1

ENGAGEMENT, COMMUNITY, AND TRANSFORMATION

A CASE STUDY

Jay Hays

Unitec Institute of Technology

Contact Details:

Jay Martin Hays

Academic Programs, Industry Engaged Learning

Swinburne University of Technology

jhays@swin.edu.au

Keywords

Citizenship, Community, Engagement, Deep Learning, Case Study, Learning Design

Synopsis

This chapter outlines a semester-length subject (unit) titled Management and Organisation: The

Community Project, offered at a research-intensive Australian university. Management and

Organisation: The Community Project represents the merging of a standard survey course that

might be taught rather didactically with a unique experiential component that aspires to have

students learn by doing. Students become meaningfully involved in one or more projects that

could make a real difference to their and others’ lives. The unit adopts a holistic approach to

student learning, attempting to appeal to diverse learning styles, preferences, and modalities.

Not only do students learn management and organisational theory, but they experience in a very

real way what management and organisation are all about: what works, what doesn’t, when, and

why; what they really understand and can apply, and what remains for them abstract and

theoretical. Management and Organisation: The Community Project is intentionally designed to

engage students deeply, blending theory and practice. Most do engage intellectually,

emotionally, and socially, and this ensures both deep, transformative learning and real social

change. Students are afforded opportunities to discover, initiate, and innovate; and they are

encouraged to collaborate. They quickly come to see that achievement is only attainable through

teamwork and drawing on their complementary talents. Students are at the centre of classroom

and project activities, engaging fully in teaching each other, building community, and developing

the skills, knowledge, and orientations necessary for them to become valued employees and

contributing members of society.

2

Engagement, Community, and Transformation

A Case Study

This is the first course I’ve ever had where I’m excited to come to class every week.

On the first day of class, Dr J promised that we would do something fun and

interesting each week, and he never let me down. I always can’t wait to discover

what’s next. With this last week of the semester, I admit that this is also the first

class I’ve ever had that I don’t want to be over.

This isn’t just a course in management, it’s a course in life!

I never really thought about uni as a community. I never really felt a part of a

community until this course or understood that we take it all for granted. I realise

now that you can’t just take. There is no community if you don’t contribute

something to it.

The first couple of weeks of the semester I was confused and disappointed, and

about to quit. I thought the professor was lazy or crazy. Then I started to get it.

We can teach each other. Sometimes we have to get off our … to learn anything

meaningful. You have to come to class and get out and about. The most important

stuff you can’t learn from slides or teaching notes. You have to experience it in

some way. I like the way Dr J makes me feel things… care about things.

–Extracts from student Reflective Learning Journals.

Introduction

This chapter outlines a semester-length subject (unit) titled Management and Organisation: The

Community Project, offered at a research-intensive Australian university. Management and

Organisation: The Community Project represents the merging of a standard survey course that

might be taught rather didactically with a unique experiential component that aspires to have

students learn by doing, as has been articulated by scholars such as Dewey (1938); Kolb (1984);

Heron (1992); Mumford (1995), and others. Here, learning by doing is related to participation,

engagement, and experience, as conceived by scholars such as Kolb and Kolb (2005), Quay

(2003), and Taylor, P., (2008). In the unit, students become meaningfully involved in one or

more projects that could make a real difference to their and others’ lives.

The unit adopts a holistic approach to student learning (Hutchison and Bosacki, 2000; Quay,

2003; Yielder, 2004; Yorks and Kasl, 2002), attempting to appeal to diverse learning styles,

preferences, and modalities (Boström and Lassen, 2006; Cooper et al, 2010; Varner and Peck,

2003). Students will, as examples, develop metaphors and explain their relevance to

management, or facilitate classmates through experiential activities, using music, movement, and

other instrumentalities to engage them and promote deep learning (Entwhistle, 2000; Havard et

al, 2005; Warburton, 2003).

Not only do students learn management and organisational theory, but they experience in a very

real way what management and organisation are all about: what works, what doesn’t, when, and

why; what they really understand and can apply, and what remains for them abstract and

theoretical. The unit offers a very active, participative, and engaging form of learning, which

3

presumably leads to greater retention and transfer (see Chapman et al, 2005; Wilhelmson, 2006;

or Yorks and Kasl, 2002).

Management and Organisation: The Community Project is intentionally designed to engage

students deeply, blending theory and practice. Its design incorporates a range of teaching and

learning theory, as indicated throughout this chapter, but drawing largely on a series of articles by

Hays (particularly 2008; 2009; and 2012) and Hays and Clements (2012). Most students taking

the unit do engage intellectually, emotionally, and socially, and this contributes to both deep,

transformative learning1 and real social change. Students are afforded opportunities to discover,

initiate, and innovate (Kumar, 2006; Lynch, 1999; Mezirow, 1997); expected to become self-

directing (Cunningham and Yorks, 2008; Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Kessels and Poell, (2004), Loo

and Thorpe, 2002; and Mezirow, 1997); and they are encouraged to collaborate. They quickly

come to see that achievement is only attainable through teamwork and drawing on their

complementary talents.

Building on notions and theory of student-centred learning (Boud and Walker, 1992; Cornelius-

White (2007); Cunningham, 1999; Kumar, 2006; Nicolaides and Yorks, 2008), students taking

Management and Organisation: The Community Project are at the centre of classroom and

project activities, engaging fully in teaching each other, building community, and developing the

skills, knowledge, and orientations necessary for them to become valued employees and

contributing members of society. They are developing learning habits that will serve them for a

lifetime (Boström and Lassen, 2006; Dumas, 2002; Nicolaides and Yorks, 1995; Nixon and Murr,

2006, Schwandt, 2005; ) and are engaged in authentic and meaningful work (Billett, 1994; Hays

and Clements, 2012; Ross, 1998).

The course is taught in the 13-week format, typical of Australian university courses. Class sizes

range from 15 to 40, depending on the semester. It is important to note that the course is

comprised of predominantly international students, with domestic students a small minority. This

means that the course is taught in many students’ second or third language. Many are unfamiliar

with Western teaching approaches that tend to be more informal, interactive, and student-centred.

The Community Project course, in particular, requires students to be verbally assertive, actively

engaged, and self-directing. They are not so much instructed as they teach and learn from one

another. This major departure in educational approach from what students are accustomed to

affects domestic students as well, though, perhaps, to a lesser extent. While many struggle, all

make substantial progress in these areas that are crucial to career success.

In many ways, the course and The Community Project give voice to students seldom heard, and

equip them for the real world outside of university. Few courses so dramatically refocus learning

objectives and strategies. Reflection and teamwork are integral to the course, with notions of

community, service, and citizenship central (see Dumas, 2002, and Hays and Clements, 2012).

Fully half of the assessment is group-based to reinforce the collaborative nature of the course and

professional work. The course builds on adult learning theory and practice (andragogy), as has

been elaborated by Brookfield (1987), Kegan (1982; 1994), Knowles (1980; 1990), Mezirow

(2000), and others, especially notions of self-direction, as well as on concepts and principles of

deep, transformative learning; and discovery, cooperative, and experiential learning.

1 There is a wide range of significant scholarly works covering deep and transformational learning. All of the

following have influenced the author’s teaching in some way: Biggs and Tang (2007); Chapman et al (2005);

Entwhistle (2000); Grauerholz (2001); Havard et al (2005); Hays (2008); Marsick (1998); Meuser and Lapp (2004);

Mezirow (1991; 1997; 2000); Taylor, E. (2008); Warburton (2003)

4

Why the Unit Revision?

Purpose. The main purpose for The Community Project is to provide students, some with no

professional work experience, a genuine opportunity to apply textbook theory and develop

practical and relevant management and organisational skills. This aim is particularly apt in a

university where teaching, despite (and perhaps because of) its international profile as a cutting-

edge, research-intensive university, at least in the subject faculty, tends to be conventional with

primarily teacher-led, didactic rather than student-centred instruction. The author and convenor

of Management and Organisation: The Community Project reached this conclusion having

observed a range of lectures and lecturers in fulfilling his partial role in the university’s teaching

and learning unit, team-teaching with other faculty members, reviewing countless student

evaluations, and frequent conversations with students.

Having come from a very practice-based institution, the author and unit convenor found little

evidence of student engagement, especially, though not exclusively at the undergraduate level.

And, where career-oriented, education was slanted toward research and academic roles rather

than preparation for the world outside the university. Something needed to be done. Attempts to

found a some type of professional practice (Nixon and Murr, 2006), Cooperative Education

(Haddara and Skanes, 2007), or other Work-Integrated Learning (Cooper et al, 2010) program to

compensate for the dominant instructional model in force proved futile. Thus, the unit convenor

took it upon himself to do what he could to provide students with a more practical and relevant

education, by changing the way he taught and revising the structure and process of the units for

which he was responsible.

A second, though nonetheless significant purpose of revising Management and Organisation to

include the community project was to inculcate into students a sense of community and

citizenship,2 and to enhance students’ agency and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1999; 2006; Boström

and Lassen, 2006; Hays and Clements, 2012). Coming to emphasise community and citizenship

did not occur overnight. Several semesters proceeded before their importance became clear and

that the unit was actually promoting their development. The dawning realisation and subtle

influence in unit design and classroom conduct were concomitant with research and scholarship

with which the author was simultaneously engaged, including Communities of Practice (Hays,

2008a; 2009) and Servant Leadership (Hays, 2008b) and, not surprisingly, has continued as in the

recent article on Service Learning and citizenship (Hays and Clements, 2012). It was becoming

clear that the university campus and its relationship to the wider community was impersonal,

detached, and alienating, opinions borne out in hundreds of interviews students conducted with

faculty, staff, students, and other community stakeholders. Both unit convenor and students

themselves wanted to do something about the lack of community.

Originally intended for undergraduate students, the course is currently taught at the graduate level

only, predominantly to students pursuing masters degrees in management, with a minority of

students from engineering, computer science, law, and other disciplines. The author and course

convenor has been associated with the management and organisation course in one form or

another for five years. During that period, a number of strategies have been attempted to enliven

the course and make it more relevant for students.

2 This second purpose may seem out of place given the original intent and title of the course (Management and Organisation).

Increasingly, however, organisations and their leaders are being called upon to be socially responsible and civic-minded, and to

foster environments wherein employees find meaning and purpose through work that matters. While any project could reasonably

be expected to fulfil the “experiential” component requirement, The Community Project inspires a certain level of ownership and

commitment from students. It is close to heart and hearth.

5

If not careful, management and organisation topics can be tedious, clinical, and predictable. This

belies the truly dynamic, complex, and uncertain nature of management and organisational life.

They can be chaotic, exciting, and deeply human. Courses that insulate students from these

realities are doing them a disservice (see Hays, 2012).

Early on, the author found that many students could recite passages from the text or repeat the

substance of lectures, but few were able to translate theory and apply it in unique situations and

fewer possessed the confidence to even try. This is consistent with research on transfer,

particularly the insufficiency of surface learning to transfer (Chapman et al, 2005; Grauerholz,

2001; Havard et al, 2005). Students’ problem solutions were devoid of personality and

understanding of the people in the picture. In other words, they sounded smart, but had not

embraced or embodied the material. They could not put management into practice. That is,

many remained characteristically surface learners, where the author sought deep learning. Thus,

the continual challenge for the author has been to make material memorable, meaningful, and

authentic (even fun), giving it a human touch.

Another factor in the design and emphasis of the course is the strong demand from industry for

graduates that demonstrate a set of abilities and inclinations that traditional academic education

does not always sufficiently produce: individuals who are self-directed and show initiative,

creativity, and courage; who possess capable skills in teamwork and collaboration; and who

think, exercise good judgement, are adaptable and resilient, and are willing to challenge the status

quo. Increasingly, these skills, knowledge, and orientations are enumerated by universities as key

generic skills and desired graduate attributes (Clements and Hays, 2012).

The Design of Management and Organisation: The Community Project

Structure and Format. The course follows a standard 13-week pattern, with three-hour seminars

or workshops each week. There is little direct teaching from the course convenor. “Lessons” are

the object of various activities done in small groups or as a class. Refer to Figure 1 for a

graphical overview of the semester / unit.

Figure 1. Conceptual overview of Management and Organisation: The Community Project.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13EasterBreak

Learning Cells

Project Team(s)

RLJ1 SRO

LCRP

ES&CM1(practice)

ES&CM2

Theory Piece

P1: Project Initiation P2: Project Proposal

P3: Project Implementation

P4: Project DeliveryP5: ProjectEvaluation

FPR &

FPRP

Chapter Readings

RLJ2

RLJ3

RLJ4

1, 13 16, 3 17, 2 18 6 7, 8 10, 11 14, 15 12 9 4 5

Class Sessions

Individual

Assessments

Group

Assessments

6

As a survey course, a range of topics are covered during the semester, touching on everything

from individual motivation to strategic management. They could easily be perceived of by

students as discrete, unrelated subjects. Generally, these topics are covered on a weekly basis,

reflecting separate chapters in a standard Management and Organisation text. There are 18

chapters in the text used; all topics more or less relevant to the course and field. Students are

expected to read each chapter; some weeks require more than one chapter to be read. Readings

are assigned topically, not sequentially, to better align with the design of the course and the

sequence of The Community Project. Leadership (Ch. 13), Teams and Teamwork (Ch. 16),

Communications and Interpersonal Skills (Ch. 17), and Change Leadership (Ch. 18), for

example, are all assigned in the first four weeks as they provide crucial understandings and

strategies for use throughout the semester (see Figure 1). In addition to the survey topics

included in the text, the author brings in other subjects that become the focus for a session and /

or that provide continuity across the semester. Systems thinking (Hays, 2010a; 2010b; 2012) is a

notable example.

It should be noted that course content exceeds the theory and topics covered by the text and

introduced additionally by the lecturer. Students are expected to not just know about, say

leadership, but to demonstrate it in course activities. Change management provides another

example: students could not possibly implement The Community Project without exercising their

developing change management knowledge and skills.

Engagement. One way the author has strived to reduce passivity and reliance on teacher (see

Hays, 2008c; 2012) is to make students responsible for teaching a unit during the semester,

typically one chapter. This reinforces to students that they are all responsible for contributing to

the success of the course – they are “good citizens” – and that they can (and must) learn from

each other. Teaching this unit also permits the building of teamwork and collaboration skills as

students develop and conduct the lesson in teams. These lessons are not the typical student

presentation, but incorporate the best in novelty and engagement, as student groups learn from

each other and the instructor and vie to be the most inspirational and interactive teachers.

Employing an experiential approach to teaching, rather than lecture, encourages students to

exercise creativity in developing their lessons. They learn that they don’t have to “tell” so much

as create opportunities for classmates to learn and discover together. They’ll use role-plays and

simulations, debates, games and competitions, case studies, and inventories, as well as rich multi-

media experiences, and follow by solid conclusions and excellent debriefs.

So, students engage with one another as a community. They also engage with the wider

community through the respective phases of the projects in which they are involved. They, thus,

experience and build community, and they learn with, through, and from community. The

contribution of engagement to learning is significant, as has been widely documented.3

Learning Cells. The lessons developed and facilitated by students provide one of the major

deliverables for Learning Cells. Learning Cells are founded on Day 1 and work together

throughout the semester, as shown on Figure 1 (the stream immediately below class sessions

across the top of the diagram). LCs are meant to be “micro-communities” as well as study

groups, where the lessons of the course are applied in small groups and where impetus for much

of what occurs in the larger class and in The Community Project is generated.

The Community Project. Alongside the theory and Learning Cells is The Community Project. It

is both closely-linked and separate. The weekly topics are directly linked to the unfolding

3 Refer to works such as Bandura (1977), Boud (2001a), Chapman et al (2005), Hara and Schwen (2006), Harris et al

(2008), Hays and Clements (2012), Kolb and Kolb (2005), Quay (2003), and Yorks and Kasl (2002).

7

project. There are project teams that are intentionally different than the Learning Cells. Thus,

students have a chance to work in different teams and benefit from the potential cross-

fertilisation.

The Community Project, itself, comprises five major phases, scheduled to be completed in the

course of the semester. The phases are:

P1: Project Initiation

P2: Project Proposal

P3: Project Implementation

P4: Project Delivery

P5: Project Evaluation

Each of these phases is explained and operationalised during weekly seminars, and links to the

readings and other unit content emphasised.

The Community Project is not an “add on.” The course is moulded around it. It is used as the

centrepiece to focus class activity and to build community within the class. It is within the

project and to its end that students exercise theory. This is where they put their textbook learning

into practice. Weekly topics are selected and scheduled around general project phases; class

activities are directly or indirectly related to the particular project, its degree of completion, and

emerging issues.

These five phases allow students to identify a project or projects to work on, and to plan,

implement, deliver, and evaluate the project or projects. It is important that students choose the

project, and the very process of identifying, defending, and selecting the project(s), which

happens in the first three weeks of the semester, already achieves a number of important

outcomes and student learnings. The importance of student “ownership” purchased this way is

underscored in the literature on Service Learning (see Hays and Clements, 2012, for germane

discussion). They interview university stakeholders to ascertain levels of community awareness

and what people believe might improve community and the overall quality of the learning

experience at the university. They, then, develop and present proposals based on their first

exposure to stakeholders and their needs.

Prior to this, in Week 1, they have brainstormed and then nominated the criteria by which

proposals will be judged. This, they’re told, will also be the criteria by which they will evaluate

the success of their project(s). This collaborative model helps them develop a sense of what’s

important to a range of stakeholders, begins to build a sense of purpose and empowerment, as

well as develops very important performance management skills, particularly decision-making

and planning, and goal-setting. They are learning what it means to engage and connect.

Examples of course content (theory) “shaped” to the unfolding project include:

Project Phase Course Content / Theory

P1: Project Initiation Change and Change Leadership; Empowerment and Self-Direction; Teams and Teamwork, Democracy and Citizenship; Communications and Interpersonal Skills.

P2: Project Proposal Globalisation and Sustainability; Information and Decision-Making; Planning; Leading and Leadership; Environment and Diversity; Organisational Culture.

P3: Project Implementation Understanding Work / Job Design; Organisational Design; Controlling; Motivation and Rewards.

8

P4: Project Delivery Organising and Organising Trends; Systems Thinking and Complex Adaptive Systems; Human Resource Management.

P5: Project Evaluation Performance Management and Measurement; Formal Report-Writing and Presentation.

Examples of community projects students have worked on include: hosting a campus-wide

sports day; running of a university multi-cultural festival; development of a formal proposal to

build a university community centre; and design and trialling of an internet-based community hub

called “e-com.”

Reflection. Management and Organisation: The Community project exercises and develops

reflective thinking and writing skills.4 Considerable research has been published bearing on the

potential of reflection and reflective journal-writing to enhance learning, with an indicative

sample including:

There are Reflective Learning Journals roughly linked to the five phases of the project, basically

every three weeks, with a Semester Reflective Overview as a final assessment. These are shown

on Figure 1 as RLJ1-4 and SRO. As few students have actually used reflective journals in

previous study and almost all need to develop skill, discipline, and supportive attitudes in

reflection, individual and shared reflective exercises are conducted on a weekly basis, and the

lecturer often shares his own reflections and journal passages with the class. Savvy Learning

Cells (see above) incorporate reflective activities into their lessons. Learning Cells submit a

reflective paper at the end of the semester that documents their experiences and learnings as a

group. Journals are assessed and carry fully 50% of course marks (weight). This reinforces the

importance of reflection and provides the balance to the remainder of assessment, which is group-

based.

Assessment. There is a balance between individual and group assessment. The RLJs are

individual assessment items (with one exception). The Community Project and the Learning Cell

lessons are group assessments. Students are expected to rate themselves and their Learning Cell

mates twice during the semester, the results of which are used to moderate student scores on

group assessments. The author has experimented with a range of assessments and relative

weightings, including adding one or more examination and different types of individual and team

projects, settling finally on the current approach. Pros and cons are discussed briefly in the

section below, Issues.

Effectiveness

Most introduced to Management and Organisation: The Community Project find it intriguing.

This goes for faculty and students alike, as well as those outside academia. It is full of promise

and possibility. People find it novel. It has been called both inspired and inspiring. In student

circles, the word travels and many students take the course merely on the recommendation of

students who have had it previously. (Some students sign up for the course when they find out it

has no exams.)5

4 Many of the scholarly works reviewed for the writing of this case emphasise and explain reflection and reflective

journal writing, some of the notable ones cited elsewhere herein or generally relevant to this case include: Bandura

(2006), Boud (2001b), Carson and Fisher (2006), Chapman et al (2005), Doel (2009), Grauerholz (2001), Loo and

Thorpe (2002); Kessels and Poell (2004); Meuser and Lapp (2004), Wilhelmson (2006), and Yielder (2004). 5 Truthfully, some students drop the course in the first week or two when they find out what it is like. Things that

lead to their withdrawal include the continuous assessment, especially reflective journals with which they have no

experience, and the fact that there is 50% course marks (weight) for group work. Many just want a normal course

9

The Community Project unit achieves outcomes that are different, if not superior, to the same

course taught conventionally; and it may offer much that traditional courses do not. No claims

are made that the unit is “better” than other courses; but it is usually interesting and often fun, as

attested by student comments in journals and evaluations. The reflective nature of the course can

be powerful and confronting, outcomes precipitated additionally by the high levels of student

interdependence. With sufficient support and encouragement from the lecturer and the class as a

whole, these experiences can be deeply transformative and positive. Such profound learnings are

seldom witnessed in highly structured courses or where learning outcomes are precisely and

objectively prescribed.

The course can also be frustrating for students. Relatively student-centred and self-directing

(Kessels and Poell, 2004; Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Loo and Thorpe, 2001; Mezirow, 1997), there

are predictable “stalls” and breakdowns while the students find their way. Perhaps because they

are accustomed to being told what to do and having virtually no latitude in their schoolwork,

many experience disorientation (Hays, 2012). They expect the lecturer to structure their study

and work and to fix problems as they inevitably arise.6 At least in terms of education, even

graduate students are not accustomed to expecting the unexpected. However, the nature of

professional work today demands a high degree of resilience from employees, people who can

thrive in chaotic, uncertain environments, and who demonstrate judgment, initiative, and

sustained performance with little direction or supervision. Few courses offer this realism.

The fact the Management and Organisation: The Community Project is so different poses risks to

both teacher and students. Students are not really prepared for such a course. They lack

experience and confidence. This does not mean, however, that they should be denied the

opportunity to gain such experience and confidence. After all, that is what we are supposed to be

providing: preparation for the real world. Their lack of exposure notwithstanding, many rise to

the challenge and perform extraordinarily, most doing sufficiently well to pass the course and

learning much of value in the process. Some, unfortunately, never really “get with the program”

and may fail to learn as much as they might in another, more traditional course. Such students

can be quite critical.

Faculty may also be unaccustomed to teaching in this manner (Hays, 2008b; 2012). Student-

centred learning is quite different than teacher-directed education, as Cornelius-White (2007) and

others have noted. A paradigm shift is necessary, and new and different skills may be required.

Other important considerations are the learning outcomes and assessment, and how they compare

with conventional courses. It is more difficult to define precisely what students will learn in a

course such as this, which makes assessment problematic.

Students evaluate the course very highly, with averages of 6+ out of 7. While weightings are

generally favourable, students tend to have strong feelings regarding the course, either being very

positive or highly critical. As one student said about the course very recently,

At least everyone has an opinion. It’s not like some courses where most students are kind of

ho hum, having no feelings or thoughts one way or the other, just taking the course because

they have to.

with standard exams and other requirements. It is interesting to note, however, that numerous students who have

dropped the course end up taking it the following semester. 6 Students with professional work experience tend to be less “thrown off” by this strategy, but even many of them

struggle. By the time students get to post-graduate courses, they know how to get top marks in conventional classes.

This course offers high degrees of freedom and corresponding responsibility. Many would rather do away with the

latitude (and associated ambiguity) and have everything precisely spelt out for them and adhered to.

10

Student comments and evaluations of lecturer and unit say nothing about what students learn,

however. The author uses several measures to assess learning, as follows.

Reflection. First and foremost, students are assessed individually on the quality of their reflective

thinking, as revealed through their reflective learning journals, and collectively in the nature of

their contributions in class. Examination of journals over time shows consistent improvements

during the semester. Class discussions show increasing depth as the semester proceeds, from

rather superficial comments and questions in early days to insightful, intriguing, and inspired

contributions by mid-point. It should also be said that class participation increases dramatically

over the course of the semester. This is remarkable given the predominance of international

students, and can be compared to other classes:

I’m really impressed by my classmates in this course. These same students go through an entire

semester in other classes never saying a word. This is partly due to the class environment

created by Dr J, but what really makes all the difference is the levels of respect, courtesy,

patience, encouragement, willingness to listen, and support by members of the class. This is

especially evident in the team presentations. I can’t believe the show of confidence by these

students! In other classes, students [in the audience] just sit there bored or doing something

else. Here, they’re really engaged. They help the presenters succeed! From a student

Reflective Learning Journal.

Citizenship. Since the course concerns community and its development, a key performance area

is class culture and climate. Indicators of effective gains, here, mostly concern greater citizenship

behaviours in class, including voluntary and spontaneous offers to help, inclusiveness,

consideration (Hays and Clements, 2012), both within the class and with respect to The

Community Project. Students come to refer to the class as a “team” or a “community.” They

realise that “we are all in this together” (see Hays, 2009). It is not the teacher and the students, or

one student competing with the next, but everyone pulling together. Class discussions often refer

to citizenship and its principles. One of the first lessons is about community: what it means and

how community is created and sustained. Students converse about what it means to be a good

citizen and how this may translate into the class and The Community Project. These inputs

become (indirectly) part of the vision and objectives students develop for The Community

Project. Here is an example from the e-com proposal:

Imagine… a place where everyone is connected; where aspirations are shared; where

knowledge is not constrained. A place where you belong…. The … e-community, for

students, teachers, and friends.

One of the activities sometimes done as a class is The Traffic Metaphor.7 In addition to adding a

bit of colour and diversity to lessons, its chief objective is to provide a common language

amongst class members for communication behaviours and to develop a set of “rules of the road”

to guide their interactions. Interestingly, the most recent community-project class interpreted

this exercise and the “rules of the road” they developed as a group to be about good

citizenship—norms of mutual respect and obligation, and ways to build and sustain community.

Students must complete an evaluation of themselves and their classmates with respect to their

citizenship and contribution to building community. These evaluations are factored into

individual grades at the end of the semester.

7 Details on this exercise as well as other metaphors used (Human Body; Cities; Explorer / Journey; Orange Juice)

available from the author upon request.

11

Innovativeness. Innovation, creativity, and risk-taking are promoted from Day One. Consistent

with active, collaborative, discovery learning (Chapman et al, 2005; Kumar, 2006; Loo and

Thorpe, 2002; Mezirow, 1997), the lecturer employs various activities to develop and empower

students to do things differently, to experiment and play. For instance, students may have to

identify with a designated major system of the human body (cardiovascular, digestive, nervous,

etc.) and find analogies to organisation and management, or develop their own metaphor and find

corresponding analogies. They have come up with tree, ship, jelly fish, crocodile, and others.

Twenty percent of the topic presentation mark is for creativity and originality.

Throughout the semester, students are given much latitude to explore topics and to express

themselves (too much in some students’ opinion). But it is in this area of latitude and ambiguity

where students begin to find and assert themselves. It is hard for many of them to believe that

they have licence to express themselves (evidenced in countless early journal entries), but once

given wings they take flight. Their creativity and courage are seen in their team presentations,

group activities, and The Community Project. Many go to great lengths to develop their

Reflective Learning Journal entries innovatively. They draw, import quotes and cartoons, and

write compelling stories and narratives demonstrating their understanding of course principles

and concepts. Students are assessed on reason, comprehensiveness, and depth, but creativity and

novelty often make the difference between a Distinction and a High Distinction (likened to a B

and an A).

Students attribute their emerging confidence and creativity to “no wrong answer.” In class

dialogue and journal entries every effort is made to encourage students to assert and express

themselves. Learning from the lecturer’s sufficient modelling of this principle in response to

student comments and questions in class and encouraging feedback on journal entries, students

begin to develop positive habits themselves. They begin to listen carefully, encourage others, and

find value and “correctness” in student assertions. Everyone learns together that “wrong” is a

state mind that erodes confidence and risk-taking, and prematurely stops thinking and ends

important dialogue. Whereas “right,” on the other hand, provides a springboard to new, fresh

ideas and productive conversation.

One of the reasons students speak up in this class is because they know they will not be

criticised or ridiculed. People don’t mind putting their thoughts out there even if they are

incomplete or not sure. Even when someone seems to be talking about something unrelated to

the topic or is obviously wrong (in my opinion), Dr J finds value in what is said, uses this as a

chance to clarify and reinforce certain points, and makes the speaker feel good about

answering. Everybody wins.

Initiative and Self-Direction. Management and Organisation: The Community Project demands

a high level of initiative and self-direction from students. It won’t work without them. The

projects are not always complete or as good as they could be, but students do them themselves. If

the lecturer were to provide stronger direction and oversight, then students would not learn some

of the really important lessons. In the end, it’s not about successful project completion (though

progress is motivating and completion is very satisfying). It’s about what students learn along the

way. They learn, in very real and practical terms, the value of teamwork, planning, goal-setting,

decision-making, communication and coordination, stakeholder involvement, and leadership,

amongst other things. If the lecturer were to step in every time students seemed adrift or project

progress seemed threatened, then they would learn a counter-productive lesson antithetical to the

course: students (employees) don’t really have power, responsibility, and ability.

Seldom does a semester begin with a critical mass of students ready, willing, and able to take

control. But class upon class, semester after semester, develop in this respect. There is often a

12

decisive or symbolic moment, such as when Jan stepped up to the whiteboard and took the texter

(marker) from Dr J and began facilitating a planning session with the class. Students then see in

action that they can, in fact may have to lead themselves. But the objective is not to observe and

allow the same few assertive individuals to dominate, but for all students to develop as leaders.

First of all, the most assertive may not be the most capable. Secondly, all must learn that

leadership means bringing out the best in others, even if that means taking on other roles

including facilitation and mentor so that others may step up.

It took a while for me to understand what Dr J was doing. It seemed like he didn’t care what we

did or if we did nothing. I know many of my classmates were confused. Some were angry and

disappointed. We all wanted more direction and structure. If he knew how to go forward, why

didn’t he just tell us? Then I realised that we didn’t really need him to tell us what to do. We

had to figure it out for ourselves. And we could! I realised I had been waiting… doing nothing.

I realised that this was my chance to make a difference. That’s what my group was doing in the

coffee shop the day Dr J walked by and saw us. We were mapping out a plan for the next

couple of weeks. From a student Reflective learning Journal.

Systems Thinking. There are only a few mentions of systems thinking in the text, but the course is largely

about it. Systems thinking provides a lens through which to interpret and apply all of the individual topics

covered. It (and experience) is there to remind students that nothing is as straightforward as the text

suggests or as simple and certain as we assume it is (and often wish it were!) There is at least one formal

lesson in systems thinking during the semester, sometimes linked to the Human Body Metaphor alluded to

earlier. There are many activities that emphasise and exercise systems thinking skills, including a

complex problem solving method employing causal loop diagramming (Hays, 2010a; 2010b; 2012).8

Probably the single-most valuable tool for developing systems thinking skills in the course is the

Reflective Learning Journal. Narratives often begin rather superficially. This reads as surface depictions

of events or topical explanations, and restatements of what the text or lecturer said are typical. They are,

at best, technically proficient descriptions and analyses from a safe distance. Students are continually

coached to extend and deepen their reflections and analyses—to “put themselves into the picture.” They

are asked to consider alternatives and multiple perspectives, to explore their assumptions and beliefs, to go

beneath the surface, to explore, infer, and speculate, to see why things might make sense from others’

points of view, to more broadly think about the implications of their own behaviour. Almost all students

make gains in their demonstrated ability to go deeper and further.

Issues. There are a number of issues, challenges, and tensions posed by a course of this nature, some of

which have been alluded to above.

Size and Extensibility. Two main considerations, here, are engagement and marking. The course and

project(s) hinge of high levels of student engagement. The larger the group, the more difficulty in

designing and implementing projects that meaningfully engage all students. Reviewing and marking

Reflective Learning Journals becomes quite difficult as numbers increase.

Group Assessments. 50% of the course mark / grade is determined by group and team assessments. This

raises questions concerning individual performance and distinctions amongst student performances. This

may be demotivating for some students, while others may “free ride.”

Course Content. While clearly meaningful and valuable, course learning outcomes are highly individual

and exceed prescriptive learning objectives normally associated with a Management and Organisation

8 Perhaps, the “no wrong answer” phenomenon mentioned earlier relates to this. Many answers may be at least

partially right. We try in class to create the appreciation that there is always more to a situation or problem than

“meets the eye,” and that quick decisions and solutions may actually be counter-productive as a result of acting in or

on the system before understanding it.

13

course. The trade-offs must be considered. Faculty and administrators must also determine if it is their

role and within their capability to foster such transcendent learnings.

Faculty Substitutions and Curriculum. A course such as this is highly dependent on the particular

instructor. Everyone would do it differently, and it might not lend itself to “packaging” and transfer to an

alternate teacher. One must consider the impact (in any) on the overall curriculum of, first, having such a

different course and, second, of alternating teachers. To what degree does it contribute to overall

curriculum objectives? Could these objectives be met in a better way?

Student Learning and Curriculum. To what extent does the course have lasting affect on students and

curriculum? What impacts do such critical student-centred features of the course such as empowerment

and self-direction have on future coursework? Do follow-on courses reinforce or thwart student

learnings?

Student Learning and Career Prospects. Much of the course depends on a set of assumptions about

professional work and what employers seek in university graduates. It may be useful to continually

validate and revise these assumptions. It would also be reassuring to confirm that alumni from courses

such as MGMT7030 actually show higher-levels of career-relevant skills and attitudes than graduates

from more conventional courses.

Concluding Remarks

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social

Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 21-41.

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, Vol. 1, pp. 164-180.

Biggs, J., and C. Tang. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student

Does. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill / Society for Research into Higher Education and Open

University Press.

Billett, S. (1994). Authenticity in workplace settings (Ch. 2). In Stevenson, J., Cognition at

Work: the Development of Vocational Expertise, pp. 36-75. Adelaide: NCVER.

Boström, L., and L. Lassen. (2006). Unraveling learning, learning styles, learning strategies and

meta-cognition. Education & Training, Vol. 48, No. 2/3, pp. 178-189.

Boud, D. (2001a). Introduction: making the move to peer learning. In Boud, D., Cohen, R., and

J. Sampson (Eds.), Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from and with Each Other.

London: Kogan Page.

Boud, D. (2001b). Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. In English, L., and M.

Gillen (Eds.), New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education: Promoting Journal Writing

in Adult Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boud, D., Cohen, R., and J. Sampson, (Eds.). (1993). Using Experience for Learning. London:

Open University Press.

14

Brookfield, S. (1988). Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Carson, L., and K. Fisher. (2006). Raising the bar on criticality: students’ critical reflection in

an internship program. Journal of Management Education, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 700-723.

Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., and G. Smiley. (2005). Strong community, deep learning: exploring

the link. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 217-230.

Clements, M., and J. Hays. (2012). Embedding industry engaged learning across the university.

Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Cooperative Education and Work-

Integrated Learning, Where East meets West and Theory meets Practice, Istanbul, Turkey, 20-22

June, 2012.

Cooper, L., Orrell, J., and M. Bowden. (2010). Work Integrated Learning: A Guide to Effective

Practice (Ch. 6, Supervision, pp. 124 – 141). London: Routledge.

Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a

meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 113-143.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Doel, S. (2009). Fostering student reflection during engineering internships. Asia-Pacific

Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 163-177.

Dumas, C. (2002). Community-based service-learning: does it have a role in management

education? International Journal of Value-Based Management, Vol. 15, pp. 249-264.

Entwistle, N. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual

frameworks and educational contexts. Paper presented at the TLRP Conference, Leicester, UK,

November.

Grauerholz, L. (2001). Teaching holistically to achieve deep learning. College Teaching, Vol.

49, No. 2, pp. 44-50.

Haddara, M., and H. Skanes. (2007). A reflection on cooperative education: from experience to

experiential learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 67-76.

Hara, N., and T. Schwen. (2006). Communities of practice in workplaces: learning as a

naturally occurring event. Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 93-114.

Harris, S., Lowery-Moore, H., and V. Farrow. (2008). Extending transfer of learning theory to

transformative learning theory: a model for promoting teacher leadership. Theory into Practice,

Vol. 47, pp. 318-326.

Havard, B., Du, J., and A. Olinzock. (2005). Deep learning: the knowledge, methods, and

cognition process in instructor-led online discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,

Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 125-135.

Hays, J. (2008a). High-performance teams and Communities of Practice. International Journal

of Business and Economics, Vol. 7, No. 1.

15

Hays, J. (2008b). Teacher as servant: applications of Greenleaf’s servant leadership in higher

education. Journal of Global Business Issues, Vol. 2, Is. 1, pp. 113 – 134.

Hays, J. (2008c). Threshold and transformation. European Journal of Management, Vol. 8, No.

3, pp. 24 – 46.

Hays, J. (2009). Practicing community. Journal of Sociology, Social Work and Social Welfare,

Vol. 3, Is. 1.

Hays, J. (2009). Going with the flow: teaching as being, not technique. Paper presented at the

annual conference of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM),

Melbourne, Australia, December 2 - 4, 2009. Published in the proceedings: ISBN 1 86308 157

7.

Hays, J. (2010a). The ecology of wisdom. Management & Marketing journal. Vol. 5. No. 1,

pp. 71-92.

Hays, J. (2010b). Mapping the wisdom ecosystem. Management & Marketing journal. Vol. 5,

No. 2, pp. 19-66.

Hays, J. (2012). Wicked problem: educating for complexity and wisdom. Paper presented at

the Wise Management in Organisational Complexity Conference, 23-24 May 2012, Shanghai,

China. Revised version, same title (in press): In Thompson, M., and D. Bevans (Eds.), Wise

Management in Organisational Complexity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hays, J., and M. Clements. (2012b). Service learning and citizenship: focus for university-

community collaboration. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian

Universities Community Engagement Alliance (AUCEA; now Engagement Australia), Next

Steps: Community Engaged Learning, Brisbane, Australia, 9-11 July, 2012. Revised paper

submitted to the Australasian Journal of University-Community Engagement and currently under

review.

Hays, J. (under review). Going with the flow: teaching as being, not technique. (Philosophy of

Management.)

Hays, J., and M. Clements. (under review). Toward a Theory of Industry Engaged Learning.

Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education.

Herrington, J., and R. Oliver. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning

environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 23-48.

Hutchinson, D. and S. Bosacki. (2000). Over the edge: can holistic education contribute to

experiential education? The Journal of Experiential Education, Vol. 23, Is. 3, pp. 177-182.

Hyslop-Margison, E., and M. Naseem. (2007). Career education as humanization: a Freirean

approach to lifelong learning. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 347-

358.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Cambridge:

Harvard University.

16

Kessels, J., and R. Poell. (2004). Andragogy and social capital theory: the implications for

human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.

146-157.

Knowles, M. (1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Knowles, M. (1990). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, 4th Ed. Houston: Gulf.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and

Development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, A., and D. Kolb. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential

learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.

193-212.

Kumar, M. (2006). Constructivist epistemology in action. Journal of Educational Thought, Vol.

40, No. 3, pp. 247-261.

Lekoko, R. (2005). The perceived effects of field-based learning in building responsive

partnerships for community development. Community Development Journal, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.

313-328.

Loo, R., and K. Thorpe. (2002). Using reflective learning journals to improve individual and

team performance. Team Performance Management, Vol. 8, No. 5/6, pp. 134-139.

Lynch, R. (1999). Seeking practical wisdom. Business and Economic History, Vol. 28, No. 2,

pp. 123-135.

Marsick, V. (1998). Transformative learning from experience in the knowledge era. Daedalus,

Vol. 127, No. 4, pp. 119-136.

Meuser, E. and C. Lapp. (2004). Reflective transformation: making the classroom work for

organizations and their managers. Strategic Change, Vol. 13, pp. 309 – 322.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, No. 74, pp. 5-12.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: core concepts of transformation theory. In

Mezirow, J. (Ed.), Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mumford, A. (1995). Four approaches to learning from experience. Industrial and Commercial

Training, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 12-19.

Newmann, F., and G. Wehlage. (1993). Authentic learning: five standards of authentic

instruction. Educational Leadership, Vol. 50, No. 7, pp. 8-12.

17

Nicolaides, A., and L. Yorks. (2008). An epistemology of learning through life. Emergence:

Complexity and Organization, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 50-61.

Nixon, S., and A. Murr. (2006). Practice learning and the development of professional practice.

Social Work Education, Vol. 25, No.

Ottewill, R. (2003). What’s wrong with instrumental learning? The case of business and

management. Education and Training, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 189-196.

Quay, J. (2003). Experience and participation: relating theories of learning. The Journal of

Experiential Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 105-116.

Reynolds, M. (1998). Reflection and critical reflection in management learning. Management

Learning, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 183 – 200.

Ross, K. (1998). Blending authentic work projects and instructional assignments: an adaptation

process. Educational Technology Research & Development, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 67-79.

Schwandt, D. (2005). When managers become philosophers: integrating learning with

sensemaking. Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 176-192.

Shutte, K. (2007). Journey or destination—a study of experiential education, reflection and

cognitive development. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, Vol. 41, pp. 117-128.

Taylor, E. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions in Adult and Continuing

Education, Vol. 119, pp. 5-15.

Taylor, P. (2008). Where crocodiles find their power: learning and teaching participation for

community development. Community Development Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3, , pp. 358-370.

van Woerkom, M. (2004). The concept of critical reflection and its importance for human

resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 178-192.

Varner, D., and S. Peck. (2003). Learning from learning journals: the benefits and challenges of

using learning journal assignments. Journal of Management Education, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 52-

77.

Warburton, K. (2003). Deep learning and education for sustainability. International Journal of

Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 44-56.

Wilhelmson, (2006).

Yielder, J. (2004). An integrated model of professional expertise and its implications for higher

education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 60-80.

Yorks, L., and E. Kasl. (2002). Toward a theory and practice for whole-person learning:

reconceptualizing experience and the role of affect. Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 3,

pp. 176-192.

18

Appendix 1 MGMT7030 Management and Organisation: The Community Project Course Learning Objectives

At the end of this course, students should be expected to demonstrate increases and improvements in their:

Presentation Skills – a measure of professional platform delivery, including structure, format, and media

appropriate for the material, purpose, and audience.

Team / Teamwork Skills – the ability to work effectively as a team member, contributing to team tasks

and the quality of the experience of teamworking.

Project Management Skills – practical knowledge on project conception, implementation, and evaluation.

Organisational Knowledge and Skills – a practical understanding of how organisations operate and what it

requires to actually get things done within an organisation.

Systems Thinking Skills – a wider understanding and appreciation of systems and how they work,

including important concepts of complexity, interdependence, chaos, ecology, and emergence;

incorporation of skills and tools of systemic analysis, and how these relate to management and

organisation.

Appreciation for Community – a deeper understanding of and appreciation for service and community;

what it means, why it’s important, and how you build it.

Reflective Skills and Awareness – a high level of self-awareness and mindfulness regarding the world

around oneself; a greater consciousness concerning ones own assumptions, beliefs, values, motivations,

and an openness and speculative mind regarding others.

Management and Leadership Knowledge and Skills – a crystallised and coherent view of management and

leadership, their importance, their distinctiveness; ones own strengths and opportunities for development;

a deeper, more effective sense of self-leadership.