Michael K. McCuddy

Issues in Team Teaching: Point and Counterpoint

Team teaching can be both a satisfying and frustrating experience. Kulynych (1999, p, 144), for instance, describes the team-teaching experience as “both exhilarating and exasperating”. Among the satisfying—even exhilarating—aspects of team teaching are the opportunities to learn from one another and the support faculty members can receive from colleagues. Among the frustrations associated with team teaching are faculty members’ insecurity and their fear of power imbalances (Speer & Ryan, 1998), lack of institutional support (Speer & Ryan, 1998), and lack of attention to detail (Arnold & Jackson, 1996; Bakken et al., 1999; Lehmann & Gillman, 1998; Speer & Ryan, 1998).

Using Team Learning in the Classroom: Experiences and Lessons

An important skill for success in today’s workplace is the ability to work effectively in a team. “Many organizations are moving toward a management system where teams of employees, rather than individuals, are responsible for achieving organizational goals” (Kaplan & Welker, 2001, p.15). This paper considers how teamwork skills can be developed in the classroom by using a team learning approach. Team learning is an innovative method that places greater responsibility on the students for the teaching/learning process. Team learning emphasizes a high level of active involvement and a great deal of self-management by students. It furthers the objectives of developing teamwork skills and providing students with the competencies and desire for lifelong learning. The professor ceases to be the “sage on the stage” and becomes the “guide on the side.”

IMPLEMENTING AND SUSTAINING EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS

Concerns about the lack of institutional and collegial support for implementing and sustaining educational innovations have frequently been mentioned in various forums at the annual EDiNEB Conferences. This raises two questions: (1) Is there, in fact, a lack of support for educational innovation? and (2) If so, why is there a lack of support? One possible answer is that these concerns reflect an organizational change process gone awry. However, little seems to have been done to systematically and formally document the educational innovation process from the perspective of managing organizational change, let alone systematically exploring how the change process has gone awry. This chapter seeks to examine the implementation and sustainability of educational innovations by adapting Kurt Lewin’s (1951) three-phase model of change (i.e., unfreezing, change, and refreezing). The Lewinian model is widely accepted in the organizational change and development (OCD) discipline, with applications existing in many different business and institutional settings (see for example: Argyris, 1970; Beer & Walton, 1990; Bertsch & Williams, 1994; Cummings & Worley, 1997; McWhinney, 1989;

Moving Beyond Teaching and Learning into a Human Development Paradigm

For decades higher education has been dominated by two models: the Teaching Centered Model (TCM) and, more recently, the Learning Centered Model (LCM). Neither model alone is deemed as sufficient to satisfactorily address the educational needs and challenges of learners in our modern, global society. This paper describes a conceptual framework that can help guide the creation and implementation of teaching/learning approaches that are based on the universal phenomenon of human development – a phenomenon that transcends both the TCM and LCM. This conceptual framework – called the Development Centered Paradigm (DCP) – seeks to capitalize on the benefits of the TCM and LCM while going beyond them. This paper also describes a demonstration project in an interdisciplinary biotechnology management course at a graduate school of management in France; this demonstration project shows how the DCP can be implemented in higher education, building on the positive features of the TCM and LCM.

Does Exposure to Ideas About “Morally Leading Change” Make a Difference in Students’ Leadership Aspirations?

A fundamental objective of contemporary business education is the preparation of students to effectively deal with the many different challenges they will encounter in their future business careers. Two of the more important challenges that students will face involve leading change and promoting ethical conduct in business. This chapter discusses the nature and ramifications of these two challenges for future business leaders and then examines one approach for helping students develop their capacities for morally leading change in business organizations and in society.

Using Teams in the Classroom: Meeting the Challenge of Evaluating Students’ Work

Using groups and teams in the classroom seems to have a momentum of its own as more and more educators incorporate various forms of group or team activities into their courses (e.g. Aiken, 1991; Alie, Beam, & Carey, 1998; Boyatiz, 1994; Confessare & Confessare, 1992; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1994; Knowles, 1975; Langrehr et al., 1998; Malinger, 1998; Malinger & Elden, 1987; McCuddy, 1995; McCuddy & Pirie, 2000; Michaelson, 1992; Michaelson & Price, 1999; Miller, 1991; Ramsey & Couch, 1994). As educators embrace teamwork in the classroom, they encounter new and different challenges in attempting to make the teaching/learning enterprise an effective venture. Included among these challenges are the determination of effective team member role behaviors and skills (Christ, McCuddy & Pirie, 2000); dealing with “free riders”, that is those students who do not carry their fair share of the team’s burden; and the evaluation of student performance (Malinger, 1998).

Teams in the Classroom: Beyond the Group Project

For many years now, businesses and other organizations have been changing the way in which they function. Traditional hierarchical organizational structures, with each function and department in its place, have been replaced with much “flatter” structural forms. In today’s workplace, employees regularly work in teams - teams comprised of peers within their respective fields and, increasingly, cross-functional teams.