business education
Developments In Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises, Volume 17, 1990
An Exposition of Guilford’s SI Model as a Means of Diagnosing and Generating Pedagogical Strategies in Collegiate Business Education
Jeanne H. Burns, Southeastern Louisiana University
Alvin C. Burns, Louisiana State University
ABSTRACT
Of those few occasions where ABSEL thinking has been guided by a learning/teaching model, Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives has been exclusively adopted.
While Bloom’s model is highly regarded, it has problems.
Also, numerous other such models exist in the education literature. Guilford’s Structure of Intellect model is chosen as appropriate to college-level business education. The model is described in detail. It is used to diagnose various approaches and generate alternative teaching strategies.
on the other hand, is a fully developed philosophy about education, which sometimes clashes with others. Parnes
(1967) has developed an elaborate process model intended to enhance the creative problem solving abilities of adults; while Williams (1970) has advanced a three-dimensional framework associated with teaching strategies for thinking and feeling. Also, Treffinger (1979) has promoted his model, which facilitates self-directed learning.
INTRODUCTION
Collegiate business pedagogical development has been criticized for its lack of sound conceptual frameworks
(Butler, Markulis and Strang, 1985). Nonetheless, some
ABSEL thinking has been influenced by the learning objectives taxonomy espoused by Benjamin Bloom (1956).
About a decade ago, Gentry, McCain and Burns (1979) advocated the adoption of Bloom’s taxonomy not only as a framework for research on pedagogical effectiveness, but also as a vehicle useful in theory construction and simulation/game development. Some ABSEL authors have sought to incorporate the taxonomy in their work (Butler,
Markulis, and Strang, 1985; Gentry and Burns, 1981;
Anderson and
An Exposition of Guilford’s SI Model as a Means of Diagnosing and Generating Pedagogical Strategies in Collegiate Business Education
Jeanne H. Burns, Southeastern Louisiana University
Alvin C. Burns, Louisiana State University
ABSTRACT
Of those few occasions where ABSEL thinking has been guided by a learning/teaching model, Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives has been exclusively adopted.
While Bloom’s model is highly regarded, it has problems.
Also, numerous other such models exist in the education literature. Guilford’s Structure of Intellect model is chosen as appropriate to college-level business education. The model is described in detail. It is used to diagnose various approaches and generate alternative teaching strategies.
on the other hand, is a fully developed philosophy about education, which sometimes clashes with others. Parnes
(1967) has developed an elaborate process model intended to enhance the creative problem solving abilities of adults; while Williams (1970) has advanced a three-dimensional framework associated with teaching strategies for thinking and feeling. Also, Treffinger (1979) has promoted his model, which facilitates self-directed learning.
INTRODUCTION
Collegiate business pedagogical development has been criticized for its lack of sound conceptual frameworks
(Butler, Markulis and Strang, 1985). Nonetheless, some
ABSEL thinking has been influenced by the learning objectives taxonomy espoused by Benjamin Bloom (1956).
About a decade ago, Gentry, McCain and Burns (1979) advocated the adoption of Bloom’s taxonomy not only as a framework for research on pedagogical effectiveness, but also as a vehicle useful in theory construction and simulation/game development. Some ABSEL authors have sought to incorporate the taxonomy in their work (Butler,
Markulis, and Strang, 1985; Gentry and Burns, 1981;
Anderson and
References: Bloom, Benjamin S., (1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Bruner, J, (1960), The Process of Education, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Butler, Richard, Peter Markulis and Daniel Strang, (1985), “Learning Theory and Research Design: How has Gentry, James and Alvin Burns, (1981), “Operationalizing a Test of a Model of the use of Simulation Games and Gentry, James, Kenneth McCain and Alvin Burns, (1979), Relating Teaching Methods with Educational Gowan, J. C., Khatena, J., & Torrance, E. Paul, (1979), Educating the Ablest, F Guilford, J. P, (1967), The Nature of intelligence, New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book Company. Guilford, J. p, (1977), Way beyond the IQ, Buffalo, NY, Creative Education Foundation, Inc. Joyce, B. and B. Weil, (1972), Models of Teaching, Englewood Cloffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc. Krathwohl, D.R., B. Bloom, and B. Masia, (1964), Taxonomy Lewis, William, Rebecca Yates and Eugene Gomolka, (1988), Developments in Business Simulation and Maker, C. J, (1982), Teaching Models in Education of the Gifted, Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation. Meeker, R, (1985), SOl Training Manual, El Segundo, CA, SOl Institute. Parnes, 5., (1967), Programming Creative Behavior, Buffalo, NY, State University of New York at Buffalo. Treffinger, D. and R. Barton, (1979), Fostering independent Learning,” G/C/T, 7, 3-6; 54. Williams, F., (1970), Classroom Ideas for Encouraging Thinking and Feeling, Second Edition, Buffalo, NY,