A few final thoughts as I prepare to leave Boston...
The above diagram offers a spectrum of instructor vs participant centered learning. If I were to summarise what I've got out of this program it's the following: the case method is effective, and somethnig we should strive to roll out. But it's tough; requiring emmense preparation not only from students but also faculty. It's entirely natural for new faculty to feel more comfortable mimiking their PhD classes and compensating for a lack of confidence and inexperience by relying on a lecture format. Although most lectures are dull, they're a safe bet. As an aside though there's a deeply uncharitable habit of comparing best-case case method with worst-case lecturing. It is quite possible to have captivating and enlightening lectures (if not Martin Luther King then just think of the radio or a half decent TV documentary - declining attention spans is something we should be fighting not catering to), and similarly it's difficult to pull of the case method and therefore a lot of it in practice will be a failure. Indeed I would argue that the best pedagogical device for junior faculty is experiments/simulations - a form of particpant-centred learning that doesn't rely on you possesing a broad and deep knowledge of the subject matter. For me the development of faculty should be from 1 to 2 to 3 (above), settling on a mixture of methods. The bottom line is that when done well, the case method is suprior. But a poor lecture has more educational value than a poor case discussion.
Finally, I'm just reviewing the comments I made at the start. To deliver a verdict:
- The timetables at HBS are unsurprisingly conducive to the case method. Firstly, instructors have about 30 sessions (to cover relatively specific fields), and therefore there's no immediate pressure to cover everything. For the modules that I teach (especially Executive MBA) the topics I need to cover are so broad I can't rely on the same issues emerging later in the course. Secondly, we've changed out timetable in London to create 3 teaching sessions per day. To some extent this was the only feasible option, but there's only 30 minutes between classes. It's simply impossible to arrive in class early, and spend time with students afterwards
- The subject matter that isn't conducive to the Case Method is stripped out of the MBA program! My biggest challenge is how to convey theoretical models (e.g. Quantitative Methods), but I note that here they leave that as pre-term courses and rely on online instruction
- Given the luxury that HBS have in terms of recruitment, they can afford to shift "knowledge transfer" off the syllabus. To some extent the fact that they deal with the top 5% of the distribution means that they can almost use these as prerequisites. In the same way that Executive Education can and should focus more on skill development than knowledge transfer, so too can top ranked MBA schools.
- A business education really needs to be full time. If you don't have the full attention of participants it's not really going to work
The above diagram offers a spectrum of instructor vs participant centered learning. If I were to summarise what I've got out of this program it's the following: the case method is effective, and somethnig we should strive to roll out. But it's tough; requiring emmense preparation not only from students but also faculty. It's entirely natural for new faculty to feel more comfortable mimiking their PhD classes and compensating for a lack of confidence and inexperience by relying on a lecture format. Although most lectures are dull, they're a safe bet. As an aside though there's a deeply uncharitable habit of comparing best-case case method with worst-case lecturing. It is quite possible to have captivating and enlightening lectures (if not Martin Luther King then just think of the radio or a half decent TV documentary - declining attention spans is something we should be fighting not catering to), and similarly it's difficult to pull of the case method and therefore a lot of it in practice will be a failure. Indeed I would argue that the best pedagogical device for junior faculty is experiments/simulations - a form of particpant-centred learning that doesn't rely on you possesing a broad and deep knowledge of the subject matter. For me the development of faculty should be from 1 to 2 to 3 (above), settling on a mixture of methods. The bottom line is that when done well, the case method is suprior. But a poor lecture has more educational value than a poor case discussion.
Finally, I'm just reviewing the comments I made at the start. To deliver a verdict:
- Pedagogy: Massive improvement. This has gone a long way to doing for my teaching what my PhD did for my research. All junior faculty should go on pedagogical courses, and if they don't exist there's a real opportunity
- Material: I've got at least 12 excellent cases that i'd love to teach. My main challenge is choosing between them. I can't wait to try thwem out on students
- Organisation: I've got lots of notes to share with my colleagues. I actually believe our organisation is excellent, but it's been great to see the inner workings of another institution
- Management: I hope I'm a better manager. My colleagues will be the judge.
- Networking: Lots of business cards, and looking forward to seeing people for Part II in Shanghai next January
Recent Comments