Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI Date: 12 January 2016, At: 17:49
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Planning and Implementing Shared Teaching: An
MBA Team-Teaching Case Study
Marilyn M. Helms , John M. Alvis & Marilyn Willis
To cite this article: Marilyn M. Helms , John M. Alvis & Marilyn Willis (2005) Planning and Implementing Shared Teaching: An MBA Team-Teaching Case Study, Journal of Education for Business, 81:1, 29-34, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.81.1.29-34
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.1.29-34
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 75
View related articles
ABSTRACT. Team teaching is a
popular trend in business education. In
an attempt to integrate seemingly
dis-parate functional disciplines, a number
of business programs have combined
courses. Regardless of the courses
combined (marketing and finance,
management and accounting,
econom-ics and strategy, or production and cost
accounting), the teaching pedagogy
shares a number of challenges in both
planning and implementation. In this
article, the authors review the
experi-ences gained from team teaching in an
MBA program and offer suggestions
for adoption, improvement, and
imple-mentation in other business programs.
he Manufacturing Applications course that served as the basis for this case study used a team-teaching methodology to combine material from two diverse topic areas. In this case, we combined production and operations processes and manufacturing strategy from a management perspective with product-costing techniques from an accounting viewpoint. Regardless of the functional business courses combined or the location within the undergraduate or graduate business curriculum, the implementation of team teaching offers a number of challenges and benefits.
Combining Business Courses for Team Teaching
A review of the existing business education literature reveals a dearth of current research on combining business functions into one course even though arguments for its use have been support-ed in the past. For example, Mason (1992) agreed business schools have long been criticized for not addressing the needs of the business environment and suggested cross-discipline team teaching provides key areas for imple-mentation. Geary and Rooney (1993) called for the accounting profession to complement the emphasis on sensate thinking with a strong emphasis on the development of intuitive thinking. The authors agreed that working on actual
case studies combining several disci-plines would be an effective way to advance students’ intuitive thinking. In support for team teaching, Heinfeldt and Wolf (1998) found that the stake-holder approach to business education must apply the perspectives of multiple constituencies to functional areas, including accounting and management. In a study of accounting team teaching, Steadman (2000) found that accounting should be team taught and suggested the inclusion of health-care–related topics to address the increased national atten-tion on health care issues. In their study of the work and communication needs of new auditors, Goby and Lewis (1999) found that accountancy graduates enter-ing the profession lack some important communication abilities, including interpersonal, oral, and written skills. Their solution to the communication problems calls for the use of more case studies as well as the introduction of cross-disciplinary team teaching.
Researchers considering the effec-tiveness of graduate business programs stress that the most effective schools combine interpersonal communication in managerial skill-building or profes-sional development. Team teaching is a way to integrate the core of many MBA programs and blend separate functional courses to show how the different disciplines interact (“Do You Speak MBA?”, 1996).
Planning and Implementing
Shared Teaching: An MBA
Team-Teaching Case Study
MARILYN M. HELMS DALTON STATE COLLEGE DALTON, GEORGIA
T
JOHN M. ALVIS MARILYN WILLIS
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE
Dumas, Blodgett, Carlson, Pant, and Venka (2000) as well as Hancock (1998) supported team teaching as a way to revitalize the business curricu-lum. Because business problems are cross-disciplinary, complex, and even “messy,” the team-teaching approach is important and supported by the Associ-ation to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB International), the premier accrediting agency of under-graduate and under-graduate business pro-grams (“The Boom in Entrepreneurial Studies,” 1996). Watkins (1996) out-lined the changed MBA core in his case study of an MBA program that evolved from functional area courses to a much-needed integration through team-teaching combinations.
Team-Teaching Approaches
When considering team teaching, three distinct models are presented in the literature in addition to being observed in practice. They are the inter-active, the participant–observer, and the rotational models (Nead, 1995; White, Henley, & Brabston, 1998).
In the interactive team-teaching
approach, used by the authors in the pre-sent case study, two professors are in front of the class simultaneously. This model is the definition one traditionally considers as true team teaching. Both professors actively participate by com-menting on most or all of the scheduled discussion topics, with lively interactive dialogue and debate (Galley & Carroll, 1993; Nead, 1995). The participant– observer team-teaching model requires both professors to be present for all class-es; however, one professor presents inde-pendently with little or no dialogue from the observer partner (the professors alter-nate the observer and teacher roles). Alternate views are not actively given but are available if students ask questions or if the observer professor offers a view-point (Flanagan & Ralston, 1983).
Under the rotational team-teaching
model, the individual professors teach classes separately and will attend class only when teaching their specific areas of the course (Morlock, 1988; Nead, 1995). This approach requires less time but may require the senior professor or class coordinator to develop the
syl-labus, schedule the team’s rotation, and manage testing, grading, and evalua-tions.
Benefits of Interactive Team Teaching
Offers Multiple Viewpoints for Learning
In team teaching, the professors involved contribute their unique back-grounds, areas of strength, and expertise to the course. The combination of varied expertise and viewpoints can produce a synergy in the classroom that is not pos-sible when only one professor is pres-ent. Multiple professors can have a pos-itive impact on student learning—the students have access to more faculty resources outside the classroom and are exposed to more knowledge within the classroom. This is important because each professor has the opportunity to present a personal perspective on new and controversial issues. Presenting stu-dents with contrasting views on a topic can promote creative thinking and allows students to explore alternative positions. With simultaneous coverage in team teaching, students begin to see how both views interrelate when mak-ing business decisions. In their study of a team-taught cultural diversity class, Smith, Hornsby, and Kite (2000) found that interdisciplinary classroom inter-ventions do have a positive effect on students’ attitudes. This finding was also supported by Nead (1995), who determined that students in team-taught business courses felt better prepared for future business courses than their coun-terparts in traditional courses.
Ayadi and Crawford (1996) agreed that the traditional method of instruc-tion focuses on individual courses and
does not stress the interconnectedness
of subject matter and future implemen-tation. In fact, researchers agree many interdisciplinary courses should be team-taught (Galley & Carroll, 1993; Slater, McCubbrey, & Scudder, 1995). Nixon, Helms, and Fletcher (1997) dis-cussed the challenges of integrating team teaching in a business setting yet stressed the benefit of such activities. Fish (1994) also agreed that integration is challenging, but important.
Reduces Redundancies
The use of team teaching stresses the links between functional areas, produc-tion and accounting in this case, and reduces the “silo effect” of learning within business disciplines. Many busi-ness schools are shifting their focus to interdisciplinary business education to reduce this functional nature (Boyer, 1987; Drucker, 1992; Hartenian, Schel-lenger, & Frederickson, 2001; and Slater et al., 1995). This integration bet-ter reflects the decision-making process in industry and reduces redundancies that occur in many business programs. Business students often complain that some topics are presented time and again in different courses (including Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-and-Threats [SWOT] analysis, break-even analysis, leadership theories, ratio analysis, and learning curves). By com-bining courses, instructors can eliminate redundancy of topics and coverage and devote more time to introducing new material.
Builds Teamwork and Communication
Students at business schools need more emphasis on building communica-tion and collaboracommunica-tion skills in order to better integrate the material they are presented (Reeve, 1992; Slater et al., 1995). The teaching partnership repre-sents an opportunity for students to observe a team approach to decision-making firsthand. The National Associ-ation of Colleges and Employers (NACE) found that employers consis-tently rank communication and team-work skills near the top of most desir-able skills in prospective employees (Andrews & Wooten, 2005). Kagan (1994) agreed that it is difficult to imag-ine a job that does not include coopera-tion or interaccoopera-tion with others. Thus, replication and practice of teams and teamwork in the classroom are worthy objectives (Seitz, 2002).
When asked to comment on the suc-cess of General Electric, a multibusi-ness company with operations around the globe that has been successful for 120 years, former Chairman and CEO Jack Welch attributed much of the com-pany’s progress to teamwork (Welch &
Welch, 2005). Welch agreed that the ability of employees to work in teams remains increasingly important as glob-al trade grows and companies continue to adopt new technologies and business practices. Feedback from such employ-ers of business school graduates is caus-ing this change in business education (Ahmadi & Brabston, 1998; Porter & McKibbin, 1998).
Offers Multiple Styles
Another benefit of team teaching is combining a mix of teaching skills and styles. Each professor brings to the class a unique combination of knowledge, skills, abilities, and examples honed over a career. The professors have dif-ferent sets of presentation skills they prefer: multimedia, statistical interpre-tation, or computer applications, for example. This variety has many advan-tages, particularly because students have a variety of learning styles and pres-entation preferences.
Creates Interdisciplinary Scholarship
Finally, team teaching can lead to the creation of a more collegial and robust faculty. Inter- and intradepartmental team building can be a positive benefit. There is also the possibility of cross-disciplinary research and enhanced pub-lication opportunities, as well as the opportunity to help newer and younger faculty hone their skills. Booth, Dixon-Brown, and Kohut (2003), for example, found shared or team teaching as a way to balance teaching and research and found the approach also offers professors more concentrated time for their research.
Learning from the Team-Teaching Experience
The impetus for the team-teaching efforts outlined here was a result of the College of Business’ MBA program revitalization at the University of Ten-nessee at Chattanooga. In this process, the curriculum committee reviewed the program in detail and recommended several courses for combination and team teaching. The graduate faculty was then asked to volunteer to teach in the combined courses.
Text and Cases
The first issue for the new teams was locating appropriate textbooks and course materials. Because the courses covered at least two subject areas, it was difficult to find a single, appropriate textbook. This is a familiar challenge in team-taught classes. Often it is addressed through combining relevant portions of a functional area textbook in custom publishing or by gathering cases and readings and other materials in lieu of a textbook. Students, however, com-plain when custom textbooks differ greatly in print size and writing style and pages are not numbered consecu-tively, since it makes referring to mate-rials a challenging task. In some cours-es, professors used two textbooks, but a caution here is not to combine two
three-credit hour courses into one three-credit hour course without considering the workload on the students. In some cases, covering two textbooks in one course was too aggressive for both the students and faculty.
Syllabus
Crafting the syllabus required each team member to relinquish ownership in order to develop a course that served the students best. Timing of class assign-ment, readings, exams, class presenta-tions, and reports, within the confines of the travels of each professor, proved to be a difficult, yet possible task. Once the class schedule was developed, the two professors met to establish the point dis-tribution and weighting for the various components of the course. Given the learning curve experienced in team teaching, the syllabus and course con-tent changed each semester. In particu-lar, the professors adjusted the workload to better reflect the course combination.
Quizzes, Exams, and Evaluation
Quizzes and exams should reflect the team-taught nature of the course and should consist of questions from both functional areas rather than having two separate tests. When possible, questions or cases that address all of the combined functional areas should be included and graded by both professors. This supports
the view of Gopinath (2004) who found that, while graders had areas of disagree-ment as a result of varied interpretation of answers, students benefited from a process that involved multiple graders, particularly on analyses of cases.
The instructors included class contri-bution as a significant component of this graduate-level course. Interestingly, class participation and contribution was easier to accurately assess with the addi-tional professor available to record par-ticipation points. The instructors also used seating charts to facilitate the recording. With the proliferation of digi-tal cameras, having a photo seating chart of students with their names, majors or concentrations, and current work experi-ence noted is helpful in calling on stu-dents, recording points, and learning their names more quickly. Because com-munication and teamwork were goals of the course, the class included a final team project and presentation. Students were allowed to choose their own team members as well as their company to study. Team members completed team evaluation forms to rate the performance of their own contributions as well as those of the other team members. In addition, the student audience also com-pleted a presentation evaluation form.
Preclass Planning and Grading
Both professors met in planning ses-sions numerous times prior to teaching the first class, finalizing material, con-tent, and teaching and learning assess-ment mechanisms and discussing the respective weights of each activity. Both further agreed that interrupting each other during the class time to present ideas and views from the other func-tional area would be both necessary and encouraged in this team-teaching part-nership. The interruptions would also reflect how business meetings are con-ducted with multiple viewpoints jockey-ing for position and consideration. Han-dling back-and-forth discussion and debate is a positive feature of team teaching as are the asides or interrup-tions, particularly when they are man-aged and presented in an appropriate location in the lecture material.
The instructors also facilitated the distribution of effort by weekly
ings prior to class. The professors often had dinner together before the evening class to review the materials and discus-sion outline. These meetings helped to leverage the skills of the two professors to enhance the students’ learning experi-ence. At the end of each semester and before the beginning of the next semes-ter, the professors reviewed the materi-als, the student evaluations, and made adjustments to the course, further streamlining the process.
From the beginning, the instructors created single quizzes and tests, repre-senting a combination of accounting and manufacturing issues. Each profes-sor graded the relevant part of the quiz or exam and transferred the entire test to the counterpart in a timely manner so grading could be completed and record-ed before the next class meeting. The final presentation report was graded by both professors and assigned one grade. This supports the research of Goinpath (2004), who found that multiple graders lead to improved student satisfaction.
Teaching Evaluations
Teaching evaluations were adapted to the team-teaching environment. Because the professors were making joint presen-tations at each class meeting, students could either view the separate teachers as an inseparable unit or evaluate them as single professors. It is possible, how-ever, to separate the comments into a course evaluation to rate the content, materials, books, testing, and delivery and have two additional evaluations for each of the two instructors in the team. Students can be directed only to focus on issues related to the teaching style and presentation of the faculty, as sepa-rate from the course, in the individual evaluations. This allows each team member to have individualized, con-structive feedback. For this reason we chose the separate evaluations.
Administrators must note that often team-teaching courses are experiments or works-in-progress and may have lower initial teaching evaluations than traditional course formats. Any new teaching model is an experiment and involves taking risks and trying new approaches and should be rewarded and encouraged even if the student comments
are not at the same level as for individual instructors in non-team-taught courses.
Power Struggles
Handling disagreements was not a problem in our team of tenured, full professors because each worked in sep-arate departments (accounting and man-agement), neither was part of the other’s promotion and tenure committee, we did not differ in rank or title, and, until the combined class, we had previously not interacted on more than a personal basis. However, in teams structured with faculty from the same department or with a mix of senior and junior facul-ty, disagreements may present more of a problem and may require assistance from the department chair(s) to resolve.
Gender and Diversity
In our case study, the production pro-fessor was female and the accounting professor was male. This mixed gender team teaching supports the model pro-posed by Reha (1979) as a way to pre-pare women for management roles by introducing them to team teaching with male and female instructors. Her research found this method would pro-vide a more objective view of business as well as serve as an example of teach-ing men and women to relate to each other as business equals.
While both professors in this case study came from similar cultural back-grounds and shared similar teaching philosophies, researchers have noted that team teaching with someone from a dif-ferent culture presents other challenges in styles and teaching format (Napier, Hang, Mai, Thang, & Tuan, 2002).
Joint Research
At the beginning of the course, nei-ther professor was proficient in the other’s discipline and made few add-on discussion comments. However, during the subsequent offerings of the course, more interdisciplinary comments and observations were possible. As learning improved, the professors began to be able to address students’ questions in each subject area and not just their own. The combination also led to joint
research ideas combining the disci-plines. The professors developed sever-al research projects leading to presenta-tion and publicapresenta-tion as a result of the shared teaching experience.
Student Feedback and Assessment
The team-taught class was delivered to on-site MBA students and MBA stu-dents in a distance-learning environ-ment linked by two-way audio and video in two remote sites 100 miles away, in a weekend (Friday afternoon and Saturday) executive-MBA (EMBA) format, and in a distance-learning EMBA format. The same syllabus was used in all formats. Professors alternat-ed sites each week in the distance-learn-ing environments but always taught in the same location together.
The EMBA class, which met at the employment location of the student cohort, was complimentary of the unique, fresh approach offered by the team model. These students tended to form very effective teams and enjoyed common company time and resources when preparing their presentations. In particular, they rated the team project and presentation as the most effective part of the course.
Traditional MBA students rated the course as too difficult and stated it required about the same effort as the two separate courses. This supports the find-ings of Lilyestrom (1999), who agrees students feel more time is required to be successful in a team-taught class and often cite more homework and difficulty adjusting to different teaching styles in team-taught classes. The MBA students worked for a number of different area companies and teamwork was more dif-ficult for them outside of the scheduled classroom time. Because the MBA classes were evening classes and the majority of students worked full time, many did not like focusing on two major business disciplines (accounting and manufacturing) in the same course in the same semester.
Quantitative and qualitative assess-ments were conducted every semester. Students completed a computer-scored form assessing a series of 6-point Likert-type scale questions about the teaching
effectiveness, class content, class format, suitability of the textbook, and use of class time. In general, team-taught cours-es averaged about one rating point lower than sole-professor led classes (4.5 from a traditional mean of 5.5) for the state-ment “This was an effective course.” For the team-taught classes in the graduate MBA program, the accounting and man-ufacturing combination received quanti-tative student satisfaction ratings ranging from 25% to 50% higher than the other team-taught course combinations over the 4-year period under study. This team stayed together while other teams varied the faculty combinations so the learning curve difference may account for the evaluations.
The students’ specific qualitative comments, noted on the back of the evaluation form, mentioned the larger than expected workload and time con-straints, particularly in the first year of the team-taught course. The graduate students also commented on the desire for the team to teach the class less like a seminar and to include more lecturing, even though the format of the class was discussed in the syllabus. The students seemed to feel the structure was more of a facilitating role and they were used to a lecture–testing format in the past. Overall, the students were favorable about the class content, class structure, and each professor’s effectiveness.
The students particularly liked the real-world discussion of manufactur-ing applications. They appreciated the team’s growing knowledge of subject matter, the case study format, and the lively exchange and interaction during discussions. The comments on the textbooks and the cases as well as the one visit early in the semester to a manufacturing facility were also posi-tive. In addition, the students reacted favorably to the group project, a study of an external small manufacturing company’s production and accounting processes.
Earlier in the team-teaching life cycle, the students felt the instructors did not present an equal amount of time and saw the initial attempts to integrate the material as interruptions. The dean and the two department chairs involved supported the team-teaching experiment and realized the transition and learning
would take time and did not focus on the student evaluations.
Conclusion
The combined course was deemed a success by both students and the business faculty. As business schools work to cover more material, make room in the curriculum for electives and emerging special topics courses (including ethics and international business), and stream-line duplicated material, the team-teach-ing concept makes both practical and intuitive sense. It is a way to replicate business processes in practice and sup-ports the move to participative manage-ment and team decisionmaking. The need to consider the qualitative and quantita-tive implications of all business decisions supports the combination of courses.
Further study is needed on team teach-ing in a business school environment. Other case studies of colleges and univer-sities’ successes and failures with team teaching and course combinations are needed, particularly articles that detail the specifics of the course delivery and the various course combinations used. A comprehensive survey of undergraduate and graduate business programs using course combinations and team teaching on a longitudinal basis is also needed. In addition, we suggest study of the use of such combinations in the noncredit envi-ronment for continuing education courses for professional development.
REFERENCES
Ahmadi, M., & Brabston, M. (1998). MIS educa-tion: Differences in academic practice and busi-ness managers’ expectations. Journal of Com-puter Information Systems, 38(2), 18–26. Andrews, K., & Wooten, B. (2005). Closing the
gap: Helping students identify the skills employers want. NACE Journal, 64(4), 41. Ayadi, O. F., & Crawford, E. M. (1996).
Achiev-ing integratAchiev-ing experience in business programs through team teaching. Journal of Instructional Psychology,23, 153–175.
The boom in entrepreneurial studies. (1996). Inc.,
18(14), 48.
Booth, R., Dixon-Brown, M., & Kohut, G. (2003). Shared teaching models for business communi-cation in a research environment. Business Communication Quarterly,66(3), 23. Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate
experience in America.The Carnegie Founda-tion for the Advancement of Teaching. New York: Harper and Row.
Do you speak MBA? (1996). Canadian Business,
69(12), 56–57.
Drucker, P. (1992). Managing for the future: The
1990s and beyond. New York: Truman Talley Books/Dutton.
Dumas, C., Blodgett, M., Carlson, P., Pant, L., & Venka, M. (2000). Revitalizing the MBA for the new millennium: A collaborative action research approach. International Journal of Value-Based Management,13, 229–253. Fish, S. (1994). Being interdisciplinary is so very
hard to do. In S. Fish (Ed.),There is no such thing as free speech, and it’s a good thing, too(pp. 231–242). New York: Oxford University Press. Flanagan, M. F., & Ralston, D. A. (1983).
Intra-coordinated team teaching: Benefits for both students and instructors. Teaching of Psycholo-gy,10, 116–117.
Galley, J. D., & Carroll, V. S. (1993). Toward a collaborative model for interdisciplinary teach-ing: Business and literature. Journal of Educa-tion for Business,69, 36–39.
Geary, W. T., & Rooney, C. J. (1993). Designing accounting education to achieve balanced intel-lectual development. Issues in Accounting Edu-cation,8(1), 60.
Goby, V. P., & Lewis, J. H. (1999). Auditors’ com-munication requirements: A study of five NNCS in Singapore. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(4), 41–52.
Goinpath, C. (2004) Exploring effects of criteria and multiple graders on case grading. Journal of Education for Business,79, 317–322. Hancock, T. (1998). The new MBA: Flies in the
paradigm. Business Horizons,41(4), 41–44. Hartenian, L. S., Schellenger, M., & Frederickson,
P. (2001). Creation and assessment of an inte-grated business course: One college’s experi-ence. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 149–160.
Heinfeldt, J., & Wolf, F. (1998). Re-engineering the business curriculum: A stakeholder para-digm. Journal of Education for Business,73, 198–201.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning. Lilyestrom, B. (1999, May 5). Team-teaching
pro-gram receives mixed grades. Telegram & Gazette, p. B3.
Mason, J. C. (1992) Business schools: Striving to meet customer demand. Management Review,
81(9), 10–15.
Morlock, H. C. (1988). A rotational form for team teaching in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology,15, 144–145.
Napier, N. K., Hang, N. M., Mai, N. T. T., & Thang, N. V., & Tuan, V. V. (2002). Bicultural team teaching: Experiences from an emerging business school. Journal of Management Edu-cation,26, 429–449.
Nead, M. J. (1995). A team-taught business course: A case study of its effectiveness at a comprehensive community college. Business Education Forum,49(3), 33–35.
Nixon, J. C., Helms, M. M., & Fletcher, L. P. (1997). Integrating team teaching, technology, and distance learning in MBA programs: A case study. Industrial and Commercial Training,
27(7), 218–225.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1998). Man-agement education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reeve, S. (1992). Graduate management education in transition. Survey of Business,28(1), 3–19. Reha, R. K. (1979). Preparing women for
man-agement roles. Business Horizons,22(2), 68. Seitz, P. (2002, May 22). Firms find teams can
bring top talent together on projects. Investor’s Business Daily, p. A4.
Slater, J. S., McCubbrey, D. J., & Scudder, R. A. (1995). Inside an integrated MBA: Art infor-mation systems view. MIS Quarterly, 19, 391–410.
Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., & Kite, M. (2000). Broadening the business curriculum via a cross-disciplinary approach: A mobile unit on
cultur-al diversity. Education,120, 713–722. Steadman, M. E. (2000). An interdisciplinary
health care accounting class: Content, student response, and lessons learned. Journal of Edu-cation for Business,75, 267–270.
Watkins, T. L. (1996). Stage 1: Creating a new MBA core with team teaching. Journal of
Man-agement Education,20, 411–420.
Welch, J., & Welch, S. (2005). Winning. New York: HarperCollins.
White, C. S., Henley, J. A., & Brabston, M. E. (1998). To team teach or not to team teach–that is the question: A faculty perspective. Market-ing Education Review, 8(3) 13–23.
Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation
1. Publication Title 2. Publication Number 3. Filing Date
4. Issue Frequency 5. Number of Issues Published Annually 6. Annual Subscription Price
8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters or General Business Office of Publisher (Not printer)
9. Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor (Do not leave blank) Publisher (Name and complete mailing address)
Editor (Name and complete mailing address)
Managing Editor (Name and complete mailing address)
10. Owner (Do not leave blank. If the publication is owned by a corporation, give the name and address of the corporation immediately followed by the names and addresses of all stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of the total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, give the names and addresses of the individual owners. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, give its name and address as well as those of each individual owner. If the publication is published by a nonprofit organization, give its name and address.)
11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or Other Securities. If none, check box
12. Tax Status (For completion by nonprofit organizations authorized to mail at nonprofit rates) (Check one) Has Not Changed During Preceding 12 Months
PS Form 3526, October 1999
Has Changed During Preceding 12 Months (Publisher must submit explanation of change with this statement) None
(See Instructions on Reverse) 7. Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication (Not printer) (Street, city, county, state, and ZIP+4)
_
Contact Person Telephone
The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes: Full Name Complete Mailing Address
Complete Mailing Address Full Name
United States Postal Service
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
ISSN: 0883-2323 2 7 8 5 8 0
October 1, 2005
Bi-monthly 6 Institutions $97Individuals $54
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
Fred Huber
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
202-296-6267
Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation 1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
Board of Executive Editors
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
Jamie Kunkle
1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation 1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington DC 20036-1802
XX
XX
PS Form 3526, October 1999 (Reverse)
Extent and Nature of Circulation Average No. Copies Each IssueDuring Preceding 12 Months No. Copies of Single IssuePublished Nearest to Filing Date
Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation [Sum of 15b. (1), (2),(3),and (4)]
Paid In-County Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541 (Include advertiser's proof and exchange copies)
Free
Total Free Distribution (Sum of 15d. and 15e.)
Total (Sum of 15g. and h.)
17. Signature and Title of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, or Owner 13. Publication Title
15.
Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation (15c. divided by 15g. times 100)
Publication required. Will be printed in the ________________________ issue of this publication. Date Free Distribution Outside the Mail
(Carriers or other means)
Total Distribution (Sum of 15c. and 15f)
14. Issue Date for Circulation Data Below
16. Publication of Statement of Ownership b. Paid and/or
Requested Circulation
Copies not Distributed
Paid/Requested Outside-County Mail Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541. (Include advertiser's proof and exchange copies) (1)
(2)
(4) Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors, Counter Sales, and Other Non-USPS Paid Distribution (3)
Outside-County as Stated on Form 3541 In-County as Stated on Form 3541 Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS e.
1. Complete and file one copy of this form with your postmaster annually on or before October 1. Keep a copy of the completed form for your records.
2. In cases where the stockholder or security holder is a trustee, include in items 10 and 11 the name of the person or corporation for whom the trustee is acting. Also include the names and addresses of individuals who are stockholders who own or hold 1 percent or more of the total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities of the publishing corporation. In item 11, if none, check the box. Use blank sheets if more space is required.
3. Be sure to furnish all circulation information called for in item 15. Free circulation must be shown in items 15d, e, and f. 4. Item 15h., Copies not Distributed, must include (1) newsstand copies originally stated on Form 3541, and returned to the publisher, (2) estimated returns from news agents, and (3), copies for office use, leftovers, spoiled, and all other copies not distributed. 5. If the publication had Periodicals authorization as a general or requester publication, this Statement of Ownership, Management,
and Circulation must be published; it must be printed in any issue in October or, if the publication is not published during October, the first issue printed after October.
6. In item 16, indicate the date of the issue in which this Statement of Ownership will be published. 7. Item 17 must be signed.
Failure to file or publish a statement of ownership may lead to suspension of Periodicals authorization. I certify that all information furnished on this form is true and complete. I understand that anyone who furnishes false or misleading information on this form or who omits material or information requested on the form may be subject to criminal sanctions (including fines and imprisonme nt) and/or civil sanctions (including civil penalties).
a. Total Number of Copies (Net press run) JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
XX Sept/Oct 2005
