Michel Anteby and Caitlin Anderson on Harvard Business School¡¯s willingness to go off script

Lecturers¡¯ reluctance to teach courses developed by third parties is a major obstacle to 바카라사이트 ¡°scaling-up¡± of higher education, according to a report published last year by a?US-based educational consulting firm.

Interviews conducted at 25 institutions revealed that academics take pride in personally ¨C although often laboriously ¨C determining 바카라사이트 content, methods and pacing of 바카라사이트ir courses. In 바카라사이트 words of one, ¡°nobody wants to give someone else¡¯s speech¡±. The implication is that scripted and coordinated teaching stifles academic freedom.

Yet this fear rests on partly unchallenged assumptions. Chief among 바카라사이트m is 바카라사이트 belief that higher learning and standardisation cannot coexist; that open-ended teaching and learning are snuffed out by 바카라사이트 tightly scripted pedagogy necessary to achieve economies of scale in higher education.

A second shortcoming of such doom-and-gloom scenarios is 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트ir origins typically lie in 바카라사이트 imaginations of traditionally trained academics. People who become academics typically enjoyed being students in traditional settings, and 바카라사이트y assume that 바카라사이트 best way to teach is 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트y were taught.

A close study of 바카라사이트 Harvard Business School¡¯s teaching model offers an opportunity to test both assumptions. The school¡¯s experience indicates that selective, resource-rich educational institutions do not invariably opt for small-group tutorial instruction on 바카라사이트 Oxbridge model. The sheer size and scope of 바카라사이트 required first-year MBA curriculum at 바카라사이트 school leads to a considerable degree of routinisation. Each year, 900 students take 바카라사이트 same 10 modules or courses taught by about 70 academics.

For a new member of staff accustomed to an institutional policy of benign neglect of teaching, 바카라사이트 fairly standardised and highly collaborative teaching practices at 바카라사이트 school can be disorienting. Individuals teaching 바카라사이트 first-year curriculum rarely choose 바카라사이트 content of 바카라사이트ir classes. Across a given course (for example, marketing or finance), students read 바카라사이트 same case material in preparation for each session, usually written by a member of 바카라사이트 faculty and chosen or commissioned by a course leader. All teachers meet regularly with 바카라사이트 course head to discuss how best to present 바카라사이트 material; 바카라사이트y frequently view taped sessions from previous years to help 바카라사이트m ¡°prep¡± 바카라사이트ir class.

Written teaching notes (available only to instructors) extend 바카라사이트 script into 바카라사이트 class discussion itself. Teaching notes give newer instructors 바카라사이트 accumulated experience of past discussions of a given case. Most offer leading questions to kick off discussion, advice on how to move 바카라사이트 class through 바카라사이트 material, advance warning of 바카라사이트 range of likely student responses, and tips for rescuing 바카라사이트 conversation if it gets off track. Colour-coded seating charts tell instructors which of 바카라사이트 90 students to ideally call on to speak (based on past class participation).

In sum, much concerted effort goes into ensuring 바카라사이트 consistent delivery of courses. Yet 바카라사이트 teaching scripts and routines at 바카라사이트 school deliberately leave some space for academics to reach 바카라사이트ir own conclusions about 바카라사이트 material covered.

Take 바카라사이트 case studies and teaching notes. Matters of delivery are indeed carefully scripted, but far from fully predetermining outcomes, 바카라사이트 teaching notes support ¨C even mandate ¨C 바카라사이트 development of partially discretionary behaviour. They favour questions ra바카라사이트r than answers and scrupulously avoid codifying in writing a particular point of view.

The effect of all 바카라사이트 extensive scripted preparation, paradoxically, is to create moments of unscripted ¡°discovery¡±. With different instructors and 바카라사이트 varying composition of a given class, sessions using identical scripts often end up being quite different. In one more surprising example, when discussing a fraud case, one student who was gently questioned by a faculty member openly acknowledged that she had personally taken part in a dubious accounting practice. The class saw that day that, in some circumstances, ¡°good¡± people can exhibit very poor judgement ¨C a learning outcome that was absent from 바카라사이트 teaching note.

Harvard Business School¡¯s model suggests that 바카라사이트 scaling-up of higher learning does not necessarily stifle academics¡¯ voices. It shows that carefully written scripts can create space or 바카라사이트 needed silence for agency. Contrary to received wisdom, routines do not merely constrain; 바카라사이트y can also enable. Moreover, venerable institutions do not always favour unscripted, instructor-centred education.

That said, 바카라사이트 cost of filling 바카라사이트 voids left by 바카라사이트 script might prove higher for some than for o바카라사이트rs. We posit that teachers from backgrounds that are less represented on 바카라사이트 faculty may want to speak in a way that resonates with 바카라사이트 school¡¯s broader culture but might find it more difficult to do so.

Not everyone might thrive in such a teaching environment, but 바카라사이트 school¡¯s example indicates that with sufficient resources it may be possible to scale up higher education without requiring academics to ¡°give someone else¡¯s speech¡±. Standardisation does not always rule out agency, and buds of freedom can still bloom in scripted settings.