MBA Courses
- York University (1999-2001)
- Schulich School of Business
-
OBIR 5100: Organizational Behaviour
-
- Long Island University (2001-2007)
- Brooklyn Campus
-
MBA 613: Organizational Behavior (16 times)
-
MGT 724: Organization Development (6 times)
-
MGT 705: Management Decision Theory (three times)
-
- Penn State University (2007-2010)
- Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies
-
BA 517: Communication Skills for Management (12 times)
-
MGMT 501: Behavioral Science in Business (10 times)
-
BUSAD 551: Business Stakeholder Relations (twice)
-
- Upper Iowa University (2011)
- Madison Center
-
BA 505: Organizational Behavior (twice)
-
BA 509: Theories of Leadership
-
BA 528: Research Process & Design
-
BA 555: Organizational Culture
Related Experience
Designed and circulated standardized syllabus templates for on-ground courses at all levels, including protected course descriptions and learning objectives for each course.
Prepared clear but accurate instructional document on the APA format that was adopted throughout the institution (about 5,000 students). Gave presentations to students on writing in APA style and format.
Developed (repeatable) schedule template for graduate classes.
Analyzed competitive offerings at the graduate level in the Madison, Wisconsin market.
Facilitated group work in five sections of York University's MGMT 5150 Management Skills course.
Supervised three Independent Study courses by graduating MBA students at York University.
Faculty advisor to the winners of the 2001 Strategy Field Study Award for Excellence (York).
Supervised six Independent Study courses by graduating students at Long Island University.
Teaching Statement
I see teaching and speaking about my research (professing) as my raison d'etre. My job is to explain concepts clearly and empower people to stop and think. No matter what the course content is, I am always teaching critical thinking and persuasive communication (wisdom) along with the stated course objectives.
I establish trust with humor and frank examples in order to shepherd students through an unfamiliar intellectual process. To accommodate diverse learning styles and levels of preparation, I use interactive lectures, creative slide presentations, lively classroom debates, video examples, written case studies, and occasional group activities. I work with live audiences in a classroom or large lecture hall.
My philosophy degree leads me to demand thoughtful and rigorous analysis. My case-study MBA leads me to demand consideration of multiple perspectives and feasible action plans. In classroom discussions and weekly written submissions, students must take an evidence-based position and defend it tactfully. I have also become a fan of APA format as a tool of cognitive discipline.
Because my subject material is reasonably intuitive, I can spend less time imparting knowledge than drawing out and organizing student ideas. Because my students are experienced adults, there is no need to cocoon them in an artificial learning environment. They face realistic and ambiguous challenges so they can make mistakes and take responsibility for them. I aim for critical thinking instead of compliance with academic or business fashion.
I support and encourage colleagues, both personally and at the front of the classroom, and work hard to find ways to (independently) support campus and departmental initiatives such as Writing Across the Curriculum and Assurance of Learning. I will not, however, co-operate with efforts to keep teachers on the same page or compromise academic integrity to meet Administrators' quotas and targets.
Student Evaluations
Penn State University
Student Ratings of Teaching Effectiveness (SRTEs), using a Likert scale
on which 7 means Excellent and 1 means Poor.
7 = Best Score
1 = Worst Score |
Spring
2010 |
| Overall quality of the instructor |
6.53 |
| Effectiveness of examples used |
6.59 |
| Instructor's willingness to help students |
6.53 |
| Students' freedom to ask questions |
6.82 |
| Instructor's responses to student questions |
6.65 |
| Instructor's knowledge of subject matter |
6.59 |
| Rate in terms of preparation for class |
6.53 |
| Skill in encouraging students to think |
6.71 |
| Effectiveness in improving critical thinking |
6.65
|
Long Island University
Student evaluations, using a Likert scale on which 5 means Excellent,
4 Above Average, 3 Average, 2 Below Average, and 1 Poor.
5 = Best Score
1 = Worst Score |
Average |
|
How do you rate his/her knowledge of the subject matter? |
4.8 |
|
Did the instructor encourage students to think? |
4.6 |
|
Did the instructor encourage students to participate? |
4.5 |
|
How do you rate his/her fairness in dealing with students? |
4.7 |
Was the presentation balanced in regard to differences
of opinion, controversy and alternative viewpoints? |
4.6 |
Was the instructor organized in terms of sequence of topics,
consistency and clarity of presentation, logic of course progress, etc.? |
4.7 |
|
Did the instructor appear adequately prepared for class? |
4.8 |
|