Literature review
In this literature review, the authors aim to give a relevant overview (in the scope of this article) of the didactics in general and the didactics in teaching economic subjects.
The standard literature to train future teachers of economics is scarce, although one English textbook (Economics Network, 2020) and one Flemish textbook (De Wiite & Schelfhout, 2015) have to be mentioned as sources of inspiration for the authors.
This literature review is based on state-of-the-art discussions in general didactics and didactics in teaching economics about topics like; 21st century skills, visible learning, lean in the classroom, flipping the class room, distance learning, blended learning, constructive alignment, revised taxonomy of Bloom and hybrid learning.
Teaching and learning in the 21st century
The learning pyramid provides us information about more active ways of teaching tools (based on the so-called retention rates of the research on how the brain learns). Retention is the preservation of learning in long-term storage in such a way that it can be accessed quickly and accurately. So different teaching methods, such as lectures, reading a textbook or audio materials, have different retention rates, and interactive teaching methods, such as discussions or practice, are more effective than lectures or reading a textbook (Sousa, 2006).
The learning pyramid in figure 1 created a lot of academic discussion about the exact numbers of the retention rates, more important is to think about the effectiveness of participating teaching methods for students in higher education (Economics Network, 2020), and to create a tool box for academic instructors to serve the teaching process in the best way: ‘Different didactics for different purposes’ as a didactical variant of the well-known quote in economics of J.M. Clark’s (1923) ‘Different costs for different purposes’
(Schroeff, van der, 1964)
.
Visible learning model (the practice of teaching and learning)
In visible learning for teachers (Hattie, 2012) the maximizing impact on learning of students (and showing that to their teachers) has been introduced. The model is based on two principles: ‘I see learning through the eyes of my students’ & ‘I help students to become their own teachers’; and on four stages that are relevant for the teacher and the student:
- Mind frames
- A cooperative and critical planner
- An adaptive learning expert
- A receiver of feedback
Lean in the classroom
Lean education is an organisation-wide strategy that wants to create value for students, by creating an effective learning environment, and short cyclic continuous improvement (and innovation) of the learning environment (and the elimination of waste) (Wiegel, 2020).
This results in a so-called House of lean learning and education (figure 2):
Adapting the lean way of teaching means that there is no waste in the process called education, so all educational activities are Just In Time (JIT) and according to the LAMDA principle: Look, Ask, Model, Discuss and Act.
This lean approach might be in contradiction with the ideas of ‘Bildung[1]’, when we try to teach more than what is needed to pass for an exam to check basic competencies like knowledge and skills (Horlacher, 2011).
Traditional teaching & learning versus Flipping the classroom
In traditional teaching & learning we structure a course week by week like in table 1. First we start with explaining the theory (often an economic model) often combined with an example in the lecture (Lecturer teaches and students listen and make notes), followed (often a few days later in the time table) with a seminar to discuss questions from the lectures and to prepare an assignment based on the lecture.
Week 1
|
Week 2
|
Week 3
|
Week n
|
Lecture 1
|
Seminar 1
|
Lecture 2
|
Seminar 2
|
Lecture 3
|
Seminar 3
|
Lecture n
|
Seminar n
|
Theory
|
Exercise &
Application
|
Theory
|
Exercise &
Application
|
Theory
|
Exercise &
Application
|
Theory
|
Exercise &
Application
|
Table 1 Traditional teaching & learning
In the didactics of flipping the class room (Vazquez & Chiang, 2015), (Balaban, Gilleskie, & Tran, 2016) we have a different teaching strategy. The idea behind flipping the classroom is that students are able to study theory themselves (based on a good text book or articles) instead of listening to their lecturer introduce them to a new subject or topic. Face-to-face contact is now used to discuss more in depth the new theory, and/or to apply the new theory in case studies, exercises, etc. to develop higher levels of learning.
An example of flipping the classroom (that we used in this case study) is visualised in table 2.
Week 1
|
Week 2
|
Week 3
|
Week n
|
Self-study
|
Seminar 1
|
Self-study
|
Seminar 2
|
Self-study
|
Seminar 3
|
Self-study
|
Seminar n
|
Theory
|
Q & A[2]
Exercise &
Application
|
Theory
|
Q & A
Exercise &
Application
|
Theory
|
Q & A
Exercise &
Application
|
Theory
|
Q & A
Exercise &
Application
|
Table 2 Flipping the classroom
We start with self-study at home (or sometimes in a scheduled class meeting without a teacher) to read a chapter from a book and/or listen to an audio recorded slide presentation. The student has to prepare one or more assignments in order to get access to the seminar and sometimes students have to make a small formative or diagnostic test. In the seminar, there is more interaction than in the first mode of delivering education, because the group size is often smaller. The lecturer of the seminar is only discussing questions and/or discussing exercises or assignments. The lecturer is not allowed to do a substitute of the traditional lecture in the seminar.
Distance learning
Distance learning is about teaching (and learning) from a lecturer and a student in the case of physical distance between both (Sadeghi, 2019).
Distance learning has a long tradition[1] in remote areas in the world (USA, Canada, Australia and Russia) and/or when students are not able to visit lectures/seminars at a university, because of career (working), disability, etc. Educational materials were sent by post to the students at home, so they could study week by week, receiving their materials (and their homework) by post (so-called correspondence courses). Later, disks, radio and television were used for distance learning.
Nowadays, distance learning is possible via the internet using IT technology like Zoom, MS Teams, or WebEx to communicate directly with students, electronic learning platforms (Moodle, Blackboard, etc.) for storing learning materials, and online simulations {e.g. The Cool Connection (Inchainge, 2020)}.
Blended learning
Blended learning is defined in terms of other activities than traditional teaching activities (like lecturing). In the text below a well-known description is provided (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008).
“Blended learning courses are those in which a significant amount of seat time, that is time spent in the classroom, is replaced with online activities that involve students in meeting course objectives”
“The thoughtful fusion of face-to-face and online learning experiences … such that the strengths of each are blended into a unique learning experience… Blended learning is a fundamental redesign that transforms the structure of, and approach to, teaching and learning”
|
Blended learning might be organised via a serious game called The Cool Connection (Inchainge, 2020). In a team of four students (roles: Purchase, Sales, Logistics and Finance) they apply their integrated knowledge of Supply Chain Finance in a simulated business reality. The simulation is based on experiential learning in which a so-called (inductive) learning cycle is the teaching and learning paradigm (Kolb D. A., 1984a), (Klabbers, 2009).
Constructive alignment
Constructive alignment is a way of teaching where the (intended) learning outcomes are defined before the teaching process is executed. Teaching strategy (including the use of didactical tools), formative (or diagnostic) assessments and summative assessment are designed before the teaching and learning process starts. Constructive alignment operational framework has four stages (Biggs, 2014):
- Description of the Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) for the study unit/subject in terms of topics/content
- Creating a learning environment using Teaching/Learning Activities (TLAs)
- Use Assessment Tasks (ATs)[2]
- Judge how well ATs are transformed in final grades
The four stages of constructive alignment are summarised in figure 3.
Taxonomy of Bloom
Bloom distinguishes lower-order skills and higher-order skills (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) to classify intended learning outcomes, as presented in table 3.
Type
|
Taxonomy
|
Higher order
|
Evaluation
|
Synthesis
|
Analysis
|
Lower order
|
Application
|
Comprehension
|
Knowledge
|
Table 3 Taxonomy of Bloom (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956)
Krathwohl revised Bloom’s taxonomy, introducing meta-cognitive knowledge: being the awareness of and the knowledge about one’s cognition (Krathwohl, 2002). Also, some minor changes in the taxonomy were carried out, see table 4.
|
Knowledge
|
Taxonomy
|
Factual
|
Conceptual
|
Procedural
|
Metacognitive
|
Create
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluate
|
|
|
|
|
Analyse
|
|
|
|
|
Apply
|
|
|
|
|
Understand
|
|
|
|
|
Remember
|
|
|
|
|
Table 4 Revised taxonomy of Bloom (Krathwohl, 2002)
Hybrid learning
So if we look to the three pillars of so-called hybrid learning (and teaching), old and new techniques of learning and teaching (using state-of-the-art IT tools) have to be combined like:
- distance learning;
- flipping the classroom;
- blended learning.
To summarise: Hybrid learning & teaching (figure 4) is based on six pillars (Constructive alignment, Distance learning, Flipping the classroom & Blended learning, Ways of learning, Formative learning and Summative assessment) using IT technology to communicate between students and their lecturer, or meeting each other in a classroom and/or in a virtual way.
Distance learning course Supply Chain Finance
This case study is based on the distance learning course Supply Chain Finance (http://principlesofsupplychainfinance.nl/scf-course/) and executed in October/November 2020 via distance learning mode between HAN University of Applied Sciences (Research group Logistics & Alliances) in the Netherlands and Chelyabinsk State University (Faculty of Economics) in the Russian Federation.
How was the course organised?
Students from the Faculty of Economics from Chelyabinsk State University had to read and listen to six lectures (using Microsoft PowerPoint slides with an audio track of the lecturer, providing explanation and clarification) to understand the several topics of Supply Chain Finance. After two lectures they had to prepare two exercises based on the previous two lectures for a Microsoft Teams meeting to discuss the content of the previous lectures and apply them as well in the exercises/assignments.
The goals of this SCF course were described in the following test grid (table 5) based on the theory of constructive alignment (Biggs, 2014).
Taxonomy
|
Criteria
|
Knowledge (40%)
|
- Concept of SCF
- Logistics/SCM & Corporate Finance & IT (ERP)
- Induced working capital (static & dynamic)
- SCF instruments (EBA[5] classification)
- SCF tactical level: IT platforms & Blockchain
- SCF strategic level: Long term control of the supply chain in terms of Risk (COSO 2020 model) & EVA[6]
|
Application (30%) & Comprehension (30%)
|
- SCF metrics: SCF quick scan:
-
- C2C cycle
- DuPont Analysis
- Empirical data on SCF metrics
-
- EVA analysis
- EAR[7] calculations
- SCF case studies
- ETOs[8] at tactical & strategic level using the multiple value model of Gleeson-White / IIRC
|
Table 5 Test grid SCF (Source: http://principlesofsupplychainfinance.nl/scf-course/ )
After the theoretical part we originally planned that students were going to participate in the Supply Chain Finance simulation game The Cool Connection (Inchainge, 2020), applying their knowledge in an integrated way in the real business world (based on the simulation model). Important goals in the game are: applying supply chain finance knowledge, decision making under time pressure, collaboration in a management team, and learning by doing. For practical reasons in this pilot, we decided not to run this serious game in this pilot.
Finally, the course was evaluated with an oral exam via MS Teams for about 30 minutes in which about 6 – 9 topics were discussed with the examinee (see table 6 for the topics).
#
|
Exam topics
|
1
|
SCF concept
|
2
|
Working capital (conceptual model)
|
3
|
SCF quick scan: Working capital, C2C cycle
|
4
|
SCF quick scan: DuPont formula
|
5
|
SCF instruments
|
6
|
SCF: Interest differences & EAR
|
7
|
SCF and IT (ERP, Blockchain, IT platforms, etc)
|
8
|
Case study: General
|
9
|
Case study: SCF specific
|
10
|
Reflection on TCC as a SCM / SCF professional (cancelled in this pilot)
|
Table 6 Structure of the oral exam (Made by the authors)
The course schedule is provided in table 7.
Student activity
|
Topics
|
Educational mode
|
Lecture 1
|
Concept of SCF
Logistics/SCM & Corporate Finance & IT (ERP)
Empirical data on SCF metrics: Annual report
|
Lecture via website[9]
|
Lecture 2
|
Induced working capital (static & dynamic)
SCF metrics: SCF quick scan: C2C cycle & DuPont Analysis
|
Lecture via website
|
Meeting 1
|
Exercises 1 & 2
|
Interactive seminar via MS Teams
|
Lecture 3
|
SCF instruments (EBA classification)
EAR calculations
|
Lecture via website
|
Lecture 4
|
SCF tactical level: IT platforms & Blockchain
SCF case studies
|
Lecture via website
|
Meeting 2
|
Exercises 3 & 4
|
Interactive seminar via MS Teams
|
Lecture 5
|
SCF strategic level: Long term control of the supply chain in terms of Risk (COSO 2020 model) & EVA
EVA analysis
|
Lecture via website
|
Lecture 6
|
ETO’s at tactical & strategic level using the multiple value model of Gleeson-White / IIRC
|
Lecture via website
|
Meeting 3
|
Exercises 5 & 6
|
Interactive seminar via MS Teams
|
Exam
|
Oral exam of 30 minutes
|
Via MS Teams
|
Table 7 Course schedule (Made by the authors)
Evaluation
The evaluation was carried by a senior staff member of the faculty of Economics of Chelyabinsk State University under the authority of the faculty’s dean.
The qualitative student’s evaluation was based on the following topics:
- Course structure
- Course materials & didactics
- Level of difficulty
- Command of English
- Added value for the students
The results of the qualitative evaluation (SCF-course, 2020) are presented in table 8, using the six points of the evaluation from above.
Topic
|
Student’s evaluation
|
Course structure
|
100% of students indicated that the structure of the course corresponds to the topic of the course and the content of the course was not overloaded with questions that did not correspond to the topic
|
Course materials & didactics
|
100% of students indicated that the content of the course has a practical focus and the material is presented in an accessible form
|
Level of difficulty
|
The course seemed difficult to ⅓ of the students. The rest indicated an average degree of difficulty
|
Command of English
|
The main barrier to mastering the course was noted by ⅔ of students to be an insufficient level of English proficiency
|
Added value for the students
|
Among the experience gained, the students pointed to new knowledge, experience of teaching in English, experience in organising and implementing supply chain finance at an enterprise.
|
Meeting expectations for the students
|
The course met the expectations of all students
|
Table 8 Evaluation SCF course
To conclude, the course was successful for the student’s experience: new topic, using distance learning, and using English as the language of instruction and examining.
This student evaluation was confirmed by the staff evaluation of CSU and HAN. It was concluded that the course might have to be offered at a graduate level, instead of an undergraduate level. Future participants should have a good command of English and be aware of a so-called self-guided course (where the students are in charge of planning their own learning experience). The aspect of so-called meta-cognitive competencies was not covered in this pilot course; this might be an option for the next course (using for instance serious gaming as a didactical tool for deeper learning).
[1] In German language: Education (Bildung) is more than the Training of skills (Erziehung) according to von Humboldt (Horlacher, 2011)
[2] Q & A (Questions & Answers)
[3] Correspondence courses were quite popular from the end of the 19th century till about the 1980s in several parts of the world, and developed nowadays into internet driven educational systems (OnlineSchools, 2020)
[4] As a way of formative learning
[5] EBA = European Banking Association
[6] EVA = Economic Value Added
[7] EAR = Effective Annual Rate