Brief In-class Role Play- CTCH 602

Brief In-class Role Plays:
An Experiential Teaching Tool Targeted to Generation Y Students

Jane Z. Sojka
Mark S.B. Fish
Marketing Education Review
Volume 18, Number 1 (Spring 2008)
Blog: Lynn Barnsback

Generation Y is the largest group of business educated students in history. They are three times the size of Gen X. It is worthwhile to consider their value orientation and adapt teaching tools for them. According to Fontczak & Kelly (2000) “Effective learning occurs when students are more actively involved with an experience then reflect on that experience”. This is called experiential learning. Its benefits include: increased enthusiasm, increased performance on assignments, higher levels of learning, improvements in critical thinking & problem solving.

Role playing, a time honored teaching tool, is frequently used in business classes, specifically selling. While role playing does achieve many of the above mentioned benefits of experiential learning, it can be complicated and time consuming. The authors contend that Gen Y has shortened attention spans and “learn best from situations that are both interactive and entertaining and prefers a personalized approach.” They describe them as fast paced multitaskers who are used to “sound bites”. They believe that short activities are more likely to keep their attention. Gen Y is also immersed in “real-life” experiences like no generation before with reality TV and the 24/7 interactivity of the internet. To work with these unique characteristics, the authors worked on a program of Brief In class Role Plays (BIRPs). It is an adaptation of a traditional tool to these new learning styles allowing a student to make a personal connection to a concept being taught.

The BIRPs are based on real situations for sales representatives. Advantages of the BIRP is that it can be read quickly, (they are only a paragraph or two long), read in class, and multiple issues can be reviewed because of the limited time commitment. They are a quick way to add discussion topics not found in the text. A reality TV type of situation makes them “fun”. Because they are “bare bones” the students can personalize them and improvise. . The authors also suggest having the students create a BIRP as an assignment after interviewing a sales representative. BIRPs focus on the unexpected, “What would you do” situation. They allow students to think and consider their actions and reactions to a situation

The method of evaluation was minimal. Student evaluations of the class were used. Students were asked to identify what helped them learn and 46% commented specifically on the BIRPs. They feel that while the students can “ apply class knowledge to real world personal observation” they believe further study is necessary so they can better understand what students did learn and what about the BIRPs was educational. Also, that while Gen Y make like the shorter version, the longer traditional Role Play might be better suited to some topics.

I liked the article and its ideas. I believe the BIRPs are a good teaching tool because of time constraints both in and out of the classroom. These could be employed periodically. They can be used as time permits throughout the semester. They also might be a helpful tool prompting students to participate in the class in meaningful ways.

CTCH 602 - Confessions of a Closet Teacher

Lynn Barnsback
CTCH 602 Spring 2009
Marketing Education Review – Volume 18 Number 2, Summer 2008
Confessions of a Closet Teacher
Doug Hoffman & Mike Palmquist

The title captured my attention. The article starts with a 12 step program style dialogue about teaching. It is cute and entertaining, a good beginning, but unfortunately not really for this article. The article segues from here into its proposed main question “… is there a relationship between increased research productivity and funding or would some business schools be better off funding quality education and student development to attract donors?”

The authors briefly discuss the race for rankings that some schools face, and that the research that produces grants is considred necessary. They argue that there are 500 plus schools not in the top 25 rankings and that the push to research might not be best there; “the shift towards emphasizing research is not cost free”. Some of these include library budgets, hardware/software, large class size, more research associates, increased use of adjuncts to allow faculty time to research. (This appears to be the link to the 12 step, Closet Teacher monologue.) They ask another question “Will there be a payoff that exceeds these costs”.

Next, there is a review of the reasons donor’s give, first showing a difference in endowments. Harvard has 11 billion over Yale, and 34 schools over the 1 billion mark. Some schools have as little as half a million. The point appears to be “the rich get richer” and that research may not drive that much with such great disparities. Reasons for endowments vary. One variable is the type of school it is; giving a large endowment to a small or public school can have a much greater impact on the institution and allow the public more access to the information and donations, grants especially, look at this. Donors also can get business schools named after them, or not (a group of alumni at University of Wisconsin Madison donated money so it would not be “branded” or named.) Reasons given by most were: attract better faculty, increase student scholarships, begin new programs, and “because it is an excellent education”.

The authors summarize that schools may not be giving donors what they want. “Taking the faculty out of the classroom and replacing them with adjuncts so the faculty can write” may not be what brings in the endowment money. That appears clear to me based on the information above however the authors “have a feeling that” the increased research that is required may not be providing the benefit the institutions suspect and may be costing schools much more instead. The arguments for their opinion should have been stronger here.

The article was very short, and although the closing argument was OK, they could have done a more in depth and through job of researching and reporting on this topic. It felt scattered, and could have been two or three different articles; What motivates Donors to Donate? What is the correlation between endowments and faculty research? And the article I really wanted to read, teaching for the love of it and avoiding or working the research trap. I would have to say, with the exception of some interesting tidbits about endowments, I learned very little.