Acknowledging the student as the customer: inviting student input into course weights.

Leavell, Hadley

ABSTRACT

Businesses recognize the necessity of listening to the customer. Small businesses do not have the resources to provide the on-the-job re-education needed to advance this employee understanding. Although higher education providers allow student evaluation of faculty, they have not made the transition to acknowledging the student as the customer in course weighting. In recognition of the student as customer, and who is also frequently a small business employee, two classes of Sam Houston State University graduate students were requested to evaluate theoretical course weights with respect to course grades and career needs. The analyses of these results leads to the conclusion that courses need to be restructured to more adequately address small business owners' and employees' needs.

INTRODUCTION

From the small business perspective, educators should be producing employees who are better equipped with the skills and knowledge to compete in the demanding, diverse business world they are entering. Educators complain that small businesses are criticizing the process but are not providing the insight and assistance needed by educators to produce the training needed by the employer and employee. Both camps agree that students are entering the workforce without the skill sets needed to compete in the increasingly global economy. Inadequate preparation often translates into lower job satisfaction for the employee and reduced earnings for the businesses.

Larger businesses are creating their own in-house universities or creating joint educational programs with universities to overcome this dilemma. Small businesses do not have the financial or human resources for this aggressively proactive solution.

One component that may have so far been ignored as a part of the solution by both universities and employers is the student. Requesting and evaluating student input may alter the equation for a remedy. A number of students are also business owners. This population can provide a unique insight into the education and training issues as they are personally involved from both sides.

An important question discussed in the halls of academia is Who is the customer? Is it the state, the student or the present/future employer? Students being asked to assess faculty through evaluations are prima facia evidence of students being customers from a marketing definition of customers. Students ARE customers; they have the power to affect teaching styles and content which is the essence of customer power. Expanding the initial question, should the customer have input into the end product? If the customer is the student, then it seems logical the customer should be consulted as to the content and content weight for the course.

Another approach to the student participation in course content was put forward by Emery and Tian (2001). Their concept was to visualize the student as being involved in participatory management of course content. The idea was that this would help prepare the student for the work environment via real world activities of participatory management.

As to a specific course content weight study for academic grade versus career requirements, the literature is rather silent. Under the student as customer concept (or participatory management concept), two graduate classes were requested to evaluate class content weight with a view of the importance to the student for grade determination and career/job enhancement. This paper will review the students' perspective on how course content needs to be weighted to best fit a course grade and the current and future needs of the student for employment.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The requirement for university involvement in small business education has been discussed in the literature for decades. Pearson, et al (1987) and Zeitmal and Rice (1987) found a lack of resources directed toward small business education and research to support expanded small business course requirements. They claimed that although universities understood the need for these courses, there was not much change in the emphasis on traditional large corporate education. Clark, Davis and Harnish (1984) studied the effect of entrepreneurship courses on the creation of small businesses. Their conclusion was that such training did create more jobs and should continue to be funded. Research by Mescon (1984) indicated a training program in South Florida resulted in business growth in revenue for the attendees as well as the hiring of more employees.

Today, small business education is slowly increasing its presence in higher level educational programs. Luchsinger and Luchsinger (2001) provided a survey of small business programs designed to assist students in establishing or operating small businesses. Many programs provide insight into several aspects of business in general, as well as, delve into the important aspects that affect small business. This helps provide a solid background for people that are going into the field of small business. They also stressed the importance of small business groups becoming involved in the development of these programs and internship programs that benefit both business owner and student, i.e., the business owner as the customer. However, Plaschka and Welsch (1990) feel that addressing the needs of small business was still not a major focus for most universities. They believed that part of the problem lay with the perception of academia that small businesses were ma and pa businesses.

Beresford (1997) believes universities need to go a step further than the traditional education for graduates and undergraduates and develop an executive small business program. He believes small business owners are usually very proficient or skilled in one area of their business but lack skills in the other areas of small business. Bailey (2003) echoes this conviction in a different manner; small business managers cannot be made but only developed. Most small business managers lack the business training and/or education to successfully operate a business. Universities should assume this training role and fill in this education gap.

The student as customer has been discussed in the literature. Kamvounais (1999) reviewed the literature on students as customers. Her research indicated there was difficulty in utilizing customer in describing the relationship between students and universities. Snipes, et el, (1997) wrote that it seemed logical to consider students as customers since they receive educational services from universities. Emery and Titan (2001) studied whether students wished to take a more active role in weighting course assessments. Their results indicated that students did wish to participate in the course assessment design. The premise of Emery and Tian was the student was involved in participatory style of management. As such, there may be a fine line between the student as customer and student as participating in a management situation.

EDUCATION

The need for education as related to jobs for the student is well documented. A problem for American based manufacturers is the difficulty in finding employees with an adequate level of education for the required jobs (Klingberg, 2004). Thus, the United States competitive disadvantage is not a result of automation nor job exportation, but employees who are illiterate in science and math. It is probable that business students are also illiterate in math as applied to business applications. Klingberg's argument would seem to be a counter argument to allowing the student to be the customer. As related to jobs within the business area, small and medium sized firms (SMEs) offer a promising future by allowing the employees to advance with the company's growth (Ahmadi and Helms, 1997). However, SMEs do not usually offer the benefits of their larger competitors and there is an assumption that highly educated young people are more likely to be recruited by a large company (Dupray, 2001). Typically, after being employed by a large firm, these employees earn a higher salary than the employees from small firms.

Formal business education courses would enhance the capability of small business especially because of the increasing trend of graduates entering into small businesses rather than the large established firms. Specifically, incorporating small business marketing case studies into the formal education of business can be mutually beneficial to both students and small businesses by enabling the business to compete more effectively (Freeman, 2000). This approach would apply across all business disciplines. Several studies have reviewed the evolution of educational programs that cater to small businesses. There are many new courses that have been introduced at the college level in entrepreneurship, small business ventures and the creation of a new firm (Luchsinger and Luchsinger, 2001). These authors believed that small business education is one of the few educational business areas where all the disciplines of business carry the same weight. Small business education has evolved into a more sophisticated program from the previous focus on solely traditional business activities. This is caused by the increase in education and risk taking in the small business arena. An experimental approach to small business education paired with educational materials (such as booklets and pamphlets) should increase the effectiveness of small business education. It can be concluded that formats of small business education will become more detailed, complicated and intricate. With the new small business educational classes that focus on the disciplines, small business owners will become more capable to deal with occupational health and safety, new regulatory laws and general areas to increase profitability. The recent direction of small business education should spread to credit and non-credit courses at colleges, small business institutes, and internship programs.

Three studies compared the small business education trend in Europe. Meldrum and de Berranger (1999) addressed the rise of small business in the United Kingdom and their belief that there was insufficient higher education for small and medium sized enterprises. Higher education institutions have expanded the curriculum, but are reluctant to take a stronger initiative on the matter. Because of the significance of small and medium size enterprises in the UK, the government has stepped in to provide incentives. This government effort to develop the program of study was greeted with skepticism by the educators. The authors concluded it can be difficult to reform small business education in higher education institutes like universities and colleges. Dana (1992) reviewed programs both in the United States and Europe comparing the differences. Primarily, the strongest European programs are very practical in their pursuit of entrepreneurial education, and it has spread more rapidly to rural areas than it has in the United States. However, in the United States, there are more doctoral programs and more various course offerings focused on entrepreneurial education. The number of educational programs that focus on entrepreneurship in Europe are increasing in number, but not as quickly as it has in the United States.

Entrepreneurial education in Europe is focused on small to medium size businesses, and developing leaders that know how to function in a small business environment from everything from window displays negotiating orders; but the education lacks corporate and venture capital focus. Dana concluded that perhaps the time had come for European schools to also offer higher education in entrepreneurship. Finally, Penn, Ang'wa, Forster, Heydon, and Richardson (1998) discussed the process of learning in small business organizations and the process by which employees learn by looked at five key characteristics of small organizations in England: adaptability, planning, information and knowledge, human resources, development, and growth. They concluded that the educational needs of small business must be specifically geared to small business organizations and include factors that are necessary to the success of these organizations and that small business owners believe that some characteristics of employees are important and these characteristics should be incorporated into small business education.

The literature has discussed the problems of getting academia to accept small business courses and programs into the basic curriculum of universities. The rate of small business education attendance was found to be low after a significant rise in its availability of small business education programs at universities and colleges (Sargeant, 1996). The study concluded that educators do not fully perceive the small business market and project a negative image of small businesses. This could be remedied by small business training and interaction between the education institutions and small business affiliates. Although there has been an increase in literature addressing entrepreneurship in the last few years it is still not a major focus of most universities Plaschka and Welsch (1990). Universities are evolving courses on a trial and error or as needed basis. Some of problems are academic attitudes that the entrepreneur is a small, ma and pa business that is poorly run, and that academia would not receive adequate funding for true research or that academia would be looked down upon for studies of small business (Laukkanen, 2000). Another problem may be the definition differences between entrepreneurship and small business that many individuals and academics use interchangeably (Sexton and Bowman, 2001). Some academics do not consider small business to be true entrepreneurship curriculum and define that as quasi-entrepreneurs. The literature also expresses the concept that an entrepreneur cannot be created and entrepreneurship can be taught, but it is not necessarily learned (Hendricks and Newton, 2003). Training will help those inclined to entrepreneurship be better managers and business people but will not create these types of individuals. The basic problems with creating entrepreneurial courses as opposed to small business courses are: inconsistent definitions, a lack of clarity or consistency in course content, the use of disinterested and/or untrained faculty, and the absence of an adequate vehicle or forum for research related to curriculum development and course content. Additionally, entrepreneurial students tend to be less anxious and more non-conformists than traditional business students.

The state of entrepreneurial education has been discussed in the literature. The perception of people that start their own businesses is changing as well as the perception that business owners are as less educated than the general public as recent research has shown that small business entrepreneurs are more educated than the general public. The impact of entrepreneurial education separate from general education and whether or not that participation in that program influences one's desire to open a business of their own someday was studied (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003). Participants in the study had a greater desire to open their own business, but this desire was directly related to their experiences before and during the program. There has been a rise in entrepreneurial education over the last ten years (Finkle and Deeds, 2001). Students and alumni have been supportive of these classes and in many cases have been responsible for its growth and success which is perhaps one simple reason to have student input into class weights for grading. Again, academia may be the biggest opponent to increasing entrepreneur education because many professors are skeptical about the validity of entrepreneurship as an academic field. There does not seem to be much movement to add entrepreneurship to the curriculum of the AACSB, and it remains primarily an elective at most schools. A different education approach, with perhaps student input, is necessary in order to effectively teach entrepreneurship, and it is very unlikely that the new methodology will be developed by business schools (Gibb, 2002). An entrepreneurial education system is most often found in Europe as a result of increased pressure due to globalization. There needs to be a shift from the way entrepreneurship is currently being taught to one where it is integrated into all areas of teaching.

Whether or not academia is educating small business managers or entrepreneurs, small business and entrepreneurs need executive education (Beresford, 1997). Most entrepreneurs are skilled in one area of business, but are lacking in many of the others. Executive education provides the entrepreneurs the complete business picture and helps the entrepreneur decide what is important for them as the owner of a small business.

TRAINING AND EDUCATION

Throughout the literature there appears to be an interchangeability between education and training. Is there an area of debate here? Is the business curriculum a training program or is it an education program? Some academics outside the business area may consider business to be a training curriculum as opposed to an education curriculum, for example, the social sciences. This section reviews literature more focused on training, although the literature might have meant to be related to education.

The literature has examined whether entrepreneurship training was actually effective in creating small business (Clark, Davis and Harnish, 1984). Prior studies and research examined the business owner and how the training affected his business. This study examined a business entrepreneurship program and whether students already owned a small business or if the students planned on starting a business. Of those thinking of opening a new business, 10-14.5 percent eventually opened a new business because of the training. Again, the question can be posed as to whether this was training or education. Other literature studied training programs developed for aspiring small business owners and the training effectiveness (Henry, Hill and Leitch, 2004). Most small business owners started businesses from ideas and training from counterparts or other small business owners. Henry, et al, concluded that training needs to be developed and studied for aspiring business owners so that the failure rate will decrease and in turn small business turnover will decrease. If the presumption that entrepreneurs cannot be made but only developed, then entrepreneurship training at universities should be more than just providing education (Bailey, 2003). University entrepreneurship programs may also help someone that thinks he is an entrepreneur realize that he does not have the elements needed to be a successful entrepreneur. Formal education and training for small business owners can be one predictor for business success (Muske and Stanford, 2000). As to some of the issues related to entrepreneurship education and training, there is a lack of thorough programs available (Garavan and O'Cinneide, 1994). Of the courses found available, many were only short courses, or one or two classes in an educational career instead of a dedicated, focused program. Additionally, for effective instruction, the instructor must be well-versed in multiple areas and be able to do more than just lecture, but facilitate learning through simulations and exercises.

The literature considers that small and small family-owned businesses need human resource development and training and that a training system for most small businesses is lacking (Matlay, 2002). Non-family small business and family-owned businesses differ; the family business is unique because the owners and the successors are generally related and succession issues are a very important concern for the managers of the organization. Training is more likely to be embraced because the business will eventually be passed on to the trainee (relative) and management is more likely to be actively involved in the education of the successors.

The literature has also included studies of employee training for small business. Small business owners (entrepreneurs) need to invest in ongoing employee training if they want the business to grow (Buss, 2004). The entrepreneur or small business owner can nurture the business to some point, but they frequently stop there because of either lack trust or lack of adequate skills of employees. Training programs are available today from third parties and universities. Many small business owners are often disinclined to go to training because they assume they already know what it takes to run their business. Small to medium enterprises (SME) can be more competitive if they employ some type of training program, perhaps even as students in school (Folguera and Trullen, 2000).

Research has shown that competitiveness and training go hand in hand. Businesses that train and trust their employees often do better and the employees are more innovative. This may seems counter intuitive to the SME owner because of the extra costs associated with the training and education process, but when training programs are in place, the employees seem to learn better from each other as well. However, the opportunity costs for training may be too high for small business (De Kok, 2002). Larger businesses are able to spend the time needed for training that is needed to transcend the opportunity costs of training. Small firm management may not be competent to evaluate training effectiveness (Patton, Hannon and Marlow, 2000). It has been assumed that most small firm management is unable to choose effective training for their organization because they lack the requisite experience and training themselves. Training can be effective only if the needs of the small business are met and the recipients of the training develop the ability to make the training increase performance.

The literature indicates academia is not completely meeting the needs of small and medium size businesses for both the owner and employees. The students at Sam Houston State University are typically employed by small and medium size businesses. Thus in the vein of the student as customer and a small business employee, two classes of graduate students were requested to evaluate course weights with respect to grades and career needs.

METHODOLOGY AND RANKING OF EVALUATION

The graduate students in two Fall 2004 finance classes were requested to evaluate a theoretical course content and rank this content package according to grade composition and present and future employment enhancement. The course content included: Tests, homework, projects, research, class discussion, and group work. The two primary evaluation areas were course content for grades and course content for current and future employment. The results of the primary evaluation areas and additional student demographic information are shown below with student evaluation comments.

Most students felt that semester projects were the most important component for determining course grade. One would expect this would translate into what would also be most important for current/future jobs. Group work was listed last and that is unsurprising. Most people greatly dislike working in groups because members of the group frequently shirk responsibilities, and the other group members do not feel empowered to influence the outcome.

When reviewing these results, projects again were ranked as the most important course requirement. Research and presentations were ranked second for job enhancement. Written research ranked fourth which is at variance to what academia believes to be an essential employment criteria. Group work moved up in rank from the bottom perhaps because employees understand the need for this activity in the real world. Interestingly, exams and homework dropped to last places, another variance to what academia believes is an important career criteria. This seems to indicate that hands-on, real world simulated course work (e.g., projects) was felt to be more important than short answer and MC/TF, maybe soon-forgotten, exams.

EVALUATION OF ANALYSIS

Several comments from students suggested that tests were used for evaluation rather than a learning tool. Other comments indicated that good memories or good luck could result in as good grade as understanding the material and that tests do not teach much. Exams were third in the course grade perhaps because students believe this is a course requirement in education and not necessarily a real job requirement.

The positive comments indicated that tests showed how well students understood the material and measured the impact of homework, text and lectures. Perhaps one of the most insightful comments was that this was the same format used for professional accreditation (e.g., CPA, Bar, etc.) so stay with this format in class.

There was an interesting differentiation between the two types of research. Written research was not considered as important as presentation research. However, research in general, and specifically projects, was considered positive. For basic research, students considered it positive to gather material and present an idea and believed that it increased knowledge in a specific area. From a practical viewpoint, one student indicated the ability to produce timely and accurate information was relevant to the decision making process. From a negative prospective, students felt that research for the sake of research was not acceptable.

Project work was overwhelmingly positive. Student comments included that it focuses intensity and attention to detail and a true test of learning. It also allowed the students' flexibility in learning as there was more than one way to complete the assignment. Projects demonstrate a level of knowledge by applying course material to a topic while expanding knowledge beyond the book. One student suggested there was no better way to grade students that are being educated for the real world. There were no significant negative comments about projects. This could lead to a conclusion that the students actually considered this the best method of teaching and reinforcing course material.

Overall, class discussion was considered favorable. It was considered a strong part of the work world and students needed to learn to express an opinion as many jobs required this trait. As related to the education process: participation was required to truly learn; engagement brings out different viewpoints; participation helps ensure class preparation; audible learners are assisted; and stimulating academically. The negative aspects expressed were it is subjective to grade and discussions tend to be boring, especially if certain factions control the floor or the discussion drifts off subject. The importance to the real world was borne out by the student comments; however, they did not wish to have this course requirement given much, if any, weight. They may not perceive that academia will fairly grade this area.

This area was about equally positive as negative. From the positive aspect, students noted that group work was an integral part of the workplace so education should help develop this skill. Group work also helped promote different resolutions to a problem. The negative aspects suggested this was not a good gauge of what students were learning and may not accurately measure performance. The biggest negative was concerning the members who tended to be less participatory or as one student wrote dead beats get a free ride. Again, the students indicated the importance of this criteria for the real world career. The negative comments seemed to indicate that academia would be fair in the grading of this area.

Interestingly, one of the non-management responses came from a student that has owned a small business and currently works as an agent.

CONCLUSION

For the student to obtain the best results from the educational experience, the student, as a customer, should have input into the course weight composition. This merges with the student preparation concept of Emery and Tian (2001) for the real world through participatory management. It would seem that in this paper's student evaluation that, as most evaluators were working, they would have some clear recognition as to career education needs. As most universities treat students as customers in other ways, this student input premise would also seem the most appropriate for course evaluation. In either case, for students who are in the real world environment, student participation in course weights could provide more meaning to their academic experience. However, for students that have no real work experience, it may be more difficult for them to determine what course composition and weights are truly in their best interests as they have no basis for evaluation of real world practices and situations. Additionally, this approach may not be in the best interest of small business as expressed by Klingberg (2004). This also seems to indicate that having students with no real world experience dictate course content and weights may not be the most prudent action for their future careers. However, in the marketing real world, the common mantra is that the customer is always right.

There still seems to be some disconnection between the academic student and the real world student as indicated in the Course Grade Ranking versus Ranking for Employment and it may seem odd that the degree and career rankings were not the same; one would expect they would be. Perhaps the test in school syndrome is driving the degree grade rankings even if the student does not feel it is as an important item for the career. Perhaps academia has not adequately conveyed the relationship between the course and the real world. On the other hand, perhaps academia has not effectively evaluated what small and medium size business employers are really requesting from their employees and, thus, has not restructured courses accordingly. The literature for small business and entrepreneurship training and education abundantly makes this point. The small sample of SHSU student evaluators, who were also employees in most cases, support the literature. As a final comment, the evaluating population was from only one regional university and two graduate classes, so the evaluation results cannot be assumed to apply to all graduate student populations.

FURTHER STUDY

The evaluation results have been incorporated into future graduate classes for further evaluation. The students in each class have been advised at the beginning of the semester that course weights were based on course evaluations of past students. At some future date, the students will be asked to reevaluate the course weights for course correction as required.

REFERENCES

Ahmadi, Mohammad & Helms, Marilyn (1997). Small Firms, Big Opportunities: The Potential of Careers for Business Graduates in SMEs, Education + Training.

Bailey, Jeff. Can You Teach Someone How to Grow a Business? Retrieved November 22, 2004 from http://www.collegejournal.com.

Beresford, Lynn (1997, August). Higher Learning: A Crash Course on Executive Education Programs, Entrepreneur.

Buss, Dale (2004, February). Beyond Basic Training, Entrepreneur.

Clark, Bryan W., Davis, Charles H. & Harnish, Verne C (1984, April). Do Courses in Entrepreneurship Aid in New Venture Creation, Journal of Small Business Management.

Dana, Leo Paul (1992, Nov/Dec). Entrepreneurial Education in Europe. Journal of Education for Business

De Kok, Jan (2002, March). The Impact of Firm-Provided Training on Production International Small Business Journal.

Dupray, Arnaud.(2001). The Signaling Power of Education by Size of Firm and the Long Term Effects on Workers' Careers, International Journal of Manpower.

Emery, Charles & Robert Tian (2001). Course Design: Should We Permit Student Participation?, Academy of Educational Literature Journal.

Finkle, Todd A. & David Deeds (2001). Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty, 1989-1998, Journal of Business Venturing.

Folguera, Conxita & Jordi Trullen (March 2000). Small Business Training and Competitiveness: Building Case Studies in Different European Cultural Contexts, Human Resource Development International.

Freeman, Sue (2000). Partnerships between small and medium enterprises and universities that add value, Education + Training.

Garavan, Thomas N. & Barra O'Cinneide (1994). Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes: A Review and Evaluation-Part 2, Journal of European Industrial Training.

Gibb, Allan (2002, September). In pursuit of a new 'enterprise' and 'entrepreneurship' paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things an new combinations of knowledge, International Journal of Management Reviews.

Hendricks, Mark & Newton, David (2003, April). Can Entrepreneurship Be Taught? Entrepreneur Magazine.

Henry, Colette, Hill, Frances M. & Leitch, Claire M (2004, March). The Effectiveness of Training for New Business Creation, International Small Business Journal.

Kamvounais, Patty (1999). Students as Customers and Higher Education Industry: A Review of the Literature and the Legal Implications, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal.

Klingberg, Jeff (2004, July). Education is the Answer, Control Engineering.

Laukkanen, Mauri (2000). Exploring Alternative Approaches in High-level Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Micro-mechanisms for Endogenous Regional Growth, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development.

Luchsinger, Louise & Vince Luchsinger (2001). New Trends In Educational Programs Oriented Toward Small Businesses, Journal of Small Business Management.

Matlay, Harry (2002). Training and HRD Strategies in Family and Non-family Owned Small Businesses: A Comparative Approach, Education + Training.

Meldrum, Mary & Pascale de Berranger (1999). Can Higher Education Match the Information Systems Needs of SMEs? Journal of European Industrial Training.

Mescon, Timothy S. (1987, January). The Entrepreneurial Institute: Education and Training for Minority Small Business Owners, Journal of Small Business Management.

Muske, Glenn & Nancy Stanforth (2000, December). The Educational Needs of Small Business Owners: A Look into the Future, Journal of Extension.

Patton, Dean, Paul Hannon & Sue Marlow (2000, December). The Relationship Between Training and Small Firm Performance; Research Frameworks and Lost Quests, International Small Business Journal.

Pearson, Michael A., Ryans, Cynthia C. & Ryans, John K. (1987, July). Educators' View on Small Business Training, Journal of Small Business Management.

David Penn, Ang'wa, William, Forster, R,, Hey don, G. & Susan Richardson (1998). Learning in Smaller Organizations, The Learning Organization.

Peterman, Nicole E. & Jessica Kennedy (2003, Winter). Enterprise Education: Influencing Students' Perceptions of Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.

Plaschka, Gerhard R. & Harold P. Welsch (1990, Spring). Emerging Structures in Entrepreneurship Education: Circular Designs and Strategies, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.

Sargeant, Adrian (1996). Training for Growth: How Can Education Providers Assist in the Development of Small Businesses? Industrial and Commercial Training.

Sexton, Donald L.& Nancy B. Bowman (1984, April). Entrepreneurship Education: Suggestions for Increasing Effectivenessm, Journal of Small Business Management.

Snipes, Robin, Sharon Oswald & Sandra Hortman (1997). Causes and Consequences of Student Satisfaction in Higher Education, Academy of Educational Literature Journal.

Zeithaml, Carl P. & George H. Rice, Jr. (1987, January) Entrepreneurship/Small Business Education in American Universities, Journal of Small Business Management.

Hadley Leavell, Sam Houston State University

Table 1: Ranking Class Components for Course Grade

 1 2 3

Projects Research Exams

 4 5 6

Homework Class Discussion Group Work

Table 2: Ranking Class Components for Present Employment

 1 2 3 4

Projects Research & Class Written
 Presentations Discussion Research

 5 6 7

 Group Exam Homework
 Work

Ranking Class Components for Future Employment

Projects Research & Class Group
 Presentations Discussion Work

Written Exam Homework
Research

* The number of students surveyed in Present Employment did
not equal the number of students in Future Employment as some
students are not currently working.

Table 3: Surveyed Student Demographics

Currently Working Not Working

24 8
Fulltime PartTime
20 4
Desire to Be in Management No Desire to Be in Management
30 2