Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320109601303

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Creation and Assessment of an Integrated
Business Course: One College's Experience
Linda S. Hartenian , Michael Schellenger & Paul Frederickson
To cite this article: Linda S. Hartenian , Michael Schellenger & Paul Frederickson (2001)
Creation and Assessment of an Integrated Business Course: One College's Experience, Journal
of Education for Business, 76:3, 149-159, DOI: 10.1080/08832320109601303
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320109601303

Published online: 31 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]

Date: 13 January 2016, At: 17:34

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:34 13 January 2016

Creation and Assessment of an
Integrated Business Course:
One College’s Experience

zyxw
zyxwvut

LINDA S. HARTENIAN
MICHAEL SCHELLENGER
PAUL FREDERICKSON

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin

B

usiness schools historically have
designed course work for majors
that reflect traditional forms of orgmizational structure and functions. Training is
offered in specific disciplines (e.g.,
accounting, finance, human resources,
management, management information
systems, marketing, operations), providing business students with a thorough
grounding in their respective disciplines,
but also resulting in what has been
termed a “silo” mentality.
In response to their rapidly changing
external environments, organizations
gradually adopted mechanisms to foster
timely decisionmaking processes and
ensure broad-based input. The continuum has ranged from integrative tools

(e.g., liaisons), to multidiscipline problem-solving teams (e.g., cross-functional
work teams), to fully integrated teambased structures. Even with the latter,
employees generally maintain an affinity
with their functional background,
remaining “experts” in their chosen field.
Business schools lagged in their
response to organizational needs for
graduates who possessed basic skills
(e.g., business writing, project management) and who had a good grounding in
all aspects of organizational operations.
Certainly a place exists for traditionally
trained business students (i.e., specialists in functional areas). However, we
hear the business community calling for

ABSTRACT. This article reports on
an Integrated Business Course (IBC)
at the College of Business Administration. The IBC’s goal is to provide
business students with an understanding of the integrated nature of organizational functions; it uses student
teams for project management. Using
a semester-long case representing typical issues facing a family-owned firm

in today’s auto replacement parts
industry, we created incidents that
required individual and project team
activities-strategic decisionmaking,
implementation challenges, and operational issues. Students were assigned
to one cross-functional project team
for the semester and to roles that
changed for each incident. Our article
describes instructional and administrative issues and multiple methods of
assessing the IBC’s effectiveness.

need for an integrated business course
and present instructional and administrative issues in its planning and implementation. Finally, using Kirkpatrick’s
(1987) typology for evaluating training
program effectiveness, we provide an
assessment of the IBC by students, faculty, and others.

zyxwv

zyx

zyxw
zyxwvut

a new graduate-one who possesses a
more interdisciplinary understanding of
the organization.
Business schools are beginning to
address concerns of employers that span
a continuum, from projects (Cooper,
Griffin, & Malone, 1996) to redesigning
an entire curriculum (Watkins, 1996). In
this article, we highlight the experience
of three faculty members (faculty team)
from multiple disciplines within the
College of Business Administration
(COBA) as they designed and implemented a capstone integrated business
course (IBC). We explain development
of the IBC in response to a perceived

Creating a Capstone Integrated

Business Course

Need for Integrated Business
Knowledge and Course Development

Several COBA faculty perceived the
need for an integrated business experience for our students, given the limits of
the students’ capabilities and the recognition that the college’s policy/strategy
course had evolved over the years from a
capstone course to a management strategy course. Additional input was sought
from business leaders in our community.
In August 1997, a focus group with
members from the Business Advisory
Board discussed what employers were
witnessing about our current graduates.
An overwhelming theme was the need
for graduates to be well grounded in all
aspects of a business/organization (see
Table 1 for a summary).
Recognizing the potential for several

positive outcomes from an interdisciplinary course (Newell, 1994; Newell &

January/February 2001

149

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:34 13 January 2016

Davis, 1988), a multigroup of COBA
faculty established IBC goals that
included the following:
1. Exposure of students to common
organizational dilemmas that span multiple disciplines and functions
2. Student engagement iin decisionmaking that recognizes and considers
multiple organizational and societal
issues
3. Applications of knowledge gained
in general business and business core
courses
4. Development of broad-based

knowledge of organizational activities
5. Development of critical thinking
skills
6. Development of problem-solving
skills
7. Development of oral and written
communication skills
8. Development of interpersonal
skills and
9. Development of students' self-confidence about their level of knowledge,
skills, and abilities

content. All three team members solicited input from faculty in the six COBA
majors, asking them what knowledge,
skill, and abilities they thought a student
(not majoring in their field) should have
upon graduation.
Believing in the strength of the case
method (Festervard & Hill, 1993;
Mintzberg, Quinn, & Voyer, 1995), the

faculty team found itself in the awkward
position of having to create the semester-long case. We considered several
industries and selected a manufacturing
sector focus. We settled on the automotive parts industry because it would
expand the base knowledge in some
way for each of the faculty team members. Other factors that influenced this
choice included regional access to automotive and other manufacturing firms
so that the faculty team (and students)
could develop a core understanding of
manufacturing processes and industry
issues relevant to the case. Armed with
previous classroom experience with
small and large case studies, the faculty
team wrote the comprehensive case.
We created a company history for
Wiota Manufacturing, a family-owned
firm in the automotive replacement
parts industry. The general background
and company history included information about the production facility, man-

ufacturing processes, customer base,
and market dynamics. The family history summarized information about ownership, family involvement in operations, and family conflicts over the
management of Wiota and drew upon
the social, economic, and historical
background of the United States. The
financial history was a composite of
information from real firms in the automotive industry, and employee characteristics reflected similar-sized firms.
Two incidents were developed, one
focusing on strategy formation and one
on strategy implementation. The incidents provided students with new, upto-date information about Wiota and
required them to complete research on
the current auto industry. To gain the
necessary background for Incident no.
1, students completed research on 10
external environments (Daft, 1995) for
the auto industry: raw materials, human
resources, financial resources, market,
technology, economic, government,
sociocultural, international, and industry. To gain the necessary background
for Incident no. 2, students completed

more focused research on a particular
international market. We intentionally
chose guest speakers from local firms
and created hypothetical incidents
around those firms.

zyx

zyx
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrq
zy
zy
zyxwvutsrq

A subset of three faculty members
from Managemenmuman Resources,
Finance, and Law (the faculty team)
subsequently wrote a proposal for a prototype IBC that was supported by
COBA's dean for further development
and implementation (also see later sections on Administrative Issues and
Other Faculty Concerns). The faculty
team recognized that multiple challenges existed, grouped broadly into
curriculum and faculty issues. The IBC
curriculum and pedagogy had to make
students think in an interdisciplinary
manner, and faculty would have to teach
from an interdisciplinary perspective.

TABLE 1. College of Business Administration: Confidential Student
Opinion Survey (Fall 1998)

Selection (from Appendix B)a

Survey item

1. Class standing (%)
2. How course was taken (%)
3. Hours studied for course (%)
4.My cumulative GPA (%)

(a)

(b)

(C)

(4

(el

5
27

9
64
50

91
32
14
23

9
68

9

The Integrated Business Course (IBC)

The faculty team simultaneously
undertook several preliminary activities.
One team member searched for existing
interdisciplinary cases from college
textbook publishers and COBA faculty
but could find none, a dilemma experienced by others (Sorenson & Wittmer,
1996). Another team member reviewed
the teaching literature to learn about
experiences with integrative efforts;
however, those did not include the actual case or delineate the actual course

150

Journal of Education for Business

5. Course difficulty
6. Course enjoyment
7. Increase in knowledge
8. Value of knowledge gained
9. Clarity and organization
10. Has command of subject
11. Fair and reasonable test
12. Show concern for student
13. Overall rating

M

SD

2.95
3.50
3.18
3.32
3.75
4.06
4.13
3.95
3.75

0.95
1.06
1.01
1.25
1.07
.80
.99
.95
.9 1

"Refer to Appendix B for students' answers to survey items shown.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:34 13 January 2016

zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwv

Roles and teams. The faculty team felt
that students should have an opportunity to work individually as well as in
teams during the IBC. To address concerns that our graduates should be able
to talk to persons in other disciplines,
we challenged students to recall their
general education and core course
knowledge by assigning them roles that
placed them in disciplines that were not
their major. By doing so, students were
required to think about how persons in
those disciplines would approach the
incidents, presumably broadening their
understanding of the integrative nature
of organizations. Others have noted that
successful implementation of an integrated perspective will require managers to have different skills than those
required in the traditional technical
sense (Bilimoria, 1995; Mosca &
Howard, 1997; Oliver, 1990). Because
interactions with peers have a tremendous impact on students (Astin, 1992),
students were encouraged to talk to others in the same role (but from different
teams). Students completed their own
Role Reports and received individual
grades. Then, to further develop their
integrative understanding, the students
served as members of a cross-functional
team assigned responsibility for arriving
at a solution to each incident.
The students’ experiences were crossfunctional in two ways. First, students
were combined into teams of six or less,
each representing one of COBAs
majors (i.e., accounting, human
resources, finance, marketing, management information systems, operations
management). Next, they were assigned
roles outside their majors so they would
be required to draw on business core
knowledge. Thus, different functional
disciplines were actually represented
(i.e., student major), as well as hypothetically represented (i.e., each incident required responses from each functional discipline). In addressing the case
incidents, students had to consider the
impact that any solution would have on
a particular function, as well as potential conflicts that would occur between
functional disciplines. At this point in
each incident, students could draw on
their functional expertise (their majors),
as well as knowledge gained when
researching their role, to assist their

teams in determining a solution. To
incorporate diversity in the team stmcture (Muller, 1989), student teams were
balanced for major and gender. Students
remained in their cross-functional team
for the entire semester and received different individual role assignments that
varied for each incident.

Instructional Issues

Several issues were addressed as the
course pedagogy began to take shape: a
time line for student activities, involvement of business professionals, and
evaluation mechanisms (refer to Assessment of the IBC, below). The time line
was created as the case and incidents
were created. During fall 1998, 2 weeks
were reserved for team training and a
review of strategy and the external environment. The students then completed
three incidents, each taking about 4
weeks. The faculty team later learned
that students felt unprepared for the IBC
incidents and subsequently allowed
more preparatory activities and introduction. In spring 1999, the number of
incidents was reduced to two to allow
the students more in-class processing
time. All subsequent course offerings
have used only two incidents.
To broaden the connection between
the university and the surrounding community, conceptualization, design, and
implementation of the IBC necessarily
involved professionals outside the faculty team. Other faculty input was sought
to ensure that basic disciplinary concepts were included in the case. Input
from professionals in community organizations was elicited to enhance the
generalizability of the case and incidents
and to develop important networking
opportunities for faculty and students.
Other faculty and community representatives served as resource persons for the
students and the faculty team during the
semester and were invited to provide
feedback on student oral and written
presentations of project outcomes.

to delineate the criteria and process for
course evaluation. To receive university
funding for the development and implementation of the IBC, COBA had to
commit up-front dollars to the faculty
team to teach the IBC during its third
and fourth offerings (semesters). COBA
also had to accept that the “success” of
the IBC’s first two offerings would be
determined by a university-level committee. Although approval was received,
when evaluation of the IBC occurred
after the second offering, the COBA
wanted a greater role in determining
whether the IBC should be offered a
third and fourth time. Those discussions
were particularly draining for the faculty team because questions were raised
regarding how such a creative endeavor
could be adequately evaluated, and the
subsequent funding was thus jeopardized. The faculty team wrote its final
report following the first 2 semesters to
justify 2 subsequent semester offerings
using evaluation tools previously agreed
upon. The IBC was subsequently
offered for a total of four course offerings over 2 academic years.
The second challenge came during
the final offering of the IBC. Though
the individual faculty team members
recognized how they had grown professionally during development and implementation of the IBC, they were ready
to have closure on the IBC. The course
had been taught as an overload, placing
demands on peoples’ time and schedules, and its novelty had waned. The
AACSB accreditation team, however,
cited the IBC in November 1999 as one
of COBA’s innovative efforts, giving
new impetus to its continuation. The
faculty team has been working with the
policy/strategy faculty to determine
how the IBC might survive beyond the
initial 2-year offering.

zyxwvutsr
zyx

Administration Issues
At two points administrative issues
presented challenges for the faculty
team: In the preliminary development of
the IBC proposal, the faculty team had

Assessment of the IBC
Methodical and intentional assessment of the IBC was motivated by three
forces. First, COBA is developing/
implementing assessment activities for
all majors. Second, assessment was
required by the funding sources for continued financial support of the IBC.
Finally, one of us is particularly interested in performance appraisal (and cre-

zyx

January/February 2001

151

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:34 13 January 2016

zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqp
z
difficulty (M = 2.95), students offered
many negative written comments, such
as “the workload was ridiculous” and “a
good class, however, just a bit too much
required for a senior student toward the
end of their final semester.” Similarly, an
above-average rating for question 11
regarding fair and reasonable tests (M=
4.13) was countered by negative comments on clarity of expectations for Role
and Team Reports. Comments included,
“did not get enough information about
what was expected on some parts of the
project” and “outlines for paper were not
always clear.”
As part of the assessment activities
during the first semester, the faculty
team created two special evaluation
forms-the
Student Evaluation of
Course and the Survey of Self Development. Students were asked to rate the
IBC on whether it had achieved its
goals (refer to Table 2). Despite an
above-average score for “requiring students to think critically,” student written comments about this goal were generally negative.
Regarding written communication
skills and interpersonal skill development, students responded that the course
was too unstructured and the associated
uncertainty left them frustrated. Such a
sentiment is relatively common even
among more structured courses. However, the IBC essentially required the students to plan and manage a project (i.e.,
arrive at a solution to an incident). Identifying the tasks needed to successfully
complete the project created a great deal
of anxiety on the part of some students,
including concern and frustration with
grading. One student commented that
the team’s creativity was limited because
members spent so much time trying to
figure out what the professors wanted.
Another felt that the work was not prop-

atioddissemination of evaluation criteria). Hence, these forces combined to
focus the Faculty team’s attention on a
methodical approach to assessment.
Evaluation criteria for assessing the
effectiveness of the IBC were created
(see Tables 2-7).
Assessment Using Kirkpatrick’s
Typology

According to Kirkpatrick’s (1987)
typology, (program) effectiveness can
be measured by (a) participant reactions
(e.g., student evaluations), (b) change in
knowledge (learning), (c) change in
behavior on the job (i.e., transfer of
training), and (d) results (e.g., increased
organizational effectiveness). The four
techniques require increasingly sophisticated methods of measurement, with
the first one being the easiest to measure
(though often a personality contest;
Clayson & Haley, 1990) and the fourth
factor the most difficult. Historically,
faculty members have relied heavily on
the first factor to measure effectiveness
of classroom instruction. The faculty
team moved beyond sole reliance on
student evaluations to determine effectiveness of the IBC. Student reactions to
the IBC and changes in knowledge were
evaluated through traditional methods,
and changes in behavior and results
were evaluated through methods appropriate for an educational setting.

erly rewarded. When the faculty team
explained that Role Reports and Team
Reports were graded as if the projects
had been completed and presented in a
real organization, students shared their
dismay that this was how “professionalism” was being defined. On the other
hand, some felt that they were forced to
think deeper and more critically about
issues than ever before, though they
acknowledged a lack of the necessary
project management skills. Drawing on
suggestions by Verderber and Serey
(1996), in the second semester’s offering
the faculty team guided students through
the processes of revisiting their goal for
the completed project, reviewing the
method they were using to complete the
project, recognizing how the team interpersonal dynamics affected their project
completion, and learning to deal with
time and resource constraints. In the second course offering, one faculty team
member met with each student team to
talk about project management and to
help teams resolve any issues that were
keeping them from making progress. In
all subsequent semesters, student teams
developed and periodically revisited
their own codes of conduct.
The IBC goal to foster students’ confidence in their business knowledge,
skills, and abilities was not accomplished. Interestingly, as most students
became aware of how little they recalled
(or knew) about other disciplines, their
confidence dwindled. Perhaps a better
IBC goal would be to have students
realize their current level of knowledge
and establish goals for improving
knowledge in other business disciplines.
Students also commented that their confidence was lower after receiving graded assignments with lower performance
scores than they thought they should
have earned. Students were generally

zyxwvutsrqp

Participant (Student) Reactions

zyxwvutsrqp

Students completed several types of
assessment of learning. They completed (a) the traditional COBA Confidential Student Opinion Survey (Appendix
B), (b) a specially-prepared Student
Evaluation of Course (Appendix C),
and (c) a Survey of Self Development
(Appendix D).
First, the traditional COBA student
evaluation form was administered during
the first two semester offerings. Though
the appropriateness of some questions
for a team-taught course is suspect (for
example, questions 9 and 13, Appendix
B), COBA relies heavily on these types
of data to assess student reactions. Student ratings using this form are presented in Table 1. Despite a below-average
rating on question 5 regarding course
152

TABLE 2. Integrated Business Course: Student Evaluation of Course
Item

M

SD

3.71
3.26
2.95
3.26
3.05

.69
37
1.08
1.37
1.18

zyxwvuts

Journal of Education for Business

1. Understanding of multiple perspectives
2. Increase in critical thinking skills
3. Increase in written communication skills
4. Increase in interpersonal skills
5. Increase in confidence

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:34 13 January 2016

resistant to the idea that they needed to
improve their writing skills, feeling that
their last semester was an inappropriate
time to be receiving faculty feedback of

such a critical nature. Student reactions
were mixed, with some support and
some disapproval regarding the case
design, the class time needed to work

TABLE 3. Pre and Post t-Test Results on Student Self-Development
Inventory Scales
Scale

Fall 1998

Interpersonal skills"
Developing and maintaining rapport
Listening to others
Displaying sensitivity to others' needs
Eliciting ideas, feelings
Presenting feedback
Leadership skills"
Listening and maintaining action
Directing and coordinating
Motivating and stimulating others
Assigning and delegating tasks
Holding others accountable
Written communication skillsa
Determining objectives/organizing needed materials
Considering the reader
Choosing words
Selecting word forms
Constructing the written communication
Reviewing and editing
Oral communication skillsa
Using the voice effectively
Employing nonverbal accompaniments
Structuring the message
Eliminating random noise
Developing audience rapport
Organizing and planning skillsa
Clarifying goals and objectives
Establishing priorities
Developing work strategies
Scheduling activities
Establishing systems for handling information
Decisionmaking skills"
Identifying problems
Generating alternatives
Evaluating alternatives
Reaching decisions
Choosing implementation strategies
Decisiveness skills"
Taking initiative
Giving opinions
Making rapid decisions
Defending decisions when challenged
Taking risks to achieve results
Flexibility skills"
Working with new/changing/ambiguous situations
Working under pressure
Dealing with different personal styles
Handling feedback
Resolving conflicts
aCopyrightFandt (1994).
* p < .lo.
**p < .05.
***p < .01.
****p < ,001.
-Missing data.

Spring 2000

zyxw
with groups, the support from three professors, and the learning that occurred
because they had to play multiple functional roles during the semester.
Third, the Survey of Self Development
provided an opportunity for students to
reflect on what they had learned in each
of the semester's incidents. Their comments showed that students felt challenged to work in teams and to think
about how other disciplines would react
to organizational dilemmas. Students
also recognized that knowledge gained in
prerequisite course work was quickly
lost, though they felt they were able to
make a contribution to their team. Student comments on this survey also
echoed what the faculty team was
observing during the semester-that students perceived lack of direction on
requirements for Role and Team Reports.
The faculty team members began to
spend more time with student teams to
teach them how to create their own structure for activities and discussion.

zyxwvut

-2.99***
-2.95***
-3.05***
-3.60****
4 . 9 5 * * **

-4.65****
-2.26**
-2.23 * *
-1.26
-2.24**

-1.79"
-3.35***
-2.49**
-1.92*
-1.84*

-1.71"
-2.06**
-2.13**
-1.76*
-1.51

-1.12
-2.34 * *
-2.14**
-1.28
-2.1 8**
-.47

-2.59**
-3.84* * * *
-1.86*
-2.61**
-2.01**
-1.53

-1.97**
-1.83*
-2.43 * *
-3.09***
-2.52**

-1.90*
-.512
-.623
-1.70*
-. 100

-1.50
-1.86*
-1.32
-2.54**
-2.02**

-2.51**
-1.25
-2.48**
-3.10***
-.25 1

-2.78***
-2.59***
-2.13***
-1.62
-2.03**

-2.59***
-2.54**
-1.76*
-1.26
-2.72***

-1.50
-1.62
-1.67"
-2.02**

-

-2.24**
-1.92*
-2.76***
-1.76*
-2.55***

-2.41**
-2.06**
-2.41**
-2.05**
-1.34

-2.30**
-.670
-2.53**
-1.09
-1.48

Change in Knowledge (Learning)

An obvious method of assessing
whether students have learned new
course content is to test their knowledge. Measurement of student learning
in the IBC did not include traditional
forms of testing (e.g., multiple choice,
true/false, essay exams). The IBC
approach was to measure whether students could apply, analyze, and synthesize old and/or new knowledge in a new
situation (i.e., the IBC's semester-long
case). The ability to apply, analyze, and
synthesize knowledge is a more sophisticated form of competency than
demonstrating knowledge and knowhow (Bloom, 1956; Langford, 1993).
Learning was measured in two waysgraded assignments and a pretest/
posttest of skill levels.
First, the faculty team's assessment of
the quality of the Role Reports and
Team Reports (i.e., whether or not the
student teams effectively integrated
knowledge from multiple COBA core
courses) represents a measure of change
in knowledge. The drawback of relying
solely on this method of assessing
change in knowledge is that no baseline
measure of knowledge was established.
Evaluation criteria for assessing student

zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqpon
January/February 2001

153

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:34 13 January 2016

zyxwvutsr

performance on Role Reports 1 and 2
are included in Appendices E and F.
Role Reports represented 25% of a student’s final grade. Evaluation criteria for
assessing student performance on Team
Reports 1 and 2 are included in Appendixes G and H. Team Reports represented 43.75% of the final grade. The final
presentation accounted for 18.75%, and
the remaining 12.5% was earned
through participation points. Though
peer evaluations were optional, students
often completed them to provide input
on team members’ exceptional performance, as well as to voice displeasure
with poor performance.
The faculty team found it relatively
easy to distinguish those students and
student teams who had outstanding performances on Role and Team Reports
(compared with average performance)
and those whose performance was poor
(compared with average performance).
Approximately 10% of students fell into
each of the high (A) and low (D) performance categories. Though absolute
standards for assessment existed, the
faculty team relied heavily on the relative quality of the Role and Team
Reports (between students) to determine grades for the remaining 80%
whose performance ranged from C/D
grades to A/B grades. By the final
(fourth) offering of the IBC, the faculty
team members had developed an appreciation for, and understanding of, one
another’s grading styles. What began as
an extremely time-consuming process
ultimately became more efficient.
The second method for measuring
changes in knowledge/skills was based
on a pretest-posttest of student opinions
regarding skill levels in several areas:
interpersonal, leadership, written communication, oral communication, organizing/planning, decisionmaking, decisiveness, and flexibility (Fandt, 1994).
All students were required to assess their
own skill levels by completing a Student
Self Report Inventory prior to the course
and again after all graded materials had
been received. The first and last semesters’ data are reported in Table 3. Preand posttest data were analyzed using ttest comparisons; statistically significant
differences occurred in 31 of the 41
inventory scales in the first course offering, all in a positive direction, indicating

154

that students felt their skills had
improved. In the final course offering, 29
of 41 scales had statistically significant
differences. Though the faculty team is
not concluding that the IBC was responsible for the change in students’ perceptions about their skills, the students
seemed to be more aware of the types of
behaviors that represent high performance on these particular skills. In the
future, more specific integration of the
skills into the course content should
occur. For example, the faculty team felt
that it had focused heavily on oral communication skills in the final semester
offering by giving individual feedback to
students on their presentation skills during a midsemester presentation. Though
the faculty team noticed improvements
between mid- and end-of-the-semester
presentations, student pretest/posttest
responses for this inventory scale were
not significantly different from one
another. On the other hand, spring 2000
student opinions regarding improvement
in written communication skills, organizing and planning skills, and decisiveness skills were evident. The faculty
team felt that refinement of the IBC to
accomplish these skill improvements
was beginning to occur. As with any
course, refinement to accomplish any
goal is an ongoing process.

Change in Behavior (Transfer of
Training)
A third aspect of Kirkpatrick’s (1987)
typology for measuring training effectiveness is to assess whether an individual applied the new knowledge or skill.
Surrogate measures were used in the
IBC: (a) We had a business professional
read and offer advice on the grading of
student business letters in response to a
supplier concern (see Appendix I), and
(b) several business professionals, representing large as well as small firms,
and publicly held as well as familyowned businesses, attended and provided evaluation input on final student
presentations (see Appendix J).
Though their evaluations of the team
presentations did not enter into the
course grade, business professionals’
feedback was provided to student teams
and used to explain to students how
business professionals approached the

types of incidents provided in the IBC.
During the final presentations, the business professionals dialogued with students as if the presentations were being
made in an actual work environment,
and they gave feedback to the faculty
team about the case and incidents. The
faculty team noticed that student attitudes changed when students were told
about the participation of business professionals. Uncertainty and concern
about having their work evaluated by
business professionals arose. The faculty team shared as much information as
they had available about what types of
questions to expect from the business
professionals and found that students
would prepare differently knowing that
nonfaculty business persons would be in
the audience critiquing the presentations and asking questions.

Results (Organizational Effectiveness)
One evaluation of the impact of the
IBC was intentionally conducted as part
of the funding process. A second evaluation was received, though not originally sought. First, the IBC was evaluated
by a team representing the funding
sources (i.e., the Faculty Development
Program and COBA) and interested persons (i.e., a professor who teaches the
capstone strategy seminar). Their assessment was part of the process that
determined whether the IBC should be
offered during the second year. This
team concluded that the IBC “has great
potential to become the capstone course
for the COBA students. Combining several faculty from different disciplines
with people from the business community provides students with a unique and
wonderful learning environment.”
Second, the IBC was highlighted by
the AACSB Visitation Team during its
fall 1999 reaffirmation visit to review
our COBA programs (AACSB Visitation Team Report, 1999): “The College
is actively practicing its core value of
‘innovation and risk taking.’ Notable
examples include . . . the experimental,
team-taught capstone class. . . .”

zyx
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqpo

Journal of Education for Business

Other Assessment Information

Faculty development. The faculty team
experienced the common and unique

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:34 13 January 2016

zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsr
zyx

professional development that others
have experienced (Silver & McGowan,
1996; Young & Kram, 1996). None of
the faculty team had been involved in a
team-taught course, taught a course
without a textbook, or facilitated a
course that involved virtually no lecture. Such concerns are not trivial and
can contribute to faculty resistance
(Graham & Graham, 1997). Further, the
faculty team members felt that they had
gained a greater respect for one another’s abilities and disciplines and an
appreciation for the instructor version
of “working in teams.” On the negative
side, the faculty team did not anticipate
the time-consuming nature of course
development, which continued throughout the first offering. For that reason,
the same case was carried into the second, third, and fourth offerings with
change being made only to the incidents
for each semester.
The course was originally designed
to require a minimum of faculty time
(given that three faculty members are
participating in one section of one
course). As the faculty team learned to
work together, less-frequent meetings
became sufficient. The faculty team met
a minimum of once a week, and as
needed throughout the first course
offering, typically to consult with one
another on a student question about
case content or presentation style. Faculty team meetings in subsequent
semesters were rare, as familiarity with
one another’s preferences increased.
Overall, the faculty team was pleased
with the evolution of the IBC, now in its
fourth offering.
During the first offering, several
issues surfaced that required course
modifications. A classroom conducive
to teamwork was critical. Students
needed a flexible classroom configuration, such as tables and chairs, so that
they could work individually or move
into group settings. The semester time
line was also modified to provide ample
opportunity for teams to meet in class
and to give students time to practice oral
presentation skills.
The faculty team found that students
struggled most when combining and
integrating Role Report information into
Team Reports. One particular student
team could not understand how individ-

ual high performance on Role Reports
could result in average (B or C) performance on a Team Report. If the faculty
team were to teach a similar course in
the future, examples of reports would be
provided that represent exceptional,
average, and poor integration of Role
Report information into Team Reports.
Other Faculty Concerns

Other faculty concerns arose at two
points in the development and implementation of the IBC-the beginning
and the end. To ensure enrollments in
the IBC, the faculty team requested and
received authorization to offer the IBC
as a substitute for the required
policyhtrategy course. The discussion
surrounding this request was quite heated, with policy/strategy faculty wanting
approval over the IBC course content to
ensure consistency of student experiences. Because the IBC was proposed to
provide a more comprehensive integration of functional knowledge than the
policy/strategy course had been offering, a comparison between these two
approaches to a capstone course seemed
inappropriate. Nonetheless, this conflict
set the stage for future disagreements
about the role of the IBC in the COBA
curriculum. The faculty team and the
policyhtrategy faculty have discussed
integration of the best practices of the
IBC into the policyhtrategy courses;
inclusion of the IBC concepts, however,
is totally at the instructors’ discretion.
As the IBC was originally intended to
be a comprehensive effort to provide an
integrative capstone course, disagreement over resources and COBA culture
has worked to the demise of this objective (Watkins, 1996). Less complicated
approaches, such as offering an integrative project within a course (Cooper,
Griffin, & Malone, 1996) may be less
provocative, as they would be less contingent on multiple faculty member
involvement and resources.

Conclusion

implementation of the IBC provided its
own project management opportunity
for the faculty team. On the other hand,
working as a faculty team was extremely time consuming. Though that disadvantage was offset, in part, by the high
level of internal motivation of the faculty team, as well as by the financial support for the endeavor, we could understand why other faculty might be
hesitant to pursue such an undertaking.
The faculty team hopes that the methods
of assessment presented in this article
might provide examples to others who
are developing and assessing integrated
business courses.
Student reactions have been mixed
over the 4 semesters of course offerings.
The level of intentional ambiguity in the
course design and the high level of individual and team responsibilities were
unique for most students. As in other
courses, students felt extremely challenged by team responsibilities, underscoring their lack of preparation for
working in teams. For some students,
the course presented a new learning
experience and growth opportunity. An
increased awareness of the interrelatedness of organizational functions and the
necessity of recalling previous coursework was often mentioned as a positive
outcome of the IBC. Other students did
not seem sure about the impact that this
course has had (or will have) on them.
Despite some COBA faculty concerns about the impact that the IBC
would have on future design and delivery of other courses, COBA administration continued to be supportive of the
IBC. General indifference (and, for
some, complete opposition to the interdisciplinary team teaching model) has
resulted in discontinuation of the IBC in
its present form. It is unclear if the benefits of the IBC will be incorporated
into existing courses. Nonetheless, the
faculty team recognizes the benefits of
interdisciplinary instruction and will
seek opportunities for integrative learning both in content and in pedagogy.

zyxwv

In summary, the faculty team members have individually benefited from
this experience in their growth and
development as team members and
facilitators. Coordinating the design and

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge Susan Hegedus for her comments and recommendations.
Financial support was provided by the Faculty
Development Program and the College of Business Administration, University of Wisconsin
Oshkosh.

January/February 2001

155

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:34 13 January 2016

zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvutsrqpon
REFERENCES

American Association of Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB). (1999, October 21). AACSB
Ksitation Team Report. St. Louis, MO: Author.
Astin, A. (1992). What matters in college? Four
critical years revisited. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Bilimoria, D. (1995). Modernism, postmodemism, and contemporary grading practices.
Journal of Management Education, 19,
440-457.
Bloom, B. S . (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain.
New York: Longman, Inc.
Clayson, D. E., & Haley, D. A. (1990). Student
evaluations in marketing: What is actually
being measured? Journal of Marketing Education, Fall, 9-17.
Cooper, W. D., Griffin, L., & Malone, C. F.
(1996). Advisory services LTD An interdisciplinary project involving accounting and technology students. Mid-American Journal of
Business, 11(2), 49-55.
Daft, R. L.td1995). Organization theory and
design (5 ed). MinneapolislSt. Paul, MN:
West Publishing Company.
Fandt, P.M. (1994). Management skills. St. Paul,
MN: South-Westem College Publishing.
Festervard, T. A,, & Hill, C. J. (1993). A managerial assessment of present status and future
directions. Business Case Journal, I( 1).
141-151.
Graham, R. A., & Graham, B. L. (1997). Cooperative learning: The benefits of participatory
examinations in principles of marketing classes. Journal of Education for Business, 72(3),
149-1 52.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1987). Evaluation of training.
In R. 1. Craig (Ed.), Training and development
handbook: A guide to human resource development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Langford, D. (1993). A day of total qualify learning. PBS/MSLI Wdeoconference Participants
Guidebook. Billings, MT: Total Quality Learning, Inc.
Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J. B., & Voyer, J. (1995).
The strategy process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Mosca, J. B., & Howard, L. W. (1997). Grounded
learning: Breathing life into business education.
Journal of Education for Business, 73(2),
90-93.
Muller, T. E., (1989).Assigning students to groups
for class projects: An exploratory test of two
methods. Decision Sciences Journal, 4 ,
623-634.
Newell. W. H. (1994). Designing interdisciplinary
courses. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 58, 35-5 1.
Newell, W. H., & Davis, A. (1988). Education for
citizenship: The role of progressive education
and interdisciplinary studies. Innovative Higher
Educarion, 13(1),21-31.
Oliver, D. (1990). Grounded knowing: A postmodem perspective on teaching and learning.
Educational Leadership, 48( l), 64-69.
Silver, W. S., & McGowan, R. P. (1996). Adventures in team teaching. J o u m l of Management
Education, 20(4), 435-445.
Sorenson, J. E., & Wittmer, D. P.(1996). Stage 2:
Designing team-taught transdisciplinary courses-Where do we begin? Journal of Management Education, 20(4), 422-434.
Verderber, K. S., & Serey, T. T. (1996). Managing
in-class projects: Setting them up to succeed.

Journal of Management Education, 20( l),
23-38.
Watkins, T. L. (1996). Stage 1: Creating a new
MBA core with team teaching. Journal of Man-

agement Education, 20(4), 41 1-421.
Young, M. B.,& Kram, K.E. (1996). Repairing
the disconnects in faculty teaching teams. Journal of Management Education, 20(4), 500-5 15.

APPENDIX A. Focus Group Comments (August 21,1997)
Students lack the following capabilities:

1. Understanding the need to justify and support decisions (with data).
2. Having confidence in their decisions; understanding what is “black and white”
and what is “a gray area.”
3. “Selling” people on issues of importance.
4. Knowing that tasks don’t begin and end with the task itself. . . they relate to
other activities in the organization.
5. Knowing how to manage a project . . . what steps to take to complete an activity.
6. Having the ability to manage multiple projects at any one time.
7. Understanding the need to justify and support decisions (with data).
8. Working with different bosses.
9. Understanding that many subcultures exist in a broader organizational culture.
10. Recognizing differences between service and manufacturing organizations.
11. Avoiding dysfunctional organizational politics.
12. Handling unstructured tasks.
13. Dealing with irate ernployees/customers.
14. Making a successful transition into the organization ...knowing the right people.
15. Understanding the role of interpersonal relationships in designing and implementing successful projects.
16. Preparing for (effective handling of) resentment from less-educated employees.
17. Doing your own typing and data analysis.
18. Recognizing that external forces can influence whether new employees will be
happy in their jobs.
19. Finding an appropriate mentor.
20. Working as a team ...employees are on teams by default and by plan/design.
2 1. Developing consensus.
22. Understanding task and “people” interdependencies.
23. Handling change.
24. Adopting a continuous-improvement attitude.

zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrq

zyxwvutsrqpo

156

Journal of Education for Business

Students should have experiences in an IBC that include, among other things:
1. Cash flow
2. Net present value
3. Balance sheets
4. Return on investment
5. Recruiting
6. Fringe benefitdcost
7. Inventory turns
8. Carrying costs
9. Outsourcing
10. Just-in-time decisions
11. Standard costs
12. Ethics/decisionmaking
13. Informal communication
14. Scheduling/conducting meetings
15. Appropriate use of e-mad
16. Appropriate use of grammar (spoken and written)
17. Appropriate use of communication methods
18. Spreadsheets
19. Word processors
20. Governmental agencies
21. Quality
22. Interpersonal skills

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:34 13 January 2016

zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqpon
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvut

APPENDIX B. College of Business Administration Confidential Student
Opinion Survey

APPENDIX C. Integrated
Business Course: Student
Evaluation of Course

Instructions

(For questions 1-5, students
responded on a 5-point Likert-type
scale ranging from not at all to to a
large degree. )

Your evaluation of this course is important to the instructor and to the College of Business Administration. Please consider each of these questions carefully and answer each
one. Mark all responses on the accompanying answer sheet. Thank you for your cooperation.
Part I: Background Information

1. My class standing is: (a) freshmadsophomore (b)junior (c) senior (d) special (e)
graduate

2. Did you take this course: (a) as an elective (b) as requiredhot part of major (c)
required/part of major

3. How many hours per week have you studied for this course outside of class? (a)
less than 2 (b) 2 to 3.9 hours (c) 4 to 5.9 hours (d) 6 to 8 hours (e) more than 8
hours
4. My cumulative GPA is: (a) under 2.00 (b) 2.0 to 2.49 (c) 2.5 to 2.99 (d) 3.00 to
3.349 (e) 3.5 to 4.00
Part 11: The Course

The following questions are about the course. Please indicate your choice by darkening the appropriate space on the answer sheet.

5. How difficult has this course been for you?
(a) very
easy

(b) below
average

(c) about
average

(d) above
average

(e) difficult

6. How much have you enjoyed this course?

(a) disliked
very much

(b) disliked

(c) neither liked (d) liked
nor disliked

(e) liked very
much

7. How much has this course increased your knowledge of the subject?
(a) very
little

(b) below
average

(c) average

(d) above
average

(e) a lot

Directions: Please answer the following questions providing specific
feedback (where asked) supporting
your answers. This information will
be typed by staff and will not be
shared with the professors in this
course until after grades are turned
in.

1. One of the goals of this course was
to provide students with an understanding of multiple interpretations/perspectives on issues that
face organizations. To what degree
do you feel this course accomplished this objective?
2. A second goal was to require students to think critically/problemsolve about the issues that face
organizations. To what degree do
you feel this course accomplished
this objective?
3.To what degree do you feel this
course helped you to develop your
written communication skills?
4.To what degree do you feel this
course helped you to develop your
interpersonal skills?
5.To what degree do you feel this
course helped you to feel more
confident about your business
knowledge, skills, and abilities?
6. What do you feel were the strong
points of this course?
7. What do you feel needs improvement (please provide constructive
comments)?

8. How do you rate information and knowledge gained in this course?
(a) little
value

(b) some
value

(c) average
value