I attended the pedagogical café on the subject of game-based learning. This is something I have had some experience with in the past. I have been somewhat peripherally involved with the SAP simulation games that HEC Montréal has produced, and have used some simulations in my courses, most specifically the "beer game" supply chain simulator. I have also done versions of the consulting game, and Starpower in other classes.
I am a firm believer in game-based learning, and actually come by it from long, long ago. My father used Starpower and Simsoc in his sociology classes when I was a child, and I participated in them-- and learned a great deal more than I realized at the time. I really wish I could justify making my IS classes play Starpower; perhaps it would be sufficient to introduce it to someone teaching an OB or CSR class...
My main issue is that very few are geared specifically for information systems... The person who presented at the café did note that while CESIM did not currently have an IS themed simulation, they were planning on having one. I wait with bated breath for it to become available... :-)
05 April 2018
Additional Pedagogy
To supplement the official curriculum, I will be participating in a learning experience from 16-18 April. We will be visiting Aarhus and (hopefully) Aalborg universities in Denmark, to get a better understanding of how they use problem-based learning. I will post here about my experiences with that when they are complete.
Communicating Effectively
Generally, I think my ability to communicate is fairly good. Much of this is simply the benefit of being somewhat older, and of truly being an expert in the practice area in which I teach.
That said, I do have challenges, just as everyone does.
The first challenge I have is that I can spend too much time giving the students information from my career. In small doses, this is valuable, and that is the case in most classes. However, the first class of the semester has stretched longer and longer as I gave more detail on my background. As a result of the pedagogical session, I realized that I was really giving far too much detail. I was quite pleased to be able to give a greatly stripped down version for feedback at the communication session, and think I was able to hit a nice balance between giving some weight to my expertise, while not overwhelming with detail. I hope to be corrected if my perception of that is incorrect. :-)
My second challenge is classroom behavior. I tend to have an American sense for what is appropriate in the classroom, and for what responsibility the student has to create that environment. Specifically, the level of chatter that goes on in class would be completely unacceptable in the US, and that level would be enforced by the other students when chatter got to be too loud. I am still struggling with this, but I think I will do a combination of two things next semester to try to address this.
First, I will take some time during the first class session to have the class themselves come up with in-class behavior rules and consequences for failing to follow the rules. This has been recommended by many pedagogical experts. Many with whom I have talked comment that the consequences suggested by the students are usually more severe than those that the professor would have suggested. Also, since the students themselves choose these rules, they own them much better. And, finally, the professors find that the rules that the students settle on usually reflect those that the professor themselves would have chosen. :-) I will modify this *slightly* by myself suggesting three norms as dictated by either the school (1 and 2), or by my culture (3) that should be included: no use of cell phones, no use of computers, no conversations in class except *with* the class.
My final challenge is with student engagement and preparation. But that will come in the pedagogical session next week.
I have not found a TED talk, etc. for this; however, I did include information I have gotten from previous pedagogical experts about classroom norm setting. And I did find the idea that the students generally are more severe than the professor rather surprising. Nonetheless, I will find some further information to extend this, and reflect on it in my next entry.
That said, I do have challenges, just as everyone does.
The first challenge I have is that I can spend too much time giving the students information from my career. In small doses, this is valuable, and that is the case in most classes. However, the first class of the semester has stretched longer and longer as I gave more detail on my background. As a result of the pedagogical session, I realized that I was really giving far too much detail. I was quite pleased to be able to give a greatly stripped down version for feedback at the communication session, and think I was able to hit a nice balance between giving some weight to my expertise, while not overwhelming with detail. I hope to be corrected if my perception of that is incorrect. :-)
My second challenge is classroom behavior. I tend to have an American sense for what is appropriate in the classroom, and for what responsibility the student has to create that environment. Specifically, the level of chatter that goes on in class would be completely unacceptable in the US, and that level would be enforced by the other students when chatter got to be too loud. I am still struggling with this, but I think I will do a combination of two things next semester to try to address this.
First, I will take some time during the first class session to have the class themselves come up with in-class behavior rules and consequences for failing to follow the rules. This has been recommended by many pedagogical experts. Many with whom I have talked comment that the consequences suggested by the students are usually more severe than those that the professor would have suggested. Also, since the students themselves choose these rules, they own them much better. And, finally, the professors find that the rules that the students settle on usually reflect those that the professor themselves would have chosen. :-) I will modify this *slightly* by myself suggesting three norms as dictated by either the school (1 and 2), or by my culture (3) that should be included: no use of cell phones, no use of computers, no conversations in class except *with* the class.
My final challenge is with student engagement and preparation. But that will come in the pedagogical session next week.
I have not found a TED talk, etc. for this; however, I did include information I have gotten from previous pedagogical experts about classroom norm setting. And I did find the idea that the students generally are more severe than the professor rather surprising. Nonetheless, I will find some further information to extend this, and reflect on it in my next entry.
Class Observation
Jérémie Lefebvre kindly came to one of my Introduction to Information Systems classes to observe my teaching. We had a good discussion afterward. The main things that he noted were:
Please let me know if I have forgotten anything, Jérémie! Thank you so much for taking the time to do this!
- Greeted students as they came in
- This is something I have learned from the French, with which I agree. It's not nearly as common in the US, but it does make for a more pleasant setting, so I have tried to match the courtesy.
- Abrupt start of the class, with little time for students to settle
- This is true. This is mostly a cultural difference between myself and the French. As an American, I feel that the designated starting time for the class is absolute; at the moment that the clock ticks to that time, students should be at their desk, ready to begin class. The period between classes is when they should complete any socializing that they feel is necessary. That said, I will try to be a little more tolerant. :-)
- Did not introduce Jérémie at the start of class
- This is correct, I managed to forgot (which, in a way, is a good thing; it means I was able to forget that I was being observed, and behave naturally.) However, I did finally remember about halfway through to introduce him. (Sorry about that!)
- Students were using cellphones and computers in class to look at facebook, etc.
- This is something I have been trying more to enforce. In the past, I allowed students to do whatever they wanted with computers or phones. This year I have generally been asking them to put them away during class. I neglected to in this class. I am being more resolute about that in the future.
- A rather long video for the case
- This is true. I selected a rather long video since I was assuming that the students would not be prepared for class, and would need an introduction to the topic. Jérémie suggested that I provide the video before the class; however, I feel that this would suffer the same problem as the reading-- the students would not do it. I have tried to remedy this somewhat by finding shorter videos that still cover the basics of the topic, which seems to be working.
- Circulated listening and commented as students deliberated the case
- I don't always succeed at this; it is one area where my introversion really hurts. I find it hard to put myself out front that way, preferring to respond when asked. However, I know this is a better way to do it. I need to find a way to manage it more regularly that still allows me to conserve my energy.
- A rather long lecture section toward the end
- Again, this is true; it was about 20 minutes long. This was the section were I gave the students more information that they weren't going to get from the text, and some observations from my personal experience in the topic. Jérémie did comment that although this would generally be considered to be too long, he felt that it was nonetheless interesting and engaging; and that the students also seemed to be getting more interested as it went on. As such, it probably doesn't need much addressing, although I do try to generally keep this section somewhat shorter. The topic was a bit too complex to do that with in this case. :-)
- Rather remarkable management of time, with no visible method of timekeeping
- I wish I could take credit for this, but I think it is more that my checking of time was subtle enough to escape Jérémie's notice. I do try to keep my clock-watching non-obvious. :-) That said, I do have a good idea of how long each part of the class should take, and can generally keep it on track. Usually my classes are finished sometime between 5 minutes before to 2 minutes after scheduled time. It also helps that my sense of time duration seems to be pretty good. :-)
- A lack of a summary at the end
- This was an excellent point, and one I immediately addressed (I had three more class sessions after the one Jérémie saw). For the last 2-3 minutes, I have the students volunteer what they have learned, and have only a couple of times needed to note a point or two they missed. This was an excellent suggestion!
Please let me know if I have forgotten anything, Jérémie! Thank you so much for taking the time to do this!
Designing Instruction
I currently teach three courses: Introduction to Information Systems (BA2), Business Modeling (in the MBAC), and Business Analysis (Master's elective). The main issues that I have with course design are common to all three, so I will be revising them all; when needed to be specific, I will use the IIS course as my reference.
As I see it, I have two major concerns with my current course design. The first is lack of engagement by the students, resulting in too much simple lecture on my part. The second is in assessment. The latter will be addressed in future entries, so I will focus on the first.
In the past, I have attempted to use a "Socratic dialogue" type of approach to class. I would provide some information, and then ask questions of the students to try to push their understanding forward. However, the students were rarely prepared, and/or rarely willing to answer, so I more often then not ended up answering my own questions. Which provides little value for the students.
From the student evaluations, I find that while often the students find my lecturing interesting, they do feel that sometimes it veers off-topic, and that I may end up providing too much information of my past experience and too little of the current topic at hand.
As a result of the two problem-based learning seminars I have attended (last year and the one this year in the pedagogical certificate training), I decided to adopt that for all of my classes in the future. The plan is to introduce a small case by video, and then to have students discuss ways that the case can be understood, extended, or analyzed.
I started doing this early in the semester. The initial results were mixed. There were some good points, but often, again, the students were unwilling to speak up. I also got direct feedback from one student who felt that the videos were too long, and that he learned more from me talking than from the video or discussion afterwards. :-)
After talking with Jeannette Hommes, and as a result of the feedback from the student, I adopted two changes. First, I had the students work in small groups to address questions concerning the case; Jeannette suggested this could make them more likely to participate and share. Second, I opted to use shorter videos with more open-ended questions, to be followed (after the results from the student groups) by my own observations on the topic. Both of these tactics have been extremely successful. The small groups do, in fact, discuss the topic more; and my complaining student is very happy with the balance.
Following a suggestion by Jérémie after his observation of my class (discussed in the next entry), I also conclude the session by asking the students to provide a brief summary of what they have learned in the session. These results have been excellent, indicating that the previous changes have been effective.
My plan going forward will be to adapt this type of teaching to my business modeling / business analysis classes, and to better stabilize the cases used for the IIS class.
As I see it, I have two major concerns with my current course design. The first is lack of engagement by the students, resulting in too much simple lecture on my part. The second is in assessment. The latter will be addressed in future entries, so I will focus on the first.
In the past, I have attempted to use a "Socratic dialogue" type of approach to class. I would provide some information, and then ask questions of the students to try to push their understanding forward. However, the students were rarely prepared, and/or rarely willing to answer, so I more often then not ended up answering my own questions. Which provides little value for the students.
From the student evaluations, I find that while often the students find my lecturing interesting, they do feel that sometimes it veers off-topic, and that I may end up providing too much information of my past experience and too little of the current topic at hand.
As a result of the two problem-based learning seminars I have attended (last year and the one this year in the pedagogical certificate training), I decided to adopt that for all of my classes in the future. The plan is to introduce a small case by video, and then to have students discuss ways that the case can be understood, extended, or analyzed.
I started doing this early in the semester. The initial results were mixed. There were some good points, but often, again, the students were unwilling to speak up. I also got direct feedback from one student who felt that the videos were too long, and that he learned more from me talking than from the video or discussion afterwards. :-)
After talking with Jeannette Hommes, and as a result of the feedback from the student, I adopted two changes. First, I had the students work in small groups to address questions concerning the case; Jeannette suggested this could make them more likely to participate and share. Second, I opted to use shorter videos with more open-ended questions, to be followed (after the results from the student groups) by my own observations on the topic. Both of these tactics have been extremely successful. The small groups do, in fact, discuss the topic more; and my complaining student is very happy with the balance.
Following a suggestion by Jérémie after his observation of my class (discussed in the next entry), I also conclude the session by asking the students to provide a brief summary of what they have learned in the session. These results have been excellent, indicating that the previous changes have been effective.
My plan going forward will be to adapt this type of teaching to my business modeling / business analysis classes, and to better stabilize the cases used for the IIS class.
01 March 2018
Development Plan
If I knew, I wouldn't be doing this.... :-)
Okay, okay. Learning more about how to set up problem-based learning in an Intro to IS context would be valuable. To some extent, I don't really see how to do it; again, so much of the course is simply learning vocabulary. Sitting down and talking for a while with an expert in the domain would help.
For instance, I did get a chance to chat about the problem with our instructor for the "designing instruction" day, and she had an excellent suggestion that I had not considered. Rather than presenting a case and then asking the class at large for answers, I put them into groups, and had the group come up with answers; and then I asked each of the groups for their answers. This overcomes a lot of the students' reluctance to appear wrong in front of their peers, and has helped a good deal. Again, something I would never have thought of; I'm a loner tech geek who was never afraid to answer publicly. I was the student that always had their hand up. So it's hard for me to figure out what would work for the others.
So, to a large extent, my plan is exactly what I'm doing: follow the pedagogical certificate, take advantage of any training sessions I can, and seek out comment from others whenever I can.
Okay, okay. Learning more about how to set up problem-based learning in an Intro to IS context would be valuable. To some extent, I don't really see how to do it; again, so much of the course is simply learning vocabulary. Sitting down and talking for a while with an expert in the domain would help.
For instance, I did get a chance to chat about the problem with our instructor for the "designing instruction" day, and she had an excellent suggestion that I had not considered. Rather than presenting a case and then asking the class at large for answers, I put them into groups, and had the group come up with answers; and then I asked each of the groups for their answers. This overcomes a lot of the students' reluctance to appear wrong in front of their peers, and has helped a good deal. Again, something I would never have thought of; I'm a loner tech geek who was never afraid to answer publicly. I was the student that always had their hand up. So it's hard for me to figure out what would work for the others.
So, to a large extent, my plan is exactly what I'm doing: follow the pedagogical certificate, take advantage of any training sessions I can, and seek out comment from others whenever I can.
ATI Results
I filled this out with reference to the Introduction to Information Systems class. In many ways, this class is largely about vocabulary-- what do the terms used in talking about information systems mean? However, my guru-nature leads me to want to give them more than that in class. I think that building up a knowledge of how one uses the systems will help them to better remember what the terms themselves mean.
My scores were:
Information Transfer: 21
Conceptual Change: 59
Of the approaches listed, I feel that what I am trying to do, with or without success, is approach D: a student-focused strategy aimed at students developing their conceptions. I think approach E is probably not viable, as I don't think that many of them have much experience with IS in an organizational context. Yes, they all use smartphones and computers; but they don't really know anything beyond that. The kind of multi-user task focused system used in business is not the same, even to multi-user task focused systems like World of Warcraft. :-)
Does this surprise me? Only to the extent of how large the score difference is. Given the actualities of the students and the course, I thought they would be closer to one another.
Is this the best approach? I think so; but I am fully prepared to hear argument about that. :-)
Changing my approach: I would really prefer for class time to be much more interactive than it is. While I can get them answering questions about cases, I rarely seem able to get them to argue about it among themselves. I would like to have a lot more of that.
Teaching fit: again, I think it's pretty good, or would be if the students cooperated more. :-)
My scores were:
Information Transfer: 21
Conceptual Change: 59
Of the approaches listed, I feel that what I am trying to do, with or without success, is approach D: a student-focused strategy aimed at students developing their conceptions. I think approach E is probably not viable, as I don't think that many of them have much experience with IS in an organizational context. Yes, they all use smartphones and computers; but they don't really know anything beyond that. The kind of multi-user task focused system used in business is not the same, even to multi-user task focused systems like World of Warcraft. :-)
Does this surprise me? Only to the extent of how large the score difference is. Given the actualities of the students and the course, I thought they would be closer to one another.
Is this the best approach? I think so; but I am fully prepared to hear argument about that. :-)
Changing my approach: I would really prefer for class time to be much more interactive than it is. While I can get them answering questions about cases, I rarely seem able to get them to argue about it among themselves. I would like to have a lot more of that.
Teaching fit: again, I think it's pretty good, or would be if the students cooperated more. :-)
Teaching Philosophy
In the tech world, we have people we called gurus, and people we called wizards. These are the people who can make a computer do anything, and are the go-to people when you had a hard task that you didn't know how to approach. Both types are equally talented technically, but they have a different method of interacting with people who come to them for advice.
Wizards feel that their knowledge is their valuable asset. They carefully hoard the fundamental information. When you ask them how to do something, they will tell you exactly how to do it, and nothing else.
Gurus feel that their ability to apply knowledge is their valuable asset. When you ask one of them for help, they will give you information about why the answer they provide is the right one.
Both give you the information you need to solve the problem. But the wizard counts on you coming back with fundamentally the same question time after time. The guru is bored by that, and doesn't want to hear the same questions, so they share as much information as possible. Wizards view their knowledge as zero-sum, gurus as synergetic.
I was one of the gurus. I see my role in teaching as similar. Yes, I have knowledge that the students don't. But what is interesting is to apply the knowledge. I want them to have done what they could to have declarative knowledge before they come to class, and then I work with them to see how they can apply that knowledge, also imparting some extra declarative knowledge in the process.
So I don't see myself as so much a guide or mentor, as a well-seasoned fellow traveler.
What I have done in the past is too much lecturing, sharing the additional information that the students can get from me beyond what is in their textbooks. But this is unsatisfying to me as a guru-- I want to have a conversation with them, not present them with the holy knowledge like a wizard.
So I am trying to do more work using case studies, but would like to start doing more things with problem-based learning; I think it is a very promising approach.
Wizards feel that their knowledge is their valuable asset. They carefully hoard the fundamental information. When you ask them how to do something, they will tell you exactly how to do it, and nothing else.
Gurus feel that their ability to apply knowledge is their valuable asset. When you ask one of them for help, they will give you information about why the answer they provide is the right one.
Both give you the information you need to solve the problem. But the wizard counts on you coming back with fundamentally the same question time after time. The guru is bored by that, and doesn't want to hear the same questions, so they share as much information as possible. Wizards view their knowledge as zero-sum, gurus as synergetic.
I was one of the gurus. I see my role in teaching as similar. Yes, I have knowledge that the students don't. But what is interesting is to apply the knowledge. I want them to have done what they could to have declarative knowledge before they come to class, and then I work with them to see how they can apply that knowledge, also imparting some extra declarative knowledge in the process.
So I don't see myself as so much a guide or mentor, as a well-seasoned fellow traveler.
What I have done in the past is too much lecturing, sharing the additional information that the students can get from me beyond what is in their textbooks. But this is unsatisfying to me as a guru-- I want to have a conversation with them, not present them with the holy knowledge like a wizard.
So I am trying to do more work using case studies, but would like to start doing more things with problem-based learning; I think it is a very promising approach.
28 January 2018
Introduction
I am a professor at IÉSEG School of Management, one of the Grand Ecoles de commerce in France.
How did I get here?
As a child, I was always academically inclined, and very successful. I started primary school a year early, and skipped a grade, so I started at university when I was 16, graduating in the top 15 of a class of over 1000 from my high school.
I went to Rice University as a National Merit Scholar. While I was accepted as a prospective chemical engineering major, I had shifted to electrical engineering before I arrived at Rice. In the end, I graduated in 1983, four years after I started, earning a BA with three majors: computer science, mathematical science, and French.
I then went to work. My work history, like most technical people in the US, was wide and varied. I worked at, and on:
* Link Flight Simulation: systems programmer on the F16 flight trainer for the USAF
* MIT Lincoln Laboratory: applications programming for terminal doppler weeather radar, systems programming for transportable optical space surveillance station
* Digital Equipment Corporation: systems programmer and systems administrator for manufacturing line systems at a manufacturing plant
* Aquila Technologies Group: systems, network, and security administration, along with some application and systems programming
* Sandia National Laboratories: systems, network, and security administration for internal systems
* SuperGroups.Com: systems, network, and security adminstration for internal systems and external website, moving up to Chief Technology Officer
* Adelphia Business Solution: systems, network, and security adminstration for internal systems
* Philadelphia Stock Exchange: systems, network, and security administration for the trading floor
I also worked as a consultant for several years, both before this history and after, mostly working in systems, network, and security administration, but also doing some application programming.
I have worked in both the business and the research and development worlds. I have probably written around 2 million lines of program code; mostly in C, but I have used about 25 other computer languages as well. Primarily my work was on computers running some variant of BSD UNIX, although I also worked on System V UNIX systems, VMS, and many other less-well known systems.
After over 20 years of professional experience, I returned to school.
I attended the University of New Mexico from 2003 until 2007, where I earned an MS in computer science and an MBA with specialities both in MIS and and in policy and planning.
I attended the University of Arkansas from 2007 until 2012 as a Distinguished Doctoral Fellow. I earned my PhD in business administration, speciality information systems, in 2012. As part of our doctoral training, we were the teacher of record for one class every semester, except for the very first. At UA, I taught introduction to information systems and data analysis. I also covered one-half of a systems analysis and development course due to the unexpected departure of one of the regular faculty members.
I started work at IÉSEG School Management in 2012 as a permanent faculty member in the management dapartment, in the information systems track. At IÉSEG, I have taught both the 2nd year introduction to information systems class, and the 3rd year MIS class. I have also taught a business analysis elective, a business modeling course for the MBAC, and information systems courses for both the CMBA and EMBA programs.
To date, my research has involved how colors affect the reaction of users to websites, how technical workers use time differently from managers, and how to apply agent-based modeling techniques to management theories.
My goal as a teacher, and a researcher, is to try to make the life of technical people a little better. Having been born, raised, and worked in the US until I was 50, I feel that the US corporate world is a horrible place for the likes of me. I am trying to educate managers to work better with technical people, and to create new empirical knowledge supporting the ideas I teach.
I should probably also mention that I am not in Europe, or France, by accident. For many personal reasons I decided to permanently leave the US. I chose to be in France, and I am still extremely happy with that choice. However, this does lead to some special challenges; 50 years of acculturation in the US system is hard to shed. I chose to move to Europe because I felt that overall, Europe has a much better society than the US. That does not mean that there are not a few things I bring from the US that have value. The challenge is adapting those things to a European system which is dramatically different from all of my past experience.
While doing all this, I also found the time to be a semiprofessional violist. Mostly I have played in symphony orchestras of various sorts, while on occassion I also played in the pit for musicals, was part of a string quartet in the Rice MOB (Moving Owl Band), played chamber music and solos, and even played in cineconcerts for a while (playing live music for silent movies). I read a lot. I listen to a lot of music of pretty much all genres, but with a decided special interest in classical music (especially the Baroque period) and art rock. I love cats. I tolerate dogs. I dislike children (at least American children). Amazingly, I am married. In fact, twice, to the same woman. We have a total of 20 years together as I write this in 2018.
This blog will begin as my reflections and work as I progress through the pedagogical certificate training program at IÉSEG. I expect it will continue after that point, as well. Whether it will ever be read by anyone else, I have no idea. :-)
How did I get here?
As a child, I was always academically inclined, and very successful. I started primary school a year early, and skipped a grade, so I started at university when I was 16, graduating in the top 15 of a class of over 1000 from my high school.
I went to Rice University as a National Merit Scholar. While I was accepted as a prospective chemical engineering major, I had shifted to electrical engineering before I arrived at Rice. In the end, I graduated in 1983, four years after I started, earning a BA with three majors: computer science, mathematical science, and French.
I then went to work. My work history, like most technical people in the US, was wide and varied. I worked at, and on:
* Link Flight Simulation: systems programmer on the F16 flight trainer for the USAF
* MIT Lincoln Laboratory: applications programming for terminal doppler weeather radar, systems programming for transportable optical space surveillance station
* Digital Equipment Corporation: systems programmer and systems administrator for manufacturing line systems at a manufacturing plant
* Aquila Technologies Group: systems, network, and security administration, along with some application and systems programming
* Sandia National Laboratories: systems, network, and security administration for internal systems
* SuperGroups.Com: systems, network, and security adminstration for internal systems and external website, moving up to Chief Technology Officer
* Adelphia Business Solution: systems, network, and security adminstration for internal systems
* Philadelphia Stock Exchange: systems, network, and security administration for the trading floor
I also worked as a consultant for several years, both before this history and after, mostly working in systems, network, and security administration, but also doing some application programming.
I have worked in both the business and the research and development worlds. I have probably written around 2 million lines of program code; mostly in C, but I have used about 25 other computer languages as well. Primarily my work was on computers running some variant of BSD UNIX, although I also worked on System V UNIX systems, VMS, and many other less-well known systems.
After over 20 years of professional experience, I returned to school.
I attended the University of New Mexico from 2003 until 2007, where I earned an MS in computer science and an MBA with specialities both in MIS and and in policy and planning.
I attended the University of Arkansas from 2007 until 2012 as a Distinguished Doctoral Fellow. I earned my PhD in business administration, speciality information systems, in 2012. As part of our doctoral training, we were the teacher of record for one class every semester, except for the very first. At UA, I taught introduction to information systems and data analysis. I also covered one-half of a systems analysis and development course due to the unexpected departure of one of the regular faculty members.
I started work at IÉSEG School Management in 2012 as a permanent faculty member in the management dapartment, in the information systems track. At IÉSEG, I have taught both the 2nd year introduction to information systems class, and the 3rd year MIS class. I have also taught a business analysis elective, a business modeling course for the MBAC, and information systems courses for both the CMBA and EMBA programs.
To date, my research has involved how colors affect the reaction of users to websites, how technical workers use time differently from managers, and how to apply agent-based modeling techniques to management theories.
My goal as a teacher, and a researcher, is to try to make the life of technical people a little better. Having been born, raised, and worked in the US until I was 50, I feel that the US corporate world is a horrible place for the likes of me. I am trying to educate managers to work better with technical people, and to create new empirical knowledge supporting the ideas I teach.
I should probably also mention that I am not in Europe, or France, by accident. For many personal reasons I decided to permanently leave the US. I chose to be in France, and I am still extremely happy with that choice. However, this does lead to some special challenges; 50 years of acculturation in the US system is hard to shed. I chose to move to Europe because I felt that overall, Europe has a much better society than the US. That does not mean that there are not a few things I bring from the US that have value. The challenge is adapting those things to a European system which is dramatically different from all of my past experience.
While doing all this, I also found the time to be a semiprofessional violist. Mostly I have played in symphony orchestras of various sorts, while on occassion I also played in the pit for musicals, was part of a string quartet in the Rice MOB (Moving Owl Band), played chamber music and solos, and even played in cineconcerts for a while (playing live music for silent movies). I read a lot. I listen to a lot of music of pretty much all genres, but with a decided special interest in classical music (especially the Baroque period) and art rock. I love cats. I tolerate dogs. I dislike children (at least American children). Amazingly, I am married. In fact, twice, to the same woman. We have a total of 20 years together as I write this in 2018.
This blog will begin as my reflections and work as I progress through the pedagogical certificate training program at IÉSEG. I expect it will continue after that point, as well. Whether it will ever be read by anyone else, I have no idea. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)