Thursday, December 3, 2009

Summary of Session with Gretchen Winter

Summary
Ms. Winter spoke about the connection between social responsibility and student engagement. Having been exposed to many different fields before coming to the University of Illinois, she is an expert in professional responsibility. She strongly believes that “responsibility” should be dealt proactively as it’s necessary to reach the goal of sustainability. As a major influence on the development of the course BUS 101, Ms. Winter explores the benefits and possible expansions for the course. For our mentoring project, she advised us on effective peer mentoring designs and gave us insights on encouraging intrinsic motivations in students.

Background and education
Ms. Winter went to University of Illinois at Chicago for her undergraduate education majored in English and Secondary Education. Later, she received her J.D. from the University of Chicago. Ms. Winter went through a career spiral before becoming the Executive Director of the Center for Professional responsibility in Business and Society at the College of Business at UIUC. After receiving her degree, she worked for 18 years at Baxter International Inc. As an ethics officer, she took a part in developing the company’s global ethics program. She has also worked as an attorney and as a legislative analyst in Illinois. She is an expert on ethics, corporate social responsibility and legal programs across the US.

How she views corporate responsibility through her experience at Baxter

While creating the Code of Conduct at Baxter, Ms. Winter learned that the word “ethics” is not well received by her audiences. Because of so, she talked to focus groups around the world, and changed the word “ethics” to Standard of Business Practice. This way, she was able to reach out to the employees more effectively on the importance of corporate ethics/responsibility. She mentioned that while there’s a Code of Conduct during her work at Baxter, the ethics issues are not black and white. It’s up to the individuals to figure the right from the wrong. This is why she is very firm on the idea of taking a proactive approach on ethics issues in the workplace. It’s always ideal to resolve an ethics case prior to its happening rather than after.

Her definition of "Responsibility"

Ms. Winter introduced the concept of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) – People, Planet, and Profit. She explains how TBL is essential in connecting corporate and societal interests. It describes the goal of sustainability linking the economics, the environment, and the social performance of a company. Tying to the concept of responsibility, Ms. Winter mentions that a commitment to corporate social responsibility implies a commitment to TBL, which will eventually help a company to achieve sustainability.

In addition, she made distinctions of the terms compliance, ethics and values. Compliance is something that one must do, ethics is what one should do, and values are what one aspires or strives to do. During her work at Baxter, creating the Code of Conduct helped her to distinguish between these terms.

Business 101

Business 101 evolved out of a need to foster three main goals: promoting professional responsibility from the perspective of the individual student, developing the individual's understanding of his or her profession's code of ethics (independent of an employer), and making companies that have these components of responsibility. Ms. Winter indicated that an individual's perspective on individual responsibility is most impacted by his or her 1st internship or job, and that these settings may not be fostering the most beneficial views. Business 101 provides an environment where individuals can be 'won' into developing personal responsibility.

Ms. Winter said that the class is lead by other undergraduates because the most effective leadership for freshmen comers from peers; however, this provides more opportunities in that the student leaders need to be taught class management skills and need a lot of support--something to take into account when talking about implementing a mentoring program or something similar to combat student disengagement.

We asked how Ms. Winter knows if Business 101 is effective. The only way to know is to look for measurable data. In this case, data is gathered in the form of student surveys, and idea which may carry over into our class projects. In any case, it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of the program.

Opportunities, not problems

Towards the end of our discussion, we asked Ms. Winter what lessons has she learned from the trial years of Business 101 and what problems are still being fixed. First, she clarified on an important point that there are never problems, only opportunities, changes or improvements. In the business world, you bring opportunities to the table as well as your solutions.

The first solution that Ms. Winter discussed was about the fashion show Business 101 is still changing. The first year, students went to Talbot’s and other high end business stores around the area. The feedback was that the suits were great, but the prices were way too high and unrealistic for freshmen or any student in college to consider. The following year, juniors and seniors were asked to show what they wore. The problem that arose was that people disagreed on what was appropriate, so how do you deal with these differences? They have not figured out a solution for this yet, but the second year obviously showed that it is good to have juniors and seniors talk to their fellow students.

Another opportunity that Ms. Winter saw in Business 101 and for all large lecture classes is that freshman really have no clue about what resources are available at this university. She wants Business 101 to help make this extra large university become smaller for students. The idea they are toying with right now is having a scavenger hunt throughout the semester. They want to have students go to various places around campus and meet as many people as possible. They want to help students start building relationships and to ingrain habits in them so that these students know how to navigate around this university.

How will we avoid the “101” trap?

One colleague asked Ms. Winter how she plans on making Business 101 sustainable. Many classes, similar to Business 101, start out great, but soon older students are telling incoming students that they do not need to worry about the course, that they can slack off. How will Business 101 keep its edge and maintain the respect of its students?

Ms. Winter’s first suggestion was to use a better name. “101” suggests that the class was more about survival skills in college when in fact it is about introducing students to professional responsibility. She hopes to encourage people to call it as “Business 101: An Introduction to Professional Responsibility.” Even a simple and small change like that could make all the difference.

Another suggestion is to keep the content fresh and different, so that one thing that happens one year does not happen the following year. Revamping information given in the class will keep the content current and new to students.

Her final idea she shared was to make Business 101 as only ONE step in the entire sequences of classes that teach professional responsibility. It is important to have other later classes tie with 101 and show the importance of the course. In the same way, our mentoring program needs to have support from the school and classes in order for students to fully participate and benefit from it.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

The best medicine...

.... though the muscle relaxant isn't half bad either.

Dialog, Discussion, Debate - What's in a Word?

Before today's class session - Dave B., Joe, Tyler and I met with Professor Clancy in what I thought was a very interesting session where I learned that in other units undergraduate students mentor/TA first for course credit and then, if they show their worth in some serious ways the reward switches to a tuition and fee waiver. This model has been embraced in some of the sciences and engineering. But it hasn't been embraced much if at all in the social sciences or humanities. Instead, they've relied exclusively on using doctoral students as TAs. If you think of doctoral education as primarily about preparing the graduate students for lifelong work in that field of study, then one measure of success of such programs is how they place students into jobs in the field. By that measure, there are too many doctoral students in many of these fields. Quite a few of those with a PhD don't find positions in their field of study and have to go into some other line of work.

The question then is why the system persists. One answer is that the undergraduate teaching obligations are so great in these departments while the revenues are comparatively meager that the only way they can make it work is to have lot of inexpensive teachers, i.e., TAs. Another answer, more cynical than the first, is that the faculty prefer to teach doctoral students rather than undergrads, so they can teach about their research. In this view the doctoral students are around so the faculty can teach them, which means somebody else has to to teach the undergrads.

The system has been breaking down for a while and budget morass is speeding it up. Professor Clancy said that her department is committed to a smaller doctoral program and one where students get their degrees in a timely fashion. (This is a related to the issue of having too many doctoral students.) Lets say they are successful at doing that and that similar changes are made in other social science and humanities departments. What happens then to the undergraduate teaching burden? Some of it will be met by having fewer course offerings in the doctoral program so faculty spending more of their teaching time with undergraduate courses. Does that offset completely the reduction in the number of graduate students? (It doesn't. It was a rhetorical question.) So an alternative models is needed.

I wish the entire class had heard that conversation. We hashed through how peer mentoring might work as part of that alternative model. I thought it was a very interesting conversation. There are a lot off hoops to be gone through to get something that flies, among them that many of the mentors would likely be in MCB not Anthro, so how would you give a tuition and fee waiver in this case?

* * * * *

I thought our discussion on reflections was interesting, in significant part since there was substantial variation in response from among those who spoke. When we discussed adhering to the prompt or not, it occurred to me that this was pretty much Senge had in mind when he talks about giving the assumptions some air during dialog. Applying Senge's analysis to what we said, my interpretation is that I come off to some of you as either unclear or as quite defensive (or both) so you respond with compliance qua adhering to the prompt. Especially when you are not personally invested in what the prompt is about, this leads to writing that is "going through the motions" only, not something that gets your motor running.

I also thought the part about not knowing how to comment was very interesting and here, while I won't claim to be an expert, the stuff we read about experts and novices is worth reconsidering, especially on the part where experts don't understand what is difficult for novices. Earlier in the semester we did have a post where we talked about whether you can give good criticism - there was a lot of dancing around that topic - and most of you ultimately concluded you couldn't. So here is a bit of an aside about how I learned much of what I know about this.

Faculty write research papers that are then subject to peer review. So they gain experiences of what its like to receive a review on their paper and they also write reviews of other papers. There is learning by doing in this. You learn as an author what you'd like from a good referee report (of course, you want the referee to say that the paper is brilliant, but since that won't always be the case, you want the referee to explain where the referee struggled with the presentation, what the referee disagreed with, and any out and out mistakes that were found). So in the language of today's class, you'd like the referee's report to be part of the discussion. The author wants to win and the referee wants to win too. They both win when the referee likes the paper enough to recommend it for publication. My experience is that this often is iterative with the first referee recommendation of the form - revise and resubmit - meaning there are some interesting ideas in the paper but it is not publishable in the current form.

On the other hand, I've received referee reports that are very far from the standard. Sometimes they show they didn't read the paper. Other times they show they didn't understand what they read. But this isn't always the case. Referee reports can be good an useful to others, with good suggestions on how to improve the paper.

I learned from the experience. I also came to conclude that new Assistant Professor are still learning how to write a paper that will get accepted for publication, so the review process is part of their professional education. I came to feel responsible for writing reports for them in a way that would help them along.

When you do enough of this you may not be an expert, but you are pretty accomplished. With the blogging it is similar, but the comments are meant in part to help with the writing of the subsequent post. You won't revise and resubmit the current post, though you might very well respond to the comments.

The vexing question after all of that is - you learn by doing, but some of you were reluctant to do so because you didn't know how, so how is this vicious cycle broken? I could have required comments to coerce you through that reluctance. But do note that I did require the posts and yet all was not rosy on that side of the street. Consider some of the remarks during the discussion about when the prompt didn't excite you. If I had made commenting required too, wouldn't some of you have reacted that it was even more make work?

We did talk a lot in the course about motivation so I wonder whether there is some way to tap into intrinsic motivation that would encourage commenting that was good and insightful. If you have thoughts on that, I'd love to hear them. During the semester there were posts and comments on posts about being form an immigrant family and the implications of that. Some students shared a bond that way and we got some empathetic commenting as a result. That particular bond was coincidental. It couldn't have been planned for before the course started. But perhaps the creating of some other bond could be designed into the course.

I'll close with one last point. There is learning in struggle and failure. The fruits of that learning may not be realized till sometime in the future. While it is happening, the struggle and failure may not be much fun, either to participate in or to watch. I think one reason why so many instructors are very directive in what they ask from students is that it makes it easier for them. I'm not sure, however, that it makes it better for the students to be so directed.

* * * * *

If there are masochists in the crowd who want to struggle and flail with the blogging even after the course concludes, I'm happy to keep reading and commenting - no prompts and no grades, just ongoing conversation.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

In preparation for tomorrow's class

In the second part of the class, where we discuss the reflections, I'd like you to think back to Monday where we talked about personal mastery as following intrinsic motivation and perhaps losing a sense of self with that, getting so absorbed in the activity. I'd like to know whether that ever happened with the reflections and thus if you came to look forward to writing them.

Of course, on the flip side, there is writer's block. Believe it or not, I have it too on occasion, some quite recently. It is pretty common, even among very accomplished writers. Since I'm a big fan of The West Wing (the TV show), I thought might like to read or view (below, the audio needs to be cranked up) this scene where Toby, the main speech writer for the President talks about his problems with writing.

Perhaps of Interest - a Seminar this Friday

From: College of Education Announcements List [mailto:ED-COLLEGE-ANNOUNCEMENTS@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Grady, Rebecca J
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 4:38 PM
To: ED-COLLEGE-ANNOUNCEMENTS@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: [ED] Higher Education Collaborative Friday, December 4, 12N-1:30P More Than You Think, Less Than We Need: Learning Outcomes Assessment in American Higher Education

Higher Education Collaborative

Seminar Series

National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment

Making Learning Outcomes Usable & Transparent

Stanley Ikenberry, Regent Professor and Interim

President Designate, University of Illinois

George Kuh, Chancellor’s Professor and Director, NILOA

and Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research

Staci Provezis, Project Manager

Jason Goldfarb, Natasha Jankowski, Gloria Jea, and Julia Makela,

Graduate Research Assistants, University of Illinois

More Than You Think, Less Than We Need:

Learning Outcomes Assessment in American Higher Education

Friday, December 4, 2009

12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

College of Education Room 242

Refreshments will be served.

Documenting what undergraduate students learn, know, and can do is of growing interest. The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA), established in 2008, seeks to discover and disseminate ways that academic programs and institutions can productively use assessment data internally to inform and strengthen undergraduate education, and externally to communicate with policy makers, families and other stakeholders. The speakers will discuss the NILOA national survey report, “More Than You Think, Less Than We Need: Learning Outcomes Assessment in American Higher Education,” the NILOA Web review of over 700 institutional Web sites, and the NILOA study on regional accreditation’s influence on student learning outcomes assessment.

Mark your calendars for these Spring 2010 Higher Education Collaborative Seminars.

Date & Time

Speakers

Presentation Title

Friday, February 26, 2010

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m., Room 242

Jennifer Delaney, Assistant Professor University of Illinois

Earmarks and State Appropriations for Higher Education

Rebecca Grady

Educational Organization and Leadership

1310 South Sixth Street, RM 347

Champaign, IL 61820

PH 217 265 5409

FAX 217 244 5632

email-rgrady@illinois.edu

-* ED-COLLEGE-ANNOUNCEMENTS *--------------------------------------------- ed-college-announcements is the announcements mailing list for the College of Education. It is intended for general announcements to the College community. While membership in this list is automatic for most faculty, staff, and students, subscription is voluntary.

To unsubscribe (or subscribe), please visit the URL below and follow the instructions.

http://listserv.uiuc.edu/wa.cgi?SUBED1=ed-college-announcements&A=1

If you have problems changing your subscription status, please send your request to communications@education.illinois.edu.