. Retrieved April 2, 2010 from the ABI/INFORM database.
Brawer, J., Steinert, J., Watters, K. & Wood-Dauphine, S. (2006). The significance and impact of a faculty teaching award: disparate perceptions of department chairs and award recipients. Medical Teacher, 28(7), 614-617.
Feldman, K. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers as related to their instructional effectiveness: A review and exploration. Research in Higher Education, 26(3), 227-298.
Coldren, J., & Hively, J.. (2009). Interpersonal teaching style and student impression formation. College Teaching, 57(2), 93-98. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals.
Jolson, M. A. (1974). Criteria for promotion and tenure: A faculty view. Academy of Management Journal, 17(1), 149-154. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from the Business Source Premier Database.
Cramer, K. M. & Alexitch, L. R. (2000). Student evaluations of college professors: identifying sources of bias. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 30(2), 143164. Retrieved March 28, 2010 from the ProQuest Database.
Halse, C., Deane, e., Hobson, J, and Jones, G. (2007). The research-teaching nexus: what do national teaching awards tell us? Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 727746. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from the Business Source Premier Database.
Crane, B., O’Hern, B. and Lawler, P. (2009). Second career professionals: Transitioning to the faculty role. Journal of Faculty Development, 23(1), 24-29.
Horman, B.& Asprakis, A. (2007). The times they are a-changing: Faculty support mechanisms in a shifting academic landscape. Peer Review, 9(4), 20-22. Retrieved March 8, 2010 from the ProQuest Database.
Dew, John (2009). Quality issues in higher education. The Journal for Quality & Participation, 32(1), 4-9.
45
June 1, 2010
Kerr, S. (1995). On the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 7-14
December 23, 2009, from the ABI Inform DataBase Richardson, L. (2003). A challenge to change business education. Mid-American Journal of Business, 18(1), 5-6. December 23, 2009, from the ABI Inform Data Base
Knowles, M. S.; Elwood, F.; Holton III & Swanson, Richard A. (2005). The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resources Development (6th Ed.). San Diego: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.
Koslowski, F.E. (2006). Quality and assessment in context: a brief review. Quality Assurance in Education 14((3), 277-288.
Russell, A. A. & Pavelich, M. J. (1996). Faculty rewards: Can we implement the scholarship of teaching? Journal of Chemical Education, 73(11), A268-A271. Retrieved December 23, 2009, from the ABI Inform Data Base
Laursen, S., & Rocque, B. (2009). Faculty Development for Institutional Change: Lessons from an advance project. Change, 41(2), 18-26. Retrieved December 22, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Data Base. (Document ID: 1667020211).
Scott, W., Lisagor, T. and Marachi, R. (2009). Learning centered universities: The changing face of higher education. Journal of Faculty Development, 23(1), 14-23. December 23, 2009, from the ABI Inform Data Base
Montgomery, B. L. (2007). Review of The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching Commons. On the Horizon, 15(4), 252-255. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 1341269531)
Tang, T. L. & Chamberlain, M. (2003). Effects of Rank, Tenure, Length of Service, and Institution on Faculty Attitudes Toward Research and Teaching: The Case of Regional State Universities. Journal of Education for Business, 79(2), 103-110. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global.
Nielsen, T. (2008). Implementation of learning styles at the teacher level. Education & Training, 50(2), 155-166. DOI: 10.1108/00400910810862137
Tang, T. L. & Chamberlain, M. (1997). Attitudes toward research and teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(2), 212-227. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from the ABI/INFORM database
Payne, T., Herndon, S., McWaine, L. & Major, C. (2002). Community college faculty rewards: expectations and incentives. The Community College Enterprise, 8(1), 61-73. Retrieved December 23, 2009, from the ABI/INFORM Data Base
Taylor, I. (2007). Pursued by excellence: rewards and the performance culture and higher education. Social Work Education, 26(5), 504-519. DOI: 10.1080/02615470601118647
Qualters, D. M. (2009). Creating a pathway for teacher change. Journal of Faculty Development, 23(1), 5-13.v
46
June 1, 2010
Terpstra, D. E., and Honoree, A. L. (2009). The effects of different teaching, research, and service emphases on individual and organizational outcomes in higher education institutions. Journal for Education in Business (January/February), 169-176. December 9, 2009, from ProQuest Data Base. Walker, J. D., Baepler, P., Cohen, B. (2008). College Teaching, 56(3), 183-189. Retrieved December 23, 2009, from the ABI/INFORM Data Base. Wright, R.E. (2006). Student evaluations of faculty: Concerns raised in the literature, and possible solutions. College Student Journal, 40 (2), 417-422. December 9, 2009, from the ProQuest Data Base. Yeates, W. B (n.d.) Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. Retrieved December 26, 2009 from http://www.wisdomquotes.com/001396.ht ml Ziegler, M. (2005). It opens your eyes: Transforming management of adult education programs using the Baldrige Educational Criteria for Performance Excellence. Adult Basic Education, 15(3), 169-186. Retrieved December 27, 2009, from the Career and Technical Education.
47
June 1, 2010
control and reduction, and a curriculum more responsive to the need of business and industry. Failure to act decisively on these two fronts puts at risk the pursuit of an undergraduate degree as a rite of passage for many and opens the door for more significant competition from corporate universities and for-profit educational institutions.
An Innovative Three-Year Degree in Business Administration: A Decade of Success Dr. Martin J. Bradley
[email protected] Dr. Steven R. Painchaud
[email protected] Southern New Hampshire University
Introduction: For over two centuries the delivery model for American higher education has gone largely untouched. The social contract, if you will, was for families to send their sons and daughters to the University for several years of study during which time the family would find ways to pay for the cost of the educational experience. At the end of the college experience the University would declare the student educated and prepared to contribute to society in a variety of meaningful ways.
Abstract: The ability to control escalating tuition costs while still delivering a high-quality educational experience is the key to the continued success of post-secondary education in the US. Unlike many industries, where growth in customers and overall expansion often translates to lower costs, this has not been true for labor intensive business models like American higher education. The delivery model has changed little over the last 200 years. The challenge for today's university leader is to create a learning environment that insures the intellectual potential of students is maximized while controlling costs and protecting academic integrity. At Southern New Hampshire University the traditional four year business administration curriculum model was redesigned into three uncompressed years, cutting tuition costs by 25% without sacrificing learning outcomes. The results are compelling. Students save time and tuition costs and the university experiences a savings in instructional delivery costs. The academic achievement of these students, as measured by scores on the Educational Testing Service Major Field tests, is at, or above, the national median. The model described in this paper represents just one illustration of curriculum changes required to address two major challenges now facing American higher education – that of cost
The college investment, particularly through the 20th century, yielded great opportunities for the college graduate. As the economy grew a need for more and more educated and sound thinkers was required to ensure that current businesses prospered. This same intellectual capital became a requisite for economic expansion of the 20th century, and fueled tremendous growth in postsecondary education. Yet as the business of higher education grew so did the unique challenges that this industry faced. Specifically, the model of American higher education remains monolithic and labor-intensive. So, as more and more individuals sought access to postsecondary, education leaders looked for ways to run their universities as cost effective organizations. These challenges exist today as tuition continues to spiral out of control, threatening access to the
48
June 1, 2010
middle class; the same middle class which fueled the unprecedented expansion of the 20th century.
the choice for college leaders being either “reinvention or extinction”. Gee goes on to echo what has become a growing chorus of leaders expressing deep concern over the mounting difficulties of access to and quality of the educational system (Fain, 2009).
The ability to control escalating tuition costs, while at the same time delivering a high-quality educational experience, is the key to the continued success of postsecondary education in the US. Students are being asked to make enormous financial investments as they prepare for life and work in the 21st century. It has long been recognized that education is a primary vehicle to improved prosperity for the individual. In particular, the attainment of a bachelor‟s degree during the second half of the 20th century in the U.S. grew significantly in popularity with colleges and universities enjoying long periods of growth that resulted in a continuously increasing percentage of the U.S. population attaining college degrees (Carnevale, 2008). Yet, Zemsky, Wegner, and Massy (2005) note that higher education remains one of the few industries where marketing demand and competition has had only a marginal effect on price controls.
The challenge and opportunity for today's university leaders is to consider new ways to create the learning environment that embrace the best practices from other countries and industries insuring that the intellectual potential of students can be maximized while controlling costs and protecting academic integrity (Twigg, 2008). New models and constructs are needed in order to conceive different pathways for learning and degree attainment. What also seems apparent is that the changes occurring across the Academy will not be limited to just the traditional 18-22 year old undergraduate population. Indeed, the opportunities of degree attainment for adult learners will also undergo changes in the years ahead with some of these changes facilitated by technological advancements and others due to increased and intense competition among institutions for enrollments across delivery systems (Dolence & Norris, 1995).
Unlike many industries, where growth in customers and overall expansion often translates to lower costs, this has not been true for labor intensive business models like American higher education. The delivery model has changed little over the last 200 years. The model is highly laborintensive in an industry that is widely recognized as slow to embrace change (Noble, 2002). So challenging are the problems of cost containment and quality that the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that nationally recognized higher education leader Gordon Gee, president of Ohio State University, called for “radical reformation” in the way U.S. colleges and universities are organized and operate with
The expansion of the Internet coupled with heavy investments by colleges and universities into technology infrastructure positioned many campuses to become sophisticated content distributors, offering courses and degrees anytime and anywhere around the world. This shift in delivery strategy is in the process of shattering the traditional face-to-face delivery model that has influenced and changed generations of graduates. It is this shift that is forcing institutional leaders (of particularly small colleges) to find new
49
June 1, 2010
models that will allow institutions to maintain financial viability while at the same time controlling costs so that access for students remains readily available. While online education has dominated the landscape in recent years, and shows no signs of slowing down, there are other programmatic ideas that have been in play for years, and/or are now just being implemented. Indeed, Senator Lamar Alexander speaking at the American Council on Education‟s annual meeting in February 2009 suggested that it was time that colleges and universities find ways to cut costs by thinking in new ways such as offering three year degree programs (Inside Higher Ed, 2009).
Background: Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), a small private university in the northeast, was one of two institutions out of over 2,000 applicants to receive a Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) grant in 1995 to develop a three year undergraduate degree program to reduce the cost of earning a college degree. A team of faculty and professional staff members was established to create an environment in which the traditional four year business administration degree curriculum could be delivered in three uncompressed years, essentially cutting the cost of college tuition by 25% without sacrificing learning outcomes. This was accomplished through the use of a variety of organizational and curriculum design methods that, as an example, resulted in eliminating unnecessary redundancies in the established curriculum and in streamlining the learning process (Seidman & Bradley, 2002).
The authors of this paper embrace the three year alternative model as one way to facilitate affordability and access to qualified individuals. Each is a seasoned veteran of the traditional classroom experience and both participated in the creation and delivery of the first in the nation, three-year, six semester bachelor's of science degree that offers a traditional student experience with the tuition reduction of 25%. Other attributes of this curriculum include:
the reputation of the program has attracted new students to the institution, who historically might not have attended the University
The design team first conducted a detailed course by course audit of the existing curriculum to identify all of the key concepts and content. The team also needed to know where these concepts were sequenced and under what general competence-knowledge categories they fell. The new curriculum was built and the results maintained 120 total credits of coursework delivered through a set of highly interrelated educational experiences (i.e., modules). Further, the curricular effort was placed on demonstration of student acquisition of knowledge and skills, with primary emphasis placed on outcomes rather than seat time. For
reduction of institutional delivery costs so that tuition savings can be passed on to the students the curriculum experience has increased first to second year retention on average to 77% the curriculum as created promotes a student centered learning environment where over 70% of the students graduate in three years (on time) the curriculum, facilitates the building of community among student and the teaching faculty, thus a true learning community
50
June 1, 2010
example, instead of a separate three credit course in public speaking, this aspect of the communication competency was infused throughout the curriculum in multiple courses (Bradley & Painchaud, 2009).
reinforcement, and achievement. The ten program competencies developed in response to concerns of industry leaders help define and shape the three year business administration curriculum. They serve as drivers of all decisions about academic content as well as the sequencing of the academic experiences. The competencies are grouped together into a set of mutually reinforced, highly interrelated, and coordinated academic experiences (i.e., modules) and they are sequenced so that foundations for the competencies are acquired in a timely manner (Seidman & Bradley, 2002). Competency is described as:
In order to address the concerns being expressed by business leaders about the preparedness of college graduates to enter the workforce, the team next began efforts to confirm what knowledge and skills these leaders maintained college graduates needed to possess in order to be successful at their companies. The members gathered numerous professional societies curricular recommendations, studied related research, surveyed existing competencybased programs, and sought ideas from faculty colleagues. This information was analyzed and synthesized, resulting in a set of ten competencies (see Appendix A) that students must acquire in order to attain their undergraduate degree in business administration (Bradley & Painchaud, 2009).
. . . a system of behavior that can be applied in a wide range of situations. To become competent in any skill or knowledge area [competency] a person needs to understand the content both conceptually and behaviorally; have opportunities to practice it; get feedback on how well he or she is performing the skill or applying the knowledge; and use the competency often enough so that it is integrated into his or her behavioral repertoire. (Johnson & Johnson, 1975, pp. 8-10)
Discussion: Concepts central to the design, delivery, and success of this program are that students are seen at the center of the learning experience with their faculty acting as facilitators; that both faculty and students engage each other as members of a learning community; that learning occurs best when it is integrated and reinforced; and that the academic and behavioral objectives are clearly defined, measurable, and attainable. Success is determined by both formative and summative measures, including the use of the ETS Major Field Test results, student retention and graduation rates, and stakeholder surveys.
Further: Competency proficiency refers to the ability of an individual to demonstrate the mastery of a skill and/or the application of a theory that leads to the successful attainment of a performance-based outcome. (Southern New Hampshire University Three Year Degree Program, 1999, adapted from Boyatzis, 1982, p. 33). The use of a competency model also assists in focusing efforts on the ability of students to demonstrate the knowledge and
Competency Development: The model emphasizes competency development,
51
June 1, 2010
skills they acquire as a result of their academic experiences and in rethinking the definition of a course or instructional unit. According to Rowley, et. al., (1998) a course is “a unit of academic measurement” (p. 170) and that completion of a course suggests achievement of “a certain level of competency in that subject” (p.170). However, these authors also state that a course is “primarily an economic unit rather than a competency measure” (p.171). This concept is reinforced by Tagg, (2003) when he states that “offering courses had become the end, if not the definition, of higher education” (p.16).
strategy employed by the design team is the use of master planning documents, i.e., academic plans and model syllabi, for each academic experience. For each of the modules a written academic plan detailing the overarching strategy for addressing the competencies that are included within the experience has been developed, along with specific implementing activities that the faculty will employ. These academic plans are regularly reviewed and updated as part of the ongoing assessment of the program. The academic plans serve as the basis for the development of model syllabi which demonstrate the relationship between the academic requirements and assignments and the competencies.
In the three year program at SNHU the traditional notion of a college course was reframed and the primary means of delivering academic content was through a set of mutually reinforced, highly interrelated, and coordinated academic experiences referred to as modules. The emphasis was placed on student demonstration of the acquisition of knowledge and skills, i.e., demonstrating competency in the academic content.
The planning documents directing each academic experience serve to ensure that all sections of a particular experience are delivered with consistent outcomes and that there is alignment to one or more of the ten competencies occurring at the course level. The academic plans, model syllabi, and competencies also provide the formative structure for the achievement of the desired program outcomes (Gardiner, 1994).
Further, the use of a competency approach supports efforts to demonstrate to our accreditation bodies how and where the curriculum meets the Common Professional Component (CPC) requirements as articulated by the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs accreditation standards (ACBSP, 2008, p. 41).
End of Semester Integrating Experiences: Another important strategy used to demonstrate the competency development of the students in the program is the end of semester integrating experiences where students engage in a week long, team intensive activity using their newly acquired knowledge and skills to address real-world business challenges. Teams consisting of four-five students work together to research and creatively craft solutions to questions and problems posed by their faculty. Each experience focuses on those competencies stressed
Academic Plans and Model Syllabi: As noted, the competencies serve as guideposts for the content of all the academic experiences (modules) within the curriculum. But because competency development occurs at varying levels of intensity throughout the three years, a key
52
June 1, 2010
throughout the semester. Common threads throughout each of these experiences include communication/presentation skills, team membership, and research skills.
research on the issue, and development of an action plan. During the spring semester, teams work on the deliverables and prepare a formal presentation of their year‟s work to their clients and members of the university community at a public showcase at the end of the semester. Examples of past projects include: development of a web-site, a marketing plan, and an organizational needs assessment; conducting a feasibility study for a new business; and creating a database and establishing a query system.
Integrating experiences culminate with a formal presentation to the faculty, as well as to invited members from the internal and external community. A team grade is assigned by the teaching faculty and students receive a detailed written explanation of the rationale for the grade. In keeping with the strategy of developing team membership skills, students‟ also complete performance based peer assessments on each of their team members. This information is available to the faculty when assigning individual grades.
Assessing Program Impact Retention of Students: An important measure of student satisfaction used by higher educational institutions and their accreditation organizations is the retention of students once they initially enroll as freshmen. In 2008, the U.S. national retention average for four year degree students returning for their second year of higher education at the same institution as their first was 73.1%. In the same comparison year, the first to second year retention rate for students in the three year program at Southern New Hampshire University was 80.6% (Bradley & Painchaud, 2009).
Experiential Learning Projects: During the third year of the program students participate in year-long senior experiential learning projects. Students work as members of intact project teams under the supervision of a faculty facilitator and are matched with agencies, organizations, or business enterprises that have specific needs/projects related to the content of a particular course. Students gain practical experience in project management, integrating academics and business practices as well as knowledge and insight in the interrelationships of human assets, decision-making, and management techniques and functions.
The number of students returning in the second year has kept pace with the number of entering students. As the number of entering students has increased gradually over the last ten years, the number of students retained in the program has also increased (see Figure 1).
The fall semester is devoted to background work including current issue analysis (history and overview) of the organization,
53
June 1, 2010
Figure 1
Retention of Students
Number of Students
35 30 25 20 # Entering Cohort
15 10
# Returning for 2nd Year
5 0 1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Entering Year
The retention rate, measured as the ratio of number returning in 2nd year to the number entering in cohort, has
experienced a small and gradual decline over the years but has remained above 80% (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
Retention Rate 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 1996
1998
2000
2002
Graduation of Students: Another key measure of student success and institutional effectiveness at postsecondary institutions in the United States and one that has attracted attention at the national level is the rate of graduation. Basken and Field (2008) report in a Chronicle of Higher Education article that student loans are now being tied to, among
2004
2006
2008
other factors, an institution‟s graduation rate. For students in the three year program at Southern New Hampshire University the graduation rate was 77.08%. This is well above the national average of 50.3% as reported by the National Center for Educational Statistics for students earning their degrees at
54
June 1, 2010
number of entering students has increased gradually over the years, the number of students graduating from each cohort has also increased. Figure 3 below shows the trend until the entering class of 2005, which graduated in 2008.
private, not-for-profit institutions within four years of their initial enrollment. The number of students graduating from each cohort has kept pace with the number of students entering the cohort. As the Figure 3
Graduation of Students Number of Students
35 30 25 20 15
# Entering Cohort
10 5
# of Graduates
0 1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Entering Year
The graduation rate, measured as the ratio of number of graduates to the number entering the cohort, has fluctuated between 70% and 85% except for 1999. The graduation rate for the entering class of 1999 was only 50%. Since this ratio is
Number of Students
Figure 4
based on an entering class size of only ten students, the smallest since 1997, it can be considered an outlier (see Figure 4). Retention and graduation rates are also shown in table format in Appendix B.
Graduation Rate
1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Entering Year
55
June 1, 2010
focus: accounting, economics, management, quantitative business analysis, finance, marketing, legal and social environment, and international issues.
Comparison of Three Year Scores with National Scores on ETS Exam: The Major Field Tests are used by colleges and universities to measure student academic achievement and growth, and to assess the educational outcomes of their programs. In addition, the field tests are used by departments evaluating their curriculum and considering curriculum changes, and by faculty measuring the progress of their students. These tests also provide students with an assessment of their own level of achievement within the business field of study.
In addition to the factual knowledge, the major field-test validates the ability of the student to analyze and solve problems, understand relationships, and interpret material. The test may contain questions that require interpretation of graphs, diagrams, and charts based on material related to the field (Seidman & Bradley, 2002). The ETS exam has been administered since 2001.
The content for the major field tests reflects the basic knowledge and understanding gained in the undergraduate curriculum. The tests have been designed to assess student mastery of concepts, principles and knowledge students are expected to demonstrate at the conclusion of the study in the major content area. The business field test (Educational Testing Service, 2000) contains eight sub-areas of
The average scores on the ETS exam for SNHU three year students were slightly above the national scores for the second and the third cohorts but have fluctuated right around the national scores during the rest of the years (see Figure 5 and Appendix C).
Figure 5
Comparison of ETS Exam Performance (Score)
ETS Exam Score
170
160
150 3Year Program Score National Score
140
130 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
56
June 1, 2010
Before testing statistically to determine if there was a difference in the average scores of SNHU three year students and the national scores on the ETS exam, we tested the equal variance assumption for the two sets of scores. The assumption was rejected very strongly at a p-value < 0.01. In other words, there was much greater variability in the average scores of the three year students as compared to the national scores (see Appendix D).
year students and the national scores on the ETS exam (see in Appendix E). Comparison of Three Year Percentile Scores with National Percentile Scores on ETS Exam: The average percentile scores of SNHU three-year students on ETS exam were slightly above the national scores for the first three cohorts but have fluctuated right around the national percentile scores since then (except for 2004). In the year 2004, the average percentile score of SNHU three year students experienced a dip down to 25 percentile (see Figure 6).
Hence, a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances was conducted. The results show no significant difference between the average scores of SNHU 3Figure 6
Comparison of ETS Exam Performance (Percentile) ETS Exam Percentile
120%
3 Year Program Percentile
100%
National Percentile
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Before testing statistically if there was a difference in the average percentile scores of SNHU three year students and the national scores, we tested the equal variance assumption for the two sets of scores. The equal variance assumption was rejected very strongly at a p-value < 0.01 (see Appendix F). In other words, there was much greater variability in the average percentile scores for SNHU three year students compared to the national percentile scores.
Hence, a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances was conducted. The results show no significant difference in the average percentile scores of SNHU three year students and the national percentile scores on the ETS exam (see Appendix G). Alumni Results Regarding Program Competencies: At the end of each academic year alumni are contacted and
57
June 1, 2010
asked to complete a detailed survey that measures the level of importance that each of the ten program competencies has contributed to their careers. While this data includes business school graduates from both three year and four programs at SNHU, what is striking is the consistency in responses (see Figure 7). Additionally, the responses by alumni validate the decision to build a curriculum that included teamwork, problem solving, strategy and communication. Also noted in the results were the comparatively low ranking of the Information Technology Figure 7
and Global Orientation competencies. Through further investigation with alumni, more recent graduates indicated a high degree of competence with technology as a result of daily life experiences, i.e. the integration and use of technology in all aspects of their lives. As for the global competency, many respondents indicated that they work for more locally and regionally based companies that did not have a significant international presence, thus the competency, while critically important, had less day-to-day work importance.
Alumni Survey Results
100 90 80 70 60 50 40
Communica Information tion Technology
Problem Solving
Teamwork
Analytical Skills
Global Ethical/Leg Orientation al Practices
Research
Strategic
Leadership
64
74
83
78
64
74
78
76
56
64
74
83
78
57
63
75
85
78
2005
80
59
83
85
73
56
2006
81
50
73
77
69
60
2007
80
59
80
75
73
2008
73
60
83
80
75
database is designed to compile the scanned data, adding the “Agree” and “Strongly Agree” responses for each question, and recording the score as a percentile (100%) for each faculty member. This score became known as the faculty member‟s Student Satisfaction Index (SSI) for that course. The SSI can be reported by course, by instructor, by department, or by undergraduate or graduate overall totals. For analysis purposes, the overall mean and standard deviation are also calculated each time the
2001-2008 Student Satisfaction Index (SSI) of Teaching Faculty: The student satisfaction index (SSI) has been complied since 2001 and was designed as a collaborative effort among the administration and faculty within the school of business. As both the school and the University looked for new ways to document assessment measures, it was deemed by the faculty that an indirect measure relying on student evaluations of courses should be used as one of the many assessment measures at the institution. The
58
June 1, 2010
index is reported. The Dean, departments, and the individual faculty members use this SSI data as another way of tracking student satisfaction and their perception of teaching effectiveness. As mentioned previously, the SSI is a part of the comprehensive course evaluations of all faculty at all locations in all programs. The SSI and the comprehensive evaluations are reviewed by department chairs, continuing education center directors, and the Dean‟s Office, and then are placed in the teaching file of the faculty member. These evaluations are used as a developmental tool helping faculty (both full-time and adjunct) to improve their teaching skills (Bradley & Painchaud, 2009).
Figure 8 on the following page depicts the cumulative SSI results for our full-time faculty, sorted by department, for years 2001-2009. The contrast among the departments is unsurprising and reinforces that the experience students report pertaining to full-time faculty is highly valued and very consistent from year to year. Even in years 2004 and 2005 where the greatest variance across the six academic departments (55 full-time faculty members) was observed, it is important to note that the full-time student satisfaction level at its lowest was still above 83% with the cumulative faculty goal being the 90th percentile.
Figure 8 Full-Time SSI Report
AYR '01-AYR '09 By Year School of Business Mean is 92.
100
90
80
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
AC
91.1
91.1
90.6
91.2
92.9
94.4
92.8
92.2
93.9
EF
87.9
88.4
85.7
88.6
86.8
90.0
90.5
89.1
88.0
IB
88.3
90.7
92.0
93.3
92.1
91.8
93.8
92.0
93.2
IT
84.9
86.8
87.1
86.7
85.9
87.0
91.2
91.3
92.7
MKT
91.5
93.1
93.0
93.3
95.3
93.4
93.1
92.7
94.0
OL
93.4
93.5
94.2
95.0
94.4
94.7
94.9
94.3
94.1
QS
90.6
91.1
91.7
84.3
84.7
92.3
94.0
94.8
93.4
SPT
97.2
96.3
98.6
99.4
97.5
92.0
95.0
92.5
97.2
89.2
89.7
HOS
*HOS-became part of the School of Business in 2008
study at SNHU is to the students and their sponsors who save one year of tuition expenses. These students also are able to
Financial Benefits to Students and Institution: The most obvious financial benefit from the three year program of
59
June 1, 2010
enter the workforce one year sooner than their four year counterparts, providing them with an additional financial advantage. From an institutional perspective, the redesign of the curriculum with the focus on integration saves approximately 25% in delivery costs. Further, because retention and graduation rates exceed national averages an additional institutional savings in recruitment costs is realized. And finally, students enrolling in the three year program at SNHU have consistently reported that the program was the reason for their decision to enroll, allowing the institution to increase its enrollments by attracting a new market segment.
concept, often citing worry over the loss of the fourth year tuition, or questioning how others might perceive the quality of the three year experience, or stating that it is too difficult of a program to explain to potential students and their parents. Yet, after ten years of experience and collecting feedback and data through both direct and indirect measures, participants and graduates of the SNHU three year program continue to excel both in and out of the classroom. On nationally standardized major business field exams developed by the Educational Testing Service Inc. graduates of the three year degree program have, overall, scored as well as students completing the same exam nationally at some of the most recognized business schools. This direct measure coupled with multiple indirect measures such as surveys of employers, alumni, and current students, and accreditation reviews all support the success of this curriculum model; a model that is both outcomes focused and addresses the accelerating costs of American higher education, which if not dealt with will result in the traditional undergraduate college experience being affordable to an ever decreasing pool of students.
Conclusions: Curriculum innovation has never been an easy or fast process. But it is clear that if college and university leaders expect to compete in the years ahead, then they must challenge their trustees and faculty to consider new ways to organize and deliver content that best meets the needs of today's college student and addresses both the cost and quality concerns of a growing number of stakeholders. Moreover, the need for higher educational institutions to confront the deeply entrenched administrative model of scheduling courses, assigning faculty, and recording credits will continue to be a challenge in the years ahead.
The three year degree program highlighted here represents just one illustration of the kind of curriculum changes required to address two major challenges now facing American higher education – that of cost control and cost reduction, and a curriculum more responsive to the need of business and industry. Failure to act decisively on these two fronts puts at risk the pursuit of an undergraduate degree as a rite of passage for many, and opens the door for more significant competition from corporate universities and for-profit
It is interesting to note that while the three year program at Southern New Hampshire University discussed in this paper is regarded as both innovative and successful, it has not grown in the number of enrollments beyond what it experienced in its early years. Nor, more importantly has it become fully part of the fabric of the institution (Thompson & Purdy, 2009). University leaders have been slow to recognize the potential of the three year
60
June 1, 2010
educational institutions. The authors recommend that college and university leaders consider the following:
Adopt new curriculum models that promote affordable and quality learning for students. The three year model discussed in this paper is one such model. It is both viable and sustainable and can significantly reduce the financial costs to students earning a bachelor‟s degree in business administration. Three-year degree programs in other business majors, as well as in majors outside of the business discipline are needed in order insure that access and opportunities remain for students while at the same time better managing institutional delivery costs. Create a sense of urgency that fosters creativity and innovation. College and university leaders, particularly presidents, must champion focused, determined efforts to fully integrate new models of teaching and learning into the institutional culture. Additionally, campus leaders must undertake a reexamination of the key academic support services, e.g., academic advising, registrar, learning centers, etc., to help insure that systems are in alignment with the goals of the new models being implemented. Rethink the process of teaching and learning at colleges and universities. Leaders must challenge traditional assumptions about the role of faculty and students, with faculty acting as members of teaching teams who create greater integration among their academic
disciplines and students taking greater responsibility for managing their education. This rethinking must also include an emphasis on student acquisition of knowledge and skills, with primary emphasis placed on outcomes rather than seat time. Engage in ongoing internal and external assessment efforts. Colleges and universities must develop and implement a comprehensive set of evaluation measures that demonstrate students are achieving the intended outcome(s) and that the curriculum content of the new models remains both relevant and responsive to the needs of society. Establishing strategic partnerships with business organizations, educational organizations, and community groups is an important part of external validation of the curriculum.
Recommendations for future research: The authors of this paper suggest that future research be conducted focusing on the types and approaches being used in the delivery of three year degree programs at higher educational institutions in the United States. Additionally, research describing the advantages and disadvantages for institutions and their students of each of the major models and approaches would assist University administrators in making more informed decisions as to the type of the three year degree program that would provide the most appropriate institutional fit given the organizations‟ vision, mission, culture and historical context. Further, we recognize the need for more research to be conducted on the financial resiliency of other approaches to implementing and delivering three year
61
June 1, 2010
degree programs that are not integrated as the one discussed in this paper.
excellence award. Dr. Painchaud received his doctorate from Boston College in 1993.
Finally, we suggest that as the demand grows nationally for three year degree programs so will the need for a national clearinghouse for three year degree programs. This clearing house could serve as a vehicle organizing the research around program success, student persistence, and student achievement while promoting collaborative research partnerships that advance the scholarship and publications on this topic.
References Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs. (2008). ACBSP standards and criteria for demonstrating excellence in baccalaureate/graduate degree school and programs. Overland Park, KS: Author. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995, November/December). From teaching to learning: a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 13-25.
Dr. Martin J. Bradley is a Professor of Organizational Leadership and former Dean of the School of Business at Southern New Hampshire University. He was the Principle Investigator of the US Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) grant awarded in 1995 to Southern New Hampshire University to develop a three year program in business administration and he served as the first Director of the program. In 2001 Bradley was the recipient of the University‟s Excellence in teaching award and in 2002 he was recognized among all colleges and universities in the state of NH as the outstanding University professor. Dr. Bradley received his doctorate from Vanderbilt University in 1994.
Barry, N. (2007). When reality hits. Dallas: Brown Books Publishing Group. Basken, P., & Field, K. (2008, February 1). Sallie mae tying loans to students‟ credit scores and colleges‟ graduation rates. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54 (21), A19. Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons Bradley, M. & Painchaud, S. (2009). Innovation in Higher Education at Southern new Hampshire University: The Design, Development, and Success of a Three Year Honors Curriculum in Business Administration. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference (pp29-47). Athens, Greece: European Council from Business Education.
Dr. Steven R. Painchaud is a Professor of Organizational Leadership at Southern New Hampshire University, where he also served as Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Business. He has taught in the three year program since its inception and has played a key role in the first year endof-semester integrating experience. In 2008 Painchaud was the recipient of the Association of Collegiate Business School and Programs international teaching
Carnevale, A. P. (2008). A real analysis of real education. Liberal Education. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 94 (4) 54-61.
62
June 1, 2010
Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (2003). Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6 (4). Retrieved March 22, 2009, from: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fal l63/howell63.html
Coplin, Bill. (2004, June 9). For new graduates, „soft skills‟ are the secret weapon in job hunt. USA Today. Retrieved January 2, 2009, from USA Today website: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed itorials/2004-06-09-coplin_x.htm Dolence, M. G., & Norris, D. M. (1995). Transforming higher education. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (1975) Joining together: group theory and group skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Educational Testing Service (2000). Major field tests: comparative data guide and description reports. NJ: Educational testing Service.
Klaus, P., Rohman, J. M., & Halaker, M. (2007). The hard truth about soft skills. New York: Collins. Knapp, L. G., Kelly-Reid, J. E., Ginder, S. A., & Miller, E. (2008). Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2006; Graduation Rates, 2000 & 2003 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2006 (NCES 2008-173). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Fain, Paul. (2009, February 9). Gordon Gee says colleges face „reinvention or extinction. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from The Chronicle of Higher Education website: http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/02/11131n .htm Gardiner, L. F. (1994). Redesigning higher education: Producing dramatic gains in student learning (ASHE_ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7). Washington, DC: Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University.
Lederman, D. (2009). Politicians Praise and Pressure Colleges. Retrieved 08/13/2009 from: http://www.insidehighered.com/content/se arch?SearchText=lederman+%2B+praise+ and+pressure Lewis, R. G., & Smith, D.H. (1994). Total quality in higher education. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Glazer, J. S. (1986). The Master’s degree. Tradition, diversity, innovation (ASHEERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 6). Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Mangan, K. S. (2002, February 7). The new „arms race‟ in business-school buildings. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48 (39), A30-31. National Center for Educational Statistics (2006). Enrollment in postsecondary institutions, fall 2006, graduation rates,
Hoover, E. (2008, May 2). Admissions deans: Their biggest worries. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54 (34), 1.
63
June 1, 2010
2000 & 2003 cohorts; and financial statistics, fiscal year 2006. Washington, D.C: Author.
Sheridan. J. H. (1993, October 4). A new breed of M.B.A. Industry Week, 11. Tagg, John. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Bolton, MA: Anker publishing Company, Inc.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2008). Measuring up 2008, the national report card on higher education. San Jose, CA: Author.
Thompson, T,. A, & Purdy, J. M; When a Good Idea Isn‟t Enough: Curricular Innovation as a Political Process. Academy of Management; Learning and Education, Vol. 8 Num 2, June 2009.
Nettles, M., Cole, J. K., & Sharp, S. (1997). Benchmarking assessment of teaching and learning in higher education and public accountability: State governing, coordinating board and regional accreditation association policies and practices. Washington, D.C: Education Resources Information Center.
Toma, J. D. (2008, November). Positioning for prestige in American higher education: Case studies of strategies at four public institutions toward “getting to the next level. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research on Higher Education (ASHE), Jacksonville, FL.
Noble, D. F. (2002, March). Technology and the commodification of higher education. Monthly Review, 26-41. Porter, L. W., & McKibbon, L. E. (1988). Management education and development. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Twigg, C. A. (2008). Improving quality and reducing costs: The case for redesign. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from: http://www.collegecosts.info/pdfs/solution _papers/Collegecosts_Oct2005.pdf
Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D., & Dolence, M.G. (1998). Strategic choices for the academy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Zemsky, R., Wegner, G., and Massy, W. (2005). Reworking the American University: Market-Smart and MissionCentered. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Seidman, R. H., & Bradley, M. (2002). A collaborative & competency-based threeyear bachelor’s degree: empirical results. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED481060).
Appendices Appendix A Three-Year Degree Program Competencies 1. Communication: Students will demonstrate an ability to communicate effectively through written, oral, and other forms of communication. 2. Information Technology: Students will master information technology principles and contemporary information technology applications and will be able to apply information technology to the greatest advantage in the many aspects of an organization‟s operations.
64
June 1, 2010
3. Problem Solving: Students will develop the skills to identify problems quickly, analyze them reasonably, and find solutions creatively. 4. Teamwork: Students will develop a broad range of interpersonal skills in order to function effectively as a participant in team and group situations. 5. Analytical Skills: Students will appropriately use and apply quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis, use data, applied mathematical and statistical techniques, and decision sciences whenever possible to attain organizational objectives. 6. Global Orientation: Students will attain a multidisciplinary global perspective order to understand others and make more effective international business decisions. 7. Legal and Ethical Practices: Student will realize the legal and ethical considerations and implications of personal, social, business and international business behavior and activities. 8. Research: Students will be able to conduct primary and secondary research and apply the results for informed decision-making. 9. Strategic Approach: Students will be able to think and plan strategically in making business decisions. 10. Leadership: Students will be able to function effectively as a team and organizational leader.
Appendix B Retention and Graduation Rates Entering Year
# In Entering Cohort
# Returning For 2nd Year
Percent
# of Graduates
Percent
1997
14
13
92.9%
12
85.7%
1998
16
14
87.5%
13
81.3%
1999
10
9
90.0%
5
50.0%
2000
31
28
90.3%
24
77.4%
2001
26
22
84.6%
19
73.1%
2002
18
15
83.3%
13
72.2%
2003
25
22
84.6%
21
84.0%
2004
25
21
84.0%
20
80.0%
2005
27
22
81.5%
21
77.8%
2006
28
26
92.9%
-
-
2007
31
25
80.6%
-
-
2008
29
-
-
-
-
Appendix C ETS Exam Results Year
3Year Score
3Year Percentile
65
National Score
National Percentile
June 1, 2010
2001
149.2
62%
153.2
48%
2002
167.1
99%
152.3
48%
2003
158.0
81%
152.4
45%
2004
149.5
25%
152.0
45%
2005
152.0
45%
152.0
45%
2006
151.0
40%
152.0
45%
2007
152.0
45%
152.0
45%
2008
153.0
50%
152.0
45%
Appendix D F-Test Two-Sample for Variances Three Year Program Score Mean Variance Observations Df F P(F
