Improving real estate and other business courses through targeted student assessment

Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 2002 by Manning, Chris

Executive Summary. This article discusses the need for student and employer assessment instruments designed to assist real estate faculty to improve their individual course through targeting selected learning objectives, course content, teaching materials and pedagogy. Generic university-wide student evaluations of faculty effectiveness may be helpful to college administrators in matters of promotion and tenure (by comparing faculty across disciplines), but they are not very helpful to faculty seeking to improve individual courses. While the specific assessment questions and information gathered from students (taking different courses) and prospective employers (from different industries) must necessarily vary, a systematic framework can be developed to assist faculty to administer better assessment instruments and questions to improve their courses.

Introduction

Much has been written recently on the need for ongoing university course assessment to facilitate curriculum improvement (e.g., Shannon and Twale, 1996; Mace, 1997; Cunningham and Omolayole, 1998; Bailey, Chow and Haddad, 1999; Haddad, 1999; Wagner, 1999; Ballantyne, Borthwick and Packer, 2000; and Stanley, 2001). Bailey, Chow and Haddad discuss how the recent changes in AACSB accreditation standards, changing employer needs and widespread lack of employer confidence in the usefulness of university business instruction have all contributed to the recent increased emphasis on improving business courses through ongoing assessment.

While some of this literature (Krehbiel and McClure, 1997; Cunningham and Omolayole, 1998; Bailey, Chow and Haddad, 1999; Haddad, 1999; and McKone, 1999) discusses business course/curriculum improvement through assessment, there appears to be nothing in the literature about real estate course/curriculum assessment.1 Furthermore, while a relatively small portion of this literature (Krehbiel and McClure, 1997; Mace, 1997; and Wagner, 1999) suggests specific course assessment techniques, nothing has been found in the literature that addresses the important question of "What general assessment framework (i.e., plan, procedures, etc.) can business faculty (e.g., real estate, finance, etc.) follow that will lead to systematic improvement in their courses over time?"

It should be noted that assessment of course sub-topic content is usually even more important in real estate courses than in many other business courses because subtopic coverage in real estate courses is usually less standardized or prescribed than in other business disciplines. This is because courses in other business disciplines (e.g., finance) are often offered more frequently, are prerequisites for other courses necessitating the coverage of specific fundamental concepts (McKone, 1999) and have multiple sections each semester requiring some level of sub-topic standardization.2 Thus, even though real estate faculty often have considerable latitude when deciding on topics within a particular real estate course, as well as which real estate courses to offer, there appears to be no published guidance on how to either design real estate course content, or how to make systematic improvements in real estate courses over time.3

While prospective employers obviously possess valuable knowledge that can assist faculty to select more useful and relevant course content, students are also in an excellent position to assist faculty to improve their courses for at least four reasons. First, many students (particularly graduate MBA and executive MBA students) have had substantial work experience and already know much about what skills and knowledge they need in order to be successful at work or in a new career. Second, getting prospective employers to describe in detail (as well as in a useful form) exactly what knowledge and analytical skills they wish their future employees to possess, selected from among course content possibilities available to an instructor, can be difficult. Furthermore, since most prospective employers graduated from college some time ago, many are not familiar with the latest theory and analytical techniques, nor are they aware of how much class time or student effort is required to successfully teach different course content alternatives that an instructor may be considering.

Third, many students (even undergraduates) seek out the knowledge of what skills, software, analytical techniques and theoretical understanding will be required of them to become successful in a particular employment area. Fourth, while some students may not be familiar with what specific knowledge and skills would help them become successful (particularly undergraduates with little work experience), virtually all students can assist faculty with an evaluation of the effectiveness of their teaching materials and pedagogy and thus improve the quality of future student learning in a particular course.

When it comes to the selection of specific course content, many faculty place little or no importance on suggestions from students because their students (particularly undergraduates) are too inexperienced and unfamiliar with the "bigger picture" to be a good judge of what specific topics would be better to include within a particular course. While this is true in many cases, business school faculty should not underestimate the value of getting today's students more involved in their own "education" (Drucker, 1999). For example, when students can participate more, have a natural interest in a particular topic or have faith in the usefulness of the information, their interest and commitment to their learning is enhanced (Pulliam and Van Patten, 1999; and Manning and Roulac, 2001). (Of course, it is best where possible for faculty to successfully motivate students to acquire the knowledge and skills that will benefit them the most in the future when instructors really do know what that is.)