2008
DOI: 10.1177/1056492607312024 View full text |Buy / Rent full text
|
|

Abstract: The new Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB) accreditation guidelines specify standards regarding the development of goals and learning objectives for various content areas and “soft” skills such as writing and oral presentation. These standards are being interpreted in a variety of ways across accredited schools of business. The authors argue that these standards are likely to be interpreted and actioned in ways that do not support best practices in education. To frame t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance
Select...
2
1
1
1
0
41
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

0
41
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…While some scholars (e.g., Kelley, Tong, & Choi, 2010;Martell, 2007;Romero, 2008;Sampson & Betters-Reed, 2008;Treleaven & Voola, 2008) applaud the increased flexibility and potential of the new AoL approach, others (e.g., Kilpatrick, Lund Dean, & Kilpatrick, 2008;Scott & Ofori-Dankwa, 2006) feel that AACSB's reporting and measuring requirements still result in excessive rigidity, narrow focus, and inhibit schools' flexibility. Yet others (e.g., Francisco, Noland, & Sinclair, 2008;Lowrie & Willmott, 2009) criticize exactly the flexibility that some praise in AACSB's modified approach.…”
Section: Assurance Of Learning: Advantages and Concernsmentioning
Create an account to read the remaining citation statements from this report. You will also get access to:
  • Search over 1.2b+ citation statments to see what is being said about any topic in the research literature
  • Advanced Search to find publications that support or contrast your research
  • Citation reports and visualizations to easily see what publications are saying about each other
  • Browser extension to see Smart Citations wherever you read research
  • Dashboards to evaluate and keep track of groups of publications
  • Alerts to stay on top of citations as they happen
  • Automated reference checks to make sure you are citing reliable research in your manuscripts
  • 14 day free preview of our premium features.

Trusted by researchers and organizations around the world

Over 130,000 students researchers, and industry experts at use scite

See what students are saying

rupbmjkragerfmgwileyiopcupepmcmbcthiemesagefrontiersapsiucrarxivemeralduhksmucshluniversity-of-gavle
“…While some scholars (e.g., Kelley, Tong, & Choi, 2010;Martell, 2007;Romero, 2008;Sampson & Betters-Reed, 2008;Treleaven & Voola, 2008) applaud the increased flexibility and potential of the new AoL approach, others (e.g., Kilpatrick, Lund Dean, & Kilpatrick, 2008;Scott & Ofori-Dankwa, 2006) feel that AACSB's reporting and measuring requirements still result in excessive rigidity, narrow focus, and inhibit schools' flexibility. Yet others (e.g., Francisco, Noland, & Sinclair, 2008;Lowrie & Willmott, 2009) criticize exactly the flexibility that some praise in AACSB's modified approach.…”
Section: Assurance Of Learning: Advantages and Concernsmentioning
“…Analytical thinking, integral to linear thinking, is 'methodical and consistent, beginning with a particular set of assumptions or categories and proceeding to develop the implications of these concepts through deduction' (Colby et al, 2011: 60). In contrast, nonlinear whole-brain thinking encompasses critical thinking, creative thinking, debate and discourse, intuitive thinking, emotive thinking, and reflective thinking; it brings the full range of mental activities into the student's learning (Kilpatrick, Dean, & Kilpatrick, 2008). Petkus (2007) concluded that linear thinking is less helpful for comprehending the complexity and ambiguity in 21st-century business environments, adding that critical thinking, intuition, conceptual creativity, reflective thinking, and emotive thinking help unravel the unpredictability of a nonlinear business system.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
“…That is, we surveyed all of the learning-goal themes appearing in the 208 sets of learning goals and coded them into two learning-goal categories (i.e., linear-thinking goals versus nonlinearthinking goals) as applicable. The two categories were operationally defined based on the thinkingprocess descriptors provided in the research literature (i.e., Kilpatrick et al, 2008;Spender, 2007; Vance et al, 2007;Colby et al, 2011). These descriptors are provided in Table 1.…”
Section: Learning-goal Coding Proceduresmentioning
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Ao exposto, soma-se que poucas são as amostras que indicam como resultado uma melhoria contínua do curso (Bieker, 2014), e amplas são as dificuldades encontradas para sua realização, tais como: falta de envolvimento de stakeholders (Julian e Ofori-Dankwa, 2006); má alocação de recursos institucionais (Pringle e Michel, 2007); ausência de liderança e organização (Bieker, 2014); falta de confiança nos resultados obtidos pelo AoL (Kilpatrick et al, 2008); e alta resistência acadêmica para implementação (Harvey e Newton, 2004;Julian e Ofori-Dankwa, 2006;Kelley et al, 2010).…”
Section: Quinta Etapa -Aplicação Das Informaçõesunclassified