american journal of educational studies (ajes) · pdf fileamerican journal of educational...

American Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.4, No.1, 2011

1

American Journal of Educational Studies (AJES)

Volume 4 ‐ Number 1 ‐ 2011

ISSN: 1934‐6476

Interim Editor: Dr. Alireza Lari, Wake Forest University

Editorial Review Board:

Dr. Arben Asllani, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Dr. Carl Blue, Northern Iowa University

Dr. Joe Busby, North Carolina State University

Dr. Aaron Clark, North Carolina State University

Dr. Jeremy Ernst, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Dr. Nasim Lari, American Institute of Higher Education

Dr. Pooneh Lari, North Carolina State University

Dr. Jackie B. Manning, Auburn University at Montgomery

Dr. Daniel M. Miller, North Carolina A&T State University

Dr. Stephen K. Miller, Western Kentucky University

Dr. Robert Owen, Alamance Community College

Dr. Alice Scales, North Carolina State University

Dr. Dothang Truong, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University

Copyright © 2011 by American Institute of Higher Education, LLC. Permission to make digital or

hard copies of all or part of this journal is granted without fee provided that copies are not made

or distributed for profit or commercial use. All copies must bear a full citation. Permission from

the Editor is required to post to servers, redistribute to lists, or utilize in a for‐profit or

commercial use. Permission requests should be sent to Editor‐in‐Chief, American Journal of

Educational Studies, AmHighEd, P.O. Box 3552, Cary, NC 27519.


2

Editor’s Corner:

Welcome to the American Journal of Educational Studies, sponsored by the American Institute

of Higher Education, LLC. As Editor, I would like to personally thank all reviewers for having

played such an important role in the growth and success of this journal. You have allowed our

vision of what a journal should be, come alive.

If you would like to contact the journal, please email me at [email protected] or visit our

website at www.amhighed.com. To submit your manuscripts, please review the Guide for Initial

Submission of Manuscripts at our website www.amhighed.com.

This journal is included in the Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational

Psychology and Administration, and Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational

Curriculum and Methods. It is also listed in ProQuest and EBSCO databases.

Statement of Peer Review Integrity

All papers published in the American Journal of Educational Studies have undergone rigorous

peer‐review. This includes an initial editor screening and refereeing by two or more expert

referees.


3

Table of Contents AJES V4N1

Article: Page No.

Using a Collaborative Leadership Model in a Teacher Education Program

By Nancy Keiser, Maureen Kincaid, and Kristine Servais

5

Self‐Directed Learning and the Impact of Leadership: Analyzing Keys for Success

from a Covenantal Perspective

By David G. Duby and Kahlib J. Fischer

21

The Nonsegmental Context of Segmental Understanding: A Biofunctional

Systems Perspective

By Asghar Iran‐Nejad and Madeleine Gregg

41

Factors Influencing Business Student Motivation on Low‐Stakes Assessment

Exams

By Steven T. Breslawski

61

The Bologna Accord: Overview and Marketing Implementation in Romania

By Elisabeth J. Teal, G. Martin Izzo, Corneliu Munteanu, and Barry E. Langford

77


4


5 Keiser, Kincaid, and Servais

USING A COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP MODEL IN A TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM

Nancy Keiser Education Program

North Central College Naperville, IL 60504 [email protected]

Maureen Kincaid Education Program

North Central College Naperville, IL 60504 [email protected]

Kristine Servais

Education Program North Central College Naperville, IL 60504 [email protected]

ABSTRACT This paper presents a collaborative leadership model utilized in a department of education at a

small, liberal arts college in the Midwest. The research of notable scholars on collaborative

leadership, such as Raelin, Dufour, Serviovanni, and Burns are discussed as a foundation for the

movement from a conventional leadership model to a collaborative leadership model.

Specifically, the tenants of the Raelin Model are described using examples from an education

department that exemplify collaborative, concurrent, collective, and compassionate approaches

to leadership. The implementation of a collaborative leadership model resulted in numerous

benefits and challenges for this teacher education program. Areas positively impacted by the

new model include the transformation of department meetings and student teaching

orientation meetings, improved field supervisor training, the development of a student

monitoring process, the development of a secondary education liaison committee, and the

formation of program assessment teams. Benefits of the use of the Raelin model resulted in a

positive increase in the quality of the programs, faculty productivity, and cultural benefits. Most

significant is the benefit to the candidates in the teacher education program. The development

of collaborative leadership also resulted in new challenges. This department of education faced

a dramatically different way of functioning as a department moving from single traditional

leadership to the collaborative approach initiated by the department’s leadership team. This

paper also shares the implications for teacher education programs that may desire to use a

model of collaborative leadership to improve teacher preparation and Increase productivity

among faculty members. Finally, a system for studying collaborative leadership using a



leadership daily practice log to study the ethnography of leadership interactions is discussed for

future consideration.

Keywords: Leadership, collaboration, distributive, transformational, teacher education

Introduction

This paper presents a collaborative leadership model used in a teacher education program

which resulted in a positive increase in the quality of the programs, faculty productivity, and

cultural benefits. Specifically, the Raelin (2003) model was utilized which asserts that effective

leadership is:

Collaborative

Concurrent

Collective

Compassionate

When this department of education shifted from a conventional model of leadership to a

collaborative model the following was accomplished:

Transformation of department meetings and student teaching orientation meetings;

Improved field supervisor training;

The development of a student monitoring process;

The development of a secondary education liaison committee; and

The formation of program assessment teams

Overview of Distributive Leadership

Three leadership models were considered as this teacher education program decided to move

to a collaborative model of leadership. Most pronounced is the collective leadership model

developed by Joseph Raelin (2003), author of Creating Leaderful Organizations: How to Bring

Out Leadership in Everyone. The Raelin (2003) model identifies four tenants that increase

leadership capacity and organizational success: collaborative, collective, concurrent, and

compassionate. Distributive leadership is a second model and organizational concept

considered. This model is based on the premise that when leaders skillfully share responsibilities

with willing members, the organization is more successful. Transformational leadership is the

third model of leadership applied in this teacher education program in which leaders transform

and motivate followers through relationships and shared commitments (Burns, 1978). While

each of the models offer distinct characteristics, each are compliments to an organizational

culture for building leadership capacity. The three models reflect a desire for leadership roles

and responsibilities to be shared among persons in the organization and the belief that greater

benefits are a result of collaborative leadership rather than single leadership. These models

were foundational in this teacher education program and the characteristics of each will be

further described in the section that follows.



Distributive leadership is an organizational concept that suggests when leaders skillfully share

responsibilities with willing members, the organization is more successful. It requires the

influence of leadership on others to participate and share in the goals and work load of an

organization. Some would argue that distributive leadership is not a model but rather a

leadership style that desires to distribute the work utilizing the social network common to

schools and educational settings. Furthermore, distributive leadership is considered a social

influence relationship and an influence based on interactions between and among the leader

and followers (Bass, 1990). Rather than a single leader focus, distributive leadership is built on

the notion that the social interactions of two or more persons offer opportunities to work

together to accomplish organizational tasks. Examples of leadership distribution can be formal,

such as identifying selected members to hold heightened leadership positions, such a team

leader, department chair, coordinator, or director. Oftentimes distributive leadership is

informal, whereby members of the organization collaboratively contribute to whatever daily

event or task that must be accomplished. The evolution of professional learning communities

(Dufour, Dufour, Eaker and Many, 2006) is a good example of organizational expectations

whereby all members actively and collaboratively contribute to the organization’s learning

environment. While the role of the formal leader is significant, the hallmark of the successful

distributive leader is the ability for the leader to influence members of the organization to

collectively accomplish meaningful work toward the organization’s goals.

The research on transformational leadership is one of the most prolific among the topics

addressed in the literature on leadership. James Burns (1978) is best known for the origins of

transformational leadership as a moral and ethical approach. Transformational leaders are

characterized as those who motivate followers to act by appealing to shared values, aspirations

and expectations. Burns (1978) further defines transformational leadership as leaders’ influence

on followers to act on behalf of the mutual goals of both leaders and followers. Much greater

than the traditional and transactional exchange of services between the leader and followers ,

Burns and many of his students first promoted leadership as a role to transform followers and

ultimately, the organization. Rather than positional authority, transformational leaders identify

shared values and develop relationships with followers that result in trust. In other words, the

ability to identify and develop shared values results in a community in which members are more

motivated and desire the same outcomes. In this model, leaders and followers help each other

to advance to a higher level of vision, performance and motivation (Burns, 1978).

The Raelin (2003) model identifies four tenants that increase leadership capacity and

organizational success: collaborative, collective, concurrent, and compassionate. The paradigm

shift, from an authoritarian leader with a single voice to one who will share leadership and

decision making, is not easily accomplished. The Raelin model calls for “participation in

leadership and decision making at all levels and in multiple decision processes for its members”

(Raelin, 2003, p. 76). Roles, responsibilities, and a voice in leadership occur simultaneously

among many of the members in this model. Formal leadership titles exist but are less evident in

a culture where tasks are divided and decisions are collectively made. The Raelin (2003) model



provides a blueprint to increase leadership among all members through distributive and

collective leadership, and improves the likelihood for success for both the leader and its

members. The Raelin model will be described in greater detail in the following sections.

Background of this Study: The Raelin Model

A shared leadership approach was initiated in the fall of 2005 by the Department of Education at

North Central College, using the components of Joseph Raelin’s collaborative leadership model

(2003). The model was adopted by the Department Chair, Coordinator of Teacher Education,

and the Graduate Coordinator as a means to address the escalating needs of the department

due to increased student enrollment, faculty work load, state program requirements, and

college demands. The NCC Department of Education leaders desired a more inclusive approach

for all members of the organization in order to: 1) engage in a shared leadership model which

allowed more interaction among the three members that would result in greater productively;

2) promote and nurture leadership roles from other members to increase commitments to

department goals; and 3) enhance a culture of compassion and caring in which department

members were acknowledged and valued for their contributions. The previous model, while

adequate under the former conditions, involved a conventional, single, and often isolated role

held by one person. This person held all three primary roles of Department Chair, Coordinator of

Teacher Education, and Graduate Coordinator.

Raelin (2003) calls for a shift from a conventional leadership model to what he refers to as a

leaderful approach. He describes a conventional leadership model as one that is serial,

individual, controlling, and dispassionate. In a conventional model, leadership is serial, meaning

one person typically holds a position of formal leadership and continues until he/she completes

his/her term. Additionally, a conventional model is where an individual is designated as the

leader who makes all primary decisions, and ultimately, is the single voice of authority.

Furthermore, conventional leadership is controlling those in a subordinate role who are

expected to follow the leader’s directives. Finally, conventional leadership is described as

dispassionate. While leaders in a conventional model may recognize the feelings of others, they

make the decisions for the organization, independent of relationships with others in the process

(Raelin, 2003).

A leaderful approach according to Raelin (2003) involves four components or four Cs:

concurrent, collective, collaborative, and compassionate. First, Raelin (2003) calls for concurrent

leadership. That is, more than one leader can and should be present, with leaders sharing

power. Somewhat related, Raelin (2003) also calls for leadership that is collective. Collective

leadership involves multiple members participating in organizational tasks and decisions. The

third component in the Raelin (2003) model is collaboration. Collaborative leadership allows for

the viewpoints of all members to be considered and all members’ ideas and contributions

matter. Finally, Raelin (2003) advocates that leaderful persons are compassionate where “one

extends unadulterated commitment to preserving the dignity of others” (p. 16).



The adoption of the Raelin model by the NCC Education Department was a profound change for

its leaders, members, and the college. The emergence of increased collaboration, collectiveness,

compassion, and concurrent leadership resulted in new attitudes and behaviors from its

department members, and likewise, significant cultural changes. This paper describes the four

tenants of the Raelin model, the impact of each on the department and its members, and

illustrates examples of cultural change as a result of distributive leadership. Examples of these

changes include: 1) the transformation of department meetings; 2) the transformation of

student teaching orientation meetings; 3) supervisor training; 4) the development of a student

monitoring process; 5) the development of a secondary education liaison committee, and 6) the

development of program assessment teams. This paper describes the positive increase in the

quality of the programs, faculty productivity, and cultural benefits.

A Specific Case of Implementing the Raelin Model: North Central College (NCC) Department of Education

Over the past decade, the Department of Education at North Central College has evolved from a

conventional leadership approach to a leaderful approach as described by Raelin (2003).

Historically, as is typical in higher education, the department’s leadership consisted of a single

leader with the title of Chairperson. The role of the Department Chairperson typified Raelin’s

(2003) description of a conventional model of leadership: serial, individual, controlling and

dispassionate. It should be noted that the very nature of most higher education structures foster

a conventional leadership approach that inherently embodies leadership that is individual and

isolated.

The department operated using a conventional leadership model until 2005. First, the position

was viewed as serial, meaning the position had a set term and the faculty member serving as

the Department Chairperson would serve through that term. When the term was complete, the

leadership role and authority transferred to the next leader. In this model, the leadership was

individual. The Department Chairperson was viewed as the designated authority figure for the

department. The Chairperson was viewed as having a large degree of control over directing the

department to achieve its mission. Finally, even though individuals holding the position of

Chairperson were caring individuals, they were expected to operate in a dispassionate manner,

making the tough decisions for the department (Raelin, 2003).

A radical shift in the department’s leadership approach began to occur in 2005 when the then

Chairperson, who was also the Coordinator of Graduate Programs, decided she would not

complete another term. The evolution began when three faculty members, who were logical

successors as Chairperson, began to discuss the possibility of sharing the role. The hesitancy for

each faculty member in assuming the role in its entirety was due to the overwhelming

responsibilities of the position, managerial tasks typical of college department chairpersons,

teacher education programs, and state accreditation requirements. As faculty members

examined the vastness of the Chairperson duties it became obvious that there was a rational



way to divide the department chairperson position. The first major component was the role of

the department Chairperson, as defined by the College. The second component warranted a

proposed new position, the Coordinator of Teacher Education. The faculty member appointed

to this position would assume the many responsibilities associated with the teacher education

program, including components of the state accreditation issues, monitoring of teacher

education candidates and working with the secondary/K‐12 departments offering teacher

certification. The third position was the Coordinator of Graduate Programs and duties

associated with development, recruitment, and supervision of faculty for graduate programs in

leadership and curriculum. Thus, in the fall of 2005, the one person, conventional leadership

model expanded to a three person leadership team, comprised of a Department Chairperson, a

Coordinator of Teacher Education, and a Coordinator of Graduate Programs.

Over the past six years the leadership team has implemented the Raelin (2003) model through

their daily work with the department and the College. The leadership team goals include to: 1)

engage in a shared leadership model to lead the department to increased faculty productively;

2) promote and nurture leadership roles from other members to increase shared commitments

to department goals; and 3) create a culture in which department members are acknowledged

and valued for their leadership contributions. This third goal was influenced by the Department

Chairperson, Dr. Lora Tyson, at the time of the transition to a collaborative leadership model.

Dr. Tyson lived her life by the mantra nice matters. Through her role in the department she

exemplified compassion daily for students and faculty, modeling that relationships are a top

priority. Nice matters soon became the mantra of the department and was pinnacle in helping

to develop transformational leadership and create a collaborative and compassionate culture.

Dr. Tyson passed away two years after the initial efforts of the department to adopt a

collaborative model. Her simple, yet profound message, nice matters, continues to be an

integral mission of the department.

Outcomes of the Distributive Leadership Approach at NCC

The evolution of a collaborative culture, in which leadership is shared and distributed among its

members, has been demonstrated in the NCC Department of Education over the past five years.

Examples of these changes include: 1) the transformation of department meetings; 2) the

transformation of student teaching orientation meetings; 3) supervisor training; 4) the

development of a student monitoring process; 5) the development of a secondary education

liaison committee, and 6) the development of program assessment teams. A description of each

of these examples follows, illustrating Raelin’s (2003) four tenants of collaborative, collective,

concurrent, and compassionate leadership.

Transformation of Department Meetings

Many organizations are challenged to provide time and effective structures for meetings. The

NCC Education Department meetings were dramatically transformed over the period of time



that the Raelin (2003) model has been implemented. Three primary areas of change are

described in this paper: 1) effective meeting design; 2) faculty engagement in meetings; and 3)

the development of trust among members.

The NCC Department of Education meetings were changed procedurally to be more

collaborative, productive, and interactive. Effective meeting design was studied and

implemented. New meeting practices include planning and sharing the development of an

agenda prior to the meeting, setting pre‐established meeting dates at the start of each term,

arranging the room to facilitate better dialogue, and keeping detailed meeting minutes. Much

like an effective lesson plan, as department meetings improved in purpose and structure,

responsiveness and participation increased from the members. Increased engagement and

improved meeting practices has resulted in an increased trust among the members. “As an

organizational concept, trust resides on a continuum somewhere between faith and confidence”

(Raelin, 2003, p. 224).

Social norms are established by starting each meeting with an agenda item to share and

celebrate faculty successes. Efforts to provide refreshments and conduct celebratory occasions

such as birthdays became a frequent illustration of new social norms. Themes are established

each September for the year and each meeting enhances the theme through faculty cultural

norms. Two themes, defying gravity and the courage to grow, were creatively implemented to

increase recognition of accomplishments, participation, and collaboration. The increased efforts

by the leadership team to make meetings a productive and participative environment has

manifested an increase in a collaborative culture throughout the department.

Transformation of Student Teaching Orientation Meetings

Student teaching orientation meetings changed significantly with the implementation of

leaderful practices in the education department. Orientation meetings are provided once a term

to prepare pre‐service teachers for their entry into student teaching and the teaching

profession. Former orientations were one voice from the placement coordinator and were

informative sermons on rules, mandates, and scare tactics of the challenges of student teaching.

Dr. Lora Tyson, newly appointed Department Chairperson at the time of the implementation of

the new leadership model, recognized and vowed to change the tone and content of student

teacher orientations. A new found commitment grew to create an orientation experience for

pre‐service teachers that was collaborative, interactive, and positive.

The student teaching orientation program was transformed by the following term. Student

teachers presently are introduced to a celebratory experience with a focus on the powerful and

positive impact of teachers and the teaching profession. The session is presented by multiple

faculty members using an interactive PowerPoint presentation. Former successful student

teachers attend as guest speakers to share their lessons and experiences with the next class of



student teachers. A favorite send off quote by Haim Ginott (1995) was adopted describing

teachers as the decisive factor in a child’s educational experience:

I've come to the frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element in the

classroom. It's my daily mood that makes the weather. As a teacher, I possess a

tremendous power to make a child's life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of

torture or an instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal. In

all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or

de‐escalated and a child humanized or de‐humanized.

The transformation of the orientation meetings became another reflection of a collaborative

culture and community of the department. It became a decisive factor to humanize the

orientation of future teachers to more accurately represent a collaborative learning community.

Supervisor Training

Many teacher education programs rely heavily upon part‐time personnel to fulfill critical tasks

associated with the supervision of candidates in practicum settings and student teaching

experiences – North Central College is no exception to this practice. While a number of full‐time

faculty members take part in some level of supervision, the sheer number of placements far

exceeds what can be performed by full‐time personnel. The NCC Education Department is

fortunate to have well‐qualified part‐time supervisors, most of whom have had extensive

experience as teachers and administrators and who are themselves successful leaders. Yet

changing demands in the teaching profession and changing requirements for field

experiences/student teaching require ongoing training for all supervisors.

In order to meet the need for ongoing supervisor development, training sessions are planned

before each term and conducted by the elementary and secondary placement coordinators, the

leadership team and other faculty members. Since supervisors are not expected to attend

regularly scheduled faculty meetings there is a likelihood that they will not be informed on the

most current projects, technology and requirements mandated by the faculty. For example,

candidates are required to complete an extensive Impact on Student Learning project that

includes pre and post‐assessments, data collection and analysis and reflection on the impact

that they have had on student learning during student teaching. Supervisors have previously

struggled to support student teachers’ Impact on Student Learning projects due to a failure in

communication and collaboration with faculty.

The implementation of Raelin’s (2003) model has resulted in training sessions for supervisors,

which include reviewing and clarifying expectations, sharing examples of exemplary work

expected from student teachers, and conducting inter‐rater reliability sessions using video tapes

of teaching segments. In order to be both effective and efficient, supervisors needed training in



technology, particularly since candidates submit lesson plans online through Livetext and

supervisors use this system to review candidates’ lesson plans and evaluate their teaching.

The above mentioned inter‐rater reliability activity with supervisors pointed out inconsistencies

in understanding of the rubric criteria on the tools used to evaluate students in the field. This led

to a systematic revision of the observation forms through a collective and collaborative process

that involved all full‐time and part‐time Department of Education faculty, with a representation

of supervisors. The application of a collective and collaborative process was needed to modify

forms to accurately represent the department’s desire for best practice indicators in the field.

The resistance and struggle experienced in the collective and painstaking process of revising

forms is considered by Raelin (2003) as natural in the “land mines of change” (p. 172). Raelin

(2003) reminds leaders that “change rarely occurs when it is merely commanded. People will

undertake change when they feel committed to both the process and the goal. Leadership

managers understand this basic human phenomenon” (p. 172). The resulting revised forms

contain language that is clear, specific, and aligned with standards. Faculty members have since

collaboratively provided extensive retraining of supervisors on the use of the revised

observations forms.

The role of the supervisor is also vital in the department’s monitoring process (described in

more detail in a subsequent section). Prior to the department’s focus on supervisor training,

supervisors were not consistent in addressing problems when a student struggled during a

practicum or the student teaching experience. Supervisors varied greatly in the degree of

support and intervention extended to ensure student success. The monitoring process has

helped supervisors and faculty respond to situations with more consistency, compassion, and

guidance to struggling candidates while maintaining high standards for performance.

While supervision remains largely a solitary activity, the opportunity for supervisors to come

together at training sessions and form relationships with each other and faculty, has spawned a

number of collaborative activities. Supervisors have increased input regarding the topics that

should be addressed at student teaching seminars, thus increasing uniformity in the type of

information that candidates receive. Some supervisors have begun to team teach their student

teaching seminars, and to assist each other in using required technology such as Livetext. The

increase in collaboration among the supervisors also illustrates the concurrent and collective

components of the Raelin (2003) model.

Supervisor training allowed Education Department faculty to collaborate with supervisors about

program updates and changes. Supervisors now more clearly understand their role and how it

connects to the broader picture of teacher preparation at North Central College. As a result

supervisors have improved their ability to guide and mentor candidates in the field. Most

importantly, increased dialogues and collaboration regarding practicum and student teaching

experiences were conducted to engage supervisors to a greater degree in the work of the

department.



Development of a Student Monitoring Process

Prior to the implementation of the collaborative leadership model, monitoring of teacher

candidates was conducted solely by the Department Chairperson. If candidates encountered

challenges in the field or courses and/or were not displaying professional dispositions, the Chair

of the Department addressed the student individually. The leadership team looked to an existing

committee, the Teacher Education Committee, to develop a collaborative approach to

monitoring candidates throughout the teacher education program. The Teacher Education

Committee is comprised of three faculty members in the Education Department, one of the

Education Department’s placement coordinators, and three faculty members from other

departments. Raelin (2003) characterizes the share role for monitoring students as “learning

does not have to always reside in the expert or the ‘leader.’ Learning is a mobile, continuous,

and collective process” (p. 121).

The monitoring process was designed with three levels to be administered by the Coordinator

of Teacher Education. Faculty members and supervisors raise concerns about a candidate’s

knowledge, skills, or dispositions at any point in the program. Level one of the process is used

for minor and first time concerns. The faculty member meets with the candidate to

communicate the concern and reiterate the expectations of the department and the profession.

Level two is used for more serious concerns or to address remediation efforts that are not

successful at level one. Candidates are required to develop a plan to address the concerns and

meet with the Coordinator of Teacher Education on a regular basis to monitor progress. Level

three interventions involve the most severe infractions and/or candidates who have not made

significant progress in the previous monitoring levels. Candidates at level three appear before

the Teacher Education Committee for a hearing to determine their status in the Teacher

Education Program. After hearing the evidence, the TEC comes to one of three conclusions: 1)

allow the candidate to continue in the program with no interventions; 2) allow the candidate to

continue in the program on probationary status with intervention and ongoing monitoring by

the Coordinator of Teacher Education; or 3) dismiss the candidate from the Teacher Education

Program.

The implementation of the monitoring process in conjunction with the Teacher Education

Committee has provided the department with a strong vehicle for assisting struggling

candidates in a compassionate and fair manner. The diverse composition of the Teacher

Education Committee and the deliberate way in which it makes decisions has led to higher

accountability and greater quality candidates who complete the Teacher Education Program at

NCC. The multiple perspectives that committee members offer provides a fair and

comprehensive review of a student’s issues resulting in a collective decision in which the

committee has confidence. In circumstances when a student is dismissed or when serious

consequences are determined by the committee, one or more of the committee members meet

personally with the student to explain the committee’s decision. This compassionate approach



to discussing difficult issues and consequences provides the candidate with a dignified and

respectful means of understanding the impact this decision could have on their future.

Development of the Secondary Education Liaison Committee

The Secondary Education Liaison Committee was established in 2005 in an effort to create

collaborative communication with content area departments and programs. This committee

consists of representatives from each of the secondary education program areas (English,

History‐Social Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Math) and the K‐12 program areas

(Health/Physical Education, Foreign Languages, Art, and Music). Most communication among

content programs took place via chair‐ to ‐chair emails and letters prior to the creation of this

committee. While expedient, this method of communication did not guarantee that the

information was received by the individuals within the department who were most involved

with teacher education candidates, nor did it foster communication between content area

departments.

The Coordinator of Teacher Education facilitates the meetings of the Education Liaison

Committee, which typically occur once per term (three times a year). Representatives are

appointed by their department chairs and expected to serve for at least one year; however, the

majority of departments have maintained the same representative since the formation of the

committee. Consistency in membership has fostered a sense of ownership of issues and has

served as a vehicle of communication for departments and programs. As a result, Liaison

Committee members function as concurrent leaders with department chairs in their own

departments and programs. Additionally, consistency in membership fosters collaborative

interactions between the department representatives. For example, at committee meetings,

liaison representatives have discussed program assessment plans and have shared ideas about

discussing data within their departments. They are useful resources to each other in finding

collective solutions in matters of program assessment, which was foreign to these departments.

The Education Liaison Committee has evolved into a forum where opportunity for open dialogue

allows for valuable information to continue after the initial messages have been delivered. “In

dialogue people willingly open their beliefs and values to the scrutiny of others” (Raelin, 2003, p.

224). It is in the collaborative discussions among Liaison representatives that collective solutions

to problems have arisen.

Program Assessment Teams

No single area in teacher education lends itself more readily to an isolated, hands‐off approach

than program assessment. It’s scary. It’s daunting. It’s tedious. Many teacher education

programs assign one individual to coordinate and perform most or all of the program

assessment activities while the other members of the department breathe a sigh of relief and

remain blissfully ignorant – until there is a need to understand and become involved in the



process. Then the panic sets in. This scenario describes the approach used by the Education

Department prior to the adoption of a collaborative leadership model.

The team approach to program assessment was first developed in 2003 and was phased in over

time. Two faculty members in the department receive a minor load release to help facilitate

program assessment matters; however, the tasks involved in implementing program assessment

are far greater than could be realistically completed by these individuals, given the allotted

release time. It became clear that program assessment tasks had to be performed across all

members of the department, resulting in a collaborative, concurrent, and collective model of

program assessment. In order to accomplish this, the unit was divided into four program

assessment teams: 1) assessment of field and clinical experiences; 2) assessment of content and

pedagogy; 3) assessment of dispositions and monitoring of candidates; and 4) assessment of

graduate programs. Initially, each team determined assessment activities that were aligned to

the standards and to the unit’s conceptual framework. Each team then began implementing its

assessment activities, examining and analyzing data. Teams designate a leader charged with

coordinating the team’s meetings while team members share equally in the completion of tasks.

The program assessment cycle that was developed by the unit allows the assessment teams to

effectively and efficiently use data to improve the unit’s programs. In the fall term, teams review

and analyze data and arrive at conclusions. During the college’s December term, the teams write

their assessment reports, using a unified assessment report format. Teams present their

program assessment reports to the entire unit during winter term. Reports include findings and

summaries of results, actions taken in analyzing the data, recommendations for consideration

by the unit, and any additional questions or ideas to explore in the future when more data is

available. Finally, in the spring term the unit makes programmatic decisions based on the data

presented in the team reports.

Clearly, the team approach to program assessment reflects the collaborative, concurrent,

collective, and compassionate components of the Raelin (2003) model. All members of the unit

contribute to the assessment process. As is true in collective leadership models, leadership has

emerged from multiple members on the teams through this process. As members of the teams

became empowered they concurrently shared the leadership role. Each member’s input and

perspective is valued and respected, a hallmark characteristic of the compassionate leadership

model.

Collaborative Leadership in the Department of Education at North Central College

The NCC Department of Education Leadership Team made a conscious effort to demonstrate a

collaborative, collective, concurrent and compassionate approach with faculty, students, and

supervisors. This high degree of intentionality to change the culture did not happen incidentally

or without a defined purpose. A culture of caring and collaboration demonstrates a

transformational leadership model where relationship building is essential to the role of the



leader (Sergiovanni, 2009). The mantra nice matters, which began with Dr. Lora Tyson, has been

intentionally grown by her predecessors as a cultural norm. The emphasis on relationship

building was first conducted by the formal leaders, and ultimately, by the organizational

members. The outcome has been a greater degree of accomplishment in the mission,

operations, and goals of the Department of Education. Candidates are indoctrinated in the

college and K‐12 classrooms, through the monitoring system, in student teaching orientation

meetings, and throughout the program where faculty model dispositions and performance that

will be expected of candidates as future educators. Supervisors are respected and valued for the

essential role they perform in the formative development of student teachers in K‐12

classrooms. Department meetings are designed to enhance relationships, communication, and

decision‐making whereby each individual matters. The strengths of each member of the

department are sought out and utilized to address arduous tasks such as those associated with

program assessment.

To achieve the mission of the Department of Education, the Leadership Team set out to

transform a traditional organization to a collaborative culture of distributive leadership. The

evolution from a single leadership model to one of many active participants and partners was

challenging but necessary to better address the scope and quality of work required for the

success of the program. Based on the assumption that it was in the best interest of the program

to have many partners, the Leadership Team desired to find “a best way to help each individual

partner understand and sustain a personal connection with the work of the collaboration by

attaching that work to each partner’s individual or institutional self interests. “ (Rubin, 2002, p.

14). Although data on the efforts of the Leadership Team to adopt a leaderful approach is at

best anecdotal, the evidence is compelling enough to continue to maintain a collaborative

leadership model.

Results and Recommendations

As a result of collaborative leadership the NCC Department of Education has seen increased

productively, a shared commitment to departmental goals, and improved quality of its

programs. Schools today seek to craft a greater sense of a shared community among teachers

to better address the gaps that frequently occur between leaders and organizational members.

Since department members began participating in shared leadership roles, there have been

fewer gaps and an increased quality in the work of the department. Too often, those who have

the authority to lead do not always have the ability, and those who have the ability to lead,

often lack the authority (Sergiovanni, 2009). The Department of Education at NCC bridged this

gap by inviting more members to be greater contributors. Ideally, potential gaps are minimized

when leaders accept that they are not able to meet all of the demands of the organization

alone, and invite others to play a greater role. For the Department of Education, shared

leadership resulted in more members committed to taking on roles that otherwise would have

been assumed by one of the leadership team members. Raelin (2003) describes this

phenomenon as “the team is experiencing collective leadership; it is not dependent on any one



member, not the position leader, nor the idea initiator‐everyone is participating in leadership”

(p. 15). The greatest benefit of a shared leadership approach has been the favorable impact on

the preparation of candidates in the Teacher Education Program.

Challenges

Despite the multiple benefits, the development of collaborative leadership has resulted in new

challenges. This liberal arts college and Department of Education now experience a dramatically

different way of functioning in the move from single, traditional leadership to the collaborative

approach developed by the leadership team. Initially some department members shared

frustration with the functioning and the ambiguous roles of each of the members of the

leadership team. The Dean of Academic Affairs was reluctant to address three representatives

of the Education Department rather than one in decision making, problem solving, and

communication. However, with increased trust and consistent modeling of collaborative and

compassionate leadership, this new model has taken root. Increased trust has been the by‐

product of leaders who are competent, demonstrate integrity, and exhibit good will toward

others (Raelin, 2003). Even reluctant department members gradually became proponents of the

new leadership practices and have taken on leadership roles for the first time.

Summary of the Effects of Collaborative Leadership

The qualities required for shared leadership are not easily embraced by all leaders or followers.

The leader who exhibits compassion, social care‐giving, and desire to give back to their

community are qualities of the transformational leader. “The leader’s work is not to get people

to comply but to engage them, to support them, and keep the field clear so that they can be

released to do meaningful work” (Raelin, 2003, p. 228). To be leaderful an individual must value

the role and aspirations of each member of the community.

Sharing leadership has allowed for the development of new initiatives, such as the addition of a

new minor in English Language Learners. Department meetings have evolved into collective

efforts and often include celebrations of combined work and play of the members. Time is taken

to recognize each other and nurture relationships among the department members. While the

challenges of such a model must be expected, the single most important quality required to

develop and sustain a model such as Raelin’s (2003) or Sergiovanni’s (2009) can be summed up

in one word: collaboration. Leaders must be willing to collaboratively share responsibility and

roles for organizational and cultural change to occur. As demonstrated by the NCC Education

Department, when responsibilities, skills and functions of a department are shared, the result is

greater community and productivity. Collaborative leadership for the NCC Department of

Education Leadership Team was most effective because it was intentionally and systematically

designed to meet the needs of a changing and successful program.



Future Methodology

The desire to study and assess leadership actions is complicated to even a greater degree by the

efforts to study and assess interactive leadership. Distributive, transformational, and collective

leadership models are producing results that exceed the actions of individual leadership;

however, to assess the interactive component of leadership is even more challenging. While the

authors have provided a case study of positive outcomes of a collaborative leadership model at

North Central College, there is a need to conduct further research on the effectiveness of the

model.

A promising approach utilized in the field involves the use of leadership daily practice (LDP) logs

to study the practice of collaborative leadership. James P. Spillane and Anita Zuberi (2009) have

validated an instrument as a means to collect data in ways other than surveys to study the

ethnography of leadership interactions. This method involves the use of a daily log that

generates empirical data about the interactions of leaders, formal and informal, with their

colleagues. Several prototypes for the use of logs to collect data on the interactions of leaders

have been developed by Spillane and Zuberi (2009). Experience Sampling Method is a

methodological approach preferred over surveys and open ended questions, to chronicle

specific interactions throughout a leader’s day. Among the advantages of the ESM methodology,

and specifically the use of logs, is that it is practical and practitioners can report on events

identified as significant interactions throughout the day when they are fresh in their minds

(Spillane and Zuberi, 2009). The leadership team in the Department of Education at North

Central College believes that the use of this methodology could serve to expand understanding

of the effectiveness of the collaborative leadership model utilized.

References

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Many, T., and Eaker, R. (2006) Learning by Doing: A Handbook for

Professional Learning Communities at Work. Solution Tree Publishers.

Ginott, H.G. (1995). Teacher and child: A book for parents and teachers. New York, NY: Collier.

Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing‐doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge

into action. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Raelin, Joseph (2003). Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone.

San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler Publishers.

Rubin, H. (2002). Collaborative Leadership: Devloping effective partnerships in communities and

schools. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.



Sergiovanni, T. (2009). The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective (6th edition). Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Spillane, J. and Zuberi, A. (2009). Designing and Piloting a Leadership Daily Practice Log: Using

Logs to Study the Practice of Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 375.

Retrieved from http://eaq.sagepub.com.

This paper is dedicated to our colleague, Dr. Lora Tyson. The Department of Education at North

Central College is grateful for her leadership in creating a collaborative approach to preparing

preservice teachers where nice really does matter.


21 Duby and Fischer

SELF‐DIRECTED LEARNING AND THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP: ANALYZING KEYS FOR SUCCESS

FROM A COVENANTAL PERSPECTIVE

David G. Duby School of Business Liberty University

Lynchburg, VA 24502 [email protected]

Kahlib J. Fischer

School of Business Liberty University

Lynchburg, VA 24502 [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The current state of education seems to beg for visionary changes to truly impact students and

prepare them for the future. Self‐directed learning models purport to do just that, by preparing

students to be self‐motivated, lifelong learners. While many educators seek to apply self‐

directed practices, research reveals that there are several obstacles that can hinder self‐directed

learning. Duby’s 2006 study of schools employing self‐directed learning investigated how

leaders successfully overcome these hindrances via specific leadership attitudes and behaviors

that not only effectively overcame these obstacles, but are also reflected in the covenantal

perspective of leadership. Using content analysis, this paper further explores the findings of

Duby’s study of educational leaders, analyzing them within the covenantal construct developed

by Fischer (2003), in order to better understand the relationship between effective leadership

practice and the covenantal perspective. This study revealed intriguing similarities between

particulars of the CFA model and the leadership practices exhibited in the self‐directed learning

schools. These similarities also present opportunities for future study, including whether

visionary organizations are more apt to be motivated by covenantal principles and examining

the type of for‐profit organizations that are more apt to embody the tenets of CFA.

Keywords: Educational leadership, self‐directed learning, learner‐centered, covenant

Introduction

One of the most exciting developments in education in recent years is the increased emphasis

on the self‐directed learning model. Though the importance of directing one’s own learning is

not new, its relatively recent promotion has prompted many educators to look much closer at

its many facets—its roots, its processes, and its potential—in order to more clearly define its

role in America’s classrooms.


22 Duby and Fischer

But what has been missing thus far in the literature is a discussion of how leadership can help

ensure a successful self‐directed learning environment. This is especially important since

Wehmeyer, Agran, and Hughes (2000) identified several obstacles that hinder self‐directed

learning, obstacles whose solutions appear to be leader‐oriented. In 2006, Duby interviewed

leaders and teachers of two schools that facilitate self‐directed learning to better understand

how leadership addresses these obstacles for success in such an environment. Duby’s initial

findings revealed certain leadership practices that helped these schools overcome the obstacles

identified by Wehmeyer et al and attain their desired learning outcomes. As a means of further

developing those initial findings, this study will reexamine the leadership practices from a

covenantal perspective as articulated by Fischer (2003). Fischer’s covenantal model provides a

historical and practical framework for leadership and organizational behavior “best practices.”

Before discussing how covenantal principles can be applied by leadership to support the self‐

directed learning community, this paper will provide a brief overview of both the self‐directed

learning context and the definition and history of the covenantal idea.

Leadership and Self‐Directed Learning

Duby (2006) investigated two schools to understand how leaders equip and encourage teachers

to overcome obstacles and best facilitate self‐directed learning. Self‐directed education is a

unique learning model that emphasizes non‐centralized classrooms and participative learning

and presents a rich context for reviewing the leadership practices of the selected schools. Early

studies by Knowles (1975) suggest that the self‐directed learning environment helps students

become proactive learners. These findings are consistent with later studies by Bandura and

Wood (1989), Hofer and Yu (2003), and Dynan, Cate, and Rhee (2008) who also suggested that

enhancing a student’s opportunities for self‐directed learning contributes to his or her academic

performance. Research has suggested that self‐directed learning processes are necessary for

students to develop lifelong learning skills (Candy, 1991; Lapan, Kardash, & Turner, 2002; Palmer

& Wehmeyer, 2003), achieve academically (Chen, 2002; Hofer & Yu, 2003; Zimmerman, 2002;

Dynan et al., 2008), and attain desired outcomes in many aspects of life (Wehmeyer & Sands,

1998; Grow, 2003; Perry, Nordby, & Vandekamp, 2003). Indeed, Martinez‐Pons (2003) warned,

“The failure of students to become sufficiently self‐regulatory to manage learning on their own

is of considerable social concern” (p. 126).

Yet Zimmerman (2002) found that few teachers effectively prepare students to learn on their

own. Some researchers believe this is due to the staid, traditional classroom methodology

present in most of today’s classrooms which, according to Baum, Owen, and Oreck (1997), may

discourage or limit self‐direction. Patrick and Middleton (2002) stated, “These opportunities for

students to be self‐directed, rather than others‐directed, are not always plentiful in traditional

classrooms” (p. 29). For instance, Hofer and Yu (2003) noted that although self‐directed learning

is an important aspect of student performance and achievement, it is seldom an overt goal of

classroom instruction.


23 Duby and Fischer

Some have suggested that school leaders are also resistant to incorporating self‐directed

learning concepts in the classroom. One reason for such resistance was described by Eshel,

Kohavi, and Revital (2003). Their research suggested that some school leaders believed making

students more active in the learning process would diminish a teachers’ responsibility to ensure

learning. But, these researchers noted that no research has supported such a position and

contended that there is no contradiction between granting students a greater share in

classroom decision making and retaining, at the same time, teacher responsibility for student

learning. Indeed, Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens, and Dochy (2009) found that

granting students autonomy for their learning increased self‐directed effectiveness, and Dynan

et al. (2008) reinforce the importance of the teacher in this process.

Though this research demonstrates that teachers enhance a student’s learning, classrooms

employing self‐directed teachers are not the norm. Self‐directed learning involves processes not

typically found in conventional classroom environments. As Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug,

and Martin (2000) stated, “Teaching students to take greater control over and responsibility for

their own learning and to become causal agents in their lives is a process that often does not

lend itself to traditional models of teaching” (p. 440). A learner‐centered education can only

occur in schools committed to developing a learner‐centered culture and the processes and

structures that are necessary to support that culture.

Similarly, Gibbons (2002) suggested that self‐directed learning “requires a different approach by

the teacher and demands new skills from students” (p. 3). Silén and Uhlin (2008) use

collaboration to describe this approach for self‐directed learners. Thus, it will require a

concerted effort on the part of leaders to ensure that this type of learning occurs. As Horng and

Loeb (2010) note, “strong instructional leadership is essential for a school to be successful (p.

69).

In his review of leader practices in non‐profit schools, Duby (2006) investigated two schools that

employed the self‐directed learning model. One school had fewer than 40 students, was located

near the farms and fields of a relatively small town in Central Virginia, and was rather limited in

its available resources and budget. The second school was a large, multi‐campus school

comprised of hundreds of students, was located in an affluent suburb of a large metropolitan

city in Northern Virginia, and possessed considerable advantages in resources, facilities, and in

its financial standing. Duby’s research sought to answer how leaders—regardless of school size

and with appreciable differences in available resources—partner with teachers to ensure self‐

directed learning. Duby employed multiple‐case study analysis to examine this question.

According to Yin (2003), research that seeks to address how questions tends to be explanatory

in nature, and explanatory studies are often examined with case study methodology. Though Yin

posited that a good case study can be accomplished with just one sample, he suggested that

examining more than one case may lead to a stronger study that enhances the prospects for

generalizability. Therefore, Duby’s research employed a multiple‐case study that examined two


24 Duby and Fischer

cases purposefully selected to ensure an information‐rich context in which to conduct the

research.

The subsequent analysis and discussion of the data revealed important leadership practices that

positively addressed the obstacles that Wehmeyer, Agran, and Hughes (2000) suggested hinder

self‐directed learning. These barriers included limited information afforded to teachers, the

inability to properly instruct students to self‐direct their learning, and the lack of authority

granted to teachers to provide instruction in self‐directed learning. This consideration led to an

important question regarding a leader’s role in promoting self‐directed learning. What type of

leadership is needed to overcome these obstacles? Duby’s (2006) investigation suggests several

important leadership practices that positively affected teacher autonomy, encouraged

participative practices, and revealed servant leadership tendencies, all of which helped

overcome the obstacles identified in the study. Since Duby’s original study, there has been little

attention given to leadership practices in self‐directed learning institutions. For example, while

Silén and Uhlin (2008) note the complexity of self‐directed learning, they focus on the need for

the teacher to properly implement the model. And while Dynan et al. (2008) stress the

importance of structure in self‐directed learning, they too leave the responsibility for structure

in the hands of the teacher. Pata (2009) also focuses on structure, identifying the need to model

spaces conducive to self‐directed learning, yet the type of leadership needed to effectively

design such spaces is not addressed.

Although leader types or behaviors are not prevalent in the literature, Reeves (2006) explored

“the essential transformations of leadership for learning” (p. 158). While Reeves did not identify

a leader type to address specific problems of such new learning models, he did present key

leader behaviors that help ensure the best possible learning, such as visionary, relational, and

collaborative leadership. While Reeves’ study focused on American schools, a study of Asian

schools by Triwaranyu (2007) revealed the necessity of similar leader behaviors. Triwaranyu

suggested several strategies for implementing new learning paradigms and noted that school

leaders should be open‐minded and knowledgeable with “the ability to elicit opinions and ideas

from all group members” (p. 60). Though Triwaranyu acknowledged leadership issues, an

overarching leader approach or model is not suggested.

While these studies focused on traditional schools, other research has examined leader

behaviors in organizations that implement self‐directed learning. Smith, Sadler‐Smith,

Robertson, and Wakefield (2007) examined the role of leadership in twelve for‐profit companies

that utilize self‐directed learning for worker development. While the study did not identify any

particular leader types, it did present strategies important to leadership and self‐directed

learning, including fostering a culture and organizational environment that is supportive of self‐

directed instruction. The researchers also reflected on the importance of developing skills that

value, encourage, and support self‐directed learning. Thus, research reveals that some of the

more effective leader practices for self‐directed learning are similar to those identified in Duby’s

(2006) study.


25 Duby and Fischer

The revelation of these practices led to a new research question: was there a conceptual

framework for this type of leadership, one that might reveal other effective practices that these

leaders could adopt? A cursory review of leadership theory indicated a possible relationship

between the leadership practices Duby identified and those found in covenantal leadership, a

perspective described by Fischer (2003) as embracing the processes and attitudes of a healthy

organization. Therefore, this paper seeks to further examine the leader practices revealed in

Duby’s 2006 study from a covenantal perspective, comparing these leader behaviors with those

identified by Fischer (2003) to see if covenantal leadership was displayed. If covenantal

leadership is apparent in the two cases investigated by Duby, it may be a leader model that

should be encouraged in schools embracing self‐directed learning.

What Is Covenant?

The term covenantal framework of action (CFA) or covenantal leadership was introduced by

Fischer (2003) as a means of articulating a framework of leadership which embraces the

structure, process, and attitudes of a healthy leadership team and organization. Furthermore,

Fischer sought to use concepts and ideas that were not merely confined to the field of

leadership theory/organizational development alone (which often becomes the victim of fads

and passing trends). Instead, the notion of covenant was embraced because that term and its

related principles have had a significant positive impact upon Western civilization, and more

specifically, upon the organizational soundness of American government and politics (2003).

The term covenant denotes a mutually agreed upon relationship in which the various members

of the party commit to serving and caring for one another in clearly defined ways (Elazar, 1995).

The covenantal idea is a Biblical one, in which God covenants with man by allowing man to

choose to covenant with God—the relationship could not be coerced. As a result, covenantal

relationships are “based upon morally‐sustained compacts of mutual promises and obligation”

(Elazar, 1980, p. 6). This all encompassing notion of covenant has far reaching implications for

interpersonal and organizational relationships. First of all, it affirms the individual rights,

freedoms, and responsibilities of all members of it. It is both a theological and political construct

(Elazar, 1980), and as Bratt (1980) argues, “politically, covenants have been made by entire

societies—with God, each other, and/or themselves—and by single groups (the Puritans and

Covenanters) or institutions (churches of various types) within societies” (p.1).

Associated with the sense of mutual obligation is the Hebrew term hesed, which means, “loving

fulfillment of covenant obligation”, or covenant love (Clark, 1993; Elazar, 1995; Glueck, 1967;

and Kincaid, 1980). Members of the covenant have to go beyond just mere contractual

agreement to serve one another…hesed speaks of the importance of members having to love

and serve one another. Therefore, rules are not meant to be means of limiting services and

actions of kind regard toward one another, for covenantal members are meant to go “beyond

the letter of the law” by obeying the “spirit” of the law.


26 Duby and Fischer

Acting upon this notion of hesed¸ leaders are quick to receive feedback from those who will be

implementing major decisions—even frontline employees. This is particularly important from a

business standpoint because it is the frontline employees who have a sense of what customers

need and want and are familiar with the constraints that they face in the daily operations of

their particular departments. Leaders, therefore, would be unwise to initiate and implement

major decisions without this valuable feedback.

Covenant, then, is at its core about relationship and empowerment. Interestingly, the reason

that the idea of covenant is so focused on both of these concepts is because first and foremost it

focuses upon the individual—his rights and obligations to others. Covenant members choose to

love one another, based upon moral obligations and to go beyond the “letter of the law” (Elazar,

1995). Kincaid further argued, “Covenant love directs attention beyond the self to the good and

goods of others and to a common good of the community, thereby tempering individualism

without destroying individuality” (1980, p. 45).

The History of Covenant

Though largely a Biblical idea initially, the notion of covenant and its emphasis on a “human

community based upon love and faith” (Kincaid, 1978, p. 70), challenged social and political

hierarchies in the West, especially during the Protestant Reformation (Elazar, 1979). The non‐

centralized nature of covenants led many reformers to challenge political authority (Reid 1981;

Skillen 1980; and Walzer , 1985). Rulers had an obligation to protect the people, and could be

overthrown if they broke such a covenantal bond. This belief developed into the idea of civil

resistance (Reid, 1981). Indeed, the covenantal idea, and the freedoms that came with it, spread

not only throughout much of Europe (McCoy, 1980; Skillen 1980) but also into America. In fact,

many colonies adopted covenantal ideas in their founding documents, a practice which

continued on in the era of statehood (Elazar, 1980; Elazar & Kincaid, 1979; Lutz, 1980, 1988;

McLaughlin, 1961; Schechter, 1980).

State constitutions and various other legal documents contained frequent references to

covenantal terms and concepts (Lutz,1980; 1988) and the covenant idea formed the basis for its

Declaration of Independence from Great Britain (Elazar & Kincaid, 1980; Lutz, 1988) as well as its

government (Lutz, 1980). Covenantal ideas were “used for a variety of very public enterprises

from the establishment of colonial self‐government to the creation of the great trading

corporations of the seventeenth century” (Elazar, 1979, pp. 7‐8). Furthermore, the American

emphasis upon individual liberty represented a step forward in covenantal ideas, since American

colonies and eventually its national government allowed for a much higher degree of popular

sovereignty than did her European counterparts (Lutz, 1988). It should come as no surprise then,

that it was the disregard of the covenant idea that lead to a justification of slavery (Greenstone

1985; Kincaid 1978).


27 Duby and Fischer

CFA versus other Approaches to Leadership and Organizational Behavior

There are of course many leadership and organizational behavior perspectives which offer

sound ideas for leaders in any context, and certainly the context of self‐directed learning. But

the authors chose CFA over those other approaches for two primary reasons: First, as Fischer

articulated (2003), CFA speaks not just to leadership behavior, but also to organizational

processes, structure, and culture, and as such, it provides a unified approach to tackling the

challenges mentioned by Wehmeyer, Agran, and Hughes (2000) for leaders in self‐directed

learning institutions, as will be seen below. With regards to leadership behavior, CFA calls for

leaders to engage in behavior that involves mutual accountability and empowerment of

employees, so that the vision, processes, goals, etc. of the organization are agreed upon by

everyone involved in the organization and the covenantal relationship. With regards to

organizational processes, CFA emphasizes participative decision‐making, because it affirms the

dignity of everyone in the relationship, and thereby values their insights and expertise when it

comes to organizational decisions. With regards to organizational structure, CFA calls for

“noncentralization.” Noncentralization implies that rules, regulations, and contracts do not

supplant real and sometimes intimate relationships with customers and employees. Regarding

use of the term noncentralization, Elazar (1984) argues that “partnership implies the distribution

of real power among several centers that must negotiate cooperative arrangements with one

another in order to achieve common goals.” And finally, with regards to organizational culture,

CFA calls for mutual care and support, embodied by a spirit of teamwork.

Secondly, as established above, the foundational principle of covenant is that of

empowerment—individuals freely choosing to be in covenant with one another, to be

accountable to one another and to care for one another. This is important for two reasons.

First, all of the problems described by Wehmeyer et al. (2000)—limited information afforded to

teachers, the inability to properly instruct students to self‐direct their learning, and the lack of

authority granted to teachers to provide instruction in self‐directed learning—are specifically

related to a lack of empowerment for the teachers. So it is vitally important that this root cause

be addressed by leaders. CFA certainly embodies the principle of empowerment. Secondly, the

research reveals that empowerment is a key principle of many of the leadership and

organizational best practices found in literature today. For instance, because a key tenet of

transformational leadership is helping followers understand and capture the vision, and giving

them the skills and freedom to carry out the vision, this approach to leadership has been linked

to empowerment in numerous studies (Gellis, 2001; Zhu, Chew, & Spangler, 2005; Jandaghi,

Matin, & Zarei, 2008; and Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). Likewise, servant leadership, which calls

for leaders to serve followers and ensure that they are properly cared for, also emphasizes

empowerment (Lytle, Hom, and Mokwa, 1998; Russell, 2001; Polleys, 2002; Roberts, 2006;

McCuddy & Cavin, 2008).

Empowerment is also a key idea found in the literature pertaining to organizational structure. A

major theme in the literature in this regard is decentralization, in which employees have more


28 Duby and Fischer

decision‐making ability and power. This idea in turn has been linked to employee self‐

management (Shipper and Manz, 1992) and self‐managed teams (Hassan, Hagen & Daigs, 2006).

These are all informed by the notion that empowered employees can be more productive and

effective.

Related to decentralization is a popular organizational process found in the literature:

participative decision‐making (PDM), in which followers have more input into key organizational

decisions and leaders make space for employee feedback and insight when making decisions, as

well as delegation (Yeung, 2004; Rosenblatt & Nord, 1999). In this sense, PDM also focuses on

employee empowerment.

Finally, studies on organizational culture focuses on definitions of healthy organizations based

upon empowered followers (Joo and Lim, 2009; Johnson, 2009; Chan, Taylor & Markham, 2008;

and Jacobs, Christe‐Zeyse, & Keegan, 2008). A related notion is Spirituality in the Workplace

(SIW), which has also been linked to empowerment (Tischler, 1999; Gockel, 2004). SIW is a

cultural construct that emphasizes the importance of creating an organizational culture in which

employees can truly make a difference—both within their organization and the larger

community (Gockel, 2004; Bonewits, 2006; and Bygrave & Macmillan, 2008) and in which

employees are encouraged to be all that they can be through the workplace experience

(Johnson, 2007).

In summary, CFA was chosen to address the above‐mentioned leadership challenges not

because other leadership and organizational behavioral concepts are irrelevant, but rather

because in focusing on empowerment, CFA links and unifies these varied ideas by filling in the

gaps between and among them (Table 1):

Table 1.

CFA compared to key leadership and organizational perspectives

Leadership Behavior

OrganizationalProcesses

Organizational Structure

OrganizationalCulture

Transformational Leadership

Vision‐casting,empowering employees

Servant Leadership

Serving, empowering employees

Participative Decision‐Making

Increased decision‐making to employees

Decentralization Sharing power with employees

SIW

Supportive, empowering atmosphere

CFA Mutual accountability,

empowerment Participative

decision‐making Noncentralization

Mutual care and support


29 Duby and Fischer

As mentioned earlier, the problems described by Wehmeyer et al. (2000)—limited information

afforded to teachers, the inability to properly instruct students to self‐direct their learning, and

the lack of authority granted to teachers to provide instruction in self‐directed learning—are

specifically related to a lack of empowerment for the teachers, parents and students. Duby’s

study (2003) analyzed how leaders operated in two self‐directed learning institutions to ensure

the success of the learning process. This study focuses in particular on these three issues related

to empowerment, and how a covenantal approach (CFA) would further address those issues.

Limited Information to Teachers, Parents and Students For self‐directed learning to work, parents need to be made aware of the vision and rationale

behind it, and teachers need to be on the same page with administrators. This requires

leadership to not only provide information about self‐directed learning to parents, but also to

encourage them to be active participants in the self‐directed learning community. This can be

seen in the fact that in the schools investigated, both leaders and teachers spoke about the

need to educate parents in the basic tenets of self‐directed learning in order to achieve true

success in the classroom. One of the most helpful practices is to let parents observe the class

and the teacher in action.

Each leader interviewed understands her or his responsibility to appropriately introduce parents

to the self‐directed model, furnish materials to enhance understanding of the philosophy behind

the model, and provide opportunities for continued education to build support for the model.

Though there were differences between the leaders as to the regularity, breadth, and scope of

the educational materials and learning opportunities afforded to parents, both worked diligently

to ensure that parents stayed informed and continued to develop their understanding of the

self‐directed method of learning. These actions are descriptive of the covenantal notion of

servant leadership, because, again, the leader is required to ensure that all members of the

covenant are willing to accept the terms thereof. Self‐directed learning is a paradigm with which

many parents are unfamiliar. For parents to be willing to commit to this somewhat

unconventional approach to learning, they have to have a proper understanding of the “terms

of the covenant”—i.e., the ideas and principles associated with self‐directed learning. In a

covenantal relationship, all parties to the covenant must know the terms of the covenant before

agreeing to the relationship—this means of empowerment protects everyone involved.

However, feedback from teachers revealed that leaders need to strike a careful balance

between opening up classrooms to parents and visitors in hopes of educating them in self‐

directed learning and protecting the classroom from excessive distractions that disrupt the

learning environment. The teachers interviewed welcome visitors to their classrooms yet

maintain that visitors should first be instructed on how to conduct themselves while in the class,

a responsibility they feel belongs to their directors. Both directors offer materials to instruct

parents on what to expect and what to look for when observing. Both leaders also require

parents and visitors to obtain permission and reserve a time before observing a class.


30 Duby and Fischer

Once a covenantal relationship is established, mutual accountability is required—parents have

to agree to commit themselves to supporting the vision of the school. In this case, the vision of

the covenant relationship is to achieve true learning on the part of the students. Self‐directed

learning has been chosen as the means for doing so, and since the self‐directed model presents

changes and questions for many children and parents alike, the need to develop strong parent‐

teacher relationships is essential. Mutual accountability will only be successful, therefore, if a

spirit of hesed is upheld wherein all the members of the covenant commit not only to the terms

of the covenant, but also to care for and respect one another.

But sometimes, even as leaders do their best to empower parents by communicating the

benefits of the self‐directed approach to learning, parents are not willing to fully embrace that

vision. In this respect, both directors acknowledged that there were times when differences

with parents about the vision of their institutions were insurmountable. When this occurred, the

parents were encouraged to withdraw their student and seek enrollment in another school.

Though neither the director nor the teacher believed this to be a happy solution, they

understood it was sometimes the best solution for the situation. Teachers expressed

appreciation for a director who would “lose” a student rather than compromise their authority

and, subsequently, the learning environment. This presents strong encouragement for the

teacher to continue their work in the classroom.

In summary, CFA mandates that the covenant is not a rigid and “closed” system; outsiders are

not shunned but rather welcomed. This of course is an example of empowerment. However,

with empowerment comes responsibility, mutual accountability, and obligation. It is also

understood that outsiders should understand the purpose, vision, structure and rules of the

covenant, and respect them. We see this principle being upheld by the leaders of these self‐

directed schools in how they keep the lines of communication open between them and the

teachers, and how they help parents understand and experience the vision behind the self‐

directed learning environment.

Empowerment and Equipping Teachers to Properly Instruct Students Not only do the leaders of each school understand the importance of nurturing the

development of parents, they also understood the importance of ensuring the continual

development of each teacher. Both schools employed only teachers certified in self‐directed

instruction, and both leaders encouraged assistant teachers to receive formal training as well.

This is not necessarily an easy task, since the self‐directed method is not a common learning

model in many schools of education. More than hiring certified faculty, however, leaders need

to ensure that faculty are provided opportunities for continued training and development in self‐

directed methodology. In a covenantal relationship, all parties must be willing to accept and live

by the terms of the covenant, and leaders are responsible for ensuring that the terms of the

covenant are upheld. One major way of doing so is by hiring those people who are decidedly

committed to the ideas and terms of the covenant.


31 Duby and Fischer

Even teachers espousing a belief in the merits of self‐directed learning may not utilize the model

they support due to lacking the necessary training and support. Therefore, it is the responsibility

of educational leadership to provide information about self‐directed learning and training in

how to effectively promote self‐directed learning principles, techniques, and curriculum in the

classroom. Research has suggested that providing teachers with such opportunities for growth

and development works. Young and Ley (2003) found that teachers benefited from instruction

supporting self‐directed learning strategies. Additionally, the research found that providing

information on a number of self‐directed activities identified by Zimmerman and Martinez‐Pons

(1988) was especially helpful.

Dunn, Hongsfeld, and Doolan (2009) posit that teachers need development opportunities to

better understand the learning style of each student in order to teach him or her effectively.

Without exception, each faculty member interviewed expressed the desire to receive continued

training and professional development. They viewed it as essential to their professional

development and the enhancement of the school’s academic program. Leaders who provide

development opportunities, whether in the form of in‐house training, regional or national

professional development conferences, or continued staff development meetings, do much to

build their teacher’s self‐efficacy. Again, from a covenantal perspective, this goes back to the

notion of empowerment and servant leadership.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon leadership to know how they can empower teachers in this

area. For instance, leaders do their best to provide a learning environment with proper

resources and equipment. “Absolutely essential” is how one leader described the importance of

providing faculty with a well‐equipped environment. Another action the leaders have taken to

protect the learning environment is by minimizing disruptions to the morning learning time. In

each school, this learning time lasts about 3 hours; therefore, enrichment classes, assemblies,

and other routine disruptions are delayed until the afternoon. The directors believe that this

allows their teachers to focus on fostering self‐directed learning rather than on schedules,

dismissals, and getting their classes to start and stop the learning process. All teachers

interviewed expressed appreciation to their directors for protecting the morning learning time.

As we have seen, an environment conducive to self‐directed learning is one with a supportive

community of well‐informed parents, classrooms designed for self‐directed learning (which are

different from more traditionally‐designed classrooms), and an environment protected from

unnecessary distractions to encourage optimal learning. This support and teamwork relates to

the covenantal notion of servant leadership and the importance of creating a community of

teamwork among parents, teachers, and leaders. In turn, all of this speaks to empowerment as

teachers are empowered through support and an emphasis on continued training.


32 Duby and Fischer

Empowerment and Overcoming the Lack of Authority The teachers interviewed provided varied examples of how their directors have supported their

empowerment in the sense of giving them more authority and discretion. For teachers, having

classroom autonomy is essential for self‐directed learning to occur. One teacher, for example,

related her frustration regarding a decision made by the school’s executive leadership team that

hindered what she believed to be an important element in a student’s autonomous

development. Her director listened to her concerns and shared them with the administrator,

and the directive was soon withdrawn. This provided a powerful encouragement to the teacher,

and her confidence in and trust for her administrator (as well as her executive leadership team)

increased considerably. Another teacher believed she had considerable autonomy in the class to

direct learning activities and meet individual student needs as she deemed best. Though her

director has never had to settle an issue with an administrator, she is nonetheless appreciative

of her director and the level of autonomy her director provides. She believed the level of

autonomy she enjoys can be attributed to their constant communication and shared vision for

fostering self‐directed learning.

Teachers do not expect total autonomy, nor do leaders provide it. Yet, leaders normally defer to

their trust in the faculty member when handling issues such as parent‐teacher conflict. One

director, for example, will listen to the parent’s concern but will then encourage the parent to

address the faculty member directly. If this is not possible, the director makes sure that the

teacher is present in any further discussion to ensure that both parties are properly

represented. These actions often moderate parental hostility and temper their complaints to

help achieve an agreeable solution, ensuring the continuation of the relationship.

Not only do leaders support a teacher’s autonomy in parent‐teacher relationships, they also

encourage it by non‐centralizing the classroom itself, leaving its ordering and layout to the

teacher. A self‐directed environment is physically different from environments found in more

traditional schools. In each school investigated, gone are neatly ordered rows fronted by a grand

teacher’s desk. Instead, classrooms are set up with various learning centers that students may

visit as they regulate their own learning objectives for the day. Teachers are seen working with

individual students at a learning center, a computer, a table, or sitting on the floor with small

groups as they present a topic to several learners at once. Students have an abundance of

materials with which to work, and the classrooms are large enough to allow for such freedom of

movement. The teachers also noted that a quality environment is essential to their success and

believe their directors have worked hard to ensure a well‐equipped environment. Therefore, the

leaders are allowing teachers to do their jobs in a non‐centralized environment, helping them

effective facilitate the unique nature of self‐directed learning in the classroom.

Another key way that leaders empower teachers through greater authority is through

participative decision‐making. Teachers were empowered by leaders to make the daily decisions

necessary to serve students in the unique environment that is self‐directed learning. Both


33 Duby and Fischer

directors communicate often with their faculty to check on classroom progress and to address

problems or concerns the teachers may have. The directors often use these informal discussions

to garner teacher input on changes that may help the classroom or to discuss curriculum

decisions. Both leaders expressed several advantages of this partnering approach, including

encouraging unity and a team spirit, gleaning the wisdom and expertise of the faculty, and

fostering good communication to help minimize misunderstandings when changes are made. In

providing these guidelines for how parents may participate with and observe the self‐directed

learning environment, leaders are empowering teachers in a very covenantal manner.

Covenant‐keeping requires such trust and relationship. One of the main reasons that covenant

fosters such trust is the notion of “mutual accountability,” wherein all the members of the

covenant are accountable to one another. Duby (2006) noted that although teachers are

accountable to the leaders, the leaders recognize that they are responsible for empowering the

teachers and creating an environment where teachers can do their job. Teachers are

accountable to the parents, but leaders help create an atmosphere of trust where parents give

teachers the room to operate in their expertise. And certainly, teachers work to engage parents,

answer their objections, and allow them to observe the classroom setting.

Summary and Conclusion

In 2003, Fischer’s study of faith‐based non‐profits revealed a similarity between the leadership

practices of leaders within those organizations and covenantal principles as articulated within

CFA. This study has likewise revealed similarities between particulars of the CFA model and the

leadership practices revealed by Duby’s investigation of self‐directed learning schools. It was

suggested at the outset of this study that there would likely be some similarities between faith‐

based nonprofits and these schools because of the nature of their vision (serving and caring for

constituents) and the motivations of the leaders and employees in doing so. Regarding

educational institutions in particular, fostering a love for learning, encouraging independence

and initiative, and helping the individual develop self‐discipline have long been hallmarks of the

self‐directed approach. Furthermore, these values are inherent to the covenant tradition and to

CFA. However, the growth in the number of educators committed to the self‐directed method

does not necessarily ensure that the method is successfully employed. Indeed, there is a great

need for leaders in self‐directed environments to ensure that teachers are properly equipped

and encouraged to facilitate the self‐directed model. In conclusion, though the self‐directed

learning model offers a viable option for educators, further research is needed to address the

type of leadership needed to successfully implement such a model and overcome the unique

challenges these leaders face. Since many of those challenges relate to leadership attitudes,

strategies and practices, it is hoped that this paper’s discussion on covenantal leadership will

indeed provide educators with both principles and practical strategies for resolving these

challenges.


34 Duby and Fischer

Limitations of the Current Study and Implications for Further Study

There are some relevant questions that can be drawn from these implications for future study.

For instance, are visionary organizations more apt to be motivated by covenantal principles, of

CFA specifically? Though there is some evidence that this type of behavior is found in non‐

profits, what type of for‐profit organizations are more apt to embody the tenets of CFA, and

what impact does such behavior have on their bottom‐line?

Secondly, the case can be made that part of researching and answering these questions involves

developing a more concrete diagnostic tool for measuring CFA behaviors within any type of

organization. Both Fischer (2003) and Duby’s (2006) initial studies relied heavily on qualitative

means—and rightly so—in order to contextualize the behaviors being observed. And this study

furthers Fischer’s initial findings (2003) that vision‐oriented organizations seem to follow CFA

tenets in their leadership practices. Moore (2009) contends that a mixed method approach to

organizational studies is very effective for contextualizing research data as well as numerically

quantifying and generalizing the results as a means of cross‐organizational research and

analysis. Accordingly, the CFA model requires a peer‐tested diagnostic survey tool for further

use and analysis.

References

Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards

on self‐regulation of complex decision‐making. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 56, 805‐814.

Baum, S., Owen, S., & Oreck, B. (1997). Transferring individual self‐regulation processes from

arts to academics. Arts Education Policy Review, 98, 32‐39.

Bonewits, F. S. (2006). Living our mission: A study of university mission building. Communication

Studies, 57(1), 67‐85.

Bratt, J. D. (1980). The covenant traditions of Dutch‐Americans. Workshop on Covenant and

Politics, Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of Federalism ‐ Temple University.

Bygrave, C. & Macmillan, S. (2008). Spirituality in the workplace: A wake up call from the

American dream. Journal of Workplace Rights, 13(1), 93‐112.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self‐direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and

practice. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.


35 Duby and Fischer

Chan, Y. H., Taylor, R. R., & Markham, S. (2008). The role of subordinates’ trust in a social

exchange‐driven psychological empowerment process. Journal of Managerial Issues,

20(4).

Chen, C. S. (2002). Self‐regulated learning strategies and achievement in an introduction to

information systems course. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance

Journal, Morehead, 20, 11‐26.

Clark, G. R. (1993). The word hesed in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press.

Duby, D. G. (2006). How leaders support teachers to facilitate self‐regulated learning in learning

organizations: A multiple‐case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent

University.

Dunn, R., Hongsfeld, A., & Doolan, L. S. (2009). Impact of learning‐style instructional strategies

on students’ achievement and attitudes: Perceptions of educators in diverse institutions.

The Clearing House, 135‐140.

Dynan, L., Cate, T., & Rhee, K. (2008). The impact of learning structure on students’ readiness for

self‐directed learning. Journal of Education for Business, 96‐100.

Elazar, D. J. (1979). Federalism and covenant. Workshop on Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia,

PA, Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.

Elazar, D. J. (1980). The political theory of covenant: Biblical origins and modern developments.

Publius 10(4).

Elazar, D. J. (1981). Covenant and freedom in the Jewish political tradition. A. S. F. Lecture.

Philadelphia, PA, Gratz College.

Elazar, D. J. (1995). Covenant and polity in Biblical Israel: Biblical foundations and Jewish

expressions. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Elazar, D. J. and J. Kincaid (1979). Covenant and polity. Workshop on Covenant and Politics.

Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.

Elazar, D. J. and J. Kincaid (1980). The Declaration of Independence: The founding covenant of

the American people. Workshop on Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia, PA, Center for

the Study of Federalism, Temple University.

Eshel, Y., & Kohavi, R. (2003). Perceived classroom control, self‐regulated learning strategies,

and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23, 249‐260.


36 Duby and Fischer

Fischer, K. (2003). Leadership in faith‐based nonprofits as compared to a covenantal framework

of action: An exploratory study to develop an alternative theoretical framework for

assessing organizational processes and influences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Regent University.

Gellis, Z. D. (2001). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership in

health care. Social Work Research, 25(1), 17.

Gibbons, M. (2002). The self‐directed learning handbook: Challenging adolescent students to

excel. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.

Glueck, N. (1967). Hesed in the Bible. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press.

Gockel, A. (2004). The trend toward spirituality in the workplace: Overview and implications for

career counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 41(4), 156‐167.

Greenstone, J. D. (1985). Lincoln's political humanitarianism: Moral reform and the covenant

tradition in American political culture. Workshop on Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia,

PA, Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.

Grow, G. (2003). Teaching learners to be self‐directed. Retrieved October 10, 2003, from

http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow.

Gumusluoglu, L. & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational

innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461‐474.

Hassan, M., Hagen, A. & Daigs, I. (2006). Strategic human resources as a strategic weapon for

enhancing labor productivity: Empirical evidence. Academy of Strategic Management

Journal, 5, 75‐97.

Hofer, B. K., & Yu, S L. (2003). Teaching self‐regulated learning through a "Learning to Learn"

course. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 30‐33.

Horng, E., & Loeb, S. (2010). New thinking about instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan,

92(3), 66‐69.

Jandaghi, G., Matin, H. & Zarei, F. A. (2008). Comparing transformational leadership in successful

and unsuccessful companies. Proceedings of World Academy of Science, 31, 464‐469.

Jacobs, G., Christe‐Zeyse, J. & Keegan, A. (2008). Reactions to organizational identity threats in

times of change: Illustrations from the German police. Corporate Reputation Review,

11(3), 245‐262.


37 Duby and Fischer

Johnson, A. (2007). Mary Parker Follett: Laying the foundations for spirituality in the workplace.

International Journal of Public Administration, 30(4), 425‐439.

Johnson, B. H. (2009). Empowerment of nurse educators through organizational culture. Nursing

Education Perspectives, 30(1), 8‐14.

Joo, B. & Lim, T. (2009). The effects of organizational learning culture, perceived job complexity,

and proactive personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(1), 48‐61.

Kincaid, J. (1978). Covenant theories and political science: Models and methods. Workshop on

Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple

University.

Kincaid, J. (1980). Working bibliography on covenant and politics. Workshop on Covenant and

Politics. Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self‐directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Follett.

Lapan, R., Kardash, C., & Turner, S. (2002). Empowering students to become self‐regulated

learners. Professional School Counseling, 5, 257‐265.

Lutz, D. (1980). Liberty and equality from a communitarian perspective. Philadelphia, PA: Center

for the Study of Federalism, Temple University.

Lutz, D. (1988). The origins of American constitutionalism, Louisiana State University Press.

Lytle, R. S., Hom, P. W. & Mokwa, M. P. (1998). SERV*OR: A managerial measure of

organizational service‐orientation. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 455‐458.

Martinez‐Pons, M. (2003). Parental influences on children’s academic self‐regulatory

development. Theory into Practice, 41, 126‐142.

McCoy, C. S. (1980). History, humanity, and federalism in the theology and ethics of Johannes

Cocceius. Workshop on Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of

Federalism, Temple University.

McCuddy, M. K. & Cavin, M. C. (2008). Fundamental moral orientations, servant leadership, and

leadership effectiveness: An empirical test. Review of Business Research, 8(4), 107‐118.

McLaughlin, A. (1961). The foundations of American constitutionalism. Greenwhich, CT: Fawcett.


38 Duby and Fischer

Moore, E. (2009). Mixed methods research designs: An exciting and viable alternative for

business research. Liberty Business Review, 7(1), 26‐36. Retrieved from

https://www.liberty.edu/media/1130/LBR%20rev%2007%2013%2009.pdf

Palmer, S. B., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Promoting self‐determination in early elementary

school: Teaching self‐regulated problem‐solving and goal‐setting skills. Remedial and

Special Education, 24, 115‐126.

Pata, K. (2009). Modeling spaces for self‐directed learning at university courses. Educational

Technology & Society, 12(3), 23‐43.

Patrick, H., & Middleton, M. J. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when self‐

regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychology, 37, 27‐39.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Teaching students how to study and learn (part I).

Journal of Developmental Education, 26, 36‐39.

Perry, M. (1990). Western civilization: A brief survey. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Perry, N. E., Nordby, C. J., & Vandekamp, K. O. (2003). Promoting self‐regulated reading and

writing at home and school. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 317‐338.

Polleys, M. S. (2002). One university’s response to the anti‐leadership vaccine: Developing

servant leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 117‐131.

Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results.

Alexandria, VA: Virginia Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Reid, W. S. (1981). John Knox: The first of the monarchomachs? Workshop on Covenant and

Politics, Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study of Federalism ‐ Temple University.

Roberts, C. (2006). Service‐learning: Developing servant leaders. Academic Exchange Quarterly,

10(2), 237‐243.

Rosenblatt, Z. & Nord, W. (1999). Participative decision making as a strategic response to

decline: Flexibility, rigidity or a mixture? Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management,

7(2), 63‐76.

Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organizational

Development Journal, 76.


39 Duby and Fischer

Schechter, S. L. (1980). The founding of American local communities: A study of covenantal and

other forms of associations. Publius, 10(4).

Shipper, F. & Manz, C. C. (1992).Employee self‐management without formally designated teams:

An alternative road to empowerment. Oraganizational Dynamics, 20(3), 48‐62.

Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goosens, Soenens, & Dochy (2009). The synergistic relationship of

perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self‐regulated learning.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 57‐68.

Silén, C., & Uhlin, L. (2008). Self‐directed learning: A learning issue for students and faculty!

Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 461‐475.

Skillen, J. W. (1980). From covenant of grace to tolerant public pluralism: The Dutch Calvinist

contribution. Workshop on Covenant and Politics. Philadelphia, PA, Center for the Study

of Federalism, Temple University.

Smith, P., Sadler‐Smith, E. Robertson, I., & Wakefield, L. (2007). Leadership and learning:

Facilitating self‐directed learning in enterprises. Journal of European Industrial Training,

31(5), 324‐335.

Tischler, L. (1999). The growing interest in spirituality in business. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 12(4), 273‐281.

Triwaranyu, C. (2007). Models and strategies for initial implementation of lesson study in

schools. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 3(3), 48‐63.

Walzer, M. (1985). Exodus and revolution. New York: Basic Books.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey of teachers’ promotion of

self‐determination and student‐directed learning. The Journal of Special Education, 34,

58‐68.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Agran, M., Mithaug, D. E., & Martin, J. E. (2000). Promoting

causal agency: The self‐determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional Children,

66, 439‐453.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Sands, D. J. (1998). Making it happen: Student involvement in education

planning, decision making, and instruction. Boston: Paul H. Brooks.

Yeung, L. (2004). The paradox of control in participative decision‐making: Facilitative discourse

in banks. Text, 24(1), 113‐146.


40 Duby and Fischer

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Young, D. B., & Ley, K. (2003). Self‐regulation support offered by developmental educators.

Journal of Developmental Education, 27, 2‐10.

Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO transformational leadership and

organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human‐capital‐enhancing human

resource management. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 39‐53.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self‐regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice,

41, 64‐142.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez‐Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of

student self‐regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284‐290.


41 Iran‐Nejad and Gregg

THE NONSEGMENTAL CONTEXT OF SEGMENTAL UNDERSTANDING:

A BIOFUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

Asghar Iran‐Nejad College of Education

The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487‐231 [email protected]

Madeleine Gregg

College of Education The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487‐231 [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to present a new biofunctional systems perspective on

understanding and knowing. Understanding is commonly assumed to result, like knowledge,

from interaction among discrete mental objects such as ideas, concepts, and schemas that are

independent segments. However, such interaction does not tell the whole, or even the essential

part, of the story of understanding. Through a discussion of past research in the light of recent

biofunctional theory, indications of a comprehensive way of thinking about understanding

emerge. To illustrate, if understanding were an iceberg, interactions of segments, whether

simple or complex, would be confined to just the tip of the iceberg seen above the water. This

paper explains how the hidden, larger part of the iceberg of understanding is inherently

nonsegmental, biofunctional in origin, and the source of the dynamic self‐awareness that is the

defining material of human knowledge. Understanding is the nervous system’s special function,

the means of eliminating complexity in thinking, and the nonsegmental<>segmental process by

which knowledge is produced in the form of insights. Without understanding, segmental

knowledge acquisition results in ill‐structured mental complexity or isolated mental fragments

easily rendered inert or forgotten. The biofunctional systems perspective offers educators

insight that can lead to better curriculum, better teaching, and better learning.

Keywords: Nonsegmental understanding, segmental knowledge, taxonomic understanding,

biofunctional science, complexity, problem solving

Introduction A widespread assumption is that human understanding is a more deeply interconnected or

better organized form of knowledge. In this article, we assume that knowing and understanding

are fundamentally different, though complementary human capacities. We consider knowing to

be a cognitive categorization (taxonomic) capacity, inherently segmental, and capable of



supporting only taxonomic understanding. By contrast, understanding is a biofunctional

integration capacity, inherently nonsegmental (intuitive), and the source of both thematic and

taxonomic knowledge production. The central theme of this article is that knowing involves

linear (segment‐to‐segment) causality and is a source of complexity. Understanding, by contrast,

removes complexity by means of nonlinear (nonsegmental) problem solving that culminates in

insight.

Deeply Interconnected Segmental Knowledge

How does knowing as an inherently segmental categorization process work? The classic

experiments by Bransford and Johnson (1972) and a theoretical example from an article by

Schurz and Lambert (1994) illustrate the widespread assumption that understanding requires

deeply interconnected knowledge schemas stored in the form a taxonomic corpus in long‐term

memory (Iran‐Nejad 1978, 2000). By definition, each taxonomy uses explicitly defined segments

of information to categorize phenomena and processes within a specific domain. Though

holistic, a domain‐specific schema is no more than an abstract tool for formalizing (e.g.,

classifying and standardizing) concrete segmental knowledge.

Ordinarily, considerate discourse or text comprises both part‐to‐part and part‐to‐whole

connections. The latter serve as clues for locating and accessing the relevant domain‐specific

schema (taxonomy) that provides the abstract connections necessary for deeper understanding.

In the Bransford and Johnson study, the researchers used carefully‐crafted passages with well‐

formed part‐to‐part connections, but free of part‐to‐whole clues. In other words, the words and

sentences in the passages were well‐formed and meaningful by themselves but were difficult to

understand as an ensemble. As predicted by the authors, the group provided with prior

knowledge (schema) outperformed the other group in measures of memory and understanding.

Bransford and Johnson came to the conclusion that deeply connected knowledge schemas are a

necessary and sufficient condition for understanding.

Like Bransford and Johnson, Schurz and Lambert assumed deeply connected knowledge

structures stored in long‐term memory to be a prerequisite to understanding and did not see

any reason to qualify their assumption as being applicable only to taxonomic understanding.

According Schurz and Lambert, to ‘understand a phenomenon P is to know how P fits into one's

background knowledge” (1994, p. 66).

The Challenge of Going beyond Taxonomic Understanding

In discourse comprehension research, idea units, a segmental source of understanding, have

been a popular dependent measure for investigating the role of prior knowledge schemas

(Anderson & Pichert, 1978; Pichert & Anderson, 1977). An idea unit is commonly “defined as a

single sentence, clause, or phrase containing a single complete idea” (Schwartz, Ellsworth,

Graham, & Knight, 1998, p. 75). To assess comprehension, subjects are exposed to a text



segmented into idea units and then asked to recall as much as they can (e.g., Johnson, 1970;

Meyer, 1975). Their recall is compared with the number of idea units in the original text to

produce a measure of comprehension. In other words, comprehension is measured by the

amount of information in the segmental responses (Sharp, 2004).

It is widely accepted that segmental sources of understanding do not fully account for discourse

comprehension, let alone comprehensive understanding in general. An invitational “Sit down!”

uses the same segments as a reproving “Sit down!”, and yet, people have no difficulty

comprehending the meaning in both contexts. Something more is at work in people’s

comprehension of language. Yet, when researchers have sought additional sources that

contribute to understanding, they have not looked beyond segment‐to‐segment interaction. For

example, Sharp (2004) used the notion of idea‐unit segments to capture between‐the‐lines

comprehension (i.e., the communication between text and reader). Sharp defined idea units as

complete thought units, “segmented according to Johnson (1970), with 'pausal boundaries'

being designated to allow quantitative assessment of recall” (p. 335).

Sharp noted that some of the sources that contribute to text comprehension originate (within

the lines) in the text and some are added (between the lines) by the reader. Some are

quantitative and others are qualitative. However, he assumed all of the sources to be either

segmental or capable of being segmental and, therefore, formalized them all in the manner of

text segmentals. An example of a non‐segmental source that Sharp treats as if it were segmental

is the “pausal unit.” If a pausal unit has its origin in nonsegmental sources of understanding such

as rhyme, rhythm, intonation, thematic understanding, and reader intuition, then treating it as a

segmental does not realize the benefits of formalizing its contribution.

Biofunctional Activity in the Absence of the Knowledge of a Situation

In addition to taxonomic or segmental comprehension, people are capable of another kind of

understanding, nonsegmental understanding, which is at work even in the absence of

knowledge of a situation. As already suggested, this kind of understanding has its origin in the

biology of the human being. Such understanding manifests itself in two different kinds of

biofunctional activity that produce two correspondingly different kinds of self‐awareness that

work in causal synergy. Ongoing biofunctional activity of the neurons in the nervous system

produces nontaxonomic self‐awareness (intuitive thematic knowledge). Momentary

constellation firing of the neurons produces taxonomic self‐awareness (or segmental

knowledge).

Again, we illustrate these ideas with examples. The first is from Auble, Franks, and Soraci

(1979), which is more like a simulation than a real example. Consider the statement The

haystack was important because the cloth ripped. Reading this sentence simulates a state of

uncertainty (i.e., the absence of situational knowledge) that marks the start of a sustainable

process of ongoing biofunctional activity punctuated by momentary constellation firing of



neurons with the potential to culminate in an aha‐triggering insight. The insight, in this case,

comes when people hear the clue parachute soon after exposure to the statement. Such

understanding is essentially a nonlinear process of nonsegmental‐to‐segmental understanding.

A second example is found in a story of a firefighter named Wag Dodge who, in 1949, survived a

fire in which 13 of his colleagues died (Lehrer, 2008). Wag and his crew found themselves caught

between a fast approaching wall of fire and a mountain hill impossible to climb. Like everyone

else, Wag began running away. At that moment, he was using prior knowledge of an escape

strategy (run from danger) without understanding the specific context of his lived experience.

But, then, he hesitated in the midst of the desperate uncertainty of his position and looked over

his shoulder to see what the wall of fire was doing. This pause gave his ongoing biofunctional

activity time for a momentary constellation firing that led to a different idea (i.e., an insight) that

saved his life: fighting one raging fire by starting another. So he quickly set fire to the bushes in

front of him. Then, as the new fire cleared the foliage in front of him, he dropped face down on

the still burning embers. There, he waited as the big fire arrived and, finding no foliage to

consume, passed over his body, leaving him relatively unharmed. Later, Wag could not explain

what gave him the idea that saved his life except to say that it was the obvious thing to do!

Defining Complexity and a Solution

Why did so many firefighters die when faced with a problem for which there was, as Wag Dodge

characterized it, so obvious an escape route of a solution to survival? The answer can be

explained by the inordinate stability of taxonomic understanding, on the one hand, and the

unrestrained flexibility of nontaxonomic understanding, on the other. Taxonomic understanding

is segmental‐knowledge driven and an inert source of ill‐structured complexity (Bereiter &

Scardamalia, 1985; Renkl, Mandl, & Gruber, 1996), Nonsegmental understanding is a fertile

source of solutions to complexity (Iran‐Nejad, 2000). In other words, segmental knowledge

breeds complexity; because it is a taxonomic maze of certainties filled with blind alleys (like the

escape route Wag’s friends took to their death). Nonsegmental understanding fosters timely

solutions to complexity, because it results from nontaxonomic, ongoing biofunctional activity

ready to deliver self‐evident taxonomic solutions.

In the absence of nontaxonomic understanding, human knowledge is complex, ill‐structured,

and difficult to describe in coherent ways (Loftus, Oberg, & Dillon, 2004; Lyons & Page, 1981;

Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1992). The phenomena and processes involved in the

resolution of this complexity have eluded systematic study, though they are governed by

hitherto unsuspected systemic dependencies.

The origin of human nontaxonomic understanding is not in prior knowledge or the certainty of

it but conversely in the uncertainty of its absence. Moreover, nontaxonomic understanding

cannot be set out in straight lines, discrete objects, and linear interactions. To focus on any part

of a complex idea, situation, or system is to oversimplify it, to the point of no longer actually



matching the reality of its entire context. The death of Wag Dodge’s colleagues resulted from

such oversimplification.

Productive and Inert Cause‐Effect Dependencies

In many ways, comprehensive states of understanding are like ecosystems such as forests,

seashores, or deserts (Gibson, 1966). Though perspectives vary on their nature (Müller, 1997),

there is general agreement that ecosystems differ from industrial production‐lines. What is the

difference? Are cause‐effect dependencies in ecosystems different from those in factories? Do

ecosystems function analogously to nontaxonomic understanding and factories by means of

taxonomic knowing? We attempt to answer this question by distinguishing taxonomic

segment<>segment interaction from nontaxonomic segmental<>nonsegmental integration.

In ecosystems, as in production lines, various forms of linear segment<>segment interaction

may be observed: part<>part, part<>whole, and whole<>whole. In a forest, for example, there

are part<>part relations between branches and leaves; whole<>part relations plants have with

their branches, flowers, fruits, and leaves; and whole<>whole relations between trees. In favor

of their individual identities, parts differ in color and texture. Taxonomic classification uses and

standardization removes these differences. The obvious advantage of using or removing

differences in factories is that segment<>segment connections can be assembled or

disassembled and parts can be replaced without affecting the structural integrity of the system.

Thus, a part may be replaced without the system showing any sign of acceptance or rejection of

those parts. Reliance on local cause‐effect dependencies is convenient but carries a cost. It

makes factories mechanical rather than organic, artificial rather than natural, and static rather

than dynamic. Over‐reliance, or reliance of a different kind, on segmental proclivities comes at

the expense of nonsegmental dependencies.

Taxonomic classification and standardization can also be applied to such human capacities as

knowing and understanding with analogous results. To be sure, for the purpose of deliberate

standardization or classification, it is easy to focus on segment‐wide features of knowing (e.g.,

abstract versus concrete) and difficult to deal with comprehensive or system‐wide qualities of

understanding (e.g., rejection of the part by the whole). Linear interdependence, for example,

enables the manipulation of the mean‐ends events of local problem solving as well as domain‐

specific mental objects of remembering, learning, and thinking. However, these conveniences of

simplification by isolation in the context of taxonomic knowing have too long delayed learning

about people’s other capacities for simplifying life, which might be even more effective or

powerful. For example, by assuming that knowing and understanding are fundamentally the

same, we have built an infrastructure in education that over‐relies on the segment<>segment

events of taxonomic knowing. That is, curriculum focuses on specific part<>part, part<>whole,

or whole<>whole interaction among isolated but interdependent objects of the mind. What is

needed is a new infrastructure in education that is more balanced with respect to

segmental<>nonsegmental cause‐effect integration.



Segment<>segment interaction among natural objects is necessary to ensure immediate spatial,

causal, or temporal continuity, but it does not explain how an ecosystem is different from a

factory (Ghilarov, 2000) or how understanding is different from knowing. Both factories and

human knowledge are governed by taxonomic patterns of segment<>segment interaction.

These patterns are fundamentally different from how nonsegmental<>segmental integration

works in ecosystems and understandings. What complicates matters is the assumption that

segment<>segment interactivity determines all cause‐effect dependencies including those for

ecosystems and understanding, albeit at shallow or deeper levels of interconnectivity. Deep or

shallow, it is possible that human‐made rules of taxonomic interaction are not the same as the

natural laws of nontaxonomic integration.

In an ecosystem, not all causation is predetermined, has a single or adjacent cause, or aims at a

simple purpose, or is even pragmatically purposeful. As insects go from plant to plant in search

of food, they also pollinate, get infected with diseases, contribute to their spread, become food

themselves, and cause an indeterminate variety of other effects. Ecosystems are indeterminate

zones of practice and it is the same with human understanding (Schön, 1983). Both ecosystems

and understandings give the impression of being ill‐structured and complex. But this is because

they both obey the hietherto unsuspected laws of nonsegmental<>segmental integration which

are different from the taxonomic segment<>segment rule of interaction.

Problem Solving by Interaction and Integration

Human beings are capable of at least two major kinds of problem solving. The first is taxonomic

problem solving enabled by people’s capacity of knowing, or the capacity for classifying objects

using varying patterns of segment<>segment interactivity. Knowing is a vital capacity, but it has

at least one major negative effect when used improperly. Bartlett (1932) and others have

described it as problem solving by isolating objects or simplification by isolation (Iran‐Nejad,

McKeachie, & Berliner, 1990; Salomon, 2006). In other words, since categorizing objects

demands individualizing them, problem solving by means of knowing is done by manufacturing

differences or isolating objects to simplify their use (Shulman, 2002). Taxonomies become more

and more complex. This kind of problem solving is the driving force behind educational

taxonomies (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). The implication of simplification

by isolation is that educators must be cautious in how they use knowledge. Because knowing is a

taxonomic capacity, using taxonomies (Shulman, 2002) is the mandate for proliferating

complexity.

There are segmental ways to go beyond immediate segmen<>segment causality that are less

likely to run into the problem of complexity. In particular, segments may be redefined by adding

part<>whole features to them. According to Koestler (1967), when one part of a natural system

images the complexity of the system, the part is a “holon,” a word Koestler coined to help in the

discussion of complexity. Similarly, Sperry (1988) explained the downward control exerted by



mental objects over the information processing system using the analogy of how features such

as the shape cause a wheel to roll down a hill.

The second major type of problem solving, about which past research has given us no direct

theory or evidence, is by segmental<>nonsegmental integration enabled by people’s

biofunctional capacity for understanding. We have argued in this article and elsewhere (Iran‐

Nejad & Gregg, 2001; Iran‐Nejad & Stewart, 2010) that biofunctional segmental<>nonsegmental

problem solving is a special case of the same kind of problem solving that occurs in

comprehensive ecosystems. Complex ecosystems are governed by multiple‐source,

nonsegmental<>segmental, cause‐effect dependencies, one example of which extends even

beyond the planet Earth, namely, gravity. In a forest, the leaves, fruit, or branches that separate

from trees, no matter how far apart those trees might be, all travel in the same downward

direction. This is not because of any interdependent system of element<>element interactivity

(Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller, Van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998), but because all of these

events are dependent on gravity, which operates comprehensively, that is to say, systemically.

The leaves or branches or the fruit do not travel downward in order to reach the ground or

fertilize the soil below, or feed the animals, even though they do all of these and much more.

Similarly, the molecules in an avalanche or in different drops of the same or different rain

showers do not need to be interconnected in a segment<>segment fashion to move downward.

Nor do they head downward to block or wet the freeway, irrigate the forest, raise the demand

for umbrellas, or clear the smog in the metropolis. They all head in the same downward

direction because they are governed by gravity enforcing its nonsegmental<>segmental

causality.

In much the same way, the sources involved in remembering, learning, and imagination act

together psychologically not because they are necessarily interconnected constructs, or means

to specific ends, but because they are all systemically dependent on the more comprehensive

process of nonsegmental understanding. This, by analogy, is the kind of comprehensive cause‐

effect dependency on which nonsegmental>segmental, segmental<nonsegmental, and

nonsegmental<>nonsegmental varieties of causal integration rely in human understanding.

Examples of such processes are incidental impression formation (segmental<nonsegmental

understanding) and intonation (nonsegmental>segmental understanding). Themes, intuitions,

moods, and attitudes may all be considered understandings that are fertile grounds for

nonsegmental<>segmental production (e.g., event<>theme integration).

The nonsegmental theory implies that the direction of causality is seldom linear or segmental.

To survive in the ocean, fish must have an organ to turn the nonsegmental oxygen in the water

into bodily energy. Survival of fish would be impossible if the oxygen were only present

segmentally here and there and not everywhere continuously, that is, nonsegmentally. The fish

or its gills are not interacting with oxygen. The nonsegmental context is an inescapable part of



the ecosystem, which is why the fish cannot live out of the water where oxygen is still present

but not integrated with water.

The nonsegmental<>segmental cause‐effect relations in an ecosystem, such as oxygen‐to‐

organism or water‐to‐organism, have coevolved in dynamic balance. Any particular segment—a

drink or a deep breath that an organism takes—may seem isolated, inefficient, or even ill‐

structured when viewed through the lens of immediate, adjacent, or local action or linear

interaction, much more so than any corresponding part in a tightly‐woven factory. A healthy

ecosystem governs its cause‐effect dependencies comprehensively and synergistically,

producing astonishing biodiversity, biomass, biogeography, and bioenergy (Hubbell & Borda‐de‐

Água, 2004; Tilman, 1999).

From the perspective of the nonsegmental theory, it is untenable to formalize remembered

experiences, incidental impressions, moods, skills, dispositions, insights, and imagination

segmentally. All these work simultaneously in the ecosystem of nonsegmental<>segmental

biofunctional activity, rather than like in a segment<>segment factory assembly. They are

synergistically integrated to produce comprehensive states of understanding. Whenever a

person learns something new, or demonstrates genuine conceptual change, the person’s

integrated understanding is reworked more comprehensively than is captured by any form of

linear interaction that may describe a person’s changing representation from one specific

domain to another (Carey, 2000; Clancey, 1997).

In the world of understanding, as in an ecosystem, domain‐specific knowledge structures (or

ideas) do not exist as separate entities with permanently fixed internal structures (Clancey,

1997). They are not independent parts that can be manipulated or simplified by isolating them

from the context in which they arise (Bartlett, 1932). They are more likely to be momentary

outcomes of comprehensive understanding from which they cannot be excised (Iran‐Nejad,

1980). They do not rely solely on part‐to‐part interaction (the sum of the parts) or on part‐whole

relations (more than the sum of the parts). A tree’s or a fish’s survival is not dependent simply

on a whole that is more than the sum of its parts. Rather, biological survival depends on sources

as far apart as the ocean and the sun. Causal dependencies of human understanding rely on

nonsegmental integration, something fundamentally different from “sum of their parts”

thinking. Darwin’s understanding of the nature of survival, for example, marked him as a

revolutionary thinker to set him apart from the more knowledgeable contemporary biologists

(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

Nonsegmental<>segmental integration is different from all forms of segment<>segment

interaction. Dynamic ecosystems rely comprehensively on the integration of multiple sources,

unlike segments that interconnect by means of interdependent interaction. In an ecosystem,

and analogously in the biological person, system‐wide integration and localized interaction

among the parts are fundamentally different processes. In other words, ecosystems illustrate

the principle of simplifying complexity by integration (Bartlett, 1932; Iran‐Nejad et al., 1990;



Salomon, 1991, 1995, 2006). Factories, by contrast, simplify complexity by means of immediate

interdependent interaction. This is simplifying complexity by isolating segments to have them

ready to reconnect by interaction. Simplification by isolation breaks down nature into separate

parts each with its own seemingly immutable structure. The human‐made process of simplifying

complexity by dividing nature into its segments robs nature of its inherent systemic conditions.

Yet, understanding depends on the dynamic integration of nonsegmental dependencies.

Existing Evidence for Nonsegmental Understanding

Nonsegmental‐to‐segmental integration is a widespread phenomenon in nature. People live in a

nonsegmental environment and their sensory and other biological systems are fully integrated

with it. The manner in which we pull and push air with our lungs is a segmental<>nonsegmental

process. Our auditory, visual, olfactory, and other senses have been evolution‐tested to use the

nonsegmental affordances that engulf us. We hear, see, and smell everything in our

environment. Moreover, the way our lungs or even our auditory or visual systems integrate with

the segmental<>nonsegmental world around us is not dramatically different from the manner in

which the gills of the ocean fish integrate with nonsegmental air in the real ocean to extract

oxygen from the water. It seems that evolution makes maximal use of

nonsegmental<>segmental processes everywhere.

Similarly, although less apparent to observation, the motor and skeletal systems of the head and

the face integrate with the nonsegmental ongoing biofunctional activity of our nervous and

bodily systems to produce the segmental momentary constellation firing that result in speech

utterances in the form of sound waves for the benefit of other ears that might happen to be

around. Like those in the ocean, as soon as these waves have performed their task, they re‐

integrate with the surrounding nonsegmental world and disappear in thin air. We assume that

all this natural evidence points with reasonable validity and reliability to the

nonsegmental<>segmental (e.g., uncertainty‐to‐insight) process by which the ongoing

biofunctional activity and the momentary constellation firing of the cells in the nervous system

understands the world (Iran‐Nejad & Ortony, 1984)?

Why, then, in so much of science and education, have we overlooked the ubiquitous presence of

the nonsegmental<>segmental integration process in the world and its counterpart in our

nervous and bodily systems? Some lines of research have investigated the

nonsegmental<>segmental sources of variation that occur in speech utterances. Stress, pitch,

tone, rhythm, intonation, or more generally language supersegmentals produce changes in

meaning (Flege, 1981). To illustrate, the meaning‐changing pronunciation of the segmental

utterance for the noun “construct” with the stress on the first syllable is supersegmentally

different from the pronunciation of the same utterance for the verb “construct” with the stress

on the last syllable. Similarly, intonation can make an utterance a question, a statement, a

directive, or an interjection. Rhyme and rhythm help us appreciate the differences between



poetry and prose. And, like rhythm and rhyme, accent makes the language spoken in one region

to sound different from another region.

Thus, at any given moment, nonsegmental<>segmental cause‐effect integration is working

always behind what appears to be segment<>segment cause‐effect interaction. Educators in

both behavioral and cognitive science have been too occupied with the segment<>segment

causality to observe the nonsegmental<>segmental dependencies that nature so plentifully

illustrates. Such dependencies are perceived when people share among themselves their

dynamic lived experiences (Merleau‐Ponty, 1962) of both the linguistic and the nonlinguistic

kinds (Dowhower, 1994; Erteschik‐Shir, 2006; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003).

In terms of available evidence, some past research on nonsegmentals has been reported using

words like supersegmental and prosody, even though the term nonsegmental has also been

occationally used (Crystal, 1973; Ruch, 1936), especially in the realm of phonology and its

development in young infants, but in other areas as well (Beddor, Krakow, & Lindemann, 2001;

Blackburn, 1983; D'Odorico, 1984; Krakow, 1993; Munro, 1995; Perfetti & Zhang, 1991).

Research suggests that the gestural stream that accompanies talk provides interpretation cues

unavailable from segmental language alone (Quek et al., 2002). Similarly, supersegmentals‐in‐

dynamic‐motion, like pitch and tone, seem to shape understanding, as when sounds with a

rising pitch contour suggest disagreement or request, or sounds with a short frequency range

and long duration imply hesitation (Nagasaki & Komatsu, 2004). The interjection “aha” that

signals a moment of understanding comes with a nonsegmental‐to‐segmental burst of affect

(Iran‐Nejad, 1987).

Many linguists distinguish between nonsegmental and segmental phonology (Flege, 1981). Long

ago, Irwin and Weiss (1930), talking about newborns during their first 10 days of life,

distinguished their segmental (discretely identifiable behavior) from their nonsegmental‐in‐

dynamic‐motion behavior (that involved the entire body). Such early activity may be the

precursor to the gestural stream that adults display during conversation. Later, D'Odorico and

colleagues reported that nonsegmental features affect the duration of infant vocalizations

(D'Odorico, 1984; D'Odorico, Franco, & Vidotto, 1985). Similarly, nonsegmental sources such as

speaking rate and style affect nasal co‐articulation (Krakow, 1993). Finally, prelingual

vocalizations of infants indicate a nonsegmental communicative competence. The sounds that

infants make consistently influence their mothers’ responses (Goldstein & West, 1999). A

mothers’ language, motherese, is richly nonsegmental (Hsu & Fogel, 2003) and infants

demonstrate a consistent preference for it (Fernald, 1985, 1992).

Hawkins and Nguyen (2004) claim that nonsegmental speech is processed directly into meaning.

As the notion of nonsegmental<>nonsegmental causality suggests, this claim implies that

segmental representations may not be necessary for the understanding of an utterance.

Prelingual children use a nonsegmental capacity for immediate impression formation about

both the material and social worlds, a capacity that is distinct from the segmental tool language



later becomes (Gibson, 1973; Lyons & Page, 1981). Whole journal issues have debated the claim

that children are capable of bypassing phonemic (or meaning bearing) segmentals in

understanding speech (Ogden & Local, 1994).

The evidence just reported suggests that nonsegmental sources work in dynamic motion

between the lines of the observable behavior. However, the underlying assumption in much of

the research reviewed here is that nonsegmentals are processed in the same way as segmentals.

Erteschik‐Shir (2006), for example, noted that viewing (between‐the‐lines) topic and focus as

supersegmental, poses the dilemma of when and when not to treat them in the manner of

(within‐the‐lines) lexical items. Questioning the wisdom behind formalizing (e.g., classifying or

standardizing) supersegmentals in terms of segmentals, Frick (1985) pointed out that “it seems

unlikely that peoples' abilities to discriminate emotions prosodically is based on the profiles of

those emotions using simple summary descriptors such as average pitch or average loudness”

(p. 417). In fact, several studies have suggested the possibility that language supersegmentals

may serve as the immediate context for nonsegmental understanding (Coombes, Cauraugh, &

Janelle, 2007; Perfetti & Zhang, 1991). Nonetheless, these supersegmentals have tended more

often to be formalized as segmental features percolating upward from text segmentals

(Erteschik‐Shir, 2006).

The research on language supersegmentals targets their role in expressing thoughts, emotions,

and personality traits (Erteschik‐Shir, 2006; Frick, 1985; Nagasaki & Komatsu, 2004). A general

strategy for formalizing interdependent activity is implemented in terms of symbolic or sub‐

symbolic connections, units, and activation levels or weights (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1986;

Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986). But in all of this research, the presence of

nonsegmental<>segmental causation seems to have been missed by scientists. For example,

variations in supersegmental sources (e.g., affective, phonological, visual, and auditory), similar

to those of natural speech, have been deemed essential for the improvement of the quality of

synthetic speech. Henton (2002) has noted, because research on “nonsegmental aspects of

speech has lagged in linguistics and phonetics, our knowledge of how to model successful and

natural prosody [in synthetic speech] is still in its infancy.” As a result, “the intonation contours

in both parametric and concatenative systems [of speech synthesis are] too invariable, with a

tendency to be either overly dynamic (too enthusiastic or emotional), or to drone in a

predictable, soporific, bored and boring monotone” (pp. 125‐126).

Discussion and Implications

From an educational standpoint, the taxonomic practice of simplifying complex thoughts for the

purpose of understanding by isolating segments from their embodied contexts in biology and

beyond is likely to have undesirable side effects for learners. The assumption seems to be that

not only knowledge acquisition but also understanding can be achieved by breaking down ideas

into simple, more or less long‐lasting pieces, detached from the comprehensive ecosystem that

keeps people’s lived experiences in perpetual motion. A corresponding assumption is that the



broken down pieces of lived experiences can then be re‐assembled by means of segment‐to‐

segment causal interaction to produce similarly complex future experiences. We have known for

some time now that when people use the simplification by isolation strategy for learning (e.g.,

Salomon, 2006), a proliferation of detached pieces of knowledge can resist reassembly, and

result in ill‐structured complexity (Spiro et al., 1992) and inert knowledge (Bereiter &

Scardamalia, 1985; Renkl et al., 1996). One implication of the arguments in this article is that

educators can now recognize these negative side effects on learner understanding of seeking

and working with knowledge taxonomies.

For interdependent interaction among segmental mental objects to work best, educators must

find ways to utilize the multiple near and far sources of nonsegmental human understanding.

The focus on segmental interaction at the expense of nonsegmental integration has had many

nontrivial consequences: the traditional emphasis on the specialization, if not fragmentation,

that comes with content knowledge at the expense of nonsegmental sources of human wisdom

(Mayer, 1995; Prawat, 2000; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Among these are the emphasis on

content at the expense of passion (Neumann, 1999, 2006a); the separation of learning from

application (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999); the problem of symbol grounding (Harnad, 1990,

1993, 2001); or the problem of the separation of the mind from the physical body (Bruer, 1997).

Like the analytic practice of simplification by isolation, the taxonomic strategy of limiting

learners to part<>part, part<>whole, and whole<>whole varieties of segment<>segment

patterns of interactivity has unintended consequences. Nonsegmental integration at the

expense of segmental interaction would also have unintended effects. In the multiple‐source

ecosystem of the biological person, both aspects of understanding are needed. Segmental

interaction in the form of knowledge and nonsegmental sources of understanding integrate to

produce powerful learning.

The central theme of this article suggests that interdependent interaction among mental objects

is not enough for understanding the complexities of human understanding. It may be, of course,

that the theory of interdependent interaction is not the culprit, either. Rather, the problem may

be the propensity of any theory to foster simplification by isolation. Moreover, In addition to

language‐related supersegmentals, human understanding may rely fundamentally on between‐

the‐lines themes, moods, intuitions, and attitudes. Such subjective mental phenomena have

been traditionally set aside as epiphenomenal, biased, animalistic, irrational, self‐centered, and

undesirable (Barrett et al., 2007; Neumann, 2006; Panksepp, 1998). The extent to which these

contributing sources of understanding continue to be overlooked in theories prone to

simplification by isolation is likely to determine the prevalence of inert knowledge (Bereiter &

Scardamalia, 1985; Renkl et al., 1996), the pathologies of learning (Shulman, 1999) and the gap

between research and practice or learning and application., Yet, it is with systemic,

nonsegmental integration that human understanding, learning, and communication come to

life.



How could the infrastructure of today’s education change, as so many assert it should? On the

one hand, an appreciation of the entire iceberg of human understanding—i.e., its

segmental<>nonsegmental integration cycle—may be needed to steer the field toward a new

infrastructure in tune with the evolution‐tested ways of natural ecosystems. On the hand, if

overanalyzed in conscious content, the seductive attention‐grabbing tip of the iceberg (i.e., the

network of its segment<>segment interaction pattern) might turn into an impediment to

progress. Recall that segmental contents of understanding are noisy mental objects in plain sight

of the consciousness: letters, sounds, words, concepts, and schemas. These are the material for

interdependent, within‐the‐lines interaction. The less familiar nonsegmental sources of

understanding include invisible processes such as incidental impression formation, intonation,

rhyme, rhythm, theme, attitude, and intuition. They constitute the sources for between‐the‐

lines integration. Educational research and practice must integrate both kinds of sources. The

goal of the nonsegmental theory presented in this paper is to move in this unexplored direction.

A related way to think about the distinction between segmentals and nonsegmentals is in terms

of how readily a mental object—a word, phrase, sentence, concept, schema, and proposition—

can become the focus of attention. Well‐learned segmentals are always selective attention

ready. Nonsegmentals (e.g., gravity) are selective attention invisible/unprepared, or perhaps

even inherently resistant to direct selective attention (i.e., perpetually invisible). The challenge

in educational science and practice is to make their integration the object of experimental

investigation without having one work at the expense of the other. As Bartlett (1932) pointed

out and demonstrated, such an undertaking is well within the realm of experimental research.

The advantage today is that we have more sophisticated perspectives available on the nature of

human understanding than did Bartlett (Iran‐Nejad & Stewart, 2010; Mayer, 1989, 1995; D.

Perkins & Blythe, 1994; D. N. Perkins, 1988; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

Complex learning of the kind investigated by Bartlett (1932) required nonsegmental

understanding made possible by the biological system’s capacity for multiple‐source integration.

As a system for solving the complex problems of survival, the nervous system almost certainly

evolved the capacity for multiple‐source integration first without the kind of noisy segmentation

that requires analytic selective attention to mental objects. This (silent) aspect of the evolution

of the nervous system mirrors that of other (silent) ecosystems in which multiple‐source

integration is at least as common an occurrence as are (noisy) higher mental functions such as

remembering, learning, and thinking in the authentic real world. For example, both plant and

animal life is multiple‐source dependent, relying for survival on the organisms capacity to

integrate air, water, minerals, and the like without anything like mindful segmentation of these

sources. Mindful selective attention would have come later with the evolution of the segmental

capacity to focus deliberately on mental objects. This is probably how segmentals acquired their

selective‐attention‐readiness that is realized with learning. What is needed in education and

research, then, is a perspective on segmental interdependent interaction that takes into account

both integrative and analytic aspects of human understanding. It is perhaps because of their

nonsegmental nature that human intuition or passion, on the one hand, and human insight, on



the other, have been seen as mysterious and irrational phenomena when viewed through the

one‐way lens of analytic science (Dewey, 1938; Neumann, 1999, 2006).

References

Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a

shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1‐12.

doi:10.1016/S0022‐5371(1078)90485‐90481.

Auble, P. M., Franks, J. J., & Soraci, S. A. (1979). Effort toward comprehension: Elaboration or

'ahap'? Memory & Cognition, 7, 426‐434.

Barrett, L. F., Lindquist, K. A., Bliss‐Moreau, E., Duncan, S., Gendron, M., Mize, J., et al. (2007). Of

mice and men: Natural kinds of emotions in the mammalian brain? A response to

Panksepp and Izard. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 297‐312.

doi:210.1111/j.1745‐6916.2007.00046.x.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Beddor, P., Krakow, R., & Lindemann, S. (2001). Patterns of perceptual compensation and their

phonological consequences. In E. Hume & K. Johnson (Eds.), The role of speech

perception in phonology (pp. 55‐78). San Diego: Academic Press.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of "inert

knowledge". In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills:

Current research and open questions (Vol. 2, pp. 65‐80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Blackburn, W. K. (1983). The perception of non‐segmental patterns in early infancy. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 44(5‐B), 1615.

Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of

educational objectives, Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some

investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal

Behavior, 11, 717‐726. doi:710.1016/S0022‐5371(1072)80006‐80009.

Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple

implications. In A. Iran‐Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education

(Vol. 24, pp. 1‐19). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.



Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4‐

16.

Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 21, 13‐19. doi:10.1016/S0193‐3973(1099)00046‐00045.

Clancey, W. J. (1997). Conceptual coordination: Abstraction without description. International

Journal of Educational Research, 27, 5‐19. doi:10.1016/S0883‐0355(1097)88440‐88446.

Coombes, S. A., Cauraugh, J. H., & Janelle, C. M. (2007). Emotional state and initiating cue alter

central and peripheral motor processes. Emotion, 7, 275‐284. doi:210.1037/1528‐

3542.1037.1032.1275.

Crystal, D. (1973). Non‐segmental phonology in language acquisition: A review of the issues.

Lingua, 32, 31‐45.

D'Odorico, L. (1984). Non‐segmental features in prelinguistic communications: An analysis of

some types of infant cry and non‐cry vocalizations. Journal of Child Language, 11, 17‐27.

D'Odorico, L., Franco, F., & Vidotto, G. (1985). Temporal characteristics in infant cry and non‐cry

vocalizations. Language and Speech, 28, 29‐46.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. New York: H. Holt and Company.

Dowhower, S. L. (1994). Repeated reading revisited: Research into practice. Reading and Writing

Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 343‐358.

Erteschik‐Shir, N. (2006). The architecture of topic and focus. In V. Molnar & S. Winkler (Eds.),

The architecture of focus (pp. 33–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fernald, A. (1985). Four‐month‐old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and

Development, 8, 181‐195. doi:110.1016/S0163‐6383(1085)80005‐80009.

Fernald, A. (1992). Human maternal vocalizations to infants as biologically relevant signals: An

evolutionary perspective. In J. H. Barkow, I. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted

mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 391–428). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Flege, J. E. (1981). The phonological basis of foreign accent: A hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 15,

443‐455.



Frick, R. W. (1985). Communicating emotion: The role of prosodic features. Psychological

Bulletin, 97, 412‐429. doi:410.1037/0033‐2909.1097.1033.1412.

Ghilarov, A. M. (2000). Ecosystem functioning and intrinsic value of biodiversity. Oikos, 90(2),

408‐412.

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson, J. J. (1973). On the concept of 'formless invariants' in visual perception. Leonardo, 6(1),

43‐45.

Goldstein, M. H., & West, M. J. (1999). Consistent responses of human mothers to prelinguistic

infants: The effect of prelinguistic repertoire size. Journal of Comparative Psychology,

113, 52‐58. doi:10.1037/0735‐7036.1113.1031.1052.

Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol‐grounding problem. Physica, 42, 335‐346.

Harnad, S. (1993). Grounding symbols in the analog world with neural nets—A hybrid model.

Think, 2, 12‐78.

Harnad, S. (2001). Grounding symbols in the analog world with neural nets—A hybrid model.

Psycoloquy, 12(34), No Pagination Specified.

Hawkins, S., & Nguyen, N. (2004). Influence of syllable‐coda voicing on the acoustic properties of

syllable‐onset /1/ in English. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 199‐231. doi:110.1016/S0095‐

4470(1003)00031‐00037.

Henton, C. (2002). Challenges and rewards in using parametric or concatenative speech

synthesis. International Journal of Speech Technology, 5, 117‐131.

doi:110.1023/A:1015416013198.

Hsu, H. C., & Fogel, A. (2003). Social regulatory effects of infant nondistress vocalization on

maternal behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39, 976‐991. doi:910.1037/0012‐

1649.1039.1036.1976.

Hubbell, S. P., & Borda‐de‐Água, L. (2004). The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and

biogeography: Reply. Ecology, 85, 3175‐3178.

Iran‐Nejad, A. (1980). The schema: A structural or a functional pattern. (Tech. Rep. No. 159).

Washington, D. C.: National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED182735).



Iran‐Nejad, A. (1987). Cognitive and affective causes of interest and liking. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 79, 120‐130.

Iran‐Nejad, A. (Ed.). (2000). Brain, Knowledge, and Self‐Regulation. (Vol. 21, Special Edition of

the Journal of Mind and Behavior ). New York: Institute of Mind and Behavior.

Iran‐Nejad, A., McKeachie, W. J., & Berliner, D. C. (1990). The multisource nature of learning: An

introduction. Review of Educational Research, 60, 509‐515.

Iran‐Nejad, A., & Ortony, A. (1984). A biofunctional model of distributed mental content, mental

structures, awareness, and attention. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 171‐210.

Iran‐Nejad, A., & Stewart, W. (2010). First‐person education and the biofunctional nature of

knowing, understanding, and affect. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Kinshuk, P. Isaias, D. G. Sampson

& J. M. Spector (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on problem solving and learning in the

digital age (pp. 89‐109). New York: Springer.

Irwin, O. C., & Weiss, A. P. (1930). A note on mass activity in newborn infants. The Pedagogical

Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 38, 20‐30.

Johnson, R. E. (1970). Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of the linguistic

units. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 12‐20. doi:10.1016/S0022‐

5371(1070)80003‐80002.

Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine. New York: Macmillan.

Krakow, R. A. (1993). Nonsegmental influences on velum movement patterns: Syllables,

sentences, stress, and speaking rate. In M. K. Huffman & R. A. Krakow (Eds.), Nasals,

nasalization, and the velum (pp. 87‐113). San Diego: Academic Press.

Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3‐21. doi:10.1037/0022‐0663.1095.1031.1033.

Lehrer, J. (2008, July 28). The eureka hunt. The New Yorker, 40‐45.

Loftus, G. R., Oberg, M. A., & Dillon, A. M. (2004). Linear theory, dimensional theory, and the

face‐inversion effect. Psychological Review, 111, 835‐863. doi:810.1037/0033‐

1295X.1111.1034.1835.

Lyons, J., & Page, R. B. L. (1981). Language and speech [and discussion]. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 295(1077),

215‐222.



Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43‐64.

Mayer, R. E. (1995). The search for insight: Grappling with Gestalt psychology’s unanswered

questions. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 3–32).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (Eds.). (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in

the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models). Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Merleau‐Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory. Amsterdam: North

Holland Publishing Company.

Müller, F. (1997). State‐of‐the‐art in ecosystem theory. Ecological Modeling, 100(1‐3), 135‐161.

Munro, M. J. (1995). Nonsegmental factors in foreign accent: Ratings of filtered speech. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition, 17(1), 17‐34.

Nagasaki, Y., & Komatsu, T. (2004, March). Can people perceive different emotions from a non‐

emotional voice by modifying its F0 and duration? Paper presented at the Speech

Prosody International Conference, Nara, Japan.

Neumann, A. (1999). Professing passion: Views of passionate thought in scholarship. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

Montreal.

Neumann, A. (2006). Professing passion: Emotion in the scholarship of professors at research

universities. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 381‐424.

doi:310.3102/00028312043003381.

Ogden, R., & Local, J. K. (1994). Disentangling autosegments from prosodies: A note on the

misrepresentation of a research tradition in phonology. Journal of Linguistics, 30(2),

477‐498.

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent

developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1‐4.

doi:10.1207/S15326985EP15323801_15326981.

Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions.

New York: Oxford University Press.



Perfetti, C. A., & Zhang, S. (1991). Phonological processes in reading Chinese characters. Journal

of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 633‐643.

doi:610.1037/0278‐7393.1017.1034.1633.

Perkins, D., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 4‐

7.

Perkins, D. N. (1988). Art as understanding. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22(1), 111‐131.

Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 69, 309‐315.

Prawat, R. S. (2000). Keep the solution, broaden the problem: Commentary on "Knowledge, self‐

regulation, and the brain‐mind cycle of reflection". The Journal of Mind and Behavior,

21, 89‐96.

Quek, F., McNeill, D., Bryll, R., Duncan, S., Ma, X. F., Kirbas, C., et al. (2002). Multimodal human

discourse: Gesture and speech. ACM Transactions on Computer‐Human Interaction

(TOCHI), 9, 171‐193. doi:110.1145/568513.568515.

Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational

Psychologist, 31, 115‐121.

Ruch, T. C. (1936). Evidence of the non‐segmental character of spinal reflexes from an analysis of

the cephalad effects of spinal transection American Journal of Physiology, 114, 457‐467.

Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (Eds.). (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in

the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1: Foundations). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative‐quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic

approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10‐18.

Salomon, G. (1995). Reflections on the field of educational psychology by the outgoing journal

editor. Educational Psychologist, 30, 105‐108.

Salomon, G. (2006). The systemic vs. analytic study of complex learning environments. In J. Elen,

R. E. Clark & J. Lowyck (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and

research (pp. 255‐264). Boston: Elsevier.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action: Basic Books.



Schurz, G., & Lambert, K. (1994). Outline of a Theory of Scientific Understanding. Synthese,

101(1), 65‐120.

Schwartz, N. H., Ellsworth, L. S., Graham, L., & Knight, B. (1998). Accessing prior knowledge to

remember text: A comparison of advance organizers and maps. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 23, 65‐89. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0958.

Sharp, A. (2004). Strategies and predilections in reading expository text: The importance of text

patterns. RELC Journal, 35, 329‐349. doi:310.1177/0033688205052145.

Shulman, L. S. (1999). Taking learning seriously. Change, 31(4), 10‐17.

Shulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34(6), 36‐44.

Sperry, R. W. (1988). Psychology's mentalist paradigm and the religion/science tension.

American Psychologist, 43(8), 607‐613.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility,

constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge

acquisition in ill‐structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.),

Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional

design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251‐296. doi:210.1023/A:1022193728205.

Tilman, D. (1999). The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: A search for general

principles. Ecology, 80, 1455‐1474.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.


61 Breslawski

FACTORS INFLUENCING BUSINESS STUDENT MOTIVATION

ON LOW‐STAKES ASSESSMENT EXAMS

Steven T. Breslawski Department of Business Administration and Economics

State University of New York College at Brockport Brockport, NY 14420

[email protected]

ABSTRACT This paper describes survey results pertaining to the motivation of undergraduate business

majors in the context of participation in low‐stakes assessment exams. Assessment‐related

accreditation standards have become more prominent. To maintain accreditation, business

schools need to take the assessment task more seriously. Assessment exams represent an

important component of the assessment protocols of many business programs. However, the

assessment literature has long recognized that lack of motivation, on the part of exam

participants, represents a serious threat to the validity of assessment exam results. The

motivation problem is particularly germane in the context of the low‐stakes exam schemes

employed in many schools. The value of exams, for fostering continuous improvement in

academic programs, is therefore called into question. We present the results of a study designed

to explore the degree to which business majors are actually motivated to make a reasonable

effort to answer questions on low‐stakes business‐program assessment exams. Further, we

investigate factors that contribute to the students’ motivation or the lack thereof. Anonymous,

post‐exam survey responses, collected from 140 business majors that had just completed the

ETS major field exam in business, provide the data for the study. We find that self‐reported

effort expended on the ETS exam exceeds typical values reported in other contexts. While most

students are motivated, it is not necessarily intrinsic and the extrinsic efforts that we make to

motivate the students do improve overall motivation. This study fills a void in the literature

concerning the analysis of motivational effects of specific efforts to enhancing business student

motivation to take low‐stakes assessment exercises seriously.

Keywords: Assessment, motivation, ETS exam, business curricula, AACSB accreditation Introduction Learning outcomes assessment has received renewed attention at many business schools. The

most recent accreditation standards, adopted by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools

of Business International (AACSB), include assessment requirements; these are referred to as

Assurance of Leaning (AoL) standards (AACSB, 2005). These new assessment standards have

added a sense of urgency to the need for business schools, hoping to achieve or renew

accreditation, to take the learning outcomes assessment process more seriously. Pringle and


62 Breslawski

Mitchell (2007) report that 83% of accredited business programs indicate that they are

increasing their assessment efforts as a result of the new standards. The issue is germane to

non‐accredited programs as well, as regional accreditation bodies and other stakeholders

continue to make increased demands related to assessment

While the need to increase focus on assessment efforts may be a new development for many

business programs, the issues and challenges faced in the assessment task are not new. The

evolving assessment efforts of business schools will be subject to the same challenges that have

been discussed for some time in the K‐12 assessment literature. In particular, concerns about

the impact of student motivation, on the validity of assessment results, has long been discussed

in the assessment literature. Business schools will need to address the issue of student

motivation as they develop their assessment protocols and many will find the issue to be

daunting. For example, one Assessment Coordinator laments:

“because we currently lack any means to reflect performance on the assessment

in a student’s grade, it is likely that a significant number of students lack the

motivation to prepare. If we were to hold students more accountable by linking

their performance to a course grade the issue then becomes which course.

Should it be in the capstone course? An important and valid concern for those

teaching a capstone course is that their teacher evaluations may be adversely

affected just by virtue of being the course in which the assessment is

administered. Is that fair?” (Guidice, 2007)

The general concern is that lack of student motivation and effort, when participating in

assessment exercises, will cloud the assessor’s ability to draw meaningful inferences concerning

the degree to which learning objectives have been achieved. For example, poor performance on

an assessment exercise might be due to the participant being of low proficiency, or it could be

due to an examinee, of much higher proficiency, not trying very hard to demonstrate the target

learning outcomes. As discussed within, the issue of motivation is particularly germane in the

context of “low‐stakes” assessment exams, where test performance has little or no real impact

on the test taker.

In meeting the new AACSB AoL standards, business programs must be able to demonstrate

responsiveness to assessment results. In cases where substantial proportions of students are

unable to demonstrate a particular learning outcome, a remedial response should follow.

AACSB refers to this concept as “closing the loop”. The motivational issue raises the question of

whether the “loop is open” because students have not learned the materials or whether it is

open because students are not making good faith efforts when participating in assessment

exercises. As such, understanding the motivation of business students in the assessment context

is important to interpreting assessment results and developing remedial responses.


63 Breslawski

The author’s experience at AACSB sponsored assessment workshops and training symposia

suggests that the issue of student motivation is of concern to business school assessment

practitioners. The “table talk” at these events, especially workshops, will typically include a

comparative discussion of assessment methods and instruments used by each business school,

as well as some discussion of results. Often, the conversation will turn to each school’s

experience with the Educational Testing Service (ETS) Major Field Exam in Business, which is

utilized by 33% of business programs (Pringle and Mitchell, 2007). During these conversations, a

report of high‐level performance on the ETS exam is inevitably followed by someone asking how

the school motivates their students to take the test seriously. Various motivations, such as a

“prize for high score” or “extra credit” might be delineated at this point of the conversation.

However, it is readily apparent that no one really knows the degree to which their students are

motivated or how effective the sundry motivational schemes are. What is clear, from these

conversations, is that 1) practitioners are concerned about motivation, and 2) the contention,

that that motivation is a necessary precedent to high performance, is eagerly assumed.

The conversations characterized above provide much of the motivation for this work. We have

been fortunate in that our students routinely score in the top fifteenth percentile on the ETS

exam, and sometimes in the top 10th percentile, suggesting that our students must be (at least

comparatively) motivated to do well. However, prior to this study, we could not articulate what

policies or actions on our part, if any, actually motivated the students to do well on the exam.

Our goal is to develop a better understanding of the degree to which business majors are

motivated to make a bona fide effort to answer questions on low‐stakes business program

assessment exams. Further, we investigate factors that contribute to the students’ motivation.

This paper is presented in five sections, the first of which has been this introduction. In the next

section, we introduce pertinent terminology and concepts and review relevant literature. Then,

we describe the organizational context and the data collected; followed by a presentation of the

results and a discussion. A summary and concluding remarks comprise the final section.

Vernacular and Literature It is appropriate to define a few terms before continuing. Henceforth, when using the term

“assessment”, we will be referring to learning outcomes assessment, i.e. the determination of

the degree to which students actually learn the knowledge and skills imparted in their degree

program. We contrast learning outcomes assessment with program outcomes assessment,

which attempts to measure broader program such as student retention, alumni satisfaction and

employer perceptions of academic program quality.

In pursuing assessment, measurement of learning may be direct or indirect. Direct measures

require that students actually demonstrate a learning outcome. In contrast, assessment

protocols may rely instead on indirect measures, such as a student testimonial indicating that

the outcome was achieved (e.g., on an exit survey). While program outcomes assessment may


64 Breslawski

be reasonably conducted through the use of alumni and exit surveys, surveys are not direct

measures of learning and can only provide students’ perceptions of the degree to which learning

occurred. The AACSB AoL standards require direct assessment of learning.

Another notion that is central to our discussion is the concept of low stakes testing. Low stakes

testing refers to testing environments where test performance has little or no real impact on the

test taker. Participation in the testing exercise may be optional and, depending on

circumstances, performance generates no reward or punishment to the test taker (Bracey,

1996). Note that the phrase low stakes refers only to the participant’s view of the exam. While

an exam may be low stakes from the perspective of the exam taker, it may be “high stakes”

from the perspective of the educational institution. For example, school funding decisions may

be influenced by student performance on low stakes exams. Significant remedial resources may

be expended based on assessment results.

Low stakes testing situations are typical when downstream testing is employed, i.e. students are

tested some significant time period after learning was supposed to have occurred, perhaps in a

capstone course or at some significant milestone (e.g. the end of the senior year of high school).

The ETS Major Field Exam in Business, which covers topics taught in myriad business courses, is

an example of an assessment instrument that business schools are likely to administer in a

downstream format. Unfortunately, since downstream exams are often embedded in courses

having little to do with the subject matter being assessed, it is difficult to legitimately integrate

performance on the assessment exam into the grading or reward scheme of the course in which

the exam is administered. In fact, when scoring and analysis is done by an external agent (e.g.,

ETS), performance on the exam may be unknown until after the end of the school year or

semester, making it impossible to integrate performance into the course reward structure. The

students’ motivation to expend serious effort on the assessment exercise is, therefore, suspect.

In order to address the motivational issue and minimize the additional resources required for

the assessment task, some authors advocate embedded assessment, i.e., assessment exercises

embedded as normal activities within a course. In theory, if assessment can be embedded

within existing courses, administrative efficiency is gained as it is not necessary to develop (or

procure), administer, evaluate, and analyze separate assessment exercises. Further, if course

grades are influenced by the assessment exercise, student motivation may be improved. Pringle

and Mitchell (2007) suggest that AACSB recommends the use of embedded assessments.

Embedded assessments, however, introduce their own set of limitations and challenges. First, it

is unlikely that the results of locally developed and embedded assessments will be comparable

with assessment results from other schools, making benchmarking comparisons impossible.

Second, in‐class assessments may actually be measuring a student’s short‐term memorization

skills rather than assessing true (retained) learning. Third, in programs where multiple sections

of the same course are taught by different faculty (including part‐time or adjunct faculty),

consistency in the administration, evaluation, and interpretation of embedded assessment


65 Breslawski

exercises becomes an issue. It is always a challenge to devise a valid assessment instrument or

process. However, the challenge of devising embedded assessments, that will be workable

across all sections and multiple instructors, can be substantial given differences in pedagogical

approaches and content emphasis that naturally occur when several faculty are teaching

multiple sections of the same course.

Finally, relying solely on embedded assessment processes can pose significant problems for

schools (such as ours) with large transfer populations, where certain courses, e.g., introductory

accounting and economics courses, are likely to be transferred from a junior college by many

students. While a sampling approach is legitimate for assessment purposes, sample results

should be externally valid and suggest, to stakeholders, that a substantial majority of graduates

of a business program have achieved predefined learning goals. This should be true whether the

student entered as a freshman or as a transfer. For the sake of comparison, between transfer

and native students, some downstream assessment of transfer and native populations is

required. Thus, there are circumstances where downstream assessment is both necessary and

legitimate, with the benefits of embedded assessment notwithstanding.

To summarize the discussion to this point, both embedded and downstream retention protocols

can provide direct assessment measures and thereby satisfy accreditation requirements.

Embedded assessments have advantages with regard to efficiency and motivation. Downstream

assessments are plagued by the motivational issue but offer other advantages as described

above. We believe both have a place in a comprehensive assessment plan.

Our discussion now turns to the issue of motivation. Motivation is a topic that is dealt with

extensively in the literature on human behavior in general and education in particular. There has

been wide disagreement and, consequently many models proposed, concerning the specific

physiological mechanisms and cognitive processes that result in motivation. There is some

agreement, however, on the result of motivation. Much of the motivation research links

motivation to the choices we make (what we choose to do), the effort we expend (how hard we

try to do it), and/or the persistence that we lend to a task (how long we stick with it). These

three motivational outcomes have obvious consequences for student participation in

downstream assessment activities. As discussed in Wise (2005), lack of motivation represents a

key source of construct‐irrelevant variance that will bias the interpretation of an otherwise valid

assessment instrument.

With regard to academic motivation, there is also some agreement that motivation may be

extrinsic (generated from outside) or intrinsic (generated from within). Grades, punishments,

and extra credit are examples of extrinsic motivation in an educational context. Love of learning

and a wish to better one’s self are examples of intrinsic motivation in an education context. It is

often argued that intrinsic motivation, in educational contexts, is preferred as it is more

sustainable. Intrinsic motivation may not be so noble as our previous examples. A particular type

of intrinsic motivation, achievement motivation, might also be labeled as competitiveness.


66 Breslawski

While it is possible for one to simply want to do their best without regard to the performance of

others, achievement motivation would also include wanting to achieve in order to do better

than others, i.e. the thrill of victory. See Ryan and Deci (2000) for a deeper discussion.

Finally, there is also agreement that motivation is not static at the individual level. As people

mature, there intrinsic motivation to accomplish various tasks change, as do their responses to a

particular extrinsic motivation. You may, for example, have noticed that your doctor no longer

offers you a lollipop or cartoon sticker at the end of your visit. Kiplinger and Linn (1995) found

that thirty percent of the eighth‐graders said that they tried "harder" or "much harder" on the

National Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics test than on other math tests, while

only 20% said that they tried "not at all hard." In contrast 45% of twelfth said they tried "not at

all hard." The increase is not surprising, 67% of the twelfth graders rated the test as only

"somewhat important" or "not very important"; intrinsic motivation is clearly lacking among the

seniors. An obvious question is how achievement motivation changes as students enter college

and, as college seniors, participate in exams such as ETS.

A number of research studies have attempted to investigate the link between participant

motivation and assessment exam scores. These studies generally fall into two categories. The

first category includes studies where the mean performance score of a group of participants

(believed to be more motivated) is compared with the mean score of a group that is believed to

be less motivated. A treatment applied to the motivated group (e.g. payment for performance)

is assumed to provide the differential motivation. However, there is no attempt to actually

measure the level of motivation of the participants. Differences in performance, between the

two (otherwise homogeneous) groups, is then attributed to motivational differences induced by

the treatment regiment.

The second category of studies attempts to measure the correlation between some measure of

the motivation of the individual and the individual’s assessment instrument scores. These

studies typically rely on some type of post‐test self‐evaluation survey to measure motivation,

which is then correlated with individual performance. See Wise and Demars (2005) for a good

meta‐analysis of previous studies.

The literature has detailed a number of drawbacks to the second approach. For example, it has

been argued that participants who believe that they did poorly on an assessment exercise, and

are therefore embarrassed by their performance, may report low motivation as an excuse for

their poor performance. Further, in environments where giving less than one’s best effort has a

negative connotation, students may be less than forthcoming in reporting their true level of

motivation. Popham (1993) asserts that a student’s perception of anonymity is pivotal if one

wishes to secure truthful responses on self‐report instruments dealing with sensitive subjects.

While a number of authors have noted the importance of motivation and others have

attempted to measure the relationship between motivation and performance, there is very little


67 Breslawski

prescriptive guidance for assessment coordinators with respect to how to actually motivate

participants in the low stakes context.

To summarize, while the literature on motivation is vast, the literature on the impact of

motivation on low‐stakes assessment results is rather limited; the number of studies is relatively

small and focused on K‐12. The results are mixed concerning whether motivation impacts

performance. There are virtually no studies that provide guidance on how to effectively

motivate individuals in the low stakes context. None of the studies involved undergraduate

business majors.

Context and Motivational Methods At the State University of New York (SUNY) College at Brockport, we implemented our first

assessment plan nearly 20 years ago in response to a SUNY‐wide directive. We have worked

through several generations of evolution in our assessment efforts and, based on own

experiences with assessment, we believe that strong assessment protocols need to incorporate

both embedded and downstream assessments. Assuming that the issue of student motivation

can be addressed, we believe that downstream assessment is an important component of a

robust assessment program in that it provides 1) a more honest metric of retained knowledge

and skills, 2) a method of assessing the retained knowledge of transfer students, and 3) the

opportunity to compare our program with others by employing normative comprehensive tests

such as the ETS Major Field Exam in Business.

In addition to embedded assessments, our current assessment protocols employ downstream,

low stakes assessment exams at two milestones in our business curriculum.

1) Topics in the business foundation curriculum (accounting 1 and 2, Economics 1 and 2,

introductory statistics, and basic math skills) are assessed down‐stream via examination in our

core Principles of Corporate Finance course. The finance course is a convenient place to do the

assessment because it is rarely transferred and it lists the foundation curriculum as a

prerequisite, i.e., we can be certain that students in the finance course have already taken the

courses that are being assessed.

2) The business core curriculum (finance, marketing, organizational behavior, legal

environment, international business, and quantitative methods) is assessed in Strategic

Management, our capstone course.

We assess one foundation topic and one core topic each semester, administering the

corresponding exams on a rotating basis. We administer the ETS Major Field Exam in the

capstone course every fourth semester. Our sampling approach yields a sample of

approximately 150 students for any given exam.


68 Breslawski

With regard to student motivation, we use extrinsic approaches, including both “carrots” and

“sticks” and then try to appeal to the students self‐interest in making the case for what they

should give their best effort on an assessment exam.

1) We have attempted to establish a culture where participation in assessment is expected

and accepted as a regular part of being a student in our programs. For example, the following

text is included in both our college catalog and in the policies section of the application students

complete when applying to our programs. Students must indicate their willingness to abide by

this policy by initialing this section of their application.

The Department administers various assessment instruments throughout the curricula of its programs. Assessment data is used for quality control and program improvement. Assessment activities may take the form of exams, exercises, or surveys. The department expects its students to take their role in assessment very seriously. Program improvement efforts are often based on assessment results. However, assessment results are valid only when students give their best effort and serious participation. As such, students are required, as a condition of enrollment in any of the Department’s courses, to participate in assessment activities and to give their best and honest effort in all assessment exercises administered by the Department. Assessment activities administered in a course are considered a course requirement. This course requirement is no less important than is attendance, homework, or other exams. Students that are absent when assessment exercises are conducted are required to make‐up the exercise. To a degree, we are trying to address both the choice and persistence portion of motivational affect, by establishing assessment activities, and a student’s best effort thereon, as non‐optional. 2) One week prior to the administration of an assessment exam, a letter is distributed to

each student that informs them of when and why the test is being administered. The letter,

which is from the Department Chair and the Assessment Coordinator, makes an appeal as to the

importance of assessment and their serious participation. Students are informed that they will

receive a report of the test results, on letterhead, and that the results will include their raw

score, their percentile rank vs. students at our school as well as their percentile rank vs. students

at other schools that use the ETS exams. In doing so, we are trying to appeal to their

achievement motivation (competitiveness) where it exists.

We also attempt to make the following impressions within this notification letter. That assessment results will be used to improve the quality of their education;

That assessment result will be used to enhance the reputation and value of their degree;

That assessment helps maintain program accreditation;

That their strong performance provides opportunity to distinguish themselves on a

graduate school or job application;

We also remind them that that they agreed to take their role in assessment seriously when they

applied to be a student in the Department’s programs and that continuation in our courses and


69 Breslawski

programs is conditional on their serious participation. The letter indicates that if their exam is

incomplete or their performance makes us suspect that they did not give their best effort, that a

meeting with the student will follow to determine whether the student gave their best effort.

Sanctions, such as repeating the exercise, may be applied.

As far as direct incentives, students are informed that the name of the high scorer(s) will appear

on an awards plaque in the Department office and in various campus publications. A prize

($50.00 Barnes and Nobel® gift certificate) is awarded to the high scorer(s) and randomly to 4

students scoring in the top 25th percentile (We make these random awards in order to motivate

students that do not perceive that they could ever be the high scorer, but do believe that they

could score in the top quartile if they applied themselves).

3) At the beginning of the exam, the proctor reads a statement that reminds students of the motivational constructs outlined in the pre‐exam letter. Students are provided the opportunity to ask any questions concerning the exam and/or their participation. The actions described above represent our efforts to (extrinsically) motivate students to give

their best effort on the exam. We have also used various use extra‐credit schemes as a

motivator for performance on our locally‐developed assessment instruments, but because of

the particulars of how the ETS test is administered and scored, we do not offer that incentive

with the ETS exam. Because our students have consistently been in the top 15% in terms of

average exam score, we believe that our efforts to motivate the students have borne fruit, i.e. if

they were not motivated to do well, we would be unlikely to see comparatively high scores on

the exam. This research is our first attempt to determine which, if any, of the motivational

efforts that we make actually have an impact.

Finally, we take a moment to dispel the obvious alternative hypotheses for our students’ success

on the ETS exam. While the average SAT score of freshmen who enter the College at Brockport

is about 1100, the average SAT score of students in the business program is about 980; they are

average students. Between 50% and 60% have transferred from a two‐year school and many of

these never even took the SAT. It is likely that, where their SAT scores known, they would

reduce our average SAT even further. Another question we are asked is whether we “teach to

the test”. The emphatic answer is no; the vast majority of our faculty have never seen the ETS

test and our curriculum design and course content has never been influenced by items or topics

covered on the exam.

Data Collection A brief, anonymous, post‐exam, survey was used to collect motivation‐related data from 140

undergraduate business majors that had just completed the ETS Major Field Exam in Business.

We chose to use an anonymous survey to promote honest answers per Popham (1993). Clearly,

asking someone to reveal that they gave a superficial effort on a test, that you just told them is

important, is more likely to occur under the veil of anonymity. Students may also be


70 Breslawski

embarrassed to admit that they were motivated by a prize or by competitive instincts.

Unfortunately, anonymity precludes the possibility of directly linking motivation to

performance.

The ETS exam takes approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes to complete. Given the potential

negative impact of testing fatigue on post‐exam survey participation, brevity was a paramount

concern in designing the survey; this also limited the number of demographic control variables

to be included on the survey. Another casualty of brevity is that we chose not to use multiple

items to measure single constructs, which limits the development of formal validity measures.

However, to enhance validity, we did used established scales for the primary measure of

motivation, borrowing from the attitudinal questions used in a study by the New Jersey State

Department of Education, which assessed student motivation for a reading exam.

The survey questions appear in Table 1. The first question is an indicator of effort expended. The

literature suggests that effort expended is a primary result of motivation, regardless of its

source (intrinsic or extrinsic). The second question is intended to provide a measure of intrinsic

motivation. If intrinsic motivation, to perform well on the exam, is low then devising effective

extrinsic motivators becomes more important in pursuing the goal of serious student

participation. In contrast, if intrinsic motivation is high, then perhaps motivational speeches and

prizes are not necessary to achieve meaningful assessment results. The third question is

designed to determine which of the motivational methods and arguments that we employ turn

out to be salient to the student. The exception is the last choice on the list (I like doing better

than other people on exams), which is intended to provide a measure of achievement

motivation. Demographic questions were limited to gender, transfer status, and self‐report GPA.

Our experience (on other, non‐anonymous instruments) is that there is a 0.85‐0.90 correlation

between self‐reported and actual GPA for our students.

Table 1.

Survey Questions

1) I gave my best effort in answering the questions on this exam.

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Disagree

d. Strongly Disagree

2) It is important to me that I performed well on this test.

a. Strongly Agree

b. Agree

c. Disagree

d. Strongly Disagree


71 Breslawski

Table 1. (Cont'd) Survey Questions

3) Did any of the following motivate you to do well on this exam? (check all that apply) The gift certificate prizes Personal pride The opportunity to distinguish myself with a high score on a competitive exam Enhancing the reputation of the school by doing well Enhancing the value of my degree by doing well I want to help the school improve its business curriculum Having my name on an awards plaque and in various publications I didn’t want to get in trouble for not trying I like doing better on exams than other people

Results How motivated are the students? At least on a self‐report basis, the students generally tried hard to do well on the exam; See

Figure 1. We would like to believe that the anonymous nature of the survey and the high

average performance on the exam lends some credibility to the self report measures, i.e., if they

didn’t tray, they would not have scored as well as they did on this test. These responses are in

stark contrast to the findings of Kiplinger and Linn (1995), where 45% of students reportedly

tried “not hard at all”. Obviously, something is motivating these students.

Figure 1. Only 8% report a weak effort on the exam.

Strongly Agree61%

Agree31%

Disagree8%

Strongly Disagree0%

I gave my best effort in answering the questions on this exam.


72 Breslawski

Is the motivation intrinsic or extrinsic?

A comparison of Figures 1 and 2 suggests that while 92% of the students expended a reasonable

effort on the task, only 75% are intrinsically motivated to do so. This indicates that at least some

of our extrinsic motivational policies have an impact on effort. We also note that, by explaining

how the exam is important to the student and the value of their degree, we may have helped to

build intrinsic motivation for taking the test.

Figure 2.

About 75% of Students Said it Was Important to Do Well on the Test.

What specific factors motivate the students?

The third question on the exam provided students with a list of possible motivating factors and

ask them to indicate any and all factors that motivated them to do well on the exam. Results

appear in Figure 3. Two items on the list are internal to the student and, as such, not

controllable by our assessment practices. One of these, personal pride, was the modal motivator

with 60% of students indicating its importance. About half as many students (29%) indicated

that achievement motivation (desire to outscore others) was a motivating factor. The least

salient factors were getting one’s name on an awards plaque (11%) for achieving the high score

and the gift certificates motivated on 15% of the students. It is not clear whether these factors

are simply unimportant to the student or whether they are perceived as unattainable,

unrealistic events whose probabilities are so low as to mitigate any motivational impact.

Strongly Agree17%

Agree59%

Disagree22%

Strongly Disagree2%

It is important to me that I performed well on this test.


73 Breslawski

In somewhat of a surprise to us, a little over a third of the students said that helping the school

improve its curriculum was motivating to them. While we do explain how the exam results

might be used to direct improvements in the curriculum, we were surprised that this issue was

salient to as many students as it was. A little less than a third suggested that the opportunity to

enhance the reputation of the school, and the value of their degree, was a motivating factor.

Finally, it is worth noting that about a quarter of the students wanted to avoid getting in trouble

for not trying their best on the exam, suggesting that there is a place for negative sanctions,

even if only implied.

Figure 3.

Factors Motivating Students to Do Well on the ETS Exam

Are there differences by control variable?

Controls included gender (male/female), transfer status (native student/transfer student) and

self‐reported GPA (0‐4). We could not find any significant effects or differences in the motivating

factors based on these controls. The point‐bisserel correlations between the factors appear in

Table 2.

15%

60%

29%

29%

29%

36%

11%

26%

29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Gift Certificate

Personal Pride

Distinguish Myself

Improve Value of Degree

Improve Reputation of School

Improve Curriculum

Name on Awards Plaque

Avoid Trouble

Outscore Others

Percent of Students Indicating Factor

Source of Motivation


74 Breslawski

The majority of correlations are low to weak. Unsurprisingly, students who are motivated to

improve the value of their degree are also motivated to improve the reputation of their school

and, to a lesser degree, the curriculum of that school. Students with a competitive streak are

more likely to be motivated to improve the school’s reputation.

Table 2.

Correlations between Motivating Factors

Gift Cert

Pride Dist Self

Val Degr

Schl Rep

Imprv Curic

Award Plaque

Avoid Troub

Comp‐etative

Gift Cert 1.00 Pride 0.10 1.00 Dist Self 0.30 0.04 1.00 Val Degr ‐0.05 0.04 ‐0.10 1.00 Schl Rep 0.08 0.11 ‐0.03 0.79 1.00 Imprv Curic 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.30 0.49 1.00 Award Plaque 0.16 0.25 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.05 1.00 Avoid Troub 0.03 0.05 0.12 ‐0.06 ‐0.02 0.10 0.15 1.00 Competative 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.24 0.34 0.10 0.31 0.12 1.00

Summary and Conclusions

In this research, we attempted to gain a better understanding of motivational issues associated

with undergraduate business students taking low‐stakes assessment exams. Based on student

responses to a brief, anonymous, post‐exam survey, we found that while the intrinsic motivation

to perform of these students is markedly better than that reported in other studies, there is still

room to apply extrinsic motivational methods in order to improve the degree to which students

are willing to give their best effort on an assessment exam. With regard to specific methods, we

learned that prizes, recognition, and awards may be useful on the margin but it is probably more

effective to simply and purposefully communicate what assessment is and how it can be used to

1) improve the educational product that the student is paying for, 2) the reputation of the

school, and 3) the value of the student’s degree. Appealing to the students’ competitive nature,

where it exists, may also be useful. Personal pride was the factor cited most frequently by the

students as a motivational force.

References

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International, (2005) Eligibility

Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation.

Bracey, G.W. (1996). Altering Motivation in Testing, Phi Delta Kappan 8(3), 21‐252.

Pringle, C. and Michel, M. (2007) “Assessment practices at AACSB Accredited Business Schools,”

Journal of Business Education, March/April, 202‐211.


75 Breslawski

Popham, James W. (1993) “Appraising two techniques for increasing the honesty of students'

answers to self‐report assessment devices,” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in

Education, Volume 7, Number 1 / June, 1993, 33‐41.

Guidice, Rebecca. (March 2007) “Fall 2006 Semester Assessment Report,”

http://provost.unlv.edu/Assessment/reports_2006/report_spring06_business_manage_

manage_BABS.doc, pg 12.

Kiplinger, V., & Linn, R. (1995). Raising the Stakes of Test Administration: The Impact on Student

Performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational

Assessment, 3(2), 111.

Ryan, Richard M. and Deci, Edward L. (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic

Definitions and New Directions, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54–67.

Wise, Steven L. and Demars, Christine E. (2005) “Low Examinee Effort in Low‐Stakes

Assessment: Problems and Potential Solutions,” Educational Assessment, 10(1) 1‐17.


76 Breslawski


77 Teal et al.

THE BOLOGNA ACCORD: OVERVIEW AND MARKETING IMPLEMENTATION IN ROMANIA

Elisabeth J. Teal Mike Cottrell School of Business

North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597

[email protected]

G. Martin Izzo Mike Cottrell School of Business

North Georgia College & State University Dahlonega, GA 30597

[email protected]

Corneliu Munteanu Universitatea Alexandru Ioan Cuza

Facultatea de Economie si Administrarea Afacerilor Iasi, Romania 700506 [email protected]

Barry E. Langford

The University of Mississippi Tupelo, MS. 38804

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The Bologna Accord was launched a decade ago and established an authority and conceptual

landscape called the European Higher Education Area. In 2010, the European Union Ministers of

Education triumphed by attaining full international and national implementation of the Bologna

Accord, a feat unmatched in the annals of higher education reform. The purpose of this paper is

to provide a brief discussion of the Bologna Accord and to highlight the strategic initiatives

endorsed by the Accord: the European Higher Education Area, the Educational Accumulation

and Transfer Credit System, and the Diploma Supplement. From a global perspective, it is

important that academics at all levels have a clear understanding of the educational changes

prompted by the Bologna Accord. Among the issues discussed are the level of preparation of

the new three‐year bachelor’s degree and the level of achievement relative to obtaining parity

to Anglo‐American curricula. In this paper these Bologna Accord issues are thoroughly examined

and an example of marketing curriculum reforms instituted at a Romanian university is

presented. The results of this study indicate that, at the institutional level as implemented in

Romania, the new three‐year degree initiative falls short of the goal of achieving parity with

Anglo‐American curriculum levels, and appears geared more toward preparing graduates for

vocational rather than managerial positions. However, since many universities have struggled at

the institutional level to incorporate Bologna Accord reforms in highly diverse educational


78 Teal et al.

settings, Romania is representative and not unique in these outcomes. Finally, we present

recommendations for future research.

Keywords: Bologna Accord, European Higher Education Area, Romania, marketing curricula,

three‐cycle degree program

Introduction

Worldwide, university classrooms are becoming more internationalized as students travel the

globe to secure advanced degrees. As this occurs, it is important for university professionals to

develop an awareness of international educational standards. For example, Europe’s higher

education sector is currently undergoing substantial change with the creation of a conceptual

landscape called the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) slated to be fully operational by

2010 (King and Verblik’, 2007). Other global trends include more English language course

offerings at universities in non‐Anglophone countries, increased recruitment efforts for

international students, the massification of higher education and cost‐sharing proposals

involving student and public funds in many countries ( Tillman, 2010; Newby, 1999; Scott, 1998;

Koch, 1997). This paper seeks to provide support for the trend toward globalization within

higher education by increasing awareness for university professionals of international

educational standards.

Globalization has been a marked trend in the past thirty years. Governments, businesses,

educational providers, and non‐profit organizations now view the entire world as a source of

their inputs, best processes, and for distributing outputs to others. Educational providers have

also experienced opportunities and challenges as a result of globalization. Some, like Jan Figel,

European Commissioner for Education and Training, saw the Bologna Accord as an essential

response in Europe to the opportunities of globalization in education (European Commission,

2009). These opportunities are not without challenges, however. Some of the most pressing

challenges to international education include differences in language, the cost and availability of

funding for the learning experience, the availability of visas for students, and the ability to

award educational credit toward recognized degree programs. Many educators would agree

that a classroom consisting of students of different nationalities, cultures, and perspectives

provides a fertile environment for learning (Newby, 1999). This is facilitated through a student’s

personal learning as well as his or her contribution to the learning of the entire class through the

sharing of their personal experiences. Taken a step further, when students go to another

country to study, in addition to the classroom learning that takes place, an appreciation for

different nationalities, cultures, and perspectives may ultimately promote greater

understanding between nations as these students move to the forefront of their careers in

politics, business, education and non‐profit organizations.

Members of both the European and non‐European academic community are routinely called

upon evaluate transcripts from European college students seeking to complete their


79 Teal et al.

undergraduate degrees or apply to graduate programs abroad. These requests may come from

and be received by universities within the EU, between universities in the EU and the U.S., or

between universities in the EU and other countries. Problems were encountered, however, as

transcripts from European students who completed coursework internationally were not always

easily readable, a transparency issue, and the courses lacked a specificity that made comparable

determinations difficult, an issue of transferability (Lillie, 2003). Moreover, many education

providers felt that European degrees were becoming less competitive than those earned in

North America, Asia, and Australia (Field, 2003).

The Bologna Accord, also referred to as the Bologna Declaration, Agreement or Process, was

launched June 19, 1999 when 29 (currently 46) European Ministers of Education (ME’s), each

representing their European Union state, agreed to work toward a general overall framework

for European higher education and deal with the issues of transparency, transferability, and

competitiveness. An integral part of the Bologna Accord was “increasing the international

competitiveness of the European system of higher education” and “ensuring that the European

higher education system acquires a world‐wide degree of attraction by 2010” (Grange, 2007,

p.32). To meet these challenges, the ME’s established three Bologna Accord priorities: (1)

introduction of the three‐cycle system of bachelor, master, and doctorate programs, (2)

recognition of qualifications and periods of study, and (3) assurance of quality programs. The

components of the established priorities were to be fully implemented by 2007, with the goal of

a globally recognized system by 2010.

Therefore, from a global perspective, it is important that academics have a clear understanding

of the educational changes and initiatives of the Bologna Accord. The present study discusses

the basics of the origin and adoption of the Bologna Accord designed to create a more

compatible, comparable and coherent education system across the European Higher Education

Area. The paper also discusses the current progress relative to implementing the Bologna

Accord higher education initiatives. The final section provides a current example of how the

Bologna Accord has been implemented in the marketing curricula of a Romanian university, and

compares it to the marketing curricula at two typical American universities. Recommendations

for future research are offered. It is incumbent for researchers to investigate and present

findings related to programs and changes to international higher education, which is a goal of

this paper.

The Bologna Accord

The University of Bologna, with over 850 years of history, is widely regarded as the world’s

oldest continuously degree granting institution. In 1158 Federico I, King of Italy and Holy Roman

Emperor, promulgated the Constitutio Habita, in which the University was legally declared a

place where research could develop independently from any other power (Zamagni & Zamagni,

2010). It was symbolically appropriate, then, for the ministers of education representing the 29


80 Teal et al.

countries of the European Union (EU) in 1999 to call a meeting to discuss wide‐sweeping

education reforms at the University of Bologna.

Based on extant research, it was argued that reforms needed in 1999 are still needed if Europe’s

higher education institutions (HEI’s) are to match the performance of the best performing

systems in the world, notably those of North America and Asia (Burnett, 2007; European

Commission, 2003; Field, 2003; Jacobs and van der Ploeg, 2006; Zervakis & Wahlers, 2007).

Subsequently, the EU ministers of education (ME’s) put in motion a series of structural reforms

that were deemed necessary to make European higher education institutions more compatible

and comparable, more competitive and more attractive for Europeans as well as for students

and scholars from other continents.

The meeting culminated with the signing of the Bologna Accord, the purpose of which was to

provide an overall framework for higher education throughout the European Union to facilitate

the EU educational process and to elevate the status of their degrees in comparison with North

American, Asian, and Australian universities. The Accord represents the culmination of a 42‐year

series of multinational agreements designed to foster the mobility of higher education students

throughout Europe and beyond (Jacobs and van der Ploeg, 2006; Zervakis & Wahlers, 2007).

The Accord was adopted in 1999 with the goal of being fully operational throughout the EU by

2010. The three priorities established by the Bologna Accord were (1) introduction of the three‐

cycle system of bachelor, master, and doctorate programs, (2) recognition of qualifications and

periods of study, and (3) assurance of quality programs. The first priority, the introduction of the

three‐cycle system, was accomplished directly through the Bologna Accord. To oversee the

priorities of the Bologna Accord, the European Higher Education Area was created.

European Higher Education Area (EHEA)

In early 2000, ME’s of the European Commission set forth a broad framework called the

European Higher Education Area (EHEA) to launch the Bologna Accord priorities (Grange, 2007).

The ME’s envisioned the EHEA as an open space that would allow students, graduates, and

higher education staff to benefit from unhampered mobility and equitable access to top‐quality

higher education across countries and economic borders (Zervakis & Wahlers, 2007). The

framework of the EHEA consists of three Bologna Accord priorities: (1) transferability, the

mutual recognition of degrees and other higher education qualifications; (2) transparency,

meaning readable and comparable degrees; and (3) quality assurance promoted through

cooperation among international and European associations of higher learning organized

around the Bologna three‐cycle structure. Although not prescriptive, the EHEA seeks to take the

priorities of the Bologna Accord at the international level and provide a general structure for

implementation at the national and university levels (European Commission, 2003).


81 Teal et al.

The New Three‐Cycle System of European Higher Education Prior to the Bologna Accord, the degree progression at many European universities followed the

pattern of a four‐year Bachelor’s degree, followed by a one‐year Master’s degree, which might

be followed by a one‐to‐two year further preparation before beginning the Ph.D., which

generally consisted of a four year program. This pattern was generally similar to those

implemented by universities in the United Kingdom, North America, Asia, and Australia.

The new three‐cycle system (see Exhibit 1) of higher education established by the Bologna

Accord called for a new three‐year Bachelor’s degree, followed by preparatory study for the new

two‐year Master’s degree, which may be followed by a Ph.D. which typically is a three or more

year program.

Exhibit 1. Curriculum degree plan at CUZA University

a) pre-BOLOGNA b) post-BOLOGNA

Bachelor

other

Master PhD

1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4

1 2

Bachelor

other

Master PhD

1 2 3 1 2 31 2

As an education reform movement, the Bologna Accord is over ten years old, and yet most

people outside of Europe are not familiar with the Accord, or aware that the new structure of

European degrees is based on this 3‐cycle model. Further, at the curriculum level, knowledge of

specific reform initiatives is less well known. In the next section of this paper these topics are

addressed in some detail.

Education Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) The first initiative of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), the Education Credit Transfer

and Accumulation System (ECTS), is aimed at transferability of coursework and degrees. It

addresses the second priority of the Bologna Accord, which is recognition of qualifications and

periods of study, and the first principle of the European Higher Education Area, which is mutual

recognition of degrees and other higher education qualifications.

The ECTS was first introduced in 1989 as the framework of the Socrates educational exchange

programs for students, teachers and other users of the educational system, and in particular the

European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS) (Field,

2003). In short, ERASMUS created a mobile exchange program to facilitate credit transfer for


82 Teal et al.

tertiary college students to study abroad at schools in one of 31 member nations,

predominantly in the European Union (Field, 2003). As adopted under the EHEA in 2000, the

Education Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) is the basis on which student

workloads required to achieve the objectives of an educational program are determined

(European Commission, 2003). Thus, ECTS spells out the workload requirements in terms of

study hours and earned credits of the programs specified under the terms of the Bologna Accord

3‐cycle degree system, based on learning outcomes and competences to be acquired. ECTS was

designed to facilitate the transfer of education credits, and it is the only credit system which has

been successfully tested and used across Europe. When implemented, the system facilitates the

recognition of specified periods and courses of study, and thus enhances the quality and volume

of student mobility at the institution, national and European levels (Bekhradnia, 2004). The basic

framework of the ECTS fits into the 3‐cycle degree format of the Bologna Accord. The cycles are

defined in terms of accumulated ECTS credits so that the first cycle requires approximately three

to four years with typically 180‐240 ECTS credits and results in the award of the Bachelor’s

degree. The second cycles requires one to two years with roughly 90‐120 ECTS credits (minimum

60 at the second level) and accomplishes a Master’s degree. The third cycle requires at least

three years and results in the award of a Doctoral degree, although the number of ECTS credits

is not specified.

Since its inception, first as an ERASMUS provision and then enhanced under EHEA, the ECTS

system has successfully removed obstacles to the universal recognition of degrees between

countries and has satisfied one of the key objectives of the Bologna Accord: transferability. For

further details and information, please refer to Appendix A.

Diploma Supplement (DS) While the Educational Credit and Accumulation Transfer System (ECTS) helped in achieving

greater transferability, the ministers of education decided to implement another initiative aimed

at the Bologna Accord goal of increasing transparency (European Commission, 2002).

Educational qualifications have evolved on a worldwide scale under the impact of rapid

economic, political/regulatory and technological changes. Additionally, as a broader spectrum of

society becomes mobile, their members seek fair recognition and evaluation of their higher

education credentials and qualifications. Original diploma credentials and transcripts may not

provide sufficient information, making it very difficult to gauge the level and qualifications of a

diploma holder without appropriately detailed explanations. Initially a provision under United

Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Diploma Supplement was

revised and adopted at the 2002 Bologna Accord progress meeting in Brussels by members of

the European Commission and the Council of Europe. While the introduction of the Diploma

Supplement was first discussed in 2002, it was linked to the successful implementation of ECTS

and instituted in 2005 (European Commission, 2005).


83 Teal et al.

The Diploma Supplement (DS) is used to evaluate qualifications and provide clarification only in

connection with a higher education diploma. It is designed to provide a more complete

description of the nature, level, context, content and status of studies that were successfully

completed outside the regular curriculum by the student named in the original qualification

(European Commission, 2005). The DS accomplishes one of the key objectives of the Bologna

Accord, transparency, as it improves openness and facilitates the academic and professional

recognition of diplomas, degrees, and certificates earned across countries in an internationally

understandable form.

For students, the Diploma Supplement component of the EHEA results in a precise description of

their academic career and an objective description of their achievements and competencies.

The DS can efficiently help explain the variations in grading practices that exist between HEI’s of

different countries. For example, a grade equivalent of 70% may be regarded high in some

academic cultures or disciplines, but in others may be regarded as average or low. Thus,

information on the use and distribution of grades relating to the qualification in question are

required to be included.

Under the Accord guidelines established by European Higher Education Area (EHEA), the DS

should be free from any value‐judgments, equivalency statements or suggestions about

recognition (European Commission, 2002) and it should be capable of interpretation and

adaptation to local industry needs. The DS is comprised of a standard eight section template

(please see Appendix B) developed by ME’s of the Joint Council of Europe, comprised of 46

member states (Grange, 2007). Thus, the DS provides a diploma that is more readable and easily

comparable abroad which may provide greater access to international work and/or further

study.

When students have more and better employment and study opportunities, the granting

institution of higher education also benefits. Other benefits of the Diploma Supplement to the

institution include facilitation of academic and professional recognition, which increases

transparency and protection of institutional autonomy while working within a common

framework used by institutions all over Europe. Use of the DS promotes informed judgments

about qualifications and raises the visibility of the institution abroad and may also allow time

savings by providing answers to recurrent questions about the content and portability of

diplomas.

Current Status of Bologna Accord To facilitate implementation of the Bologna Accord beyond the scope of the EHEA, a system of

biennial Ministerial Conferences was sanctioned. These conferences are attended by all

Ministers of Education of EU countries for the purpose of considering progress toward BA goals

and to establish guidelines and priorities for the upcoming period. Following Bologna, biennial


84 Teal et al.

Ministerial Conferences were held in Prague 2001, Berlin 2003, Bergen 2005, London 2007, and

Leuven/Louvain‐la‐Neuve 2009 (European Commission, 2010).

By the 2007 London meeting, education ministers from 46 countries had embraced the Bologna

Accord (Hunter, 2010). However, the adoption rate of the ECTS and DS initiatives by member

countries has varied. While the ECTS had been almost universally adopted by 2006, only 35 of

the 46 members had introduced legislation or established ministerial orders ‘requiring’ the

Diploma Supplement (Grange, 2007). Of this group 75% issued the DS automatically, with the

rest only upon student request. This difference may be partially explained in that ECTS was

already in practice on a large scale because of the widespread affiliation with the ERASMUS

program, and required little or no policy changes to be implemented. Together, the Bologna

Accord 3‐Cycle Degree program, the ECTS, and the DS represent the three major structural

changes in higher education in Europe. A progress report by the Ministers at the London

conference stated that structural change must be matched with proper redevelopment of the

curricula, and often this has not been completed (European Commission, 2007).

A 2006 report by the European Universities Association states that, “over half of European

universities have reviewed their curricula entirely, using the Bologna reforms to implement

more student‐focused approaches” (Zervakis & Wahlers, 2007, p. 34). Reality at the institutional

level, albeit the area where the greatest amount discretion lies, is much “messier” than the

official government reports and declarations, (Hunter, 2010). For example, confusion exists

regarding the objectives of the first cycle of the Bologna 3‐cycle degree program. Many schools

mistakenly regard the first cycle (Bachelor) as a compressed version of former long‐cycle

programs while others have shortened programs by extending senior‐level courses to the

Master’s degree (Marga, 2008). In most cases, administrators have alleged that there has not

been adequate time for institutions and academics to address reforms in a comprehensive way

and to benefit from the opportunities offered through restructuring the curricula (Tillman, 2010;

Zervakis & Wahlers, 2007). In the next section, discussion examines the implementation of the

Bologna Accord in the Marketing curriculum at a Romanian university.

Marketing Implementation in Romania Romania entered the European Union in 2007 and is an independently recognized republic

located in southern Europe with a population of 21.5 million people. The capital city is Bucharest

and the currency is the Romanian lei. While Romania was not member at the BA signing in 1999,

various agreements established in preparation for EU membership were in place that served to

align Romanian higher education with the purposes of the Bologna Accord (Marga, 2008).

Alexandru Ioan Cuza University (UAIC) is located in Iasi, Romania in the province of Moldavia

about 300 miles north of Bucharest. Iasi is a major city with a population of about 400,000, and

UAIC has an enrollment of approximately 37,000 students. Business and economics studies are

carried out in the school of Facultatea de Economie si Administrarea Afacerilor (FEAA) which has


85 Teal et al.

a full‐time enrollment of approximately 9,000 students and includes about 1,300 marketing

majors. UAIC adopted the Bologna Accord reforms at the institutional level in 2004 for the 2005‐

06 academic year and met an institutional goal by having curricula revisions in place when the

first post‐Bologna three‐year cycle students graduated in 2008, just over one year after

Romania’s membership in the EU.

At UAIC, the Education Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) is presently

administered as an academic contract referred to as a Learning Agreement (LA) where courses

that will be studied abroad are specified. The Learning Agreement typically includes a European

full 30 credit load for the semester spent abroad and involves agreement between the UAIC

faculty and the student to assure a maximum fit between the courses offered by the higher

education institute in the host country and those offered at UAIC. Upon returning to UAIC the

student presents a certificate of ECTS course completion and a UAIC faculty committee

evaluates the work in terms of content equivalency and awards appropriate grades. To manage

the ECTS process there are provisions for students who do not complete 30 full credit hours for

the semester to take additional courses to make up the deficit, and also to forfeit scholarship for

the shortfall.

The Diploma Supplement (DS) is used to award credit for courses taken that are outside

UAIC/FEAA catalog guidelines. The DS may also be used to award credit to students from abroad

who study at UAIC and, additionally for courses taken from instructors from abroad teaching in‐

residence at UAIC.

With respect to the priorities of the Bologna Accord, it appears that UAIC has achieved several

primary goals. First, UAIC has implemented a 3‐cycle degree program with a 3 year Bachelor’s

degree. Second, UAIC appears to be on the path to greater transparency and transferability

having adopted ECTS and DS as intended by the Bologna Accord. What remains and the subject

of the next section is discussion of student preparation of the new three‐year bachelor’s degree,

determining if the degree of achievement relative to obtaining parity to Anglo‐American

curriculum levels has been attained.

Student Preparation under the New Three‐Year Bachelor Degree in Marketing Exhibit 2 shows the degree requirements pre‐ and post‐Bologna for graduation with a bachelor’s

degree with a concentration in Marketing at UAIC. Faced with the task of changing a four ‐year

degree curriculum to a three‐year degree, faculty of FEAA had two methods to consider. The

first method would involve shortening the curriculum by paring down the number of courses.

This could be accomplished in a variety of ways, such as combining the content for two similar

courses into one and/or eliminating courses that were deemed non‐critical to the achievement

of the degree. The second method would be to change the focus of the three‐year degree by

reserving some upper division, capstone and seminar‐type courses for study at the Master’s

level.


86 Teal et al.

The faculty at FEAA used a mixture of both methods with varied outcomes. However, prior to

discussing these outcomes, it is of interest to note that although the Bologna Accord mandated

shrinkage from a four to a three year degree program, UAIC chose to increase required foreign

language credits from 24 to 30, with apparently little difference in course content and hours of

study. This seems like a move in the wrong direction since these language credits could have

been used to add more analytical courses to the curriculum or to preserve courses such as

Marketing Management that were dropped.

In a positive move, the Faculty at FEAA chose to combine Principles of Law with Business Law

and retain the latter in the new three‐year program. However, all marketing and business

electives were eliminated. Instead, two popular electives, Merchandising and E‐Marketing, were

made required courses. Further, at the time the Bologna Accord was adopted at UAIC, the

curriculum was already in the process of revision to remove courses with a managerial

perspective. As such, the following courses were dropped from the Marketing degree program:

Total Quality Management, Business Diagnosis, and Project Management.

Some courses were re‐named and/or repositioned. For example, Negotiation Techniques

became Selling Techniques, a course more focused on personal selling skills. In a similar vein,

Distribution and Logistics became Marketing Logistics. A single, seemingly adequate course

titled Advertising and Promotions became two courses, Promotion Techniques and Advertising

Design. The content of the latter course was tailored toward teaching students how to develop

graphics and visuals. The rationale explained for this one‐to‐two course change was to give

students a more hands‐on approach to developing communications pieces, brochures, and

flyers, and graphic design applications including printing, layout and design. However, these

manual skills development curriculum changes combined with the addition of Merchandising

and E‐marketing classes, signal to the employment marketplace that the new three‐year

bachelor’s degree prepares students to enter positions of a more vocational nature than those

with a more managerial emphasis. This is decidedly a major departure from the type of

curriculum development in U.S. universities that promotes managerial approaches with more of

an analytical emphasis.

The most dramatic changes involve other upper‐division and capstone marketing courses. For

example, eliminated from the three‐year bachelor’s degree and moved to the master’s level of

study are Sales Force Management, Services Marketing, Public Relations, Marketing

Management, and Senior Seminar in Marketing. While it could be argued that the first three

courses could be properly listed as upper‐division Marketing electives and thus could be

eliminated from the three‐year program, eliminating the latter two, Marketing Management

and Senior Seminar in Marketing, seems to promote a vocational rather than a managerial

perspective.


87 Teal et al.

Business Information SystemsBusiness Calculus & AlgebraMicroeconomicsPrinciples of AccountingForeign Lang. 1st (Engl./Fr.)

Business Information SystemsBusiness Calculus & AlgebraMicroeconomicsPrinciples of AccountingForeign Language 1st (Engl./Fr.)Business Law >>a

MacroeconomicsBusiness SoftwarePrinciples of StatisticsForeign Lang. 1st (Engl./Fr.)Principles of Law >>aBusiness Elective ><

MacroeconomicsBusiness SoftwarePrinciples of StatisticsForeign Language 1st (Engl./Fr.)Financial AccountingINTERNSHIP

Principles of FinancePrinciples of ManagementFinancial AccountingBusiness Law >>aForeign Lang. 1st (Engl./Fr.)

Principles of FinancePrinciples of ManagementEconometricsForeign Language 1st (Engl./Fr.)Business Communications >>bMerchandising >>f

Principles of MarketingMoney and Banking

EconometricsForeign Lang. 1st (Engl./Fr.)

Business Elective >>bBusiness Elective ><INTERNSHIP

Principles of MarketingMoney and BankingForeign Language 1st (Engl./Fr.)Consumer BehaviorPromotion Techniques >>cINTERNSHIP

Marketing ResearchConsumer BehaviorServices Marketing -->Advertising & Promotions >>cForeign Lang. 2nd (It/Sp/Grm)Business Elective ><

Marketing ResearchAdvertising Design ++Selling Techniques >>eDirect MarketingForeign Language 2nd (It/Sp)Purchasing

Sales Force Management -->Direct MarketingDistribution and Logistics >>dMarketing Management -->Foreign Lang. 2nd (It/Sp/Grm)Business Elective ><INTERNSHIP

International MarketingMarketing Logistics >>dE-Marketing ++Int’l Trade Techniques ++Foreign Language 2nd (It/Sp)Financial Management ++THESIS

PurchasingPublic Relations -->International MarketingTotal Quality Management ><Foreign Lang. 2nd (It/Sp/Grm)Senior Seminar in Mktg -->Business Elective ><

THESIS

Business Diagnosis ><Project Management -->Negotiation Techniques >>eSenior Seminar in Mktg -->Marketing Elective >>fMarketing Elective ><Business Elective ><

3+2 7

3+2 72+2 6

1+1 3

2+2 6

2+2 6

1+1 33+2 7

2+0 42+0 4

3+2 7

3+2 6

2+2 43+2 6

1+1 3

2+2 6

2+2 6

2+2 61+1 3

2+0 62+0 6 2

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

2+2 6

2+2 5

2+2 52+1 5

1+1 52+0 5

2+2 5

2+1 5

0+2 52+1 5

2+1 32+1 32+0 3

2+2 5

2+1 52+1 5

0+2 30+2 52+0 3

2+1 5

2+1 5

2+2 5

2+2 52+2 5

1+1 42+0 4 2

2+1 5

2+2 5

2+1 52+1 5

1+2 52+1 5

2+2 5

2+1 5

2+1 52+2 5

1+2 52+1 5

2+2 5

2+2 5

2+2 52+2 5

1+1 52+0 5

2+2 5

2+2 5

1+1 52+2 5

2+2 5 5

2+2 5

2+2 5

2+2 51+1 5

2+2 5 5

2+2 5

2+2 5

1+1 52+2 5

2+2 52+2 5

2+2 5

CURRICULUM for Marketing programs at CUZA UniversityExhibit 2.

4-YEAR PROGRAM 3-YEAR PROGRAM

cred

its

cd

/yr

rts

cd

/yr

rts.

cred

its

hrs/w

eek*

hrs/w

eek*

1-st

sem

este

r2-

nd

sem

este

r3-

rd s

emes

ter

4-th

sem

este

r5-

th s

emes

ter

6-th

sem

este

r7-

th s

emes

ter

8-th

sem

este

r

*) “Hours/week” column indicates the number of weekly hours each course is taught in two components : LECTURE and SEMINAR. For example, ”2+1” indicates that a course is taught with 2 lecture hours and 1 seminar hour.

><) Courses that have been completely removed from Marketing Bachelor program.

>>) Courses that have been transferred into the 3-year program, with a different name. Correspondence is indicated by letters.

++) Courses that are new into the 3-year program.

-->) Courses that have been transferred into the post-Bologna Master in Marketing programs.


88 Teal et al.

Elimination of these courses serves to diminish the capstone experience of earning a bachelor’s

degree in Marketing. While these curriculum changes advocate preparation, and are fitting

within the scope of the Bologna Accord, they represent a fundamental departure from the

emphasis of most Anglo‐American programs that have a managerial emphasis.

Achieving parity with Anglo‐American institutions of higher education One of the main thrusts under the Bologna Accord was to enable higher education institutions

(HEI’s) under the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) to move closer to obtaining parity

with HEI’s particularly in U.S. (King and Verblik, 2007). The third priority within the EHEA

framework calls for quality assurance promoted through cooperation among international and

European associations of higher learning. Some education providers see this as a continuing

trend toward the “Americanization” of European HEI’s as few reforms are imported by U.S. HEI’s

(Lillie, 2007; Tillman, 2010). The next section of this paper compares the curricula of two state

universities in the U.S. with the new three year curriculum set by UAIC.

The authors chose two public universities for which they had ready access to the curriculum

data necessary to make comparisons. North Georgia College & State University (NGCSU) is

located in Dahlonega, GA and is a small regional university that is a part of the University System

of Georgia. NGCSU has a student population of 5,030 which includes 920 business majors

studying in the Mike Cottrell School of Business, of which 180 students are majoring in

marketing. Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU), a medium sized university and member of the

State University System of Florida, is located in Fort Myers, FL. It has 8,400 students which

includes 3,480 studying in the Lutgert School of Business with about 600 marketing majors.

Please see Exhibit 3 for the comparison of Marketing curricula for bachelor’s degrees at NGCSU

and FGCU.

A comparison of Exhibits 2 and 3 is revealing. There is a notable difference between the two

through the absence of any liberal arts requirements for UAIC students. Recognizable is the

similarity of the curricula in terms of content and course coverage at NGCSU and FGCU. At

NGCSU, the Marketing program consists of the six courses shown in Exhibit 3, and one

additional course ─ Marketing Special Topics or a related elective. At FGCU, in addition to the

courses listed, there are additional marketing electives (e.g., Services Marketing, Creative

Strategy, Promotional Writing and Design, and Sales Management) that allow students to

customize their degrees. Both NGCSU and FGCU programs have essentially the same content

and course coverage for the business core, quantitative applications, required Marketing

courses, and electives. Additionally, NGCSU and FGCU both have Business Strategy and

Marketing Management capstone courses, a notable difference between these U.S. universities

and the new three‐year Marketing program at UAIC.


89 Teal et al.

English Composition 1AlgebraPsycholog 1001yNatural Science LabForeign Language ElectivePsysical Education

English Composition 1Elementary CalculusVisual and Performing ArtsNatural Sciences ElectiveHumanities Elective

English Composition 2Computer UserNatural Science LabSocial Sciences ElectiveForeign Language

English Composition 2Computer UserStatistical MethodsSocial Sciences ElectiveNatural Sciences Elective

Principles of AccountingMicroeconomicsHumanities ElectiveSocial Sciences ElectiveHumanities Elective

Principles of AccountingMicroeconomicsHumanities ElectiveSocial Sciences ElectiveHumanities Elective

Financial AccountingMacroeconomics

Applied CalculusBusiness Communications

Social Sciences Elective

Financial AccountingMacroeconomicsPublic SpeakingApplied CalculusSocial Sciences Elective

Principles of MarketingPrinciples of ManagementPrinciples of FinanceBus. Statistics/ Prod. Mgmt.Social Sciences Elective

Principles of MarketingPrinciples of ManagementPrinciples of FinanceEnvironmental StrategySocial Sciences Elective

Consumer BehaviorRetailingOperations ManagementBusiness LawMoney and Banking

Consumer BehaviorBusiness CommunicationsOperations ManagementLegal and Ethical EnvironmentBusiness Finance

AdvertisingPersonal SellingMarketing ResearchStatisticsBusiness Elective

Marketing ManagementBusiness StrategyInternational MarketingBusiness ElectiveMarketing Elective

AdvertisingPersonal SellingMarketing ResearchStatisticsMktg./Sociology Elective

Marketing ManagementBusiness StrategyInternational BusinessGeneral ElectiveGeneral Elective

3 3

4 41 1

3 33 3

3 3

3 3

3 34 4

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 33 3

3 3

3 3

33

30

30

30 30

30

30

30

3 3

3 33 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 33 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 33 3

3 3

3 3

3 33 33 3

3 33 3

3 33 33 3

3 33 3

3 33 33 3

3 33 3

3 33 33 3

3 33 3

3 33 33 3

3 33 3

3 33 33 3

3 33 3

3 33 33 3

3 33 3

3 33 33 3

3 33 3

3 33 33 3

3 33 3

3 3

3 33 3

3 3

3 3

CURRICULUM for Marketing programs at NGCSU and FGCUExhibit 3.

NGCSU PROGRAM

cred

its

cd

/yr

rts

cd

/yr

rts.

cred

its

hrs/w

eek

hrs/w

eek

1-st

sem

este

r2-

nd

sem

este

r3-

rd s

emes

ter

4-th

sem

este

r5-

th s

emes

ter

6-th

sem

este

r7-

th s

emes

ter

8-th

sem

este

r

FGCU PROGRAM


90 Teal et al.

Closer scrutiny in this area reveals that, in the absence of a liberal arts requirement, the

business and economics faculty of UAIC could have assembled a three‐year Marketing

curriculum that would have much more closely replicated that of NGCSU or FGCU. The

modifications could have been implemented in compliance with the Bologna Accord three‐year

degree, without sacrificing upper‐division and capstone Marketing and Business Strategy

courses. Achieving comparability and parity with Anglo‐American curricula is a goal of the

Bologna Accord. Based on the curricula comparisons observed between Exhibits 2 and 3, it

appears that the curriculum changes currently instituted for marketing majors at UAIC with the

object of achieving parity with Anglo‐American HEI’s may fall short of that goal.

On the face, the new three‐year degree curriculum at UAIC seems more targeted for vocational

rather than managerial entry level positions. Analyzing the curriculum changes at one university

in Romania in response to the Bologna Accord is an indicator of one country’s efforts to achieve

higher education reform. While the reforms do not seem to achieve all of the intended goals,

the curriculum changes as reported may, in fact, be suitable for meeting the demand for

business graduates in the Romanian employer marketplace. Ultimately it is this group that will

decide whether these graduates are sufficiently prepared for the workplace.

Discussion The Bologna Accord has ushered in sweeping educational reforms that have given European

higher education a new identity, one that may not be completely formed for some time to

come. At the international and national levels, progress can be measured in the success that

almost all members have adopted and use the ECTS and DS. These measures helped restructure

and organize what were historically diverse education systems ─ enhancing the transparency

and transferability, boosting mobility and global acceptance. At the institutional level, some

universities, UAIC a case in point, still struggle with the concept of competitiveness, an idea that

remains in opposition with many academics and practitioners. However, based on the ten‐year

success of the Bologna Accord, a new wind may be blowing across campuses internationally as

15 countries outside the EHEA, including the U.S., attended the 2009 biennial meeting of the

European Commission Ministers of Education to initiate a global dialogue on higher education

(European Commission, 2009; Hunter, 2010). The Bologna Accord brought wide‐sweeping

changes to the educational landscape in the EU, and it is incumbent that universities outside

the EU understand the impact of the changes. These major changes are influential to the

qualifications of EU higher education applicants for employment and/or admission to study

programs abroad.

Limitations of this Study The Bologna Accord with 29 member signing nations in 1999 launched a series of higher

education initiatives that have been in a state of development since European Higher Education

Area’s inception. The EHEA has grown to 46 nations representing over 31 million students at


91 Teal et al.

5600 colleges and universities, and is on target to achieve full Bologna Accord implementation

by the end of 2010. New member countries, including Romania, have joined the EU and thus

come under the guidance of the EHEA. As a result, this is a study of an evolving program of

higher education with an increasing number of participants. While a more precise analysis of

Bologna Accord effects and implementation could be made at some date following full

implementation in 2010, the pressing need for this information to be disseminated would be

forfeited. Therefore, the authors believe that a current review of the status of BA and its

implementation in Romania is informative for the educational and industrial communities.

Future Research Although it seems that genuine curriculum reform is occurring at many universities, at others

the reform process has been more of structural processes, and for a few only cosmetic in

nature. While it is difficult to offer generalizations about curriculum reform in the EHEA, this

situation presents opportunity for further research exploring the curricula at universities where

Bologna Accord mediated changes have been in place long enough to make valid comparisons.

Some of the inquiries that could generate worthwhile research could address, for example, does

a three‐year bachelor degree offer enough preparation? Does the three‐year bachelor degree

lead graduates to seek entry into master’s programs prematurely? These and many other

research questions need to be addressed not only in the context of higher education, but also in

public, private and professional sectors as well. After all, one test of the academic preparation a

university provides is how its graduates actually perform in their chosen fields.


92 Teal et al.

Appendix A.

Education Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)

The Education Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) was designed taking into

consideration the workload students must carry during a degree program:

ECTS is based on the principle where 60 credits correspond to the workload of a full‐time

student during one academic year. The student workload of a full‐time study program in

Europe amounts in most cases to approximately 1500‐1800 hours per year, and one credit has

the equivalent of 25 to 30 working hours.

Credits in ECTS can only be obtained after successful completion of the work required and

appropriate assessment of the learning outcomes achieved. Learning outcomes are sets of

competences, expressing what the student will know, understand or be able to do after

completion of a specified course.

Student workload in ECTS consists of the time required to complete all planned learning

activities, such as attending lectures and seminars, independent and private study, and

preparation of projects and for examinations.

Credits are allocated to all educational components of a study program, (e.g., modules,

courses, seminars, placements, dissertation work, etc.) and reflect the quantity of work each

component requires to achieve its specific objectives or learning outcomes in relation to the

total quantity of work necessary to successfully complete a full year of study.

The performance of the student may be documented by a local or national grade, but

universities that use such methods must also state grades according to the ECTS standard. The

ECTS standard grading scale ranks students in a class on a statistical basis. Grades are assigned

among students as follows: Best 10%=A, Next 25%=B, Next 30%=C, Next 25%=D, Lowest 10%=E.

Universities are required to develop and provide three supporting documents to be used in

conjunction with ECTS which include:

A Course Catalogue of the institution published in the national language ‘and’ in English (or English only for programs taught in English) on the school’s website and/or in hard copy in one

or more booklets, including information for host students from abroad.

Learning Agreement that contains the list of courses to be taken with the Education Credit

Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits to be awarded for each course. This list

must be agreed to by the student and the responsible academic body of the institution

concerned. In the case of credit transfer, the Learning Agreement must be agreed to by the

student and the two institutions concerned before the student’s departure, and must be

updated immediately if necessary changes occur.

A Transcript of Records that documents the performance of the student by showing the list of

courses taken, the ECTS credits gained local or national credits, local grades, and possibly ECTS

grades awarded. In the case of credit transfer, the Transcript of Records has to be issued by

the home institution for outgoing students before departure, and by the host institution for

incoming students at the end of their period of study.


93 Teal et al.

Appendix B.

Diploma Supplement

This Diploma Supplement follows the model developed by the European Commission, Council of Europe and UNESCO/CEPES. The purpose of the supplement is to provide sufficient independent data to improve the international ‘transparency’ and fair academic and professional recognition of qualifications (diplomas, degrees, certificates etc.). It is designed to provide a description of the nature, level, context, content and status of the studies that were pursued and successfully completed by the individual named on the original qualification to which this supplement is appended. It should be free from any value judgments, equivalence statements or suggestions about recognition. Information in all eight sections should be provided. Where information is not provided, an explanation should give the reason why.

1. Information identifying the holder of the qualification

1.1 Family name(s): 1.2 Given name(s):

1.3 Date of birth (day/month/year): 1.4 Student identification number or code (if available):

2. Information identifying the qualification

2.1 Name of qualification and (if applicable) title conferred (in original language): 2.2 Main field(s) of study for the qualification: 2.3 Name and status of awarding institution (in original language):

2.4 Name and status of institution (if different from 2.3) administering studies (in original language): 2.5 Language(s) of instruction/examination:

3. Information on the level of the qualification

3.1 Level of qualification: 3.2 Official length of programme:

3.3 Access requirements(s)

4. Information on the contents and results gained

4.1 Mode of study: 4.2 Programme requirements: 4.3 Programme details: (e.g. modules or units studied), and the individual grades/marks/credits obtained: (if this information is available on an official transcript this should be used here)

4.4 Grading scheme and, if available, grade distribution guidance: 4.5 Overall classification of the qualification (in original language):

5. Information on the function of the qualification

5.1 Access to further study: 5.2 Professional status (if applicable):

6. Additional information

6.1 Additional information: 6.2 Further information sources:

7. Certification of the Supplement

7.1 Date: 7.2 Signature:

7.3 Capacity: 7.4 Official stamp or seal:

8. Information on the national higher education system

(Institutions who intend to issue Diploma Supplements should refer to the explanatory notes that explain how to complete them.)


94 Teal et al.

References

Bekhradnia, Bahram (2004). Credit Accumulation and Transfer, and the Bologna Process: An

Overview. Higher Education Policy Institute (Oct) 5‐19.

Burnett, John (2007). Tilling the Soil of the European Higher Education Area. Educational Action

Research, 15 (June), 283 – 293.

European Commission (2002). Progress Report (Bologna): From Prague to Berlin: the EU

Contribution. Brussels. Accessed on November 18, 2009. Available at

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/rec_qual/recognition/diploma.

European Commission (2003). Realizing the European Higher Education Area. Berlin. Accessed

on November 16, 2007. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/

bologna/berlin2003.

European Commission (2005.) The Bologna Process: Education & Training. Bergen. Accessed on

November 16, 2009. Available at

http://ec.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/bologna.

European Commission (2007). Towards the European Higher Education Area: Responding to

Challenges in a Globalized World. London. Accessed on November 18, 2009. Available at

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/report06.pdf.

European Commission (2009). Bologna Process ─ All set for the next decade. Leuven─Louvain‐la‐

Neuve, Belgium. Accessed on November 21, 2009. Available at

http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/educ/bologna/1357.

European Commission (2010). Lifelong Learning Policy and Programme. Seville. Accessed on

May 17, 2010. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong‐learning‐

policy/doc62_en.htm.

Field, Heather (2003). Integrating Tertiary Education in Europe. Annals of the American Academy

of Political and Social Science, 58 (January), 182‐195.

Grange, Thierry (2007). European Wings: Integrating European Education for Citizens Who Are

Grounded in Local Culture and Prepared to Soar Internationally. BizEd, (May‐June), 29‐

36.

Hunter, Fiona (2010). Bologna Beyond 2010: Looking Backward, Looking Forward. International

Educator, 19(2), Apr‐May, 60‐68.


95 Teal et al.

Jacobs, Bas and Frederick van der Ploeg (2006). Guide to Reform of Higher Education: a

European Perspective. Economic Policy Review, (July), 535–592.

King, Roger and Line Verblik’ (2007). European Higher Education in an Era of Change and

Reform. European Policy Analyst, (July), 40‐47.

Koch, Adam (1997). “Marketing Curriculum: Designing its New Logic and Structure,” Journal of

Marketing Education, (Fall), 2‐16.

Lillie, Elisabeth (2003). Quality and Accreditation in Europe. In Eggins, H. (Ed.) Globalization and

Reform in Higher Education, Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Marga, Andrei (2008). The University of the 21st Century: Challenges. Studia Europaea

Universitatis Babes‐Bolyai, 53(1), 5‐39.

Newby, Howard (1999). Culture and quality in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 12,

261‐75.

Scott, Philip, (1998). Massification, Internationalization and Globalization. In Scott, P. (Ed.). The

Globalisation of Higher Education, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Tillman, Martin (2010). Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution.

International Educator, 19(3), Jun, 20‐27.

Zamagni, Stefano and Zamagni, Vera (2010). Cooperative Enterprise: Facing the Challenges of

Globalization, Northampton, UK: Elgar Publishing.

Zervakis, Peter and Marijke Wahlers (2007). Education for Sustainable Development in the

Bologna Process, BNE Journal, 20 (May). Accessed November 14, 2009. Available at

http://www.bne‐

ortal.de/coremedia/generator/pm/en/Issue001/01Contributions/ZervakisWahlers.


96


97

ACADEMIC JOURNALS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION American Journal of Business Research ISSN: 1934‐6484

Aims & Scope:

The Journal publishes original theory, conceptual development, and empirical quantitative and

qualitative research in areas such as: supply chain management, quality management,

marketing, economics, econometrics, management information systems, information

technology, decision support systems, project management, process management, group and

individual behavior, health care management, quantitative methods, operations management,

operations research, systems development, social and cultural issues in organizations, ethical

issues in business, international management, international and comparative aspects of

business. Manuscripts with international content or relevance are especially welcome.

American Journal of Educational Studies ISSN: 1934‐6476 Aims & Scope: American Journal of Educational Studies is a publication of AmHighEd, the American Institute of Higher Education. The Journal publishes original theory, conceptual development, and empirical quantitative and qualitative research in all areas related to technical, vocational and academic education, with a particular focus on STEM‐based post secondary education, business, and community college education. Manuscripts with international content or relevance are especially welcome.

american journal of educational studies (ajes) · pdf fileamerican journal of educational...

Documents