Controversies are a potentially powerful teaching tool in the management classroom enabling students to explore different perspectives on an issue and to develop their skills in areas such as critical thinking and communication. Controversy is implicit to learning and to leadership and management roles in workplaces where multiple opposing views inevitably exist. Prior research asserts that constructive controversy resolution skills are important to management students. This multipart study presents a model and measure of controversy teaching approaches and explores evidence of their reliability and validity using confirmatory factor analysis and correlations with relevant outcomes and measures. The three studies, with samples of management and leadership students across several U.S. institutions, provide initial evidence of the validity of the model and measure. Multiple perspectives and avoidance were found to be underlying dimensions of instructors’ observed approaches to teaching controversial topics. The controversy teaching approaches model and measure used in this study have potential to support instructional development for management educators, as well as further research on controversy teaching. This study also has practical implications for how instructors approach controversies in the classroom and may aid effective teaching and learning.
AleamoniL. M. (1987). Typical faculty concerns about student evaluation of teaching. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 31, 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219873105
3.
AllenS. A.WilliamsP. (2014, October). Spirituality and controversial topics in leadership courses: Decision framework [Paper presentation]. Annual 2014 International Leadership Association Conference, San Diego, CA.
4.
BanfieldS. R.RichmondV. P.McCroskeyJ. C. (2006). The effect of teacher misbehaviors on teacher credibility and affect for the teacher. Communication Education, 55(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500343400
5.
BarnettJ.HodsonD. (2001). Pedagogical content knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85(4), 426–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1017
6.
BellE.BrymanA.HarleyB. (2019). Business research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
7.
BerdineR. (1987). Increasing student involvement in the learning process through debate on controversial topics. Journal of Marketing Education, 9(3), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256298700900303
8.
BiggsJ. (2001). The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004181331049
9.
BlakeR. R.MoutonJ. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Gulf Publishing.
CzerkawskiB. C. (2014). Designing deeper learning experiences for online instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(2), 29–40.
13.
DixonJ. C.McCabeJ. (2006). Competing perspectives in the classroom: The effect of sociology students’ perceptions of “balance” on evaluations. Teaching Sociology, 34(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X0603400202
14.
EdwardsC.MyersS.A. (2007). Perceived instructor credibility as a function of instructor aggressive communication. Communication Research Reports, 24, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090601128141
15.
EsareyJ.ValdesN. (2020). Unbiased, reliable, and valid student evaluations can still be unfair. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45, 1106–1120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1724875
16.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
17.
FukamiC. V.MayerD. (2019). Current connections: Controversy, civility, and relevance in the executive business classroom. Management Teaching Review, 4, 344–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298119829883
18.
GalbraithC. S.MerrillG. B.KlineD. M. (2012). Are student evaluations of teaching effectiveness valid for measuring student learning outcomes in business related classes? A neural network and Bayesian analyses. Research in Higher Education, 53(3), 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9229-0
19.
GarnerS. J.SiegelC. F. (1991). Taboo topics: The use of controversial issues for student research projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 13(1), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/027347539101300109
20.
GrahamS. C.MacFarlaneA. J. (2021). Gender nonconforming individuals and business education: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Education, 45(4), 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920962149
21.
HansbroughT. K.LordR. G.SchynsB.FotiR. J.LidenR. C.ActonB. P. (2021). Do you remember? Rater memory systems and leadership measurement. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(2), 101455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101455
22.
HessD. E. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers. Theory & Research in Social Education, 30, 10–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2002.10473177
23.
HessD. E. (2004). Controversies about controversial issues in democratic education. PS: Political Science & Politics, 37(2), 257–261. https://10.1017/S1049096504004196
24.
HessD. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. Routledge.
25.
HildebrandD.BilicaK.CappsJ. (2008). Addressing controversies in science education: A pragmatic approach to evolution education. Science & Education, 17(8), 1033–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9066-2
HinkinT. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
28.
HorowitzD. (2007). The professors’ Orwellian case. In AbyS. H. (Ed.), The academic bill of rights debate: A handbook (pp. 57–65). Praeger.
29.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049001051
32.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1985). Classroom conflict: Controversy versus debate in learning groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 237–256. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022002237
33.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (2017). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Pearson.
34.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T.TjosvoldD. (2006). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition: In DeutschM.ColemanP. T.MarcusE. (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 69–91). Jossey-Bass.
35.
KellyT. E. (1986). Discussing controversial issues: Four perspectives on the teacher’s role. Theory and Research in Social Education, 14(2), 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1986.10505516
36.
KelseyD. M.KearneyP.PlaxT. G.AllenT. H.RitterK. J. (2004). College students’ attributions of teacher misbehaviors. Communication Education, 53(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452032000135760
37.
KennedyR.CliffordS.BurleighT.WaggonerP. D.JewellR.WinterN. J. (2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8, 614–629. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.6
LinvillD. L.GrantW. J. (2017). The role of student academic beliefs in perceptions of instructor ideological bias. Teaching in Higher Education, 22, 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1237493
40.
MaccobyH. (1958). Controversy, neutrality, and higher education. American Sociological Review, 25, 884–893. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089985
41.
MarshH. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 253–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(87)90001-2
42.
MarshH. W.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.MorinA. J.TrautweinU. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 439–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008220
43.
MarshH. W.RocheL. (1993). The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 217–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163195
44.
McArthurJ. A.Bostedo-ConwayK. (2012). Exploring the relationship between student-instructor interaction on Twitter and student perceptions of teacher behaviors. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 286–292.
45.
McCroskeyJ. C.TevenJ. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
46.
McCroskeyJ. C.YoungT. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Communication Studies, 32(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510978109368075
47.
McPhersonM. B.YoungS. L. (2004). What students think when teachers get upset: Fundamental attribution error and student-generated reasons for teacher anger. Communication Quarterly, 52(4), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370409370206
48.
MerriamS. B.BieremaL. L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. Jossey-Bass.
49.
MiscoT. (2012). The importance of context for teaching controversial issues in international settings. International Education, 42(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12007
50.
NealL. S. (2013). From classroom to controversy: Conflict in the teaching of religion. Teaching Theology and Religion, 16(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12007
51.
NeysJ. (2018). Multicollinearity. In AllenM. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 1036-1037). SAGE Publications, Inc.
52.
O’NeillT. A.HoffartG. C.McLarnonM. M.WoodleyH. J.EggermontM.RosehartW.BrennanR. (2017). Constructive controversy and reflexivity training promotes effective conflict profiles and team functioning in student learning teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0183
PetersenN. J.DaviesR. D.SpitzerB. (2006). Improving data driven decision making through assessment literacy for respondents. Educational Research and Reviews, 1(8), 267–271. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR.9000196
55.
PhilpottS.ClaboughJ.McConkeyL.TurnerT. N. (2011). Controversial issues: To teach or not to teach? That is the question!The Georgia Social Studies Journal, 1(1), 32–44.
56.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
57.
ReederG. (2009). Mindreading: Judgments about intentionality and motives in dispositional inference. Psychological Inquiry, 20(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400802615744
58.
SchwabJ. J. (1973). The practical: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 201–522.
59.
SchwabJ. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239–265. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179606
ShiD.LeeT.Maydeu-OlivaresA. (2019). Understanding the model size effect on SEM fit indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79, 310–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164418783530
62.
SpectorP. E.BrannickM. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110369842
63.
SpoorenP.BrockxB.MortelmansD. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598–642. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870
64.
TevenJ. J.HansonT. L. (2004). The impact of teacher immediacy and perceived caring on teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 52(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370409370177
65.
TevenJ. J.McCroskeyJ. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529709379069
66.
ThomasK. W.KilmannR. H. (1974). The Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Xicom.
67.
ThorntonS. J. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies. In ShaverJ. P. (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning, (pp. 237–248). Palgrave Macmillan.
ThweattK. S.McCroskeyJ. C. (1998). The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47(4), 348–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529809379141
TjosvoldD. (2008). Constructive controversy for management education: Developing committed, open-minded researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2008.31413864
72.
TjosvoldD.WedleyW. C.FieldR. H. (1986). Constructive controversy, the Vroom-Yetton model, and managerial decision-making. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030070205
UttlB.WhiteC. A.GonzalezD. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007
VarelaO. E.CaterJ. J.IIIMichelN. (2015). Learner-instructor similarity: A social attribution approach to learning. Journal of Management Development, 34, 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-08-2013-0102
77.
WatsonJ. E. (1965). The place of controversy on the campus: The relation between open discussion and the quality of education. The Journal of Higher Education, 36(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/1979306
78.
WatersonR. A. (2009). The examination of pedagogical approaches to teaching controversial public issues: Explicitly teaching the holocaust and comparative genocide. Social Science Research & Practice, 4(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/SSRP-02-2009-B0001
