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: 11 January 2016, At: 20:36
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Strategic Alignment in Business Education: The
Second Magic Bullet
Jesus Alcoba
To cite this article: Jesus Alcoba (2014) Strategic Alignment in Business Education: The Second Magic Bullet, Journal of Education for Business, 89:3, 119-125, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.778805
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2013.778805
Published online: 06 Mar 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 125
View related articles
CopyrightC Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2013.778805
Strategic Alignment in Business Education:
The Second Magic Bullet
Jesus Alcoba
La Salle Campus Madrid, Madrid, Spain
There is a need for strategic thinking in higher education. Loyalty to a business school’s values and need to differentiate lead one to reflect on the actions undertaken within the institution and how they align with the business school’s aims. This article contributes to this issue through what is called strategic alignment, which is the coherence between learning goals and teaching methods on the one hand, and the institution’s educational aims on the other. It was hypothesized that designing a methodological teaching model aligned with those aims will result in students perceiving differentiation at the same time that the teaching methodology improves. Findings confirm these hypotheses.
Keywords: alignment, higher education, teaching method, teaching strategy
There is a need for strategic thinking in higher education (Gibbs, Habeshaw, & Yorke, 2000) because among other reasons it is not evident that schools of business, as we know them nowadays, would be the main providers of business education in the future (Hawawini, 2005). For this reason they are required to use competitive intelligence to guarantee their survival (Liu & Oppenheim, 2006). Strategic thinking requires taking a position that leads to doing some activ-ities instead of others, and at same time to favor the best adjustment among these activities (Porter, 1996).
However, there is no doubt that the most meaningful ac-tivities in any higher education institution, the ones that have to be different across institutions, are the ones teachers carry out in their courses, which derive from the teaching methods they use. These activities have to be adjusted not only among themselves, but also with the educational goals that the in-stitution pursues. In other words, every school of business, whether it has made it explicit, has an idea about the type of student it aims to train and this idea needs to be substantially connected to the way of teaching. So the need to differentiate from others in a complex market calls for a deep reflection on two crucial components: the teaching methodology and the goals that an institution seeks to develop in its students.
Correspondence should be addressed to Jesus Alcoba, La Salle Campus Madrid, International Graduate School of Business, La Salle 10, 28023 Madrid, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]
In 1987, in his article, “Instructional Alignment: Search-ing for a Magic Bullet,” Cohen analyzed the effect of the coherent relation between objectives, instructional processes and assessment. Some years later it was been pointed out that, for most cases, university teaching is not aligned (Biggs, 1999). My proposal is based on this fact and goes beyond the curricular alignment by proposing the idea of a second magic bullet, strategic alignment, which is the one that succeeds in aligning the previously mentioned components, particularly the teaching methods, with the business school’s educational goals.
Having a strategy is far from being new in the busi-ness schools’ arena. The reports by the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation questioning the academic rigor in American schools of business are well known (Cox, 2000; McKenna, Cotton, & Van Auken, 1995). After these reports a debate has ensued as to whether schools of business should focus more on teaching professional aspects or they should rather follow a more academic model based on research. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) included each business school’s mission statement to the accreditation process in the nineties and from this mo-ment on every business school’s achievemo-ment is assessed according to the aims described in its mission statement. In it the prominence given by each of them to teaching, re-search and services to the business and industry world must be shown (McKenna et al., 1995). TheEligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Education from the AACSB asserts that due to certain factors schools may
120 J. ALCOBA
be different in how they approach their learning goals. The learning goals transform the mission statement principles into educational achievements and they are an important el-ement in the definition of each school (AACSB, 2012). With this approach every school is expected to design a series of learning objectives at program level, which are the ones that every student must achieve independently of the objec-tives belonging to each course. These objecobjec-tives—ranging approximately between four and 10—are expected to be as general as “leadership” or “ability to adapt.” Indeed, as that document indicates, the faculty is responsible for defining, setting, and evaluating these objectives. Nonetheless, and this is precisely the vital point to this research, there is a lack of studies linking the different factors intervening in the edu-cational process with the strategic objectives of a school of business: “What is missing in the business education liter-ature is a description of how the school can link its faculty development efforts to the achievement of its stated goals and student-learning outcomes” (Legorreta, Kelley, & Sablynsky, 2006, p. 3).
The present proposal is precisely focused on this prob-lem and it is based on one of the emergent keys to approach teaching, which sets it within a context of leadership and cooperation, where institutional strategy, and not the teach-ers’ individual effort, regulates the process. In this respect, it must not be forgotten that the chief goal for teachers is to im-prove individual and organizational performance in order to achieve institutional goals (Brawer, 1990). In this regard, co-operation is crucial in order to focus on good teaching rather than on good teachers (Ramsden, 1999). In fact, through an extensive study focused on detecting and publishing the best educational innovations in the field of education for business, an emergent teaching model has been detected, in which the teacher hands over individual autonomy in favor of more teamwork, whilst their specific knowledge of methodology increases (Kaye & Hawkridge, 2003).
What is been put forward is, therefore, a change in which a traditional model based on the teacher’s individual ef-fort, teaching quality evaluation and a rather non-systematic teacher training is replaced by another in which the school of business includes teaching in its strategy. I can find an exam-ple of this process in the past history of British universities, where a national process was promoted in 1997 on teaching and learning strategies that mobilized 130 higher education colleges. It was carried out in view of the confirmation that the teachers’ individual efforts were insufficient to respond to the new challenges of higher education (Gibbs, 2004). The outcome of this initiative was that whereas in 1998 50% of these universities did not have anything close to a teaching and learning strategy, by 2002 each institution had a full one. One of the keys in this project was to place the teaching and learning process at the center of the strategy, designing the rest of actions from this point on (Gibbs, 2004). Similarly, the Instituto Tecnol´ogico de Monterrey created the Education Research and Innovation Management in 1997 to support the
first strategy of its Mission 2015, which is the re-engineering of the teaching and learning process (Instituto Tecnol´ogico de Monterrey, 2007).
It is a fact that higher institutions in general, and schools of business in particular, are gradually taking teaching into consideration as an important part within the strategy. The model presented here results from this idea and aims for an effective link to exist between the objectives that the school of business pursues and the teaching methods it uses (strategic alignment). These two aspects contribute to its differentiation and must be coherently related.
For this alignment to exist there must be an understanding of teaching that is common to all teachers and that focuses on one direction. That is to say: the one that the school has formulated in its mission statement regarding the type of student it aims to train, regardless of the program she or he is enrolled in. I am dealing with aims, goals, or objectives such as “training managers with an entrepreneurial spirit” or “promoting the student’s personal development.” In order to develop those educational aims properly I propose the use of an aligned methodological model, which is the one that articulates the teaching methods that contribute to develop them in an optimal way.
METHODOLOGY
Design
I propose that an aligned methodological model can be in-troduced in a school of business by means of a process of education innovation. In this case I have followed the five stages model described by Gair´ın (2002):
1. Planning: The aim of this first stage is the general design of the process. It must be taken into account that the process will involve the organization as a whole, so it is important to clear up possible doubts that may arise and to establish a definite commitment on behalf of the education institution, which should begin with the people in charge.
2. Information: In the information stage the change pro-cess is communicated to all the staff, including people responsible for the different programs and teachers. It is essential that both the management and the academic staff and the teachers are given clear information about the purpose of this process because nothing will work without their collaboration and commitment.
3. Adoption: In the adoption stage data collection instru-ments are applied. This and other relevant information is analyzed for change management purposes, trying to facilitate it as much as possible and overcome possible resistance. In the adoption stage there are two parts. The first stage is data collection. The outcome of this first stage is to determine the starting point in regard
to the formulation of objectives and use of methods by teachers. The second stage focuses on designing the aligned methodological model. This model must include the methods that best develop the strategic ed-ucational aims, and has to be flexible and easy enough to be rapidly understood and implemented along dif-ferent courses.
4. Implementation: In the implementation stage teacher training takes place together with the modification of syllabi for the aligned methodological model to be adopted in all of them. In this stage the commitment and effort of the teaching staff is critical, in two lines: firstly, in regard to the understanding and adoption of the aligned methodological model through the differ-ent programs and courses. Second, concerning the ac-tive application of the model in their courses, namely, when carrying out the previously planned design in the classrooms.
5. Assessment: In the assessment stage data collection instruments are applied with the intention of deter-mining whether the methodological change has taken place. Moreover, the next steps are analyzed following a continuous improvement approach.
Participants
The study took place at La Salle International Graduate School of Business, in Madrid. Because some programs ap-pear and disapap-pear at the school of business as a consequence of market development, I focused on a series of stable pro-grams where it was possible to find filed information as well as alumni for data gathering purposes. Therefore, a sample of 52 students was selected who were following some of these programs at the school of business at the moment of the study, plus 32 alumni belonging to previous editions of such programs. The programs were Master of Business Admin-istration (MBA), Master in System Analysis and Program Development (MSAP), and Master in Innovation Manage-ment.
Procedure
The research was carried out in a process whose duration was approximately two years and which actively engaged about a hundred people among experts, teachers, and man-agement team. The research design followed the charac-teristics of a case study (Yin, 1984) and it consisted in a one-group intervention with pretest and posttest (Sierra, 2007).
The research process stages followed one another together with the alignment process stages as previously described. Throughout the process four educational objectives were de-cided on to be valid for all students at the school of business, regardless the program they were following. These objectives were the following:
1. To value information: It aims for the student to be able to support his or her own opinions and decisions solidly. It is related to critical thinking and research. 2. Social skills: Through this objective, the student’s
in-terpersonal side is developed so that they are able to relate to other people successfully.
3. Personal development: This objective develops the stu-dent’s intrapersonal side: personality, emotions, psy-chological balance, and values.
4. To generate information: Through this objective the student is required to develop products, processes, etc. by combining known elements to create new forms that may be useful.
An aligned methodological model was designed, meet-ing the requirements mentioned previously, and consistmeet-ing of a series of teaching methods to be prioritized from others, for being considered more capable to develop the four edu-cation goals. It was considered that besides recommending certain methods, a given time to be devoted to them would be provided in order to favor the objectives chosen. The meth-ods and time devoted to them were lecture, 30% of course time; case study/project method/group work/tutorials, 50% of course time; free choice methods (any but lecture), 20% of course time.
It was hypothesized that after the process students would perceive the chosen education objectives to be developed in the institution object of the present study as a priority in com-parison with other higher education institutions. It was also expected that students would perceive a difference in the way of teaching in relation to other higher education institutions. Finally, it was likewise hypothesized that students would ap-preciate an improvement in the teaching methodology with regard to other editions of the same programs.
Instruments
A questionnaire was designed to be validated by a blind panel of seven doctors in education sciences with teaching experi-ence in higher education. Items in the questionnaire showed an internal consistency of 0.72, which was considered suffi-cient for the analysis (Nunnally & Berstein, 1994). The items from the questionnaire are presented in Appendix A. Students had to circle the option of their choice in a scale of 1–4, being 1 the lowest grade of agreement with the statement, and 4 the highest.
The questionnaire was applied to the students at two dif-ferent times: the first time, at the beginning of the program. In this case, the questionnaire inquired about the develop-ment of certain aims and about the methodology at the last higher education institution they have attended. This situa-tion was calledstudents at the beginning.The second time it was applied almost at the end of the program, in which the questionnaire was basically the same, except now students were asked about the actual learning experience at the school
122 J. ALCOBA
TABLE 1
Hypothesis 1: Analysis of Objectives
Mdifference (I–J) SEupper Sig. lower
Dependent variable (I) group (J) group lower bound bound bound 95% CI Existing objective 1 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −0.450∗ 0.203 0.091 [−0.05, 0.95] Existing objective 2 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −0.683∗ 0.192 0.002 [−0.21, −1.16] Activities objective 2 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −0.464∗ 0.184 0.045 [−0.01, −0.92] Evaluation objective 2 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −0.696∗ 0.183 0.001 [−0.24, −1.15] Existing objective 3 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −0.499∗ 0.184 0.028 [−0.04, −0.95] Activities objective 3 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −0.517∗ 0.208 0.050 [−0.00, 1.03]
Note: Post hoc tests were used with multiple comparisons (Scheff´e).
∗p<.05.
of business. This situation was calledongoing students. Ad-ditionally, the questionnaire was emailed to alumni with the intention of finding out the existing perception in a situa-tion prior to the change. This situasitua-tion was called alumni.
Interviews were also conducted in order to complete the in-formation found through the use of the questionnaire. In order to contrast the third hypothesis, an already existing question-naire on quality teaching was used because it included an item on methodology evaluation as globally perceived. This questionnaire provided filed information from the previous year was available thus enabling the comparison.
The purpose was to compare, on one hand, the outcome of alumni and of students at the beginning of the program with ongoing students, in order to find out whether they perceived the change. On the other hand, I intended to compare the outcome of methodology evaluation in the existing quality questionnaires in the last two editions of those programs from which there was available data.
FINDINGS
Perception of Goal Development
Each of the four possible objectives was addressed in the questionnaires through four item types: the objective exists
in the program, there are activities to develop it, the objective is evaluated, and the objective is achieved.
Table 1 presents the post hoc tests with multiple com-parisons showing the found significant differences (see Ta-ble 1A in the Appendix for descriptive data). In all cases these differences arose in the direction indicated by the hypothe-sis, that is, between students at the beginning and ongoing students.
Although it is usually accepted that the difference between means is significant at .05 I also include values between .1 and .05, considering that in those cases a marginal significance is found, in line with other publications (Garc´ıa S´anchez & De Caso-Fuertes, 2002; Grebner, Semmer, & Elfering, 2005; Sentell, Pingitore, Scheffler, & Schwalm, 2001). As can be seen, ongoing students give higher punctuations in six of 16 possible cases (four objectives and four possible cases for each one: the objective exists, there are activities which develop it, the objective is evaluated and the objective is achieved). For example, ongoing students perceive that objective 1 (value information) is found in the programs of this business school in a more relevant way than in previous higher education institutions where they have studied before. This one and the rest of the six cases then show expected values related to the hypothesis. In none of the 16 cases I found opposite values to what was hypothesized.
TABLE 2
Hypothesis 1: Analysis of Objectives (Second Part)
Mdifference (I–J) SEupper Sig. lower
Dependent variable (I) group (J) group Mlower bound bound bound 95% CI Existing objective 1 Alumni Ongoing student −0.819∗ 0.316 0.046 [−0.01, −1.62] Existing objective 1 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −1.583∗ 0.350 0.000 [−0.69, −2.48] Activities objective 1 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −1.136∗ 0.319 0.004 [−0.32, −1.95] Existing objective 2 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −1.477∗ 0.291 0.000 [−0.74, −2.22] Activities objective 2 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −1.000∗ 0.237 0.001 [−0.40, −1.60] Evaluation objective 2 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −1.364∗ 0.342 0.001 [−0.49, −2.23] Existing objective 3 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −1.447∗ 0.347 0.001 [−0.56, −2.33] Evaluation objective 3 Student at the beginning Ongoing student −.848∗ 0.338 0.055 [0.01, −1.71] Evaluation objective 4 Alumni Ongoing student −.706∗ 0.318 0.098 [0.10, −1.52]
Note: Post hoc tests were used with multiple comparisons (Scheff´e).
∗p<.05.
TABLE 3
Hypothesis 2: Way of Teaching
Mdifference (I–J) SEupper Sig. lower
(I) group (J) group lower bound bound bound 95% CI
Student at the beginning (M=2.40) Ongoing student (M=3.55) −1.145∗ 0.411 0.030 [−0.09,−2.20]
Note: Post hoc tests were used with multiple comparisons (Scheff´e). The dependent variable was the institution has its own way of teaching.
∗p<.05.
For an in-depth analysis of these results, interviews were conducted and complementary analyses by means of quality questionnaires were carried out. It was found that the way in which the aligned methodological model was being applied differed from some programs to others in terms of the thor-oughness with which directors had managed the application of the model in each course.
Even though the study did not originally intend to create a different situation through the different programs, a more detailed analysis of the MBA program was deemed inter-esting because this program had followed a more rigorous incorporation of the aligned methodological model. The aim was to find out whether the outcome differed from the rest of programs.
As in the previous case, Table 2 includes the post hoc tests with multiple comparisons showing the significant dif-ferences found (see Table 2A in the Appendix for descriptive data).
As it can be seen, in the MBA program, nine of 16 possi-ble cases showed values aligned with the hypothesis, and no analyzed data contradicted what was expected. Ongoing stu-dents perceive that objectives are more thoroughly developed at this school of business than at other higher education in-stitutions they have attended. In some cases this comparison refers to alumni and in others to themselves at the beginning of the program.
Perception of the Way of Teaching
An evaluation was set concerning the way in which students perceived the way of teaching at the school of business. Table 3 shows the resulting outcome of analyzing the MBA
TABLE 4
Hypothesis 3: Teaching Methodology
Item Score
Mann-WhitneyU 2.000
WilcoxonW 5.000
Z −2.09
Asymp. sig. (2–tailed) .048
Exact sig. [2∗(1-tailed Sig.)] .039a
Note: The grouping variable was MBA. aNot corrected for ties.
group, where the methodological model was applied more effectively.
As can be seen, at the end of the program students perceive that the school of business has its own way of teaching as opposed to other higher education institutions they have pre-viously attended. This fact seems to indicate that the adoption of an own methodological model implies a different percep-tion in the student regarding the way of teaching.
Methodology Evaluation
This hypothesis was to be contrasted, as I have said, through of an item that appeared in quality questionnaires. From the sample chosen, only two programs included data from the previous edition and, consequently, the study was done with only these two programs (MBA and MSAP).
The difference between them was, once again, that the application of the aligned methodological model was more rigorous in the MBA than in the MSAP. In coherence with the previously found data, only the MBA showed a significant difference between both situations, with an increase in the average from 2.35 to 3.4 in the direction indicated by the hypothesis. Table 4 shows that this difference is significant.
This data was relevant for the study because even though it is true that the process was not intended in principle as methodology improvement but rather on the basis that the aligned methodological model would be coherent with the college’s education aims, it does not eliminate the need for the methodology used to be properly perceived by students. From this point of view its evaluation should be at least similar, and ideally better, as in fact happened as shown in Table 4.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings presented here provide encouraging data for business education. This new approach I call strategic align-ment may help to reinforce an institution’s identity and dif-ferentiate it from others in a complex market.
As I have shown, the data gathered from contrasting the three hypotheses suggests that the aligned methodological model succeeded in changing the students’ perception of their learning process in the expected direction, with no data to contradict what was formulated in the hypotheses.
124 J. ALCOBA
However, there is still room for reflection and improve-ment, which I assume as inherent to research. One of the limitations of this study lies in the fact that a control group has not been compared to an experimental group. Such com-parison, although more interesting for research, would have been extremely complicated in the real context of a school of business. For this reason the study is based on the compari-son among alumni, students at the beginning of the course, and ongoing students. Nevertheless this poses two important limitations: the first is that both alumni and students at the be-ginning of the program base their judgment on the memory of something past whereas ongoing students assess something that is happening. The second is that overall students at the beginning of the program potentially refer to any other higher education institution. That is, the institution object of study is compared to a series of others that are not controlled by the study, but rather depend on the students answering in each case. Another important limitation is that the study was based on students’ perceptions. This means that the measuring of the achievement of objectives that were part of the research was indirect. Future researchers should use tools to evaluate the actual development of the student in each objective if the aim is to show that the teaching effort in its achievement is really effective. The design of the study itself, presented as a case study, also poses some limitations concerning the size of the sample and its representativeness.
One more consideration is needed concerning the object of study itself, which was the teaching methodology and its relation with each school of business identity. Certainly a question may arise as to how an approach of this kind can concur with academic freedom. The text agreed by the UN-ESCO nations (1997) chiefly aims at protecting freedom to research and to publish, but with a responsible and thorough use of teaching methods. This may include coherence with the methodological identity of each institution, mainly be-cause academic freedom mostly refers to what to research and teach and methodological identity is essentially linked to how to do it.
The study also opens new research lines. One of the possibilities of dealing with the concepts mentioned pre-viously in depth is to consider the whole education com-munity as developmental agents of such aims. This is so mainly because collaboration is key to succeed in Educa-tion (NaEduca-tional Business EducaEduca-tion AssociaEduca-tion, 2001) and also because the experiences outside the classroom bear a high impact on the students’ learning and development (Palomba & Banta, 1999). Classroom activities are not the only aspect to be taken into account with regard to the student’s learning (American Association for Higher Edu-cation and Accreditation, American College Personnel As-sociation (ACPA), & National AsAs-sociation of Student Per-sonnel Administrators, 1998; ACPA, 1996). So there is immense room for improvement and research when sidering that the whole education community can con-tribute to the achievement of one institution educational aims.
A true student-oriented teaching strategy exceeds by far the teaching considerations and principles found today in the literature on higher education. First, it implies that the institution aligns its education goals with its foundational values, clarifying thus the type of student it aims to train. And second, the education community as a whole accepts these goals as their own and collaborates in their development and assessment. From my point of view, this is the way to provide each school of business with an identity that is its own and different.
REFERENCES
American Association for Higher Education and Accreditation, American College Personnel Association (ACPA), & National Association of Stu-dent Personnel Administrators. (1998).Powerful partnerships. A shared responsibility for learning. A joint report. Retrieved from http://www. acpa.nche.edu/powerful-partnerships-shared-responsibility-learning American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (1996). The student
learning imperative. Retrieved from http://acpa.nche.edu/sli/sli.htm Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2012).
Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accredi-tation. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning.
Higher Education Research & Development,18, 57–75.
Brawer, F. B. (1990). Faculty development: The literature. An ERIC review.
Community College Review,18(1), 50–56.
Cohen, S. A. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic bullet.
Educational Researcher,16(8), 16–20.
Cox, W. (2000).Gu´ıa de las mejores escuelas de negocios europeas[Guide to the best European business schools]. Barcelona, Spain: Gesti´on. Gair´ın, J. (2002).Dise˜no, desarrollo e innovaci´on curricular[Design,
de-velopment and curricular innovation]. Madrid, Spain: Universitas. Garc´ıa S´anchez, N., & De Caso-Fuertes, A. M. (2002). ¿Es posible
mejo-rar la comprensi´on en alumnos con dificultades de aprendizaje y/o bajo rendimiento sin que cambie la reflexividad hacia la escritura? [Is it pos-sible to improve writing composition in learning disabilities and/or low achievement students without changes in reflexivity toward writing?] Psi-cothema,14, 456–462.
Gibbs, G. (2004). Mejorar la ense˜nanza y el aprendizaje universitario medi-ante estrategias institucionales [Improving university teaching and learn-ing through institutional strategies].Educar,33, 11–30.
Gibbs, G., Habeshaw, T., & Yorke, M. (2000). Institutional learning and teaching strategies in English higher education.Higher Education,40, 351–372.
Grebner, S., Semmer, N. K., & Elfering, A. (2005). Working conditions and three types of well-being: A longitudinal study with self-report and rating data.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,10, 31–43.
Hawawini, G. (2005). The future of business schools.Journal of Manage-ment DevelopManage-ment,24, 770–782.
Instituto Tecnol´ogico de Monterrey. (2007).Investigaci´on e innovaci´on educativa [Education research and intervention]. Retrieved from http://sitios.itesm.mx/va/diie/
Kaye, R., & Hawkridge, D. (2003). Learning from success. In R. H. Kaye (Ed.),Learning & teaching for business. Case studies of successful inno-vation(p. 215). London, England: Kogan Page.
Legorreta, L., Kelley, C. A., & Sablynsky, C. J. (2006). Linking faculty development to the business school mission.Journal of Education for Business,82, 3–10.
Liu, C., & Oppenheim, C. (2006). Competitive intelligence and development strategy in higher education in Tianjin, China.Information Development,
22, 58–63.
McKenna, J. F., Cotton, C. C., & Van Auken, S. (1995). Business school emphasis on teaching, research and service to industry. Does where you
sit determine where you stand?Journal of Organizational Change Man-agement,8(2), 3–16.
National Business Education Association (NBEA). (2001).This we be-lieve about the emerging roles of the business educator. Retrieved from http://www.nbea.org/newsite/curriculum/policy/no 68.pdf
Nunnally, J. C., & Berstein, I. H. (1994).Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999).Assessment essentials. San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Porter, M. E. (1996, November-December). What is strategy?Harvard Busi-ness Review, 61–78.
Ramsden, P. (1999).Learning to teach in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sentell, T., Pingitore, G., Scheffler, R., & Schwalm, D. (2001). Gender differences in practice patterns and income among psychologists in pro-fessional practice.Professional Psychology, Research and Practice,32, 607–617.
Sierra, R. (2007).T´ecnicas de investigaci´on social. Teor´ıa y ejercicios [So-cial research techniques. Theory and exercises]. Madrid, Spain: Paraninfo. UNESCO. (1997).Recomendaci´on relativa a la condici´on del personal do-cente de la ense˜nanza superior[Recommendation concerning the status of teachers in higher education]. Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/ es/ev.php-URL ID=13144&URL DO=DO TOPIC&URL SECTION=
201.html
Yin, R. K. (1984).Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
APPENDIX
Questionnaire Items
1. The objectives of the program include fostering the student’s critical ability.
2. The program includes activities that involve evaluat-ing, judging or deciding.
3. The student’s abilities for assessing situations or decision-making are evaluated in the program. 4. The program effectively contributes to developing my
critical ability.
5. One of the objectives of the program is to develop the necessary abilities for team work.
6. The program includes activities that require partici-pating or integrating yourself in a group.
7. One of the aspects to be assessed in the program is the ability to socialize with other people.
8. The program effectively contributes to developing my team work abilities..
9. One of the objectives of the program is to develop the student’s personal development (personality, emo-tional balance, attitudes and values).
10. In the program students live and internalize personal experiences from which they can learn.
11. The program evaluates the student’s personal devel-opment.
12. The program effectively contributes to my personal development.
13. One of the objectives of the program is to make stu-dents creative or innovative.
14. The program includes activities such as creating, de-signing or planning.
15. Creativity in students or their ability to innovate are evaluated in the program.
16. The program effectively contributes to developing my ability to create or innovate.
17. The program lecturers are adequately trained. 18. The institution where the program belongs has its
own way of teaching that differentiates it from other institutions.
TABLE 1A
Hypothesis 1. Analysis of Objectives
Objective Description n M SD
Existing objective 1 Student at the beginning 47 2.13 0.924 Ongoing student 45 2.58 0.988 Existing objective 2 Student at the beginning 48 2.25 0.957 Ongoing student 45 2.93 0.939 Activities objective 2 Student at the beginning 48 2.63 0.959 Ongoing student 45 3.09 0.949 Evaluation objective 2 Student at the beginning 48 1.77 0.805 Ongoing student 45 2.47 0.968 Existing objective 3 Student at the beginning 48 1.81 0.867 Ongoing student 45 2.31 0.925 Activities objective 3 Student at the beginning 48 1.75 0.978 Ongoing student 45 2.27 1.009
TABLE 2A
Hypothesis 1. Analysis of Objectives (Second Part)
Objective Description n M SD
Existing objective 1 Alumni 17 2.76 1.033 Student at the beginning 11 2.00 0.775 Ongoing student 12 3.58 0.515 Activities objective 1 Student at the beginning 11 2.36 0.674 Ongoing student 12 3.50 0.674 Existing objective 2 Student at the beginning 11 2.27 0.905 Ongoing student 12 3,75 0.452 Activities objective 2 Student at the beginning 11 3.00 0.894 Ongoing student 12 4.00 0.000 Evaluation objective 2 Student at the beginning 11 1.64 0.924 Ongoing student 12 3.00 0.853 Existing objective 3 Student at the beginning 11 1.64 0.809 Ongoing student 12 3.08 0.793 Evaluation objective 3 Student at the beginning 11 1.82 0.751 Ongoing student 12 2.67 0.651 Evaluation objective 4 Alumni 17 2.29 0.686 Ongoing student 12 3.00 0.739
