Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Although written communication is a foundational skill, especially for careers in management, faculty can be reluctant to utilize writing assignments for a number of reasons including the subjective nature of and time involved in grading. In this article, we present the IDEAL framework—an andragogical tool developed in an effort to address these problems, while teaching students to produce more coherent and logical writing. We then share an in-class exercise to introduce students to the IDEAL framework and apply it to writing samples through a peer-feedback activity. Throughout the article, we highlight the benefits, to both educators and students, of incorporating the IDEAL framework as a meta-model for writing in management courses.

Keywords

Bloom’s taxonomy communication skills experiential learning in-class exercise andragogical tools peer-review activity teaching writing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

L. W.

Krathwohl

D. R.

Airasian

P. W.

Cruikshank

K. A.

Mayer

R. E.

Pintrich

P. R.

. . . Wittrock

M. C.

(2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

Ashbaugh

D. L.

(1994). Improving writing skills while increasing understanding of management course content. Journal of Management Education, 18, 369-374.

Athanassiou

McNett

J. M.

Harvey

(2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom’s taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education, 27, 533-555.

Bartlett

(2003). Why Johnny can’t write, even though he went to Princeton. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(17), A39.

Bean

J. C.

(2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Beaumont

Moscrop

Canning

(2016). Easing the transition from school to HE: Scaffolding the development of self-regulated learning through a dialogic approach to feedback. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40, 331-350.

Bechard

(1998). Using writing in the business department to pursue excellence. Writing Across the Curriculum, 9, 95-104.

Bloom

B. S.

(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.

Brady

(2013). Towards a university-wide approach to developing first-year students’ academic literacy and professional communication skills. Proceedings from 16th International First Year in Higher Education Conference. Wellington, New Zealand.

10.

Bruffee

K. A

. (1978). The Brooklyn Plan: Attaining Intellectual Growth through Peer-Group Tutoring. Liberal Education, 64(4), 447-468.

11.

Carless

. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 219-233.

12.

Carnes

L. W.

Jennings

M. S.

Vice

J. P.

Wiedmaier

(2001). The role of the business educator in a writing-across-the-curriculum program. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 216-219.

13.

Dana

Hancock

Phillips

(2011). The future of business: Merit in writing across the curriculum. American Journal of Business Education, 4, 51-58.

14.

Docherty

Tse

Forman

McKenzie

(2010). Extending the principles of intensive writing to large macroeconomics classes. Journal of Economic Education, 41, 370-382.

15.

Graner

(1987). Revision workshops: An alternative to peer editing groups. English Journal, 76, 40-45.

16.

Halpern

J. W.

(1981). What should we be teaching students in business writing? Journal of Business Communication, 18(3), 39-53.

17.

Hansen

Liu

(2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59, 31-38.

18.

Hoppe

K. E.

(2014). Postsecondary writing: First-year students’ perceptions of college writing preparedness. Education Student Publications. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=soe_studentpub

19.

Hutchins

T. D.

(2015). A new approach to teaching business writing: Writing across the core—A document based curriculum. American Journal of Business Education, 8, 131-138.

20.

Jones

(2008). Predicting performance in first-semester college basic writers: Revisiting the role of self-beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 209-238.

21.

Kuh

G. D.

(2007). What student engagement data tell us about college readiness. Peer Review, 9(1), 4. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/what-student-engagement-data-tell-us-about-college-readiness

22.

Marcus

(1984). The writing center: Peer tutoring in a supportive setting. English Journal, 73, 66-67.

23.

McLeod

Maimon

(2000). Clearing the air: WAC myths and realities. College English, 62, 573-583.

24.

O’Connell

Dyment

(2006). Reflections on using journals in higher education: A focus group discussion with faculty. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(6), 671-691.

25.

Pohl

. (2000). Learning to think, thinking to learn: Models and strategies to develop a classroom culture of thinking. Cheltenham, England: Hawker Brownlow.

26.

Rothman

(2012). A common core of readiness. Educational Leadership, 69(7), 10-15.

27.

Todd

Hudson

J. C.

(2008). Using student opinions regarding traditional vs. writing across curriculum teaching techniques: A qualitative pilot study. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4(1), 19-24.

28.

van Gelder

. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85-90.

29.

Walvoord

B. E.

(2014). Assessing and improving student writing in college: A guide for institutions, general education, departments, and classrooms. Malden, MA: John Wiley.

30.

Wingate

(2007). A framework for transition: Supporting “learning to learn” in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 61, 391-405.

31.

Zhu

(2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 29-48.

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

0.02 MB