|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Dorothy Marcic Background Introduction
At the Czechoslovak Management Center, we have
attempted to introduce and foster interactive techniques and case method
teaching through direct training, and by pairing Western and Czech/Slovak
faculty in the classroom. Our experiences during the first 18 months revealed
marked resistance to interactive methods among some local faculty and students.
Our findings prompted us to examine objectives and teaching strategies. Case Study: Czechoslovak Management Center
Use of Case/Interactive Methods at CMC
In order to get cases written about Czech and Slovak businesses, CMC has sponsored faculty research projects They have been written by local and western faculty with varying degrees of success. Use of western and local cases in classroom teaching, on the other hand, has been on an ad hoc basis at the discretion of individual faculty. Although case studies were at times used by the Czech and Slovak faculty, it was the interactive style of case presentations which met the most resistance initially. Only recently have we begun to realize the importance of strengthening interactive case discussion teaching to meet our goals of developing new skills and cognitive or interpersonal patterns of behavior. At the same time, since we first began this research, we have found that students at all levels exposed to interactive teaching methods and case studies have become very vocal in their demands for this type of learning experiences. In the early formulation of the educational program of CMC, western faculty were intended to provide the theoretical background of the curriculum, while local faculty would translate theory into practical applications suitable for Czech or Slovak organizations. However, experience from the first year of the MBA and Executive Programs indicated discordance between stated goals and achievable outcomes and reveals the cultural insensitivities and intellectual myopia that can derail the most well-intentioned endeavors. One cultural bias assumed that all Western Instructors would provide effective models of interactive teaching. In fact, many Western professors have poor discussion-leadership skills, and rely on lectures laced with well-positioned rhetorical questions which do not generate effective discussion. In addition, the program definition did not take sufficiently into account aspects of the educational background of local faculty that predisposed them to resist a classroom environment based on interactive discussion. Furthermore, we underestimated factors that affected the ability of local faculty to transpose Western theory into a framework of practical training. Pearce's (1993) experience in Hungary illustrates ours was not unique. She discusses the difficulties for the local faculty there who previously were under a system which denigrated capitalism and therefore had trouble locating appropriate books and journals in these disciplines, hampering their abilities to keep up with the fields. Another institution which has attempted similar goals as CMC is the International Graduate School of Business Administration in Maribor, Slovenia (Kralj and Tavãar, 1993). In contrast to CMC's laissez-faire approach regarding the faculty's structuring of course format, they required faculty to use interactive methods 60% of the time and lecturing 40%, though the lecturing must move towards discussion and critical thinking skills. As we recast our curriculum and approach to emphasize more interactive techniques, and to highlight case discussion teaching, we had to take into account factors that have affected attempts to implement case discussion teaching and other interactive methods during our first year at CMC. Data from multiple sources highlight impediments to acceptance of case discussion teaching among local faculty and certain students, and illuminate reasons for the curiously low profile of case method instruction at CMC by paired teams of Czech/Slovak and American faculty. Our experience is itself a case study in pedagogical self definition of culturally diverse groups of faculty, and a caveat to the concept of facile transposition of educational methodology into foreign systems. Education in Czechoslovakia: Background
Milosz (1990) examines the impact of decades of communism on humanistic ideals. He suggests that educated individuals unconsciously conformed ideologically to propaganda, in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance of a stance against the purported social philosophy. Other habits described by Kohák (1992) were developed as coping mechanisms under communism, and also undermined sound educational philosophies. One of these was the disinclination towards any type of creative idea or spontaneity, viewed with suspicion by the totalitarian state. Another was the inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Such a behavior was vital to survive when social theories had no relationship to daily life, and especially when Czechs and Slovaks were forced to sign a declaration of "fraternal aid" brought by the Soviets during the August 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. The few who did not sign lost jobs, homes and even life. Yet everyone knew the pact was a charade. The residue from more than 40 years of totalitarian systems on educational processes in the Czech and Slovak Republics have resulted in a loss of inductive as well as deductive reasoning skills (Mestenhauser, 1992a) . Critical thinking skills became blunted by restrictions on open discussion and dissent. People were required to think and live within their own "small cubicles"-- or as President Havel has called it, the "atomization of life"--and were never allowed to question the socialist ideals and compare them to the discrepancies in their own lives. Mestenhauser (1992a) argues American tradition values inductive thinking more than the European tradition. Even when reading newspapers, Americans use the skill of sifting through vast amounts of data, choosing what is more important and developing hypotheses based on the data. He describes Czech newspapers as having fact and opinion mixed together, without giving the reader any idea which is which. Stifled, as well, however, was deductive reasoning, which tests the ideas and hypotheses developed. Under the previous regime, people were only allowed "deductive" thinking based on the social theories of communist ideology, which, according to Mestenhauser, had little or no basis in reality. Few, if any, innovations in teaching styles have been introduced into classrooms which remain similar to European systems of a century ago. The implications for attitudes towards interactive teaching of this fundamentally European "teaching and learning culture," so different from the American system, may be more significant than any impact from Communist ideology. Education in Czechoslovakia stressed unquestioned lines of authority and deductive, data-centered learning styles (Monaghan, 1992). Discussion, case-study teaching, brain-storming approaches were either unknown or used inadequately. The almost universal approach to teaching was, and often still is, lecturing by the instructor for the entire class, with many tangential subjects raised, monotone voice of the instructor and lifeless, even vacant behavior of the students. As in many European university systems, students are still responsible for their own learning, are not required to attend class, and principally interact with the professor during the oral component of the final examinations. The Central European professor remains an unchallenged authority. One of our professors, when faced with disgruntled student evaluations, muttered, "How do they dare?" Lectures laced with complexities seem designed to demonstrate a faculty member's command of the course subtleties rather than explain the material for students consumption. Paradigms of instructional success differ dramatically form those in the States. As one Czech professor put it, "We are proud if students are confused." Classroom climate in the US often breeds breezy familiarity between faculty and students. In the Central European environment, the climate is usually distant, if not outright punitive (Mestenhauser, 1992), and stymies classroom interaction (Christensen, 1991). Under the socialist system, instructional methods involved memorization of facts and data in an extremely authoritarian instructional format (Pearce, 1993). Open debate, critical thinking, analytical reasoning, all of which are common in US schools from elementary up are just now being introduced into these post-communist countries. Mestenhauser (1991) describes the system of higher education in the Czech and Slovak Republics under communism. The sciences and medicine were allowed to keep pace with the Western world, partly because the party bosses had no competence in those areas. Humanities and the social sciences, though, greatly suffered under the shackles of a totalitarian regime which could not afford for its citizens to question or propose other alternatives to the status quo. Learning theory, then, as a part of the social sciences, did not develop nor was there any diffusion of this information to relevant professionals. Because "capitalism" was seen as the enemy, no business education courses were taught, unless one counts three years of required Marxist economics for those majors. Although there are many engineers and professionals with highly advanced math and statistical skills, there are almost no Czech or Slovak nationals who have any background in information systems, decision sciences, statistical analysis for managerial decisions, nor any marketing, accounting, strategy and so on (Cakrt, 1993). Because there was study of industrial psychology, there are people versed in areas related to organizational behavior. But the vast majority of what westerners would consider basic skills for managers was non-existent. Our MBA students tell us management was done before "by improvisation." Though communism has been overthrown, attitudes and behavioral patterns often remain and have an impact on adaptation to new systems of thought and action. Professors who may try to teach critical thinking skills are themselves products of the rigid regime they rejected--a system which looked for the one right answer as a gauge for learning (Simons, 1992), and whose only evaluation was geared towards level of conformity to the communist party and its interests (Winkler, 1992). Because of this orientation to information, case studies were rarely used, for they would not fit that model well. Faculty told us they do not like discussions in class because they "waste time" and this gives them less opportunity to lecture on the important material. In classroom debates one can see the surprise on students faces that they are allowed to disagree with each other or with the instructor, or that their ideas may be valued. It is all new to them. Once students taste this new experience, though, many are loathe to sacrifice it for the familiar lecture approach. More will be discussed on this later. Our Approach Strategies for Change
Methodology Lessons and Problems Results: Faculty
Even after training at Harvard, some of our faculty viewed case discussion teaching with distrust because 1) students were unused to extensive independent reading and analysis; 2) faculty lacked the broad business background to deal with some issues; 3) there were no solutions provided. Local instructors tend to write case studies and teach using cases in a generally similar manner: they stress a narrative rather than analytical approach, and in the classroom tend to use cases as illustrations within a lecture format, rather than as a starting point for student-led problem-solving. In one MBA1 course, personal and professional friction between the western and local instructor concerning case-discussion methods vs. use of lecture with case illustrations led to a complete breakdown of communication and division of the course. Nevertheless, at least one MBA1 course provided
a successful model of case discussion teaching by a implementing a highly
structured breakdown of class time into short segments of discussion, student
exercises, student ad lib presentations, and lecture. Moreover, individual
participation in interactive discussion was graded positively , without penalizing
irrelevant comments. Students objected to this forced effort, but learned
significant skills and trust; participating Czech and Slovak faculty in the
course also profited from the format and shared equally in its development. Results: Students In contrast, data from practicing managers of all ages and from younger university students show a strong preference for the "American" way of teaching, which they defined as interactive, respectful of student opinions, practical, better contact with students, rather than the "Czech" way of teaching, which they described as lecturing, didactic, too theoretical, non-interactive and not interesting. Almost three-fourths of both groups preferred the American way, while only about one-tenth preferred the Czech method, with about one-fifth wishing for a combination of both (see Table 1). The practicing managers, in a separate evaluation session with the CMC dean, indicated both Czech and American faculty as having distinctive strengths. For the Czechs this meant requiring advance preparation and more basic mastery of the material. For Americans it was a welcome flexibility in the classroom and willingness to adapt to the needs of students, as well as their lifetime immersion in a market economy (Pendergast, 1993). In addition, both the groups of students and practicing managers indicated the tendency for Czech instructors to lecture more than their American counterparts . The managers response showed a perceived difference in lecturing versus more interactive activities of 19%, while the students felt Czech instructors lectured 30% more than the Americans. Another interesting result came from the managers initially misunderstanding one of the questions, which gave an unexpected outcome. They said Czech professors discuss non-related topics in class 15% more than Western faculty. These results agree with Pearce's (1993) experiences in Eastern Europe, where she found students willing to become involved in case studies or group presentations once they knew what was expected of them and once the instructor was able to alter that passive mindset. Table 1.Preferences for Teaching Styles (in percentages) Open-ended questions to the Prague University of Economics students about the highly interactive management course they were taking indicated an overwhelming positive reaction to the course. Concerns included language problems, suitability of interactive techniques in more technical courses, and possible embarrassment of Czech students to speak in front of peers, a new practice for them. Comments included such as:
A later survey in the same course yielded lengthier responses:
Student demand for more effective teaching strategies is not limited to CMC and our isolated experiences at Prague University of Economics. Recently, a student magazine in the Czech Republic carried a long "open letter" from a student in reply to a request from a friend who was interested in attending that university (Pobo?l, 1993). The author spoke at length about the worthlessness of education at that university, of the incompetence of the faculty. What will higher education look like in coming years in the two republics? How will faculty teach, what will expectations be of their behavior in the classroom? Students are already beginning to voice dissatisfaction over the status quo of teaching. We have seen in the managers program the behavior of these students go from polite passivity to outspoken demands for more interaction in the classroom and outright rejection of the strict lecture format. What will happen as the ferment becomes deeper and more widespread? Recommendations Our initial assumptions at CMC that we could transpose western teaching models to east European faculty through brief periods in western institutions as classroom observers, and through pairing with western instructors without any preliminary in-depth training in interactive teaching have proved short-sighted. In faculty development programs in US institutions, modification of teaching methods requires faculty incentive and intensive consultation with video and peer feedback. In Czechoslovakia where far more rigid systems of lecturing prevail, and interactive teaching has no precedent, we cannot expect to counter decades of habit with a few teaching tips. Faculty resistance to change is standard everywhere; motivation for transformation results from student and institutional demand. We have suggested that students introduced to interactive, or "western" teaching styles have tended to become positive supporters and reject a return to rigid lectures. This demand will increase as more students and executive course participants have contact with western methods. East European faculty must be prepared to meet the demand with initiative and openness to new teaching perspectives. To meet this challenge we propose some of the following prescriptions:
Postscript
At the same time, our Czech and Slovak faculty have weathered nearly three years of teaching MBA and Executive students, and working with Western colleagues. Through the evaluation process they confronted a level of student commentary about their teaching previously unknown in their educational system. In responding to the demands of younger students, a more international community, and a pragmatic business clientele, many local instructors have adopted an increasingly open style of teaching, using a range of discussion, practical exercises, and cases. As a result, teaching evaluations of local faculty are now more favorable than they were in the first year of the MBA program. References Cakrt, Michael. (1993) Management education in Eastern Europe: toward mutual understanding, The Academy of Management Executive, .Vol. 7, No. 4, 63-68. Christensen, C. Roland (1991). Premises and practices of discussion teaching, in C. Roland Christensen (ed.), Education for judgment. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 15-34. Dooley, Arch R. and Wickham Skinner (1977). Casing casemethod methods, Academy of Management Review, April, 277-89. Kohák, Erazim. (1992) Central Europe's post-captive minds, Harper's Magazine, June, 15-20. Kralj, Janko and Mitra I. Tavãar. The use of proactive methods in teaching and learning at the international graduate school of business administration, Maribor, Slovenia. Annual WACRA meeting, July 1993, Bratislava, Slovakia. Monaghan, Peter (1992). Western economics textbook gain many more new readers as market systems develop where communism failed, Chronicle of Higher Education, February 26, A40. Mestenhauser, Josef., (1992a) Remarks given at Minnesota International Center World Affairs Program, September. Mestenhauser, Josef. (1992) Personal communication. Mestenhauser, Josef. (1991) Higher education in Czechsolovakia, unpublished manuscript. Milosz, Czeslaw. (1990) The captive mind. New York: Vintage. Pearce, Jone L. (1993) On the transferability of pedagogical methods, materials, and practices to post-socialist cultures, paper submitted for Academy of Management annual meeting. Pendergast, William (1993). CMC official communication, May 25. Pobo?l, Martin. (1993) Open letter in Mramor, Vol. 1, No. 1, March. Porter, Lyman W. and Laurence McGibbon (1988). The future of management education and development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Simons, Marlise. (1992) Czechslovakia's colleges: burden of communist past, New York Times, Dec. 24, A1 & A6. Winkler, Jan. (1992) Between a rock and a hard place, unpublished manuscript, Charles University, Prague. |
||||||||||||||||
