In preparing business majors, schools of business have a special responsibility to ensure that students are equipped with the technological and mathematical skills they will need to compete in the worldwide marketplace. This article describes an innovative instructional paradigm for teaching business statistics. This paradigm harnesses the latest classroom technologies and integrates these technologies with established principles of learning. The paradigm also implements the mathematical and technological recommendations put forward by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science. Evaluation data from both instructor and student perspectives are reported.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Corporate Task Force on Education, Undereducated, Uncompetitive USA, Report to R. D. Kennedy, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Union Carbide, Danbury, Connecticut, 1989.
2.
JacobsonR., Mathematics Educators' Big New Challenge: Getting Enough People to Adopt Their Ideas, Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A14–A16, March 3, 1993.
3.
Paying for Failure, Investors' Business Daily, p. A-2, December 18, 1996.
4.
Many Top Students Don't Stick with Science and Engineering, Academe, p. 6, January-February, 1998.
5.
National Research Council, Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.
6.
LowtherD.Bassoppo-MoyoT.MorrisonG., Moving from Computer Literate to Technologically Competent: The Next Educational Reform, Computers in Human Behavior, 14:1, pp. 93–109. 1998.
7.
ShneidermanB.AlaviM.NormanK.YuborkowskiE., Windows of Opportunity in Electronic Classrooms, Communications of the Association of Computing Machinery, 38:11, pp. 19–24, 1995.
8.
JochA., The University of Houston Launches the Classroom of the Future, Inside Technology Training, pp. 18–21, March 1998.
9.
FischerM. J., Integrated Learning Systems: An Application Linking Technology with Human Factors and Pedagogical Principles, Educational Technology Research and Development, 44:3, pp. 65–72, 1996.
10.
DeLoughryT. J., Two Researchers Say “Technophobia” May Afflict Millions of Students, Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A25–A26, April 1993.
11.
Annenberg/CPB Collection, Against All Odds: Inside Statistics, Intellimation, Santa Barbara, California, 1989.
KellerG.WarrackB.BartelH., Statistics for Management and Economics: A Systematic Approach, Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, California, 1990.
14.
BruningJ.KintzB. L., Computational Handbook of Statistics, Scott Foresman & Co., Glenville, Illinois, 1968.
15.
Minitab, Inc. Statistical Software, State College, Pennsylvania1997.
16.
Microsoft, Excel, Portland, Oregon, 1997.
17.
BloomB. S., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, McKay, New York, 1956.
18.
GagneR. M., The Conditions of Learning (2nd Edition), Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, 1970.
19.
HorowitzH. M., Student Response Systems: Interactivity in a Classroom Environment, paper presented at the Sixth Conference of Interactive Instructional Delivery, Society for Applied Learning, 1988.
