Corporation Learning:

A Paradigm for Learning in the 21^st Century

by

Margaret T. O’Hara, Ph.D., East Carolina University, Greenville, NC

Oharam@mail.ecu.edu

John A. O’Hara, Kearny High School, Kearny NJ 07032

corporationlearning@comcast.net

Introduction

There is no doubt that the world has changed greatly in the last hundred years. One can look almost anywhere and see the changes. Where once there were prairies and farms now stands a landscape populated with skyscrapers and factories. Replacing oil lamps, ledger paper and a telegraph in the typical business, there now are electric lighting, computers, telephones, and fax machines. While families once gathered together around the fireplace and told stories or read from one of a few books, they now all retire to their own rooms to watch TV, use the VCR or stereo, or chat with friends on a personal computer.

And, of course, in the classroom of one hundred years ago, the teacher established order, presented the ground rules, and lectured. The students sat in straight rows listening and perhaps taking notes on their slates. And today, unfortunately, while the rest of the world has changed, the classroom has changed very little. Students no longer write notes on slates, and they often sit in movable desks, yet we still use the "I lecture; you listen" method. This pedagogy developed in Aristotle’s time — when only the teacher was informed — and continued through the middle ages when only the teacher had a precious book.

Today, despite the omnipresence of books, electronic media, and alternate methods of instruction, many teachers persist in these outdated methods. To the extent that teaching is often viewed as the communication of facts, this method is understandable. Students, on the other hand, conditioned by years of television, interactive video games and computers, are looking for something other than continual discourse from the teacher. They want to manipulate the joysticks, move the mice, and be "on-line" with their educational process. In other words, they want to be active participants, not passive observers, in their learning.

In this paper, we present an alternative to the traditional lecture method -- Corporation Learning. We begin with a brief discussion of some problems with teaching today. Next, we detail the manner in which Corporation Learning was developed. Next, we present the basics of the process, provide an example, and link the process to the Workplace Readiness Standards recently developed in New Jersey and other states. Finally, we provide the corporation’s "Annual Report" and offer some concluding remarks.

What’s Wrong with Today’s Classroom?

While the world outside has changed, the world inside the classroom has remained much the same as it was 100 years ago. Discipline is perhaps more relaxed, and some of the tools and artifacts have changes, but the basic lecture method of instruction persists. Teachers often spend up to 80% of their time talking to the students (Steinberg, 1997). Students are asked to recount factual information on tests and individual work is emphasized. The teacher is the primary director of activity within the classroom, and continuously initiates the learning of new concepts.

Contrast this with the typical white collar, knowledge worker today. Knowledge workers are rarely asked to state facts; instead, they are asked to apply their knowledge to new situations. Knowledge workers do not always work alone; instead, they are often asked to work as part of a team. Knowledge workers do not typically receive constant direction from a supervisor; instead, they are expected to be self-directed and solve problems. Knowledge workers do not just learn what a supervisor asks them to; instead, they are expected to gather, analyze, and disseminate information.

Today’s classroom offers the students little opportunity to develop the skills they will need as knowledge workers. Many students believe that they have better learning experiences and develop better relationships with adults in their after school jobs than they do in the classroom. When more than 20,000 high school students were asked about school, nearly 40% said they were "just going through the motions" in class (Steinberg, 1997). A research study of 376 students revealed that they spent twice as much time chatting with friends in class as talking in discussion groups. The largest part of their time was spent on individual activities — taking tests, seatwork, taking notes and listening to lectures (Steinberg, 1997). Most of their reading comes from textbooks, and that reading is far easier than many adults must perform in their jobs (Mikulecky, 1982).

Developing Corporation Learning

In 1993, after a frustrating year of teaching, the authors met during the summer to lament the current state of education. There had been excessive final exam failures; students tended to memorize, regurgitate, and forget the concepts. The students had poor study habits and wanted to be given simple step-by-step instructions for solving every problem — they were masters at linear thinking. Apathy and disinterest characterized the typical student. Many of them were limited in their ability to conceptualize because they had been given too much structure and direction — they could no longer "think outside the box." What was needed, the authors felt, was a shift from the traditional classroom to something different — a new paradigm in education.

Research in the education journals revealed two themes — the need for reform and the call to administrators to take action. Prescriptions for change were focused on policy changes, not what an individual teacher might do. Policy changes often take years, and the authors wanted something sooner, something that could be implemented in the classroom that September.

The authors turned their attention to the academic and trade business press, and researched some of the latest management trends. Corporations have been dealing with an environment of rapid change for the last 30 years. Much has been written about how firms might cope with and benefit from such change. What seems certain is that the traditional model of the firm — Adam Smith’s pin factory originally presented in The Wealth of Nations in 1776 — is no longer viable. Such a model no longer yields the quality of work needed for a business to survive. Some recommend a totally revised way of doing business — a revolution, not an evolution. What must be done is to start all over from the ground zero and revamp business (Hammer and Champy, 1993).

Similarly, schools can no longer operate on the factory model where the principal is boss, the teacher is worker and the student is the product (Peel and McCary, 1997). Such a model, because it does not reflect the environment of business today, does not prepare the student for real life work situations. Students can no be passive recipients of knowledge; they must become active participants in their learning. As active participants, they will engage in teamwork and become responsible members of the learning center. They will develop skills needed in real-life work situations: they will learn to negotiate; to resolve conflicts and make decisions. They will collaborate rather than compete.

Corporation Learning - The Basics

Originally developed for use in the Physics classroom, Corporation Learning (CL) may be applied to a variety of classroom situations. CL was developed to provide students with the life skills they will need in the 21^st Century. It is a departure from traditional teaching, and acts as a bridge that connects the core curriculum requirements and standards to the workplace readiness standards recently developed in New Jersey. Corporation Learning views every student as a resource, not as a product. CL is student centered, not teacher centered. It focuses on learning, not teaching, and emphasizes collaboration and teamwork, minimizes competition and individual work. It is definitely not education as usual. A comparison between the traditional teaching environment and the Corporation Learning center is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: A Comparison of the Traditional Classroom and the CL Center

Teamwork

In Corporation Learning, the students become the employees, or associates of the firm; the teacher is the CEO. Eight teams comprise the CL learning center. Students must write a resume and cover letter applying for specific team. They must list their unique qualifications for the team and provide an alternate team choice. In this manner, students are discouraged from joining the team their friends are on, and they can avoid peer pressure to do so by citing their qualifications and background rather than their interest. The eight teams and their responsibilities are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2: Corporation Learning Teams and Responsibilities

 Performance Reviews (Grading)

Associate performance reviews take place every eight weeks. In the early years of CL, the FINAL team would have prepared and distributed a number of tests for the other students. The other students could retake these tests as often as they wanted to obtain a better grade. These counted for 15% of the assessment. Work completed after hours (homework) counted as 15% of the assessment. In each review period, there were four tests that made up 50% of the review. Students took each test individually and then took the same test as part of their group. The remaining 20% was determined by the student’s performance on the team and all other corporate activities.

More recently, the grading process was modified so that fifty percent of the marking period grade is determined from instructor tests and the other fifty percent is obtained by completing worksheets from the individual teams. Students can assign percents ranging from 2% to 15% of their grade to any worksheet. Students can change the percent allocations at the beginning of each marking period, applying the highest percentage points to their most enjoyable and successful team worksheets. A sample of how students might allocate percentage points in seen in Table 3.

Table 3:  Corporation Learning Percentage Allocation

Instructor tests, both individual and group tests, are still used in the grading process, and the semester final exam consists of an individual test, a group test and a team presentation, each counted equally.

Starting a Corporation

Start-up corporations require nurturing; they do not begin immediately producing a product or showing a profit. For Corporation Learning to be successful, time must be spent on the CL process. Typically, the first two weeks of the academic year are devoted to process, rather than content issues. While some might argue that two weeks is too much time to lose from the calendar, if 40% of our students are only "going through the motions" of school, the impact of the loss of those two weeks is surely minimal.

Careful attention must be given to developing the teams appropriate to the subject area. Corporation English, for example, will probably not need a Quantitative team to handle formulas! Great teams are developed when the interest and abilities of its members are compatible. For that reason, the team member selection process is crucial. Students must research the function and purpose of each team and match their personal characteristics, traits, and abilities to a specific team. Once cover letters and resumes are constructed, the CEO should conduct interviews with the team candidates to determine who to hire. Sometimes, students are not assigned to their first choice team. Typically, they will accept assignment to their second choice team with the stipulation that they will be switched to their first choice team at the semester’s end; however, most students, having learned to function on their second choice team, choose not to make the move.

Once teams are formed, the members and the CEO must work closely together to establish goals and expectations. These must be clearly defined and clearly communicated to all team members. Teams are then taught how to present. Considerable time is spent on team development. Team members participate in a variety of team-building activities designed to foster "team spirit" and a sense of camaraderie. Intergroup team-building also takes place since teams must learn to cooperate with each other.

Often the most difficult task for the teacher is relinquishing control of the classroom. In CL, teachers present concepts only 1-4 days per week, and often not for the entire class period. Once content is presented, teams go to work preparing their specific parts of the lessons. The teacher acts as a CEO, providing coaching and guidance as necessary, and only when requested to do so.

A Sample Schedule

This schedule is designed to be used in a two-week period consisting of fourteen 40 minute blocks of time. During the two weeks, the CEO (teacher) lectures to the class for only 1-4 class periods. During that time, general information about the topic is presented. The next period (#5 in the table below) is for team planning. The CEO may suggest projects to the teams or the teams may develop projects on their own.  Class periods 6–13 are for team presentations. The last 40 minute period of the two-week schedule is for the instructor test (#14 in table).

Column one represents a typical class consisting of 40 minutes. The Presentation column is the activity that would take place during that class.

Table 4: Sample Class Periods

Achieving Workplace Readiness Competencies and Foundation Skills

When Corporation Physics was created, New Jersey had recently established The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). The SCANS report focused in two areas: Foundation Skills and Workplace Readiness Competencies. Corporation Learning addresses both these areas in the selection and formation of teams and the on-going classroom activities. In the current "No Child Left Behind" initiative, Foundation Skills translate to the seven Core Curriculum Content Standards and the Workplace Readiness Competencies are now seven Workplace Readiness Skills.

One workplace competency is the ability to manage resources: time, money, materials, space, and staff. Once the CL process is underway, management of these resources becomes an integral part of each team’s charge. Time management is critical for effective presentations. Allocating staff to specific projects within each team is also important. Knowing when to use what materials — audio/visuals, computers, outside speakers, handouts — is another aspect of the CL team process.

Another competency is to develop interpersonal skills: working on teams, teaching others, working with people from culturally diverse backgrounds. Teams are established based on student skills, not social or ethnic group; thus, students are thrust into groups that are naturally diverse and learn to function within them. Team building and group process are fundamental components of the CL center, and every group at some point during the week is responsible for teaching others.

Thinking is one of the Foundation skills targeted by SCANS: the ability to learn, reason, think creatively, make decisions, and solve problems. CL students learn early in the process to bring the teacher "solutions, not problems." Excuses are frowned upon, and language such as "I didn’t understand" — "I couldn’t do it" — and "It’s unfair" is unacceptable. Students use each other as resources before coming to the teacher, and they always come to the teacher with possible solutions in hand; they do not wait for the teacher to suggest them. Creative thinking is fostered when students attempt to find new methods of demonstrating concepts. Decisions are made when students determine what aspects of the lesson to present.

Corporation Learning Annual Report - 2004

The 2004-05 school year represents the11^th year that CL has been used. At the end of each school year, the authors reviewed the results and made changes. CL as it exists today is different from the way it was three years ago, but the basic principle remains: prepare students for the 21^st Century workplace. Changes have been made to improve student performance and incorporate new ideas.

The student response to Corporation Learning in the Physics area has been overwhelmingly positive. Enrollment in Physics after the first year increased 26% over the previous year (enrollment has continued to increase each year), and student test scores improved. Students have learned to negotiate and now do so for more presentation time. Groups of students who were once too shy to even speak in class now show off their videotaped presentations at parent conferences and educational summits. Parents report that dinner table conversation often revolves around "what happened today in class."

Corporate newsletters (developed by the students) are mailed to more than fifty interested business people and educators, and other teachers in the science area are beginning to adopt the CL paradigm. When the CEO cannot be in the center (i.e., the teacher is absent), substitute teachers report they "did nothing" other than watch the students perform. Learning no longer depends solely on the presence of the teacher; it depends in large measure on the students.

Conclusion

Corporation Learning is a process, and as such it is now and will continue to develop. While the statement "The only constant is change" may be trite, it is nonetheless true, and CL reflects this truth. The CL process now, in 2005 is different from what it was in 1994, and not yet what it will be next year and the year after that. Simply stated, what works in the process is kept; what does not work is discarded or revised. CL teachers and students welcome change unafraid.

Adopting Corporation Learning is not easy. Expect to revise your teams and make adjustments to the process. Expect difficulty; some students balk at the idea of personal responsibility. Expect resistance; students who have been led for years are scared of leading (and teachers who have led for years are frightened of relinquishing control). Expect frustration; most of us (students as well as teachers) do not embrace change easily!

Author Affiliation

Margaret T. O’Hara is an assistant professor of MIS at East Carolina University in Greenville, NC.  She began her career as a high school mathematics teacher in New Jersey and was Director of Information Services for a major transportation firm in the Southeast for many years before attending The University of Georgia to obtain a Ph.D.  Her research interests include teamwork and group process and the management of technology.

John A. O’Hara is a teacher in the Kearny School District in New Jersey. He has been an athletic trainer and taught Sports Medicine, Chemistry, and General Science. He is the recipient of numerous awards for his teaching and related activities. He is currently the CEO for two CL Physics classes. He has also incorporated the CL process in a Distance Learning Aerospace course in Hudson County. His research interests include new pedagogical methods and technology in education.

References:

Hammer, M. and J. Champy. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation, New York, Harper Collins.

Mikulecky, L. l982. The relationship between school preparation and workplace actuality, Reading Research Quarterly, l7(3), 400-419.

Peel, J. and C. E. McCary, III. 1997. Visioning the 'little red schoolhouse' for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(9), 698-705.

Steinberg, A. 1997. From school to work: Making the transition. Current, July, 9-12.

Corporation Learning