Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.80.5.269-274
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Relationship of Business Major to Pedagogical
Strategies
Thomas A. Ulrich
To cite this article: Thomas A. Ulrich (2005) The Relationship of Business Major to Pedagogical
Strategies, Journal of Education for Business, 80:5, 269-274, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.80.5.269-274
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.5.269-274
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 22
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 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]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 22:43
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
The Relationship of Business Major
to Pedagogical Strategies
THOMAS A. ULRICH
Loyola College
Baltimore, Maryland
N
umerous calls have been made for
business schools to revise their curricula and introduce newer pedagogical
strategies that are better suited toward
developing the necessary professional
skills essential for today’s business students (American Accounting Association, 1986; Buckley, Peach, & Weitzel,
1989; Commission on Admission to
Graduate Management Education, 1990;
Dulek & Fielden, 1992; Elliott, Goodwin, & Goodwin, 1994; Jenkins &
Reizenstein, 1984; Linder & Smith,
1992; Perspectives on Education . . .,
1989; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Porter &
McKibbin, 1988). Despite this longstanding criticism about the business curriculum and its pedagogy, little evidence
exists that curricula and pedagogy have
changed over time (Pfeffer & Fong;
Richardson, 2003). Although the curriculum has certainly changed to incorporate
new knowledge, the basic structure of the
courses and the basic concepts taught
have remained the same (Pfeffer &
Fong). Davis & Botkin (1994, p. 90)
reported that “course materials have been
upgraded and some class offerings have
changed, but the 1960s product is still
quite recognizable . . . in the 1990s.”
The question is, Why does this state
of affairs continue after such widespread
calls for change? Some have suggested
that the faculty-reward structure, which
is based primarily on research and pub-
ABSTRACT. In this study, the author
queried senior undergraduate business
students in 4 different majors regarding their perceptions of how helpful
25 different pedagogical strategies
were in facilitating their learning. The
author sought to determine whether
certain pedagogical strategies proved
to be more successful within specific
business-major curricula than others.
The business majors gave different
ratings to almost half of the pedagogical strategies used in the study. These
results should be useful to business
faculty members in developing and
selecting pedagogical strategies that
facilitate student learning.
lications and only pays lip service to
teaching, is the cause for the inertia
exhibited by business schools in
addressing their teaching practices
(Dulek & Fielden, 1992; Elliott et al.,
1994; Linder & Smith, 1992; Richardson, 2003). Another view is that business
faculty members are not adequately
trained to teach business (Benke & Hermanson, 1990; Elliott et al.; Leavitt,
1991; Linder & Smith). Indeed, May,
Windal, and Sylvestre (1995) reported
that 81.3% of the accounting faculty
members that they surveyed believed
that accounting faculty members should
be trained in teaching methods. But,
although faculty members are aware of
the situation, they seem to disagree as to
how to respond. In their survey, May et
al. found that 56.0% of the accounting
educators agreed that fundamental curricular change was needed and 50.6%
agreed that fundamental teachingmethod change was needed. However,
they also reported a significant disagreement over both the extent and form of
that change, with the greatest disagreement in the area of teaching methods.
However, teaching and learning are
basically different in their orientations. In
teaching, the focus is on input and the
teacher, whereas in learning, the focus is
on outcomes and the students (Boyatzis,
Cowen, & Kolb, 1995). Thus, a learning
approach places greater attention on the
students and how they respond to the
educational process. Noël and Levas
(2003) found that personality traits that
correspond with conventional stereotypes
of business vocations explain business
students’ selection of a major. In other
words, their results indicate that students
have unique sets of personality traits that
predispose them to choose careers
according to their expectations of those
careers. They found “accounting students
to be significantly more reserved, prone
to use concrete and focused thinking,
affected by feelings, restrained, persistent, timid, practical, and tense in their
personal interactions” and that “marketing students were found to be easygoing,
creative, enthusiastic, persistent, venturesome, imaginative, and edgy in their personal level of extroversion” (p. 156).
May/June 2005
269
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
These findings of significant differences
related to business major raise the question of whether learning is more effective
when students’ personality traits and
interpersonal behaviors better fit the perceived requirements of the curriculum.
Moreover, Noël and Levas suggested that
research should be directed to clarify
how the use of different teaching strategies in the various business majors
affects learning.
In this study, I sought to focus on the
other side of the curriculum–teaching
equation by surveying undergraduate
business students regarding their perceptions of how well various pedagogical strategies facilitate learning.
Because students will experience the
curricular changes, business faculty
members need to be aware that differences among the different majors within the business school might affect the
success of instructional strategies in
facilitating learning. That is, certain
strategies may prove to be more successful within specific business-major
curricula than others. If this is the case,
then the results of this study should
prove useful in guiding business faculty
members in their selection of pedagogies that facilitate student learning.
Pedagogical Strategies
Employing the delineation described
by Weston and Cranton (1986), I grouped
the pedagogical strategies into four general categories: instructor-centered strategies (IC), interactive strategies (IS), individual-learning strategies (IL), and
experiential-learning strategies (EL). The
pedagogical strategies, although not allinclusive, do represent some of the more
popular strategies used in higher education. I list them by category in Table 1.
Weston and Cranton provided an overall
perspective of the differing strategies and
factors important in their selection.
In the case of instructor-centered
strategies, the direction of communication is one way, from the instructor to the
students. The focus is on the instructor,
who is primarily responsible for imparting information to the students, who are
learning in a passive manner. The dominant form of instructor-centered strategies is the lecture. Lectures are particularly efficient and effective for large
classes and for instruction at the lower
levels (knowledge and comprehension)
of the cognitive domain (Weston &
Cranton, 1986). In this study, I used several different lecture approaches, including lectures-in-general, theory lectures,
applied lectures, and talks by experts.
With interactive strategies, two-way
communication takes place between the
instructor and students as well as among
students. More importantly, with such
approaches, the students have an opportunity to participate actively in the learning and teaching processes. In compar-
TABLE 1. Student Ratings of Pedagogical Strategies
Pedagogical strategy
Instructor-centered strategies (IC)
Lectures-in-general
Applied lectures
Theory lectures
Talks by experts
Individual-learning strategies (IL)
Homework
Thinking alone
Exams-in-general
Problem exams
Programmed instruction–skills
Programmed instruction–concepts
Required readings
Term paper
Interactive strategies (IS)
Cooperative learning
Group projects
Seminars
Small-group discussion
Large-class discussion
Argumentative discussion
Experiential-learning strategies (EL)
Internships
Case analyses
Case studies
Management simulation
Experiential exercises
Role playing
Videos
270
Journal of Education for Business
All
(N = 374)
M
Rank
Management
(n = 107)
M
Rank
Marketing
(n = 89)
M
Rank
Finance
(n = 84)
M
Rank
Accounting
(n = 94)
M
Rank
4.119
4.523
3.562
4.187
10
1
22
4
3.933
4.425
3.404
4.264
15
1
24
4
4.103
4.551
3.552
4.460
14
2
24
4
4.274
4.667
3.630
4.083
4
1
22
9
4.202
4.478
3.688
3.936
6
2
18
9
4.409
4.164
3.779
4.046
4.217
3.866
3.959
3.316
2
5
20
14
3
17
16
25
4.302
4.076
3.570
3.840
4.125
3.821
3.802
3.123
3
10
21
16
8
18
19
25
4.432
4.227
3.770
3.864
4.296
3.843
4.000
3.506
8
12
21
19
10
20
16
25
4.429
4.083
3.928
4.289
4.229
3.976
3.928
3.452
2
9
15
3
5
13
15
24
4.489
4.280
3.894
4.237
4.234
3.839
4.130
3.234
1
3
12
4
5
15
8
25
4.054
4.132
3.704
4.150
3.489
4.156
13
9
21
8
24
6
3.981
4.189
3.673
4.198
3.562
4.217
14
7
20
6
22
5
4.449
4.460
3.909
4.329
3.698
4.202
7
4
18
9
22
13
3.952
4.096
3.831
4.171
3.374
4.048
14
8
18
6
25
11
3.847
3.798
3.430
3.915
3.315
4.138
14
16
21
10
24
7
4.151
4.083
4.003
4.070
3.796
3.786
3.539
7
11
15
12
18
19
23
4.019
4.094
4.019
4.349
3.830
4.019
3.562
11
9
11
2
17
11
22
4.586
4.472
4.455
4.284
4.022
3.966
3.671
1
3
6
11
15
17
23
4.131
3.904
3.762
4.048
3.798
3.783
3.554
7
17
21
11
19
20
23
3.915
3.862
3.777
3.575
3.543
3.351
3.376
10
13
17
19
20
23
22
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
isons concerned with higher-level cognitive learning (analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation) or attitude and motivation,
class discussion was found to be superior
to the lecture strategy (McKeachie,
1963). For larger classes or situations in
which students may feel more comfortable interacting with a smaller number
of students, small-group discussions can
be used. A more structured interactive
strategy is cooperative learning, a technique that is particularly useful when
there is a high degree of variability in
either the students’ abilities or their
experiences. In cooperative learning,
those students who have mastered the
material take on the role of instructor
and teach the material to other students.
Another approach entails group projects,
which permit students to interact actively with each other while the instructor
acts as a consultant to or manager of the
learning process. This approach is recommended for business students
because entry-level business graduates
will work in small-group environments.
In addition to immersing the students in
the learning process, group projects
enhance the development of higher
learning skills involving application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In
this article, I focus on the following
interactive strategies: argumentative discussion, large-class discussion, smallgroup discussion, seminars, group projects, and cooperative learning.
Individual-learning strategies permit
students to learn at their own pace.
These methods require regular immediate feedback so the student can assess
his or her progress. One individuallearning strategy described in this article
is programmed instruction. Programmed
instruction involves a series of frames
that comprise the instructional program.
Each frame contains a stimulus-response
pattern that allows the student to progressively learn concepts and/or skills.
Additional individual-learning strategies
considered in this research are examinations-in-general, problem examinations,
term papers, homework, required readings, and thinking alone.
The basis of experiential-learning
strategies, in either real or simulatedwork settings, is active learning.
Because the student takes an active role,
active-learning strategies are more effec-
tive than the traditional educational
approach in reaching the more complex
educational outcomes of application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
(Chickering, 1977). Put simply, participation allows students to use and develop all of the four learning abilities
described by Kolb (1976). That is, students are able to reflect on their experiences and develop generalizations
through small discussion groups. The
discussion groups then can develop
hypotheses based on those learning
two AACSB-accredited institutions, one
private and the other a regional state university located in the Northeast United
States. The students indicated how well
each of 25 different pedagogical strategies facilitated their learning by selecting one of the following responses: 5
(most helpful), 4 (very helpful), 3 (moderately helpful), 2 (slightly helpful), and
1 (unhelpful). In Table 1, I list mean student responses for each of the 25 pedagogical strategies for the entire student
sample as well as for each of the four
The undergraduate business students clearly had
a greater affinity for the application of their
knowledge than for the theoretical aspects.
experiences, which are further tested
with additional exercises. In a sense, the
students are taught how to learn. May et
al. (1995) reported that 63.6% of a random sample of accounting educators
believed that the objective of the
accounting curriculum should be to
teach students how to learn on their own.
Students who experience these more
active strategies are more likely to maintain their interest in education and learning. Successful learning experiences
tend to beget a desire for more; as a
result, lifelong learning, which is so vital
in the business professions, is fostered. I
investigated the following experientiallearning strategies: internships, management simulation, role playing, structured
experiential exercises, videos, case
analyses, and case studies.
Method
In this study, I sought to determine
whether differences among four different majors within the business school
(accounting, finance, management, and
marketing) affected the perceived success of 25 different pedagogical strategies in facilitating student learning. The
subjects in this research were senior
undergraduate business students from
business majors. In addition, I provide a
ranking of the pedagogical strategies
based on the overall mean ratings and
the mean ratings for each of the four
business majors.
I used a one-way multivariate analysis of variance test (MANOVA) to
determine whether differing business
curricula had an impact on the students’
ratings of pedagogical strategies. When
performing a MANOVA, Olson (1974)
found that the test statistic based on Pillai’s trace was the most robust and had
adequate power to detect true differences under different conditions. Moreover, Pillai’s trace can be transformed
into an exact F ratio. Using Pillai’s trace
test statistic, I found a statistically significant difference among the differing
majors at the .000 level of significance
(0.454; approximate F = 2.04). To determine which strategies were causing this
significant difference, I followed the
MANOVA test with 25 individual univariate analysis of variance tests
(ANOVA) for each of the individual
pedagogical strategies. Twelve of the 25
individual pedagogical techniques
showed statistically significant differences at the .05 level among the four
business majors. I list these pedagogical
strategies in Table 2. Finally, I followed
May/June 2005
271
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
each of these significant ANOVA tests
with a Scheffé post-hoc analysis test at
the .05 level of significance to determine the specific major differences
within each of these pedagogical strategies. I present the results of these posthoc tests in Table 2.
Finally, to gain a better perspective of
the degree of similarities and differences across the four business-major
curricula, I determined Spearman rank
correlations among the ranked pedagogical strategies for each of the four
majors. I present these Spearman rank
correlations in Table 3.
Results
A review of the student rankings by
major coupled with the individual
instructional strategies revealed several
findings. The undergraduate business
students clearly had a greater affinity for
the application of their knowledge than
for the theoretical aspects (see Table 1).
All majors ranked applied lectures
either 1st or 2nd, but they ranked theory
lectures significantly lower, between
18th and 24th place. Likewise, the preference for application over theory was
evident when all majors consistently
gave higher rankings to programmed
instruction skills, which are more applications oriented (5th to 10th place), than
to programmed instruction concepts,
which are more theoretically oriented
(13th to 20th place). Additionally, all
majors appeared to prefer discussion in
small groups to large-class discussion.
Finally, rank consistency appeared
across all majors with respect to the
extremely low rankings assigned term
papers and videos (see Table 1).
Statistically, business majors were
largely in agreement with respect to the
helpfulness in learning of the more traditional pedagogical strategies. The scores
for 3 out of 4 instructor-centered strategies and 7 out of 8 individual-learning
strategies showed no significant differences among the majors. These traditional pedagogical strategies were lectures-in-general, applied lectures, theory
lectures, homework, thinking alone,
exams-in-general, programmed instruction skills, programmed instruction concepts, required readings, and term
papers. Just the opposite experience
occurred for the more nontraditional
strategies. Only 1 of the 7 experiential
strategies and 2 of the 6 interactive
strategies showed no significant differences among the majors’ ratings. These
nontraditional pedagogical strategies
were videos, small-group discussion,
and argumentative discussion.
Turning to the differences among the
business majors, I found that 11 of the
12 pedagogical strategies that exhibited
statistically significant differences
showed marketing students’ ratings to
be higher than those of accounting students. In four of these cases, the sole
difference was that between the marketing and accounting students’ ratings.
The pedagogical strategies were talks
by experts, experiential exercises, seminars, and large-class discussion. For
three additional strategies—internships,
role playing, and group projects—both
marketing and management students’
TABLE 2. Pedagogical Strategies With Differences Among Majors
Pedagogical strategy
Management simulation (EL)
Internships (EL)
Role-playing (EL)
Case studies (EL)
Group projects (IS)
Cooperative learning (IS)
Case analyses (EL)
Talks by experts (IC)
Experiential exercises (EL)
Problem exams (IL)
F(3, 370)
Significance
Scheffé post-hoc analysis (.05 level of significance)
13.497
9.418
8.856
8.680
8.530
6.905
6.761
4.897
4.700
4.457
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.003
0.004
3.377
3.287
0.019
0.021
Marketing, management, & finance ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing & management ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing & management ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than management, finance, & accounting.
Marketing & management ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than management, finance, & accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than finance & accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than accounting.
Finance & accounting ratings higher than management; finance
ratings higher than marketing.
Marketing ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than accounting.
Seminars (IS)
Large-class discussion (IS)
Note. IC = instructor-centered strategy; IL = individual-learning strategy; IS = interactive strategy; and EL = experiential-learning strategy.
TABLE 3. Spearman Rank Correlations
Management
Marketing
Finance
Marketing
Finance
Accounting
.810**
.698**
.578**
.564**
.484*
.860**
*p = .05 (two-tailed). **p = .01 (two-tailed).
272
Journal of Education for Business
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
ratings were higher than those of
accounting students. For the management simulation strategy, the ratings of
marketing, management, and finance
students were all higher than those for
accounting students. The remaining
three cases show that case analysis was
rated higher by marketing majors than
by either finance or accounting majors,
and that both case studies and cooperative learning received higher ratings
from marketing majors than from students with the other three majors. Thus,
marketing students rated (a) 11 pedagogical strategies higher than did
accounting students, (b) 3 strategies
higher than did finance students, and (c)
2 higher than did management students.
On the other hand, the management students rated 4 strategies more highly than
accounting students, and the finance
students had only 1 strategy rated more
highly than accounting students.
Only in the case of problem exams
did accounting majors rate a pedagogical strategy more highly than did the
other students. Both finance and
accounting students gave this strategy
higher ratings than did management
students, and finance students gave it
higher ratings than did marketing students. However, no statistical difference
existed between the accounting and
marketing students’ ratings of this strategy. To provide a better perspective on
the degree of similarities and differences among the business majors, I
computed Spearman rank correlations
among the ranked pedagogical strategies for each of the four majors. The
rankings of marketing students were
most closely related to those of the
management students, with a correlation of 0.810. The correlations of marketing student rankings with finance
and accounting student rankings were
0.578 and 0.484, respectively. The rankings of the management students were
more highly correlated with the finance
student rankings (r = 0.698) than with
the accounting student rankings (r =
0.564). Finally, finance and accounting
student rankings were closely related,
with a correlation of 0.860. Thus, I
found a continuum of perceived helpfulness in learning across business
majors with respect to these pedagogical strategies, beginning with marketing
at one periphery and ending with
accounting at the other.
Discussion
Because of the breadth of the required
business curriculum, undergraduate business students take many introductory
courses in which classes are larger and
instruction focuses more on the lower
levels (knowledge and comprehension)
of the cognitive domain. In these courses,
traditional instructor-centered and individual-learning strategies are particularly
efficient and effective. As such, undergraduate business students are quite
familiar and understand clearly what is
expected of them when more traditional
strategies are employed in the classroom.
In addition, faculty members have honed
their skills through extensive practice
and are very proficient in employing
these strategies. Therefore, it is not surprising that my results show that only 2
of the 12 more traditional strategies differed with regard to their perceived helpfulness in learning among the business
majors.
On the other hand, 10 of the 13 more
nontraditional, interactive, and experiential-learning strategies did exhibit significant differences in their perceived
helpfulness in learning among the business majors. Given that unique personality traits and interpersonal behaviors
predispose each student to favor one
business major over another, what distinguishing characteristics exist within
these majors that contribute to these
results? Barnowe and Frost (1979)
employed Little’s (1972) person–thing
orientation theory to explore influences
on choice of business major. According
to Little, people differ in their affective
orientation toward persons and things
(including physical objects, numerical
data, and ideas unrelated to persons).
Barnowe and Frost found that although
thing-oriented students almost exclusively chose thing-oriented majors
(accounting and finance), their selection
was not associated with grades in prerequisite courses or with teacher influences. Conversely, person-oriented students’ choices of major were associated
with grades in prerequisite courses and
the influence of teachers. Moreover,
person-oriented students were more
likely than thing-oriented students to
regard person-oriented courses as those
that were most effectively taught. Those
students also tended to perform relatively better in the person-oriented course
than did thing-oriented students.
In reviewing the pedagogical strategies that showed significant differences
in perceived helpfulness to learning
among business majors, I observed that
the majority of these strategies require
interpersonal interaction and are clearly
person-oriented activities. Barnowe and
Frost (1979) posited that motivation
brought about by a preference toward
persons over things was the reason that
person-oriented students performed
better than thing-oriented students in
person-oriented courses. Thus, the
apparent continuum of helpfulness in
learning observed for the pedagogical
strategies across business majors can be
explained by gradients that decrease in
person orientation and increase in thing
orientation as one moves from marketing to management, then to finance,
and, finally, to accounting.
Conclusion
The results of my study lead to the
conclusion that the personality traits
and interpersonal behaviors that predispose students to select certain business
majors also affect the effectiveness of
different pedagogical strategies in facilitating their learning. My study’s results
show that 12 of 25 differing pedagogical
strategies are more successful within
some business-major curricula than in
others in facilitating student learning.
Furthermore, 11 of the 12 differences
among the business majors showed
higher ratings among marketing students than among accounting students.
Thus, owing to personality traits and
interpersonal behaviors among business
majors, I found a continuum of perceived helpfulness in learning across
business majors with respect to pedagogical strategies, beginning with marketing at one periphery and ending with
accounting at the other.
Additionally, I found that the differences in assigned scores for perceived
helpfulness in learning were greater
among the more nontraditional pedagogical strategies than among the tradiMay/June 2005
273
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
tional strategies. This finding is important because the nontraditional strategies are superior not only as means for
reaching the more complex educational
outcomes of application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Chickering,
1977; McKeachie, 1963; Weston &
Cranton, 1986) but also as means for
developing the necessary professional
skills essential for today’s business students. Those skills are oral communication skills, interpersonal skills, leadership skills, critical-thinking abilities,
teamwork, decision-making abilities,
and written communication skills. However, accounting students gave these
nontraditional strategies lower ratings
on helpfulness in learning, which unfortunately poses a dilemma for accounting faculty members. Not surprisingly,
those in the accounting profession have
been more vociferous in calling for curricular change than have those in the
other business professions.
REFERENCES
American Accounting Association. (1986). Future
accounting education: Preparing for the
expanding profession. Issues in Accounting
Education, 1, 168–195.
Barnowe, J. T., & Frost, P. J. (1979). When personality meets situation: Exploring influences
274
Journal of Education for Business
on choice of business major. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 167–176.
Benke, R., & Hermanson, R. (1990). Trends in
education. Management Accounting, 71(10),
56–57.
Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen, S. S., & Kolb, D. A.
(1995). Introduction: Taking the path toward
learning. In R. E. Boyatzis, S. S. Cowen, D. A.
Kolb, & Associates (Eds.), Innovation in professional education: Steps on a journey from
teaching to learning (pp. 1–11). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Buckley, M. R., Peach, E. B., & Weitzel, W.
(1989). Are collegiate programs adequately
preparing students for the business world?
Journal of Education for Business, 65,
101–105.
Chickering, A. W. (1977). Experiential learning.
New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press.
Commission on Admission to Graduate Management Education. (1990). Leadership for a
changing world. Los Angeles: Graduate Management Admission Council.
Davis, S., & Botkin, J. (1994). The monster under
the bed: How business is mastering the opportunity of knowledge for profit. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Dulek, R., & Fielden, J. (1992). Why fight the system? The non-choice facing beleaguered business faculties. Business Horizons, 35(5), 13–18.
Elliott, C., Goodwin, J. S., & Goodwin, J. C.
(1994). MBA programs and business needs: Is
there a mismatch? Business Horizons, 37(4),
55–60.
Jenkins, R. L., & Reizenstein, R. C. (1984,
Spring). Insights into the MBA: Its contents,
output, and relevance. Selections, 1, 19–24.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Management of the learning
process. California Management Review, 18(3),
21–31.
Leavitt, H. (1991). Socializing our MBAs: Total
immersion? California Management Review,
33(4), 127–143.
Linder, J., & Smith, J. (1992). The complex case
of management review. Harvard Business
Review, 70(5), 16–33.
Little, B. R. (1972). Psychological man as scientist, humanist, and specialist. Journal of Experimental Research in Psychology, 6, 95–118.
May, G. S., Windal, F. W., & Sylvestre, J. (1995).
The need for change in accounting education:
An educator survey. Journal of Accounting
Education, 13, 21–43.
McKeachie, W. J. (1963). Research on teaching at
the college and university level. In N. L. Gage
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Noël, N. M., & Levas, M. G. (2003). The relationship of personality traits and self-monitoring
behavior to choice of business major. Journal of
Education for Business, 78, 153–157.
Olson, C. L. (1974). Comparative robustness of
six tests in multivariate analysis of variance.
Journal of the American Statistical Association,
69, 894–907.
Perspectives on education: Capabilities for success in the accounting profession. (1989). New
York: Managing Partners of the Big Eight Public Accounting Firms.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 78–95.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust
into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill.
Richardson, L. (2003). A challenge to change
business education. Mid-American Journal of
Business, 18(1), 5–6.
Weston, C., & Cranton, P. A. (1986). Selecting
instructional strategies. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 259–288.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Relationship of Business Major to Pedagogical
Strategies
Thomas A. Ulrich
To cite this article: Thomas A. Ulrich (2005) The Relationship of Business Major to Pedagogical
Strategies, Journal of Education for Business, 80:5, 269-274, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.80.5.269-274
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.5.269-274
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 22
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 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]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 22:43
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
The Relationship of Business Major
to Pedagogical Strategies
THOMAS A. ULRICH
Loyola College
Baltimore, Maryland
N
umerous calls have been made for
business schools to revise their curricula and introduce newer pedagogical
strategies that are better suited toward
developing the necessary professional
skills essential for today’s business students (American Accounting Association, 1986; Buckley, Peach, & Weitzel,
1989; Commission on Admission to
Graduate Management Education, 1990;
Dulek & Fielden, 1992; Elliott, Goodwin, & Goodwin, 1994; Jenkins &
Reizenstein, 1984; Linder & Smith,
1992; Perspectives on Education . . .,
1989; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Porter &
McKibbin, 1988). Despite this longstanding criticism about the business curriculum and its pedagogy, little evidence
exists that curricula and pedagogy have
changed over time (Pfeffer & Fong;
Richardson, 2003). Although the curriculum has certainly changed to incorporate
new knowledge, the basic structure of the
courses and the basic concepts taught
have remained the same (Pfeffer &
Fong). Davis & Botkin (1994, p. 90)
reported that “course materials have been
upgraded and some class offerings have
changed, but the 1960s product is still
quite recognizable . . . in the 1990s.”
The question is, Why does this state
of affairs continue after such widespread
calls for change? Some have suggested
that the faculty-reward structure, which
is based primarily on research and pub-
ABSTRACT. In this study, the author
queried senior undergraduate business
students in 4 different majors regarding their perceptions of how helpful
25 different pedagogical strategies
were in facilitating their learning. The
author sought to determine whether
certain pedagogical strategies proved
to be more successful within specific
business-major curricula than others.
The business majors gave different
ratings to almost half of the pedagogical strategies used in the study. These
results should be useful to business
faculty members in developing and
selecting pedagogical strategies that
facilitate student learning.
lications and only pays lip service to
teaching, is the cause for the inertia
exhibited by business schools in
addressing their teaching practices
(Dulek & Fielden, 1992; Elliott et al.,
1994; Linder & Smith, 1992; Richardson, 2003). Another view is that business
faculty members are not adequately
trained to teach business (Benke & Hermanson, 1990; Elliott et al.; Leavitt,
1991; Linder & Smith). Indeed, May,
Windal, and Sylvestre (1995) reported
that 81.3% of the accounting faculty
members that they surveyed believed
that accounting faculty members should
be trained in teaching methods. But,
although faculty members are aware of
the situation, they seem to disagree as to
how to respond. In their survey, May et
al. found that 56.0% of the accounting
educators agreed that fundamental curricular change was needed and 50.6%
agreed that fundamental teachingmethod change was needed. However,
they also reported a significant disagreement over both the extent and form of
that change, with the greatest disagreement in the area of teaching methods.
However, teaching and learning are
basically different in their orientations. In
teaching, the focus is on input and the
teacher, whereas in learning, the focus is
on outcomes and the students (Boyatzis,
Cowen, & Kolb, 1995). Thus, a learning
approach places greater attention on the
students and how they respond to the
educational process. Noël and Levas
(2003) found that personality traits that
correspond with conventional stereotypes
of business vocations explain business
students’ selection of a major. In other
words, their results indicate that students
have unique sets of personality traits that
predispose them to choose careers
according to their expectations of those
careers. They found “accounting students
to be significantly more reserved, prone
to use concrete and focused thinking,
affected by feelings, restrained, persistent, timid, practical, and tense in their
personal interactions” and that “marketing students were found to be easygoing,
creative, enthusiastic, persistent, venturesome, imaginative, and edgy in their personal level of extroversion” (p. 156).
May/June 2005
269
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
These findings of significant differences
related to business major raise the question of whether learning is more effective
when students’ personality traits and
interpersonal behaviors better fit the perceived requirements of the curriculum.
Moreover, Noël and Levas suggested that
research should be directed to clarify
how the use of different teaching strategies in the various business majors
affects learning.
In this study, I sought to focus on the
other side of the curriculum–teaching
equation by surveying undergraduate
business students regarding their perceptions of how well various pedagogical strategies facilitate learning.
Because students will experience the
curricular changes, business faculty
members need to be aware that differences among the different majors within the business school might affect the
success of instructional strategies in
facilitating learning. That is, certain
strategies may prove to be more successful within specific business-major
curricula than others. If this is the case,
then the results of this study should
prove useful in guiding business faculty
members in their selection of pedagogies that facilitate student learning.
Pedagogical Strategies
Employing the delineation described
by Weston and Cranton (1986), I grouped
the pedagogical strategies into four general categories: instructor-centered strategies (IC), interactive strategies (IS), individual-learning strategies (IL), and
experiential-learning strategies (EL). The
pedagogical strategies, although not allinclusive, do represent some of the more
popular strategies used in higher education. I list them by category in Table 1.
Weston and Cranton provided an overall
perspective of the differing strategies and
factors important in their selection.
In the case of instructor-centered
strategies, the direction of communication is one way, from the instructor to the
students. The focus is on the instructor,
who is primarily responsible for imparting information to the students, who are
learning in a passive manner. The dominant form of instructor-centered strategies is the lecture. Lectures are particularly efficient and effective for large
classes and for instruction at the lower
levels (knowledge and comprehension)
of the cognitive domain (Weston &
Cranton, 1986). In this study, I used several different lecture approaches, including lectures-in-general, theory lectures,
applied lectures, and talks by experts.
With interactive strategies, two-way
communication takes place between the
instructor and students as well as among
students. More importantly, with such
approaches, the students have an opportunity to participate actively in the learning and teaching processes. In compar-
TABLE 1. Student Ratings of Pedagogical Strategies
Pedagogical strategy
Instructor-centered strategies (IC)
Lectures-in-general
Applied lectures
Theory lectures
Talks by experts
Individual-learning strategies (IL)
Homework
Thinking alone
Exams-in-general
Problem exams
Programmed instruction–skills
Programmed instruction–concepts
Required readings
Term paper
Interactive strategies (IS)
Cooperative learning
Group projects
Seminars
Small-group discussion
Large-class discussion
Argumentative discussion
Experiential-learning strategies (EL)
Internships
Case analyses
Case studies
Management simulation
Experiential exercises
Role playing
Videos
270
Journal of Education for Business
All
(N = 374)
M
Rank
Management
(n = 107)
M
Rank
Marketing
(n = 89)
M
Rank
Finance
(n = 84)
M
Rank
Accounting
(n = 94)
M
Rank
4.119
4.523
3.562
4.187
10
1
22
4
3.933
4.425
3.404
4.264
15
1
24
4
4.103
4.551
3.552
4.460
14
2
24
4
4.274
4.667
3.630
4.083
4
1
22
9
4.202
4.478
3.688
3.936
6
2
18
9
4.409
4.164
3.779
4.046
4.217
3.866
3.959
3.316
2
5
20
14
3
17
16
25
4.302
4.076
3.570
3.840
4.125
3.821
3.802
3.123
3
10
21
16
8
18
19
25
4.432
4.227
3.770
3.864
4.296
3.843
4.000
3.506
8
12
21
19
10
20
16
25
4.429
4.083
3.928
4.289
4.229
3.976
3.928
3.452
2
9
15
3
5
13
15
24
4.489
4.280
3.894
4.237
4.234
3.839
4.130
3.234
1
3
12
4
5
15
8
25
4.054
4.132
3.704
4.150
3.489
4.156
13
9
21
8
24
6
3.981
4.189
3.673
4.198
3.562
4.217
14
7
20
6
22
5
4.449
4.460
3.909
4.329
3.698
4.202
7
4
18
9
22
13
3.952
4.096
3.831
4.171
3.374
4.048
14
8
18
6
25
11
3.847
3.798
3.430
3.915
3.315
4.138
14
16
21
10
24
7
4.151
4.083
4.003
4.070
3.796
3.786
3.539
7
11
15
12
18
19
23
4.019
4.094
4.019
4.349
3.830
4.019
3.562
11
9
11
2
17
11
22
4.586
4.472
4.455
4.284
4.022
3.966
3.671
1
3
6
11
15
17
23
4.131
3.904
3.762
4.048
3.798
3.783
3.554
7
17
21
11
19
20
23
3.915
3.862
3.777
3.575
3.543
3.351
3.376
10
13
17
19
20
23
22
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
isons concerned with higher-level cognitive learning (analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation) or attitude and motivation,
class discussion was found to be superior
to the lecture strategy (McKeachie,
1963). For larger classes or situations in
which students may feel more comfortable interacting with a smaller number
of students, small-group discussions can
be used. A more structured interactive
strategy is cooperative learning, a technique that is particularly useful when
there is a high degree of variability in
either the students’ abilities or their
experiences. In cooperative learning,
those students who have mastered the
material take on the role of instructor
and teach the material to other students.
Another approach entails group projects,
which permit students to interact actively with each other while the instructor
acts as a consultant to or manager of the
learning process. This approach is recommended for business students
because entry-level business graduates
will work in small-group environments.
In addition to immersing the students in
the learning process, group projects
enhance the development of higher
learning skills involving application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In
this article, I focus on the following
interactive strategies: argumentative discussion, large-class discussion, smallgroup discussion, seminars, group projects, and cooperative learning.
Individual-learning strategies permit
students to learn at their own pace.
These methods require regular immediate feedback so the student can assess
his or her progress. One individuallearning strategy described in this article
is programmed instruction. Programmed
instruction involves a series of frames
that comprise the instructional program.
Each frame contains a stimulus-response
pattern that allows the student to progressively learn concepts and/or skills.
Additional individual-learning strategies
considered in this research are examinations-in-general, problem examinations,
term papers, homework, required readings, and thinking alone.
The basis of experiential-learning
strategies, in either real or simulatedwork settings, is active learning.
Because the student takes an active role,
active-learning strategies are more effec-
tive than the traditional educational
approach in reaching the more complex
educational outcomes of application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
(Chickering, 1977). Put simply, participation allows students to use and develop all of the four learning abilities
described by Kolb (1976). That is, students are able to reflect on their experiences and develop generalizations
through small discussion groups. The
discussion groups then can develop
hypotheses based on those learning
two AACSB-accredited institutions, one
private and the other a regional state university located in the Northeast United
States. The students indicated how well
each of 25 different pedagogical strategies facilitated their learning by selecting one of the following responses: 5
(most helpful), 4 (very helpful), 3 (moderately helpful), 2 (slightly helpful), and
1 (unhelpful). In Table 1, I list mean student responses for each of the 25 pedagogical strategies for the entire student
sample as well as for each of the four
The undergraduate business students clearly had
a greater affinity for the application of their
knowledge than for the theoretical aspects.
experiences, which are further tested
with additional exercises. In a sense, the
students are taught how to learn. May et
al. (1995) reported that 63.6% of a random sample of accounting educators
believed that the objective of the
accounting curriculum should be to
teach students how to learn on their own.
Students who experience these more
active strategies are more likely to maintain their interest in education and learning. Successful learning experiences
tend to beget a desire for more; as a
result, lifelong learning, which is so vital
in the business professions, is fostered. I
investigated the following experientiallearning strategies: internships, management simulation, role playing, structured
experiential exercises, videos, case
analyses, and case studies.
Method
In this study, I sought to determine
whether differences among four different majors within the business school
(accounting, finance, management, and
marketing) affected the perceived success of 25 different pedagogical strategies in facilitating student learning. The
subjects in this research were senior
undergraduate business students from
business majors. In addition, I provide a
ranking of the pedagogical strategies
based on the overall mean ratings and
the mean ratings for each of the four
business majors.
I used a one-way multivariate analysis of variance test (MANOVA) to
determine whether differing business
curricula had an impact on the students’
ratings of pedagogical strategies. When
performing a MANOVA, Olson (1974)
found that the test statistic based on Pillai’s trace was the most robust and had
adequate power to detect true differences under different conditions. Moreover, Pillai’s trace can be transformed
into an exact F ratio. Using Pillai’s trace
test statistic, I found a statistically significant difference among the differing
majors at the .000 level of significance
(0.454; approximate F = 2.04). To determine which strategies were causing this
significant difference, I followed the
MANOVA test with 25 individual univariate analysis of variance tests
(ANOVA) for each of the individual
pedagogical strategies. Twelve of the 25
individual pedagogical techniques
showed statistically significant differences at the .05 level among the four
business majors. I list these pedagogical
strategies in Table 2. Finally, I followed
May/June 2005
271
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
each of these significant ANOVA tests
with a Scheffé post-hoc analysis test at
the .05 level of significance to determine the specific major differences
within each of these pedagogical strategies. I present the results of these posthoc tests in Table 2.
Finally, to gain a better perspective of
the degree of similarities and differences across the four business-major
curricula, I determined Spearman rank
correlations among the ranked pedagogical strategies for each of the four
majors. I present these Spearman rank
correlations in Table 3.
Results
A review of the student rankings by
major coupled with the individual
instructional strategies revealed several
findings. The undergraduate business
students clearly had a greater affinity for
the application of their knowledge than
for the theoretical aspects (see Table 1).
All majors ranked applied lectures
either 1st or 2nd, but they ranked theory
lectures significantly lower, between
18th and 24th place. Likewise, the preference for application over theory was
evident when all majors consistently
gave higher rankings to programmed
instruction skills, which are more applications oriented (5th to 10th place), than
to programmed instruction concepts,
which are more theoretically oriented
(13th to 20th place). Additionally, all
majors appeared to prefer discussion in
small groups to large-class discussion.
Finally, rank consistency appeared
across all majors with respect to the
extremely low rankings assigned term
papers and videos (see Table 1).
Statistically, business majors were
largely in agreement with respect to the
helpfulness in learning of the more traditional pedagogical strategies. The scores
for 3 out of 4 instructor-centered strategies and 7 out of 8 individual-learning
strategies showed no significant differences among the majors. These traditional pedagogical strategies were lectures-in-general, applied lectures, theory
lectures, homework, thinking alone,
exams-in-general, programmed instruction skills, programmed instruction concepts, required readings, and term
papers. Just the opposite experience
occurred for the more nontraditional
strategies. Only 1 of the 7 experiential
strategies and 2 of the 6 interactive
strategies showed no significant differences among the majors’ ratings. These
nontraditional pedagogical strategies
were videos, small-group discussion,
and argumentative discussion.
Turning to the differences among the
business majors, I found that 11 of the
12 pedagogical strategies that exhibited
statistically significant differences
showed marketing students’ ratings to
be higher than those of accounting students. In four of these cases, the sole
difference was that between the marketing and accounting students’ ratings.
The pedagogical strategies were talks
by experts, experiential exercises, seminars, and large-class discussion. For
three additional strategies—internships,
role playing, and group projects—both
marketing and management students’
TABLE 2. Pedagogical Strategies With Differences Among Majors
Pedagogical strategy
Management simulation (EL)
Internships (EL)
Role-playing (EL)
Case studies (EL)
Group projects (IS)
Cooperative learning (IS)
Case analyses (EL)
Talks by experts (IC)
Experiential exercises (EL)
Problem exams (IL)
F(3, 370)
Significance
Scheffé post-hoc analysis (.05 level of significance)
13.497
9.418
8.856
8.680
8.530
6.905
6.761
4.897
4.700
4.457
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.003
0.004
3.377
3.287
0.019
0.021
Marketing, management, & finance ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing & management ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing & management ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than management, finance, & accounting.
Marketing & management ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than management, finance, & accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than finance & accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than accounting.
Finance & accounting ratings higher than management; finance
ratings higher than marketing.
Marketing ratings higher than accounting.
Marketing ratings higher than accounting.
Seminars (IS)
Large-class discussion (IS)
Note. IC = instructor-centered strategy; IL = individual-learning strategy; IS = interactive strategy; and EL = experiential-learning strategy.
TABLE 3. Spearman Rank Correlations
Management
Marketing
Finance
Marketing
Finance
Accounting
.810**
.698**
.578**
.564**
.484*
.860**
*p = .05 (two-tailed). **p = .01 (two-tailed).
272
Journal of Education for Business
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
ratings were higher than those of
accounting students. For the management simulation strategy, the ratings of
marketing, management, and finance
students were all higher than those for
accounting students. The remaining
three cases show that case analysis was
rated higher by marketing majors than
by either finance or accounting majors,
and that both case studies and cooperative learning received higher ratings
from marketing majors than from students with the other three majors. Thus,
marketing students rated (a) 11 pedagogical strategies higher than did
accounting students, (b) 3 strategies
higher than did finance students, and (c)
2 higher than did management students.
On the other hand, the management students rated 4 strategies more highly than
accounting students, and the finance
students had only 1 strategy rated more
highly than accounting students.
Only in the case of problem exams
did accounting majors rate a pedagogical strategy more highly than did the
other students. Both finance and
accounting students gave this strategy
higher ratings than did management
students, and finance students gave it
higher ratings than did marketing students. However, no statistical difference
existed between the accounting and
marketing students’ ratings of this strategy. To provide a better perspective on
the degree of similarities and differences among the business majors, I
computed Spearman rank correlations
among the ranked pedagogical strategies for each of the four majors. The
rankings of marketing students were
most closely related to those of the
management students, with a correlation of 0.810. The correlations of marketing student rankings with finance
and accounting student rankings were
0.578 and 0.484, respectively. The rankings of the management students were
more highly correlated with the finance
student rankings (r = 0.698) than with
the accounting student rankings (r =
0.564). Finally, finance and accounting
student rankings were closely related,
with a correlation of 0.860. Thus, I
found a continuum of perceived helpfulness in learning across business
majors with respect to these pedagogical strategies, beginning with marketing
at one periphery and ending with
accounting at the other.
Discussion
Because of the breadth of the required
business curriculum, undergraduate business students take many introductory
courses in which classes are larger and
instruction focuses more on the lower
levels (knowledge and comprehension)
of the cognitive domain. In these courses,
traditional instructor-centered and individual-learning strategies are particularly
efficient and effective. As such, undergraduate business students are quite
familiar and understand clearly what is
expected of them when more traditional
strategies are employed in the classroom.
In addition, faculty members have honed
their skills through extensive practice
and are very proficient in employing
these strategies. Therefore, it is not surprising that my results show that only 2
of the 12 more traditional strategies differed with regard to their perceived helpfulness in learning among the business
majors.
On the other hand, 10 of the 13 more
nontraditional, interactive, and experiential-learning strategies did exhibit significant differences in their perceived
helpfulness in learning among the business majors. Given that unique personality traits and interpersonal behaviors
predispose each student to favor one
business major over another, what distinguishing characteristics exist within
these majors that contribute to these
results? Barnowe and Frost (1979)
employed Little’s (1972) person–thing
orientation theory to explore influences
on choice of business major. According
to Little, people differ in their affective
orientation toward persons and things
(including physical objects, numerical
data, and ideas unrelated to persons).
Barnowe and Frost found that although
thing-oriented students almost exclusively chose thing-oriented majors
(accounting and finance), their selection
was not associated with grades in prerequisite courses or with teacher influences. Conversely, person-oriented students’ choices of major were associated
with grades in prerequisite courses and
the influence of teachers. Moreover,
person-oriented students were more
likely than thing-oriented students to
regard person-oriented courses as those
that were most effectively taught. Those
students also tended to perform relatively better in the person-oriented course
than did thing-oriented students.
In reviewing the pedagogical strategies that showed significant differences
in perceived helpfulness to learning
among business majors, I observed that
the majority of these strategies require
interpersonal interaction and are clearly
person-oriented activities. Barnowe and
Frost (1979) posited that motivation
brought about by a preference toward
persons over things was the reason that
person-oriented students performed
better than thing-oriented students in
person-oriented courses. Thus, the
apparent continuum of helpfulness in
learning observed for the pedagogical
strategies across business majors can be
explained by gradients that decrease in
person orientation and increase in thing
orientation as one moves from marketing to management, then to finance,
and, finally, to accounting.
Conclusion
The results of my study lead to the
conclusion that the personality traits
and interpersonal behaviors that predispose students to select certain business
majors also affect the effectiveness of
different pedagogical strategies in facilitating their learning. My study’s results
show that 12 of 25 differing pedagogical
strategies are more successful within
some business-major curricula than in
others in facilitating student learning.
Furthermore, 11 of the 12 differences
among the business majors showed
higher ratings among marketing students than among accounting students.
Thus, owing to personality traits and
interpersonal behaviors among business
majors, I found a continuum of perceived helpfulness in learning across
business majors with respect to pedagogical strategies, beginning with marketing at one periphery and ending with
accounting at the other.
Additionally, I found that the differences in assigned scores for perceived
helpfulness in learning were greater
among the more nontraditional pedagogical strategies than among the tradiMay/June 2005
273
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:43 12 January 2016
tional strategies. This finding is important because the nontraditional strategies are superior not only as means for
reaching the more complex educational
outcomes of application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Chickering,
1977; McKeachie, 1963; Weston &
Cranton, 1986) but also as means for
developing the necessary professional
skills essential for today’s business students. Those skills are oral communication skills, interpersonal skills, leadership skills, critical-thinking abilities,
teamwork, decision-making abilities,
and written communication skills. However, accounting students gave these
nontraditional strategies lower ratings
on helpfulness in learning, which unfortunately poses a dilemma for accounting faculty members. Not surprisingly,
those in the accounting profession have
been more vociferous in calling for curricular change than have those in the
other business professions.
REFERENCES
American Accounting Association. (1986). Future
accounting education: Preparing for the
expanding profession. Issues in Accounting
Education, 1, 168–195.
Barnowe, J. T., & Frost, P. J. (1979). When personality meets situation: Exploring influences
274
Journal of Education for Business
on choice of business major. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 167–176.
Benke, R., & Hermanson, R. (1990). Trends in
education. Management Accounting, 71(10),
56–57.
Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen, S. S., & Kolb, D. A.
(1995). Introduction: Taking the path toward
learning. In R. E. Boyatzis, S. S. Cowen, D. A.
Kolb, & Associates (Eds.), Innovation in professional education: Steps on a journey from
teaching to learning (pp. 1–11). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Buckley, M. R., Peach, E. B., & Weitzel, W.
(1989). Are collegiate programs adequately
preparing students for the business world?
Journal of Education for Business, 65,
101–105.
Chickering, A. W. (1977). Experiential learning.
New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press.
Commission on Admission to Graduate Management Education. (1990). Leadership for a
changing world. Los Angeles: Graduate Management Admission Council.
Davis, S., & Botkin, J. (1994). The monster under
the bed: How business is mastering the opportunity of knowledge for profit. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Dulek, R., & Fielden, J. (1992). Why fight the system? The non-choice facing beleaguered business faculties. Business Horizons, 35(5), 13–18.
Elliott, C., Goodwin, J. S., & Goodwin, J. C.
(1994). MBA programs and business needs: Is
there a mismatch? Business Horizons, 37(4),
55–60.
Jenkins, R. L., & Reizenstein, R. C. (1984,
Spring). Insights into the MBA: Its contents,
output, and relevance. Selections, 1, 19–24.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Management of the learning
process. California Management Review, 18(3),
21–31.
Leavitt, H. (1991). Socializing our MBAs: Total
immersion? California Management Review,
33(4), 127–143.
Linder, J., & Smith, J. (1992). The complex case
of management review. Harvard Business
Review, 70(5), 16–33.
Little, B. R. (1972). Psychological man as scientist, humanist, and specialist. Journal of Experimental Research in Psychology, 6, 95–118.
May, G. S., Windal, F. W., & Sylvestre, J. (1995).
The need for change in accounting education:
An educator survey. Journal of Accounting
Education, 13, 21–43.
McKeachie, W. J. (1963). Research on teaching at
the college and university level. In N. L. Gage
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Noël, N. M., & Levas, M. G. (2003). The relationship of personality traits and self-monitoring
behavior to choice of business major. Journal of
Education for Business, 78, 153–157.
Olson, C. L. (1974). Comparative robustness of
six tests in multivariate analysis of variance.
Journal of the American Statistical Association,
69, 894–907.
Perspectives on education: Capabilities for success in the accounting profession. (1989). New
York: Managing Partners of the Big Eight Public Accounting Firms.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 78–95.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust
into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill.
Richardson, L. (2003). A challenge to change
business education. Mid-American Journal of
Business, 18(1), 5–6.
Weston, C., & Cranton, P. A. (1986). Selecting
instructional strategies. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 259–288.