Edryce Reynolds, Alice Macpherson and Rommie Littrell, plus others,
are taking/have taken this discussion to a higher level. A rarity in
news group discussions generally, IMHO.
I think that describing the "Management education of the future" is
easier, and more difficult, than the discussion has suggested.
At the risk of putting words in their collective mouths, I'd summarize
them as saying that students' synapses get changed (i.e., students are
educated) well in different ways - they interact effectively with the
subject matter in different ways.
Secondly, students understand this and should have some freedom to
select the mode of interaction from alternatives. Professors should
not claim to be the original, or only, fount of wisdom & knowledge. I
would add that most professors at four year institutions are
uninformed about, or at least have not yet integrated, the academic
subject of knowledge transfer (education?) between individuals. (IMOX
- in my observation & experience.) I personally think that students'
personal insight into learning is only intuitive and often weak.
Let us accept that there is a fairly clear BOK - body of knowledge,
which is called Management, and that we wish to instill this BOK, plus
individualized fillips, into youngish, well scrubbed, fee paying individuals.
The best way to do this would be for the student to undergo some sort
of evaluation to find how they learn most completely and quickly - are
they a kinesthetic "learner," auditory, visual or another? Do they
prefer to build generalized concepts from a welter of examples, or can
they handle 'top-down' explications? What is their current level of
mathematical abstraction ability?
If "best" equals short time, then learning the generalized concepts
usually means stating them explicitly early on, at just the right
moment for the lights to go on. If "best" means most deeply,
expecting the student to articulate the generalizations is usually the
effective approach.
Of course, the instructor should have integrated the concepts of
Bloom's taxonomy into the BOK well enough to present it up to the
desired taxonomy level and declare a student victory when they reach
that level so they can move on.
Gee, this is beginning to sound pretty good! I wonder how I could do
that in practice!
Suppose I select my one sub-set of the subject, statistical analysis -
aka fact-based decision making. I walk into the first class, to face
10-20 of those well scrubbed faces. In my world they are aiming for a
BS in Management or Business Administration, or an MBA. In their
minds the diploma is somehow linked with improved job and income
prospects. The education represented by the diploma may or may not be
linked. I have been given a book, plus an extended syllabus with
detailed discussion topics and course book assignments. Depending on
the class, I may or may not
have specific software, and I am certainly expected to use whatever is
given. Occasionally students are traumatized by the name "MS Excel."
Oh, did I say the course is "accelerated," meaning that dwelling on
any one portion means the syllabus will not be completed? If this is
week 4, we must already understand confidence intervals.
Student self insight into learning modes is usually intuitive, at
best. We do all agree that lectures don't work, even though they are
prescribed when "best" equals fastest. Since learning is an
interaction kind of thing, this means the instructors have to know
themselves as well. (One of my more personally painful classes, but
most effective, occurred when I did a problem the way the students
wanted, not as I wanted.)
Even if students did know themselves educationally, how are we going
to present 4 different methodologies? We aren't - we are going to
present different approaches to the same thing. Unless 'accelerated'
is taken literally, in which case the instructor will adopt mostly one
mode and push it. If the syllabus is followed literally (it can get
pretty detailed) that decision has already been made. Thinking
'futureward,' an on-line course would need to have at least 4
different methodologies, some of which are more or less impossible at
a computer screen and keyboard.
The syllabus has already decided what Bloom level is acceptable,
whether or not it articulates the fact. "Accelerated" usually means
the second level only, in any case. Whether or not the instructor ,
or the authoring professor, has opinions on the subject.
Sorry, I didn't mean to rant over my personal lot in life.
What needs to happen, IMHO, is to decide up front, how much depth
(Bloom level) is needed for a successful graduate, in each specialty
making up the Management BOK. This has to be broken down by course
when there is more than one in a topic area. When a topic is used in
more than one course, the courses must be aligned. Train the
instructors in application of the Bloom level to the specialty
(consistent, not PR application), train the instructors in the
implications of "learning style," with respect to the instructor -
student interaction, and then force the instructors,
and the syllabus authors, to provide alternative student - material
and student - instructor interactions. The School needs to be honest
with the students about the Bloom level intended and expected. The
School needs to be honest about the linkage between the subject
content and future job and income prospects.
Edryce says that 'We should stop thinking the "professors" are
experts, especially experts in how students learn.' Dead on. If I
walk into a business operation at 8:00 am, with the intent of everyone
following a 'path to a solution' for a specific problem by 4:30
(which I have done many times), I will say up front that I don't know
the solution to the problem, but I do know how to find out. And I
will add that the 'troops' - the people on the project team, already
know the answers to half the questions I will ask.
If we now say that the 'problem' is changing synapses - education to a
certain Bloom level on a specific set of micro-topics, I can place the
instructor/professor in exactly the same situation as I face at 8:00
in that operation. I should add that, IMHO, I can use exactly the
same steps to isolate, identify and follow a 'path to a solution.'
(Horns & alarums: the A2Q Method (tm). :)
Now, may I be permitted to develop a statistics course along these
lines? Can we (especially you professors, who write those syllabi)
develop our courses in such a fashion? It would make one heck of a
"Management education of the future."
With great respect and not a little pleading,
and respectful & happy (American) Memorial Day to you all. We need to
work on adding fewer gravestones for everyone.
Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA
Ph: (262) 634-9100
FAX: (262) 681-1133
email:
quality@a2q.com
web:
http://www.a2q.com
The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?