series of meetings, over some specified time period, takes place between instructor and student in order to engage student learning during a course. Fourthly, it is assumed that not all knowledge transfer can take place in class meetings and students must therefore invest additional time in study. Fifthly, it is assumed that student work is assessed and graded in order to verify the extent of student learning. These broad assumptions provide the underpinning for the teaching and learning processes analysed in this paper. The paper makes two main contributions: firstly, it identifies and separates out several key teaching and learning processes and examines in detail the transformation that takes place during the process. The paper then identifies the various roles that students and instructors take on during each process; the identification of these roles and their implications for teaching and learning provides the second contribution of the paper. The paper is laid out as follows. Section one briefly reviews the literature on learning paradigms and metaphors for students. In section two the analysis approach is presented and the process analysis techniques are introduced. Section three examines in detail six key university teaching and learning transformation processes. Section four presents a discussion of the implications of the process analysis for faculty and students. 1. STUDENT METAPHORS AND LEARNING PARADIGMS This paper was prompted by a debate on the topic of ‘student as customer’ that took place a number of years ago in the university in which the author works. Unsurprisingly the debate became heated with strong arguments being made for and against. A similar debate is taking place in the academic literature with many authors recommending that academics view their students as customers and be responsive to their needs (Wallace, 1999; Bridges, 1999; McCollough & Gremler, 1999; Obermiller & Atwood, 2011). While the student-as-customer
the student takes these materials and through self or supported study consolidates his or her learning. The assessment process assigns work to students that they must complete and submit for grading; work may take place in a formal terminal examination setting or continuously during the course in the form of reports, essays, or other formats. The grading process then determines the extent to which the student has engaged with and assimilated the materials; typically the output of the grading process is a grade for each piece of work. These are the bread-and-butter processes of teaching and learning: the processes on which academics spend most of their teaching and learning time. It is clear that they are closely interlinked in a value chain (Sasse et al., 2008) with in many cases the output of one process becoming the input of another. However, although interlinked, the processes tend to be carried out in a very separate fashion within universities. The processes are summarized in table 1 and examined in detail in the following sections. -------------- insert table 1 around here -------------- 3.1 Program development The program development process transforms a societal requirement for the transmission of specific knowledge into a defined program of study to be made available to students. It normally comprises a number of specific courses or themes each of which has its own content, topics, teaching methodology and assessment approach. Program development is a long and complex process and continues throughout the life of a program (Buckley & Monks, 2008). The output is comprised of specifications for the entire program and detailed descriptors for each course within the program; second order outputs are course brochures, websites, advertisements, posters etc. The outputs are directed in the first instance at various committees and panels, for example accreditation and validation panels at school and university level that must assess and approve the new program. Outputs of a newly accredited program are directed at potential students who may wish to undertake the program and at
Mintzberg, H. & Gosling,J. 2011. Educating managers beyond borders. Academy of Management Learning and Education 1:64-76. Nelson, R. & Winter S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press. Obermiller, C. & Atwood, A. 2011. In defence of the student as customer metaphor. International Journal of Management Education, 9(3):13-16. Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C.T. 2002. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1:78-95. Porter, M. 1985. Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press. Porter, T. & Córdoba, J. 2009. Three views of systems theories and their implications for sustainability education, Journal of Management Education, 33: 323-347. Pyzdek, T. 2003. The six sigma handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sasse, C., Schwering, R., & Dochterman, S. 2008. Rethinking faculty role in a knowledge age, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(2):35-48. Schmidt-Wilk, J. 2011. Course design as a strategic process. Journal of Management Education, 35:319–323.