Next Article in Journal
Enacting Remote and Flexible Learning Placements during a Global Pandemic—A Case Report
Previous Article in Journal
Connecting Classrooms with Online Interclass Tournaments: A Strategy to Imitate, Recombine and Innovate Teaching Practices
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/su15108037
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research on Sustainable Teaching Models of New Business—Take Chinese University Business School as an Example

by
Sihua Li
1,
Ying Li
1 and
Haohan Lin
2,*
1
Business School, Faculty of Economics, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110136, China
2
College of Communication, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110136, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 8037; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108037
Submission received: 9 April 2023 / Revised: 6 May 2023 / Accepted: 12 May 2023 / Published: 15 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sustainable teaching model innovation is an important way to build a new business discipline in Chinese university business school; however, its effective implementation faces various challenges. This paper conducts an exploratory study on the current status of teaching practices in the business school of L University using personal interviews and questionnaire surveys. This paper compares the main performance of three stages in the initiation of teaching activities, use of teaching methods, and evaluation of teaching effectiveness in the business school of L University. We used project-based learning (PBL) theory, modular teaching theory, and deliberate practice theory to analyze three problems in business school teaching practice: lack of linkage between business knowledge modules, lack of articulation between business theory and business practice, and lack of systematic thinking in course assessment and evaluation. Based on the analysis of the above problems, this paper proposes three countermeasures: to reconstruct the relationship of “course-knowledge-tool” with modular thinking, to strengthen the linkage between theory and practice with deliberate practice, and to promote systemic thinking with real problems assessment. This research is essential to cultivate new business talents with “business theory + business skills + system logic”, and to build a new business talent education system for the digital economy and new consumer development requirements.

1. Introduction

New business education is the development direction of business education in higher education institutions proposed by the Chinese Ministry of Education, and its important feature is the cross-border integration of different fields. New technologies, such as big data, cloud computing, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality, are helping to empower the development of new business education and provide innovative technological drivers [1]. At the same time, the digital economy has a strong impact on the production methods, organizational structure, business models, and management models of enterprises, reconstructing the traditional relationship between “consumer-goods-scene” in economic life. In the future of business, creativity will be required in a wide range of professions [2], and business graduates entering the business world will increasingly encounter new dilemmas that cannot be solved using inherent answers. They are being asked to develop a more diverse business mindset, a more rigorous business thinking logic, and proficiency in a broader range of business skills during their college years to lay the foundation for delivering quality solutions to the marketplace in the future. All of this places new demands on the new business education and sustainable competency development of the new business talent in China’s higher education institutions.
Countries experiencing rapid growth in higher education gradually achieved a shift in business education from a knowledge acquisition to a competency development orientation to ensure that students meet the skills and qualities required by the professional environment [3]. An increasing number of business schools are increasing student pre-employment education, and more than 90% of business schools offer internships for undergraduate students [4]. However, the combination of fast-changing trends and multiple dynamic environmental factors continues to present multiple challenges for business education in China [5]. Business schools still place a strong emphasis on technical expertise and produce graduates who are not job ready, while companies are looking for employees with superior abilities, such as problem solving, critical thinking, interpersonal, organizational, and communication skills [6,7]. Business education has previously been criticized for being too theoretical and fragmented, with learning still organized in disciplinary shafts [8]. Business school education faces challenges from both students and companies, with students arguing that “business school education is a self-indulgence for the academic community and is not grounded in the market and does not solve market problems”. Students are generally aware of the sustainability challenges of business science education, and they believe that the first priority of sustainable university business studies is context-oriented education [9]. Businesses often complain that “business students lack business systems thinking, essential business skills and methods” and “business students prefer to identify problems and ask questions rather than solve them”. Results from cross-national comparative studies of university students’ learning situations indicate that UK and mainland Chinese students show a high degree of consistency in their cognitive and learning approaches when compared in the same educational context, but mainland Chinese students are less likely to demonstrate a deep or strategic approach to learning in current realistic teaching model contexts [10]. The innovation of a sustainable teaching model for new business disciplines cannot be supported using digital technologies and requires teachers to shift from traditional classrooms to smart courses; this shift process is influenced via perceived efficiency, inquiry-based learning, engagement, perceived usefulness, and future and technological self-efficacy, while willingness to shift is moderated based on the type of course [11].
Based on the above critical thinking and realistic educational needs, this paper first makes an exploratory study on teaching and learning through semi-structured interviews, before making a detailed investigation of teachers’ teaching and students’ learning using the questionnaire of Teaching and students’ Learning (TASSQ); it also probes into the present situation, challenges, and existing problems of the new business education in Chinese university business schools. Finally, it provides some countermeasures and suggestions from three aspects: modularization, deliberate practice, and systematic thinking. The specific research questions are as follows: (1) what are the problems and challenges faced by Chinese university business schools in exploring sustainable teaching models? and (2) how can Chinese university business schools carry out the exploration of sustainable teaching models for new business? This study will help Chinese university business schools to explore sustainable teaching models in the context of the development of new business education, create new business talents with “business theory + business skills + system logic”, and build a new business talent education system for the digital economy and new consumer development.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Project-Based Learning Theory

Project-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered approach guided based on constructivist learning principles in which students pursue knowledge through finding novel solutions to central questions or problems [12]. These projects are usually related to real problems and students work in groups [13]. Students are primarily responsible for organizing activities, including research, writing, discussion, presentation, and time management, with the teacher playing more of a facilitator and advisor role. PBL can be traced back to Socrates and Aristotle, who believed that knowledge should be imparted through active personal inquiry and reflection rather than didactic teaching, and that learning is to be undertaken through action [14]. John Dewey made a similar point when he advocated constructive activities to promote learning styles, and PBL helps to enhance students’ performance in “21st century skills”, such as critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration [15,16]. Overall, PBL believes that knowledge can only be acquired through action, and the idea of project-based learning is to allow students to learn through practical activities, creating problem situations before students solve them. This method is designed to break the traditional learning process of “precipitating knowledge, discovering problems, invoking knowledge, and solving problems” and transform it into an active inquiry and construction process of “discovering problems, generating needs, learning knowledge, and solving problems” [17]. PBL as a teaching model to promote the development of students’ deep learning ability, which is conducive to the cultivation and enhancement of students’ higher-order thinking, has previously received widespread attention in education. Effective PBL possesses five major properties: centrality, drive, constructiveness, autonomy, and authenticity [18,19]. Its core components include content knowledge and skills, authenticity and relevance, sustained inquiry, student voice and choice, group collaboration, skills needed in the 21st century, community partners, and feedback and revision; its focus is on highlighting problematic elements in the use of teaching methods, contextual activities that focus on the creation of teaching processes, and outcome indicators that focus on teaching evaluation methods [20].

2.2. Modular Teaching Theory

A module is a semi-autonomous subsystem that constitutes a more complex system or process via interconnecting with other subsystems according to certain organizational rules [21]. Modularization is a dynamic process of functional deconstruction and reorganization of complex problems, which is an important methodology and reflects the logical way of thinking to reduce the complexity of problems via transforming the whole into modules with different and complementary functions of modular teaching theory. In the 1970s, the International Labor Organization proposed a modular teaching theory based on field teaching with applied skills as the core of teaching and learning, focusing on competency acquisition and application [22]. This theory is based on constructivist learning theory, which requires teachers to become active facilitators, guides, and tutors for students to construct knowledge. The modularized teaching theory advocates dividing the curriculum teaching system into different teaching modules with internal logic, according to the structure of “general objectives-sub-objectives”, via accurately defining the overall objectives and phased sub-objectives of the curriculum, and emphasizing the independence of each teaching module and the synergy between modules [23]. The modularized talent training mode is a novel way of training talents for the improvement of professional ability, which realizes the optimization, innovation, and functional improvement of talent ability structure through the “deconstruction” and “organic reorganization” of professional ability. To implement modularized teaching, it is necessary to break the traditional monolithic sectionalized teaching organization structure and establish a composite and parallel teaching organization structure with “modular integrated organization” as the core [24].
Under a modularized teaching system, students can enjoy more flexibility because they have more autonomy in choosing modules and can select the appropriate course modules according to their abilities [25]. Modular instruction helps to enhance students’ motivation and persistence in learning. It is easier for students to accomplish a series of small short-term goals than a complex long-term goal, and the experience of success and immediate feedback on the achievement of short-term goals provides a more immediate and powerful extrinsic motivation for students to continue learning [26]. However, modularized instruction may lead to fragmentation of knowledge and even a situation where students deliberately choose easier modules over advanced knowledge about a topic in order to obtain grades and diplomas [27].

2.3. Deliberate Practice Theory

Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer coined the term “deliberate practice” to describe long-term engagement in exercises specifically designed to improve individual performance. He argues that this theory can explain the acquisition of expertise in different domains, that adaptive changes in certain basic skills or cognitive mechanisms are the dominant factors leading to outstanding behavior, and that deliberate practice is the main variable that causes and facilitates changes in such mechanisms. Deliberate practice is increasingly considered necessary for professional development [28], and deliberate practice in teaching is defined as deliberate activities aimed at self-improvement and the promotion of students’ learning and development. Practice should be repeated to achieve continuous improvement [29]. Deliberate practice in teaching is often designed based on teachers, instructors, or individuals specifically to improve students’ current level of behavior through long-term and specific practice activities that are decisive for their ultimate achievement. In order to ensure effective learning, students must be given clear guidance on learning strategies, and the teacher or instructor must organize appropriate training tasks and monitor individual behavioral improvement to determine the appropriateness of more complex and challenging tasks. A significant association was found between the amount of deliberate practice and the rate of expertise development [30]. Deliberate practice consists of four stages: stage 1 begins with an individual’s involvement in a specific domain and ends with the beginning of deliberate practice; stage 2 begins with a long preparation period and ends with full commitment to deliberate practice; stage 3 begins with focused commitment to deliberate practice to change behavior and ends when the individual can earn a living as a professional in that domain; and stage 4 is the stage in which the individual pursues excellence and makes a unique creative contribution to the field.
However, deliberate practice requires conscious effort, is not intrinsically entertaining, does not receive immediate extrinsic motivational feedback, requires improvement in the individual’s current level of behavior, and is not inherently enjoyable [31,32]; thus, engaging in deliberate practice requires more motivation, effort and, attention than engaging in other practice activities [33]. At the same time, some scholars proposed not practicing too much because it may exceed attentional resources, and their findings are supported by research in the field of learning sciences [34].

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Study Design

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the current practice and challenges of sustainable teaching and learning models in Chinese university business schools and suggest development proposals based on this research. In order to achieve this objective, the semi-structured interview method was used to explore teachers and students’ practices in order to understand the evaluation of the current teaching model and its implementation effect in this study. The questionnaire survey was used to collect the identity level of 224 college students to each stage of the teaching model; descriptive statistical analysis and cross-table analysis were then carried out and combined with qualitative interviews to provide detailed data support for problem analysis as well as countermeasures and suggestions. Overall, this study used a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods.

3.2. Sample Sources and Survey Instruments

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 students enrolled at the business school of L University through a combination of online and offline methods; the basic profiles of the students interviewed are shown in Table 1. In order not to disclose the personal information of the interviewees, each interview material was coded, with the first two digits being the serial numbers from 01 to 12, the third digit being the initials “S” to designate the student, the fourth digit being the respondent’s grade level (1–4), the fifth digit being the respondent’s gender (F/M), and the last four digits being the interview time (year + month).
Using face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews, five lecturing faculty members from the business school of L University were invited to conduct semi-structured interviews; the basic information of the interviewed faculty members is shown in Table 2. The faculty members’ perspectives were used to understand the use of teaching models and explore the logic behind the use of teaching models and methods. The first two digits were the serial numbers from 01 to 05, the third digit was the initial “T” for the teacher, the fourth digit as the gender of the interviewee (F/M), and the last four digits were the time of the interview (year + month); this method avoided the disclosure of the interviewer’s privacy.
The survey tools used in this paper included the Survey Scale on the Current Situation of Undergraduate Teaching Method Practices in the Business School of L University, the Outline of Interviews with Teachers on the Current Situation of Undergraduate Teaching Method Practices in the Business School of L University, and the Outline of Interviews with Students on the Current Situation of Undergraduate Teaching Method Practices in the Business School of L University. The Survey Scale on the Current Situation of Undergraduate Teaching Method Practices in the Business School of L University had 25 questions, including 3 primary indicators and 8 secondary indicators, which were divided as shown in Table 3.
The Outline of Interviews with Teachers on the Current Situation of Undergraduate Teaching Method Practices in the Business School of L University included six questions on teachers’ practice of teaching methods in three stages—before, during, and after classes—and the Outline of Interviews with Students on the Current Situation of Undergraduate Teaching Method Practices in the Business School of L University included five questions.

3.3. Research Process

In this paper, 280 questionnaires were distributed and 242 were returned, with a recovery rate of 86.4%. Among them, 224 were valid questionnaires, with an effective rate of 80.0%. The demographics of the students are shown in Table 4.
The statistical analysis was carried out to verify the reliability and validity of the scale. The results showed that the Cronbach’s α of the scale was 0.862; according to Hair (2009), an alpha value above 0.7 is acceptable, and above 0.8 is ideal, indicating that the scale has relatively high homogeneity, good reliability, and ideal measurement results(see Table 5).
The validity test of the scale was conducted using exploratory factor analysis, and the AVE values of each construct were all greater than 0.5, indicating that the constructs had good convergent validity; the factor loadings of the question items were all higher than 0.4, and the KMO value was 0.942, which was greater than 0.6. The cumulative variance explained using Bartlett’s spherical test after rotation was 62.33%, indicating that the information of the research items could be effectively extracted, and the research data had good structural validity (see Table 6).
The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.862, indicating that the scale has relatively high homogeneity, good reliability, and ideal measurement results.

4. Results

The analysis of the collected data shows that dividing the research questions into three stages—initiation of teaching activities, use of teaching methods, and evaluation of teaching effectiveness—can provide a more complete picture of the teaching practices of business courses and insight into the problems that exist in them, which can then be analyzed in a targeted manner to provide suggestions for countermeasures.

4.1. Initiation of Teaching Activities

The problems in the initiation phase of teaching activities included setting of teaching objectives, preparation of teaching materials, and introduction of teaching methods. The results of the questionnaire analysis showed that on the teaching objectives, 26.84% of the students chose to strongly agree, 49.50% of the students chose to agree, and 12.31% expressed their lack of clarity on the teaching objectives of the course. In the preparation of teaching materials, 59.22% of the students agree that teachers will provide reading materials, reference materials or, preview video content before class, especially during online and offline co-teaching. Moreover, with the help of rain classroom tools to easily realize teaching organization activities, teachers will encourage students to understand the basic concepts and pre-class materials through self-study and make more efficient use of classroom time to focus on the core content of teaching. Regarding the introduction of teaching methods, only 34.33% of the students agree that teachers can introduce suitable teaching methods, which leads to a higher expectation for the introduction of teaching methods as a whole (see Table 7).

4.2. Use of Teaching Methods

The results of the study on teaching methods in business courses show that students’ recognition of the types of teaching methods commonly used in business schools is only 28.08%, while there is more than 70% agreement regarding thematic teaching, cooperative group seminars, and heuristic teaching; however, 78% of the students believe that the lecture method is still the most common teaching method used by teachers in the course of lectures. The lecture process mainly enables knowledge transfer in the form of theoretical lectures, while the proportion of practical experimental aspects is still insufficient, especially in the case of the overall decrease in mobility during COVID-19 pandemic (see Table 8).
The results of the survey on the basis of the use of teaching methods show that 90.3% of the students believe that teachers teach in connection with hot companies or hot market topics, and 72.2% of the students believe that teachers have their own unique insights in this process. However, students’ overall evaluation of the basis for the use of current teaching methods was low, with only 35.81% of students strongly and somewhat agreeing. The results of the study on the entry of real problems into the classroom show that 69% of students agree that real problem situations are created in business courses. This result has a more significant correlation with the real problem research orientation that universities promoted in recent years. The results of the research on the process of the use of teaching methods show that only 37.7% of students believe that they can actively participate in interactive discussions in class, and only 27.8% of students believe that teachers actively collect classroom feedback. In addition to teacher–student classroom interaction, the overall level of interaction between students in the classroom process remains low, with only 21.3% of students perceiving participation in activities such as mutual evaluation among groups and self-evaluation among classmates in the classroom.

4.3. Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

The evaluation of teaching effectiveness mainly focuses on three aspects, such as students’ satisfaction with teaching methods, evaluation of course achievement expectations, and stimulation of students’ learning enthusiasm. The results of the survey show that the form of course assessment is relatively single, and 75.5% of the students think that the course paper is the most important form of course assessment. The overall agreement of theory and skill acquisition was only 34.02%. The percentage of students who were satisfied with the overall effectiveness of teaching was only 35.03% (see Table 9). At the end of the semester, students’ Wechat Moments are full of complaints about the examination format, such as “I don’t want to write trash-in trash-out papers anymore” and “I’m stunned that I have to finish 6 papers in 3 weeks when the end of the semester is here”. In line with the expectation of diversification of classroom teaching methods, students expect changes in the format of examinations. The results of the survey in terms of enthusiasm for learning showed that students expect real problem situations with practical operation, such as visiting a real company to observe and learn, inviting managers into the classroom to share, etc.

4.4. A Cross-Tabulation Analysis of Demographic Characteristics and Agreement with the Teaching Model

Considering the influence of gender, major, and grade on teaching initiation, teaching method use, and teaching effectiveness assessment, this study used cross-tabulation and chi-square test to determine percentage homogeneity, and the results of the study showed that there was no significant difference in the degree of agreement between different genders on teaching initiation, teaching method use, and teaching effectiveness assessment (χ2 = 3.221, p > 0.05; χ2 = 4.031, p > 0.05; χ2 = 5.416, p > 0.05), i.e., students of different genders agreed on teaching initiation, use of teaching methods, and assessment of teaching effectiveness to a similar extent. Significant differences were found between students of different majors in their agreement on teaching initiation, use of teaching methods, and assessment of teaching effectiveness (χ2 = 8.221, p < 0.05; χ2 = 3.031, p < 0.05; χ2 = 5.416, p < 0.05). This result indicates that despite being in the same business major, business administration and marketing students rated the existing teaching model lower compared to accounting and technical and economic management majors. Significant differences were found in the level of agreement among students in different grades regarding teaching initiation, use of teaching methods, and evaluation of teaching effectiveness (χ2 = 6.221, p < 0.05; χ2 = 5.031, p < 0.05; χ2 = 12.416, p < 0.05), i.e., students in different grades had similar levels of agreement on teaching initiation, use of teaching methods, and evaluation of teaching effectiveness. This result indicates that the overall evaluation of the instructional model was lower in the upper grades compared to the lower grades, with the fourth grade students having the lowest overall agreement with the existing instructional model.

5. Discussion

The current research in the field of comprehensive sustainable teaching models has been further explored by scholars in various countries, and the teaching models they adopted are based on the educational and cultural background and training requirements of their countries. European and American countries, represented by the UK and the US, often use diverse teaching models with problem-based inquiry and career orientation as the core, and have previously conducted extensive theoretical inquiry and practical exploration of teaching concepts and methods. In China, the research on sustainable teaching models is based on the general guiding ideology of the Chinese Ministry of Education for professional development, of which the new business discipline is the latest element of this guiding ideology and the development direction for a longer period of time in the future. This study is an exploration of sustainable teaching models in Chinese university business schools in the context of the professional orientation and training objectives of the Chinese Ministry of Education. Compared with previous studies, this study analyzes the current situation and problems of the teaching mode practice in Chinese university business schools based on the results of the surveys answered by teachers and students in Chinese L-University business schools; provides insight into the causes of such problems from the text data of personal interviews and questionnaire survey data; and proposes the paths and methods for the construction of sustainable teaching mode through combining PBL, modularization, and deliberate practice theory. The specific discussion of the research results is mainly reflected in the following three aspects.
Firstly, there is a lack of links between knowledge modules for theoretical research. Problem-oriented research and problem-oriented teaching are complementary. Business theory research starts from business problems in the real market, and problem-oriented teaching focuses on stimulating students’ deep-seated cognitive functions and driving values. The research found that teachers tend to ask questions about relevant knowledge based on the content of the lesson in the course, and the questions themselves are too empty and not motivating, being more of an interpretation of business practices, making it difficult to mobilize students’ impulse and desire for problem solving. The teacher’s question design lacks procedural logical connections and is unable to form a chain of questions with sub-questions running through it. Therefore, when the questions are asked, they often do not receive positive feedback from the students, or even if they do, the feedback mostly remains at the level of a redundant description of the phenomenon, more like a reading comprehension response to a business text; eventually, the interaction that should have sparked learning turns into an embarrassing self-answer for the teacher.
From the students’ point of view, because such questions lack a specific pre-determined context, students lack the motivation to actively solve the problem, and choose to answer only for utilitarian reasons or are forced to answer by the teacher calling their name; at this time, students only stay at the surface of the question, using shallow thinking and extremely lacking logic, making it difficult to further explore the level of knowledge meaning inquiry. At the same time, students do not have the ability to break down a complex problem into several sub-problems according to theoretical logic because they do not have a clear direction of thinking about the teacher’s questions; in this case, a topic that seems to have theoretical and practical value cannot resonate with students because it is far from their actual experience and ability.
Secondly, the emphasis on lecture over practice cuts the interface between theory and practice. Peter Drucker considered management as a practical discipline, and Henry Mintzberg, in his study of the relationship between managers and MBAs, suggested that there was too much of a disconnect between what he perceived as the practice of management and the classroom teaching that he believed was intended to train managers, even suggesting that the practice of management itself was becoming detached from the formal, with dysfunctional consequences for society [35]. The lecture method is mostly used in the theoretical learning phase, where teachers need to accomplish their lecture objectives within a short training time frame; the lecture method has become the most common teaching method used by teachers as it can deliver a large amount of knowledge in a short period of time with high teaching efficiency.
The most of the “practice” in business classes at L University comes from “practice in language” rather than “practice in practice” in the real marketplace. The students mentioned in the interviews that most of the teachers introduce market cases in the class, including professional cases from the case library of domestic universities; however, the use of cases is mostly carried out in the form of lectures, and the students do not have personal experience of the companies and markets mentioned in the case studies. Teachers also show helplessness when talking about this problem. On one hand, the traditional large class type lectures are not conducive to the development of interactive classes; on the other hand, even under the favorable conditions of decreasing size of both undergraduate student and general class sizes, teaching activities closely related to practice can be difficult to carry out effectively due to student safety issues and student performance orientation. In the context of the increasing emphasis on formative evaluation in schools, this paper compares the performance of daily workloads of interdisciplinary students. The survey results show that there are significant differences between students’ perceptions of this problem in different majors, among which business administration and marketing majors have a stronger demand for real problems, hoping that teachers can fully consider the combination of course theory and real situations and introduce real problems into the classroom. Accounting majors are able to accept problem-oriented teaching in large numbers because of the relatively rich drill content in the classroom and the widespread popularity of computerized accounting. Technical economic management majors diluted the expectation of problem-oriented teaching because their courses are biased toward economics and use more mathematical and scientific tools. Overall, the daily workload of business students is obviously insufficient compared to that of science students. The phenomenon that the final examination of the curriculum depends on the time concentration of two-to-three weeks before the examination is more prominent.
Thirdly, there is a lack of systematic thinking in course assessment and evaluation. The survey results show that there are three main ways to assess the evaluation of business courses nowadays. One method is in the form of unified questions and closed-book exams, emphasizing the memory of basic concepts, understanding and application of theories, and questions that are mainly in the form of terminology explanations, fill-in-the-blanks, short answers, expositions, comprehensive analyses, etc. The second method is the final paper is the main form of the course. In the interviews with students, we found that students have mixed perceptions and contradictions about the course paper assignment. On one hand, students feel relatively free because they do not need to finish the course paper at a fixed time and place; on the other hand, the time for the course paper assignment is relatively sufficient and the Internet can provide abundant secondary materials for them to complete the paper, which reduces the difficulty of completing the assignment to a certain extent. However, the effect of course paper assignment assessment is mixed; in the case of not being able to improve the quality level of the paper, students fall into unprecedented in-volume in terms of the amount of text in the paper, and garbage-in, garbage-out becomes the norm. The third method is a group assignment in which the teacher assigns the questions, and the group works together to complete the text of the assignment and make a PowerPoint presentation at the specified time. This method is one of the more popular forms among students; however, there are certain problems with the actual assessment, such as whether to complete the grouping according to voluntary combination, random assignment or teacher’s designation; how to divide the work among the group members; and how to avoid some students’ free-riding behavior. The varied assessment forms do not conceal the poor effectiveness of assessment. The survey shows that the most important reason for the poor assessment effect is the lack of systematization, which is manifested in the inconsistency between the assessment objectives and teaching objectives; the difficulty in landing the design of assessment indexes; the lack of clear guidance in the assessment process; and the lack of timely and effective feedback on the assessment results.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the above issues, we propose the following recommendations for Chinese university business schools in promoting sustainable teaching models in terms of modularity, deliberate practice, and systematic thinking.
Firstly, we recommend reconstructing the “curriculum-knowledge point-theoretical tool” with modular thinking. Modular thinking takes the cultivation of professional competence in business as the goal, constructs teaching modules via organically combining theoretical teaching and practical teaching in business, and realizes the reorganization and fission of modules. The modular curriculum is built on the basis of students’ learning outcomes, and a curriculum module is an independent learning unit based on certain learning outcomes [19]. Modular courses emphasize the construction of competency-based instruction and can vary in size from a full course to a chapter of a course or a lecture. Modules can be studied either sequentially or individually, and modules can be flexibly combined with each other. Course modularity can greatly facilitate flexibility, mobility, and extension of learning. Since modules can be split and reconfigured, students are free to choose their own learning content according to their interests and can even customize their courses flexibly through module restructuring. Modular courses can avoid repetition between teaching contents in the disciplinary course model through effectively reorganizing the knowledge points of the disciplinary course. Modularity facilitates the rapid development of online courses. It usually takes months to develop a complete online course, but only a few weeks to develop a course module, which greatly improves the timeliness of course development.
At the curriculum level, the business curriculum includes three tiered modules: basic courses, specialized basic courses, and specialized courses. According to the professional training program, the basic courses include management, strategic management, microeconomics, financial management, accounting, marketing, and other courses; the professional basic courses mainly include human resource management, consumer behavior, marketing research, etc.; and the professional courses include brand management, channel management, advertising, and other courses. This hierarchical module division is the arrangement of curriculum subjects in the training program of business majors, which has wide applicability, though there is also a problem of disconnection with reality. For example, the division of the existing three levels is mainly based on courses, ignoring the invisible relationship clues between courses, and each course is taught by different teachers in different semesters, which brings the direct consequence that the boundaries of courses and the connections between courses are easily ignored. Therefore, the first step of reconstructing the curriculum with modular thinking is to break the original mechanical division of the curriculum and complete the rearrangement of the curriculum in the course of lectures, taking the real problem solving as the main clue, theoretical progress as the secondary clue, and the common preparation of the professional course teachers as the main way [36].
From the point of view of knowledge, the lack of linkage between knowledge points resulting from the design of the course subjects, the original inter-related knowledge points are scattered in different courses and cannot be communicated. Philip Kotler was the first to realize this problem and introduced branding guru Kevin Keller as a collaborator in his classic textbook “Marketing Management” to further enrich the content of “branding” in “Marketing Management”. In addition, Kotler kept up with the times and crossed the boundaries of the textbook, actively incorporating his focus on the new economy and new consumer into the new edition of the textbook. Modularity at the knowledge point level places higher demands on business teachers, who need to dip into the professional literature more extensively in the course of lesson preparation and build knowledge networks and knowledge genealogies around a particular knowledge point.
At the level of tool development, modular thinking is reflected in the work of business toolbox development. This thinking is based on the perception of the practical attributes of business: just as skilled workers, such as carpenters and electricians, have their corresponding toolboxes, the practical nature of the business profession requires practitioners to have a corresponding toolbox to solve business problems in practice. Toolbox thinking is more common in management consulting firms, and is an important basis for management consulting firms to train new consultants and complete business consulting projects, with tools such as Boston Matrix, GE Matrix, and product life cycle as outstanding representatives. Therefore, in order to accelerate students’ ability to solve real problems, the business toolbox is both a shortcut to developing practical skills and a booster to help students quickly make the transition from school to business work practice.
Secondly, deliberate practice is used to strengthen the resilience of the theory–practice connection. The effect of deliberate practice on the construction of domain knowledge comes from the problem situations presented through deliberate practice. Firstly, deliberate practice provides richer, more structured, and more critical problem situations than supportive training, and the emergence of these problem situations requires individuals to actively explore the knowledge information related to solving the problem and, thus, actively construct the knowledge system [37]. Secondly, deliberate practice requires individuals to master many skills, and some skills are very complex and need to be based on individuals’ knowledge information about various aspects. In this way, deliberate practice can promote individuals to acquire more knowledge information and carry out active construction.
Deliberate practice in business teaching refers to the balance between theory and practice in the teaching process, and the practice of the methodology of theory guiding practice. It includes both “quality” and “quantity”, and “quality” is to emphasize the link with practice in terms of content. This process can be achieved in various forms, such as case study, group work, outbound research, and introduction of managers into the classroom. Here, “quality” is the appropriate amount of workload for undergraduate students. Teachers can combine formative evaluation assessment methods to increase the proportion of students’ pre-course, pre-reading, post-course review, and project work content in the overall assessment. Combined with the actual situation of business majors, professional teachers are organized to record short modular videos and thematic PPTs for courses, as well as collectively compile exercise sets and casebooks for each subject course. Deliberate practice does not happen overnight. On one hand, teachers are required to adhere to the fundamental task orientation of moral education, carry out in-depth course thinking and administration, inspire students to take the initiative to learn with a noble sense of mission and responsibility, establish the concept of lifelong learning, and cultivate good study habits. On the other hand, it also requires the teachers of the course to use a combination of positive and negative motivational tools to strengthen the post-event control function.
Thirdly, the development of business systems thinking is driven by real problems. The development of business systems thinking skills is centered on real problems, with collaborative group inquiry and problem solving being the main form of interaction and goal, while project output is the main line throughout [38]. Authentic problem situations enable learners to engage in sustained inquiry and enhance learning motivation, and challenging problems develop students’ problem-solving skills. Students engage in cognitive processing and form cognitive conflicts during collaborative group communication, which can promote the development of critical thinking. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitoring and self-reflective thinking, which helps learners improve their metacognitive skills. Through project-based learning, students can become better researchers and problem solvers (see Figure 1).
Real problem teaching activities are divided into three stages: before, during and after class. Firstly, teachers set up real problem situations according to chapter teaching tasks and teaching objectives, and guide students to read and watch text and video materials related to authentic problems in advance to build students’ sense of presence on real problems. For example, teachers can use teaching content platforms, such as China University MOOC or Xue Tang Online, or make short videos independently as students’ independent learning content before class; make simple assessments of the self-study content; and use the assessment results as the feedback basis for the difficulty of course content. Secondly, teachers will combine the key contents of chapters and students’ previous feedback on difficulties to construct scenarios, ask questions, guide thinking, organize students’ brainstorming and class sharing, and help students complete knowledge construction independently. Finally, the post-class session is an important point to ensure the effectiveness of teaching. Teachers use the Rain Classroom platform to publish homework content, and students need to use the post-class time to complete and submit the homework through independent thinking, internal group discussion and exchange, collaborative work, and further complete inter- and intra-group evaluation under the guidance of teachers. This process helps students to learn knowledge, develop ability, and improve quality, thus truly achieving the purpose of cultivating high-level, high-quality, innovative and developmental talents for society.
The improvement of the quality of student training in Chinese university business schools is not only a matter of teaching mode, and the perspective of teaching mode analysis is not only based on project-based learning (PBL), modular teaching, and deliberate practice theory. Moreover, this paper does not replace the previous teaching mode with the modularity of “curriculum-knowledge-tool”, the linking tenacity of deliberate practice, and the systemic thinking driven by real problems. Rather, it draws on excellent teaching methods and tools to improve and optimize the teaching model of Chinese university business schools to truly realize student-centered teaching and learning; break the boundaries between teachers and students, in-class and out-of-class, offline and online; and establish and improve the teaching model with the main feature of promoting effective learning behaviors among students. This paper does not focus on the theoretical arguments, but on the development of a sustainable teaching and learning model that promotes effective learning behaviors. This paper does not build research ideas around the theoretical arguments, design of teaching practice framework, and implementation effects of the new teaching model. Instead, we use project-based learning, modularity, and deliberate practice theory to guide the innovation of sustainable teaching models in Chinese university business schools. In the follow-up study, we will also continue to focus on the problem of teaching quality improvement in Chinese university business schools; seek more diversified theoretical perspectives to analyze the problem; introduce richer environmental variables to analyze the problem; combine the underlying logic of teaching research, environmental variables, and critical thinking tools to solve the problem; and provide more diversified research perspectives and methodological bases for the development of sustainable teaching models in Chinese university business schools.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L., H.L. and Y.L.; methodology, S.L.; software, S.L. and Y.L.; validation, S.L. and Y.L.; formal analysis, S.L.; investigation, H.L. and Y.L.; resources, S.L. and Y.L.; data curation, S.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.L.; writing—review and editing, S.L., H.L. and Y.L.; visualization, S.L.; supervision, H.L. and Y.L.; project administration, Y.L.; funding acquisition, S.L., Y.L. and H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support for this research provided by the 2020 Asian Studies Project at the Center for Asian Studies of Liaoning University Research Project, NO. Y202012; the 2020 Undergraduate Teaching Reform Project of Liaoning University, NO. JG2020ZSWT017; the 2021 Undergraduate Teaching Reform Project of Liaoning University, NO. JG2021ZSWT012; and the 2018 Undergraduate Teaching Reform Project of Liaoning University, NO. JG2018ZC53.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from authors upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, Y.; Ma, Y. Innovation and entrepreneurship education in Chinese universities: Developments and challenges. Chin. Educ. Soc. 2022, 55, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sosa, R.; Kayrouz, D. Creativity in graduate business education: Constitutive dimensions and connections. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2020, 57, 484–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vyas, L.; Yu, B. An investigation into the academic acculturation experiences of Mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong. High. Educ. 2018, 76, 883–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Prescott, P.; Gjerde, K.P.; Rice, J.L. Analyzing mandatory college internships: Academic effects and implications for curricular design. Stud. High. Educ. 2021, 46, 2444–2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Park, Y.-E. A data-driven approach for discovery of the latest research trends in higher education for business by leveraging advanced technology and big data. J. Educ. Bus. 2021, 96, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. O’Leary, S. Gender and management implications from clearer signposting of employability attributes developed across graduate disciplines. Stud. High. Educ. 2021, 46, 437–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tello, G.; Swanson, D.L.; Floyd, L.A.; Caldwell, C. Transformative learning: A new model for business ethics education. J. Multidiscip. Res. 2013, 5, 105–120. [Google Scholar]
  8. McLeod, J. How students use deliberate practice during the first stage of counsellor training. Couns. Psychother. Res. 2022, 22, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yuan, X.; Jian, Z. A critical assessment of the higher education for sustainable development from students’ perspectives—A Chinese study. J. Clean Prod. 2013, 48, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sun, H.; Richardson, J. Perceptions of quality and approaches to studying in higher education: A comparative study of Chinese and British postgraduate students at six British business schools. High. Educ. 2012, 63, 299–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhu, Z.; Peng, Z.; Yang, K. Utilizing the push–pull–mooring framework to explore university teachers’ intention to switch from traditional classrooms to smart classrooms in China. Educ. + Train. 2023, 65, 470–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sudjimat, D.A.; Permadi, L.C. Impact of work and project-based learning models on learning outcomes and motivation of vocational high school students. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2021, 21, 131–144. [Google Scholar]
  13. Revelle, K.Z.; Wise, C.N.; Duke, N.K.; Halvorsen, A. Realizing the promise of project-based learning. Read. Teach. 2020, 73, 697–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Parmentier, D.D.; Van Acker, B.B.; Saldien, J.; Detand, J. A framework to design for meaning: Insights on use, practicality and added value within a project-based learning context. Int. J. Technol. Des. Ed. 2021, 31, 815–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. King, B.; Smith, C. Using project-based learning to develop teachers for leadership. Clear. House 2020, 93, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mulcahy, C.A.; Wertz, J.A. Using project-based learning to build college and career readiness among diverse learners. Teach. Except. Child. 2021, 53, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hanham, J.; McCormick, J.; Hendry, A. Project-based learning groups of friends and acquaintances: The role of efficacy beliefs. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 113, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Karim, A.; Campbell, M.; Hasan, M. A new method of integrating project-based and work-integrated learning in postgraduate engineering study. Curric. J. 2020, 31, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hanney, R. Doing, being, becoming: A historical appraisal of the modalities of project-based learning. Teach. High. Educ. 2018, 23, 769–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rees Lewis, D.G.; Gerber, E.M.; Carlson, S.E.; Easterday, M.W. Opportunities for educational innovations in authentic project-based learning: Understanding instructor perceived challenges to design for adoption. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2019, 67, 953–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jian, M.-S.; Chen, J.-L. Individual learner big data based cloud role player game learning. Intell. Data Anal. 2017, 21, S41–S53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sewagegn, A.A.; Diale, B.M. Modular/Block teaching: Practices and challenges at higher education institutions of Ethiopia. Teach. High. Educ. 2021, 26, 776–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jou, Y.-T.; Mariñas, K.A.; Saflor, C.S. Assessing cognitive factors of modular distance learning of K-12 students amidst the COVID-19 pandemic towards academic achievements and satisfaction. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ellahi, A. Social networking sites as formal learning environments in business education. J. Educ. Tech. Soc. 2018, 21, 64–75. [Google Scholar]
  25. Raja, A.A.; Iftikhar, U.; Shams, M. Aligning quality of business education with the international business models: An innovative approach of NBEAC. Abasyn Univ. J. Soc. Sci. 2019, 12, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, C. Educating the cosmopolitan citizen in Confucian classical education in contemporary China. Chin. Educ. Soc. 2020, 53, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Allen, S.J.; Shankman, M.L.; Haber-Curran, P. Developing emotionally intelligent leadership: The need for deliberate practice and collaboration across disciplines. New Dir. High. Educ. 2016, 174, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bronkhorst, L.H.; Meijer, P.C.; Koster, B.; Vermunt, J.D. Deliberate practice in teacher education. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2014, 37, 18–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Miller, S.D.; Chow, D.; Wampold, B.; Hubble, M.A. “You say tomatoe, I say tomawto”: The importance of deliberate practice for improved performance. High Abil. Stud. 2019, 30, 288–290. [Google Scholar]
  30. Aristidou, M. Project based learning: Are there any academic benefits for the teacher or students? J. Humanist Math. 2020, 10, 458–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Keith, N.; Unger, J.M.; Rauch, A.; Frese, M. Informal learning and entrepreneurial success: A longitudinal study of deliberate practice among small business owners. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 2016, 65, 515–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Miller, S.D.; Chow, D.; Wampold, B.E.; Hubble, M.A.; Del Re, A.C.; Maeschalck, C.; Bargmann, S. To be or not to be (an expert)? Revisiting the role of deliberate practice in improving performance. High Abil. Stud. 2020, 31, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Walt, P.S.D.; Barker, N. Pedagogical intersectionality: Exploring content, technology, and student-centered learning through a problem based/project based approach. Educ. Media. Int. 2020, 57, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Calma, A.; Davies, M. Critical thinking in business education: Current outlook and future prospects. Stud. High. Educ. 2021, 46, 2279–2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Akhtar, S.; Albarrak, M.S.; Ahmad, A.; Akram, H.W.; Ciddikie, M.D. Drivers of student entrepreneurial intention and the moderating role of entrepreneurship education: Evidence from an Indian university. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2022, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ding, N.; Xu, X.; Yang, H.; Li, Y.; Van Heughten, P. Decision-making styles of Chinese business students. J. Educ. Bus. 2020, 95, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nisula, K.; Pekkola, S. How to move away from the silos of business management education? J. Educ. Bus. 2018, 93, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Valenzuela, L.; Jerez, O.M.; Hasbún, B.A.; Pizarro, V.; Valenzuela, G.; Orsini, C.A. Closing the gap between business undergraduate education and the organisational environment: A Chilean case study applying experiential learning theory. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2018, 55, 566–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 08037 g001 550
Figure 1. Real problem-oriented systems thinking skills development.
Figure 1. Real problem-oriented systems thinking skills development.
Sustainability 15 08037 g001
Table
Table 1. Basic information of interviewed students.
Table 1. Basic information of interviewed students.
No.GradeGenderInterview Time
01S1M22041Male23.4.2022
02S1M22061Male26.6.2022
03S1F21101Female30.10.2021
04S2M22042Male23.4.2022
05S2M22062Male26.6.2022
06S2F21102Female30.10.2021
07S3M22043Male23.4.2022
08S3M22063Male26.6.2022
09S3F21103Female30.10.2021
10S4M22114Male22.11.2022
11S4F22114Female22.11.2022
12S4F22114Female22.11.2022
Table
Table 2. Basic information of interviewed teachers.
Table 2. Basic information of interviewed teachers.
No.TitleGenderInterview Time
01TM2204Associate professorMale5.4.2022
02TF2206LecturerFemale8.6.2022
03TF2207ProfessorFemale18.7.2022
04TM2207LecturerMale22.7.2022
05TM2207Associate professorMale25.7.2022
Table
Table 3. Business school of L University undergraduate teaching methods practice survey scale question items.
Table 3. Business school of L University undergraduate teaching methods practice survey scale question items.
Primary IndicatorsSecondary IndicatorsTitle Items
Initiation of teaching activitiesTeaching objective setting1, 2
Teaching materials preparation3, 4
Teaching method introduction5, 6
Use of teaching methodsTypes of teaching methods7, 8, 9, 10
Rationale for the use of teaching methods11, 12
Teaching method using process13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Evaluation of teaching effectivenessAcquisition of theory and skills20, 21, 22, 23
Satisfaction of teaching effect24, 25, 26
Table
Table 4. Demographic characteristics of sample.
Table 4. Demographic characteristics of sample.
Demographic Characteristic VariableNumber of PeoplePercentage
GenderMale10245.54%
Female12254.46%
MajorBusiness administration5725.45%
Accounting6227.68%
Marketing3214.29%
Human resource management3314.73%
Technical and economic management4017.86%
Grade15223.21%
26026.79%
36026.79%
45223.21%
Table
Table 5. Reliability test.
Table 5. Reliability test.
Cronbach’s αCronbach’s Alpha after StandardizationNumber of Items
0.8620.84326
Table
Table 6. Validity test.
Table 6. Validity test.
KMO ValueBartlett’s Spherical ValueDfCumulative Variance Explained (after Rotation)
0.9424877.22382.0062.33%
Table
Table 7. Evaluation of students in starting stage of teaching.
Table 7. Evaluation of students in starting stage of teaching.
ItemVery AgreeMore AgreeGeneralMore DisagreedVery Disagreed
Teaching objective setting26.84%49.50%10.02%5.43%8.21%
Teaching materials preparation26.44%32.78%19.86%13.98%6.94%
Teaching method introduction9.83%24.50%26.18%28.55%10.94%
Table
Table 8. Evaluation of students in use of teaching methods.
Table 8. Evaluation of students in use of teaching methods.
ItemVery AgreeMore AgreeGeneralMore DisagreedVery Disagreed
Types of teaching methods11.88%16.20%36.31%24.50%11.11%
Basis for using teaching methods14.85%20.33%22.12%30.40%12.30%
Process of using teaching methods9.20%28.50%20.31%30.62%11.37%
Table
Table 9. Student evaluation during teaching effectiveness evaluation phase.
Table 9. Student evaluation during teaching effectiveness evaluation phase.
ItemVery AgreeMore AgreeGeneralMore DisagreedVery Disagreed
Acquisition of theory and skills12.73%21.29%20.42%32.49%13.07%
Satisfaction of teaching effect13.55%21.48%29.33%25.60%10.04%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, S.; Li, Y.; Lin, H. Research on Sustainable Teaching Models of New Business—Take Chinese University Business School as an Example. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108037

AMA Style

Li S, Li Y, Lin H. Research on Sustainable Teaching Models of New Business—Take Chinese University Business School as an Example. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108037

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Sihua, Ying Li, and Haohan Lin. 2023. "Research on Sustainable Teaching Models of New Business—Take Chinese University Business School as an Example" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108037

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop