I would appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this one. I've enjoyed
the exchanges very much, and learned a thing or two. As to the learning
process, the ability to memorize and regurgitate is one thing. The
ability to manipulate concepts is another. Studies of learning have
shown that the latter is a function of vocabulary and practice. Having
taught on three continents I have to agree that there is a need to find
some mechanism to draw students out so that they can express views and
verbally manipulate ideas. This vocalization helps to move the student
beyond memorization to cognition.
Further, the objective of the student is less important than the
objectives of the education process. Since we are supposed to, at one
level, be preparing students to compete in a challenging business
environment, I do see that we have a responsibility to help them develop
the tools necessary to hold their own. And since the ability to compete
in a global economy requires skills in leadership, communication and
working within teams, how can we take a philosophical stance counter to
this? If a student has personal objectives counter to this why are they
taking business courses?
Davis, Miles wrote:
>
> I am really having a problem with this one and only one way line of
> reasoning.
> Your underlying premsie seems to be that one can not learn in a didactic
> mode. And that learning only takes place in the presence of overt
> communication.
>
> The view point is problematic from several perspectics, but first we
> need to look at what we are calling "learning." How does that differ
> from knowledge and information?
>
> And some people actually are taciturn individuals. What they aspire for
> out of management education may not be to serve as a functionary in the
> "real world" of business.
> >
> >I want to amplify these remarks as loudly as I can.
> >
> >Whether you want to call it management or leadership, the name of the game
> >is to inform, to learn, and to help others learn. The root of learning is
> >asking questions and participating in dialog. These should be the focus of
> >managment education.
> >
> >In 1994 I was running a project for IBM when they hired a PhD from OK State
> >and an MS from TX A&M, both originally from India. Both were straight A
> >students and very nice, capable people but their cultural heritage
> >precluded them from discussing and resolving issues, especially with
> >elders. It took six months to convince them that the primary mode of
> >learning in business was co-learning and that they could only do that
> >through questions, participation, debate and dialog rather than deferring
> >to grey hair. They should have known this -- and had plenty of practice at
> >it -- before entering the real world of business. What would have happened
> >to them if they had gone to work some place where they were allowed to just
> >be quiet?
> >
> >Jack Ring
> >Innovation Management
> >32712 N. 70th St.
> >Scottsdale, AZ 85262-7143 USA
> >602-488-4615
> >Fax) 602-488-4616
> >
--
Roy L. Simerly
Dept of Management Office: 919-328-6632
East Carolina University Fax : 919-328-4094
3106 GCB email :
mgsimerl@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu
Greenville, NC 27858-4353
mgsimerl@eastnet.educ.ecu.edu