Learning Objectives and Content of Science Curricula for Undergraduate Management Education

Abstract

Business is progressively integrating technologies and R&D with corporate and business strategy. This trend is creating increasing demand for executives and managers who have sufficient technology-centered knowledge to work effectively in interdisciplinary environments. This study addresses how management education could address the growing need for such pluralistic training by embracing development of undergraduate science curriculum attuned to the needs of business students. We found that science courses are part of the required curriculum at 80% of BusinessWeek’s “top business schools.” To assess what content and learning objectives might best meet the needs of business students, we conducted a survey of educators from business, science, and arts and sciences in general and examined curriculum developed explicitly for business students at two freestanding business institutions. These results suggest that science courses could better serve business education by providing a broad picture of scientific principles and their presence in everyday life, promoting critical thinking and inductive reasoning, and enabling understanding of scientific research, technical innovation, and product development as well as their ethical and social implications. Development of such courses would require collaboration between management and science educators to ensure that the scientific content of the courses meet the highest standards of evidence-based science education and the business context is grounded in rigorous management principles and practices.

Keywords

science education management education general education management of technology learning objectives business education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ABET. (2007). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2008-09%20EAC%20Criteria%2012-04-07.pdf

Albers

(2002). A genuine interdisciplinary partnership: MAA unveils Mathematics for business decisions. FOCUS, 22, 14-16.

American Association of Physics Teachers. (2003). Strategic programs for innovations in undergraduate physics (SPIN-UP): Project report. Retrieved from http://www.aapt.org/programs/projects/ntfup.cfm

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report on student achievement in college. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/pdfs/leapreportfinal.pdf

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2006). How should colleges prepare students to succeed in today’s global economy. Washington, DC: Peter Hart Associates. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/Re8097abcombined.pdf

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCenturyfinal.pdf

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2001). Standards for business accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.fgcu.edu/cob/aacsb/stds.htm

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2009). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Tampa, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business_standards.pdf

Awbrey

S. N.

(2005). General education reform as organizational change: The importance of integrating cultural and structural change. Journal of General Education, 54, 1-21.

10.

Benelux Bologna Secretariat. (2009). Bologna beyond 2010. Report on the development of the European higher education area 2009. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Beyond_2010_report_FINAL.pdf

11.

Building Engineering and Science Talent. (2004). The talent imperative: Meeting America’s challenge in science and engineering. Retrieved from http://www.bestworkforce.org/PDFdocs/BESTTalentImperativeFINAL.pdf

12.

Business Higher Education Forum. (2003). Building a nation of learners: The need for changes in teaching and learning to meet global challenges. Retrieved from http://www.bhef.com/publications/documents/building_nation_03.pdf

13.

Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America’s potential: The education for innovation initiative. Washington, DC: U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.uschamber.com/reports/tapping-americas-potential-education-innovation-initiative

14.

BusinessWeek . (2006). The best undergraduate business schools. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2006/0619_top50b.pdf

15.

BusinessWeek . (2008). Top undergraduate business programs. Retrieved from http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/undergrad_bschool/

16.

Colby

Ehrlich

Sullivan

W. M.

Dolle

J. R.

(2011). Rethinking undergraduate business education: Liberal learning for the profession. Stanford, CA: Jossey-Bass/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

17.

Colwell

R. R.

(2009). Professional science master’s programs merit wider support. Science, 323, 1676-1677.

18.

Committee on Technological Literacy, National Academy of Engineering, & National Research Council. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology ( Pearson

Young

A. T.

, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309082625

19.

Council on Competitiveness. (2005). National innovation initiative summit and report: Thriving in a world of challenge and change. Retrieved from http://www.compete.org/publications/detail/202/innovate-america/

20.

Department of Energy. (2006). Final report of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board’s Science and Mathematics Education Task Force 2006. Retrieved from http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/maprod/documents/Federal_Advisory_Committee_Management_Program_Nov_18_2008.pdf

21.

Elder

Meyer-Krahmer

Reger

(2002). Changes in the strategic management of technology: results of a global benchmarking study. R&D Management, 32, 149-164.

22.

European Quality Improvement System. (2009). EQUIS standards & criteria. Retrieved from http://www.efmd.org/images/stories/efmd/EQUIS/equisstandardsandcriteriajan09.pdf

23.

Green

Emerson

(2007a). Reorganizing freshman business mathematics I: Background and philosophy. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 27, 11-23.

24.

Green

Emerson

(2007b). Reorganizing freshman business mathematics II: Authentic assessment in mathematics through professional memos. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 27, 66-80.

25.

Handelsman

Ebert-May

Beichner

Bruns

Chang

DeHaan

Wood

W. B.

(2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521-522.

26.

Handelsman

Miller

Pfund

(2006). Scientific teaching. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

27.

Harvard Business Essentials. (2003). Managing creativity and innovation, practical strategies to encourage creativity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

28.

Hobson

(2008). The surprising effectiveness of college scientific literacy courses. The Physics Teacher, 46, 404-406.

29.

Hodson

(2008). Towards scientific literacy. A Teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

30.

Hofstein

Lunetta

V. N.

(2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.

31.

International Association for Management of Technology. (2007). Program guidelines for management of technology (MOT) graduate level academic institution certification. Retrieved from http://www.iamot.org/

32.

Kumar

D. D.

Chubin

D. E.

(2000). Science, technology, and society: A sourcebook on research and practice. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

33.

Labov

J. B.

(2004). From the National Academies: The challenges and opportunities for improving undergraduate science education through introductory courses. Cell Biology Education, 3, 212-214.

34.

Lamoureux

(Ed). (2004). Business and management. Chapter 3 in CRAFTY/CUPM curriculum foundations project: Voices of the partner disciplines. In Gantner

Barker

(Eds.), Mathematical Association of America (pp. 19-25). Retrieved from http://www.maa.org/cupm/crafty/welcome.html

35.

Laprise

S. L.

Winrich

Sharpe

N. R.

(2008). Business students should learn more about science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54, A35.

36.

Ledley

F. D.

(2012). Bridging the boundary between science and business. International Journal of Science in Society.

37.

Ledley

F. D.

Oches

E. A.

(in press). Business education in an age of science and technology. In Everett

D. L.

Hardy

G. M.

(Eds.), Shaping the future of business education: Relevance, rigor and life preparation.

38.

Lichtenthale

(2003, September). Third generation management of technology intelligence processes. R&D Management, 33, 361-375.

39.

Lowe

(1995). The management of technology: Perception and opportunities. New York, NY: Springer.

40.

Maglitta

(1994). Meet the new boss: A new tradition. Computerworld, 28(11), 80-82.

41.

Mallick

D. N.

Chaudhury

(2000). Technology management education in MBA programs: A comparative study of knowledge and skill requirements. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17, 153-173.

42.

Mangan

K. S.

(2003). New accreditation rules give business schools more leeway on faculty hiring. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49, A15.

43.

Mathematics Association of America. (2005). Mathematics for business decisions. Retrieved from http://business.math.arizona.edu/MBD/mbd.html

44.

McCann

J. E.

(2006). The next economy. BizEd, 5(3), 40-44.

45.

Miller

J. D.

(1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203-223.

46.

Miller

J. D.

(2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273-294.

47.

Miller

J. D.

(2007, February 17). The public understanding of science in Europe and the United States. Paper presented at the 173rd annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://ucll.msu.edu/files_ucll.msu.edu/docs/miller-science-europe.doc

48.

Miller

J. D.

(2010). The conceptualization and measurement of civic scientific literacy for the twenty-first century. In Meinwald

Hildebrand

(Eds.), Science and the educated American: A core component of liberal education (chap. 12). Cambridge MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

49.

National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future (Committee on prospering in the global economy of the 21st century: An agenda for American Science and Technology, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

50.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html

51.

National Research Council. (2003). Bio 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10497

52.

National Research Council. (2008). Science professionals: Master’s education for a competitive world. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12064

53.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2004). Sustaining the nation’s innovation ecosystems. Retrieved from http://www.calstate.edu/psm/docs/1-11-07PSM_Jun2004.pdf

54.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional graduates with degrees in science, technology, and mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_feb.pdf

55.

Project Kaleidoscope. (2006). Report on Reports II: Recommendations for urgent action 2006. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.pkal.org/documents/ReportOnReportsII.cfm

56.

Snyder

T. D.

Dillow

S. A.

Hoffman

C. M.

(2009). Digest of education statistics 2008. National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2009-020. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009020.pdf

57.

Symington

Tytler

(2004). Community leaders’ views of the purposes of science in the compulsory years of schooling. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1403-1418.

58.

Thompson

(2004). Business college support of mathematics for business decisions motivates students. FOCUS, 24, 16-17.

59.

Thompson

Lamoureux

Slaten

(2005). Mathematics for business decisions with interdisciplinary multimedia projects, Parts 1 and 2. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. Retrieved from http://business.math.arizona.edu/MBD/mbd.html

60.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2008). Tapping America’s potential: The education for innovation initiative. Retrieved from http://www.tap2015.org/news/tap2008progress.pdf

61.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/rigorousevid/rigorousevid.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

18.46 MB