The term Enterprise University is often used to refer to a higher education institution that aligns its operations, programs, and culture with the market needs, emphasizing innovation, entrepreneurship, and industry partnerships. Enterprise universities focus on integrating academic and industry practices to prepare students for the workforce. On the academic side, enterprise universities foster innovative teaching and research that directly benefits the economy and society at large.
Defining Characteristics of an Enterprise University
While specific practices may vary among universities aspiring to align with the enterprise university vision, some of the defining characteristics of enterprise universities include the following:
Industry Collaborations: These universities actively collaborate with businesses, industries, and government agencies to develop programs that align with market needs.
Entrepreneurial Focus: They encourage entrepreneurial thinking among students and faculty, often providing support for such activities via incubators, accelerators, and funding for startups.
Research Commercialization: They foster research that is focused on solving real-world problems. The emphasis is on technology transfer, patents, and bringing innovations to market.
Skill-Oriented Programs: Curriculum design emphasizes practical skills that improve employability of students. This is often achieved by offering internships, co-op programs, and certifications in addition to academic degrees.
Flexible Learning Models: These universities often offer online, hybrid, and modular learning to cater to diverse groups of learners, including working professionals.
Revenue Diversification: They seek to diversify funding through grants, endowments, corporate training, consulting, etc., reducing reliance on student tuition and government funding.
How AACSB Supports Enterprise University Vision
Engagement with relevant stakeholders, innovation that improves attainment of relevant outcomes, and focus on positive societal impact are defining characteristics of AACSB accreditation philosophy. These central elements of AACSB accreditation philosophy are also well-aligned with the goals of an enterprise university. Specifically, AACSB accreditation can support an enterprise university vision in the following ways:
Promoting Industry-Relevant Education: AACSB Standards emphasize integrating current business practices and trends into curricula. AACSB also encourages partnerships with industries to design programs that address workforce needs and emerging technologies.
Fostering Innovation and Entrepreneurship: AACSB standards require innovation in teaching, research, and engagement, which directly supports entrepreneurial initiatives.
Enhancing Credibility among Potential Partners and Stakeholders: AACSB accreditation signals high-quality education to students, employers, and funding agencies. This reputation can help attract partnerships, funding, and talented faculty and students.
Encouraging Research with Impact: AACSB requires business schools to focus on producing impactful research that addresses societal and economic challenges. This aligns with the enterprise university’s goal of solving real-world problems through research and its commercialization.
Strengthening Global Networks: AACSB accreditation gives universities access to a global network of accredited institutions, fostering international partnerships. These connections can lead to joint research, global internships, and industry project partnerships that enhance enterprise-oriented outcomes.
Conclusion
AACSB supports the enterprise university vision by helping business schools embed innovation, market relevance, and stakeholder engagement into their operations. The accreditation framework helps business schools build stronger industry ties, develop impactful research, and prepare students for the workforce, aligning perfectly with the goals of an enterprise university.
Altmetrics, short for “alternative metrics,” are non-traditional measures that assess the reach and influence of academic research by assessing online attention and engagement that the research produces. Unlike traditional scholarly metrics like number of citations, h-index, and journal impact factor, altmetrics capture the broader, real-time impact of research on various platforms, such as social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn), news outlets, blogs, policy documents, online repositories (e.g., GitHub, Figshare), and various academic platforms (e.g. Mendeley, ResearchGate).
Altmetrics provide a broader and more diverse perspective on the impact of research, particularly its societal, professional, and educational relevance. Moreover, altmetrics can help a business school align its research strategy with its mission and AACSB Standard 8, which deals with the impact produced by a business school’s portfolio of intellectual contributions.
How Altmetrics Measure Research Impact
In order to measure research engagement and impact online, altmetrics may use the following metrics:
Mentions in Social Media: Measuring how often a study is shared or discussed on platforms like Twitter or Reddit.
Policy Citations: Tracking references in government and organizational policy documents.
Media Coverage: Counting mentions in mainstream and specialized news outlets.
Public Usage: Analyzing usage and engagement in non-academic contexts, such as clinical practice guidelines, teaching resources, or public discussions.
Online Accessibility: Assessing the frequency with which research outputs are viewed, downloaded, or interacted with on various academic and non-academic platforms.
Altmetrics tools like Altmetric.com and PlumX aggregate and visualize these data to help researchers and institutions understand their research’s digital footprint and societal reach.
Relation to AACSB Standard 8 – Impact of Scholarship
AACSB Standard 8 emphasizes that the impact of scholarship is a key criterion for assessing academic excellence of business schools. The standard requires schools to demonstrate that their faculty’s research and intellectual contributions are relevant, impactful, and aligned with the school’s mission. Altmetrics align with AACSB Standard 8 in several ways:
Broadening Impact Assessment: Altmetrics capture the societal and practical impact of research, showcasing its value beyond traditional academic measures like citations. This broader scope supports AACSB’s emphasis on demonstrating tangible benefits to businesses, communities, and broader society.
Real-Time Feedback: Unlike traditional metrics that take years to materialize, altmetrics can provide real-time data on how research is received, discussed, and applied. This helps schools quickly assess the relevance and effectiveness of their scholarly output.
Demonstrating Relevance: Altmetrics data can highlight how faculty research aligns with industry needs, public policy, or community issues, reinforcing AACSB’s focus on relevance to practice and societal engagement.
Strategic Insights for Schools: Schools can use altmetrics to align research strategies with their mission, identifying areas where faculty scholarship has (or should have) significant societal or economic impact.
Showcasing Stakeholder Engagement: By reflecting public, media, and policy engagement, altmetrics demonstrate how research contributes to broader conversations and decision-making processes, a key aspect of scholarship impact under AACSB standards.
Conclusion
Altmetrics provide a valuable tool for demonstrating and measuring the broader impact of scholarship in ways that align with AACSB Standard 8. By showcasing the societal, policy, and professional influence of research, altmetrics help institutions fulfill the AACSB’s requirement that accredited business schools should produce scholarship that matters to a wide range of stakeholders that a business school serves.
The Association of African Business Schools (AABS) is based on a rigorous, peer-reviewed process that assesses and certifies the quality of business schools in Africa. It is designed to ensure that accredited business schools in Africa meet world-class standards in education, research, and societal impact while also addressing the unique challenges and opportunities of the African context. Schools that earn this accreditation distinguish themselves as leaders in business education in Africa, with a commitment to continuous improvement and innovation.
The Value of AABS Accreditation
The principle value dimensions of AABS accreditation are as follows:
Quality Assurance: AABS accreditation certifies that a business school meets high standards in faculty qualifications, curriculum design, student outcomes, and institutional governance. Moreover, the school is committed to continuous improvement in these important areas of business education. The accreditation also acts as a seal of approval that attracts students, faculty, and partners who value excellence.
Relevance to Africa: AABS emphasizes addressing local challenges and opportunities related to socio-economic development, sustainability, and entrepreneurship. Accredited schools are equipped to produce graduates who can drive change within their communities and beyond.
Networking Opportunities: Accreditation connects schools to a network of peer institutions, fostering collaboration in research, faculty exchange, and best practices.
AABS Standards
The AABS accreditation encompasses 11 standards, categorized into six key areas:
Relevance to the African Context: Ensures that the institution’s mission and activities are attuned to the national, political, legal, social, and economic environments of Africa.
Institution: Evaluates governance structures, strategic vision, and resource allocation to ensure effective and efficient management.
Stakeholders: Assesses relationships with students, alumni, corporate partners, and other educational institutions, emphasizing stakeholder engagement and market relevance.
Program Portfolio: Reviews the diversity and quality of programs and research initiatives, focusing on curriculum development, teaching methodologies, and the pertinence of learning materials.
Impact on Africa: Demonstrates the institution’s contribution to inclusive economic and social development within the continent.
Sustainability: Ensures that the institution’s approach to management education is sustainable, with a commitment to continuous improvement and long-term relevance.
AABS Accreditation Process
AABS is based on a rigorous and comprehensive accreditation process structured into eight distinct phases:
Expression of Interest: Institutions initiate the process by submitting a Letter of Interest to the AABS Accreditation Office, demonstrating their commitment to pursuing accreditation.
Application: Upon acknowledgment, schools complete the AABS Accreditation Application Form, providing detailed information about their programs and operations.
Mentorship: Accepted institutions may be assigned a mentor—typically an experienced dean or senior academic—to guide them through the self-review phase, ensuring alignment with AABS standards.
Self-Review Report (SRR): Schools conduct a thorough self-evaluation against AABS standards, compiling a comprehensive report that highlights strengths, identifies areas for improvement, and outlines strategies for enhancement.
Accreditation Visit: A designated AABS Review Team conducts an on-site evaluation to validate the SRR, engage with stakeholders, and assess the institution’s adherence to accreditation standards.
Accreditation Decision: The AABS Board reviews the findings and decides on accreditation status, which, if granted, is valid for five years.
Post-Accreditation: Accredited schools commit to ongoing quality enhancement and are required to submit a Mid-Term Report two and a half years after accreditation, detailing progress and continuous improvement efforts.
Re-Accreditation: Institutions seeking to renew their accreditation must apply at least 18 months before the current accreditation expires, initiating a new cycle of evaluation.
Challenges and Opportunities of AABS Accreditation
Achieving AABS accreditation often requires a business school in Africa to overcome certain challenges, while also presenting the school with numerous opportunities. Business education in Africa is plagued by resource scarcity, political instability, and varying levels of institutional maturity among the business schools and related organizations. However, the accreditation process itself acts as a catalyst for improvement, prompting schools to address gaps and align with international best practices. Additionally, accreditation positions schools to attract investments, partnerships, and top-tier talent, further boosting their growth and impact.
The term indirect assessment refers to methods of evaluating student learning and outcomes based on perceptions, reflections, and other methods that do not directly assess student knowledge or skills. Typical indirect assessment tools include alumni surveys, interviews with graduating students, employer focus groups, reviews of students’ reflective essays, etc. Indirect assessment is designed to gather data on student experiences, satisfaction, and perceived learning outside the traditional classroom environment, to better understand the effectiveness of educational programs and practices.
AACSB standards emphasize the importance of both direct and indirect assessment in demonstrating a school’s commitment to excellence. There are several reasons why indirect assessment is important for AACSB and other accreditation agencies:
Comprehensive Evaluation: Indirect assessment complements direct assessment methods (such as exams, projects, and practical demonstrations) by providing a more holistic view of student learning and program effectiveness.
Student Feedback: indirect assessment captures students’ perspectives on their learning experiences, which can highlight strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum, teaching methods, and overall educational environment.
Stakeholder Engagement: Indirect assessment involves engaging various stakeholders, including students, alumni, and employers, which can strengthen the connection between the school and its broader community. This engagement can provide valuable feedback for aligning educational programs with the needs and expectations of these stakeholders.
In summary, indirect assessment is a crucial component of accreditation because it helps ensure that business schools are not only achieving their educational goals but also continuously improving and meeting the needs of their students and other stakeholders.
Generative AI has hit business educators like a freight train. In just a few months after its launch in 2022, ChatGPT had acquired 100 million users; 200 million users are predicted by 2023. Following the suit, Google has released its own conversational chatbot, Google Bard this year. Google Bard is powered by the same technology as Google’s search engine, so, unlike ChatGPT, it seems to be more aware of recent news and developments.
Shortly after the release of ChaGPT by OpenAI, several professors from top business schools announced that ChatGPT was able to pass their exams. While some business school professors still act as if ChatGPT doesn’t exist, a growing number of educators believe that Generative AI is a disruptive technology that will quickly and permanently alter the century-old rules and pedagogical approaches in business education. If this is true, then educational institutions must introduce changes and create policies to ensure that students use this new, disruptive technology in a way that does not impede their learning.
Nowadays, most students know what ChatGPT is and how to use it for completing homework assignments. How to mitigate the academic integrity issues associated with the use of GAI by students seems to be of the utmost importance to business schools, since academic integrity is important for quality of business education and is a formal requirement of all major international accreditation bodies, such as AACSB. In this article, I outline three simple strategies that business educators can use to mitigate academic integrity issues caused by GAI use. I also discuss each of these strategies’ pros and cons.
Punitive Strategy
Despite the rapid advancements in GAI, Many educators choose to teach their courses “as is”. Some specify in their syllabi that the use of Generative AI for completing assignments is prohibited and punishable under the school’s Academic Integrity Policy. AI-detection tools, such as ZeroGPT, are used to monitor student submissions for AI-generated content.
Pros
Trusting students to make ethical choices and punishing those who do not is an old, simple, and, perhaps, wise approach for ensuring academic integrity. When students want to cheat, they will find a way to do so – by using GAI, hiring someone to do their projects, or in some other way. It is important for educational institutions to have an admissions process that screens out students who are likely to cheat in the first place. Instructors should be able to trust most students and not act as investigators and prosecutors at all times. If a cheating student is caught, the punishment should be severe enough to deter others from even considering unethical behavior.
A minimal amount of effort on the part of faculty and the business school is required with this approach
A business school may want to take this approach in the short term if they want to “wait and see” what happens with Generative AI in business education before making any important decisions or investments.
Cons
AI detection tools are often ineffective at detecting AI-generated text, even though this issue is not as serious as some educators believe. False-positives are also quite common. It is possible for students to revise AI-generated text to make it unlikely that it will be flagged by such software as ZeroGPT. Furthermore, proofreading tools such as Grammarly and WordTune can produce false positives as well.
GAI is here to stay, most likely. It may not be wise to prohibit students from using GAI tools, since these tools may soon become essential in the business world.
In the near future, business schools will probably discover new ways to improve student learning by implementing GAI. Those business schools that do not adopt GAI for teaching and learning may soon lag behind those that do.
Flipped Classroom Strategy
It is possible to “flip” a class so that most learning and important assessments take place in a physical classroom, in front of the instructor, and with very little use of computers. For example, all exams can be administered face-to-face. Important learning exercises can be done in class as well. Major projects, while carried out outside of the class, should be presented and defended in class as well.
With this approach, the instructor can offer students help and make sure they are the ones doing the assignments. An instructor can ask individual students or student groups to demonstrate and explain progress on their project work in class every week. The grading weight devoted to attendance and participation can be increased as well, encouraging students to attend face-to-face classes. Students are free to use GAI tools outside of the classroom in any way they see fit (e.g. to prepare for a particular class session), but they should be able to demonstrate their competence face-to-face.
Pros
Performing teaching and assessment face-to-face can be quite effective for attaining course learning objectives.
It’s much easier for an instructor to detect cheating when most of the work is performed in front of him or her.
Cons
While it’s possible to ask online students to take major exams or defend major term projects on-campus, this strategy is obviously not well-suited for asynchronous online courses.
May not be appropriate for large classes, since this approach requires individual attention to every team and, sometimes, every student.
Integration Strategy
Instead of excluding GAI from the classroom, an instructor may choose to embrace the technology in a way that actually assists teaching and learning. This is probably one of the most effective yet difficult approaches. GAI is still a new technology. Many educators lack a solid understanding of how to use this technology ethically and productively.
What’s clear though, is that this approach may require a radical redesign of each course’s pedagogy. GAI can be used by students to answer basic questions at the “understanding” level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, for example. In fact, students may be instructed to ask ChatGPT or Google Bard questions in relation to the subject matter of the course and then to read and evaluate the responses as a part of an assignment. Thus, the point of the assignment is to interact with GAI and not to provide “correct answers”.
When it comes to higher-order cognitive skills, an instructor may ask very complex and context-specific questions in a format not supported by major GAI tools in order to decrease the likelihood that GAI will be used to complete these assignments.
Ideally, these assignments should be in the form where GAI still lacks capability. For example, instead of just asking to analyze a case study, the instructor can ask students to create flowcharts or UML Activity Diagrams based on the case. Alternatively, students can be asked to record videos with their analyses and post them to YouTube. Thus, even if students ask GAI for assistance, the final product will largely be their own work.
Also, while GAI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Bard are becoming increasingly knowledgeable in many topics and increasingly capable of performing very complex cognitive tasks, they often lack knowledge and understanding of very narrow and specific contexts. For example, an instructor can ask complex questions in relation to specific local individuals or organizations that may be known only to students and the instructor. For example, let’s say there’s a small, local software company where the university is located. The instructor can talk about this company in class and then asks students to come up with strategies that are suitable for this company given its unique local context
Regardless of which approach is chosen for assessing higher-order cognitive skills, the instructor can quickly run his or her questions and assignments through ChatGPT or Google Bard to see what kind of responses students are likely to get when they ask GAI for help. If GAI can answer these questions with ease, then additional context or complexity needs to be added to the question. ALternatively, the format of the assignment can be changed (e.g. from an open-ended response to a visual diagram).
Students can rephrase these specific questions as generic ones and submit them to ChatGPT. But generating a quality response will still require analyzing and accommodating the local context (and this is where most of the learning will occur) or putting the responses in a format that still entails some learning. The instructor can deduct points if the local context is not properly accounted for or the format instructions are not followed. A grading rubric can be created that evaluates students’ work based on the extent to which a solution is contextualized for a specific company or individual and the extent to which all the directions were followed. If necessary, an oral defense can be scheduled so that students can demonstrate their mastery of the material.
Pros
Since GAI is likely to become a permanent fixture in business, this approach will make students more prepared for the era of GAI
With this approach, the instructor can automate some of the basic tutoring tasks and focus on developing higher order cognitive skills among students via complex, contextualized, and innovative assessments.
Cons
This approach can be time consuming, since it requires quite a bit of thinking and curriculum revision
Many educators may lack time, expertise, or motivation for integrating GIA into their curriculum in a way that is ethical and conducive to student learning.
In conclusion, it can be said that Generative AI is very likely to become a permanent fixture in business education. Individual educators and business schools will have no choice but to adapt to this new, disruptive technology and find ways to accommodate in an ethical and productive fashion. The list of strategies for accommodating GAI in the classroom provided here is not perfect or exhaustive. What’s important though is that every educator and business school should have a strategy in relation to GAI, or they will quickly find themselves in a disadvantaged situation. Having a strategy in relation to GAI is better than having no strategy at all.
Accreditation consulting is a service provided to educational institutions, particularly colleges, universities, and schools. Accreditation firms guide educational institutions through the process of obtaining accreditation from recognized accrediting bodies or agencies. Typically, accreditation consulting firms or consultants offer expertise, guidance, and support to institutions seeking accreditation in the following areas:
Assessment and Readiness Evaluation: Consultants evaluate the institution’s current practices, policies, and procedures to determine its readiness for the accreditation process. They identify areas of improvement and develop action plans to meet accreditation standards.
Compliance Review: Accreditation consultants help institutions ensure compliance with the accreditation requirements and standards set by accrediting bodies.
Documentation and Report Preparation: Consultants assist in compiling the necessary documentation and preparing reports required for the accreditation application.
Strategic Planning: Consultants help institutions develop long-term strategic plans to align their objectives with the accreditation requirements and enhance their educational programs and services.
Business Process Reengineering. Accreditation consultants help institutions create new processes or revamp existing ones in compliance with accreditation requirements. These processes may include tenure, promotion, assurance of learning, faculty mentoring, etc.
Training and Workshops: Accreditation consultants may conduct training sessions and workshops for faculty and staff to familiarize them with accreditation standards and best practices.
Mock Visits: Some consultants organize mock accreditation visits to simulate the actual review process and identify areas that need improvement.
Continuous Improvement: Accreditation consultants work with institutions to develop a culture of continuous improvement, encouraging ongoing assessment and enhancement of educational quality.
Data Gathering and Analysis: Accreditation consultants help institutions gather and analyze data about students, faculty, and employers. An educational institution often performs this to demonstrate compliance with specific standards and requirements.
Communication and Liaison: Consultants may act as liaisons between the institution and the accrediting body, ensuring effective communication and addressing any queries or concerns.
Although accreditation consultants can be quite useful, institutions should not rely solely on them to get them through accreditation processes. Colleges and universities should actively engage in internal self-assessment and improvement efforts to ensure long-term compliance with accreditation standards. Accreditation is not a snapshot of a particular moment in time when a college or school excelled in meeting accreditation standards, but rather a continuous self-improvement journey. Additionally, when seeking accreditation consulting services, institutions should choose reputable firms or individuals with expertise in their specific accreditation requirements and a track record of successful outcomes.
Triple crown accreditation refers to a prestigious recognition awarded to business schools that have achieved accreditation from three prominent international accreditation bodies for business education. These three major accrediting organizations are:
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB): AACSB accreditation is widely regarded as the most rigorous and prestigious accreditation for business schools. It focuses on evaluating the quality of a business school’s faculty, curriculum, teaching methods, and research output.
European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS): EQUIS is a European-based accreditation body that assesses the overall quality and internationalization of business schools. It evaluates aspects such as governance, programs, student body, research, and engagement with the corporate world.
Association of MBAs (AMBA): AMBA is a global accreditation body specifically focused on MBA programs. It assesses the curriculum, faculty, student diversity, and career services of MBA programs offered by business schools.
Achieving triple crown accreditation signifies that the school has met stringent international standards of excellence in business education and is recognized for delivering high-quality programs with global relevance. Triple crown accreditation is a mark of distinction and can enhance a business school’s reputation and attractiveness to prospective students and employers. It is estimated that only one percent (approximately 120) of business schools have achieved triple crown accreditation. Even so, triple crown accreditation does not imply that the school is among the top one percent of business schools worldwide.
Achieving triple crown accreditation is a challenging and lengthy process that requires a strong commitment to continuous improvement and academic excellence. As a result, only a select number of business schools around the world have earned this distinguished status. Furthermore, business schools in Europe and Asia are more likely to pursue triple crown accreditation than those in the United States.
Obtaining an international accreditation for a business school usually requires extensive revisions of existing curriculum in order to meet the requirements of curriculum-specific accreditation standards. For example, Standard 4 of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) requires that “the school delivers content that is current, relevant, forward-looking, globally oriented, aligned with program competency goals, and consistent with its mission, strategies, and expected outcomes” (AACSB International, 2022). Similarly, Standard 6 of the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP) requires that “the curriculum must be comprised of appropriate business and professional content to prepare graduates for success” and that the business school “must have a systematic process to ensure continuous improvement of curriculum and program delivery” (ACBSP, 2022). In this article, we talk about the most important elements of a business curriculum and how these elements can be aligned in order to meet the accreditation requirements and build an effective, self-sustaining quality assurance system in relation to business curriculum.
Curriculum Elements
In short, curriculum describes what is taught at a business school and how it is taught (Squires, 2012). A curriculum is usually formalized using a document or a plan that spells out the following:
Program learning outcomes (PLOs) that graduates must master
Course learning outcomes (CLOs) or goals that outline smaller and specific learning objectives to be achieved within each course comprising the program
Alignment of program learning outcomes (PLOs) and course learning outcomes (CLOs); this alignment is usually provided with the help of a course alignment matrix (CAM) that shows how individual courses and their CLOs support PLOs
Appropriate assessment tools that can be used to measure CLOs and/or PLOs
The content or material to be taught within each course comprising the program in the form of course syllabi
There are many other elements that comprise a curriculum (see Table 1). All these elements must be properly aligned to ensure effective development of the desired competencies among students.
Curriculum Element
Description
College Mission
Defines the aim of a college, its main reason for existence
Market Conditions
Economic marketplaces often dictate which professions or competencies are in demand in the workplace
Compliance Standards
Accreditation and governing bodies often mandate competencies that a particular program needs to develop
Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
High-level goals (or competencies) that students are expected to attain as a result of completing a particular program of study
Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)
Specific course-level objectives (or competencies) that students are expected to attain as a result of completing a specific course
Course Materials
Training materials used as part of a course: textbooks, books, journals and journal articles, electronic and multimedia materials, etc.
Pedagogy
Various theories, methods, or tools employed to develop competencies among students
Technology
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) used to deliver course content
Physical Resources
Physical facilities (e.g., classrooms, labs, specialized equipment, etc.) allocated to a course or program
Credit Hours
Amount of face-to-face or online interaction between a student and an instructor devoted to a particular course or program
Assurance of Learning (AoL)
How attainment of particular learning outcomes (or competencies) is assessed and reported at the course and program level
Table 1. Curriculum Elements (Camba & Krotov, 2015)
Curriculum Alignment
Curriculum alignment can be viewed as a triangle with the following three cornerstones: curriculum, teacher, and test (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Curriculum Alignment Model (English, 2000)
The model shows the need for the three elements to be connected or aligned. Educational goals that are targeted by the curriculum become the basis of defining the work to be done by teachers. Formal testing (or assessment) is used to evaluate the degree to which teachers further deliver the educational goals set forth by the curriculum. Thus, a well-aligned curriculum can also be viewed as a self-sufficient quality control system.
The model shows the need for the three elements to be connected or aligned. Educational goals that are targeted by the curriculum become the basis of defining the work to be done by teachers. Formal testing (or assessment) is used to evaluate the degree to which teachers further deliver the educational goals set forth by the curriculum. Thus, a well-aligned curriculum can also be viewed as a self-sufficient quality control system.
Managing Curriculum Alignment
Lewin’s process-based change management model (see Figure 2) can be used as a guiding framework for an effective curriculum alignment initiative.
Figure 2. Lewin’s Change Management Model (Kaminski, 2011)
Figure 2. Lewin’s Change Management Model (Kaminski, 2011)
The first stage of the curriculum alignment process is the so-called “unfreeze” stage. This stage aims to prepare for the desired changes in the curriculum by having clear and open communication with all the relevant stakeholders in relation to the desired changes in the curriculum. In this stage, people involved in delivering and managing the curriculum analyze the current curriculum and identify the changes that are necessary in order to meet the accreditation standards or achieve the desired improvements in relation to the curriculum. All the stakeholders participating in the “unfreeze” stage need to be convinced that new materials, structures, and processes must be adopted in order to achieve desired improvements. In the second stage called “change,” the stakeholders implement the intended changes to the curriculum. This phase is time-consuming, confusing, and costly. The third stage of the curriculum alignment process is the “refreeze” stage. During this stage, changes to the curriculum are stabilized. The main concern in this phase is to ensure that change becomes a permanent part of the normal process and the system does not revert to the old ways and habits.
Camba, P., & Krotov, V. (2015). Critical success factors in the curriculum alignment process: The case of the college of business at Abu Dhabi University. Journal of Education for Business, 90(8), 451-457.
English, F. W. (2000). Deciding What to Teach and Test: Developing, Aligning, and Auditing the Curriculum. California: Corwin Press, Inc.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1999). Curriculum alignment revisited. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(1), 26.
Kaminski, J. (2011). Theory applied to informatics-Lewin’s change theory. Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics, 6(1).
Squires, D. (2012). Curriculum alignment research suggests that alignment can improve student achievement. Clearing House, 85(4), 129-135.
Whether we’re talking about regional or professional accreditation, there is always work to be done to ensure that the institution is progressing toward the next accreditation visit (the so-called “accreditation reaffirmation”). It is all too common that once an accreditation visit has taken place and all of the recommendations emanating from the visit have been addressed, an institution will essentially relax until the next visit is imminent. Then, the scramble begins again to ensure that the institution is in compliance with the accreditation requirements. Inevitably, the institution will at the very least receive recommendations from the next accreditation visit because accreditation standards have not been addressed in between accreditation visits.
The point is that institutions should never relax when it comes to accreditation requirements. It is useful to think about accreditation as a process by which institutions can ensure that they are always doing the right things. For example, it is a good thing for students that institutions constantly assess learning outcomes, and that is why accrediting bodies require continuous assessment of learning outcomes. Therefore, even without the looming threat of accreditation, institutions should continuously address accreditation standards on an ongoing basis.
One strategy that you can use to ensure that you are always paying attention to your accreditation standards is to maintain skeletons of the self-study teams even during periods when an accreditation visit is not imminent. The skeleton self-study teams would continuously monitor the institution’s compliance with accreditation standards, and if any “relaxing” does occur, the teams can bring concomitant issues to your attention for remediation. The point is that if the institution operates as if an accreditation visit is always on the horizon, then the issues that come up at an actual accreditation visit will be relatively minor and will be straightforward to deal with.
Being put simply, a teaching case is a real or fictional story about an organization, its employees, and the issues they are facing. The value of the case study method comes from two broad areas. First, using case studies in class allows students to learn more about real companies – their successes and challenges. This has significant practical value: students can apply what they learn about real companies and managers in their workplace. From a pedagogical standpoint, case studies provide illustrations of class concepts within a real-life context. Second, using case studies allows an instructor to facilitate the development of higher-order cognitive skills among students. These higher-order skills are developed by asking students to apply class material to real-world situations. The material can be applied by finding an instance of a class concept in the case to clarify a situation that the company is facing. Alternatively, management frameworks can be used for analyzing or evaluating the current state of the company, and creating recommendations based on the more prescriptive theories that students learn in class. Each of these valuable dimensions of the case study method is expanded upon in the subsequent paragraphs.
Business is more of a professional field, rather than a hard science like Physics. In professional fields, idiosyncratic knowledge about individuals and organizations is arguably more valuable than knowledge of theoretical generalizations. If this is the case, then business professionals should benefit greatly from past stories of successful (or unsuccessful) companies or managers – just like doctors can benefit from studying prior medical cases and pondering over their patients’ medical histories. Case studies often provide fairly detailed, multi-point accounts of organizations and their employees. This knowledge can help students identify problems and create solutions for their own specific organizations, just like knowledge of prior medical cases helps doctors treat their current patients.
Moreover, these idiosyncratic accounts of people and organizations are often told with the level of detail, complexity, and ambiguity that is close to real-life business scenarios. Anyone with experience working in an organization understands that important organizational problems have many contributing factors and related issues. It is often hard to narrow down a problem to a single factor and suggest a simple solution that targets that factor only. Moreover, the way various factors contribute to an important problem is often not deterministic and highly intertwined with other issues and factors. Thus, it is hard to tell with certainty which factors contribute to the problem, in what way, and to what extent. All these issues make case studies a valuable vehicle for exposing students to the real-world complexity that is often present when dealing with various organizational issues within the real world.
As mentioned earlier, addressing these highly complex and often ambiguous organizational problems requires higher-order cognitive skills, such as the ability to apply, analyze, evaluate, and create (see Figure 1). For example, answering the question of why a particular company is experiencing a decrease in market share may require performing an analysis of the industry that the company is in, using the Five Industry Forces Framework. Similarly, evaluating the company’s current situation may require organizing a number of internal and external factors. Creating and recommending a potential solution requires the ability to understand and contextualize various prescriptive management theories (e.g. pursuing strategies that utilize internal strengths for neutralizing external threats or taking advantage of external opportunities is likely to improve organizational performance). To analyze, to evaluate, and to recommend are all higher-order cognitive skills as outlined by Bloom’s Taxonomy. Case studies provide a fruitful platform for practicing and developing these important cognitive skills among students.
Figure 1. Learning Goals under Bloom’s Taxonomy
Finally, case studies give students an opportunity to learn how to apply what they learn in class to a real-world situation. Business is largely an applied field. Basic, fundamental theories in Psychology are often applied to manage people within an organization. Fundamental theories of micro and macroeconomics are applied to an organization or industry to formulate long-term strategies for an organization. Basic mathematical models are used in Accounting and Finance. Thus, being able to apply concepts or theories within real organizations for the purpose of addressing organizational problems or pursuing opportunities is an essential skill for any business professionals. Case studies allow students to do precisely that: to practice applying abstract concepts, frameworks, and theories to complex, ambiguous organizational context for the purpose of attaining positive results for the organization.
It should be noted that these important learning goals can hardly be achieved with what seems to be a more common approach to higher education: in-class lectures delivered using PowerPoint slides followed by multiple-choice exams. Multiple choice questions largely test one’s ability to remember discrete facts and not necessarily to understand a complex organizational problem in a holistic fashion. Moreover, multiple choice questions, while capable of assessing one’s ability to apply concepts, often do so in isolation from the complexity and ambiguity of the context within which these concepts are applied. Finally, there is an inherent determinism in multiple choice questions. Only one answer is the correct one. This stands in sharp contrast to the case study approach, where there is no such thing as a “hundred percent correct answer”.
But this is not to say that multiple choice questions are an inherently inferior assessment based on a case study. Multiple choice questions serve a different purpose: to assess lower level cognitive skills, such as the ability to remember facts or understand basic concepts. That is why multiple-choice assessment is so common in lower level, undergraduate, and introductory courses. Also, with some ingenuity, one can create multiple choice questions that tap into the higher-order cognitive skills. For example, calculating the current cash position of a company and selecting the right answer from the list of several choices may require performing a complex analysis of other financial statements. Similarly, case study question may test the ability of a student to remember simple facts about the company described in the case. Thus, there is a considerable overlap between the educational goals of case-based assessment and other, more basic forms of assessment.
Krotov, V., & Silva, L. (2005). Case study research: Science or a literary genre?. AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, 50.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.
