Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:31:34.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transition to practitioner: Redesigning a third year course for undergraduate business students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Janis Bailey ,
Damian Oliver  and
Keith Townsend
Janis Bailey
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Relations, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Nathan QLD, Australia
Damian Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Relations, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Nathan QLD, Australia
Keith Townsend
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Queensland University of Technology – Gardens Point campus, Brisbane QLD, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports the outcomes from a teaching and learning research project at an Australian University centred on improving a third year course in industrial relations. The paper addresses the cognitive and affective outcomes of the course. Cognitively, students developed a greater understanding of the processes of industrial relations and their interconnectedness; however, research and academic skills were identified as in need of further improvement. Affectively, students responded to the challenges of the course, increasing their confidence and self-efficacy and being better prepared for the transition from student to practitioner. While the course in question was a final year ‘capstone’ course, the findings are applicable to all who are interested in designing, or redesigning, any business course that attempts to integrate theory and practice.

Keywords

teaching and learningcapstone coursepedagogy
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 65 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AC Nielsen Research Services (2000) Employer Satisfaction with Graduate Skills, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra.Google Scholar
Assiter, A (1995) Transferable Skills in Higher Education, Kogan Page, London.Google Scholar
Bandura, A (1977) ‘Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change’, Psychological Review 84: 191–213.Google Scholar
Bandura, A (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social-cognitive Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Bath, D, Smith, C, Stein, S and Swann, R (2004) ‘Beyond Mapping and Embedding Graduate Attributes: Bringing Together Quality Assurance and Action Learning to Create a Validated and Living Curriculum’, Higher Education Research & Development 23(3): 313–328.Google Scholar
Capell, C and Kamens, D (2002) ‘Curriculum assessment: a case study in sociology’, Teaching Sociology 30(4): 467–494.Google Scholar
Bruner, J (1960) The Process of Education, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Bruner, J (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Catchings, B (2004) ‘Capstones and quality: the culminating experience as assessment’, Assessment Update 16(1): 6–7.Google Scholar
Caspersz, D, Skene, J and Wu, M (2003) ‘Factors influencing effective performance of university student teams’, Research and Development in Higher Education 26, accessed at http://surveys.canterbury.ac.nz./herdsa03/ayes.htm on 2 March 2006.Google Scholar
Cecez-Kecmanoniv, D, Juchau, M, Kay, R and Wright, S (2002) Australian Business Education Study, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra.Google Scholar
Crew, A (1987) ‘A rationale for experiential education’, Contemporary Education, 58: 145–147.Google Scholar
Department of Education Science and Training (DEST) (2002) Employability Skills for the Future, DEST, Canberra.Google Scholar
Dunlap, J (2005) ‘Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: how a capstone course prepares students for a profession’, Educational Technology, Research and Development 53(1): 65–85.Google Scholar
Fowler, J and Mucker, T (2004) ‘Tiered mentoring: benefits for first year students, upper-level students, and professionals’ in Sheehy, F and Stauble, B (Eds) Transforming Knowledge into Wisdom: Holistic Approaches to Teaching and Learning. Proceedings of the 2004 Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) 4–7 07, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Miri, Sarawak.Google Scholar
Heckhausen, H and Kuhl, J (1985) ‘From wishes to actions: The dead ends and short cuts on the long way to action’ in Frese, M and Sabini, J (Eds) Goal-directed Behavior: The Concept of Action in Psychology, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Ivey, R (Richard Ivey School of Business) (2005) The Case Method, accessed at http://www.ivey.uwo.ca/hba/academics/case.htm on 19 September 2005.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, D (1998) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (2nd edn) Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Laurillard, D (2002) Rethinking University Teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd edn) Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Moore, RC (2005) ‘The capstone course’, accessed at http://users.etown.edu/m/moorerc/ch21capstonecourse91704.htm on 20 September 2005, forthcoming in: Christ, W (Ed.) Assessing Media Education: A Resource for Educators and Administrators, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Myers, SA and Richmond, VP (1998) ‘Developing the capstone course in communication: nine essential questions’, The Southern Communication Journal 64(1): 59–64.Google Scholar
Prosser, M and Trigwell, K (1999) Understanding Teaching and Learning: The experience in Higher education, The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, E, Williamson, D and Lamm, F (2006) ‘Developing employment relations teaching in New Zealand’ in Pocock, B, Provis, C and Willis, E (Eds) 21st Century Work: High Road or Low Road? Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ) 1–3 02, AIRAANZ, Adelaide.Google Scholar
Redmond, M (1998) ‘Outcomes assessment and the capstone course in communication’, The Southern Communication Journal 64(1): 68–75.Google Scholar
Rowles, CJ, Koch, DC, Hundley, SP and Hamilton, SJ (2004) ‘Toward a model for capstone experiences: mountaintops, magnets and mandates’, Assessment Update 16(1): 1–2 & 13–15.Google Scholar
Sarasin, L (1999) Learning Style Perspectives, Atwood, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Schwarzer, R (1997) General Perceived Self-Efficacy in 14 Cultures, accessed at http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/world14.htm on 16 11 2005.Google Scholar
Schwarzer, R and Jerusalem, M (1995) ‘Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale’, in Wienman, J, Wright, S and Johnston, M (Eds) Measures in Health Psychology: A User's Portfolio: Causal and Control Beliefs, NFER-Nelson, Windsor, UK.Google Scholar
Stevenson, J and Yashin-Shaw, I (2004) ‘Towards an instructional approach linking humanities study and part-time work’, Journal of Vocational Education and Training 56(3): 449–462.Google Scholar