10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
An Exploratory Investigation of Business Education Critical
Inquiry Programs and the Creation of a Related Faculty
Development Agenda
Stephanie M. Foote
Director, Academic Success Center
and First-Year Experience
University of South Carolina Aiken
803-641-3321 ~ stephanief@usca.edu
David S. Harrison
School of Business Administration
Dean and Chair in Global Business
University of South Carolina Aiken
803-641-3376 ~ davidh@usca.edu
Richard A. Heiens
School of Business Administration
Walter F. O’Connell Palmetto Professor of Marketing
University of South Carolina Aiken
803-641-3238 ~ richardh@usca.edu
Kathleen W. Wates
School of Business Administration
Senior Instructor
University of South Carolina Aiken
803-641-3350 ~ kittyw@usca.edu
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
1
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
An Exploratory Investigation of Business Education Critical
Inquiry Programs and the Creation of a Related Faculty
Development Agenda
ABSTRACT
Critical inquiry (CI) programs can have a positive impact on both students and faculty
alike. Nevertheless, many options exist for setting the direction, tone, and priorities for a CI
program. The current study looks at the results of a survey on CI conducted among Business
School Deans at primarily undergraduate teaching institutions. Based on these findings, we
describe the development of a CI designated course, and the creation of a related faculty
development program intended to maximize the enhancement of CI outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
Business faculty members are often aware of the importance of critical inquiry and
critical thinking, however, these skills are seldom directly and specifically taught in most
courses. Even in managerial and financial decision-making courses, often the decision process
(critical inquiry) is secondary to presenting the “correct” decision outcomes. Students learn, all
too often, what to do, rather than why they are doing it. This translates from the secondary
school’s “teaching to the test” to Higher Ed’s “is that going to be on the test?” In essence,
educators all too often emphasize the need for outcome rather than education.
In addition, faculty members often complain that students are not adequately prepared for
success in their courses. Regardless of whether this is true, faculty have a challenge with respect
to teaching. Because they cannot readily change the preparedness of the students, the most
logical approach should be to consider what it is about their curriculum that is not accessible, and
consider modifying their pedagogical approach (Conley, 2007). Clabaugh, Forbes, and Clabaugh
(1995) suggest that business students will demonstrate greater gains in critical thinking skills
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
2
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
when learning objectives for specific courses are specifically developed with consideration to the
growth and expansion of these skills.
The University of South Carolina Aiken (USCA), a small undergraduate institution in the
Southeastern United States, has determined that the development of CI skills among their
undergraduate population should be the cornerstone of their Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP).
A successful critical inquiry (CI) course will, ideally, enhance, at both the student and faculty
level, the interest in process, inquiry, and learning. Therefore, creating a faculty development
program to prepare faculty to teach CI courses may help faculty be better equipped to engage
more directly the CI process in courses in their discipline, resulting in the cultivation of critical
inquiry and thinking skills throughout the business curriculum.
Nevertheless, many options exist for setting the direction, tone, and priorities for a CI
program. This can range from dedicated CI courses to the incorporation of critical inquiry and
thinking in various courses across business curricula (Smith, 2003). Therefore, it is important to
ascertain what types of CI programs are currently in use, and which types of programs seem to
offer the greatest likelihood of success. In connection with the planning, and ultimate
implementation of the USCA QEP, the aim of the current study is to investigate CI practices at
peer institutions, and the perceptions of Business School administrators regarding CI efforts.
Specifically, our goal is to determine (1) what types of programs exist, and (2) the prevailing
opinion on which types of programs are likely to have the greatest success. The current study
includes a detailed summary of the CI practices of other institutions, and concludes with remarks
addressing the creation of a critical inquiry faculty development program.
BACKGROUND AND THE CURRENT STUDY
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
3
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
A number of studies have found that both formal and informal faculty-student
interactions can positively affect retention and academic performance during the first college
year (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977 and 1978; Pascarella, 1980; Donahue, 2004; Braxton, Bray,
and Berger, 2000; Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella, and Nora, 1995; Reason, Terenzini, and
Domingo, 2006). Although many faculty teach the “gateway courses” (e.g., English, math, etc.)
that students take during the first college year, getting faculty involved in the delivery of a CI
oriented course should provide additional opportunities for these interactions to occur during the
early college experience.
As has been stated by Derek Bok, “Many investigators have found that critical thinking
and learning in general can be enhanced by giving students problems and having them teach each
other by working together in groups . . . Where these conditions exist, the great majority of
studies show that participating students make much greater gains over those achieved by
classmates studying individually or competing with one another” (Bok, 2006, p. 118).
Additionally, student focus groups data, collected in spring 2010 by members of the USCA QEP
committee, revealed that students found classes that involved discussion, hands on learning, or
problem solving to be most memorable (Dyer et al., 2010).
Several studies demonstrate the positive impact this type of course instruction can have,
not only on first-year students, but on faculty efficacy as well. In fact, in some instances, faculty
members have been able to transfer active and engaging teaching strategies from a first-year
seminar, like a CI course, to other courses they teach (Fidler, Neururer-Rothilz, & Richardson,
1999; McClure, Atkinson, and Wills, 2008). This “spill over,” or being able to apply various
teaching strategies to other courses in their own major, is one of the desired outcomes of the
implementation of USCA’s QEP. Therefore, to reach the goals of engaging students, and
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
4
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
increasing student-faculty interactions, both in and out of the classroom, CI courses should be
taught using strategies and techniques that center on and promote active learning.
Although it is our expectation that active learning is an educational element strongly
supported in business education, we conducted a survey of peer institutions to investigate
whether this is actually true in similar institutions. Specifically, an online survey was distributed
directly from the e-mail account of the USCA School of Business Dean to the Business School
Deans of 80 institutions determined by the USCA Office of Institutional Effectiveness to
constitute a representative comparison group. Comprised of 25 fixed alternative questions and
one open-ended question, we received responses from 35 institutions, a 43.7 percent response
rate.
RESULTS
When USCA first began to consider the incorporation of a CI component to the
curriculum, part of the underlying impetus was widespread view among faculty that freshmen
students are not always prepared for their transition to the academic challenges posed by collegelevel coursework. To test this assumption among our peer institutions, respondents were asked
to indicate their level of agreement with the statement, “freshmen are not adequately prepared for
success in their courses.” The results are shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Freshmen Preparedness
Often educators hear that "freshmen are not adequately prepared for success in their
courses..." In your opinion, does this statement apply to your entering first-year
students?
Answer Options
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Response
Percent
Response
Count
0.0%
31.4%
45.7%
22.9%
0
11
16
8
answered question
skipped question
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
5
35
0
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
More than 68 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement,
lending support to the notion that freshmen students require additional training to enhance their
preparedness for college level coursework. As such, beginning in fall 2011, all incoming
freshmen at USCA will take a one-credit hour critical inquiry course, focused on themes and
ideas presented in The Last Town on Earth, the selected first-year reading for the 2011-12
academic year.
Further support for the USCA approach can be seen from the results shown in Figure 2.
Fully 79 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that a one-credit hour critical thinking
methods course would be useful in helping students achieve better curricular success.
Figure 2: The Value of a One-Credit Hour CI Course
Do you think a short, one-credit hour critical thinking methods course for first-year
students would help them, prepared or not, achieve better curricular success?
Answer Options
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Response
Percent
Response
Count
5.9%
14.7%
58.8%
20.6%
2
5
20
7
answered question
skipped question
34
1
Although the respondents indicated support for the inclusion of a one-credit hour
freshman level CI course, this method alone was not viewed as the single best approach to help
students effectively learn critical thinking skills. Instead, as shown in Figure 3, respondents
indicated the greatest amount of support for a program that would incorporate critical thinking
skills within the curriculum as a whole. For example, one respondent likened the approach of
teaching critical thinking to that of teaching writing and speaking (across the curriculum), but
acknowledged that this could make assessing student learning in this area more challenging.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
6
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Another respondent indicated that faculty on his/her campus wanted to embed critical thinking
into existing courses, but he/she wondered how faculty could integrate these efforts in a way that
would result in students developing these skills over time.
Figure 3: How to Best Develop Critical Thinking Skills
In an ideal situation, how would students best learn critical thinking skills? Rank the following response
options
(please include only one check mark per column).
Answer Options
A specifically
designated critical
thinking course
Specific areas
integrated within the
curriculum,
all four years
Specific areas
integrated within the
major
Specific areas
integrated within
general
education
Through extracurricular activities
Best
Better than
Acceptable
Acceptable
Less than
Acceptable
Worst
8
3
11
10
2
15
12
4
2
0
3
14
14
2
0
4
8
10
9
2
1
0
6
6
19
Although respondents appeared to be supportive of a program designed to integrate critical
thinking skills within the curriculum throughout all four years of a student’s undergraduate
experience, in practice, this does not appear to be taking place. As shown in Figure 4, only 20
percent of respondents indicated that critical thinking skills are actually integrated within the
curriculum for all four years in their respective institutions. Instead, over 42 percent of
respondents indicated that although their institutions do not have any specific CI segments in
their curricula, the development of critical thinking skills is inherently part of many courses.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
7
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Figure 4: The Incorporation of CI in the Curriculum
Which of the following does your school and/or institution do to develop critical
thinking skills in your students? If more than one of the following applies, choose the
one that you think is most influential.
Answer Options
Through a specific critical thinking course
Specific segments integrated within the curriculum,
all four years
Specific segments integrated within the major
Specific segments integrated within the general
education
No specific program segments, but inherently part of
many courses
Through extra-curricular programs, projects, and
other activities
Other
No specific critical thinking program
Response
Percent
Response
Count
8.6%
3
20.0%
7
5.7%
2
8.6%
3
42.9%
15
0.0%
0
2.9%
11.4%
1
4
answered question
skipped question
35
0
Part of this reluctance to specifically designate any single course as a critical thinking
course may be based on the perceived difficulty of actually measuring CI related outcomes and
relying on these measures to evaluate student performance. As shown in Figure 5, over 45
percent of respondents do not fully believe that critical thinking can be objectively assessed, or
indicate skepticism about the ability of institutions to assess critical thinking with traditional
standardized multiple choice tests.
Figure 5: The Objective Assessment of Critical Thinking
Do you believe critical thinking can be objectively assessed?
Answer Options
No
Unsure
Yes, but not with standardized, multiple choice tests
Yes, somewhat agree
Yes, strongly agree
Response
Percent
Response
Count
8.6%
14.3%
22.9%
25.7%
28.6%
3
5
8
9
10
answered question
skipped question
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
8
35
0
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Nevertheless, an intrepid few have actually attempted to surmount the perceived hurdles
and offer students at least one critical thinking course. As shown in Figure 6, nine respondents
(just over 25%) indicate that their school or institution does in fact have a dedicated critical
thinking course in their curriculum.
Figure 6: The Presence of a CI Course
My school or institution has a critical thinking course.
Answer Options
Yes
No
Unsure
Response
Percent
Response
Count
25.7%
65.7%
8.6%
9
23
3
answered question
skipped question
35
0
While the focus of any CI course should be on developing critical inquiry skills in
students, an important factor in the success of the USCA QEP overall is tied to the development
of the faculty teaching the CI course. Consistent with the prevailing view on the most preferred
method of CI instruction (see Figure 3), the goal at USCA is that critical inquiry skills will
ultimately be integrated and assimilated throughout all four years of university study. This goal
will be achieved in three ways: (1) as a natural outcome of the freshman CI course. If successful,
CI skills will be carried through, by the students, into other classes (and, indeed, their lives); (2)
specific other courses, across all majors and years, will be developed by interested faculty that
specifically focus on furthering CI skills; and (3) it is planned that all faculty will teach the
freshman CI course, on a rotating basis. A natural outcome of their training and development
will result in furthering this process in courses they regularly teach. It is both interesting, and
appealing, to note that two of these three results are achieved somewhat indirectly. That is to say
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
9
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
that as a result of implementation, campus-wide, of a successful first year CI course, both
students and faculty will be trained in the process (items 1 & 3), with expected and desired
extension, ideally, to all other classes. Optimistic, perhaps, but incredibly efficient and effective
if successful. That success is largely dependent on effective faculty development programs.
The importance of faculty development can be shown in Figure 7. Although sample size
for this question is limited to only eight respondents, only one of those respondents strongly
believed that faculty in their institution who teach the critical thinking course receive adequate
training and support. For the other respondents, the subject of faculty development was noted as
the “missing link.” One respondent discussed how the lack of faculty development on his/her
campus has resulted in professors “conveying their thoughts not developing thoughtful students.”
Further, he/she said, “Only a serious effort will change that model.”
Figure 7: Training and Support for CI Faculty
In your opinion, faculty in your school or institution who teach the critical thinking
course receive adequate training and support.
Answer Options
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
Response
Percent
Response
Count
12.5%
25.0%
50.0%
12.5%
1
2
4
1
answered question
skipped question
8
27
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AT USCA
At USCA, current planning for Faculty Development to teach the freshman CI course
includes an intensive Critical Inquiry Workshop, which will be part of a Faculty Learning
Community. After the workshop experience, faculty will be more knowledgeable about the
concepts and learning theory underlying critical inquiry instruction. Faculty will also have
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
10
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
familiarity and access to teaching materials and practical applications for developing critical
thinking skills in students. Specific “Faculty Learning Outcomes (FLO),” at present, follow.
Faculty Learning Outcomes: After the workshop, the instructor will be able to:
1.
Define Critical Inquiry,
2.
List the steps necessary for practicing critical inquiry,
3.
Use a variety of activities for fostering critical thinking and collaborative learning in
students (e.g., discipline-specific strategies, group activities, and active-learning
techniques),
4.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the activities for fostering critical inquiry,
5.
Integrate the First Year Reading Experience (FYRE) into the course structure,
6.
Integrate information literacy into the course structure,
7.
Encourage students to appreciate multiple perspectives.
During the workshop, the instructor will:
1.
Create a sample course outline/timeline for leading the class,
2.
Gain access to a variety of course materials (syllabi, assignments, grading rubrics,
technology),
3.
Develop strategies for including CI in other discipline-specific courses,
4.
Create a plan for incorporating Peer Mentors as an integral part of the instructional
strategy.
A recognized and important element to induce faculty participation at USCA for teaching
the Critical Inquiry course, and to undertaking the faculty development necessary to do so, is
economic. Nevertheless, this is not a widespread approach. As shown in Figure 8, only one
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
11
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
institution in our sample provides additional compensation to instructors responsible for the CI
course.
Figure 8: Compensation for CI Faculty
How are instructors compensated for this course (check all that apply)?
Answer Options
Considered part of the teaching load
Overload
Course relief
Additional pay
Not compensated
Unsure
Response
Percent
Response
Count
87.5%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
7
0
0
1
0
0
answered question
skipped question
8
27
Contrary to the prevailing approach, current plans at USCA include a $500 stipend for
faculty to attend a summer development workshop for a one to two day session, or about 4% of
salary for intensive week-long workshop courses in CI. Non-financial incentives are also key to
faculty recruitment for the CI course. Our planned faculty load per semester for the CI course
will only be two hours, yet each faculty member will receive compensation for three hours.
Another incentive involves regular course scheduling. At USCA, CI faculty will be offered the
option to teach the required two one-hour CI courses concurrently, either at the beginning of the
term or at the end of the term, to give the teaching faculty member some time off before/after the
CI courses. CI faculty will be given priority for course selection and scheduling by their
respective unit heads for all non-CI courses during the CI semester.
In addition to economic and scheduling incentives, teaching the CI course must be made
as attractive a prospect as possible. To this end, catered retreats will be offered for the
roundtable discussions required as a part of teaching the CI course. Teaching assistants who
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
12
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
serve as student peer mentors will be made available for CI courses. These TAs will be drawn
from students involved in the student leadership initiative.
Faculty development workshops will target the skills necessary to help participating
faculty members compile and deliver course elements that promote the desired Student Learning
Outcomes for the CI course. To this end, faculty development workshops will provide daily plan
suggestions, and offer readymade resources that faculty members can deploy in their CI courses.
Syllabus construction is another vital area that must be addressed, particularly with an emphasis
on how to integrate rubric schema for CI courses that incorporate SLO’s. Additional topics
include incorporating technology and social networking sites into the CI experience. Regardless
of the narrow focus a workshop may address, a constant general emphasis should be placed on
how to integrate critical inquiry into subsequent non-CI specific classes.
One way to help promote the integration of critical inquiry in the classroom experience
(post-CI course) is through faculty development workshops on working with student groups and
designing group projects. This emphasis should be coordinated with the proposed group project
competition whose winner(s) will be recognized/awarded during the Research Day festivities in
the spring semester. The art of designing a workshop-based course should be a particular focus.
Another important element in creating and implementing a successful CI initiative is
broad faculty involvement. To that end, every effort should be made to involve the entire USCA
faculty in the implementation of the CI courses. Ideally, all full-time faculty from all areas and
schools should eventually teach a CI course. To encourage faculty participation, strong urging
from the administration to the unit heads will be required. Unit heads should be encouraged to
establish a regular rotation of faculty members to teach the CI course. In addition, repeated,
clear emphasis that the administration will not be prescriptive in its suggestions for teaching the
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
13
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
CI course will be necessary. Faculty must have the freedom to approach the goals/objectives of
the CI course using their own personal teaching philosophies and styles.
CONCLUSION
The results of the survey indicate that there is widespread concern about the level of
preparation exhibited by incoming freshmen students. Although most Business School Deans
surveyed believed that the integration of CI throughout all four years of a student’s
undergraduate education was the best way for students to develop CI skills, there is also strong
support for the incorporation of a dedicated CI course in the first year curriculum. However,
such a course does not exist at the majority of institutions surveyed.
Part of the reluctance to offer such a course may be related to the perceived difficulty in
assessing critical thinking skills using traditional classroom methods. There also appears to be
inadequate training and support for faculty assigned to the teaching of CI courses. The proposed
CI faculty development program described for USCA appears to be capable of surmounting
many of the obstacles to the enhancement of CI skills that were identified in the survey.
However, it is only through implementation and ongoing assessment that we can judge the
quality and effectiveness of the CI program described.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
14
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
REFERENCES
Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn
and why they should be learning more. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Braxton, J. M., Bray, N. J., Berger, J. B. (2000). Faculty teaching skills and their
influence on the college student departure process. Journal of College Student
Development, 41(2), 215-227.
Claubaugh, M. G., Forbes, J. L., & Claubaugh, J. P. (1995). Bloom’s cognitive domains
theory: A basis for developing higher levels of critical thinking in reconstructing a
professional selling course. Journal of Marketing Education, 17(3), 25-34.
Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy
Improvement Center.
Donahue, L. (2004). Connections and reflections: Creating a positive learning
environment for first-year students. Journal of The First-Year Experience, 16(1), 77-100.
Dyer, A. et al. (2010). Quality enhancement plan: Think DEEP! University of South
Carolina Aiken.
Fidler, P.P., Neururer-Rotholz, J., & Richardson, S. (1999). Teaching the freshman
seminar: Its effectiveness in promoting faculty development. Journal of The First-Year
Experience and Students in Transition, 11(2), 59-74.
McClure, A. I., Atkinson, M. P., and Wills, J. B. (2008). Transferring teaching skills:
Faculty development effects from a first-year inquiry program. Journal of The First-Year
Experience and Students in Transition, 20(1), 31-52.
Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty contact and college outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 50(4), 545-595.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
15
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Reason, R. D., Terenzini, P. T., & Domingo, R. J. (2006). First things first: Developing
academic competence in the first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 47(2),
149-175.
Smith, G. F. (2003). Beyond critical thinking and decision making: Teaching business
students how to think. Journal of Management Education, 27(1), 24-51.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., and Nora, A. (1995). Academic and outof-class influences on students’ intellectual orientations. The Review of Higher
Education, 19(1), 23-44.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
16