Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Capstone Business Course Assessment: Exploring
Student Readiness Perspectives
Stephen L. Payne , Jan Flynn & J. Michael Whitfield
To cite this article: Stephen L. Payne , Jan Flynn & J. Michael Whitfield (2008) Capstone
Business Course Assessment: Exploring Student Readiness Perspectives, Journal of Education for Business, 83:3, 141-146, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.83.3.141-146
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.3.141-146
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 54
View related articles
oncernformoreeffectiveassess-ment orassurance of learning is evidentinrecentAssociationtoAdvance CollegiateSchoolsofBusinessInterna- tional(AACSB;2003)guidelines.Cap-stone courses within business schools offeruniqueassessmentpotentials.The capstoneexperiencecanbeviewedasa keyassessmentopportunityforevaluat-ingoverallstudent-learningoutcomesin abusinessschool.
Unlike commercially available or locallyconstructedcomprehensivefield exams for measuring student knowl-edge of business school concepts, the capstone course provides an option to measure such students’ knowledge and theextenttowhichstudentsarecapable ofdemonstratinghigherordercognitive dimensionsoflearning,suchassynthe-sisandevaluationofbusinessconcepts. The capstone course experience also offers assessment potentials regarding the affective and skills-based dimen-sionsofstudentlearning.
Since 2000, we have used a stake-holder approach and the scholarship of the teaching and learning processes (Payne, Whitfield, & Flynn, 2002) to assessthecapstonecourseinourbusi-ness school. From the perspective of controltheory(Wiener,1948),mostof ourearlyassessmenteffortsinthecap- stonecoursefocusedonfeedbackcon-trols or after-the-fact information from sources such as surveys, grades,
cap-stonefailurerates,andstudentscoreson a national comprehensive business exit exam.Althoughtheseinitiativesprovid-ed useful information, we recognizexam.Althoughtheseinitiativesprovid-ed that additional forms of control would provide a more integrated perspective onoverallstudentlearningrelatedtothe capstonecourse.Tothisend,webegan to reconsider concurrent controls with a focus on the learning processes in a student’scapstonecourseexperience.
There are three basic types of man-agement controls that are covered in introductory management textbooks: forward, concurrent, and feed-back controls. In this application, con-trols can be established before (feed- forward),during(concurrent),andafter (feedback) student work or learning in the classroom. We explored feed-for-ward controls to understand issues of students’ readiness for undertaking the higher level and integrative-learning activities in the capstone course. Our exploration of issues of student readi-ness involved questions concerning (a) the extent to which students have the necessary background knowledge, skills, and dispositions to succeed in the capstone course (i.e., feed-forward control) and (b) whether students are able to apply those skills, knowledge, anddispositionstothecapstoneexperi-ence(i.e.,concurrentcontrol).Therehas been significant scholarship on assess-ing learnassess-ing outcomes and processes.
CapstoneBusinessCourseAssessment:
ExploringStudentReadinessPerspectives
STEPHENL.PAYNE JANFLYNN
J.MICHAELWHITFIELD
GEORGIACOLLEGE&STATEUNIVERSITY MILLEDGEVILLE,GEORGIA
C
ABSTRACT.Inadditiontoassessment ofstudent-learningoutcomesincapstone businesscourses,anassessmentconcernis studentreadinessforthesetypicalcapstone experiences.Areviewofboth(a)thelit-eratureonlearningretentionorapplication andstudentdispositionsforundertaking significantlearningchallengesand(b) theauthors’preliminarydatacollection andanalysisledtheauthorstoquestion traditionalassumptionsregardingintegra-tivelearningpotentialsforsomestudents enteringthecapstonebusinesscourse.The authorsrecommendformsoffeed-forward controls,concurrentcontrols,andfeedback controlsforcapstonecoursestoenable businesseducatorstoassessstudentlearn-ingfromamoresystemicperspective.
Keywords:capstonebusinesscourses, learningassessment,learningreadiness, learningretention,studentdispositions
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
Much less has been written about the influenceofstudents’readinessontheir successful outcomes in more advanced andintegratedlearningenvironments.
Inthisarticle,wesummarizeconcepts fromtheliteratureonlearningreadiness thatarerelevanttoanintegratedcontrol theory approach to overall assessment ofthecapstonecourse.Wealsodescribe pilot processes that we investigated to gain different assessment-related stu-dent feedback and recommend that educators undertake a more systemic approachtoassessmentofthecapstone learningexperience.
IssuesofStudentRetention andDispositions
Two key concerns related to assess-ment of students’ readiness for a cap- stonebusinesscourseare(a)theirreten-tionofrelevantknowledgeandskillsand (b) their disposition or motivation for retrievingandapplyingsuchknowledge and skills for the demands for higher levellearninginacapstonecourse.The efforts of previous researchers in vari-ousacademicfieldshaveledustoboth ofthesereadinessconcerns.
RetentionofKnowledgeandSkills A key assumption underlying the design of academic programs in most business schools is that students who successfully complete core courses in functionalbusinessareasshouldbeable toretainandapplysuchknowledgeand skillseffectivelyforintegrativeorcap-stone business courses. On the basis of student feedback from our existing assessmentsurveysandpersonalexperi-encesinteachingcapstonecourses,we began to question the extent to which actualstudentretentionandapplication of learning from core courses justified
2000).Royer(1979),forexample,con-trasts “near transfer” (p. 54) and “far transfer”(p.55)oflearning. Neartrans-feroflearningoccurswhenastimulus thatissimilartoanearlieroneproduces roughlythesamelearnedresponse.Far transfer involvesstudentretention,syn- thesis,andcreativeapplicationoflearn-ing from several previous experiences for somewhat different or just-related stimuliorchallenges.
Other learning models in the field of cognitive psychology describe an advanced stage of learning. At this advanced stage, there is a depth of retained knowledge and skills and an “automaticity”(Goldstein,1993,p.110) in accessing earlier learning (Howell & Cooke, 1989; Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). This automaticity allows the conscious mind to focus on different aspects of new and more integrative or demanding learning tasks. May and Kahnweiler (2000) stressed that inad-equate initial learning can be a major handicapforstudentsstrivingformore advanced stages of transfer of knowl-edgeandskills.Withoutsomedepthof initiallearning,studentsdonothavethe capacitytoretrieveneededconceptsor skills and are not prepared for higher orderlearninginadvancedcourses.
InfluenceofStudentLearning Dispositions
Learning is a function not only of individuals’existingorretainedknowl-edge and skills but also their dispo-sitions for future learning. Individual studentdispositionstowardlearningare keyelementsinanysystemicoverview of assessment in the capstone course. Baldwin and Ford (1988) examined knowledgeretentionandlearningtrans-fer from a perspective of personnel
A key element necessary for knowl-edge retention and transfer of learning, accordingtoHalpernandHakel(2003), isself-efficacy,thebeliefinone’sselfto accomplishthetaskathand.Beyondpsy- chometricinstrumentsorscalesformea-suring self-confidence or self-efficacy, a course assessment tool that Angelo andCross(1993)describedisa“course-related self-confidence” (pp. 275–279) survey for college students. However, self-confidence alone—without other dispositional measures, such as self-control—appears to have limited value in predicting actual learning outcomes. Excessive self-confidence, for example, canoccasionallyreducethecognitiveor affectivedissonancethatisoftenassoci-ated with many higher learning chal-lenges. Cvercko (1995) explored the concept of trainee motivation for learn-ingbyusingaframeworkofexpectancy theory. Investigating variables associ-ated with expectancy theory, she found that these variables were predictive of near and far transfers of learning in a management training program. Schmitt (2004)exploredmeasuresofhighschool student readiness for college-learning experiences, borrowing from this per-sonnelpsychologyandtrainingliterature andalsoapplyinganexpectancytheory approach(Vroom,1964).
Inthefieldofandragogy,orthestudy ofadultlearning,researchershaveintro-ducedanddevelopedscalesandmeasures to focus on various student dispositions related to learning.The concept of self- directedlearningreadinessisoneexam-ple. McCune, Guglielmino, and Garcia (1990) stated that the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS), developed initially by Guglielmino (1978), appears to measure student dispositions such as love of learning, self-conceptasaneffectiveindependent
instrumentsorscalesthatmightprovide feed-forward information on student dispositionorreadinessincludevarious forms of emotional intelligence (Tuck-er, Sojka, Barone, & McCarthy, 2000) and the Academic Delay of Gratifica-tionScale(Bembenutty&Karabenick, 1998). We used the latter instrument and a motivational skills-and-strategies questionnaire to assess students’ moti-vationaltendencies,cognitivestrategies, andself-regulatorylearningstrategiesto obtainacademicachievement.
MethodandResults
Backgroundreadingandexperiencein teaching the capstone course led us to question the degree to which some of ourstudentsretainedknowledgefromthe commonbodyofknowledge(CBK)busi-nesscoursesandthedegreetowhichsome ofourstudentsweredisposedtoundertake the higher learning challenges of most capstonecourses.Toexploretheseissues, wedevelopedseveralpreliminarylinesof inquiry regarding the levels of retention anddispositionsthatourstudentsbrought tothecapstonecourse.
Core-CourseRetentionAnalysis Oneofthefirstquestionsweinvesti-gatedwastheextenttowhichstudents retained basic concepts that they had earlier seemed to comprehend in their CBKcourses.Toaddressthisquestion, we enlisted the aid of colleagues who teachCBKcourses.Inall,50undergrad-oped and administered these multiple- choice or short-answer exams as part of their normal course activities and covered basic course concepts deemed important by the instructor.At the end of that semester, instructors readminis-teredthesamequestionscoveringthese conceptstoseehowmuchinformation the 86 students had retained over the course of the semester. Students were notinformedthattheywouldberetested ontheinitialinformation.
Usingasimplemeasureofthenumber of questions answered correctly by the
samestudentonbothinitialandfollow-uptests,wefoundthat,onaverage,only 70%ofthequestionsansweredcorrectly onthefirsttestwereansweredcorrectly in later testing. Even with its limited natureandwithoutgreatrigor,thisindi-than 2 months. If students are retaining only70%oftheirlowerlevelcore-course knowledge over this short time span, it is not realistic to expect that students enter the capstone experience, usually the last course in their college career, with a minimal base in some fields for thehigherorderlearningnecessarytobe successfulatthecapstonelevel.
Although more rigorous study wouldbeneededforverificationofor inference beyond these local results, we argue that initial learning of key core-course concepts needs to be significantly reinforced or improved for students to perform better in the capstone course. This is particularly important because more serious ero-sion of knowledge will most likely occur in the time between completion of the CBK courses and entry into the capstone course. If some students donotlearncore-courseconceptsand if those concepts are not reinforced throughouttheCBKcurriculumtopro-mote retention and deeper learning, then serious constraints exist against higher level learning that is based on analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of core-courseconcepts.Thisassumption ofstudents’abilitytoengageinhigher order integrated learning is central to the role of the capstone course in the business school curriculum. Without afocusonqualityanddepthoflearn-ing at the lower CBK course levels and without better feed-forward con-trolsystemstoassessstudentlearning and retention from these lower level courses,educatorsandresearchersmay have to reconsider the idea of the tra-ditionalcapstonecourseanditsrolein studentlearning.
MotivationandDispositionalAnalysis
The literature on individual atti-tudes, motivations, and dispositions towardlearningandlearningoutcomes encouraged us to explore perceptions thatstudentshadregardingtheirexperi-ences with core and capstone courses. Weconductedin-depthinterviewswith studentsenteringcapstonecoursescon-cerning their perceived learning goals, perceivedobstaclesinthepathoftheir learning,andideasofhowfacultymight help them overcome these obstacles. We disseminated information regard-ing interview opportunities to students throughe-mailprecedingthecourseand through announcements in initial ses-sionsofthecapstonecourse.Weasked studentstovolunteerfortheinterviews andpaidthem$10fortheirtime.Atotal of 12 students volunteered in the time frame allotted and was interviewed by another faculty member teaching the capstone course. All interviews were taped with student permission. Most interviews lasted between 45 and 60 min. The university’s institutional review board approved the questions and procedures used to gather this information. The interviews were tran-scribed from the tapes and analyzed by using a qualitative process for in-depth or intense interviews suggested byMcCracken(1988).
Of the 12 students interviewed, 8 emphasized learning knowledge and skills necessary for success in future work settings as a primary goal for all coursework,includingworkinthecap-stone course. A few students stressed shorter term and more specific goals suchasgettingagoodgrade,keepinga scholarship,orpassingacertifiedpublic accountant (CPA) exam. Other goals mentionedby1or2individualsinclud-ed areas of skill development such as time management, speaking and com-municating in business contexts, and knowledgeofcurrentbusinessenviron-mentsorevents.
Among the most common learning barriers mentioned by students were difficultyinretainingmaterialcovered, both in earlier courses and in courses within the semester, not enough time for necessary study, and faculty who had not required integrative or higher
order learning. Other barriers identi-fied were laziness in individual stu-dentsandalackoftheirownabilityto thinkcritically.Severallearningbarriers mentionedbystudentsinvolvedfaculty-related concerns. Among those issues mentionedbythestudentswerelackof clarityoflearninggoalsforsomecours-es,lackofeffectivefacultyfeedbackon studentassignments,lackofintegration ofconceptsacrosscourses,andfaculty teaching methods that do little to help theretentionofknowledge.
In particular, students were asked what,ifany,obstaclesexistedforthem infourtypesoflearningactivitiescom-moninthecapstonecourse:classroom discussion, team projects, traditional testing, and written assignments. Sev-eral students stated that they were shy or lacked the confidence necessary to speak or interact significantly in open-classroomdiscussions.Abouthalfofthe students reported having had generally positive group-learning experiences, but more than half of the respondents reported group-learning experiences that were frustrating and involved dif-ficultbarriersforthemtoovercome.
Most of the students interviewed indicated concerns about testing as a learning barrier for them. For written assignments, several students reported encountering obstacles such as vague assignment goals, lack of a rubric in evaluations of assignments, lack of feedbackontheseassignments,lackof adequatestudentknowledgeonhowto conductresearch,difficultyofthecritical- thinkingdemandsofsomeassignments, and difficulty expressing their ideas appropriately.
All students we interviewed made comments concerning how faculty could remove obstacles in the path of their learning goals. Generally, the
student retention and dispositions led to specific changes in our planning and assessment activities in the cap-stonecourse.Additionalquestionsand broader concerns regarding overall assessmentwerealsoraised.
Discussion
DirectImplicationsofResearch
Since 2000, we have been collecting information from capstone students at the end of each semester and asking themwhichCBKareastheyfoundthem- selvesrevisitingandstudyingmoredur-ingthecapstonecourse.Onthebasisof ourretentionanalysisandin-depthinter-views, we revised our previous assess-ment survey to include two new items askingstudentsto(a)ratetheirperceived level of knowledge retention from core orfunctionalcourseareasand(b)evalu-atetheirperceiveddegreeofcompetence infivecommontypesoflearningactivi-tiesinbusinesscapstonecourses.
Asaresultoftheircapstone-learning experiences, 40 students from two sections of the course with different instructors expressed less confidence in their retention of knowledge in the areas of finance, accounting, and economics. In comparison, areas of management and marketing showed a greater level of confidence. In the classroom skills areas, speaking and writing skills showed the highest lev-els of student confidence. Students reported the least confidence in their ability to do well on exams and in open classroom discussion. The areas of relatively greater confidence were small-group discussions followed by oralorformalpresentations.Itisinter-esting that, per the average score, not one of the classroom-learning activi-
tieswasviewedbystudentsasinvolv-course instructors might better under-stand and cope with such student dis- positionsinfluencingtheirlearningpro-cessesandoutcomesasrevealedinthe interviews. Although aforementioned dispositional measures might be used by capstone faculty for early informa-tion on student dispositions, an instru-mentcalledtheMotivatedStrategiesfor Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) that welaterdiscoveredseemedmoreuseful forourpurposes(Pintrich,Smith,Gar-cia, & McKeachie, 1991). The MSLQ providesvarioussubscalesthatinclude not only student perceptions of their keydispositionsregardingacoursewith higherorderlearninggoalsbutalsotheir strategiesandperceivedskillsinpursu-ingthesecourse-learninggoals.
FurtherQuestionsandConcerns
Feed-forward approaches to assess-ment in the capstone business course emphasize issues of student readiness because these factors can affect learn-ing outcomes. Our focus on student readiness,includingnotonlytheirexist-ingknowledgeandskillsbutalsotheir dispositions and strategies for pursu-ing higher order learnpursu-ing challenges, appears to be a distinct contribution to theemergingliteratureonteachingand assessmentofcapstonebusinesscours-es. However, several questions seem towarrantfurtherdiscussionandmore rigorousresearchapproaches
Onecriticalareainwhichmoreinves-tigation is necessary is whether many students actually are ready to tackle theintegrativelearningdemandsofthe capstone course.The basic assumption at the heart of the capstone course is thatstudentsbringknowledgeandskills frompreviouscourseswiththemasthey enterthecapstoneexperience.However,
andthattheyshouldretainfromprevi-ouscoursestoassuretheirsuccessinthe capstonecourse?
Onerecommendationrelatedtoefforts toassessstudentreadinessforcapstone courses is that educators and research-erssetupframeworksforextensiveand continuingfeedbacktocore-coursefac- ultyconcerninghowwellpreparedstu-dents feel for the capstone experience. Ifstudentsenteringcapstonecoursesdo nothaveconfidenceintheirpossession ofknowledgeandskillsbecauseofcore business courses, and particularly if theydonotscorewellenoughonexams testingsuchlearning,itisimportantfor educators and researchers to establish better faculty dialogue on these issues oflearningandretentionofknowledge. In exploring these issues at our own university, our capstone course faculty memberswerenotconfidentthatcore-course faculty always introduced and then reinforced the concepts that were critical for retention and application in the capstone course. The tendency for classestobetextbookdriven,withfac-ulty focusing more on the quantity of conceptcoveragefromthesetextbooks than on the quality of student learning of basic concepts, can be problematic. Thispushtocoveralotofmaterialcan occasionally translate into limited pri-oritizationandreinforcementofcritical conceptsandskills.
Dialogue among all faculty who teachCBKcourses,skillscourses,and capstonecoursesiscriticaltoeducators’ identifyingclearlythecoreconceptsand skills that students should be expected togainandretainduringtheirprograms. Oncetheseconceptsandskillsareiden-tified,facultyshouldreinforcethiskey material so that students can transfer their learning to future courses. Identi-fication, agreement, and focus on key concepts and skills are only the begin-ning. Educators and researchers must close the assessment loop concern-ing the degree to which students gain, retain, and apply these basic concepts andskillsthroughoutthebusinesspro-gram.Thisclosuredependsoneffective feedback of assessment information to faculty who teach core courses and on linkage of this feedback to changes in priorities and instructional methods in thecorebusinesscourses.
Closing the assessment loop is not easy. Effectively constructed exams thatassessthedegreetowhichstudents retainbasicfunctionalorcoreconcepts andskillsareperhapsthemostobvious element in assessing student readiness forcapstonelearningexperiences.There are arguments favoring standardized field exams for business students and those favoring customized exams that drawonparticularknowledgeandskills deemedimportantbycapstoneandcore faculty in a business school. However, both forms of testing, especially for assessingstudentreadinessforentering capstonecourses,tendtofocusmoreon comprehension and retention of con-cepts than on higher order learning or critical-thinking skills. We recommend early exercises in capstone business courses that assess student abilities to recallconceptsandintegratethesebasic business concepts for problem-solving purposes,todiagnosestudentdeficien-cies for later capstone learning experi-encesthattypicallyemphasizeandbuild ontheseintegrativeskills.
Gatheringgooddataonstudentreadi-ness for the capstone course is only one part of the problem. Such student assessmentisoflittlevalueifindividual facultymemberswhoteachcorecourses arereluctanttousethedataforchange. Thus,successofthisapproachdepends on the individual faculty’s learning readiness.Thisreadinessmightinclude faculty dispositions to expend effort to linkstudentfeedbacktopossiblechang-es in faculty prioritilinkstudentfeedbacktopossiblechang-es for particular knowledgeorskillapplications.Italso involves individualized instructional methodsthataccountforindividualstu-dentbackgroundsanddispositions.
Another area for investigation per-tainstothekeytheoreticalperspectives thatmightguideassessmentofthecap-stone course. One such area is expec- tancytheory.Howdostudents’expec-tations affect their success in learning outcomesinthecapstonecourse?How difficult do they expect the class to be?Howmuchdotheyexpecttohave to study?What kind of grade do they expect?Whatroleexpectationsdothey havefortheinstructorandthemselves? These student expectations and atti- tudesneedtobeanalyzedfortheircon-tinuing influence on student-learning
behaviors and outcomes in the cap-stone course. One approach would be through microsurveys of students (a) when entering the course, (b) about 4 weeksintoit,and(c)whenstudentsare closetocompletingitandsomemeans to link each of these microsurveys to particular respondents. Bergen (2005) recommendedmicrosurveysorsurgical surveys for assessment purposes that focus on relatively few issues and do not require much time for students to complete.
Anotherareathatdeservesexamina-tion is how educators and researchers assessknowledgeretention,ability,and the near and far transfers of learning. How do we assure that we get good information from student self-report data?Wehaveexperimentedwithboth standardized and customized testing to measure learning and retention of stu-dents’ knowledge during their business programs. One dilemma that we have encountered is the question of how to get some students to take these exit examsseriously.Ifscoresontheexams carrynorewardsorconsequences,how canweexpectstudentstoputforththeir best efforts on the exams? If there are to be rewards or consequences, what shouldthesebetomotivatestudentsto do their best and to assure that we get goodassessmentdata?
Another student self-report issue is the presence of Keillor’s (1989) LakeWobegoneffect:“Allthewomen are beautiful and all the children are aboveaverage”(p.249).Collegestu-dents—because of earlier academic successes, grade inflation, and exter-nal references such as parental mes-sages—often do see themselves as above average in many regards.As a result,somestudentsviewthemselves as more skilled and knowledgeable than they actually are. Measures of student readiness must take this into account and find a way to focus on realitiesandstudentperceptions.Sur-veys, unlike in-depth interviews, can generatestudentresponsesthatdonot necessarily reflect student introspec- tion,activethought,orprecisereport- ingofpersonaldispositions.Forover-allcourseorprogramassessment,we recommend both direct evidence of learning,suchastesting,andindirect
evidence, such as student feedback concerning their learning challenges or obstacles through interviews and surveys (e.g., Huba & Freed, 2000). Assessment choices and their imple-mentation by capstone-course faculty do not occur in a vacuum. Both the culture of the business school and institution and external forces, such asaccreditationdemandsorchanging budgets,canconstrainorinfluencecer-tain assessment choices by capstone- business faculty. However, capstone-business faculty who are more aware of assessment approaches and poten-tials have more opportunity to influ-ence choices for assessing both the learning in the capstone course and theoverallbusinessprogram.
Although the revised AACSB stan-dards (2003) emphasize learning outcomes in the assessment process, educators and researchers must view assessmentfromasystemicperspective andfocusnotonlyonsuchoutcomes. Somethinglikea“balancedscorecard” approach (Kaplan & Norton, 1992, p. 72) associated with learning assess-ment for a capstone course and for an overall business program may be appropriate.Intheend,anyassessment approach should take into account the linkage of outcomes (i.e., feedback control) to more upstream measures of both concurrent and feed-forward controls. More research and guidance concerning improved approaches and measuresforassessmentarenecessary for educators and researchers to pur-sue student-learning outcomes in the capstonecoursefromamoresystemic, multidimensionalperspective.
NOTES
Dr.StephenL.Payne’sresearchinterestsare business ethics and management and ethics edu-cation.
Dr.JanFlynn’sresearchinterestsarebusiness capstonecoursesandassessment.
Dr. J. Michael Whitfield’s research interests arepedagogyandbusinesscapstonecourses,strat-egygovernanceissues,andstrategyissuesrelated toentrepreneurship.
Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressedtoDr.StephenL.Payne,Department ofManagement,GeorgiaCollege&StateUniver-sity,CampusBox11,Milledgeville,GA31061.
E-mail:steve.payne@gcsu.edu
REFERENCES
Angelo,T.A.,&Cross,K.P.(1993).Classroom assessmenttechniques:Ahandbookforcollege teachers.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass. Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business International. (2003). Assessment Standards.RetrievedDecember15,2005,from http://www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/assess ment/standards.asp
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, K. J. (1988). Transfer oftraining:Areviewanddirectionsforfuture research.PersonnelPsychology,43,63–105.
Bembenutty,H.,&Karabenick,S.A.(1998,Feb-ruary).Individualdifferencesinacademicdelay ofgratification.PaperpresentedattheAnnual MeetingoftheEasternPsychologicalAssocia- tion,Boston,MA.(ERICDocumentReproduc-tionServicesNo.ED422794)
Bergen,C.(2005).Evaluationandassessmenttools. RetrievedOctober30,2005,fromhttp://www.carat .umich.edu/carat/evaluation_assessment_tools Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991).
Self-direction in learning: Perspectives in theory, research,andpractice.London:Routledge. Cvercko, S. L. (1995).An analysis of the
deter-minantsofnearandfartransferoflearningin a management-training program.Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (02), 520A. (UMI No.9519882)
Goldstein,I.L.(1993).Traininginorganizations: Needsassessment,development,andevaluation (3rded.).PacificGrove,CA:Brooks/Cole. Guglielmino, L. M. (1978). Development of the
self-directedlearningreadinessscale. Disserta-tionAbstractsInternational,38,6467A. Halpern,D.F.,&Hakel,M.D.(2003).Applying
the science of learning to the university and beyond.Change,35(4),36–42.
Howell,W. C., & Cooke, N. J. (1989). Training the human information processor: A review of cognitive models. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.),
Traininganddevelopmentinorganizations(pp. 121–182).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass. Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000).Learner-
centeredassessmentofcollegecampuses:Shift-ingthefocusfromteachingtolearning. Need-hamHeights,MA:Allyn&Bacon.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992).The bal-anced scorecard: Measures that drive perfor-mance.HarvardBusinessReview,70,71–79. Keillor, G. (1989).Leaving home. New York:
Viking.
May, G. L., & Kahnweiler, W. M. (2000). The effect of mastery practice design on learning and transfer in behavior modeling training.
PersonnelPsychology,53,353–374.
McCracken,G.(1988).Thelonginterview. Thou-sandOaks,CA:Sage.
McCune,S.K.,Guglielmino,L.M.,&Garcia,G. (1990).Adultself-directioninlearning:Apre-liminarymeta-analyticreadinessscale.InH.B. Long(Ed.),Advancesinself-directedlearning research(pp. 145–156). Norman: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional andHigherEducation.
Payne,S.L.,Whitfield,J.M.,&Flynn,J.(2002). Assessingthebusinesscapstonecoursethrough a method based on the SOTL and the stake-holderprocess. JournalofEducationforBusi-ness,78,69–74.
Pintrich,P.R.,Smith,D.A.,Garcia,T.,&McK-eachie, W. J. (1991).Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Ann Arbor, MI: NationalCenterforResearchtoImprovePost-secondaryTeachingandLearning.
Royer, J. M., (1979).Theories of the transfer of learning.EducationalPsychologist,14,53–69. Schmitt, N. (2004).Readiness for training stan-dards: Development and validation. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://www.nagb. org/release/schmitt.doc
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Con-trolled and automatic human information pro-cessing.PsychologicalReview,84,127–190. Tucker, M. L., Sojka, J. Z., Barone, F. J., &
McCarthy,A. M. (2000).Training tomorrow’s leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence ofbusinessgraduates.JournalofEducationfor Business,75,331–337.
Vroom,V.H.(1964).Workandmotivation.New York:Wiley.
Wiener,N.(1948). Cybernetics:Controlandcom-municationintheanimalandthemachine.New York:Wiley.
