Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Experiential Learning Based Curricula in Logistics/Supply Chain Management
Michael J. Gravier, PhD, CTLAssociate Professor of MarketingBryant University1150 Douglas PikeSmithfield, RI [email protected]
M. Theodore Farris II, PhD, CTLProfessor of Marketing and LogisticsUniversity of North TexasCollege of Business1155 Union Circle #311160Denton, TX [email protected]
1
Experiential Learning Based Curricula in Logistics/Supply Chain Management
Abstract
Experiential learning with reflection, also known as “learning to learn,” has become the backbone of pedagogy at several universities. Variously phrased as plan-do-reflect, the 3 Ps (principles-practical-professionalism), or action-experience-reflection-insight, the parallels between experiential learning cycles such as Kolb’s and business cycles such as the Shewhart cycle have made experiential learning a natural fit for supply chain and other international business programs.
Introduction
Supply chain management’s time has come! Companies on AMR’s “Supply Chain Top 25” for 2012 grew revenue an average of 29% over the previous year (Hofman and Aronow, 2012). In another report by the World Economic Forum (2012), the conclusions indicate that countries could grow their GDP six times more by managing supply chain processes than by relying on tariffs as a policy tool. The best part about this finding: many of these processes fall under the control of companies and supply chain managers, such as collaborating across countries, minimizing customs delays, improving infrastructure and standardizing procedures.
Unfortunately, practitioners are encountering a shortage of skilled supply chain professionals in the market (Aquino and Draper, 2008). Projections indicate the likelihood of acute talent shortages as the United States rebuilds after the recession (Cottrill, 2010). In response to this shortage, there has been a significant increase in academic supply chain management degree programs (Rutner and Fawcett, 2005); however, recent research found that only 65 of the 475 AACSB accredited business schools in the US have a supply chain program (Ozment and Keller, 2011). Starting a new supply chain management or logistics program is no small feat. Past research has found education to be a poor predictor of logistics manager performance (Myers, et al., 2004). This may result in part from a lack of appropriate courses in SCM/logistics as well as a shortage of faculty trained to provide the unique education required for supply chain and logistics students (Gravier and Farris, 2008). SCM/logistics education requires a strong emphasis on issues and material not taught elsewhere, as well as strong ties to industry. AMR’s research found that, “Executives stressed the need to have students get more direct exposure to the types of issues, pressures, and complexities facing supply chain management professionals while in school rather than waiting to be surprised upon entering a new organization (Aquino and Draper, 2008, p. 16).” These insights argue for the importance of experiential learning in logistics and supply chain undergraduate curricula.
This paper presents some background on the challenges to developing undergraduate logistics and supply chain management curricula grounded in experiential learning. The experiences from two universities illustrate the possible outcomes at different stages of developing new logistics/supply chain management academic programs. In keeping with past research findings that geography influences the relevance of logistics skills (Wu, 2007), the universities represent the East Coast and the southwest of the United States. One is a large public university located in a metropolitan area, while the other is a small private institution in a
2
suburban setting. Each university represents a different experience and lessons learned when it comes to creating a new program.
Background
Experiential learning with reflection, also known as “learning to learn,” has become the backbone of pedagogy at several universities. Variously phrased as plan-do-reflect, the 3 Ps (principles-practical-professionalism), or action-experience-reflection-insight, the parallels between experiential learning cycles such as Kolb’s and business cycles such as the Shewhart cycle have made experiential learning a natural fit for supply chain and other practitioner-focused business programs. Sometimes called a “mastery or reflection loop” (Figure 1), Shewhart’s approach to learning derives from the Socratic tradition. The learning approach assumes the students have a starting point of conceptual knowledge which enables them to engage in an interactive, concrete experience, often taking the form of a case study or a hands-on exercise such as an internship or consulting project. The students are allowed to make mistakes in the belief that a post-mortem reflective exercise will facilitate converting their a priori theoretical knowledge into a deeper conceptualization than would be achievable had they engaged with the more traditional lecture-and-test pedagogy.
Figure 1: The Shewart Cycle
Similarly, Kolb’s Cycle of Learning Model (Kolb, 1984) is based on Experiential Learning Theory which uses two approaches for experiential learning. First, grasping the experience through concrete experience and abstract conceptualization. Second, Kolb argues the individual must transform the experience into meaning either through reflective observation or active experimentation. Kolb suggests since different people learn in different ways, the ideal learning
3
process must include all four approaches because individuals tend to develop strengths in how they grasp experience and how they transform the experience.
Kolb’s Experiential
Learning Cycle
Concrete experience
(1)
Forming abstract
concepts (3)
Observation and
reflection (2)
Testing in new
situations (4)
Figure 2: Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle
The expansion of experiential learning in supply chain and logistics education constitutes a response to two key variables: the students themselves and the market for supply chain and logistics jobs. Experiential learning represents a demanding pedagogical technique from the educator’s perspective. The educator must be comfortable in the subject knowledge, willing to accept any answer while focusing on the process to arrive at the answer, and the willingness to allow the traditional classroom dominance by educators to evaporate in the face of student empowerment (c.f., Vince, 1998). These characteristics increase the class preparation and knowledge requirements of educators, but have the benefit of more closely imitating real life work environments where there are no answer keys and the manager expects the subordinate to deal with issues before they become problems.
Experiential learning appeals especially well to the current generation of students. “Generation Y” (birth years 1981-2000) matured in a networked world of nearly constant and frequent social feedback. Where a Baby Boomer (birth years 1943-1960) manager would be happy with an annual or semi-annual feedback session, Generation Y wants to know immediately how they are doing a task, and they want clear and specific details to describe whether they do tasks well or not. From another perspective, Generation Y workers view themselves as part of a greater whole, and transparent processes and constant feedback are the expected organizational tools of choice for integrating the efforts of the network of workers (Gursoy, et al., 2008; Gilbert, 2011). Experiential learning leverages many key characteristics common to Generation Y, particularly the frequent feedback, comprising part of a greater whole, and integrating and networking to arrive at answers.
4
Bloom’s TaxonomyKolb’s learning cycle provides a tool useful for structuring how teachers will deliver
learning, but teachers must also structure educational objectives. Bloom’s taxonomy (Figure 1) provides a concise and oft-used tool for aligning educational goals and objectives with student activities (Krathwohl, 2002). By eliciting the right behaviors, teachers prompt students to demonstrate different levels of learning. The key benefits to experiential learning derive from moving students more quickly up Bloom’s taxonomy of learning. Developed in 1956 and revised in 2000, Bloom’s assigns educational objectives into three "domains": Cognitive (asking/knowing/head), Affective (feeling/heart), and Psychomotor (doing/hands). Within the domains, higher learning is dependent on attaining prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels.
Traditional “lecture and test” teaching focuses on the bottom two levels of Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering and understanding. The key motivations for moving students up Bloom’s taxonomy were two-fold. Firstly, evidence and personal experience indicate that students now enter college believing that their personal opinions constitute valid answers to questions (Twenge, 2006; Athanassiou, et al., 2003). Twenge (2006) observes that even the ubiquitous SAT exam’s writing portion requires only the clear expression of a student opinion (essentially remembering and understanding), with no requirement to demonstrate levels of learning beyond the bottom two layers of Bloom’s such as presenting both sides of an argument, analyzing strength of evidence, applying insights to resolve an issue, or weighing counter-evidence1. The second motivation derives from increasing demands from employers, as well as from the students themselves, to engage students on multiple levels. Several factors likely explain these increasing demands, such as increasing college costs, a recognition of the variety of learning styles among students, and the availability of more tools such as information technology that provide more opportunities to engage students on many levels. Perhaps most importantly, the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy correlate well with key managerial duties (Athanassiou, et al., 2003).
Experiential learning often starts with a quiz or other exercise to ensure the bottom two layers of Bloom’s have been addressed as a foundation, but then immediately pushes students to apply, analyze, evaluate, and create in a class project. Experiential learning creates an environment where students move between the different levels of learning rather than following them in a true sequence. Although higher learning depends on mastering skills at lower levels, students often become quite motivated to learn a new topic while operating at a higher level on a new topic. Students may often be introduced to a topic via understanding or remembering, but frequently new topics are introduced while analyzing a case or creating a solution to a unique class problem. For example, in an international trade logistics exercise at Bryant, students do an applied exercise regarding Incoterms which leads them to significant insights regarding different aspects of risk management for international shipping. Subsequently, the students begin the next topic—international credit insurance, often dreaded when they first read the syllabus—with a lot of enthusiasm and more insightful questions. North Texas conducts an exercise where students quantitatively analyze different consolidation models, comparing shipping direct versus vehicular consolidation and temporal consolidation. Armed with the understanding of different consolidation models, students then develop a pricing strategy to negotiate rates with freight
1 The SAT’s website tells students that the purpose of the writing portion is “...to show how effectively you can develop and express ideas” (http://sat.collegeboard.org/practice/writing/sat-essay, accessed on June 4, 2013).
5
forwarders which ensure cost savings for the shipper and a reasonable rate of return for the forwarder.
Remembering
Understanding
Applying
Analyzing
Evaluating
Creating
Figure 3: Bloom’s Taxonomy
6
Figure 4: US Department of Labor Competency Model
The concept of different levels of learning appears in the U.S. Department of Labor’s Competency Model. As one moves up the tiers the competencies reflect increased specialization and specificity in the application of skills (Figure 2). The first four tiers represent competency areas, applied skills, knowledge, abilities essential to successful performance. As DOLETA (US Department of Labor, 2013) defines it:
The first three tiers contain Foundational Competencies required to be ready to enter the workplace.
Tier 1 –Personal Effectiveness Competencies are often referred to as "soft skills," personal effectiveness competencies are generally learned in the home or community and reinforced and honed at school and in the workplace. They represent personal attributes that may present some challenges to teach or assess. Personal effectiveness includes adaptability and flexibility. Being open to change and to considerable variety in the workplace to entertain new ideas and be able to deal with ambiguity.
7
Tier 2 – Academic Competencies are critical competencies primarily learned in a school setting. They include cognitive functions and thinking styles. Academic competencies are likely to apply to all industries and occupations. Academic competencies include critical and analytical thinking skills possessing sufficient inductive and deductive reasoning ability to perform job successfully.
Tier 3 – Workplace Competencies represent motives and traits, as well as interpersonal and self-management styles. They generally are applicable to a large number of occupations and industries and include skills at problem solving and decision makingto apply critical-thinking skills to solve problems encountered on the work site. Development of these skills include the ability to identify the problem, locate, gather, and organize relevant information, generate alternatives, and choose and implement a solution.
Tiers 4 and 5 contain Industry Competencies, specific to an industry or industry sector. Cross-cutting industry-wide technical competencies make it possible to create career lattices within an industry wherein a worker can move easily across industry sub-sectors.
Tier 4 – Industry-Wide Technical Competencies represent the knowledge and skills that are common across sectors within a broader industry. These technical competencies build on, but are more specific than, competencies represented on lower tiers.
Tier 5 – Industry-Sector Technical Competencies represent a sub-set of industry technical competencies that are specific to an industry sector.
Tiers 6 through 9 represent the specialization that occurs within specific occupations within an industry. Information on occupational competencies is available through O*NET OnLine (http://online.onetcenter.org/ ).
Comparison of the Outcomes of Two Universities’ Experiential Learning Philosophies
The following section compares our two universities – a small private institution in a suburban setting versus a large public university located in a metropolitan area. Each program design had to consider how to make the most of the skills and capabilities that had been shaped in their respective core university requirements.
UNIVERSITY #1: Bryant University -A small private institution in a suburban settingFounded in 1863 with the goal of teaching business skills to veterans returning from the
Civil War, Bryant University enjoys a long tradition as a business school focused on experiential and hands-on learning. Bryant initiated its supply chain program with a regional, practitioner-oriented Supply Chain Management Summit beginning in 2008. The planning committee for the first Summit met in 2007, and shortly after the faculty decided to use the relationships with local companies to guide the establishment of an undergraduate supply chain degree program. This is in keeping with logistics/supply chain management traditions of staying focused on the primary customer: the hiring firms (c.f., Ferrin, at al., 2001).
The companies most supportive of Bryant’s nascent supply chain program included third party logistics companies, defense companies, and companies that provided services and support to international trade, such as banks, financial institutions, credit insurance, freight forwarders,
8
and legal services firms. Particularly important to creating this nexus of relationships with industry were the state’s quasi-governmental manufacturing extension services and economic development corporation. With the impending recession, these offices leveraged the Supply Chain Management Summit as a center of innovation and reform for the state’s business environment.
Early in the development of the supply chain academic program, faculty members met with local executives to establish dialog and generate input regarding employment needs. New England offers a fragmented job market with no single industry dominating employment. Census data revealed that the largest industries in southeastern New England include health services, tourism/hospitality, professional and technical services, and banking/finance. However, each of these industries represents only about 10% by value of industry productivity. Southeastern New England also has a long history of manufacturing and still has a strong base of manufacturers, especially in advanced textiles, health care, pharmaceuticals, and defense.
The characteristics of the local target market suggested that the ideal academic program should focus on a graduate with a variety of core skills. In terms of hard skills, purchasing, relationship management, and logistics talent shortages were particularly cited by local executives, as was the importance of a global perspective and conducting business in the international arena. In terms of soft skills, communication, team work, leadership, languages and sensitivity to business cultures in other countries were most often cited. Many companies also cited proficiency in information technology that facilitated these skills as a requirement, in particular use of SAP and similar systems.
Program DevelopmentA multi-disciplinary approach to establishing a “global supply chain management”
program developed for three principle reasons. Firstly, the industries represented in the Boston-Providence-Hartford corridor were primarily knowledge and service-oriented, with a health services, manufacturing, technical and professional services, banking, finance, and defense dominating the companies that registered for the first Supply Chain Summit. These companies needed flexible leaders with the ability to coordinate many functions across multiple channels. Secondly, all give departments in the business school had already developed supply chain content in their respective curricula. Thirdly, extant literature suggested that a global, integrated focus (Biederman, 2006), as well as a focus on strong functional interdependencies (Aquino and Draper, 2008), should characterize future supply chain academic programs. These factors drove Bryant’s administration to support a strategic vision of a multi-disciplinary program with courses taught from experts in each business department.
Because Bryant is a relatively small university operating near its physical capacities, organically growing a market out of the existing student base seemed more prudent than trying to attract an additional target population. The administration approved a minor in global supply chain management starting in fall 2008 with the promise to add a concentration once a critical mass of interested students expressed interest. The minor launched with four core courses which focused on basic concepts, operations techniques, information technology, and strategies for integrating supply chains. After only one year, the minor was the second most popular business minor after Bryant’s successful international business minor. This was perceived as a distinctive accomplishment because Bryant mandates a liberal arts minor for business students, and most of the supply chain minors were taking additional courses to achieve a second minor in a business
9
discipline. Because of the crowded curriculum required to achieve the second minor, many students stated they would rather have a concentration than a minor.
The program received approval to offer a concentration in global supply chain management starting in the fall of 2012. Bryant offers concentrations rather than majors, which turned out to be a perfect match for the local market need for flexible and multi-talented graduates. Bryant’s core business curriculum provides a strong foundation in management, marketing, accounting, finance, and information systems. A change in the core requirements meant that all students attending the university were required to take an operations management that was altered to include substantial supply chain management content. The resulting concentration in global supply chain management ends up including 7 courses (21 credit hours) designated as supply chain management courses or electives, but also three core courses totaling 7 credit hours in the freshman year that emphasize a global theme (a total of 28 credit hours). In its first year, the concentration includes the flexibility to choose 5 electives out 9 possible courses, not counting the potential for special topics courses. Seven of the elective courses are designated supply chain courses and two are electives from other departments. See Tables 1 and 2 for details.
Certain courses were designed specifically to incorporate international exposure into the curriculum. One example is the International Trade Transportation and Logistics course (GSCM 410). The course introduces students to the basics of international goods movement, including importing, exporting, international documentation, and infrastructure considerations. The course counts as an elective in Bryant’s nationally ranked bachelor’s in international business and also counts as an elective for the growing entrepreneurialism program. The concepts course (GSCM 301), the integration course (GSCM 310), the IT course (GSCM 320), and the empirical applications course (GSCM 490) all include about a 15% international content, in addition to occasion providing consulting activities to firms dealing with international markets and supply bases.
Table 1: Courses for Bryant University’s Global Supply Chain Management Concentration
Included in the business core:
Operations Management (MGT201)
Required:
Empirical Applications in Supply Chain Management (GSCM490)
5 Elective Courses: Must include a minimum of three (3) courses from GSCM courses; must include one (1) 400-level GSCM course from the following list:
Supply Chain Management Concepts (GSCM301) Supply Chain Integration (GSCM310) Information Technology in Supply Chain Management (GSCM320) Special Topics in Global Supply Chain Management (GSCM385/485) Global Supply Chain Management Internship (GSCM391) Directed Study in Global Supply Chain Management (GSCM497) International Trade Transportation and Logistics (GSCM410)
10
Process Analysis and Improvement (GSCM420) E-Business Models (CIS332) Business-to-Business Marketing (MKT410)
Table 2: Courses for Bryant University’s Global Supply Chain Management Minor:Included in the business core:
Operations Management (MGT201)
Required:
Supply Chain Management Concepts (GSCM301)
Empirical Applications in Supply Chain Management (GSCM490)
Electives: Choose 2 from the following list:
Supply Chain Integration (GSCM310) Information Technology in Supply Chain Management (GSCM320) Global Supply Chain Management Internship (GSCM391) Special Topics in Global Supply Chain Management (GSCM385/485 International Trade Logistics and Operations (GSCM410) Process Analysis and Improvement (GSCM420)
Current CurriculumIn part, the program structure resulted from concerns over ensuring that every student
received adequate exposure to realistic problem solving and complex case solving techniques. Bryant has a tradition of applied business education, and as a consequence it is the number one regional recruiting source for college graduates for several Fortune 500 companies. Most schools do an adequate job of teaching technical skills, but developing an understanding of complex business systems is more of a challenge. In particular, Bryant’s hiring sources cite the team-building, presentation skills, and focus on strategic goals that Bryant students bring to the table. As observed in other studies (c.f., Gudmundsson and Nijhuis, 2001), a pedagogical approach grounded in frequent interactions of student groups provides stronger incentives for students to adequately prepare and study, with the additional benefit of exercising teamwork and advanced problem-solving skills.
The faculty embraced a learning-centered approach as opposed to a teaching-centered approach (c.f., Nygaard and Bramming, 2008). This shift in philosophy increases faculty workload due to increased engagement to develop and monitor more complex course content, but has bolstered recruitment and retention of students, despite greater course workload requirements. Faculty agreed to maximize complex problem solving in their courses, with most courses offering a capstone project or similar featured content designed to challenge and expand student abilities. The featured content also serves as a means of making each course distinctive and memorable. For example, the international trade logistics course includes a world wide case
11
study that requires student groups to collaborate with students in other countries, while the course on supply chain integration includes a table-top version of the beer game. These experiences give each course an identity and cement the course purpose in the students’ minds. The capstone course focuses on empirical applications and is required of all concentrators and minors.
Lower-class courses designed to expose students to experiential learning, dynamic complexity, career opportunities in SCM/logistics (students seem attracted not only to the good career prospects but also to the dynamism of the career field—this matches this generation’s characteristics while also fulfilling industry needs). All students are required to take the lower-classmen courses, so this is fertile recruiting ground.
Freshmen:- GFOB: Target, GOBE, e-pitch, Marketing plan competition, business plan competition (intense firehose exposure to team work, usually their first exposure to working in groups in an interdependent context; tension between collaboration and competition)Sophomore:- GSCM 201: Intro to OM/SCM (production game)
Upper-class courses: These courses are designed to teach useful skills, expose students to “real world” problems, acquaint students with local companies and hopefully encourage internships, foster interest by local practitioners in Bryant’s program and the quality of the graduating students
Junior:- SAP in three courses (real world skill or certification)- “basic concepts” course (mix of group cases graded based upon the one-page abstract and group “fill-in-the-blanks” slides)- integration course (Beer Game, simulation to learn dynamism)Senior:- Capstone course (consulting project)- 410: “seminar-style”, “world case” & various guest speakers, tours of local companies, “feedback” based rather than exam based
In addition to the projects listed above, a more detailed example of an experience-based learning assignment is the use of CSCMP’s case studies in the basic concepts of global supply chain management course. The atmosphere of the course for these assignments becomes one of a business meeting with an urgent pace—the students are told that they must now put their classroom learning into action. The assignment requires teams to develop a one-page, single-spaced “executive summary” of the case scenario that is written as if the students were presenting an actual solution to a very busy boss. The students must fit key background elements and details of a proposed solution into the one-page executive summary, and then they have 5 minutes to present the solution in class. They must also turn in a binder with a detailed report and analysis to back up the executive summary and presentation, but the grade is based mostly on the executive summary and presentation. With so little writing space, students must engage in the higher levels of thinking involved in assessing and evaluating the importance and relevance of
12
each item of information—no easy task as it forces comprehension of “the big picture.” Students have only enough space to present the most important root cause and a simplified solution to a complex problem. This mirrors real-life working environments where a decision must be made, and everyone must understand it—and it eliminates a chronic problem in modern university education: too much effort dedicated to justifying grades rather than demonstrating learning (c.f., Twenge, 2006). It also demonstrates the importance of having background research that is thorough and relevant, as the binder with backup data and analysis must agree with the executive summary and presentation or major grade reductions result. When students read the requirements for “only” one page for this assignment, they initially underestimate the difficulty of the assignment; the first attempt often results in every group failing or receiving a poor score (the professor is usually merciful and won’t hold the score against them, so long as they show genuine improvement on the next case). Feedback from the students indicates that many find this to be the most challenging assignment they do in their college careers. Following graduation, several students have credited this assignment more than any other for preparing them for promotions and career success.
Another example of an experiential-based learning assignment is the white paper for the international trade logistics course. Students who want an ‘A’ must develop a white paper on a current topic that demonstrates knowledge of current “hot topics” or issues in international logistics. The assignment requires the students to interview at least two executives or directors in the field, and the interviewees must provide the rationale for the relevance of the paper topic to practitioners. About half a dozen academic papers and half a dozen practitioner/trade journal articles must be cited. The assignment blends the benefits of traditional research papers (in-depth understanding of a topic, becoming familiar with some published research, analytical thinking) with the higher order learning that results from having to connect course learning with real-life business practice. Since most students in this course are seniors, and only students desiring the highest grade do this assignment, it provides an effective method for networking and showcasing the university’s products to local industry. Most students have stated that this assignment greatly increased their learning of a specific topic over any other past paper or class assignment, and several students have additionally credited the white paper assignment with getting them internships or jobs.
UNIVERSITY #2: University of North Texas- A large public university located in a metropolitan area
Founded in 1890, the University of North Texas (UNT) has grown to be one of the nation’s largest public universities and the most comprehensive in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, we are dedicated to providing an excellent educational experience to our 36,000 students. UNT is a student-focused public research university with 12 colleges and schools offering 97 bachelor’s, 81 master’s and 35 doctoral degree programs, many nationally and internationally recognized.
UNT initiated its logistics and supply chain program in 1997 and was designed with industry input, in part, to meet the criteria of the American Society of Transportation and Logistics professional certification in transportation and logistics (CTL). Due to the correct mixture of content, students completing the degree are eligible for the certification blanket waiver and can receive their CTL designation at graduation without the need to take the normally required series of examinations.
13
The first 42 student hours at the University of North Texas involve a Texas state-mandated curriculum (Texas Education Code, chapter 61, subchapter S) requiring: (1) English composition and rhetoric - 6 hours; (2) mathematics - 3 hours; (3) natural sciences - 8 hours; (4) U.S. history - 6 hours; (5) political science - 6 hours; (6) wellness - 3 hours: (7) visual and performing arts - 3 hours: (8) humanities - 3 hours; (9) social and behavioral sciences – 3 hours; (10) communication - 3 hours; and (11) cross-cultural, diversity and global studies - 3 hours.
Students then study 45 hours of a basic business foundation including 12 hours of pre-business coursework involving micro- and macro-economics, business math with calculus, and communications. This is followed by 33 hours of business courses including accounting, computer skills, information systems, statistical analysis, professional selling, law, marketing, organizational behavior, finance, and management science. At this point students declare their major.
Logistics and Supply Chain Management majors begin with 15 hours of business foundations courses starting with an overview course and courses in logistics systems, transportation, purchasing, and operations. Many involve group or team projects. The University of North Texas’s program distinguishes itself with several requirements:
Every logistics (LSCM) course requires the student attend two professional lecture industry speakers which introduce the students to various areas of the industry and exposure to leaders.
Students are aware of the program’s required, paid internship which forces the student to hone their resume and interviewing skills early so as to obtain an internship. All LSCM courses require student to electronically submit their resume in class so which forces the student to develop a resume early enough to identify gaps which may be filled throughout the remainder of their academic career.
Students must take 3 “selectives” which allow the student to differentiate themselves. The courses most likely to be selected are the SAP course and the spreadsheet course. Most involve a group-team project.
The internship program has proven particularly successful at providing experiential learning opportunities for students. The paid industry internship requires completing at least 240 paid hours; the typical student works 403 hours. 75% of students receive career offers from their internship company, and 45% accept it. Many students opt to complete two internships.
The university has made a concerted effort to internationalize the curriculum. UNT hosts visiting scholars and faculty from more than 50 countries and offers global learning and experience programs in more than 37 nations. The Logistics and Supply Chain program has had strong interaction with European universities and one faculty member has been named a Fulbright Scholar.
Most courses taught at the College of Business follow the Aristotelian fashion using lecture-and-test. Under college rules all students earning a bachelors degree must take a common capstone course, typically populated with finance, management, marketing, and information systems majors. The logistics degree is a bachelor of science rather than the more general bachelor of business administration degree, so instead of the business administration capstone course, students take a logistics capstone course which is taught in the Socratic (dialectical) fashion, such as:
A series of “turnaround” projects where students have a limited time (60 minutes) to complete a management-style project.
14
Completion of an international case study within a two-week period involving team members from universities throughout the world. This exercise uses the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals International Distribution Case (IDC) (available at www.cscmp.org) and typically involves between 200 and 400 students worldwide.
Required competency examination covering all basic concepts learned throughout the professional program. 75% hurdle rate dictates pass or fail for the course.
Hands-on industry consultancy projects. Last semester the students developed an inventory control program for the Peace Corps to introduce to silk weavers in Madagascar.
Insights
The experiences at Bryant and North Texas serve to highlight several lessons learned and barriers to innovating university curricula.
1. Faculty Intransigence: “Lecture and test” teaching is well entrenched in academia. It offers important advantages, such as economy of effort for imparting many facts quickly, making otherwise inaccessible knowledge available to students, suitable for large audiences, and its appeal to students who learn by listening (Bonwell, 1996). Perhaps its greatest appeal is the control over the classroom that it puts into the hands of the professor. Faculty typically learns the Socratic and the Aristotelian methods of teaching—both of which are essentially teacher-centered pedagogies. Traditionally, faculty imitate their mentors, following the philosophy of, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” with regard to their teaching methods. Generally, the doctoral educational process does not encourage a “continuous improvement” attitude for teaching. One outcome of this culture can be seen in 2012’s SCMEC conference proceedings: out of 14 sessions, only 3 were dedicated to teaching innovation. Out of the three, two presented experiential teaching tools (a consulting project and an interactive game), and the third addressed incorporating supply chain management into an introduction to business course (the authors describe some experiential learning based projects in the course). The tradition-bound approach to teaching comprises an intractable obstacle to implementing experiential learning because the perceived loss of control of the classroom and the lack of support among fellow faculty who are also tradition-bound.
Logistics and supply chain management as a field has a long history of cooperation between industry and academia, and this cooperation has yielded some important tools for addressing manager and industry concerns over student education. One important example is the CSCMP Academic Call for Cases. With two or more additional cases added each year to the library, CSCMP’s collection of academic and practical cases provides an important resource for faculty interested in enhancing the classroom experience.
2. Administration: Administrative incentives for engaging in teaching innovation present another obstacle. Innovation entails a risk that student evaluations will not be positive and the potential return is often minimal or non-existent. Under these circumstances, maintaining the status quo offers job security; innovating in the classroom carries little upside if successful, and certain career downfalls when it fails. For faculty willing to take the risk, they must weigh whether to take risks early in their career or first gain the security of tenure. In the end, university
15
administration—or at least “the system”—tends to punish innovation in the classroom, whether intentionally or not.
3. Funding: Few universities provide consistent funding for innovation in teaching. An exception, the University of North Texas’ has a NextGen program to encourage innovation in large classes with innovative pedagogies, especially those involving work in small groups.but it is also limited in scope and economically motivated to increase class size. Other sources of funding exist for innovations at the institutional level, such as the Davis Grant (http://www.davisfoundations.org) which are short-term and require institutional commitment, which may not be easily achievable. Additionally, certain industries with a pressing need for graduates, such as computer information systems, will sometimes partner with universities to fund innovations in the curricula and pedagogy.
4. Students: Experiential learning also proved challenging for students. In the International Distribution Case project, which put students onto teams with other members from different universities, students may be hindered by internet speed or university infrastructure. Students are faced with differing cultures, time zones, and work ethics – all an integral part of the International Distribution Case – and an important part of the learning process but this too creates additional requirements for class engagement and interaction with fellow students that experiential learning imposes. Finally, many students have adapted well to “lecture and test” and do not want to leave the predictable, self-contained world of traditional teaching. By going beyond the first two levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, experiential learning may make students uncomfortable by increasing the uncertainty in their learning outcomes. Analyzing, evaluating, creating, is difficult to identify in a text or study guide.
Conclusion
Figure 3 summarizes the relationships between the generational differences, industry needs, and university curriculum. Each of the loops is perceived as a reinforcing loop, meaning that as the younger generation entering university prefers more frequent feedback or demonstrates more reliance on social networks, this will increasingly appear in the experiential learning-based university curricula. Students will bring these characteristics to bear as they solve the problems in their experiential-based classroom experiences.
It is also important to note that the reinforcing loop for industry needs continues to strengthen as graduates progress through their careers. As alumni progress to positions of greater authority, they integrate more business functions, usually oversee operations over a greater geographic scope, and require even more advanced skills. For these reasons, a program which teaches students to view problems through the lens of dynamic complexity can develop graduates prepared for successful lifelong careers.
Bryant University and University of North Texas stand at opposite ends of several spectrums in terms of student size, geographical location, industries served, and institutional history. Nevertheless, they both arrived at effective experiential learning curricula to help shape students to succeed. Some similarities underlie their common successes.
1. Engage Local Industry: First and foremost, universities should shorten the delay in the feedback loop caused by the lengthy undergraduate education cycle and the time for students to
16
establish a viable career. Maintaining constant contact with local industry provides universities with insight into current needs, provides students with more experiential learning opportunities, and obligates faculty to stay focused on the sorts of problem-solving skills needed by industry.
2. Provide an Integrated Curriculum: Maintaining an engaging experiential learning experience requires planning at the curricular level. Coordination amongst faculty members regarding which skills are taught in which courses ensures that the proper balance of experiences is provided to the students. Some courses may focus more on consulting projects while others focus more on developing teamwork skills—students need both of these experiences and more to prepare themselves for a career.
3. Treat Learning as a Process: After two decades characterized by a focus on test scores and grades, organizations have made it clear that adaptable team players create more value than well-accomplished individuals. Experiential learning provides an important venue for students to replace outcome-based learning with process-based learning with a demonstrated record of improved learning and more satisfied students.
4. Focus on the Whole Person: Companies hire college graduates with an expectation that they will be well-rounded leaders with the ability to integrate across several business functions while also being an expert in their degree’s topical area. While colleges have a long tradition of graduating well-rounded individuals, society now needs well-rounded assimilators of both knowledge and social forces.
5. Leverage Generational Differences: The upcoming Generation Y exhibits many characteristics that make it the perfect match to the world’s future needs. Generation Y’s reliance on social networking, affinity for creative problem solving, and work habits inspired by continuous and frequent interactions seem custom-built for the future of a world that needs increasing collaboration to confront increasingly complex and dynamic challenges. Faculty that leverage the next generation’s strengths will develop effective and powerful leaders well-adapted to the challenges to come.
17
References
Aquino, David and Lucie Draper (2008), Supply Chain Talent: State of the Discipline, AMR Research.
Athanassiou, Nicholas, Jeanne M. McNett, and Carol Harvey (2003), “Critical Thinking in the Management Classroom: Bloom's Taxonomy as a Learning Tool”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 533-555.
Biederman, David (2006), “Upward Mobility,” Journal of Commerce, June 19, pg. 1.Bloom, Benjamin S., M. D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walker H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl
(1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York: David McKay.
Cottrill, Ken (2010), “Are You Prepared for the Supply Chain Talent Crisis?” MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics White Paper.
Ferrin, Bruce G., Robert Landeros, and Robert F. Reck (2001), “Integrated Supply Matrix Management: A TQM Approach for Curriculum Development,” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31, No. 7/8, pp. 520-36.
Gilbert, Jay (2011), “The Millennials: A New Generation of Employees, a New Set of Engagement Policies,” Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 75, No. 5, pp. 26-29.
Gravier, Michael J. and M. Theodore Farris (2008), “An Analysis of Logistics Pedagogical Literature: Past and Future Trends in Curriculum, Content, and Pedagogy,” International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 233-253.
Gudmundsson, S. V. & Nijhuis, J. (2001), "Collaborative Learning in Logistics and Transport: The Application of 3wim", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31 No. 7/8, pp. 537-556.
Gursoy, Dogan, Thomas A. Maier, and Christina G. Chi (2008), “Generational differences: An examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27, pp. 448-458.
Hofman, Debra and Stan Aronow (2012), The Gartner Supply Chain Top 25 for 2012, Gartner, Inc., Stamford, Connecticut.
Kolb, David (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Krathwohl, David R. (2002), “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview”, Theory into Practice, Vol. 41, No. 4, Special Issue: RevisingBloom’s Taxonomy, pp. 212-218.
Myers, M. B., Griffith, D. A., Daugherty, P. J. & Lusch, R. F. (2004), "Maximizing the Human Capital Equation in Logistics: Education, Experience, and Skills", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 211-232.
Nygaard, Claus, and Pia Bramming (2008), “Learning-Centred Public Management Education,” International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 400-416.
Ozment, John and Scott B. Keller (2011), “The Future of Logistics Education,” Transportation Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 65-83.
Rutner, Stephen M. and Stanley E. Fawcett (2005), “The State of Supply Chain Education,” Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 7, pp. 55-60.
Twenge, Jean M. (2006), Generation Me, New York: Free Press.US Department of Labor—Education and Training (2013), “Transportation, Distribution, and
Logistics Competency Model,” http://www.careeronestop.org/competencymodel/pyramid.aspx?tsp=Y (accessed on March 10, 2013).
18
Vince, Russ (1998), “Behind and Beyond Kolb’s Learning Cycle,” Journal of Management Education, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 304-319.
World Economic Forum (2013), Enabling Trade: Valuing Growth Opportunities, World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.
Wu, Yen-Chun Jim. (2007), “Contemporary Logistics education: An International Perspective,” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 37, pp. 504-528.
19
