Promoting the Integration of Learning in the Business Education Classroom
Keywords:
Integration of learning, Business education, Undergraduate business educationAbstract
Problem. Integration of learning is a critical outcome of undergraduate education and, consequently, a highly desired trait that today’s employers expect to find in college graduates. Purpose. The purpose of this qualitative study was to analyze interviews with and classroom observations of business students to gain a better understanding of the ways these students combine their learning experiences, which would assist business education faculty in the promotion of the integration of learning. Methodology. The nature of the research questions called for a grounded theory method that could produce theories that would aid in explaining issues related to the integration of learning. Findings. Results indicated that students are integrating learning effectively without much assistance, if any, from faculty members. Students reported that they establish connections among ideas, skills, and/or information learned; apply ideas, skills, and/or information learned across different contexts or disciplines; and synthesize/combine ideas, skills, and/or information to construct new ones.
Downloads
References
Barber, J. (2012). Integration of learning: A grounded theory analysis of college students’ learning. American Educational Research Journal, 20(10), 1-27. doi: 103102/0002831212437854
Baxter Magolda, M., & King, P. (2007). Constructing conversations to assess meaning-making: Self-authorship interviews. Journal of College Student
Development, 48, 491-508. doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0055
Berger, J. (2010). Using the subject-object interview to promote and assess self-authorship. In M. Baxter Magolda, E. Creamer, & P. Meszaros (Eds.),
Development and assessment of self-authorship: Exploring the concept across cultures (pp. 245-264). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
Bok, D. (2005, December 18). Are colleges failing? Higher ed needs new lesson plans. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from
www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/12/18/are_colleges_failing/
Brunner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carnegie Foundation. (2004). Our students’ best work: A framework for accountability worthy of our mission. Washington, DC: Author.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.
Fischer, K. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skill. Psychological Review, 87, 477-531.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.477
Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gay, L., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Gaytan, J. (2008). Are colleges assisting students in the development of critical thinking skills required by today’s global society? Wisconsin Business
Education Journal, 56(2), 4-10.
Gaytan, J. (2011a). Increasing classroom interaction through technology-based games. Business Education Forum, 66(2), 44-48.
Gaytan, J. (2011b). Modifying the business communication course to ensure that college students effectively acquire business communication competencies required to succeed in today’s business world. Texas Business and Technology
Educators Association Journal, 12(1), 29-36.
Gaytan, J. (2013). Increasing student interaction to develop students’ critical thinking and communication skills. Texas Business and Technology Educators Association Journal, 12(1), 22-36.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Huber, M., Brown, C., Hutchings, P., Gale, R., Miller, R., & Breen, M. (2007). Integrative learning: Opportunities to connect. Public report of the
Integrative Learning Project sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/integrativelearning
Judd, C. (1939). Educational psychology. New York, NY: Houghton Mufflin.
King, P., Kendall Brown, M., Lindsay, N., & VanHecke, J. (2007). Liberal arts student learning outcomes: An integrated perspective. About Campus, 2(1), 10-16. doi:10.1002/abc.155
King, P., & VanHecke, J. (2006). Making connections: Using skill theory to recognize how students build and rebuild understanding. About Campus,
(1), 10-16. doi:10.1002/abc.155
Lamb, A. (2006). Building treehouses for learning: Technology in today’s classrooms. (4th ed.). Emporia, KS: Vision to Action.
Lincoln, Y., & Guber, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
NBEA. (2013). National standards for business education. (4th ed.). Reston, VA: Author.
Russ, T. (2009). The status of the business communication course at U.S. colleges and universities. Business Communication Quarterly, 72, 395-413.
doi:10.1177/1080569909349524
Schwartz, M., & Fischer, K. (2006). Useful metaphors for tackling problems in teaching and learning. About Campus, 2(1), 2-9. doi:10.1002/abc.154
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thorndike, E. (1924). Mental discipline in high school studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 15, 1-22, 83-98. doi:101037/h0075386 and
1037/h0071035
Tuomi-Gröhn, T., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Conceptualizing transfer: From standard notions to developmental perspectives. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y.
Engeström (Eds.). Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 19-38). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Pergamon.
