Discussion: View Thread

Folks,

Careful, now. If we professors relax our hold on knowledge, then we are shaking up our tidy world. Our promotion and tenure systems, our credibilty among academics, our very mobility college to college is
carried by publications. Publications rule. Whatever that "stuff" is
that practioners call knowledge rarely meets the test of a juried article
in one of our top journals. If it's in the AMR, it must be right. Right?

David




Jack wrote in reply to Kim:
Pls elaborate on how an academic can perform #2 without having some
appreciation for the demands within #4.

Specifically, I am inquiring into whether a judgement that knowledge is
"right" can be based on the properties of the knowledge, sans situation, or
does one first have to observe the effect of applying the knowledge to judge
its viability let alone value?

I am not suggesting "situation ethics" here. Simply inquiring into whether
the proof is in the recipe or in the pudding -- as in, "It isn't what you
know, it is what you do with what you know"

If testing and justification can be done without #4, how do you handle the
Law of Unintended Consequences?

In my several decades in this milieu I consistently see that the better
results stem from collaboration --- among academics, practitioners and just
plain workers (including professors).

Dear All, To clarify David's statement, it is true that promotion and
tenure at top tier Research universities is highly influenced by a
scholar's impact on his/her discipline. Journal articles are one way of
reaching other scholars and thus making a potential impact. (Merely
publishing in certain journals is no guarantee that ones writings will be
read, much less, influence others). However, books and book chapters,
although not subject to the same review process often make as big, or
bigger impact on the field, (e.g., Porter's book). The people who tend to
be most respected among academics are those whose research/writings make a
difference. Some "leading" scholars have written a lot, some not nearly as
much. But in both cases, they each wrote something that many others judged
to be important enough to cite their work as justification of the work the
other was doing.

Now not all universities put equal emphasis on scholarly
impact. Interestingly, if you ask either practitioners or academics to
name the top 20 business schools (off the top of their head, I bet that
most of them are ones that place a great deal of emphasis on scholarly
impact. Why is that? I submit that it is because the creation and testing
of knowledge, especially creation, of true knowledge is very difficult, and
thus highly prized).

While I am a reasonably good academic, there is a reason I am not at
Harvard, Michigan, or Stanford, etc. And there is a reason why both
practitioners and academics value these business schools so highly. That
reason has little to do with the dissemination of knowledge, since we do
not keep systematic records across universities about teaching ability. We
do keep systematic records about ones contribution to the creation and
testing of knowledge. Thus, universities use this information for making
tenure/promotion decisions. However, my own experience is that one who is
not a reasonably good (not outstanding or great necessarily) teacher will
not be tenured or promoted, despite their research record.

Regards, Kim Boal

At 12:57 PM 12/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Careful, now. If we professors relax our hold on knowledge, then we are
>shaking up our tidy world. Our promotion and tenure systems, our
>credibilty among academics, our very mobility college to college is
>carried by publications. Publications rule. Whatever that "stuff" is
>that practioners call knowledge rarely meets the test of a juried article
>in one of our top journals. If it's in the AMR, it must be right. Right?
>
>David
>
>
>
>
>Jack wrote in reply to Kim:
>Pls elaborate on how an academic can perform #2 without having some
> appreciation for the demands within #4.
>
> Specifically, I am inquiring into whether a judgement that knowledge is
> "right" can be based on the properties of the knowledge, sans
> situation, or
> does one first have to observe the effect of applying the knowledge to
> judge
> its viability let alone value?
>
> I am not suggesting "situation ethics" here. Simply inquiring into
> whether
> the proof is in the recipe or in the pudding -- as in, "It isn't what you
> know, it is what you do with what you know"
>
> If testing and justification can be done without #4, how do you handle the
> Law of Unintended Consequences?
>
> In my several decades in this milieu I consistently see that the better
> results stem from collaboration --- among academics, practitioners and
> just
> plain workers (including professors).

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

Thank you, Kim, for your thoughtful consideration my intentionally inflammatory comments. I am intrigued by your notion of creating "true knowledge". My tongue is no longer in my cheek. I am serious. Is preseting true knowledge what AACSB expects of us, when our publication records are put on the scales with our teaching? And, why do we not keep systematic records of our teaching ability?

I have created more knowledge, (true to some degree I hope)with my 100's of students over
a twenty year period than could ever be tipped into balance by those few tomes I might get
past the review process and into print. Yet, I know how the score is kept. My question to fellow management educators who are in the professorate is, Why do other academicians get to say if our ideas are worthy of use in practice, when it is managerial practitioners
who are the true referees?

David



-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Boal [mailto:KimBoal@TTU.EDU]
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 12:42 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Got publications?


Dear All, To clarify David's statement, it is true that promotion and
tenure at top tier Research universities is highly influenced by a
scholar's impact on his/her discipline. Journal articles are one way of
reaching other scholars and thus making a potential impact. (Merely
publishing in certain journals is no guarantee that ones writings will be
read, much less, influence others). However, books and book chapters,
although not subject to the same review process often make as big, or
bigger impact on the field, (e.g., Porter's book). The people who tend to
be most respected among academics are those whose research/writings make a
difference. Some "leading" scholars have written a lot, some not nearly as
much. But in both cases, they each wrote something that many others judged
to be important enough to cite their work as justification of the work the
other was doing.

Now not all universities put equal emphasis on scholarly
impact. Interestingly, if you ask either practitioners or academics to
name the top 20 business schools (off the top of their head, I bet that
most of them are ones that place a great deal of emphasis on scholarly
impact. Why is that? I submit that it is because the creation and testing
of knowledge, especially creation, of true knowledge is very difficult, and
thus highly prized).

While I am a reasonably good academic, there is a reason I am not at
Harvard, Michigan, or Stanford, etc. And there is a reason why both
practitioners and academics value these business schools so highly. That
reason has little to do with the dissemination of knowledge, since we do
not keep systematic records across universities about teaching ability. We
do keep systematic records about ones contribution to the creation and
testing of knowledge. Thus, universities use this information for making
tenure/promotion decisions. However, my own experience is that one who is
not a reasonably good (not outstanding or great necessarily) teacher will
not be tenured or promoted, despite their research record.

Regards, Kim Boal

At 12:57 PM 12/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Careful, now. If we professors relax our hold on knowledge, then we are
>shaking up our tidy world. Our promotion and tenure systems, our
>credibilty among academics, our very mobility college to college is
>carried by publications. Publications rule. Whatever that "stuff" is
>that practioners call knowledge rarely meets the test of a juried article
>in one of our top journals. If it's in the AMR, it must be right. Right?
>
>David
>
>
>
>
>Jack wrote in reply to Kim:
>Pls elaborate on how an academic can perform #2 without having some
> appreciation for the demands within #4.
>
> Specifically, I am inquiring into whether a judgement that knowledge is
> "right" can be based on the properties of the knowledge, sans
> situation, or
> does one first have to observe the effect of applying the knowledge to
> judge
> its viability let alone value?
>
> I am not suggesting "situation ethics" here. Simply inquiring into
> whether
> the proof is in the recipe or in the pudding -- as in, "It isn't what you
> know, it is what you do with what you know"
>
> If testing and justification can be done without #4, how do you handle the
> Law of Unintended Consequences?
>
> In my several decades in this milieu I consistently see that the better
> results stem from collaboration --- among academics, practitioners and
> just
> plain workers (including professors).

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

As one who continues to refuse to add to "word pollution" by publishing anything except what I believe to be significant (consequently, I have published NOTHING since I obtained my doctorate), I see it all as one of the many games being played in various professions. This is the academic game. I am not criticizing it, because it is one way to get ahead in the academic world. Those are the rules of the game.
When I was working on my doctorate, I had to read quite a bit of the "research" that had been done up to that time. I found most of it worthless, and I wondered why the author(s) had bothered! I soon learned the why. The P or P rule prevails. That's when I decided I would not add to word pollution.
Those who are in the game, though, surely do not think they are adding to "knowledge." Maybe one in a hundred thousand studies/articles will add something, but frankly I have read very little that has added to my knowledge! And I keep being optimistic; I keep reading research in psychology, education, management, and business in general.
This is just my perspective. I avoided a promising career in academia because I refused to submit my dissertation for publication, vowing that I would never write anything just to keep my job.
I've still had (still having) a most interesting life. I just did not make a name for myself in academia. It was my choice.
Edryce
"Fearon, David (Management)" <Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu> wrote:Thank you, Kim, for your thoughtful consideration my intentionally inflammatory comments. I am intrigued by your notion of creating "true knowledge". My tongue is no longer in my cheek. I am serious. Is preseting true knowledge what AACSB expects of us, when our publication records are put on the scales with our teaching? And, why do we not keep systematic records of our teaching ability?

I have created more knowledge, (true to some degree I hope)with my 100's of students over
a twenty year period than could ever be tipped into balance by those few tomes I might get
past the review process and into print. Yet, I know how the score is kept. My question to fellow management educators who are in the professorate is, Why do other academicians get to say if our ideas are worthy of use in practice, when it is managerial practitioners
who are the true referees?

David



-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Boal [mailto:KimBoal@TTU.EDU]
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 12:42 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Got publications?


Dear All, To clarify David's statement, it is true that promotion and
tenure at top tier Research universities is highly influenced by a
scholar's impact on his/her discipline. Journal articles are one way of
reaching other scholars and thus making a potential impact. (Merely
publishing in certain journals is no guarantee that ones writings will be
read, much less, influence others). However, books and book chapters,
although not subject to the same review process often make as big, or
bigger impact on the field, (e.g., Porter's book). The people who tend to
be most respected among academics are those whose research/writings make a
difference. Some "leading" scholars have written a lot, some not nearly as
much. But in both cases, they each wrote something that many others judged
to be important enough to cite their work as justification of the work the
other was doing.

Now not all universities put equal emphasis on scholarly
impact. Interestingly, if you ask either practitioners or academics to
name the top 20 business schools (off the top of their head, I bet that
most of them are ones that place a great deal of emphasis on scholarly
impact. Why is that? I submit that it is because the creation and testing
of knowledge, especially creation, of true knowledge is very difficult, and
thus highly prized).

While I am a reasonably good academic, there is a reason I am not at
Harvard, Michigan, or Stanford, etc. And there is a reason why both
practitioners and academics value these business schools so highly. That
reason has little to do with the dissemination of knowledge, since we do
not keep systematic records across universities about teaching ability. We
do keep systematic records about ones contribution to the creation and
testing of knowledge. Thus, universities use this information for making
tenure/promotion decisions. However, my own experience is that one who is
not a reasonably good (not outstanding or great necessarily) teacher will
not be tenured or promoted, despite their research record.

Regards, Kim Boal

At 12:57 PM 12/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Careful, now. If we professors relax our hold on knowledge, then we are
>shaking up our tidy world. Our promotion and tenure systems, our
>credibilty among academics, our very mobility college to college is
>carried by publications. Publications rule. Whatever that "stuff" is
>that practioners call knowledge rarely meets the test of a juried article
>in one of our top journals. If it's in the AMR, it must be right. Right?
>
>David
>
>
>
>
>Jack wrote in reply to Kim:
>Pls elaborate on how an academic can perform #2 without having some
> appreciation for the demands within #4.
>
> Specifically, I am inquiring into whether a judgement that knowledge is
> "right" can be based on the properties of the knowledge, sans
> situation, or
> does one first have to observe the effect of applying the knowledge to
> judge
> its viability let alone value?
>
> I am not suggesting "situation ethics" here. Simply inquiring into
> whether
> the proof is in the recipe or in the pudding -- as in, "It isn't what you
> know, it is what you do with what you know"
>
> If testing and justification can be done without #4, how do you handle the
> Law of Unintended Consequences?
>
> In my several decades in this milieu I consistently see that the better
> results stem from collaboration --- among academics, practitioners and
> just
> plain workers (including professors).

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

Dear Edryce, I am sorry that it appears that your doctoral education
experience was not a pleasant one. So much so that it put you off from
writing. However, the title Professor implies one has something to
profess. One of my mentors, Andre Delbecq, former Dean at Santa Clara,
once said that he expected his faculty to profess in writing as well as in
the classroom.

You are quite correct that not all things that are published make a
difference. However, I am not smart enough to know a priori which things
will and which things won't. So like entrepreneurs, we must encourage
everyone to put out their ideas for scrutiny. A few will make a
difference, and make all of us better off.

Kim


At 07:03 AM 12/23/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>As one who continues to refuse to add to "word pollution" by publishing
>anything except what I believe to be significant (consequently, I have
>published NOTHING since I obtained my doctorate), I see it all as one of
>the many games being played in various professions. This is the academic
>game. I am not criticizing it, because it is one way to get ahead in the
>academic world. Those are the rules of the game.
>When I was working on my doctorate, I had to read quite a bit of the
>"research" that had been done up to that time. I found most of it
>worthless, and I wondered why the author(s) had bothered! I soon learned
>the why. The P or P rule prevails. That's when I decided I would not add
>to word pollution.
>Those who are in the game, though, surely do not think they are adding to
>"knowledge." Maybe one in a hundred thousand studies/articles will add
>something, but frankly I have read very little that has added to my
>knowledge! And I keep being optimistic; I keep reading research in
>psychology, education, management, and business in general.
>This is just my perspective. I avoided a promising career in academia
>because I refused to submit my dissertation for publication, vowing that I
>would never write anything just to keep my job.
>I've still had (still having) a most interesting life. I just did not
>make a name for myself in academia. It was my choice.
>Edryce
> "Fearon, David (Management)" <Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu> wrote:Thank you,
> Kim, for your thoughtful consideration my intentionally inflammatory
> comments. I am intrigued by your notion of creating "true knowledge". My
> tongue is no longer in my cheek. I am serious. Is preseting true
> knowledge what AACSB expects of us, when our publication records are put
> on the scales with our teaching? And, why do we not keep systematic
> records of our teaching ability?
>
>I have created more knowledge, (true to some degree I hope)with my 100's
>of students over
>a twenty year period than could ever be tipped into balance by those few
>tomes I might get
>past the review process and into print. Yet, I know how the score is kept.
>My question to fellow management educators who are in the professorate is,
>Why do other academicians get to say if our ideas are worthy of use in
>practice, when it is managerial practitioners
>who are the true referees?
>
>David
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kim Boal [mailto:KimBoal@TTU.EDU]
>Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 12:42 PM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Got publications?
>
>
>Dear All, To clarify David's statement, it is true that promotion and
>tenure at top tier Research universities is highly influenced by a
>scholar's impact on his/her discipline. Journal articles are one way of
>reaching other scholars and thus making a potential impact. (Merely
>publishing in certain journals is no guarantee that ones writings will be
>read, much less, influence others). However, books and book chapters,
>although not subject to the same review process often make as big, or
>bigger impact on the field, (e.g., Porter's book). The people who tend to
>be most respected among academics are those whose research/writings make a
>difference. Some "leading" scholars have written a lot, some not nearly as
>much. But in both cases, they each wrote something that many others judged
>to be important enough to cite their work as justification of the work the
>other was doing.
>
>Now not all universities put equal emphasis on scholarly
>impact. Interestingly, if you ask either practitioners or academics to
>name the top 20 business schools (off the top of their head, I bet that
>most of them are ones that place a great deal of emphasis on scholarly
>impact. Why is that? I submit that it is because the creation and testing
>of knowledge, especially creation, of true knowledge is very difficult, and
>thus highly prized).
>
>While I am a reasonably good academic, there is a reason I am not at
>Harvard, Michigan, or Stanford, etc. And there is a reason why both
>practitioners and academics value these business schools so highly. That
>reason has little to do with the dissemination of knowledge, since we do
>not keep systematic records across universities about teaching ability. We
>do keep systematic records about ones contribution to the creation and
>testing of knowledge. Thus, universities use this information for making
>tenure/promotion decisions. However, my own experience is that one who is
>not a reasonably good (not outstanding or great necessarily) teacher will
>not be tenured or promoted, despite their research record.
>
>Regards, Kim Boal
>
>At 12:57 PM 12/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >Careful, now. If we professors relax our hold on knowledge, then we are
> >shaking up our tidy world. Our promotion and tenure systems, our
> >credibilty among academics, our very mobility college to college is
> >carried by publications. Publications rule. Whatever that "stuff" is
> >that practioners call knowledge rarely meets the test of a juried article
> >in one of our top journals. If it's in the AMR, it must be right. Right?
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Jack wrote in reply to Kim:
> >Pls elaborate on how an academic can perform #2 without having some
> > appreciation for the demands within #4.
> >
> > Specifically, I am inquiring into whether a judgement that knowledge is
> > "right" can be based on the properties of the knowledge, sans
> > situation, or
> > does one first have to observe the effect of applying the knowledge to
> > judge
> > its viability let alone value?
> >
> > I am not suggesting "situation ethics" here. Simply inquiring into
> > whether
> > the proof is in the recipe or in the pudding -- as in, "It isn't what you
> > know, it is what you do with what you know"
> >
> > If testing and justification can be done without #4, how do you handle the
> > Law of Unintended Consequences?
> >
> > In my several decades in this milieu I consistently see that the better
> > results stem from collaboration --- among academics, practitioners and
> > just
> > plain workers (including professors).
>
>--------------------------------
>Kim Boal
>College of Business Administration
>Texas Tech University
>Lubbock, TX 79409
>(806) 742-2150
>KimBoal@ttu.edu
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

Again, my doctoral experience was a fine, broadening, enlightening experience, not a "bad" one! The fact that most of what I read then (and read now) is irrelevant does not detract from the wonderful experience of learning about research and how to do it WELL.
I just do not agree that everyone should be encouraged to write/do research. Unless a person is highly motivated to study something, and DEEPLY interested, we should DIScourage it! I know that is not PC today, but it remains my strong opinion.
Please know that being discriminating does not mean one has a bad experience! It just means being discriminating. I believe most readers can tell whether a piece of writing is worth anything or not.
Just my not-so-humble opinion on this Christmas Eve!
Edryce



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

Dear David, below is a quote from a book chapter, "Debating
Organizations:..." that is scheduled to be published by Blackwell in
January. I hope it answers your question.

Best, Kim


According to Suppe (1977: 649), “…it is a central aim of science
to come to knowledge of how the world really is….”. Thus for the scientific
realist, the products of science are theories that seek to explain and
predict. The arbiter of the adequateness of our explanations and
predictions is truth (“genuine knowledge”), or “truthlikeness” (Popper’s,
1972, verisimilitude), and the degrees or probabilities of truthlikeness
(De Regt, 1994). Any empirical test involves two high level theories: an
interpretive theory to provide the facts and an explanatory theory to
explain them (Boal and Willis, 1983; Lakatos, 1968). Inconsistencies
between these two theories constitute the problem-fever of science.


At 09:17 AM 12/23/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Thank you, Kim, for your thoughtful consideration my intentionally
>inflammatory comments. I am intrigued by your notion of creating "true
>knowledge". My tongue is no longer in my cheek. I am serious. Is
>preseting true knowledge what AACSB expects of us, when our publication
>records are put on the scales with our teaching? And, why do we not keep
>systematic records of our teaching ability?
>
>I have created more knowledge, (true to some degree I hope)with my 100's
>of students over
>a twenty year period than could ever be tipped into balance by those few
>tomes I might get
>past the review process and into print. Yet, I know how the score is
>kept. My question to fellow management educators who are in the
>professorate is, Why do other academicians get to say if our ideas are
>worthy of use in practice, when it is managerial practitioners
>who are the true referees?
>
>David
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kim Boal [mailto:KimBoal@TTU.EDU]
>Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 12:42 PM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Got publications?
>
>
>Dear All, To clarify David's statement, it is true that promotion and
>tenure at top tier Research universities is highly influenced by a
>scholar's impact on his/her discipline. Journal articles are one way of
>reaching other scholars and thus making a potential impact. (Merely
>publishing in certain journals is no guarantee that ones writings will be
>read, much less, influence others). However, books and book chapters,
>although not subject to the same review process often make as big, or
>bigger impact on the field, (e.g., Porter's book). The people who tend to
>be most respected among academics are those whose research/writings make a
>difference. Some "leading" scholars have written a lot, some not nearly as
>much. But in both cases, they each wrote something that many others judged
>to be important enough to cite their work as justification of the work the
>other was doing.
>
>Now not all universities put equal emphasis on scholarly
>impact. Interestingly, if you ask either practitioners or academics to
>name the top 20 business schools (off the top of their head, I bet that
>most of them are ones that place a great deal of emphasis on scholarly
>impact. Why is that? I submit that it is because the creation and testing
>of knowledge, especially creation, of true knowledge is very difficult, and
>thus highly prized).
>
>While I am a reasonably good academic, there is a reason I am not at
>Harvard, Michigan, or Stanford, etc. And there is a reason why both
>practitioners and academics value these business schools so highly. That
>reason has little to do with the dissemination of knowledge, since we do
>not keep systematic records across universities about teaching ability. We
>do keep systematic records about ones contribution to the creation and
>testing of knowledge. Thus, universities use this information for making
>tenure/promotion decisions. However, my own experience is that one who is
>not a reasonably good (not outstanding or great necessarily) teacher will
>not be tenured or promoted, despite their research record.
>
>Regards, Kim Boal
>
> At 12:57 PM 12/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >Careful, now. If we professors relax our hold on knowledge, then we are
> >shaking up our tidy world. Our promotion and tenure systems, our
> >credibilty among academics, our very mobility college to college is
> >carried by publications. Publications rule. Whatever that "stuff" is
> >that practioners call knowledge rarely meets the test of a juried article
> >in one of our top journals. If it's in the AMR, it must be right. Right?
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Jack wrote in reply to Kim:
> >Pls elaborate on how an academic can perform #2 without having some
> > appreciation for the demands within #4.
> >
> > Specifically, I am inquiring into whether a judgement that knowledge is
> > "right" can be based on the properties of the knowledge, sans
> > situation, or
> > does one first have to observe the effect of applying the knowledge to
> > judge
> > its viability let alone value?
> >
> > I am not suggesting "situation ethics" here. Simply inquiring into
> > whether
> > the proof is in the recipe or in the pudding -- as in, "It isn't what you
> > know, it is what you do with what you know"
> >
> > If testing and justification can be done without #4, how do you
> handle the
> > Law of Unintended Consequences?
> >
> > In my several decades in this milieu I consistently see that the better
> > results stem from collaboration --- among academics, practitioners and
> > just
> > plain workers (including professors).
>
>--------------------------------
>Kim Boal
>College of Business Administration
>Texas Tech University
>Lubbock, TX 79409
>(806) 742-2150
>KimBoal@ttu.edu

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

Colleagues,

David Fearon uses a bit of tongue in cheek when he says, "Publications rule.
Whatever that "stuff" is that practitioners call knowledge rarely meets the
test of a juried article in one of our top journals."

I realize that I'm confronting academic participants on this list who do
marvelous thinking, create important knowledge, and teach it to a new
generation of practitioners. In stating the case for other sources of new
knowledge, I don't mean to put down academia or academicians.

I do know that I went through a full Ph.D. program and came out totally
unprepared for the real world. What I've learned in practice, on the
streets and in the markets, has been many times more valuable and usable
than what I learned in the hallowed halls.

Back to the publications: I'd argue that some percentage of those articles
are written by practitioners, though business pressures over the last decade
have meant that little time or funding has been available for disclosing
knowledge that might be a competitive advantage.

Second, I'd argue that "test by peer review" is not the only test that
defines knowledge or the value of knowledge. Consider test by the
marketplace, test in competition, test by financial impact. In other
disciplines: test by repeat of experiment.

Indeed, consider product development to be development of knowledge. Ideas
to market research to product concept to engineering prototype to design
engineered product to manufacturing testing to full scale manufacturing.
Then add documentation, training (for some products), service manuals, and
customer service. Then add marketing and sales - convincing others of the
value of the product.
Product development is creating, testing, disseminating, and applying
many types of knowledge, and it is done across an enormous breadth of
product types. The volume of knowledge thus processed by industry is orders
of magnitude larger than the sum of knowledge processed by academia.

And, just like a product that never reaches market, knowledge not applied
has no real value. Value only happens when someone uses knowledge (or a
product) to create benefits and meet needs.
Peers may test the correctness of a theory, yet their agreement in
principle doesn't create value.

Jack Ring makes an interesting point about context. Many practitioners get
near-sighted and paradigm bound. As a consultant who works across companies
and industries, I have a broader view and my tools have been tested more
widely.
As in any grouping, practitioners have ranges of strengths and
weaknesses. Some are taught in school, then perpetuated. Others are grown
organically through experience. Sadly, few practitioners in business seek
underlying principles of their work, and few synthesize concepts from
diverse disciplines to grow new processes.
So, in my defense of practitioners, I readily admit that only a small
percentage make an impact outside of their own company.

David, don't worry about relaxing your hold on knowledge. You don't have
any hold on it. You and your peers are temporary owners of a constantly
shifting and changing resource. And you make a living by sharing it with
others.
I, for one, are very glad you are there. Yours is a job as important as
any in our civilization.

Best to all,

Gary

PS: My core philosophies of leadership and marketing have been driven more
by Ted Levitt (Harvard) than any other source of knowledge.
----------------------------
Change will never, ever again
be as slow as it is today.

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Kim, thank you for the quote. It adds to the dialogue.

David



-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Boal [mailto:KimBoal@TTU.EDU]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 11:58 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Got publications?


Dear David, below is a quote from a book chapter, "Debating
Organizations:..." that is scheduled to be published by Blackwell in
January. I hope it answers your question.

Best, Kim


According to Suppe (1977: 649), "...it is a central aim of science
to come to knowledge of how the world really is....". Thus for the scientific
realist, the products of science are theories that seek to explain and
predict. The arbiter of the adequateness of our explanations and
predictions is truth ("genuine knowledge"), or "truthlikeness" (Popper's,
1972, verisimilitude), and the degrees or probabilities of truthlikeness
(De Regt, 1994). Any empirical test involves two high level theories: an
interpretive theory to provide the facts and an explanatory theory to
explain them (Boal and Willis, 1983; Lakatos, 1968). Inconsistencies
between these two theories constitute the problem-fever of science.


At 09:17 AM 12/23/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Thank you, Kim, for your thoughtful consideration my intentionally
>inflammatory comments. I am intrigued by your notion of creating "true
>knowledge". My tongue is no longer in my cheek. I am serious. Is
>preseting true knowledge what AACSB expects of us, when our publication
>records are put on the scales with our teaching? And, why do we not keep
>systematic records of our teaching ability?
>
>I have created more knowledge, (true to some degree I hope)with my 100's
>of students over
>a twenty year period than could ever be tipped into balance by those few
>tomes I might get
>past the review process and into print. Yet, I know how the score is
>kept. My question to fellow management educators who are in the
>professorate is, Why do other academicians get to say if our ideas are
>worthy of use in practice, when it is managerial practitioners
>who are the true referees?
>
>David
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kim Boal [mailto:KimBoal@TTU.EDU]
>Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 12:42 PM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Got publications?
>
>
>Dear All, To clarify David's statement, it is true that promotion and
>tenure at top tier Research universities is highly influenced by a
>scholar's impact on his/her discipline. Journal articles are one way of
>reaching other scholars and thus making a potential impact. (Merely
>publishing in certain journals is no guarantee that ones writings will be
>read, much less, influence others). However, books and book chapters,
>although not subject to the same review process often make as big, or
>bigger impact on the field, (e.g., Porter's book). The people who tend to
>be most respected among academics are those whose research/writings make a
>difference. Some "leading" scholars have written a lot, some not nearly as
>much. But in both cases, they each wrote something that many others judged
>to be important enough to cite their work as justification of the work the
>other was doing.
>
>Now not all universities put equal emphasis on scholarly
>impact. Interestingly, if you ask either practitioners or academics to
>name the top 20 business schools (off the top of their head, I bet that
>most of them are ones that place a great deal of emphasis on scholarly
>impact. Why is that? I submit that it is because the creation and testing
>of knowledge, especially creation, of true knowledge is very difficult, and
>thus highly prized).
>
>While I am a reasonably good academic, there is a reason I am not at
>Harvard, Michigan, or Stanford, etc. And there is a reason why both
>practitioners and academics value these business schools so highly. That
>reason has little to do with the dissemination of knowledge, since we do
>not keep systematic records across universities about teaching ability. We
>do keep systematic records about ones contribution to the creation and
>testing of knowledge. Thus, universities use this information for making
>tenure/promotion decisions. However, my own experience is that one who is
>not a reasonably good (not outstanding or great necessarily) teacher will
>not be tenured or promoted, despite their research record.
>
>Regards, Kim Boal
>
> At 12:57 PM 12/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >Careful, now. If we professors relax our hold on knowledge, then we are
> >shaking up our tidy world. Our promotion and tenure systems, our
> >credibilty among academics, our very mobility college to college is
> >carried by publications. Publications rule. Whatever that "stuff" is
> >that practioners call knowledge rarely meets the test of a juried article
> >in one of our top journals. If it's in the AMR, it must be right. Right?
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Jack wrote in reply to Kim:
> >Pls elaborate on how an academic can perform #2 without having some
> > appreciation for the demands within #4.
> >
> > Specifically, I am inquiring into whether a judgement that knowledge is
> > "right" can be based on the properties of the knowledge, sans
> > situation, or
> > does one first have to observe the effect of applying the knowledge to
> > judge
> > its viability let alone value?
> >
> > I am not suggesting "situation ethics" here. Simply inquiring into
> > whether
> > the proof is in the recipe or in the pudding -- as in, "It isn't what you
> > know, it is what you do with what you know"
> >
> > If testing and justification can be done without #4, how do you
> handle the
> > Law of Unintended Consequences?
> >
> > In my several decades in this milieu I consistently see that the better
> > results stem from collaboration --- among academics, practitioners and
> > just
> > plain workers (including professors).
>
>--------------------------------
>Kim Boal
>College of Business Administration
>Texas Tech University
>Lubbock, TX 79409
>(806) 742-2150
>KimBoal@ttu.edu

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]

Faculty are supposed to be professing in the classroom? Ah ha! This
may be
the bigger difference.

My goal in my class is to get my students to critically think about the
topic of the class. To add to their existing knowledge on the topic
through
the text, research, assignments (which require them to teach), and class
discussions. They do more "talking" than I do - I guide, stir them up,
encourage them to question "the experts," show them how to go find more
information. A brief lecture stirs them into discussion, a brief
closing
lecture wraps it up - but theirs is the biggest part of the class. I
don't
profess because according to Kolb or Gardner (see
http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-d.html ), listening to someone
profess is not how the majority of people learn.

(ducking for cover, since I am pretty sure that isn't what Kim meant by
"profess" - although others still do "sage from the stage" style
lecturing
which still doesn't work).

Conna Condon

Conna Condon - Bravo! My sentiments exactly. I have had the experience of "telling" students, then later when they "discover" the same information, they do not remember that I already "told" (professed?) them!
Edryce
Charles Wankel <wankelc@optonline.net> wrote:From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]

Faculty are supposed to be professing in the classroom? Ah ha! This
may be
the bigger difference.

My goal in my class is to get my students to critically think about the
topic of the class. To add to their existing knowledge on the topic
through
the text, research, assignments (which require them to teach), and class
discussions. They do more "talking" than I do - I guide, stir them up,
encourage them to question "the experts," show them how to go find more
information. A brief lecture stirs them into discussion, a brief
closing
lecture wraps it up - but theirs is the biggest part of the class. I
don't
profess because according to Kolb or Gardner (see
http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-d.html ), listening to someone
profess is not how the majority of people learn.

(ducking for cover, since I am pretty sure that isn't what Kim meant by
"profess" - although others still do "sage from the stage" style
lecturing
which still doesn't work).

Conna Condon


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

Dear Conna, if the only pedagogy one uses in the classroom is "lecture" I
would agree that is not provide a sufficient learning environment for most
students to benefit fully. However, when I say profess, I harken back to
what one of my mentors, Alan Filley, use to say, "it is a sin to make
people reinvent the wheel," and what Jay Barney once told my students,
"first you must learn the conventional wisdom before you are free to forget
it." Hopefully, when I profess I do at least two things: 1) bring
additional knowledge to bear that is not readily available except to folks
following the latest research; and 2) let my students know when material,
even material presented in the text, is not "settled" knowledge but is
still being contested.

Regards, Kim


P.S. I won't contest that much of what is published is "worthless" to some
audiences, ie., they may see no application to the knowledge or they may
not see how it leads to a further understanding of the phenomena. I
recall, some 20+ years ago, when I did my dissertation on Cognitive
Evaluation Theory (ie., the impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
motivation), I was asked in one job interview the implications of my
research on labor/management relations. I had never thought of that issue
regarding my research, and at the time was clueless about the relevance of
my research to that issue. It took me about four years to figure out the
implications. By that time, I had moved on in my research, and so never
returned to the question.

At 05:41 AM 12/25/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]
>
>Faculty are supposed to be professing in the classroom? Ah ha! This
>may be
>the bigger difference.
>
>My goal in my class is to get my students to critically think about the
>topic of the class. To add to their existing knowledge on the topic
>through
>the text, research, assignments (which require them to teach), and class
>discussions. They do more "talking" than I do - I guide, stir them up,
>encourage them to question "the experts," show them how to go find more
>information. A brief lecture stirs them into discussion, a brief
>closing
>lecture wraps it up - but theirs is the biggest part of the class. I
>don't
>profess because according to Kolb or Gardner (see
>http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-d.html ), listening to someone
>profess is not how the majority of people learn.
>
>(ducking for cover, since I am pretty sure that isn't what Kim meant by
>"profess" - although others still do "sage from the stage" style
>lecturing
>which still doesn't work).
>
>Conna Condon

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

Mg-Ed-Dv-ers!

Seeing the topic of Kim's posting makes me remember that in
addition to his being an active member of our virtual community, he is
Editor of the Journal of Management Inquiry:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/frame.html?http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/de
tails/j0154.html

(With long urls you may have to paste on a truncated portion back on in
your browser's url window).

He's in your network! I know he'd love to receive your papers or
discuss their topical fit with this respected journal with you (see his
contact information below).

Cybercollegially,
Charles Wankel
Mg-Ed-Dv List Director

-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Kim Boal
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 1:36 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Got publications?

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

Alas, I find myself partially disagreeing with the statements below by both
Alan Filley and Jay Barney This may be a result in a difference in
learning style that I have vs they have. In "Peak Learning: How to Create
Your Own Lifelong Education Program for Personal Enlightenment and
Professional Success," by Ronald Gross, there is a section/test for
determining learning styles nicknamed being a grouper or a stringer.
Traditional education is oriented to be successful for the stringer learner.
I can see Alan Filley's and Jay Barney's quotes being effective for
traditional learners - for Stingers.

However, I am not a stringer. Many of my adult learners are not stringers.
We are groupers. Telling us about a wheel so that we don't reinvent it
doesn't cause us to learn or understand. For a strongly grouper type, such
methods actually create a mental block to learning and/or boredom. Guide us
to reinvent the wheel and we will not only reinvent it, we will create a
whole new concept - totally outside the box - by grouping and regrouping the
information.

Hints for leanings (nobody is all grouper vs all stringer): Clean desk =
stringer; "don't mess with my mess" = grouper. Goes to library, gets book
leaves = stringer; goes to library, gets book, wanders around library
"nibbling" = grouper. Pays attention to detail = stringer; pays attention
to big picture = grouper. Reads instructions and follows them = stringer;
Looks over task, plays at putting it together; might refer to instructions
if stuck = grouper.

Strongly stringer learners can listen and retain sequentially provided
information and feed it back. They do great in following directions,
keeping things organized, and paying attention to details. But, they lack
the imaginative and innovative thinking and learning skills to create new
businesses or new products.

Groupers easily understand the need for stringers to have their clean desks,
organization, details and value their contributions to a team. I have met
some people so stringer that they can't accept the idea that some people
need their messy environment and chaotic approach to work - be it at a job
or in school.

So, those who think it is a sin to reinvent the wheel don't seem to
understand a grouper mentality. But, management education - more than the
humanities - has a strong need to develop groupers because the groupers are
the ones who will provide the creativity and innovation so important to
business success.

Yes, this is a topic I believe in passionately. I speak for any grouper
student you have in your classes. Respect our learning style. Business
needs it.


Conna Condon


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kim Boal" <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Got publications?


> Dear Conna, if the only pedagogy one uses in the classroom is "lecture" I
> would agree that is not provide a sufficient learning environment for most
> students to benefit fully. However, when I say profess, I harken back to
> what one of my mentors, Alan Filley, use to say, "it is a sin to make
> people reinvent the wheel," and what Jay Barney once told my students,
> "first you must learn the conventional wisdom before you are free to
forget
> it." Hopefully, when I profess I do at least two things: 1) bring
> additional knowledge to bear that is not readily available except to folks
> following the latest research; and 2) let my students know when material,
> even material presented in the text, is not "settled" knowledge but is
> still being contested.
>
> Regards, Kim
>
>
> P.S. I won't contest that much of what is published is "worthless" to
some
> audiences, ie., they may see no application to the knowledge or they may
> not see how it leads to a further understanding of the phenomena. I
> recall, some 20+ years ago, when I did my dissertation on Cognitive
> Evaluation Theory (ie., the impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
> motivation), I was asked in one job interview the implications of my
> research on labor/management relations. I had never thought of that issue
> regarding my research, and at the time was clueless about the relevance of
> my research to that issue. It took me about four years to figure out the
> implications. By that time, I had moved on in my research, and so never
> returned to the question.
>
> At 05:41 AM 12/25/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]
> >
> >Faculty are supposed to be professing in the classroom? Ah ha! This
> >may be
> >the bigger difference.
> >
> >My goal in my class is to get my students to critically think about the
> >topic of the class. To add to their existing knowledge on the topic
> >through
> >the text, research, assignments (which require them to teach), and class
> >discussions. They do more "talking" than I do - I guide, stir them up,
> >encourage them to question "the experts," show them how to go find more
> >information. A brief lecture stirs them into discussion, a brief
> >closing
> >lecture wraps it up - but theirs is the biggest part of the class. I
> >don't
> >profess because according to Kolb or Gardner (see
> >http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-d.html ), listening to someone
> >profess is not how the majority of people learn.
> >
> >(ducking for cover, since I am pretty sure that isn't what Kim meant by
> >"profess" - although others still do "sage from the stage" style
> >lecturing
> >which still doesn't work).
> >
> >Conna Condon
>
> --------------------------------
> Kim Boal
> College of Business Administration
> Texas Tech University
> Lubbock, TX 79409
> (806) 742-2150
> KimBoal@ttu.edu
>

I have been intrigued and very stirred by much of the recent discussions of
methods of teaching/facilitating learning and of learning. Part of my interest
has been sparked (and I hope people will forgive me if this seems like
advertising) because my university will host a conference next year on just this
topic. It will be the 8th European Learning Styles Information Network
conference, and you can visit the website at:

http://www.hull.ac.uk/elsin/

Steve Armstrong is one of the organisers, he is a colleague of mine at Hull
University Business School, and was recently elected to be a future Chair of the
MED division of the AOM. Keynote speakers at ELSIN will be Rita Dunn and Armin
Thies. Rita's group talk of 'global' learners in the same terms as the so-called
'grouper', and of analytical thinkers/learners in the same way as the 'stringer'
described below.

Like Conna I am a 'grouper' or global thinker, although I am quite skilled at
doing the analytical/stringer stuff too after years of education!! ;-)

We would be delighted to see many of you at the conference, and to continue
these discussions face to face.

best wishes for the holiday season,

Wendy


Quoting Conna Condon <gandolf@cyberverse.com>:

> Alas, I find myself partially disagreeing with the statements below by both
> Alan Filley and Jay Barney This may be a result in a difference in
> learning style that I have vs they have. In "Peak Learning: How to Create
> Your Own Lifelong Education Program for Personal Enlightenment and
> Professional Success," by Ronald Gross, there is a section/test for
> determining learning styles nicknamed being a grouper or a stringer.
> Traditional education is oriented to be successful for the stringer learner.
> I can see Alan Filley's and Jay Barney's quotes being effective for
> traditional learners - for Stingers.
>
> However, I am not a stringer. Many of my adult learners are not stringers.
> We are groupers. Telling us about a wheel so that we don't reinvent it
> doesn't cause us to learn or understand. For a strongly grouper type, such
> methods actually create a mental block to learning and/or boredom. Guide us
> to reinvent the wheel and we will not only reinvent it, we will create a
> whole new concept - totally outside the box - by grouping and regrouping the
> information.
>
> Hints for leanings (nobody is all grouper vs all stringer): Clean desk =
> stringer; "don't mess with my mess" = grouper. Goes to library, gets book
> leaves = stringer; goes to library, gets book, wanders around library
> "nibbling" = grouper. Pays attention to detail = stringer; pays attention
> to big picture = grouper. Reads instructions and follows them = stringer;
> Looks over task, plays at putting it together; might refer to instructions
> if stuck = grouper.
>
> Strongly stringer learners can listen and retain sequentially provided
> information and feed it back. They do great in following directions,
> keeping things organized, and paying attention to details. But, they lack
> the imaginative and innovative thinking and learning skills to create new
> businesses or new products.
>
> Groupers easily understand the need for stringers to have their clean desks,
> organization, details and value their contributions to a team. I have met
> some people so stringer that they can't accept the idea that some people
> need their messy environment and chaotic approach to work - be it at a job
> or in school.
>
> So, those who think it is a sin to reinvent the wheel don't seem to
> understand a grouper mentality. But, management education - more than the
> humanities - has a strong need to develop groupers because the groupers are
> the ones who will provide the creativity and innovation so important to
> business success.
>
> Yes, this is a topic I believe in passionately. I speak for any grouper
> student you have in your classes. Respect our learning style. Business
> needs it.
>
>
> Conna Condon
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kim Boal" <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
> To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Got publications?
>
>
> > Dear Conna, if the only pedagogy one uses in the classroom is "lecture" I
> > would agree that is not provide a sufficient learning environment for most
> > students to benefit fully. However, when I say profess, I harken back to
> > what one of my mentors, Alan Filley, use to say, "it is a sin to make
> > people reinvent the wheel," and what Jay Barney once told my students,
> > "first you must learn the conventional wisdom before you are free to
> forget
> > it." Hopefully, when I profess I do at least two things: 1) bring
> > additional knowledge to bear that is not readily available except to folks
> > following the latest research; and 2) let my students know when material,
> > even material presented in the text, is not "settled" knowledge but is
> > still being contested.
> >
> > Regards, Kim
> >
> >
> > P.S. I won't contest that much of what is published is "worthless" to
> some
> > audiences, ie., they may see no application to the knowledge or they may
> > not see how it leads to a further understanding of the phenomena. I
> > recall, some 20+ years ago, when I did my dissertation on Cognitive
> > Evaluation Theory (ie., the impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
> > motivation), I was asked in one job interview the implications of my
> > research on labor/management relations. I had never thought of that issue
> > regarding my research, and at the time was clueless about the relevance of
> > my research to that issue. It took me about four years to figure out the
> > implications. By that time, I had moved on in my research, and so never
> > returned to the question.
> >
> > At 05:41 AM 12/25/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > >From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]
> > >
> > >Faculty are supposed to be professing in the classroom? Ah ha! This
> > >may be
> > >the bigger difference.
> > >
> > >My goal in my class is to get my students to critically think about the
> > >topic of the class. To add to their existing knowledge on the topic
> > >through
> > >the text, research, assignments (which require them to teach), and class
> > >discussions. They do more "talking" than I do - I guide, stir them up,
> > >encourage them to question "the experts," show them how to go find more
> > >information. A brief lecture stirs them into discussion, a brief
> > >closing
> > >lecture wraps it up - but theirs is the biggest part of the class. I
> > >don't
> > >profess because according to Kolb or Gardner (see
> > >http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-d.html ), listening to someone
> > >profess is not how the majority of people learn.
> > >
> > >(ducking for cover, since I am pretty sure that isn't what Kim meant by
> > >"profess" - although others still do "sage from the stage" style
> > >lecturing
> > >which still doesn't work).
> > >
> > >Conna Condon
> >
> > --------------------------------
> > Kim Boal
> > College of Business Administration
> > Texas Tech University
> > Lubbock, TX 79409
> > (806) 742-2150
> > KimBoal@ttu

Conna,
I enjoyed your clear distinction between groups and stringers. I use the Ronald Gross material quite a bit to help inmate students get a handle on their own style. Most of them turn out to be groupers - which I find interesting.
The Gross book also covers other differences among learners. It is the best overall for making me remember how unique each learner is, and for helping me to have a fresh view of each learner.
Thanks for the wonderful distinction, and the support for groupers!
Edryce
Conna Condon <gandolf@cyberverse.com> wrote:Alas, I find myself partially disagreeing with the statements below by both
Alan Filley and Jay Barney This may be a result in a difference in
learning style that I have vs they have. In "Peak Learning: How to Create
Your Own Lifelong Education Program for Personal Enlightenment and
Professional Success," by Ronald Gross, there is a section/test for
determining learning styles nicknamed being a grouper or a stringer.
Traditional education is oriented to be successful for the stringer learner.
I can see Alan Filley's and Jay Barney's quotes being effective for
traditional learners - for Stingers.

However, I am not a stringer. Many of my adult learners are not stringers.
We are groupers. Telling us about a wheel so that we don't reinvent it
doesn't cause us to learn or understand. For a strongly grouper type, such
methods actually create a mental block to learning and/or boredom. Guide us
to reinvent the wheel and we will not only reinvent it, we will create a
whole new concept - totally outside the box - by grouping and regrouping the
information.

Hints for leanings (nobody is all grouper vs all stringer): Clean desk =
stringer; "don't mess with my mess" = grouper. Goes to library, gets book
leaves = stringer; goes to library, gets book, wanders around library
"nibbling" = grouper. Pays attention to detail = stringer; pays attention
to big picture = grouper. Reads instructions and follows them = stringer;
Looks over task, plays at putting it together; might refer to instructions
if stuck = grouper.

Strongly stringer learners can listen and retain sequentially provided
information and feed it back. They do great in following directions,
keeping things organized, and paying attention to details. But, they lack
the imaginative and innovative thinking and learning skills to create new
businesses or new products.

Groupers easily understand the need for stringers to have their clean desks,
organization, details and value their contributions to a team. I have met
some people so stringer that they can't accept the idea that some people
need their messy environment and chaotic approach to work - be it at a job
or in school.

So, those who think it is a sin to reinvent the wheel don't seem to
understand a grouper mentality. But, management education - more than the
humanities - has a strong need to develop groupers because the groupers are
the ones who will provide the creativity and innovation so important to
business success.

Yes, this is a topic I believe in passionately. I speak for any grouper
student you have in your classes. Respect our learning style. Business
needs it.


Conna Condon


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kim Boal"
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Got publications?


> Dear Conna, if the only pedagogy one uses in the classroom is "lecture" I
> would agree that is not provide a sufficient learning environment for most
> students to benefit fully. However, when I say profess, I harken back to
> what one of my mentors, Alan Filley, use to say, "it is a sin to make
> people reinvent the wheel," and what Jay Barney once told my students,
> "first you must learn the conventional wisdom before you are free to
forget
> it." Hopefully, when I profess I do at least two things: 1) bring
> additional knowledge to bear that is not readily available except to folks
> following the latest research; and 2) let my students know when material,
> even material presented in the text, is not "settled" knowledge but is
> still being contested.
>
> Regards, Kim
>
>
> P.S. I won't contest that much of what is published is "worthless" to
some
> audiences, ie., they may see no application to the knowledge or they may
> not see how it leads to a further understanding of the phenomena. I
> recall, some 20+ years ago, when I did my dissertation on Cognitive
> Evaluation Theory (ie., the impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
> motivation), I was asked in one job interview the implications of my
> research on labor/management relations. I had never thought of that issue
> regarding my research, and at the time was clueless about the relevance of
> my research to that issue. It took me about four years to figure out the
> implications. By that time, I had moved on in my research, and so never
> returned to the question.
>
> At 05:41 AM 12/25/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]
> >
> >Faculty are supposed to be professing in the classroom? Ah ha! This
> >may be
> >the bigger difference.
> >
> >My goal in my class is to get my students to critically think about the
> >topic of the class. To add to their existing knowledge on the topic
> >through
> >the text, research, assignments (which require them to teach), and class
> >discussions. They do more "talking" than I do - I guide, stir them up,
> >encourage them to question "the experts," show them how to go find more
> >information. A brief lecture stirs them into discussion, a brief
> >closing
> >lecture wraps it up - but theirs is the biggest part of the class. I
> >don't
> >profess because according to Kolb or Gardner (see
> >http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-d.html ), listening to someone
> >profess is not how the majority of people learn.
> >
> >(ducking for cover, since I am pretty sure that isn't what Kim meant by
> >"profess" - although others still do "sage from the stage" style
> >lecturing
> >which still doesn't work).
> >
> >Conna Condon
>
> --------------------------------
> Kim Boal
> College of Business Administration
> Texas Tech University
> Lubbock, TX 79409
> (806) 742-2150
> KimBoal@ttu.edu
>


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

Dear All, Conna's posting may be a good illustration of the difference
between her and me, and maybe between academics and non-academics. She
cites Ronald Gross's book to illustrate what she sees as the limitation
with, what I interpret, as the Professor's obligation to present current,
reliable, and valid, information to students without them necessarily going
through the discovery process themselves. In this sense I look at it much
like I learned geometry. There were theorems and proofs. I could take the
theorems as starting points. They were true by definition. I used them to
developed further proofs. Professors provide the
theorems. Students/managers develop the proofs.

I must admit, I do not know Ronald Gross's book, nor have I heard of his
typology. There are, however, multiple "learning style" inventories
available in both the academic and non-academic literatures. Many have
intuitive appeal, but lack a solid foundation based upon research. I
think most people involved in teaching believe there are clear differences
in how students learn and thus look for solutions to teaching that
recognize individual differences. However, like many academics, I have a
fondness for "Missouri" (the show me state), therefore, I am hesitate to
accept (and I should be equally hesitate to criticize) Conna's assertions
based upon one book.

To show that I too am susceptible to the lure of developing easy to
understand typologies, that may or may not have much validity, I point to a
book chapter on Jacques' Stratified System's (Strategic Leadership,
Phillips and Hunt, eds.), Carlton Whitehead and I wrote in 1992. In our
typology, we were contrasting people who actively seek new information
versus the degree to which the person incorporates information and revises
beliefs/mental models. This lead us to the following:

Neither seek nor use: Information avoiders
Don't seek, but will use: Information sensitives
Seek, but don't use: Information discarders
Seek and use: Information junkies

While Carlton and I developed the typology using various literatures on
decision making, neither we, nor anyone else, to my knowledge has attempted
to validate the typology. This is in contrast with the work I did with
Gary Blau on Job involvement and Organizational Commitment which now has a
fair body of research evidence supporting that typology.

One of the challenges that many Professors face is class size. I have
classes ranging from 5 Ph.D. students to 400 undergraduate students. Do I
teach them differently? Of course. In the former, I am more sensitive to
the points that Conna makes. In the latter, I suggest there are great
limitations on how easy it is to incorporate multiple methods. The current
trend for professors teaching these mega sized classes is to use short
movies clips to illustrate a point, but retreat to power point
presentations for lecturing. In our large strategy class, students attend
lecture one day a week, and then "labs" one day a week where they do group
and individual assignments.

Recognizing resource limitations being constantly imposed on professors, I
would be interested in any suggestions from folks about how you teach 400+
19-22 year olds, without much work experience except at entry level jobs,
within the confines of either 3 50 minute sessions a week or 2 one hour 20
minute session twice a week, and that is responsive to criticisms that
Conna raised with respect to the quotes by Filley and Barney.

Regards, Kim Boal


At 04:07 PM 12/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Alas, I find myself partially disagreeing with the statements below by both
>Alan Filley and Jay Barney This may be a result in a difference in
>learning style that I have vs they have. In "Peak Learning: How to Create
>Your Own Lifelong Education Program for Personal Enlightenment and
>Professional Success," by Ronald Gross, there is a section/test for
>determining learning styles nicknamed being a grouper or a stringer.
>Traditional education is oriented to be successful for the stringer learner.
>I can see Alan Filley's and Jay Barney's quotes being effective for
>traditional learners - for Stingers.
>
>However, I am not a stringer. Many of my adult learners are not stringers.
>We are groupers. Telling us about a wheel so that we don't reinvent it
>doesn't cause us to learn or understand. For a strongly grouper type, such
>methods actually create a mental block to learning and/or boredom. Guide us
>to reinvent the wheel and we will not only reinvent it, we will create a
>whole new concept - totally outside the box - by grouping and regrouping the
>information.
>
>Hints for leanings (nobody is all grouper vs all stringer): Clean desk =
>stringer; "don't mess with my mess" = grouper. Goes to library, gets book
>leaves = stringer; goes to library, gets book, wanders around library
>"nibbling" = grouper. Pays attention to detail = stringer; pays attention
>to big picture = grouper. Reads instructions and follows them = stringer;
>Looks over task, plays at putting it together; might refer to instructions
>if stuck = grouper.
>
>Strongly stringer learners can listen and retain sequentially provided
>information and feed it back. They do great in following directions,
>keeping things organized, and paying attention to details. But, they lack
>the imaginative and innovative thinking and learning skills to create new
>businesses or new products.
>
>Groupers easily understand the need for stringers to have their clean desks,
>organization, details and value their contributions to a team. I have met
>some people so stringer that they can't accept the idea that some people
>need their messy environment and chaotic approach to work - be it at a job
>or in school.
>
>So, those who think it is a sin to reinvent the wheel don't seem to
>understand a grouper mentality. But, management education - more than the
>humanities - has a strong need to develop groupers because the groupers are
>the ones who will provide the creativity and innovation so important to
>business success.
>
>Yes, this is a topic I believe in passionately. I speak for any grouper
>student you have in your classes. Respect our learning style. Business
>needs it.
>
>
>Conna Condon
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kim Boal" <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
>To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:35 AM
>Subject: Re: Got publications?
>
>
> > Dear Conna, if the only pedagogy one uses in the classroom is "lecture" I
> > would agree that is not provide a sufficient learning environment for most
> > students to benefit fully. However, when I say profess, I harken back to
> > what one of my mentors, Alan Filley, use to say, "it is a sin to make
> > people reinvent the wheel," and what Jay Barney once told my students,
> > "first you must learn the conventional wisdom before you are free to
>forget
> > it." Hopefully, when I profess I do at least two things: 1) bring
> > additional knowledge to bear that is not readily available except to folks
> > following the latest research; and 2) let my students know when material,
> > even material presented in the text, is not "settled" knowledge but is
> > still being contested.
> >
> > Regards, Kim
> >
> >
> > P.S. I won't contest that much of what is published is "worthless" to
>some
> > audiences, ie., they may see no application to the knowledge or they may
> > not see how it leads to a further understanding of the phenomena. I
> > recall, some 20+ years ago, when I did my dissertation on Cognitive
> > Evaluation Theory (ie., the impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
> > motivation), I was asked in one job interview the implications of my
> > research on labor/management relations. I had never thought of that issue
> > regarding my research, and at the time was clueless about the relevance of
> > my research to that issue. It took me about four years to figure out the
> > implications. By that time, I had moved on in my research, and so never
> > returned to the question.
> >
> > At 05:41 AM 12/25/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > >From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]
> > >
> > >Faculty are supposed to be professing in the classroom? Ah ha! This
> > >may be
> > >the bigger difference.
> > >
> > >My goal in my class is to get my students to critically think about the
> > >topic of the class. To add to their existing knowledge on the topic
> > >through
> > >the text, research, assignments (which require them to teach), and class
> > >discussions. They do more "talking" than I do - I guide, stir them up,
> > >encourage them to question "the experts," show them how to go find more
> > >information. A brief lecture stirs them into discussion, a brief
> > >closing
> > >lecture wraps it up - but theirs is the biggest part of the class. I
> > >don't
> > >profess because according to Kolb or Gardner (see
> > >http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-d.html ), listening to someone
> > >profess is not how the majority of people learn.
> > >
> > >(ducking for cover, since I am pretty sure that isn't what Kim meant by
> > >"profess" - although others still do "sage from the stage" style
> > >lecturing
> > >which still doesn't work).
> > >
> > >Conna Condon
> >
> > --------------------------------
> > Kim Boal
> > College of Business Administration
> > Texas Tech University
> > Lubbock, TX 79409
> > (806) 742-2150
> > KimBoal@ttu.edu
> >

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

From: rusty rae thegraduate@centurytel.net

Perhaps a part of the problem is the fact that the institution is
cramming 400 students together for a lecture which it believes is an
actual "learning" opportunity. While not impossible, it does seem to me
that this stretches the ability of any teacher to meet the varied
learning needs of students. In fact, as I write this, it seems that if
that is the case, why not just video tape the lecture and put it online
and let the students get the information when they want it.
-rr

Dear All, in response to Rusty, I would agree that cramming 400 students
into one class is not ideal, but it is not uncommon. We have around 5000
undergraduate business students at Texas Tech, and as much as I and my Dean
know, we are terribly understaffed. Unfortunately, I do not think the
situation will change in the near future given State budgets which project
billion dollar+ deficits.

I always tell my students that the real proof of the usefulness of any
class is not the grade they earn, but whether or not it will provide them
with information that will allow them to make better decisions on the
firing line in the future. Unfortunately, as a professor, I rarely hear
back from students 5-10 years out about whether or not what we taught them
made any difference. What we do know is what they say on course
evaluations as well as data we collect when they graduate. Interestingly,
folks who teach large classes generally rate as well on student evaluations
as those who teach small classes. Perhaps it is because those who can
teach large lecture classes gravitate towards them, and those who can not
avoid them. (I usually involve my colleagues in making teaching assignments).

Regards, Kim


At 03:10 PM 12/27/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>From: rusty rae thegraduate@centurytel.net
>
>Perhaps a part of the problem is the fact that the institution is
>cramming 400 students together for a lecture which it believes is an
>actual "learning" opportunity. While not impossible, it does seem to me
>that this stretches the ability of any teacher to meet the varied
>learning needs of students. In fact, as I write this, it seems that if
>that is the case, why not just video tape the lecture and put it online
>and let the students get the information when they want it.
>-rr

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

Thanks Edryce,

Your inmates are exactly why I am so vocal. I don't find the idea that they
are more likely to be groupers at all surprising. In alienating the grouper
child, traditional education alienates groupers from society. That may have
been part of what drove them in a direction resulting in prison time. By
the way, most K - 12 teachers are stringers. :)

I overcame the traditional educational system - partly thanks to
imprisonment in Catholic schools (wicked grins). They had me convinced I
was stupid. My own kids are groupers, too. I struggled against teachers
making them feel stupid because they didn't learn the way the teacher
taught. All 3 are gifted - and excelling as adults. But, each has had to
go back to undo the damage of traditional education. Again, I realize that
isn't an academically rigorous sample, but it is my personal case
experience. :)

I didn't find out about the grouper/stringer concept until my kids were
adults - to late to benefit them. But, if I am vocal enough, maybe some
other child will have a better experience of education.

Conna

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edryce Reynolds" <edryce@yahoo.com>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Got publications?


> Conna,
> I enjoyed your clear distinction between groups and stringers. I use the
Ronald Gross material quite a bit to help inmate students get a handle on
their own style. Most of them turn out to be groupers - which I find
interesting.
> The Gross book also covers other differences among learners. It is the
best overall for making me remember how unique each learner is, and for
helping me to have a fresh view of each learner.
> Thanks for the wonderful distinction, and the support for groupers!
> Edryce
> Conna Condon <gandolf@cyberverse.com> wrote:Alas, I find myself partially
disagreeing with the statements below by both
> Alan Filley and Jay Barney This may be a result in a difference in
> learning style that I have vs they have. In "Peak Learning: How to Create
> Your Own Lifelong Education Program for Personal Enlightenment and
> Professional Success," by Ronald Gross, there is a section/test for
> determining learning styles nicknamed being a grouper or a stringer.
> Traditional education is oriented to be successful for the stringer
learner.
> I can see Alan Filley's and Jay Barney's quotes being effective for
> traditional learners - for Stingers.
>
> However, I am not a stringer. Many of my adult learners are not stringers.
> We are groupers. Telling us about a wheel so that we don't reinvent it
> doesn't cause us to learn or understand. For a strongly grouper type, such
> methods actually create a mental block to learning and/or boredom. Guide
us
> to reinvent the wheel and we will not only reinvent it, we will create a
> whole new concept - totally outside the box - by grouping and regrouping
the
> information.
>
> Hints for leanings (nobody is all grouper vs all stringer): Clean desk =
> stringer; "don't mess with my mess" = grouper. Goes to library, gets book
> leaves = stringer; goes to library, gets book, wanders around library
> "nibbling" = grouper. Pays attention to detail = stringer; pays attention
> to big picture = grouper. Reads instructions and follows them = stringer;
> Looks over task, plays at putting it together; might refer to instructions
> if stuck = grouper.
>
> Strongly stringer learners can listen and retain sequentially provided
> information and feed it back. They do great in following directions,
> keeping things organized, and paying attention to details. But, they lack
> the imaginative and innovative thinking and learning skills to create new
> businesses or new products.
>
> Groupers easily understand the need for stringers to have their clean
desks,
> organization, details and value their contributions to a team. I have met
> some people so stringer that they can't accept the idea that some people
> need their messy environment and chaotic approach to work - be it at a job
> or in school.
>
> So, those who think it is a sin to reinvent the wheel don't seem to
> understand a grouper mentality. But, management education - more than the
> humanities - has a strong need to develop groupers because the groupers
are
> the ones who will provide the creativity and innovation so important to
> business success.
>
> Yes, this is a topic I believe in passionately. I speak for any grouper
> student you have in your classes. Respect our learning style. Business
> needs it.
>
>
> Conna Condon
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kim Boal"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Got publications?
>
>
> > Dear Conna, if the only pedagogy one uses in the classroom is "lecture"
I
> > would agree that is not provide a sufficient learning environment for
most
> > students to benefit fully. However, when I say profess, I harken back to
> > what one of my mentors, Alan Filley, use to say, "it is a sin to make
> > people reinvent the wheel," and what Jay Barney once told my students,
> > "first you must learn the conventional wisdom before you are free to
> forget
> > it." Hopefully, when I profess I do at least two things: 1) bring
> > additional knowledge to bear that is not readily available except to
folks
> > following the latest research; and 2) let my students know when
material,
> > even material presented in the text, is not "settled" knowledge but is
> > still being contested.
> >
> > Regards, Kim
> >
> >
> > P.S. I won't contest that much of what is published is "worthless" to
> some
> > audiences, ie., they may see no application to the knowledge or they may
> > not see how it leads to a further understanding of the phenomena. I
> > recall, some 20+ years ago, when I did my dissertation on Cognitive
> > Evaluation Theory (ie., the impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
> > motivation), I was asked in one job interview the implications of my
> > research on labor/management relations. I had never thought of that
issue
> > regarding my research, and at the time was clueless about the relevance
of
> > my research to that issue. It took me about four years to figure out the
> > implications. By that time, I had moved on in my research, and so never
> > returned to the question.
> >
> > At 05:41 AM 12/25/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > >From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]
> > >
> > >Faculty are supposed to be professing in the classroom? Ah ha! This
> > >may be
> > >the bigger difference.
> > >
> > >My goal in my class is to get my students to critically think about the
> > >topic of the class. To add to their existing knowledge on the topic
> > >through
> > >the text, research, assignments (which require them to teach), and
class
> > >discussions. They do more "talking" than I do - I guide, stir them up,
> > >encourage them to question "the experts," show them how to go find more
> > >information. A brief lecture stirs them into discussion, a brief
> > >closing
> > >lecture wraps it up - but theirs is the biggest part of the class. I
> > >don't
> > >profess because according to Kolb or Gardner (see
> > >http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-d.html ), listening to someone
> > >profess is not how the majority of people learn.
> > >
> > >(ducking for cover, since I am pretty sure that isn't what Kim meant by
> > >"profess" - although others still do "sage from the stage" style
> > >lecturing
> > >which still doesn't work).
> > >
> > >Conna Condon
> >
> > --------------------------------
> > Kim Boal
> > College of Business Administration
> > Texas Tech University
> > Lubbock, TX 79409
> > (806) 742-2150
> > KimBoal@ttu.edu
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
>

From: nixon [mailto:debnixon@sympatico.ca]

I have been enjoying this cyber-dialogue and your comments about
stringers and groupers has helped me tremendously. I am teaching Change
Mgmt to IT students- many of whom are stringers. I'm a grouper- never
heard these terms before but I loved the description!!

So, as I contemplate next term and my course design- and berate myself
for working in such a mess!-- I can keep all of this in mind. It's so
easy to forget about these important distinctions.

Thank you all. I also am living through my own personal coming to terms
between practice, research and teaching. I'm a consultant, teacher and
working towards completing my PhD. And wondering where a 45 year old
business type fits in academia. I'm too old for the publish and perish
game- especially in the Tier 1 journals. But I also know I have a
contribution to make in the classroom and to research- although it may
not be as 'pure' research as the academics produce. But I know it's
valued by somebody.

It's Christmas, I have two little boys in the background beyblading- and
I'm trying to sound intelligent! So, with all the other demands of this
life, don't forget to throw in parenting. That squeezes in somewhere
too.

Deborah Nixon

Deborah Nixon
Partner
DNI Group
704 Windermere Avenue
Toronto Ontario M6S 3M1
Ph: (416) 763-6985
Fax:(416) 763-3361
Email:dnixon@dnigroup.ca

ROFLMAO!!!! Rolling on floor laughing my * off!

Oh, Kim! Oh, my! You could not have chosen a better example. Before I
knew the word "grouper" this is how I discovered I was one!

My school thought I was too dumb to learn geometry in a traditional class
(Thank goodness. They were right about not putting me in a traditional
class, but wrong about the reason). So, I was put in dumbbell geometry
using a method called "Constructional Geometry." We "discovered" the
theorems instead of being taught the theorems. I recall a lot of paper and
scizzors. We were guided in these discoveries, but because we discovered
them we "owned" them. We understood them in depth and experience. They
were not memorized. There was no need for memorization. We could
extrapolate and apply what we were taught. We could go way outside the box.
Thanks to this course I discovered that I wasn't dumb about math!!!! That
math could make sense and be understood! I earned an "A" ... and the
confidence to go back 3 years later in a similarly styled algebra class and
begin back at the number line and learn the math no stringer teacher ever
got across to me - through algebra - from a grouper perspective. I cannot
express to you the total delight in discovering why 1 + 1 = 2. None of the
stringer teachers could tell me why! I needed to know why to learn it.
Maybe others could learn their multiplication tables by memorization, but I
needed to understand why 5 * 5 = 25. I learn by "figuring out why" - not by
being told. Kolb, Gardner, all the other learning inventories I have
previously seen don't talk about this critical difference in the way people
learn. (One other message in this string does mention one that I'm going to
have to go check out).

As to class sizes of 400? None of the schools I teach at would ever use a
class size of 400. All of our classes are 15 or fewer students. Why bother
having a person in front of a group of 400? Gather the most frequently
asked questions and their answers and record it. Show the movie. There is
a reason there is a joke about this type of lecture and students who start
just setting up their recorders and leaving until the final picture has the
speaker's tape recorder playing to a room full of tape recorders taping.
This is the reason that some e-learning programs think you can have
non-interactive online education. They do just record and play the
lectures.

Why is it that we hear so loudly and so often the importance of reducing
class sizes in K - 12 but some schools think learning of any depth can
happen by having an expert talk at a group of 400? That is like saying I
learn when I go listen to a keynote speaker at a conference. They might say
something that intrigues me and/or gets me thinking. But, all they do is
stir up my thinking. For anything else to happen, I have to go do
something. How many of those 400 people actually go do anything except
retain just enough information just long enough to regurgitate it on some
final exam? How does this type of lecturing stimulate the ability to
critical think? To debate and question? Not just of the few who will ask a
question in that large a group, but of each and every person there?

As you can tell, I am opposed to "classes" of 400. They aren't a class,
they are an audience of a speech. However, I realize they are the
"reality" for a lot of you, so I will listen to that branch of the
discussion as one who doesn't live it.

Conna Condon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kim Boal" <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Got publications?


> Dear All, Conna's posting may be a good illustration of the difference
> between her and me, and maybe between academics and non-academics. She
> cites Ronald Gross's book to illustrate what she sees as the limitation
> with, what I interpret, as the Professor's obligation to present current,
> reliable, and valid, information to students without them necessarily
going
> through the discovery process themselves. In this sense I look at it much
> like I learned geometry. There were theorems and proofs. I could take
the
> theorems as starting points. They were true by definition. I used them
to
> developed further proofs. Professors provide the
> theorems. Students/managers develop the proofs.
>
> I must admit, I do not know Ronald Gross's book, nor have I heard of his
> typology. There are, however, multiple "learning style" inventories
> available in both the academic and non-academic literatures. Many have
> intuitive appeal, but lack a solid foundation based upon research. I
> think most people involved in teaching believe there are clear differences
> in how students learn and thus look for solutions to teaching that
> recognize individual differences. However, like many academics, I have a
> fondness for "Missouri" (the show me state), therefore, I am hesitate to
> accept (and I should be equally hesitate to criticize) Conna's assertions
> based upon one book.
>
> To show that I too am susceptible to the lure of developing easy to
> understand typologies, that may or may not have much validity, I point to
a
> book chapter on Jacques' Stratified System's (Strategic Leadership,
> Phillips and Hunt, eds.), Carlton Whitehead and I wrote in 1992. In our
> typology, we were contrasting people who actively seek new information
> versus the degree to which the person incorporates information and revises
> beliefs/mental models. This lead us to the following:
>
> Neither seek nor use: Information avoiders
> Don't seek, but will use: Information sensitives
> Seek, but don't use: Information discarders
> Seek and use: Information junkies
>
> While Carlton and I developed the typology using various literatures on
> decision making, neither we, nor anyone else, to my knowledge has
attempted
> to validate the typology. This is in contrast with the work I did with
> Gary Blau on Job involvement and Organizational Commitment which now has
a
> fair body of research evidence supporting that typology.
>
> One of the challenges that many Professors face is class size. I have
> classes ranging from 5 Ph.D. students to 400 undergraduate students. Do I
> teach them differently? Of course. In the former, I am more sensitive to
> the points that Conna makes. In the latter, I suggest there are great
> limitations on how easy it is to incorporate multiple methods. The
current
> trend for professors teaching these mega sized classes is to use short
> movies clips to illustrate a point, but retreat to power point
> presentations for lecturing. In our large strategy class, students attend
> lecture one day a week, and then "labs" one day a week where they do group
> and individual assignments.
>
> Recognizing resource limitations being constantly imposed on professors, I
> would be interested in any suggestions from folks about how you teach 400+
> 19-22 year olds, without much work experience except at entry level jobs,
> within the confines of either 3 50 minute sessions a week or 2 one hour 20
> minute session twice a week, and that is responsive to criticisms that
> Conna raised with respect to the quotes by Filley and Barney.
>
> Regards, Kim Boal
>
>
> At 04:07 PM 12/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >Alas, I find myself partially disagreeing with the statements below by
both
> >Alan Filley and Jay Barney This may be a result in a difference in
> >learning style that I have vs they have. In "Peak Learning: How to
Create
> >Your Own Lifelong Education Program for Personal Enlightenment and
> >Professional Success," by Ronald Gross, there is a section/test for
> >determining learning styles nicknamed being a grouper or a stringer.
> >Traditional education is oriented to be successful for the stringer
learner.
> >I can see Alan Filley's and Jay Barney's quotes being effective for
> >traditional learners - for Stingers.
> >
> >However, I am not a stringer. Many of my adult learners are not
stringers.
> >We are groupers. Telling us about a wheel so that we don't reinvent it
> >doesn't cause us to learn or understand. For a strongly grouper type,
such
> >methods actually create a mental block to learning and/or boredom. Guide
us
> >to reinvent the wheel and we will not only reinvent it, we will create a
> >whole new concept - totally outside the box - by grouping and regrouping
the
> >information.
> >
> >Hints for leanings (nobody is all grouper vs all stringer): Clean desk =
> >stringer; "don't mess with my mess" = grouper. Goes to library, gets
book
> >leaves = stringer; goes to library, gets book, wanders around library
> >"nibbling" = grouper. Pays attention to detail = stringer; pays
attention
> >to big picture = grouper. Reads instructions and follows them =
stringer;
> >Looks over task, plays at putting it together; might refer to
instructions
> >if stuck = grouper.
> >
> >Strongly stringer learners can listen and retain sequentially provided
> >information and feed it back. They do great in following directions,
> >keeping things organized, and paying attention to details. But, they
lack
> >the imaginative and innovative thinking and learning skills to create new
> >businesses or new products.
> >
> >Groupers easily understand the need for stringers to have their clean
desks,
> >organization, details and value their contributions to a team. I have
met
> >some people so stringer that they can't accept the idea that some people
> >need their messy environment and chaotic approach to work - be it at a
job
> >or in school.
> >
> >So, those who think it is a sin to reinvent the wheel don't seem to
> >understand a grouper mentality. But, management education - more than
the
> >humanities - has a strong need to develop groupers because the groupers
are
> >the ones who will provide the creativity and innovation so important to
> >business success.
> >
> >Yes, this is a topic I believe in passionately. I speak for any grouper
> >student you have in your classes. Respect our learning style. Business
> >needs it.
> >
> >
> >Conna Condon
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Kim Boal" <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
> >To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
> >Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:35 AM
> >Subject: Re: Got publications?
> >
> >
> > > Dear Conna, if the only pedagogy one uses in the classroom is
"lecture" I
> > > would agree that is not provide a sufficient learning environment for
most
> > > students to benefit fully. However, when I say profess, I harken back
to
> > > what one of my mentors, Alan Filley, use to say, "it is a sin to make
> > > people reinvent the wheel," and what Jay Barney once told my students,
> > > "first you must learn the conventional wisdom before you are free to
> >forget
> > > it." Hopefully, when I profess I do at least two things: 1) bring
> > > additional knowledge to bear that is not readily available except to
folks
> > > following the latest research; and 2) let my students know when
material,
> > > even material presented in the text, is not "settled" knowledge but is
> > > still being contested.
> > >
> > > Regards, Kim
> > >
> > >
> > > P.S. I won't contest that much of what is published is "worthless" to
> >some
> > > audiences, ie., they may see no application to the knowledge or they
may
> > > not see how it leads to a further understanding of the phenomena. I
> > > recall, some 20+ years ago, when I did my dissertation on Cognitive
> > > Evaluation Theory (ie., the impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
> > > motivation), I was asked in one job interview the implications of my
> > > research on labor/management relations. I had never thought of that
issue
> > > regarding my research, and at the time was clueless about the
relevance of
> > > my research to that issue. It took me about four years to figure out
the
> > > implications. By that time, I had moved on in my research, and so
never
> > > returned to the question.
> > >
> > > At 05:41 AM 12/25/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]
> > > >
> > > >Faculty are supposed to be professing in the classroom? Ah ha! This
> > > >may be
> > > >the bigger difference.
> > > >
> > > >My goal in my class is to get my students to critically think about
the
> > > >topic of the class. To add to their existing knowledge on the topic
> > > >through
> > > >the text, research, assignments (which require them to teach), and
class
> > > >discussions. They do more "talking" than I do - I guide, stir them
up,
> > > >encourage them to question "the experts," show them how to go find
more
> > > >information. A brief lecture stirs them into discussion, a brief
> > > >closing
> > > >lecture wraps it up - but theirs is the biggest part of the class. I
> > > >don't
> > > >profess because according to Kolb or Gardner (see
> > > >http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-d.html ), listening to
someone
> > > >profess is not how the majority of people learn.
> > > >
> > > >(ducking for cover, since I am pretty sure that isn't what Kim meant
by
> > > >"profess" - although others still do "sage from the stage" style
> > > >lecturing
> > > >which still doesn't work).
> > > >
> > > >Conna Condon
> > >
> > > --------------------------------
> > > Kim Boal
> > > College of Business Administration
> > > Texas Tech University
> > > Lubbock, TX 79409
> > > (806) 742-2150
> > > KimBoal@ttu.edu
> > >
>
> --------------------------------
> Kim Boal
> College of Business Administration
> Texas Tech University
> Lubbock, TX 79409
> (806) 742-2150
> KimBoal@ttu.edu
>

Hi Conna,

you could also take a look at a schooling "experiment" that has been running in
New Zealand for a few years now and is proving very successful. It is geared to
provide a learning environment for "groupers" (as far as my understanding of the
system goes...). You can find more info at:

http://www.discovery1.school.nz/index1.htm

All the best,

Wendy

Quoting Conna Condon <gandolf@cyberverse.com>:

> ROFLMAO!!!! Rolling on floor laughing my * off!
>
> Oh, Kim! Oh, my! You could not have chosen a better example. Before I
> knew the word "grouper" this is how I discovered I was one!
>
> My school thought I was too dumb to learn geometry in a traditional class
> (Thank goodness. They were right about not putting me in a traditional
> class, but wrong about the reason). So, I was put in dumbbell geometry
> using a method called "Constructional Geometry." We "discovered" the
> theorems instead of being taught the theorems. I recall a lot of paper and
> scizzors. We were guided in these discoveries, but because we discovered
> them we "owned" them. We understood them in depth and experience. They
> were not memorized. There was no need for memorization. We could
> extrapolate and apply what we were taught. We could go way outside the box.
> Thanks to this course I discovered that I wasn't dumb about math!!!! That
> math could make sense and be understood! I earned an "A" ... and the
> confidence to go back 3 years later in a similarly styled algebra class and
> begin back at the number line and learn the math no stringer teacher ever
> got across to me - through algebra - from a grouper perspective. I cannot
> express to you the total delight in discovering why 1 + 1 = 2. None of the
> stringer teachers could tell me why! I needed to know why to learn it.
> Maybe others could learn their multiplication tables by memorization, but I
> needed to understand why 5 * 5 = 25. I learn by "figuring out why" - not by
> being told. Kolb, Gardner, all the other learning inventories I have
> previously seen don't talk about this critical difference in the way people
> learn. (One other message in this string does mention one that I'm going to
> have to go check out).
>
> As to class sizes of 400? None of the schools I teach at would ever use a
> class size of 400. All of our classes are 15 or fewer students. Why bother
> having a person in front of a group of 400? Gather the most frequently
> asked questions and their answers and record it. Show the movie. There is
> a reason there is a joke about this type of lecture and students who start
> just setting up their recorders and leaving until the final picture has the
> speaker's tape recorder playing to a room full of tape recorders taping.
> This is the reason that some e-learning programs think you can have
> non-interactive online education. They do just record and play the
> lectures.
>
> Why is it that we hear so loudly and so often the importance of reducing
> class sizes in K - 12 but some schools think learning of any depth can
> happen by having an expert talk at a group of 400? That is like saying I
> learn when I go listen to a keynote speaker at a conference. They might say
> something that intrigues me and/or gets me thinking. But, all they do is
> stir up my thinking. For anything else to happen, I have to go do
> something. How many of those 400 people actually go do anything except
> retain just enough information just long enough to regurgitate it on some
> final exam? How does this type of lecturing stimulate the ability to
> critical think? To debate and question? Not just of the few who will ask a
> question in that large a group, but of each and every person there?
>
> As you can tell, I am opposed to "classes" of 400. They aren't a class,
> they are an audience of a speech. However, I realize they are the
> "reality" for a lot of you, so I will listen to that branch of the
> discussion as one who doesn't live it.
>
> Conna Condon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kim Boal" <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
> To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 9:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Got publications?
>
>
> > Dear All, Conna's posting may be a good illustration of the difference
> > between her and me, and maybe between academics and non-academics. She
> > cites Ronald Gross's book to illustrate what she sees as the limitation
> > with, what I interpret, as the Professor's obligation to present current,
> > reliable, and valid, information to students without them necessarily
> going
> > through the discovery process themselves. In this sense I look at it much
> > like I learned geometry. There were theorems and proofs. I could take
> the
> > theorems as starting points. They were true by definition. I used them
> to
> > developed further proofs. Professors provide the
> > theorems. Students/managers develop the proofs.
> >
> > I must admit, I do not know Ronald Gross's book, nor have I heard of his
> > typology. There are, however, multiple "learning style" inventories
> > available in both the academic and non-academic literatures. Many have
> > intuitive appeal, but lack a solid foundation based upon research. I
> > think most people involved in teaching believe there are clear differences
> > in how students learn and thus look for solutions to teaching that
> > recognize individual differences. However, like many academics, I have a
> > fondness for "Missouri" (the show me state), therefore, I am hesitate to
> > accept (and I should be equally hesitate to criticize) Conna's assertions
> > based upon one book.
> >
> > To show that I too am susceptible to the lure of developing easy to
> > understand typologies, that may or may not have much validity, I point to
> a
> > book chapter on Jacques' Stratified System's (Strategic Leadership,
> > Phillips and Hunt, eds.), Carlton Whitehead and I wrote in 1992. In our
> > typology, we were contrasting people who actively seek new information
> > versus the degree to which the person incorporates information and revises
> > beliefs/mental models. This lead us to the following:
> >
> > Neither seek nor use: Information avoiders
> > Don't seek, but will use: Information sensitives
> > Seek, but don't use: Information discarders
> > Seek and use: Information junkies
> >
> > While Carlton and I developed the typology using various literatures on
> > decision making, neither we, nor anyone else, to my knowledge has
> attempted
> > to validate the typology. This is in contrast with the work I did with
> > Gary Blau on Job involvement and Organizational Commitment which now has
> a
> > fair body of research evidence supporting that typology.
> >
> > One of the challenges that many Professors face is class size. I have
> > classes ranging from 5 Ph.D. students to 400 undergraduate students. Do I
> > teach them differently? Of course. In the former, I am more sensitive to
> > the points that Conna makes. In the latter, I suggest there are great
> > limitations on how easy it is to incorporate multiple methods. The
> current
> > trend for professors teaching these mega sized classes is to use short
> > movies clips to illustrate a point, but retreat to power point
> > presentations for lecturing. In our large strategy class, students attend
> > lecture one day a week, and then "labs" one day a week where they do group
> > and individual assignments.
> >
> > Recognizing resource limitations being constantly imposed on professors, I
> > would be interested in any suggestions from folks about how you teach 400+
> > 19-22 year olds, without much work experience except at entry level jobs,
> > within the confines of either 3 50 minute sessions a week or 2 one hour 20
> > minute session twice a week, and that is responsive to criticisms that
> > Conna raised with respect to the quotes by Filley and Barney.
> >
> > Regards, Kim Boal
> >
> >
> > At 04:07 PM 12/26/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> > >Alas, I find myself partially disagreeing with the statements below by
> both
> > >Alan Filley and Jay Barney This may be a result in a difference in
> > >learning style that I have vs they have. In "Peak Learning: How to
> Create
> > >Your Own Lifelong Education Program for Personal Enlightenment and
> > >Professional Success," by Ronald Gross, there is a section/test for
> > >determining learning styles nicknamed being a grouper or a stringer.
> > >Traditional education is oriented to be successful for the stringer
> learner.
> > >I can see Alan Filley's and Jay Barney's quotes being effective for
> > >traditional learners - for Stingers.
> > >
> > >However, I am not a stringer. Many of my adult learners are not
> stringers.
> > >We are groupers. Telling us about a wheel so that we don't reinvent it
> > >doesn't cause us to learn or understand. For a strongly grouper type,
> such
> > >methods actually create a mental block to learning and/or boredom. Guide
> us
> > >to reinvent the wheel and we will not only reinvent it, we will create a
> > >whole new concept - totally outside the box - by grouping and regrouping
> the
> > >information.
> > >
> > >Hints for leanings (nobody is all grouper vs all stringer): Clean desk =
> > >stringer; "don't mess with my mess" = grouper. Goes to library, gets
> book
> > >leaves = stringer; goes to library, gets book, wanders around library
> > >"nibbling" = grouper. Pays attention to detail = stringer; pays
> attention
> > >to big picture = grouper. Reads instructions and follows them =
> stringer;
> > >Looks over task, plays at putting it together; might refer to
> instructions
> > >if stuck = grouper.
> > >
> > >Strongly stringer learners can listen and retain sequentially provided
> > >information and feed it back. They do great in following directions,
> > >keeping things organized, and paying attention to details. But, they
> lack
> > >the imaginative and innovative thinking and learning skills to create new
> > >businesses or new products.
> > >
> > >Groupers easily understand the need for stringers to have their clean
> desks,
> > >organization, details and value their contributions to a team. I have
> met
> > >some people so stringer that they can't accept the idea that some people
> > >need their messy environment and chaotic approach to work - be it at a
> job
> > >or in school.
> > >
> > >So, those who think it is a sin to reinvent the wheel don't seem to
> > >understand a grouper mentality. But, management education - more than
> the
> > >humanities - has a strong need to develop groupers because the groupers
> are
> > >the ones who will provide the creativity and innovation so important to
> > >business success.
> > >
> > >Yes, this is a topic I believe in passionately. I speak for any grouper
> > >student you have in your classes. Respect our learning style. Business
> > >needs it.
> > >
> > >
> > >Conna Condon
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Kim Boal" <KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
> > >To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
> > >Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 10:35 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Got publications?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear Conna, if the only pedagogy one uses in the classroom is
> "lecture" I
> > > > would agree that is not provide a sufficient learning environment for
> most
> > > > students to benefit fully. However, when I say profess, I harken back
> to
> > > > what one of my mentors, Alan Filley, use to say, "it is a sin to make
> > > > people reinvent the wheel," and what Jay Barney once told my students,
> > > > "first you must learn the conventional wisdom before you are free to
> > >forget
> > > > it." Hopefully, when I profess I do at least two things: 1) bring
> > > > additional knowledge to bear that is not readily available except to
> folks
> > > > following the latest research; and 2) let my students know when
> material,
> > > > even material presented in the text, is not "settled" knowledge but is
> > > > still being contested.
> > > >
> > > > Regards, Kim
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > P.S. I won't contest that much of what is published is "worthless" to
> > >some
> > > > audiences, ie., they may see no application to the knowledge or they
> may
> > > > not see how it leads to a further understanding of the phenomena. I
> > > > recall, some 20+ years ago, when I did my dissertation on Cognitive
> > > > Evaluation Theory (ie., the impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
> > > > motivation), I was asked in one job interview the implications of my
> > > > research on labor/management relations. I had never thought of that
> issue
> > > > regarding my research, and at the time was clueless about the
> relevance of
> > > > my research to that issue. It took me about four years to figure out
> the
> > > > implications. By that time, I had moved on in my research, and so
> never
> > > > returned to the question.
> > > >
> > > > At 05:41 AM 12/25/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > > > >From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]
> > > > >
> > > > >Faculty are supposed to be professing in the classroom? Ah ha! This
> > > > >may be
> > > > >the bigger difference.
> > > > >
> > > > >My goal in my class is to get my students to critically think about
> the
> > > > >topic of the class. To add to their existing knowledge on the topic
> > > > >through
> > > > >the text, research, assignments (which require them to teach), and
> class
> > > > >discussions. They do more "talking" than I do - I guide, stir them
> up,
> > > > >encourage them to question "the experts," show them how to go find
> more
> > > > >information. A brief lecture stirs them into discussion, a brief
> > > > >closing
> > > > >lecture wraps it up - but theirs is the biggest part of the class. I
> > > > >don't
> > > > >profess because according to Kolb or Gardner (see
> > > > >http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-d.html ), listening to
> someone
> > > > >profess is not how the majority of people learn.
> > > > >
> > > > >(ducking for cover, since I am pretty sure that isn't what Kim meant
> by
> > > > >"profess" - although others still do "sage from the stage" style
> > > > >lecturing
> > > > >which still doesn't work).
> > > > >
> > > > >Conna Condon
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------
> > > > Kim Boal
> > > > College of Business Administration
> > > > Texas Tech University
> > > > Lubbock, TX 79409
> > > > (806) 742-2150
> > > > KimBoal@ttu.edu
> > > >
> >
> > --------------------------------
> > Kim Boal
> > College of Business Administration
> > Texas Tech University
> > Lubbock, TX 79409
> > (806) 742-2150
> > KimBoal@ttu.edu
> >

45?? You child! I am 54 and just got off the phone with one of my
committee members. :)

Next time you go to an Academy of Management function be sure to visit the
History division in hopes of running into our esteemed Dr. Al Bolton. (I am
so bad at names, I sure hope I got that one right). He was over 50 when he
went back to school. In his 70's he has published many articles on the
Hawthorne studies - cause he was there when they did them. (each interview
with each person is a separate article; and each relationship is another) I
treasure my Hawthorne studies circuit he gave me. It reminds me that I am
not to old.

Conna Condon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wankel" <wankelc@optonline.net>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: Got publications?


> From: nixon [mailto:debnixon@sympatico.ca]
>
> I have been enjoying this cyber-dialogue and your comments about
> stringers and groupers has helped me tremendously. I am teaching Change
> Mgmt to IT students- many of whom are stringers. I'm a grouper- never
> heard these terms before but I loved the description!!
>
> So, as I contemplate next term and my course design- and berate myself
> for working in such a mess!-- I can keep all of this in mind. It's so
> easy to forget about these important distinctions.
>
> Thank you all. I also am living through my own personal coming to terms
> between practice, research and teaching. I'm a consultant, teacher and
> working towards completing my PhD. And wondering where a 45 year old
> business type fits in academia. I'm too old for the publish and perish
> game- especially in the Tier 1 journals. But I also know I have a
> contribution to make in the classroom and to research- although it may
> not be as 'pure' research as the academics produce. But I know it's
> valued by somebody.
>
> It's Christmas, I have two little boys in the background beyblading- and
> I'm trying to sound intelligent! So, with all the other demands of this
> life, don't forget to throw in parenting. That squeezes in somewhere
> too.
>
> Deborah Nixon
>
> Deborah Nixon
> Partner
> DNI Group
> 704 Windermere Avenue
> Toronto Ontario M6S 3M1
> Ph: (416) 763-6985
> Fax:(416) 763-3361
> Email:dnixon@dnigroup.ca
>

Colleagues,

Kim Boal asks for ways to teach large classes that honor a variety of
learning styles.

In listening to Conna's typology, it seems we are talking about those who
store facts/information as is, and those who synthesize disparate
information into larger wholes and new models.

My favorite professor in undergraduate college let us know early, then
demanded synthesis on written exams. To pass his course, I needed to know
the facts well enough to integrate them into a coherent essay response.

I also had a biology teacher of 400 who gave us 12 questions in advance of
the essay exam and told us we would have to answer 2. I teamed with a young
woman - me developing answers to six, she to six. I did mine; she didn't do
hers, and I didn't find out until too late.
Turns out, both my questions were from her list of six. For one, I got
by (honest) on Boy Scout grouper experience and hands-on training on
ecologies.

Today, I see teams form in some universities. When freshmen check in to
Denver University's Daniels College of Business, they are assigned to a team
of six that they work with for four years. It's amazing to see the commons
fill up during lunch with teams and their laptops to work together on
assignments.
The DU School of Engineering also assembles teams, and they have
remarkable statistics to prove the value. You can't choose an engineering
major until your junior year. I believe teams may be redrawn a bit after
majors are chosen to ensure a balance between electrical, mechanical, and
computer engineering.

I guess my advice (from a non-teacher) is to use out of classroom processes
to encourage (force) synthesis and collaboration.

Regarding Kim's typology. We might add:
Seek and store but not use: Librarians
Seek and misuse: Half-wits
Seek and use only that which supports biases: True believers
Seek and integrate: Synthesists
Seek and apply: Practitioners

Best,

Gary
----------------------------
Pre-planning accelerates strategy accelerates performance.

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com

Dear Colleagues, I like Gary's suggestion of putting people into permanent
teams. I know several MBA programs that do this, but not any undergraduate
programs. Perhaps the difference between 300 students versus 5000 makes
the former possible but the later problematic. Like Gary's biology
teacher, I often give my graduate students a list of essay questions from
which they will be tested. It is possible to read 10 by 30 questions, but
not 10 by 400 and have any semblance of consistency of grading. Thus, the
old reliance on "wild ass guessing" aka multiple choice.

Regards, Kim

At 03:26 PM 12/27/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Colleagues,
>
>Kim Boal asks for ways to teach large classes that honor a variety of
>learning styles.
>
>In listening to Conna's typology, it seems we are talking about those who
>store facts/information as is, and those who synthesize disparate
>information into larger wholes and new models.
>
>My favorite professor in undergraduate college let us know early, then
>demanded synthesis on written exams. To pass his course, I needed to know
>the facts well enough to integrate them into a coherent essay response.
>
>I also had a biology teacher of 400 who gave us 12 questions in advance of
>the essay exam and told us we would have to answer 2. I teamed with a young
>woman - me developing answers to six, she to six. I did mine; she didn't do
>hers, and I didn't find out until too late.
> Turns out, both my questions were from her list of six. For one, I got
>by (honest) on Boy Scout grouper experience and hands-on training on
>ecologies.
>
>Today, I see teams form in some universities. When freshmen check in to
>Denver University's Daniels College of Business, they are assigned to a team
>of six that they work with for four years. It's amazing to see the commons
>fill up during lunch with teams and their laptops to work together on
>assignments.
> The DU School of Engineering also assembles teams, and they have
>remarkable statistics to prove the value. You can't choose an engineering
>major until your junior year. I believe teams may be redrawn a bit after
>majors are chosen to ensure a balance between electrical, mechanical, and
>computer engineering.
>
>I guess my advice (from a non-teacher) is to use out of classroom processes
>to encourage (force) synthesis and collaboration.
>
>Regarding Kim's typology. We might add:
> Seek and store but not use: Librarians
> Seek and misuse: Half-wits
> Seek and use only that which supports biases: True believers
> Seek and integrate: Synthesists
> Seek and apply: Practitioners
>
>Best,
>
>Gary
>----------------------------
>Pre-planning accelerates strategy accelerates performance.
>
>Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
>303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
>garyl@market-engineering.com

--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

From: John Milliken [mailto:j.milliken@ulster.ac.uk]

Dear All,

Unfortunately many of us work in institutions driven by market forces
and
lecture groups of 200, 300 and above are commonplace. The senior
management are not concerned about the needs of students or staff -
simply
the head count for income.

My own lecture groups are 200+ so I have to use a range of strategies
for
the teaching and learning process to be effective. These include web
technology, multimedia lectures, problem based tutorials and assessment
based
on a hierarchy of learning. My criteria are that I must provide
adequate
scaffolding of my students' cognitive processes and assessment should
provide opportunity to demonstrate recall, comprehension and application
of
course concepts.

This requires considerable time commitment and energy but the
institution is
still only interested in numbers. The fact that I am using a 10 year
old
Apple Mac (borrowed from a colleague) to deliver lectures is a clear
indication of the institutional view.

Thank you to all contributors - it is a relief to know that there are
others
out there willing to share experiences.

Best wishes,

John M.

I will be back in the office on Monday, December 30, 2001.
--
Janice Czyscon
Senior Editor
Department of Engineering Professional Development
University of Wisconsin-Madison
432 North Lake Street
Madison, WI 53706
phone: 608-262-2703 or 800-462-0876
fax: 608-263-3160
email: czyscon@engr.wisc.edu
URL http://epdweb.engr.wisc.edu/

Hello All:

I can empathize with John Milliken's particular dilemma; in addition, I
would welcome any insights or experiences on how to assess such large groups
of students, especially at MBA level with particular reference to a module
in "Operations Management".

More than happy to provide a summary of the contributions to the forum if
the descriptions are varied.

Regards and a Happy 2003 to you.

Chris Seow

-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Wankel
Sent: 29 December 2002 13:11
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Got publications?

From: John Milliken [mailto:j.milliken@ulster.ac.uk]

Dear All,

Unfortunately many of us work in institutions driven by market forces
and
lecture groups of 200, 300 and above are commonplace. The senior
management are not concerned about the needs of students or staff -
simply
the head count for income.

My own lecture groups are 200+ so I have to use a range of strategies
for
the teaching and learning process to be effective. These include web
technology, multimedia lectures, problem based tutorials and assessment
based
on a hierarchy of learning. My criteria are that I must provide
adequate
scaffolding of my students' cognitive processes and assessment should
provide opportunity to demonstrate recall, comprehension and application
of
course concepts.

This requires considerable time commitment and energy but the
institution is
still only interested in numbers. The fact that I am using a 10 year
old
Apple Mac (borrowed from a colleague) to deliver lectures is a clear
indication of the institutional view.

Thank you to all contributors - it is a relief to know that there are
others
out there willing to share experiences.

Best wishes,

John M.

My dissertation happens to be on student "teams"

One of the most critical differences between a "team" and a "workgroup" is
that teams work interdependently. It turns out that a primary issue in this
is the social justice of the reward system. aka not rewarding social
loafing.

The other key problem is that putting people into a workgroup does not help
if the members do not have the tools or skills to effectively team.

We require teams in our programs and our experience is that it takes 7
courses for the undergrads to learn teaming skills. Some learn to
effectively social loaf and others learn to effectively team.

Conna Condon

Kim Boal wrote:
> Dear Colleagues, I like Gary's suggestion of putting people into permanent
> teams. I know several MBA programs that do this, but not any
undergraduate
> programs.