Disciplinary Standards

Higher Education:
Business ( AACSB International)

      My professional, academic and teaching life has always centered on business, management and computing courses and likely will continue to do so.  Furthermore, the educational standards most relevant to my academic career pertain to higher education rather then the K-12 focus of ISTE. I have tried to keep that in mind as I have pursued the EdS degree program.  The program requirements for a of University of Missouri - Columbia Education Specialist Degree (Technology in the Schools Emphasis) are actually quite simple and flexible:

1. An earned Master Degree from accredited University
2. "400" Graduate Level or higher Research course
3. "300" Graduate Level or higher Foundations of Educational Technology course
4. 30 (thirty) Credit Hours of Relevant Graduate coursework taken "in Residence" at the University of Missouri- Columbia

      However, because my focus is higher education, my advisor and I determined it was necessary to also speak to the standards of higher education and how my portfolio relates to those standards. In my case, I elected to use those related to Colleges of Business, AACSB Current Standards adopted April 25, 2003) from The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, AACSB International. Below is a summary of my understanding of the relevant standards for higher education faculty member and these standards relationship to my portfolio.

RELEVANT STANDARDS

1.         Academically and/or Professionally Qualified Faculty

"Substantial specialized coursework in the field of primary teaching responsibilities but no doctoral degree (AACSB, p40) . may constitute specialized instructional resources for the school. Such faculty may have a specialized master's degree . (AACSB, p 41)"

2.         Development to Maintain Qualifications

"[The] world of business changes very rapidly and faculty members must be involved in continuous development throughout their careers to stay current.  Regardless of their specialty, work experience or graduate preparation, the standard requires that faculty members maintain their competence through efforts to learn about their specialty and how it is applied in practice.  Likewise, faculty members must engage in constant learning activity to maintain constant currency with their field's developing research (AACSB, p 42)."

3.         Portfolio of Faculty Contribution

There are three cores set of responsibilities for higher education [and] the "school's mission determines the appropriate balance of activity among the three types of contribution. (AACSB p 42- 43):"

1.      Learning and pedagogical research - teaching and learning activities; course preparation; scholarship of teaching; pedagogy research; creating instructional research and instructional materials

2.      Contributions to practices - articles in practice-orientated journals; creation and delivery of executive education courses; discipline-based tools developments; published consultancy reports

3.      Discipline-based scholarship - discovery research in the faculty member's field; published research results; theoretical innovation

4.         Assurance of Learning

The AACSB Reviewer will actually look at the school and its faculty use of pedagogically sound methods of instruction for what it calls assurance of learning when evaluating faculty performance for examples of effective student learning and effective faculty teaching  (AACSB p 48 - 53) by looking for:

1. Effective use of learning goals
2. Student and faculty time on tasks
3. "Faculty - student interaction" including faculty support for student learning, mentoring, role-modeling, critical dialogues, foster professional dialogues
4. High expectations of students and the faculty of themselves
5. Methods for providing, guiding and fostering student improvement
6. Methods for using evaluations and  at minimum provide methods for becoming aware, testing and using innovations from other schools
7. Expectations and standards are communicated frequently and clearly  to all members of the learning community

MY PORTFOLIO and the AACSB STANDARDS

      The AACSB standards are consistent with the defacto effective college teaching standard, Chickering and Gamson's Seven Principles For Good Practice In Undergraduate Education. AACSB International's goal appears to be one of requiring college business faculty and institutions to take a more learning-centered approach as outlined below:

1. Encourages students-faculty interaction
2. Encourages student-student interaction
3. Encourages active learning
4. Provides prompt feedback
5. Emphasizes time on task
6. Communicates high expectations
7. Respects and accommodates diverse learning styles

      From my perspective, it is Chickering and Gamson research during the 1980's (with the financial support of their many funders) that begin what  I term the effective college teaching movement.  Throughout my portfolio I refer back to those seven practices.   Educational technology is particularly suitable to helping faculty utilize these seven best practices and Chickering with Ehrmann in 1996 wrote a follow-up article titled,  Implementing The Seven Principles: Technology as Lever.

      Throughout my portfolio, I have used educational technology as a lever to implement the seven best practices (principles) of effective college teaching and in doing so I have met the AACSB Standard of Assurance of Learning.  My portfolio, of course, is my ongoing effort of the demonstration of the Portfolio of Faculty Contribution Standard as well as Continued Qualification Maintenance, Academic and Professional Qualifications. The artifact, SOC139 Technology Integration Lesson Plans, combines the traditional classroom lecture format with technology assisted learning using the same assurances for learning standards required by the AACSB International.

Rymh

6/29/2003