Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice

North American Business Press Atlanta – Seattle – South Florida - Toronto

Editor Dr. Donna Mitchell

Editor-In-Chief Dr. David Smith

NABP EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Dr. Andy Bertsch - MINOT STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Jacob Bikker - UTRECHT UNIVERSITY, NETHERLANDS Dr. Bill Bommer - CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO Dr. Michael Bond - UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA Dr. Charles Butler - COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Jon Carrick - STETSON UNIVERSITY Dr. Mondher Cherif - REIMS, FRANCE Dr. Daniel Condon - DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY, CHICAGO Dr. Bahram Dadgostar - LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY, CANADA Dr. Deborah Erdos-Knapp - KENT STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Bruce Forster - UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, KEARNEY Dr. Nancy Furlow - MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY Dr. Mark Gershon - TEMPLE UNIVERSITY Dr. Philippe Gregoire - UNIVERSITY OF LAVAL, CANADA Dr. Donald Grunewald - IONA COLLEGE Dr. Samanthala Hettihewa - UNIVERSITY OF BALLARAT, AUSTRALIA Dr. Russell Kashian - UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, WHITEWATER Dr. Jeffrey Kennedy - PALM BEACH ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY Dr. Jerry Knutson - AG EDWARDS Dr. Dean Koutramanis - UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA Dr. Malek Lashgari - UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD Dr. Priscilla Liang - CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, CHANNEL ISLANDS Dr. Tony Matias - MATIAS AND ASSOCIATES Dr. Patti Meglich - UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, OMAHA Dr. Robert Metts - UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO Dr. Adil Mouhammed - UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD Dr. Roy Pearson - COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY Dr. Veena Prabhu - CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES Dr. Sergiy Rakhmayil - RYERSON UNIVERSITY, CANADA Dr. Robert Scherer - CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Ira Sohn - MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Reginal Sheppard - UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA Dr. Carlos Spaht - LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, SHREVEPORT Dr. Ken Thorpe - EMORY UNIVERSITY Dr. Robert Tian - MEDIALLE COLLEGE Dr. Calin Valsan - BISHOP'S UNIVERSITY, CANADA Dr. Anne Walsh - LA SALLE UNIVERSITY Dr. Thomas Verney - SHIPPENSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Christopher Wright - UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA

Volume 13(3/4) ISSN 2158-3595

Authors have granted copyright consent to allow that copies of their article may be made for personal or internal use. This does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale. Any consent for republication, other than noted, must be granted through the publisher:

North American Business Press, Inc. Atlanta - Seattle – South Florida - Toronto

©Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice 2013

For submission, subscription or copyright information, contact the editor at:

[email protected]

Subscription Price: US$ 320/yr

Our journals are indexed by one of more of the following: UMI-Proquest-ABI Inform, EBSCOHost, GoogleScholar, and listed with Cabell's Directory of Periodicals, Ulrich's Listing of Periodicals, Bowkers Publishing Resources, the Library of Congress, the National Library of Canada. Our journals have been used to support the Academically Qualified (AQ) faculty classification by all recognized business school accrediting bodies.

This Issue

Fish Where the Fish Are: Higher-Ed Embraces New Communications Tools to Recruit the Wired Generation ...... 11 Nora Ganim Barnes, Stephanie Laura Jacobsen

This study is the 4th iteration of a longitudinal look at the familiarity, usage, and attitudes towards social media at four-year accredited US colleges and universities. The results show that schools are increasingly making use of social media tools to research and recruit students and to monitor online conversation about their institutions. The findings are based on 478 interviews with college admissions officers or those handling a school’s social media program. There is continued evidence of enthusiasm and eagerness to embrace these new communication tools and evidence that these powerful tools are being utilized more effectively each year.

A Conceptual Learner-Centered e-Learning Framework ...... 22 Fletcher H. Glancy, Susan K. Isenberg e-Learning has increased rapidly in higher education. Most online education attempts to mirror the traditional face-to-face (FtF) classroom with less than favourable results. This paper proposes a conceptual e-learning framework based on andragogy theory, transformative learning theory, and media synchronicity theory. The conceptual e-learning framework supports the self-directed learning. e- learning based on this framework has the potential to out-perform not only current learning management systems such as Blackboard, but also traditional FtF learning for adult education and with different and better outcomes. Results of early testing of the concept showed increased learner’s online activity, innovation, and creativity.

MOOCs and the Future of Higher Education ...... 36 Peter J. Billington, Michael P. Fronmueller

MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) have exploded onto the online education scene in the last few years. Pundits have expressed their opinions from one extreme – physical college campuses will disappear within 10 years – to the other - MOOCs are a bubble which will burst in a few years. Increasing use of technology mediated modes of instruction challenges traditional notions of instructor- learner interaction. This paper will provide an explanation of MOOCs and explore possible realistic scenarios for MOOCS’s and the online environment in higher education. The higher education cost and tuition bubble is an important part of online and MOOCs. MOOCs have provided an impetus for discussion of how to award credit, how to prevent cheating, and how to grade the large number of students efficiently while assessing the online interaction among students and instructors.

Comparing Traditional, Group Support Systems (GSS) and On-Line Focus Groups ...... 44 John Watson, Rick Newby

Blackburn and Stokes (2000, p.48) suggest that focus groups have been “relatively under used” and that part of the reason for this might be a lack of understanding by researchers of “what rigorously conducted focus groups can achieve.” Our aim, therefore, is to provide researchers with a greater awareness of the potential for conducting focus groups, together with specific guidance on how to undertake three particular types of focus group: the traditional focus group; focus groups undertaken using Group Support System (GSS) software; and on-line focus groups. Each method will be discussed and their potential advantages and disadvantages highlighted.

Revisiting the Mission of the Business School Through Scholarship of Engagement ...... 57 Thomas Cooper, Michael Skipton

The research imperative may be combining with accreditation standards, market forces, and with business schools’ traditional employment practices for faculty members to drive schools generally to become less relevant to their local stakeholder real-worlds. We explore the concept of the Scholarship of Engagement and argue that it can help bridge the relevance gap between university business schools and their local stakeholder communities – as well as making faculty members and their research and teaching more relevant. Building local stakeholder connections through Scholarship of Engagement is described as a way forward for relevance and mission-related business school strategy.

The Quandary of Assessing Faculty Performance ...... 72 Kamal Fatehi, Mohsen Sharifi, Jim Herbert

Many educators assert that the continued use of student ratings of teaching effectiveness does not improve learning in the long run. However, administrators continue to use student opinions regarding teaching effectiveness because of its convenience and the quantitative nature of the measurement. Reducing a very complex phenomenon to a very simple numeral has its appeal. In this paper we discuss a related aspect of teaching assessment, namely the variations of skills among instructors and the students’ response to the same. In doing so, we suggest pragmatic guidelines to university administrators for evaluating various levels of skills and performance.

Redesigning an Organizational Behavior Class Using the Understanding by Design Framework ...... 85 C.R. Marshall, Lyna Matesi

If our job as university professors is to guide our students in their learning process, then we must carefully consider what learning we should guide them toward. This paper describes the backwards design process, based on Wigging and McTighe (2006) that the authors used to meld student opinion with their own academic and professional experience to develop learning outcomes for an undergraduate course in Organizational Behavior.

Adopting a Beginners Mind to Craft Experiments that Break the Curse of Knowledge ...... 93 Russell Engel

The experiment and lesson developed in this paper aim at dealing with the curse of knowledge, or the disharmony between what instructors believe they are teaching and what students are learning. This paper proposes that by adopting a beginner’s mind, instructors will be able to mitigate the disharmony. To adopt a beginner’s mind, an instructor must first recognize any priors he holds that will be important for understanding the topic that differ from the priors that students likely hold. The best way to deal with these mismatched priors is to craft an experiment that develops the priors in a straightforward way.

How to Win Friends and Influence Students: Applying Networking Principles to the Teacher-Student Relationship ...... 101 Kay Biga, Patrick Spott, Emily Spott

The purpose of this paper is to explore methods that enrich the teacher-student relationship. In particular, the focus is on applied strategies to improve the relationship between teachers and their students to enhance and improve student learning. Dale Carnegie, the preeminent writer on interpersonal relations, provides the framework for the discussion. The paper moves quickly from the theoretical to practical time-tested tools that can be immediately applied by teachers. Strategies discussed include: welcome messages, conversation stack, one-to-ones, learning names, giving feedback, thank-you notes, office etiquette, and post-graduation networking. The paper provides specific methods for application of these strategies.

Student Attitudes Toward Client Sponsors and Learning: An Analysis of the Effects of Incorporating a Client-Sponsored Project in an Introductory Marketing Course ...... 113 Jane McKay-Nesbitt, Srdan Zdravkovic

This study examines i) the effects of a client-sponsored project (CSP) on student attitudes toward a sponsoring client, ii) the effects of a CSP on student attitudes toward learning core marketing concepts, and iii) moderators of student attitudes toward learning core marketing concepts. Introductory marketing course students prepared marketing plans for a client-sponsor who awarded cash prizes. The CSP yielded i) positive student attitudes toward client sponsors and ii) beliefs that CSPs enhance learning of core marketing concepts and increase confidence in academic ability. Positive attitudes toward competition and instructor helpfulness strengthened student perceptions that the CSP enhanced learning.

Innovation in Business Education: Disrupting the Status Quo ...... 126 Beth Castiglia, Margareta Smith-Knopik

Despite the current interest in United States higher education innovation, little is known about what existing colleges and universities are doing to keep up with – or lead—new educational models or approaches. While there has been a great deal of media attention paid to initiatives such as MOOCs or competency-based educational programs, the question about how more traditional institutions have been reacting to these new approaches largely has been ignored. To address this research gap, this study focuses on the innovations adopted by colleges and universities accredited by the International Assembly of Business Education, a US-based business accrediting body. The results reveal pockets of innovation in the sample of institutions examined, but contradict many stereotypes regarding sources of change in higher education.

Basic Issues in Teaching Foreign Language in the US: A Case Study of Cross-Cultural Communications ...... 143 Camilla H. Wang, Kathy Tian

Cultural factors influence the communication and success potential of teaching foreign languages. Cultural awareness shapes foreign language instructors behavior in cross-culturally reflected education environment. Cultural factors may act as invisible barriers in foreign language classroom communications. Understanding cultural differences is one of the most significant skills of foreign language instructors for effectively teaching. This paper probes some key elements of cross-cultural issues in teaching Americans learning Mandarin Chinese and provides a framework for creating a more positive and friendly environment to teach Americans learning Mandarin Chinese.

The Effect of Critical Thinking Instruction on Graduates of a College of Business Administration ...... 149 Phyllis R. Anderson, Joanne R. Reid

We conducted a quasi-experimental study of a pedagogical treatment in critical thinking in a college of business administration. Significant improvements were obtained in 6 of 7 measures of critical thinking using a validated assessment instrument. Subsequently, we taught this treatment for five years. We then conducted a qualitative/quantitative survey of the graduates of the college who had taken this treatment. Our quantitative results were validated by the qualitative responses of the graduates. The graduates confirmed they transferred the knowledge, skills and strategies they had learned from their undergraduate class in critical thinking into their post-graduation personal, academic, and professional lives.

GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice (JHETP)

Domain Statement

The Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice (JHETP) is dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of academic and intellectual knowledge by publishing, through a blind, refereed process, ongoing results of research in accordance with international scientific or scholarly standards. Articles should combine disciplinary methods with key insight to contemporary issues central to faculty, administrators, and industry specialists. Articles of regional interest are welcome, especially those dealing with lessons that may be applied in other regions around the world. Accepted manuscripts should make strong empirical and/or theoretical contributions and highlight the significance of those contributions to the higher education field.

Objectives

1. Generate an exchange of ideas between scholars, practitioners and industry specialists 2. Enhance the development of theory and application useful to faculty and administrators 3. Provide an additional outlet for scholars and experts to contribute their research findings in the area of higher education

Submission Format

Articles should be submitted following the American Psychological Association format. Articles should not be more than 30 double-spaced, typed pages in length including all figures, graphs, references, and appendices. Submit two hard copies of manuscript along with a disk typed in MS-Word.

Make main sections and subsections easily identifiable by inserting appropriate headings and sub-headings. Type all first-level headings flush with the left margin, bold and capitalized. Second-level headings are also typed flush with the left margin but should only be bold. Third- level headings, if any, should also be flush with the left margin and italicized.

Include a title page with manuscript which includes the full names, affiliations, address, phone, fax, and e-mail addresses of all authors and identifies one person as the Primary Contact. Put the submission date on the bottom of the title page. On a separate sheet, include the title and an abstract of 150 words or less. Do not include authors’ names on this sheet. A final page, “About the authors,” should include a brief biographical sketch of 100 words or less on each author. Include current place of employment and degrees held.

References must be written in APA style. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to ensure that the paper is thoroughly and accurately reviewed for spelling, grammar and referencing.

Review Procedure

Authors will receive an acknowledgement by e-mail including a reference number shortly after receipt of the manuscript. All manuscripts within the general domain of the journal will be sent for at least two reviews, using a double blind format, from members of our Editorial Board or their designated reviewers. In the majority of cases, authors will be notified within 60 days of the result of the review. If reviewers recommend changes, authors will receive a copy of the reviews and a timetable for submitting revisions. Papers and disks will not be returned to authors.

Accepted Manuscripts

When a manuscript is accepted for publication, author(s) must provide format-ready copy of the manuscripts including all graphs, charts, and tables. Specific formatting instructions will be provided to accepted authors along with copyright information. Each author will receive two copies of the issue in which his or her article is published without charge. All articles printed by JHETP are copyrighted by the Journal. Permission requests for reprints should be addressed to the Editor. Questions and submissions should be addressed to:

North American Business Press 301 Clematis Street, #3000 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 [email protected] 866-624-2458

Fish Where the Fish Are: Higher-Ed Embraces New Communications Tools to Recruit the Wired Generation

Nora Ganim Barnes University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

Stephanie Laura Jacobsen University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

INTRODUCTION

There is no doubt that we are more wired than ever before. Most of the population goes to sleep with their phones lying next to them and their computers not too far away. In a world where information is available at your fingertips, do we still believe that social media is just a fad? The more than 550 million active users on Facebook, half of which log in on any given day seem to say otherwise (Facebook.com/ statistics2010). Today’s young people as well as an increasing number of adults are utilizing Facebook, Twitter, and personal blogs, either to share their own thoughts or to read those of others. It is even possible to see a doctor online at your own convenience (Hawn, 2009). While many researchers have studied social media usage inside an institution, not much has been done with the actual adoption of social media for marketing a school. This seems counterintuitive. Today, more schools are trying to find a way to integrate social media and new communications tools into classroom projects and lesson plans. Young people in grades K-16 have made it clear that this is how they learn best (Cramer and Hayes, 2010). The Pew Internet Project focusing on young adults has found that as of February 2010, nearly 75% of online teens and young adults use social networking sites (Lenhart, 2010). If these tools are now integrated into their classroom experience, it becomes essential that the school they are considering is fluent in social media. Creating a social media presence in an admissions office helps to market your school online, but also allows your target audience to know the college or university understands their lifestyle and preferences. Not having a social media presence conveys the opposite message, “This school is not for you.”

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 11

With students traveling across states and countries to find a school that is right for them, a schools online presence is more important than ever. It is no longer enough just to have a website to browse, or a video of the campus. Prospective students want to speak with a person, or several people. This is one of the reasons the Edison Research Study found that Twitter had grown so fast. Awareness of Twitter has exploded from 5% of Americans in 2008 to 87% in 2010 because on Twitter people can hear what others have to say (Webster, 2010). Students want to hear from someone like them, who has gone through the experience and can share their thoughts. Perspective students look for information about tuition, location, programs and other basic information before deciding to apply. The presentation of this information on a school’s website, along with student reviews or informative videos, can make the difference in attracting perspective students. Pew Research on Older Adults has found that, half of internet users 50-64 use social networking sites (Madden, 2010). That does not mean that academics don’t matter to these students. It means professors and staff need to play a more integral role than ever. They should be communicating on blogs, and helping students learn more about what the classroom experience will be like. The online image of the school is just as important as upgrading technologies inside the campus. The study presented here helps to fill a gap in academic research on the use of social media marketing in higher education. The data that has been collected over the past several years reveals patterns in social media usage by college admissions offices. A presence in the venue where your target audience commonly spends their time provides more familiarity, convenience and a more personal, authentic view of the school. This is the time for schools to showcase their desire to create relationships with perspective students since making connections is what this group does best.

Methodology In the spring of 2007 a large Northeastern university conducted telephone surveys with a total of approximately 1,500 US colleges and universities in the US. That study provided the benchmark for the same study repeated in 2008 and 2009. (453 admissions officers were interviewed in 2007, 536 in 2008, and 479 in 2009). Schools were selected randomly from a comprehensive list of all four year accredited colleges and universities in the US publicly available on the University of Texas website (http://www.utexas.edu/world/univ/). The results of the 2009 study are presented here. Like the 2007 and 2008 studies, the 2009 study is the result of a nationwide telephone survey of four- year accredited institutions. All interviews took place with Admissions Directors/Deans or other admissions officers in November and December 2009. The responding institutions are diverse in student size (from under 50 students to over 50,000), annual tuition (from less than $1,000 to over $40,000), funding (69% private, 31% public) and location (all 50 states are represented). The sample includes well- known private schools like Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Vassar and Wesleyan as well as many large state universities like the University of Arizona, University of Pennsylvania, University of Wisconsin and University of Massachusetts. All three studies examined the familiarity with, usage of, and attitude towards social media by the admission officers at US colleges and universities. The findings presented here from the 2009 study are based on 479 interviews with a sampling error of +/- 4%. To date, this is the most comprehensive study done of American institutions of higher education and their use of social media in their admission activities. The results continue to support what the 2007 study documented for the first time: Colleges and universities are using social media to recruit and research prospective students. It is clear that online behavior can have important consequences for young people and that social networking sites can, and will, be utilized by others to make decisions about them. There is continued evidence of enthusiasm and eagerness to embrace these new communication tools and there is also evidence that these powerful tools are being utilized more effectively each year. Schools using social media are clearly studying the “rules of engagement” in the online world in order to maximize their effectiveness at recruiting prospective students.

12 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Given that higher education has a culture that is simultaneously innovative and slow to change, it is important to ask how colleges and universities are responding to the new wave of social media. The research was structured to answer the following questions: • Are colleges and universities familiar with social media? • Are colleges and universities using social media? If so, how effectively? • If they are not using social media, do they plan to in the future? • Do colleges and universities consider social media important? • Do colleges and universities use search engines and/or social networking to recruit and research prospective students? • Do colleges and universities monitor the online discussion for mention of their school’s name?

This paper compares the 2007 and 2008 data, with the 2009 data in an attempt to view changes over the past three years as schools become more familiar with social media and learn to maximize its potential.

FINDINGS

Respondents were asked to rank their familiarity with blogging, podcasting, social networking, message boards, wikis and Twitter from “very familiar” to “very unfamiliar.” Social networking, the social media that was most familiar to college admissions officers in 2007 and 2008 is still the most familiar. Familiarity with social networking has jumped from 55% reporting they were very familiar with it in 2007, to 63% in 2008 and now to 83%. Admissions officers have clearly embraced Facebook and other social networking sites as viable forms of communication with their constituency. The micro-blogging site Twitter was included in this study for the first time since its use among colleges and universities (as well as businesses and non-profits) has skyrocketed. Fifty-five percent of admissions officers report they are very familiar with Twitter. Traditional blogging also continues to be a tool that many admission offices are already “very familiar” with and many more are learning about – though not quite as quickly as social networking. Those admission officers reporting they are very familiar with blogging rose from 44% in 2008 to 55% in 2009. In fact, as the graph below shows, a significant percentage of admissions departments are very familiar with most of the technologies studied. Even wikis -- the technology least familiar to admissions officers -- is very familiar to 19% of those surveyed. Familiarity is up strongly over the past year for social networking and blogging. It is slightly down for video blogging and wikis, while message boards and podcasting remain about the same. Notably, Twitter already has a familiarity second only to social networking. This high level of familiarity with social media tools is, as you will see in the next section, translating into usage. The bottom line is that admissions officers are moving in the direction of becoming familiar with new tools of communication at a rapid rate, often through or in preparation for actual usage. (See Graph 1 for familiarity with various tools)

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 13

GRAPH 1

How familiar are you with the following forms of social media? (% Very Familiar)

100% 2007

90% 2008 83% 80% 2009

70% 63% 55% 55% 60% 53% 51% 50% 44% 43% 47% 39% 38% 40% 38% 29% 28% 29% 27% 30% 26% 21% 19% 20%

10%

0% Social Blogging Message/ Podcasting Videoblogging Wikis Twitter Networking Bulletin Boards

From familiarity, the survey moved into examining actual usage of social media by the admissions offices. Sixty-one percent of the respondents in 2007 reported they used at least one form of social media. One year later, 85% of college admissions offices were using at least one form of social media. In 2009 a record breaking 95% of college admissions offices use at least one form of social media. Usage is up for almost every tool studied. Social networking is the most common form, 87% of admissions departments use it. Fifty-nine percent have a school Twitter account and 51% have a blog. Almost all of those using a blog are using other forms of social media as well. Thirty-eight percent use message boards, 22% use podcasts and 13% use wikis. Many respondents report faculty often set up wikis for research projects and sometimes students do for group projects, but it was not one of the tools that admissions departments commonly use. (In addition to these tools, schools reported using chat rooms, instant messaging and email to reach prospective students or alumni.) (See Graph 2) The use of social networking sites and blogging has increased dramatically. At the same time, video is still being used to deliver virtual tours of campuses, virtual visits to the dorms and sample lectures from the faculty. Twitter has stormed onto the scene and has a strong presence in the social media toolbox for admissions officers.

14 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

GRAPH 2

Which of the following types of social media does your Admissions Office currently have? (% Yes)

100% 87% 90%

80% 2007 70% 61% 2008 60% 59% 51% 2009 48% 46% 50% 41% 36% 38% 39% 40% 33% 29% 30% 27% 22%

20% 19% 14% 16% 13% 15% 10% 5% 10% 3% 0% Blogging Social Message/ Videoblogging Podcasting Wikis Twitter Do Not Use Networking Bulletin Boards Any

No significant differences were found between the use of blogs by public or private schools, or by size of undergraduate population. Fourteen percent of schools with blogs are using some internally developed applications (up 6% from 2008). Others cite WordPress (19%) and Blogger (7%) as their platforms. It is not uncommon for the admissions professional to be unfamiliar with the applications being used to host a blog (27%). At most schools, the IT department sets up the blog and the admissions office manages it. When asked who manages their blog, the most popular answers are the admissions office, marketing and public relations. With more than half of all school reporting they have a blog, it is interesting to compare this level of adoption with other sectors. Previous research at the University of Massachusetts Center for Marketing Research indicates businesses have lower levels of adoption of this particular tool while not for profits report a higher level of blog usage. (See Graph 3) At first glance, college admissions use of social media appears to be a case study in the timely adoption of new technology. A closer look shows consistent improvement over the past three years in critical aspects of the technology necessary to maximize the effectiveness of these tools. Comparing the 2007, 2008 and 2009 data, it becomes clear that there has been significant improvement as we look at the implementation of one popular tool, blogging. The survey asked about blog logistics including accepting comments, promoting the blog and planning for the future of the blog. Responses from schools with blogs demonstrate how schools are learning about and using social media more effectively each year. The mantra of the blogosphere is “conversation.” Blogs that do not facilitate engagement and conversation tend to lose their audience. In the 2007 study 37% of those schools with blogs did not accept comments. By any measure, this is a problem. The goal is to connect with prospective students through ongoing conversation with the school. In 2008 that figure dropped to 22%. The 2009 data shows another drop to 18%. Schools are mastering the tool and embracing its true spirit of two-way conversation.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 15

GRAPH 3

Comparisons of Sectors Blogging 2009/2010 100% 90% 80% 70% 65% 60% 51% 50% 45% 40% 30% 23% 20% 10% 0% Charities Higher Ed Inc. 500 Fortune 500

For students or their parents looking to have a conversation online, this increased interaction through comments can be significant. With more and more schools moving into multiple channels of social media, schools that don’t allow for conversation will quickly be passed by. Schools are clearly learning to use social media more effectively. (See Graph 4)

GRAPH 4

Do you accept comments on your blog? 100% 90% 78% 80% 72% 70% 61% 2007 60% 50% 2008 37% 40% 2009 30% 22% 18% 20% 4% 10% 2% 5% 0% Yes No No Response

RSS feeds and other notification methods like email or text message allow ease of conversation and increases participation. This simplifies the blogosphere for readers who may want to keep up with a certain conversation or be informed of new information without having to check the blog to see if anything new has been added.

16 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

In the 2007 study, 46% of schools had an RSS feed available and 31% allowed email subscriptions. In 2008, those numbers rose to 49% and 48% respectively. In 2009, 65% were taking RSS subscriptions and 43% enabled email sign-ups for their blogs. Again, the increased use of RSS would indicate an increased sophistication in the use of blogging as a recruitment strategy. When asked what the future plans are for the school’s blog in 2007, the most popular answer was that there are NO future plans for the blog. This was disconcerting considering the swift movement and evolution of blog technology. In the 2008 study, the most popular response was to expand the blog. Many schools began to include audio podcasts, video and live chats as part of their blog. In 2009, the most popular plan is to incorporate social media sites into blogs. When asked if they felt their blogs were successful, 86% of schools with blogs said yes. This percentage was fairly consistent across all three studies (86%, 80%, 86%). This finding is also consistent with studies in business that have shown those using social media are satisfied with it and feel it provides positive results. Those schools not currently using social media, or a particular tool, were asked if they planned to in the future. Fifty-nine percent plan to add social networking to their current media channels. Fifty-two percent plan to make increased use of video on their blogs and 50% of those without blogs, plan to add them. (See Graph 5)

GRAPH 5

If you are not using social media(s) do you plan to use it in the future? (% Yes) 100% 2007 90% 2008 80% 70% 2009 59% 60% 52% 50% 50% 45% 42% 40% 35% 33% 40% 29% 32% 25% 30% 22% 24% 20% 16% 23% 18% 20% 8% 10% 4% 0% Blogging Social Networking Message/ Videoblogging Podcasting Wikis Twitter Bulletin Boards

The adoption of social media by admissions departments is being driven by familiarity and their recognition of the increasingly important role of social media in today’s world. Interestingly, more admissions departments feel that social media is “very important” to their future strategy than Inc. 500 businesses, (50% compared to 43%). Even more powerfully, it is worth noting that 91% of admissions departments feel that social media is at least “somewhat important” to their future strategy (See Graph 6). There is a significant correlation between perceived importance of social media technologies and use of Facebook. Those that are convinced of the need to utilize these tools do have a presence on internet social networking sites. (See Table 1)

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 17

GRAPH 6

How important do you think these kinds of social media technologies are for your recruiting strategy? 100% 90% 2007

80% 2008 70% 55% 2009 60% 50% 50% 51% 37% 41% 40% 34% 30% 20% 8% 7% 3% 10% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% Very Important Somewhat Somewhat Very Unimportant No Response Important Unimportant

TABLE 1 PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA WITH USE OF FACEBOOK

Use of Social Media Perceived Importance of Spearman’s rho .301 Social Media for Marketing Sig. (2 tail) .000* Strategy N 478 *Significant at the .000

A significant proportion of schools continue to research students via search engines (16%) and social networks (17%). While these numbers are the same for social networking as they were last year, fewer schools are reporting the use of search engines in their recruiting strategy. In 2007, 26% reported using Google or Yahoo, in 2008 that number dropped to 23%. There seems to be a preference for information from social networking sites. The admissions officers interviewed for this study reported using search engines and social networking sites to verify information, research students who were candidates for scholarships, or for those seeking entry into high-demand programs with limited spaces. In all these cases the intent was to protect the school. No school wants to announce the winner of a prestigious scholarship only to have compromising pictures discovered on the internet the next day. There were no reports of checking every applicant to an institution, no matter how small the school. Online research appears to be more of a precaution at this point or a source of additional information for critical decision making. The search engines used most often are Google and Yahoo while the social networking sites include Facebook and MySpace. The value of these social networking sites for college admissions offices cannot be underestimated. As more and more young people spend increased amounts of time on these online networks, an institutional presence will be mandatory (See Graph 7).

18 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

GRAPH 7

Do you research potential students via search engines and/or social networking sites? (% Yes)

100%

90% 2007 80% 2008 70% 60% 2009 50% 40% 26% 30% 23% 16% 21% 17% 17% 20% 10% 0% Search Engines Social Networking Sites

It is clear that admissions offices are now communicating in new ways. The next question is: Are they listening to what’s being said about their school online? Fifty-three percent in 2007 and 54% in 2008 report they monitored the internet for buzz, posts, conversations and news about their institution. Our latest research shows an increase of close to 20% with 73% of schools now monitoring their school name. Given the ease with which monitoring can be done, it is not surprising that many of the institutions studied are now doing it. (See Graph 8)

GRAPH 8

Do you monitor social media for buzz, posts, conversations and news about your school and admissions? 100% 90% 2007 80% 73% 2008 70% 54% 2009 60% 53% 47% 50% 44% 40% 24% 30% 20% 10% 1% 3% 3% 0% Yes No No Response

Over half of the institutions monitoring social media reported doing so manually. Most were using simple Google searches using the name of their school. Those schools that monitor online activity as it relates to them, tend to be private schools. They tend to be users of all forms of social media including blogs, podcasting and video. These schools are also more likely to research students online via social networking sites.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 19

Perceived importance of social media to the school, does translate into monitoring behavior. Those schools with a culture where online communications are respected as having value are more likely to fully embrace that activity. They are gathering critical strategic information by listening to what is being said about their institutions and their competitors in the social media world. A social media policy outlines for employees (or students) the guidelines or principles of communicating in the online world. When employees or student interns post on Facebook, Twitter or the school’s blog, they have a responsibility to represent the school both honestly and within the school’s rules or code of conduct. There are many examples of schools with such policies (see especially DePaul, University of Texas-Austin, George Mason and Kansas State). One cautionary note relates to having a blogging or social media policy that defines what is acceptable via the institutions’ online communications. Thirty-two percent of schools have such a policy in place for their employees or students who engage in online conversations as it relates to the school. Social media policies are now seen as important elements as an institution develops their social media strategy. Less than 25% of the Fortune 500 companies currently have social media policies in place even though many companies have hundreds of employees that utilize blogging, Twitter or Facebook on a regular basis. Few schools have developed such a policy. In this study, 32% of admissions directors interviewed reported having a written social media policy. Previous research (Barnes and Mattson, 2009) with businesses finds 36% of the Inc. 500 (small, fast growing businesses) and 21% of the Fortune 500 (wealthiest companies) have written social media policies. Higher education, like businesses in the US, are still learning how to use and direct the use of these new tools.

IMPLICATIONS

It is clear from this study that colleges and universities are moving quickly to adopt new communications tools. This movement combines thought on brand awareness, technology adoption, communications, advertising and other areas of Marketing yet no distinct work in academia on social media adoption for recruiting has appeared. This study comes more as a statistical report from which new assumptions may be posited. It is an attempt to define a new perspective or paradigm of how institutions communicate. There are associations in the data which show that familiarity with new communications tools is related to their implementation the more an admissions officer sees social media tools as important for strategic communications, the more likely they are to participate in social media. These advocates are also reporting high levels of success. Further research is necessary to address how social media can create or support strong brand awareness for academic institutions. Also, work is needed on how these new tools fit into a marketing plan and how their implementation might be most effective across diverse school demographics, especially in targeting specific subgroups for recruitment. Finally, students should be queried in an effort to match their communications preferences with the channels being used by colleges and universities. Just as marketers have long looked to satisfy consumer preferences, social media provides an opportunity for academia to relate to its “customers” in the way they are most comfortable. More research is necessary to better understand the effectiveness of social media as part of the marketing strategy in college admissions.

REFERENCES

Barnes, N. G. and Mattson E. (2007). The game has changed: College admissions outpace corporations in adoption of social media. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from http://umassd.edu/cmr/studies/research

Barnes, N. G. and Mattson E. (2009). Social media adoption among the Inc. 500. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from http://umassd.edu/cmr/studies/research

20 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Cramer, M. and Hayes G. (2010). Acceptable use of technology in schools: risks, policies, and promises. Pervasive Computing, 9 (3), 37-44.

Hawn, C. (2009). Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: How Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Health Affairs, 28 (2), 361-368.

Lenhart, A. (2010). Social media and young adults, Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.

Madden, M. (2010). Older adults and social media. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.

Mangold, G. W. and Faulds. D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52 (4), 357-365.

Facebook Statistics. Retrieved on September 23, 2010 from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics)

Webster, T. (2010). Twitter usage in America: 2010. The Edison Research/Arbitron Internet and Multimedia Study. Retrieved on November 9, 2011 from http://livajudic.wordpress.com

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 21

A Conceptual Learner-Centered e-Learning Framework

Fletcher H. Glancy Miami University

Susan K. Isenberg Lindenwood University

e-Learning has increased rapidly in higher education. Most online education attempts to mirror the traditional face-to-face (FtF) classroom with less than favourable results. This paper proposes a conceptual e-learning framework based on andragogy theory, transformative learning theory, and media synchronicity theory. The conceptual e-learning framework supports the self-directed learning. e- learning based on this framework has the potential to out-perform not only current learning management systems such as Blackboard, but also traditional FtF learning for adult education and with different and better outcomes. Results of early testing of the concept showed increased learner’s online activity, innovation, and creativity.

INTRODUCTION

Increasingly, learners are turning to the Internet and online education to learn new skills. In 2009, online learners represented 25.3% of all post-secondary enrollments (Allen & Seaman, 2010), which was a growth of 17% from 2008. The results of current online education have been less than satisfactory with low retention rates, which Simpson (2005) blamed on the characteristics of the technology. We define e-learning as any planned education that utilizes electronic media, which includes distance learning through the Internet. We consider e-learning to be synonymous with online learning. A hybrid- learning environment is simply e-learning that utilizes face-to-face (FtF) traditional education in conjunction with electronic media. Currently available commercial e-learning software reflects the efforts to create a replica of an FtF classroom in an online environment (Hameed et al., 2009). This assumes that FtF learning is the best way to learn. We posit that the FtF learning environment limits learners to the educator’s course objectives. FtF learning does not allow the learner to go back and experience the class again to review and reflect on the time together with classmates and the educator. Drawbacks to FtF classroom learning that can be managed in the online environment are learner absence, shyness, and distraction. The software controls the e-learning process in the same way that the FtF environment controls the classroom learning process (Ozkan & Baykal, 2008; Sabry & AlShawi, 2008). The software controls what media is available and how it is used. It controls the interaction between the educator and the learner and the interaction between the learner and the world outside the e-classroom. e-Learning requires an understanding of how adult learning takes place. This paper proposes a conceptual e-learning framework that can create an effective and efficient learning environment; one that allows the learner to go outside the boundaries that the educator defines. The conceptual framework

22 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

provides ontology or a specification of the concepts (Gregor, 2006; Gregor & Jones, 2007). The proposed framework can be classified as a virtual learning environment (VLE) or a learning management system (LMS). It is intended to operate in an organizational context and have the ability to utilize both copyrighted and open content material (Wilson, et al., 2006). The conceptual framework is not intended to address the concept of personal learning environment in the context of lifelong learning across institutions and platforms (Attwell, 2007; van Harmelen, 2006). The proposed framework is developed with a theoretical base in andragogy, the art and science of helping adults learn (Knowles, 1980, p. 40), and Transformative Learning Theory (TLT) (Mezirow, 1997). It utilizes Media Synchronicity Theory (MST) (Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich, 2008) to explain how the media properties affect the relationship between the educator and learner. Section 2 reviews TLT, Andragogy, and MST. Section 3 discusses the motivation for this research. Section 4 develops the conceptual e-learning framework (CLELF). Section 5 evaluates the CLELF by comparing it to existing e- learning software and FtF learning, and section 6 presents conclusions, limitations, and future work.

RELEVANT LITERATURE

Transformative learning (Mezirow, 1997) results from a crisis. The crisis tells the individual that his view of the world does not coincide with reality. The individual’s worldview based is on experience and is his frame of reference. The frame of reference is the structure that is formed from experience, feelings, education, associations, and concepts. It provides structure to assumptions and beliefs and an understanding of the experience. Through understanding and experience, the individual develops cognition, affection, and conation. The frame of reference defines the individual’s problem space definition and subsequent solution space (Simon, 1981). When a solution to problems cannot be found, a crisis is created, which has demonstrated that the individual’s frame of reference is insufficient. The new information is either rejected or the individual reflects on the current frame of reference. If reflection is chosen, the frame of reference is examined, re-evaluated, and transformed into one that will allow for the crisis and is broader, more flexible, and more discriminating. The transformation process creates learners who are increasing able to modify their frame of reference, examine assumptions, expectations, values, attitudes, and accept varying viewpoints. Transformative learning (Cranton, 2009) can happen inside or outside the classroom, because it is less about how the educator teaches and more about how the educator thinks about teaching and learning. To foster transformative learning, the educator must support critical reflection and questioning among the learners. In an online environment, the media also needs to support reflection and questioning. The dimensions of the media need to be matched to the task and relationship between the educator and the learner. The learner must be the primary focus of online education designers (Levine, 2005). The educator must have a command of the media and an understanding of the learner. Andragogical theory provides guidance on how adults learn. The assumptions andragogical theory makes about adult learners are (a) increasing self-directedness, (b) learners’ experience is a rich resource for learning, (c) learning readiness is related to developmental tasks of social roles, (d) immediacy of application, and (e) problem-centeredness (Knowles, 1973). Self- directedness is the centerpiece of andragogy. It is “both the means and the end of education” (Mezirow, 1981, p. 20). It is the job of educators to help learners become self-directed. The terms autonomous and self-directed may seem synonymous but are not necessarily synonymous in learning. A learner’s autonomy is situational; because a learner has been self-directed in one content area does not mean he will be in another, which emphasizes the importance of educator orientation, guidance, and support in the beginning of any learning project whether FtF or online (Candy, 1991). Self-directed learners prefer self- planned project work, discovery learning, and learner-directed discourse (Merriam, 2001). Self- directedness puts the learner in control of the method and pace of learning. The goal of education is to produce empowered, thinking people who participate in their own learning (Combs, Avila, & Purkey, 1971).

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 23

There are eight principles of practice for creating an online andragogical model. These principles can also be used to evaluate an existing model’s alignment with andragogy (Isenberg, 2007). The first is preparing the learner, and the second one is establishing a climate conducive to learning in both the physical environment and the psychological environment (Knowles, 1995). Learning is at risk without trust (Henschke, 1998). The remaining six elements are learner centered and function as a checklist for the designer: (a) having a mechanism for mutual planning, (b) involving the learners in diagnosing their own learning needs, (c) formulating their own program objectives, (d) designing their own learning plans, (e) helping the learners carry out their own learning plans, and (f) involving the learners in evaluating their learning (Knowles & Associates, 1984). All of these elements position the educator as a helper, not as a director of learning. Good teaching is dependent on knowing the principles of practice; one’s self, the learner, the content, and the methods (Galbraith, 2004). Knowledge of self requires educators to follow an educational philosophy that combines educator beliefs, values, and attitudes (Galbraith, 2004). Philosophy determines what is created for an online learning experience and why (Elias & Merriam, 1980), and leads to a logical analysis of the process elements. A guiding philosophy counters the mindlessness that occurs when invention is based on traditional practices rather than on educational purpose (Silberman, 1970). Instead of creating an online experience that is as good as a traditional FtF classroom, the changing world of crises requires online learning that results in better or different learning outcomes (Latchem, 2005). The opposite of self-directedness is dependency. Dependent learners prefer direct instruction and being told what to do or not do and when to do it. In contrast, the self-directed learners prefer self-planned project work, discovery learning, and learner-directed discourse (Merriam, 2001). Self-directedness puts the learner in control of the method and pace of learning. The speed of change requires educators to foster self-directedness in learners, not dependency, for tomorrow’s answers are not taught in classrooms today. Whether FtF or online, institutional processes should be adjusted to support self-directed development (Niebuhr, 1981). Taylor (1986) described the journey toward becoming self-directed through the learner’s perspective. Details of the journey’s four transitions and phases demonstrate the transformation that occurs within the individual when becoming self-directed. The journey begins with a Disconfirmation (phase transition) where there is a major disconnect between expectations and reality. Disorientation (phase) follows and is associated with confusion and lack of confidence leading to withdrawal. Naming the problem (phase transition) without blaming self or others comes next. During the Exploration phase, learners relax with the unresolved issue and start gathering insights. Reflection transitions the learner to the Reorientation phase when the learner has major insight with a new approach to the learning. The Sharing the Discovery phase is defined by testing the new understanding with others, which leads to the last phase, Equilibrium where the new approach is applied, evaluated, and refined (Taylor, 1986, pp. 59-67). This pattern of transition as perceived by the learner describes personal transformation, which informs the selection of online learning media. Knowledge of the content is about having expertise and authenticity. To be authentic, educators must not only espouse concepts of adults as learners, but must also practice them (Knowles, 1989). Educators should be well grounded in their education philosophy and model what they teach. The educator must know not only the content being taught but also who is being taught, the human side of the equation (Galbraith, 2004). Authenticity of the online educator creates the relationship with the learner, and it is the relationship that teaches (Levine, 2005). Knowledge of method is not what is being taught, but why it is being taught (Heimlich & Norland, 1994). Educators use their own personal beliefs, values, and education philosophy in deciding what methods to use and when. At the same time, the learner should have the ability to take control of the methods used in the education process. The interplay between the learner and the educator is an important part of the education process. The method is the media in online learning and should be choreographed to follow the natural self-directed way adults learn. Tough (1981) described the self-directed nature of adult learning as self-teaching. He found learners naturally following a learning process without guidance from an educator. Tough’s (1981) natural process carried out by self-directed adult learners is described as a set

24 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

of learning tasks: (a) choosing the goal, (b) deciding which activities are appropriate, (c) obtaining the printed material and other resources, (d) estimating the current level of knowledge and skill, (e) dealing with difficulty in grasping parts, (f) deciding when and where to learn, (g) deciding how much money to spend, (h) dealing with lack of desire to achieve the goal, (i) disliking the activities necessary for learning and having doubts about success, and (j) deciding whether to continue. Learning should improve when the learners have media choices to carry out their learning tasks. Andragogy and transformation theories define the requirements the learner and educator place on the media to ensure a contemplative, meditative intelligence in online learners—the ability to think critically and create new meaning. Each type of educational media has a range of capability on each dimension. The effectiveness of the media is a function of the material, the learner, and the learning process. Media Synchronicity Theory (MST) (Dennis et al., 2008) provides a basis and dimensions for evaluating online media communication performance. MST defines the physical capabilities of media that through their adoption and use affect how the individual can transmit and process information. The media capabilities affect the efficiency and performance of the information conveyance and convergence. Communication requires conveyance of knowledge from the sender to the receiver and convergence between them. Convergence requires verification that both the sender and the receiver understand the knowledge; and when both the sender and receiver apply the knowledge, they reach the same conclusion. MST defines media capabilities on five dimensions; they are transmission velocity (how fast a message can reach the recipient), parallelism (the number of transmissions that can take place simultaneously), symbol sets (the different ways a message can be encoded), rehearsability (the ability to fine tune a message before sending it), and reprocessability (the ability to retrieve and process again a received message for better understanding/reference). Conveyance and convergence have different requirements. Conveyance requirements for information transfer are large and diverse. Conveyance requires reprocessability, multiple symbol sets, and rehearsability. After the information is received, the sender requires time for information processing that allows for retrospection and deliberation. The retrospective and deliberative convergence requirements for transmission are smaller and condensed; the requirements for processing information require verification, modification, and negotiation. The media for convergence requires parallelism and high transmission velocity. The convergence often can be assisted by increased symbol sets, reprocessability, and rehearsability. In the conceptual e-learning framework, we address the role the media can play in allowing the learner to revise his/her frame of reference and reconcile the crisis that led the learner to begin the knowledge-seeking journey.

RESEARCH MOTIVATION

We teach in higher education in FtF classrooms. We became increasingly dissatisfied with FtF teaching and the ability to support self-directed leaners. We migrated to a hybrid-learning environment to attempt to give the learner an opportunity to reprocess and reflect. As in most higher learning institutions, we were not given any latitude in the LMS we were required to use. The LMS was completely educator centered and did not have the ability to support adult learning. We also had started teaching online and found the LMS was too restrictive and provided less support for the online learner than the hybrid- learning environment. We studied the problems our students were having and created the following learner-centered e-learning framework.

LEARNER-CENTERED CONCEPTUAL E-LEARNING FRAMEWORK

Through the application of transformative learning and andragogical concepts, a framework is proposed for e-learning. The framework includes transformative learning by integrating disorienting dilemmas, threshold concepts (Land & Meyer, 2010), concept mapping, dynamic and progressive assessments, social learning, variability, inquiry, conflict, and humor to achieve new perspectives and learning. The framework is synchronized with the appropriate media as well as appropriate learner and educator skills and knowledge of the discipline.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 25

Transformative learning requires a change in perspective and an awareness of why preconceived ideas constrain thinking, understanding, and feelings about the world (Mezirow, 1990); and, this results in new attitudes and behaviors and. A transformation that takes learners from where they are to where they need to be is triggered by a “disorienting dilemma” and balanced by rational reflection with an emphasis on affective processes (Mezirow, 1990; Boyd, 1989; Boyd & Myers, 1988). In preparing to step through the threshold towards extreme changes in behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes, the learner must first be thrust into disorienting and challenging situations that open the mind to new ideas (Meyer, Land & Baillie, 2010). This approach releases the mind from preconceived ideas and bias, allowing for effective learning. An environment in the online experience must be developed that involves a shift in thoughts, feeling and resulting actions. These experiences will dramatically change the way the learner interacts with the world (O’Sullivan, Morrell, & O’Connor, 2002). This environment is not considered an “add on” to the course, but integrated so the learner engages the knowledge through debates, discussion, and critical questioning. A learning experience should involve many strategies that ultimately move the learner to see an alternative view different from his own (Kelly & Crainton, 2009). The learners’ learning experiences move them from their safe places and challenge them with unresolved issues, forcing them to test their view of reality (Brueggemann, 1995). The e-learning processes are iterative and as knowledge is gained may often require additional information in order to achieve convergence and integration. The conceptual e-learning framework (CLELF) is illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 CONCEPTUAL LEARNER-CENTERED E-LEARNING FRAMEWORK (CLELF)

Information New Frame of Crisis Reflection Integration Search Reference

Discourse Convergence & Assessment

Learner(s) Learner(s)

The World Outside the E-Learning Framework

From Media Synchronicity Theory, the framework needs the support of the media to span from the crisis to the new frame of reference. Media has multiple dimensions and ranges within each dimension. The dimensions proposed in MST are transmission velocity, parallelism, symbol sets, rehearsability, and reprocessability. The media supports the constructs of the framework. The Information Search construct is primarily a process of conveyance; new information is conveyed from a source to the learner. Reflection is a process of confirmation. It involves examining the information and a decision of the

26 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

information’s sufficiency and necessity. Discourse is a process of further examination and comparison. It involves deliberation with others to confirm understanding of the information. Convergence is the process of reaching a common understanding of the knowledge, and it is the process of knowledge creation from information. It also involves the assessment of the knowledge creation process. This can be a self- assessment or an outside assessment by the educator in a more formal process. Integration is the process of internalizing the knowledge and applying it to real world problems. From the framework, it can be seen that the process is clearly not unidirectional. It is a messy process that often requires multiple iterations between stages. The media dimensions that support the framework are illustrated in Table 1. The range of the dimensions is given in terms of low to high. For example, information search does not require a high transmission velocity or parallelism, but it does require a high level of symbol sets, rehearsibility, and reprocessability. Discourse requires a high transmission velocity and parallelism.

TABLE 1 CONSTRUCT REQUIRED MEDIA DIMENSIONS

Construct Transmission Parallelism Symbol Sets Rehearsability Reprocessability Velocity Information Low to medium Low to medium Medium to high Low to Medium Low to Medium Search Reflection Low to medium Low to medium Medium to high Medium to high Medium to high Discourse Medium to high Medium to high Medium to high Medium to high Low to high Convergence & Medium to high Medium to high Medium to high Medium to high Medium to high Assessment Integration Low to medium Low to medium Low to Medium Low to medium Medium to high

The educator and the learner share the choice of the media. The educator facilitates but the learner must have the freedom to choose the media and to access media outside the immediate learning environment. Freedom to choose the media recognizes the variability among learners regarding prior knowledge, experience, commitment, and self-confidence to the extent that some are able and willing to take on a co-educator role (Pratt, 1988). Freedom to choose requires much more engagement and motivation by the learners than simply doing what they are told by the educator. This is a requirement of the information search process and in accordance with andragogical principles. The self-directed learner takes responsibility for his own learning. Learning becomes more complex with media choices that take learning beyond just acquiring knowledge and skill, as in traditional educator-centered online learning. To simply memorize the knowledge or acquire a skill for a test (surface learning) is no match for deep-level processing approaches (Saljo, 1979) that address the other adult learning competencies - understanding, attitude, value, and interest (Knowles, 1980). Taylor’s (1986) four phase transitions and phases toward becoming self-directed as perceived by the learner seem to parallel the Construct Required Media Dimensions (see Table 1, Column 1) to create a common pattern. Recall that the cycle begins with a Disconfirming event that leads to Disorientation. Soon thereafter, Naming the Problem leads to Exploration (see Table 1, Column 1, Information Search). Exploration and Information Search could be thought of as parallel terms. Reflection or stepping back to think (this mirrors Reflection in Table 1, Column 1) leads to Reorientation—when the learner has major insight with a new approach to the learning. The Sharing the Discovery phase transition is defined by testing the new understanding with others (see Table 1, Column 1, Discourse). One use of discourse is to test new understanding with others. Discourse then leads to the last phase, Equilibrium (see Table 1, Column 1, Convergence & Assessment and Integration) where the new approach is applied, evaluated, refined (Taylor, 1986, pp. 59-67) and integrated into the learner’s new reality. Taylor’s (1986) four phase transitions and phases, as perceived by the learner, also seem to parallel the learning experience as perceived by the researcher observing the learner (Isenberg, 2010; Kolb, 1984;

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 27

Lewin, 1997; Tough, 1981). In other words, there is another common pattern with one verifying the other. The learning content does not seem to matter. Mezirow’s transformation cycle (1981) includes ten elements that seem to follow Taylor’s cycle of phase transitions and phases that define the journey toward self-directedness (Isenberg, 2010). Taylor called the journey toward becoming self-directed a personal transformation for the learner, so perhaps the journey is transformational learning. To this end, the Construct Required Media Dimensions (Table 1) integrate both transformative learning and the andragogy centerpiece, self-directed learning. Though a common pattern of natural learning toward personal transformation has been identified by both the learner and by observers of the learner, current LMS such as Blackboard and WebCT have no mechanism or protocol to integrate the pattern into the online learning experience. The learning process is complex, but perhaps more so when media choice is factored into online learning. Discovering parallels and common patterns among self-directed learning, transformative learning, and Construct Media Dimensions make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. The Construct Required Media Dimensions provide a guide for designers to build smarter online frameworks that are tailored to the common pattern of self-directed learning. The terms process and pattern assume a certain chronological order to the experience of learning. There is a general movement forward, but the pace of the learner varies (Taylor, 1986). Learners spend varying amounts of time with the content. Built-in flexibility allows learners to go back and forth through the process in a more natural way. The framework in Figure 1 defines the process from discovery to integration and development of a new frame of reference. To operationalize the framework and facilitate the e-learning process, additional design areas need consideration; they include flexibility, ease of use, integration between constructs, and transparency. The learner is able to self-direct the process. The educator facilitates the process and provides initial orientation and direction. The learner is able to direct, optimize and self evaluate. The common dimensions are described in a further discussion of each construct.

Information Search In searching for information, the learner interacts with multiple information sources. These include libraries, the Internet, and fellow searchers. In e-learning, the Internet provides access to library databases, blogs, news media, wikis, and individual experts. The information obtained through the search process needs to be stored and reprocessable. Because the search process can take time, the transmission velocity does not need to be high and the parallelism can be low. Through the search process, the learner develops the ability for discriminating between fact and fiction. The information is provided through multiple channels and through multiple symbol sets. Increased symbol sets allow for increased understanding of the information. The information can be text, video, audio, or a combination of the above. As new media channels are developed, they are incorporated. An online course is a temporary environment; therefore, it is the responsibility of the educator to help learners make the transition to the real world and apply the information to other environments (Taylor, 1986). If learners are the dichotomous opposite of self-directed, they are dependent; and may, based on a past traditional educational experience, see new information only in relation to the course assignment.

Reflection Reflection is so important to adult learning that Mezirow (1981) called it critical reflectivity. Just as self-directedness is the centerpiece of andragogy, reflectivity is the centerpiece of perspective transformation. The ability to critically reflect is unique to adults (Mezirow, 1981). In the reflection process, the learner examines new information in detail. The learner can review it and reprocess the information. If additional information is needed, the learner can regress to information search re- iteratively until all necessary and sufficient information is collected. The learner needs to be able to examine and re-examine the information until it is comprehended completely. The learner moves from reflection process to discourse and back to reflection.

28 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Discourse The learner uses discourse to confirm understanding. The discourse can be with the educator/ facilitator, with other learners, or with a community of others. The community can be a social community or a community having specific interest in the topic the learner is studying, such as communities of scholars or practitioners, i.e., AIS special interest groups. The discourse provides the learner with a method for expressing understanding and getting feedback on completeness and sufficiency. Discourse requires high transmission speed, high parallelism, and a greater need for rehearsability. Discourse can vary and includes audio-visual conversation, synchronous discussion groups, asynchronous and threaded discussions, e-mail, chat, text messaging, instant messaging, and FtF discussions. As online media continues to develop, new methods of discourse will be added.

Convergence and Assessment Through convergence, the learner understands that the new knowledge obtained is in agreement with the educator and others in the field. The learner has gained the ability to begin to use the knowledge. In addition to the development of activities and situations to provide transformative learning, a dynamic model of assessment is imperative to help a learner through the transformative journey. An integrated assessment approach helps confirm and respond appropriately based on the learners understanding. With progressive approaches to assessment, the learning experiences are designed to open new portals or thresholds to learning, or more unfamiliar areas, thus opening the mind to higher levels of transformation. Assessments must take into consideration that although learners may get the “right “answers, they may not truly understand the concepts. Transformative concepts require methods of assessment that allow the learner to evaluate the degree the concepts are integrated; assessment will require the development of new and creative methods (Land & Meyer 2010). Assessments will vary and can include informal subjective self-assessments, quantitative self-assessments, and formal examination type assessments. Final assessments are in the integration process.

Integration The last stage of the e-learning process is integration of the knowledge into the learner’s frame of reference. At this stage the knowledge is put into use and the user becomes confident in his/her ability. Use of the knowledge confirms the new frame of reference. If the knowledge use does not provide confirmation, the process reverts to a prior stage. The process remains iterative until the new frame of reference is confirmed. Even after confirmation, a new crisis that conflicts with the individual’s frame of reference will restart the process. After a learner has been through the self-directed process of learning successfully, it becomes easier to repeat the process.

CONCEPTUAL LEARNER-CENTERED E-LEARNING FRAMEWORK EVALUATION

The CLELF was evaluated two ways. First, the CLELF was evaluated by a comparison with two existing LMS’. Second, an existing LMS was manipulated to provide an approximation of the CLELF, which allowed the LMS to become more learner-centered.

CLELF Evaluation Compared to Existing LMS The conceptual e-learning framework (CLELF) was evaluated by comparing it with the commercial LMS Blackboard™. The evaluation was a qualitative comparison by interview and the author’s examination of BlackBoard ™. The evaluation focused on the ability of the LMS and the CLELF to support self-directed learning. A focus group of ten educators with an average of 3 years of teaching online classes and 22 learners that had taken at least one online class was asked to participate in informal discussions. They were given the description of the CLELF and asked to compare past lived experiences with existing online education platforms to the description of the new CLELF. The focus group participants were provided elements of the existing LMS (e.g., Blackboard), as a review.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 29

Each system was found to have varying levels of flexibility, ease of use, integration between constructs, and transparency. Often the ease of use and flexibility varied depending on whether the view was as a learner or educator. Most systems were rigorous in that they allowed only one method of accomplishing a task. The commonalities of all of the systems reviewed were twofold: all tried to duplicate an FtF environment and all were educator centered. None of the systems were learner centered allowing for self-directed learning. In order to duplicate the conceptual e-learning framework, a learner has to go out of the current online education platform, seek additional information, and find an outside community for discourse. A community for discourse ideally would include practitioners, learners, educators, and others with interest in the field. If each construct in the conceptual e-learning framework were divided into two parts with one half representing the educator and the other the learner, the educator’s half would be filled in and the learner’s half blank. None of the current online education platforms examined inherently allowed for self-directed learning. After the first evaluation of the CELF with the focus group, the authors were able to access Sakai. The comparison of the Sakai to the Blackboard ™ revealed that the open source LMS was also educator centered and did not support a self- directed learner. The conceptual e-learning framework was also evaluated by theoretically comparing it simultaneously with an FtF environment and current LMS’. The theoretical constructs in Figures 2-4 illustrate the potential benefit of the new conceptual e-learning framework in fostering self-directedness. The construct in Figure 2 illustrates the educator bringing into the FtF classroom motivation, emotions, and varied media, but on the learner side there is little to no learner reprocessability other than class notes, handouts, or the occasional audio taping. The construct in Figure 3 illustrates the educator bringing into the current online education platform motivation, emotions, and varied media with a mirror image on the learner side. In other words, the learner cannot go outside the limitations of the educator. Figure 4 illustrates the educator bringing into the conceptual e-learning framework the same motivation, emotions, and varied media as in the other two figures, but this time the media allows the learner to be self-directed within the framework, thus engaging in learning that is transformative, unhindered by the limitations of the educator. This learning has the potential to result in better and different learning outcomes (Latchem, 2005) than current online and FtF learning. The more the learner is engaged in self-directed inquiry, the greater the learning (Knowles, 1980).

FIGURE 2 FtF CLASSROOM INTERFACE BETWEEN EDUCATOR AND LEARNER

Educator Learner •Motivation •Emotion •Synchronous/ Asynchronous •Reflection •Reprocessability •Knowledge Creation •Information Transfer

30 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

FIGURE 3 CURRENT ONLINE INTERFACE BETWEEN EDUCATOR AND LEARNER

Educator Learner •Motivation •Emotion •Synchronous/ Asynchronous •Reflection •Reprocessability •Knowledge Creation •Information Transfer

FIGURE 4 CONCEPTUAL LEARNER-CENTERED E-LEARNING FRAMEWORK INTERFACE BETWEEN EDUCATOR AND LEARNER

Educator Learner

•Motivation •Emotion •Synchronous/ Asynchronous •Reflection •Reprocessability •Knowledge Creation •Information Transfer

Testing of the CLELF Concept In 2011, two semesters of an online course titled Applying Andragogical Principles to Internet Learning incorporated a new learner-centered strategy that challenged the educator-centered limitations of an LMS to test the CLELF concept. To foster learner self-directedness, reflection, and choice of media, a course-within-a-course strategy was conceived by the authors of this paper, implemented by the university’s LMS director, and facilitated by the educator of the course for the course’s final project — designing and creating an online course that applies andragogical principles. Course shells for each learner were created within the educator’s course (the main course), which had never been done before at this university. Each learner’s course was visible on the main course homepage. The learners’ courses appeared in alphabetical order directly under the main course hyperlink. Each learner had learner rights to the main course, instructor rights to their own course, and teacher assistant (TA) rights to each co-

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 31

learner’s course. Learner rights allow the learner to respond to facilitator directions only. Instructor rights allow the learner to choose media and add/change content. TA rights allow each learner to visit co- learners’ courses and respond to the instructor’s directions. A learning community structure was built and learners were encouraged to build their courses together by providing and receiving feedback, and in some cases taking on a co-educator role (Pratt, 1988) to help others. In prior semesters, learners in this course were forced to go outside the LMS to find a way to create an online course to satisfy this course requirement. Some learners were university professors or had employers who had access to an LMS shell; but some learners did not and simply typed on paper an outline and narrative of what their online course would look like and how it would work. Some learners even drew pictures of page designs. In other words, prior to course-within-a-course, some learners created LMS courses outside the main course that classmates and the educator could not visit (without permission); and others simply described an online course they could create if they had a way to do it. Most importantly in prior courses, the learners had no way of working together to build their courses within Blackboard; they had no way to give and receive co-learner feedback within the main online course. The learners’ initial response to the course-within-a-course was mixed. The young learners were excited, enthusiastic, and confident as evidenced by their early and lively course-within-a-course activity and the number and content of their discussion postings. The older learners were more hesitant, frustrated, and slower to engage with the new strategy. The young learners seemed to lead the way and the older learners followed. All learners were surprised by the course-within-a-course and all demonstrated an increase in their online activity while building their courses together. The resulting online courses were innovative, creative, used a variety of media, and exceeded the expectations of the course facilitator. The results were different and better than those from the course before incorporating the course-within-a- course strategy.

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE WORK

The proposed conceptual learner-centered e-learning framework follows andragogy theory, especially the learner’s need for self-directedness, and transformative learning theory. It supports the self-directed learner and the learning process. The CLELF supports learning that originates from transformative crises as well as the learning of transformative threshold concepts. Testing demonstrates the efficacy of the framework and its potential to improve online learning by concentrating on the learner and not on the educator. The CLELF does not exist today, but it provides direction for creation of an LMS that supports self-directedness that can lead to transformative learning. It gives a direction that can potentially improve FtF learning through the incorporation of the CLELF as a supplement to the traditional classroom. It could be concluded that with orientation, guidance, and support from an educator in the early stages, the CLELF could be applied to online learning without an educator. Perhaps online learning environments could be open to everyone for college credit or to simply satisfy curiosity and the joy of learning. A limitation of this work is that the evaluation was through informal interviews with educators and learners. The early testing was on the concept, not on the entire framework and involved introducing a new strategy to an existing learning management system. The andragogical concepts used to create the conceptual e-learning framework have been tested repeatedly. The CLELF needs development as an online education platform to evaluate its ability to support self-directedness and transformative learning. Future work includes creation of a prototype e-learning platform and empirical testing.

REFERENCES

Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand Online Education in the United States, 2009. Retrieved January 3, 2011 from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf

32 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning?. eLearning Papers, 2(1), 1-7.

Baldwin, D. & Yadav, S. B. (1995). The Process of Research Investigations in Artificial Intelligence - An Unified View. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 25(5), 852-861.

Boyd, R. D. & Myers, J. G. (1988). Transformative Education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 7(4), 261-284.

Boyd, R. D. (1989). Facilitating personal transformations in small groups: Part I. Small Group Behavior, 20(4), 459-474.

Brueggemann, W. (1995). Preaching as Reimagination. Theology Today, 52(3), 319-320.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Combs, A. W., Avila, D. L., & Purkey, W. W. (1971). Helping relationships: Basic concepts for the helping professions, 2nd edition, Toronto: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, John, & Sons, Inc.

Dennis, A. R., Fuller R. M. & Valacich J. H. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575-600.

Elias, J. L. & Merriam, S. (1980). Philosophical foundations of adult education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Fisher, L. (2009). The perfect swarm: The science of complexity in everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

Galbraith, M. W. (2004). The teacher of adults. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction, (3rd ed). Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company, 3-21.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldien Transaction.

Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.

Gregor, S. & Jones, D. 2007. The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 312-335.

Hameed, S., Badii, A., Pervaiz, A., Mellor, J., & Cullen, A. (2009). Impact of e-learning package on the quality of student learning experience. Paper presented at the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2009 (EMCIS2009).

Henschke, J. A. (1998). Modeling the preparation of adult educators. Adult Learning, 9(3), 11-13.

Heimlich, J. & Norland, E. (1994). Developing teaching style in adult education. San Franscisco: Jossey- Bass.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 33

Isenberg, S. K. (2007). Applying andragogical principlesandragogical principles to Internet learning. Youngstown, New York: Cambria Press.

Isenberg, S. K. (2010). Merging education and business models to create and sustain transformational change. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 1(4), 31-47.

Kelly, R. & Crainton, P. (2009, January 19). Transformative learning: Q&A with Patricia Cranton. Faculty Focus. Retrieved January 5, 2011 from: http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/instructional- design/transformative-learning-qa-with-patricia-cranton/b

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Knowles, M. S. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, Texas, USA: Gulf Publishing Company.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge.

Knowles, M. S. & Associates. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, M. S. (1989). The making of an adult educator: An autobiographical journey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, M. S. (1995). Designs for adult learning: Practical resources, exercises, and course outlines from the father of adult learning. American Society for Training & Development Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Land, R. & Meyer, J. H. F. (2010). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (5): Dynamics of assessment. Threshold concepts and transformational learning. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Latchem, C. (2005). How to be a great online teacher. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 700-701.

LeDoux, J. (2002). Synaptic self: How our brains become who we are. New York: Penguin.

Levine, J. (Ed.) (2005). Making distance education work: Learning and learners at a distance. Okemos, Michigan: LearnerAssociates.net LLC

Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts: Field theory in social science. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13.

Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R. & Baillie, C. (2010). Threshold concepts and transformational learning. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Mezirow, J. (1981). A Critical Theory of Adult Learning and Education. Adult Education, 32(1), 3-24.

34 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In J. Meizirow & associates (Eds.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.

Niebuhr, H. (1981, January). Teaching and learning in the eighties: The paradigm shifts. Phi Delta Kappan, 43-44.

O’Sullivan, E. V., Morrell, A. & O'Connor, M. A. (2002). Expanding the boundaries of transformative learning: Essays on theory and praxis. New York: Palgrave.

Ozkan, S., & Baykal, N. (2008). Evaluating learning management systems: Hexagonal e-Learning Assessment Model (HELAM). Paper presented at the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2008.

Pratt, D. D. (1988). Andragogy as a relational construct. Adult Education Quarterly, 38(3), 160-181.

Sabry, K., & AlShawi, S. (2008). Information systems for interactive learning: Design perspective. Paper presented at the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2008.

Saljo, R. (1979). Learning about learning. Higher Education Bulletin, 5, 119-157.

Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House.

Simon, H. A. (1981). The Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Simpson, O. (2005). E-learning, democracy, and social exclusion: Issues of access and retention in the United Kingdom. In A. A. Carr-Chellman (Ed.) Global perspectives on e-learning: Rhetoric and reality, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 89-100.

Taylor, M. (1986). Learning for self-direction in the clasroom: The pattern of a transition process. Studies in Higher Education, 11(1), 55-72.

Tough, A. (1981). Learning without a teacher: A study of tasks and assistance during adult self-teaching projects. Toronto: The Ontario Institute of Studies in Education. van Harmelen, M. (2006, July 5-7, 2006). Personal learning environments. Paper presented at the The Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'06), Kerkrade, Netherlands.

Wilson, S., Liber, O., Beauvoir, P., Milligan, C., Johnson, M., & Sharples, S. (2006). Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems. TENCompetence Project. Retrieved from http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/727

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 35

MOOCs and the Future of Higher Education

Peter J. Billington Colorado State University – Pueblo

Michael P. Fronmueller Colorado State University – Pueblo

INTRODUCTION

Consider this comparison to the entertainment industry. Over 100 years ago the only visual entertainment was in live theater or other live venues. Performers acted in plays or other entertainment types such as variety shows, all live with a viewing audience limited to the size of the venue. Then came film! The play could be transformed into a film medium that scaled the presentation to a massive audience through many movie theaters, at a relatively small price per viewer. The current class lecture can be compared to the live theater performance. Then came YouTube! The best lectures by world-class professors can now be recorded and presented through massive scaling on the internet at a very low price per viewer. Are MOOCs the future of higher education? MOOC is the acronym for Massive Open Online Course. In the last few years, MOOC course offerings, course platforms, and student enrollments have rapidly expanded. The combination of enabling internet technology, engaging faculty presentations and topics, and the funding of initial courses has allowed the MOOC to become the hot topic in higher education. MOOCs have been considered the disruptive innovation of higher education by Clayton Christensen, the theorist behind disruption innovation (Hardesty, 2013). An article at Techcrunch.com online is entitled “Online Education is Replacing Physical Colleges At a Crazy Fast Pace” (Ferenstein, 2013). Others suggest the possibility that MOOCs will put universities out of business (Smutz, 2013). Other pundits are not too sure, suggesting that MOOCs are just another ed-tech bubble (Crispin, 2012) that will not transform education.

36 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

The MOOC acronym: Massive – scalable to a large audience, e.g., at least one course reported >160,000 students, many > 50,000 Open – anyone can enroll Online – online enrollment, video, blogs, assignments, submissions Course – organized, structured

This is in stark contrast to typical online courses that charge tuition, have limited slots available, but offer credit for successful completion. This paper will present a brief history of MOOCs, the current status of MOOCs, potential disruption in the higher education market, and some speculation about how MOOCs may change higher education.

THE PAST

There have been Online Courses for a number of years. The University of Phoenix and other private and public universities have introduced courses and degree programs completed partially or fully online. So why are MOOCs now expanding rapidly and generating so much hype in the press? Much of the latest development in MOOCs has come about by the groundbreaking work of Salman Khan. Starting in 2006, Khan started to develop and post to YouTube, lectures on mostly mathematical topics for his friends and relatives. These posting became so popular that Khan continued to develop more and now has about 4100 videos (khanacademy.org, 2013). The key defining disruptive change with Khan Academy is the removal of the talking head, and the introduction of short videos that present mathematical concepts step-by-step with voice-over. (Clark, 2013) MIT OpenCourseWare started in 2000 posting a large number of courses and content online. Much of the early postings were PowerPoint lecture notes. In recent years more video lectures were added. However, these were mostly recorded in-class lectures, but this platform has had an enormous worldwide impact with over 2000 courses and millions of enrollments. The most famous MOOC course, and the one that seemed to start the whole MOOC movement, is the “Introduction to Artificial Intelligence” course offered online by Stanford Professor Sebastian Thrun in the fall of 2011. This course enrolled more than 150,000 students worldwide and led to the founding of Udacity in 2012 with $15m in venture capital. (Pappano, 2012; Crispin 2012). Two other Stanford University faculty members, Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller, set up Coursera with $16m in venture capital funding. Harvard and MIT put $30m into forming edX to develop their courses onto online offerings. Stanford Professor Amin Saberi ran an entrepreneurship course in March 2012 than enrolled 80,000 students in 150 countries. This and other courses at Stanford were run under the name of Venture Labs, sounded by Saberi and Farnaz Ronaghi, but recently Professor Saberi announced the creation of NovoED as the successor to Venture Labs (New, 2013). The desire by a worldwide audience for knowledge of many topics has allowed MOOCs to grow rapidly. This was enabled by the expansion of high speed internet to a large portion of the world. This also, of course, verified a very important microeconomic principle: when the price is zero, then many people buy. Although enrollment may be large, only a small percentage actually complete.

THE PRESENT

Here are brief descriptions and differences among the largest and most important MOOCs at this time (Round, 2013). Coursera (courser.org): the most courses and widest range of topics; certificates awarded; structured start and end; peer evaluation in some courses; mostly free; cost for certification; large enrollments; for- profit; currently partnered with 62 universities to provide content (Kolowich, 2013). They announced in May of 2013 that they have 3.4 million students with 350 courses.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 37

Udacity (udacity.com): smaller number of courses; no structured start and finish; open start dates; work at your own pace; certificates awarded; some with proctored exam; for-profit. edX (edx.org): MIT and Harvard collaboration; non-profit; structured start and end; a few additional universities have joined; not for credit; may offer certifications in the future. NovoED (formerly Venture Labs) (novoed.com or venture-lab.org): Mostly Stanford U. faculty; free; specified start and end dates; some peer evaluation. Udemy (udemy.com): Smaller number of courses; no start and finish; open start dates; work at your own pace; for-profit; usually a fee to enroll; some free. Learn skills from experts. All have seen expanded course offerings and student enrollments. Several MOOCs have been funded by venture capitalists but are currently providing free access to all the courses. This may be analogous to early web site giants such as Google that give away many services, email, e.g. However, this is not a sustainable long term business model. Many internet startups ran out of money without finding a viable revenue source. Google and Facebook have found reliable revenue streams in some business activities (fees or advertising) to cover the costs of the free services. Several MOOCs, such as Coursera, are starting to charge for the course, or just for certification for successful course completion. MOOCs that are now free will need to develop a business model that generates sufficient revenue to be profitable. At this time there are large expenses of coding, taping, and bandwidth that are being paid for by startup capital. At some point, revenue streams will need to be developed. There are several possibilities: 1. MOOCs charge for taking the course, such a what udemy.com does. 2. MOOCs charge if the course is completed for certification or credit. 3. MOOCs partner with colleges and universities and have students pay a fee (similar to students buying textbooks), or the university pay the MOOC a fee out of the tuition revenue.

MOOCs are continuing to develop more courses, attract more students, and develop procedures to remedy some of the problems that exist.

THE TROUBLE WITH MOOCs

In addition to the business revenue problem, a number of issues have surfaced that will have an impact on the sustainability of MOOCs unless addressed satisfactorily: • Grading • Cheating • Course credit • Interaction with the instructor and learner to learner • Prerequisites

Grading If enrollments are large, then grading individual student assignments would not be possible without a cadre of instructors. Since the whole intent of MOOCs is to be available to massive audiences, the grading scheme is not economically viable unless the assignments can be machine graded, or a significant fee is paid to afford the graders. Math courses are the most likely candidates for machine grading. However, who is really taking the exams or writing the papers?

Cheating With open courses, anyone can join in, and there may not be a secure way to verify who is actually completing the assignments. Coursera is now offering a “Verified Certificate.” Once a student pays a fee, takes part in a writing sample, the student using a webcam to take a picture of their face and a picture of a photo ID. The student is then verified. When the student submits work, a webcam picture is taken again and compared to the previous picture to verify the student. However, it is still not clear how this could

38 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

prevent a student from having someone else write the paper or take the exam, then submits the exam under the original identity. Udacity and edX are now using proctored exams in some courses.

Course Credit Most universities at this time do not recognize a MOOC completion for credit. It is not clear with most MOOCs what would be the equivalent credit hours. In many cases, the certificates may or may not be from the university offering the course, although some Coursera courses offer a certificate from the university. The American Council on Education (ACE) is reviewing five MOOC courses for credit worthiness (Lederman, 2013). If the courses meet the standards, they will be deemed worthy of course credit. Coursera recently announced that 10 universities have agreed to utilize MOOCs in on-campus and online courses (Pope, 2013). This particular problem has generated a number of interesting potential solutions rapidly. However, a number of faculty from elite and prestigious universities are raising significant concerns about the use of MOOCs.

The Problem with Interaction The large scale typically associated with MOOC’s results in serious challenges for high quality interaction between Instructors and Learners (I-L). While one-on-one, synchronous I-L interaction is probably not feasible, some viable alternatives have been explored. For some video platforms coupled with threaded discussion that automatically link to a time index in the video, systems are available (e.g Echo 360). These allow for “virtual” one-to-one interaction in an asynchronous setting even over several semesters and over successive semesters. Feedback has been surprisingly positive, suggesting that participants find available interaction to be an acceptable substitute that rivals real-time face-to-face interaction (Zimmerman, 2011). Instructors can react to specific questions by learners that are linked to points in the lecture or learning package. This can then provide the basis for further discussion between learners or between the instructor and learners. Scale is not a primary challenge for Learner to Learner (L-L) interaction. Designers can design reasonable peer groups that can conduct guided discussions either synchronously or asynchronously, and key aspects of this interaction can be shared via blogs or bulletin boards. The actual quality of interaction (both I-L and L-L) depends on the sophistication of the learning platform used and MOOC’s provide far greater challenges for high quality interaction when compared to other delivery methods.

Prerequisites MOOCs generally do not suggest prerequisites before taking a course. At some time when a course credit process is developed, prerequisites will need to be checked.

THE FUTURE

Will MOOCs revolutionize education or are they another step in the evolution of education pedagogy? MOOC providers are rapidly developing processes that address the key issues noted earlier. However, if they are able to overcome some of the obstacles, can MOOCs be used effectively in higher education?

Possible Scenarios: • MOOCs take over higher education, many campuses close! • MOOCs are bubbles, crash, and become irrelevant. • College’s use MOOCs as supplements to the classroom. • Colleges become MOOC proctored exam testing sites. • Universities partner with MOOCs. • MOOCs receive university accreditation.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 39

• MOOCs as a key tool for competency based education. • A new method of totally transferable course credit is developed.

MOOCs Take Over And US universities scrap all football teams and switch to fantasy leagues! There are a few pundits that believe that university closures will happen, though the probability is small. There are just too many counter forces that make the campus an attractive alternative for many students. For example, a residential college education has valuable social aspects that cannot be replicated through online education. Sports teams, social interaction, the first time a student lives away from home. Students can have real time face-to-face with faculty who are the content experts.

MOOCs Are Bubbles Also another unlikely outcome. There is value in the ability to educate large numbers of students across the globe in an economical way. Employed students may find that courses offer the ability to update skills without going to a physical campus. The large number of enrollees (at zero price) indicates a huge demand for the service.

MOOCs As Supplements In The Classroom MOOCs by themselves may become useful on-campus as providers of online content for traditional faculty led classes. A very good presentation on a MOOC may provide a better learning experience for students than the in-class faculty lecture. The MOOC lecture could possibly completely replace the in- class lecture, allowing more class time to discussion, problem solving, and other in-class learning activities. Just as students are currently asked to purchase a textbook, future students may be asked to sign up for a MOOC. This is similar to a blended or hybrid course design, but using the MOOC lectures instead of the faculty developed video lectures.

Colleges Become MOOC Proctored Exam Testing Sites This is another outcome that could be viable, if the MOOCs are able to overcome some of the other issues. If the MOOC is developed around the classic 3 credit hour standard, then universities would see the value in students taking the course without consuming campus resources. Universities would then approve the course as equivalent to the on-campus course, but charge a fee for the student to take proctored exams on campus (or a secure online process, or proctored) that would result in a letter grade for the student. The grade would be posted to the student’s transcript and would be used to complete the on-campus degree, or to be transferred to another degree granting institution. The student does all the work online, then makes an appointment with the professor on-campus to take a test or present a paper, or provide the output of various activities assigned on the MOOC.

Universities Partner With MOOC Providers This is not too different from the previous scenario of the proctored exam site, but with the difference that proctored on-campus exam testing is not necessary. MOOC providers develop secure procedures to overcome the cheating problem, then they are able to provide letter grades directly to a university, which collects a fee from either the student or the MOOC provider. This provides the stamp of authority to have a transcript from an accredited university. MOOCs have already been granted some opportunities to provide remediation courses or courses that are oversubscribed (Selingo, 2013)

MOOCs Receive University Accreditation This is the scariest scenario to existing universities, as it eliminates the key to university survival: accreditation and ability to give grades and degrees. This could happen, but it may take some time for the accrediting agencies to determine the standards by which accreditation would occur at the degree granting level. As noted earlier, course credit processes are underway and will likely become more common in the near future.

40 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

MOOC’s As A Key Tool For Competency Based Education Recent changes in Federal policy to not just permit but actively encourage programs that deploy competency based assessment to apply for Federal student aid (Field, 2013) may increase usage of MOOC’s. As credit hours and seat time become decoupled from both the learning process and the eventual awarding of a degree. They could become one of the principal pedagogical tools to prepare students for competency testing.

A New Method Another very disruptive possibility is that some new, unknown, structure of course credit and credit transferability is created. With the advent of cloud based big data, an organization outside the education industry may be the one to develop this. Universities then may be willing to provide a set of courses that would result in a degree. Students with their cloud transcript would just then transfer those courses to the university and receive the degree. This seems to be what happened at Georgia Tech which has announced that it will offer its Online Master of Science in Computer Science completely though MOOC’s. It does so through a collaboration with Udacity and AT&T (Georgia Tech, 2013) More likely in the short term may be the use of MOOCs in non-disruptive incremental change to courses and programs. Several of these scenarios could be quite disruptive to the current higher education model. If a faculty member is not teaching a typical class with lectures and exams, the MOOC could conceivably replace all the on-campus faculty’s lecture time, or the faculty altogether. Legislators and boards of private universities are not going to sit by and let faculty suddenly have about half their work load removed without something in exchange. This could be the productivity disruption that many have been looking for. Faculty might be forced to teach twice as many students and classes without any additional class time. Cost considerations are going to make this a very enticing proposition. Could this be a mechanism to increase the course load for faculty without increasing the actual time work load? The counter argument to all this is that the MOOC may free the instructor from lecture time, but would allow for more interactive classroom learning, thus improving the quality of education. The middle ground may well be more students to reduce costs, but with an increase in quality of the learning experience.

CONCLUSIONS

MOOCs appear to be here to stay. What the role will be in higher education is still evolving. The pressure to lower college tuition costs is real, yet few viable alternatives exist in the current business model to reduce costs. The MOOC may be the answer. Faculty will be highly resistant to anything that totally disrupts the current university education model. Yet the cost factor will be a significant driving force. A number of problems inherent with MOOCs now are actively being solved. Partly this is due to the large venture capital funding that has occurred and can fund developmental activities.

REFERENCES

Clark, D. (2013). MOOCs: More action in 1 year than in last 1000 years. Retrieved from http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2013/04/moocs-more-action-in-1-year-than-last.html

Crispin, W. (2012) MOOCs and other ed-tech bubbles. Edtechnow.net. Retrieved from http://edtechnow.net/2012/12/29/moocs-and-other-ed-tech-bubbles/

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 41

Ferenstein, G (2013). Online Education is Replacing Physical Colleges At a Crazy Fast Pace. Techcrunch.com. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/11/a-huge-month-online-education-is- replacing-physical-colleges-at-a-crazy-fast-pace/

Field, K. (2013). Student Aid Can Be Awarded for 'Competencies,' Not Just Credit Hours, U.S. Says. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Student-Aid-Can-Be-Awarded-for/137991/

Georgia Tech (2013). Georgia Tech Announces Massive Online Master's Degree in Computer Science. Retrieved from: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=212951

Hardesty, L. (2013) Higher-ed leaders meet to discuss future of online education. MIT News Office. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/edx-summit-0306.html

Kolowich, S. (2013). Competing MOOC Providers Expand Into New Territory – and Each Other’s. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/competing- mooc-providers-expand-into-new-territory-and-each-others/42463

Lederman, D. (2013). Expanding Pathways to MOOC Credit. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/07/ace-deems-5-massive-open-courses-worthy-credit

New, J. (2013). New MOOC Provider Says It Fosters Peer Interaction. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/new-mooc-provider-says-it-fosters- peer-interaction/43381

Pappano, L. (2012). The Year of the MOOC. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a- rapid-pace.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Pope, J. (2013). Coursera announces 10 public universities plan MOOC adoption. Huffington Post. Retrieved from

Round, C. (2013). The Best MOOC Provider: A Review of Coursera, Udacity and edX. Skilledup.com. Retrieved from http://www.skilledup.com/blog/the-best-mooc-provider-a-review-of-coursera-udacity- and-edx/

Selingo, J. (2013). Five Ways Free Online Classes Will Change College, or Not. Retrieved from http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130311111525-17000124-five-ways-free-online-classes- will-change-college-or-not

Smutz, W. (2013). MOOCs Are No Education Panacea, but Here’s What can Make Them Work. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2013/04/08/moocs-are-no-education- panacea-but-heres-what-can-make-them-work/?cid=dlvr.it

Zimmerman, L. (2011). Critical Importance of Social Interaction in Online Courses. ETC Journal. Retrieved from: http://etcjournal.com/2011/01/02/7050/

MOOC Websites https://www.coursera.org/ https://www.edx.org/

42 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

https://www.udacity.com/ https://www.venture-lab.org/ http://novoed.com/ https://www.udemy.com http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 43

Comparing Traditional, Group Support Systems (GSS) and On-Line Focus Groups

John Watson The University of Western Australia

Rick Newby The University of Western Australia

INTRODUCTION

Focus groups represent a qualitative method for simultaneously exploring the views and perceptions of a number of individuals about an issue and would normally be conducted at either the beginning or end of a research project. For example, focus groups can be conducted at the beginning of a project as a precursor to a survey (Frey and Fontana 1991). Here the goal might simply be to check the wording of questions. Alternatively, the researchers may be looking to focus group discussions to stimulate their thinking and help generate hypotheses for subsequent testing. In this case the researchers would be in an exploratory phase and the focus group methodology is employed to learn more about the phenomenon or topic under investigation (Calder 1977). Focus groups can also be used at the end (or in the latter stages) of a project to help interpret questionnaire (or other quantitative) data “for which explanations might otherwise have to be conjectural” (Deri, Dinnerstein, Harding and Pepitone 1948, p.257), thereby contributing to a better understanding and interpretation of the material gathered. However, despite the potential benefits associated with the use of focus groups Blackburn and Stokes (2000, p.48) suggest they have been “relatively under used” and that part of the reason for this might be a lack of understanding by researchers of “what rigorously conducted focus groups can achieve.” With this in mind, our aim is to provide the reader with: a greater awareness of the potential for conducting focus group studies; and specific guidance on how to organize and conduct various types of focus groups.

Advantages of Focus Groups From a review of the literature (see, for example, Goldman 1962; Fern 1982a; Basch 1987; Frey and Fontana 1991; Morgan 1996) there appears to be at least ten potential advantages associated with the use

44 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

of focus groups as a qualitative research method. First, they provide a relatively easy way of learning about the opinions of sub-groups within society. Second, by using audio (or audiovisual) recording equipment the researcher can obtain a permanent record of the verbal (or verbal and non-verbal) communication between group members. Third, they provide a particularly flexible method of inquiry because they can be conducted with just a few individuals or a larger group (twelve or more). They can also be used in a cross-sectional design to obtain opinions at a particular point in time, or longitudinally to examine changes in opinions over time. Fourth, involving participants in a form of group interview will generally be less costly than conducting one-on-one personal interviews with an equivalent number of individuals. Fifth, the turnaround time with a group interview is considerably shorter than would be the case with in-depth interviews conducted with a similar number of individuals. Sixth, with individual interviews the interaction is limited to the interviewer and the respondent; while in a focus group there is interaction between participants. This interaction can potentially provide additional explanations for, and a deeper understanding of, the views held by the group. Seventh, in a focus group situation the moderator can probe comments as they arise to judge the reaction of the other group members, again providing potentially more depth than would be the case in an interview situation. Eighth, it is also likely that “group pressures may inhibit individuals from providing misleading information” (Basch 1987, p.434). Ninth, because the focus group participants will often have similar backgrounds (and because participants may have had the opportunity to relax over some light refreshments prior to the focus group commencing) they are likely to be more willing to voice their true feelings than would be the case in a face-to-face interview with a complete stranger. Tenth, consistent with a number of the previously stated advantages, proponents of the focus group method argue that the sum of the responses from a group will exceed the sum of the individual responses.

Disadvantages of Focus Groups While a number of advantages associated with focus groups have been advanced, there are also some potential disadvantages that need to be recognized. Fern (1982b) also notes that many of the advantages listed above have not been subjected to scientific testing, and where they have been formally tested the results suggest the stated benefits are marginal, at best. For example, Fern (1982b) found that participants interviewed in a group situation generated fewer ideas in total than an equivalent number of participants involved in one-on-one interviews; that is, there were diminishing returns (in terms of idea generation) to focus group size. However, even though the total number of ideas produced by a focus group might be less, the cost per idea generated should also be less than would be the case with individual interviews. Further, although there may be diminishing returns in terms of idea generation, the additional interaction between group members can potentially provide additional explanations for (and a deeper understanding of) the ideas and views held by the group, compared to an individual interview. In terms of specific disadvantages associated with the focus group method, the literature (Fern 1982a; Basch 1987; Kaplowitz and Hoehn 2001) suggests there are eight that researchers should be particularly aware of. First, focus groups are not useful for testing hypotheses in the tradition of experimental design. Second, the results from focus groups are generally not appropriate for drawing inferences about larger populations; that is, they should not be generalized. Third, only individuals who are capable and willing to verbalize their views can be studied in a focus group. Fourth, dominant group members may result in incomplete or biased information if other members are reluctant to speak out. Fifth, given the lack of anonymity, some participants might be reluctant to provide their true feelings about an issue; particularly if they believe their views to be controversial and not in keeping with those of the other group members. Sixth, it is possible that the ideas raised and the views expressed by the group could reflect ‘groupthink’ rather than being representative of the diversity of views held by the wider population. Seventh, in preparing transcripts from audio or video tapes it is not always possible to hear all the comments; particularly if some group members are quietly spoken or if a number of participants are making points simultaneously. Further, the transcription process and subsequent analysis of the transcripts can be time consuming and can significantly delay a research project. Eighth, there is also the issue of observer dependency, that is, the extent to which the responses provided by the group members are influenced by

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 45

the researcher. Note that many of these potential disadvantages can be minimized in a well designed focus group run by an experienced moderator.

Types of Focus Group While Wikipedia (2011) lists a number of different types of focus group, we will look specifically at three alternatives: the traditional focus group; focus groups undertaken using Group Support System (GSS) software; and on-line focus groups. While there have been a number of entrepreneurship studies that have used the traditional method, we felt that both the GSS and on-line focus group methodologies offer some potentially important advantages over the traditional method. For example, the GSS method is particularly useful for: ensuring that the discussion is not dominated by a few assertive individuals; maximizing the contribution of all members, as participants can enter comments simultaneously thus permitting each group member to have more time to contribute ideas; and overcoming a reluctance by some group members to contribute because of concerns they may be ridiculed for asking ‘foolish’ questions or making unpopular comments. With on-line focus groups there is the added advantage of being able to include individuals from remote areas (different geographical regions) who might find it difficult to attend a traditional (or GSS) focus group because of the travel required. The advantages and disadvantages of using each of these focus group methodologies will be further examined in the remainder of this paper, which will also explain how to organize and conduct a focus group using each technique.

CONDUCTING A TRADITIONAL FOCUS GROUP

Much of the prior empirical research has relied heavily on cross-sectional survey methodologies (mail and/or telephone). However, as closed-ended questions effectively require appropriate pre-knowledge of the area under study they are less likely (compared to more qualitative, open-ended questions) to present an exhaustive picture of a relatively unknown area of interest. Worse still, asking closed-ended questions may simply result in confirming the researcher’s expectations without the researcher knowing that important detail is being missed. One way to generate broader qualitative data is through face-to-face interviews. However, Blackburn and Stokes (2000) argue that this method may suffer from the same inherent flaw as surveys, in that business owners may try to give an ‘expected’ answer rather than an accurate picture of themselves or their business. Blackburn and Stokes (2000) suggest that such difficulties can potentially be overcome through the use of a focus group approach because participants may feel more comfortable about sharing their feelings and experiences within a group of peers. It should also be noted that participants are more likely to be candid in a group situation because the focus is on the group and the ideas it generates rather than on the individual. A further benefit attributed to focus groups (over other qualitative methods such as personal interviews) is the additional insights that can be gained from the interaction of group members as each speaker provides a platform upon which others can contribute, rather than only responding to a pre- determined list of questions. The traditional focus group comprises a single moderator controlling/overseeing an interactive group discussion where participants are free to talk with other group members in response to issues/questions raised by the moderator. These discussions are usually captured with audio (or audiovisual) recording equipment. Below we provide some guiding principles that should be followed when conducting a traditional focus group discussion. These include decisions concerning: the number and nature of participants; the number of focus groups to be conducted; the focus group structure; selecting a suitable venue; choice of moderator; and how to run the focus group session.

Deciding on the Number of Focus Groups Normally several focus groups are held to ensure that a broad cross-section of views and opinions are canvassed on the topic of interest. At a minimum we would recommend holding two focus groups

46 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

because it is unlikely that researchers could feel confident about achieving a satisfactory outcome on the basis of a single group discussion. This is particularly so given some of the potential difficulties that can arise when conducting focus groups. For example: the recording equipment may prove faulty; a significant number of participants may fail to show up; a very vocal/disruptive participant may stifle discussion; and, if there are too many very quiet participants, it might be hard to generate adequate discussion. Ideally, additional focus groups should be conducted until no more new ideas are being generated (if the study is ‘exploratory’ in nature) or until there appears to be a reasonable consensus among the participants (if the study is ‘confirmatory’ in nature). In practical terms, however, focus groups take considerable planning and can be costly to run (particularly if a professional moderator is being used and participants are being provided with some recompense for giving up their time to participate) and, therefore, it would be normal practice to decide on the number of focus groups to be conducted at the outset. This would almost certainly be the case where a grant or other form of funding is being sought for the project. In this situation three key factors need to be considered when deciding on (and justifying) the number of focus group sessions to be conducted. First, is the study ‘exploratory’ or ‘confirmatory’? Normally ‘exploratory’ focus groups are run with fewer participants (than ‘confirmatory’ focus groups) and, therefore, more focus group sessions are required to achieve a reasonable outcome. Second, how many differing participant characteristics are being considered. For example, if we are examining business owners as one homogeneous group then a minimum of two focus groups would be required. If, however, we are interested in the views of ‘nascent’ versus ‘established’ business owners then a minimum of four focus groups is likely to be required (two for each demographic group). Third, while it is clear that the greater the number of focus groups held the more confidence the researcher(s) can have in the outcomes (and the easier it is likely to be to get the findings published), it is important to note that there are typically diminishing returns with each additional focus group.

Deciding on the Number and Nature of Participants While there is no ‘ideal size’ for a focus group, it is generally accepted that the most effective focus groups are those with between 8 and 12 participants (Fern 1982b). If the group is too large some participants may become frustrated because they are unable to adequately express their views; particularly where there are a number of dominant participants and there is limited time available for each question. Note that this problem is likely to be made worse if a relatively inexperienced moderator is conducting the session. Alternatively, if the group is too small there may be difficulties generating an active discussion; particularly if there are a number of very quiet participants. As a starting point, the size of a group should first be guided by the aims of the research. For example, if the focus groups are being conducted to help generate research hypotheses (that is, they are more ‘exploratory’ in nature) a larger number of smaller groups, conducted in a less structured manner, is preferable to maximize the amount of information that is likely to be gathered. By way of contrast, if the focus groups are being conducted to interpret research findings (that is, they are more ‘confirmatory’ in nature) then a smaller number of larger groups, conducted in a more structured manner, is likely to be preferable. Besides the nature of the study, there are a number of other practical considerations that also need to be considered when determining the size of focus groups. First, the time available for the focus group discussion needs to be addressed. As a ‘rule of thumb’, allowing between 90 and 120 minutes for discussion seems reasonable (Kahan 2001). Trying to maintain the interest of the group for longer than two hours (particularly if the focus group is to be held after work, which is often the case) is likely to prove difficult. Second, is the number of questions to be discussed. Third, is the time that is deemed appropriate to allot to the discussion of each question. Here it is important to note that while not all participants will necessarily want to respond to every question, it is important to allow sufficient time for the moderator to try and elicit responses from the less vocal members of the group. If we assume, for example, that our focus group session is to run for 120 minutes, there are to be 10 questions and allowing

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 47

1.5 minutes for each participant to provide their response, then we would ideally like to have 8 participants (8x10x1.5=120). If there were fewer questions to be discussed, or it was felt that less time would be needed to answer each question, then it would be appropriate to invite additional participants (or reduce the time allocated for the focus group session). Fourth, it is also important to note that not all invited participants who have indicated a willingness to take part in the focus group will turn up; there will be the inevitable ‘no-shows’. Therefore, it is generally advisable to invite one or two additional participants to ensure the size of the group is sufficient to generate a lively discussion. A final consideration in deciding on the size of the focus group is the experience of the moderator. Other things being equal, if the moderator is inexperienced it would be prudent to err on the side of smaller, rather than larger, focus groups. Because the objective of conducting a focus group is to highlight where agreement exists amongst the participants, it is normal practice for the participants to be selected on the basis that they are relatively homogeneous with respect to the topic of interest. Therefore, a purposive sampling approach would normally be adopted in recruiting focus group participants. To determine how representative the views/opinions of a focus group are (and how strongly they are held) subsequent research using a probability sampling design can be undertaken. The characteristics to be considered in selecting focus group participants could include age, sex, and any other factors that might influence the attitudes of the participants towards the topic of interest. It has also suggested that, ideally, participants should be ‘strangers’ because having acquaintances participating in a focus group may upset the dynamics of the group and could inhibit responses (Fern 1982b).

Choosing a Moderator The focus group discussion is led and controlled by a moderator/facilitator who has eight primary tasks that she/he needs to fulfill. First, to create a non-threatening environment that promotes a free- flowing discussion. Second, to help members share their experiences by ensuring that, as far as possible, there is only one person speaking at a time. Third, to elicit the views of all, particularly the quieter participants. Fourth, to facilitate interaction amongst participants. Fifth to ensure that all important topics and questions in the prepared outline are covered, that is, keeping group members on track. Sixth, to present questions in an unbiased way. Seventh, to use judgment in pursuing alternative lines of questioning or to probe responses if this is likely to lead to a better understanding of the issue/topic being discussed. Eighth, to ensure that the discussion is captured, usually by audio (or audiovisual) equipment. To achieve all these outcomes clearly requires a highly skilled moderator. There are five key traits/skills that are important for moderators to possess if they are to produce a useful outcome. First, they must be able to create a non-threatening environment that promotes a free-flowing discussion. Second, they must be sensitive to the views of the participants, even if those views are not shared by the moderator. Third, they must have an outgoing personality that helps to make the participants feel comfortable and generate discussion. Fourth, they must have experience in controlling group discussions to ensure that all participants have the opportunity to have their views heard and, particularly, to ensure that a few individuals do not dominate the discussion. Fifth, they must have a good understanding of the subject matter being discussed. Who then should be chosen to take the role of moderator? Should it be a member of the research team or should a professional moderator be engaged for this purpose? In choosing the most appropriate moderator there appears to be two schools of thought. The first suggests that an experienced moderator should be sought for this task (Kahan 2001). The second argues that the researcher (or one of the research team) should take the role of moderator (McLafferty 2004). Like most things in life, this is a matter of judgment and will depend on the answers to a number of questions. First, does the researcher, or a member of the research team, have any experience in moderating a discussion group? Second, are there funds available to pay a professional moderator? Third, what is the nature of the study? For example, if the study is exploratory in nature, then having a deep understanding of the topic/issue might outweigh a lack of skill/experience in conduction group discussions.

48 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Where a decision is made to use a professional moderator it is essential that sufficient time is spent with that person so the researcher (research team) can ensure the moderator has a reasonably in-depth understanding of: the aims of the research project; the nature of the participants; and the questions/issues to be discussed. It is also important that at least one member of the research team is present (but in the background) at all focus group sessions to: observe the body language of participants; take notes; and, if necessary, provide clarifying comments about the project.

Focus Group Structure Depending on the purpose of the research, focus groups can be relatively structured (with specific questions asked of group members and with the moderator playing a very active/directive role) or they can be quite unstructured (with participants being allowed/encouraged to talk more freely with each other in response to open-ended questions). For example, if researchers are simply interested in ‘pilot testing’ a research instrument then a fairly structured approach would be called for with the moderator systematically progressing the discussion through each questionnaire item. Alternatively, if researchers have the more ambitious goal of using qualitative research to generate (or select) theoretical ideas and hypotheses which they plan to test/verify with future quantitative research then the focus group should be conducted in a much less structured manner (Calder 1977).

Selecting a Suitable Venue There are a number of issues that need to be considered when selecting a venue/room in which to hold a focus group discussion. First, it is important to try and find a suitable location that is reasonably central for the majority of the participants; the further they have to travel at the end of a hard day’s work the more likely they are to be ‘no shows’. Second, the size of the venue needs to be considered. It is important that the venue is reasonably intimate to facilitate discussion, but there needs to be adequate room for all participants to feel comfortable and, ideally, there should be space at the side or rear of the room for one or more members of the research team to sit and observe proceedings. Third, the venue selected should be free from interruptions, such as phones ringing or people passing through (Basch 1987).

Conducting the Focus Group Having recruited the required number of appropriate participants for a focus group session and decided on both the venue and moderator, the next step is to conduct the focus group. In doing so, the following key steps should be kept in mind.

Prior to Conducting a Focus Group First, a detailed script needs to be prepared for the session. Amongst other things, this script will cover the aims of the session and the questions/issues to be discussed, and is particularly important when an independent/professional moderator is to conduct the focus group. In this case the script needs to be discussed with the moderator in some detail well before the session is due to be held to ensure he/she has a thorough understanding of the aims of the research. Developing the discussion outline and, in particular, the questions/issues to be discussed requires careful thought and a considerable amount of effort. As with any questionnaire design, each item should have a specific purpose and be related to the research aims. As a general rule, items should proceed from general to specific. Ideally it would also be useful to pretest the script. Second, a suitable day and time for holding the focus group has to be determined. If possible, some consultation with prospective focus group participants on this issue might be worthwhile. In our experience, conducting focus groups from about 6pm onwards on a Monday to Thursday has typically worked well. A later starting time might be required if participants have to travel some distance to the venue.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 49

Third, when obtaining confirmation from potential participants that they are willing to attend a focus group, the participants should be advised of the location and expected duration of the session. A reminder confirmation should be sent to all participants several days before the session is due to be held, again with the location and timing details provided. Fourth, recording equipment needs to be arranged and the moderator/researcher must ensure he/she knows how to operate the equipment. Ideally the equipment should be installed in the venue and tested well in advance of conducting the focus group in case any problems arise, however, this might not always be practical. Care needs to be taken with the placement of the recording equipment to ensure that all comments are captured. Fifth, given a focus group session can normally be expected to last about two hours and is likely to be held after normal working hours, it is generally a good idea to provide some light refreshments before the session starts. This will allow the participants to mingle and ‘unwind’ a little prior to the commencement of the session. If refreshments are to be provided the participants should be advised of this in the confirmation letter they are sent. Depending on the size of the venue to be used for the focus group discussion, it might also be necessary to arrange a separate room in which the refreshments are provided to participants prior to the commencement of the session. Sixth, budget permitting, a decision needs to be made concerning the reimbursement/compensation to be offered to participants for any travel costs and for giving up their time to attend the focus group session. Again, if compensation is to be provided the participants should be advised of this in the confirmation letter they are sent. Seventh, it is normal practice to provide participants with an information sheet and consent form prior to the focus group so they are aware of: the general aims of the project; their rights; and how their anonymity will be preserved.

When Conducting a Focus Group To ensure participants are reasonably close together (to maximize the quality of the audio- or audiovisual recording), any surplus chairs as a result of ‘no shows’ should be removed from around the table. Then, using the script provided, the moderator will typically progress through the following items. First, the participants should be welcomed and asked if they have any questions about the information they were provided (typically in the form of and information sheet) concerning the focus group they were about to participate in. Then, if they have not already done so, they should be asked to complete and sign a consent form. If it is not obvious, the moderator might also like to point out to the group the location of the nearest restroom. The moderator should also reiterate that all comments provided will remain confidential and that no individual will be identified in any publications that might result from the focus group discussion. Second, the moderator should provide a brief overview of the main aim(s) of the study and how long the session is expected to last. At this stage the moderator should briefly introduce any members of the research team that are present. Note, however, that members of the research team should not be seated around the table with the focus group participants; they should be seated in the background, preferably at the back of the room or at the side if there is no room at the back, but not at the front of the room. Third, it is often useful before launching into the session to ask the participants to briefly introduce themselves. This tends to ‘break-the-ice’ and allows the participants to relax a little before the serious business starts. Fourth, the moderator needs to set the ground rules; for example, there is to be only one person speaking at a time, otherwise it is very difficult to properly capture all comments. Fifth, the moderator can then work through each of the questions/issues of interest to the researcher(s). In doing so it is important that the moderator provides all participants with the opportunity to express their views. Indeed, the moderator may have to work hard to elicit the views of participants that are not particularly forthcoming. As part of this process, the moderator may have to ensure that a minority within the group does not dominate the discussion. At all times it is important that the moderator remains

50 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

neutral with respect to the issues being discussed and, if need be, he/she should feel free to seek clarification concerning any of the views expressed. Sixth, at the conclusion of the session the moderator should thank all of the participants for their contribution. If any reimbursement/compensation is being provided to the participants the moderator needs to facilitate this process, which will normally involve the participants signing a document acknowledging the payment they have received.

After Conducting the Focus Group As soon as possible after the conclusion of the focus group session it is useful if the moderator can prepare a brief summary of the main points raised during the discussion and any comments he/she might have that are relevant to the study. This should also be done by any members of the research team that observed the session. Finally, arrangements have to be made to have the focus group discussion transcribed for subsequent analysis by the researcher(s).

CONDUCTING A GSS FOCUS GROUP

While there are many advantages associated with the use of traditional focus groups they also have a number of potential disadvantages. Firstly, the group might too quickly agree to the first idea presented in the discussion (‘yea saying’). Secondly, the group’s views might be unduly influenced by pressures to conform, as individuals could be hesitant to express views different to those normally expected (Blackburn and Stokes 2000). Thirdly, it is possible for a focus group session to be dominated by a few assertive individuals, preventing the expression of potentially useful ideas through either a reluctance on the part of some participants to speak out, or a lack of opportunity. Finally, there can be a number of potential problems associated with capturing all responses from individual group members. For example, in preparing transcripts from audiotapes, it is not always possible to hear all the comments, particularly if some group members are quietly spoken or if a number of participants are making points simultaneously. Further, the transcription process (and the subsequent analysis of the transcripts) can be time consuming and can significantly delay a research project.

The GSS Approach It is argued that using a GSS approach can overcome (or at least minimize) many of the above problems; because responses to questions are captured electronically prior to any discussion taking place. In a typical GSS session up to ten people, each with a computer, are arranged around a table as depicted in Figure 1. The computers are linked to a central ‘chauffeur’s’ computer workstation. The chauffeur drives the computer technology that is used to capture, clarify and print copies of responses from group members. The chauffeur’s screen can be made visible to group members through a data show and an overhead projector.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 51

FIGURE 1 A TYPICAL GSS MEETING ROOM

(Based on Lewis (1987) – GSS Meeting WorksTM)

Participants type their responses to a series of questions posed by the facilitator. The system allows all group members to ‘talk’ at once, creating what Sweeney et al. (1997) have termed a ‘parallel interviewing process.’ The ideas that group members generate in a GSS session are anonymous and can only be connected to a particular group member if that person makes their views known in the discussion that normally takes place after participants have entered their responses to a question. This process helps to ensure that all ideas are recorded, even where participants may have reason to believe that the majority of group members do not share their beliefs. It has been suggested that this type of anonymity is one of the important advantages of the GSS technology, as it ensures that good ideas “are allowed to dominate rather than assertive individuals” (Sweeney et al. 1997, p.400). There are a number of other advantages associated with using GSS technology. It allows each group member to input ‘top of mind’ information early in the process, and before any individual has had an opportunity to dominate the discussion. This ensures that all participants have an equal opportunity to have their ideas recorded and considered by the group. As a result, prior studies have suggested that using a GSS approach generally results in more ideas being captured than with a traditional focus group approach. For example, Sweeney et al. (1997) found that GSS groups produced a third more ideas compared to traditional focus groups. The highly structured nature of GSS groups also seems to generate more ‘useable’ information because unimportant sidetracks are more easily avoided and it is easier to keep participants focused on the task (Sweeney et al. 1997). Also, when using GSS technology, the “facilitator is free to give full attention to group dynamics without having to control a queue of speakers, write ideas or take down notes” (Soutar, Whitely and Callan 1996, p.38) and this can significantly increase the effectiveness of the process. Another potential advantage of the GSS approach is that it allows participants to rate, or rank, the ideas generated by the group during the session. This can be useful

52 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

when determining which ideas, out of a long list, should be retained for further analysis or discussion. Finally, the GSS technology permits the ideas that are generated by the group to be displayed (or printed) at important stages of the process, enabling these ideas to be used for further group stimulus and discussion, and ensuring that good ideas are not ‘lost’. Figure 2 depicts the sequence of events as they might occur in a typical GSS session compared with a traditional focus group.

FIGURE 2 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

One possible disadvantage of the GSS approach is that it may increase the cost of conducting a focus group session as it requires sophisticated computer equipment (including computer hardware and software and data display facilities) and both a facilitator and a chauffeur. However, there may also be some cost savings as there is no need to transcribe audio or video recordings. Further, there can be a considerable time saving as the GSS output is available immediately after the session concludes, without having to wait for audio tapes to be transcribed.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 53

Another potential disadvantage of using the GSS technology is that it may prevent a free flowing discussion. This, in turn, may result in a less ‘in-depth’ understanding of the issues of interest than would otherwise have been achieved using a traditional focus group format (Sweeney et al. 1997). Whether or not this is a serious disadvantage will depend on the primary purpose of the session (that is, idea generation or in-depth understanding). In any event, significant discussion can still take place in a GSS session after participants have entered their responses. Although the purpose of this discussion is normally to clarify or elaborate on particular ideas before moving to the next question, the researcher could capture this discussion using audio recordings, as with a traditional focus group. It should also be noted that some participants may be reluctant to use computer technology with which they are unfamiliar. However, as the use of various forms of electronic communication becomes more widespread, this problem should become less of an issue (Soutar et al. 1996).

CONDUCTING AN ON-LINE FOCUS GROUP

A major disadvantage with face-to-face focus groups (such as the traditional and GSS methodologies) is the difficulty in recruiting participants from diverse geographical regions (Oringderff 2004; Brüggen and Willems 2009; Deggs, Grover and Kacirek 2010). However, this problem has (to some extent) been overcome with the rapid development and adoption of internet technology, which has facilitated the use of on-line focus groups (Sweet 2001; O'Connor and Madge 2003; Stancanelli 2010). As noted by O’Connor and Madge (2003, p.133) “[t]he attraction of cyberspace lies in its versatility as a research medium offering possibilities in an arena not restricted by geography and where researchers can interact with participants in ways which may not be possible in the real world.” On-line focus groups can be conducted as either real-time synchronous discussions (similar to both the traditional or GSS methodologies) or as asynchronous discussions, which might take place over many days or weeks. Each of these formats has its advantages and disadvantages. However, before exploring the advantages/ disadvantages of synchronous/asynchronous on-line focus groups it is worth noting the key advantages/ disadvantages of on-line versus traditional focus groups. There are seven potential benefits of on-line focus groups. First, they are less costly to organize as there is no need to book facilities or organize refreshments and participants do not have to incur any travel costs. Second, issues such as the weather, traffic and transportation are unlikely to affect the ‘no-show’ rate. Third, transcripts are available instantly (as with the GSS approach). Fourth, where the anonymity of participants is maintained they may be more willing to say exactly what they think and to ask what might appear to be ‘foolish’ questions. Fifth, there is less chance of the discussion being dominated by particularly outspoken individuals. Sixth, shy individuals who might be reticent to speak in a face-to-face situation are likely to feel more comfortable expressing their views in an on-line environment. Seventh, all individuals can effectively ‘talk’ at the same time, potentially leading to greater input from group members. However, there are also a number of potential disadvantages with the use of on-line focus groups that need to be acknowledged. First, respondents might not be fully engaged because of distractions in their home or work environment. Second, only participants with ready access to internet facilities are able to participate. Third, the loss of non-verbal cues limits the ability of the researcher to engage in subtle probing of participant responses. Fourth, on-line discussions can be more demanding as a greater level of concentration is required by participants; they have to read the question being asked, then respond, then read the responses and, finally, they have to comment on the responses. Fifth, given that all participants can effectively ‘talk’ at the same time can make it difficult for group members (and the facilitator) to follow the various threads that can rapidly emerge. As noted earlier, there are also a number of specific advantages/disadvantages associated with the use of synchronous versus asynchronous on-line focus groups. With synchronous discussions: the participants do not have time to prepare a considered response and, therefore, the views expressed are more likely to represent their initial thoughts; and the results of the focus group discussion(s) will be available much sooner because the discussion is not spread out over a period of days/weeks. However, novice internet

54 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

users and those with slow typing speeds may be left behind in the ‘conversation’; and if any internet problems arise during the discussion there may be insufficient time for these to be resolved, thus precluding those affected from participating in the discussion. With asynchronous discussions: participants can respond to questions (and the comments of other group members) at a time that is convenient for them; participants can give a more considered response, as they are not under pressure to respond quickly; and more participants can be involved as more time is available for participants to consider and respond to the comments of others. However, the researcher(s) will have to be available 24 hours a day to monitor the discussion and to keep participants ‘on track’; and maintaining the motivation of group members over an extended period can be difficult.

CONCLUSION

In summary, as noted by Klein et al. (2007, p.2117), “focus groups build on the potential for individuals to think synergistically in a group setting. As participants interact, they feed off each other’s ideas, potentially creating a snowballing effect and enabling them to develop new insights that they might not have been able to develop independently.” The outcome of this process is far richer results than would be possible from a survey or one-on-one interviews. However, it is important to note that because non- probability, purposive sampling is typically used to form focus groups, they cannot be used for traditional hypothesis testing or drawing inferences from a large population (Basch 1987). As noted by Kahan (2001, p.132), conducting focus groups can be seen as “both an art and a science. They are an art to the extent that science is identified as precision and replicability of data collection. But they are a science to the extent that the protocol guides the session and that rules specify how the session will be conducted.” Finally, we suggest that while reading about ‘best practice’ in conducting focus groups can be extremely helpful, the skills needed for planning, conducting, and analyzing focus groups are “gained best through practice and experience” (Basch 1987, p.414).

REFERENCES

Basch, C. E. (1987). Focus Group Interview: An Underutilized Research Technique for Improving Theory and Practice in Health Education. Health Education & Behavior, 14, (4), 411-448.

Blackburn, R. & Stokes, D. (2000). Breaking Down the Barriers: Using Focus Groups to Research Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 19, (1), 44-67.

Brüggen, E. & Willems, P. (2009). A Critical Comparison of Offline Focus Groups, Online Focus Groups and e-Delphi. International Journal of Market Research, 51, (3), 363-381.

Calder, B. J. (1977). Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Marketing Research. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, (3), 353-364.

Deggs, D., Grover, K. & Kacirek, K. (2010). Using Message Boards to Conduct Online Focus Groups. The Qualitative Report, 15, (4), 1027-1036.

Deri, S., Dinnerstein, D., Harding, J. & Pepitone, A. D. (1948). Techniques for the Diagnosis and Measurement of Intergroup Attitudes and Behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 45, (3), 248-271.

Fern, E. F. (1982a). Why Do Focus Groups Work: A Review and Integration of Small Group Process Theories. Advances in Consumer Research, 9, (1), 444-451.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 55

Fern, E. F. (1982b). The Use of Focus Groups for Idea Generation: The Effects of Group Size, Acquaintanceship, and Moderator on Response Quantity and Quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, (1), 1-13.

Frey, J. H. & Fontana, A. (1991). The Group Interview in Social Research. Social Science Journal, 28, (2), 175-187.

Goldman, A. E. (1962). The Group Depth Interview. The Journal of Marketing, 26, (3), 61-68.

Kahan, J. P. (2001). Focus Groups as a Tool for Policy Analysis. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1, (1), 129-146.

Kaplowitz, M. D. & Hoehn, J. P. (2001). Do Focus Groups and Individual Interviews Reveal the Same Information for Natural Resource Valuation? Ecological Economics, 36, (2), 237-247.

Klein, E. E., Tellefsen, T. & Herskovitz, P. J. (2007). The Use of Group Support Systems in Focus Groups: Information Technology Meets Qualitative Research. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, (5), 2113-2132.

Lewis, L. F. (1987). A Decision Support System for Face-to-Face Groups. Journal of Information Science, 13, (4), 211-219.

McLafferty, I. (2004). Focus Group Interviews as a Data Collecting Strategy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, (2), 187-194.

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, (1), 129-152.

O'Connor, H. & Madge, C. (2003). "Focus Groups in Cyberspace": Using the Internet for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Market Research, 6, (2), 133-143.

Oringderff, J. (2004). "My Way": Piloting an Online Focus Group. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3, (3), 1-10.

Soutar, G. N., Whitely, A. M. & Callan, J. L. (1996). Group Support Systems: An Alternative to Focus Groups. Australian Journal of Market Research, 4, (1), 35-46.

Stancanelli, J. (2010). Conducting an Online Focus Group. The Qualitative Report, 15, (3), 761-765.

Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., Hausknecht, D. R., Dallin, R. F. & Johnson, L. W. (1997). Collecting Information From Groups: A Comparison of Two Methods. Journal of the Market Research Society, 39, (2), 397-411.

Sweet, C. (2001). Designing and Conducting Virtual Focus Groups. Qualitative Market Research, 4, (3), 130-135.

Wikipedia (2011). Focus Group, accessed March 14th, 2011.

56 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Revisiting the Mission of the Business School Through Scholarship of Engagement

Thomas Cooper Memorial University of Newfoundland

Michael Skipton Memorial University of Newfoundland

INTRODUCTION

Over the past fifty years, the business school management education industry has grown and globalized as the Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree has become the credential for hiring into, and promotion within, the management structures of business corporations and public-sector organizations worldwide. Schools’ industry competitive positions are indicated by a ranking published by the business press, e.g., Business Week, Canadian Business, and The Financial Times. Whatever their merits or demerits, everyone, including prospective students, graduate employers, alumni and possible donors, pays attention to these rankings (Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2008). The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business historically has been the representative and accreditation body for business schools in North America, aiming to promote continuous quality improvement in management education. More recently, as AACSB International (AACSBI) it is aiming to extend this role worldwide. In 2001, the AACSBI became concerned that the business management education market was becoming increasingly global and competitive, and that the unique role of university business schools in this marketplace was becoming threatened. These concerns led to the establishment of a Management Education Task Force whose report, Management Education at Risk, (2002) identified the relevance of program curricula to the global business world as one critical issue for business schools. The AACSBI Eligibility Procedures and Standards for Business Accreditation, (A- EPSBA) were established in 2003 and have been revised since then (A-EPSBA, 2003-2010). It is possible that the accreditation standards described in A-EPSBA, (2003-2010) also reflect a taken- for-granted cosmopolitan orientation towards education for management in large corporations that operate nationally and internationally. This may be appropriate for so-called top-ranked schools. In contrast, there

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 57

appears to be a very large number of business schools in regional universities that, realistically, are not competing in the global, big corporation management education marketplace. These schools have locally- based students and local stakeholder constituencies, but this local orientation may not be included in their mission and strategy. As regional schools seek accreditation, local stakeholder connections can be ignored in slavish compliance with AACSBI standards that may be driving them to copy the activities of top- ranked national or international schools. Ironically, AACSBI standards, and they may be operationalized in the very large number of lower- and non-ranked schools, may be driving them to become less relevant to their own local real-world stakeholder constituencies, as these schools try to become what they cannot be. Based on stakeholder theory, we argue that regional university business schools that are realistic in adopting a mission and vision that have local components or stakeholder connections are building an avenue towards relevance to their own particular real-worlds. Media ranking measures include a school’s intellectual contribution from research and scholarship, as measured by counts of articles published by faculty members in academic journals. Publication counts are also included in A-EPSBA, (2003-2010) and, presumably, the more the better for obtaining and maintaining accreditation. We argue for a broader recognition of scholarship, and of business school faculty members as scholars. Rice, (1996) views the scholar as having a distinct role in society, as one who engages in knowledge activities that address meaningful global and local issues by working in collaborative, interdisciplinary, democratic modes. O’Meara, (2008) observed that engaged scholars in research universities are uniquely positioned to contribute not only disciplinary expertise but the “ability to engage (and often enhance others’ capacity in) systematic inquiry, critical thinking, reflection, valuing of multiple perspectives, and communication of processes and products”. We therefore explore the concept of the Scholarship of Engagement as outlined by Sandmann (2008) and argue that it can help bridge the relevance gap between university business schools and their local stakeholder communities – as well as making faculty members and their research and teaching more relevant.

Continuing Concerns for Quality and Relevance in Management Education Although the value of a business school education has not been at issue, the quality and relevance of business school programs and their graduates to the real world of management in business corporations has been debated for decades. Classically, Livingston (1971) observed that “One reason why highly educated men fail to build successful careers in management is that they do not learn from their formal education what they need to know to perform their jobs effectively (p82).” This observation has continued to be valid. Critics of business school management education have continued to call for a shift away from a focus on specialized functional knowledge and abstract quantitative management techniques towards more emphasis on interpersonal or ‘soft’ skills, and on integrative, holistic management thinking such as situation analysis and opportunity/challenge finding, perhaps combined with real experiential learning. See also, for example, Leavitt, (1986); Pfeffer & Fong, (2002); Doria, Rozanski & Cohen, (2003); Mintzberg, (2004); and Bennis & O’Toole, (2005). In an increasingly competitive market for prospective students, and as university budgets have become tighter, business schools generally have become more dependent on student fee income and on obtaining external funding. These realities, have led to increasing competition for students, for example as schools have established web-based distance education programs. As well, for-profit business schools have entered the market. It is not surprising, therefore, that university business schools have adopted market-based paradigm where students and recruiters are viewed as customers (Trank & Rynes, 2003). AACSBI accreditation has become market-driven as schools see this as a means of advertising program quality to external stakeholders, especially, graduate employers and prospective students, and therefore increasing student enrolments and other forms of revenue and funding. Historically, the AACSBI has supported research aimed to improve the relevance of business school programming (Porter & McKibbin, 1988). Individual top-ranked business schools, perhaps concerned to maintain and improve their rankings, also have advertised their own program changes aimed at improving relevance. See, for example, Business Week, (1991, 1993, 2006, 2008) and Fortune, (1994). In 2003, the AACSBI has introduced its accreditation standards (A-EPSBA, 2003-2010) to improve the quality and

58 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

relevance of business school programming (at least in accredited schools). Even so, Pfeffer and Fong (2004) noted that business schools’ focus on increasing revenues and enrolments has been partly responsible for a decrease in educational quality and academic standards. As well, a study of 373 MBA programs by Rubin & Dierdorff (2008) concluded that the competencies indicated by managers to be most critical in real-world practice were the very competencies least represented in MBA curricula. Business schools have been able to ignore concerns for relevance to corporate management so long as their graduates were being hired and promoted by the very business corporations whose executives were expressing these concerns. Business schools are, however, now facing more serious charges: that MBA graduates and schools themselves are partly or largely to blame for the increasingly reported self- interested, unethical, mercenary, and irresponsible actions and behaviours of executives and managers in business corporations to make themselves rich at everyone else’s expense. For example, Business Week, (2009) posed the question: “MBAs: Public Enemy No.1?” Mintzberg (2009) wrote that, “Now, a great deal of (American management) is just plain rotten – detached and hubristic…” and he asserted that traditional business school classroom teaching has been promoting this detachment and hubris.

University Business Schools and the Research Imperative University business schools are university departments and, accordingly, are expected to demonstrate academic credibility and respectability through scholarship and, more important, research publications. Schools generally must follow the dictates of university organizational and administrative structures and processes, and of university academic tenure and promotion processes for faculty members. "...The (functional) silo mentality that is a boon for liberal arts scholars and doctoral programs across the university is the bane of the business school." (Daghighi and Latham, 1996:65). As well as this “silo mentality”, traditional, academic structures and cultures of university business schools have been perceived as important systematic factors underlying concerns for relevance (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005). Among other things that may have gone wrong in business schools (Khurana, 2007), the organization and administrative structures and processes peculiar to universities, and market forces, may have coupled with the research imperative in continuing to militate against business schools becoming more relevant to their cosmopolitan and local stakeholder constituencies. The reports by Gordon & Howell, (sponsored by the Ford Foundation) (1959) and Pierson & Others (sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation) (1959) have continued to influence business schools and their activities. Business schools’ intellectual capital or contribution of a school has become of prime importance for academic respectability. Unfortunately, on top if this driver, the market dynamics of media rankings and accreditation compliance appear to have determined that this capital or contribution is simply the count of faculty members’ publications in academic journals, with greater weight being given to articles in so-called ‘top-tier’ i.e., more academic, journals. For these reasons, there is tremendous institutional pressure on faculty members to publish. This state of affairs has been persisting for some time. See, for example, Byrne, (1990); Sowell, (1990); Fielden and Gibbons, (1991); Dulek and Fielden, (1992); and Strait and Bull, (1992). Pressure to publish means that research has to be publishable, and for academic respectability and reputational reasons research ideally should be publishable in high-level academic journals. Research need not be useful to management practice – and, indeed, if it were useful it may not be publishable in these journals! Not surprisingly, Behrman & Levin (1984) saw research in business administration as inapplicable and irrelevant to managerial policy issues and problems. Porter & McKibbin (1987) indicated that most business school research will have no real impact, and Byrne (1990) also expressed concerns over its lack of relevance. Muller, Porter & Rehder, (1991:84), asserted that much business faculty research is reductionist in nature, reflects the narrow academic interests and analytical empiricism of faculty members, and is of limited value to students, practising managers, or the larger society. Ghoshal, (2005) has argued that, from their research bias, business schools have sought to make the study of business and management a kind of science - which is not scientific – and this has been problematic. Pressure to publish is brutally evident in tenure and promotion processes: The rule for university business school faculty academics is clear: publish or perish (i.e., lose your job and your career). Sensible

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 59

faculty members who want to have any chances of keeping their jobs and developing their careers, i.e., obtaining contract renewal, tenure or promotion, therefore must allocate their time according to the following rules. These are: (1) Spend maximum time on research publication efforts; (2) Spend minimum time on teaching that is taken for granted; and, (3) Spend no time on any activity that is categorized as academic or institutional service, including any community outreach activities – except where forced to do so for organizational political reasons. Business schools and faculty members single-mindedly (but necessarily) maximizing research publication counts appears to be to the detriment of a school’s educational programming and building of community stakeholder relationships, and to the detriment of faculty members’ teaching and service to the school and to its community. It is in line with our argument that The Economist, (2004: 5) reported that Jone Pearce, in her presidential address to the Academy of Management in 1993, drew attention to the divide between the scholarly world of research and what she called “folk wisdom” – the insights conveyed in the classroom. The Economist, (2009) quoted Henry Mintzberg as saying that:

“…Although the (Gordon-Howell) report helped schools to become more respectable in research terms…it had a fatal flaw in that its research bias did not place enough emphasis on the teaching of the skill of management itself…This meant that schools did not either – a situation that continues to this day, with schools turning out MBAs unprepared for the real-world of management.”

BUSINESS SCHOOLS ARE NOT ALL THE SAME

Media rankings of business schools and their MBA programs in North America, and internationally are published by the business press, e.g., Business Week, Canadian Business, and The Financial Times. Their market impact is significant (Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2008) (and it does not matter whether the rankings have anything to do with the relevance of ranked schools, their programs and their graduates to the real-world of business or management!) We suggest that precisely because they are ranked (whatever this may mean) business schools are not all the same. We perceive that business schools effectively, (even if rather crudely) can be separated into two kinds: (1) Top- and higher-ranked schools that have brand equity and are competing nationally and internationally in the corporate management education-and- recruitment market; and, (2) Lower- and Non-ranked schools in regional universities that offer education only, i.e., no graduate placement, and are competing, largely on price and delivery modes and formats, for students in their own and, where possible, other schools’ geographic localities.

Top- and Higher-Ranked Schools These schools, supported by their networks of alumni in senior corporate management positions, are able to provide graduate placement in high-paying corporate jobs, and assistance with career progression. This is the value proposition for well-qualified prospective students who are willing to compete for places in such MBA programs and pay high fees in order to obtain this entrée to jobs that promise a substantial increase in income and social position. As indicated by a recent email message from the Dean of the Warwick Business School to alumni and other stakeholders (Taylor, 2010):

“The Financial Times have published their annual Executive MBA rankings today and Warwick remains at 35th in the world. In the UK, we also defend our 5th place, with London, CASS, Imperial and Oxford above us. As you know, rankings are an unpredictable and often incongruous way to judge the quality of an MBA; this year’s Executive MBA ranking is a good example of how we have improved in a large number of areas and yet our overall position remains the same…For example, this year we have taken significant steps to increase the range of careers services available to both our student and alumni communities…Around 50% of the Financial Times’ Executive MBA ranking depends on career outcomes and salary…”

60 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Top- and higher-ranked schools have been able to develop a viable business model that is based on their high ranking, and uses reputational leverage to develop revenue opportunities, e.g., executive development programs, and to build influence with research funding bodies, and alumni and other possible donors of funds. For these schools, AACSBI accreditation may be nice to have but it is their media ranking and reputational brand equity that is their competitive position and advantage. Higher-ranked schools must maintain and improve their rankings because they have too much to lose in terms of reputation and revenue if they do not. They therefore can be presumed always to be working to score as high as possible on the measures that are used to determine the rankings. These include graduate placement numbers and starting salaries, and career outcomes; scores in experiential surveys of students and corporate recruiters; and counts of scholarly and research publications by the faculty. These schools can be expected to respond to the immediate demands of students and recruiters, as providing what these customers want must be an effective means to favourably influence the ranking scores that they will give to the school and its program. As well as job placement services, what students and recruiters perceive as a relevant program curriculum for entry into management-level jobs can be expected in top schools. (See (Rynes, & Trank, 1999; Gioia & Corley, 2002; Rynes, Trank, Lawson & Ilies, 2003; and, Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2008.) Faculty members are required to obtain classroom teaching experiential scores from students that are as high as possible, so as to try to ensure that students completing any ranking surveys will give high scores to the school. Faculty members also are required to produce as many scholarly and research publications as possible, in as many high-ranked academic journals as possible, so as to maximize the school’s publication counts for ranking purposes (and to keep their jobs.) The reputational revenue and other funding obtained by top- and higher-ranked schools provides resources to support teaching and research by faculty members, completing the virtuous circle of maintaining and improving the media ranking position of the school.

Lower- and Non-Ranked Schools A very large number of university business schools at reputable universities provide MBA and Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) degrees but have little or no brand equity of their own. These schools are just one academic unit, and their programs are few, amongst the many at their parent institutions. Their funding and their student enrolment, both in terms of quantity and quality, largely are determined by the policies and politics of university budget allocation, and especially the extent to which operating funding allocations to academic units are dependent on the numbers of student registrations in each unit. These schools compete intensely for students in a market that is localized and highly fragmented, and includes many university-based and other public-sector providers as well as for-profit providers such as the University of Phoenix. These schools do not provide graduate placement in high-paying corporate management jobs and so must offer to students a credential that is good value for their time and money spent. While prospective students collectively may constitute a large student demand it is a very localized and a very discriminating demand. For students who are in employment, program delivery must fit in with their specific work requirements and with their lifestyle, and they will demand part-time and block attendance, and web- based programming to accommodate their time scheduling and travel commitments. Indeed, if students cannot get what they require from their local business school they can easily register in another school’s web-based distance program! Fees are likely to be set by the parent institution and, in any case, fee levels are limited by these schools’ lack of graduate placement services, little, if any, brand equity or other means of differentiation, and by market competitive factors. Prospective students outside these schools’ local areas are likely to move from where they are living to study on campus only for a substantial personal reason. For example, foreign students seeking a good quality, North American management degree, and English language experience, at a relatively low cost compared to top-ranked schools. Students in these schools may care only that the curriculum content is credible and straightforward to learn. As well, budgets in these schools are usually tight. These factors can drive the maximizing of teacher productivity using standardized course packages for low cost delivery to large class sizes. (Simply

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 61

teaching-the-textbook and using the publishers learning support package for classroom presentations and for multiple-choice examinations can be an effective means of doing this.) Students also are free to make their own demands regarding curriculum content and learning activities, and concerns have been expressed that such customer demands couple with market competition are leading to a “watering-down” of the MBA degree (Canadian Business, 2006, p.94). Faculty members are required to obtain high classroom teaching experiential scores from students, and these scores are taken into account for contract renewal, tenure and promotion purposes. This raises the possibility that, on top of any watering-down of courses for market competitive and internal cost and productivity reasons, course content and student learning can be further compromised as faculty members may seek to influence students to give them high scores, so that they may keep their employment. These schools also demand that faculty members publish as many academic research publications as possible, in as many high-ranked academic journals as possible. These demands may be for reasons of academic respectability, and perhaps school administrators are aiming to build some competitive differentiation versus other schools, or simply to copy what top-ranked schools are doing. If faculty members do not publish they will surely perish as their employment will be terminated, i.e., they will be given contract renewal, tenure or promotion. Sensible faculty members must follow the rules of the research imperative described above. Perhaps even more time must be spent on academic research in these schools, because they usually do not have funding or assistance available to support research. This is a further driver towards minimizing their time spent on teaching and spending no time at all on service to the school, the university or its external community. It appears, therefore, that lower- and non-ranked business schools and especially their faculty members, perhaps driven by the research imperative and by administrators seeking to copy what top-ranked schools are doing, are working hard to be non-relevant to their students and to their stakeholder communities generally.

AACSBI ACCREDITATION: LEADING TO MORE OR LESS RELEVANCE?

According to A-EPSBA, (2003-2010, Preamble, p3):

“…management education must prepare students to contribute to their organizations and the larger society, and to grow personally and professionally throughout their careers. The objective of management education accreditation is to assist programs to meet these challenges…Accreditation focuses on the quality of education…”

For market-competitive reasons it is advantageous for lower- and non-ranked schools to seek to obtain accreditation from the AACSBI. This independent stamp of approval can satisfy prospective students that they are applying to a quality program, and prospective employers that they are hiring or promoting a graduate with a quality credential. We are concerned, however, that under this worthy surface accreditation standards coupled with top-down administrative and compliance processes in business schools are working in a manner that is anti-functional. Rather than improving the quality of business management education in these schools, including making it more real-world relevant, accreditation standards and compliance processes in practice may be make things worse for faculty members and for student learning. As stated in the Introduction to this paper, we are concerned that in its task force report, Management Education at Risk, (2002) the AACSBI may have adopted a taken-for-granted orientation towards the global business management education market, and a taken-for-granted top-ranked school perspective. We are concerned that the AACSBI accreditation standards (A-EPSBA, 2003-2010) and compliance processes may be reflective of this ‘taken-for-grantedness’ and, as a result, anti-functional. Accreditation as conceived and implemented therefore can be seen as causing lower- and non-ranked schools to try to be the same as top- and higher-ranked schools – which they are not and cannot be. Even though accreditation standards are said to be mission-driven for each school, A-EPSBA, (2003- 2010) standards appear to specify what the AACSBI is looking for in a business school’s mission, and

62 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

these have a top-school flavor. These standards are: Production of quality intellectual contributions (Standard 2); Specification of the student populations that the school intends to serve (Standard 3); High priority continuous improvement efforts (Standard 4); and, Financial strategies to provide resources (Standard 5). Academic publication counts appear to be most important for accreditation and pro formas for listing faculty publications according to their type and tier-ranking are included in Standard 2. We have not found in A-EPSBA, (2003-2010) explicit recognition of stakeholdings other than prospective students and other academics (i.e., journal reviewers and editors). If recognition of business schools’ local stakeholder real-worlds of potential stakeholders, e.g, the business community, alumni, and provincial and local governments, is not being made explicit in accreditation standards they are unlikely to be included in any business school’s mission or strategy in practice. Realistically, it is business school administrators who apply for accreditation and who are in charge of top-down compliance processes and documentation. In practice, it does not matter what A-EPSBA, (2003- 2010) may say about curriculum management and student learning goals and aims being driven by faculty members – “publish-or-perish” trumps these considerations every time. As well, A-EPSBA, (2003-2010) Standard 2 provides an additional imperative for maximizing publication counts.

SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT WITH LOCAL STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITIES AS A MEANS FOR BRIDGING THE RELEVANCE GAP

Lower- and non-ranked business schools or, at least, more forward-thinking administrators can use AACSBI accreditation in a much more effective manner – if, first, they have the courage to recognize that they are not the same as top-ranked schools and neither should they be trying to be. This would include reconsidering the taken-for-granted research imperative and its effects in practice. Second, in formulating the school’s mission and strategy, administrators can recognize that the school really needs to be relevant in its own stakeholder environment. This will include recognizing and connecting with local and community stakeholders and providing some tangible benefits to them. Third, administrators can reconsider the employment processes for faculty members and especially the dysfunctional effects of the brutal publish-or-perish academic research imperative in causing faculty members to view as time-wasters their important responsibilities of teaching and student learning, and service in the school and towards community stakeholders. We are suggesting that, as means of complying with AACSBI accreditation standards school administrators can choose to encourage, support and reward Scholarship of Engagement. This would be an effective means for making their schools and their faculty members more relevant to their local and cosmopolitan real-world stakeholders, and leading faculty members to be more relevant teaching and student learning. Calls for multisided conversations between the scholarly and the practitioner communities to broaden horizons and improve lives have been made for some time, e.g., Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott, & Trow, (1994). Sandman (2008) has described Scholarship of Engagement as community-engaged scholarship that bridges the gap between scholarly and practitioner communities. This Scholarship of Engagement is heterogeneous, multidirectional, collaborative, highly participatory, and of service to multiple audiences. This notion of engagement appears to be inherently real-world and relevant, yet is not made explicit in A-EPSBA, (2003-2010) standards (perhaps because the business model of top-ranked schools does not include engagement with local stakeholders).

Engaging Local Stakeholders for Superior Performance Stakeholder theory provides normative reasons for why scholarship of engagement can be accommodated within AACSBI accreditation processes. Concern for the interests of other organizational constituents beyond shareholders is hardly new, and Freeman (1984) generally is recognized as being the first to fully articulate the stakeholder framework in a comprehensive manner. Central to stakeholder theory is the notion that organizations should be managed in the interests of all their constituents, as opposed to solely the interests of their stockholders. Freeman (1984: 46) defined stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives.”

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 63

Freeman’s (1984) assertion that organizations should achieve superior performance if their managers are able to balance the interests of stakeholders over time, has been a basis for ongoing research (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Laplume, Sonpar & Litz, 2008). While recognizing that the challenges facing university business schools today cannot be solved simply by adopting some “magic” conceptual framework, it appears that a stakeholder perspective does have potential to frame these challenges in a useful manner and provide a means for addressing them. Stakeholder theory reminds us that focusing on the needs of one particular stakeholder or stakeholder group can be counter-productive. The pendulum-like swings between rigor and relevance described by Clinebell and Clinebell, (2008) appear to have led to unbalanced and even dysfunctional modes of educational operations in business schools, focused on satisfying a limited set of stakeholders: the media and their rankings, accreditation bodies, customers (i.e., employer recruiters and/or students) and the cosmopolitan academic community – especially journal editors and reviewers. In particular, business schools and their faculty members appear to be generally ignoring local stakeholder communities in their single-minded pursuit of primarily theoretical academic research so as to generate publication counts for maintaining academic respectability and accreditation, and for keeping their jobs. In contrast, recognizing the general set of stakeholders, including those in business schools’ local communities is a more realistic and balanced approach that can enable business schools to become much more relevant and effective in their own real-worlds. Stakeholders are most likely to support the organization such as a business school when they believe they have been fairly considered, fairly treated and fairly rewarded for doing so (Hosmer & Kiewitz, 2005). Heugens, Van Den Bosch & Van Riel (2002) demonstrated that building trust-based cooperative ties with stakeholders enhances organizational legitimacy, which produces stakeholder support and creates environmental stability, benefiting organizations over the long term. Organizations need to accommodate the interests of strategic stakeholders because of their ability to provide or withhold needed resources (Goodpaster, 1991). Adopting a transactions-based perspective emphasizing stakeholder contributions and inducements, Nickols (2005: 127) argued that stakeholders “put something in and take something out” and must see value in the exchange, and a stakeholder is “a person or group with an interest in seeing the endeavour succeed and without whose support the endeavour would fail.” This framing can be applied to business schools that are failing to recognize their more local stakeholders – to this extent their endeavours will fail. While research studies show that stakeholder management does have a positive impact on firm performance, Laplume, Sonpar & Litz, (2008) caution that using short term financial performance as a benchmark may not be appropriate because it is likely that stakeholder management contributes more to organizational effectiveness than it does to efficiency. We suggest, therefore, that where university business schools are focusing on output of research publications in top-tier academic journals as a primary performance benchmark, then this also is short-term productivity and ignores considerations of longer-term strategic effectiveness that may accrue from community stakeholder engagement in scholarship. Adopting a stakeholder approach within AACSBI accreditation would mean that stakeholder community considerations explicitly could be incorporated into the design, development and delivery of courses and research. One important benefit of this would be increased strategic effectiveness for schools, and increased effectiveness of faculty members’ scholarship – both stemming from the more congruent alignment with stakeholder needs and benefits. It is also likely that teaching and student learning in practice could be made more effective, or at least more relevant, by including dimensions and learning activities connected to and with local community stakeholders.

FRAMING SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT

Studies of the practice of engaged scholarship in research universities have found that community- engaged scholarship that is so needed in local and regional universities is “boundary-crossing” – it crosses disciplinary and functional boundaries. It therefore can be manifest as engaged scholarship in teaching,

64 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

engaged scholarship in research, or engaged scholarship in professional service. Even more commonly, it is integrated across teaching, research, and service (Colbeck, 1998; Fear & Sandmann, 2001/2002; Moore, 2006; Ward, 2003). It is scholarship guided by an engagement ethos that results in work connected in coherent, thematic, and scholarly ways. In a scholarship of engagement strategy, the key is engaging with community in defining the purpose of the scholarship, in arriving at the questions driving the scholarship, and in the design, analysis, and dissemination of scholarship. In this cooperative creation of knowledge and problem-solving, community stakeholders (such as local businesses, provincial and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations), faculty members, students, and staff are collaboratively involved in framing the “driving intellectual questions,” in generating and interpreting the evidence, and in using the evidence for diverse purposes. In this way, the scholarship takes the form of an engaged pedagogy that is contextual and social, problem-based and collaborative, drawing on local and cosmopolitan knowledge (Barker, 2004). Community-engaged scholarship has significant structural parallels to traditional scholarship; however, because it is carried out in collaboration with the community, it reflects a differing epistemological basis and a wider set of values, goals, skills, and results. Although the complexity of engagement allows many avenues of approach, it is fundamental that faculty frame engagement as scholarship and that institutional leaders support faculty in this type of work (Sandman 2008). When scholarship, i.e., the distinctive and important contribution that faculty members can make, acts as the frame, it provides a stable architecture that enables faculty and students to collaborate with community partners in ways that produce credible scholarship for enhanced public good and academic – research and student learning - outcomes. We believe that this dimension is missing in accreditation standards and in schools’ compliance processes generally. Constructing the architecture of the “frame” involves coupling the standards of scholarship with the principles of engagement to form the foundation of community- engaged scholarship. Yet, as schools are building their academic journal counts as demonstrations of higher research profiles, community-engaged scholarship is ignored. Accreditation-driven publication counts can mean that business schools generally – in trying to be like top-ranked schools (which they cannot be) – are doing a disservice to their local communities, and they are not serving the wider society. As outlined by Sandmann (2008), scholarship is what is being done, engaged scholarship is how it is done, and for the common or public good is toward what end it is done. Rather than simply responding to community or curricular needs, interests, problems, and requests in a just-in-time service-oriented mode, faculty become involved by framing their response as scholarship with the community constituents (Sandmann, Foster-Fishman, Lloyd, Rauhe, & Rosaen, 2000). This framing to simultaneously accomplish both school and community stakeholder objectives sets community-engaged research apart. Valuable and inherently real-world relevant new knowledge can be obtained from community sources about community issues, problems, and processes. Scholarship of engagement also promotes a practical and interdisciplinary approach most conducive to innovation. Establishing scholarship teams to include graduate students, staff, and community partners means more participants, socializes them towards engagement, and brings new perspectives to research topics. Co-opting community partners before the work even starts can increase the likelihood that the research, the results, and the partnership itself will find acceptance (Sandmann, 2008). Unfortunately, however, the requirements for developing this type of engaged-research (such as time, resources, operational logistics) and the pressure for journal publications mean that this type of scholarship does not normally get done even though it is most real-world relevant. In many situations traditional scholarship is an appropriate approach, but its procedures and findings are generally research-based and limited to the academy. While questions of interest, and information search considerations may be similar for academic and community-engaged scholarship, the answers are different because the two types of inquiry are constructed through different approaches (Sandmann, 2006). Moreover the outcomes are likely to be completely different. Success in traditional academic research is having your article published in a highly recognized journal with, ideally, this article being cited by authors of other journal articles. For community-engaged scholarship, success may be how local community stakeholders use your research to improve the local community, such as creating the business case for more employment or infrastructure. Engaged scholarship is the recognition that there are a

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 65

number of stakeholders that should be, and can be, involved in a university business school, not just students, journal editors and accreditation bodies. Schön (1995) has indicated that “the new scholarship requires a new epistemology” observing that Boyer’s (1990) reconsideration of scholarship opened the door to a new look at what constitutes legitimate knowledge. Analyzing differences between traditional scholarship such as publication in journals and community-engaged scholarship can oversimplify and dichotomize diverse, complex, and often messy processes. For faculty members in health professions, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health has developed a set of tools to plan and document community-engaged scholarship and produce strong portfolios for promotion and tenure (Jordon, 2007). For those in the arts, humanities, and design, Imagining America: Artists and Scholars in Public Life’s Tenure Team Initiative on Public Scholarship provides guidance (Ellison & Eastman, 2008). The report New Times Demand New Scholarship (Stanton, 2007) explores community-engaged scholarship generally within research universities. As described by Sandmann (2008), a number of exemplary expositions exist regarding community engagement as scholarship, but under differing nomenclature: engaged scholarship, community-engaged scholarship, public scholarship, and the scholarship of engagement. Van de Ven (2007) has described a model for engaged scholarship with business practitioners. It is ironic that the variety and complexity of real-world community-engaged approaches to scholarship may be the very reasons why they appear not to be recognized in accreditation standards. Instead, academic publication counts have become an end in themselves.

CONCLUSION

Scholars and school administrators supporting them must recognize that establishing and participating in authentically engaged stakeholder-community partnerships to produce mutually beneficial outcomes is not easy. Existing academic or community cultures such as those focused on only publishing in top-tier journals may inhibit participation. Specific projects must be developed, and obtaining funding can be a major concern. Real-life concerns such as logistics, academic calendars, and students’ workplace preparedness can present difficulties. While university and community partners may be committed, developing trans-organizational relationships and multidisciplinary teams takes time. Typically, leadership evolves as the partnership develops. The need to bridge organizational structures across partners requires boundary–spanning roles. Another challenge is working with stakeholders to help them understand and appreciate scholarship as the scaffold of the collaboration. Local business stakeholders, in particular, are wary of being subjected to traditional scholarly research simply because they know that it is a non-relevant waste of time for them. In contract, a scholarship of engagement approach allows for a collaborative, engaged partnership with stakeholders – and they can get something directly beneficial out of it. The promise that this type of collaboration holds, along with institutional support, will give scholars a stronger foundation for framing their work in ways that make community members participants rather than subjects. Disseminating useful application of the research to the community stakeholders involved can create a constructive feedback circle to support further collaboration with local stakeholders and strengthen connections. Imaginative business school administrators can lead their schools and support their faculty towards scholarship of engagement – and build the real-world relevance of stakeholder connections into the school’s research efforts and into its educational programming and student learning activities and outcomes. First, business schools will need to plan and provide for the development of faculty members as architects and practitioners of scholarship of engagement. In addition to disciplinary expertise and foundational research skills, faculty members will need support to cultivate an understanding of the underlying epistemology and values of engagement, as well as necessary skills, such as:

- Having a fundamental belief system about the role of the university as a partner engaged with stakeholders in scholarly ways

66 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

- Seeing scholarship as the defining structure when beginning a collaborative project with the community - Being open to interdisciplinary ways of thinking and framing scholarship - Having skills necessary for partnership, collaboration, and facilitation, such as being a good listener, adaptable, and patient.

Second, there must be consolidation of institutional leadership and support for engaged scholarship. Without such top-level support, community-engaged scholarship may be driven only by the interests of particular faculty members and, if it is established at all, its focus and thus its effectiveness will become diffused and ineffective. Only if engaged scholarship is explicitly included in a business school’s mission, strategic priorities, resource allocations, and faculty member employment considerations, so that it counts for contract renewal, tenure and promotion, can any effective scholarship of engagement with local community stakeholders be established (Sandmann, 2009). It is up to business school administrators to decide whether they want to recognize their school’s own local-real world and its community stakeholders, and become more engaged with them and therefore more relevant. In the meantime schools and faculty members will continue to publish and to perish through their lack of engagement with their real world.

REFERENCES

A-EPSBA, (2003-2010). AACSB International eligibility procedures and standards for business accreditation. Adopted April 25th, 2003. Revised: January 31, 2010. www.aacsb.edu/accreditation . (Accessed November 22nd, 2010).

AACSBI Task Force on Management Education Report (2002). Management Education at Risk.

Barker, D. (2004). The scholarship of engagement: A taxonomy of five emerging practices. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 9(2), 123-137.

Behrman, J.N., & Levin, R.I. (1984). Are business schools doing their job? Harvard Business Review, 62(1), 104-147.

Bennis, W.G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, (May), 96-104.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: The priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Business Week, (1991). Wharton rewrites the book on B-schools. (May 13), 3.

Business Week, (1993). A case study in change at Harvard. (November 15), 42.

Business Week, (2006). The best B-schools. (October 23), 54-75.

Business Week, (2008). The best B-Schools. (November 24), 41-54.

Business Week, (2009). MBAs: Public Enemy No.1? http://www.businessweek.com/print/bschools/content/may2009/bs20090520_423631.htm Accessed, December 11th, 2010.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 67

Byrne, J.A. (1990). Is research in the ivory tower fuzzy, irrelevant and pretentious? Business Week, (October 29), 62-66.

Canadian Business, (2006). MBA Guide 2006. (October 23-November 5), 91-124.

Clinebell, S.K. & Clinebell, J.M. (2008). The tension in business education between academic rigor and real-world relevance: The role of executive professors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 99-107.

Colbeck, C. L. (1998). Merging in a seamless blend: How faculty integrate teaching and research. Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 647–671.

Daghighi, S. & Latham, G.P. (1996). Benchmarking executive education for MBA programs. ASAC 1996 Conference, Montreal, Quebec; and in ASAC 1996 Proceedings, 17(10) - Management Education, 64-73.

Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.

Doria, J., Rozanski H., & Cohen, E. (2003). What business needs from business schools. Strategy+Business, 32, (Fall), 2-8.

Dulek, R.E., & Fielden, J.S. (1992). Why fight the system? The non-choice facing beleaguered business faculties. Business Horizons, 35(5), 13-19.

Ellison, J., & Eastman, T. K. (2008). Scholarship in public: Knowledge creation and tenure policy in the engaged university. Syracuse, NY: Imagining America: Artists and Scholars in Public Life, Tenure Team Initiative on Public Scholarship. http://www.imaginingamerica.org/TTI/TTI.html

Fear, F., & Sandmann, L. R. (2001/2002). The “new” scholarship: Implications for engagement and extension. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 7(1&2), 29-40.

Fielden, J.S., & Gibbons, J.D. (1991). Merit myopia and business school faculty publications. Business Horizons, (March-April), 8-12.

Fortune, (1994). Reengineering the MBA. (January 24), 38-47.

Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pittman.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4 (1), 75-91.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). New production of knowledge: Dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, UK: Sage.

Gioia, D.A. & Corley, K.G. (2002). Being good versus looking good: Business school rankings and the Circean transformation from substance to image. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1: 107-120.

Goodpaster, K.E. (1991). Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1, 1, 53- 73.

68 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Gordon, R.A., & Howell, J.E. (1959). Higher education for business. Columbia University Press: New York.

Heugens, P., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J.; Van Riel, C. B.M. (2002). Stakeholder integration: Building mutually enforcing relationships. Business & Society, 41(1), 36-60.

Hosmer, L.T. & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 67-91.

Jordon, C. (Ed.). (2007). Community-engaged scholarship review, promotion & tenure packages. Peer Review Workgroup, Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, Community–Campus Partnerships for Health. http://www.communityengagedscholarship.info/

Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Laplume, A.O., Sonpar, K. and Litz, R.A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152-1189.

Leavitt, H.J. (1986). Management and management education: What's right and what's wrong? Selections, (Spring), 10.

Livingston, J.S., (1971). The myth of the well-educated manager. Harvard Business Review, (Jan-Feb), 79-89.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. New York: Berrett Koehler.

Mintzberg, H. (2009). America’s monumental failure of management. Globe and Mail, (March 16th), A11.

Moore, T. L. (2006, November). Whole, seamless, vital: Portraits of an integrated scholarly agenda. Paper presented at the Annual Association for the Study of Higher Education Conference, Anaheim, CA.

Morgeson, F.P., & Nahrgang, J.D. (2008). Same as it ever was: Recognizing stability in the Business Week rankings. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 26-41.

Muller, H.J., Porter, J.L., & Rehder, R.R. (1991). Reinventing the MBA the European way. Business Horizons, (May-June), 83-91.

Nickols, F.W. (2005). Why a stakeholder approach to evaluate training. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(1), 121-134.

O’Meara, K. (2008). Making the case for the new American scholar - Scholarship of engagement toolkit. Campus Compact.

Pierson, F. & Others. (1959). The education of American businessmen: A study of university-college programmes in business administration. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 69

Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1), 78-95.

Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C. (2004). The business school ‘business’: Some lessons from the U.S. experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1501-1520.

Porter, L., & McKibbin, L.E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century, New York: McGraw-Hill Inc..

Rice, R. E. (1996). Making a place for the new American scholar (Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards. Working Paper Series 1). Washington D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Rubin, E.S. & Dierdorff, E.C. (2009). How relevant is the MBA? Assessing the alignment of required curricula and required managerial competences.” Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(2), 208-224.

Rynes, S.L., & Trank, C.Q. (1999). Behavioral science in the business school curriculum: Teaching in a changing institutional environment. Academy of Management Review, 24, 808-824.

Rynes, S.L., Trank, C.Q., Lawson, A.M., & Ilies, R. (2003). Behavioual coursework in business education: Growing evidence of a legitimacy crisis. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 269-283.

Sandmann, L. R. (2006). Scholarship as architecture: Framing and enhancing community engagement. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 20(3), 80-84.

Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher education: A strategic review, 1996-2006. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 91-104.

Sandmann, L. R. (2009). Second generation: Community engagement promotion and tenure issues and challenges. In J. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.), The future of service-learning: New solutions for sustaining and improving practice (pp.67-89). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Sandmann, L., Foster-Fishman, P., Lloyd, J., Rauhe, W., & Rosaen, C. (2000). Managing critical tensions: How to strengthen the scholarship component of outreach. Change, 32(1), 44-58.

Schön, D. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change (November/December) 27-34.

Sowell, T. (1990). On higher learning in America: Some comments. Public Interest, 99, 68-78.

Stanton, T. K. (Ed.). (2007). New times demand new scholarship: Research universities and civic engagement: Opportunities and challenges. A conference report. Retrieved Dec. 3, 2008, from www.compact.org/resources/research_universities/.

Strait, M.A., & Bull, I. (1992). Do academic traditions undermine teaching? Journal of Accountancy, 174(3), 69-73.

Taylor, M.P. (2010) WBS: Financial Times Rankings - A Message from the Dean , October 20.

70 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Trank, C.Q., & Rynes, S.L. (2003). Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming professionalism in management education. Academy of Learning and Education, 2, 189-206.

The Economist, (2004). “Business schools: But can you teach it? http://www.economist.com/node/2685892/print Accessed December 10th, 2010

The Economist, (2009). The Pedagogy of the privileged. (September 26th), 82.

Van de Ven, A.H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 29(5). San Francisco: Josey Bass.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 71

The Quandary of Assessing Faculty Performance

Kamal Fatehi Kennesaw State University

Mohsen Sharifi California State University, Fullerton

Jim Herbert Kennesaw State University

INTRODUCTION

At many universities, student evaluation of teaching is a significant part of faculty member’s performance evaluation. Despite the continued use of students’ ratings of teaching effectiveness there “… is no evidence that the use of teaching ratings improves learning in the long run” (Armstrong, 1988: 1223). Some scholars have considered students’ ratings of teaching effectiveness a popularity contest more than anything else. Clayson, Frost & Sheffet (2006: 54) suggest that “students reward instructors who reward them and punish those who punish them.” Some have claimed that there is a relationship between grades given to students and the evaluations given by students to instructors. “Students reward teachers who grade leniently with higher teacher and course evaluations” (Bacon & Novotny, 2002: 5). Often, students evaluate some instructors lower because of the nature and amount of work assigned and the grades students earn (Johnson, 2003, Bacon & Novotny, 2002; Goldberg and Callahan, 1991; Stapleton, 1990). Others suggest that students complete surveys in a perfunctory manner (McKeachie, 1997: 1223), and in mindless information processing way (Trout, 2000). According to Langer (2000), when people act in a mindless manner, information processing is limited, attention span is reduced, and cognition of reality is simplified. The questionable student evaluation as opposed to experts’ evaluation was highlighted by Kim, Damewoord, and Hodge (2000: 458) who, compared peer evaluation system to student evaluations at their own institution, and observed that “a few professors who usually received lower student evaluations …. were evaluated highly by their peers in classroom teaching performance.”

72 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

However, administrators continue to use student opinions regarding teaching effectiveness because of its convenience and the quantitative nature of the measurement. The quantitative aspect particularly is attractive to business schools administrators, because they often try to model the institution (business school) after economic organizations. The application of concrete information that can be statistically analyzed gives it an aura of respectability, legitimacy and reliability. Presumably, quantification allows for measuring continuous improvement a la business organizations. Reducing a very complex phenomenon to a very simple numeral has its appeal. This is analogues to the use of earnings per share (EPS) in financial statement analysis that is very popular among financial analysts. But its popularity does very little in explaining financial and operational complexity of the firm. “Many colleges and universities rely heavily, if not solely, on student rating data …. to evaluate teaching (Seldin and Associates, 1999).” This assertion is corroborated by a survey of 40,000 department chairs that found 97% used student evaluations to assess teaching performance (U.S. Department of Education, 1991). The other sources of data used were department chair evaluation (84%), peer evaluation (53%), and dean evaluation (40%). Probably, these other sources are mostly the second hand use of student opinion. Given its dubious reliability, the pervasive use of student ratings could lead to inappropriate outcomes. According to Seldin and Associates (1999: 26-27), to evaluate teaching, we need information in seven areas: subject matter mastery, curriculum development, course design, delivery of instruction, assessment of learning, availability to students, and administrative requirements. They assert that most students know next to nothing about the first three, and perhaps the last. While the validity of students opinions regarding teaching effectiveness has been questioned (e.g. Bacon & Novotny, 2002; Clayson, Frost & Sheffet, 2006; Johnson, 2003, Goldberg and Callahan, 1991; Seldin and Associates, 1999), this has not resulted in changing the administrators’ affinity for its use in decision making. Totally abandoning student evaluation of teaching is not practical (Stapleton and Murkison, 2001), but using it in conjunction with other measurement would be more meaningful, particularly that teaching effectiveness is related to other aspects of faculty performance. Therefore, we make some suggestions for evaluation of various levels of skills and performance. It is hoped that the examination of another aspects of this phenomenon will advance our understating of the subject further. This paper elaborates on assessing faculty performance by taking into account the variations of skills among instructors and the students’ response to the same. It suggests that by measuring teaching effectiveness through students’ opinion surveys we should acknowledge that the learning aspect and the responsibility for learning play a role in the whole process. In doing so, the paper elaborates on the relationship between teaching and learning, and the way teaching performance is perceived and measured at colleges and universities. Then, the role of research in the mastery of the subject, and interpersonal relationship between the instructor and the student, or the management of perception are described. Finally, suggestions are made for evaluation of faculty performance, and related administrative decisions.

Teaching and Learning Teaching and learning are intertwined. One cannot be effective without the other. It is a teacher’s role to narrow the gap between teaching and learning (Cross, et al, 1996). Assuming a difference in the level of experience and knowledge between the teacher and the student learner, the responsibility of knowledge dissemination/acquisition rests with the teacher at the earlier stages, when the student/learner is much less experienced and informed. As the level of experience, knowledge, and –perhaps- age of the learner increases, the location of responsibility for teaching/learning shifts more toward the student/learner and away from the teacher/knowledge disseminator. This distinction, as depicted in Graph 1 has important implications for assessing teaching effectiveness. This reality was not lost to some ancient civilizations, as it is evidenced in the form of the terms used to identify various stages of learning/ knowledge acquisition in the languages of those civilizations.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 73

GRAPH 1 TEACHING/LEARNING PROCESS (KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION/ACQUISITION PROCESS)

Learning

Process of Teaching/ Learning

Teaching

Less More Student’s Age/Experience/Knowledge

For example, Persian culture is among the earliest civilizations that put premium on learning and knowledge acquisition. The recorded history indicates that Achaemenids (around 600 B.C.) were strong supporters of the education and knowledge acquisition/dissemination. Other Persian dynasties and emperors followed in that tradition and established earliest learning centers and universities. Daaneshgaah e Gundi Shah Pur (Gundishahpur University) was among those universities. Founded by the Sassanid King Shapur I, the city of Gondeshapur was home to the world's oldest known (271 C.E.) teaching hospital (Azisi, 2008), which also comprised a library and a university. Gundishahpour University has been identified with extensive ruins south of Shahabad, a village 14 kilometers south-east of Dezful in the present-day province of Khuzestan, southwest Iran, near the Karun river which pours into the Persian Gulf. Gundishahpour offered training in medicine, philosophy, theology and science. The faculty members were versed not only in the Zoroastrian and Persian traditions, but in Greek and Indian learning as well (The Circle of Iranian Studies, 2008; Wikipedia, 2008). In the Persian language, the term referring to a “student”, and the meaning it implies, varies depending on the stages of the student’s learning process. The term is different for the earlier stages of knowledge acquisition from those of the later stages. The student, prior to the college and university level, is called “daanesh aamooz” meaning the one who learns knowledge (daanesh means knowledge, and aamooz means learner/learning). The term “daanesh joo” is referred to the student at the college and university levels, meaning the one who pursues or seeks knowledge (joo, a suffix, means seeker/persuer/persuing). The meaning of each term indicates where the responsibility for knowledge acquisition should rest. At the earlier stage (daanesh aamooz), when the student is a “learner”, it is the teacher who is charged with the responsibility of making sure the student learns. Also, at this stage, the student totally depends on the teacher for knowledge acquisition. The teacher has to tailor the method of imparting and disseminating knowledge to the student’s level and ability to absorb the information. At the

74 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

later stages (daanesh joo), when the student is a “seeker/pursuer” of knowledge, the responsibility for learning shifts from the teacher to the student. The teacher becomes the source of information and a mentor who provides guidance in the process of knowledge acquisition. The teacher is expected to be mainly an expert/mentor and have the ability to direct the process of learning. Here, interpersonal relationship has an impact on the student’s perception of teaching effectiveness. A good interpersonal relationship can positively influence the learning process. Among other things, by encouraging the student in the pursuit of knowledge, and by affecting his/her self image in the process, the teacher is able to influence the learning process positively. Similarly, in the Arabic language, the word "Telmeeze" (plural "Talameez") is used to refer to the student prior to entering the university. Telmeeze means to learn under someone’s guidance. This implies that at this stage, the teacher will provide the information and teach the pupil everything needed to learn, and the pupil’s role is to follow. This word could be considered very close to the English word "disciple". The word "Taleb" (plural "Talabah”) is used to refer to a person at the higher levels of learning, at the university. It means someone who is asking for, or seeking for the knowledge, implying that the responsibility of learning rests with the student.

Interaction Between Teaching and Learning Education entails both teaching and learning phases. The earlier phase would mostly rely on the teacher successfully imparting knowledge to the pupil. The later involves mostly the student, and depends on the interests and the efforts of the student to learn. During the lifetime, at first, the knowledge dissemination/acquisition should be the responsibility of the teacher and gradually shift to the student when he/she enters the university. Students at the university level should mostly undertake independent learning with the assistance of instructors. Not too long ago in the past, often students were told that for every hour of classroom instruction, they should allocate three hours of study time outside the classroom. The study time could include a review of the classroom lecture material, or independent learning about the subject by using library resources. Today, it seems that this requirement is not taken seriously. We are, or should be, life-time students/learners, and as we advance in our lives, we should assume a more active role in our knowledge acquisition by emphasizing the learning aspect. Therefore, at the lower levels, the teacher has a very active role and provides not only the content of what is to be learned, but the way (how) to learn it. This means a determination of how to make it possible and easier for the student to learn. At this stage, the pupil has a passive role and is the recipient of knowledge. As the person advances through time and life, progressively assumes a more active role in knowledge acquisition through personal inquiries. In our example of the Persian terminology, the passive role of “daanesh aamooz” (the learner of knowledge) gives way to the active role of “daanesh joo” (the seeker/pursuer of knowledge). At the earlier stages of the knowledge acquisition we expect the teacher to have a prominent role of “teaching” the student. Therefore, the teacher’s performance could be assessed by how much he/she has “taught” the student. This means that knowledge acquisition by the student could be rightfully considered the responsibility of the teacher. Therefore, it is reasonable for an administrator to measure the teacher’s performance at the lower levels of teaching partly by how much the students have learned. At the higher levels, the effectiveness of teacher’s performance is best measured first, by his/her mastery of the subject and second, by how student consider his/her methods successful and relevant. At this level, reliance on the students’ opinion for assessing teaching effectiveness ignores that the responsibility for learning should, at least in part, rest with the students. Without active participation of the students in the learning process, very little meaningful learning could take place. In this context, learning results in deeper understanding and appreciation for the knowledge that already exist, in some forms, in the mind of the learner. Learning is a dynamic and evolving process and not merely an accumulation of knowledge (Cross, 1996, p 10). This is especially true for business students who have to apply their theoretical knowledge of managing organizations to the reality of their day-to-day operations. To transfer classroom learning to actual management of operations is very difficult unless students take the process of knowledge acquisition in their own hands and actively participate in the learning/knowledge acquisition.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 75

Various Aptitude and Skill Levels Generally, three factors are considered in faculty performance evaluation. The three factors are teaching, research and service. While teaching effectiveness is an integral part of faculty performance, research, besides having its own merit, is a very important aspect that can enrich teaching. For parsimony, the service aspect in not discussed here. While we suggest that students should actively participate in the learning process, we also acknowledge that instructors have various aptitudes and skills. Based on this acknowledgement we categorize the university level instructors into four types as described in Table 1.

TABLE 1 TYPOLOGY OF INSTRUCTORS AND STUDENTS’ RESPONSE

Instructor Type Students’ Response

Star (Best) Instructor. Very good graduate and undergraduate students’ Involved in research. Imparts new opinion, especially graduate students. knowledge (research-based knowledge, own or others’), possesses good interpersonal skills (very good researcher-teacher)

Competent (Very Good) Instructor. Good graduate students’ feedback, average Involved in research. Imparts new undergraduate students’ opinion. knowledge (research-based knowledge, own or others’), possesses average interpersonal skills (researcher-teacher)

Effective (Good) Instructor. Good undergraduate students’ opinion, Very seldom Not involved in research. Rehashes old assigned to teach graduate level courses. In those rare knowledge well. Possesses good cases, average graduate students’ opinion. interpersonal skills.

Ordinary (Acceptable) Instructor. Average undergraduate students’ opinions, (Do not Not involved in research. Familiar with the teach at the graduate level). classics in the field and old knowledge. Possesses average interpersonal skills.

There are other variables that could be considered in a categorization of instructors. For example, Kim, Damewood, and Hodge (2000:459) asserted that “ …. communication skills, enthusiasm, fairness, flexibility, and encouragement of student are identified as strongly related to teaching effectiveness.” However, in our categorization, we use two of the three factors that are generally considered to be very important at almost all colleges and universities. As mentioned before, the two factors are teaching and research.

1. Star Instructor – Star Instructors are known as the “best” and are very active in research and possess good interpersonal and teaching skills. They follow a research agenda and enthusiastically share their gained knowledge with their own students, and colleagues. Particularly, this is the case in business schools where research forms the basis for managing organizations. The best managed firms remain informed about the latest developments in the field. Because these instructors possess good interpersonal and teaching skills, are able to relate to

76 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

the students in a positive manner. By possessing research-based, first-hand knowledge, good interpersonal relationships and teaching skills, the instructors can positively influence knowledge acquisition by the students.

2. Competent Instructor. Competent or “Very Good” Instructors are active in research and share the results of their own research or others’ research with their students and colleagues. Their interpersonal and teaching skills are not very strong. Therefore, besides imparting new knowledge, they may not positively influence the learning process. In this case, the students gain knowledge based on their exposure to new knowledge. The learning process is not heavily influenced by interpersonal relationships with the instructor. In effect, the learning process takes place despite the lack of strong interpersonal skills by the instructor, and as the result of exposure to new knowledge. In this case, students may take more active role in the learning process.

3. Effective or “Good” Instructor. These instructors are not very much involved in the research. Therefore, they have very limited exposure to the new knowledge. However, they are good in teaching and rehashing old knowledge. They maintain some familiarity with the popular research topics of the day. Their interpersonal skills are good and are normally classified as effective. The good rapport and interpersonal relationship between the students and the instructor, positively influences the students’ learning process. Most business schools do not assign this group to teach graduate level courses. Temporarily, exceptions could be made in smaller programs where for a short period there are no other options.

4. Ordinary (Acceptable) Instructor. This group is able, on a limited basis, to rehash the old knowledge, and engage in an acceptable level of teaching. This implies that they have no interest in conducting research but are familiar with the so called classics, the proven and accepted knowledge in the field. However, they do not benefit from strong interpersonal skills. They are average teachers. This group is not assigned to teach graduate level courses.

Each of the four types described above involves two facets: how well do instructors impart knowledge; and how strong are their interpersonal skills? The earlier is related to the mastery of the subject and the later involves interpersonal relationship or managing perception. The two facets are discussed in the following pages.

Research and the Mastery of the Subject Imparting knowledge requires mastery of the subject and the ability to make the knowledge comprehensible to the audience. Without the mastery of the subject it is impossible to impart knowledge. However, it is possible to have the mastery of the subject but have difficulty to make it comprehensible to the audience. Experience has a great role in the ability to make the knowledge comprehensible to the audience. The more experienced persons learn the nuances of bringing a difficult subject to the level of the audience. Also, imparting the essence of a deep understanding and a clear and unambiguous knowledge requires less effort than otherwise would be possible. Often, the richness of the subject is enhanced when an instructor undertakes consulting assignments in organizations. These assignments provide the instructor with the opportunity to apply research findings to day-to-day management of the organizations or to find theoretical constructs for managerial practices observed. The mastery of the subject could be accomplished in two ways. First, engaging in scientific research enables a person to learn about the most recent discoveries, and also personally add to the storehouse of knowledge. Second, one can keep up-to-date by reading the results of scientific research discoveries that are conducted by others. Of course, the first alternative is superior. In the same vein, the highest educational degree, a Ph.D. degree, is granted only to those who successfully demonstrate that they can be independent researchers, by successfully completing their doctoral dissertation. This is often a prerequisite for getting a teaching job. A researcher has to learn about the area under investigation and be

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 77

familiar with the research results conducted in the field. Without such knowledge, one runs the risk of reinventing the wheel. There is a direct relationship between scientific research and knowledge creation (e.g. Koike and Takagi, 2007: 51-65). Conducting scientific research results in generating new knowledge. Successful research is built on the comprehensive knowledge of the area under investigation. In short, meaningful mastery of the subject is mostly dependent on research practice. Summarizing the above discussion we could argue that effective teaching at the college level involves the possession of two types of knowledge, (a) the new knowledge that is generated as a person engages in scientific research; and (b) learning about the new developments in the field that is the product of other researchers’ work. There are well-established methods for measuring both aspects of this dimension. Traditionally, faculty members’ research outputs, and involvement in different aspects of professional/intellectual inquiry, are used to measure this dimension. However, the form and nuances vary by institutions. We assume that no elaboration on these nuances is necessary. Interpersonal Relationship or Managing Perception The second facet, the interpersonal relationship can facilitate learning. The ability to motivate others to exert efforts to learn is an aspect of interpersonal skill. We learn more from those we like more. “… the ability to motivate students is generally considered a trait of a “good teacher” (Clayson, Forst & Sheffet, 2006: 54). Students can learn more from a teacher who possesses good interpersonal skills. The liking of the teacher by the students can have a positive impact on the students’ learning. Interpersonal relationship is very closely related to managing perception. We know that perception is selectively organized and directly influences our beliefs and opinions (e.g. Luthons, 1977: 255-279). We also know that perception can be influenced/managed/manipulated (e.g. De Meuse, 1987). For example, smiling, acting friendly, and pretending to care for others could have a positive effect on the opinion of others about us. In particular, young and impressionable persons are more easily affected by the appearance of friendliness and care. They are less likely to detect a fake behavior and more likely to accept the pretention or acting out a behavior as the genuine and true action. A teacher can manage the opinion of the students in certain ways (Greenwald and Gilmore, 1997) including to appear to care for the students and behave in a friendly manner toward them. This type of behavior if maintained throughout a semester could result in a favorable students’ opinion about the instruction and the teacher. We also know about the “halo” effect, the spill-over effect of one positive aspect of a phenomenon to the other aspect of the same phenomenon. The positive opinion of the students about a teacher, as a person, may influence their perception of his/her teaching effectiveness. This implies that a teacher may positively influence the students’ opinion and receive a favorable rating by them (Kim, Damewood & Hodge, 2000: 466). Of course, the reverse could be true and the process could go in the other direction. Unknowingly, a teacher’s behavior could negatively influence the students’ opinion regarding teaching effectiveness irrespective of the teacher’s ability to impart knowledge. A teacher could use one or a combination of three facets: (a) simplifying explanation of knowledge and making it comprehensible, (b) creating rapport with the audience, and (c) entertaining and joking. Based on these facets, the relationship between interpersonal skills and student opinion could be summarized as follows.

a. Converting and simplifying knowledge to the level of the audience. Recognizing the capacity of the audience and the ability to speak at the audience level. Asking relevant questions, vetting the appetite of the audience for learning. Consequently, the audience can more easily understand and learn the presentation of knowledge. They will respond favorably. b. Creating a rapport with the audience, a sense of liking in the audience members. This behavior is reciprocal. If the audience sense you like them, they like you back. Of course, it is possible to fake this. One can connect with the audience by, among other factors, using personal examples. This also will result in a favorable response by the audience. While manipulation of perception could not be considered a noble act, any technique/trick that facilitates learning is useful toward that end.

78 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

c. Entertaining, joking, the use of humor and interesting examples could generate interest in the audience about the speaker and the subject. Familiarity with popular culture, or the lack there of, could play a role in the teaching process. The instructors who are knowledgeable in popular culture could perhaps establish a more positive connection with the audience. Here, the cynical view is that some instructors, by establishing positive rapport with their students, are also able to shift the paradigm from rigor to “fun,” as perceived by young students. Without delving into merits of learning through entertainment, supporters of this approach claim that the end result of learning -- if it does take place-- could outweigh the criticism of unsophisticated conversation. They claim that, notwithstanding the approach, enticing students to learn is a worthwhile undertaking. This sometimes may result in “dumbing down” the materials imparted and ultimately a holistic degradation of the educational process. In this setting, the “tough and challenging” instructors are perhaps replaced by “cool” instructors.

Of course, (b) and (c) overlap. Measuring this dimension is more problematic than measuring the mastery of the subject. At the present time, as it was presented in the previous pages, students’ perception is the dominant form of measuring this dimension. We have discussed problems associated with students’ opinion for measuring teaching effectiveness. Our discussion, however, does not preclude the use of it providing that sufficient safeguards are employed. It is not our aim here to offer a list of such safeguards. A rich literature exists on the subject for the interested reader (e.g. Kim, Damewood & Hodge, 2000; Stapleton & Murkison, 2001). However, we suggest that alternatives are available that could enhance the value of measuring this dimension. Peer evaluation that includes classroom visits, dossiers that highlight teaching instruments employed by the instructors, and similar tools could augment students rating. Extreme caution should be taken not to fall prey to quantification on this dimension. Most institutions have various ways of measuring this dimension, but the simplicity of students’ opinion surveys compels them to favor it over others. A combination of knowledge type or mastery of the field, and interpersonal relations creates four categories, as illustrated in Figure 1 (see next page).

Implication for Administrative Decision Making All institutions of higher education, annually review their teaching staff. Usually, the result of the review process culminates in administrative decisions regarding pay raises, and as a separate step involves tenure and promotion decisions. In business schools, there is an increasing tendency toward quantification of evaluation process. Tenure and promotion issues are not discussed here, because both entail the departmental faculty members’ involvement. Nevertheless, in both cases, teaching effectiveness is an integral part of the process. Also, in both cases, teaching effectiveness is an important component in determining the outcome of the decision-making process. Often, teaching effectiveness is measured by using students’ ratings of instructors. Given the concerns regarding the validity of students’ rating of instructions, augmenting it with other measures seems reasonable. There are some differences between the larger and smaller institution and between the private and public ones. The mere issue of teaching effectiveness is regarded much higher in small and or private colleges and universities. Receiving low student rating for teaching performance is much more consequential in the future appointment, even retention or tenure of a faculty member, in smaller / private colleges and universities. In this environment taking a marketing perspective, the students are viewed as the ultimate “customers” of the institutions. The assumption of direct customer-supplier relationship between students and instructors, in small colleges and universities, would perhaps require consideration of the phrase “the customer is always right.” Thus the customers (students) must be attended, even when the customers’ requests or demands are unreasonable.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 79

FIGURE 1 MASTERY OF THE FIELD, AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP MATRIX

Very Much

Competent Star (Best) (Very Good)

Mastery of the Field

Ordinary Effective (Acceptable) (Good)

Some

Average Very Good

Interpersonal Relationship (Perception Management)

This situation may lead to a dysfunctional behavior by some instructors in a form of imparting a lower level of knowledge to students through a very entertaining and smooth lecture. When the students are tested on this very basic level of knowledge by means of unchallenging exams, they will naturally score high. Consequently, students who feel good about their performances, perceive that the instructor is an effective instructor and they in fact have “learned a lot” in the course. The type of material taught in a class also has serious implication in student perception of teaching effectiveness. Instructors seemingly receive a higher students rating in the courses involved in more structured/concrete materials, such as statistics, as compared to instructors teaching less structured/ abstract materials such as organization and system theories. Learning abstract concepts and unstructured material necessitates a more active participation of students in the learning process. Some believe that defining the goals in more structured and concrete form would not lead the learners to realize their full potentials (Takeuchi, Osono and Shimizu, 2008). Learning of abstract concepts and unstructured materials necessitates additional efforts by the learners. Therefore, some students may not appreciate the demand of expending time and efforts needed in such a learning situation. This may lead to a negative perception about the learning/teaching process. In this setting the learners (students), seemingly, lack tolerance for ambiguity and respond better to more structured/concrete materials. Furthermore, the instructor’s rating seems to be lower when the course is taught for the first time. As the instructor gains more competence in teaching the course, the rating tends to rise. The above factors should be taken into consideration when administrators are evaluating the teaching effectiveness of an instructor. Each administrator may develop norms similar to the one presented below

80 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

for the purpose of evaluating teaching effectiveness. The suggestions here are not foolproof and should be used when an administrator feels comfortable with them. However, these suggestions should be shared with the faculty members at the time of hiring. Administrators should be cautioned about the possibility of manipulation of the system through certain practices. For example, one of the authors served as a member of the Personnel Committee who visited a class performance of a newly hired instructor, as required by the Tenure/Promotion Document of the university. A crisp and well organized lecture was presented in this session. The observer turned in a positive rating of the instructors to the Personnel Committee. A few months later one of the students attending that session informed the observer that the lecture presented on that day was not the lecture they were supposed to have been taught. The student shared this information prior to the graduation, when there was no fear of retribution.

SUGGESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

The preceding discussion identifies skill variations and the mastery of the subject among instructors. We should not expect that all instructors be Star Instructors, nor should we expect that the students always respond favorably to demanding and challenging instructors and rate their teaching accordingly. It is reasonable to suggest that this variation should be taken into account during annual performance evaluation. Therefore, in the following, we take this reasoning to its logical conclusion and make certain suggestions for administrative decisions as summarized in Table 2. These suggestions are based on a combination of two dimensions of mastery of the subject and interpersonal relations that were presented earlier.

TABLE 2 SUGGESTED ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Instructor Type Administrative Decisions

Star (Best) Very good merit rewards as identified by their institution.

Competent (Very Good) Good merit rewards.

Effective (Good) Some merit rewards.

Ordinary (Acceptable) Very little merit rewards. Probably, this type should be encouraged to seek alternative opportunities.

1. The Star (Best) Instructors have both the mastery of the subject and strong interpersonal skills. This combination of skills enables them to motivate students to acquire knowledge from an informed and knowledgeable instructor. These instructors are able to create a positive rapport with the students, and challenge them to apply the best of their abilities. This not only avoids creating resentment, but causes the students to appreciate the learning thus involved. Therefore, these instructors may receive the highest student rating. The involvement of these instructors in research provides them with the first hand knowledge in their area of specialization. Also, because research is valued by most institutions, and these instructors are engaged in research, there are good reasons for an administrator to assign them the highest merit rewards. Rewards could be anything that is valued by the faculty members, including pay.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 81

2. The Competent (Very Good) Instructors have the mastery of the subject, and are engaged in research very much similar to the Star Instructors. However, they lack the skills to relate to students at the personal level. Even though they impart pertinent information and disseminate knowledge on the most recent discovery and development in the field, they may not receive very good student evaluations. These instructors -with the mastery of the subject- are a necessary part of the universities. Thus they should be encouraged to improve their interpersonal skills and join the ranks of the Stars. For example, they may be asked to observe the teaching methods of the best teachers and emulate such effective styles. Similarly, they could attend teaching/learning seminars, and may request a classroom visitation by other colleagues who are known to be good teachers. These visitations could provide the Competent Instructors with feedback as how to better engage the student in the learning process. While this group may not engage the students on a more personal level, they should receive a good merit rewards. 3. Effective (Good) Instructors. Due to their good interpersonal skills, this group can comfortably relate to the students and motivate them to learn. While not involved in research, they are able to rehash existing knowledge to the students. The university would benefit from their teaching ability, albeit they may disseminate no new knowledge and information. Similar to the above category but in a different manner, this group should be encouraged to improve and become Star Instructors. The research seminars that are regularly conducted by scholarly/professional associations would be very useful to this group. They should be provided with opportunities to upgrade their research skills by taking courses that specially are offered by some educational institution that cater to this group of instructors. With their shortcoming in research, we suggest that they should receive some merit rewards. 4. Ordinary (Acceptable) Instructors. While these instructors can rehash the existing knowledge, but because they do not possess strong interpersonal skills, they are less in a position to motivate the students to learn. They may receive very little rewards. Unless these instructors improve their teaching and research skills, they are encouraged to seek alternative opportunities.

The above suggestions are based on two factors. First, the mastery of the subject is mostly related to the research output of the faculty member which is readily measurable by the quantity and quality of publications. In business schools, quality of publication, generally, is based on the type of publication, e.g. academic versus trade journals, their acceptance rates and impact factors. Some departments have developed a more detailed list of journals classified into A, B, or C ratings to reflect the quality of the publications that takes into account the above factors. Second, the interpersonal relationship or perception management of faculty could be based on the students’ opinion surveys. Additionally, to assess interpersonal factors, a classroom visitation, either by other colleagues, the administrator, or both could be employed. Other material, such as the portfolio of teaching material used in the class, and other supporting documents would be useful. All these factors – research and interpersonal relationships – must be taken into account given the impact of both on learning and teaching. In the preceding section we discussed the facet of administrative function relating to faculty members’ evaluation, the determination of merit rewards, and indirectly, the retention. However, an even more important administrative function is full commitment to faculty members’ development. This is where administrators can demonstrate their true leadership roles by assisting their faculty members to continuously improve and achieve the highest level of academic stature. This aspect of administrative function starts with hiring the right faculty member, and making sure that each day the faulty member accomplishes something rewarding to themselves and ultimately for the school. The effective administrator could use Figure 1 – Mastery of the Field and Interpersonal Relationship Matrix, as a road map. The goal is to assist the faculty member to move to the quadrant “Best” in Figure 1. The experienced and effective leader attracts the best faculty member with the potential of ending up in the “Best” quadrant. This goal may be idealistic and perhaps economically not feasible for some departments. However, by employing continuous improvement process, it may be possible to help the

82 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

faculty member to move from “Acceptable” quadrant to “Good” and “Very Good” quadrants, and eventually into the “Best” quadrant. This would be possible by encouraging the faculty member to accept the idea that the “Best” quadrant is the best place for them to be in. Once the faculty member bought into the idea, then realistic goals for them--over a reasonable time--could be established with a measurable outcome. For instance, the faculty members in Acceptable quadrant could be placed on a development plan to update their research and teaching skills by sending them to various academic conferences and workshops. This would help them to improve in both teaching and research areas. First, by attending professional/scholarly conferences and seminars, these instructors can find out about the contemporary research topics in their discipline. They can start working on those areas, individually or with the help of competent mentors and researchers. Second, they can achieve similar improvement in teaching. In a similar manner, the faculty members in Effective quadrant who already possess an adequate interpersonal skill, could improve their research skills and move to the Best quadrant. In the case of Competent (Very Good) faculty members, participating in various oral communication workshop, which are organized by the development centers of most universities, could help them to achieve a higher level of interpersonal skill. Of course, hiring the best faculty members, who are or could become both good teachers and good researchers, is the best strategy. This, perhaps, could be a good solution for many of the administrators’ personnel related issues, such as faculty evaluation and merit rewards. However, not too many administrators have such a luxury. Among other factors, institutional limitations could prevent such an accomplishment. This is not only due to economic factors, but due to the involvement of others in hiring decisions. In the absence of an option of hiring the best, a carefully crafted faculty development strategy could go a long way toward accomplishing goal.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, J. S. (1988). Are Student Ratings of Instruction Useful? American Psychologist, 53: 431-441.

Azizi, M.H. (2008). Gundishahpur School of Medicine: The Most Important Medical Center in Antiquity, Arch Iranian Med 2008, 11 (1):116 – 119.

Bacon, D. R. & Novotny, J. 2002. Exploring Achievement Striving as a Moderator of the Grading Leniency Effect. Journal of Marketing Education, 24: 1-14.

Clayson, D. E., Frost, T. F. & Sheffet, M. J. (2006). Grades and the Student Evaluation of Instruction: A Test of the Reciprocity Effect. Academy of Management & Education, 5 (1): 52-65.

Cross, K. Patricia and Mimi Harris Steadman (1996). Classroom Research—Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

De Meuse, K. P. (1987). A View of the Effect of Nonverbal Cues on the Performance Appraisal Process. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60: 207-226.

Dunegan, K. J., and Hrivnak, M. W. (2003). Characteristics of Mindless Teaching Evaluations and the Moderating Effects of Image Compatibility. Journal of Management Education, 27 (3), 280-303.

Goldberg, G. & Callahan, J. (1991). Objectivity of Student Evaluations of Instructors. Journal of Education for Business, (July/August): 377-378.

Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading Leniency is a Removable Contaminant of Student Ratings. American Psychologist, 52, 1209-1216.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 83

Johnson, V. E. (2003). Grade Inflation: A Crisis in College Education. New York: Springer.

Koike, A. and Takagi, T. (2007). Knowledge Discovery Based on Implicit Conceptual Network. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (1), 51-65.

Kim, C., Damewood, E., and Hodge N. (2000). Professor Attitude: It’s Effect on Teaching Evaluations. Journal of Management Education, 24 (4), 458-473.

McKeachie, W. (1997). The Validity of Use. American Pschologist,52, 1218-1225.

Langer, E.J. (2000). Mindful Learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 220-223.

Luthons, F. (1977). Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Orsinin, J. L. 1986. Halo Effects in Student Evaluations of Faculty: A Case Application. Journal of Management Education, 10 (2), 38-45.

Seldin, P. & Associates. (1999). Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching. Bolton, Mass.: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Stapleton, R. J. (1990). Academic Entrepreneurship: Using the Case Method to Simulate Competitive Business Markets. The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 14 (4), 88-104

Stapleton, R. J. and Murkison, G. (2001). Optimizing the Fairness of Student Evaluations: A Study of Correlations Between Instructor Excellence, Study Production, Learning Production, and Expected Grades. Journal of Management Education, 25 (3), 269-291.

Takeuchi, H., Osono, E. and Shimizu, N. 2008. The Contradictions that Drives Toyota’s Success. Harvard Business Review, June, 1-8.

The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (formerly affiliated with the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/about_cais.htm, accessed December 27, 2008.

U.S. Department of Education. (1991), Winter. Assessing Teaching Performance. The Department Chair: A Newsletter for Academic Administrators, 2 (3), 2.

Weber, C. (1988). Evaluation of Marketing Professors: A Comparison of Student, Peer, and Self- Evaluations. Journal of Management Education, 12 (1), 11-17.

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundeshapur. Accessed December 17, 2008.

84 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Redesigning an Organizational Behavior Class Using the Understanding by Design Framework

C.R. Marshall University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point

Lyna Matesi University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point

LEARNING OUTCOMES DRIVEN COURSE DESIGN

Our institution is under the watchful eyes of two accreditation agencies, the Higher Learning Commission and AACSB. While they use different names for it, Assessment versus Assurance of Learning, they both want a formal system to measure student learning outcomes. Anyone who has tried to graft learning outcomes onto a class after the fact knows that it is an awkward and artificial process that generally seems like it is more effort than it is worth. When the assessment is imbedded in the design of the course, that assessment becomes a natural and relatively easy outcome of the process.

BACKWARDS DESIGN APPROACH

The Understanding by Design framework was developed by Wiggins & McTighe (2006) as a method for curricular design to attain more effective and engaging learning. It is a backwards design methodology that begins by identifying the Enduring Understandings (EUs) in the field of study. From these understandings come the Essential Questions (EQs) that students must be able to address. It is only when the Enduring Understandings and the Essential Questions have been defined that we are in a position to develop Learning Outcomes and the related Learning Activities. The three stages of the backwards design process are: 1. Identify the Desired Result 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence 3. Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 85

This article focuses on stage one. We use student opinion along with our own academic and professional experience to determine enduring understandings and essential questions and develop learning outcomes. We accomplish this by determining what matters most in the study of organizational behavior to the instructors and to the students.

BACKWARDS DESIGN METHODOLOGY

According to the Understanding by Design (UbD) framework (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006) before you design lectures, homework assignments and exams, you need to determine what understandings you want your students to carry forward long after the completion of the course. These enduring understandings are the big ideas in the subject area. Think about what you want your students to understand about these big ideas. One key to writing good EUs is to start them with “Students will understand that…” You can insure that you are dealing with big ideas instead of just course content by the inclusion of the word “that” in your statement. If you simply say that your students will understand something, such as Maslow’s hierarchy, charismatic leadership or the functional form of organization, then you are describing content instead of big ideas. Once the enduring understandings are defined, the next question becomes “What provocative questions will foster inquiry, understanding and transfer of learning?” These are the essential questions related to the particular EUs that you have defined. These questions are the link between the EUs and the learning outcomes for the course. Learning outcomes define what the student should know and be able to do. This is where one would make the connection to Bloom’s taxonomy. It is with the learning outcomes in hand that we will move to the next stage of determining acceptable evidence of learning. When deciding what content to cover and what content to omit you are determining Content Priorities. Ideally, these decisions should be made in the course design phase. In practice, they are sometimes made in the last weeks of the semester after you have fallen behind your ideal, but overloaded class schedule. UbD provides a framework for prioritizing course content, grouping it into three general categories. 1. Big Ideas and Core Tasks 2. Important to Know and Do 3. Worth Being Familiar With

You can think of these categories as Vital, Important, and Nice. The Bid Ideas and Core Tasks that we believe are at the center of Organizational Behavior, or at least at the center of an introductory OB course are expressed in our definition of our enduring understandings, essential questions and learning outcomes. If these vital areas are covered, you have a good course. If you can work in other Important to Know items, you have a better course. If you can only make passing mention of the third category, or of parts of it are missing altogether, you can still have a good course. This entire section is based on the ideas of Wiggins and McTighe (2004, 2006) and the UWSP Curriculum Redesign Workshops led by Paula Dehart (2011, 2012) which are based on the Wiggins and McTighe UbD methodology.

EUS, EQS AND LOS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

Enduring Understandings When we defined the broadest set of categories for organizing the ideas in an Organizational Behavior class there were only two, the organization itself and the people who populate it. This is shown in the mind-map in Appendix B. These two categories lead us to our two enduring understandings (EUs). The first EU deals with the people. Anything that gets done by an organization gets done through its people. The array of tools and techniques that are intended to move people toward alignment with and

86 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

attainment of the organization’s goals include motivation, leadership, and the various forces that influence individual behavior and group effectiveness. Managers do not get compliance simply by issuing commands. EU 1: Students should understand that management directives are mediated by employee compliance and/or noncompliance and that the actions taken by employees are not always consistent with organizational goals.

The second EU deals with the structure of the organization itself. More specifically, it deals with structural choice and structural change. EU 2: Students should understand that the appropriate organizational structure is contingent on a variety of internal and external factors and is subject to change over time.

We have ordered these EUs in the order that matches both our students’ perception of their value (discussed below) and the authors’ in-class emphasis on them based on our academic background and professional experience.

Essential Questions The essential questions are the link between the big ideas of the enduring understandings and the curricular content captured in the learning outcomes. Our EUs deal with the structure of the organization and the actions of the people that populate that organization. This leads to two essential questions: EQ 1: What makes employees behave in ways that are, or are not consistent with organizational goals? EQ 2: How do internal and external factors operate and interact to shape an organization’s structure?

Learning Outcomes The desire to have students able to answer the essential questions leads us to the learning outcomes and specific pieces of course content. LO1.1, LO1.2 and LO1.3 are derived from EU1 and EQ1. LO 1.1: Students should be able to relate the need levels in needs based theories of motivation to each other, relate needs based theories to process based theories and to motivation in general. LO 1.2: Students should be able to describe, compare and contrast various leadership theories using specific examples. LO 1.3: Students should be able to discuss various forces that influence individual behavior and group effectiveness including culture, diversity, personality, conflict, stress, inequity, unjust treatment and political behavior.

Based on the student feedback discussed below, our LOs for EQ1 focus on motivation (LO1.1) and leadership (LO1.2). These two outcomes can be measured with focused assignments, such as a case analysis. LO1.3 deals with the various forces that influence individual behavior. While it would be difficult to put all of these into a single case, it would be relatively easy to track a set of exam questions on the individual topics and compile them into a single measure. Our second set of learning outcomes follow from EU2 and EQ2, and deal with organizational structure. LO 2.1: Students should be able to describe, diagram and discuss the relative merits of organic and mechanistic organizational structures. LO 2.2: Students should be able to describe, diagram and discuss the relative merits of functional, geographic, matrix and hybrid organizational structures. LO 2.3: Students should be able to implement a continuous organizational change model for a case, including the alignment of key managerial roles.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 87

LO 2.4: Students should be able to discuss the benefits and challenges of a team based structure, and should be able to describe the process for converting from a hierarchical structure to a team based structure.

As with the previous set of learning outcomes, each of the LOs related to organizational structure can be easily measured with a single assignment or a set of exam questions. The full set of EUs, EQs and LOs appear organized in a hierarchical structure in Appendix C. Bloom's revised taxonomy (Airasian et al. 2001) is a layered model that classifies thinking as six levels of increasing complexity. As a broad survey of Organizational Behavior, the learning objectives for this course stimulate thinking through the four initial levels of Bloom’s revised taxonomy: remembering, understanding, applying and analyzing. Remembering: All of the learning objectives require students to define terms and concepts as well as recall examples Understanding: In LO 1.3, LO 2.1, LO 2.2 students discuss, describe, and explain Applying: In LO 2.3, LO 2.4 students apply process Analyzing: In LO 1.1, LO 1.2, LO 2.4 students analyze, relate and differentiate

STUDENT OPINION AND FEEDBACK

For two semesters, students in the class were asked in an open ended question to reflect on what they had learned, and to identify the three things that they thought would be most useful for them in their academic and professional careers. This reflection is the last assignment of the semester and is not due until after the last day of classes. In eight sections, 232 students completed the assignment. These students generated 752 comments, which are summarized in Table 1 below and in Appendix A with additional detail. Understanding of motivation, leadership, and organizational structure can be thought of as examples of course specific skills. These are the elements of curricular content that are specific to the course at hand. Skills such as decision making and communication are transferable skills. While they exist and are discussed in an organizational context, they are easily generalizable beyond the specific subject area. The student comments are separated into the three general categories of Course Specific Skills, Transferable Skills and Structural Elements of the Course. The two categories that students found most valuable were Motivation with 201 mentions and Leadership with 171 mentions. These two categories make up almost 50% of the total student comments and over 61% of the comments on course specific skills.

INSTRUCTOR INTERPRETATION OF FEEDBACK

In the student feedback, Motivation and Leadership were highly valued and organizational structure was, at least in the opinion of the authors, highly undervalued. Of the nine course specific skill categories listed in Table 1, the category that is in last place, and therefore considered least valuable to students is organizational structure. The authors found this puzzling and perhaps a little bit depressing. The way the class is currently taught, roughly a 1/4th of the semester is devoted to topics related to organizational structure. This might explain it being relatively low on the list, but wouldn’t explain it being less than 2% of the comments. It is the authors’ belief that students can easily see the potential for using motivation and leadership early in their career. They may not foresee that they will ever be in a position change an organization’s structural characteristics. They almost certainly think it will be irrelevant in their first position after graduating. In stark contrast it is the authors’ belief that an understanding of organizational structure and the factors that drive and are driven by structure will be beneficial throughout their career.

88 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF STUDENT FEEDBACK

Comment Course Specific Skill Category Count Motivation 201 Leadership 171 Stress Management 49 Personality 48 Teams 44 Conflict Management 35 Power & Politics 22 Organizational Culture & Diversity 24 Organizational Structure 15 Course Specific subtotal 609

Transferable Skill Category Decision Making 76 Communication 14 Transferable subtotal 90

Structural Elements of Course 53

Total Comments 752

NEXT STEPS

Having used student opinion along with our academic and professional experience to determine enduring understandings, detail essential questions and develop learning outcomes we look forward to completing the implementation of the above. The next step will be to design 7 focused assignments, assignment sets or sets of exam questions, one for each learning outcome. Particular attention will be paid to addressing the students’ lack of interest in organizational structure. Bloom’s revised taxonomy will be used to align assignments with the intended knowledge and cognitive process dimensions of Bloom’s revised taxonomy. By evaluating these assignments, we can determine the extent to which our students have learned the essential material in the course. If these assignments show a particular area where student understanding is not up to par, we move to the final step of investigating that area of the course and making changes to improve student learning.

CONCLUSION

While the Wiggins & McTighe (2004, 2006) Understanding by Design methodology is well known in schools of education, it is less well known in business programs. With HLC’s continuing emphasis on assessment, and with a growing number of institutions pursuing AACSB accreditation there is an increasing need for a better understanding of assessment tools. It is the authors hope that introducing the UbD methodology through the applied example of redesigning an Organizational Behavior class will assist our colleagues in their assessment efforts.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 89

REFERENCES

Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

DeHart, P. (2011). UWSP Curriculum Development Workshop, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, 2011.

DeHart, P. (2012). UWSP Curriculum Development Workshop, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, 2012.

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G.P. (2004). Understanding by Design: Professional Development Workbook. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Alexandria, VA.

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G.P. (2006). Understanding by Design 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

90 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

APPENDIX A: STUDENT OPINION ON VALUE OF CONTENT

201 Motivation Learning Outcome 1.1 59 Needs Based Theories (Maslow, ERG) 15 Goal Setting (Locke, SMART…) 13 Equity Theory 12 Expectancy Theory 11 Rewards, Reward Systems 7 Herzberg Dual Structure 6 Job Characteristics Theory 78 Other Motivation 171 Leadership Learning Outcome 1.3 23 Path-Goal 21 Charismatic Leadership Behavioral Approach (Michigan & Ohio 10 Studies) 10 Least Preferred Coworker 9 Leadership and Management 9 Leadership Spotlight 8 Leadership Styles 6 Vroom's Decision Tree 5 Leaders as Coaches 70 Other Leadership 49 Stress Management Learning Outcome 1.4 48 Personality Learning Outcome 1.4 31 Myers-Briggs 10 Big Five Traits 7 Other Personality 44 Teams Learning Outcome 2.4 11 Implementing Teams 6 Team Project 27 Other Teams 35 Conflict Management Learning Outcome 1.4 15 Manage/Resolve Conflict 5 Conflict as positive 15 Other Conflict 24 Organizational Culture & Diversity Learning Outcome 1.4 22 Power & Politics Learning Outcome 1.2 15 Organizational Structure Learning Outcome 2.1-2.4 76 Decision Making Transferable Skills 22 Game Theory 20 Groupthink 9 Rational Approach 25 Other Decision Making 14 Communication Transferable Skills 53 Structural Elements of Course Structural Elements 33 Study Methods 20 External Readings 752 Total Comments

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 91

APPENDIX B: MIND-MAP

APPENDIX C: DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR (EU, EQ, LO)

EU1: Students should understand that management directives are mediated by employee compliance and/or noncompliance and that the actions taken by employees are not always consistent with organizational goals. EQ 1.1: What makes employees behave in ways that are, or are not consistent with organizational goals? LO 1.1: Students should be able to relate the need levels in needs based theories of motivation to each other, relate needs based theories to process based theories and to motivation in general. LO 1.2: Students should be able to describe, discuss and compare and contrast various leadership theories using specific examples. LO 1.3: Students should be able to discuss various forces that influence individual behavior and group effectiveness including culture, diversity, personality, conflict, stress, inequity, unjust treatment and political behavior.

EU2: Students should understand that the appropriate organizational structure is contingent on a variety of internal and external factors and is subject to change over time. EQ 2.1: How do internal and external factors operate and interact to shape an organization’s structure? LO 2.1: Students should be able to describe, diagram and discuss the relative merits of organic and mechanistic organizational structures. LO 2.2: Students should be able to describe, diagram and discuss the relative merits of functional, geographic, matrix and hybrid organizational structures. LO 2.3: Students should be able to implement a continuous organizational change model in a case based setting, including the alignment of key managerial roles. LO 2.4: Students should be able to discuss the benefits and challenges of a team based structure, and should be able to describe the process for converting from a hierarchical structure to a team based structure.

92 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Adopting a Beginners Mind to Craft Experiments that Break the Curse of Knowledge

Russell Engel Sacred Heart University

INTRODUCTION

In the beginners mind there are many possibilities, in the experts mind there are few. -Shunryu Suzuki (1973)

The curse of knowledge is explained by Wieman (2007) as the idea that when you know something, it is extremely difficult to think about it from the perspective of someone who does not know it. This is a very challenging problem for an instructor to overcome. One method to avoid such a curse may be to have students engage in an activity such as a classroom experiment. Classroom experiments are fun. Dixit (2005) and Kaplan and Balkenborg (2010) illustrate many ways to have fun in the classroom under the belief that fun leads to better learning. Yet, research is somewhat discouraging when it tries to quantify how much this fun leads to increased learning outcomes. Yandell (2004) and Durham, McKinnin, and Schulman (2007) both show a positive impact of classroom experiments on learning, but it is not a large impact. Part of this can be attributed to the goals of an economist using experiments for research. Experimental Economists have a well-developed and rigorous methodology for running experiments on human subjects that meet various criteria the experimenter understands well and answers the questions the experimenter wants answered. Whether or not the subjects in the experiment gain any insight about economics from the experiment is not even a secondary concern, it is wholly irrelevant. So an instructor must do more than run an existing research experiment in the classroom if he hopes to achieve better student learning. There has been a lot of work done on modifying experiments to be used in a classroom setting, but most of these modifications focus on making the existing experiment feasible to run in a classroom, not necessarily to turn the experiment into a teaching tool. Jaworski, Smith and Wilson (2010) address this issue by framing experiments as a path to discovery, which to the expert it seems obvious they would be, but in light of Yandell (2004) and Durham, McKinnin, and Schulman (2007) it appears that more work needs to be done than matching a topical lecture with an easy to use classroom experiment.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 93

One way to improve is to attack the learning issue after the experiment has been run. Cartwright and Stepanova (2012) do this by having students write an essay for homework after participating in an experiment. Their results show that students who complete the writing assignment after the experiment score twenty percent higher on questions that correspond to the experiment than those students that did not do the homework assignment. Alternatively, an instructor can modify the experiment using a beginner’s mind framework to improve learning during the experiment. The first step in using the beginner’s mind is to realize where the curse of knowledge strikes. When an instructor reads about an economics experiment and sees all of the wonderful and relevant issues at play, the curse of knowledge shows up and whispers have your students play this experiment so they too will see all of these wonderful and relevant issues. But the students are not experts. The experiment may not reveal the underlying principles to them. So, the instructor must now adopt a beginner’s mind and ask what priors he holds that led him to seeing the wonderful and relevant issues. The instructor then has to focus on making sure that the students who will participate in the experiment are either informed or better yet allowed to discover and develop those priors. A major part of modifying an existing experiment to become a Beginner’s Mind Experiment (BME) is concerned with making students comfortable and not assuming prior knowledge even if the students attended a lecture where they allegedly learned the topic.

HOW TO CRAFT A BEGINNER’S MIND EXPERIMENT

To get the students relaxed and ready for the BME, make sure to tell them something like: “how well you know economics is not that important for participating in this experiment. Economic researchers want to know what people actually do in certain situations. Since you are a person, you meet all the criteria for participating. You will only have a short amount of time to decide on a course of action, so just do what you think is best.” The next step is to ensure that the experimental instructions for the first treatment are trivially easy for the students to understand. In my personal experience, my students learn best when they are really confident and experience some early success. After they complete the first treatment, it is then the time to add in a little confusion. Since, they are confident, they are willing to exert effort on this more confusing task. In the last treatment, it is important to add clarity and have the students demonstrate to themselves that they understand. One can think of it as warming up, working hard and then cooling down being satisfied with what you did. After the students have participated in the beginner’s mind experiments, I follow up with discussion of the three treatments. The students then participate in a thought experiment that uses the experimental instructions from the experiment that was modified. A discussion follows. To end the session, students complete a practice problem that corresponds to the experiments and then cover the basic theory. In fact, just as the beginner’s mind experiment has three components (warm up, work, cool down) the entire lesson can be thought to have the same three components where the BME is the warm up, the thought experiment is the work and the practice problem and review of theory is the cool down. When crafting a new BME, it is often helpful to think within the context of problem based learning (Forsythe 2002 and Rigall-I-Torrent 2012) and to focus on the four steps for designing problems/tasks. For the BME that I will describe in detail in the next section, the problem based learning design would be: • The form of the PBL environment must be determined: The format for this activity best fits into the partial PBL criteria. There is a group of experiments, a thought experiment and lecture portion • The instructor must focus on target learning outcomes: The main objective for the experiment is for students to develop a deep understanding of collective action. The experiment is also used as a framework to discuss behavioral game theory. • Determine the learning activities associated to the PBL setting: The students will participate in a beginner’s mind experiment. They will then go through a thought experiment with the instructor.

94 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

The students will then be asked to complete a practice problem. The instructor will then go over the problem and give a very brief lecture.

How to present the tasks to students: Students are broken up into groups of 4-9 members. Each group will need a dealer that is not participating in the experiment. Choose the appropriate amount of volunteers to become dealers. Students receive instructions for each treatment just prior to the start of the treatment. Each treatment is 5 rounds. After all treatments are completed, there is a discussion of the results. The instructor then reads out the instructions for the thought experiment. After discussion of the thought experiment, a problem is placed on the projector and students have 10 minutes to complete it. A discussion follows. Table 1 summarizes the order of the activities (this experiment was designed for a two hour and fifteen minute block class. It is easily modified into two 1 hour sessions where the BME is run in session one and the thought experiment and review is covered in lecture two).

TABLE 1 BME ACTIVITIES, TASKS, AND SCHEDULE

Activity Task Schedule Presentation of the task 5 Experiments Group Formation 5 Instructions 5-10 Treatment 1 10 Instruction 3 Treatment 2 5 Instructions 3 Treatment 3 5 Discussion of Results 10-20 Thought Experiment Instructions 5 Discussion/Debate 10-15 Discuss Theory Review Laboratory results 10-15 Lecture Post Problem on Board --- Students Work Problem 10 Go over answers 5 Review Theory 5

Beginner’s Mind Experiment (Warm Up) What follows is a detailed description of a beginners mind experiment crafted to meet the learning goal of a voluntary contribution method public goods game. The paper that inspired the BME is Isaac and Walker (1988). Holt and Laury (1997), later extended by Pickhardt and Watts (2005), makes some nice modifications to the traditional voluntary contribution method public goods game that make it easy to administer in the classroom. Here are the relevant Holt Laury instructions and student tally sheet (Figure 2): This is a simple card game. Each of you will be given four cards, two of these cards are red (hearts or diamonds), and two of these cards are black (clubs or spades). All of your cards will be the same number. The exercise will consist of a number of rounds. When a round begins, I will come to each of you in order, and you will play two of your four cards by placing these two cards face down on top of the stack in my hand. Your

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 95

earnings in dollars are determined by what you do with your red cards. In each of the first five rounds, for each red card that you keep you will earn two dollars for the round, and for each black card that you keep you will earn nothing. Red cards that are placed on the stack affect everyone’s earnings in the following manner. I will count up the total number of red cards in the stack, and everyone will earn this number of dollars. Black cards placed on the stack have no effect on the count. When the cards are counted, I will not reveal who made which decisions. I will return your own cards to you at the end of the round by coming to each of you in reverse order and giving you the top two cards face down, off the stack in my hand. To summarize, your earnings for the round will be calculated:

Earnings = $2 times the # of red cards you kept+ $1 times the total # of red cards I collect.

TABLE 2 STUDENTS’ TALLY SHEET

$1 x (total # Your total Cumulative # red $ per red Earnings for Round red cards earnings this earnings cards kept card kept cards kept turned in) round 1 2 3 4 5

This section will describe how to modify the traditional experiment, the implication of the modification, the result of running the modified experiment and a teaching note. The teaching note for each treatment will be listed with that treatment for the benefit of the reader. However, when running the experiment, the discussion does not take place until after the entire BME has concluded.

Treatment 1: The Warm Up Instructions: This is a simple card game. Each of you will be given 4 cards, two of these cards are red and two of these cards are black. The exercise will consist of a number of rounds. When a round begins, you will place two of the cards face down in the hand of the dealer. Your earnings are determined by what you do with your red cards. For the following 5 rounds, for each red card that you keep, you will earn 4 points, for each black card that you keep, you will earn nothing. Red cards that you hand to the dealer affect everyone’s earnings in the following manner. The dealer will count up all of the red cards turned in, each member in the group earns 1 point for each card turned in. The dealer will then return your cards to you. At the end of 5 rounds, the group member with the most points is the winner and they will receive 2 pts on the next exam. (1 winner per group) Implication of BME Incentive Structure: All students should keep all cards. This strategy does not differ from the solution to the traditional game, but the new incentive structure does not allow for students to fare better through any type of coordination scheme. By using a tournament style payoff any student that does not play the dominant strategy in round 1 has already likely lost the game.

96 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Result: As surprising as it may seem, some students contribute to the public good early on in this game. However, contributions to the public good generally cease by round two. Teaching Note: Normally, any source of confusion on the students end comes from them not making a strong effort to analyse the instructions. It is as if some students realize they have three options (contribute 0, 1 or 2 red cards), and they will play around the first round and see what happens. Economists running experiments for research will often conduct practice rounds to avoid experimental subjects who clearly do not understand the rules contaminating the data. Data contamination is not a concern for classroom games but instructors should again be mindful that even the simplest instructions may be ignored by participants, so the actions in the early BME treatment should lead to quick learning. For example, one can think of the winner’s curse. Once you win a common value auction you should have an “Aha!” moment where you realize you overpaid. Similarly, a student that misplays an early round of a BME should have an “Aha!” moment that can be quickly corrected.

Treatment 2: Work Instructions: For the following 5 rounds, for each red card that you keep, you will earn 4 points, for each black card that you keep, you will earn nothing. Red cards that you hand to the dealer affect everyone’s earnings in the following manner. The dealer will count up all of the red cards turned in. Each member in the group earns 1 point for each card turned in. The dealer will then return your cards to you. At the end of 5 rounds, the group with the highest cumulative earnings will be declared the winning team. The group member of the winning team with the most points is the winner and they will receive 3 pts on the next exam. (1 Winner in class) Implication of BME Incentive Structure: Students should keep all red cards. Again, the predicted behaviour here is the same as in the traditional game. Result: Most students deviate from the optimal strategy while few play the optimal strategy thus making this treatment rich for discussion after the experiment has ended. Teaching note: It is clear what was motivating the behaviour of the red card keepers, but interesting to discuss what the contributors were doing. Some students that contributed early stated that they hoped others would also contribute both cards and then their group would win and the winner would be chosen from their group since they all had the same amount of points. Some contributed early strategically with plans of later defection. Most interestingly, one student stated that she just “really wanted her team to win” and a few students nodded in agreement with this statement. Here is a good opportunity to discuss behavioural economics. I like to point out that the game play of the contributors may seem odd, but it is not rare in lab experiments. For some reason being in a group makes people cooperative, see: Chen and Li (2009) and Chen and Chen (2011).

Treatment 3: The Cool Down Instructions: At the end of 5 rounds, the group with the highest cumulative earnings will be declared the winning team. Each group member of the winning team will receive 2 pts on the next exam. (Each member of winning team is awarded points) Implication of BME Incentive Structure: All students should contribute all red cards. Result: Nearly all individuals contribute all red cards. Students that do keep cards in the first round of the treatment quickly realize their mistake and contribute all red cards in subsequent rounds. Teaching note: The instructor will likely have to break ties after this treatment. Ties are also possible for Treatments 1 and 2 (but less likely). A simple way to do this is with a coin toss, but then the instructor has to determine which team gets to “call it”. In my class, I have the teams that are tied nominate member to play rocks-paper-scissor (best 2 of three and round robin format if an odd number of teams are tied). While Treatment 3 of the BME totally eliminates any incentive for the students to keep cards, it can be used as a jumping off point to discuss the use of teams to mitigate free riding. See Tan and Bolle (2007) and Guillen and Merrett (2011) for research experiments that could be modified with the BME process to build upon the experiment discussed here or as additional thought experiments.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 97

Before moving on to the thought experiment is a good time to take questions and ask if students can think of any real world situations that match up with the various treatments of the experiment.

Thought Experiment (Work) For this portion of the activity, the students are presented with the instructions to the original Holt and Laury (1997) game. They are then instructed to imagine playing the game and focus on what they would do as well as what other members of their group would do. Implication of Incentive Structure: Students should keep all red cards Result: The students are conflicted about what to do. Some say they would keep all, others mention many iterations of what they would do e.g. I would do this the first round and then see what the rest of the group did; others are convinced that all members should give all. After the discussion has gone on for a few minutes post something similar to the following. Inform the students to take the labels as strong language that is meant to help them remember: Imagine you are the student; you read the instructions and decide upon a plan of action. You may have one or more of the following thoughts about what you should do. 1. Contribute. The social optimum is for all to contribute, so clearly, the correct thing to do is for all of us to contribute. (The sucker) 2. Keep everything. No matter what anyone else does, it is best for me to keep my stuff (The slime ball) 3. Contribute, others may be afraid to, but when they see me contribute, they will realize it is best and join me (The leader) 4. Contribute early, get others contributing, and then stop contributing (The con artist).

Teaching Note: The students often have a very positive reaction to the labels and even debate the validity of the labels chosen. After some prodding and leading questions, the students start to realize that at the end of the game, people are not likely to contribute and then we focus on backward induction. Right when the students might start getting convinced that no one will ever contribute, I put up the actual result from Isaac and Walker (1988) (Figure 1) and ask the students to explain what they see. In Figure 1, the solid lines are the relevant lines to look at because subjects were not allowed to speak with each other in that treatment. If time allows, bringing up the impact of communication on outcomes is interesting (the dashed line in the top right corner shows the result of allowing communication).

FIGURE 1 RESULT FROM ISAAC AND WALKER 1988

98 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Ending the Lesson To end the lesson, student should complete a problem similar to what they will be expected to complete on an exam. This is to reinforce what they have just learned and to get them comfortable with expressing what they have learned formally, e.g.: There are 6 players each with 2 tokens. The players will play a simultaneous game. Players can either keep the tokens for themselves or contribute tokens to the pot. Any tokens kept by the player pay the player who kept the tokens, and only that player, $2 each. So if a player keeps 2 tokens he receives $4, but the other players receive nothing from those 2 tokens. The tokens in the pot are counted and every player in the group receives $1 for each token in the pot. So, if there are 6 tokens in the pot then each h player receives a payout of $6 from the pot, regardless of how many he or she contributed. Thus the payer’s total payoff is $2 for every token kept plus $1 times every token in the pot. a. What is the social optimum? That is, what type of play would lead to the most money for all of the players? b. Why would that not be a Nash Equilibrium? c. Do the players have a strictly or weakly dominant strategy? If so, what is the strictly or weakly dominant strategy? If not, explain why not. d. Find the pure strategy Nash Equilibrium to this game.

To complete the session, go over the answer to the problem, review the basic theory and take questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Students have fun participating in classroom experiments. This is likely reason enough for an instructor to run classroom experiments. The goal of this paper was to describe a method that maintains or adds to the fun factor while at the same time increasing learning. This paper focused on the use of a beginner’s mind to break the curse of knowledge as it affects learning from classroom experiments, but the beginner’s mind concept is applicable to the teaching of nearly any topic. Over time, instructors may lose sense of how deep their knowledge is. There is a simple test for this; how often are you shocked by what your students get wrong. Not that they get things wrong but that they miss something so “easy.” The more often you find yourself surprised the more you made need to adopt the beginner’s mind.

REFERENCES

Cartwright, E. and Stepanova, A. (2012). What do Students Learn from a Classroom Experiment: Not Much Unless they Write a Report on it. The Journal of Economic Education, 43, (1), 48-57.

Chen, R. and Chen, Y. (2011). The Potential of Social Identity for Equilibrium Selection. American Economic Review, 101, (6), 2562-2589.

Chen, Y. and Li, S. (2009). Group Identity and Social Preference. American Economic Review, 99, (1), 431-457.

Dixit, A. (2005). Restoring Fun to Game Theory. The Journal of Economic Education, vol. 36, (3), 205- 219.

Guillen, P. and Merrett, D. (2010). Efficient Inter-Group Competition and the Provision of Public Goods. No 10/03, ThE Papers, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 99

Holt, C.A. and Laury, S.K. (1997). Classroom Games: Voluntary Provision of a Public Good. Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 11, (4), 209–215.

Isaac, R.M. and Walker, J.M. (1988). Group Size Hypotheses of Public Goods Provision: An Experimental Examination. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103, 179-199.

Jaworski, T., Smith, V. and Wilson, B. (2010). Discovering Economics in the Classroom with Experimental Economics and the Scottish Enlightenment. International Review of Economics Education, 9, (2), 10-32.

Kaplan, T.R. and Balkenborg, D. (2010). Using Economic Classroom Experiments. International Review of Economic Education, 9, (2), 99-106.

Pickhardt, M. and Watts, M. (2005). Teaching Public Goods Theory with a Classroom Game. Journal of Economic Education, 36, (2), 145-159.

Suzuki, S. (1973). Zen Mind Beginner’s Mind. Weatherhill.

Tan, J. and Bolle, F. (2007). Team Competition and the Public Goods Game. Economics Letters, 96, 133- 139.

Wieman, C. (2007). ‘The "Curse of Knowledge" or Why Intuition About Teaching Often Fails. American Physical Society News, 16, 10.

100 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

How to Win Friends and Influence Students: Applying Networking Principles to the Teacher-Student Relationship

Kay Biga University of Wisconsin – Superior

Patrick Spott University of Wisconsin – Superior

Emily Spott Spott Law Office

INTRODUCTION

Dale Carnegie’s book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” (1981) is a worldwide best seller. Countless business people have read the book and have taken the Dale Carnegie Course. It gives them the not so secret techniques of how to get along with other people. Our goal is to apply these principles and provide practice tips to enhance the teacher-student relationship in the university setting. If you believe that you can catch more flies with honey, then this information will be of use to you. No doubt you are already employing one or more of these strategies to enhance your relationship with your students. In fact, “the educational value of faculty-student interaction outside the classroom is among the oldest and most widespread beliefs in American higher education” (Cox, McIntosh, Terenzini, Reason & Lutovsky Quaye, 2010, p. 767). We are suggesting that you turn up the volume and use as many of these ideas as possible. “Despite decades of research confirming the importance of such interactions, there remain considerable theoretical and practical limitations that interfere with institutional efforts to increase the quantity and quality of faculty interaction with students outside of class” (Cox, McIntosh, Terenzini, Reason & Lutovsky Quaye, 2010, p. 768). Do not worry about giving too much praise. It is human nature to want to be liked; both students and teachers crave this positive attention.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 101

Our basic premise is that students learn better when they like the teacher. Students tend to value “instructor’s enthusiasm, instructor’s respectfulness, instructor’s approachability, and instructor’s level of patience higher than faculty” (Lammers and Smith, 2008, p. 68). For example, our youngest son is a freshman at an excellent university. During his first semester he talked in glowing terms about three of his four professors. Surprisingly he could not recall the name of his math teacher. What he did remember is that he didn’t like the math teacher and didn’t think he was learning anything in the class. Connecting to students not only makes teaching a more enjoyable, but also helps students learn the material. A study by William J. Lammers and Sheila M. Smith (2008) provides a brief snapshot of some of the research that has been done looking at the factors that affect learning (p. 61). In short, their study looked “to identify and understand the factors and variables perceived as important to the learning environment by exploring faculty and student perspectives” (Lammers and Smith, 2008, p. 68). Moreover, it is noted by Lammers and Smith (2008) that previous studies also found that students rated variables such as enthusiasm, personality, and helpfulness of the instructor as well as the instructor’s ability to notice and respond to questions from students as qualities related to superior teaching and learning [sources cited by Lammers and Smith include: Burdsal & Bardo, 1986; Buskist et al., 2002; McKeachie, 1979; Waters et al., 1988]. The results showed that students valued traits of the instructor including: enthusiasm, knowledge of subject matter, respectfulness, level of interest, approachability, ability to notice and respond to questions, level of patience, speaking style, ability to anticipate student’s difficulty in new concepts, control over the classroom (Lammers and Smith, 2008, p. 66). In contrast instructors tended to value their level of interest in the subject matter, their knowledge of the subject matter, their enthusiasm, their ability to notice/respond to questions, their use of examples, the student’s attitude, their sensitivity to student learning, student’s motivation, student’s attention level, their approachability (Lammers and Smith, 2008, p. 66). While many of the same personality traits of the instructor appear on both the student’s and instructor’s list of variables some helpful trends do emerge (Lammers and Smith, 2008, p. 66). Faculty members’ respect of students was ranked at #3 on the compiled list of student’s most important variables (Lammers and Smith, 2008, p. 66). However, faculty members’ respect of students was ranked much lower at #11 on the faculty list (Lammers and Smith, 2008, p. 66). Additionally, students ranked the speaking style of the instructor at relatively high #8, while faculty ranked their own speaking style as an almost irrelevant #32 in importance for student learning (Lammers and Smith, 2008, p. 66). It is helpful to point out that out of the ten least important variables for student learning BOTH faculty and students agreed on seven out of ten of the variables including: student marital status, age, attire, gender, classification as well as instructors attractiveness and gender (Lammers and Smith, 2008, p. 66). When considering our recommendations below regarding teaching methods please keep in mind that student learning is at the heart of the educational system. It does not matter if we have done “ground breaking” research and have an encyclopedic knowledge of our field of study if we cannot teach the material in an effective way to our students. We propose that one way to improve our ability to teach is to improve our personal relationship with students. Obviously, maintaining academic rigor is paramount to any teacher; what we are suggesting is that outside of a lecture, instructors are able to connect with their students and enhance their learning without substantially changing the content and method of their classroom. “In order to maximize learning, it is essential for teachers to develop a good relationship with their students, because rapport established between teachers and students, in part, determines the interest and performance level of students” (Doran-Morgan, 2011, p. 21). The recommendations below are meant to supplement the learning process by building a personal relationship between faculty members and their students.

102 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

SEND A WELCOME MESSAGE

In “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” Dale Carnegie (1981) included in his first nine human relations principles the recommendation: “Make the other person feel important – and do it sincerely.” Carnegie writes that adherence to this principle will, “Make people like you instantly” (Carnegie, 1981, p. 129). To this end, consider sending an e-mail message to your students approximately one month before the semester starts. You might give a few details about the class to create excitement, you could talk about how much you look forward to teaching the class and offer any help that is needed. For example, “Good morning - I am looking forward to having you in my class this semester. We have some really interesting projects planned, such as a trip to the courthouse. If you need anything before the first day of class, please let me know. I can be reached at….” This should be followed up by a second e-mail sent out just a few days before the start of class. This will ensure students who signed up late will still receive a greeting. Often students will respond with questions about the textbook, the syllabus and other logistics regarding the class; they might even say that they too are looking forward to the class. Many practical difficulties can be avoided with this approach. Missing books, confusion about location, and other potential problems are noted well before the first day of class. This practice certainly assists with the minutia necessary to conduct a class, but it is much more. Advance e-mail to students sends exactly the message that the student’s participation in the class is important. It signals they are the customers. They are important to the existence of the class and important personally to the instructor. Students feel like they “belong in” and are “essential to” the class before the class has even begun.

GET THEIR ATTENTION

Dale Carnegie (1981) advised us to “Talk in terms of the other person’s interests” (p. 128) and “Arouse in the other person an eager want” (p. 79). In this regard, it is essential to have a fundamental understanding as to why the course we are teaching is important to a student personally. Why is the course in the curriculum? What will the students gain, beyond credit toward a degree or certificate, by taking the course? Why are we devoting part of our professional lives in becoming qualified to teach and teaching this particular course? Once you have this understanding it is critical to communicate this to the students. Part of building rapport is to grab the attention of the student by making the course relevant to their lives. One of the effective ways of communicating the relevance of the material of the course is with a story that demonstrates the importance of the knowledge. It is most effective if that story is yours. Dale Carnegie (1990) calls using an incident in our lives in a talk to persuade as part of the “magic formula.” The “Magic Formula” is quite simple: “Start your talk by giving us the details of your Example, an incident that graphically illustrates the main idea you wish to get across. Second, in the specific clear- cut terms give your Point, tell exactly what you want your audience to do; and third, give your Reason, that is, highlight the advantage or benefit to be gained by the listener when he does what you ask him to do” (Carnegie, 1990, p. 122). For example, a business law course is important so that each person can understand their rights in the legal system as business owners, managers and citizens. To apply the Magic Formula to this concept we might convey this to our students something like this: The Incident: “One of my client’s was a small contractor. He hired a worker to help on a project. To save money he classified him as an independent contractor, rather than an employee. Independent contractors do not have to be covered under worker’s compensation, employee’s do, so the contractor was saving this expense. Unfortunately the worker cut off two of his fingers with a saw while drinking gin out of a plastic cup. He filed a worker’s compensation claim against my client, the cost of which potentially

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 103

would put him into bankruptcy. If he had called an attorney before he made the decision to classify this worker as an independent contractor, this all could have been easily avoided.” The Point: “If you engage and do the work of this class you will learn when it is time to call an attorney for legal advice.” The Reason: “You will personally benefit in that you will be able to avoid such legal disasters.” Relating the course to the student personally will grab their attention. Another part of this discussion should answer the questions, “What is your passion and why are you teaching this course?” For example, “I participated in student congress and debate while in high school. The next step I took was going to law school. When the chance to teach business law came along, it seemed like a perfect fit. I really love teaching and am happy that you are in my class.” If the students know you want to be there, then there is a greater likelihood that they want to be there too. Active sharing of our passion is Stephen Covey’s (1990) first Habit of Highly Effective People: Be Proactive (pp. 67-94). There is a temptation to give in to cynicism, to complain about the students, our colleagues, the university, the computers, the classroom, etc. Our students react to our passion and our cynicism if we give in to it. Rather than react, we should proactively convey our passion. Dale Carnegie’s (1981) first principle of human relations is “Don’t criticize, condemn or complain” (p. 46). Teachers deal with cynicism in students every day. Why give in to the attitude? Students are more and more aware of how much they are paying for each class. Even if your class is required, you should sell the students on its value to them from the beginning to get over the negativity.

INTRODUCTIONS ON THE FIRST DAY OF CLASS

Many instructors miss an opportunity to build rapport with the students on the very first day of class. One simple and effective method is to shake hands with a personal introduction to each student as they arrive. Students of all ages resent being treated as children and as noted above being treated with respect is, for students, #3 on the most important variables for student learning (Lammers and Smith, 2008, p. 66). A positive typical business greeting dispels this at the beginning. Do not underestimate the power of a smile and eye contact. Dale Carnegie (1981) once wrote, “Your smile is a messenger of your good will. Your smile brightens the lives of all who see it” (p. 102). A smile, good eye contact and a handshake set a positive tone. The first day of class is a unique opportunity to “create an atmosphere that is open and positive and help students feel that they are valued member of a learning community” (Halawah, 2011, p. 380). An additional effective approach is to do a mini interview at the outset. Students can be prompted with the information they will need to provide by having the questions written on the board, projected on a screen and/or sent by prior e-mail. The questions themselves should be non-threatening and non-judgmental general inquiries leading the students to talk about themselves. Typical appropriate questions include their name, hometown, major area of study, and interesting jobs they have held in the past. The first few students may need prompts, but those that follow will know what you are looking for and will be ready. This method can be made to be even less “threatening” through the use of 3 x 5 cards. This technique calls for cards to be distributed throughout the room. Each person gets one. Students are asked to write their name and answer questions in writing. After time sufficient to complete the project, ask them to please stand if they are done. After all are standing ask them to be seated, then call on the first few students and ask, “What did you write?” With this method the student does not have to “think on their feet.” Performance anxiety is minimized. Further, the introverts in the class have the opportunity to think and write in a quiet environment before being asked to participate. Again, smile and make eye contact throughout the exercise. Also, basic politeness adds an aura of welcoming professionalism. Say “please” and “thank you” during all the interactions.

104 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

CONVERSATION STACK

Dale Carnegie (1981) wrote: “Become genuinely interested in other people” as the principle that would result in people welcoming you and wanted to be in your presence (p. 94). The key to becoming a good conversationalist is to “Become a good listener. Encourage people to talk about themselves” (p. 123). To interest someone else it is necessary to “Talk in terms of the other person’s interest” (p. 128). All these principles focus on asking question and listening to the answers. In fact, most modern sales approaches include asking questions to determine where the customer is in the context of where they could be if the product or services are purchased (the concept of selling “solutions” rather than products or services). One of the best questioning techniques for networking is the Conversation Stack. A mind picture is used to help guide the student through a series of questions. These questions are designed to elicit information from fellow students (or anyone else for that matter). It is easy to use and takes a minimal amount of class time. It is also a very appropriate tool for an instructor to employ in a one on one interview with a student. The teacher starts by helping students to visualize a picture of a mailbox with their name on it. In the back of the mailbox is an image of a house. In the front window of the house there is a child waving at them. Out of the chimney of the house is a leather work-glove as big as the house itself. This huge work- glove is holding an airplane. The airplane has spinning tennis rackets for propellers. The best way to teach the Conversation Stack is to teach them this stack of connected mental pictures without explanation. Drill the class as a whole. Within a minute, they will be able to recite the pictures forwards and backwards. Then match them up with partners with the instruction that they should help each other memorize these pictures. Again, this takes mere minutes. The key to memorization of the pictures is that each image is connected to the next image (for example, the house with a mail box, with a window, with a fireplace, etc.); the person memorizing the pictures is involved (for example, their name is on the mail box, the child is waving at them, etc.); and the pictures are exaggerated and silly (for example, the huge work-glove as big as a house and airplane with tennis rackets as propellers). After the picture “stack” is memorized the questions that each picture represents are revealed. With each picture, the class is asked the question, “What question does the picture represent?” For example, the mailbox represents the question, “What is your name?” This is the first question to be asked in a conversation. This question is actually quite important in view of the difficulty people report in remembering other people’s names. Behind the mailbox there is a house. The class is then asked, “What question does the house represent?” Obviously, it is “Where do you live?” Very quickly the class will understand where this is going. In the front window of the house there is a child waving. The child represents family. Often students will suggest this image represents the question, “How many kids do you have?” or “Do you have children?” In some social and business settings referencing children specifically could be viewed as judgmental or aggressive, so we recommend using the general term “family” in the question represented by this picture. It is a good idea not to get too specific with your questions for this one. “Tell me about your family” or “Where is your family?” are more appropriate questions. These are very open-ended and give the person being asked options to choose what aspects of their family to discuss. The house has a huge leather work-glove coming out of the chimney. The work-glove of course represents the person’s job and the question, “What work do you do?” The glove is holding an airplane. By now the students have gotten well into the rhythm of the exercise and will know that the plane represents travel. The questions here are “Do you like to travel?” or “Do you travel for work?” or “Where do you like to travel for fun?” On the airplane image the propellers are made out of tennis rackets. The rackets represent hobbies, so the question becomes “What are your hobbies?” or “What do you like to do for fun when you are not working?”

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 105

Again, have the class work as partners to make sure they have memorized the questions that go with the images. This will take a minute or less. Then have them select which partner “will go first.” That person will ask the other partner the questions in the stack. Emphasize listening to the answers in addition to asking the question. Tell them they are free to ask follow up questions in any area that seems of interest. After a few minutes, ask them to stop and switch. The other partner will now be asking the questions. These initial questions can be answered in a relatively short span of time. It is recommended that this exercise be scheduled several times during the first couple of weeks of class. You will find that your students get to know their classmates in a new and more meaningful way. You will also notice that you now have students who are willing to jump in during class discussion. The instructor should participate along with the students as well, modeling the correct use of this technique. The positive results are amazing. Three of Dale Carnegie’s (1981) first nine human relations principle for winning friends involve asking questions and listening (pp. 94, 123, 128). The Conversation Stack is the simplest most effective practical application of these principles. For smaller classes, there are advanced questioning techniques that can be employed. The questions in the basic Conversation Stack are fact question: “Who, What, Where, When” type questions. They are safe and non-threatening. Once this technique has been mastered the next level of questioning is the “Why” questions, otherwise known causative questions. Actually asking “Why” a person is living in a particular place or doing a particular job can sound like you are demanding they justify their decision. A non-threatening way to ask the same question is to ask, “How did it come about that you took the job you are presently doing?” In essence, it is recommended to ask “Why” without using the word “Why.” An even more personal and effective advance question is to ask what advice they would give to a young person about life, getting ahead in business, success, or happiness. This value-based question will result in amazing personal responses. The causative and value-based questions are more personal questions that most people enjoy answering. Asking such questions results in an even stronger connection between the questioner and the answerer. Ironically, the person ends up feeling positive about the person that is merely asking questions. Dale Carnegie (1981) wrote, “Remember that the people you are talking to are a hundred times more interested in themselves and their wants and problems than they are in you and your problems” (p. 123). The Conversation Stack is the practical application of these ideas and is useful to the students out in the real world as well as your classroom. Use of this technique builds rapport with and among your class and gives your students a valuable tool for later use. Students have reported that learning this technique was the most valuable thing they learned in their entire collegiate education.

ONE-TO-ONES

Another method to apply the Carnegie recommendation to make people feel important is to speak with them individually. The networking organization Business Networking International (BNI) was created by Ivan Misner in 1985 under the credo “Giver’s Gain” in 2004. Groups of business people are organized as “chapters” of the international organization and follow a very structured approach to networking that includes a weekly meeting. BNI reports that in 2012 its members passed 6.5 million referrals resulting in $2.8 billion in business to its members (Business Networking International). In addition to the weekly meeting, members are encouraged to engage in “One-to-Ones.” In its simplest form a “One-to-One” is simply a conversation in which you ask questions to find out how you can help the other person get ahead. In BNI the goal is to find out a way to refer them business, thus prompting them to refer business to you, resulting in “Giver’s Gain.” With students the goal is similar. Asking students what they hope to attain in their education, why they are attending your class, and if there is anything you can do to help them demonstrates your interest in them and gives you a chance to provide mentorship and assistance. Helping “students find personal meaning and value in the material” can facilitate a student’s success in your class (Halawah, 2011, p.

106 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

379). Often it will be easy to assist students with their issues. Sometimes it will not, but it is impossible to know if you can help them without asking. The good news is that the instructor does not have to know all the answers. The teacher accomplishes both their human relations goal and the students desire to perform and overcome obstacles by asking questions, listening and asking follow up questions. John Whitmore (2007) in “Coaching for Performance” focuses much of his coaching approach on asking questions, listening and asking follow up questions. Whitmore (2007) describes asking effective questions as the “The Heart of Coaching” (p. 46). Significantly, asking questions and listening is not just a tool to make the student like the instructor and feel important. Such questioning can be the key to coaching a student to higher levels of performance. The goal of questioning is to create “awareness” and “responsibility” (Whitmore, 2007, pp. 33-40). The student can only control that with which they are aware. Forces about which they are ignorant, control the student (Whitmore, 2007, p. 33). According to Whitmore (2007): “[Awareness] is the gathering and clear perception of the relevant facts and information and the ability to determine what is relevant. That ability will include an understanding of systems, of dynamics, or relationships between things and people and inevitably some understanding of psychology. Awareness also encompasses self-awareness, in particular recognizing when and how emotions or desires distort one’s own perception” (p. 33). Once the student is clearly aware of the challenges, goals, tasks that face them to achieve performance, that student’s sense of self-responsibility is created: “When we truly accept, choose or take responsibility for our thoughts and our actions, our commitment to them rises and so does our performance. When we are ordered to be responsible, told to be, expected to be or even given responsibility if we do not fully accept it performance does not rise. Sure, we may do the job because there is an implied threat if we do not, but doing something to avoid a threat does not optimize performance. To feel truly responsible invariably involves choice” (Whitmore, 2007, pp. 36-37). The best questions are open-ended questions that require the student to think to answer. Open-ended questions are best from a human relations perspective, allowing the student to comfortably talk about what interests them (Carnegie, 1981, pp. 114-123). Open-ended questions lead to higher performance by leading to awareness and responsibility in the student: “Open-ended questions requiring descriptive answers promote awareness, whereas closed questions are too absolute for accuracy, and yes or no answers close the door on the exploration of further detail. They do not even compel someone to engage their brain. Open questions are much more effective for generating awareness and responsibility in the coaching process” (Whitmore, 2007, pp. 46-47). When you show interest in and assist students in this manner they will reciprocate, particularly if you ask them to help you. Professors “who care about their students are remembered, effect change, stimulate growth, and are more likely to be successful at teaching their students” (O’Brien, 2010, p. 110). Telling students it is important to you they fill out course evaluation forms, participate in department activities and that your classes be filled with their fellow students will yield positive results if you have assisted them first. They are more apt to accept special projects and assignments. The result will be that your students are more engaged and effective and “when students feel connected and supported in the classroom, they will be intrinsically motivated to join in the classroom activities’. Motivation can therefore be enhanced when students have opportunities to build social relationships in the context of the classroom” (Halawah, 2011, p. 380). Therefore, you are doing them a favor helping them to like you.

LEARN NAMES AS FAST AS POSSIBLE

Dale Carnegie (1981) famously wrote: “A person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language” (p. 113). Carnegie (1981) suggests, “We should be aware of the magic contained in a name and realize that this single item is wholly and completely owned by the person with whom we are dealing…and nobody else. The name sets the individual apart; it makes him or her unique among all others. The information we are imparting or the request we are making takes on a special

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 107

importance when we approach the situation with the name of the individual” (p. 112). Some folks have the ability to hear a person’s name and will remember it. For the rest of us there are tools that will assist us. In addition to the first day introductions, teachers should request a short resume to be handed in on the second day of class. This information will help reinforce the student’s name and allow the teacher to get additional information about the student. Sometimes the knowledge of where the student is from or where they have worked can be woven into an example that illustrates the material. For example, “Derek is from Austin, Minnesota where Hormel is located. Hormel has had a very effective marketing campaign for SPAM which we are going to talk about today.” The fundamental method for remembering names is repetition. Look at the person, ask for their name, repeat it, ask how it is spelled (if it is not obvious), and repeat it again. Practice the student’s names. Tell them you are trying to learn their names. Most people have trouble remembering names so it is possible to ask for a person’s name several times in an effort to remember that name without giving offense. Even with limited success your efforts will be appreciated. Another tool is to create a mind picture regarding the person’s name. For example, the name of the co-author of this article is Pat Spott. You might imagine someone patting a spot on the ground. In addition to repetition, association with the name and a mental picture is remarkably effective. There is also the tried and true method of using name cards. If you are in a lecture style classroom, this will only really help the instructor. Of course, if you are in a seminar style classroom it will also aid the other students who do not know their classmates.

GIVING FEEDBACK

Probably the most important Dale Carnegie (1981) principle is “Don’t criticize, condemn or complain” (p. 46). This might seem like a tough situation for a professor who has to give feedback and grade assignments and exams. In fact, we would actually be failing our students if we gloss over spelling errors, grammatical mistakes and poorly developed ideas. However, “instructors can give frequent, early, positive feedback that support’s students’ beliefs that they can do well,” this in turn can “encourage students to become self-motivated independent learners” (Halawah, 2011, p. 379). Some suggestions when giving written feedback would be to employ a formula to make twice as many positive comments as negative ones. You might want to switch to purple ink when marking papers and exams. Oral feedback must be done with skill and tact. You should complement the student’s participation in class, even when they are completely off base. For example, “Emily – thank you for your answer. I was actually thinking of something different, but appreciate hearing your ideas.” You can let the student down gently and keep them interested in further class participation. Right after “Don’t criticize, condemn or complain” is Dale Carnegie’s (1981) recommendation to “Give honest and sincere appreciation” (p. 60). He tells us: “Be ‘hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise,’ and people will cherish your words and treasure them and repeat them over a lifetime-repeat them years after you have forgotten them” (Carnegie, 1981, p. 60). Captain D. Michael Abrashof (2002) wrote of the power of praise in his book “It’s Your Ship: Management Techniques form the Best Damn Ship in the Navy” and recommended building up his people rather than commanding through fear and intimidation: “I focused on building self-esteem. I know that most of us carry around an invisible backpack full of childhood insecurities, and that many sailors often struggled under the load of past insults, including being scorned at home or squashed at school. I could make the load either heavier or lighter, and the right choice was obvious. Instead of tearing people down to make them into robots, I tried to show them that I trusted and believed in them” (p. 141). This focus on praise does not mean we do not hold our students accountable or give out high grades without performance. Captain Abrashof (2002) suggests frequent counseling and evaluation will do much to eliminate surprise at the final grade: “If they’re surprised [with their final grade], then clearly you have not done a good job of setting their expectations and providing feedback throughout the entire year” (p.

108 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

163-165). Students who know the expectations and are deficient will themselves know they are deficient and will look to themselves not the teacher. They key word for praise is “sincere.” Look for a student’s strength or accomplishment and give praise. It costs nothing and can be quite powerful. At the same time our students must be held accountable for performance; we do not do anyone any favors giving an A for B work.

THANK YOU NOTES

Another time-tested technique of “giving honest and sincere appreciation” involves the written thank you note. It has long been customary to send a thank you note to someone who has helped or done a kindness. However, in today’s world of e-mails and texts the old-fashioned thank you note is neglected. Teachers should strongly consider writing paper thank you notes to students who have helped them in some way. For example, a student asked a good question that advanced the class discussion or helped hand back homework. Your student assistant and the student workers in the department office should all receive thank you notes at some time during the semester. You should have thank you notes ready to go at all times. You might set a goal for the number of thank you notes that you will send during each week. Do not be stingy with your praise. In “Dig Your Well Before You’re Thirsty” the first item on Harvey Mackay’s (1997) Top Ten List of the Best Ways to Stay in Touch with Your Network includes sending personal notes of thanks and congratulations (pp. 225-226). Mackay suggest setting up a calendar to do this systematically. Students are not the teacher’s employees or children. Rather, they are the customers. They can be part of your network, recommending your classes and you to others. Rewarding their efforts with a cost free thank you note can make them part of your network. Why limit this approach to students? You might also consider sending thank you notes to your colleagues and others at the university that help you out in some way. Do not leave off administrative, clerical or custodial personnel from your network. When the physician leaves the room of an anxious patient what does the patient do? Asks the nurse if the doctor is any good. The people around you can help you with your students. Give them a positive incentive to do so.

SET A NETWORKING BUDGET WITH YOUR OWN MONEY

When Captain Abrashof took over the guided missile destroyer USS Benfold it was underperforming in almost every category. When he finished his two-year tour the Benfold met and exceeded virtually every standard objective measure of performance. Interestingly, similar to the students in the Lammers and Smith study, the sailors that were leaving the Navy at that time rated what they objectively received from their service (in their case their pay check) as being a distant fifth in their reasons for dissatisfaction. The top reason was not being treated with respect or dignity the third was that they were not being listened to (Abrashoff, 2002, p. 11-31). Captain Abrashof had no more institutional resources than the Captain that had failed before him; yet, he made changes and succeeded. Don’t let your institution’s lack of resources or commitment limit your success as a teacher. As with Captain Abrahof wrote, “Its Your Ship.” This might be the most controversial recommendation. As we all know there are no line items in the department budget for schmoozing students. Do not let this limit you. Some of the little kindnesses you might do will cost money. For example, buying a bag of Halloween candy at Sam’s Club or treating your students to lunch at the local Chinese restaurant. Try not to think of it as you spending your money to help the university, but rather you making an investment in yourself and your people. Happy students not only give better teacher evaluations, but they learn better too. This makes the teacher more successful.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 109

OFFICE ETIQUETTE

Another applied method of the Carnegie recommendation to “Make the other person feel important” involves office hours. There are ways to make it more comfortable for the students to visit you in your office. Some are not intimidated and will stop by during office hours or make an appointment. But what about the students who never ask for help inside or outside of class? As referenced above, in the study conducted by Lammers and Smith (2008), students value the approachability of their instructors. In fact, the compiled results of the study found that student’s ranked instructor approachability at #5 on the list of most important variables for student learning (p. 66). Make sure your office hours are clearly marked on the syllabus and outside your door. Speaking of doors consider taking down the paper that barricades the window in your door. Every new faculty member seems to take a cue from the others that they should block the window so no one can look in. Have a comfortable chair for the student. Offer a small piece of candy or your business card or a glass of water. These small courtesies will make a big difference to your student. Our children’s pediatrician was a master at making you feel as if he had all the time in the world to talk to you. There was never a rush when you were seeing Dr. Zager. His patient times were probably average, but he made you feel like your kid was the most important person in the world. If you don’t have time to talk, schedule an appointment so that your time with your student will be relaxing and productive.

GO ROCK CLIMBING (OR THE MORAL EQUIVALENT)

After teaching a first year seminar on business ethics four times a professor finally took the class to the “top of the mountain” so to speak. By lining up a team building session at the start of the semester that included rock climbing, the teacher indicated that this class was going to be fun and they were all in it together. Lest you worry that you will be out climbing Everest, most campuses have a rock climbing facility or something like it on campus at the Health and Wellness center. You might also question whether devoting a class period to this endeavor is worth it. What does this team building say to the student? The teacher understands what things interest the student (rock climbing) and it indicates that this class is going to be different. Throughout the semester you will notice that students work more easily in groups, participate more in class discussion and as a result learn better. Care will have to be taken to make sure all students can participate in one or more of the activities. Not everyone can physically handle rock climbing and it is important that those students not feel excluded. A similar, but less strenuous, activity is dividing students up in teams. Each team has to take a container of Tinker Toys and try to build the highest structure. It is amazing to watch how different groups handle this simple activity.

POST GRADUATION

The strength of a teacher can be the vast network of former students. A college instructor has an inherent networking advantage over business people who may only have a few dozen direct report employees in an entire career. Few teachers take advantage of this resource. As Mackay (1997) writes: “Up the proverbial creek? If you’ve got a network, you’ve always got a paddle” (p. 4). Do we tell our students they will only have one job with one company, one marriage with one person, and one set of close friends in their lives? Often we act like we only need to worry about the job we have at our present institution, shutting ourselves off from anything outside of our classroom and department. Often professors end up feeling isolated because they approach their careers in this manner. We need to engage in networking both for ourselves and to model for our students. A network is “an organized collection of your personal contacts and your personal contacts’ own networks. Networking is finding fast whom you need to get what you need in any given situation and helping others do the same” (Mackay, 1997, p. 61).

110 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

The opportunity to interact with your students does not end at graduation. At the very least you should set up a LinkedIn connection during a student’s senior year. This is good for your network and it models networking behavior for the students. Need money, volunteer help, or connections? Long time teachers will always have a well-placed student to assist as long as the ongoing network connection is maintained. For example, there was a departmental banquet without funding at a business school. Over many years labor-intensive bake sales were employed with minimal effect. A professor who understood the importance of networking took over the job and, with one phone call to a former student, the departmental banquet was funded by an alumnus who wanted to be involved. The people in Career Services will be thrilled with your efforts to connect with the students as they leave and follow them in their new jobs. Alumni Relations will be particularly happy, because they know that a good teacher-student relationship is very helpful in developing committed alumni who later become mentors and donors. Figure out ways to involve your former students. Ask a graduate to serve as an alumni mentor to a particular class. Line them up as a guest speaker. Invite your student to coffee or lunch. You might even want to do business with them. For example, invite them to attend your Rotary or Kiwanis meeting. By the way if you are not in an outside service organization, you might be missing other opportunities to advance your career.

CONCLUSION

Most professors are balancing teaching, scholarship and service in a challenging university environment. In teaching today it is not enough to be an expert in your field. You must also bring out a student’s desire to learn. In the modern world there are countless demands vying for your student’s attention and “given the different factors affecting college student’s lives, motivating them is an essential role for every teacher for a successful teaching-learning environment” (Halawah, 2011, p. 380). The principles that Dale Carnegie introduced to the business world in the 1930’s are still very relevant and can be easily applied to the teacher-student relationship. Whether or not you agree that the student is the customer, making their experience more enjoyable and rewarding will lead to better student satisfaction. Our premise is that happier students learn better and this is borne out by the literature. Simple networking practices that are routine in the business world are often never employed at the university. These practices include asking questions, shaking hands, smiling, learning a person’s name and sending thank you notes. We all too often resort to straight lecture. Certainly this is safe ground. We know our own material much better than the students. Yet, our students see this as a sign of disrespect to them and their needs; it undercuts our effectiveness. The foundation of “How to Win Friends and Influence People” is that we will have a great deal more influence with people who are our friends (Carnegie, 1981). In essence, the first step to increasing our influence is to be liked by the people we want to influence. To be likable we can employ time tested business techniques in our academic setting to the same positive effect.

REFERENCES

Abrashoff, D.M. (2002). It’s your ship: Management techniques from the best damn ship in the navy. New York: Warner Books.

Business Networking International. Retrieved from http://www.bni.com

Carnegie, D. (1981). How to win friends & influence people. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 111

Carnegie, D. (1990). The quick and easy way to effective speaking. New York: Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc.

Covey, S.R. (1990). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New York: Simon & Shuster.

Cox, B.E., McIntosh, K.L., Terenzini, P.T., Reason, R.D., Lutovsky Quaye, B.R. (2010). Pedagogical signals of faculty approachability: Factors shaping faculty-student interaction outside the classroom. Research in Higher Education 51, 767.

Docan-Morgan, T. (2011). “Everything changed”: Relational turning point events in college teacher- student relationships from teacher’s perspectives. Communication Education, 60, 20.

Halawah, I. (2011). Factors influencing college student’s motivation to learn from student’s perspective. Education, 132, 380.

Lammers, W.J. & Smith, S.M. (2008). Learning factors in the university classroom: Faculty and student perspective. Teaching of Psychology 35, 61.

Mackay, H. (1997). Dig your well before you’re thirsty: The only networking book you’ll ever need. New York: Doubleday.

Misner, I.R. & Morris, J., Givers gain: The BNI story. Upland: Paradigm Publishing.

O’Brien, L.M. (2010). Point of departure: Caring in the ivory tower. Teaching in Higher Education 15, 109.

Witmore, J. (2007). Coaching for performance: Growing people, performance and purpose. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

112 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Student Attitudes Toward Client Sponsors and Learning: An Analysis of the Effects of Incorporating a Client-Sponsored Project in an Introductory Marketing Course

Jane McKay-Nesbitt Bryant University

Srdan Zdravkovic Bryant University

INTRODUCTION

Marketing educators who strive for excellence in their teaching often search for ways to offer realistic, experiential, team-based projects for their students. One way that marketing educators provide such educational experiences for students is by incorporating client-sponsored projects (CSPs) into the curriculum (Humphreys, 1981). CSPs, which are sometimes referred to in the literature as client-based (CBPs), client-initiated, or live-case projects (West, 2010; Lopez & Lee, 2005), are an educational methodology wherein students work on a project that involves solving a current problem or challenge faced by an organization (i.e., the client sponsor). A CSP may be carried out for a not-for or a for-profit organization and is undertaken to partially or completely fulfill academic course requirements (Humphreys, 1981; Strauss, 2011; West, 2010). While the primary CSP goal is to enhance student learning of marketing concepts, it is also expected that the client sponsor will benefit from the work done by students (Harman 2009). Clients often initiate the project and support it with financial and human resources and the project may conclude with the preparation of a report and a presentation of results and recommendations to the client (Bove & Davies, 2009). CSPs can be either narrow or broad in scope; students may perform a specific task for a client (e.g., research on branding) or they may take on a broader task such as preparing a marketing plan (Haas & Wotruba, 1990). CSPs are frequently undertaken as group projects (e.g., Parsons & Lepkowska-White, 2009) and sometimes involve competitions between student groups (Strauss, 2011). We aim to add to the growing literature on the use of CSPs in marketing education by exploring the effects of incorporating a CSP into an introductory marketing course. While recent research has focused

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 113

on strategies for implementing CSPs (West, 2010; Harman, 2009), our research focuses on providing evidence for the impact of CSPs on student attitudes. We investigate the impact CSPS have on student attitudes toward client sponsors. We also explore the effects that CSPs have on students’ perceptions about CSPs as a means of learning marketing concepts. Our study provides some of the first evidence that participating in a CSP fosters positive attitudes toward the client sponsor and also adds support to other studies that have shown that CSPs enhance student learning outcomes (Ackerman & Hu, 2011). To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to show that competition between student teams may enhance student perceptions of learning that occurs as a result of participating in a CSP. The paper begins by discussing theory and developing hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of CSPs in marketing education. The CSP is described and the results of the assessment of its impact on attitudes toward the sponsoring client and on student perceptions of learning outcomes are presented. Results of the analysis of the effects of instructor assistance, effective team work, and competition on perceived learning outcomes are also presented. The paper concludes with a discussion of findings and study limitations, along with suggestions for future research on this important topic.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

CSPs and Client Sponsors The marketing education literature asserts that CSPs offer benefits for client sponsors and for students (Parsons & Lepkowska-White, 2009; Haas & Wotruba, 1990). One client benefit frequently mentioned in the literature is some form of a report that student consultants have prepared for the client sponsor (e.g., Clark, King, & Jurn, 2012). Bove and Davies (2009) report that clients perceive the quality of the product students produce while working on the CSP as a benefit. Similarly, Goodell and Kraft (1991) report that client sponsors benefit from positive public relations and from receiving low-cost marketing research advice. Others have reported that client sponsors appreciate the assistance they receive and believe that they benefit from timely information (Linrud & Hall, 1999). Some researchers also acknowledge that a CSP can be a source of employees for the client sponsor (Strauss, 2011; Linrud & Hall, 1999; Haas & Wotruba, 1990). No doubt, part of an organization’s willingness to sponsor a student project comes from their desire to assist in developing skills in the individuals they would like to employ. Client sponsors want employees with technical, analytical, and creative problem solving skills (Barr & Mcneilly, 2002). They also want marketing graduates who are able to work well in teams (Hopkins, Raymond, & Carlson, 2011; Schlee & Harich, 2010). CSPs are recommended as a means of fostering all of these skills (Strauss, 2011; Kennedy, Lawton, & Walker, 2001; Umble, Umble, & Artz, 2008). It is likely therefore, that client sponsors hope to benefit from sponsorship by gaining access to well-trained potential employees. To attract valuable employees however, client sponsors must ensure that students involved in their projects have developed positive attitudes toward them. The Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) suggests that without a favorable attitude toward the client sponsor, it is unlikely that a student would accept an internship or employment with the client sponsor. Thus, it is possible that organizations who undertake student project sponsorship assume and expect that participating in the project will result in students developing positive attitudes toward them. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H1. Students who participate in a CSP will develop positive attitudes toward the client sponsor.

CSPs and Student Learning Initially, CSPs were often included in marketing research classes (e.g., Humphreys, 1981) but the range of marketing courses that have incorporated CSPs in the curriculum has now been greatly expanded (Clark et al., 2012). CSP use has been reported in introductory marketing classes (Umble et al., 2008; Sparkman Jr., Follows, & Zhou, 1990) and capstone marketing courses (Haas & Wotruba, 1990; Strauss, 2011; Razzouk, Seitz, & Rizkallah, 2003). They have also been reported in advertising (West, 2010),

114 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

entrepreneurship (Kennedy et al., 2001), services marketing (Gremler, Hoffman, Keaveney, & Wright, 2000), and new product management courses (Goodell & Kraft, 1991). CSPs have been effectively utilized in small and large classes and have been offered at both large (Holler Phillips, 2011) and small (Parsons & Lepkowska-White, 2009) universities. Although it has been suggested that CSPs are most appropriate for post-graduate courses where students have completed their graduate-level core business courses (Gremler et al., 2000), CSPs have been used extensively in both undergraduate (Karns, 2006; Parsons & Lepkowska-White, 2009) and graduate (Bove & Davies, 2009) courses. CSPs have a positive impact on student learning because they are a form of experiential learning (Ayers & Underwood, 2007). Kolb (1984) defines experiential learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (p. 38). Experiential learning is learning by doing and it has become widely accepted in marketing education (Bobbitt, Inks, Kemp, & Mayo, 2000). One benefit of experiential learning is that it encourages students to be involved in the learning process and this involvement assists students to retain and apply the principles they are learning (Bove & Davies, 2009). Marketing educators who want to adopt an experiential learning approach to marketing education have long been encouraged to embed learning in realistic contexts (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Working on real life projects such as CSPs provides experience which offers an opportunity for the involvement and meaningful engagement that is critical for deeper learning (Bobbitt et al., 2000). CSPs also impact student learning because they foster creative problem-solving skills. CSPs are typically ambiguous (Strauss, 2011; Kennedy et al., 2001). They require students to generate solutions for a real business problem and to find the information they need to solve the problem. Students however, may not know what information is needed so some creative brainstorming is required to begin the project. Furthermore, the client-sponsor may be unable or unwilling to share desired information with the students so students must determine how to proceed without complete information. CSPs are also typically unstructured; the process by which students go about finding, analyzing, and using information to solve the business problem is determined by each student or student group (Strauss, 2011; Kennedy et al., 2001). The ambiguous, unstructured nature of a CSP means that students have to consider both theoretical principles and current business practices if an appropriate solution is to be found. Thus, because CSPs are unstructured and allow students to solve real, yet ambiguous and challenging problems, CSPs assist students to develop critical thinking and creative problem-solving skills (Strauss, 2011; Hopkins et al., 2011), both skills highly desired by employers. While some may regard the ambiguity of a CSP as problematic, others suggest that this ambiguity is a very important advantage (e.g., Umble et al., 2008). Umble and her colleagues (2008) analyzed six team- based competitions in six different core business classes and concluded that complex, unstructured projects are more effective than traditional academic analysis in several important ways, one of which was to engage students in critical thinking and analysis. Indeed, Umble and her colleagues (2008) determined that to maximize CSP benefits for students, a CSP must be complex and unstructured with no single right answer to a problem. A CSP is also an appropriate mechanism for delivering both theory and practice as advocated by the professional school approach to marketing education (Schibrowsky, Peltier, & Boyt, 2002). In contrast to a more academic approach which focuses on theory, the professional school approach aims to blend theoretical marketing knowledge with practical business skills so that students are equipped to enter a business profession upon graduation. Thus, a professional school approach attempts to meet both student and employer needs. Strauss (2011) concluded that CSPs are an appropriate methodology for those who wish to adopt a professional school approach. The marketing literature suggests that CSPs enhance student learning of important marketing concepts (Ackerman & Hu, 2011). As discussed, they are a means of connecting the theory learned in the classroom with current business practices (de los Santos & Jensen, 1985). As such, CSPs are motivating to today’s “net-generation” students who prefer realistic and relevant learning activities (Matulich, Papp, & Haytko, 2008) and who value interactive courses with hands-on experience and connection to the real world (Bridges, 1999). The motivation that ensues from participating in real-world projects translates into more positive learning outcomes. For example, a study that explored the relationship between student

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 115

learning style and teaching methodology revealed that regardless of learning style, students report that they learn more in marketing courses that involve projects and live cases than in traditional lecture-based courses (Ackerman & Hu, 2011). There is also evidence to suggest that student projects such as CSPs facilitate student learning to i) manage iterative information flows, ii) break down problems and tasks, and iii) negotiate coherent solutions to problems at levels comparable to learning that takes place in real work projects (Skilton, Forsyth, & White, 2008). Therefore, it is expected that:

H2a. Students who participate in a CSP will view a CSP as an effective method for learning marketing concepts. H2b. Students who participate in a CSP will view a CSP as an effective method for gaining confidence to perform school work.

Instructor’s Role in a CSP Although the ambiguity and unstructured nature of a CSP can be viewed as an advantage (Strauss, 2011; Umble et al., 2008), it may also be viewed as a problem (Kennedy et al., 2001). Because of its ambiguity and lack of structure, some students find working on a CSP difficult and disconcerting. Students who are used to more structure may be frustrated (Haas & Wotruba, 1990) and view a CSP as too time consuming (de los Santos & Jensen, 1985). Students who expect very specific assignment instructions report that they waste time trying to determine what to do next when working on a CSP (Strauss, 2011). Although a very structured CSP with very specific instructions may negate some important CSP benefits, students certainly need assistance from instructors if they are to successfully complete a CSP. Indeed, while it is expected that students will take on more responsibility for their own learning when they engage in an experiential methodology such as a CSP, it is not expected that the instructor will have less responsibility for student learning when CSPs are employed (Gremler et al., 2000). Rather, although the assistance provided by the instructor may differ from that offered in a more traditional lecture-based class, as with other methodologies, an instructor is expected to play a pivotal role in CSP effectiveness. Therefore, it is expected that CSP effectiveness regarding learning marketing concepts and gaining confidence in academic ability will be influenced by the level of assistance provided by the instructor. Specifically, it is hypothesized that:

H3a. Higher levels of instructor assistance with a CSP will result in enhanced student views that a CSP is an effective methodology for learning marketing concepts. H3b. Higher levels of instructor assistance with a CSP will result in enhanced student views that a CSP is an effective methodology for gaining confidence to perform school work.

CSPs and Teamwork CSPs are often carried out by teams rather than individual students since teamwork is recognized as a critical element of a business school curriculum. Employers want marketing graduates who are able to work in teams (Schlee & Harich, 2010) and CSPs are viewed as an effective means for students to develop these desired leadership and teamwork skills (Strauss, 2011; Bove & Davies, 2009). In addition to being a means of delivering education in a manner that is congruent with how the business community functions (i.e., it is common practice for business to use teams of people to solve problems), teams are used in marketing education because they can enhance learning outcomes for students (Neu, 2012; Skilton et al., 2008; McCorkle et al., 1999). Therefore, marketing educators are encouraged to embed learning in social experiences that can be found in team-based projects if they want students to reap the rewards on the experiential learning approach to marketing education (Barr & Tagg, 1995). The importance of teams to marketing education is evidenced by extensive literature; team projects have been discussed in the marketing education literature for over three decades (Neu, 2012; Humphreys, 1981). It is also possible however, for a team to function ineffectively and impede student learning. This may be the reason for the considerable attention given to exploring strategies to develop effective team

116 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

projects (Stege, Mankin, & Jewell, 2011; Chapman, Meuter, Toy, & Wright, 2010; McCorkle et al., 1999; Williams, Beard, & Rymer, 1991). Issues such as managing free riding and social loafing (Poddar, 2010); assessing the team’s performance (Deeter-Schmelz & Ramsey, 1998); building trust (Huff, Cooper, & Jones, 2002); integrating business courses to enhance team-based learning (Bobbitt et al., 2000); ensuring that students develop positive attitudes toward working on teams (Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003); increasing student satisfaction with teamwork experiences (Wood, 2003); assisting students to be more effective classroom team members (Lancellotti & Boyd, 2008); designing a curriculum so struggling students are not harmed by group experiences (Freeman & Greenacre, 2011); and avoiding unintended negative consequences of group projects (Neu, 2012) have all been discussed in the literature. Taken together, the literature suggests that CSP projects that are completed by effectively functioning teams will have more positive outcomes than those completed by dysfunctional teams. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H4a. Higher levels of team effectiveness will result in enhanced student views that a CSP is an effective method for learning marketing concepts. H4b. Higher levels of team effectiveness will result in enhanced student views that a CSP is an effective method for gaining confidence to perform school work.

CSPs and Competition Interestingly, there is very little discussion in the literature regarding competition and CSPs. A notable exception is the report of an introductory marketing course that incorporated a CSP in which students from three course sections course competed with one another for non-monetary prizes (i.e., bonus points, grades) (Sparkman Jr. et al., 1990). Others have reported on CSPs that involve team competitions where students could win cash prizes of up to $1000 (Umble et al., 2008). Although empirical evidence is lacking, a variety of benefits believed to be offered by team competitions have been reported in the literature (Ross & Byrd, 2011). For example, Sparkman Jr. and his colleagues (1990) reported that competition generates interest among students. The student audience seemed attentive and interested during the final presentations and most students reported that they worked harder and spent more time on the CSP than on comparable projects. Sparkman Jr. et al. (1990) concluded that motivation seemed to be due to the competitive aspect of the project. Similarly, in a capstone marketing course in which the CSP involved competition between student groups, students reported that they liked the project’s competitive aspect and wanted a higher proportion of the grade based on the competitive ranking (Strauss, 2011). This literature suggests that enjoying competition will be motivating to students and enhance the learning outcomes related to CSP. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H5a. More positive attitudes toward the CSP competition will result in enhanced student views that a CSP is an effective method for learning marketing concepts. H5b. More positive attitudes toward the CSP competition will result in enhanced student views that a CSP is an effective method for gaining confidence to perform school work.

METHOD

Participants To test our hypotheses, a convenience sample of 592 students enrolled in several sections of an introductory marketing course at a large business school in northeastern United States was used. The introductory marketing course is required for all students at the university and is typically taken during the sophomore year. Students in this sample were enrolled in one of twenty-eight sections taught by seven instructors during the 2011/2012 academic year. Sixty-six percent of the students were business majors, 16 percent were liberal arts majors, and 18 percent were undeclared. Fifty-five percent of the students were male.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 117

The Project The CSP was initiated by the client sponsor who proposed the CSP at an initial meeting held in late spring 2011. Faculty members were receptive to the idea. One marketing instructor was selected as faculty coordinator to liaise between the client sponsor and instructors. The marketing instructors and a client sponsor representative met throughout the summer to develop the CSP. The client sponsor suggested several possible projects based on current business problems facing their company. The marketing instructors then selected one project for the fall and spring semesters of the 2011/2012 academic year; projects were selected based on the course objectives and the students’ interests and abilities. Marketing instructors worked together to develop an assignment that required students to develop marketing plans to increase consumer product sales: pet products (fall) and sporting goods (spring). The CSP was completed by groups of four to five students who began working together on the project within the first few weeks of the semester. Teams submitted a written report and presented their recommendations in class during the third-to-last week of classes. One team from each section was chosen to present their marketing plan to a team of judges in a final competition that was held during the second-to-last week of classes. Executives from the sponsoring client’s company along with senior business-faculty members from the university served as judges for the final competition. Winning team members shared cash prizes: $1000 for the first place, $750 for the second place, and $500 for the third place team. The remaining competitors received $25 gift certificates from the client sponsor. The CSP contributed twenty percent to a student’s final grade. Grades were determined without input from the client sponsor and final competition results were not considered in determining project grades. Peer evaluations however, did impact project grades. Client-sponsor representatives met with students at the university twice during the semester. During the initial meeting that took place early in the semester, several client-sponsor representatives presented information about the company and the project needs. The second meeting, which took place toward the middle of the semester, was devoted to answering student questions. Students were also encouraged to visit the sponsoring client’s business locations.

Measures Consistent with other research, student perceptions provided a measure of CSP effectiveness (Ackerman & Hu, 2011; Anaya, 1999; Maher & Hughner, 2005). Students were asked to report their attitudes toward the sponsor on pre- and post-project surveys administered during the first and last week of classes. In addition, at the end of each semester, students were asked to report i) the extent to which they perceived that the CSP helped them to learn marketing concepts and had increased their confidence in their ability to perform school work, ii) the extent to which their instructor had provided effective assistance with the project, iii) how well their group functioned as a team, and iv) their attitudes toward the project’s competitive aspects. Student perceptions were measured on 7-point Likert scales anchored with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

CSPs and Client Sponsors Hypothesis 1 predicted that students who participate in a CSP would develop positive attitudes toward the sponsoring client. Attitudes toward the client sponsor were measured with one item: “I would like to work for ____ (the client sponsor)” with end points anchored with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). Although multiple-item measures are commonly used in marketing research, evidence shows that single-item measures can often perform equally well (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). Students’ desire to work for the company was measured both before the project was begun and after the project was completed. A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the hypothesis where pre- and post-project perceptions was the factor and desire to work was the dependent variable. The results showed

118 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

significant increases in students’ desire for employment with the client sponsor (Mpre = 3.89, Mpost = 4.11, F(1,1207 ) = 6.49, p < .01; see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1 PRE- AND POST-PROJECT MEANS FOR ATTITUDES TOWARD EMPLOYMENT WITH CLIENT SPONSOR

5 4.11 3.89 4

1 Pre-project Post-project

CSPs and Learning Outcomes Hypothesis 2a and 2b predicted that students would report that participating in a CSP helped them to a) learn marketing concepts and b) gain confidence in their ability to perform school work. Student perceptions of the extent to which the CSP had helped them to learn marketing concepts and gain confidence in their academic ability were measured with single 7-point items anchored with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). Results of a one-sample t-test with 4 as the test variable revealed that students perceived that the CSP had helped them to learn marketing concepts (t(570) = 17.77, M = 5.05, p < .001) and had had a positive effect on their confidence to perform school work (t(569) = 10.75, M = 4.73, p < .001). Thus, Hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported (see Figure 2). Hypothesis 3a and 3b predicted that higher levels of instructor assistance would enhance student perceptions that participating in a CSP helped them to a) learn marketing concepts and b) gain confidence in their ability to perform school work. Instructor assistance was measured with three items: my professor i) was helpful with, ii) provided valuable assistance with, and iii) provided clear instructions for this group project. Items were anchored with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). Reliability analysis indicated that the scale was reliable (Cronbach alpha = .94) and the items were averaged to create a scale for instructor assistance. Hypothesis 4a and 4b predicted that more effective teams would enhance student perceptions that participating in a CSP helped them to a) learn marketing concepts and b) gain confidence in their ability to perform school work. Perceptions of team effectiveness were measured with three items: our team i) worked well together, ii) had fun, and iii) was dysfunctional. Items were anchored with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) and the third item was reverse scored. Reliability analysis indicated that the scale was reliable (Cronbach alpha = .81) and the items were averaged to create a team effectiveness index. Hypothesis 5a and 5b predicted that more positive attitudes toward competition would enhance student perceptions that participating in a CSP helped them to a) learn marketing concepts and b) gain confidence in their ability to perform school work. Attitude toward competition was measured with two items: i) I enjoyed the competitive aspect of this group project and ii) cash rewards made the

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 119

effort worthwhile. Items were anchored with strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). The two items were significantly correlated (r = .533, p <.001) and were averaged to create an index of attitudes toward competition.

FIGURE 2 POST-PROJECT MEANS OF LEARNING OUTCOMES AND LEARNING CONFIDENCE ATTITUDES

A multiple linear regression was calculated to test the predictions that professor’s assistance, team effectiveness, and attitudes toward competition influence students’ beliefs that CSPs help them perform better in their marketing class (i.e., learn marketing concepts). A significant regression equation was found (F (3,542) = 234.781, p<.001), with R2 of .565. Professor’s level of assistance and attitude toward the competition are found to significantly influence student belief that CSPs help them perform better in their marketing class (i.e., learn marketing concepts). Student attitudes about their team’s effectiveness, however, are not a significant predictor. A tolerance of more than 0.20 and a VIF of less than 5 indicate multicollinearity is not a problem. Hypotheses 3a and 5a are thus supported while H4a is not. A second multiple linear regression was calculated to test the prediction that professor’s assistance, team effectiveness, and attitude toward competition influence students’ confidence to perform school work. A significant regression equation was found (F (3,542) = 244.510, p<.001), with R2 of .575. Student attitude toward competition is found to significantly influence student’s confidence in performing school work. Professor’s level of assistance and student belief in their team effectiveness are marginally significant predictors of increased confidence to perform school work. A tolerance of more than 0.20 and a VIF of less than 5 indicate multicollinearity is not a problem. As such, we have full support for H5b and partial support for H3b and H4b.

DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with previous research, our work shows that students view a CSP as an effective means of learning marketing concepts and increasing their ability to handle their academic work. Our research however, provides new evidence that participating in a CSP results in changes in student attitudes regarding the client sponsor. The evidence shows that student attitudes toward the sponsoring client are

120 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

more positive at the end of the semester when the project has concluded than at the beginning of the semester prior to commencement of the project. Client sponsors and instructors may assume that sponsoring a project will yield positive student attitudes toward the client sponsor. To our knowledge however, this is one of the first studies that offers support for such an assumption. Other writers have offered practical advice for instructors on how to recruit client sponsors (Clark et al., 2012). Our results extend this work by providing instructors with convincing evidence for client sponsors they are attempting to recruit. The evidence provided here has the potential to be persuasive to client sponsors as it reveals that participation in a CSP enhances student attitudes toward the client sponsor. The effect of competition between student groups on academic performance has received little attention in the marketing education literature to date. The literature that does address competition between groups provides only anecdotal evidence of the positive effects of competition on learning (Sparkman Jr. et al., 1990). One study that provided empirical evidence to show that students perceived benefits from participating in a CSP competition did not examine the role played by project competition on learning outcomes (Umble et al., 2008). Our study addresses this gap as it provides evidence that students with greater appreciation for competition have more positive perceptions of the CSP’s effectiveness in helping them learn marketing concepts. Our study also provides evidence that more positive attitude toward competition yields greater confidence in the ability to do academic work in the future. Furthermore, our research suggests that attitudes toward competition are more predictive than beliefs about the team’s effective functioning regarding student attitudes about learning marketing. The CSP presented here was an experiential approach that required students to engage in creative problem solving, which enhances student learning. Students thus had more responsibility for their own learning than they would have had if the course consisted only of lectures. As others have suggested, this did not mean that the instructors involved in the CSP presented here had less work than they would have had in a more traditional course (Gremler et al., 2000). Some have argued that instructor assistance is critical to a CSP’s success and is desired and needed by students who work on CSPs (Kennedy et al., 2001). The empirical analysis presented here supports this view. Students whose instructors are perceived as providing more assistance have more positive views regarding the CSP’s effectiveness in helping them learn marketing concepts. It is common for marketing courses to provide students with opportunities for team work. Indeed, the primary impetus for including group projects in marketing education appears to be the desire to provide students with opportunities to develop team-work skills. Some have reported that effective team functioning (i.e., high trust levels within the group) will motivate students to work harder (Huff et al., 2002). Chapman and his colleagues (2010) report that students who participate in group projects report that the group projects (note: not client sponsored) are a good learning mechanism. Our research extends this work as it explores the relationship between group functioning and learning outcomes for CSPs. Our results suggest that team work also enhances learning. We demonstrate that students from well- functioning teams develop positive perceptions regarding a CSP’s effectiveness in helping them perform school work. The marketing education literature points out that CSP benefits include ideas and cutting edge information provided by students to the client sponsor for minimal cost (e.g., Bove & Davies, 2009). Although the current study did not address this issue, comments from client-sponsor judges revealed that the client sponsor appreciated students’ ideas. As a result of ideas put forth by students in the final competition, the client sponsor decided to pursue new products for the pet and sporting-goods markets. This study has been able to demonstrate changes in attitudes toward the client sponsor during the semester by using pre- and post-project measures of these attitudes. Pre- and post-project measures of marketing knowledge and attitudes toward competition would have provided additional useful information. Unfortunately, pre-project measures of these variables were not taken. Future studies should conduct pre- and post-project measures wherever possible. This research has relied on student perception measures rather than more objective measures. Although there is evidence that student self-reports of cognitive growth are a valid measure of learning (Anaya, 1999), more recently, difficulties with relying on student perceptions as an indicator of learning

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 121

have been identified (Sitzmann, Ely, Brown, & Bauer, 2010). Sitzmann and her colleagues (2010) suggest that self reports of learning measure affect rather than knowledge. Measuring student perceptions does provide useful information however, and students’ perceptions of learning outcomes continue to be reported in the literature (Ackerman & Hu, 2011). Regardless of this practice, as per the recommendation of Sitzmann and her colleagues (2010), objective pre- and post-project measures of knowledge would add confidence to the findings presented here and should be considered for future studies that explore the CSP effectiveness for marketing education. Future investigations of CSP effectiveness could explore the CSP’s impact on the instructors. The CSP described in this paper is consistent with other CSPs in that it placed an additional burden on faculty members. Faculty members met throughout the summer and additional meetings were required with faculty, students, and client-sponsor representatives during the semester. Some suggest that faculty are reluctant to use CSPs in their courses because CSPs are too big to manage and not worth the trouble (Lopez & Lee, 2005). Although faculty perceptions were not included in this study, comments made by faculty members during both semesters indicated that instructors found the CSP a lot of work and some also found the project’s ambiguity frustrating. Given the advantages of incorporating CSPs in a marketing curriculum, more work is needed to fully understand the barriers that prevent faculty from fully embracing this educational methodology. Similarly, future studies could shed light on the factors that contribute to faculty members’ willingness to include a CSP in their curriculum as well as their ability to effectively coach their students toward success. The centuries old educational pedagogy of ‘learning by doing’ is evident in many business schools today and many marketing educators have embraced this pedagogy. While some suggest that CSPs are most appropriate for advanced students (Gremler et al., 2000), this research has shown that incorporating a CSP into a student’s first marketing course is perceived as an effective method for assisting students to learn core marketing concepts. It is also shown to be an effective way to generate positive attitudes toward the sponsoring client and its industry. As expected, the students’ perceptions regarding the CSP’s effectiveness for learning marketing is related to instructor assistance, team effectiveness, and attitudes toward competition. While these results suggest that a CSP must be carefully managed, the results also suggest that marketing instructors should not hesitate to introduce a CSP at a marketing program’s earliest stages.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, D. S. & Hu, J. (2011). Effect of type of curriculum on educational outcomes and motivation among marketing students with different learning styles. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 273-284.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Anaya, G. (1999). College impact on student learning: Comparing the use of self-reported gains, standardized test scores, and college grades. Research in Higher Education, 40, 499-526.

Ayers, D. J. & Underwood, R. L. (2007). Integrating concepts across marketing courses via experiential learning. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 11, 63-68.

Barr, R. B. & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate learning. Change, 27, 12-25.

Barr, T. F. & Mcneilly, K. M. (2002). The value of students' classroom experiences from the eyes of the recruiter: Information, implications, and recommendations for marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 168-173.

122 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Bergkvist, L. & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175-184.

Bobbitt, L. M., Inks, S. A., Kemp, K. J., & Mayo, D. T. (2000). Integrating marketing courses to enhance team-based experiential learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 15-24.

Bove, L. L. & Davies, W. M. (2009). A case study of teaching marketing research using client-sponsored projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 230-239.

Bridges, E. (1999). Experiential learning and customer needs in the undergraduate marketing research course. Journal of Marketing Education, 21, 51-59.

Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M. L., Toy, D., & Wright, L. K. (2010). Are student groups dysfunctional?: Perspectives from both sides of the classroom. Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 39-49.

Clark, G. L., King, M. E., & Jurn, I. A tutorial guide on client-financed projects. Journal of Marketing Education, (in press). de los Santos, G. & Jensen, T. D. (1985). Client-sponsored projects: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. Journal of Marketing Education, 7, 45-50.

Deeter-Schmelz, D. R. & Ramsey, R. (1998). Student team performance: A method for classroom assessment. Journal of Marketing Education, 20, 85-93.

Freeman, L. & Greenacre, L. (2011). An examination of socially destructive behaviors in group work. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 5-17.

Goodell, P. W. & Kraft, F. B. (1991). Issues on the use of "client" projects in marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 1, 32-44.

Gremler, D. D., Hoffman, K. D., Keaveney, S. M., & Wright, L. K. (2000). Experiential learning exercises in services marketing courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 35-44.

Haas, R. W. & Wotruba, T. R. (1990). The project approach to teaching the capstone marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 12, 37-48.

Harman, L. (2009). Teaching partnering strategies through the client-based project approach. Marketing Education Review, 19, 49-55.

Holler Phillips, C. M. (2011). Student consultants' perceptions and valuations of research skills. Reference Services Review, 29, 514-530.

Hopkins, C. D., Raymond, M. A., & Carlson, L. (2011). Educating students to give them sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 337-347.

Huff, L. C., Cooper, J., & Jones, W. (2002). The development and consequences of trust in student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 24-34.

Humphreys, M. A. (1981). Client-sponsored projects in a marketing research course. Journal of Marketing Education, 3, 7-12.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 123

Karns, G. L. (2006). Learning style differences in the perceived effectiveness of learning activities. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 56-63.

Kennedy, E. J., Lawton, L., & Walker, E. (2001). The case for using live cases: Shifting the paradigm in marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 23, 145-151.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lancellotti, M. P. & Boyd, T. (2008). The effects of team personality awareness exercises on team satisfaction and performance. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 244-254.

Linrud, J. K. & Hall, M. C. (1999). Integrating the business practitioner into marketing coursework. Marketing Education Review, 9, 15-21.

Lopez, T. B. & Lee, R. G. (2005). Five principles for workable client-based projects: Lessons from the trenches. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 172-188.

Maher, J. K. & Hughner, R. S. (2005). Experiential marketing projects: Student perceptions of live case and simulation methods. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 7, 1-10.

Matulich, E., Papp, R., & Haytko, D. L. (2008). Continuous improvement through teaching innovations: A requirement for today's learners. Marketing Education Review, 18, 1-7.

McCorkle, D. E., Reardon, J., Alexander, J. F., Kling, N. D., Harris, R. C., & Iyer, R. V. (1999). Undergraduate marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: The good, the bad, and the ugly? Journal of Marketing Education, 21, 106-117.

Neu, W. A. (2012). Unintended cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences of group assignments. Journal of Marketing Education, 34, 67-81.

Parsons, A. L. & Lepkowska-White, E. (2009). Group projects using clients versus not using clients. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 154-159.

Pfaff, E. & Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 37-45.

Poddar, A. (2010). Continuous additive peer review: A new system to control social loafing in group projects. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 17, 1-12.

Razzouk, N. Y., Seitz, V., & Rizkallah, E. (2003). Learning by doing: Using experiential projects in the undergraduate marketing strategy course. Marketing Education Review, 13, 35-41.

Ross, L. W. & Byrd, K. A. (2011). Business plan competitions: Start-up "idols" and their twenty-first century launch pads. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 11, 53-64.

Schibrowsky, J. A., Peltier, J. W., & Boyt, T. E. (2002). A professional school approach to marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 43-55.

Schlee, R. P. & Harich, K. R. (2010). Knowledge and skill requirements for marketing jobs in the 21st century. Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 341-352.

124 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 169-191.

Skilton, P. F., Forsyth, D., & White, O. J. (2008). Interdependence and integration learning in student project teams: Do team project assignments achieve what we want them to? Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 57-65.

Sparkman Jr., R. M., Follows, S. B., & Zhou, N. (1990). The use of inter-sectional competition with an oral project in the introductory marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 12, 34-41.

Stege, R. A., Mankin, J. A., & Jewell, J. J. (2011). How to organize a real life problem-based learning project in a business class using strength assessment to determine team assignment. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 11, 45-56.

Strauss, J. (2011). Marketing capstone models The Apprentice television show with client-sponsored projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 312-325.

Umble, E. J., Umble, M., & Artz, K. (2008). Enhancing undergraduates' capabilities through team-based competitions: The Edward Jones Challenge. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6, 1-27.

West, J. J. (2010). Ensuring success for client-based projects: An advertising course study. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 17, 13-22.

Williams, D. L., Beard, J. D., & Rymer, J. (1991). Team projects: Achieving their full potential. Journal of Marketing Education, 13, 45-53.

Wood, C. M. (2003). The effects of creating psychological ownership among students in group projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 240-249.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 125

Innovation in Business Education: Disrupting the Status Quo

Beth Castiglia Felician College

Margareta Smith-Knopik International Assembly of Collegiate Business Education

INTRODUCTION

It is standard for college- and university-level business programs to teach about Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction in economics and entrepreneurship courses. Creative destruction describes the fundamental tendency for a capitalist economy to constantly evolve because of the emergence of new types of consumers, new means of production, and new forms of business organization. According to Schumpeter, competitive forces in capitalism, combined with profit-induced technological innovations, cause entrepreneurial businesses to arise in existing industries and outperform, and ultimately displace, previously dominant businesses. Until very recently, though, colleges and universities did not recognize the application of Schumpeter’s logic to the very industry in which they operate. Harvard’s Clayton Christensen built on Schumpeter’s work by analyzing the process of disruptive innovation, which occurs when sophisticated technologies are used to create simplified and more accessible solutions to consumer problems. According to Christensen, innovators tend to enter markets on the fringe, and, at least at first, offer lower-quality products attractive to a new or underserved component of the market. Their focus on the fringe places these newcomers below the notice of the leaders in the market, who ignore their work – until the innovators are able to perfect their offerings to encroach upon the core of the market. At that point, the innovation becomes the mainstream, and the existing players in the industry are left to fail or trail. The principles of both creative destruction and disruptive innovation are applied easily to higher education. The costs of higher education have increased dramatically for the past two decades, with colleges and universities competing for the core academically-prepared students. The existing institutions

126 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

add programs and amenities – getting “bigger and better”- regardless of the consequence of these expansions on their finances. In addition, in their competitive arms race, these institutions appear to assume the populations they are serving actually need (or want) the expensive high end services included in the price of tuition. Meanwhile, a group of innovative upstarts in higher education have come up with ways of unbundling educational services and leveraging technology to supply opportunities for learning to student customers on their own terms and at their convenience. Not surprisingly, the existing frontrunners in the industry scoff at these fringe down market competitors who offer an educational product which often is seen as inferior to that offered by the established players. The theory of disruptive innovation warns that many colleges and universities are ignoring these new competitors at their own risk, though, and may soon be rendered obsolete by the new learning models offered by the innovators. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the innovation occurring (i.e., disruptive innovation) within existing college and university business programs. Are colleges and universities blindly ignoring the threat of innovative competition (for whatever reason), or are they making attempts to come up with innovations of their own to better serve their changing student bodies? To determine the answer to this question, the researchers assessed the degree of innovation adopted by existing business programs accredited by the International Assembly of Collegiate Business Education (IACBE), a US-based CHEA recognized accrediting organization. Using the literature on disruptive innovation in higher education, the researchers attempted attempt to answer the following questions: (1) How innovative are the business programs accredited by the IACBE? (2) Does the degree of innovation differ between (a) public and private institutions; (b) older and newer institutions; (b) for- profit and not-for-profit institutions; (c) US and non-US institutions; and (d) large and small institutions? (3) Given the theories of disruptive innovation and creative destruction, are the innovations undertaken by the examined programs sufficient to protect them from new entrants into higher education or to ensure competitive sustainability?

The selection of IACBE members as the sample population is significant because, unlike many other US specialized accrediting bodies, IACBE has always focused on the achievement of outcomes in its accreditation decisions. While some accrediting bodies are prescriptive, IACBE does not require specific inputs to be used to generate the achievement of college outcomes. For instance, if a learning outcome is achieved, IACBE does not judge the type of faculty member employed or number of hours of seat time required in reaching that outcome. Because of this, the schools who seek IACBE accreditation may be somewhat more inclined to innovate than those that seek accreditation from other business accreditors. In addition, literature supports the notion that the shift toward assessment of outcomes, rather than judgment about inputs, characterizes many of the newest innovations in higher education. The researchers developed rubrics to create an index measuring the level of innovation represented by a 80-member sample of business units accredited by the IACBE. The literature on disruptive innovation was used to inform the development of these rubrics. Besides scoring business units on their use of technology in course delivery, the rubrics also scored business units according to the flexibility of their scheduling models, degree of unbundling of educational services, use of specialized faculty functions, adoption of streamlined pathways to degrees, and willingness to focus on well-defined, but perhaps underserved, market niches. After computing an innovation index for each of the schools examined, the researchers first assessed the overall level of innovation in the IACBE membership schools and then analyzed the relationships between the college indexes and the independent variables of ownership, for-profit/non-profit structure, location, and enrollment to determine if there are significant patterns distinguishing those schools which innovate from those which do not. The results of this analysis were then used to confirm or dispute the predictions on innovation drawn from the existing literature.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 127

BACKGROUND

The concept of disruptive innovation perhaps is best described by first focusing on what it is not. Disruptive innovation is not the type of product improvements, enhancements, or breakthroughs that existing companies come up with by listening to their current customers. Instead, disruptive innovations involve the creation of simple, less sophisticated, and less expensive versions of existing products that appeal, initially, to nonconsumers of those products. The existing consumers do not want the innovative products because, at least for a while, they are inferior to those they are currently purchasing. These innovations are not “new and improved” versions of existing product offerings. They are stripped down basic products that do not offer all of the benefits of those already being sold. They do, however, offer enough and the right variety of benefits to draw new consumers into the market. While the prevailing firms in the industry scoff at the new down-market category of products, the upstart innovator has time to build efficiencies and conveniences to a point where the new product begins to appeal to even the consumers in the existing market. Unfortunately for the industry leaders, by the time they recognize the threat it is often too late to catch up. The theory of disruptive innovation originated with Clayton Christensen’s (1997) exploration of the disk drive business. IBM was a leader in this industry in the 1970s and 1980s and, like other established firms at that time, focused on upgrading and enhancing the standard 14-inch disk drive. The end result was a superior, high capacity product that fully satisfied the existing mainframe computer users. On the fringe of this industry arose new entrants (including, at that time, Shugart Associates, Micropolis, Priam, and Quantum) who initially developed an 8-inch disc drive (Christensen, 1997). These smaller discs had much lower capacity than the dominant 14-inch discs, and were of no interest to existing IBM customers. They were recognized as inferior products that did not satisfy all the needs of the mainframe clients. These clients were not the target of the 8-inch manufacturers, though, who instead focused on the original home minicomputer market. This lower-margin market was unattractive to the existing firms in the industry, so the new entrants were virtually ignored by the large dominant technology companies of the time. Of course, the ending to this story is well known. While IBM and other industry leaders continued to focus on providing mainframe users with ever more sophisticated and high powered products, upstart companies developed smaller and smaller discs that captured the yet-to- emerge PC market (Christensen, 1997). The personal computer market, itself, serves as another classic example of disruptive innovation. Apple, one of the pioneers in personal computing, initially produced its product to be targeted at children, who obviously represented a market never considered by the mainframe producers (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008, p. 48). Ignored by the market leaders, Apple enhanced and perfected its product until it was appealing to a market comprised of both the initial mainframe consumers and many, many more. A disruptive innovation, therefore, is not a breakthrough improvement designed to serve an existing customer base. Instead, it is the development of a product or service that disrupts the current trajectory of the market by offering a simplified new product or service to a different group of consumers who did not need (or could not afford) the expensive embellishments of the existing products in the first place (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). Successful disruptions occur in markets where the alternative was nonconsumption. What starts out as a disparaged product application broadens a market from a small, sophisticated segment to a larger one comprised of clients who initially found the product too complicated, expensive, or inaccessible. Although the stripped down products start their lives as inferior to the existing offerings, over time they improve and begin to pull from the original client base. The established frontrunners in the market dismissed the innovative competitor at their own expense.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Disruptive innovation takes root when industry leaders, in the attempt to satisfy their customers more fully, overshoot their goal and begin to produce products or services that exceed their clients’ needs.

128 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Costs escalate, and the market is poised for the emergence of an innovator to provide a simpler, less expensive alternative to the existing market choices. The business model, technological underpinnings, and cost escalations in higher education make it a prime target for disruptive innovation. In fact, it can be argued that this disruption has already begun. Each of these characteristics, with an explanation of its connection to innovation, is described below.

Business Model Traditional colleges and universities in the United States perform three separate business propositions (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). Colleges teach, and in doing so spread knowledge. They engage in research, and thereby create new knowledge. And they guide and mentor, helping students progress into adulthood and preparing them for their future lives and careers. Each of these functions is distinct, and each is expensive to provide. Effective teaching requires skilled faculty with access to tools and technologies to address myriad student learning styles. Research requires highly educated subject experts who are leaders in their academic fields and support for data collection and analysis. Mentoring, finally, requires vast staffs of career, academic, athletic, and student support employees. In many cases, this function also entails the maintenance of manicured campuses, sports facilities, and state-of-the art residence halls. Combining the three businesses under one university banner creates an expensive, but high end, product that well serves a small fraction of the potential market (18-year old high school graduates). This complex model is the predominant university model in the United States, and has caused the cost of college to rise a staggering 429 percent in the last two decades (Sheets & Soares, 2012, p. 1). Similar to the disk industry in the 1980s, higher education today has become complex, over-elaborate, and expensive, creating a large population unwilling or unable to afford its high end products. The stage is thus set for an innovator to target this market which has been underserved so far by simplifying and commensurately lowering the cost of education.

Technological Underpinning Technology enables disruptive innovation when sophisticated tools create simplified and routinized solutions to consumer problems (Sheets & Soares, 2008, p. 3). The traditional instructional model in higher education has not budged almost since its inception (Kirschner, 2012) and is, perhaps, overdue for a technological boost. While almost every aspect of people’s lives have become more mechanized over the past 40 years, the college experience has remained virtually untouched. A student who had attended college in the 1960s would probably feel right at home if he or she signed up for a traditional course today. Knowledge continues to be disseminated in a classroom by a single faculty member (although this faculty member now may be using SmartBoard technology and a web companion). Learning is still measured by successfully completing a course, which carries credits dictated by Carnegie standard for appropriate seat time. The student still expects to spend approximately four years accumulating credits, which add up to a degree accepted by future employers as a seal of competency. Technology has the potential of changing not only the nature of academic delivery, but also the symbolic value of the college degree. Today, the number of these degrees disseminated in traditional colleges is limited to the number of students who are able to sit in a fixed location and listen to the professors who lecture in a classroom setting, which enables the degree to serve as a screening device in the workplace. Space is scarce, and scarcity breeds selectivity. Therefore, only the better prepared students academically are granted space, and this initial screening process cements the acceptance of the degree as an indication of quality by future employers. If the student was hard-working and intelligent enough to gain admission to a given college, he or she is considered good enough to work for a given employer - regardless of the learning, or lack thereof, which took place during the student’s stay at the university. The acceptance of the degree as quality assurance is an expensive and flawed proposition, however, and one easily confounded by technology. What if, instead of limiting the number of students permitted to learn, technology gave anyone interested access to learning materials and was able to assess the results? What if, instead of rewarding seat time affordable to a select few, degrees or credentials could be granted

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 129

on the basis of documented achievement, regardless of time or physical place? Technology provides the means to do all of these and, as such, could provide the mechanism by which disruptive innovation emerges.

Cost Escalations The United States currently spends 2.6% of its GDP on higher education (OECD, 2006), and the cost of a private education has risen from 80% of per capita income in 1980 to 112% today (Butler, 2012). The demand for higher education, despite its cost, is driven by the importance of a degree to an individual’s future earning potential, and students and their families often scramble to pay for college by combining personal resources, federal financial aid, and student loans. Other students (particularly adults) are left out of the market altogether because of economic circumstances. One of the drivers of the spiraling cost of higher education is the competitive arms race among colleges and universities for qualified students. Costs escalate as colleges add expensive “frills” to existing products. Today, college tours show students restaurant-style cafeterias, beautiful recreational facilities, and fitness centers that could compete with stand-alone health clubs. College catalogs brag about the breadth and depth of their curricular offerings. Student handbooks describe the myriad services available to help students remain happy and healthy. To remain competitive, institutions strive to offer attractive physical, academic, and social amenities, regardless of the impact this may put on their budgets. The improvements progress at a rate that exceeds the students’ needs, and ultimately beyond what the students can use -- or even value (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008, p. 45), setting the classic stage for disruptive innovation.

The Future The story of American colleges and universities follows a refrain similar to that of other industries ripe for innovation. Costs are escalating as additional features are added to existing products. The result is a highly evolved, sophisticated – and expensive – service that overshoots the needs of a large market segment. Opportunities for unbundling prevail. Why should an adult student hoping to earn the credits necessary to complete his or her career pay a high tuition that covers services and facilities he or she will never be interested in using? Why should the “degree” be the ultimate measure of learning at all? Why can’t students avail themselves of free open courseware throughout their lives and be recognized for the learning they have achieved in this manner? These questions have been raised repeatedly, and have been responded to by multiple innovators in higher education. As would be expected, these innovations began in the fringes of the industry, as fully online career-focused programs offered credentials to busy working adults. Predictably, the established institutions downplayed the significance of these upstarts. Today, however, the innovators in higher education are arising from the most prestigious corners of American universities, and the traditional, lower-tiered brick-and-mortar colleges are beginning to take note. They are learning, as articulated succinctly by Stokes (2011) that “Done well, innovation can stir up a good deal of trouble” (p. 197). Higher education, therefore, is at a critical crossroad. Faced with the rise of disruptive innovators, existing institutions can either ignore the threat and risk obsolescence, or embrace the emerging innovations to fundamentally change the way they do business. Innovations by existing colleges and universities tend to fall into six primary categories: (1) use of technology; (2) scheduling; (3) service bundling; (4) pathways to degrees; (5) faculty specialization; and (6) market niche. Each of these, with examples of its application, is described below.

Use of Technology Technology provides the underpinning of all potentially disruptive innovations in higher education, from college-based online learning to self-paced adaptive “do it yourself” education (Kamentez, 2009). Innovation started, perhaps, with the emergence of fully online learning as an application designed to serve a neglected segment of the education market: adult students unable or unwilling to attend a traditional college yet needing specific career preparation. This focus on “training,” as opposed to

130 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

“educating,” placed these upstart educational providers on a separate plane from the market of the existing colleges and universities, and they therefore were ignored as inconsequential. Their products were not of the same quality as the full university experience, and the existing students in the market had no need for them. Over time, however, this form of instruction began to capture the attention of traditional students, who were attracted by its student-centric approach and convenience. Online learning is highly scalable and characterized by extremely low marginal costs. This form of pedagogy divorces teaching from the rest of the academic business model, and thereby escapes the overhead of a traditional course offerings, providing the promise of opening higher education to hundreds of millions of people. McMahan and Loyola (2011) separate technology innovations into three categories. First, technological innovations in access are characterized by pedagogies such as Khan Academy, which provides more than 2,100 videos viewed an average of 70,000 times a day (p. 11). Second, technology provides innovations in affordability, as companies such as StraighterLine provide students with access to online courses for a flat, single fee of $999 for up to 10 courses (p. 11). Third, and potentially most important, technology promises to launch innovations in quality, as pioneers such as Knewton lead the way in adaptive learning whereby technology can respond dynamically to each student’s learning style. Existing colleges and universities have been adapting by adding technology to their current face-to- face courses or offering a smattering of online courses themselves. Unfortunately, many of these institutions have injected online applications as “add ons” to already expensive cost structures. The true innovators have found ways to leverage technology to fundamentally change the way they educate. For example, new online models, including the massive open online courses (MOOCs), have captured the attention of the most elite echelons of US higher education, and amount to what promises to be a game- changer in online learning (Lewin, 2012). Other existing institutions will need to learn to position themselves in this new world, perhaps by integrating the free content currently available into their existing curricula.

Flexible Scheduling The traditional college semester, generally comprised of 15-16 weeks in the fall, followed by 15-16 weeks in the spring, has prevailed in US higher education for generations. However, this arrangement of terms, which was designed to accommodate both an agrarian society and Christian holidays, eliminates most working adults from higher education. It is time consuming, inconvenient, and designed for young students enjoying a traditional campus experience (Simon, 2007). Many colleges already have adapted their schedules to better attract this adult population. Courses are either accelerated (meeting fewer hours over fewer weeks) or compressed (meeting the same number of total hours but over fewer weeks) and programs are run year round to move adults through their degrees more quickly. Fewer existing institutions, though, have abandoned scheduling altogether. Self-paced, competency- based learning, as exemplified by the model used by both Western Governor’s and Westminster Universities, divorces learning from time and place by granting credit based solely on demonstrated learning. Whether a student acquires required competency in two days or two years is irrelevant: in this new equation, learning is held as the constant and time is the variable. This model of learning may be the antithesis of the traditional term in higher education, and has caused many to question the wisdom of the existing Carnegie measure of a time-locked credit hour. According to McKendrick (2010), the very concept of a course, as measured as a block of sessions held several days a week, is breaking down as learning is “granularized” into small parcels of instruction. Taken to its limit, this type of breakdown surely could represent a disruptive innovation to the traditional model of higher education.

Unbundling of Academic Services The most prestigious of US educational institutions provide a full service experience to those students lucky enough to attend them. These students enjoy leafy campuses, high profile athletic events, a wide variety of academic offerings, and mentoring relationships with faculty. Until very recently, most colleges

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 131

aspired to be more like the elite ones, and students were faced with the costs that accompanied this attempt to move upstream. In what Kamenetz (2009) refers to as the “great unbundling” (p. xi), some institutions have begun to disaggregate academic services. These colleges and universities have recognized that while in the past most consumers were parents who wanted to provide their teenage children with a full college experience, today the new majority of consumers are adult nontraditional learners themselves, who have little interest in full-service cafeterias and Saturday afternoon football games (Brewer & Tierney, 2011). Functions traditionally linked, such as teaching and research, academics and sports, or learning and socialization can be separated, and in separating them innovative institutions can attract previously untargeted markets. Brigham Young University-Ohio serves as one example of an existing college that decided to disaggregate college services. Instead of continuing to emulate the services of the elite US universities, it underwent “genetic reengineering” (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). It instituted year round scheduling, removed competitive athletics, and rewarded faculty solely for teaching rather than research. The cost of the four year education fell commensurately with the number of services provided: a BYU-O degree can be earned for approximately $8,000 (Christensen & Eyring, 2011, p. 28).

Pathways to Degrees Perhaps the most innovative form of unbundling is the disaggregation of the college degree altogether. While no one suggests that the traditional model of a four-year residential college will disappear, Kamenetz (2010) and others (Brewer & Tierney, 2011; Christenesen, Horn, Caldera, & Soares, 2011; Massey, 2011) foresee a future where courses are split apart from degrees and sold separately, much as songs are now bought separately from CDs, albums, or cassettes. The nontraditional student and those who currently attend nonselective institutions make up the population most likely to avail themselves of this option. The internet has a history of unbundling services and selling them in a more convenient, and less expensive, fashion. Much as newspapers have been augmented by online stock quotes, sports scores, and want ads, college services can be spun off and repackaged. The student of the future may be able to create his or her own degree by compiling learning from multiple sources. To date, no college or university has been able to escape the fact that all recognized degrees still must bear the name of a single institution. This is unfortunate, since this traditional packaging of education probably gets in the way of the provision of quality education to a large number of people who could use it (Wellman & Soares, 2011). Currently, flexibility in pathways can be demonstrated only through flexible transfer credit policies and competency-based assessment of learning outcomes, as seen in Western Governor’s University. In the future, though, it is possible to imagine a student assembling his or her own degree by accumulating distinct “badges” from a number of free, open online programs.

Faculty Specialization Most traditional higher education institutions model themselves after Harvard and other elite universities, and, like them, craft faculty roles which balance teaching, scholarship, and service. The ideal faculty member, under this model, must be a consummate teacher and curriculum author, a pioneer in his or her field, and an active participant in college and civic affairs. On top of that, today this individual must also possess technology skills and the ability to collect and use assessment data. This combination of talent, if it exists in a single individual at all, is expensive, and not required by most modern colleges and universities. As a result, some innovative institutions have redefined the roles and responsibilities of faculty to reflect only the services their college or university requires. A college that focuses on teaching, for instance, may deem it unnecessary for its faculty to publish or present research at academic conferences (Bauerlein, 2012). Similarly, a college that focuses on web-enhanced courses may hire specialist faculty to develop their curriculum, and allow the teaching faculty to focus on course delivery instead of development. Other colleges and universities, such as Southern New Hampshire University, may delegate all course management to adjuncts, while course development and supervision is controlled by a small number of full-time faculty (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). The faculty of the future will likely be

132 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

more specialized – and less costly—than the one presently in place as more colleges and universities begin to break the existing faculty model and innovate in this area. Through the use of technology, colleges and universities can hire adjunct faculty who may be better qualified than normally available, since they are no longer limited by geography.

Market Niche Imitation of the Ivies does not end with the replicating their faculty job descriptions. Most colleges and universities in the United States are guilty of “Carnegie climbing,” where two year institutions dream of becoming baccalaureate universities, baccalaureate institutions strive to launch masters and doctoral programs, and all institutions yearn to be both bigger in size and better in academic caliber. While most industries become more differentiated as they mature, the history of higher education in the twentieth century is characterized by colleges and universities attempting to be more and more alike (Brewer & Tierney, 2011). Disruptive innovation, of course, occurs when a player in the market begins to focus on a small, nonconsuming population. In higher education, this occurred when the for-profit institutions began to cater to the at-risk students (Hentschke, 2011). These students were of no interest to the existing colleges and universities in the industry, who continued to emulate Harvard in seeking out the “best and brightest” traditional students. Innovative colleges and universities avoid the product proliferation evidenced by the sizable course catalogs and mission creep of most institutions. They focus intensely either on a few key academic programs or a small target population. For example, Western Governors University focuses solely on assessment of learning, regardless of the source from which students acquired that learning (Soares & Morgan, 2011). Similarly, DeVry University avoided the “all things to all people” trap by offering only business programs (McMahon & Loyola, 2011). These focused institutions reduce their cost and thereby increase their potential for success through their innovative streamlining.

RESEARCH METHOD

Given the multiple types of innovations available to institutions of higher education, this study was designed to determine where- and to what degree- existing colleges and universities are innovating. Are there specific institutional characteristics that lead colleges and universities to experiment with changes to their use of technology, types of scheduling, unbundling of services, pathways to degrees, and target marketing? Conversely, what types of institutions cling most to the traditional college model? To address these questions, the researchers posed six hypotheses:

H1: Newer institutions are more innovative than older institutions. Rationale: Newer institutions may be able to innovate without the burden of an existing culture. H2: For-profit institutions are more innovative than not-for-profit institutions. Rationale: The profit motive may drive innovative practices that yield efficiencies. H3: Private institutions are more innovative than public institutions. Rationale: Private institutions may have fewer layers of bureaucracy to deal with in implementing change. H4: Non-US institutions are more innovative than US institutions. Rationale: Non-US colleges may be subject to less governmental regulation. H5: Larger institutions are more innovative than small institutions. Rationale: Large institutions have the financial ability to implement technology and the need to serve large numbers of students.

Sampling This study was conducted using a list of members of the International Assembly of Collegiate Business Education (IACBE), a U.S. based business accreditation body. This population was selected for several reasons. First, the researchers had access to both contacts at IACBE and annual reports submitted

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 133

by affiliates. Second, the IACBE is an agency that focuses primarily on student learning outcomes in granting accreditation. This focus does not prescribe organizational structure, faculty size, or delivery methods individual institutions use to obtain the learning outcomes: if the approach the college takes to teach students is measurably effective and the organization complies with the IACBE standards of excellence, it is granted accreditation. This outcomes-based approach does not preclude accreditation of innovative and nontraditional institutions, and it is reasonable to expect IACBE to attract a large representation of this type of institution. Finally, the IACBE has an international focus, and a large number of non-US based members. To obtain the research sample, all member IACBE institutions were asked via email to participate. Approximately two-thirds of the invited schools agreed to participate. The colleges that gave consent were then sorted into the categories of public/private, US/non-US, and for-profit/not-for-profit. Subgroups were created for each of these categories, and schools were randomly selected from the volunteer institutions to fill each subgroup in compliance with the proportions represented in the entire IACBE population. For example, the IACBE is made up of 90% private institutions (10% public) and 84% US institutions (16% non-US). It was the goal of the researchers to maintain approximately those proportions in their study. Therefore, some institutions needed to be removed from consideration to create a balanced sample. In the end, a sample of 80 colleges and universities – including both private and public, US and non-US, for-profit and not-for-profit, and large and small – was assembled. There were no major differences between the composition of the sample and the composition of the IACBE membership as a whole. The purpose of the study was to determine the level of innovation for IACBE participating schools, and uncover any differences in innovation among their subcategories. The first step in measuring innovation was to develop a rubric that would be applicable to all schools. The rubric below was created based on the six categories of college innovation (described in the previous section).

TABLE 1 INNOVATION RUBRIC

Innovation 1 2 3 4 Category

Use of All programs are Most programs At least half of All programs are technology fully face-to-face are face-to-face, all programs are either hybrid or but some evening hybrid or online online. and nontraditional courses are offered in hybrid or online form

Scheduling Programs follow Most programs All programs Most programs are traditional follow the follow a self-paced with fall/spring traditional nontraditional, flexible start dates calendar, with fall/spring year-round some summer calendar, but schedule classes some nontraditional programs are accelerated/year- round in nature

134 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Course bundling All students get a Most students get Most students are Services are traditional a traditional either offsite or completely campus campus online, but some unbundled, with most experience experience, but traditional students exposed only (sports, residence some students students get a to coursework halls, clubs) are either offsite traditional through the or online with campus institution. No sports, fewer campus experience residence halls… amenities.

Faculty Traditional Some traditional Heavy use of Specialized faculty specialization tenure track faculty roles, but adjuncts, roles. Teaching, faculty functions: significant use of specialized course development, course adjuncts faculty roles, less research functions development, focus on research separated service, research, teaching

Pathways to Large majority of Combination of Heavy reliance Use of stackable degrees programs are traditional, on transfer, prior degrees; focus on comprised of accelerated learning, and/or certificates… traditional 4-year degrees. Some CLEP full time degrees transfer credit accepted.

Market niche Traditional large Some degree of Relatively small Niche market only array of majors specialization, number of and programs e.g., specialized specialized focus on student degree programs population (adult…) or degree (all business…)

Each school was placed at one level for each of the innovation categories. Each placement was given a score ranging from 1 to 4, as shown on the rubric. These scores were then added together to assign each institution a total innovation score. The higher the total, the more innovative the college. The total innovation score had the potential range of 6, representing a highly traditional program, to 24, representing a very innovative one. A second series of data was collected for each institution. This information designated whether the college or university was public or private, for-profit or not-for-profit, US or non-US based, and large or small. Each of these metrics was then compared with the innovation scores developed to determine significant relationships between college characteristics and innovative practices.

Data Collection The primary sources of information used for filling out the rubrics for US schools were IPEDS data and the college websites. For non-US schools, information was gathered from the websites and the annual reports sent to the IACBE. Specifically, for US schools the scores were assembled using the following sources and guidelines. (Note: for non-US schools, the IACBE annual reports were used in lieu of IPEDS data.)

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 135

TABLE 2 SOURCES AND GUIDELINES

Category Source(s) Criteria Technology Website Primary: Homepage – Are online programs featured? Secondary: Class schedules posted: What percent of courses are online or hybrid? Scheduling Website Primary: On Business Academic page, are programs described as accelerated? Secondary: From course schedules: Are courses offered in less-than 15 week sessions? Bundling IPEDS Primary: Does the school provide Website residence halls and athletic teams? Secondary: What percent of students are full time vs. part time? Tertiary: What percent of students are served off campus? Faculty IPEDS Primary: What percent of faculty is Website full time vs. part time? Secondary: How much emphasis is placed on scholarly accomplishments on the website? Pathways Website Primary: On Business academic page, how much focus is placed on degree completion programs? Secondary: On Admissions page, how much focus is placed on transfer credit, CLEP, and prior learning? Niche IPEDS Primary: How many types of Website degrees are offered? Secondary: On the website, is a specific student population targeted?

To test each of the hypotheses, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between innovation indexes and each of the relevant independent variables. In addition, bar charts were constructed and analyzed for each comparison group (e.g., for-profit vs. not-for-profit) and each individual category of innovation score (e.g., technology, scheduling, bundling…) Finally, the sample was ranked according to (1) innovation index, (2) age of institution, and (3) enrollment to glean additional information about differences among groups.

FINDINGS

H1: Newer institutions are more innovative than older institutions.

Finding: This was confirmed.

The schools in the sample ranged in age from 196 years to five years. The Pearson correlation coefficient for age and innovation index was -.364, which was significant at the 0.01 level. Moreover,

136 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

when examining just the schools ranking in the top 10% for innovation and those ranking in the bottom 10%, there was almost a 100 year difference in age. The eight most traditional schools, with an average total innovation score of 6.4, had an average establishment year of 1858, while the most innovative 10%, with an average total innovation score of 19.4, had an average establishment year of 1954. The correlation between age and innovation may have been deceptively low because many of the schools in the sample changed their ownership and/or mission since the date reported on their website as their founding year, and it is logical that they may have also changed their degree of innovation at the time of these other changes. The data analyzed would not have picked up this nuanced change. The hypothesis that newer institutions are more innovative than older ones should be tested in further research.

H2: For-profit institutions are more innovative than not-for-profit institutions.

Finding: This was not shown in the aggregate data.

Not only was there no significant correlation between for-profit status and innovation index, but there also was no central tendency for the index displayed by the fifteen for-profit institutions included in the study (see exhibit 1). The for-profit sector demonstrated evenly distributed innovation scores ranging from 7 to 21, with no more than two colleges at any single level. On the other hand, the innovation indexes for the not-for-profit schools were distributed around the score of 11.

FIGURE 1

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 137

This finding implies that the for-profit segment is extremely diverse. For every innovative for-profit college, there is a highly traditional one. This finding contradicts other studies which have found that schools in the for-profit sector tend to be online, focused on adult learners, and fully unbundled (Bennett, Lucchesi, & Vedder, 2010). However, this discrepancy could have been because the colleges in the sample may not have been typical of their sector. First, these schools were interested in specialized US business accreditation, and may have believe that the traditional approach was that valued by IACBE Second, half of the for-profit institutions in the sample were non-US schools. These schools, which were, again, interested in US specialized accreditation, may have modeled themselves after what they believed to be a traditional US structure. Further research is needed in this area to determine the degree of innovation in the for-profit sector using a larger sample.

H3: Private institutions are more innovative than public institutions.

Finding: This was not shown in the aggregate data.

FIGURE 2

Both public and private institutions tended to be relatively conservative according to their rankings. As shown in exhibit 2, the midpoint of the total innovation index for all schools is 13.5. Approximately 70% of both private and public institutions fall below this midpoint, in the ranges of composite scores of

138 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

six to 13. Digging deeper into the subcategories of innovation provides some additional insights. For instance, 44% of private institutions offer something other than a traditional semester schedule, while only 27% of the public institutions offer accelerated courses. Also, the private institutions tend to be more creative in their use of faculty: 58% of private institutions rely predominantly of full time faculty in traditional roles, while 72% of public institutions still do so.

H3: Non-US institutions are more innovative than US institutions.

Finding: This was not shown in either the aggregate data or the subcategory descriptive analysis.

There were only 13 non-US colleges included in the analysis, so this small sample may have been insufficient to reveal any differences between US and non-US institutions. However, even given these small numbers, a drill-down into the subcategories of scheduling and faculty would have been expected to show innovation on the part of the non US institutions. An analysis of the subcategories, though, confirmed the “no difference” conclusion. If anything, the non-US schools in the sample were more likely to have traditional scheduling and more likely to rely on full time faculty than their US counterparts. This finding should be further investigated with a larger population of non US institutions in further research.

H4: Larger institutions are more innovative than small institutions.

Finding: This was not confirmed in the Pearson coefficient, but was confirmed in subcategory descriptive analysis.

Although the correlation coefficient was not significant at the 0.01 level, a sorting of institutions based on level of innovation did reveal an interesting pattern. The average size of the schools ranking in the top 20% by innovation index had an average student enrollment of 9,023, while the bottom 20% had an average student enrollment of 1/3 of that, or 2,940. If the non-US innovative institutions are eliminated from this tally, the distinction becomes even greater. (The size comparison between US and non-US colleges can be misleading, since the US colleges tend to be comprehensive, while the non-US schools are program-specific.) This finding is important because it suggests that the innovation that occurs in higher education might be a necessary adjustment – an adaptive rather than destructive innovation. Schools might reach a size inflection point at which they are no longer able to educate additional students without coming up with creative means of course delivery, scheduling, and faculty use. Smaller colleges may cling to traditional structures because they can, but large colleges may be forced to innovate to manage their large numbers. An alternative explanation, of course, is that the innovations drove growth in these institutions. Further research is necessary to uncover the direction of the causality in the relationship between size and innovation.

DISCUSSION

Overall, this research refuted the assumptions of pockets of innovation in higher education. Instead, it suggested fringe adaptations occurring in most colleges. The only colleges resisting the need to change delivery methods and scheduling, for instance, are some very small traditional private colleges and some larger public institutions. Rather than being truly innovative, the changes occurring within this sample of colleges and universities appear to align more with Christensen’s examples of businesses that make minor adjustments to their products, which continue to become more complex, elaborate, and expensive. A few of the most innovative colleges in this study may represent disruptive innovators. They do not offer a full repertoire of campus life, do not offer a full complement of academic programs, do not encourage faculty research outside the realm of teaching, and do not seek to attract the top performing traditional aged students.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 139

These few institutions are larger and newer than the average in this study. If their names were revealed, those in traditional higher education may scoff at them, and consider them not worthy of further consideration. There are very few of these institutions, though. Of the 80 colleges in this sample, only four scored at 20 or above in the innovation rubric. (Conversely, there were fifteen that scored below 10.) The top innovators were not those many might expect – they were a mixture of public and private and for-profit and not-for-profit. Similarly, the most traditional colleges were probably not of the profile anticipated when this study began – they, too, were a mixture of public and private, for-profit and not-for-profit, and US and non-US. Whether the innovative colleges existing today are the disruptive innovators referred to by Christensen remains to be seen. The implications for current higher education administrators, though, is that they must be aware that these innovators are out there, and, like it or not, and will soon be competing for the same students as the traditional colleges. Innovations in higher education have begun to move upstream given the publicity surrounding the Coursera and Udacity projects (MOOCs). Once the tier one institutions align themselves with nontraditional – and inexpensive – modes of educational delivery it is time for all college administrators to take note. This study was, of course, subject to limitations. First, the sample was limited to IACBE members, which may not be representative of the overall college and university population. For one thing, all of the IACBE schools have business programs which focus on student learning outcomes and continuous quality improvement. If anything, these parameters would make them somewhat less traditional than the total possible population. Second, the composition of schools in the sample reflected the overall proportions of IACBE member schools. This means there was a predominance of private not-for-profit colleges examined. Finally, the need for subject anonymity prevented a qualitative examination of the characteristics of the most and least innovative schools. Further qualitative research is needed in this area. The question of why the schools innovate needs to be explored. Is innovation driven by competitive necessity or an educational strategy? Is it reactive or proactive? Similarly, further research is necessary to determine why larger schools are more innovative than smaller schools. Is it because of necessity (i.e., technology and innovative scheduling are the only ways to accommodate the large enrollment)? Is it because size provides the financial strength to invest in the technology necessary? Or, most interesting, does the relationship run in the opposite direction: does innovation drive growth in these institutions? These questions are becoming increasingly important in the field of higher education. The last question this research sought to answer was whether the innovation being adopted by mainstream colleges and universities today is enough to protect them from the forces of disruptive innovation in the industry. This study did identify some highly innovative institutions, but, overall, most of the schools examined were simply making small adaptive changes to remain competitive. This is probably not enough for long- run sustainability. For the past few years, a great deal of attention is being paid to costs containment, outcomes, and affordability in higher education. The disruptive innovator who begins to offer low cost and high quality education has the potential of rendering many more traditional institutions obsolete.

REFERENCES

Bauerlein, M. (2012). Improving incentives to boost academic productivity. In Kauffman Foundation College 2.0: An entrepreneurial approach to reforming higher education (pp. 42-43). Kansas City, MO: Kauffman.

Bennett, D., Lucchesi, A., & Vedder, R. (2010). For-profit higher education: Growth, innovation and regulation. Washington, DC: Center for College Affordability and Productivity.

Brewer, D. & Tierney, W. (2011). Barriers to innovation in U.S. higher education. In B Wildavsky, A. Kelly, & K. Carey (Eds.), Reinventing higher education: The promise of innovation (pp. 11-40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

140 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Butler, S. (January 13, 2012). The coming higher-ed revolution. National Affairs, 10. Retrieved on January 20, 2012 from http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/01/the-coming-higher-ed- revolution.

Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. New York: HarperCollins.

Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw Hill.

Christensen, C. & Eyring, H. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Christensen, C., Horn, M., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (February 2011). Disrupting college: How disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Hentschke, G. (2011). For-profit sector innovations in business models and organizational cultures. In B Wildavsky, A. Kelly, & K. Carey (Eds.), Reinventing higher education: The promise of innovation (pp. 159-196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Kamenetz, A. (September 1, 2009). How web-savvy Edupunks are transforming American higher education. FastCompany. Retrieved May 22 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/138/who- needs-harvard.html.

Kamentetz, A. (2010). DIYU: Edupunks, edupeneurs, and the coming transformation of higher education. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

Kirschner, A. (April 8, 2012). Innovations in higher education? Hah! The Chronicle Review. Retrieved May 4, 2012 from http://chronicle.com/article/Innovations-in-Higher/131424/.

Lewin, T. (July 17, 2012). Universities reshaping education on the web. The New York Times. Retrieved July 17, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/education/.

Massey, W. (2011). Creative paths to boosting academic productivity. In B Wildavsky, A. Kelly, & K. Carey (Eds.), Reinventing higher education: The promise of innovation (pp. 73-100). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

McKendrick, J. (March 24, 2010). How creative destruction is altering the economics of higher education. SmartPlanet. Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://www.smartplanet/com/blog/business-brains/how- creative-destruction-is altering.com

McMahan, V., & Loyola, M. (May, 2011). College 2.0: Transforming higher education through greater innovation and smarter regulation. Washington DC: Institute for a Competitive Workforce.

OECD Education Ministers. (2006, June 27). Higher education: Quality, equity and efficiency. Retrieved May 11, 2012 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/7/36960580.pdf

Sheets, R., Crawford, S., & Soares, L. (March 28, 2012). Rethinking higher education models. Educause. Washington DC: Center for American Progress.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 141

Simon, C. (November 4, 2007). The weeklong semester. The New York Times. Retrieved August 3, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/education/edlife/

Soares, L., & Morgan, J. (June 29, 2011) Guiding innovation in higher education. American Progress. Retrieved May 22, 2012 from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/managing_innovation.html.

Stokes, P. (2011). What online learning can teach us about higher education. In B Wildavsky, A. Kelly, & K. Carey (Eds.), Reinventing higher education: The promise of innovation (pp. 197-224). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Wellman, J., & Soares, L. (September, 2011) Bringing business analytics to the college campus. Delta Project. Washington DC: Center for American Progress.

142 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Basic Issues in Teaching Foreign Language in the US: A Case Study of Cross-Cultural Communications

Camilla H. Wang Shantou University

Kathy Tian Beijing Foreign Studies University

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few years, the number of American college students learning Mandarin Chinese as a foreign or the second foreign language has kept growing. Instruction of Chinese at secondary schools has also developed rapidly since the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation provided generous grants to 60 high schools to teach Chinese in the 1980s. In the middle of first decade of 21st century, the Chinese Language Association for Secondary-Elementary Schools conducted a survey, and the 163 schools that responded reported a total enrollment of 16,091 students. The latest research suggests that there are more than 160,000 students attend weekend Chinese language schools in the United States (Tseng 2007). Most of those students have grown up in the United States and therefore have limited knowledge about Chinese culture. While most Mandarin Chinese language instructors are trained in China with limited knowledge about the American culture, the different teaching approaches in Chinese and Western cultures have created difficulties in classrooms for American students in learning Chinese (Custer 2010, Lombardi 2008). Based on the author’s observation, most problems facing both American students and Chinese teachers in a culturally diverse classroom can be traceable to cultural differences. In 2007, the College Board started offering Advanced Placement exams in Chinese for high school students. Almost 5,000 students took the exam in 2010, which is more than double the number from just four years earlier. To facilitate dialogue and coordination in the rapidly growing field of Mandarin Chinese language education in the US, the College Board and Asia Society have established the National Chinese Language Conference. The 2010 conference brought together U.S. and international leaders with nearly 1,000 participants from across K–16 education (College Board, 2012).

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 143

Hofstede (1986) indicates that interactions between teachers and learners from different cultures are fundamentally problematic and cross-cultural misunderstandings often occur because classroom interaction is an archetypal human phenomenon that is deeply rooted in the culture of a society. Accordingly, it is necessary for the Chinese language instructors to call upon cross-cultural awareness, appropriate pedagogical practice and intercultural communication skills to support the learning process. Communication is one of the most important functions to master in order for any instructors to succeed in today's increasingly interactively classroom environment, particularly for those who teach language cross culturally (Tian & Borges 2011). Cultural identity is an individual’s sense of self-derived from formal or informal membership in groups that transmit and inculcate knowledge, beliefs, values, attitudes, traditions, and ways of life. According to Daphne Jameson, cultural identity changes over time and evokes emotions. It is intertwined with power and privilege, affected by close relationships, and negotiated through communication. To complement past emphasis on understanding other cultures, the field of intercultural communication needs a stronger focus on understanding oneself. For Jameson a broad conception of cultural identity should not privilege nationality but instead should balance components related to vocation, class, geography, philosophy, language, and the social aspects of biology. The model of cultural identity suggested by Jameson highlights components directly related to business world, such as economic class and professional affiliation, and demonstrates how culture not only connects people but also defines them as unique individuals. This model can expand research and enrich teaching in intercultural communication (Jameson 2007).

CULTURAL IMPACT ON TEACHING AND LEARNING CHINESE

Anthropologists suggest that the continuum of culture runs from tradition-based to modern-based. This classification incorporates the related dimensions of economic and cultural boundaries. African, Asian, and Middle Eastern societies are categorized as tradition-based, being centralized, cooperative, agrarian, pre-industrialized systems. Economically, modern-based cultures are characterized as market- driven, competitive, post-industrialized economic systems. The United States, Canada, and other Western societies are examples of modern-based cultures. Regarding cultural boundaries, tradition-based cultures emphasize their history, traditions, and established conventions. By contrast, modern-based cultures have weaker ties to their history and traditions. Conventions are ever-shifting (Bandyopadhyay & Robicheaux 1993, Harris & Moran 1987). The cultural differences often function as barriers for cross-cultural communications. Education is a valuable tool for intercultural communication but it can just as easily lead to frustration and disillusionment if one is not careful. However, as Custer (2010b) indicates, while teaching Chinese to Americans might well lead to more trouble than teaching some other random subject. Most Americans would perceive that there is something ineffable about Chinese that makes it impossible for average people to learn. This type of perception exists even among students who are learning Chinese and have memorized characters or distinguished tones successfully in the past. In Custer’s scant year of teaching Chinese, she has had multiple students tell her that they are not physically capable of reproducing characters. They have functional hands and no problems with Chinese writing, so the suggestion is obviously preposterous, but it seems possible to them. After all, it is Chinese, some people, probably even most people, simply cannot do it. The field of teaching and learning Chinese as a second language has come a long way. During the seventeenth to early twentieth century, it was mostly Western Christian missionaries who wanted to learn Chinese. According to A. Ronald Walton (1997): The initial wave of intense national interest in Chinese happened in World War II, as American’s rather modest and haphazard dealings with China moved toward more pressing pragmatic concerns. The new wave arose during the 1980s after the normalization of relations between the People’s Republic of China and the United States. Apparently, the third wave structured in recent years due to the fast growing of national economies in China.

144 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Expertise in Chinese language and culture is vitally important as China becomes ever more influential in world affairs. The increasing number of students learning Chinese at all levels reflects a general recognition of the importance of acquiring Chinese language skills and cultural competence in order to enhance cross-cultural understanding and effective communication in the global community. By the end of last century, Timothy Light made a prediction that the coming century will be at least in part the “Chinese Century” if for no other reason than the sheer size of the economy of China and the influence that the enormous economic energy will have on all of the rest of the world (Light 1999). Today, we all have to agree that the prediction Light made has become true. The Mandarin Chinese classroom is not simply a language-training site but also a place where different cultures meet and interact. In the United States, the intent of these classrooms is to teach Chinese, and as experts in Chinese conversation, native Chinese speakers often take positions as teachers. As cultural beings, they take into their classrooms assumptions and values regarding what make good teachers and good students. However, native speakers’ values are not necessarily congruent with the assumptions and values brought into the classroom by their students. Communication barriers make it difficult for language students and teachers to identify these value differences, yet their affect on classroom interaction is persistent. The famous cultural expert Hofstede (1986 and 1991) offers a means of objectively quantifying and defining cultural attributes and their underlying values. An analysis of his definitions yields a rich framework that illustrates assumptions students and teachers have when they enter the Chinese classroom, and offers a foundation from which cultural understanding gaps can be bridged. Some international business experts suggest that values, norms, and characteristics embedded in advertising messages appear in various cultures to a greater or lesser degree (Mueller 1993). Therefore understanding the importance of cultural values in advertising has great practical value in business communication. Determining differences in cultural values should guide the formulation of international business communication strategies. Ignoring the cultural meaning embedded in advertising could lead to a misinterpretation of the firm's intended message. Such miscommunication is responsible for main businesses failing in international markets. What these international business experts discussed is fully applicable to language teaching and learning (Emery & Tian 2003). In the author’s opinion, teaching and learning Mandarin Chinese in the United States, in fact, is more than a language issue but the cultural interaction between the students and the instructor. It is in these classrooms that Chinese culture and the US culture come into contact, and according to Peter Newmark (1988), when cultures come into contact; words often borrowed from one language to another. This is true for the modern Chinese language, which has borrowed many American English words. For instance, Yuxiang Li (2005) identifies that there are many new words in modern Chinese borrowed the words and expressions from American English. These borrowed words or expressions ranged from daily life to politics, for instances:

Moreover, Li suggests that cultural diffusion is an important factor in vocabulary developing for languages, by borrowing from others will be able to enrich the target language. It is clear that cultural diffusion can make great contributions to cultural exchange by introducing new coinage or using synonym of native words to describe the cultural phenomenon. In addition, cultural diffusion could also

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 145

help establish some linguistic equivalence for each other language, and thus help to provide more common grounds for cross-cultural communications. Therefore, cultural diffusion helps people from different cultures can bring better communication outcomes and make people from various cultures know each other better. This type of cultural diffusion apparently will bring a more productive outcome for teaching and learning foreign languages (Li 2005).

TEACHING MANDARIN WITHIN THE CHINESE CULTURAL CONTENT

For many western businesspersons learning to speak Mandarin means more business opportunities because China is fast becoming a central global business hub. Among the public in China such as taxi drivers, at the airport or in restaurants it is not easy to find someone who speaks English. Therefore, speaking Mandarin for daily use is important in China, as it is in these basic conversations that “guanxi” (personal relationships or connections) occurs, which plays a crucial role when dealing with Chinese business people. However, it is very difficult, if not impossible for the Americans understand the meaning of “guanxi” without the Chinese cultural content. To anthropologists human beings are socio-cultural animals acquiring our social behaviors through learning (Tian 2000b). Culture is a deeply ingrained part of the very fiber of our being. Language is the basic means of communication among members of a culture and the most visible reflection of the culture. From this perspective, it is safe to say that to the process of teaching and learning a foreign language is the process of teaching and learning a foreign culture. Language is one of the significant factors of culture. Various languages reflect the difference of cultures they belong to. Taking food culture as an example, Li (2005) indicates that some Chinese flavors are blank in English, such as:

are all difficult to find exactly the same in English. Li suggests that one effective way to solve this problem is through cultural diffusion, borrowing. One culture-language can absorb exotic flavors of another culture-language, enriching itself and making later cross-cultural communication easier. It is interesting to find out that learning about Chinese culture can help students to understand their own society and that of others better. One of the authors has been a Mandarin teacher at various institutes in both Canada and the US, her basic purpose has been to design an effective Mandarin learning program for college students and others who need to speak Mandarin. An effective Mandarin learning program needs several key elements in order to achieve this goal. These elements include an easy method to pronounce Chinese sounds that are unfamiliar in English; an understanding of the way time is represented and how hierarchy is manifested in Chinese language and therefore culture. The author has designed some environment and events, such as Chinese New Year Celebration Party, to train her students learning Mandarin through doing things in the Chinese way. Her students learn to interact in Chinese through oral or written activities. By playing different roles in real life, for instance let some students play the role as parents and others as children, and then let them communicate in Mandarin, in this way the students will be able to practice vocabulary and build their language skills more efficiently. The authors share the same experience with Joy Wang, a Mandarin teacher at Seaholm High School, Birmingham, Michigan, that group role-playing is designed to create the Chinese social cultural content so that the students are able to present stories and reports about their personal experiences and events, which provide the students opportunities to express themselves in a meaningful Chinese way. The

146 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

instructor often Ask students to narrate past and future events based on visual cues gives them the cultural context to use hypothetical speech. The students participate in activities to learn about traditional and contemporary Chinese cultural practices, such as comparing the themes of different festivals and food, exploring the perspectives on Chinese culture presented in Chinese painting, retelling Chinese folk tales, and learning a popular Chinese song and analyzing its lyrics. It is through those Chinese cultural content the students are able to connect their Chinese language study with other disciplines by learning about Chinese history, geography, science, literature, arts, and math. Activities could include writing a research paper on famous Chinese and American historical figures and their contributions, creating a map depicting the major cities and products in China, or presenting other reports on topics of personal interest. To expand the students’ awareness of Chinese culture and society, the instructor encourages them to follow and gather news about current events in China (recorded in Tseng 2007:28).

CONCLUSION

In today’s world, more and more non-Chinese people are interested in learning Mandarin because of the increasingly expanding power of China through its fast economic growth in the world. The purpose that people learn Mandarin is for communication. As social animals, communication is very important for human beings, however no human communication can take place in a social vacuum but in a social environment that is culturally bounded. It is highly suggested that we cannot separate communication from culture; in fact communication is culture, while culture is communication. Teaching and learning Mandarin Chinese is in fact a cross-cultural communication, which refers to the contacts and interaction of different cultural backgrounds. People may not be able to decode appropriately messages encoded in one language-culture into another language-culture. Problems, such as cultural shock, misunderstandings, failure or breakdown may occur in cross-cultural communication often are beyond language itself. The ultimate purpose of teaching Mandarin is to train the students to be able to communicate successfully in Mandarin in cross-cultural situations. Mandarin Chinese teachers in the US should provide more opportunities of culture training for the students to cultivate their cross-cultural awareness and improve their cross-cultural communication ability. We shall learn to teach a foreign language in its social-cultural background, including the social rules of language use. Through social cultural content, students are able to learn about the differences and similarities between a foreign language and society and their own, and thus will be able to learn the language that they are learning better. Although there are many different effective ways in teaching students learning a foreign language the author suggest that to teach a foreign language within the culture frame of that culture is the most effective way to be adopted.

REFERENCES

Bandyopadhyay, S. & Robicheaux, R. (1993). The Impact of the Cultural Environment on Interfirm Communications. Journal of Marketing Channels. 3 (2) 59-82.

College Board (2011). “Tens of Thousands of US Students Learn Chinese Language and Culture through the College Board’s Chinese Guest Teacher Program.” Retrieved in Aug. 2012 from College Board website: http://press.collegeboard.org/releases/2011/tens-thousands-us-students-learn-chinese-language- and-culture-through-college-boards-chines

Custer, C. (2010a). “Will Americans Learn Chinese?”, Retrieved in July 2010 from ChinaGeeks website: http://chinageeks.org/2010/02/will-americans-learn-chinese/.

Custer C. (2010b) “Teaching Chinese (and China) in the United States”, retrieved in July 2010 from ChinaGeeks website: http://chinageeks.org/2010/05/teaching-chinese-and-china-in-the-united-states/

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 147

Emery, C. R. & Tian, R. G. (2003). The Effect of Cultural Differences on the Effectiveness of Advertising Appeals: A Comparison between China and the US. Transformations in Business & Economics. Vol.2, No.1 (3) 48-59.

Harris, P.R. & Moran, R.T. (1987). Managing Cultural Differences. 2nd ed. Houston: Gulf. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Hofstede, G. (1986) ‘Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning’. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 10, pp. 301-320.

Jameson, D. (2007). Reconceptualizing Cultural Identity and Its Role in Intercultural Business Communication. Journal of Business Communication. 44, pp. 199-235

Li, Yuxiang (2005). “ Cross-cultural Communication in Chinese Language Teaching”. Sino-US Chinese Teaching, Volume 2, No.5, pp. 1-5.

Light, Timothy (1999). Mapping the Course of the Chinese Language Field, Madeline Chu (ed. ) Honolulu: Chinese Language Teachers Association Monograph, No. 3, 1999.

Lombardi, Kate S. (2008). “More School Districts Look to Hire Teachers of Chinese”, retrieved in July 2010 from the New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/01chinesewe.html?pagewanted=1&fta=y

Mueller, Barbara (1992). Standardization vs. Specialization: An Examination of Westernization in Japanese Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research. Vol. 32 (January /February): pp.15-24.

Newmark, Peter(1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.

Tian, K and Borges, L. (2011). Cross-Cultural Issues in Marketing Communications: An Anthropological Perspective in International Business. International Journal of China Marketing, Vol. 2 (1), 110-126.

Tian, R. G. (2000a) Understanding Consumer Behavior: Psycho-Anthropological Approach. North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 2, no. 2, 273-279.

Tian, R. G. (2000b) The Implications of Rights to Culture in Trans-national Marketing: An Anthropological Perspective. High Plains Applied Anthropologist, 20(2), 135-145.

Tseng, Miao-fen (2007). AP Chinese Language and Culture: Teacher’s Guide. The College Board.

Walton, A. Ronald, (1997) “The NFLC Guide for Basic Chinese Language Programs”, Cornelius C. Kubler (ed.) Columbus, Ohio: National Foreign Language Resource Center, Ohio State University.

148 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

The Effect of Critical Thinking Instruction on Graduates of a College of Business Administration

Phyllis R. Anderson Governors State University

Joanne R. Reid Corporate Development Associates, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Critical thinking is an essential component of education, and it is an important life skill that everyone should acquire (Case, 2005; Giancarlo, Blohm, & Urdan, 2004). Critical thinking has been defined as, “… the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome” (Halpern, 1998, p. 450). Reid defined it as, “The conjunction of knowledge, skills, and strategies that promotes improved problem solving, rational decision making and enhanced creativity” (2009, October). There is ample evidence that this essential knowledge and skill set is not being taught or being acquired (Helsdingen, Bosch, Gog, & Merriënboer, 2010; Marin & Halpern, 2011; Orr et al., 2011a, 2011b; Stupnisky, Renaud, Daniels, Haynes, & Perry, 2008; Willingham, 2007). Devore (2008) reported that, although employers expected that graduates of colleges of business had been taught to think critically, 87% of business school graduates had received no training in these essential business skills. A recent survey of business managers and corporate-suite executives were overwhelmingly unimpressed with the skills acquired by business school graduates (Woods-Bagot, 2012). Leading their list of unacquired skills was problem-solving and critical thinking, along with the inability to work with others. Avrum and Roksa have shown that students in colleges of business administration achieve the lowest scores of all students in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Arum & Roksa, 2011, p. 104). Further, “We find that individual post-college experiences track with performance at the end of college on an evaluation of their higher-order generic skills measured with the Collegiate Learning Assessment” (Arum, Cho, Kim, & Roksa, 2012, p. abstract).

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 149

At the 2010 MBAA International Conference, we reported a quasi-experimental pedagogical investigation involving 55 graduating seniors from a Midwestern college of business administration (Anderson & Reid, 2010, March). Our instructional model was Teaching for Critical Thinking developed by Diane Halpern (1998). Within this context, she proposed a “… model for teaching Critical Thinking skills so they will transfer across domains of knowledge …” consisting of four constituent elements, as shown in Figure 1, Concept Map of Teaching for Critical Thinking (1998, p. 451). The first component of the TCT pedagogical strategy was the dispositional or attitudinal element. The second was instruction in and practice of critical thinking skills. The third component was structure training to facilitate transfer across contexts or domains. Finally, a metacognitive component was used to direct and assess thinking.

FIGURE 1 CONCEPT MAP OF TEACHING FOR CRITICAL THINKING MODEL

Motivation Instruction in CT Skills Attention Relevance Self-Awareness Confidence Methods of proof Satisfaction Pseudo proofs Problem Solving/ Decision Making

Structure Training Metacognitive Training In-depth practice to recognize and use Knowledge and Critical Thinking skills training to develop in multiple contexts. recognition of need to activate Critical

Thinking processes

The instructional design model we used was that of Foshay, Silber, and Stelnicki (2003). Borrowing heavily from Merrill (2002, 2007), and from Clark (Clark, Yates, Early, & Moulton, 2006; Kirshner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006), Foshay, Silber, and Stelnicki wrote Writing Training Materials That Work: How to Train Anyone to Do Anything. In this book, they describe a five-step model of instructional design that provides a parallel construction to Halpern’s model. This model is shown in Table 1. The Cognitive Training Model [CTM] (2003, p. 29)

150 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

TABLE 1 THE COGNITIVE TRAINING MODEL

Learners Must Do This to Learn Trainers Put These Elements in Lessons to Help Learners 1. Select the Information to Attend to: Attention: Gain & focus learner’s attention on the new Heighten attention and focus it on new knowledge being knowledge. taught because that new knowledge is seen as important WIIFM: What’s In It For Me? and capable of being learned YCDI: You can do it. 2. Link the New Information to the Existing Recall existing knowledge Knowledge Put the new knowledge into an existing framework by Relate the new knowledge and the old knowledge. recalling existing / old knowledge related to the new knowledge and linking it to the old. 3. Organize the Information Structure of Content. Organize new knowledge in such a way that matches the Objectives. organization already in mind for related existing Chunking. knowledge to make it easier to learn, cut mental Text Layout. processing time, minimize confusion, and stress only Illustrations. relevant information. 4. Assimilate the New Knowledge into Existing Present New Knowledge. Knowledge Integrate the new knowledge into the old knowledge so Present Examples. they combine to produce a new unified, expanded and reorganized set of knowledge 5. Strengthen the New Knowledge in Memory. Practice. Strengthen the new knowledge so that it will be Feedback. remembered and can be brought to bear in future job and Summary. learning situations. Test. On-the-job application.

We used two different assessments to determine the acquisition of CT skills and of transfer between domains. The primary assessment instrument was the California Critical Thinking Skills Test, which was administered as a pre-test/post-test to the experimental groups and as a post-test to the control group. The secondary assessment was a series of 10-question, T/F quizzes provided by Halpern and Rizzio (2003), which were administered in a pre-test/post-test format with each chapter of the text. These quizzes were developed for use in conjunction with Halpern’s book Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum, which was the critical thinking textbook in this treatment (1997a). We used chapter exams derived from Halpern and Riggio to assess learning. The researcher graded these exams and provided them to the instructor. These exams represented five percent of the students’ overall grade. The authors developed a third set of assessments to teach the students to use critical thinking within the domain of business, while also providing structure training within the Halpern model. The business textbook contained many excellent case studies (Hill & Jones, 2009). We chose specific case studies, which emphasized the particular topics within that week’s critical thinking treatment. We developed a series of rubrics to be used to assess the student’s application of critical thinking to the case study. Since the students taking this course were graduating seniors, they were skilled in analyzing case studies. In these instances, not only were they to use SWOT analyses, financial analyses, and other business tools, but also apply the critical thinking skills from the chapter in their analyses. These critical thinking case studies represented another five percent of the students’ grade. A full semester case study on a particular company and a computerized business simulation represented forty percent and fifty percent of the student’s grade, respectively.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 151

The pedagogical treatment we developed consisted of 11 modules of approximately 1 hour of class time. This corresponded to one introductory module, nine book chapters of the Halpern text, and one wrap-up session. Each module, corresponding to a chapter in the Halpern text (1997a), contained the pre- test/post-test, True/False quiz; a computer-aided, multi-media assisted lecture; a discussion of the previous chapter assignment; a new chapter assignment; an examination on the content of the chapter; and a business case study. The pre-test of the T/F quiz was administered within the first five minutes of the class period. A copy of the PowerPoint lecture, the chapter assignment, chapter examination, post-test T/F quiz, and the business case study were emailed to each of the students. Students returned their examination, quiz, and case study by email prior to the following week’s class. The sample was of three sections of a senior level, capstone course in business administration, two of which were experimental and one was the control. The experimental group (n=34) contained only those students who completed the treatment, the CCTST pre-test, and the CCTST post-test. Twenty-one (n=21) students participated in the control class. Students in the control group and in the experimental group prior to receiving training in critical thinking skills achieved a percentile score of 36 in the CCTST, as compared to all other graduating seniors across the country who had taken this test. Students in the experimental group who completed the course in critical thinking, achieved percentile scores of 51, compared with other graduating seniors assessed with the same test of critical thinking skills. These results are shown in Table 2, Control v Experimental Classes.

TABLE 2 CONTROL V EXPERIMENTAL CLASSES

CCTST Control (n=21) Experimental (n=34) Pre-test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test Percentile * 36.2 36.3 50.7 Total Score * 14.5 14.6 16.9 Analysis * 3.8 4.0 4.4 Inference * 6.9 6.8 8.3 Evaluation * 3.8 3.6 4.3 Inductive * 8.2 8.1 9.4 Deductive * 6.3 6.1 7.5

These results were analyzed statistically to determine if there were significant differences in the pre- test/post-test scores. The results were also analyzed to determine Cohen’s d and the effect size, measured as r2. These results are shown in the Table 3, Summary of CCTST Pre-Test/Post-Test Statistics.

152 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF CCTST PRE-TEST/POST-TEST STATISTICS

Parameter t-Test Cohen’s d r2 Total Score T(33)=3.057, .534 22.07% Significant, α<.005 Medium Strong Percentile Score T(33)=4.600, .789 39.07% Significant, α<.005 Large V. Strong Analysis T(33)=1.521, .260 6.55% Not Significant Small Medium Inference T(33)=3.48, .598 25.85% Significant, α<.005 Medium Strong Evaluation T(33)=2.490, .427 15.82% Significant, α<.01 Medium Medium Inductive T(33)=3.730, .640 29.66% Significant, α<.005 Medium Strong Deductive T(33)=2.860, .491 19.87% Significant, α<.005 Medium Strong

We also analyzed the results of the 10-question, pre-test/post-test quizzes. As part of this analysis, we calculated Cohen’s d and r2. These results are shown in Table 4, Summary of Chapter Pre-Test/Post-Test Statistics.

TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER PRE-TEST/POST-TEST STATISTICS

Module t-Test Cohen’s d r2 1 –Introduction T(38)=2.72, .435 16.25% Significant, α<.005 Medium Strong 2 – Memory & T(30)=1.807 .324 9.81% Knowledge Significant, α<.05 Small Medium 3 – Thought & T(38) = 2.673 .428 15.82% Language Significant, α<.005 Medium Strong 4 – Deductive T(36) = 5.03 .827 41.30% Reasoning Significant, α<.005 Large V. Strong 5 – Analyzing T(37) = 3.224 .523 21.93% Arguments Significant, α<.005 Medium Strong 6 – Thinking as T(36) = 3.526 .580 25.67% Hypothesis Testing Significant, α<.005 Medium Strong 7 – Likelihood and T(32) = 3.736 .650 30.37% Uncertainty Significant, α<.005 Medium Strong 8 – Problem T(30) = 4.403 .790 39.25% Solving Significant, α<.005 Large V. Strong 9 – Decision T(27) = 1.996 .377 12.86% Making Significant, α<.05 Medium Medium Overall Score T(312) = 9.360 .535 22.28% Significant, α<.005 Medium Strong

We concluded that critical thinking was taught, was learned, and the skills acquired in the classroom were transferred from the domain of the classroom into the domains of the CCTST and of the business

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 153

case studies (Anderson & Reid, 2011, December, 2011, June, 2011, October; Reid & Anderson, 2011, March, 2012a, 2012b). This treatment was so successful that the educator continued to teach it for three more years. We now report the results of a summative study of the students who took this course and have since graduated. The purpose of this study was three-fold. First, we wanted to determine quantitatively the extent the knowledge, skills, and strategies taught in the treatment were transferred into the personal, academic, and professional lives of the graduates. Second, we wanted to determine the effects of the treatment on the satisfaction of the graduates. Finally, we wanted to determine the feelings and sensibilities of graduates reflecting on the critical thinking treatment and its effects upon them.

LITERATURE REVIEW

For a course of study to be effective, the skills, techniques, and philosophy must be transferred from the classroom and into the lives of the graduates. The problems of transfer have vexed educators and scholars. As all teachers have known since the beginning of instruction, if the lessons learned are not applied by the student, then the instruction did not pass the test of utility in the real world (Sophocles, 450 BCE). Gelder opines:

One of the biggest challenges in learning new skills, particularly general skills such as critical thinking, is the problem of transfer. In a nutshell, the problem is that an insight or skill picked up in one situation is not, or cannot be, applied in another situation. A transfer of acquired knowledge and skills certainly does occur to some extent; otherwise, education would be an exceedingly laborious business. The problem is that it happens much less than one might naively expect. (2005, p. 3)

Halpern and Hakel assert the goal of education is transfer of knowledge from the classroom into the real world.

The purpose of formal education is transfer. We teach students how to write, use mathematics, and think because we believe that they will use these skills when they are not in school. We need to always remember that we are teaching toward some time in the future when we will not be present - and preparing students for unpredictable real world “test” that we will not be giving - instead of preparing them for traditional midterm and final exams. (2003, p. 38)

The failure to transfer the knowledge, skills, and strategies from the classroom into the real world is expressed most eloquently by Halpern. “If we fail to address the fact that too many students leave our classrooms unable to transfer principles and understanding to new domains of knowledge, we will create a work force for tomorrow that is superbly prepared only for yesterday’s problems” (1997, p. 26). To determine whether a course of study was effective, the graduates must be surveyed to determine the extent, type, and conditions under which they use the instruction, and in which aspects of their lives they employ it. However, it is widely recognized that self-assessments are characteristically flawed. Kruger, and Dunning, and other authors have demonstrated that those in the lowest quintile on a variety of tests, consistently estimate their abilities and their scores to be in the fourth quintile (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, Dunning, & Kruger, 2008; Kruger & Dunning, 1999, 2002). Those who score in the fifth quintile consistently rate their performance in the fourth quintile. Further research demonstrated that training in critical thinking, of which metacognition is a part, improves the capacities of persons responding to surveys such as ours. In 1999, Kruger and Dunning trained underachieving students to evaluate their own performance, increasing their personal metacognition. These students improved their ability to differentiate their correct answers from their

154 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

incorrect answers, concurrently improving their performance (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Subsequently, they demonstrated similar performance improvements using different tests and controls (Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, Dunning, & Kruger, 2008). Finally, Helsdingen, Bosch, Gog, and Merriënboer reported that soldiers trained in critical thinking demonstrated improved command and control decision-making, employing these skills in a variety of situations. They concluded that participants demonstrated deeper understanding of problems enabling them to solve new problems different from those in the training courses (2010). These miscalculations in both relative and absolute scores were related to the individual’s metacognition of their actual abilities. By improving the participants’ skills and their metacognitive awareness, they recognized their limitations and improved their ability to estimate their relative and absolute scores. Since one of the outcomes of the critical thinking pedagogical treatment for students is improved metacognition, then we would like to believe that the self-evaluations reported by the graduates were close approximations of their actual status. However, since we cannot be sure, we sought confirmation. Facione (1990b) conducted a Delphi study, in which 46 experts determined the cognitive skills, dispositional dimensions, and assessments that could be used to measure critical thinking. The results generated by this panel led to the development of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione, Facione, Blohm, & Gittens, 2008; Facione, 1990a), the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (Facione, 1992), the Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric (Facione, 1994), and the California Measure of Mental Motivation (Giancarlo & Facione, 2000) among others. In that Delphi study, the panelists agreed on four different methods that could be used to assess a person’s critical thinking skills:

In theory there are several ways persons can be judged to be more or less proficient in a given CT skill or at the integrated use of related CT skills.... A third way is to query persons and receive their descriptions of the procedures and judgments they are using as they exercise that skill, would use if they were to perform that skill, or did use when they performed that skill. (p. 31)

In our survey, we included a qualitative component to each of the specific questions. Further, our survey contained three additional questions requesting the graduates’ opinions of the strengths, weaknesses, and potential modifications to the course. One use of these answers is strictly qualitative, i.e. to obtain new insights or explore alternate avenues. We used the graduates’ descriptions of the procedures and judgments they reported as assessments of their acquisition and use of the knowledge, skills, and strategies taught in the critical thinking treatment, in accordance with the third of Facione’s assessment methods. By using subject matter experts to judge the graduates’ responses, we could determine if they were consistent with the principles inculcated in the critical thinking course of study. If the respondents were determined to have used inductive or deductive reasoning processes, including the development of rules, the development of arguments, or the use of disconfirming evidence, while avoiding fallacious arguments and language, then they will be judged to have used critical thinking when providing their Likert-scale response. Thereby, the respondent’s qualitative responses would be used validate the respondent’s quantitative responses. We have included such descriptions submitted by the graduates, and the subject matter experts’ judgments to confirm the transfer of critical thinking from the classroom into their personal, academic, and personal lives and to confirm their perceived levels of satisfaction with the pedagogical treatment.

METHOD

We obtained valid contact information for 71 graduates. These graduates became the population for this study. Of these, twenty-nine responded, a 41% return. These respondents were our sample. We developed a survey to provide both quantitative and qualitative information concerning the pedagogical treatment. We used two questions used for screening purposes. Eleven of our questions were

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 155

quantitative, based on a 7-point Likert scale. On this scale, 1 was the worst/least/lowest possible score, 7 the best/most/highest possible score, and 4 was defined as neutral. We used this scale to calculate the effects of transfer from the classroom into the lives of the graduates. This relationship is shown in Figure 2, Seven-Point Likert Scale.

FIGURE 2 SEVEN-POINT LIKERT SCALE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Worst Worse Bad Neutral Good Better Best

We also included qualitative components in these eleven questions, in which respondents were asked to provide their opinions on the subject posed by the question. In addition, three questions were qualitative, asking for the graduate’s opinions on the best and worst parts of the critical thinking treatment, as well as any suggestions for changing, improving, or modifying the treatment. We tabulated the surveys in a spreadsheet, and performed statistical analyses to obtain the median and standard deviation. We calculated Cohen’s d to determine the effect size. Since the mean of the survey question was defined by the Likert scale, we performed a Z-test on the responses to determine quantitatively the transfer and use of critical thinking knowledge, skills, and strategies by graduates in their personal, educational, and professional lives.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Pre-Graduation vs. Post-Graduation Questions We asked four questions to explore the opinions of the graduates when they were students as different from their opinions now that they are graduates and working professionals. In the first pair, we explored their opinions regarding their overall opinion of the critical thinking treatment itself. The second pair of questions, we explored their opinions regarding their perceived need to learn to think critically.

Questions 1 and 3: Opinion of the Critical Thinking Treatment First, we asked the graduates, “At the time you took the unit of instruction in critical thinking, what was your opinion of the critical thinking component in general?” Their mean scores as students were 4.93 with a standard deviation of 1.47, a statistically significant result (Z=3.28, p=.0005). The effectiveness of the pedagogical treatment was measured by computing Cohen’s d, which was found to be .63, a medium effect size. In the third question, we asked, “Since the time you took the unit of instruction in critical thinking, what is your opinion of critical thinking module in general?” The mean scores for this question was 5.41 with a standard deviation of 1.60, which is significant, Z=4.57, p<.00003. The effectiveness of the pedagogical treatment was measured by computing Cohen’s d, which was found to be .88, a large effect size. There was a difference in the means of the responses to the pre-course Question 3 and the post-course Question 5. When this difference were subjected to further statistical analysis, we found it was significant (Z=1.71, p=.045). We interpreted the results as revealing that, upon retrospection, the graduates’ opinions of the critical thinking treatment had improved significantly in comparison with their opinions of the treatment as undergraduates.

Questions 2 and 4: Opinion of Their Need to Learn to Think Critically In the second question, we asked the graduates, “At the time you took the unit of instruction in critical thinking, what was your opinion of your need to learn critical thinking skills and techniques?” The mean

156 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

score for this question was 4.67 with a standard deviation of 1.66. This result was statistically significant, Z=2.08, p=.019. Cohen’s d was .40, a medium effect size. In the fourth question, we asked, “Since the time you took the unit of instruction in critical thinking, what is your opinion of the critical thinking module in general?” The mean score for this question was 5.63 with a standard deviation of 1.52. This result was statistically significant, Z=5.56, p<.00003. Cohen’s d was 1.07, an extremely large effect size. Again, we subjected the means of questions 2 and 4 to further statistical analyses. We found that the means were significantly different (Z=3.28, p= .005). Therefore, we concluded with confidence, that upon reflection, the graduates were significantly more cognizant of their need to learn to think critically than they were as ignorant undergraduates confident of their own capabilities while not looking forward to the prospects of additional work in a class.

Qualitative Confirmation of Pre-Post Graduation Responses R1 wrote, “Everyone needs to learn critical thinking skills. Our younger generations have no clue of how to think for themselves. They don’t know how to communicate. How you respond when you are face to face with someone is critical. I’m currently going into Nursing; this field requires a person to use critical thinking.” This is a simple argument, with the conclusion, “everyone needs to learn critical thinking skills.” The respondent used communications premises primarily, with a strong premise from the domain of nursing to support the conclusion. The development of this argument indicates the use of inductive reasoning. The creation of arguments through the use of deductive reasoning is a key component of the critical thinking process. R2 wrote, “I really needed to change the way I thought about life in general. This course helped change my life. I returned to school, finished my degree, and (am) now currently working in the medical field that I tried to go into 20 years ago. My critical thinking skills have helped develop me into a wiser person.” R2 created an argument, concluding that CT had changed his/her life, with the supporting premises of the return to school, completion of the degree, and current profession. The development of this argument indicated the use of inductive reasoning. The creation of arguments through the use of deductive reasoning is a key component of the critical thinking process. R3 wrote, “The critical thinking course required much effort on my part. But, as I progressed through the material, I realized how useful it was, and (it) would make me a smarter decision maker.” R3 developed an argument, concluding s/he was a smarter decision maker with premises involving hard work, study, and retrospection. The development of this argument indicated the use of inductive reasoning. The creation of arguments through the use of deductive reasoning is a key component of the critical thinking process. R4 wrote, “Before I took [the] CT course, I was a firm believer that common sense was something that just could not be taught. After taking the course, I am a firm believer that it can be taught by using good old fashion logic and critical thinking.” R4 created the argument that s/he had been wrong, citing premises of logic and critical thinking to provide a basis for learning common sense. The development of this argument indicated the use of inductive reasoning. This argument also utilized disconfirming evidence to deny a previous conclusion and to support the new one. The use of disconfirming evidence to develop a argument through the use of deductive reasoning along with the testing of that argument are key components of the critical thinking process. The subject matter experts determined these responses were representative of, or congruent with, the knowledge, skills, or strategies the graduates learned in the CT treatment.

Academic/Education Question Question 5: Graduates’ Use of Critical Thinking in Other Courses In this question, we asked the graduates, “Since the time you took the unit of instruction in critical thinking, have you used critical thinking skills and techniques in other classes or courses of study?” The mean score for this question was 5.32 with a standard deviation of 1.52, which is significant, Z=3.78, p=.00007. Cohen’s d was .87, a large effect size. We deduced that the critical thinking treatment was

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 157

extremely beneficial, otherwise the students would not be using it in other classes. We concluded, with an extremely high degree of confidence, that the students had used critical thinking in subsequent classes and that transfer had occurred.

Qualitative Confirmation of Educational Question Responses Again, we confirmed our conclusions with the graduates’ qualitative responses, as follows. R1 wrote, “I utilized this instruction through my two years at (university) and graduated Summa Cum Laude, with a 4.0 GPA.” R1’s argument concluded that s/he had achieved a 4.0 GPA, based on the premise that s/he had taken the CT course. The development of this argument indicates an attempt to use inductive reasoning. The creation of arguments through the use of deductive reasoning is a key component of the critical thinking process. However, this is a weak argument. R2 wrote, “I wish I could say every class required it, but one class that helped was Economics.” This respondent differentiated between the utility of CT in different academic courses, using an argument and deductive reasoning. The development of this argument indicated the use of inductive reasoning, as well as the use of disconfirming evidence to provide a limiting premise for the argument. The creation of arguments through the use of deductive reasoning as modified by disconfirming evidence, are a key component of the critical thinking process. R3 opined, “One class that used some more thought to solve problems is Statistics.” Similarly, R3 argued that, although CT was not universally applicable, it was valuable in the study of statistics. The development of this argument indicated the use of inductive reasoning, as well as the use of disconfirming evidence to provide a limiting premise for the argument. The creation of arguments through the use of deductive reasoning as modified by disconfirming evidence, are a key component of the critical thinking process. R4 wrote, “... any student can benefit from the critical thinking techniques found in this course. I recommend the instruction of critical thinking to all students wishing to become better decision makers.” R4 concluded that to become a better thinker, a person should take a course in critical thinking. The development of this argument indicated the use of inductive reasoning. The creation of arguments through the use of deductive reasoning is a key component of the critical thinking process. The subject matter experts determined these responses were representative of, or congruent with, the knowledge, skills, or strategies the graduates learned in the CT treatment. Thereby, they validated the quantitative results with the graduate’s qualitative responses.

Profession/Career Question Question 6: Graduates’ Use of Critical Thinking in Their Career or Profession We asked the important question, “Since the time you took the unit of instruction in critical thinking, have you used critical thinking skills and techniques at work?” The mean score for this question was 5.26 with a standard deviation of 1.56, which is significant, Z=4.19, p<.00003. Cohen’s d, was .81, a large effect size. We deduced that the critical thinking treatment was extremely beneficial, otherwise the graduates would not be using it in their work. We concluded with an extremely high degree of confidence that the graduates transferred the critical thinking knowledge, skills, and strategies from the pedagogical treatment into their professions or careers.

Qualitative Confirmation of Profession/Career Question Responses We confirmed our conclusions with the graduates’ qualitative responses, as follows. R1 wrote, “To my surprise, forecasting and inventory control and things of that nature requires a lot of critical thinking skills.” R1 expressed incredulity that the material learned in the critical thinking course was of use in business. Thereafter, R1 used the premises of forecasting, inventory control, and other business skills as disconfirming evidence, leading to the conclusion that CT was required in business. The development of this argument indicated the use of inductive reasoning, as well as the use of disconfirming evidence to provide a limiting premise for the argument. The creation of arguments

158 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

through the use of deductive reasoning as modified by disconfirming evidence, are key components of the critical thinking process. R2 wrote, “It helps deciding many factors such as staffing needs, budgets, purchasing, and many more aspects of my job.” R2 similarly argued for the acquisition of CT, citing premises of staffing needs, budgets and purchasing as premises. The development of this argument indicated the use of inductive reasoning. The creation of arguments through the use of deductive reasoning is a key component of the critical thinking process. R3 wrote, “Yes ... I sometimes have to do projections in our Fixed Asset System, and the software lets me do a trial and error approach to different ‘what if’ scenarios.” R3 created an argument for the acquisition of CT, developing premises of the acquisition and use of problem-solving or decision-making skills. The creation of arguments through the use of deductive reasoning is a key component of the critical thinking process. R4 wrote, “The best part of the critical thinking was being able to go through a process to solve problems that required more thought than just assuming the right answer.” R4 argued for the acquisition of CT, premising problem-solving or decision making, including seeking disconfirming evidence. The creation of arguments through the use of deductive reasoning and testing the argument using disconfirming evidence, is a key component of the critical thinking process. The subject matter experts determined these responses were representative of, or congruent with, the knowledge, skills, or strategies the graduates learned in the CT treatment. In so doing, they validated the quantitative results with the graduate’s qualitative responses.

Personal Questions In the next five questions, we asked how the critical thinking treatment had affected the graduates at a personal level. Three of the questions involved the graduate’s interactions with others; two required their introspection to determine reasons for changes they observed in their interpersonal activities.

Personal 1: Daily Life When we asked graduates, “Since the time you took the unit of instruction in critical thinking at the University, have you used critical thinking skills and techniques in your daily life?” their responses were overwhelming in the affirmative. The mean score for this question was 5.78 with a standard deviation of 1.12, which was statistically significant, Z=8.24, p<<.00001. Cohen’s d was 1.67, an extraordinarily large effect size. This extraordinarily positive result indicates that the graduates were transferring the knowledge, skills, and strategies acquired in the classroom into their daily lives. Further, the fact that they are using these skills is an extremely positive indicator of the need for such training. If these skills were not needed, the graduates would not be using them.

Personal 2: Interactions with Others In the next question, we asked, “Has the unit of instruction in critical thinking you took while at the University affected the way you interact with others?” Again, the responses were enthusiastic, with the mean score of 5.26 with a standard deviation of 1.58. This result was statistically significant, Z=4.13, p<.00003. Cohen’s d was .80, a large effect size. We concluded with a high degree of confidence that the critical thinking knowledge, skills, and strategies very positively affected the graduates’ inter-personal relationships.

Personal 3: Perceptions of the World In the next question, we asked, “Has taking a unit of instruction in critical thinking you took while at the University affected your perceptions of the world around you?” The mean score for this question was 5.48 with a standard deviation of 1.55, which was statistically significant, Z=4.96, p<.00003. Cohen’s d was .95, a very large effect size. This extremely positive result indicates that the graduates not only were transferring the knowledge, skills, and strategies acquired in the classroom into their daily lives, but also using it in their personal perception of the world around them. This is an extremely positive indicator of

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 159

the need for such training. Graduates have modified their worldview, using critical thinking skills at the most basic human level.

Personal 4: Perceptions of Oneself In the penultimate question, we asked each of the graduates, “Has taking a unit of instruction in critical thinking you took while at the University affected your perceptions of yourself?” The mean score for this question was 4.85 with a standard deviation of 1.85, which is significant, Z=2.39, p=.008. Cohen’s d was .46, a medium effect size. Although positive, this result was more reserved than the responses of the graduates in the previous three questions.

Personal 5: Personal Changes In the final question, we asked the graduates, “Has the unit of instruction in critical thinking you took while at the University changed you in any way?” These results were similar to those of the previous question. The mean score for this question was 4.93 with a standard deviation of 1.71. This result was statistically significant, Z=2.82, p=.002. Cohen’s d was .54, a medium effect size. Although we concluded that the positive results indicated the graduates were aware of changes in their perspective, at least in part attributing them to their perceptions of self, we were concerned with the differences in the scores of the first three of the personal questions as compared with the last two questions. We tested the means of these five questions to determine if they were statistically different. We found that the mean of Personal 1 was significantly different from Personal 4 (Z=4.29, p<.00003) and significantly different from Personal 5 (Z=3.95, p=.00005). Similarly, Personal 3 was significantly different from Personal 4 (Z=2.11, p=.017), and also from Personal 5 (Z=1.86, p=.034). These results confirmed our observations, but did not help us to determine the reasons for the cognitive dissonance the graduates are reporting. Is it possible that the graduates are very satisfied with their external interactions, including their daily lives, perceptions and interactions, while less satisfied with the changes in themselves? Do they view their own changes as a necessary price to be paid for changes in other aspects of their lives? Is this just an expression of modesty, false modesty, or reticence to admit to being pleased with the changes they have experienced? Perhaps the changes that the graduates have experienced have been sufficiently slow and gradual, that they did not realize that they had changed or that their perceptions had changed. As such, intimations that they have been changed by the critical thinking treatment may not be as satisfying as their changes in external relations. They might even be ashamed, viewing their changes as a necessary price to be paid for changes in other aspects of their lives. Regardless, this is an interesting phenomenon, which deserves to be studied.

Qualitative Confirmation of Personal Question Responses We confirmed our conclusions with the graduates’ qualitative responses, as follows. R1 wrote, “It helps me look outside the box for other answers/solutions to decisions I need to make.” R1 used the creative strategy of a change of perspective, leading to new methods of solving problems or the making of decisions. The use of creative strategies is the ultimate level of the critical thinking process. R2 stated, “I see the world differently. Instead of going for the surface, I tend to go deeper and look to the core.” R2 used inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and argument to detect, evaluate, and understand meaning, rather than accept surface appearance. This is also an example of the use of disconfirming evidence used to seek alternate arguments to those obvious on the surface. The creation of arguments through the use of deductive and inductive reasoning, as modified by disconfirming evidence, is a key component of the critical thinking process. R3 opined, “It usually only takes me a moment to recognize when someone lacks the ability to respond with a logical reply.” R3 combined language skills and argument to analyze the cogency of other people’s responses. Analyzing words and arguments to determine fallacies is an important aspect of the critical thinking process. R4 admitted, “I am not saying that I am not naïve anymore, but I know I am a lot less naïve now.” This was easily the most insightful of all the responses we received. R4 recognized that s/he had acquired

160 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

skills, but was not yet an expert in their use. Such a nuanced analysis is an excellent example of the critical thinking process. R5 noted, “I try to analyze a situation from a different point of view when necessary.” R5 referred to the use of creative skills taught to develop new perspectives in solving problems or making decisions. Creative thinking is the highest level in the critical thinking process. R6 wrote, “I have always been known as a person who thinks a lot what to do before I do things, but after I took this course it had help me a lot. I not only think before I do things, but now I think everything in a different perspective.” R6 used deductive reasoning to develop an argument. The argument posited before and after states of taking the CT course. R6 conclude that s/he was acting more creatively, because of the application of critical thinking skills. This is an example of the use of deductive reasoning to create a logical argument, both of which are key components in the critical thinking process. R7 summarized his/her experience, as follows, “The best part of the critical thinking treatment was breaking apart ideas that were held to be ‘truth’ and finding out there are holes in that belief and possibly no validity to them.” R7 used inductive and deductive reasoning methods, including examples of pseudo- arguments, to seek out disconfirming evidence to invalidate previously held convictions. Each of these is components of the critical thinking process. Together, they demonstrate a degree of mastery of that process. Each of these responses was representative of, or congruent with the knowledge, skills, or strategies the graduates learned in the critical thinking treatment. We determined these responses were representative of, or congruent with, the knowledge, skills, or strategies the graduates learned in the CT treatment.

Aggregate Finally, the values of all the responses for all the questions were aggregated, and analyzed in the same manner was were the responses from individual questions. The mean score for the aggregate sum of all the questions was 5.22 with a standard deviation of 1.57. This result was statistically significant, Z=12.05, p<<.00001. Cohen’s d was .77, a large effect size. We concluded that the aggregated total of all the responses from all of the graduates demonstrated transfer of the critical thinking knowledge, skills, and strategies from the pedagogical treatment into every aspect of their lives. The results of this quantitative survey are shown in Table 5, Statistics for Quantitative Questions.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 161

TABLE 5 STATISTICS FOR QUANTITATIVE QUESTIONS

Mean S.D. Z-Score Cohen’s d Q1 4.93 1.47 Z=3.28 .63 Significant, p=.0005 Medium

Q2 4.67 1.66 Z=2.08 .40 Significant, p=.019 Medium

Q3 5.41 1.52 Z= 4.57 .88 Significant, p<.00003 Large

Q4 5.63 1.52 Z=5.56 1.07 Significant, p<.00003 Huge

Education 5.32 1.52 Z=3.78 .87 Significant, p=.00007 Large

Work 5.26 1.56 Z=4.20 .81 Significant, p<.00003 Large

Personal 1 5.78 1.12 Z=8.24 1.59 Significant, p<<.00001 Huge

Personal 2 5.26 1.58 Z=4.13 .80 Significant, p<.00003 Large

Personal 3 5.48 1.55 Z=4.96 .95 Significant, p<.00003 Large

Personal 4 4.85 1.85 Z=2.38 .46 Significant, p=.008 Medium

Personal 5 4.93 1.71 Z=2.82 .54 Significant, p=.002 Medium

Aggregate 5.18 1.59 Z=12.81 .74 Significant, p<<.00001 Large

CONCLUSION

Our study has shown that the pedagogical treatment was extremely successful in transferring the knowledge, skills, and strategies of critical thinking from the classroom into a variety of environments. Graduates report statistically significant transfers of critical thinking from the classroom and into their personal lives, their jobs, and their education. The graduates described their use of critical thinking in their personal, academic, and professional lives. These descriptions and reasoning were congruent with the critical thinking model taught in the pedagogical treatment. Their descriptions of the knowledge, skills, and strategies they were using in their personal, academic, and professional lives confirmed that they were using what they had learned, thereby acting as an appropriate assessment of their abilities and capabilities. It might be argued that the qualitative responses simply reflect the quantitative results, in that the respondents might presume the desired responses sought by the survey. There was no evidence of bias inherent in the results, while there is ample evidence that the graduates were well considered in their responses.

162 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Supporting Argument 1 First, in pairs of Questions 1 & 3 and Questions 2 & 4, the graduates clearly differentiated between their opinions of the critical thinking treatment before they had taken it and their opinions some time later and after graduation. The difference between the means of the pairs of pre-post graduation was statistically significantly for both pairs of questions. This evidence, combined with that of their qualitative responses, indicate the graduates took the time and effort to critically assess their states of mind, and that they responded accordingly.

Supporting Argument 2 This line of reasoning is further supported by the observations of the graduates. It must be remembered that these graduates had taken this course one to four years prior to this survey. If the knowledge, skills, or techniques taught in a course of study are not used by the student, then they are quickly forgotten. Yet, these practicing professionals, often several years removed from school, asserted that they are using critical thinking. Furthermore, they supported their responses with words, phrases and examples that were consistent with the critical thinking processes as contained in the pedagogical treatment.

Supporting Argument 3 Further, we see a statistically significant differentiation between the graduates’ responses regarding their interactions with others and their perceptions of themselves. If they were attempting to provide responses that were perceived to be the desired ones, would they not have provided similar, strongly positive responses to questions regarding personal changes as they had towards interpersonal ones? Their qualitative responses are clear and explicit explanations of their use of critical thinking, and the situations in which they use it. The graduates even recognize their limitations or inconsistencies in their use of critical thinking, which is a clear demonstration of their reasoning ...the final proof of their critical thinking acumen. Earlier in this paper, we quoted that the purpose of education is transfer (Halpern & Hakel, 2003, p. 38). The graduates who responded to this survey have confirmed clearly and unambiguously that they have transferred knowledge, skills, and strategies they learned as undergraduates into their personal, educational, and business lives. Based on this evidence, we conclude that our critical thinking pedagogical treatment is an outstanding success.

FUTURE STUDIES

We have concluded that graduates who had received the pedagogical treatment in critical thinking had transferred the knowledge, skills, and strategies from the classroom environment into their personal, academic, or professional lives. Since the goal of education is transfer of knowledge from the classroom into the person’s real life, we also concluded that our critical thinking pedagogical treatment was successful. However, several aspects of this study have not yet been considered. When we considered the results of the personal questions, the graduates were very positive in asserting that they had transferred critical thinking into their daily lives, their interactions with others, and their perception of the world. Yet, the graduates demurred from concluding that the critical thinking treatment had changed them as individuals. Statistical analyses confirmed that these differences, but did not help us to determine the reasons for the apparent cognitive dissonance. What is the reason for the cognitive dissonance the graduates are reporting? Since the graduates report significant differences in their daily lives, their perceptions of the world, and their interactions with others, to what do they attribute these differences? To hold that they, as individuals, have not changed is illogical. This is an interesting phenomenon, which deserves to be studied. This survey is congruent with student satisfaction models. Considered through that lens, this survey’s answers might be evaluated to seek evidence of student satisfaction by graduates. Unlike post-semester ‘smile sheets,’ filled out by students at the end of each course, these results are from graduates, who are

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 163

experiencing and reflecting upon the results of their education. Since this is a quantitative survey, real evidence might be generated concerning the effect of the critical thinking pedagogical model on graduates’ satisfaction with their education, its applicability to their careers, and its application in their daily lives. We recognize the limitations of this study. This report covers four years of students, who have graduated, and who now use their educational, business, and life experiences to guide them. Yet, this is a small number of people, all from one college of one Midwestern university. This treatment may not be applicable to any other college, population, or curriculum. In this regard, we encourage our colleagues in other institutions to continue this research. We especially encourage others to explore the cognitive dissonance we discovered in this study. Our long-term study is compelling evidence of a successful pedagogical treatment in critical thinking. The results of our studies must be considered by curriculum committees at colleges and universities. Critical thinking can be taught, can be learned, and can be transferred from the classroom into other domains. Critical thinking changes the way graduates perceive the world, perform their jobs, and interact with others. The reasons critical thinking is not taught in colleges and universities are unidentified. However, the continued intransigence of institutions of higher education towards teaching critical thinking and applying it throughout the curriculum is as incomprehensible as it is inexplicable.

REFERENCES

Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2010, March). An application of Halpern's Teaching for Critical Thinking in the business school classroom. In J. Teahan (Ed.), Proceedings of the North American Management Society 2010 Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL: North American Management Society.

Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2011, December). Collaboration of research and teaching produces a new course of study in critical thinking. In N. Callaos, H.-W. Chu, J. Horne & F. Welsch (Eds.), International Symposium on Integrating Research, Education, and Problem Solving. Winter Haven, FL: International Institute of Informatics and Systematics.

Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2011, June). Teaching and learning to think critically at Governors State University. Paper presented at the Governors State University Faculty Summer Institute, University Park, IL.

Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2011, October). Critical thinking: The foundation of excellence in business education. Paper presented at the ABCSP Great Lakes Council of Business Schools and Programs, Dayton, Ohio.

Arum, R., Cho, E., Kim, J., & Roksa, J. (2012). Documenting Uncertain Times: Post-graduate Transitions of the Academically Adrift Cohort. New York, NY: Social Science Research Council.

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Case, R. (2005). Bringing critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2), 45-46. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://partneraccess.oclc.org/wcpa/servlet/OUFrame?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffirstsearch.oclc.org%2FWebZ %2FDARead%3Fsessionid%3D0%3Akey%3D0013- 1253%2528*%252945%253A2%253C*%253E*%25260%25263b5cd96dd8192d797d80faab70f718a00b fba6d124a2eecf1c4c5e1a235ccdd5%26isFromResolver%3Dtrue%26resolverLinkApi%3Ddaa&title=%26 OpenUrl.FullText%3B&sessionid=CE3AB506671AF87A0354D1FDB653B7B4.one

164 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Clark, R., Yates, K., Early, S., & Moulton, K. (2006). An analysis of the failure of electronic media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the performance benefits of guided training methods. In K. Silber & A. W. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of Training and Improving Workplace Performance (Vol. 1). Somerset, NJ: Wiley.

DeVore, N. (Ed.). (2008). Critical Thinking and Better Decisions. Portland, OR: Verge Consulting.

Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 60-106. Retrieved Match 4, 2012, from http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/heath/documents/PSPI%20-%20Biased%20Self%20Views.pdf

Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent. Organizational Behavior in Human Decision Processes, 105(2), 98-121. Retrieved March 4, 2012, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/pdf/nihms38914.pdf

Facione, N. C., Facione, P., Blohm, S. W., & Gittens, C. (2008). California Critical Thinking Skills Test: Test Manual. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment, Inc.

Facione, P. (1990a). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test and Manual. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.

Facione, P. (1990b). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Newark, Delaware: American Philosophical Association.

Facione, P. (1992). The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.

Facione, P. (1994). The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.

Foshay, W., Silber, K., & Stelnicki, M. (2003). Writing training materials that work: How to train anyone to do anything. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Gelder, T. v. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41-48.

Giancarlo, C. A., Blohm, S. W., & Urdan, T. (2004). Assessing secondary students' disposition toward critical thinking: Development of the California Measure of Mental Motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 347-364. Retrieved October 13, 2000, from http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/64/2/347

Giancarlo, C. A., & Facione, P. (2000). The California Measure of Mental Motivation. Milbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.

Halpern, D. (1997a). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A brief edition of thought and knowledge. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Halpern, D. (1997b). Students need "reality checks'. The Education Digest, 63(1), 3.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 165

Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53, 449-455.

Halpern, D., & Hakel, M. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer. Change, 35(4), 36-42. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExt Search_SearchValue_0=EJ673295&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ673295

Halpern, D., & Riggio, H. (2003). Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Helsdingen, A. S., Bosch, K. v. d., Gog, T. v., & Merriënboer, J. J. G. v. (2010). The effects of critical thinking instruction on training complex decision making. Human Factors, 52(4), 8. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/52/4/537.short

Hill, A., & Jones. (2009). Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South- Western Cengage Learning.

Kirshner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134. Retrieved March 4, 2012, From http://www.steamfantasy.it/blog/manuali/unskilled_unaware_of_it.pdf

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (2002). Unskilled and unaware—but why?: A reply to Krueger and Mueller (2002). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 189-192. Retrieved March 4, 2012, http://rfrost.people.si.umich.edu/courses/SI110/readings/Cyberculture/Unskilled%20and%20Clueless%20 about%20It.pdf

Marin, L., & Halpern, D. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 14. Retrieved March 17, 2012, from http://gsuproxy.govst.edu:2089/science/article/pii/S1871187110000313

Merrill, D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 43-59.

Merrill, D. (2007). A task-centered instructional strategy. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 5-22.

Orr, C., Driscoll, D., Taymans, M., Alonso, A., David, A., & Fabrizio, L. (2011a). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2011. (NCES 2012-458). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

Orr, C., Driscoll, D., Taymans, M., Alonso, A., David, A., & Fabrizio, L. (2011b). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2011. (NCES 2012-457). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

Reid, J. (2009, October). Can critical thinking be learned? Paper presented at the Mid-West Regional Educational Research Association, St. Louis, MO.

166 Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013

Reid, J., & Anderson, P. (2011, March). Critical thinking instruction in interesting times. In M. Abdelsama (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 International Business Conference of the Society for the Advancement of Management. Orlando, FL: Society for the Advancement of Management.

Reid, J., & Anderson, P. (2012a). Critical thinking in the business classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 87(1), 52-59.

Reid, J., & Anderson, P. (2012b). Critical Thinking: The Foundation of Education in a Technological World. In A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.), Education in a technological world: Communicating current and emerging research and technological efforts (Vol. 1, pp. 120-126). Badajoz, Spain: Formatex Research Center.

Sophocles. (450 BCE). The Trachiniae, line 296. Athens, Greece.

Stupnisky, R. H., Renaud, R. D., Daniels, L. M., Haynes, T. L., & Perry, R. P. (2008). The interrelation of first-year college students critical thinking disposition, perceived academic control and academic achievement. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 513-530. Retrieved May 26, 2009, from http://gsuproxy.govst.edu:2061/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=9&sid=159ecc65-6923-4bc5-b7ba- 6f161e86dab7%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=32785918

Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, Summer, 8 - 19. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://www.aft.org/pubs- reports/american_educator/issues/summer07/Crit_Thinking.pdf.

Woods-Bagot. (2012). Research study: University graduates don't make the grade. San Francisco, CA: Woods-Bagot.

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice vol. 13(3/4) 2013 167