Building the Foundations of Professional Expertise: creating a dialectic between work and formal learning

Recent critiques of management and teacher education curricula and teaching pay particular attention to the disconnection between the de-contextualised, formal knowledge and analytical techniques conveyed in university programmes and the messy, ill-structured nature of practice. At the same time, research into professional expertise suggests that its development requires bringing together different forms of knowledge and the integration of formal and nonformal learning with the development of cognitive flexibility. Such complex learning outcomes are unlikely to be achieved through a ‘knowledge transmission’ approach to curriculum design. In this article we argue that in many ways current higher education practices create barriers to developing ways of knowing which can underpin the formation of expertise. Using examples from two practice-focused distance learning courses, we explore the role of distance learning in enabling a dialogue between academic and workplace learning and the use of ‘practice dialogues’ among course participants to enable integration of learning experiences. Finally, we argue that we need to find ways in higher education of enabling students to engage in relevant communities of expertise, rather than drawing them principally into a community of academic discourse which is not well aligned with practice

Building the Foundations of Professional Expertise: creating a dialectic between work and formal learning

Recent critiques of management and teacher education curricula and teaching pay particular attention to the disconnection between the de-contextualised, formal knowledge and analytical techniques conveyed in university programmes and the messy, ill-structured nature of practice. At the same time, research into professional expertise suggests that its development requires bringing together different forms of knowledge and the integration of formal and nonformal learning with the development of cognitive flexibility. Such complex learning outcomes are unlikely to be achieved through a ‘knowledge transmission’ approach to curriculum design. In this article we argue that in many ways current higher education practices create barriers to developing ways of knowing which can underpin the formation of expertise. Using examples from two practice-focused distance learning courses, we explore the role of distance learning in enabling a dialogue between academic and workplace learning and the use of ‘practice dialogues’ among course participants to enable integration of learning experiences. Finally, we argue that we need to find ways in higher education of enabling students to engage in relevant communities of expertise, rather than drawing them principally into a community of academic discourse which is not well aligned with practice

‘I understood the words but I didn’t know what they meant’: Japanese online MBA students’ experiences of British assessment practices

We report on a case study of high Japanese student failure rates in an online MBA programme. Drawing on interviews, and reviews of exam and assignment scripts we frame the problems faced by these students in terms of a ‘language as social practice’ approach and highlight the students’ failure to understand the specific language games that underpin the course assessment approach. We note the way in which the distance learning and online context can make the challenges faced by international students less immediately visible to both students and institution

Financial capability, money attitudes and socioeconomic status: risks for experiencing adverse financial events

The risk of experiencing adverse financial events (e.g. bankruptcy) depends on the world economy and on individual differences in financial and psychological variables. Analysing data from 109,472 British survey respondents, this study reports the risks associated with financial capabilities, money attitudes, and socio-economic status for suffering negative financial outcomes. The results show that (1) socio-economic status is associated with financial capabilities but not with money attitudes; (2) money attitudes and financial capabilities are largely independent; (3) money attitudes and financial capabilities each contribute independently to the risk of experiencing adverse financial outcomes, even after adjusting for socio-economic status; and (4) financial capabilities are greater risk factors of adverse financial outcomes than money attitudes; the latter, however, are likely to be promising targets for interventions

Sex differences in money pathology in the general population

This study examined sex differences in money beliefs and behaviours. Over 100,000 British participants completed two measures online, one of which assessed “money pathology” (Forman in Mind over money, Doubleday, Toronto, 1987), and the other four “money types”, based on the emotional associations of money (Furnham et al. in Personal Individ Differ, 52:707–711, 2012). Nearly all measures showed significant sex differences with medium to large effect sizes, and with females exhibiting more “money pathology” than males. The biggest difference on the money types was on money being associated with generosity (money representing love) where men scored much lower than females, and autonomy (money representing freedom) where men scored higher than women. For men, more than women, money represented Power and Security. Men were more likely to be Hoarders while women did more emotional regulatory purchasing. Implications and limitations of this study are discussed

Multivariate multiple regression parameters for each wealth measure.

Multivariate multiple regression parameters for each wealth measure.</p

Multivariate tests of multivariate multiple regression with three wealth measures.

Multivariate tests of multivariate multiple regression with three wealth measures.</p

Pearson correlations means and standard deviations of all variables.

Pearson correlations means and standard deviations of all variables.</p

Common Methodological Issues in Quantitative Management Education Research and Recommendations for Authors

In this essay, we focus on methodological issues that reviewers and editors commonly encounter when evaluating empirical articles in scholarship of teaching and learning in management education. We organize our discussion around three stages—design, analysis, and reporting. The essay identifies which types of issues are likely to receive rejection, and which issues can be addressed in the subsequent reviews of the manuscript. We provide authors with some suggestions on how to address these issues in their research