3-Step Charrette: A Framework for Teaching Students to Solve Complex Problems in a Real-World Environment

Abstract

The 3-Step Charrette problem-solving methodology turns the classroom into a consulting firm. It trains participants to solve complex, real-world problems cooperatively and systematically. Participants identify needed information and perform several research cycles in teams to gain knowledge to examine the root causes of a presented problem. Participants then re-form into different groups to find solutions, ultimately consolidating their chosen solutions into a plan of action. The jigsaw transposition from research teams to solving groups ensures that participants acquire needed expertise and properly characterize the problem before attempts to fashion solutions even begin. As participants follow the procedure, the instructor guides them using in-stream debriefing. Designed for use with a live client, this experiential exercise is useful for capstone, strategy, consulting, design thinking, and business architecture courses.

Keywords

strategy applied learning real-world problem solving live client collaborative learning design thinking problem-based learning experiential learning business architecture cross-disciplinary

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bridgman

Cummings

McLaughlin

(2016). Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15, 724-741.

Buchanan

(1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21.

Chappell

Dunn

(2016). The architect in practice (11th ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Cheikes

Brown

Lehner

Adelman

(2004). Confirmation bias in complex analyses. Mitre Technical Report, MTR 04B0000017(51MSR114-A4), 1-16.

Churchman

(1967). Wicked problems. Management Science, 4(14) December, 141-142.

Cini

(2018). A study on the attitude of students towards participatory learning at graduate level. International Education & Research Journal, 4(3), 67-71.

Cormier

(2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Innovate, 4(5), 24-31.

Cunliffe

(2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28, 407-426.

Dick

(2015). Reflections on the SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research and what it says about action research and its methodologies. Action Research, 13, 431-444.

10.

Dove

Abildgaard

Biskjaer

Hansen

Christensen

Halskov

(2018). Grouping notes through nodes: The functions of Post-It notes in design team cognition. Design Studies, 57, 112-134.

11.

Dunne

Martin

(2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, 512-523.

12.

Fortus

(2009). The importance of learning to make assumptions. Science Education, 93, 86-108.

13.

Garcia

Abrego

Robert

(2017). Using the jigsaw method for meaningful learning to enhance learning and retention in an educational leadership graduate school course. Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 17(5), 5-16.

14.

Green

Williams

(2016). The strategic consulting experience: Providing experiential learning opportunities within an MBA program. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 43, 40-42.

15.

Hakkarainen

Sintonen

(1999, September). Interrogative approach on inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. A paper presented at the Fifth History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

16.

Hammond

Keeney

Raiffa

(1998). The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard Business Review, OnPoint, September-October, 1-11.

17.

Helelä

Flagerholm

(2008). Tracing the roles of the PBL tutor: A journey of learning. Haaga-Helia University (Ed.), Applied Sciences, 29-48.

18.

Hughes

(2018). Charrette as context and process for academic discourse in contemporary higher education. In Miranda

Herr

(Eds.), The value of academic discourse: Conversations that matter (pp. 79-102). Lanham, MD: Rowland & Littlefield.

19.

Jennings

(1996). Strategic management and the case method. Journal of Management Development, 15(9), 4-12.

20.

Kirschner

Sweller

Clark

(2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching, Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.

21.

Lazonder

Harmsen

(2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance, Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681-708.

22.

Lee

Lim

(2012). Peer evaluation in blended team project-based learning: What do students find important? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 214-224.

23.

Manoogian

(2016). Cognitive bias codex. Retrieved from https://betterhumans.coach.me/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18

24.

Markham

(2011). Project based learning. Teacher Librarian, 39(2), 38-42.

25.

McKay

Marshall

(2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People, 14, 46-59.

26.

Nicholson

(2013). Completing the experience: Debriefing in experiential educational games. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 11(6), 27-31.

27.

Peterson

(2009). Socratic problem-solving in the business world. American Journal of Business Education, 2(5), 101-106.

28.

Rittel

(1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the first and second generations. Bedriftskonomen, 8, 390-396.

29.

Siddiqui

(2013). How to write a business case study. GlobaLens, 1-15.

30.

Teach

Murff

(2008). Are the business simulations we play too complex? Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 35, 205-211.

31.

Thompson

Stappenbeck

Reidenbach

Thrasher

Harms

(2013). The business strategy game: Competing in a global marketplace. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

32.

Tossavainen

(2016). Co-create with stakeholders: Action research approach in service development. Action Research, 15, 276-293.

33.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

34.

Yekinni

Bello

Olaiya

(2015). Application of value engineering techniques in sustainable product and service design. Science and Engineering Perspectives, 10, 120-130.

35.

Yemen

(2006). On writing cases well (Technical Note). Charlottesville, VA: Darden Graduate School of Business Administration.

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

0.11 MB

0.10 MB