DHARANA - Bhavan's International Journal of Business

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

New Forms of Higher Education


Affiliations
1 Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business, Pittsburgh, United States
2 Vanderbilt University, Owen Graduate School of Management, Nashville, United States
 

The present study is exploratory in nature. In order to examine the forms of higher education organizations two organizations – a traditional and an innovative institution - have been studied. Data were collected on organizational learning contract and the student recall of learning outcomes. The study has revealed that the innovative institution is dominant than the traditional one although both have positive scores on learning outcomes. The organizational learning contract enables an organization and the client to mutually commit for better inputs and learning. There is, however, a need for self designing system to strengthen basic contract.

Keywords

Traditional Institution, Innovative Institution, Organizational Learning Contract and Learning Outcome.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D. and Klein, S. P. 2006. Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages. Research in Higher Education. 47, 1, 1-32.

  • Chen, Donahue and Klimoski, 2004. Training Undergraduates to Work in Organizational Teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 1, 27-40.

  • Duderstadt, J. 2003. The future of the public university in America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Earley, P. C., Peterson, R. S. 2004. Cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 1, 100-116.

  • Goodman, P. 2001. Technology Enhanced Learning: Opportunities for change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Goodman, P. and Beenen, G. 2008. Organizational Learning Contracts in Management Education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 4, In press.

  • Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 1, 75-91.

  • Kuh, G. 1995. The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 2, 123-155.

  • Kuh, G. 1999. How are we doing? Tracking the quality of the undergraduate experience, 1960s to the present. Review of Higher Education, 22, 2, 99-120.

  • Pfeffer J., and Fong, C.T. 2002. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 1, 74-95.

  • Rhodes, F. 2004. Reinventing the university. In Weber, L.& Duderstadt, J. (Eds.) Reinventing the Research University. London, Paris, Geneva: Economica.

  • Wilson, J. 2001. The development of the studio classroom. In Goodman, P. (Ed.), Technology enhanced learning: Opportunities for change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Zemsky, R., Duderstadt, J. (2004). Reinventing the university: An American perspective. In Weber, L. and Duderstadt, J. (Eds.), Reinventing the Research University. London, Paris, Geneva: Economica.

  • Zhao, C. M. and Kuh, G. D. 2004. Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45, 2, 115-138.


Abstract Views: 177

PDF Views: 77




  • New Forms of Higher Education

Abstract Views: 177  |  PDF Views: 77

Authors

Paul S. Goodman
Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business, Pittsburgh, United States
Gerard Beenen
Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business, Pittsburgh, United States
Rangaraj Ramanujam
Vanderbilt University, Owen Graduate School of Management, Nashville, United States

Abstract


The present study is exploratory in nature. In order to examine the forms of higher education organizations two organizations – a traditional and an innovative institution - have been studied. Data were collected on organizational learning contract and the student recall of learning outcomes. The study has revealed that the innovative institution is dominant than the traditional one although both have positive scores on learning outcomes. The organizational learning contract enables an organization and the client to mutually commit for better inputs and learning. There is, however, a need for self designing system to strengthen basic contract.

Keywords


Traditional Institution, Innovative Institution, Organizational Learning Contract and Learning Outcome.

References