Journal of Management Education

University teachers and students are evaluated regularly on their performance, and when evaluations are lower than expected, the feedback may be threatening to the individual, potentially causing deviant behaviors including un-collegiality and poor performance. In this paper, we use the self-threat model of procedural justice to examine faculty responses to teaching evaluations (Study 1) and student responses to course grades (Study 2). The model proposes that group identification influences self-serving bias and self-threat, which then influences procedural justice, and helps explain why teachers and students sometimes criticize decision procedures considered fair by socially accepted standards. Results show full support of the model for faculty responses to evaluations and partial support for student responses to grades. Group identification mitigated self-threat and self-serving bias for the faculty sample but had no influence on the student sample. These findings overall suggest that it is important to reduce the level of self-threat to make negative feedback less threatening to both teachers and students. This may be done either directly via fostering group identification or indirectly by making sure that sensitive performance-based information is not shared to the public.

Improving perceptions of graduate utility is fundamental to Higher Education’s employability and skills agenda. However, utility enhancement is a ubiquitous consequence of all learning. Therefore, motivating students to engage in deep learning to improve their utility is problematic. Using the student voice, in this article, I explain how prompts endorsing marginalism as a benefit of attaining superior utility with higher subjective value informed and motivated meta-learning approaches. Drawing on data from an ethnography and interpretive phenomenology situated in the unique learning environment of the COVID-19 pandemic, findings reveal students were motivated to seek utility attainment opportunities that marginally enhanced self-perceptions, transferability of learning, and employability. This article is among the first to explain why the attainment of knowledge and can-do competencies associated with marginalism, superior utility, and higher subjective value, motivates learners’ present and future time perspectives.

With its combination of online and face-to-face interaction, blended learning is increasingly being employed in postgraduate education. To date, most empirical research on the topic has focused on the design and relative effectiveness of online versus in-person learning. Meanwhile, any exploration of the costs of its delivery has often been neglected. In this study, we propose a framework to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of alternative designs of blended postgraduate programs, and then empirically apply it to an innovative blended Master of Business Administration (MBA) course as compared with similar MBAs taught at the same institution, with the differences lying in their proportions of online content and the intensity of their use. We applied the Community of Inquiry framework to show that the program with the most intensive use of online learning is also the most effective in terms of student cognitive gain. However, it is not the most cost-effective when compared to other, less online-intensive alternatives. We also found that this result depends on the scalability constraints imposed by the design of the programs. The implications of the scalability versus the quality versus the costs of blended education are then discussed.

Controversies are a potentially powerful teaching tool in the management classroom enabling students to explore different perspectives on an issue and to develop their skills in areas such as critical thinking and communication. Controversy is implicit to learning and to leadership and management roles in workplaces where multiple opposing views inevitably exist. Prior research asserts that constructive controversy resolution skills are important to management students. This multipart study presents a model and measure of controversy teaching approaches and explores evidence of their reliability and validity using confirmatory factor analysis and correlations with relevant outcomes and measures. The three studies, with samples of management and leadership students across several U.S. institutions, provide initial evidence of the validity of the model and measure. Multiple perspectives and avoidance were found to be underlying dimensions of instructors’ observed approaches to teaching controversial topics. The controversy teaching approaches model and measure used in this study have potential to support instructional development for management educators, as well as further research on controversy teaching. This study also has practical implications for how instructors approach controversies in the classroom and may aid effective teaching and learning.