Designing Business School Courses

7/23/2019 Designing Business School Courses

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/designing-business-school-courses 1/21

http://jme.sagepub.com

EducationJournal of Management

DOI: 10.1177/1052562906290914

Aug 21, 2007;2007; 31; 812 originally published onlineJournal of Management Education

Sukumar C. Debnath, Sudhir Tandon and Lucille V. PointerMotivation: An Application of the Job Characteristics Model

Designing Business School Courses To Promote Student

http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/6/812 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

OBTS Teaching Society for Management Educators

can be found at:Journal of Management EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/6/812SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 61 articles hosted on theCitations

by Fabrizio Lorusso on October 4, 2008http://jme.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.obts.org/


http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptions



http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/6/812


http://jme.sagepub.com/












812

DESIGNING BUSINESS SCHOOL

COURSES TO PROMOTE

STUDENT MOTIVATION:

AN APPLICATION OF THE JOBCHARACTERISTICS MODEL

Sukumar C. Debnath

Sudhir TandonPrairie View A&M University

Lucille V. Pointer

University of Houston-Downtown

Student motivation within the classrooms is a widely recognized problem and will

remain so in the foreseeable future. Literature suggests that students’ motivation

for learning and performance can be enhanced by creating an appropriate class-

room environment, which is again determined by the design of various structural

characteristics of a course, such as type of tasks, autonomy of students, and eval-

uation. On the basis of the framework of Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics

Model (JCM) and support from educational research, this conceptual article

identifies the structural characteristics instrumental to an effective course design

and presents related instructional strategies for maximizing student motivation in

business school classrooms. Various issues related to the proposed application of

the JCM framework in classrooms, including its relevance to the larger landscape

of business education, are also discussed.

Keywords: management education; business school course design; student

motivation; Job Characteristics Model; instructional strategies;

classroom environment; learning

Student motivation within the classrooms is a widely recognized prob-

lem and has been the focus of applied research for many years (Newby,1991). Such a problem is rather common and persistent in higher education

(Pintrich, 1994), and business school classrooms are not an exception.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 31 No. 6, December 2007 812-831

DOI: 10.1177/1052562906290914© 2007 Organizational Behavior Teaching Society








Debnath et al. / STUDENT MOTIVATION 813

Numerous studies (e.g., Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006; Ames & Archer,

1988; Elliot & Church, 1997; Durden & Ellis, 2003; Ellis, 2004; Harackiewicz,

Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) have investigated the

underlying causes of poor student motivation as well as practices that may

help improve motivation and performance in the classrooms. However, so far,our knowledge about creating and sustaining motivation in learning lags far

behind our knowledge about facilitating learning for students who are already

motivated (Hancock, 1995). Not surprisingly, both motivating students for

learning (Hancock, 2002) and enhancing their academic performance (Hidi

& Harackiewicz, 2000) remain the most important but unresolved goals for

educators in higher education. Literature suggests that students’ motivation

for learning and academic performance can be enhanced by creating an

appropriate classroom environment (e.g., Ames, 1992; Pintrich, 1994; Stipek,1996), which is again determined by the design of various structural charac-

teristics of a course, such as type of tasks, autonomy of students, evaluation,

and recognition (Ames, 1992; Maslovaty & Kuzi, 2002). Fortunately, most

college professors have the flexibility to design these structural characteris-

tics and select teaching strategies that can enhance the motivational potential

of the classroom environment.

In identifying the major structural characteristics of course design and

defining related instructional strategies, a fresh perspective and valuableinsights can be extracted from Hackman and Oldham’s (1976, 1980) Job

Characteristics Model (JCM). Traditionally, the JCM has been the domi-

nant framework for defining task characteristics and understanding their

relationships to motivation, performance, and satisfaction in work settings

(Robbins, 1998). However, this theory also appears to be highly relevant to

classroom settings and has potential for providing insights into the class-

room structures or designs necessary for enhancing student motivation.

Therefore, the purposes of this conceptual article are to (a) explore the use-

fulness of the JCM for business school professors in identifying and design-

ing various structural elements of classroom environment conducive to

motivation and (b) suggest instructional strategies related to these structural

elements that can help maximize motivation in classrooms.

We begin with a brief overview of the JCM and the rationale for select-

ing this management theory as a potential tool for understanding student

motivation and devising strategies for motivating students in classrooms.

We then review educational research to explore the relevance and utility of

the major JCM components in enhancing motivation in classroom settings.On the basis of existing research findings, we also present instructional

strategies related to these classroom structures for generating and enhanc-

ing motivation for learning in classrooms. We conclude with a discussion

of various issues relevant to the proposed application of the JCM frame-

work in classroom settings.








The Job Characteristics Model

A THEORETICAL OVERVIEW OF THE JCM

The JCM is primarily based on an intrinsic process motivation theory,

which focuses on the behavior or job itself (Leonard, Beauvais, & Scholl,

1999). It has the following four major components: (a) core job character-

istics, (b) critical psychological states (CPS), (c) personal and work out-

comes, and (d) growth-need strength (GNS).

First, any job can be described effectively in terms of five core job

dimensions or characteristics. These are skill variety, the breadth of skills

and talent used to perform a variety of activities; task identity, the opportu-

nity to complete an entire or identifiable piece of work that has a beginning

and an end with tangible outcomes; task significance, the perception of thevalue of one’s work to others or some broader future goals; autonomy, the

depth of work-related discretion and freedom allowed by the job; and feed-

back , the amount of direct and clear information about work performance.

Second, the presence of these job characteristics and their magnitudes are

thought to trigger three CPS in a jobholder. The first three characteristics—

skill variety, task identity, and task significance—combine to prompt the CPS

of experienced meaningfulness of work , which is the belief regarding the

importance, value, or worth of the job. The fourth characteristic, autonomy,prompts the CPS of experienced responsibility, which refers to the feelings of

personal responsibility for the work outcomes. The fifth characteristic, feed-

back, contributes to the CPS of knowledge of actual results based on how

well it provides an understanding of performance effectiveness.

Third, higher levels of these five core job dimensions are hypothesized

to lead to stronger experiences of the three CPS, which in turn lead to

increased personal and work outcomes, such as internal work motivation,

job satisfaction, performance, and reduced absenteeism and turnover.Fourth, these relationships are postulated to be relatively more effective for

individuals with high GNS—the strength of an individual’s need for per-

sonal growth and development—as compared to those with low GNS.

The JCM has stimulated numerous published empirical studies as well

as some alternative theoretical formulations. Taken together, the studies—

involving a variety of industries—and their reviews generally provide sup-

port for the basic JCM, that is, the linkages among job characteristics,

psychological states, and work outcomes (Glick, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1986;

Hogan & Martell, 1987; Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992; Lee-Ross, 1998, 2002;

Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985). Although research involving the

theory has significantly tapered off, the utility of the theory is indicated by

the continued interest among researchers. Lately, the JCM has been used

to explain the theoretical relationship between the job characteristics and

814 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / December 2007








various motivational outcomes in the context of lean production (Treville &

Antonakis, 2006). So far, studies on the JCM have neither refuted the basic

framework of the theory (Griffin, 1991) nor warranted exclusion of the CPS

from the model (Johns et al., 1992). However, empirical support for the

moderating effects of GNS has been inconsistent, weak, or negative (Bottger& Chew, 1986; Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986; Hogan & Martell, 1987;

Johns et al., 1992). This has led some researchers (e.g., Bottger & Chew,

1986) to propose elimination of the GNS from the JCM as a moderator.

Next, to explore the JCM’s utility in understanding student motivation,

we focus on the first three components of the JCM only; we exclude the

GNS from further consideration because of its weak empirical support.

THE RATIONALE FOR USING THE JOB CHARACTERISTICS MODEL

The JCM is relevant and has the potential to enhance our understanding

of student motivation, and as shown later, it can also help us formulate

teaching strategies for motivating students in classrooms for two reasons.

First, the JCM appears to resonate well (e.g., in terms of structural charac-

teristics) with several major models of student academic motivation, such

as Ames’s (1992) model of student motivation, Pintrich’s (1994) integrated

model of student academic motivation in college classrooms, and Stipek’s

(1996) model of instructional practices for student motivation. The major

structural elements of a classroom environment—such as task, authority,

and evaluation—as determined by the teacher and identified in various aca-

demic achievement motivation models (e.g., Ames, 1992; Stipek, 1996) are

similar to the core job characteristics of the JCM. Most important, the JCM

provides a single framework to unify various structural elements (usually

studied separately) for a comprehensive view and also shows a dynamic

cause-and-effect relationship between the structural elements and the psy-

chological impact (CPS) generated by them. Although these features can beimmensely helpful in understanding and analyzing motivation in general,

the application of a workplace theory in classroom settings may also pro-

vide fresh and valuable perspectives regarding student motivation.

Second, the JCM framework applies a complementary perspective

between managerial practices and the psychological process. It shows that

specific managerial practices—such as determining task contents and char-

acteristics, assigning tasks and duties to employees, evaluating perfor-

mance, giving feedback—influence certain psychological aspects (theCPS) of employees, which consequently determine employee behavior and

various motivational outcomes. A complementary perspective is found

between the educational and psychological literature as well. Various class-

room practices by the teachers—the classroom managers—influence students’

beliefs and attitudes, and the educational literature guides us in identifying









these practices. They may include designing a course and assigning tasks to

students, providing guidance or training, evaluating performance, setting

rules and the degree of autonomy for students, and administering conse-

quences. The psychological literature (e.g., intrinsic motivation, goal orien-

tations), on the other hand, explains how these beliefs influence students’behavior and motivation (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Therefore, the JCM

allows for an incorporation of various educational practices and their asso-

ciated psychological impacts, as established in the educational literature,

simultaneously in a single framework. Consequently, the JCM appears to

provide a relevant framework that may help us gain insights into the issues

involving student motivation and aid us in developing teaching strategies

for influencing the critical psychological states for positive motivational

consequences.Next, we review educational research findings to determine if the JCM

components, specifically the five characteristics, contribute to increased

motivation in academic settings. We also extract from the literature and pre-

sent instructional strategies related to these characteristics that have been

found to enhance motivational potential of the classroom environment.

Strategies for Designing Business

School Courses, Based on the JCM and

Educational Research, to Enhance the

Motivational Potential of Classroom Environment

The following discussion is organized in terms of the three CPS—

experienced meaningfulness of work, experienced responsibility, and

knowledge of actual results—and their underlying core characteristics. The

suggested instructional strategies may be used to design courses and define

classroom environment in order to create, to sustain, and to enhance student

motivation.

ENHANCING THE CPS OF EXPERIENCED MEANINGFULNESS

Three characteristics—task variety, task identity, and task significance—

have to be designed appropriately to prompt the CPS of experienced mean-

ingfulness of the course.

Task variety. The term task variety is used in this article to imply skill

variety within the scope of a classroom. The existing literature supports that

variety, diversity, and challenge are some task dimensions that affect per-

ceptions of college students and contribute to their motivation, learning,

satisfaction, and engagement with the course (Ames, 1992; Blumenfeld,









1992; Lengnick-Hall & Sanders, 1997; Palmer, 2005; Yair, 2000). Students’

perception regarding classroom goal orientation—such as learning or mas-

tery goal, performance or ability goal—is also influenced by the nature and

degree of task variety.

The importance of incorporating task variety in a course design canhardly be overemphasized. In addition to the motivational impact, task vari-

ety can serve at least two other major objectives for business school

students: (a) provide students with a mechanism to learn and enhance a vari-

ety of skills, and (b) equip them with the skills essential for becoming suc-

cessful as managers. Business school courses should be designed to include

tasks and activities that require a range of skills important in practical life,

such as oral and written communication, decision making, leadership, criti-

cal thinking and problem solving, research and analytic thinking, and team-work. A variety of methods—for example, games, contests, computers, case

analysis, group assignments, formal presentations, role-playing, and major

written papers—can be used to require students to apply these skills (e.g.,

Lengnick-Hall & Sanders, 1997). Business schools prepare students to

become managers; therefore, courses should be designed to ensure that

students acquire the essential managerial skills identified by Katz (1974)—

namely, conceptual, human, and technical. Students should also become

competent in the heuristics of applying these skills so that they are able tosuccessfully handle complex managerial assignments. This is important

because the growth and success of many organizations have been hindered

primarily because of a dearth of managers with the necessary skills (Peterson

& Van Fleet, 2004). Specifically, a recent study by Peterson and Peterson

(2004), based on a survey of senior managers, confirmed that successful or

unsuccessful managerial performance can be attributed to either the presence

or absence of these three essential skills among the managers. Although the

literature may reveal newer skill categories, these can be viewed as subsets

of the three major categories of skills defined by Katz, which still continue

to dominate the literature (Peterson & Van Fleet, 2004).

To elaborate on these skills, we begin with conceptual skills. A compre-

hensive case study in a capstone course, such as the strategic management

course, usually provides a mechanism to hone and enhance students’ con-

ceptual skills—the ability to plan, to process information, to make strategic

decisions, and to apply systems perspective—as well as other skills. Students

are usually required to perform a comprehensive analysis of an entire

company and its environment, to identify problems and their underlyingcauses, as well as to develop strategic and operational solutions. A variety

of other methods, such as management simulation games and experiential

exercises, may be used to enhance conceptual skills of students.

Next, because of rapid globalization and diversity in the workforce, human

skills—the ability to work cooperatively with and through other people, to









communicate effectively, to motivate, to lead, to facilitate, and to handle

conflicts—are even more crucial today for business students than ever before.

As underscored by Porter and McKibbin (1988) in their report of the current

and future state of management education, the corporate world is most con-

cerned with the low level of human skills or “soft skills” among business grad-uates, and these skills are one of the most important development needs. Porter

and McKibbin’s observations still hold true; more recent study findings have

also attributed managerial failure to a deficiency in human skills (e.g., Camp,

Vielhaber, & Simonetti, 2001; McConnell, 2004). Prompted by similar

research findings, some researchers (e.g., Shuayto, 2001) have suggested that

business schools add substantial focus on the soft skills.

Fortunately, business school courses generally present ample scope to

incorporate various tasks or activities to provide students the mechanisms tolearn, to apply, and to enhance human skills. A course design that includes

team projects, such as comprehensive case analyses or research assignments,

may facilitate the application and enhancement of human skills, among other

things. Known as the “moral responsibility (cooperative) motivational sys-

tem,” group assignments can feature a cooperative goal structure where a goal

is shared by a group of students and requires resource management skills

(Ames & Ames, 1984). Resource management makes it necessary for

students to apply a variety of skills, including pooling and sharing resources,allocating responsibilities, and coordinating efforts in order to achieve group

goals. Various other tasks or activities may be designed to promote human

skills among the students, such as experiential exercises, contests, simulation

games, role play, and team-based formal presentations and written projects.

Technical skills, on the other hand, involve the mastery and application

of the methods, techniques, specialized knowledge, and analytic skills related

to specific functional areas, such as management, marketing, accounting, or

finance. To illustrate, research projects requiring students to perform a lit-

erature search, to collect and analyze data, to use statistical methods, and to

write a paper following a particular style guide may facilitate students’

learning and an application of several technical skills. The following tasks

or activities, to name a few, as well as most of those mentioned under the

other two skills, may be incorporated in a course design for enhancing

students’ technical skills: learning and application of course concepts, tech-

niques, and methods; functional analysis of a company; class discussions;

debate on controversial topics; application of computer software; and use

of multimedia and Internet. Depending on the nature and comprehensive-ness of tasks or activities, a particular task may involve all three skills or be

limited primarily to one particular skill only.

Task identity. Studies (e.g., Archer & Schevak, 1998; House, 2002;

Lengnick-Hall & Sanders, 1997) involving college students have reported a









positive relationship between assignments having task identity and students’

motivation, performance, and learning. Task identity may be facilitated by

giving students major tasks or assignments—such as independent research

projects, group projects, major written papers, formal presentations on a

major assignment, and comprehensive case analyses. Students should expe-rience a sense of accomplishment by completing major assignments or

achieving tangible outcomes, whether individually or as a group. On the

contrary, small or fragmented assignments, such as many short quizzes or

minicases, distributed over the semester may not amount to signify the exis-

tence of task identity, even though they may contribute to task variety.

Examples of assignments that may provide task identity include (a) writing

a business plan or marketing plan for a new product; (b) a comprehensive

case analysis, typically used in a capstone course, involving all facets of acorporation and requiring formulation of strategic and operational decisions;

(c) profiling an industry structure; (d) a semester-long management simula-

tion game, in which students either individually or as a group assume

responsibility for a company’s competitiveness and performance in the mar-

ketplace; and (e) a small research project, such as assessing the quality of

communication between the faculty and the students, where students

develop a research design, collect and analyze data, derive conclusions, and

write a formal report. The scale of these assignments can be tailored to acourse while retaining the task identity feature in the course design.

Task significance. Task significance or task value—as used in the class-

room context—means the pride associated with success (Atkinson, 1957),

intrinsic or interest value, and the importance (utility value) of a task related

to some future goals (Eccles, 1983). Many prominent theories of achieve-

ment motivation are based on the assumption that task values affect or

mediate achievement behavior (Stipek, 1996). The findings from several

studies (e.g., Brophy, 1987; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Reeve, Jang,

Hardre, & Omura, 2002; Simons, DeWitte, & Lens, 2004) also indicate that

students are likely to engage in more effective effort management and

learning if they perceive that tasks assigned are important, interesting, and

relevant to their goals. Therefore, while designing a course, tasks and

assignments selected should offer value to students; otherwise, their inter-

est, engagement in academic tasks, and satisfaction may be diminished

(Chung & McLarney, 2000; Stipek, 1996).

Any method used—such as lecture, case analysis, simulation, or otheractivities—should let the students clearly know that the knowledge and

skills acquired are worthwhile and have utility value with reference to their

present and future goals, such as jobs, self-employment, and graduate edu-

cation (O’Neil & Hopkins, 2002). For example, students may be directed to

associate the information being learned with their future goals, so that they









can see the value of learning to their career goals (Hynd, Holschuh, & Nist,

2000). Similarly, they may be required to apply the knowledge or skills

acquired to explain current business, economic, or other relevant events. As

an additional example, graduate students in a course may be required to

produce a publishable-quality term paper targeted for a journal or a profes-sional meeting. This may instill a greater sense of task significance, partic-

ularly among those whose goals are to pursue a profession where scholarly

activities are essential. The importance of the skills taught may be further

reinforced with the help of corporate visitors, mock interviews, or other

practical or simulated settings. Corporations spend billions of dollars each

year to train the newly hired college graduates because of their deficiency

in basic skills, including communication (reading, writing) and analytic

skills. Therefore, a perception of task significance may be augmented if acourse is designed to teach necessary skills and emphasizes the relevance

or benefits of these skills, as well as the dangers of lacking them under the

current and future scenarios.

If designed properly, task significance may also address the criticisms

by corporate executives—as reflected in the Porter and McKibbin report

(1988)—that business graduates lack knowledge regarding how the business

world operates in practice as well as in theory. For example, a course may

use various methods—such as experiential exercises, case studies, businesssimulation games—to require that students apply classroom learning to cor-

porate or real-world contexts. To take it one step further, task significance

may be incorporated in a course design by providing a touch of reality. For

instance, students may be required to develop projects or cases for external

competition or grants, to work on business plans or marketing plans for local

businesses, to manage portfolios funded by the business school or university,

or to generate solutions for corporations’ real problems with the top execu-

tives evaluating and comparing them with the actual solutions.

Once students are convinced that the knowledge and skills gained from

the course can contribute meaningfully to their immediate and long-term

goals, they will be more motivated to learn in the classrooms (Yair, 2000).

Moreover, a course having task significance may also improve teaching

effectiveness because relevancy and value of a course for university students

seem to be the most important predictors of teacher effectiveness (e.g., Young

& Shaw, 1999).

ENHANCING THE CPS OF EXPERIENCED RESPONSIBILITY

Autonomy. Many studies and their reviews (e.g., Ames, 1992; Boekaerts

& Minnaert, 2006; Deci & Ryan, 1996; Ryan & Deci 2000; Skinner &

Belmont, 1993; Strong, Davis, & Hawks, 2004) have confirmed that auton-

omy can promote intrinsic motivation, interest, engagement in learning, and









perceived competence among college students. On the contrary, when students

perceive that they are being controlled or left with little autonomy, they may

perform poorly or experience reduced intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan,

1996; Perry & Penner, 1990). Teachers’ support of student autonomy is

viewed by many theorists as the hallmark of good teaching (Ames, 1992).Therefore, autonomy-enhancing behavior as opposed to autonomy-suppressing

behavior should be incorporated in the classroom design.

As the literature (e.g., Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Deci & Ryan, 1996;

Goudas & Biddle, 1995; Palmer, 2005) suggests, a variety of methods can

be used in classrooms to enhance student autonomy. One dominant

approach is to provide students with a range of choices, such as optional

study material or several tasks to choose from, so that they can select tasks

consistent with their goals and interests. Autonomy can also be fostered bygiving students agency and control in the learning process, such as by

allowing students to teach and grade each other, or by providing encour-

agement for self-initiation and independent thinking. Moreover, acknowl-

edging students’ perspectives and frame of reference, allowing criticisms

by the students, and providing a satisfactory explanation regarding why

students should participate in an assigned activity are additional suggested

means to promote perceptions of autonomy among students. Research (e.g.,

Deci & Ryan, 1996) also indicates that a teacher’s interpersonal style thatminimizes the use of controlling events and controlling language is likely

to contribute to autonomy and enhance motivation.

For example, students’ autonomy may be influenced by the way rewards

are administered. Using rewards to control students’ behavior—such as

announcing that “you have to pay attention to get the reward”—can reduce

their sense of autonomy. However, using rewards to communicate information

about competence or mastery can enhance intrinsic motivation. In addition to

applying these autonomy-enhancing behaviors, it is suggested that teachers

avoid autonomy-suppressing behaviors, such as suppressing criticisms and

independent opinions given by students, unnecessarily intruding while students

are involved in an ongoing process, or forcing meaningless and uninteresting

assignments and activities (Assor et al., 2002).

In designing a business course, the magnitude of autonomy can also be

an important consideration. A course design may include autonomy at the

macro level, where students actively participate in the overall course design,

and at the micro level, which provides students an opportunity to select spe-

cific activities or tasks. At a macro level, students in a business course canbe involved in setting the course goals as well as the processes to achieve

them, such as assignments or teaching methods, within certain parameters

set by the instructors. Such a procedure has shown to generate an extremely

positive experience for both the students and the instructors (Durlabhji &

Fusilier, 1999). As demonstrated by these researchers, a baseline course









design may be presented to students during the first meeting that outlines

minimum parameters for the course. These parameters may include the

requirements deemed essential for the course by its instructor, such as a

conceptual- and application-level understanding of course concepts, valid

mechanisms to assess students’ understanding, percentage of grades to becontrolled by the instructor and the students (if desired), group activities,

real-world applications, in-class presentation, and written assignments.

Students may be given the choice of using the course design with no

change, modifying it, or developing a new one as long as the minimum

parameters are maintained.

At a micro level, students may be allowed to choose specific tasks and

activities, as well as the methods associated with them. For example, a pro-

fessor may (a) allow students to decide on the number of assignments orexams, the format of assignments or exams (essay or multiple-choice or a

combination of the two), the venue of exams (in-class or take-home), and

the due date for assignments or exams; (b) provide a list of research or pro-

ject topics to choose from, such as book report, comprehensive case study,

case development and write-up, or other comparable assignments; (c) give

students an option to either make a class presentation or submit a written

paper on the completed project or research; and (d) allow students to select

between individual or group assignments. As a variation, students may bepresented several course packages to choose from at the start of the semes-

ter, each package containing a different combination of tasks, activities, and

methods.

Another important consideration is that the degree of autonomy should

be matched with the course level and maturity of the students; in other

words, it makes sense to provide more structure and less autonomy to a

freshman-level class compared with a senior-level class. As some leadership

theories (e.g., Hersey & Blanchard’s [1982] Situational Leadership Theory)

suggest, the degree of autonomy should be increased as the followers’ task-

related maturity increases.

ENHANCING THE CPS OF KNOWLEDGE OF ACTUAL RESULTS

Evaluation and feedback . Evaluation and feedback, as structural charac-

teristics, are intertwined and should be considered together for practical

purposes. These salient classroom factors, when appropriately designed and

implemented, can influence students’ engagement, effort, and persistenceregarding academic activities (e.g., Ames, 1992; Ames & Ames, 1984). It

should be noted that research findings as well as the motivation-enhancing

guidelines in the education literature are based on studies that primarily

used evaluation and feedback conducted by the instructors and/or peers.

As a strategy, evaluation should be private and designed to communicate









substantive information to students about their competencies, such as

providing written comments to specify strengths and weaknesses related to

an assignment. It should also offer specific guidance related to future efforts

that can lead to improvements (Ames, 1992; Stipek, 1996). This strategy

would help promote students’ sense of self-worth and motivation. On the con-trary, evaluations designed to emphasize social (public) comparisons, including

announcements of highest and lowest scores, public evaluation, and displays

of selected research papers, should be avoided. This is becasue students who

compare themselves unfavorably as a result of social comparisons may ques-

tion their ability, avoid challenging tasks, and experience diminished intrin-

sic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Elliott & Dweck, 1988).

Research findings suggest that timely and frequent feedback is likely to

increase students’ engagement and desire for challenging tasks if it isdesigned to communicate developing competence, to allow mistakes as a

part of learning but not manipulation, and to emphasize learning and

effort—for instance, “you have been making progress” or “you are working

hard” (e.g., Hagen & Weinstein, 1995; Stipek, 1996). In providing feed-

back, however, the use of global comments—such as “very good” or “very

weak”—and normatively distributed grades without substantive evaluation

should be avoided because such practices may diminish student interest and

engagement (Butler, 1987). Another important and integral aspect of feed-back is causal attribution. Researchers (Stipek, 1996; Weiner, 1979) suggest

that we attribute students’ causes of success to (a) effort (e.g., “your hard

work paid off”) and (b) ability (e.g., “you are good at it”). The causes of

failure should be attributed to inadequate effort and inappropriate study

strategies if we are to promote initiative, effort, and persistence among

students. Additional strategies to enhance motivation may include adminis-

tering positive or negative feedback in a noncritical, autonomy-supportive

way (Deci & Ryan, 1996) and using rewards as a means to communicate or

symbolize students’ accomplishments and progress (Bandura, 1986).

The preceding discussion focused on the teachers as the source of eval-

uation and feedback. Tasks designed to provide quick feedback to students

regarding their progress as well as feedback from peers, such as on a class

presentation, may also contribute to motivation. College courses vary in

terms of the content and activities, making some courses easier than others

to design so that students receive frequent feedback. Usually, assignments

requiring computer applications—such as business simulation games, sta-

tistical analysis, certain tasks in Management Information Systems (MIS)courses, on-line activities—are likely to facilitate quick and frequent feedback

to students regarding their progress. Experience suggests that the semester-

long management simulation games, typically used in capstone courses, are

capable of generating intense student engagement. The game design usu-

ally requires that the groups in charge of hypothetical corporations compete









in a simulated marketplace and receive unbiased feedback, almost immedi-

ately, regarding the outcomes of their weekly strategic and operational deci-

sions. Task-based feedback can also be facilitated by giving individual and

group assignments to require that students search computer databases or

use the Internet to find articles or material related to a research or otherskill-enhancing projects. The feedback is quick, and students immediately

know if they are making progress in terms of being able to follow correct

search procedures or find relevant materials.

Apart from the technology-based feedback, a course may be designed in

which the instructor and the peers provide specific, substantive, and quick

feedback on individual and group presentations, which can be based on an

end-of-presentation survey—open or confidential. Face-to-face feedback

from peers may also be facilitated when multiple groups get involved in anopen class discussion regarding a case or topic, or selected students lead

class discussions or solve problems on the board. A design that allows feed-

back from peers, such as small group activities where members can act as

coaches to one another, is likely to stimulate students’ thinking and gener-

ate a highly positive learning experience for those involved (O’Neil &

Hopkins, 2002). Although it is recognized that the nature of a specific

course could limit the design scope and flexibility, more often than not

mechanisms may be devised, based on the course instructor’s own experi-ence and technological advances, to maximize the benefits offered by task-

based and peer-based feedback.

Table 1 summarizes the techniques, activities, and examples related to

the five structural elements of classroom design as presented in the afore-

mentioned discussions.

Discussion and Conclusion

The JCM provides a theoretical basis as well as a framework for busi-

ness school teachers to enhance student motivation by creating an appro-

priate classroom environment through effective course design. Our review

of research findings indicates that the five structural elements of the JCM

are relevant in classroom settings. When appropriately designed and incor-

porated in a course, these structural elements and the supporting instruc-

tional strategies, presented in this article, have the potential to influence

students’critical psychological states (CPS) and motivate them for learning and

performance. The instructors’ own innovations, experience, and the wealthof available resources—cases, exercises, simulation games, and teaching

ideas—can be organized along these structural elements to trigger a strong

impact on the students’ CPS and enhance motivation.

In addition, the JCM framework can also be used by business faculty as

a diagnostic tool to identify the structural element(s) causing motivational










TABLE 1

Designing Business School Courses Based on the StructuralElements: Techniques, Activities, and Examples

to Promote Student Motivation

Task variety

Design tasks or activities to require a variety of skills, such as oral and written communi-

cation, decision making, leadership, critical and analytic thinking, problem solving,

research, resource management, and teamwork.

Design may include comprehensive/short case analyses, functional analyses of a company,

group assignments, formal presentations, written papers, management simulation or other

games, experiential exercises, role-playing, class discussions, debate on controversial top-

ics, application of course concepts, software, multimedia, and Internet.

Task identity

Design courses to include major tasks or assignments, which would provide students a

sense of achievement based on tangible outcomes.

Design may include development of business or marketing plans for new products; compre-

hensive case analyses; a written paper on structural analysis of an industry; a semester-long

management game, with student groups in charge of companies competing in a simulated mar-

ketplace; formal presentations on major assignments; a research project, where students

develop a research plan, collect and analyze data, derive conclusions, and write a formal report.

Task significance

Design tasks as well as communicate to convince students that the knowledge and skills being

acquired are important in the context of real-life situations and their present and future goals.

Design may require students to apply course-related concepts, knowledge, or skills to

explain current business, economic, or other relevant events; associate the information

being learned with their future goals so that they can see the value of learning; develop a

publishable quality term paper in a graduate class targeted for a journal or a professional

meeting; apply classroom learning to corporate or real-world contexts through the use of

experiential exercises or other methods; be more informed about the value of knowledge

and skills learned with the help of corporate visitors, mock interviews, or other practical or

simulated settings; develop projects or cases for external competition or grants; develop a

business or marketing plan for local businesses; manage a portfolio funded by the businessschool or university; generate and recommend solutions for an existing corporation’s real

problems, with the top executives evaluating and comparing them with actual solutions.

Autonomy

Give students agency, control, and choice in the learning process at the macro and/or micro

level.

Design may include involving students in designing a course within the parameters set by

the instructors at the start of a semester or presenting several course packages to choose

from; providing students a choice regarding tasks, activities, and the methods associated

with them (such as an opportunity to select between presentation and written paper;

choose a research topic; or choose the format and due time for exams, assignments, or

research projects); allowing students to teach and grade each other; providing encourage-

ment for self-initiation and independent thinking; acknowledging students’ perspectives

and allowing criticisms by them; minimizing the use of controlling events and controlling

language; using rewards to communicate information about students’ competence rather

than to co trol their behavior; avoiding autonomy-suppressingbbehaviors—such as

(continued)









problems among students. In diagnosing problems, for example, students

may be involved in analyzing the course they are taking along the structural

elements. Various approaches—such as open class discussions, question-naires customized for the course, or an adapted and simplified version of

Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) Job Diagnostics Survey—can be used to

obtain student input necessary to evaluate the structural characteristics. The

objective should be to identify any structural element(s) and the accompa-

nying design deficiencies contributing to such problems, and to revamp the

element(s) to improve the situation.

The article has not addressed the GNS component of the theory because

of weak or negative research support. However, the GNS primarily involves

the issue of individual differences. Although an entire article may be devoted

to this issue, as a brief note, it must be stated that many studies have found

individual differences to affect students’ academic motivation and perfor-

mance (for a review, see Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996). Examples of fre-

quently studied dimensions of individual differences of students include

abilities, self-concept, locus of control, achievement expectancy, goal ori-

entations, skills (e.g., conceptual, self-regulation), age, gender, and self-

efficacy. Students’ behavior and motivation may depend on the nature, the

appropriateness, and the degree to which these individual difference factorsare present in them as well as the extent to which instructional changes

are made to address individual differences. For example, studies involving

college students demonstrated that (a) motivation is maximized when

instructional methods applied to students with low conceptual levels are

highly structured, or vice versa (Hancock, 2002), and (b) some students are

TABLE 1 (continued)

suppressing criticisms and independent opinions given by students, or unnecessarily intrud-

ing while students are still involved in an ongoing process; giving students freedom to

choose their own team members or vote a nonperforming team member out of the group.

Evaluation and feedback

Design evaluation and feedback to be private, timely, frequent, and substantive; specify

strengths and weaknesses; emphasize learning and effort; and offer specific guidance

related to future efforts.

Design may include avoiding evaluations designed to emphasize social comparisons—such

as an announcement of highest or lowest scores—and global comments—such as very good

or very weak; attributing students’causes of success to effort and ability, and causes of fail-

ure to lower level of effort and inappropriate study strategies; using rewards to symbolize

students’ accomplishments; giving assignments that require computer or Internet applica-

tions for quick feedback; allowing immediate feedback on individual and group presenta-tions from peers or instructor; encouraging open class discussions between groups

regarding a case or topic; inviting students to lead problem-solving tasks.








motivated by the discipline itself, whereas others are motivated by the

acquisition of more general skills and experiences (Jacobs & Newstead,

2000). Researchers suggest that educators take into consideration individ-

ual student characteristics in the design and delivery of course materials

(Buttner, 2002; Chung & McLarney, 2000; Van Fleet, 1995). Therefore, asthe chief architect of a course, it may be worthwhile for the business school

professors to take up the challenge given the expectations and the potential

rewards for such an endeavor. Many of the instructional strategies related to

certain structural elements (e.g., autonomy) discussed earlier may be help-

ful in dealing with this issue.

Finally, although this article focuses on the issue of stimulating student

motivation and engagement within the classroom, the strategies related to

structural elements have implications in the context of the broader land-scape of business education. Since the Porter and McKibbin report of 1988,

criticisms and concerns have been mounting that business schools in this

country have lost their way, and as a result, business education has become

less relevant to the corporate world (e.g., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005;

Mintzberg, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). Some scholars have called for a

reengineering of the business school curricula, among other things, to more

effectively serve to develop managers and business leaders. Even though

management education is in need of profound reform, chances of suchreform seem limited (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). In this regard, many of the

instructional strategies presented in the article show promise for addressing

some of these concerns. For example, Mintzberg (2004) noted that the

classroom focus needs to shift from teaching to learning. Teaching is

instructor driven and controlled, but learning is student centered, requiring

it to be responsive and customized. The instructional strategies related to

autonomy, presented in Table 1, may facilitate this shift from a teaching to

a learning orientation.

Next, Bennis and O’Toole (2005) emphatically stated that management

education must integrate knowledge and business practices in order to

regain relevance as professional education for the business world. To facil-

itate such integration, they suggested establishing investment funds for

students to manage, giving students opportunities to run businesses, and

structuring internships. Similarly, McCarthy, Tucker, and Dean (2002)

noted that service learning—which is student centered and connects uni-

versities to their communities by engaging students in community-based

projects—can link classroom theory and business world practices. Thestrategies supporting task significance, discussed above, incorporate these

as well as other mechanisms and have potential to enhance the relevance of

business education.

On the issue of learning, Vaill (1996) observed that we all operate and learn

in permanent white water (PWW) conditions—environments characterized









by surprising, novel, messy, costly, and unpreventable events. Two of the

most important elements necessary for successful managerial leadership

learning in PWW are (a) self-directed learning, where the learner has sub-

stantial control over the purpose, the form, the content, and the pace of

learning, and (b) expressive learning (learning through the process of expression). The latter may be facilitated through methods such as case

studies, in-class exercises, living cases where the case characters join the

class, internships, computer simulations, group projects, self-chosen and

self-directed projects or businesses (Vaill, 1996). Based on the structural

design presented in this article, the former is accommodated through auton-

omy and the latter through task variety, task significance, and autonomy.

In conclusion, the JCM provides an integrative framework that can be

used by the business school faculty to design courses based on the fivestructural characteristics discussed in this article. Such an approach is

expected to promote a classroom environment conducive to motivation and

enhance students’ academic performance and learning. The literature-based

strategies presented in this article, the rich repertoire of instructional

resources, as well as professors’ own innovations and ideas related to these

structural elements should enable us to accomplish the challenging but

achievable goal of maximizing student motivation and learning that is rele-

vant to the business world.

References

Allen, M., Witt, P., & Wheeless, L. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational

factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication

Education, 55(1), 21-31.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a qualita-tive definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 , 535-556.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strate-

gies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.

Archer, J., & Schevak, J. J. (1998). Enhancing students’ motivation to learn: Achievement

goals in university classrooms. Educational Psychology, 18, 205- 223.

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:

Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engage-

ment in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261-277.

Atkinson, J. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review,

64, 359-372.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business

Review, 83(5), 96-104.

Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal

theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-281.









Boekaerts, M., & Minnaert, A. (2006). Affective and motivational outcomes of working in

collaborative groups. Educational Psychology, 26 (2), 187-208.

Bottger, P. C., & Chew, I. K-H. (1986). The Job Characteristics Model and growth satisfaction:

Main effects of assimilation of work experience and context satisfaction. Human Relations,

39, 575-594.

Brophy, J. E. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership , 44, 40-48.

Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of dif-

ferent feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interests, and performance.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 474-482.

Buttner, E. H. (2002). High-performance classrooms for women? Applying a relational frame

to management/organizational behavior courses. Journal of Management Education,

26 (3), 274-290.

Camp, R., Vielhaber, M., & Simonetti, J. L. (2001). Strategic interviewing: How to hire good

people . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chung, E., & McLarney, C. (2000). The classroom as a service encounter: Suggestions for

value creation. Journal of Management Education, 24(4), 484-500.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior . New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning.

Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 165-183.

Durden, G., & Ellis, L. (2003). Is class attendance a proxy variable for student motivation in

economics classes? An empirical analysis. International Social Science Review, 78(1/2),

42-47.

Durlabhji, S. G., & Fusilier, M. R. (1999). The empowered classroom: Applying TQM to col-

lege teaching. Managing Service Quality, 9, 110-116.

Eccles, J. P. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),

Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance

achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension, moti-

vation, and learning. Communication Education, 53(1), 1-20.

Glick, W. H., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Gupta, N. (1986). Method versus substance: How strong

are underlying relationships between job characteristics and attitudinal outcomes?

Academy of Management Journal, 29, 441-464.

Goudas, M., & Biddle, S. (1995). A prospective study of the relationships between motiva-

tional orientations and perceived competence with intrinsic motivation and achievement in

a teacher education course. Educational Psychology, 15, 89-96.

Graen, G. B., Scandura, T. A., & Graen, M. (1986). A field experimental test of the moderating

effects of growth need strength on productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 484-491.

Griffin, R. W. (1991). Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions, attitudes, and behav-

iors: A long-term investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 425-435.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of atheory. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 16 , 250-279.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hagen, A. S., & Weinstein, C. E. (1995, Fall). Achievement goals, self-regulated learning, and

the role of classroom context. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, pp. 43-55.

Hancock, D. R. (1995). What teachers may do to influence student motivation: An application

of expectancy theory. Journal of General Education, 44(3), 171-179.









Hancock, D. R. (2002). Influencing postsecondary students’ motivation to learn in the class-

room. College Teaching, 50(2), 63-68.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals:

When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist , 33, 1-21.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing

human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical

issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179.

Hogan, E. A., & Martell, D. A. (1987). A confirmatory structural equations analysis of the Job

Characteristics Model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 242-263.

House, J. D. (2002). The independent effects of student characteristics and instructional activ-

ities on achievement: An application of the input-environment-outcome assessment model.

International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(2), 225-233.

Hynd, C., Holschuh, J., & Nist, S. (2000). Learning complex scientific information: Motivation

theory and its relation to student perceptions. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16 , 23-57.

Jacobs, P. A., & Newstead, S. E. (2000). The nature and development of student motivation.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 243-252.

Johns, G., Xie, J. L., & Fang, Y. (1992). Mediating and moderating effects in job design.

Journal of Management , 18, 657-676.

Katz, R. L. (1974). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review,

52(September/October), 90-102.

Lee-Ross, D. (1998). A practical theory of motivation applied to hotels. International Journal

of contemporary Hospitality Management , 10(2), 68-74.

Lee-Ross, D. (2002). An exploratory study of work motivation among private and public sec-

tor hospital chefs in Australia. Journal of Management Development , 21(7/8), 576-588.

Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Sanders, M. A. (1997). Designing effective learning systems for man-

agement education: Student roles, requisite variety, and practicing what we teach. Academy

of Management Journal, 40, 1334-1368.

Leonard, N. H., Beauvais, L. L., & Scholl, R. W. (1999). Work motivation: The incorporation

of self-concept based processes. Human Relations, 52, 969-998.

Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the rela-

tion of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280-289.

Maslovaty, N., & Kuzi, E. (2002). Promoting motivational goals through alternative or tradi-

tional assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28, 199-222.

McCarthy, A. M., Tucker, M. L., & Dean, K. L. (2002). Service-learning: Creating commu-

nity. In C. Wankel & R. DeFillippi (Eds.), Rethinking management education for the 21st

century (pp. 63-86). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

McConnell, C. R. (2004). Interpersonal skills. Health Care Manager , 23(2), 177-187.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and

management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Newby, T. J. (1991). Classroom motivation: Strategies of first-year teachers. Journal of


O’Neil, D. A., & Hopkins, M. M. (2002). The teacher as coach approach: Pedagogical choices

for management educators. Journal of Management Education, 26 (4), 402-414.

Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (15), 1853-1881.

Perry, R. P., & Penner, K. S. (1990). Enhancing academic achievement in college students through

attributional retraining and instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 262-271.

Peterson, T. O., & Peterson, C. M. (2004). From felt need to actual need: A multi-method

multi-sample approach to needs assessment. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17 (1),

5-21.









Peterson, T. O., & Van Fleet, D. (2004). The ongoing legacy of R. L. Katz: An updated

typology of management skills. Management Decisions, 42(10), 1297-1308.

Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the

eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1), 78-95.

Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Student motivation in the college classrooms. In K. W. Prichard &

R. M. Sawyer (Eds.), The handbook of college teaching: Theory and applications (pp. 23-43).Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components

of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or

thrust into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-

supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation

and Emotion, 26 , 183-207.

Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational behavior . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist , 55, 68-78.

Simons, J., DeWitte, S., & Lens, W. (2004). The role of different types of instrumentality in

motivation, study strategies, and performance: Know why you learn, so you’ll know what

you learn! British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 343-360.

Shuayto, N. (2001). A study evaluating the critical managerial skills corporations and business

schools desire of MBA graduates . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern

University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of

teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational

Psychology , 85, 571-581.

Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative

functions. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology

(pp. 243-310). New York: Macmillan.

Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),

Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 85-113). New York: Macmillan.

Strong, B., Davis, M., & Hawks, V. (2004). Self-grading in large general education classes:

A case study. College Teaching, 52(2), 52-57.

Treville, S. D., & Antonakis, J. (2006). Could lean production job design be intrinsically moti-

vating? Contextual, configurational, and level-of-analysis issues. Journal of Operations

Management , 24(2), 99-123.

Vaill, P. (1996). Learning as a way of being. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Van Fleet, D. D. (1995). Designing MBA programs with students in mind. Journal of

Management Education, 19, 373-380.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of


Yair, G. (2000). Reforming motivation: How the structure of instruction affects students’ learn-

ing experiences. British Educational Research Journal, 26 , 191-210.

Young, S., & Shaw, D. G. (1999). Profiles of effective college and university teachers. Journal

of Higher Education, 70, 670-686.


Designing Business School Courses

Documents

Transcript of Designing Business School Courses