Upload
danganh
View
217
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
1
American Journal of Educational Studies (AJES)
Volume 4 ‐ Number 1 ‐ 2011
ISSN: 1934‐6476
Interim Editor: Dr. Alireza Lari, Wake Forest University
Editorial Review Board:
Dr. Arben Asllani, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Dr. Carl Blue, Northern Iowa University
Dr. Joe Busby, North Carolina State University
Dr. Aaron Clark, North Carolina State University
Dr. Jeremy Ernst, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Dr. Nasim Lari, American Institute of Higher Education
Dr. Pooneh Lari, North Carolina State University
Dr. Jackie B. Manning, Auburn University at Montgomery
Dr. Daniel M. Miller, North Carolina A&T State University
Dr. Stephen K. Miller, Western Kentucky University
Dr. Robert Owen, Alamance Community College
Dr. Alice Scales, North Carolina State University
Dr. Dothang Truong, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
Copyright © 2011 by American Institute of Higher Education, LLC. Permission to make digital or
hard copies of all or part of this journal is granted without fee provided that copies are not made
or distributed for profit or commercial use. All copies must bear a full citation. Permission from
the Editor is required to post to servers, redistribute to lists, or utilize in a for‐profit or
commercial use. Permission requests should be sent to Editor‐in‐Chief, American Journal of
Educational Studies, AmHighEd, P.O. Box 3552, Cary, NC 27519.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
2
Editor’s Corner:
Welcome to the American Journal of Educational Studies, sponsored by the American Institute
of Higher Education, LLC. As Editor, I would like to personally thank all reviewers for having
played such an important role in the growth and success of this journal. You have allowed our
vision of what a journal should be, come alive.
If you would like to contact the journal, please email me at [email protected] or visit our
website at www.amhighed.com. To submit your manuscripts, please review the Guide for Initial
Submission of Manuscripts at our website www.amhighed.com.
This journal is included in the Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational
Psychology and Administration, and Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational
Curriculum and Methods. It is also listed in ProQuest and EBSCO databases.
Statement of Peer Review Integrity
All papers published in the American Journal of Educational Studies have undergone rigorous
peer‐review. This includes an initial editor screening and refereeing by two or more expert
referees.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
3
Table of Contents AJES V4N1
Article: Page No.
Using a Collaborative Leadership Model in a Teacher Education Program
By Nancy Keiser, Maureen Kincaid, and Kristine Servais
5
Self‐Directed Learning and the Impact of Leadership: Analyzing Keys for Success
from a Covenantal Perspective
By David G. Duby and Kahlib J. Fischer
21
The Nonsegmental Context of Segmental Understanding: A Biofunctional
Systems Perspective
By Asghar Iran‐Nejad and Madeleine Gregg
41
Factors Influencing Business Student Motivation on Low‐Stakes Assessment
Exams
By Steven T. Breslawski
61
The Bologna Accord: Overview and Marketing Implementation in Romania
By Elisabeth J. Teal, G. Martin Izzo, Corneliu Munteanu, and Barry E. Langford
77
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
4
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
5 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
USING A COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP MODEL IN A TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
Nancy Keiser Education Program
North Central College Naperville, IL 60504 [email protected]
Maureen Kincaid Education Program
North Central College Naperville, IL 60504 [email protected]
Kristine Servais
Education Program North Central College Naperville, IL 60504 [email protected]
ABSTRACT This paper presents a collaborative leadership model utilized in a department of education at a
small, liberal arts college in the Midwest. The research of notable scholars on collaborative
leadership, such as Raelin, Dufour, Serviovanni, and Burns are discussed as a foundation for the
movement from a conventional leadership model to a collaborative leadership model.
Specifically, the tenants of the Raelin Model are described using examples from an education
department that exemplify collaborative, concurrent, collective, and compassionate approaches
to leadership. The implementation of a collaborative leadership model resulted in numerous
benefits and challenges for this teacher education program. Areas positively impacted by the
new model include the transformation of department meetings and student teaching
orientation meetings, improved field supervisor training, the development of a student
monitoring process, the development of a secondary education liaison committee, and the
formation of program assessment teams. Benefits of the use of the Raelin model resulted in a
positive increase in the quality of the programs, faculty productivity, and cultural benefits. Most
significant is the benefit to the candidates in the teacher education program. The development
of collaborative leadership also resulted in new challenges. This department of education faced
a dramatically different way of functioning as a department moving from single traditional
leadership to the collaborative approach initiated by the department’s leadership team. This
paper also shares the implications for teacher education programs that may desire to use a
model of collaborative leadership to improve teacher preparation and Increase productivity
among faculty members. Finally, a system for studying collaborative leadership using a
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
6 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
leadership daily practice log to study the ethnography of leadership interactions is discussed for
future consideration.
Keywords: Leadership, collaboration, distributive, transformational, teacher education
Introduction
This paper presents a collaborative leadership model used in a teacher education program
which resulted in a positive increase in the quality of the programs, faculty productivity, and
cultural benefits. Specifically, the Raelin (2003) model was utilized which asserts that effective
leadership is:
Collaborative
Concurrent
Collective
Compassionate
When this department of education shifted from a conventional model of leadership to a
collaborative model the following was accomplished:
Transformation of department meetings and student teaching orientation meetings;
Improved field supervisor training;
The development of a student monitoring process;
The development of a secondary education liaison committee; and
The formation of program assessment teams
Overview of Distributive Leadership
Three leadership models were considered as this teacher education program decided to move
to a collaborative model of leadership. Most pronounced is the collective leadership model
developed by Joseph Raelin (2003), author of Creating Leaderful Organizations: How to Bring
Out Leadership in Everyone. The Raelin (2003) model identifies four tenants that increase
leadership capacity and organizational success: collaborative, collective, concurrent, and
compassionate. Distributive leadership is a second model and organizational concept
considered. This model is based on the premise that when leaders skillfully share responsibilities
with willing members, the organization is more successful. Transformational leadership is the
third model of leadership applied in this teacher education program in which leaders transform
and motivate followers through relationships and shared commitments (Burns, 1978). While
each of the models offer distinct characteristics, each are compliments to an organizational
culture for building leadership capacity. The three models reflect a desire for leadership roles
and responsibilities to be shared among persons in the organization and the belief that greater
benefits are a result of collaborative leadership rather than single leadership. These models
were foundational in this teacher education program and the characteristics of each will be
further described in the section that follows.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
7 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
Distributive leadership is an organizational concept that suggests when leaders skillfully share
responsibilities with willing members, the organization is more successful. It requires the
influence of leadership on others to participate and share in the goals and work load of an
organization. Some would argue that distributive leadership is not a model but rather a
leadership style that desires to distribute the work utilizing the social network common to
schools and educational settings. Furthermore, distributive leadership is considered a social
influence relationship and an influence based on interactions between and among the leader
and followers (Bass, 1990). Rather than a single leader focus, distributive leadership is built on
the notion that the social interactions of two or more persons offer opportunities to work
together to accomplish organizational tasks. Examples of leadership distribution can be formal,
such as identifying selected members to hold heightened leadership positions, such a team
leader, department chair, coordinator, or director. Oftentimes distributive leadership is
informal, whereby members of the organization collaboratively contribute to whatever daily
event or task that must be accomplished. The evolution of professional learning communities
(Dufour, Dufour, Eaker and Many, 2006) is a good example of organizational expectations
whereby all members actively and collaboratively contribute to the organization’s learning
environment. While the role of the formal leader is significant, the hallmark of the successful
distributive leader is the ability for the leader to influence members of the organization to
collectively accomplish meaningful work toward the organization’s goals.
The research on transformational leadership is one of the most prolific among the topics
addressed in the literature on leadership. James Burns (1978) is best known for the origins of
transformational leadership as a moral and ethical approach. Transformational leaders are
characterized as those who motivate followers to act by appealing to shared values, aspirations
and expectations. Burns (1978) further defines transformational leadership as leaders’ influence
on followers to act on behalf of the mutual goals of both leaders and followers. Much greater
than the traditional and transactional exchange of services between the leader and followers ,
Burns and many of his students first promoted leadership as a role to transform followers and
ultimately, the organization. Rather than positional authority, transformational leaders identify
shared values and develop relationships with followers that result in trust. In other words, the
ability to identify and develop shared values results in a community in which members are more
motivated and desire the same outcomes. In this model, leaders and followers help each other
to advance to a higher level of vision, performance and motivation (Burns, 1978).
The Raelin (2003) model identifies four tenants that increase leadership capacity and
organizational success: collaborative, collective, concurrent, and compassionate. The paradigm
shift, from an authoritarian leader with a single voice to one who will share leadership and
decision making, is not easily accomplished. The Raelin model calls for “participation in
leadership and decision making at all levels and in multiple decision processes for its members”
(Raelin, 2003, p. 76). Roles, responsibilities, and a voice in leadership occur simultaneously
among many of the members in this model. Formal leadership titles exist but are less evident in
a culture where tasks are divided and decisions are collectively made. The Raelin (2003) model
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
8 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
provides a blueprint to increase leadership among all members through distributive and
collective leadership, and improves the likelihood for success for both the leader and its
members. The Raelin model will be described in greater detail in the following sections.
Background of this Study: The Raelin Model
A shared leadership approach was initiated in the fall of 2005 by the Department of Education at
North Central College, using the components of Joseph Raelin’s collaborative leadership model
(2003). The model was adopted by the Department Chair, Coordinator of Teacher Education,
and the Graduate Coordinator as a means to address the escalating needs of the department
due to increased student enrollment, faculty work load, state program requirements, and
college demands. The NCC Department of Education leaders desired a more inclusive approach
for all members of the organization in order to: 1) engage in a shared leadership model which
allowed more interaction among the three members that would result in greater productively;
2) promote and nurture leadership roles from other members to increase commitments to
department goals; and 3) enhance a culture of compassion and caring in which department
members were acknowledged and valued for their contributions. The previous model, while
adequate under the former conditions, involved a conventional, single, and often isolated role
held by one person. This person held all three primary roles of Department Chair, Coordinator of
Teacher Education, and Graduate Coordinator.
Raelin (2003) calls for a shift from a conventional leadership model to what he refers to as a
leaderful approach. He describes a conventional leadership model as one that is serial,
individual, controlling, and dispassionate. In a conventional model, leadership is serial, meaning
one person typically holds a position of formal leadership and continues until he/she completes
his/her term. Additionally, a conventional model is where an individual is designated as the
leader who makes all primary decisions, and ultimately, is the single voice of authority.
Furthermore, conventional leadership is controlling those in a subordinate role who are
expected to follow the leader’s directives. Finally, conventional leadership is described as
dispassionate. While leaders in a conventional model may recognize the feelings of others, they
make the decisions for the organization, independent of relationships with others in the process
(Raelin, 2003).
A leaderful approach according to Raelin (2003) involves four components or four Cs:
concurrent, collective, collaborative, and compassionate. First, Raelin (2003) calls for concurrent
leadership. That is, more than one leader can and should be present, with leaders sharing
power. Somewhat related, Raelin (2003) also calls for leadership that is collective. Collective
leadership involves multiple members participating in organizational tasks and decisions. The
third component in the Raelin (2003) model is collaboration. Collaborative leadership allows for
the viewpoints of all members to be considered and all members’ ideas and contributions
matter. Finally, Raelin (2003) advocates that leaderful persons are compassionate where “one
extends unadulterated commitment to preserving the dignity of others” (p. 16).
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
9 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
The adoption of the Raelin model by the NCC Education Department was a profound change for
its leaders, members, and the college. The emergence of increased collaboration, collectiveness,
compassion, and concurrent leadership resulted in new attitudes and behaviors from its
department members, and likewise, significant cultural changes. This paper describes the four
tenants of the Raelin model, the impact of each on the department and its members, and
illustrates examples of cultural change as a result of distributive leadership. Examples of these
changes include: 1) the transformation of department meetings; 2) the transformation of
student teaching orientation meetings; 3) supervisor training; 4) the development of a student
monitoring process; 5) the development of a secondary education liaison committee, and 6) the
development of program assessment teams. This paper describes the positive increase in the
quality of the programs, faculty productivity, and cultural benefits.
A Specific Case of Implementing the Raelin Model: North Central College (NCC) Department of Education
Over the past decade, the Department of Education at North Central College has evolved from a
conventional leadership approach to a leaderful approach as described by Raelin (2003).
Historically, as is typical in higher education, the department’s leadership consisted of a single
leader with the title of Chairperson. The role of the Department Chairperson typified Raelin’s
(2003) description of a conventional model of leadership: serial, individual, controlling and
dispassionate. It should be noted that the very nature of most higher education structures foster
a conventional leadership approach that inherently embodies leadership that is individual and
isolated.
The department operated using a conventional leadership model until 2005. First, the position
was viewed as serial, meaning the position had a set term and the faculty member serving as
the Department Chairperson would serve through that term. When the term was complete, the
leadership role and authority transferred to the next leader. In this model, the leadership was
individual. The Department Chairperson was viewed as the designated authority figure for the
department. The Chairperson was viewed as having a large degree of control over directing the
department to achieve its mission. Finally, even though individuals holding the position of
Chairperson were caring individuals, they were expected to operate in a dispassionate manner,
making the tough decisions for the department (Raelin, 2003).
A radical shift in the department’s leadership approach began to occur in 2005 when the then
Chairperson, who was also the Coordinator of Graduate Programs, decided she would not
complete another term. The evolution began when three faculty members, who were logical
successors as Chairperson, began to discuss the possibility of sharing the role. The hesitancy for
each faculty member in assuming the role in its entirety was due to the overwhelming
responsibilities of the position, managerial tasks typical of college department chairpersons,
teacher education programs, and state accreditation requirements. As faculty members
examined the vastness of the Chairperson duties it became obvious that there was a rational
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
10 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
way to divide the department chairperson position. The first major component was the role of
the department Chairperson, as defined by the College. The second component warranted a
proposed new position, the Coordinator of Teacher Education. The faculty member appointed
to this position would assume the many responsibilities associated with the teacher education
program, including components of the state accreditation issues, monitoring of teacher
education candidates and working with the secondary/K‐12 departments offering teacher
certification. The third position was the Coordinator of Graduate Programs and duties
associated with development, recruitment, and supervision of faculty for graduate programs in
leadership and curriculum. Thus, in the fall of 2005, the one person, conventional leadership
model expanded to a three person leadership team, comprised of a Department Chairperson, a
Coordinator of Teacher Education, and a Coordinator of Graduate Programs.
Over the past six years the leadership team has implemented the Raelin (2003) model through
their daily work with the department and the College. The leadership team goals include to: 1)
engage in a shared leadership model to lead the department to increased faculty productively;
2) promote and nurture leadership roles from other members to increase shared commitments
to department goals; and 3) create a culture in which department members are acknowledged
and valued for their leadership contributions. This third goal was influenced by the Department
Chairperson, Dr. Lora Tyson, at the time of the transition to a collaborative leadership model.
Dr. Tyson lived her life by the mantra nice matters. Through her role in the department she
exemplified compassion daily for students and faculty, modeling that relationships are a top
priority. Nice matters soon became the mantra of the department and was pinnacle in helping
to develop transformational leadership and create a collaborative and compassionate culture.
Dr. Tyson passed away two years after the initial efforts of the department to adopt a
collaborative model. Her simple, yet profound message, nice matters, continues to be an
integral mission of the department.
Outcomes of the Distributive Leadership Approach at NCC
The evolution of a collaborative culture, in which leadership is shared and distributed among its
members, has been demonstrated in the NCC Department of Education over the past five years.
Examples of these changes include: 1) the transformation of department meetings; 2) the
transformation of student teaching orientation meetings; 3) supervisor training; 4) the
development of a student monitoring process; 5) the development of a secondary education
liaison committee, and 6) the development of program assessment teams. A description of each
of these examples follows, illustrating Raelin’s (2003) four tenants of collaborative, collective,
concurrent, and compassionate leadership.
Transformation of Department Meetings
Many organizations are challenged to provide time and effective structures for meetings. The
NCC Education Department meetings were dramatically transformed over the period of time
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
11 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
that the Raelin (2003) model has been implemented. Three primary areas of change are
described in this paper: 1) effective meeting design; 2) faculty engagement in meetings; and 3)
the development of trust among members.
The NCC Department of Education meetings were changed procedurally to be more
collaborative, productive, and interactive. Effective meeting design was studied and
implemented. New meeting practices include planning and sharing the development of an
agenda prior to the meeting, setting pre‐established meeting dates at the start of each term,
arranging the room to facilitate better dialogue, and keeping detailed meeting minutes. Much
like an effective lesson plan, as department meetings improved in purpose and structure,
responsiveness and participation increased from the members. Increased engagement and
improved meeting practices has resulted in an increased trust among the members. “As an
organizational concept, trust resides on a continuum somewhere between faith and confidence”
(Raelin, 2003, p. 224).
Social norms are established by starting each meeting with an agenda item to share and
celebrate faculty successes. Efforts to provide refreshments and conduct celebratory occasions
such as birthdays became a frequent illustration of new social norms. Themes are established
each September for the year and each meeting enhances the theme through faculty cultural
norms. Two themes, defying gravity and the courage to grow, were creatively implemented to
increase recognition of accomplishments, participation, and collaboration. The increased efforts
by the leadership team to make meetings a productive and participative environment has
manifested an increase in a collaborative culture throughout the department.
Transformation of Student Teaching Orientation Meetings
Student teaching orientation meetings changed significantly with the implementation of
leaderful practices in the education department. Orientation meetings are provided once a term
to prepare pre‐service teachers for their entry into student teaching and the teaching
profession. Former orientations were one voice from the placement coordinator and were
informative sermons on rules, mandates, and scare tactics of the challenges of student teaching.
Dr. Lora Tyson, newly appointed Department Chairperson at the time of the implementation of
the new leadership model, recognized and vowed to change the tone and content of student
teacher orientations. A new found commitment grew to create an orientation experience for
pre‐service teachers that was collaborative, interactive, and positive.
The student teaching orientation program was transformed by the following term. Student
teachers presently are introduced to a celebratory experience with a focus on the powerful and
positive impact of teachers and the teaching profession. The session is presented by multiple
faculty members using an interactive PowerPoint presentation. Former successful student
teachers attend as guest speakers to share their lessons and experiences with the next class of
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
12 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
student teachers. A favorite send off quote by Haim Ginott (1995) was adopted describing
teachers as the decisive factor in a child’s educational experience:
I've come to the frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element in the
classroom. It's my daily mood that makes the weather. As a teacher, I possess a
tremendous power to make a child's life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of
torture or an instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal. In
all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or
de‐escalated and a child humanized or de‐humanized.
The transformation of the orientation meetings became another reflection of a collaborative
culture and community of the department. It became a decisive factor to humanize the
orientation of future teachers to more accurately represent a collaborative learning community.
Supervisor Training
Many teacher education programs rely heavily upon part‐time personnel to fulfill critical tasks
associated with the supervision of candidates in practicum settings and student teaching
experiences – North Central College is no exception to this practice. While a number of full‐time
faculty members take part in some level of supervision, the sheer number of placements far
exceeds what can be performed by full‐time personnel. The NCC Education Department is
fortunate to have well‐qualified part‐time supervisors, most of whom have had extensive
experience as teachers and administrators and who are themselves successful leaders. Yet
changing demands in the teaching profession and changing requirements for field
experiences/student teaching require ongoing training for all supervisors.
In order to meet the need for ongoing supervisor development, training sessions are planned
before each term and conducted by the elementary and secondary placement coordinators, the
leadership team and other faculty members. Since supervisors are not expected to attend
regularly scheduled faculty meetings there is a likelihood that they will not be informed on the
most current projects, technology and requirements mandated by the faculty. For example,
candidates are required to complete an extensive Impact on Student Learning project that
includes pre and post‐assessments, data collection and analysis and reflection on the impact
that they have had on student learning during student teaching. Supervisors have previously
struggled to support student teachers’ Impact on Student Learning projects due to a failure in
communication and collaboration with faculty.
The implementation of Raelin’s (2003) model has resulted in training sessions for supervisors,
which include reviewing and clarifying expectations, sharing examples of exemplary work
expected from student teachers, and conducting inter‐rater reliability sessions using video tapes
of teaching segments. In order to be both effective and efficient, supervisors needed training in
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
13 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
technology, particularly since candidates submit lesson plans online through Livetext and
supervisors use this system to review candidates’ lesson plans and evaluate their teaching.
The above mentioned inter‐rater reliability activity with supervisors pointed out inconsistencies
in understanding of the rubric criteria on the tools used to evaluate students in the field. This led
to a systematic revision of the observation forms through a collective and collaborative process
that involved all full‐time and part‐time Department of Education faculty, with a representation
of supervisors. The application of a collective and collaborative process was needed to modify
forms to accurately represent the department’s desire for best practice indicators in the field.
The resistance and struggle experienced in the collective and painstaking process of revising
forms is considered by Raelin (2003) as natural in the “land mines of change” (p. 172). Raelin
(2003) reminds leaders that “change rarely occurs when it is merely commanded. People will
undertake change when they feel committed to both the process and the goal. Leadership
managers understand this basic human phenomenon” (p. 172). The resulting revised forms
contain language that is clear, specific, and aligned with standards. Faculty members have since
collaboratively provided extensive retraining of supervisors on the use of the revised
observations forms.
The role of the supervisor is also vital in the department’s monitoring process (described in
more detail in a subsequent section). Prior to the department’s focus on supervisor training,
supervisors were not consistent in addressing problems when a student struggled during a
practicum or the student teaching experience. Supervisors varied greatly in the degree of
support and intervention extended to ensure student success. The monitoring process has
helped supervisors and faculty respond to situations with more consistency, compassion, and
guidance to struggling candidates while maintaining high standards for performance.
While supervision remains largely a solitary activity, the opportunity for supervisors to come
together at training sessions and form relationships with each other and faculty, has spawned a
number of collaborative activities. Supervisors have increased input regarding the topics that
should be addressed at student teaching seminars, thus increasing uniformity in the type of
information that candidates receive. Some supervisors have begun to team teach their student
teaching seminars, and to assist each other in using required technology such as Livetext. The
increase in collaboration among the supervisors also illustrates the concurrent and collective
components of the Raelin (2003) model.
Supervisor training allowed Education Department faculty to collaborate with supervisors about
program updates and changes. Supervisors now more clearly understand their role and how it
connects to the broader picture of teacher preparation at North Central College. As a result
supervisors have improved their ability to guide and mentor candidates in the field. Most
importantly, increased dialogues and collaboration regarding practicum and student teaching
experiences were conducted to engage supervisors to a greater degree in the work of the
department.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
14 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
Development of a Student Monitoring Process
Prior to the implementation of the collaborative leadership model, monitoring of teacher
candidates was conducted solely by the Department Chairperson. If candidates encountered
challenges in the field or courses and/or were not displaying professional dispositions, the Chair
of the Department addressed the student individually. The leadership team looked to an existing
committee, the Teacher Education Committee, to develop a collaborative approach to
monitoring candidates throughout the teacher education program. The Teacher Education
Committee is comprised of three faculty members in the Education Department, one of the
Education Department’s placement coordinators, and three faculty members from other
departments. Raelin (2003) characterizes the share role for monitoring students as “learning
does not have to always reside in the expert or the ‘leader.’ Learning is a mobile, continuous,
and collective process” (p. 121).
The monitoring process was designed with three levels to be administered by the Coordinator
of Teacher Education. Faculty members and supervisors raise concerns about a candidate’s
knowledge, skills, or dispositions at any point in the program. Level one of the process is used
for minor and first time concerns. The faculty member meets with the candidate to
communicate the concern and reiterate the expectations of the department and the profession.
Level two is used for more serious concerns or to address remediation efforts that are not
successful at level one. Candidates are required to develop a plan to address the concerns and
meet with the Coordinator of Teacher Education on a regular basis to monitor progress. Level
three interventions involve the most severe infractions and/or candidates who have not made
significant progress in the previous monitoring levels. Candidates at level three appear before
the Teacher Education Committee for a hearing to determine their status in the Teacher
Education Program. After hearing the evidence, the TEC comes to one of three conclusions: 1)
allow the candidate to continue in the program with no interventions; 2) allow the candidate to
continue in the program on probationary status with intervention and ongoing monitoring by
the Coordinator of Teacher Education; or 3) dismiss the candidate from the Teacher Education
Program.
The implementation of the monitoring process in conjunction with the Teacher Education
Committee has provided the department with a strong vehicle for assisting struggling
candidates in a compassionate and fair manner. The diverse composition of the Teacher
Education Committee and the deliberate way in which it makes decisions has led to higher
accountability and greater quality candidates who complete the Teacher Education Program at
NCC. The multiple perspectives that committee members offer provides a fair and
comprehensive review of a student’s issues resulting in a collective decision in which the
committee has confidence. In circumstances when a student is dismissed or when serious
consequences are determined by the committee, one or more of the committee members meet
personally with the student to explain the committee’s decision. This compassionate approach
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
15 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
to discussing difficult issues and consequences provides the candidate with a dignified and
respectful means of understanding the impact this decision could have on their future.
Development of the Secondary Education Liaison Committee
The Secondary Education Liaison Committee was established in 2005 in an effort to create
collaborative communication with content area departments and programs. This committee
consists of representatives from each of the secondary education program areas (English,
History‐Social Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Math) and the K‐12 program areas
(Health/Physical Education, Foreign Languages, Art, and Music). Most communication among
content programs took place via chair‐ to ‐chair emails and letters prior to the creation of this
committee. While expedient, this method of communication did not guarantee that the
information was received by the individuals within the department who were most involved
with teacher education candidates, nor did it foster communication between content area
departments.
The Coordinator of Teacher Education facilitates the meetings of the Education Liaison
Committee, which typically occur once per term (three times a year). Representatives are
appointed by their department chairs and expected to serve for at least one year; however, the
majority of departments have maintained the same representative since the formation of the
committee. Consistency in membership has fostered a sense of ownership of issues and has
served as a vehicle of communication for departments and programs. As a result, Liaison
Committee members function as concurrent leaders with department chairs in their own
departments and programs. Additionally, consistency in membership fosters collaborative
interactions between the department representatives. For example, at committee meetings,
liaison representatives have discussed program assessment plans and have shared ideas about
discussing data within their departments. They are useful resources to each other in finding
collective solutions in matters of program assessment, which was foreign to these departments.
The Education Liaison Committee has evolved into a forum where opportunity for open dialogue
allows for valuable information to continue after the initial messages have been delivered. “In
dialogue people willingly open their beliefs and values to the scrutiny of others” (Raelin, 2003, p.
224). It is in the collaborative discussions among Liaison representatives that collective solutions
to problems have arisen.
Program Assessment Teams
No single area in teacher education lends itself more readily to an isolated, hands‐off approach
than program assessment. It’s scary. It’s daunting. It’s tedious. Many teacher education
programs assign one individual to coordinate and perform most or all of the program
assessment activities while the other members of the department breathe a sigh of relief and
remain blissfully ignorant – until there is a need to understand and become involved in the
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
16 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
process. Then the panic sets in. This scenario describes the approach used by the Education
Department prior to the adoption of a collaborative leadership model.
The team approach to program assessment was first developed in 2003 and was phased in over
time. Two faculty members in the department receive a minor load release to help facilitate
program assessment matters; however, the tasks involved in implementing program assessment
are far greater than could be realistically completed by these individuals, given the allotted
release time. It became clear that program assessment tasks had to be performed across all
members of the department, resulting in a collaborative, concurrent, and collective model of
program assessment. In order to accomplish this, the unit was divided into four program
assessment teams: 1) assessment of field and clinical experiences; 2) assessment of content and
pedagogy; 3) assessment of dispositions and monitoring of candidates; and 4) assessment of
graduate programs. Initially, each team determined assessment activities that were aligned to
the standards and to the unit’s conceptual framework. Each team then began implementing its
assessment activities, examining and analyzing data. Teams designate a leader charged with
coordinating the team’s meetings while team members share equally in the completion of tasks.
The program assessment cycle that was developed by the unit allows the assessment teams to
effectively and efficiently use data to improve the unit’s programs. In the fall term, teams review
and analyze data and arrive at conclusions. During the college’s December term, the teams write
their assessment reports, using a unified assessment report format. Teams present their
program assessment reports to the entire unit during winter term. Reports include findings and
summaries of results, actions taken in analyzing the data, recommendations for consideration
by the unit, and any additional questions or ideas to explore in the future when more data is
available. Finally, in the spring term the unit makes programmatic decisions based on the data
presented in the team reports.
Clearly, the team approach to program assessment reflects the collaborative, concurrent,
collective, and compassionate components of the Raelin (2003) model. All members of the unit
contribute to the assessment process. As is true in collective leadership models, leadership has
emerged from multiple members on the teams through this process. As members of the teams
became empowered they concurrently shared the leadership role. Each member’s input and
perspective is valued and respected, a hallmark characteristic of the compassionate leadership
model.
Collaborative Leadership in the Department of Education at North Central College
The NCC Department of Education Leadership Team made a conscious effort to demonstrate a
collaborative, collective, concurrent and compassionate approach with faculty, students, and
supervisors. This high degree of intentionality to change the culture did not happen incidentally
or without a defined purpose. A culture of caring and collaboration demonstrates a
transformational leadership model where relationship building is essential to the role of the
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
17 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
leader (Sergiovanni, 2009). The mantra nice matters, which began with Dr. Lora Tyson, has been
intentionally grown by her predecessors as a cultural norm. The emphasis on relationship
building was first conducted by the formal leaders, and ultimately, by the organizational
members. The outcome has been a greater degree of accomplishment in the mission,
operations, and goals of the Department of Education. Candidates are indoctrinated in the
college and K‐12 classrooms, through the monitoring system, in student teaching orientation
meetings, and throughout the program where faculty model dispositions and performance that
will be expected of candidates as future educators. Supervisors are respected and valued for the
essential role they perform in the formative development of student teachers in K‐12
classrooms. Department meetings are designed to enhance relationships, communication, and
decision‐making whereby each individual matters. The strengths of each member of the
department are sought out and utilized to address arduous tasks such as those associated with
program assessment.
To achieve the mission of the Department of Education, the Leadership Team set out to
transform a traditional organization to a collaborative culture of distributive leadership. The
evolution from a single leadership model to one of many active participants and partners was
challenging but necessary to better address the scope and quality of work required for the
success of the program. Based on the assumption that it was in the best interest of the program
to have many partners, the Leadership Team desired to find “a best way to help each individual
partner understand and sustain a personal connection with the work of the collaboration by
attaching that work to each partner’s individual or institutional self interests. “ (Rubin, 2002, p.
14). Although data on the efforts of the Leadership Team to adopt a leaderful approach is at
best anecdotal, the evidence is compelling enough to continue to maintain a collaborative
leadership model.
Results and Recommendations
As a result of collaborative leadership the NCC Department of Education has seen increased
productively, a shared commitment to departmental goals, and improved quality of its
programs. Schools today seek to craft a greater sense of a shared community among teachers
to better address the gaps that frequently occur between leaders and organizational members.
Since department members began participating in shared leadership roles, there have been
fewer gaps and an increased quality in the work of the department. Too often, those who have
the authority to lead do not always have the ability, and those who have the ability to lead,
often lack the authority (Sergiovanni, 2009). The Department of Education at NCC bridged this
gap by inviting more members to be greater contributors. Ideally, potential gaps are minimized
when leaders accept that they are not able to meet all of the demands of the organization
alone, and invite others to play a greater role. For the Department of Education, shared
leadership resulted in more members committed to taking on roles that otherwise would have
been assumed by one of the leadership team members. Raelin (2003) describes this
phenomenon as “the team is experiencing collective leadership; it is not dependent on any one
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
18 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
member, not the position leader, nor the idea initiator‐everyone is participating in leadership”
(p. 15). The greatest benefit of a shared leadership approach has been the favorable impact on
the preparation of candidates in the Teacher Education Program.
Challenges
Despite the multiple benefits, the development of collaborative leadership has resulted in new
challenges. This liberal arts college and Department of Education now experience a dramatically
different way of functioning in the move from single, traditional leadership to the collaborative
approach developed by the leadership team. Initially some department members shared
frustration with the functioning and the ambiguous roles of each of the members of the
leadership team. The Dean of Academic Affairs was reluctant to address three representatives
of the Education Department rather than one in decision making, problem solving, and
communication. However, with increased trust and consistent modeling of collaborative and
compassionate leadership, this new model has taken root. Increased trust has been the by‐
product of leaders who are competent, demonstrate integrity, and exhibit good will toward
others (Raelin, 2003). Even reluctant department members gradually became proponents of the
new leadership practices and have taken on leadership roles for the first time.
Summary of the Effects of Collaborative Leadership
The qualities required for shared leadership are not easily embraced by all leaders or followers.
The leader who exhibits compassion, social care‐giving, and desire to give back to their
community are qualities of the transformational leader. “The leader’s work is not to get people
to comply but to engage them, to support them, and keep the field clear so that they can be
released to do meaningful work” (Raelin, 2003, p. 228). To be leaderful an individual must value
the role and aspirations of each member of the community.
Sharing leadership has allowed for the development of new initiatives, such as the addition of a
new minor in English Language Learners. Department meetings have evolved into collective
efforts and often include celebrations of combined work and play of the members. Time is taken
to recognize each other and nurture relationships among the department members. While the
challenges of such a model must be expected, the single most important quality required to
develop and sustain a model such as Raelin’s (2003) or Sergiovanni’s (2009) can be summed up
in one word: collaboration. Leaders must be willing to collaboratively share responsibility and
roles for organizational and cultural change to occur. As demonstrated by the NCC Education
Department, when responsibilities, skills and functions of a department are shared, the result is
greater community and productivity. Collaborative leadership for the NCC Department of
Education Leadership Team was most effective because it was intentionally and systematically
designed to meet the needs of a changing and successful program.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
19 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
Future Methodology
The desire to study and assess leadership actions is complicated to even a greater degree by the
efforts to study and assess interactive leadership. Distributive, transformational, and collective
leadership models are producing results that exceed the actions of individual leadership;
however, to assess the interactive component of leadership is even more challenging. While the
authors have provided a case study of positive outcomes of a collaborative leadership model at
North Central College, there is a need to conduct further research on the effectiveness of the
model.
A promising approach utilized in the field involves the use of leadership daily practice (LDP) logs
to study the practice of collaborative leadership. James P. Spillane and Anita Zuberi (2009) have
validated an instrument as a means to collect data in ways other than surveys to study the
ethnography of leadership interactions. This method involves the use of a daily log that
generates empirical data about the interactions of leaders, formal and informal, with their
colleagues. Several prototypes for the use of logs to collect data on the interactions of leaders
have been developed by Spillane and Zuberi (2009). Experience Sampling Method is a
methodological approach preferred over surveys and open ended questions, to chronicle
specific interactions throughout a leader’s day. Among the advantages of the ESM methodology,
and specifically the use of logs, is that it is practical and practitioners can report on events
identified as significant interactions throughout the day when they are fresh in their minds
(Spillane and Zuberi, 2009). The leadership team in the Department of Education at North
Central College believes that the use of this methodology could serve to expand understanding
of the effectiveness of the collaborative leadership model utilized.
References
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Many, T., and Eaker, R. (2006) Learning by Doing: A Handbook for
Professional Learning Communities at Work. Solution Tree Publishers.
Ginott, H.G. (1995). Teacher and child: A book for parents and teachers. New York, NY: Collier.
Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing‐doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge
into action. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Raelin, Joseph (2003). Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler Publishers.
Rubin, H. (2002). Collaborative Leadership: Devloping effective partnerships in communities and
schools. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
20 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais
Sergiovanni, T. (2009). The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective (6th edition). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Spillane, J. and Zuberi, A. (2009). Designing and Piloting a Leadership Daily Practice Log: Using
Logs to Study the Practice of Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 375.
Retrieved from http://eaq.sagepub.com.
This paper is dedicated to our colleague, Dr. Lora Tyson. The Department of Education at North
Central College is grateful for her leadership in creating a collaborative approach to preparing
preservice teachers where nice really does matter.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
21 Duby and Fischer
SELF‐DIRECTED LEARNING AND THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP: ANALYZING KEYS FOR SUCCESS
FROM A COVENANTAL PERSPECTIVE
David G. Duby School of Business Liberty University
Lynchburg, VA 24502 [email protected]
Kahlib J. Fischer
School of Business Liberty University
Lynchburg, VA 24502 [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The current state of education seems to beg for visionary changes to truly impact students and
prepare them for the future. Self‐directed learning models purport to do just that, by preparing
students to be self‐motivated, lifelong learners. While many educators seek to apply self‐
directed practices, research reveals that there are several obstacles that can hinder self‐directed
learning. Duby’s 2006 study of schools employing self‐directed learning investigated how
leaders successfully overcome these hindrances via specific leadership attitudes and behaviors
that not only effectively overcame these obstacles, but are also reflected in the covenantal
perspective of leadership. Using content analysis, this paper further explores the findings of
Duby’s study of educational leaders, analyzing them within the covenantal construct developed
by Fischer (2003), in order to better understand the relationship between effective leadership
practice and the covenantal perspective. This study revealed intriguing similarities between
particulars of the CFA model and the leadership practices exhibited in the self‐directed learning
schools. These similarities also present opportunities for future study, including whether
visionary organizations are more apt to be motivated by covenantal principles and examining
the type of for‐profit organizations that are more apt to embody the tenets of CFA.
Keywords: Educational leadership, self‐directed learning, learner‐centered, covenant
Introduction
One of the most exciting developments in education in recent years is the increased emphasis
on the self‐directed learning model. Though the importance of directing one’s own learning is
not new, its relatively recent promotion has prompted many educators to look much closer at
its many facets—its roots, its processes, and its potential—in order to more clearly define its
role in America’s classrooms.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
22 Duby and Fischer
But what has been missing thus far in the literature is a discussion of how leadership can help
ensure a successful self‐directed learning environment. This is especially important since
Wehmeyer, Agran, and Hughes (2000) identified several obstacles that hinder self‐directed
learning, obstacles whose solutions appear to be leader‐oriented. In 2006, Duby interviewed
leaders and teachers of two schools that facilitate self‐directed learning to better understand
how leadership addresses these obstacles for success in such an environment. Duby’s initial
findings revealed certain leadership practices that helped these schools overcome the obstacles
identified by Wehmeyer et al and attain their desired learning outcomes. As a means of further
developing those initial findings, this study will reexamine the leadership practices from a
covenantal perspective as articulated by Fischer (2003). Fischer’s covenantal model provides a
historical and practical framework for leadership and organizational behavior “best practices.”
Before discussing how covenantal principles can be applied by leadership to support the self‐
directed learning community, this paper will provide a brief overview of both the self‐directed
learning context and the definition and history of the covenantal idea.
Leadership and Self‐Directed Learning
Duby (2006) investigated two schools to understand how leaders equip and encourage teachers
to overcome obstacles and best facilitate self‐directed learning. Self‐directed education is a
unique learning model that emphasizes non‐centralized classrooms and participative learning
and presents a rich context for reviewing the leadership practices of the selected schools. Early
studies by Knowles (1975) suggest that the self‐directed learning environment helps students
become proactive learners. These findings are consistent with later studies by Bandura and
Wood (1989), Hofer and Yu (2003), and Dynan, Cate, and Rhee (2008) who also suggested that
enhancing a student’s opportunities for self‐directed learning contributes to his or her academic
performance. Research has suggested that self‐directed learning processes are necessary for
students to develop lifelong learning skills (Candy, 1991; Lapan, Kardash, & Turner, 2002; Palmer
& Wehmeyer, 2003), achieve academically (Chen, 2002; Hofer & Yu, 2003; Zimmerman, 2002;
Dynan et al., 2008), and attain desired outcomes in many aspects of life (Wehmeyer & Sands,
1998; Grow, 2003; Perry, Nordby, & Vandekamp, 2003). Indeed, Martinez‐Pons (2003) warned,
“The failure of students to become sufficiently self‐regulatory to manage learning on their own
is of considerable social concern” (p. 126).
Yet Zimmerman (2002) found that few teachers effectively prepare students to learn on their
own. Some researchers believe this is due to the staid, traditional classroom methodology
present in most of today’s classrooms which, according to Baum, Owen, and Oreck (1997), may
discourage or limit self‐direction. Patrick and Middleton (2002) stated, “These opportunities for
students to be self‐directed, rather than others‐directed, are not always plentiful in traditional
classrooms” (p. 29). For instance, Hofer and Yu (2003) noted that although self‐directed learning
is an important aspect of student performance and achievement, it is seldom an overt goal of
classroom instruction.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
23 Duby and Fischer
Some have suggested that school leaders are also resistant to incorporating self‐directed
learning concepts in the classroom. One reason for such resistance was described by Eshel,
Kohavi, and Revital (2003). Their research suggested that some school leaders believed making
students more active in the learning process would diminish a teachers’ responsibility to ensure
learning. But, these researchers noted that no research has supported such a position and
contended that there is no contradiction between granting students a greater share in
classroom decision making and retaining, at the same time, teacher responsibility for student
learning. Indeed, Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens, and Dochy (2009) found that
granting students autonomy for their learning increased self‐directed effectiveness, and Dynan
et al. (2008) reinforce the importance of the teacher in this process.
Though this research demonstrates that teachers enhance a student’s learning, classrooms
employing self‐directed teachers are not the norm. Self‐directed learning involves processes not
typically found in conventional classroom environments. As Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug,
and Martin (2000) stated, “Teaching students to take greater control over and responsibility for
their own learning and to become causal agents in their lives is a process that often does not
lend itself to traditional models of teaching” (p. 440). A learner‐centered education can only
occur in schools committed to developing a learner‐centered culture and the processes and
structures that are necessary to support that culture.
Similarly, Gibbons (2002) suggested that self‐directed learning “requires a different approach by
the teacher and demands new skills from students” (p. 3). Silén and Uhlin (2008) use
collaboration to describe this approach for self‐directed learners. Thus, it will require a
concerted effort on the part of leaders to ensure that this type of learning occurs. As Horng and
Loeb (2010) note, “strong instructional leadership is essential for a school to be successful (p.
69).
In his review of leader practices in non‐profit schools, Duby (2006) investigated two schools that
employed the self‐directed learning model. One school had fewer than 40 students, was located
near the farms and fields of a relatively small town in Central Virginia, and was rather limited in
its available resources and budget. The second school was a large, multi‐campus school
comprised of hundreds of students, was located in an affluent suburb of a large metropolitan
city in Northern Virginia, and possessed considerable advantages in resources, facilities, and in
its financial standing. Duby’s research sought to answer how leaders—regardless of school size
and with appreciable differences in available resources—partner with teachers to ensure self‐
directed learning. Duby employed multiple‐case study analysis to examine this question.
According to Yin (2003), research that seeks to address how questions tends to be explanatory
in nature, and explanatory studies are often examined with case study methodology. Though Yin
posited that a good case study can be accomplished with just one sample, he suggested that
examining more than one case may lead to a stronger study that enhances the prospects for
generalizability. Therefore, Duby’s research employed a multiple‐case study that examined two
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
24 Duby and Fischer
cases purposefully selected to ensure an information‐rich context in which to conduct the
research.
The subsequent analysis and discussion of the data revealed important leadership practices that
positively addressed the obstacles that Wehmeyer, Agran, and Hughes (2000) suggested hinder
self‐directed learning. These barriers included limited information afforded to teachers, the
inability to properly instruct students to self‐direct their learning, and the lack of authority
granted to teachers to provide instruction in self‐directed learning. This consideration led to an
important question regarding a leader’s role in promoting self‐directed learning. What type of
leadership is needed to overcome these obstacles? Duby’s (2006) investigation suggests several
important leadership practices that positively affected teacher autonomy, encouraged
participative practices, and revealed servant leadership tendencies, all of which helped
overcome the obstacles identified in the study. Since Duby’s original study, there has been little
attention given to leadership practices in self‐directed learning institutions. For example, while
Silén and Uhlin (2008) note the complexity of self‐directed learning, they focus on the need for
the teacher to properly implement the model. And while Dynan et al. (2008) stress the
importance of structure in self‐directed learning, they too leave the responsibility for structure
in the hands of the teacher. Pata (2009) also focuses on structure, identifying the need to model
spaces conducive to self‐directed learning, yet the type of leadership needed to effectively
design such spaces is not addressed.
Although leader types or behaviors are not prevalent in the literature, Reeves (2006) explored
“the essential transformations of leadership for learning” (p. 158). While Reeves did not identify
a leader type to address specific problems of such new learning models, he did present key
leader behaviors that help ensure the best possible learning, such as visionary, relational, and
collaborative leadership. While Reeves’ study focused on American schools, a study of Asian
schools by Triwaranyu (2007) revealed the necessity of similar leader behaviors. Triwaranyu
suggested several strategies for implementing new learning paradigms and noted that school
leaders should be open‐minded and knowledgeable with “the ability to elicit opinions and ideas
from all group members” (p. 60). Though Triwaranyu acknowledged leadership issues, an
overarching leader approach or model is not suggested.
While these studies focused on traditional schools, other research has examined leader
behaviors in organizations that implement self‐directed learning. Smith, Sadler‐Smith,
Robertson, and Wakefield (2007) examined the role of leadership in twelve for‐profit companies
that utilize self‐directed learning for worker development. While the study did not identify any
particular leader types, it did present strategies important to leadership and self‐directed
learning, including fostering a culture and organizational environment that is supportive of self‐
directed instruction. The researchers also reflected on the importance of developing skills that
value, encourage, and support self‐directed learning. Thus, research reveals that some of the
more effective leader practices for self‐directed learning are similar to those identified in Duby’s
(2006) study.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
25 Duby and Fischer
The revelation of these practices led to a new research question: was there a conceptual
framework for this type of leadership, one that might reveal other effective practices that these
leaders could adopt? A cursory review of leadership theory indicated a possible relationship
between the leadership practices Duby identified and those found in covenantal leadership, a
perspective described by Fischer (2003) as embracing the processes and attitudes of a healthy
organization. Therefore, this paper seeks to further examine the leader practices revealed in
Duby’s 2006 study from a covenantal perspective, comparing these leader behaviors with those
identified by Fischer (2003) to see if covenantal leadership was displayed. If covenantal
leadership is apparent in the two cases investigated by Duby, it may be a leader model that
should be encouraged in schools embracing self‐directed learning.
What Is Covenant?
The term covenantal framework of action (CFA) or covenantal leadership was introduced by
Fischer (2003) as a means of articulating a framework of leadership which embraces the
structure, process, and attitudes of a healthy leadership team and organization. Furthermore,
Fischer sought to use concepts and ideas that were not merely confined to the field of
leadership theory/organizational development alone (which often becomes the victim of fads
and passing trends). Instead, the notion of covenant was embraced because that term and its
related principles have had a significant positive impact upon Western civilization, and more
specifically, upon the organizational soundness of American government and politics (2003).
The term covenant denotes a mutually agreed upon relationship in which the various members
of the party commit to serving and caring for one another in clearly defined ways (Elazar, 1995).
The covenantal idea is a Biblical one, in which God covenants with man by allowing man to
choose to covenant with God—the relationship could not be coerced. As a result, covenantal
relationships are “based upon morally‐sustained compacts of mutual promises and obligation”
(Elazar, 1980, p. 6). This all encompassing notion of covenant has far reaching implications for
interpersonal and organizational relationships. First of all, it affirms the individual rights,
freedoms, and responsibilities of all members of it. It is both a theological and political construct
(Elazar, 1980), and as Bratt (1980) argues, “politically, covenants have been made by entire
societies—with God, each other, and/or themselves—and by single groups (the Puritans and
Covenanters) or institutions (churches of various types) within societies” (p.1).
Associated with the sense of mutual obligation is the Hebrew term hesed, which means, “loving
fulfillment of covenant obligation”, or covenant love (Clark, 1993; Elazar, 1995; Glueck, 1967;
and Kincaid, 1980). Members of the covenant have to go beyond just mere contractual
agreement to serve one another…hesed speaks of the importance of members having to love
and serve one another. Therefore, rules are not meant to be means of limiting services and
actions of kind regard toward one another, for covenantal members are meant to go “beyond
the letter of the law” by obeying the “spirit” of the law.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
26 Duby and Fischer
Acting upon this notion of hesed¸ leaders are quick to receive feedback from those who will be
implementing major decisions—even frontline employees. This is particularly important from a
business standpoint because it is the frontline employees who have a sense of what customers
need and want and are familiar with the constraints that they face in the daily operations of
their particular departments. Leaders, therefore, would be unwise to initiate and implement
major decisions without this valuable feedback.
Covenant, then, is at its core about relationship and empowerment. Interestingly, the reason
that the idea of covenant is so focused on both of these concepts is because first and foremost it
focuses upon the individual—his rights and obligations to others. Covenant members choose to
love one another, based upon moral obligations and to go beyond the “letter of the law” (Elazar,
1995). Kincaid further argued, “Covenant love directs attention beyond the self to the good and
goods of others and to a common good of the community, thereby tempering individualism
without destroying individuality” (1980, p. 45).
The History of Covenant
Though largely a Biblical idea initially, the notion of covenant and its emphasis on a “human
community based upon love and faith” (Kincaid, 1978, p. 70), challenged social and political
hierarchies in the West, especially during the Protestant Reformation (Elazar, 1979). The non‐
centralized nature of covenants led many reformers to challenge political authority (Reid 1981;
Skillen 1980; and Walzer , 1985). Rulers had an obligation to protect the people, and could be
overthrown if they broke such a covenantal bond. This belief developed into the idea of civil
resistance (Reid, 1981). Indeed, the covenantal idea, and the freedoms that came with it, spread
not only throughout much of Europe (McCoy, 1980; Skillen 1980) but also into America. In fact,
many colonies adopted covenantal ideas in their founding documents, a practice which
continued on in the era of statehood (Elazar, 1980; Elazar & Kincaid, 1979; Lutz, 1980, 1988;
McLaughlin, 1961; Schechter, 1980).
State constitutions and various other legal documents contained frequent references to
covenantal terms and concepts (Lutz,1980; 1988) and the covenant idea formed the basis for its
Declaration of Independence from Great Britain (Elazar & Kincaid, 1980; Lutz, 1988) as well as its
government (Lutz, 1980). Covenantal ideas were “used for a variety of very public enterprises
from the establishment of colonial self‐government to the creation of the great trading
corporations of the seventeenth century” (Elazar, 1979, pp. 7‐8). Furthermore, the American
emphasis upon individual liberty represented a step forward in covenantal ideas, since American
colonies and eventually its national government allowed for a much higher degree of popular
sovereignty than did her European counterparts (Lutz, 1988). It should come as no surprise then,
that it was the disregard of the covenant idea that lead to a justification of slavery (Greenstone
1985; Kincaid 1978).
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
27 Duby and Fischer
CFA versus other Approaches to Leadership and Organizational Behavior
There are of course many leadership and organizational behavior perspectives which offer
sound ideas for leaders in any context, and certainly the context of self‐directed learning. But
the authors chose CFA over those other approaches for two primary reasons: First, as Fischer
articulated (2003), CFA speaks not just to leadership behavior, but also to organizational
processes, structure, and culture, and as such, it provides a unified approach to tackling the
challenges mentioned by Wehmeyer, Agran, and Hughes (2000) for leaders in self‐directed
learning institutions, as will be seen below. With regards to leadership behavior, CFA calls for
leaders to engage in behavior that involves mutual accountability and empowerment of
employees, so that the vision, processes, goals, etc. of the organization are agreed upon by
everyone involved in the organization and the covenantal relationship. With regards to
organizational processes, CFA emphasizes participative decision‐making, because it affirms the
dignity of everyone in the relationship, and thereby values their insights and expertise when it
comes to organizational decisions. With regards to organizational structure, CFA calls for
“noncentralization.” Noncentralization implies that rules, regulations, and contracts do not
supplant real and sometimes intimate relationships with customers and employees. Regarding
use of the term noncentralization, Elazar (1984) argues that “partnership implies the distribution
of real power among several centers that must negotiate cooperative arrangements with one
another in order to achieve common goals.” And finally, with regards to organizational culture,
CFA calls for mutual care and support, embodied by a spirit of teamwork.
Secondly, as established above, the foundational principle of covenant is that of
empowerment—individuals freely choosing to be in covenant with one another, to be
accountable to one another and to care for one another. This is important for two reasons.
First, all of the problems described by Wehmeyer et al. (2000)—limited information afforded to
teachers, the inability to properly instruct students to self‐direct their learning, and the lack of
authority granted to teachers to provide instruction in self‐directed learning—are specifically
related to a lack of empowerment for the teachers. So it is vitally important that this root cause
be addressed by leaders. CFA certainly embodies the principle of empowerment. Secondly, the
research reveals that empowerment is a key principle of many of the leadership and
organizational best practices found in literature today. For instance, because a key tenet of
transformational leadership is helping followers understand and capture the vision, and giving
them the skills and freedom to carry out the vision, this approach to leadership has been linked
to empowerment in numerous studies (Gellis, 2001; Zhu, Chew, & Spangler, 2005; Jandaghi,
Matin, & Zarei, 2008; and Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). Likewise, servant leadership, which calls
for leaders to serve followers and ensure that they are properly cared for, also emphasizes
empowerment (Lytle, Hom, and Mokwa, 1998; Russell, 2001; Polleys, 2002; Roberts, 2006;
McCuddy & Cavin, 2008).
Empowerment is also a key idea found in the literature pertaining to organizational structure. A
major theme in the literature in this regard is decentralization, in which employees have more
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
28 Duby and Fischer
decision‐making ability and power. This idea in turn has been linked to employee self‐
management (Shipper and Manz, 1992) and self‐managed teams (Hassan, Hagen & Daigs, 2006).
These are all informed by the notion that empowered employees can be more productive and
effective.
Related to decentralization is a popular organizational process found in the literature:
participative decision‐making (PDM), in which followers have more input into key organizational
decisions and leaders make space for employee feedback and insight when making decisions, as
well as delegation (Yeung, 2004; Rosenblatt & Nord, 1999). In this sense, PDM also focuses on
employee empowerment.
Finally, studies on organizational culture focuses on definitions of healthy organizations based
upon empowered followers (Joo and Lim, 2009; Johnson, 2009; Chan, Taylor & Markham, 2008;
and Jacobs, Christe‐Zeyse, & Keegan, 2008). A related notion is Spirituality in the Workplace
(SIW), which has also been linked to empowerment (Tischler, 1999; Gockel, 2004). SIW is a
cultural construct that emphasizes the importance of creating an organizational culture in which
employees can truly make a difference—both within their organization and the larger
community (Gockel, 2004; Bonewits, 2006; and Bygrave & Macmillan, 2008) and in which
employees are encouraged to be all that they can be through the workplace experience
(Johnson, 2007).
In summary, CFA was chosen to address the above‐mentioned leadership challenges not
because other leadership and organizational behavioral concepts are irrelevant, but rather
because in focusing on empowerment, CFA links and unifies these varied ideas by filling in the
gaps between and among them (Table 1):
Table 1.
CFA compared to key leadership and organizational perspectives
Leadership Behavior
OrganizationalProcesses
Organizational Structure
OrganizationalCulture
Transformational Leadership
Vision‐casting,empowering employees
Servant Leadership
Serving, empowering employees
Participative Decision‐Making
Increased decision‐making to employees
Decentralization Sharing power with employees
SIW
Supportive, empowering atmosphere
CFA Mutual accountability,
empowerment Participative
decision‐making Noncentralization
Mutual care and support
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
29 Duby and Fischer
As mentioned earlier, the problems described by Wehmeyer et al. (2000)—limited information
afforded to teachers, the inability to properly instruct students to self‐direct their learning, and
the lack of authority granted to teachers to provide instruction in self‐directed learning—are
specifically related to a lack of empowerment for the teachers, parents and students. Duby’s
study (2003) analyzed how leaders operated in two self‐directed learning institutions to ensure
the success of the learning process. This study focuses in particular on these three issues related
to empowerment, and how a covenantal approach (CFA) would further address those issues.
Limited Information to Teachers, Parents and Students For self‐directed learning to work, parents need to be made aware of the vision and rationale
behind it, and teachers need to be on the same page with administrators. This requires
leadership to not only provide information about self‐directed learning to parents, but also to
encourage them to be active participants in the self‐directed learning community. This can be
seen in the fact that in the schools investigated, both leaders and teachers spoke about the
need to educate parents in the basic tenets of self‐directed learning in order to achieve true
success in the classroom. One of the most helpful practices is to let parents observe the class
and the teacher in action.
Each leader interviewed understands her or his responsibility to appropriately introduce parents
to the self‐directed model, furnish materials to enhance understanding of the philosophy behind
the model, and provide opportunities for continued education to build support for the model.
Though there were differences between the leaders as to the regularity, breadth, and scope of
the educational materials and learning opportunities afforded to parents, both worked diligently
to ensure that parents stayed informed and continued to develop their understanding of the
self‐directed method of learning. These actions are descriptive of the covenantal notion of
servant leadership, because, again, the leader is required to ensure that all members of the
covenant are willing to accept the terms thereof. Self‐directed learning is a paradigm with which
many parents are unfamiliar. For parents to be willing to commit to this somewhat
unconventional approach to learning, they have to have a proper understanding of the “terms
of the covenant”—i.e., the ideas and principles associated with self‐directed learning. In a
covenantal relationship, all parties to the covenant must know the terms of the covenant before
agreeing to the relationship—this means of empowerment protects everyone involved.
However, feedback from teachers revealed that leaders need to strike a careful balance
between opening up classrooms to parents and visitors in hopes of educating them in self‐
directed learning and protecting the classroom from excessive distractions that disrupt the
learning environment. The teachers interviewed welcome visitors to their classrooms yet
maintain that visitors should first be instructed on how to conduct themselves while in the class,
a responsibility they feel belongs to their directors. Both directors offer materials to instruct
parents on what to expect and what to look for when observing. Both leaders also require
parents and visitors to obtain permission and reserve a time before observing a class.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
30 Duby and Fischer
Once a covenantal relationship is established, mutual accountability is required—parents have
to agree to commit themselves to supporting the vision of the school. In this case, the vision of
the covenant relationship is to achieve true learning on the part of the students. Self‐directed
learning has been chosen as the means for doing so, and since the self‐directed model presents
changes and questions for many children and parents alike, the need to develop strong parent‐
teacher relationships is essential. Mutual accountability will only be successful, therefore, if a
spirit of hesed is upheld wherein all the members of the covenant commit not only to the terms
of the covenant, but also to care for and respect one another.
But sometimes, even as leaders do their best to empower parents by communicating the
benefits of the self‐directed approach to learning, parents are not willing to fully embrace that
vision. In this respect, both directors acknowledged that there were times when differences
with parents about the vision of their institutions were insurmountable. When this occurred, the
parents were encouraged to withdraw their student and seek enrollment in another school.
Though neither the director nor the teacher believed this to be a happy solution, they
understood it was sometimes the best solution for the situation. Teachers expressed
appreciation for a director who would “lose” a student rather than compromise their authority
and, subsequently, the learning environment. This presents strong encouragement for the
teacher to continue their work in the classroom.
In summary, CFA mandates that the covenant is not a rigid and “closed” system; outsiders are
not shunned but rather welcomed. This of course is an example of empowerment. However,
with empowerment comes responsibility, mutual accountability, and obligation. It is also
understood that outsiders should understand the purpose, vision, structure and rules of the
covenant, and respect them. We see this principle being upheld by the leaders of these self‐
directed schools in how they keep the lines of communication open between them and the
teachers, and how they help parents understand and experience the vision behind the self‐
directed learning environment.
Empowerment and Equipping Teachers to Properly Instruct Students Not only do the leaders of each school understand the importance of nurturing the
development of parents, they also understood the importance of ensuring the continual
development of each teacher. Both schools employed only teachers certified in self‐directed
instruction, and both leaders encouraged assistant teachers to receive formal training as well.
This is not necessarily an easy task, since the self‐directed method is not a common learning
model in many schools of education. More than hiring certified faculty, however, leaders need
to ensure that faculty are provided opportunities for continued training and development in self‐
directed methodology. In a covenantal relationship, all parties must be willing to accept and live
by the terms of the covenant, and leaders are responsible for ensuring that the terms of the
covenant are upheld. One major way of doing so is by hiring those people who are decidedly
committed to the ideas and terms of the covenant.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
31 Duby and Fischer
Even teachers espousing a belief in the merits of self‐directed learning may not utilize the model
they support due to lacking the necessary training and support. Therefore, it is the responsibility
of educational leadership to provide information about self‐directed learning and training in
how to effectively promote self‐directed learning principles, techniques, and curriculum in the
classroom. Research has suggested that providing teachers with such opportunities for growth
and development works. Young and Ley (2003) found that teachers benefited from instruction
supporting self‐directed learning strategies. Additionally, the research found that providing
information on a number of self‐directed activities identified by Zimmerman and Martinez‐Pons
(1988) was especially helpful.
Dunn, Hongsfeld, and Doolan (2009) posit that teachers need development opportunities to
better understand the learning style of each student in order to teach him or her effectively.
Without exception, each faculty member interviewed expressed the desire to receive continued
training and professional development. They viewed it as essential to their professional
development and the enhancement of the school’s academic program. Leaders who provide
development opportunities, whether in the form of in‐house training, regional or national
professional development conferences, or continued staff development meetings, do much to
build their teacher’s self‐efficacy. Again, from a covenantal perspective, this goes back to the
notion of empowerment and servant leadership.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon leadership to know how they can empower teachers in this
area. For instance, leaders do their best to provide a learning environment with proper
resources and equipment. “Absolutely essential” is how one leader described the importance of
providing faculty with a well‐equipped environment. Another action the leaders have taken to
protect the learning environment is by minimizing disruptions to the morning learning time. In
each school, this learning time lasts about 3 hours; therefore, enrichment classes, assemblies,
and other routine disruptions are delayed until the afternoon. The directors believe that this
allows their teachers to focus on fostering self‐directed learning rather than on schedules,
dismissals, and getting their classes to start and stop the learning process. All teachers
interviewed expressed appreciation to their directors for protecting the morning learning time.
As we have seen, an environment conducive to self‐directed learning is one with a supportive
community of well‐informed parents, classrooms designed for self‐directed learning (which are
different from more traditionally‐designed classrooms), and an environment protected from
unnecessary distractions to encourage optimal learning. This support and teamwork relates to
the covenantal notion of servant leadership and the importance of creating a community of
teamwork among parents, teachers, and leaders. In turn, all of this speaks to empowerment as
teachers are empowered through support and an emphasis on continued training.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
32 Duby and Fischer
Empowerment and Overcoming the Lack of Authority The teachers interviewed provided varied examples of how their directors have supported their
empowerment in the sense of giving them more authority and discretion. For teachers, having
classroom autonomy is essential for self‐directed learning to occur. One teacher, for example,
related her frustration regarding a decision made by the school’s executive leadership team that
hindered what she believed to be an important element in a student’s autonomous
development. Her director listened to her concerns and shared them with the administrator,
and the directive was soon withdrawn. This provided a powerful encouragement to the teacher,
and her confidence in and trust for her administrator (as well as her executive leadership team)
increased considerably. Another teacher believed she had considerable autonomy in the class to
direct learning activities and meet individual student needs as she deemed best. Though her
director has never had to settle an issue with an administrator, she is nonetheless appreciative
of her director and the level of autonomy her director provides. She believed the level of
autonomy she enjoys can be attributed to their constant communication and shared vision for
fostering self‐directed learning.
Teachers do not expect total autonomy, nor do leaders provide it. Yet, leaders normally defer to
their trust in the faculty member when handling issues such as parent‐teacher conflict. One
director, for example, will listen to the parent’s concern but will then encourage the parent to
address the faculty member directly. If this is not possible, the director makes sure that the
teacher is present in any further discussion to ensure that both parties are properly
represented. These actions often moderate parental hostility and temper their complaints to
help achieve an agreeable solution, ensuring the continuation of the relationship.
Not only do leaders support a teacher’s autonomy in parent‐teacher relationships, they also
encourage it by non‐centralizing the classroom itself, leaving its ordering and layout to the
teacher. A self‐directed environment is physically different from environments found in more
traditional schools. In each school investigated, gone are neatly ordered rows fronted by a grand
teacher’s desk. Instead, classrooms are set up with various learning centers that students may
visit as they regulate their own learning objectives for the day. Teachers are seen working with
individual students at a learning center, a computer, a table, or sitting on the floor with small
groups as they present a topic to several learners at once. Students have an abundance of
materials with which to work, and the classrooms are large enough to allow for such freedom of
movement. The teachers also noted that a quality environment is essential to their success and
believe their directors have worked hard to ensure a well‐equipped environment. Therefore, the
leaders are allowing teachers to do their jobs in a non‐centralized environment, helping them
effective facilitate the unique nature of self‐directed learning in the classroom.
Another key way that leaders empower teachers through greater authority is through
participative decision‐making. Teachers were empowered by leaders to make the daily decisions
necessary to serve students in the unique environment that is self‐directed learning. Both
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
33 Duby and Fischer
directors communicate often with their faculty to check on classroom progress and to address
problems or concerns the teachers may have. The directors often use these informal discussions
to garner teacher input on changes that may help the classroom or to discuss curriculum
decisions. Both leaders expressed several advantages of this partnering approach, including
encouraging unity and a team spirit, gleaning the wisdom and expertise of the faculty, and
fostering good communication to help minimize misunderstandings when changes are made. In
providing these guidelines for how parents may participate with and observe the self‐directed
learning environment, leaders are empowering teachers in a very covenantal manner.
Covenant‐keeping requires such trust and relationship. One of the main reasons that covenant
fosters such trust is the notion of “mutual accountability,” wherein all the members of the
covenant are accountable to one another. Duby (2006) noted that although teachers are
accountable to the leaders, the leaders recognize that they are responsible for empowering the
teachers and creating an environment where teachers can do their job. Teachers are
accountable to the parents, but leaders help create an atmosphere of trust where parents give
teachers the room to operate in their expertise. And certainly, teachers work to engage parents,
answer their objections, and allow them to observe the classroom setting.
Summary and Conclusion
In 2003, Fischer’s study of faith‐based non‐profits revealed a similarity between the leadership
practices of leaders within those organizations and covenantal principles as articulated within
CFA. This study has likewise revealed similarities between particulars of the CFA model and the
leadership practices revealed by Duby’s investigation of self‐directed learning schools. It was
suggested at the outset of this study that there would likely be some similarities between faith‐
based nonprofits and these schools because of the nature of their vision (serving and caring for
constituents) and the motivations of the leaders and employees in doing so. Regarding
educational institutions in particular, fostering a love for learning, encouraging independence
and initiative, and helping the individual develop self‐discipline have long been hallmarks of the
self‐directed approach. Furthermore, these values are inherent to the covenant tradition and to
CFA. However, the growth in the number of educators committed to the self‐directed method
does not necessarily ensure that the method is successfully employed. Indeed, there is a great
need for leaders in self‐directed environments to ensure that teachers are properly equipped
and encouraged to facilitate the self‐directed model. In conclusion, though the self‐directed
learning model offers a viable option for educators, further research is needed to address the
type of leadership needed to successfully implement such a model and overcome the unique
challenges these leaders face. Since many of those challenges relate to leadership attitudes,
strategies and practices, it is hoped that this paper’s discussion on covenantal leadership will
indeed provide educators with both principles and practical strategies for resolving these
challenges.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
34 Duby and Fischer
Limitations of the Current Study and Implications for Further Study
There are some relevant questions that can be drawn from these implications for future study.
For instance, are visionary organizations more apt to be motivated by covenantal principles, of
CFA specifically? Though there is some evidence that this type of behavior is found in non‐
profits, what type of for‐profit organizations are more apt to embody the tenets of CFA, and
what impact does such behavior have on their bottom‐line?
Secondly, the case can be made that part of researching and answering these questions involves
developing a more concrete diagnostic tool for measuring CFA behaviors within any type of
organization. Both Fischer (2003) and Duby’s (2006) initial studies relied heavily on qualitative
means—and rightly so—in order to contextualize the behaviors being observed. And this study
furthers Fischer’s initial findings (2003) that vision‐oriented organizations seem to follow CFA
tenets in their leadership practices. Moore (2009) contends that a mixed method approach to
organizational studies is very effective for contextualizing research data as well as numerically
quantifying and generalizing the results as a means of cross‐organizational research and
analysis. Accordingly, the CFA model requires a peer‐tested diagnostic survey tool for further
use and analysis.
References
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards
on self‐regulation of complex decision‐making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 805‐814.
Baum, S., Owen, S., & Oreck, B. (1997). Transferring individual self‐regulation processes from
arts to academics. Arts Education Policy Review, 98, 32‐39.
Bonewits, F. S. (2006). Living our mission: A study of university mission building. Communication
Studies, 57(1), 67‐85.
Bratt, J. D. (1980). The covenant traditions of Dutch‐Americans. Workshop on Covenant and
Politics, Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of Federalism ‐ Temple University.
Bygrave, C. & Macmillan, S. (2008). Spirituality in the workplace: A wake up call from the
American dream. Journal of Workplace Rights, 13(1), 93‐112.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self‐direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and
practice. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
35 Duby and Fischer
Chan, Y. H., Taylor, R. R., & Markham, S. (2008). The role of subordinates’ trust in a social
exchange‐driven psychological empowerment process. Journal of Managerial Issues,
20(4).
Chen, C. S. (2002). Self‐regulated learning strategies and achievement in an introduction to
information systems course. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance
Journal, Morehead, 20, 11‐26.
Clark, G. R. (1993). The word hesed in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press.
Duby, D. G. (2006). How leaders support teachers to facilitate self‐regulated learning in learning
organizations: A multiple‐case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent
University.
Dunn, R., Hongsfeld, A., & Doolan, L. S. (2009). Impact of learning‐style instructional strategies
on students’ achievement and attitudes: Perceptions of educators in diverse institutions.
The Clearing House, 135‐140.
Dynan, L., Cate, T., & Rhee, K. (2008). The impact of learning structure on students’ readiness for
self‐directed learning. Journal of Education for Business, 96‐100.
Elazar, D. J. (1979). Federalism and covenant. Workshop on Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia,
PA, Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.
Elazar, D. J. (1980). The political theory of covenant: Biblical origins and modern developments.
Publius 10(4).
Elazar, D. J. (1981). Covenant and freedom in the Jewish political tradition. A. S. F. Lecture.
Philadelphia, PA, Gratz College.
Elazar, D. J. (1995). Covenant and polity in Biblical Israel: Biblical foundations and Jewish
expressions. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Elazar, D. J. and J. Kincaid (1979). Covenant and polity. Workshop on Covenant and Politics.
Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.
Elazar, D. J. and J. Kincaid (1980). The Declaration of Independence: The founding covenant of
the American people. Workshop on Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia, PA, Center for
the Study of Federalism, Temple University.
Eshel, Y., & Kohavi, R. (2003). Perceived classroom control, self‐regulated learning strategies,
and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23, 249‐260.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
36 Duby and Fischer
Fischer, K. (2003). Leadership in faith‐based nonprofits as compared to a covenantal framework
of action: An exploratory study to develop an alternative theoretical framework for
assessing organizational processes and influences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Regent University.
Gellis, Z. D. (2001). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in
health care. Social Work Research, 25(1), 17.
Gibbons, M. (2002). The self‐directed learning handbook: Challenging adolescent students to
excel. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.
Glueck, N. (1967). Hesed in the Bible. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press.
Gockel, A. (2004). The trend toward spirituality in the workplace: Overview and implications for
career counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 41(4), 156‐167.
Greenstone, J. D. (1985). Lincoln's political humanitarianism: Moral reform and the covenant
tradition in American political culture. Workshop on Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia,
PA, Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.
Grow, G. (2003). Teaching learners to be self‐directed. Retrieved October 10, 2003, from
http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow.
Gumusluoglu, L. & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational
innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461‐474.
Hassan, M., Hagen, A. & Daigs, I. (2006). Strategic human resources as a strategic weapon for
enhancing labor productivity: Empirical evidence. Academy of Strategic Management
Journal, 5, 75‐97.
Hofer, B. K., & Yu, S L. (2003). Teaching self‐regulated learning through a "Learning to Learn"
course. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 30‐33.
Horng, E., & Loeb, S. (2010). New thinking about instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan,
92(3), 66‐69.
Jandaghi, G., Matin, H. & Zarei, F. A. (2008). Comparing transformational leadership in successful
and unsuccessful companies. Proceedings of World Academy of Science, 31, 464‐469.
Jacobs, G., Christe‐Zeyse, J. & Keegan, A. (2008). Reactions to organizational identity threats in
times of change: Illustrations from the German police. Corporate Reputation Review,
11(3), 245‐262.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
37 Duby and Fischer
Johnson, A. (2007). Mary Parker Follett: Laying the foundations for spirituality in the workplace.
International Journal of Public Administration, 30(4), 425‐439.
Johnson, B. H. (2009). Empowerment of nurse educators through organizational culture. Nursing
Education Perspectives, 30(1), 8‐14.
Joo, B. & Lim, T. (2009). The effects of organizational learning culture, perceived job complexity,
and proactive personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(1), 48‐61.
Kincaid, J. (1978). Covenant theories and political science: Models and methods. Workshop on
Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple
University.
Kincaid, J. (1980). Working bibliography on covenant and politics. Workshop on Covenant and
Politics. Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self‐directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Follett.
Lapan, R., Kardash, C., & Turner, S. (2002). Empowering students to become self‐regulated
learners. Professional School Counseling, 5, 257‐265.
Lutz, D. (1980). Liberty and equality from a communitarian perspective. Philadelphia, PA: Center
for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.
Lutz, D. (1988). The origins of American constitutionalism, Louisiana State University Press.
Lytle, R. S., Hom, P. W. & Mokwa, M. P. (1998). SERV*OR: A managerial measure of
organizational service‐orientation. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 455‐458.
Martinez‐Pons, M. (2003). Parental influences on children’s academic self‐regulatory
development. Theory into Practice, 41, 126‐142.
McCoy, C. S. (1980). History, humanity, and federalism in the theology and ethics of Johannes
Cocceius. Workshop on Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of
Federalism, Temple University.
McCuddy, M. K. & Cavin, M. C. (2008). Fundamental moral orientations, servant leadership, and
leadership effectiveness: An empirical test. Review of Business Research, 8(4), 107‐118.
McLaughlin, A. (1961). The foundations of American constitutionalism. Greenwhich, CT: Fawcett.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
38 Duby and Fischer
Moore, E. (2009). Mixed methods research designs: An exciting and viable alternative for
business research. Liberty Business Review, 7(1), 26‐36. Retrieved from
https://www.liberty.edu/media/1130/LBR%20rev%2007%2013%2009.pdf
Palmer, S. B., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Promoting self‐determination in early elementary
school: Teaching self‐regulated problem‐solving and goal‐setting skills. Remedial and
Special Education, 24, 115‐126.
Pata, K. (2009). Modeling spaces for self‐directed learning at university courses. Educational
Technology & Society, 12(3), 23‐43.
Patrick, H., & Middleton, M. J. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when self‐
regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychology, 37, 27‐39.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Teaching students how to study and learn (part I).
Journal of Developmental Education, 26, 36‐39.
Perry, M. (1990). Western civilization: A brief survey. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.
Perry, N. E., Nordby, C. J., & Vandekamp, K. O. (2003). Promoting self‐regulated reading and
writing at home and school. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 317‐338.
Polleys, M. S. (2002). One university’s response to the anti‐leadership vaccine: Developing
servant leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 117‐131.
Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results.
Alexandria, VA: Virginia Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Reid, W. S. (1981). John Knox: The first of the monarchomachs? Workshop on Covenant and
Politics, Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of Federalism ‐ Temple University.
Roberts, C. (2006). Service‐learning: Developing servant leaders. Academic Exchange Quarterly,
10(2), 237‐243.
Rosenblatt, Z. & Nord, W. (1999). Participative decision making as a strategic response to
decline: Flexibility, rigidity or a mixture? Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management,
7(2), 63‐76.
Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organizational
Development Journal, 76.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
39 Duby and Fischer
Schechter, S. L. (1980). The founding of American local communities: A study of covenantal and
other forms of associations. Publius, 10(4).
Shipper, F. & Manz, C. C. (1992).Employee self‐management without formally designated teams:
An alternative road to empowerment. Oraganizational Dynamics, 20(3), 48‐62.
Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goosens, Soenens, & Dochy (2009). The synergistic relationship of
perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self‐regulated learning.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 57‐68.
Silén, C., & Uhlin, L. (2008). Self‐directed learning: A learning issue for students and faculty!
Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 461‐475.
Skillen, J. W. (1980). From covenant of grace to tolerant public pluralism: The Dutch Calvinist
contribution. Workshop on Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study
of Federalism, Temple University.
Smith, P., Sadler‐Smith, E. Robertson, I., & Wakefield, L. (2007). Leadership and learning:
Facilitating self‐directed learning in enterprises. Journal of European Industrial Training,
31(5), 324‐335.
Tischler, L. (1999). The growing interest in spirituality in business. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 12(4), 273‐281.
Triwaranyu, C. (2007). Models and strategies for initial implementation of lesson study in
schools. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 3(3), 48‐63.
Walzer, M. (1985). Exodus and revolution. New York: Basic Books.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey of teachers’ promotion of
self‐determination and student‐directed learning. The Journal of Special Education, 34,
58‐68.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Agran, M., Mithaug, D. E., & Martin, J. E. (2000). Promoting
causal agency: The self‐determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional Children,
66, 439‐453.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Sands, D. J. (1998). Making it happen: Student involvement in education
planning, decision making, and instruction. Boston: Paul H. Brooks.
Yeung, L. (2004). The paradox of control in participative decision‐making: Facilitative discourse
in banks. Text, 24(1), 113‐146.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
40 Duby and Fischer
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Young, D. B., & Ley, K. (2003). Self‐regulation support offered by developmental educators.
Journal of Developmental Education, 27, 2‐10.
Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO transformational leadership and
organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human‐capital‐enhancing human
resource management. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 39‐53.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self‐regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41, 64‐142.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez‐Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of
student self‐regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284‐290.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
41 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
THE NONSEGMENTAL CONTEXT OF SEGMENTAL UNDERSTANDING:
A BIOFUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE
Asghar Iran‐Nejad College of Education
The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487‐231 [email protected]
Madeleine Gregg
College of Education The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487‐231 [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to present a new biofunctional systems perspective on
understanding and knowing. Understanding is commonly assumed to result, like knowledge,
from interaction among discrete mental objects such as ideas, concepts, and schemas that are
independent segments. However, such interaction does not tell the whole, or even the essential
part, of the story of understanding. Through a discussion of past research in the light of recent
biofunctional theory, indications of a comprehensive way of thinking about understanding
emerge. To illustrate, if understanding were an iceberg, interactions of segments, whether
simple or complex, would be confined to just the tip of the iceberg seen above the water. This
paper explains how the hidden, larger part of the iceberg of understanding is inherently
nonsegmental, biofunctional in origin, and the source of the dynamic self‐awareness that is the
defining material of human knowledge. Understanding is the nervous system’s special function,
the means of eliminating complexity in thinking, and the nonsegmental<>segmental process by
which knowledge is produced in the form of insights. Without understanding, segmental
knowledge acquisition results in ill‐structured mental complexity or isolated mental fragments
easily rendered inert or forgotten. The biofunctional systems perspective offers educators
insight that can lead to better curriculum, better teaching, and better learning.
Keywords: Nonsegmental understanding, segmental knowledge, taxonomic understanding,
biofunctional science, complexity, problem solving
Introduction A widespread assumption is that human understanding is a more deeply interconnected or
better organized form of knowledge. In this article, we assume that knowing and understanding
are fundamentally different, though complementary human capacities. We consider knowing to
be a cognitive categorization (taxonomic) capacity, inherently segmental, and capable of
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
42 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
supporting only taxonomic understanding. By contrast, understanding is a biofunctional
integration capacity, inherently nonsegmental (intuitive), and the source of both thematic and
taxonomic knowledge production. The central theme of this article is that knowing involves
linear (segment‐to‐segment) causality and is a source of complexity. Understanding, by contrast,
removes complexity by means of nonlinear (nonsegmental) problem solving that culminates in
insight.
Deeply Interconnected Segmental Knowledge
How does knowing as an inherently segmental categorization process work? The classic
experiments by Bransford and Johnson (1972) and a theoretical example from an article by
Schurz and Lambert (1994) illustrate the widespread assumption that understanding requires
deeply interconnected knowledge schemas stored in the form a taxonomic corpus in long‐term
memory (Iran‐Nejad 1978, 2000). By definition, each taxonomy uses explicitly defined segments
of information to categorize phenomena and processes within a specific domain. Though
holistic, a domain‐specific schema is no more than an abstract tool for formalizing (e.g.,
classifying and standardizing) concrete segmental knowledge.
Ordinarily, considerate discourse or text comprises both part‐to‐part and part‐to‐whole
connections. The latter serve as clues for locating and accessing the relevant domain‐specific
schema (taxonomy) that provides the abstract connections necessary for deeper understanding.
In the Bransford and Johnson study, the researchers used carefully‐crafted passages with well‐
formed part‐to‐part connections, but free of part‐to‐whole clues. In other words, the words and
sentences in the passages were well‐formed and meaningful by themselves but were difficult to
understand as an ensemble. As predicted by the authors, the group provided with prior
knowledge (schema) outperformed the other group in measures of memory and understanding.
Bransford and Johnson came to the conclusion that deeply connected knowledge schemas are a
necessary and sufficient condition for understanding.
Like Bransford and Johnson, Schurz and Lambert assumed deeply connected knowledge
structures stored in long‐term memory to be a prerequisite to understanding and did not see
any reason to qualify their assumption as being applicable only to taxonomic understanding.
According Schurz and Lambert, to ‘understand a phenomenon P is to know how P fits into one's
background knowledge” (1994, p. 66).
The Challenge of Going beyond Taxonomic Understanding
In discourse comprehension research, idea units, a segmental source of understanding, have
been a popular dependent measure for investigating the role of prior knowledge schemas
(Anderson & Pichert, 1978; Pichert & Anderson, 1977). An idea unit is commonly “defined as a
single sentence, clause, or phrase containing a single complete idea” (Schwartz, Ellsworth,
Graham, & Knight, 1998, p. 75). To assess comprehension, subjects are exposed to a text
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
43 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
segmented into idea units and then asked to recall as much as they can (e.g., Johnson, 1970;
Meyer, 1975). Their recall is compared with the number of idea units in the original text to
produce a measure of comprehension. In other words, comprehension is measured by the
amount of information in the segmental responses (Sharp, 2004).
It is widely accepted that segmental sources of understanding do not fully account for discourse
comprehension, let alone comprehensive understanding in general. An invitational “Sit down!”
uses the same segments as a reproving “Sit down!”, and yet, people have no difficulty
comprehending the meaning in both contexts. Something more is at work in people’s
comprehension of language. Yet, when researchers have sought additional sources that
contribute to understanding, they have not looked beyond segment‐to‐segment interaction. For
example, Sharp (2004) used the notion of idea‐unit segments to capture between‐the‐lines
comprehension (i.e., the communication between text and reader). Sharp defined idea units as
complete thought units, “segmented according to Johnson (1970), with 'pausal boundaries'
being designated to allow quantitative assessment of recall” (p. 335).
Sharp noted that some of the sources that contribute to text comprehension originate (within
the lines) in the text and some are added (between the lines) by the reader. Some are
quantitative and others are qualitative. However, he assumed all of the sources to be either
segmental or capable of being segmental and, therefore, formalized them all in the manner of
text segmentals. An example of a non‐segmental source that Sharp treats as if it were segmental
is the “pausal unit.” If a pausal unit has its origin in nonsegmental sources of understanding such
as rhyme, rhythm, intonation, thematic understanding, and reader intuition, then treating it as a
segmental does not realize the benefits of formalizing its contribution.
Biofunctional Activity in the Absence of the Knowledge of a Situation
In addition to taxonomic or segmental comprehension, people are capable of another kind of
understanding, nonsegmental understanding, which is at work even in the absence of
knowledge of a situation. As already suggested, this kind of understanding has its origin in the
biology of the human being. Such understanding manifests itself in two different kinds of
biofunctional activity that produce two correspondingly different kinds of self‐awareness that
work in causal synergy. Ongoing biofunctional activity of the neurons in the nervous system
produces nontaxonomic self‐awareness (intuitive thematic knowledge). Momentary
constellation firing of the neurons produces taxonomic self‐awareness (or segmental
knowledge).
Again, we illustrate these ideas with examples. The first is from Auble, Franks, and Soraci
(1979), which is more like a simulation than a real example. Consider the statement The
haystack was important because the cloth ripped. Reading this sentence simulates a state of
uncertainty (i.e., the absence of situational knowledge) that marks the start of a sustainable
process of ongoing biofunctional activity punctuated by momentary constellation firing of
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
44 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
neurons with the potential to culminate in an aha‐triggering insight. The insight, in this case,
comes when people hear the clue parachute soon after exposure to the statement. Such
understanding is essentially a nonlinear process of nonsegmental‐to‐segmental understanding.
A second example is found in a story of a firefighter named Wag Dodge who, in 1949, survived a
fire in which 13 of his colleagues died (Lehrer, 2008). Wag and his crew found themselves caught
between a fast approaching wall of fire and a mountain hill impossible to climb. Like everyone
else, Wag began running away. At that moment, he was using prior knowledge of an escape
strategy (run from danger) without understanding the specific context of his lived experience.
But, then, he hesitated in the midst of the desperate uncertainty of his position and looked over
his shoulder to see what the wall of fire was doing. This pause gave his ongoing biofunctional
activity time for a momentary constellation firing that led to a different idea (i.e., an insight) that
saved his life: fighting one raging fire by starting another. So he quickly set fire to the bushes in
front of him. Then, as the new fire cleared the foliage in front of him, he dropped face down on
the still burning embers. There, he waited as the big fire arrived and, finding no foliage to
consume, passed over his body, leaving him relatively unharmed. Later, Wag could not explain
what gave him the idea that saved his life except to say that it was the obvious thing to do!
Defining Complexity and a Solution
Why did so many firefighters die when faced with a problem for which there was, as Wag Dodge
characterized it, so obvious an escape route of a solution to survival? The answer can be
explained by the inordinate stability of taxonomic understanding, on the one hand, and the
unrestrained flexibility of nontaxonomic understanding, on the other. Taxonomic understanding
is segmental‐knowledge driven and an inert source of ill‐structured complexity (Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1985; Renkl, Mandl, & Gruber, 1996), Nonsegmental understanding is a fertile
source of solutions to complexity (Iran‐Nejad, 2000). In other words, segmental knowledge
breeds complexity; because it is a taxonomic maze of certainties filled with blind alleys (like the
escape route Wag’s friends took to their death). Nonsegmental understanding fosters timely
solutions to complexity, because it results from nontaxonomic, ongoing biofunctional activity
ready to deliver self‐evident taxonomic solutions.
In the absence of nontaxonomic understanding, human knowledge is complex, ill‐structured,
and difficult to describe in coherent ways (Loftus, Oberg, & Dillon, 2004; Lyons & Page, 1981;
Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1992). The phenomena and processes involved in the
resolution of this complexity have eluded systematic study, though they are governed by
hitherto unsuspected systemic dependencies.
The origin of human nontaxonomic understanding is not in prior knowledge or the certainty of
it but conversely in the uncertainty of its absence. Moreover, nontaxonomic understanding
cannot be set out in straight lines, discrete objects, and linear interactions. To focus on any part
of a complex idea, situation, or system is to oversimplify it, to the point of no longer actually
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
45 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
matching the reality of its entire context. The death of Wag Dodge’s colleagues resulted from
such oversimplification.
Productive and Inert Cause‐Effect Dependencies
In many ways, comprehensive states of understanding are like ecosystems such as forests,
seashores, or deserts (Gibson, 1966). Though perspectives vary on their nature (Müller, 1997),
there is general agreement that ecosystems differ from industrial production‐lines. What is the
difference? Are cause‐effect dependencies in ecosystems different from those in factories? Do
ecosystems function analogously to nontaxonomic understanding and factories by means of
taxonomic knowing? We attempt to answer this question by distinguishing taxonomic
segment<>segment interaction from nontaxonomic segmental<>nonsegmental integration.
In ecosystems, as in production lines, various forms of linear segment<>segment interaction
may be observed: part<>part, part<>whole, and whole<>whole. In a forest, for example, there
are part<>part relations between branches and leaves; whole<>part relations plants have with
their branches, flowers, fruits, and leaves; and whole<>whole relations between trees. In favor
of their individual identities, parts differ in color and texture. Taxonomic classification uses and
standardization removes these differences. The obvious advantage of using or removing
differences in factories is that segment<>segment connections can be assembled or
disassembled and parts can be replaced without affecting the structural integrity of the system.
Thus, a part may be replaced without the system showing any sign of acceptance or rejection of
those parts. Reliance on local cause‐effect dependencies is convenient but carries a cost. It
makes factories mechanical rather than organic, artificial rather than natural, and static rather
than dynamic. Over‐reliance, or reliance of a different kind, on segmental proclivities comes at
the expense of nonsegmental dependencies.
Taxonomic classification and standardization can also be applied to such human capacities as
knowing and understanding with analogous results. To be sure, for the purpose of deliberate
standardization or classification, it is easy to focus on segment‐wide features of knowing (e.g.,
abstract versus concrete) and difficult to deal with comprehensive or system‐wide qualities of
understanding (e.g., rejection of the part by the whole). Linear interdependence, for example,
enables the manipulation of the mean‐ends events of local problem solving as well as domain‐
specific mental objects of remembering, learning, and thinking. However, these conveniences of
simplification by isolation in the context of taxonomic knowing have too long delayed learning
about people’s other capacities for simplifying life, which might be even more effective or
powerful. For example, by assuming that knowing and understanding are fundamentally the
same, we have built an infrastructure in education that over‐relies on the segment<>segment
events of taxonomic knowing. That is, curriculum focuses on specific part<>part, part<>whole,
or whole<>whole interaction among isolated but interdependent objects of the mind. What is
needed is a new infrastructure in education that is more balanced with respect to
segmental<>nonsegmental cause‐effect integration.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
46 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
Segment<>segment interaction among natural objects is necessary to ensure immediate spatial,
causal, or temporal continuity, but it does not explain how an ecosystem is different from a
factory (Ghilarov, 2000) or how understanding is different from knowing. Both factories and
human knowledge are governed by taxonomic patterns of segment<>segment interaction.
These patterns are fundamentally different from how nonsegmental<>segmental integration
works in ecosystems and understandings. What complicates matters is the assumption that
segment<>segment interactivity determines all cause‐effect dependencies including those for
ecosystems and understanding, albeit at shallow or deeper levels of interconnectivity. Deep or
shallow, it is possible that human‐made rules of taxonomic interaction are not the same as the
natural laws of nontaxonomic integration.
In an ecosystem, not all causation is predetermined, has a single or adjacent cause, or aims at a
simple purpose, or is even pragmatically purposeful. As insects go from plant to plant in search
of food, they also pollinate, get infected with diseases, contribute to their spread, become food
themselves, and cause an indeterminate variety of other effects. Ecosystems are indeterminate
zones of practice and it is the same with human understanding (Schön, 1983). Both ecosystems
and understandings give the impression of being ill‐structured and complex. But this is because
they both obey the hietherto unsuspected laws of nonsegmental<>segmental integration which
are different from the taxonomic segment<>segment rule of interaction.
Problem Solving by Interaction and Integration
Human beings are capable of at least two major kinds of problem solving. The first is taxonomic
problem solving enabled by people’s capacity of knowing, or the capacity for classifying objects
using varying patterns of segment<>segment interactivity. Knowing is a vital capacity, but it has
at least one major negative effect when used improperly. Bartlett (1932) and others have
described it as problem solving by isolating objects or simplification by isolation (Iran‐Nejad,
McKeachie, & Berliner, 1990; Salomon, 2006). In other words, since categorizing objects
demands individualizing them, problem solving by means of knowing is done by manufacturing
differences or isolating objects to simplify their use (Shulman, 2002). Taxonomies become more
and more complex. This kind of problem solving is the driving force behind educational
taxonomies (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). The implication of simplification
by isolation is that educators must be cautious in how they use knowledge. Because knowing is a
taxonomic capacity, using taxonomies (Shulman, 2002) is the mandate for proliferating
complexity.
There are segmental ways to go beyond immediate segmen<>segment causality that are less
likely to run into the problem of complexity. In particular, segments may be redefined by adding
part<>whole features to them. According to Koestler (1967), when one part of a natural system
images the complexity of the system, the part is a “holon,” a word Koestler coined to help in the
discussion of complexity. Similarly, Sperry (1988) explained the downward control exerted by
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
47 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
mental objects over the information processing system using the analogy of how features such
as the shape cause a wheel to roll down a hill.
The second major type of problem solving, about which past research has given us no direct
theory or evidence, is by segmental<>nonsegmental integration enabled by people’s
biofunctional capacity for understanding. We have argued in this article and elsewhere (Iran‐
Nejad & Gregg, 2001; Iran‐Nejad & Stewart, 2010) that biofunctional segmental<>nonsegmental
problem solving is a special case of the same kind of problem solving that occurs in
comprehensive ecosystems. Complex ecosystems are governed by multiple‐source,
nonsegmental<>segmental, cause‐effect dependencies, one example of which extends even
beyond the planet Earth, namely, gravity. In a forest, the leaves, fruit, or branches that separate
from trees, no matter how far apart those trees might be, all travel in the same downward
direction. This is not because of any interdependent system of element<>element interactivity
(Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller, Van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998), but because all of these
events are dependent on gravity, which operates comprehensively, that is to say, systemically.
The leaves or branches or the fruit do not travel downward in order to reach the ground or
fertilize the soil below, or feed the animals, even though they do all of these and much more.
Similarly, the molecules in an avalanche or in different drops of the same or different rain
showers do not need to be interconnected in a segment<>segment fashion to move downward.
Nor do they head downward to block or wet the freeway, irrigate the forest, raise the demand
for umbrellas, or clear the smog in the metropolis. They all head in the same downward
direction because they are governed by gravity enforcing its nonsegmental<>segmental
causality.
In much the same way, the sources involved in remembering, learning, and imagination act
together psychologically not because they are necessarily interconnected constructs, or means
to specific ends, but because they are all systemically dependent on the more comprehensive
process of nonsegmental understanding. This, by analogy, is the kind of comprehensive cause‐
effect dependency on which nonsegmental>segmental, segmental<nonsegmental, and
nonsegmental<>nonsegmental varieties of causal integration rely in human understanding.
Examples of such processes are incidental impression formation (segmental<nonsegmental
understanding) and intonation (nonsegmental>segmental understanding). Themes, intuitions,
moods, and attitudes may all be considered understandings that are fertile grounds for
nonsegmental<>segmental production (e.g., event<>theme integration).
The nonsegmental theory implies that the direction of causality is seldom linear or segmental.
To survive in the ocean, fish must have an organ to turn the nonsegmental oxygen in the water
into bodily energy. Survival of fish would be impossible if the oxygen were only present
segmentally here and there and not everywhere continuously, that is, nonsegmentally. The fish
or its gills are not interacting with oxygen. The nonsegmental context is an inescapable part of
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
48 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
the ecosystem, which is why the fish cannot live out of the water where oxygen is still present
but not integrated with water.
The nonsegmental<>segmental cause‐effect relations in an ecosystem, such as oxygen‐to‐
organism or water‐to‐organism, have coevolved in dynamic balance. Any particular segment—a
drink or a deep breath that an organism takes—may seem isolated, inefficient, or even ill‐
structured when viewed through the lens of immediate, adjacent, or local action or linear
interaction, much more so than any corresponding part in a tightly‐woven factory. A healthy
ecosystem governs its cause‐effect dependencies comprehensively and synergistically,
producing astonishing biodiversity, biomass, biogeography, and bioenergy (Hubbell & Borda‐de‐
Água, 2004; Tilman, 1999).
From the perspective of the nonsegmental theory, it is untenable to formalize remembered
experiences, incidental impressions, moods, skills, dispositions, insights, and imagination
segmentally. All these work simultaneously in the ecosystem of nonsegmental<>segmental
biofunctional activity, rather than like in a segment<>segment factory assembly. They are
synergistically integrated to produce comprehensive states of understanding. Whenever a
person learns something new, or demonstrates genuine conceptual change, the person’s
integrated understanding is reworked more comprehensively than is captured by any form of
linear interaction that may describe a person’s changing representation from one specific
domain to another (Carey, 2000; Clancey, 1997).
In the world of understanding, as in an ecosystem, domain‐specific knowledge structures (or
ideas) do not exist as separate entities with permanently fixed internal structures (Clancey,
1997). They are not independent parts that can be manipulated or simplified by isolating them
from the context in which they arise (Bartlett, 1932). They are more likely to be momentary
outcomes of comprehensive understanding from which they cannot be excised (Iran‐Nejad,
1980). They do not rely solely on part‐to‐part interaction (the sum of the parts) or on part‐whole
relations (more than the sum of the parts). A tree’s or a fish’s survival is not dependent simply
on a whole that is more than the sum of its parts. Rather, biological survival depends on sources
as far apart as the ocean and the sun. Causal dependencies of human understanding rely on
nonsegmental integration, something fundamentally different from “sum of their parts”
thinking. Darwin’s understanding of the nature of survival, for example, marked him as a
revolutionary thinker to set him apart from the more knowledgeable contemporary biologists
(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
Nonsegmental<>segmental integration is different from all forms of segment<>segment
interaction. Dynamic ecosystems rely comprehensively on the integration of multiple sources,
unlike segments that interconnect by means of interdependent interaction. In an ecosystem,
and analogously in the biological person, system‐wide integration and localized interaction
among the parts are fundamentally different processes. In other words, ecosystems illustrate
the principle of simplifying complexity by integration (Bartlett, 1932; Iran‐Nejad et al., 1990;
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
49 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
Salomon, 1991, 1995, 2006). Factories, by contrast, simplify complexity by means of immediate
interdependent interaction. This is simplifying complexity by isolating segments to have them
ready to reconnect by interaction. Simplification by isolation breaks down nature into separate
parts each with its own seemingly immutable structure. The human‐made process of simplifying
complexity by dividing nature into its segments robs nature of its inherent systemic conditions.
Yet, understanding depends on the dynamic integration of nonsegmental dependencies.
Existing Evidence for Nonsegmental Understanding
Nonsegmental‐to‐segmental integration is a widespread phenomenon in nature. People live in a
nonsegmental environment and their sensory and other biological systems are fully integrated
with it. The manner in which we pull and push air with our lungs is a segmental<>nonsegmental
process. Our auditory, visual, olfactory, and other senses have been evolution‐tested to use the
nonsegmental affordances that engulf us. We hear, see, and smell everything in our
environment. Moreover, the way our lungs or even our auditory or visual systems integrate with
the segmental<>nonsegmental world around us is not dramatically different from the manner in
which the gills of the ocean fish integrate with nonsegmental air in the real ocean to extract
oxygen from the water. It seems that evolution makes maximal use of
nonsegmental<>segmental processes everywhere.
Similarly, although less apparent to observation, the motor and skeletal systems of the head and
the face integrate with the nonsegmental ongoing biofunctional activity of our nervous and
bodily systems to produce the segmental momentary constellation firing that result in speech
utterances in the form of sound waves for the benefit of other ears that might happen to be
around. Like those in the ocean, as soon as these waves have performed their task, they re‐
integrate with the surrounding nonsegmental world and disappear in thin air. We assume that
all this natural evidence points with reasonable validity and reliability to the
nonsegmental<>segmental (e.g., uncertainty‐to‐insight) process by which the ongoing
biofunctional activity and the momentary constellation firing of the cells in the nervous system
understands the world (Iran‐Nejad & Ortony, 1984)?
Why, then, in so much of science and education, have we overlooked the ubiquitous presence of
the nonsegmental<>segmental integration process in the world and its counterpart in our
nervous and bodily systems? Some lines of research have investigated the
nonsegmental<>segmental sources of variation that occur in speech utterances. Stress, pitch,
tone, rhythm, intonation, or more generally language supersegmentals produce changes in
meaning (Flege, 1981). To illustrate, the meaning‐changing pronunciation of the segmental
utterance for the noun “construct” with the stress on the first syllable is supersegmentally
different from the pronunciation of the same utterance for the verb “construct” with the stress
on the last syllable. Similarly, intonation can make an utterance a question, a statement, a
directive, or an interjection. Rhyme and rhythm help us appreciate the differences between
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
50 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
poetry and prose. And, like rhythm and rhyme, accent makes the language spoken in one region
to sound different from another region.
Thus, at any given moment, nonsegmental<>segmental cause‐effect integration is working
always behind what appears to be segment<>segment cause‐effect interaction. Educators in
both behavioral and cognitive science have been too occupied with the segment<>segment
causality to observe the nonsegmental<>segmental dependencies that nature so plentifully
illustrates. Such dependencies are perceived when people share among themselves their
dynamic lived experiences (Merleau‐Ponty, 1962) of both the linguistic and the nonlinguistic
kinds (Dowhower, 1994; Erteschik‐Shir, 2006; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003).
In terms of available evidence, some past research on nonsegmentals has been reported using
words like supersegmental and prosody, even though the term nonsegmental has also been
occationally used (Crystal, 1973; Ruch, 1936), especially in the realm of phonology and its
development in young infants, but in other areas as well (Beddor, Krakow, & Lindemann, 2001;
Blackburn, 1983; D'Odorico, 1984; Krakow, 1993; Munro, 1995; Perfetti & Zhang, 1991).
Research suggests that the gestural stream that accompanies talk provides interpretation cues
unavailable from segmental language alone (Quek et al., 2002). Similarly, supersegmentals‐in‐
dynamic‐motion, like pitch and tone, seem to shape understanding, as when sounds with a
rising pitch contour suggest disagreement or request, or sounds with a short frequency range
and long duration imply hesitation (Nagasaki & Komatsu, 2004). The interjection “aha” that
signals a moment of understanding comes with a nonsegmental‐to‐segmental burst of affect
(Iran‐Nejad, 1987).
Many linguists distinguish between nonsegmental and segmental phonology (Flege, 1981). Long
ago, Irwin and Weiss (1930), talking about newborns during their first 10 days of life,
distinguished their segmental (discretely identifiable behavior) from their nonsegmental‐in‐
dynamic‐motion behavior (that involved the entire body). Such early activity may be the
precursor to the gestural stream that adults display during conversation. Later, D'Odorico and
colleagues reported that nonsegmental features affect the duration of infant vocalizations
(D'Odorico, 1984; D'Odorico, Franco, & Vidotto, 1985). Similarly, nonsegmental sources such as
speaking rate and style affect nasal co‐articulation (Krakow, 1993). Finally, prelingual
vocalizations of infants indicate a nonsegmental communicative competence. The sounds that
infants make consistently influence their mothers’ responses (Goldstein & West, 1999). A
mothers’ language, motherese, is richly nonsegmental (Hsu & Fogel, 2003) and infants
demonstrate a consistent preference for it (Fernald, 1985, 1992).
Hawkins and Nguyen (2004) claim that nonsegmental speech is processed directly into meaning.
As the notion of nonsegmental<>nonsegmental causality suggests, this claim implies that
segmental representations may not be necessary for the understanding of an utterance.
Prelingual children use a nonsegmental capacity for immediate impression formation about
both the material and social worlds, a capacity that is distinct from the segmental tool language
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
51 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
later becomes (Gibson, 1973; Lyons & Page, 1981). Whole journal issues have debated the claim
that children are capable of bypassing phonemic (or meaning bearing) segmentals in
understanding speech (Ogden & Local, 1994).
The evidence just reported suggests that nonsegmental sources work in dynamic motion
between the lines of the observable behavior. However, the underlying assumption in much of
the research reviewed here is that nonsegmentals are processed in the same way as segmentals.
Erteschik‐Shir (2006), for example, noted that viewing (between‐the‐lines) topic and focus as
supersegmental, poses the dilemma of when and when not to treat them in the manner of
(within‐the‐lines) lexical items. Questioning the wisdom behind formalizing (e.g., classifying or
standardizing) supersegmentals in terms of segmentals, Frick (1985) pointed out that “it seems
unlikely that peoples' abilities to discriminate emotions prosodically is based on the profiles of
those emotions using simple summary descriptors such as average pitch or average loudness”
(p. 417). In fact, several studies have suggested the possibility that language supersegmentals
may serve as the immediate context for nonsegmental understanding (Coombes, Cauraugh, &
Janelle, 2007; Perfetti & Zhang, 1991). Nonetheless, these supersegmentals have tended more
often to be formalized as segmental features percolating upward from text segmentals
(Erteschik‐Shir, 2006).
The research on language supersegmentals targets their role in expressing thoughts, emotions,
and personality traits (Erteschik‐Shir, 2006; Frick, 1985; Nagasaki & Komatsu, 2004). A general
strategy for formalizing interdependent activity is implemented in terms of symbolic or sub‐
symbolic connections, units, and activation levels or weights (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1986;
Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986). But in all of this research, the presence of
nonsegmental<>segmental causation seems to have been missed by scientists. For example,
variations in supersegmental sources (e.g., affective, phonological, visual, and auditory), similar
to those of natural speech, have been deemed essential for the improvement of the quality of
synthetic speech. Henton (2002) has noted, because research on “nonsegmental aspects of
speech has lagged in linguistics and phonetics, our knowledge of how to model successful and
natural prosody [in synthetic speech] is still in its infancy.” As a result, “the intonation contours
in both parametric and concatenative systems [of speech synthesis are] too invariable, with a
tendency to be either overly dynamic (too enthusiastic or emotional), or to drone in a
predictable, soporific, bored and boring monotone” (pp. 125‐126).
Discussion and Implications
From an educational standpoint, the taxonomic practice of simplifying complex thoughts for the
purpose of understanding by isolating segments from their embodied contexts in biology and
beyond is likely to have undesirable side effects for learners. The assumption seems to be that
not only knowledge acquisition but also understanding can be achieved by breaking down ideas
into simple, more or less long‐lasting pieces, detached from the comprehensive ecosystem that
keeps people’s lived experiences in perpetual motion. A corresponding assumption is that the
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
52 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
broken down pieces of lived experiences can then be re‐assembled by means of segment‐to‐
segment causal interaction to produce similarly complex future experiences. We have known for
some time now that when people use the simplification by isolation strategy for learning (e.g.,
Salomon, 2006), a proliferation of detached pieces of knowledge can resist reassembly, and
result in ill‐structured complexity (Spiro et al., 1992) and inert knowledge (Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1985; Renkl et al., 1996). One implication of the arguments in this article is that
educators can now recognize these negative side effects on learner understanding of seeking
and working with knowledge taxonomies.
For interdependent interaction among segmental mental objects to work best, educators must
find ways to utilize the multiple near and far sources of nonsegmental human understanding.
The focus on segmental interaction at the expense of nonsegmental integration has had many
nontrivial consequences: the traditional emphasis on the specialization, if not fragmentation,
that comes with content knowledge at the expense of nonsegmental sources of human wisdom
(Mayer, 1995; Prawat, 2000; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Among these are the emphasis on
content at the expense of passion (Neumann, 1999, 2006a); the separation of learning from
application (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999); the problem of symbol grounding (Harnad, 1990,
1993, 2001); or the problem of the separation of the mind from the physical body (Bruer, 1997).
Like the analytic practice of simplification by isolation, the taxonomic strategy of limiting
learners to part<>part, part<>whole, and whole<>whole varieties of segment<>segment
patterns of interactivity has unintended consequences. Nonsegmental integration at the
expense of segmental interaction would also have unintended effects. In the multiple‐source
ecosystem of the biological person, both aspects of understanding are needed. Segmental
interaction in the form of knowledge and nonsegmental sources of understanding integrate to
produce powerful learning.
The central theme of this article suggests that interdependent interaction among mental objects
is not enough for understanding the complexities of human understanding. It may be, of course,
that the theory of interdependent interaction is not the culprit, either. Rather, the problem may
be the propensity of any theory to foster simplification by isolation. Moreover, In addition to
language‐related supersegmentals, human understanding may rely fundamentally on between‐
the‐lines themes, moods, intuitions, and attitudes. Such subjective mental phenomena have
been traditionally set aside as epiphenomenal, biased, animalistic, irrational, self‐centered, and
undesirable (Barrett et al., 2007; Neumann, 2006; Panksepp, 1998). The extent to which these
contributing sources of understanding continue to be overlooked in theories prone to
simplification by isolation is likely to determine the prevalence of inert knowledge (Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1985; Renkl et al., 1996), the pathologies of learning (Shulman, 1999) and the gap
between research and practice or learning and application., Yet, it is with systemic,
nonsegmental integration that human understanding, learning, and communication come to
life.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
53 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
How could the infrastructure of today’s education change, as so many assert it should? On the
one hand, an appreciation of the entire iceberg of human understanding—i.e., its
segmental<>nonsegmental integration cycle—may be needed to steer the field toward a new
infrastructure in tune with the evolution‐tested ways of natural ecosystems. On the hand, if
overanalyzed in conscious content, the seductive attention‐grabbing tip of the iceberg (i.e., the
network of its segment<>segment interaction pattern) might turn into an impediment to
progress. Recall that segmental contents of understanding are noisy mental objects in plain sight
of the consciousness: letters, sounds, words, concepts, and schemas. These are the material for
interdependent, within‐the‐lines interaction. The less familiar nonsegmental sources of
understanding include invisible processes such as incidental impression formation, intonation,
rhyme, rhythm, theme, attitude, and intuition. They constitute the sources for between‐the‐
lines integration. Educational research and practice must integrate both kinds of sources. The
goal of the nonsegmental theory presented in this paper is to move in this unexplored direction.
A related way to think about the distinction between segmentals and nonsegmentals is in terms
of how readily a mental object—a word, phrase, sentence, concept, schema, and proposition—
can become the focus of attention. Well‐learned segmentals are always selective attention
ready. Nonsegmentals (e.g., gravity) are selective attention invisible/unprepared, or perhaps
even inherently resistant to direct selective attention (i.e., perpetually invisible). The challenge
in educational science and practice is to make their integration the object of experimental
investigation without having one work at the expense of the other. As Bartlett (1932) pointed
out and demonstrated, such an undertaking is well within the realm of experimental research.
The advantage today is that we have more sophisticated perspectives available on the nature of
human understanding than did Bartlett (Iran‐Nejad & Stewart, 2010; Mayer, 1989, 1995; D.
Perkins & Blythe, 1994; D. N. Perkins, 1988; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
Complex learning of the kind investigated by Bartlett (1932) required nonsegmental
understanding made possible by the biological system’s capacity for multiple‐source integration.
As a system for solving the complex problems of survival, the nervous system almost certainly
evolved the capacity for multiple‐source integration first without the kind of noisy segmentation
that requires analytic selective attention to mental objects. This (silent) aspect of the evolution
of the nervous system mirrors that of other (silent) ecosystems in which multiple‐source
integration is at least as common an occurrence as are (noisy) higher mental functions such as
remembering, learning, and thinking in the authentic real world. For example, both plant and
animal life is multiple‐source dependent, relying for survival on the organisms capacity to
integrate air, water, minerals, and the like without anything like mindful segmentation of these
sources. Mindful selective attention would have come later with the evolution of the segmental
capacity to focus deliberately on mental objects. This is probably how segmentals acquired their
selective‐attention‐readiness that is realized with learning. What is needed in education and
research, then, is a perspective on segmental interdependent interaction that takes into account
both integrative and analytic aspects of human understanding. It is perhaps because of their
nonsegmental nature that human intuition or passion, on the one hand, and human insight, on
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
54 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
the other, have been seen as mysterious and irrational phenomena when viewed through the
one‐way lens of analytic science (Dewey, 1938; Neumann, 1999, 2006).
References
Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a
shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1‐12.
doi:10.1016/S0022‐5371(1078)90485‐90481.
Auble, P. M., Franks, J. J., & Soraci, S. A. (1979). Effort toward comprehension: Elaboration or
'ahap'? Memory & Cognition, 7, 426‐434.
Barrett, L. F., Lindquist, K. A., Bliss‐Moreau, E., Duncan, S., Gendron, M., Mize, J., et al. (2007). Of
mice and men: Natural kinds of emotions in the mammalian brain? A response to
Panksepp and Izard. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 297‐312.
doi:210.1111/j.1745‐6916.2007.00046.x.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Beddor, P., Krakow, R., & Lindemann, S. (2001). Patterns of perceptual compensation and their
phonological consequences. In E. Hume & K. Johnson (Eds.), The role of speech
perception in phonology (pp. 55‐78). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of "inert
knowledge". In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills:
Current research and open questions (Vol. 2, pp. 65‐80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blackburn, W. K. (1983). The perception of non‐segmental patterns in early infancy. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 44(5‐B), 1615.
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives, Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some
investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 11, 717‐726. doi:710.1016/S0022‐5371(1072)80006‐80009.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple
implications. In A. Iran‐Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education
(Vol. 24, pp. 1‐19). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
55 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4‐
16.
Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 21, 13‐19. doi:10.1016/S0193‐3973(1099)00046‐00045.
Clancey, W. J. (1997). Conceptual coordination: Abstraction without description. International
Journal of Educational Research, 27, 5‐19. doi:10.1016/S0883‐0355(1097)88440‐88446.
Coombes, S. A., Cauraugh, J. H., & Janelle, C. M. (2007). Emotional state and initiating cue alter
central and peripheral motor processes. Emotion, 7, 275‐284. doi:210.1037/1528‐
3542.1037.1032.1275.
Crystal, D. (1973). Non‐segmental phonology in language acquisition: A review of the issues.
Lingua, 32, 31‐45.
D'Odorico, L. (1984). Non‐segmental features in prelinguistic communications: An analysis of
some types of infant cry and non‐cry vocalizations. Journal of Child Language, 11, 17‐27.
D'Odorico, L., Franco, F., & Vidotto, G. (1985). Temporal characteristics in infant cry and non‐cry
vocalizations. Language and Speech, 28, 29‐46.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. New York: H. Holt and Company.
Dowhower, S. L. (1994). Repeated reading revisited: Research into practice. Reading and Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 343‐358.
Erteschik‐Shir, N. (2006). The architecture of topic and focus. In V. Molnar & S. Winkler (Eds.),
The architecture of focus (pp. 33–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fernald, A. (1985). Four‐month‐old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and
Development, 8, 181‐195. doi:110.1016/S0163‐6383(1085)80005‐80009.
Fernald, A. (1992). Human maternal vocalizations to infants as biologically relevant signals: An
evolutionary perspective. In J. H. Barkow, I. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted
mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 391–428). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Flege, J. E. (1981). The phonological basis of foreign accent: A hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 15,
443‐455.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
56 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
Frick, R. W. (1985). Communicating emotion: The role of prosodic features. Psychological
Bulletin, 97, 412‐429. doi:410.1037/0033‐2909.1097.1033.1412.
Ghilarov, A. M. (2000). Ecosystem functioning and intrinsic value of biodiversity. Oikos, 90(2),
408‐412.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gibson, J. J. (1973). On the concept of 'formless invariants' in visual perception. Leonardo, 6(1),
43‐45.
Goldstein, M. H., & West, M. J. (1999). Consistent responses of human mothers to prelinguistic
infants: The effect of prelinguistic repertoire size. Journal of Comparative Psychology,
113, 52‐58. doi:10.1037/0735‐7036.1113.1031.1052.
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol‐grounding problem. Physica, 42, 335‐346.
Harnad, S. (1993). Grounding symbols in the analog world with neural nets—A hybrid model.
Think, 2, 12‐78.
Harnad, S. (2001). Grounding symbols in the analog world with neural nets—A hybrid model.
Psycoloquy, 12(34), No Pagination Specified.
Hawkins, S., & Nguyen, N. (2004). Influence of syllable‐coda voicing on the acoustic properties of
syllable‐onset /1/ in English. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 199‐231. doi:110.1016/S0095‐
4470(1003)00031‐00037.
Henton, C. (2002). Challenges and rewards in using parametric or concatenative speech
synthesis. International Journal of Speech Technology, 5, 117‐131.
doi:110.1023/A:1015416013198.
Hsu, H. C., & Fogel, A. (2003). Social regulatory effects of infant nondistress vocalization on
maternal behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39, 976‐991. doi:910.1037/0012‐
1649.1039.1036.1976.
Hubbell, S. P., & Borda‐de‐Água, L. (2004). The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and
biogeography: Reply. Ecology, 85, 3175‐3178.
Iran‐Nejad, A. (1980). The schema: A structural or a functional pattern. (Tech. Rep. No. 159).
Washington, D. C.: National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED182735).
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
57 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
Iran‐Nejad, A. (1987). Cognitive and affective causes of interest and liking. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 79, 120‐130.
Iran‐Nejad, A. (Ed.). (2000). Brain, Knowledge, and Self‐Regulation. (Vol. 21, Special Edition of
the Journal of Mind and Behavior ). New York: Institute of Mind and Behavior.
Iran‐Nejad, A., McKeachie, W. J., & Berliner, D. C. (1990). The multisource nature of learning: An
introduction. Review of Educational Research, 60, 509‐515.
Iran‐Nejad, A., & Ortony, A. (1984). A biofunctional model of distributed mental content, mental
structures, awareness, and attention. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 171‐210.
Iran‐Nejad, A., & Stewart, W. (2010). First‐person education and the biofunctional nature of
knowing, understanding, and affect. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Kinshuk, P. Isaias, D. G. Sampson
& J. M. Spector (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on problem solving and learning in the
digital age (pp. 89‐109). New York: Springer.
Irwin, O. C., & Weiss, A. P. (1930). A note on mass activity in newborn infants. The Pedagogical
Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 38, 20‐30.
Johnson, R. E. (1970). Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of the linguistic
units. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 12‐20. doi:10.1016/S0022‐
5371(1070)80003‐80002.
Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine. New York: Macmillan.
Krakow, R. A. (1993). Nonsegmental influences on velum movement patterns: Syllables,
sentences, stress, and speaking rate. In M. K. Huffman & R. A. Krakow (Eds.), Nasals,
nasalization, and the velum (pp. 87‐113). San Diego: Academic Press.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3‐21. doi:10.1037/0022‐0663.1095.1031.1033.
Lehrer, J. (2008, July 28). The eureka hunt. The New Yorker, 40‐45.
Loftus, G. R., Oberg, M. A., & Dillon, A. M. (2004). Linear theory, dimensional theory, and the
face‐inversion effect. Psychological Review, 111, 835‐863. doi:810.1037/0033‐
1295X.1111.1034.1835.
Lyons, J., & Page, R. B. L. (1981). Language and speech [and discussion]. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 295(1077),
215‐222.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
58 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43‐64.
Mayer, R. E. (1995). The search for insight: Grappling with Gestalt psychology’s unanswered
questions. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 3–32).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (Eds.). (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in
the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Merleau‐Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory. Amsterdam: North
Holland Publishing Company.
Müller, F. (1997). State‐of‐the‐art in ecosystem theory. Ecological Modeling, 100(1‐3), 135‐161.
Munro, M. J. (1995). Nonsegmental factors in foreign accent: Ratings of filtered speech. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 17(1), 17‐34.
Nagasaki, Y., & Komatsu, T. (2004, March). Can people perceive different emotions from a non‐
emotional voice by modifying its F0 and duration? Paper presented at the Speech
Prosody International Conference, Nara, Japan.
Neumann, A. (1999). Professing passion: Views of passionate thought in scholarship. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal.
Neumann, A. (2006). Professing passion: Emotion in the scholarship of professors at research
universities. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 381‐424.
doi:310.3102/00028312043003381.
Ogden, R., & Local, J. K. (1994). Disentangling autosegments from prosodies: A note on the
misrepresentation of a research tradition in phonology. Journal of Linguistics, 30(2),
477‐498.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent
developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1‐4.
doi:10.1207/S15326985EP15323801_15326981.
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions.
New York: Oxford University Press.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
59 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
Perfetti, C. A., & Zhang, S. (1991). Phonological processes in reading Chinese characters. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 633‐643.
doi:610.1037/0278‐7393.1017.1034.1633.
Perkins, D., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 4‐
7.
Perkins, D. N. (1988). Art as understanding. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22(1), 111‐131.
Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69, 309‐315.
Prawat, R. S. (2000). Keep the solution, broaden the problem: Commentary on "Knowledge, self‐
regulation, and the brain‐mind cycle of reflection". The Journal of Mind and Behavior,
21, 89‐96.
Quek, F., McNeill, D., Bryll, R., Duncan, S., Ma, X. F., Kirbas, C., et al. (2002). Multimodal human
discourse: Gesture and speech. ACM Transactions on Computer‐Human Interaction
(TOCHI), 9, 171‐193. doi:110.1145/568513.568515.
Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational
Psychologist, 31, 115‐121.
Ruch, T. C. (1936). Evidence of the non‐segmental character of spinal reflexes from an analysis of
the cephalad effects of spinal transection American Journal of Physiology, 114, 457‐467.
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (Eds.). (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in
the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1: Foundations). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative‐quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic
approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10‐18.
Salomon, G. (1995). Reflections on the field of educational psychology by the outgoing journal
editor. Educational Psychologist, 30, 105‐108.
Salomon, G. (2006). The systemic vs. analytic study of complex learning environments. In J. Elen,
R. E. Clark & J. Lowyck (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and
research (pp. 255‐264). Boston: Elsevier.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action: Basic Books.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
60 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg
Schurz, G., & Lambert, K. (1994). Outline of a Theory of Scientific Understanding. Synthese,
101(1), 65‐120.
Schwartz, N. H., Ellsworth, L. S., Graham, L., & Knight, B. (1998). Accessing prior knowledge to
remember text: A comparison of advance organizers and maps. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 23, 65‐89. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0958.
Sharp, A. (2004). Strategies and predilections in reading expository text: The importance of text
patterns. RELC Journal, 35, 329‐349. doi:310.1177/0033688205052145.
Shulman, L. S. (1999). Taking learning seriously. Change, 31(4), 10‐17.
Shulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34(6), 36‐44.
Sperry, R. W. (1988). Psychology's mentalist paradigm and the religion/science tension.
American Psychologist, 43(8), 607‐613.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility,
constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge
acquisition in ill‐structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.),
Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251‐296. doi:210.1023/A:1022193728205.
Tilman, D. (1999). The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: A search for general
principles. Ecology, 80, 1455‐1474.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
61 Breslawski
FACTORS INFLUENCING BUSINESS STUDENT MOTIVATION
ON LOW‐STAKES ASSESSMENT EXAMS
Steven T. Breslawski Department of Business Administration and Economics
State University of New York College at Brockport Brockport, NY 14420
ABSTRACT This paper describes survey results pertaining to the motivation of undergraduate business
majors in the context of participation in low‐stakes assessment exams. Assessment‐related
accreditation standards have become more prominent. To maintain accreditation, business
schools need to take the assessment task more seriously. Assessment exams represent an
important component of the assessment protocols of many business programs. However, the
assessment literature has long recognized that lack of motivation, on the part of exam
participants, represents a serious threat to the validity of assessment exam results. The
motivation problem is particularly germane in the context of the low‐stakes exam schemes
employed in many schools. The value of exams, for fostering continuous improvement in
academic programs, is therefore called into question. We present the results of a study designed
to explore the degree to which business majors are actually motivated to make a reasonable
effort to answer questions on low‐stakes business‐program assessment exams. Further, we
investigate factors that contribute to the students’ motivation or the lack thereof. Anonymous,
post‐exam survey responses, collected from 140 business majors that had just completed the
ETS major field exam in business, provide the data for the study. We find that self‐reported
effort expended on the ETS exam exceeds typical values reported in other contexts. While most
students are motivated, it is not necessarily intrinsic and the extrinsic efforts that we make to
motivate the students do improve overall motivation. This study fills a void in the literature
concerning the analysis of motivational effects of specific efforts to enhancing business student
motivation to take low‐stakes assessment exercises seriously.
Keywords: Assessment, motivation, ETS exam, business curricula, AACSB accreditation Introduction Learning outcomes assessment has received renewed attention at many business schools. The
most recent accreditation standards, adopted by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business International (AACSB), include assessment requirements; these are referred to as
Assurance of Leaning (AoL) standards (AACSB, 2005). These new assessment standards have
added a sense of urgency to the need for business schools, hoping to achieve or renew
accreditation, to take the learning outcomes assessment process more seriously. Pringle and
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
62 Breslawski
Mitchell (2007) report that 83% of accredited business programs indicate that they are
increasing their assessment efforts as a result of the new standards. The issue is germane to
non‐accredited programs as well, as regional accreditation bodies and other stakeholders
continue to make increased demands related to assessment
While the need to increase focus on assessment efforts may be a new development for many
business programs, the issues and challenges faced in the assessment task are not new. The
evolving assessment efforts of business schools will be subject to the same challenges that have
been discussed for some time in the K‐12 assessment literature. In particular, concerns about
the impact of student motivation, on the validity of assessment results, has long been discussed
in the assessment literature. Business schools will need to address the issue of student
motivation as they develop their assessment protocols and many will find the issue to be
daunting. For example, one Assessment Coordinator laments:
“because we currently lack any means to reflect performance on the assessment
in a student’s grade, it is likely that a significant number of students lack the
motivation to prepare. If we were to hold students more accountable by linking
their performance to a course grade the issue then becomes which course.
Should it be in the capstone course? An important and valid concern for those
teaching a capstone course is that their teacher evaluations may be adversely
affected just by virtue of being the course in which the assessment is
administered. Is that fair?” (Guidice, 2007)
The general concern is that lack of student motivation and effort, when participating in
assessment exercises, will cloud the assessor’s ability to draw meaningful inferences concerning
the degree to which learning objectives have been achieved. For example, poor performance on
an assessment exercise might be due to the participant being of low proficiency, or it could be
due to an examinee, of much higher proficiency, not trying very hard to demonstrate the target
learning outcomes. As discussed within, the issue of motivation is particularly germane in the
context of “low‐stakes” assessment exams, where test performance has little or no real impact
on the test taker.
In meeting the new AACSB AoL standards, business programs must be able to demonstrate
responsiveness to assessment results. In cases where substantial proportions of students are
unable to demonstrate a particular learning outcome, a remedial response should follow.
AACSB refers to this concept as “closing the loop”. The motivational issue raises the question of
whether the “loop is open” because students have not learned the materials or whether it is
open because students are not making good faith efforts when participating in assessment
exercises. As such, understanding the motivation of business students in the assessment context
is important to interpreting assessment results and developing remedial responses.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
63 Breslawski
The author’s experience at AACSB sponsored assessment workshops and training symposia
suggests that the issue of student motivation is of concern to business school assessment
practitioners. The “table talk” at these events, especially workshops, will typically include a
comparative discussion of assessment methods and instruments used by each business school,
as well as some discussion of results. Often, the conversation will turn to each school’s
experience with the Educational Testing Service (ETS) Major Field Exam in Business, which is
utilized by 33% of business programs (Pringle and Mitchell, 2007). During these conversations, a
report of high‐level performance on the ETS exam is inevitably followed by someone asking how
the school motivates their students to take the test seriously. Various motivations, such as a
“prize for high score” or “extra credit” might be delineated at this point of the conversation.
However, it is readily apparent that no one really knows the degree to which their students are
motivated or how effective the sundry motivational schemes are. What is clear, from these
conversations, is that 1) practitioners are concerned about motivation, and 2) the contention,
that that motivation is a necessary precedent to high performance, is eagerly assumed.
The conversations characterized above provide much of the motivation for this work. We have
been fortunate in that our students routinely score in the top fifteenth percentile on the ETS
exam, and sometimes in the top 10th percentile, suggesting that our students must be (at least
comparatively) motivated to do well. However, prior to this study, we could not articulate what
policies or actions on our part, if any, actually motivated the students to do well on the exam.
Our goal is to develop a better understanding of the degree to which business majors are
motivated to make a bona fide effort to answer questions on low‐stakes business program
assessment exams. Further, we investigate factors that contribute to the students’ motivation.
This paper is presented in five sections, the first of which has been this introduction. In the next
section, we introduce pertinent terminology and concepts and review relevant literature. Then,
we describe the organizational context and the data collected; followed by a presentation of the
results and a discussion. A summary and concluding remarks comprise the final section.
Vernacular and Literature It is appropriate to define a few terms before continuing. Henceforth, when using the term
“assessment”, we will be referring to learning outcomes assessment, i.e. the determination of
the degree to which students actually learn the knowledge and skills imparted in their degree
program. We contrast learning outcomes assessment with program outcomes assessment,
which attempts to measure broader program such as student retention, alumni satisfaction and
employer perceptions of academic program quality.
In pursuing assessment, measurement of learning may be direct or indirect. Direct measures
require that students actually demonstrate a learning outcome. In contrast, assessment
protocols may rely instead on indirect measures, such as a student testimonial indicating that
the outcome was achieved (e.g., on an exit survey). While program outcomes assessment may
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
64 Breslawski
be reasonably conducted through the use of alumni and exit surveys, surveys are not direct
measures of learning and can only provide students’ perceptions of the degree to which learning
occurred. The AACSB AoL standards require direct assessment of learning.
Another notion that is central to our discussion is the concept of low stakes testing. Low stakes
testing refers to testing environments where test performance has little or no real impact on the
test taker. Participation in the testing exercise may be optional and, depending on
circumstances, performance generates no reward or punishment to the test taker (Bracey,
1996). Note that the phrase low stakes refers only to the participant’s view of the exam. While
an exam may be low stakes from the perspective of the exam taker, it may be “high stakes”
from the perspective of the educational institution. For example, school funding decisions may
be influenced by student performance on low stakes exams. Significant remedial resources may
be expended based on assessment results.
Low stakes testing situations are typical when downstream testing is employed, i.e. students are
tested some significant time period after learning was supposed to have occurred, perhaps in a
capstone course or at some significant milestone (e.g. the end of the senior year of high school).
The ETS Major Field Exam in Business, which covers topics taught in myriad business courses, is
an example of an assessment instrument that business schools are likely to administer in a
downstream format. Unfortunately, since downstream exams are often embedded in courses
having little to do with the subject matter being assessed, it is difficult to legitimately integrate
performance on the assessment exam into the grading or reward scheme of the course in which
the exam is administered. In fact, when scoring and analysis is done by an external agent (e.g.,
ETS), performance on the exam may be unknown until after the end of the school year or
semester, making it impossible to integrate performance into the course reward structure. The
students’ motivation to expend serious effort on the assessment exercise is, therefore, suspect.
In order to address the motivational issue and minimize the additional resources required for
the assessment task, some authors advocate embedded assessment, i.e., assessment exercises
embedded as normal activities within a course. In theory, if assessment can be embedded
within existing courses, administrative efficiency is gained as it is not necessary to develop (or
procure), administer, evaluate, and analyze separate assessment exercises. Further, if course
grades are influenced by the assessment exercise, student motivation may be improved. Pringle
and Mitchell (2007) suggest that AACSB recommends the use of embedded assessments.
Embedded assessments, however, introduce their own set of limitations and challenges. First, it
is unlikely that the results of locally developed and embedded assessments will be comparable
with assessment results from other schools, making benchmarking comparisons impossible.
Second, in‐class assessments may actually be measuring a student’s short‐term memorization
skills rather than assessing true (retained) learning. Third, in programs where multiple sections
of the same course are taught by different faculty (including part‐time or adjunct faculty),
consistency in the administration, evaluation, and interpretation of embedded assessment
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
65 Breslawski
exercises becomes an issue. It is always a challenge to devise a valid assessment instrument or
process. However, the challenge of devising embedded assessments, that will be workable
across all sections and multiple instructors, can be substantial given differences in pedagogical
approaches and content emphasis that naturally occur when several faculty are teaching
multiple sections of the same course.
Finally, relying solely on embedded assessment processes can pose significant problems for
schools (such as ours) with large transfer populations, where certain courses, e.g., introductory
accounting and economics courses, are likely to be transferred from a junior college by many
students. While a sampling approach is legitimate for assessment purposes, sample results
should be externally valid and suggest, to stakeholders, that a substantial majority of graduates
of a business program have achieved predefined learning goals. This should be true whether the
student entered as a freshman or as a transfer. For the sake of comparison, between transfer
and native students, some downstream assessment of transfer and native populations is
required. Thus, there are circumstances where downstream assessment is both necessary and
legitimate, with the benefits of embedded assessment notwithstanding.
To summarize the discussion to this point, both embedded and downstream retention protocols
can provide direct assessment measures and thereby satisfy accreditation requirements.
Embedded assessments have advantages with regard to efficiency and motivation. Downstream
assessments are plagued by the motivational issue but offer other advantages as described
above. We believe both have a place in a comprehensive assessment plan.
Our discussion now turns to the issue of motivation. Motivation is a topic that is dealt with
extensively in the literature on human behavior in general and education in particular. There has
been wide disagreement and, consequently many models proposed, concerning the specific
physiological mechanisms and cognitive processes that result in motivation. There is some
agreement, however, on the result of motivation. Much of the motivation research links
motivation to the choices we make (what we choose to do), the effort we expend (how hard we
try to do it), and/or the persistence that we lend to a task (how long we stick with it). These
three motivational outcomes have obvious consequences for student participation in
downstream assessment activities. As discussed in Wise (2005), lack of motivation represents a
key source of construct‐irrelevant variance that will bias the interpretation of an otherwise valid
assessment instrument.
With regard to academic motivation, there is also some agreement that motivation may be
extrinsic (generated from outside) or intrinsic (generated from within). Grades, punishments,
and extra credit are examples of extrinsic motivation in an educational context. Love of learning
and a wish to better one’s self are examples of intrinsic motivation in an education context. It is
often argued that intrinsic motivation, in educational contexts, is preferred as it is more
sustainable. Intrinsic motivation may not be so noble as our previous examples. A particular type
of intrinsic motivation, achievement motivation, might also be labeled as competitiveness.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
66 Breslawski
While it is possible for one to simply want to do their best without regard to the performance of
others, achievement motivation would also include wanting to achieve in order to do better
than others, i.e. the thrill of victory. See Ryan and Deci (2000) for a deeper discussion.
Finally, there is also agreement that motivation is not static at the individual level. As people
mature, there intrinsic motivation to accomplish various tasks change, as do their responses to a
particular extrinsic motivation. You may, for example, have noticed that your doctor no longer
offers you a lollipop or cartoon sticker at the end of your visit. Kiplinger and Linn (1995) found
that thirty percent of the eighth‐graders said that they tried "harder" or "much harder" on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics test than on other math tests, while
only 20% said that they tried "not at all hard." In contrast 45% of twelfth said they tried "not at
all hard." The increase is not surprising, 67% of the twelfth graders rated the test as only
"somewhat important" or "not very important"; intrinsic motivation is clearly lacking among the
seniors. An obvious question is how achievement motivation changes as students enter college
and, as college seniors, participate in exams such as ETS.
A number of research studies have attempted to investigate the link between participant
motivation and assessment exam scores. These studies generally fall into two categories. The
first category includes studies where the mean performance score of a group of participants
(believed to be more motivated) is compared with the mean score of a group that is believed to
be less motivated. A treatment applied to the motivated group (e.g. payment for performance)
is assumed to provide the differential motivation. However, there is no attempt to actually
measure the level of motivation of the participants. Differences in performance, between the
two (otherwise homogeneous) groups, is then attributed to motivational differences induced by
the treatment regiment.
The second category of studies attempts to measure the correlation between some measure of
the motivation of the individual and the individual’s assessment instrument scores. These
studies typically rely on some type of post‐test self‐evaluation survey to measure motivation,
which is then correlated with individual performance. See Wise and Demars (2005) for a good
meta‐analysis of previous studies.
The literature has detailed a number of drawbacks to the second approach. For example, it has
been argued that participants who believe that they did poorly on an assessment exercise, and
are therefore embarrassed by their performance, may report low motivation as an excuse for
their poor performance. Further, in environments where giving less than one’s best effort has a
negative connotation, students may be less than forthcoming in reporting their true level of
motivation. Popham (1993) asserts that a student’s perception of anonymity is pivotal if one
wishes to secure truthful responses on self‐report instruments dealing with sensitive subjects.
While a number of authors have noted the importance of motivation and others have
attempted to measure the relationship between motivation and performance, there is very little
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
67 Breslawski
prescriptive guidance for assessment coordinators with respect to how to actually motivate
participants in the low stakes context.
To summarize, while the literature on motivation is vast, the literature on the impact of
motivation on low‐stakes assessment results is rather limited; the number of studies is relatively
small and focused on K‐12. The results are mixed concerning whether motivation impacts
performance. There are virtually no studies that provide guidance on how to effectively
motivate individuals in the low stakes context. None of the studies involved undergraduate
business majors.
Context and Motivational Methods At the State University of New York (SUNY) College at Brockport, we implemented our first
assessment plan nearly 20 years ago in response to a SUNY‐wide directive. We have worked
through several generations of evolution in our assessment efforts and, based on own
experiences with assessment, we believe that strong assessment protocols need to incorporate
both embedded and downstream assessments. Assuming that the issue of student motivation
can be addressed, we believe that downstream assessment is an important component of a
robust assessment program in that it provides 1) a more honest metric of retained knowledge
and skills, 2) a method of assessing the retained knowledge of transfer students, and 3) the
opportunity to compare our program with others by employing normative comprehensive tests
such as the ETS Major Field Exam in Business.
In addition to embedded assessments, our current assessment protocols employ downstream,
low stakes assessment exams at two milestones in our business curriculum.
1) Topics in the business foundation curriculum (accounting 1 and 2, Economics 1 and 2,
introductory statistics, and basic math skills) are assessed down‐stream via examination in our
core Principles of Corporate Finance course. The finance course is a convenient place to do the
assessment because it is rarely transferred and it lists the foundation curriculum as a
prerequisite, i.e., we can be certain that students in the finance course have already taken the
courses that are being assessed.
2) The business core curriculum (finance, marketing, organizational behavior, legal
environment, international business, and quantitative methods) is assessed in Strategic
Management, our capstone course.
We assess one foundation topic and one core topic each semester, administering the
corresponding exams on a rotating basis. We administer the ETS Major Field Exam in the
capstone course every fourth semester. Our sampling approach yields a sample of
approximately 150 students for any given exam.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
68 Breslawski
With regard to student motivation, we use extrinsic approaches, including both “carrots” and
“sticks” and then try to appeal to the students self‐interest in making the case for what they
should give their best effort on an assessment exam.
1) We have attempted to establish a culture where participation in assessment is expected
and accepted as a regular part of being a student in our programs. For example, the following
text is included in both our college catalog and in the policies section of the application students
complete when applying to our programs. Students must indicate their willingness to abide by
this policy by initialing this section of their application.
The Department administers various assessment instruments throughout the curricula of its programs. Assessment data is used for quality control and program improvement. Assessment activities may take the form of exams, exercises, or surveys. The department expects its students to take their role in assessment very seriously. Program improvement efforts are often based on assessment results. However, assessment results are valid only when students give their best effort and serious participation. As such, students are required, as a condition of enrollment in any of the Department’s courses, to participate in assessment activities and to give their best and honest effort in all assessment exercises administered by the Department. Assessment activities administered in a course are considered a course requirement. This course requirement is no less important than is attendance, homework, or other exams. Students that are absent when assessment exercises are conducted are required to make‐up the exercise. To a degree, we are trying to address both the choice and persistence portion of motivational affect, by establishing assessment activities, and a student’s best effort thereon, as non‐optional. 2) One week prior to the administration of an assessment exam, a letter is distributed to
each student that informs them of when and why the test is being administered. The letter,
which is from the Department Chair and the Assessment Coordinator, makes an appeal as to the
importance of assessment and their serious participation. Students are informed that they will
receive a report of the test results, on letterhead, and that the results will include their raw
score, their percentile rank vs. students at our school as well as their percentile rank vs. students
at other schools that use the ETS exams. In doing so, we are trying to appeal to their
achievement motivation (competitiveness) where it exists.
We also attempt to make the following impressions within this notification letter. That assessment results will be used to improve the quality of their education;
That assessment result will be used to enhance the reputation and value of their degree;
That assessment helps maintain program accreditation;
That their strong performance provides opportunity to distinguish themselves on a
graduate school or job application;
We also remind them that that they agreed to take their role in assessment seriously when they
applied to be a student in the Department’s programs and that continuation in our courses and
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
69 Breslawski
programs is conditional on their serious participation. The letter indicates that if their exam is
incomplete or their performance makes us suspect that they did not give their best effort, that a
meeting with the student will follow to determine whether the student gave their best effort.
Sanctions, such as repeating the exercise, may be applied.
As far as direct incentives, students are informed that the name of the high scorer(s) will appear
on an awards plaque in the Department office and in various campus publications. A prize
($50.00 Barnes and Nobel® gift certificate) is awarded to the high scorer(s) and randomly to 4
students scoring in the top 25th percentile (We make these random awards in order to motivate
students that do not perceive that they could ever be the high scorer, but do believe that they
could score in the top quartile if they applied themselves).
3) At the beginning of the exam, the proctor reads a statement that reminds students of the motivational constructs outlined in the pre‐exam letter. Students are provided the opportunity to ask any questions concerning the exam and/or their participation. The actions described above represent our efforts to (extrinsically) motivate students to give
their best effort on the exam. We have also used various use extra‐credit schemes as a
motivator for performance on our locally‐developed assessment instruments, but because of
the particulars of how the ETS test is administered and scored, we do not offer that incentive
with the ETS exam. Because our students have consistently been in the top 15% in terms of
average exam score, we believe that our efforts to motivate the students have borne fruit, i.e. if
they were not motivated to do well, we would be unlikely to see comparatively high scores on
the exam. This research is our first attempt to determine which, if any, of the motivational
efforts that we make actually have an impact.
Finally, we take a moment to dispel the obvious alternative hypotheses for our students’ success
on the ETS exam. While the average SAT score of freshmen who enter the College at Brockport
is about 1100, the average SAT score of students in the business program is about 980; they are
average students. Between 50% and 60% have transferred from a two‐year school and many of
these never even took the SAT. It is likely that, where their SAT scores known, they would
reduce our average SAT even further. Another question we are asked is whether we “teach to
the test”. The emphatic answer is no; the vast majority of our faculty have never seen the ETS
test and our curriculum design and course content has never been influenced by items or topics
covered on the exam.
Data Collection A brief, anonymous, post‐exam, survey was used to collect motivation‐related data from 140
undergraduate business majors that had just completed the ETS Major Field Exam in Business.
We chose to use an anonymous survey to promote honest answers per Popham (1993). Clearly,
asking someone to reveal that they gave a superficial effort on a test, that you just told them is
important, is more likely to occur under the veil of anonymity. Students may also be
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
70 Breslawski
embarrassed to admit that they were motivated by a prize or by competitive instincts.
Unfortunately, anonymity precludes the possibility of directly linking motivation to
performance.
The ETS exam takes approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes to complete. Given the potential
negative impact of testing fatigue on post‐exam survey participation, brevity was a paramount
concern in designing the survey; this also limited the number of demographic control variables
to be included on the survey. Another casualty of brevity is that we chose not to use multiple
items to measure single constructs, which limits the development of formal validity measures.
However, to enhance validity, we did used established scales for the primary measure of
motivation, borrowing from the attitudinal questions used in a study by the New Jersey State
Department of Education, which assessed student motivation for a reading exam.
The survey questions appear in Table 1. The first question is an indicator of effort expended. The
literature suggests that effort expended is a primary result of motivation, regardless of its
source (intrinsic or extrinsic). The second question is intended to provide a measure of intrinsic
motivation. If intrinsic motivation, to perform well on the exam, is low then devising effective
extrinsic motivators becomes more important in pursuing the goal of serious student
participation. In contrast, if intrinsic motivation is high, then perhaps motivational speeches and
prizes are not necessary to achieve meaningful assessment results. The third question is
designed to determine which of the motivational methods and arguments that we employ turn
out to be salient to the student. The exception is the last choice on the list (I like doing better
than other people on exams), which is intended to provide a measure of achievement
motivation. Demographic questions were limited to gender, transfer status, and self‐report GPA.
Our experience (on other, non‐anonymous instruments) is that there is a 0.85‐0.90 correlation
between self‐reported and actual GPA for our students.
Table 1.
Survey Questions
1) I gave my best effort in answering the questions on this exam.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree
2) It is important to me that I performed well on this test.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
71 Breslawski
Table 1. (Cont'd) Survey Questions
3) Did any of the following motivate you to do well on this exam? (check all that apply) The gift certificate prizes Personal pride The opportunity to distinguish myself with a high score on a competitive exam Enhancing the reputation of the school by doing well Enhancing the value of my degree by doing well I want to help the school improve its business curriculum Having my name on an awards plaque and in various publications I didn’t want to get in trouble for not trying I like doing better on exams than other people
Results How motivated are the students? At least on a self‐report basis, the students generally tried hard to do well on the exam; See
Figure 1. We would like to believe that the anonymous nature of the survey and the high
average performance on the exam lends some credibility to the self report measures, i.e., if they
didn’t tray, they would not have scored as well as they did on this test. These responses are in
stark contrast to the findings of Kiplinger and Linn (1995), where 45% of students reportedly
tried “not hard at all”. Obviously, something is motivating these students.
Figure 1. Only 8% report a weak effort on the exam.
Strongly Agree61%
Agree31%
Disagree8%
Strongly Disagree0%
I gave my best effort in answering the questions on this exam.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
72 Breslawski
Is the motivation intrinsic or extrinsic?
A comparison of Figures 1 and 2 suggests that while 92% of the students expended a reasonable
effort on the task, only 75% are intrinsically motivated to do so. This indicates that at least some
of our extrinsic motivational policies have an impact on effort. We also note that, by explaining
how the exam is important to the student and the value of their degree, we may have helped to
build intrinsic motivation for taking the test.
Figure 2.
About 75% of Students Said it Was Important to Do Well on the Test.
What specific factors motivate the students?
The third question on the exam provided students with a list of possible motivating factors and
ask them to indicate any and all factors that motivated them to do well on the exam. Results
appear in Figure 3. Two items on the list are internal to the student and, as such, not
controllable by our assessment practices. One of these, personal pride, was the modal motivator
with 60% of students indicating its importance. About half as many students (29%) indicated
that achievement motivation (desire to outscore others) was a motivating factor. The least
salient factors were getting one’s name on an awards plaque (11%) for achieving the high score
and the gift certificates motivated on 15% of the students. It is not clear whether these factors
are simply unimportant to the student or whether they are perceived as unattainable,
unrealistic events whose probabilities are so low as to mitigate any motivational impact.
Strongly Agree17%
Agree59%
Disagree22%
Strongly Disagree2%
It is important to me that I performed well on this test.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
73 Breslawski
In somewhat of a surprise to us, a little over a third of the students said that helping the school
improve its curriculum was motivating to them. While we do explain how the exam results
might be used to direct improvements in the curriculum, we were surprised that this issue was
salient to as many students as it was. A little less than a third suggested that the opportunity to
enhance the reputation of the school, and the value of their degree, was a motivating factor.
Finally, it is worth noting that about a quarter of the students wanted to avoid getting in trouble
for not trying their best on the exam, suggesting that there is a place for negative sanctions,
even if only implied.
Figure 3.
Factors Motivating Students to Do Well on the ETS Exam
Are there differences by control variable?
Controls included gender (male/female), transfer status (native student/transfer student) and
self‐reported GPA (0‐4). We could not find any significant effects or differences in the motivating
factors based on these controls. The point‐bisserel correlations between the factors appear in
Table 2.
15%
60%
29%
29%
29%
36%
11%
26%
29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Gift Certificate
Personal Pride
Distinguish Myself
Improve Value of Degree
Improve Reputation of School
Improve Curriculum
Name on Awards Plaque
Avoid Trouble
Outscore Others
Percent of Students Indicating Factor
Source of Motivation
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
74 Breslawski
The majority of correlations are low to weak. Unsurprisingly, students who are motivated to
improve the value of their degree are also motivated to improve the reputation of their school
and, to a lesser degree, the curriculum of that school. Students with a competitive streak are
more likely to be motivated to improve the school’s reputation.
Table 2.
Correlations between Motivating Factors
Gift Cert
Pride Dist Self
Val Degr
Schl Rep
Imprv Curic
Award Plaque
Avoid Troub
Comp‐etative
Gift Cert 1.00 Pride 0.10 1.00 Dist Self 0.30 0.04 1.00 Val Degr ‐0.05 0.04 ‐0.10 1.00 Schl Rep 0.08 0.11 ‐0.03 0.79 1.00 Imprv Curic 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.30 0.49 1.00 Award Plaque 0.16 0.25 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.05 1.00 Avoid Troub 0.03 0.05 0.12 ‐0.06 ‐0.02 0.10 0.15 1.00 Competative 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.24 0.34 0.10 0.31 0.12 1.00
Summary and Conclusions
In this research, we attempted to gain a better understanding of motivational issues associated
with undergraduate business students taking low‐stakes assessment exams. Based on student
responses to a brief, anonymous, post‐exam survey, we found that while the intrinsic motivation
to perform of these students is markedly better than that reported in other studies, there is still
room to apply extrinsic motivational methods in order to improve the degree to which students
are willing to give their best effort on an assessment exam. With regard to specific methods, we
learned that prizes, recognition, and awards may be useful on the margin but it is probably more
effective to simply and purposefully communicate what assessment is and how it can be used to
1) improve the educational product that the student is paying for, 2) the reputation of the
school, and 3) the value of the student’s degree. Appealing to the students’ competitive nature,
where it exists, may also be useful. Personal pride was the factor cited most frequently by the
students as a motivational force.
References
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International, (2005) Eligibility
Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation.
Bracey, G.W. (1996). Altering Motivation in Testing, Phi Delta Kappan 8(3), 21‐252.
Pringle, C. and Michel, M. (2007) “Assessment practices at AACSB Accredited Business Schools,”
Journal of Business Education, March/April, 202‐211.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
75 Breslawski
Popham, James W. (1993) “Appraising two techniques for increasing the honesty of students'
answers to self‐report assessment devices,” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, Volume 7, Number 1 / June, 1993, 33‐41.
Guidice, Rebecca. (March 2007) “Fall 2006 Semester Assessment Report,”
http://provost.unlv.edu/Assessment/reports_2006/report_spring06_business_manage_
manage_BABS.doc, pg 12.
Kiplinger, V., & Linn, R. (1995). Raising the Stakes of Test Administration: The Impact on Student
Performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational
Assessment, 3(2), 111.
Ryan, Richard M. and Deci, Edward L. (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54–67.
Wise, Steven L. and Demars, Christine E. (2005) “Low Examinee Effort in Low‐Stakes
Assessment: Problems and Potential Solutions,” Educational Assessment, 10(1) 1‐17.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
76 Breslawski
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
77 Teal et al.
THE BOLOGNA ACCORD: OVERVIEW AND MARKETING IMPLEMENTATION IN ROMANIA
Elisabeth J. Teal Mike Cottrell School of Business
North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597
G. Martin Izzo Mike Cottrell School of Business
North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597
Corneliu Munteanu Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza
Facultatea de Economie si Administrarea Afacerilor Iasi, Romania 700506 [email protected]
Barry E. Langford
The University of Mississippi Tupelo, MS. 38804
ABSTRACT
The Bologna Accord was launched a decade ago and established an authority and conceptual
landscape called the European Higher Education Area. In 2010, the European Union Ministers of
Education triumphed by attaining full international and national implementation of the Bologna
Accord, a feat unmatched in the annals of higher education reform. The purpose of this paper is
to provide a brief discussion of the Bologna Accord and to highlight the strategic initiatives
endorsed by the Accord: the European Higher Education Area, the Educational Accumulation
and Transfer Credit System, and the Diploma Supplement. From a global perspective, it is
important that academics at all levels have a clear understanding of the educational changes
prompted by the Bologna Accord. Among the issues discussed are the level of preparation of
the new three‐year bachelor’s degree and the level of achievement relative to obtaining parity
to Anglo‐American curricula. In this paper these Bologna Accord issues are thoroughly examined
and an example of marketing curriculum reforms instituted at a Romanian university is
presented. The results of this study indicate that, at the institutional level as implemented in
Romania, the new three‐year degree initiative falls short of the goal of achieving parity with
Anglo‐American curriculum levels, and appears geared more toward preparing graduates for
vocational rather than managerial positions. However, since many universities have struggled at
the institutional level to incorporate Bologna Accord reforms in highly diverse educational
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
78 Teal et al.
settings, Romania is representative and not unique in these outcomes. Finally, we present
recommendations for future research.
Keywords: Bologna Accord, European Higher Education Area, Romania, marketing curricula,
three‐cycle degree program
Introduction
Worldwide, university classrooms are becoming more internationalized as students travel the
globe to secure advanced degrees. As this occurs, it is important for university professionals to
develop an awareness of international educational standards. For example, Europe’s higher
education sector is currently undergoing substantial change with the creation of a conceptual
landscape called the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) slated to be fully operational by
2010 (King and Verblik’, 2007). Other global trends include more English language course
offerings at universities in non‐Anglophone countries, increased recruitment efforts for
international students, the massification of higher education and cost‐sharing proposals
involving student and public funds in many countries ( Tillman, 2010; Newby, 1999; Scott, 1998;
Koch, 1997). This paper seeks to provide support for the trend toward globalization within
higher education by increasing awareness for university professionals of international
educational standards.
Globalization has been a marked trend in the past thirty years. Governments, businesses,
educational providers, and non‐profit organizations now view the entire world as a source of
their inputs, best processes, and for distributing outputs to others. Educational providers have
also experienced opportunities and challenges as a result of globalization. Some, like Jan Figel,
European Commissioner for Education and Training, saw the Bologna Accord as an essential
response in Europe to the opportunities of globalization in education (European Commission,
2009). These opportunities are not without challenges, however. Some of the most pressing
challenges to international education include differences in language, the cost and availability of
funding for the learning experience, the availability of visas for students, and the ability to
award educational credit toward recognized degree programs. Many educators would agree
that a classroom consisting of students of different nationalities, cultures, and perspectives
provides a fertile environment for learning (Newby, 1999). This is facilitated through a student’s
personal learning as well as his or her contribution to the learning of the entire class through the
sharing of their personal experiences. Taken a step further, when students go to another
country to study, in addition to the classroom learning that takes place, an appreciation for
different nationalities, cultures, and perspectives may ultimately promote greater
understanding between nations as these students move to the forefront of their careers in
politics, business, education and non‐profit organizations.
Members of both the European and non‐European academic community are routinely called
upon evaluate transcripts from European college students seeking to complete their
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
79 Teal et al.
undergraduate degrees or apply to graduate programs abroad. These requests may come from
and be received by universities within the EU, between universities in the EU and the U.S., or
between universities in the EU and other countries. Problems were encountered, however, as
transcripts from European students who completed coursework internationally were not always
easily readable, a transparency issue, and the courses lacked a specificity that made comparable
determinations difficult, an issue of transferability (Lillie, 2003). Moreover, many education
providers felt that European degrees were becoming less competitive than those earned in
North America, Asia, and Australia (Field, 2003).
The Bologna Accord, also referred to as the Bologna Declaration, Agreement or Process, was
launched June 19, 1999 when 29 (currently 46) European Ministers of Education (ME’s), each
representing their European Union state, agreed to work toward a general overall framework
for European higher education and deal with the issues of transparency, transferability, and
competitiveness. An integral part of the Bologna Accord was “increasing the international
competitiveness of the European system of higher education” and “ensuring that the European
higher education system acquires a world‐wide degree of attraction by 2010” (Grange, 2007,
p.32). To meet these challenges, the ME’s established three Bologna Accord priorities: (1)
introduction of the three‐cycle system of bachelor, master, and doctorate programs, (2)
recognition of qualifications and periods of study, and (3) assurance of quality programs. The
components of the established priorities were to be fully implemented by 2007, with the goal of
a globally recognized system by 2010.
Therefore, from a global perspective, it is important that academics have a clear understanding
of the educational changes and initiatives of the Bologna Accord. The present study discusses
the basics of the origin and adoption of the Bologna Accord designed to create a more
compatible, comparable and coherent education system across the European Higher Education
Area. The paper also discusses the current progress relative to implementing the Bologna
Accord higher education initiatives. The final section provides a current example of how the
Bologna Accord has been implemented in the marketing curricula of a Romanian university, and
compares it to the marketing curricula at two typical American universities. Recommendations
for future research are offered. It is incumbent for researchers to investigate and present
findings related to programs and changes to international higher education, which is a goal of
this paper.
The Bologna Accord
The University of Bologna, with over 850 years of history, is widely regarded as the world’s
oldest continuously degree granting institution. In 1158 Federico I, King of Italy and Holy Roman
Emperor, promulgated the Constitutio Habita, in which the University was legally declared a
place where research could develop independently from any other power (Zamagni & Zamagni,
2010). It was symbolically appropriate, then, for the ministers of education representing the 29
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
80 Teal et al.
countries of the European Union (EU) in 1999 to call a meeting to discuss wide‐sweeping
education reforms at the University of Bologna.
Based on extant research, it was argued that reforms needed in 1999 are still needed if Europe’s
higher education institutions (HEI’s) are to match the performance of the best performing
systems in the world, notably those of North America and Asia (Burnett, 2007; European
Commission, 2003; Field, 2003; Jacobs and van der Ploeg, 2006; Zervakis & Wahlers, 2007).
Subsequently, the EU ministers of education (ME’s) put in motion a series of structural reforms
that were deemed necessary to make European higher education institutions more compatible
and comparable, more competitive and more attractive for Europeans as well as for students
and scholars from other continents.
The meeting culminated with the signing of the Bologna Accord, the purpose of which was to
provide an overall framework for higher education throughout the European Union to facilitate
the EU educational process and to elevate the status of their degrees in comparison with North
American, Asian, and Australian universities. The Accord represents the culmination of a 42‐year
series of multinational agreements designed to foster the mobility of higher education students
throughout Europe and beyond (Jacobs and van der Ploeg, 2006; Zervakis & Wahlers, 2007).
The Accord was adopted in 1999 with the goal of being fully operational throughout the EU by
2010. The three priorities established by the Bologna Accord were (1) introduction of the three‐
cycle system of bachelor, master, and doctorate programs, (2) recognition of qualifications and
periods of study, and (3) assurance of quality programs. The first priority, the introduction of the
three‐cycle system, was accomplished directly through the Bologna Accord. To oversee the
priorities of the Bologna Accord, the European Higher Education Area was created.
European Higher Education Area (EHEA)
In early 2000, ME’s of the European Commission set forth a broad framework called the
European Higher Education Area (EHEA) to launch the Bologna Accord priorities (Grange, 2007).
The ME’s envisioned the EHEA as an open space that would allow students, graduates, and
higher education staff to benefit from unhampered mobility and equitable access to top‐quality
higher education across countries and economic borders (Zervakis & Wahlers, 2007). The
framework of the EHEA consists of three Bologna Accord priorities: (1) transferability, the
mutual recognition of degrees and other higher education qualifications; (2) transparency,
meaning readable and comparable degrees; and (3) quality assurance promoted through
cooperation among international and European associations of higher learning organized
around the Bologna three‐cycle structure. Although not prescriptive, the EHEA seeks to take the
priorities of the Bologna Accord at the international level and provide a general structure for
implementation at the national and university levels (European Commission, 2003).
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
81 Teal et al.
The New Three‐Cycle System of European Higher Education Prior to the Bologna Accord, the degree progression at many European universities followed the
pattern of a four‐year Bachelor’s degree, followed by a one‐year Master’s degree, which might
be followed by a one‐to‐two year further preparation before beginning the Ph.D., which
generally consisted of a four year program. This pattern was generally similar to those
implemented by universities in the United Kingdom, North America, Asia, and Australia.
The new three‐cycle system (see Exhibit 1) of higher education established by the Bologna
Accord called for a new three‐year Bachelor’s degree, followed by preparatory study for the new
two‐year Master’s degree, which may be followed by a Ph.D. which typically is a three or more
year program.
Exhibit 1. Curriculum degree plan at CUZA University
a) pre-BOLOGNA b) post-BOLOGNA
Bachelor
other
Master PhD
1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4
1 2
Bachelor
other
Master PhD
1 2 3 1 2 31 2
As an education reform movement, the Bologna Accord is over ten years old, and yet most
people outside of Europe are not familiar with the Accord, or aware that the new structure of
European degrees is based on this 3‐cycle model. Further, at the curriculum level, knowledge of
specific reform initiatives is less well known. In the next section of this paper these topics are
addressed in some detail.
Education Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) The first initiative of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), the Education Credit Transfer
and Accumulation System (ECTS), is aimed at transferability of coursework and degrees. It
addresses the second priority of the Bologna Accord, which is recognition of qualifications and
periods of study, and the first principle of the European Higher Education Area, which is mutual
recognition of degrees and other higher education qualifications.
The ECTS was first introduced in 1989 as the framework of the Socrates educational exchange
programs for students, teachers and other users of the educational system, and in particular the
European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS) (Field,
2003). In short, ERASMUS created a mobile exchange program to facilitate credit transfer for
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
82 Teal et al.
tertiary college students to study abroad at schools in one of 31 member nations,
predominantly in the European Union (Field, 2003). As adopted under the EHEA in 2000, the
Education Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) is the basis on which student
workloads required to achieve the objectives of an educational program are determined
(European Commission, 2003). Thus, ECTS spells out the workload requirements in terms of
study hours and earned credits of the programs specified under the terms of the Bologna Accord
3‐cycle degree system, based on learning outcomes and competences to be acquired. ECTS was
designed to facilitate the transfer of education credits, and it is the only credit system which has
been successfully tested and used across Europe. When implemented, the system facilitates the
recognition of specified periods and courses of study, and thus enhances the quality and volume
of student mobility at the institution, national and European levels (Bekhradnia, 2004). The basic
framework of the ECTS fits into the 3‐cycle degree format of the Bologna Accord. The cycles are
defined in terms of accumulated ECTS credits so that the first cycle requires approximately three
to four years with typically 180‐240 ECTS credits and results in the award of the Bachelor’s
degree. The second cycles requires one to two years with roughly 90‐120 ECTS credits (minimum
60 at the second level) and accomplishes a Master’s degree. The third cycle requires at least
three years and results in the award of a Doctoral degree, although the number of ECTS credits
is not specified.
Since its inception, first as an ERASMUS provision and then enhanced under EHEA, the ECTS
system has successfully removed obstacles to the universal recognition of degrees between
countries and has satisfied one of the key objectives of the Bologna Accord: transferability. For
further details and information, please refer to Appendix A.
Diploma Supplement (DS) While the Educational Credit and Accumulation Transfer System (ECTS) helped in achieving
greater transferability, the ministers of education decided to implement another initiative aimed
at the Bologna Accord goal of increasing transparency (European Commission, 2002).
Educational qualifications have evolved on a worldwide scale under the impact of rapid
economic, political/regulatory and technological changes. Additionally, as a broader spectrum of
society becomes mobile, their members seek fair recognition and evaluation of their higher
education credentials and qualifications. Original diploma credentials and transcripts may not
provide sufficient information, making it very difficult to gauge the level and qualifications of a
diploma holder without appropriately detailed explanations. Initially a provision under United
Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Diploma Supplement was
revised and adopted at the 2002 Bologna Accord progress meeting in Brussels by members of
the European Commission and the Council of Europe. While the introduction of the Diploma
Supplement was first discussed in 2002, it was linked to the successful implementation of ECTS
and instituted in 2005 (European Commission, 2005).
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
83 Teal et al.
The Diploma Supplement (DS) is used to evaluate qualifications and provide clarification only in
connection with a higher education diploma. It is designed to provide a more complete
description of the nature, level, context, content and status of studies that were successfully
completed outside the regular curriculum by the student named in the original qualification
(European Commission, 2005). The DS accomplishes one of the key objectives of the Bologna
Accord, transparency, as it improves openness and facilitates the academic and professional
recognition of diplomas, degrees, and certificates earned across countries in an internationally
understandable form.
For students, the Diploma Supplement component of the EHEA results in a precise description of
their academic career and an objective description of their achievements and competencies.
The DS can efficiently help explain the variations in grading practices that exist between HEI’s of
different countries. For example, a grade equivalent of 70% may be regarded high in some
academic cultures or disciplines, but in others may be regarded as average or low. Thus,
information on the use and distribution of grades relating to the qualification in question are
required to be included.
Under the Accord guidelines established by European Higher Education Area (EHEA), the DS
should be free from any value‐judgments, equivalency statements or suggestions about
recognition (European Commission, 2002) and it should be capable of interpretation and
adaptation to local industry needs. The DS is comprised of a standard eight section template
(please see Appendix B) developed by ME’s of the Joint Council of Europe, comprised of 46
member states (Grange, 2007). Thus, the DS provides a diploma that is more readable and easily
comparable abroad which may provide greater access to international work and/or further
study.
When students have more and better employment and study opportunities, the granting
institution of higher education also benefits. Other benefits of the Diploma Supplement to the
institution include facilitation of academic and professional recognition, which increases
transparency and protection of institutional autonomy while working within a common
framework used by institutions all over Europe. Use of the DS promotes informed judgments
about qualifications and raises the visibility of the institution abroad and may also allow time
savings by providing answers to recurrent questions about the content and portability of
diplomas.
Current Status of Bologna Accord To facilitate implementation of the Bologna Accord beyond the scope of the EHEA, a system of
biennial Ministerial Conferences was sanctioned. These conferences are attended by all
Ministers of Education of EU countries for the purpose of considering progress toward BA goals
and to establish guidelines and priorities for the upcoming period. Following Bologna, biennial
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
84 Teal et al.
Ministerial Conferences were held in Prague 2001, Berlin 2003, Bergen 2005, London 2007, and
Leuven/Louvain‐la‐Neuve 2009 (European Commission, 2010).
By the 2007 London meeting, education ministers from 46 countries had embraced the Bologna
Accord (Hunter, 2010). However, the adoption rate of the ECTS and DS initiatives by member
countries has varied. While the ECTS had been almost universally adopted by 2006, only 35 of
the 46 members had introduced legislation or established ministerial orders ‘requiring’ the
Diploma Supplement (Grange, 2007). Of this group 75% issued the DS automatically, with the
rest only upon student request. This difference may be partially explained in that ECTS was
already in practice on a large scale because of the widespread affiliation with the ERASMUS
program, and required little or no policy changes to be implemented. Together, the Bologna
Accord 3‐Cycle Degree program, the ECTS, and the DS represent the three major structural
changes in higher education in Europe. A progress report by the Ministers at the London
conference stated that structural change must be matched with proper redevelopment of the
curricula, and often this has not been completed (European Commission, 2007).
A 2006 report by the European Universities Association states that, “over half of European
universities have reviewed their curricula entirely, using the Bologna reforms to implement
more student‐focused approaches” (Zervakis & Wahlers, 2007, p. 34). Reality at the institutional
level, albeit the area where the greatest amount discretion lies, is much “messier” than the
official government reports and declarations, (Hunter, 2010). For example, confusion exists
regarding the objectives of the first cycle of the Bologna 3‐cycle degree program. Many schools
mistakenly regard the first cycle (Bachelor) as a compressed version of former long‐cycle
programs while others have shortened programs by extending senior‐level courses to the
Master’s degree (Marga, 2008). In most cases, administrators have alleged that there has not
been adequate time for institutions and academics to address reforms in a comprehensive way
and to benefit from the opportunities offered through restructuring the curricula (Tillman, 2010;
Zervakis & Wahlers, 2007). In the next section, discussion examines the implementation of the
Bologna Accord in the Marketing curriculum at a Romanian university.
Marketing Implementation in Romania Romania entered the European Union in 2007 and is an independently recognized republic
located in southern Europe with a population of 21.5 million people. The capital city is Bucharest
and the currency is the Romanian lei. While Romania was not member at the BA signing in 1999,
various agreements established in preparation for EU membership were in place that served to
align Romanian higher education with the purposes of the Bologna Accord (Marga, 2008).
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University (UAIC) is located in Iasi, Romania in the province of Moldavia
about 300 miles north of Bucharest. Iasi is a major city with a population of about 400,000, and
UAIC has an enrollment of approximately 37,000 students. Business and economics studies are
carried out in the school of Facultatea de Economie si Administrarea Afacerilor (FEAA) which has
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
85 Teal et al.
a full‐time enrollment of approximately 9,000 students and includes about 1,300 marketing
majors. UAIC adopted the Bologna Accord reforms at the institutional level in 2004 for the 2005‐
06 academic year and met an institutional goal by having curricula revisions in place when the
first post‐Bologna three‐year cycle students graduated in 2008, just over one year after
Romania’s membership in the EU.
At UAIC, the Education Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) is presently
administered as an academic contract referred to as a Learning Agreement (LA) where courses
that will be studied abroad are specified. The Learning Agreement typically includes a European
full 30 credit load for the semester spent abroad and involves agreement between the UAIC
faculty and the student to assure a maximum fit between the courses offered by the higher
education institute in the host country and those offered at UAIC. Upon returning to UAIC the
student presents a certificate of ECTS course completion and a UAIC faculty committee
evaluates the work in terms of content equivalency and awards appropriate grades. To manage
the ECTS process there are provisions for students who do not complete 30 full credit hours for
the semester to take additional courses to make up the deficit, and also to forfeit scholarship for
the shortfall.
The Diploma Supplement (DS) is used to award credit for courses taken that are outside
UAIC/FEAA catalog guidelines. The DS may also be used to award credit to students from abroad
who study at UAIC and, additionally for courses taken from instructors from abroad teaching in‐
residence at UAIC.
With respect to the priorities of the Bologna Accord, it appears that UAIC has achieved several
primary goals. First, UAIC has implemented a 3‐cycle degree program with a 3 year Bachelor’s
degree. Second, UAIC appears to be on the path to greater transparency and transferability
having adopted ECTS and DS as intended by the Bologna Accord. What remains and the subject
of the next section is discussion of student preparation of the new three‐year bachelor’s degree,
determining if the degree of achievement relative to obtaining parity to Anglo‐American
curriculum levels has been attained.
Student Preparation under the New Three‐Year Bachelor Degree in Marketing Exhibit 2 shows the degree requirements pre‐ and post‐Bologna for graduation with a bachelor’s
degree with a concentration in Marketing at UAIC. Faced with the task of changing a four ‐year
degree curriculum to a three‐year degree, faculty of FEAA had two methods to consider. The
first method would involve shortening the curriculum by paring down the number of courses.
This could be accomplished in a variety of ways, such as combining the content for two similar
courses into one and/or eliminating courses that were deemed non‐critical to the achievement
of the degree. The second method would be to change the focus of the three‐year degree by
reserving some upper division, capstone and seminar‐type courses for study at the Master’s
level.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
86 Teal et al.
The faculty at FEAA used a mixture of both methods with varied outcomes. However, prior to
discussing these outcomes, it is of interest to note that although the Bologna Accord mandated
shrinkage from a four to a three year degree program, UAIC chose to increase required foreign
language credits from 24 to 30, with apparently little difference in course content and hours of
study. This seems like a move in the wrong direction since these language credits could have
been used to add more analytical courses to the curriculum or to preserve courses such as
Marketing Management that were dropped.
In a positive move, the Faculty at FEAA chose to combine Principles of Law with Business Law
and retain the latter in the new three‐year program. However, all marketing and business
electives were eliminated. Instead, two popular electives, Merchandising and E‐Marketing, were
made required courses. Further, at the time the Bologna Accord was adopted at UAIC, the
curriculum was already in the process of revision to remove courses with a managerial
perspective. As such, the following courses were dropped from the Marketing degree program:
Total Quality Management, Business Diagnosis, and Project Management.
Some courses were re‐named and/or repositioned. For example, Negotiation Techniques
became Selling Techniques, a course more focused on personal selling skills. In a similar vein,
Distribution and Logistics became Marketing Logistics. A single, seemingly adequate course
titled Advertising and Promotions became two courses, Promotion Techniques and Advertising
Design. The content of the latter course was tailored toward teaching students how to develop
graphics and visuals. The rationale explained for this one‐to‐two course change was to give
students a more hands‐on approach to developing communications pieces, brochures, and
flyers, and graphic design applications including printing, layout and design. However, these
manual skills development curriculum changes combined with the addition of Merchandising
and E‐marketing classes, signal to the employment marketplace that the new three‐year
bachelor’s degree prepares students to enter positions of a more vocational nature than those
with a more managerial emphasis. This is decidedly a major departure from the type of
curriculum development in U.S. universities that promotes managerial approaches with more of
an analytical emphasis.
The most dramatic changes involve other upper‐division and capstone marketing courses. For
example, eliminated from the three‐year bachelor’s degree and moved to the master’s level of
study are Sales Force Management, Services Marketing, Public Relations, Marketing
Management, and Senior Seminar in Marketing. While it could be argued that the first three
courses could be properly listed as upper‐division Marketing electives and thus could be
eliminated from the three‐year program, eliminating the latter two, Marketing Management
and Senior Seminar in Marketing, seems to promote a vocational rather than a managerial
perspective.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
87 Teal et al.
Business Information SystemsBusiness Calculus & AlgebraMicroeconomicsPrinciples of AccountingForeign Lang. 1st (Engl./Fr.)
Business Information SystemsBusiness Calculus & AlgebraMicroeconomicsPrinciples of AccountingForeign Language 1st (Engl./Fr.)Business Law >>a
MacroeconomicsBusiness SoftwarePrinciples of StatisticsForeign Lang. 1st (Engl./Fr.)Principles of Law >>aBusiness Elective ><
MacroeconomicsBusiness SoftwarePrinciples of StatisticsForeign Language 1st (Engl./Fr.)Financial AccountingINTERNSHIP
Principles of FinancePrinciples of ManagementFinancial AccountingBusiness Law >>aForeign Lang. 1st (Engl./Fr.)
Principles of FinancePrinciples of ManagementEconometricsForeign Language 1st (Engl./Fr.)Business Communications >>bMerchandising >>f
Principles of MarketingMoney and Banking
EconometricsForeign Lang. 1st (Engl./Fr.)
Business Elective >>bBusiness Elective ><INTERNSHIP
Principles of MarketingMoney and BankingForeign Language 1st (Engl./Fr.)Consumer BehaviorPromotion Techniques >>cINTERNSHIP
Marketing ResearchConsumer BehaviorServices Marketing -->Advertising & Promotions >>cForeign Lang. 2nd (It/Sp/Grm)Business Elective ><
Marketing ResearchAdvertising Design ++Selling Techniques >>eDirect MarketingForeign Language 2nd (It/Sp)Purchasing
Sales Force Management -->Direct MarketingDistribution and Logistics >>dMarketing Management -->Foreign Lang. 2nd (It/Sp/Grm)Business Elective ><INTERNSHIP
International MarketingMarketing Logistics >>dE-Marketing ++Int’l Trade Techniques ++Foreign Language 2nd (It/Sp)Financial Management ++THESIS
PurchasingPublic Relations -->International MarketingTotal Quality Management ><Foreign Lang. 2nd (It/Sp/Grm)Senior Seminar in Mktg -->Business Elective ><
THESIS
Business Diagnosis ><Project Management -->Negotiation Techniques >>eSenior Seminar in Mktg -->Marketing Elective >>fMarketing Elective ><Business Elective ><
3+2 7
3+2 72+2 6
1+1 3
2+2 6
2+2 6
1+1 33+2 7
2+0 42+0 4
3+2 7
3+2 6
2+2 43+2 6
1+1 3
2+2 6
2+2 6
2+2 61+1 3
2+0 62+0 6 2
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
2+2 6
2+2 5
2+2 52+1 5
1+1 52+0 5
2+2 5
2+1 5
0+2 52+1 5
2+1 32+1 32+0 3
2+2 5
2+1 52+1 5
0+2 30+2 52+0 3
2+1 5
2+1 5
2+2 5
2+2 52+2 5
1+1 42+0 4 2
2+1 5
2+2 5
2+1 52+1 5
1+2 52+1 5
2+2 5
2+1 5
2+1 52+2 5
1+2 52+1 5
2+2 5
2+2 5
2+2 52+2 5
1+1 52+0 5
2+2 5
2+2 5
1+1 52+2 5
2+2 5 5
2+2 5
2+2 5
2+2 51+1 5
2+2 5 5
2+2 5
2+2 5
1+1 52+2 5
2+2 52+2 5
2+2 5
CURRICULUM for Marketing programs at CUZA UniversityExhibit 2.
4-YEAR PROGRAM 3-YEAR PROGRAM
cred
its
cd
/yr
rts
cd
/yr
rts.
cred
its
hrs/w
eek*
hrs/w
eek*
1-st
sem
este
r2-
nd
sem
este
r3-
rd s
emes
ter
4-th
sem
este
r5-
th s
emes
ter
6-th
sem
este
r7-
th s
emes
ter
8-th
sem
este
r
*) “Hours/week” column indicates the number of weekly hours each course is taught in two components : LECTURE and SEMINAR. For example, ”2+1” indicates that a course is taught with 2 lecture hours and 1 seminar hour.
><) Courses that have been completely removed from Marketing Bachelor program.
>>) Courses that have been transferred into the 3-year program, with a different name. Correspondence is indicated by letters.
++) Courses that are new into the 3-year program.
-->) Courses that have been transferred into the post-Bologna Master in Marketing programs.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
88 Teal et al.
Elimination of these courses serves to diminish the capstone experience of earning a bachelor’s
degree in Marketing. While these curriculum changes advocate preparation, and are fitting
within the scope of the Bologna Accord, they represent a fundamental departure from the
emphasis of most Anglo‐American programs that have a managerial emphasis.
Achieving parity with Anglo‐American institutions of higher education One of the main thrusts under the Bologna Accord was to enable higher education institutions
(HEI’s) under the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) to move closer to obtaining parity
with HEI’s particularly in U.S. (King and Verblik, 2007). The third priority within the EHEA
framework calls for quality assurance promoted through cooperation among international and
European associations of higher learning. Some education providers see this as a continuing
trend toward the “Americanization” of European HEI’s as few reforms are imported by U.S. HEI’s
(Lillie, 2007; Tillman, 2010). The next section of this paper compares the curricula of two state
universities in the U.S. with the new three year curriculum set by UAIC.
The authors chose two public universities for which they had ready access to the curriculum
data necessary to make comparisons. North Georgia College & State University (NGCSU) is
located in Dahlonega, GA and is a small regional university that is a part of the University System
of Georgia. NGCSU has a student population of 5,030 which includes 920 business majors
studying in the Mike Cottrell School of Business, of which 180 students are majoring in
marketing. Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU), a medium sized university and member of the
State University System of Florida, is located in Fort Myers, FL. It has 8,400 students which
includes 3,480 studying in the Lutgert School of Business with about 600 marketing majors.
Please see Exhibit 3 for the comparison of Marketing curricula for bachelor’s degrees at NGCSU
and FGCU.
A comparison of Exhibits 2 and 3 is revealing. There is a notable difference between the two
through the absence of any liberal arts requirements for UAIC students. Recognizable is the
similarity of the curricula in terms of content and course coverage at NGCSU and FGCU. At
NGCSU, the Marketing program consists of the six courses shown in Exhibit 3, and one
additional course ─ Marketing Special Topics or a related elective. At FGCU, in addition to the
courses listed, there are additional marketing electives (e.g., Services Marketing, Creative
Strategy, Promotional Writing and Design, and Sales Management) that allow students to
customize their degrees. Both NGCSU and FGCU programs have essentially the same content
and course coverage for the business core, quantitative applications, required Marketing
courses, and electives. Additionally, NGCSU and FGCU both have Business Strategy and
Marketing Management capstone courses, a notable difference between these U.S. universities
and the new three‐year Marketing program at UAIC.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
89 Teal et al.
English Composition 1AlgebraPsycholog 1001yNatural Science LabForeign Language ElectivePsysical Education
English Composition 1Elementary CalculusVisual and Performing ArtsNatural Sciences ElectiveHumanities Elective
English Composition 2Computer UserNatural Science LabSocial Sciences ElectiveForeign Language
English Composition 2Computer UserStatistical MethodsSocial Sciences ElectiveNatural Sciences Elective
Principles of AccountingMicroeconomicsHumanities ElectiveSocial Sciences ElectiveHumanities Elective
Principles of AccountingMicroeconomicsHumanities ElectiveSocial Sciences ElectiveHumanities Elective
Financial AccountingMacroeconomics
Applied CalculusBusiness Communications
Social Sciences Elective
Financial AccountingMacroeconomicsPublic SpeakingApplied CalculusSocial Sciences Elective
Principles of MarketingPrinciples of ManagementPrinciples of FinanceBus. Statistics/ Prod. Mgmt.Social Sciences Elective
Principles of MarketingPrinciples of ManagementPrinciples of FinanceEnvironmental StrategySocial Sciences Elective
Consumer BehaviorRetailingOperations ManagementBusiness LawMoney and Banking
Consumer BehaviorBusiness CommunicationsOperations ManagementLegal and Ethical EnvironmentBusiness Finance
AdvertisingPersonal SellingMarketing ResearchStatisticsBusiness Elective
Marketing ManagementBusiness StrategyInternational MarketingBusiness ElectiveMarketing Elective
AdvertisingPersonal SellingMarketing ResearchStatisticsMktg./Sociology Elective
Marketing ManagementBusiness StrategyInternational BusinessGeneral ElectiveGeneral Elective
3 3
4 41 1
3 33 3
3 3
3 3
3 34 4
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 33 3
3 3
3 3
33
30
30
30 30
30
30
30
3 3
3 33 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 33 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 33 3
3 3
3 3
3 33 33 3
3 33 3
3 33 33 3
3 33 3
3 33 33 3
3 33 3
3 33 33 3
3 33 3
3 33 33 3
3 33 3
3 33 33 3
3 33 3
3 33 33 3
3 33 3
3 33 33 3
3 33 3
3 33 33 3
3 33 3
3 3
3 33 3
3 3
3 3
CURRICULUM for Marketing programs at NGCSU and FGCUExhibit 3.
NGCSU PROGRAM
cred
its
cd
/yr
rts
cd
/yr
rts.
cred
its
hrs/w
eek
hrs/w
eek
1-st
sem
este
r2-
nd
sem
este
r3-
rd s
emes
ter
4-th
sem
este
r5-
th s
emes
ter
6-th
sem
este
r7-
th s
emes
ter
8-th
sem
este
r
FGCU PROGRAM
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
90 Teal et al.
Closer scrutiny in this area reveals that, in the absence of a liberal arts requirement, the
business and economics faculty of UAIC could have assembled a three‐year Marketing
curriculum that would have much more closely replicated that of NGCSU or FGCU. The
modifications could have been implemented in compliance with the Bologna Accord three‐year
degree, without sacrificing upper‐division and capstone Marketing and Business Strategy
courses. Achieving comparability and parity with Anglo‐American curricula is a goal of the
Bologna Accord. Based on the curricula comparisons observed between Exhibits 2 and 3, it
appears that the curriculum changes currently instituted for marketing majors at UAIC with the
object of achieving parity with Anglo‐American HEI’s may fall short of that goal.
On the face, the new three‐year degree curriculum at UAIC seems more targeted for vocational
rather than managerial entry level positions. Analyzing the curriculum changes at one university
in Romania in response to the Bologna Accord is an indicator of one country’s efforts to achieve
higher education reform. While the reforms do not seem to achieve all of the intended goals,
the curriculum changes as reported may, in fact, be suitable for meeting the demand for
business graduates in the Romanian employer marketplace. Ultimately it is this group that will
decide whether these graduates are sufficiently prepared for the workplace.
Discussion The Bologna Accord has ushered in sweeping educational reforms that have given European
higher education a new identity, one that may not be completely formed for some time to
come. At the international and national levels, progress can be measured in the success that
almost all members have adopted and use the ECTS and DS. These measures helped restructure
and organize what were historically diverse education systems ─ enhancing the transparency
and transferability, boosting mobility and global acceptance. At the institutional level, some
universities, UAIC a case in point, still struggle with the concept of competitiveness, an idea that
remains in opposition with many academics and practitioners. However, based on the ten‐year
success of the Bologna Accord, a new wind may be blowing across campuses internationally as
15 countries outside the EHEA, including the U.S., attended the 2009 biennial meeting of the
European Commission Ministers of Education to initiate a global dialogue on higher education
(European Commission, 2009; Hunter, 2010). The Bologna Accord brought wide‐sweeping
changes to the educational landscape in the EU, and it is incumbent that universities outside
the EU understand the impact of the changes. These major changes are influential to the
qualifications of EU higher education applicants for employment and/or admission to study
programs abroad.
Limitations of this Study The Bologna Accord with 29 member signing nations in 1999 launched a series of higher
education initiatives that have been in a state of development since European Higher Education
Area’s inception. The EHEA has grown to 46 nations representing over 31 million students at
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
91 Teal et al.
5600 colleges and universities, and is on target to achieve full Bologna Accord implementation
by the end of 2010. New member countries, including Romania, have joined the EU and thus
come under the guidance of the EHEA. As a result, this is a study of an evolving program of
higher education with an increasing number of participants. While a more precise analysis of
Bologna Accord effects and implementation could be made at some date following full
implementation in 2010, the pressing need for this information to be disseminated would be
forfeited. Therefore, the authors believe that a current review of the status of BA and its
implementation in Romania is informative for the educational and industrial communities.
Future Research Although it seems that genuine curriculum reform is occurring at many universities, at others
the reform process has been more of structural processes, and for a few only cosmetic in
nature. While it is difficult to offer generalizations about curriculum reform in the EHEA, this
situation presents opportunity for further research exploring the curricula at universities where
Bologna Accord mediated changes have been in place long enough to make valid comparisons.
Some of the inquiries that could generate worthwhile research could address, for example, does
a three‐year bachelor degree offer enough preparation? Does the three‐year bachelor degree
lead graduates to seek entry into master’s programs prematurely? These and many other
research questions need to be addressed not only in the context of higher education, but also in
public, private and professional sectors as well. After all, one test of the academic preparation a
university provides is how its graduates actually perform in their chosen fields.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
92 Teal et al.
Appendix A.
Education Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)
The Education Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) was designed taking into
consideration the workload students must carry during a degree program:
ECTS is based on the principle where 60 credits correspond to the workload of a full‐time
student during one academic year. The student workload of a full‐time study program in
Europe amounts in most cases to approximately 1500‐1800 hours per year, and one credit has
the equivalent of 25 to 30 working hours.
Credits in ECTS can only be obtained after successful completion of the work required and
appropriate assessment of the learning outcomes achieved. Learning outcomes are sets of
competences, expressing what the student will know, understand or be able to do after
completion of a specified course.
Student workload in ECTS consists of the time required to complete all planned learning
activities, such as attending lectures and seminars, independent and private study, and
preparation of projects and for examinations.
Credits are allocated to all educational components of a study program, (e.g., modules,
courses, seminars, placements, dissertation work, etc.) and reflect the quantity of work each
component requires to achieve its specific objectives or learning outcomes in relation to the
total quantity of work necessary to successfully complete a full year of study.
The performance of the student may be documented by a local or national grade, but
universities that use such methods must also state grades according to the ECTS standard. The
ECTS standard grading scale ranks students in a class on a statistical basis. Grades are assigned
among students as follows: Best 10%=A, Next 25%=B, Next 30%=C, Next 25%=D, Lowest 10%=E.
Universities are required to develop and provide three supporting documents to be used in
conjunction with ECTS which include:
A Course Catalogue of the institution published in the national language ‘and’ in English (or English only for programs taught in English) on the school’s website and/or in hard copy in one
or more booklets, including information for host students from abroad.
Learning Agreement that contains the list of courses to be taken with the Education Credit
Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits to be awarded for each course. This list
must be agreed to by the student and the responsible academic body of the institution
concerned. In the case of credit transfer, the Learning Agreement must be agreed to by the
student and the two institutions concerned before the student’s departure, and must be
updated immediately if necessary changes occur.
A Transcript of Records that documents the performance of the student by showing the list of
courses taken, the ECTS credits gained local or national credits, local grades, and possibly ECTS
grades awarded. In the case of credit transfer, the Transcript of Records has to be issued by
the home institution for outgoing students before departure, and by the host institution for
incoming students at the end of their period of study.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
93 Teal et al.
Appendix B.
Diploma Supplement
This Diploma Supplement follows the model developed by the European Commission, Council of Europe and UNESCO/CEPES. The purpose of the supplement is to provide sufficient independent data to improve the international ‘transparency’ and fair academic and professional recognition of qualifications (diplomas, degrees, certificates etc.). It is designed to provide a description of the nature, level, context, content and status of the studies that were pursued and successfully completed by the individual named on the original qualification to which this supplement is appended. It should be free from any value judgments, equivalence statements or suggestions about recognition. Information in all eight sections should be provided. Where information is not provided, an explanation should give the reason why.
1. Information identifying the holder of the qualification
1.1 Family name(s): 1.2 Given name(s):
1.3 Date of birth (day/month/year): 1.4 Student identification number or code (if available):
2. Information identifying the qualification
2.1 Name of qualification and (if applicable) title conferred (in original language): 2.2 Main field(s) of study for the qualification: 2.3 Name and status of awarding institution (in original language):
2.4 Name and status of institution (if different from 2.3) administering studies (in original language): 2.5 Language(s) of instruction/examination:
3. Information on the level of the qualification
3.1 Level of qualification: 3.2 Official length of programme:
3.3 Access requirements(s)
4. Information on the contents and results gained
4.1 Mode of study: 4.2 Programme requirements: 4.3 Programme details: (e.g. modules or units studied), and the individual grades/marks/credits obtained: (if this information is available on an official transcript this should be used here)
4.4 Grading scheme and, if available, grade distribution guidance: 4.5 Overall classification of the qualification (in original language):
5. Information on the function of the qualification
5.1 Access to further study: 5.2 Professional status (if applicable):
6. Additional information
6.1 Additional information: 6.2 Further information sources:
7. Certification of the Supplement
7.1 Date: 7.2 Signature:
7.3 Capacity: 7.4 Official stamp or seal:
8. Information on the national higher education system
(Institutions who intend to issue Diploma Supplements should refer to the explanatory notes that explain how to complete them.)
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
94 Teal et al.
References
Bekhradnia, Bahram (2004). Credit Accumulation and Transfer, and the Bologna Process: An
Overview. Higher Education Policy Institute (Oct) 5‐19.
Burnett, John (2007). Tilling the Soil of the European Higher Education Area. Educational Action
Research, 15 (June), 283 – 293.
European Commission (2002). Progress Report (Bologna): From Prague to Berlin: the EU
Contribution. Brussels. Accessed on November 18, 2009. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/rec_qual/recognition/diploma.
European Commission (2003). Realizing the European Higher Education Area. Berlin. Accessed
on November 16, 2007. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/
bologna/berlin2003.
European Commission (2005.) The Bologna Process: Education & Training. Bergen. Accessed on
November 16, 2009. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/bologna.
European Commission (2007). Towards the European Higher Education Area: Responding to
Challenges in a Globalized World. London. Accessed on November 18, 2009. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/report06.pdf.
European Commission (2009). Bologna Process ─ All set for the next decade. Leuven─Louvain‐la‐
Neuve, Belgium. Accessed on November 21, 2009. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/educ/bologna/1357.
European Commission (2010). Lifelong Learning Policy and Programme. Seville. Accessed on
May 17, 2010. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong‐learning‐
policy/doc62_en.htm.
Field, Heather (2003). Integrating Tertiary Education in Europe. Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 58 (January), 182‐195.
Grange, Thierry (2007). European Wings: Integrating European Education for Citizens Who Are
Grounded in Local Culture and Prepared to Soar Internationally. BizEd, (May‐June), 29‐
36.
Hunter, Fiona (2010). Bologna Beyond 2010: Looking Backward, Looking Forward. International
Educator, 19(2), Apr‐May, 60‐68.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
95 Teal et al.
Jacobs, Bas and Frederick van der Ploeg (2006). Guide to Reform of Higher Education: a
European Perspective. Economic Policy Review, (July), 535–592.
King, Roger and Line Verblik’ (2007). European Higher Education in an Era of Change and
Reform. European Policy Analyst, (July), 40‐47.
Koch, Adam (1997). “Marketing Curriculum: Designing its New Logic and Structure,” Journal of
Marketing Education, (Fall), 2‐16.
Lillie, Elisabeth (2003). Quality and Accreditation in Europe. In Eggins, H. (Ed.) Globalization and
Reform in Higher Education, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Marga, Andrei (2008). The University of the 21st Century: Challenges. Studia Europaea
Universitatis Babes‐Bolyai, 53(1), 5‐39.
Newby, Howard (1999). Culture and quality in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 12,
261‐75.
Scott, Philip, (1998). Massification, Internationalization and Globalization. In Scott, P. (Ed.). The
Globalisation of Higher Education, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Tillman, Martin (2010). Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution.
International Educator, 19(3), Jun, 20‐27.
Zamagni, Stefano and Zamagni, Vera (2010). Cooperative Enterprise: Facing the Challenges of
Globalization, Northampton, UK: Elgar Publishing.
Zervakis, Peter and Marijke Wahlers (2007). Education for Sustainable Development in the
Bologna Process, BNE Journal, 20 (May). Accessed November 14, 2009. Available at
http://www.bne‐
ortal.de/coremedia/generator/pm/en/Issue001/01Contributions/ZervakisWahlers.
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
96
American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011
97
ACADEMIC JOURNALS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION American Journal of Business Research ISSN: 1934‐6484
Aims & Scope:
The Journal publishes original theory, conceptual development, and empirical quantitative and
qualitative research in areas such as: supply chain management, quality management,
marketing, economics, econometrics, management information systems, information
technology, decision support systems, project management, process management, group and
individual behavior, health care management, quantitative methods, operations management,
operations research, systems development, social and cultural issues in organizations, ethical
issues in business, international management, international and comparative aspects of
business. Manuscripts with international content or relevance are especially welcome.
American Journal of Educational Studies ISSN: 1934‐6476 Aims & Scope: American Journal of Educational Studies is a publication of AmHighEd, the American Institute of Higher Education. The Journal publishes original theory, conceptual development, and empirical quantitative and qualitative research in all areas related to technical, vocational and academic education, with a particular focus on STEM‐based post secondary education, business, and community college education. Manuscripts with international content or relevance are especially welcome.