University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application

(USC Thesis Other)

Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 1
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING STUDENT LEARNING: A CASE
STUDY IN APPLICATION
by
Ajaya Ghimire
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2019
Copyright 2019 Ajaya Ghimire
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 5
LIST OF TABLES 7
LIST OF FIGURES 9
ABSTRACT 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 11
Background of the Problem 12
Challenges in Higher Education US-Nepal Similarity 13
Nepal’s Idiosyncratic Challenges in Higher Education 16
Addressing the Problem 18
Importance of Addressing the Problem 20
Organizational Context and Mission 21
Organizational Performance Status/Need 22
Organizational Performance Goal 24
Description of Stakeholder Groups 25
Stakeholder Group for the Study 27
Purpose of the Project and Questions 28
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 29
Definitions 31
Organization of the Study 32
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 34
Models of Course Design 34
Learning Goals 36
Assessments 39
Teaching and Learning Activities 42
Integration and Alignment 45
Situational Factors 46
Themes from the Literature Review 46
Instructors’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 48
Knowledge Influences 48
Motivation Influences 51
Organizational Influences 54
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 3
Chapter Summary 56
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 57
Participating Stakeholders 58
Recruitment Strategy and Rationale 59
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 60
Data Collection and Instrumentation 63
Documents and Artifacts 63
Interviews 63
Focus Group Session 65
Data Analysis 66
Credibility and Trustworthiness 67
Ethics 68
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 69
Limitations and Delimitations 70
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 72
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences 73
Incorporating Local Context in Course Design 77
Articulating Learning Outcome from the Learners’ Perspective 78
Aligning Assessments with Learning Goals 80
Including Variety in Learning Activities 82
Aligning Learning Activities with Learning Outcomes and Assessments 84
Writing and Communicating Feedback 86
Reflecting on One’s Course Design and Instruction 88
Summary of Findings – Knowledge Influences 89
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences 90
Valuing Adoption of Integrated Course Design Framework 92
Being Confident of Implementing an Integrated Course Design Framework 93
Having Mastery Orientation in Teaching 95
Summary of Findings – Motivation Influences 96
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences 97
Fostering a Culture of Learner-centered Instructional Practice 99
Fostering a Culture of Collaborative Teaching 102
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 4
Summary of Findings – Organizational Influences 103
Students’ Perspectives on KMO Influences 104
Summary of Findings and Reflection 108
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SOLUTIONS 111
Recap – Context and Problems of the Study 112
Organization’s Context and Mission 112
Organization’s Performance Problem 112
Organization’s Performance Goals 113
Performance Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study 114
Purpose of the Project and Questions 115
Recap -- Summary of Findings 115
KMO Recommendations 120
Knowledge Recommendations 120
Motivation Recommendations 121
Organizational Recommendations 124
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 125
Communicate Organizational Commitment to Improving Student Learning 127
Review and Re-write Course Syllabi 128
Strengthen Support System for Student Learning 130
Collaborate with a Foreign University in Providing Training and Education 132
Summary 134
Future Research 136
Conclusion 137
REFERENCES 140
APPENDIX A Organizational and Stakeholders’ Goal 151
APPENDIX B Protocol for Document Analysis 156
APPENDIX C Interview Protocol 157
APPENDIX D Protocol for Focus Group Discussion 163
APPENDIX E University of Southern California Information Sheet for Research 165
APPENDIX F Recruitment Communication 167
APPENDIX G Excerpts from Course Syllabi 168
APPENDIX H Insights from Focus Group Discussion with Students 169
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
No matter how I express, my words will be a poor substitute for my feelings.
Nevertheless, following the advice of late William Arthur Ward, "Feeling gratitude and not
expressing it is like wrapping a present and not giving it," I unwrap my present.
Dr. Jenifer Anne Crawford: As a committee chair and a guide and as a human being, you
were superb. Your guidance made my dissertation writing both enriching and enjoyable.
Dr. Cathy Sloane Krop and Dr. Lawrence O. Picus: I could not have asked for more from
you as my dissertation committee members. Your encouraging, constructive, and insightful
suggestions significantly improved my manuscript, and I learned a lot in the process.
Dr. Mark Power Robison, Dr. Anthony B. Maddox, Dr. Tracy Poon Tambascia, Dr. Ruth
H. Gim Chung, Dr. Helena Seli, Dr. Kiley M. Adolph, Dr. Artineh Samkian, Dr. Cathy Sloane
Krop, Dr. Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, and Dr. Lawrence O. Picus: Much in this document contains
what I have learned from each one of you as a teacher or a professor. The scaffolding you
provided made my doctoral journey, and that of my fellow C6ers, rich and joyful.
Prof. Mark Power Robison, Dr. Sabrina Chong, and the administrative staff of the Global
Ed. D program: You were so supportive and so hospitable that every in-person session was a
great learning experience. I learned so much about education administration from you all.
Participants in this case study: I wish I could name you. I had wonderful conversations
with each one of you. I learned so much from the experiences and insights you shared. If the
recommendations contained in this document succeeds in making an impact, the credit is yours.
I was just a medium that collated your thoughts.
Dr. Guadalupe G. Montano: Without your support in APA editing, I would have spent
days formatting the manuscript. You made it so easy.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 6
My fellow friends in C6: You were truly special, each one of you. I made it to the finish
line because you were so warm and supportive of one another.
Without the crucial support of family members, many educational aspirations remain just
aspirations. But I was fortunate to have a wonderful family.
My wife, Upma Ghimire Sharma: I could have neither started nor finished the doctoral
program without your continual encouragement and support. Besides bearing with my reading
books and tapping the laptop keyboard for weekends after weekends, you teamed up with my
dad to ensure I did not quit.
My dad (buwa), Keshaw Ghimire: You were a continual source of inspiration. Even
when mom (Aama) was in the hospital with a broken hip, and I was thousands of miles away
from home, you were worried I would not complete.
My children, Aisha Rimal, Verna Ghimire, Aayan Ghimire, and my son-in-law Sabal
Rimal: You encouraged me to join the program rather than “regret later for not having joined it.”
You also continually encouraged me to keep going.
Finally, my colleagues at AEV and Ace: You were so considerate and supportive
throughout my endeavor to educate myself about education. You shared most of my work
responsibilities as I trotted around the globe to complete my doctoral journey.
To all of you, I am grateful beyond words.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: MBA Students’ Timely Graduation and Non-Completion Rates 22
Table 2: Organization Mission and Performance Goal 25
Table 3: Effective Course Design: Dominant Themes from Literature 47
Table 4: Assumed Knowledge Influences 51
Table 5: Assumed Motivation Influences 54
Table 6: Assumed Organizational Influences 56
Table 7: Share of Participants by Sampling Criteria 62
Table 8: Analysis of Participants’ Course Syllabi 74
Table 9: Synthesis of Findings on Knowledge Influence 75
Table 10: Variation in Instructors’ Competence in Articulating Learning Outcomes 79
Table 11: Gap-validated Knowledge Influences 90
Table 12: Motivational Influences and Synthesis of Findings 91
Table 13: Gap-validated Motivational Influences 97
Table 14: Organizational Influences and Synthesis of Findings 98
Table 15: Gap-validated Organizational Influences 104
Table 16: Students’ Revalidation of KMO Influences Gaps 105
Table 17: Key Findings and Causes of Gaps on Validated KMO Influences 117
Table 18: Knowledge Gaps and Context Specific Recommendations 121
Table 19: Motivation Gaps and Context-Specific Recommendations 123
Table 20: Organizational Gaps and Context-specific Recommendations 124
Table 21: Proposed Solutions and Action Steps 126
Table 22: Evaluation Plan for Reviewing and Rewriting Course Syllabi 129
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 8
Table 23: Evaluation Plan for Strengthening Support System for Student Learning 131
Table 24: Evaluation Plan for Conducting Training and PDP for Instructors 133

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Key components of integrated course design. 29
Figure 2. Clark and Estes’ gap analysis model. 30

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 10
ABSTRACT
This study examined the problems related to student learning, graduation rate, and time to
graduation in the MBA program of one business school in Nepal. Using an interviews protocol
that focused around 12 presumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) factors
distilled from the review of literature on student learning, six teaching faculty members were
interviewed. The instructors’ course syllabi were analyzed. The teaching faculty’s knowledge
and motivation and the organizational causes (KMO) that potentially influenced the
organization’s effectiveness in adopting Fink’s integrated course design framework were
examined, using Clark and Estes’ KMO gap analysis model. A focus group session with the
students was conducted to check the validity of data obtained from the interviews with the
faculty members. The study found the gaps in eight of the 12 presumed KMO factors. The
organizational setting did not foster a culture of learner-centered instructional practice. All
policies and practices, implicit or explicit, focused more on quantity than on quality. Chapter 5
proposes knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions along with the plans for
implementation and evaluation. An interesting area of future research would be to examine the
course design from what USC Center for Urban Education calls equity-minded perspective. The
graduation rate and the time to graduation of the part-time and the full-time students differed by
too wide a margin to ignore potential inequity caused, to one or other group, by identical course
design for both full-time and part-time students.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
A long way off from universal access, notwithstanding, the world has made a big stride in
improving access to higher education. The gross enrollment ratio (GER)
1
at the tertiary level,
also known as Gross Tertiary Enrollment Ratio (GTER), is a widely accepted measure of
population participation in higher education. The world’s GTER increased from around 10% in
1970 to more than 36% in 2016 (The World Bank, 2018). Only 19 countries had GTER higher
than 15 % in 1971 but by 2013 “No less than 102 countries had reached 15 % and the GTER
exceeded 50 % in 51 countries” (UNESCO, 2015 as cited in Marginson, 2016, p. 416).
The rapid increase in access to and participation in higher education brought its own set
of challenges, though. Ikenberry and Kuh (2015) observed:
“Soaring college costs, unacceptably low degree‐completion rates, new technologies, and
competitive new providers have become defining features of what some call higher
education’s “new normal.” Further disruption comes from the uneasy sense that the
quality of student learning may be falling well short of what the twenty‐first century
demands of our graduates, our economy, and our democracy” (p. 8)
Though made in particular reference to the US higher education, the observation resonates well
with the higher education challenges of many other countries, including Nepal, the location of
the organization of this case study, even though each country, and even each institution within a
country, has its own sets of unique challenges. Guthrie (2019) aptly cautioned:

1
Gross enrollment ratio (GER) is defined as the number of students enrolled in a given level of
education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the official school-age population
corresponding to the same level of education. For the tertiary level, the population used is the 5-
year age group starting from the official secondary school graduation age
(http://uis.unesco.org/en/glossary-term/gross-enrolment-ratio#slideoutmenu).
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 12
“It (higher education) is made up of many independent and diverse institutional types all
operating to support and sustain internal organizational self-interest even as they serve
broader societal objectives. Higher education also serves a wide array of students with
differing needs, resources and capacities. Problems and opportunities appear quite
different from these various perspectives, …” (p.2).
The next section describes the background of the problem and explains how strikingly similar
some of the challenges in higher education in Nepal are with that of the US, although the two
countries are poles apart in the stages of their human development. USA had 2017 human
development index (HDI) of 0.924 and HDI ranking of 13 compared to Nepal’s HDI of 0.574
and ranking of 149 (UNDP, 2018).
Background of the Problem
Nepal’s 2016 GER at tertiary level was 11.8 % compared to 88.8% of the US. Less than
5% of Nepalese in the age group of 25 years or more have attained a bachelor’s degree or higher,
compared to a little over 33% for the US (The World Bank, 2018). As of 2016, there were only
12 degree-granting institutions (nine universities and three degree-granting medical academies)
in Nepal (UGC Nepal, 2016), compared to a total of 4,583 degree-granting institutions – 3,004
four-year colleges and 1,479 two-year colleges -- in the US (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2019). According to University Grant Commission (UGC Nepal), HEIs of Nepal had
a total of 407,904 students enrolled in the academic year 2014/15; one university, Tribhuwan
University, had close to 82% of all the students enrolled. Eight other universities and three
medical academies had the remaining 18% of the students enrolled (UGC Nepal, 2016). A
feature of Nepalese higher education system distinctly different from the decentralized system of
the US is that Nepalese universities, though only nine in number, have an extended system of
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 13
constituent and affiliated campuses where teaching and learning activities take place. The
constituent campuses are owned and managed by one or the other university, which by law are
required to be not-for-profit. The affiliated campuses, however, can be and are either privately
owned (for-profit or not-for-profit) or community-based. Unlike the constituent campuses that
are owned and managed by the university, the affiliate campuses are funded and managed
externally and have greater autonomy of operations and administrations. The university granting
the affiliation regulates the affiliate campuses’ enrollment level, conducts and monitors the
examinations, and grants degrees to the students completing the university’s degree
requirements. As of the academic year 2014/15, there were 98 constituent campuses and 1,271
affiliate campuses, of which 838 were private and 433 community campuses (UGC Nepal,
2016). Eighty-two percent of the campuses were under the umbrella of one university,
Tribhuwan University, the first and the only university in the country until in1986. Thirty-seven
schools -- most of them one or the other university-affiliated colleges, like the organization of
this case study -- offer MBA programs in Nepal; most universities also offer MBA programs
through their constituent campuses. There is wide variation in the quality of teaching and
learning across schools, even between those affiliated to the same university.
Challenges in Higher Education US-Nepal Similarity
High non-completion rate and longer time-to-degree. Only 59% of the first-time, full-
time undergraduate students who began seeking a bachelor's degree at a 4-year degree-granting
US institution in Fall 2009 graduated by 2015 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017).
Only about 39% of the students graduated within four years, the standard duration of the
program; about 39% did not graduate even in eight years (Ginder, Kelly-Reid, & Mann, 2016).
The failure rate in Nepal’s higher education is no less, if not more, vexing. According to UGC
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 14
Nepal’s Report on Higher Education 2014/15, only 15% to 30% of the students, depending on
the field of studies, successfully passed the bachelor’s level final examination of Tribhuwan
University in the academic year 2014/15. The highest pass rate of 29.9% was in the faculty of
humanities and social science and the lowest of 15% in the faculty of education. In the master’s
level, the pass rate ranged from the lowest of about 53% in Management to the highest of about
68% in Humanities and Social Science (UGC Nepal, 2016).
Limited learning. Based on the analysis of the performance task scores on Collegiate
Learning Assessment (CLA) of 3,000 traditional-age students enrolled in coursework from Fall
2005 to Spring 2009 across a wide range of 29 four-year colleges and universities in the US,
Arum and Roksa (2011) concluded:
Forty-five percent of students did not demonstrate any significant improvement in
learning, as measured by CLA performance, during their first 2 years of college.
Considering all 4 years of college, we find that 36% of students did not demonstrate any
significant improvement in learning, as measured by CLA performance (p. 124).
Sadler (2016) affirmed, “too many students have been able to graduate without the capabilities
expected of graduates, yet this is not necessarily apparent from their transcripts” (p. 1095).
Pascarella (2006), based on his and other researchers’ studies, argued that “the vast majority of
programs and policies are essentially unexamined and continue to exist in the absence of
evidence supporting their net impact on students” (p. 513). Mayhew et al. (2016) studied how
college affects students on broader sets of outcomes, compared to Arum and Roksa’s (2011)
narrow focus on CLA. The outcome sets Mayhew et al. (2016) used for examining college
impact on students were (a) the development of verbal, quantitative, and subject matter
competence, (b) cognitive skills and intellectual growth, (c) psychosocial change, (d) attitudes
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 15
and values, (e) moral development, (f) educational attainment and persistence, (g) career and
economic impacts of college, and (h) quality of life after college. They concluded that colleges
had a significant positive impact on students; but, they found, as had Arum and Roksa’s (2011)
study, that there is notable variation in performance across students. Moreover, variation in
student performance within institutions, which Mayhew et al. called “within college effect,” was
more than the variance in student performance between institutions, which they called “between
college effect” (Mayhew et al., 2016).
Quality problems in most colleges and universities in Nepal are much more troubling
than they are in US universities. A report published by UNESCO (2015) expressed that low
enrollment, high dropout, lack of meaningful learning, and high youth unemployment and
underemployment, even among graduates with traditional formal degrees, were the major issues
and concerns afflicting education in Nepal. Citing a survey report, SWTS-Nepal, 2013, Serriere
(2014) stated that unemployment rates were higher for youth with higher levels of education –
“26.1 percent for university graduates compared to 8.2 percent for young people with no
schooling” (p. 24).
Mathema (2007), former vice-chancellor of Tribhuwan University, the first and the largest
university in Nepal, articulated, “University students probably spend less time in the classroom
here than in any other country” (p. 54).
Unaffordable. For a large segment of the population, quality higher education is not
affordable in both countries. For the academic year 2014–15, average net price (cost less grants
and scholarships) of attending a US 4-year college ranged between $12,398 to $26,221
depending on the nature of institutions (public, private not-for-profit, or private for-profit) and
the students’ family income (Ginder et al., 2016). The late William Bowen, former president of
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 16
Princeton University and the president emeritus of Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, argued,
“there is a growing consensus in public discourse that current trends in both the cost of higher
education and such outcomes as completion rates and time-to-degree are neither acceptable nor
sustainable” (Bowen, 2015, p. 164). For the students who fail to graduate even after eight years
(about 40% of the students) and for those who do not graduate in 4 years (about 60% of the
students), the cost of pursuing higher education could be enormous. Unlike in the US, students
in Nepal have very limited options for financing their higher education. Only a few selective
students, less than 10%, get financial aid, and there is no provision of government funding in the
form of student loan. Moreover, with 26.1% unemployment rate for university graduates
(Serrière, 2014 citing SWTS-Nepal, 2013), higher education appears a risky prospect, especially
for those from lower socioeconomic strata, who would rather explore opportunities for manual
labor abroad (in countries like UAE, Qatar, Korea, and Malaysia). Bossavie and Denisoya
(2018) cited Nepal Living Standard Survey 2011 and reported that 33% of the household
received remittances from abroad, and depending on the region 10% to 35% of the male in the
age group of 16 to 34 were migrant for labor abroad.
Nepal’s Idiosyncratic Challenges in Higher Education
Inadequate capacity of universities to regulate and monitor campuses. A limited
number of degree-granting institutions (universities) and a large number of affiliated campuses
under them make the university’s regulating and monitoring role highly challenging. None of
the universities have adequate resources to effectively regulate and monitor a large number of
campuses without stifling the nimbleness and innovation required for the HEIs to be effective
and relevant in a rapidly changing world. One single university, Tribhuwan University, alone
had 1,063 affiliate campuses, and 333,904 students enrolled in the academic year 2014/15. The
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 17
universities control the right to grant program offerings and quota for enrollment in the programs
offered by the colleges affiliated to them. Such a high concentration of power over the colleges’
opportunities to generate revenue make the universities susceptible to corrupt influences,
especially from private for-profit colleges. Moreover, political patronage not the merit or
competence influences the appointments of the university’s key officials, including the vice-
chancellor. Consequently, higher education suffers from the structural inefficiency of the
system.
Low quality K-12 education and inadequate preparation for higher education.
Eighty percent of the students attend public schools in Nepal, but the result of the class 10 board
examination indicates that the quality of student learning varies widely across schools, more so
between the private and public schools. Fifty-one percent of the students from public schools
attained lower than 2 GPA compared to only 3% of the students from the private schools. Only
22% of the students from the public schools compared to 90% of the students from the private
schools had a GPA higher than 2.4 (Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education, 2016).
Consequently, many HEIs do not get an adequate number of well-prepared students for higher
education.
Teaching resources not adequately trained to adapt to changing technology. As
technology makes distance irrelevant, HEIs in Nepal may face challenges from the universities
across the globe, if they do not make their programs relevant to students’ need in today’s world.
The current rigid structures of the Nepalese universities make them especially vulnerable to
disruptive innovation from around the world. Laws and regulations may not be able to protect
them in the future from obsolescence unless they change and adapt.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 18
Inadequate public resources but socio-cultural dislike of private funding. The
government does not have the financial capacity for public funding of higher education.
According to the World Bank (2018), the Nepal government in 2014 spent only about 11% of its
total education expenditure on higher education, against the world’s average of about 21%.
However, Nepalese society is socio-politically hostile towards the private provision of education.
Many private institutions are subtly coerced to pay protection money to the student wings of the
national political parties to avoid targeted hostility. Such a socio-cultural mindset increases the
risk of private provision of education and reduces the investment horizon of potential
entrepreneurs in education in the country.
Addressing the Problem
Though Arum and Roksa’s (2011) study assessed only general analytical competencies,
their findings raised serious concerns about students’ learning at higher education institutions in
the US. As researchers started examining the quality of learning, and public clamor for
accountability increased, HEIs all over the world are now under pressure to improve their
teaching and learning and demonstrate that their students indeed learn in campus and they benefit
from what they learn. To improve productivity in higher education, Bowen (2015) argued, “The
pace at which current students get through the educational system is enormously important, as
are completion rates” (p. 54). This case study attempts to address problems related to
completion rate and time-to-degree of the MBA programs of one business school in Nepal.
Fortunately for institutions keen to improve their students’ learning, irrespective of the
institutions’ location, type, and size, ample is there to learn from the knowledge produced and
wisdom shared by the researchers and reflective practitioners around the world.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 19
Chickering and Gamson’s (1991) distilled and recommended seven principles of good
practice in undergraduate education that “encourages student-faculty contact, encourages
cooperation among students, encourages active learning, gives prompt feedback, emphasizes
time on task, communicates high expectations, and respects diverse talents and ways of learning”
(p. 76). In his research article “Instructional Alignment: Searching for a Magic Bullet,” Cohen
(1987) argued that instructional alignment—aligning instructions with assessments and learning
outcomes—improved student learning. He further claimed that in his many studies on
instructional alignment, he had not come across any other construct that had so much effect, the
effect size of more than one and often two standard deviations, on student learning. He
concluded, “Lack of excellence in American schools is not caused by ineffective teaching, but
mostly by misaligning what teachers teach, what they intend to teach, and what they assess as
having been taught” (Cohen, 1987, p. 19). Barr and Tagg in their 1995 article “From Teaching
to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education” echoed similar thought, but also
observed that American higher education institutions were undergoing a paradigm shift: a shift
from the old “Instruction Paradigm” to a new “Learning Paradigm.” The institutions under the
instruction paradigm are teacher-centered; their purpose: to transfer knowledge from faculty to
students. The institutions under the learning paradigm are student-centered; their guiding
mission: to foster learning environments for students to discover and construct knowledge (Barr
& Tagg, 1995). Many other researchers and practitioners have affirmed that students learn more
when instructions are learner-centered and aligned with the learning outcomes and assessments
(Biggs & Tang, 2011; Connor-Greene, 2000; Fink, 2013; Leber, Renkl, Nückles, & Wäschle;
2017; Nilson, 2010; Walvoord & Anderson, 2010; Weimer, 2002; Whetten, 2007). Some have
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 20
even claimed that of the many factors that affect student learning, effective course design is the
most influential one (Cohen, 1987; Fink, 2013; Whetten, 2007).
In the US HEIs what Barr and Tagg (1995) described as the learning paradigm may have
become the norm, and in Europe most HEIs may have adopted the learner-centered teaching and
learning under the Bologna Agreement 1999, in Nepal and many South Asian countries, teaching
and learning in HEIs are still dominantly teacher and content-centered. Singh’s (2015)
observation about teaching and learning in Nepalese classrooms, though expressed for school
education, aptly reflects teaching and learning in Nepalese HEI’s: “Despite the many mentions of
learner-centered approaches, studies have shown that, in practice, classroom pedagogy in Nepal
has been dominated by lectures, textbook reading, paraphrasing, drills and rote memorization. At
the higher grades, examinations are the focus and efforts are targeted towards exam
preparation…” (p. 48).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Increasing cost, lower graduation rates, and limited learning in campuses, resulting in
unemployment or less than satisfactory employment, are causing widespread social
dissatisfaction with higher education (HE) in most countries. “The worth of HE (higher
education) is under tremendous scrutiny globally given the increasing number of students in HE,
…, the increasing costs of education to the individual and the state, and the relatively poor rates
of student completion in HE,” warned Evans, Kandiko Howson and Forsythe (2018, p. 9). In
their aspirations for a better life, many students and their parents incur costs beyond their current
means. When students fail to graduate after spending considerable time and money for higher
education, the economic and psychological strain on them and their families can be devastating.
Less painful, but painful nevertheless, is a situation when students graduate but do not get a well-
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 21
paying job because they did not acquire much knowledge and skill while in college. Economic
and psychological suffering of students and their families is a good enough reason for the need to
address the problem. But the problem has much broader implication. When students don’t learn,
the resources expended for their learning go to waste. The youth’s knowledge and skills have a
direct and long-term impact on the economic productivity and social wellbeing of the society.
Therefore, HEIs have a moral obligation to ensure that their students indeed learn and get value
for the time and money spent. Barnett’s (2007) aptly said: “…students count not en masse or,
even as course cohorts, but as individuals. What matters supremely is their separate becoming,
and their becoming requires the formation and the sustaining of their will to learn (p. 170).
Organizational Context and Mission
The organization of this study (from now on also referred to as “B-school” or simply “the
school”), is a private, for-profit, education institution based in Kathmandu, Nepal. It is one
among many (more than 50) affiliate colleges of a government-owned university. The school
has about 1,200 students split evenly between the undergraduate and the graduate programs, all
in business. Most students come from the upper or upper-middle socioeconomic background. A
little over 50% of the students enrolled are female.
The B-school’s mission is to prepare students for a leadership role in business and
organizations. The mission statement emphasizes traits like being curious and creative but also
like being responsible and ethical. Less than 50 full-time administrative and support staff, most
of whom are younger than 40 years, manage the B-school. For teaching, the B-school relies
heavily on part-time faculty, most of whom are practicing managers and working professionals.
All teaching faculty have a minimum of one master’s or higher degree from universities, within
or outside the country. The professional background of teaching staff is varied; they include but
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 22
are not limited to corporate managers, entrepreneurs, bureaucrats, and university professors.
Though part-time by agreement, most instructors have had a long and stable association (average
length of association ten years) with the school. B-school is a well-known brand in business
education in the country.
Organizational Performance Status/Need
The B-school offers two undergraduate degree programs and two graduate degree
programs in business. Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Master of Business
Management (Executive) are the two graduate degree programs. MBA (Executive) requires
students to have a minimum of 4 years of work experience to enroll in the program but to enroll
in MBA no experience is required. To obtain the MBA (Executive) degree students are required
to complete 48 credits of course work in 3 semesters spread over 18 months. For the MBA
degree, students are required to complete 66 credits of course work; students in the full-time
program can complete the courses in 6 trimesters spanned over a minimum of 24 months,
whereas the students in the part-time program can complete them in 8 trimesters spanned over a
minimum of 32 months. Students in both programs are required to complete an identical set of
courses and are required to sit in the same final examinations on the dates set by the university.
Table 1summarizes the B-school’s performance concerning students’ timely graduation rate
(graduation in 24 months for the full-time and in 32 months for the part-time MBA program) and
non-completion rate for the last six cohorts of full-time and part-time students.
Table 1
MBA Students’ Timely Graduation and Non-Completion Rates
Six cohorts
2013–2016
Full-time students Part-time students
% Graduated
in 2 years
% that don’t
graduate
% Graduated
in 32 months
% that don’t
graduate
Cohort 1 20 10 0 23
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 23
Table 1, continued
Six cohorts
2013–2016
Full-time students Part-time students
% Graduated
in 2 years
% that don’t
graduate
% Graduated
in 32 months
% that don’t
graduate
Cohort 2 20 23 5 35
Cohort 3 33 17 0 22
Cohort 4 40 3 0 47
Cohort 5 63 10 0 23
Cohort 6 77 3 0 25
Average 42 11 1 29
(derived from the information provided by the organization)
Table 1 throws light on the B-school’s current performance status and needs concerning
graduation rate and time to graduation of its MBA program, which may be summarized as
follows:
• Percentage of the full-time students that graduated in 2 years, the normal duration of
the program, ranged between 20% to 77% for the last six cohorts that graduated.
Percentage of the part-time students that graduated in 32 months, the normal duration
of the program, ranged between 0 to 5%; only one of the last six cohorts that
graduated had students completing the program in 32 months.
• For the six cohorts of students that crossed the graduation time limit set by the
university, average non-completion rate (number of students who failed to graduate as
a percentage of students who had enrolled) ranged between 3% to 23% (average
11%) for the full-time students and 22% to 47% (average 29%) for the part-time
students.
In addition, the researcher inferred, based on his personal interaction with the students, teaching
faculty and the business executives of the organization that have employed the B-school
students, that the market perception of the quality of teaching and learning at the B-school was
not much different from that of the other private institutions in the country. As in other
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 24
institutions, teaching and learning at the B-school is also dominantly teacher and content-
centered. The preceding observations are not in keeping with the B-school’s market reputation
as one of the best business schools in the country. To sustain its reputation, it is important that
the B-school improve the student learning, graduation rate, and time to graduation of its MBA
program.
Organizational Performance Goal
To increase the graduation rates, reduce the time-to-graduation, and improve the quality
of learning of both part-time and full-time MBA students, the B-school set a goal of adopting
what Biggs and Tang (2011) called constructively-aligned and what Fink (2013) called
integrated course design framework. As a result, the organization expects to attain the following
seven goals by June 2022:
• Non-completion rate of any cohort in both part-time and full-time program will not
exceed 10%, or to put it another way, more than 90% of the students enrolled in every
cohort of the full-time and the part-time program graduate.
• Timely completion rate of the full-time program increases to 90%, i.e., 90% of the
students in every cohort in the full-time MBA program complete the program in 2 years.
• Timely completion rate of the part-time MBA program, % of students who graduate in 32
months, will gradually improve and stabilize at a minimum of 50% -- 25% for Fall 2020
cohort, 40% for Spring 2021, and 50% for cohorts enrolled after that.
• Average CGPA of students in every full-time MBA cohort will not drop below 3.5/4.0,
even after increment in the 2-year graduation rate
• Average CGPA of students in every part-time MBA cohort will not drop below 3.3/4.0
even after increment in its 32-month graduation rate to 50%.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 25
• At least 75% of the students of every cohort enrolled in the program on or after Fall 2020
rate their learning, in terms of knowledge and skill acquired or honed, higher than 4 in a
Likert scale of 1 to 5 in a student satisfaction survey.
The B-school is perceived to be a student-centered institution, especially in terms of its
students’ engagement in co-and-extra-curricular activities. However, in terms of quality of its
teaching and learning, not much has changed since its inception about two decades ago; the
pedagogy continues to be dominantly teacher and content-centered, as it is in most other
institutions in Nepal. The B-school hopes its adoption of an integrated course design framework
will induce what Barr and Tagg (1995) described as a paradigm shift from instruction or teacher-
centered to a learning-centered environment, not only within its boundary but also beyond to
other institutions in Nepal.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The key stakeholder groups critical for the achievement of the organization’s
performance goals are (a) the program managers, (b) the teaching faculty, and (c) the students.
Table 2 lists the organization’s mission, performance goals, and the goals of the three
stakeholder groups.
Table 2
Organization Mission and Performance Goal
Organizational Mission
One of Nepal’s leading business schools, the B-school fosters an environment that nurtures
students’ growth and evolution into self-regulated, life-long learners; thoughtful, responsible
individuals; and principled, innovative leaders, who improve their society and the world.
Organizational Goal
By June 2022, reduce the noncompletion rate to less than 10% for every cohort of full-time
and part-time students, and increase the timely graduation rate (full-time students graduating
in 2 years and part-time students graduating in 32 months) of the full-time program to 90%
and of the part-time program to 50%.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 26
Table 2, continued
Stakeholder Group 1
Program Managers
Stakeholder Group 2
MBA Teaching Faculty
Stakeholder Group 3
Students in the MBA
Program
Program Managers’
Proficiencies/Competencies
Necessary to Reach the
Organization’s Goal

• Competence to
collaborate with the
teaching faculty and
encourage and support
the students in adopting
the integrated framework
of learner-centered
course design.
The Teaching Faculty’s
Proficiencies/Competencies
Necessary to Reach the
Organization’s Goal

• Competence to frame and
articulate learning goals
that students find relevant
and do so in the student’s
language: what students
are expected to learn and
do by the end of the
course.
• Competence to include a
variety of learning
activities for the students
and not limit the learning
activities to listening to
instructors’ lectures
delivered in the
classroom.
• Competence to design
assessments in alignment
with learning goals and
learning activities.
• Competence to write and
communicate timely and
effective feedback.
The Students’
Proficiencies/Competencies
Necessary to Reach the
Organization’s Goal

• Adequate prior
knowledge and cognitive
skills to engage in active
learning.
Program Managers’ Goals

• By April 2020 complete
the review and redesign
of the course syllabi
adhering to the principles
of an integrated
framework of learner-
centered course design,
and by June 2020 prepare
the teaching faculty to
use them in their
instructional practice.
The Teaching Faculty’s
Goals
• Adopt and implement an
integrated course design
framework in all the
courses offered to every
MBA cohort enrolled on
or after Fall 2020.
• At least 90% of the full-
time and 70% of the part-
time students pass the
course in their first
attempt.
The Students’ Goals

• In the courses that follow
the learner-centered
integrated course design,
students will engage in
active learning and attain
a minimum average
GPA of 3.5

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 27
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Joint efforts of all relevant stakeholders will determine the success of any new initiative.
For effective implementation of the learner-centered integrated course design framework,
knowledge and motivation of all three groups of stakeholders – the program managers, the
teaching faculty, and the students – are critical. Because of the time constraint, this study chose
to focus on the teaching faculty, for their knowledge and motivation were thought to be the most
influential in making the shift from instruction-centered, in most cases misaligned, course design
to the learner-centered, integrated course design. The study examined the teaching faculty’s
knowledge and motivation and the organizational factors contributing to or inhibiting the
adoption of the learner-centered integrated course design framework in the MBA courses. The
teaching faculty’s goal is to adopt Fink’s (2013) framework of course design in all courses
offered to students enrolled in Fall 2020 and all later terms.
Given that content and teacher-centered instruction is the dominant practice now, the gap
between the current state and the desired state in attaining the goal of implementing a learner-
centered integrated course design framework may be considered 100%. The gaps in the ultimate
goals of reducing noncompletion rate and improving timely graduation rate are as follows:
• The gap in noncompletion rate: 15 percentage points – 25%, the failure rate of the last
cohort of part-time MBA students (see Table 1) less the set goal of 10%.
• The gap in the timely graduation rate of full-time students: 13 percentage point -- the
set goal of 90% less the last cohort’s timely graduation rate of 77% (see Table 1)
• The gap in the timely graduation rate of part-time students: 50 percentage point – the
set goal of 50% less the last cohort’s timely graduation rate of 0 (see Table 1).
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 28
The gap in the goal of improving student learning is none if measured by the CGPA
(cumulative grade-point average) attained by the graduating students because they are 3.6 for the
full-time students and 3.3 for the part-time students. The goal is not to let them slip even after
attaining the goal set for timely graduation rate and non-completion rate. Once the learner-
centered integrated course design framework is adopted and implemented, other meaningful
measures of student learning, besides the grade point average, may be explored.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct needs analysis in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational performance goal
of adopting and implementing a learner-centered, integrated course design framework in its
MBA program. The analysis began by generating a list of possible needs and then moved to
examine those needs systematically to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete
needs analysis would have focused on all stakeholders—the students, the teaching faculty, and
the program managers—the analysis of this study focused only on one group of stakeholders, the
teaching faculty. The following questions guided the study:
1. What are the gaps in knowledge and motivation of the teaching faculty that need bridging
for adopting a learner-centered, integrated course design framework in the B-school’s
MBA program?
2. What gap in organizational resources and practices, including the organization culture,
needs to be addressed so that the teaching faculty successfully implement the learner-
centered, integrated course design framework in the MBA program?
What knowledge, motivational, and organizational solutions does the gap analysis study
recommend?
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 29
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The study adopted the integrated course design framework of Fink (2013) as a guide to
assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of the teaching faculty. According
to Fink’s (2013) framework, an effective course design meets two criteria. First, all three
components of the course design – learning goals, assessment and feedback, and teaching and
learning activities – are planned and developed taking into consideration the situational factors
influencing the students, teachers, and the institution. Second, the three components are well-
integrated in the sense that each component is aligned with and supportive of the other. Figure 1
shows the Fink’s (2013) Integrated Course Design Framework.

Figure 1. Key components of integrated course design.
Source: Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

For assessing the gap in knowledge, motivation, and organization needs of the teaching
faculty to attain their performance goals, the study adapted Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
model for performance improvement. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model is a
systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the gap
between the actual performance level and the preferred performance level within an
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 30
organization. Figure 2 depicts in a diagram the processes in the Clark and Estes’ gap analysis
model.

Figure 2. Clark and Estes’ gap analysis model.
Source: Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta GA: CEP Press.

STEP 3
Determine
performance gaps.
STEP 5 C
Identify
organizational
process and material
solutions and
implement.
STEP 1
Identify key business
goals.
STEP 2
Identify individual
performance goals.
STEP 4
Analyze gaps to
determine causes.
STEP 6
Evaluate results,
tune systems and
revise goals.
STEP 5 A
Identify knowledge /
skill solutions and
implement.
STEP 5 B
Identify motivation
solutions and
implement.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 31
Further, the study utilized the qualitative case study methodological framework.
Assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs were generated based on personal
knowledge and related literature. The assumed needs then were validated as organizational
assets or gaps, using content analysis of the course syllabus, interview data, and literature review.
Context-specific, research-based solutions were proposed for addressing the needs, validated as
gaps. Finally, the study recommended an evaluation plan, using Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s
(2006) four-level evaluation model for training, for assessing the efficacy of the proposed
solutions and their implementation.
Definitions
Collegiate Learning Assessment or CLA. A standardized test used in the United States
to examine a college’s or university's contribution in terms of value-added to student learning.
The CLA measures are designed to test not the domain knowledge but general collegiate level
skills, namely critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem-solving, and written communication
skills.
Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER). The number of students enrolled in a given level of
education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the official school-age population
corresponding to the same level of education (http://uis.unesco.org/en/glossary-term/gross-
enrolment-ratio#slideoutmenu).
Gross Tertiary Enrollment Ratio (GTER). GER at tertiary level. For the GTER, the
population used is the 5-year age group starting from the official secondary school graduation
age.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 32
Higher Education Institution or Institution of Higher Education (HEI). Any
educational institution, including a college or a university, that enrolls students for learning and
attainment of an academic degree or a professional certification at the tertiary level.
Instruction Paradigm. A model in which the purpose of a college is to provide
instruction and of a teacher is to deliver lectures (Barr & Tagg, 1995).
Learner. The word “learner” and the “student” are used interchangeably to mean a
student in a higher education institution.
Learning Paradigm. A model in which a college’s purpose is to create a powerful
learning environment and student learning is a measure of success (Barr & Tagg, 1995).
Instructor. The word “instructor” and “teacher” are used interchangeably to mean
anyone who teaches a course.
Learner-centered: Used to describe teaching and learning orientation or teaching and
learning environment, it shall mean the one in which the needs, interest, and skills of the learners
are the central driving force.
Organization of the Study
The study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provided the reader with the key concepts
and terminology commonly found in a discussion about student learning in higher education. It
introduced the organization’s mission, goals, and its stakeholders. It also introduced Fink’s
(2013) integrated course design model and Clark and Estes’ (2008) concepts of gap analysis
adapted to needs analysis. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature surrounding
the scope of the study. It will cover topics of learning goals, learning activities, assessments and
feedback, and the importance of their integration and alignment for student learning. Chapter
Three details the assumed needs for this study, the methodology, the choice of participants, data
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 33
collection, and analysis. Chapter Four reports findings and interpretation of the data. Chapter
Five provides solutions and recommendations, for addressing the needs, closing the performance
gap, and implementing and evaluating the solutions.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 34
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter reviews the literature related to this study’s problem of practice,
namely transforming a higher education institution’s learning environment from teacher-centered
to learner-centered through effective course design. This chapter, like all other chapters in this
study, adopts the definition of “learning” as the change in the learner caused by his or her
experience with the environment (Jarvis, 2009, as cited in Jarvis, 2013; Mayer, 2011). The
review will focus on different components of course design and how they relate to one another,
all from the perspective of student learning. The review will also cover a few studies that inform
on the validity and limitations of different propositions about effective course design.
Models of Course Design
Some researchers and practitioners have argued that effective course design is the key to
improving learning at higher education institutions (Cohen, 1987; Fink, 2013; Whetten, 2007).
Recounting his experience as a university professor, Fink (2013) expressed, “faculty knowledge
about course design is the most significant bottleneck to better teaching and learning in higher
education” (p. 27). Whetten (2007), another university professor, echoed:
It's not that we can't learn anything of value about student learning by observing great
teachers; it's that emphasizing classroom observation perpetuates the myth that the key to
learning is a talented instructor…. In sum, I have learned that the most effective teachers
focus their attention on course design. (p. 341)
Few researchers have cautioned against overenthusiasm regarding constructivist, learner-
centered pedagogy (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). However, there is a broad agreement
among researchers and practitioners that a learner-centered course design in which the three
elements, learning goals, assessments, and teaching and learning activities align with one another
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 35
is more effective for student learning than a traditional teacher or content-centered course design
(Barr & Tagg, 1995; Biggs & Tang, 2011; Fink, 2013; Nilson, 2010). Fink’s (2013) integrated
course design framework was described in Chapter One.
Biggs and Tang’s (2011) constructive alignment model of course design is very similar to
Fink’s (2013) integrated framework. As it is in Fink’s model, the Biggs and Tang’s model also
consists of three elements of course design, intended learning outcome, assessment tasks, and
teaching and learning activities; and Biggs and Tang use the term “constructive alignment” for
Fink’s integration. According to the model, a course design will be effective if and only if each
of the three components is aligned with and supportive of one another (Biggs & Tang, 2011).
Both Fink (2013) and Biggs and Tang (2011) emphasize that even if one of the three elements is
misaligned, student learning will suffer. Fink’s model also stresses that an effective course
design needs to carefully consider the situational factors influencing the students, instructors, and
the college while developing all the three components of course design. Just replicating course
design of Harvard Business School or USC Marshall School of Business will, in all likelihood,
not be effective for the students at the B-school Institute of Management.
An interesting perspective of a course design, called learning habitat model, is proposed
by Jones and Bennett (2017). They argued that a course design framework in which all the
components—outcomes, activities, and assessments—are fixed and linearly related would not be
effective if it bracketed all students into one homogeneous group. The course designed as an
ecosystem emphasizes every student’s engagement with the learning objectives. They claimed,
“the significance of the ecosystem metaphor for course design lies in the possibility of multiple
species and communities residing within a single course” (Jones & Bennett, 2017, pp. 199–200).
The two studies discussed earlier, one by Arum and Roksa (2011) and the other by Mayhew et
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 36
al. (2016), had also found that variation in student learning within institutions was higher than
variation across institutions.
Another perspective of a course design was proposed by Leberman and Martin (2005) as
they applied an experiential course design called dramaturgy to an undergraduate 3rd-year
management course. This model of a course design does not limit itself to fulfilling course
objectives but also stimulating individual student’s self-development by encouraging the
individual to plan, select, and order the learning activities for maximizing final course effect
(Leberman & Martin, 2005). Both models, Jones and Bennett’s (2017) Learning Habitat model
and Leberman and Martin’s (2005) Dramaturgy model captured the spirit of Barnett’s (2007)
message quoted in Chapter One: “students count not en masse or, even as course cohorts, but as
individuals” (p. 170).
The two models discussed in this section, Fink (2013) and Biggs and Tang (2011), put
learning goals or learning outcome as fixed for all students. The other two models, dramaturgy
and learning habitat, viewed learning goals as flexible and allowed adjustment or refinement to
suit individual student’s interests and needs. But, learning goals are central to all student-
centered course design. The next section reviews the literature on learning goals or learning
outcomes.
Learning Goals
Learning goals also referred to as learning outcomes or intended learning outcomes, is at
the foundation of all learner-centered course design. The learning goals of a course means what
a learner is expected to know, understand, and be able to do after completing the course. The
shift from an instruction-centered paradigm to a learning-centered paradigm that Barr and Tagg
(1995) described as taking place in American institutions of higher education has now become an
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 37
international trend in education (Kennedy, 2006). Bologna Agreement 1999, an agreement
among European Union countries that aimed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
higher education in Europe, specified that by 2010 all higher education institutions in European
Union would write all modules (courses) and programs in terms of learning outcomes (Kennedy,
2006). According to experts, learning outcomes need to be stated in the language of the learners;
they need to be learner-focused not instructor- or content-focused; they need to be challenging
but attainable, not too easy nor too difficult for the level of the program; they need to be specific,
not vague; they need to be relevant to learners (Banta & Palomba, 2014; Kennedy, 2006; Nilson,
2010).
Two other themes emerged from the review of literature on learning outcomes. First,
students with learning goals, compared to those without goals, learn more or better (Latham &
Brown, 2006; Locke & Latham, 2002); more or better learning implies stronger positive change
on the way students think, feel, and act. A student’s learning is generally categorized as better if
he or she attains higher-order learning viewed in terms of one or the other learning taxonomy,
say Bloom’s taxonomy or SOLO taxonomy. Second, even among the group of learners in the
same course, the individual goals the students set for themselves may vary, depending on their
prior knowledge and experience, interest, and cognitive ability (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro,
Lovett, & Norman, 2010; Xia, 2017).
Latham and Brown (2006) studied 125 first-year students of a Canadian business school.
In this study, the students were placed in four randomly selected groups and encouraged to set
four different sets of goals. The researchers found that the students in the group that were urged
to set a specific challenging learning goal attained better GPA and were more satisfied with the
program.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 38
Locke and Latham (2002) cited two studies in affirming that specific goals enhanced
learning. The first study they cited, one by Rothkopf and Billington (1979), showed that students
with specific learning goals paid more attention to goal-relevant prose passages than they did to
goal-irrelevant passages. The study also found that the students learned the goal-relevant
passages better than they learned the goal-irrelevant passages (Locke & Latham, 2002). The
second study they referred to, Locke and Bryan (1969), showed that people who were given
feedback on multiple dimensions of their performance improved their performance only on the
dimensions for which they had goals but not on other dimensions. The preceding studies suggest
that learning goals aid learning, but the study discussed next suggests that their impact on student
learning varies by students.
Xia (2017) studied course data collected over five years (2009–2013) from introductory
programming courses from the Aalto University in Finland. Some of his findings were as
follows: active goals set by the instructor aid student learning; the goals students set for
themselves may be different from the goals the instructors set for the students; the factors like
students’ prior knowledge and experience, career interest, and expectations from the course
contribute to the variation in goals the students set for themselves. Hay, Wells, and Kinchin
(2008) also found, while they were studying the application of a graphic organizing tool called
concept mapping in measuring student learning during their teaching a course in psychology, that
the students’ prior knowledge of the concepts affects the quality of their learning in the course.
Clear articulation of learning outcomes influences student learning, but the impact also
depends on the learners’ characteristics: their prior knowledge and experience, their motivation,
and their individual goals. Even if the goals students set for themselves vary from the goals the
course instructor sets for them, the instructor-set goals provide direction for teaching and
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 39
learning. They (the instructor-set goals) reduce the risk of uncertainty for students. They know
where to direct their effort. Some researchers have argued that outcome directed teaching and
learning reduces student learning; instead of focusing on genuine learning, the students resort to
performative act and learn superficially (Macfarlane, 2014). Learning goals constitute just one
component of the course design. It is important to understand how other two components of
course design, assessments, and learning activities, influence student learning. Assessment will
be discussed next, followed by teaching and learning activities.
Assessments
The term “assessments,” in this chapter, shall mean a process to measure students’
learning vis a vis learning goals, during and at the end of the course. Grading shall mean a
process of awarding a number or a symbol to represent the level of student’s achievement of the
learning outcomes. From the literature review on assessment, a theme emerged: assessments and
grading influence how students engage in learning. A theme eloquently endorsed by Walvoord
and Anderson (2010):
The grade is not an isolated artifact slapped on at the end; it is part of a system that
includes shaping goals and assignments, communicating with students, helping them
learn what they need, responding to them, and evaluating the quality of their work.
Integrating means teaching what you are grading and grading what you are teaching (p.
61)
Connor-Greene (2000) did an empirical evaluation of student self-reported behaviors
relating to different assessment methods in the two courses that she taught. The assessment
methods included daily quizzes and four scheduled tests. The study showed 92% of the students
in the daily quiz group reported that they always or almost always completed the reading by the
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 40
scheduled date; whereas only 12% of the students in four scheduled tests group reported having
done so. The result showed that the design of assessments influences how and how much
students engage in learning. Biggs, Tang (2011) affirmed the same as they shared the first
author’s experience of teaching a psychology course to part-time students in a B.Ed. Program in
Hong Kong in 1994. The students were told that their learning would be assessed based on their
demonstration of how psychology influenced their teaching (their vocation during the day), and
nothing else. Thought the students reacted strongly negatively at the beginning, by the end of the
course, their reaction was very different. In the authors’ own words: “When they [the students]
finally submitted their portfolios, John [the instructor] was stunned. They were rich and
exciting; the class achieved more A and B grades than ever before, the student feedback was the
best he’d ever received” (Biggs &Tang, 2011, p. 96).
Weimer (2002), the author of the book “Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to
practice,” shared her experience and underscored what Connor-Greene (2000) and Biggs and
Tang (2011) found: the design of assessment strongly influences how students engage in
learning, and consequently how well they learn. In a course in communication she taught in
1994, she gave the students only one required assignment. Each student had to give one speech.
All other assignments were optional. Each assignment had designated point, evaluation criteria,
and due date, but the students had the choice to do as many or not to do any. The author narrated
her experience thus:
But what happened the rest of that first semester took my breath away. I had no
attendance policy, but better attendance than in any class I could remember….I was
stunned by how willing they were to work, and with no complaints. Less concrete but no
less real was the change in atmosphere and energy in the class. (Weimer, 2002, p. 2)
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 41
Feedback. The studies discussed in the preceding sections showed that the design of
assessments influences student learning. Educators widely agree that post-assessment feedback
on student performance also improves student learning. But, not all feedbacks contribute to
student learning. Orsmond and Stephen (2011) interviewed 19 second-year students of
biological sciences and six tutors to study the congruence or dissonance between tutors’
feedback and the students’ perception of and action on that feedback. They found that students
showed a lack of awareness of information given by the tutor and their evaluation of feedback
focused only on how they could use them in future similar assignments. They also found that the
tutors did not seem to use Vygotskian or scaffolding approach in writing feedback; the feedback
they wrote focused more on identifying and correcting errors and explaining misunderstandings
(Orsmond & Stephen, 2011).
Other experts on assessment and feedback have also expressed the view that feedback
does not necessarily result in students’ engagement with the feedback (Handley, Price, and
Millar, 2011; Hughes, 2011). Brookhart (2013) recommended proficiency-based rubrics for
standards-based grading and feedback, arguing that they simplify evaluation of students’
progress and achievement, and also facilitate the students’ development into self-regulated
learners. Hughes (2011) advised against criteria-referenced assessment and recommended using
“Ipsative” assessment for feedback, comparing the learner’s existing performance with his or her
previous performance. Nicol and Macfarlane‐Dick (2006) suggested that effective feedback is
interactive, not a one-way transmission from teacher to student; it is timely and provides
opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance.
Learning outcomes are an integral component of course design, but they only tell us the
learners’ destination. Assessments are also an integral component, but they only help us measure
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 42
whether learners have reached or how well they are moving towards the destination. The third
component, teaching and learning activities, helps the learners move towards and attain the
learning goals. The studies and experience of Connor-Greene (2000), Biggs & Tang (2011), and
Weimer, M. (2002), underscored the influence of assessments on course design; they also
attested the influence of teaching and learning activities. The studies discussed in the next
section reinforce how the design of teaching and learning activities influence student learning.
Teaching and Learning Activities
Teaching and Learning activities, or simply learning activities, shall mean a wide range
of activities an instructor plans for the students to help them learn and attain the intended
learning outcomes. The activities include students attending lectures, doing assignments,
interacting with the instructors and fellow learners, and reflecting on one’s performance and
learning. This broad definition of learning activities is in line with Mayer’s (2011) definition of
instruction as the “instructor’s manipulation of the learner’s environment to foster learning” (p.
52). Two important themes emerged from the literature review on teaching and learning
activities. First, students learn more when learning activities provide them opportunities to
engage in active learning (doing and observing) than when they limit them to be a passive
recipient of information transmitted by the instructors. Second, faculty matters; instructors’
disposition influences students’ disposition.
Rowland, DiVasto, and Medsker (2013) surveyed 14 experts and interviewed eight adult
learners (purposefully selected for diversity in age, experience, profession, and context of
learning) on key features of instructional design, factors leading to powerful learning
experiences, and the relations between the two. They found that learner-instructor interaction,
learner’s engagement in active, experiential learning, and the learner’s reflection on his or her
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 43
learning were the three key drivers of powerful learning. A study by Foster, West, and Bell-
Angus (2016) also supported the assertion that students learn more when they are actively
engaged in learning and doing. The researchers applied two different methods of teaching—one
a traditional 3-hour lecture and the other a flipped classroom with students working one hour on
the learning materials before the class and two hours of lecture and discussion—to two cohorts
of students (88 students in Fall 2012 and 130 students in Fall 2013) in a graduate communication
management course. Their finding: the students in the flipped classroom group performed better.
Foster and Stagl (2018), in a case study of inverted classroom (flipped classroom) method used
in teaching a course in behavioral economics to 49 students of Vienna University of Economics
and Business found that the students expressed satisfaction with the flipped classroom format
and believed that it improved their performance.
The other researchers’ studies advised caution in interpreting Foster and Stagl’s (2018)
findings. The students in Foster and Stagl’s (2018) study itself did not recommend extending the
flipped classroom format to other classes; they felt they had to invest more time and mental
effort in the flipped classroom courses than in the other courses. A study of 15,000
undergraduate students across several Canadian universities by Fusaro and Couture (2012, as
cited in Macfarlane, 2014) found that students preferred lectures to discussion-based activities if
the lectures are engaging and relevant. Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) also questioned the
superiority of “constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based
teaching” over direct instruction, citing many studies. One of the studies they cited Klahr and
Nigam (2004) found that direct instruction method resulted in vastly more learning than
discovery method (cited in Kirschner & Clark, 2006, pp. 79–80). The study discussed next
examined what motivates students to invest more time and mental effort in a course.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 44
Umbach and Wawrzynski (2005) analyzed the data consisting of responses from 20,226
senior students, 22,033 first-year students, and 14,336 faculty members who completed the
national survey of student engagement in spring 2003. One of the research questions they
examined was whether faculty attitudes and behavior influenced students’ engagement, their (the
students’) perception of the learning environment, and their self-reported gains. They found that
the students reported a higher level of engagement and learning when faculty used active and
collaborative learning techniques, challenged the students academically by engaging them in
higher-order cognitive activities and had high course-related interaction with the students
(Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). The study discussed next supports the assertion that the design
of instruction and faculty support to students influence student learning.
Schwonke et al. (2013) split 60 German high-school students randomly into two groups.
They provided only one group of students with metacognitive support (in the form of cue card)
while both groups worked on a geometry lesson. Their findings: low prior knowledge
participants provided with metacognitive support acquired deeper conceptual understanding than
those low prior knowledge participants not provided with metacognitive support; and all learners
improved their efficiency of using of the help facilities, e.g., using them only when required.
All three components of course design – learning goals, assessments, and teaching and
learning activities – influence how students engage in learning and how much they learn. But
the degree of alignment or misalignment between the components also greatly influence them,
student engagement, and student learning. There is a wide agreement among researchers and
practitioners that in an effective course design all three components—learning outcome,
assessments, and teaching and learning activities—are aligned and well-integrated (Cohen, 1987;
Biggs & Tang, 2011; Fink, 2003, 2013; Walvoord & Anderson, 2010). The next section
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 45
discusses few studies that have attempted to test the validity of Fink’s (2003, 2013) and Bigg and
Tang’s (2011) assertion that student learning suffers when different components of course design
are not aligned.
Integration and Alignment
Leber et al. (2017) carried out a quasi-experimental field study on 81 students of
education science in a German university to test whether misalignment between learning goals
and assessments hurt students’ learning. Both the groups were taught the same course, by the
same instructor, with the same learning goal. However, for one section of the course, one group
was told that they would be assessed based on factual understanding, and the other group was
told they would be assessed based on a written essay demonstrating a deeper understanding of
the concepts. The authors found that the group for which learning goals were aligned with the
assessment (essay group) revealed more frequent use of elaboration strategy during the study,
attained better functioning knowledge, a higher-order learning outcome than declarative
knowledge in SOLO taxonomy, and felt more confident. The group did not differ in their
attainment of declarative knowledge.
Cohen (1987), based on his many studies in instructional alignment—learning situation in
which instructions and assessment are aligned—claimed that he and his researchers routinely
observed large effects on student learning from small amounts of instructional effort. One of the
studies Cohen (1987) mentioned was that of his doctoral student, Fahey (1986), who, in his
quasi-experimental study with the students in a community college, found that alignment of
instruction and assessments made a big effect on student learning; the lower aptitude students
performed better under aligned conditions than did higher aptitude students under misaligned
conditions (Cohen, 1987; Fahey, 1986). Cohen (1987) claimed that what they structured as
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 46
"misaligned" is “what one normally sees in the average classroom. The observed effect size was
1.2 sigma. With only 1.5 hours of instruction, alignment made enough of a difference to
eliminate the expected aptitude gap” (p. 18).
Situational Factors
Fink’s (2007, 2013) integrated course design framework includes a component called
situational factors. In his ‘A Self-directed Guide to Designing Course for Significant Learning,’
he suggested that the situational factors should be given careful consideration before designing
other components of the course design. The situational factors he suggested include number and
characteristics of the learners; characteristics of the teachers; nature of the subject; expectation of
the college, university, profession and society; and time and space available for learning
activities (Fink, 2003). The study discussed next illustrate the importance of considering
situational factors in course design.
In a study carried out with students of introductory biology course at Utah Valley
University, Holt, Young, Keetch, Larsen, and Mollner (2015) found that none among learning
outcome, the cognitive level of assessments, and constructive alignment explained improvements
in students’ critical thinking. The measure of learner-centeredness of the class with the students’
score on a quiz administered during the first week as a covariate explained the improvement in
their critical thinking. One plausible explanation the authors suggested was that the influence of
constructive alignment on learning might be more pertinent for the courses requiring a higher
level of cognitive learning outcomes than required in a typical introductory biology course.
Themes from the Literature Review
The review of the literature on the efficacy of course design in higher education broadly
supports the assertion that a course design greatly influences student learning in higher
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 47
education. In every model of course design, learning goals, assessments, and teaching and
learning activities are the key components. Each component makes a major difference in the
quality of student learning, but the course design will not be effective unless all the components
align with one another. Table 3 summarizes the dominant themes emerging from the literature
review. The next section reviews the literature on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of the teaching faculty—the stakeholder in this study of the problem of practice—in
embracing a learner-centered framework of integrated course design in their instructional
practice.
Table 3
Effective Course Design: Dominant Themes from Literature
Category Dominant Themes

Course Design
The effective course design has three key components – learning
goals, assessments and feedback, and teaching and learning activities.
Each component is aligned with and supportive of the other
component; all three are well-integrated.

Learning Goals
Effective learning goals are specific, not vague, and stated in the
language of the learners.
Effective learner goals are learner-focused, not instructor- or content-
focused.
Effective learning goals are challenging; they are neither too easy nor
too difficult for the level of the program.
Effective learning goals are relevant to learners; the learners can
relate them to their background and life experience.
learning goals influence student learning, but their impact depends on
the learners’ characteristics: their prior knowledge and experience,
their motivation, and their individual goals.

Assessments and
Feedback
Assessments influence students’ engagement and the quality of their
learning.
Feedback does not necessarily result in students’ engagement with
the feedback.
The student’s perception of and action on the feedback received may
differ from the instructor’s intent of giving the feedback.
Teaching and
Learning Activities
Students learn more when learning activities provide them
opportunities to engage in active learning (doing and observing).
Instructors’ disposition influences the students’ disposition.
Space for autonomy and reflection enhances student learning.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 48
Table 3, continued
Category Dominant Themes
Integration and
Alignment
Integration and alignment of learning goals, assessments, and
learning activities lead to the higher-order learning outcome.
The effect size of alignment or misalignment is large.

Instructors’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Knowledge Influences
According to Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011), the stakeholders’ knowledge and
skills, their motivation, and organizational factors influence the success or failure of any change
initiative. The change initiative in this case study is the shift in instructional practice from a
teacher and content-centered orientation to a learner-centered one, through adoption and
implementation of an integrated framework of course design in the MBA program. For effective
course design, Fink’s (2003, 2007, 2013) framework of integrated course design is used as a
guideline.
Knowledge about the learner-centered paradigm. Numerous studies, few of them
described and discussed in Chapter One and the previous sections, showed that students learn
more and better under the learning paradigm than under instruction paradigm (Barr & Tagg,
1995; Biggs & Tang, 2011; Fink 2003, 2007, 2013; Weimer, 2002; Whetten, 2007). Further, as
mentioned earlier in Chapter One, the shift from instruction paradigm to learning paradigm that
Barr and Tagg (1995) described as a trend in American educational institutions has now become
a global trend (Kennedy, 2006). Therefore, to effectively implement a learner-centered course
design, the instructors need to have the knowledge and understanding of how a learner-centered
course design differs from the instruction-centered ones.
Knowledge about writing and communicating learning goals. According to Ambrose
et al. (2010), clear learning objectives provide a framework for instructors to select and organize
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 49
course content and guide the design of assessments and evaluation methods. Learning objectives
also provide information to students about knowledge and skills they are expected to acquire by
the end of the course, enabling them (the students) to direct and control their learning (Locke &
Latham, 2006; Rueda, 2011; Mayer, 2011). According to Banta and Palomba (2014), learning
outcomes need to be communicated in simple language, not on the language of expert; they
should be student-focused not instructor-centered; and, they should be appropriate for the level
of the program, not too easy, nor overly difficult. Therefore, the instructors need to have
conceptual knowledge and procedural skill of clearly defining and communicating learning
goals, in terms of what students are expected to know and do.
Knowledge about designing assessment systems using grading rubrics. Connor-
Greene’s (2000), Weimer, M. (2002), Biggs, Tang and Society for Research into Higher
Education (2011) shared their experience in teaching to illustrate how the design of assessments
and grading influence students’ learning. When assessments are well-designed, and grading
rubric shared with the assessments, learning outcomes improve, both in terms of quality of work
produced and the students’ knowledge regarding quality (Andrade, 2000; Suskie, 2009).
Therefore, teaching faculty need to have the knowledge and skill to design effective assessments
along with the rubrics for grading them.
Knowledge about designing instructions and learning activities. Studies referred to in
the previous section, and many others, have revealed that the nature of teaching and learning
activities influence how and how much students learn. (Foster, West & Bell-Angus, 2016;
Foster & Stagl, 2018; Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). Ambrose et al. (2010) affirm that how
much students benefit from a learning activity depends on how they spend time on it; in other
words, the better the quality of mental effort invested in a learning activity, the better the
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 50
learning. Rowland, DiVasto, and Medsker (2013) found that instruction design that leads to
powerful learning engage students in active experience (doing it), facilitate their interaction with
the instructors, and encourage students to reflect on their learning. Rueda (2011) and Mayer
(2011) also emphasized the importance of metacognition in student learning. Therefore, the
instructors need to have the ability to design instructions and assignments with students’ learning
in mind, including giving them space for reflection on their learning and development.
Knowledge about using contextual factors in course design. Fink (2003, 2007, 2013)
suggested that careful consideration of the situational factors like characteristics of the learners,
characteristics of the teachers, nature of the subject, the expectation of the college, university,
profession and society, time and space available for learning activities, is the first step in
effective course design. Numerous studies have shown the importance of one contextual factor
in student learning, namely the students’ prior knowledge and experience. Referring to
Vygotsky (1978), Bransford and Johnson (1972) and Resnick (1973) Ambrose et al. (2010)
asserted, “students must connect new knowledge to previous knowledge in order to learn” (p.
15). Hay and Kinchin (2008) in their study of the application of a graphic organizing tool called
concept mapping in measuring student learning during a teaching in higher education found that
students’ prior knowledge of the concepts affects the quality of their learning in the course.
Other factors, for example, learning resources available to students, the time they can and are
willing to invest, also affect student learning. So, instructors must take into consideration the
situational factors when they design a course.
Metacognitive knowledge about reflecting on teaching and learning. Ambrose et al.
(2010) stated several reasons why metacognition is important for instructors in higher education:
(1) most teachers are still learning, (2) most have not received formal training on pedagogy, and
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 51
3) teaching is a highly complex and contextualized activity requiring continual adaptation to
changing parameters. Instructors’ reflecting on their students’ learning enables them (the
instructors) to assess whether course design needs any change or adaptation, and provide an
opportunity for continual improvement.
Table 4 presents the assumed knowledge influences necessary for the teaching faculty to
be able to implement an integrated framework of course design.
Table 4
Assumed Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
1. Instructors need to understand the importance of
situational factors in effective course design.
Declarative (Conceptual)
2. Instructors need to be able to create clear learning
outcomes, from the learners’ perspective and
suitable to the context.
Declarative (Conceptual and Procedural)
3. Instructors need to know how to create an
effective assessment system that aligns with
learning outcomes.
Declarative (Conceptual and Procedural)
4. Instructors need to be able to design and include a
variety of teaching and learning activities.
Declarative (Conceptual and Procedural)
5. Instructors need to be able to design or include
learning activities in alignment with learning
outcomes and assessments.
Declarative (Conceptual and Procedural)
6. Instructors need to know how to write and
communicate effective feedback to students.
Declarative (Conceptual and Procedural)
7. Instructors need to reflect on the effectiveness of
the course design and their instruction.
Metacognitive

Motivation Influences
Knowledge and motivation are two key factors that influence performance (Clark &
Estes, 2008). This section reviews literature that focuses on the motivation-related influences of
the instructors’ ability to implement key features of effective course design. Mayer (2011)
defined motivation as “an internal state that initiates and maintains goal-directed behavior” (p.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 52
39). Dembo and Seli (2016) described motivation as a resulting combination of three factors:
“choice of behavior, level of activity and involvement, persistence and management of effort” (p.
32). In describing the role of motivation in student learning, Mayer (2011) discussed five
different bases (not mutually exclusive) of academic motivation: interest, beliefs, attribution,
goals, and partnership. Of the many constructs that are used to explain motivation, this study
utilizes expectancy-value theory and goal orientation theory to analyze the assumed motivational
influences of the instructors.
Expectancy-value theory. According to Ambrose et al. (2010), “Expectancies and value
interact to influence the level of motivation to engage in goal-directed behavior” (p. 70). Value
is the relative importance one assigns to a goal, and expectancy is one’s expectation of successful
attainment of the goal. Expectancy itself is a result of interaction between outcome expectancy
(the belief that specific action will bring about the desired outcome) and efficacy expectancy (the
belief that one is capable of performing in a way that will bring about the desired outcome).
Therefore, for a person to be strongly motivated towards a goal, she or he has to a) value the
goal, b) have high outcome expectancy that certain sets of actions will result in attainment of the
goal, and c) have high self-efficacy (efficacy expectancy) that she or he can perform the set of
actions required to attain the goal.
Psychological factors affecting instructors’ motivation. The instructors’ success in
implementing key features of course design will not only depend on their knowledge but also
their motivation. First, the instructors need to be genuinely interested in improving student
learning; i.e., they value the goal. Second, they need to believe that implementing key features
of integrated course design will lead to improved student learning; i.e., their outcome expectancy
is high. Finally, they need to have high self-efficacy about their ability to implement an
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 53
integrated course design where learning goals, learning activities, and assessments are
‘constructively aligned,’ the focus of this study.
Goal orientation theory. Goal orientation theory posits one way of understanding why
people do what they do. Kaplan and Maehr (2007) explained, “Rather than focusing on the
content of what people are attempting to achieve (i.e., objectives, specific standards), goal
orientations define why and how people are trying to achieve various objectives” (p. 142). The
theory then categorizes the goal orientation into two broad types: mastery orientation and
performance orientation. Performance-oriented individuals are motivated by extrinsic factors
such as rewards and recognition, whereas the mastery-oriented ones by the desire to master the
task or learning. Referring to Ames (1992) and Dweck (1986), Kaplan and Maehr (2007)
described the difference in orientation of the two as demonstrating competence (performance
orientation) versus developing competence (mastery orientation).
Instructors’ goal orientation. In the context of this study, if instructors adopted mastery
goals in their teaching practices, they would be reflective practitioners who continually learn
from their experience. For example, they would continually assess whether the outcomes of the
courses they teach are clear and whether the assignments produce the competencies they seek to
produce in their course. The more the number of instructors with mastery orientation, the more
likely the organization to succeed in implementing an effective system of course design.
Performance orientation, in contrast, would be manifested by instructors trying to give the
impression of efficiency by hurrying through the course content, and performance by a heavy
dose of lecturing. Table 5 presents the assumed motivational influences of the instructors
necessary to implement the key features of effective course design in the B-school MBA
program.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 54
Table 5
Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivation Construct Assumed Motivation Influence
Utility Value Instructors need to see the value in adopting and
implementing key features of effective course design.
Self-Efficacy Instructors need to feel confident in their ability to
implement key features of effective course design.
Goal Orientation Instructors should want to help students learn better by
becoming a reflective practitioner of the science of
instruction, going beyond merely performing in the class
and meeting the requirement of covering the course.

Organizational Influences
In Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model, in addition to knowledge and motivation,
organizational factors can be causes of performance gaps – or contributors to stakeholder
success. Organizational structures and policies, Rueda (2011) argued, “can be a hindrance to
improved performance and meeting goals, even when people are knowledgeable and motivated
to achieve those goals” (p. 59). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) discussed the role of
organizational influences by distinguishing between what they termed as a cultural model and
cultural setting-related factors. Cultural models are “historically evolved shared ways of
perceiving and thinking” that are “often invisible and unnoticed by those who hold them” (p. 47).
They described a cultural setting as “those occasions where people come together to carry out a
joint activity that accomplishes something they value” (p. 48). In their description, a cultural
model, mostly invisible, is formed and evolves in a cultural setting which is generally visible.
Two assumed organizational influences likely to affect the instructors’ knowledge and
motivations for achieving the goals are discussed next.
Culture of learning-centered instructional practice. Based on my interaction with
instructors and educators at the B-school and Nepalese society at large, the dominant culture in
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 55
teaching and learning in educational institutions is teacher-centered, content-centered, one-way
transmission of information. The students and the managers are also used to this teacher-
centered culture. The paradigm shift in American undergraduate education from teacher-
centered to learning-centered pedagogy that Barr and Tagg (1995) discussed more than 20 years
ago has not yet caught up in Nepal, not even in graduate education. This shift in culture, among
instructors (and other stakeholders) from the culture of teaching to the culture of helping students
learn will be critical for successful adoption and implementation of effective course design.
Culture of collaboration in instruction. Bryson & Hand (2007) in a study of 50
students of a UK university business school found that coherence and consistency of message
from the teaching team and offering a sensible workload (challenging but not overload) to
students had a positive influence on students’ level of engagement. My personal experience of
going through the Global Ed. D program validates the positive influence of collaborative
teaching. By reducing the cognitive load of students, and harnessing students’ connection of
knowledge across courses, collaborative teaching enhances student learning. A culture of
collaboration among instructors will influence the effective implementation of learner-centered
integrated course design. However, most instructors in the B-school are part-time faculty, and
there is not much practice of collaboration in teaching. The study will, therefore, probe into the
degree to which the part-time faculty feel like they are or can be a part of a collaborative culture
related to instruction. Table 6 presents the assumed organizational influences of the instructors
in the adoption and implementation of key features of integrated course design.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 56
Table 6
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational Influence Category Assumed Organizational Influences

Cultural Setting Influence 1 The organization needs to cultivate a culture of
learner-centered instructional practice
Cultural Model Influence 2 The organization needs to cultivate a culture of
collaborative teaching

Chapter Summary
This chapter reviewed the literature on effective course design in higher education and
examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influence of the teaching
faculty in implementing a learner-centered integrated course design framework in a higher
education program. Specific, clear, challenging but attainable learning goals articulated in the
language of the learners, instruction design that includes a variety of learning activities and
engages students, and well-designed assessments aligned with learning goals and learning
activities are the key features of effective course design. Interactive and timely feedback
spelling out the gap between the student’s current and desired performance also aids learning.
Besides, different components of the course design need to be contextual and grounded in the
local context of the learners, teachers, and the institution. The second half of the chapter detailed
seven knowledge influences, three motivation influences, and two organizational influences
assumed to affect the teaching faculty’s effectiveness in implementing a learner-centered
integrated course design in a higher education program. Appendix A contains a summary of all
12 KMO influences along with the methods and protocols used for assessing each influence.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 57
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter presents the research design and methods of data collection and analysis
used for the study -- examining the gaps in knowledge and motivation of the teaching faculty of
the B-school, the organization of this case study, for adopting an effective course design
framework in their instructional practice. The course design framework is adapted from what
Fink (2003, 2013) called an integrated framework of course design and Biggs and Tang (2011)
called constructive alignment. Both frameworks, in essence, argue that for course design to be
effective, its three components—learning goals, assessments, and teaching and learning
activities—will have to align and integrate. My research questions focused on the gaps in
knowledge and motivation of the part-time faculty and the organizational factors that affected
their knowledge and motivation for successfully adopting and implementing the integrated
course design framework in the MBA program of the B-school. At the time this study was
carried out, the part-time instructors constituted 90% of the total teaching faculty of the B-
school. Most other private colleges in Nepal have a similar composition of part-time and full-
time faculty. The study also probed into the gap on the faculty’s knowledge, motivation, the
organizational factors that influenced the success of the planned initiative of adopting and
implementing a learner-centered, integrated course design framework.
The remainder of the chapter will describe the organization’s key stakeholder groups,
outline the sampling criteria I applied for choosing the participants, explain the methods and
instruments I used for data collection and analysis, and discuss how I addressed concerns related
to credibility, trustworthiness, validity, and reliability of the study.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 58
Participating Stakeholders
The success of any new initiative depends on the combined efforts of all relevant
stakeholders. For the effective implementation of a framework of integrated course design in an
educational program, the roles of the three stakeholder groups are critical – the teaching faculty,
the program management team, and the students.
Most of about 600 students in the B-school’s MBA program came from the middle and
upper-middle socioeconomic strata of Nepalese society. Two third of the students in the full-
time program and a little over two-fifth in the part-time program were female. More than 90% of
a little over 30 instructors who were teaching in the MBA program were part-time; their
association with the B-school was contractual, term by term, to teach one or more courses.
Teaching at the B-school was not their full-time job; for many, teaching was not even a full-time
vocation. Their background was diverse -- bureaucrats, business managers and leaders from the
private sectors, business owners and entrepreneurs. Part-time and contractual association
notwithstanding, the average length of association of the instructors with the B-school was close
to 10 years, an impressively stable relation for an institution that was less than 20 years old. All
part-time teaching faculty and the program managers, most of whom also taught one or more
courses in the program, had a master’s level or higher education. Many members in the program
management team had also worked for the B-school for more than ten years.
The study focused on the teaching faculty, even though the other two stakeholder groups
– program managers and the students – were equally important for the success of the planned
initiative of adopting and implementing an integrated course design framework. Of the 31
instructors who were teaching in the B-school’s MBA program at the time, 28 instructors were
part-time, and only they were considered for the study. There were several reasons why the full-
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 59
time instructors were excluded from the study. First, the full-time instructors’ program
administration role could color their perspectives. Second, my position as the most influential
decision-maker in the organization would put me as a researcher and them as the interview
participants in an uncomfortable situation. Third, their buy-in for implementation of any
recommendation would relatively be easier to established than that of the part-time faculty. The
B-school’s influence on the part-time instructors was considered much weaker, compared to its
influence on the full-time employees; the part-time instructors could opt to teach at other
colleges relatively easily. The last, but not the least, the part-time faculty constituted more than
90% of the teaching faculty; therefore, exclusion of the instructors who are full-time employees
would not affect the purpose of the study -- to examine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational causes of the teaching faculty influencing implementation of the learner-centered
integrated course design framework.
Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
For the selection of instructors for the interview, I started with a strategy of purposeful,
criterion-based sampling, since the purpose of the study was to gain insight and “select a sample
from which the most can be learned” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96). As already explained in
the preceding paragraph, the full-time B-school employees, even though they were teaching,
were not included. Before I started collecting data, I had thought of focusing only on the full-
time MBA program, and therefore choose participants only from among the instructors who
taught in the full-time MBA program. However, during the data collection, I realized that the
students from both full-time and part-time programs had to sit in the same final examination, on
the same day stipulated by the university. Therefore, it was not possible to focus improvement
on one program by ignoring the other.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 60
Moreover, both full-time and part-time programs had identical degree requirements in
terms of courses and credits. On completion of the program, the students received the same
degree, Master of Business Administration. I decided to cover both full-time and part-time MBA
for the study. Fortunately, many instructors taught in both full-time and part-time programs.
For, the B-school enrolled students twice a year, and the students in both programs took the same
courses and sat on the same final examination. On the term ongoing term during the data
collection, 31 instructors were teaching 36 courses in the MBA program, both full-time and part-
time. The characteristics of part-time faculty were diverse: less than one year to more than 15
years in terms of length of association with the B-school; early thirties to more than 60 in terms
of age; business managers, public sector bureaucrats, entrepreneurs, and professors of other
universities in terms of profession. In terms of their educational background, they were diverse.
All had a minimum of one master’s degree, few had a doctorate, and they were from local as
well as universities around the world – mostly, India, UK, USA, and Australia.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
I had thought of choosing 8 to 10 participants for the interview using the following
criteria:
Criterion 1: participants teaching any required quantitative course. According to
this criterion, I would choose 25% of the participants from among those who taught one of the
required courses in the quantitative or analytical subjects like accounting, economics, finance,
information technology, statistics. Fortunately, there were a few among the instructors who
taught both required and specialization courses in quantitative subjects. Out of the six
participants I ended up interviewing, four had taught or had the experience of teaching a required
course in quantitative subjects.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 61
Criterion 2: participants teaching any required soft skill course. The second criterion
I had set was that 25% of the participants would be from among those who taught one of the
required soft courses (human resource, organization behavior, communication, leadership, etc.).
I wanted to ensure that if teaching needs and instructors’ perspective varied by nature of the
subject, the variety in needs and perspective was captured. Again, a few instructors taught both
required and specialization courses in subjects known as soft subjects; the constraint was not
tight. Of the six participants I interviewed, two taught or had taught both required and
specialization courses on soft subjects, and one taught specialization course only.
Criterion 3: participants teaching any quantitative specialization course. The third
criteria I had set was that 25% of the participants chosen would be from among those who taught
one of the optional or specialization courses in the quantitative or analytical subjects like
accounting, economics, finance, information technology, statistics. The reason for setting this
criterion was to ensure that the representations of instructors from teaching required courses as
well as specialization courses were there in the sample. Just in case instructional challenges
were different in core and specialization courses because students’ prior knowledge and
motivation to learn varied, I wanted to ensure that the study captured those varying perspectives.
Three of the six participants interviewed had taught or had the experience of having taught both
core and specialization courses in quantitative subjects.
Criterion 4: participants teaching any soft-skill related specialization course. Fourth
criteria I had set was that at least 25% of the sample would be teaching or had the experience of
having taught one of the optional or specialization courses in the soft skill area like
communication, human resource, organization behavior, leadership. Again, because many
instructors taught both core and specialization courses, meeting this sampling criterion was also
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 62
not challenging. Two of the six participants interviewed were either teaching or had taught soft
courses both on core and specialization areas.
Table 7 summarizes the first set of sampling criteria I used for the study:
Table 7
Share of Participants by Sampling Criteria
Type of Courses Taught Core Specialization
Quantitative or analytical 25% 25%
Soft skills related 25% 25%

As I went through the list of courses and the instructors teaching them, I realized that I
could easily meet the criteria specified in Table 7; several instructors taught or had taught both
required and specialization courses. A few faculty members have had the experience of the B-
school both as a student and as an instructor. There were a few faculty members who had been
teaching at the B-school for more than ten years. So, I used the following additional criteria (in
addition to the one mentioned in Table 7) to pick eight names as potential participants for the
interview:
• At least 25% of the participants had taught at the B-school for ten years or more.
• At least 25% of the participants had also been a one-time student of the B-school.
• At least 25% of the participants were business executives or business owners.
• All participants had taught at the B-school for at least two years or more.
• In the perception of the program managers who interacted with the teaching faculty more
regularly, the participants were confident in their disposition and communicated well.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 63
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The main data collected for the study was from one-on-one, semi-structured, protocol-
guided, conversational interviews with six teaching faculty members. I also examined the course
syllabi of the teaching faculty. For triangulation of the findings, I conducted a focus group
session with a group of 9 MBA students. Next, I briefly describe how each of the three
instruments just mentioned was used.
Documents and Artifacts
I collected the syllabi of all the courses that the instructors in the MBA program were
teaching at the time the data was collected. I used the protocol in Appendix B to examine the
syllabi. I thought the course syllabi of the participants and other instructors would help me hone
my questions during the interviews. I also thought they would help in triangulating the data
interpreted from the interviews. However, as I examined the documents, I realized that it was
hard to judge how well they incorporated some of the features, especially alignment between
different components of course design, mentioned in the protocol in Appendix B. I found the
interviews much more informative. Even though I tried assessing the participants’ course syllabi
as per the protocol mentioned in Appendix B, I focused primarily on the data collected from the
interviews.
Interviews
As mentioned earlier under the section “interview sampling criteria,” I prepared a list of
eight faculty members whom I wanted to approach for the interviews. I did not want to have
more than one interview a day because I wanted the participants to have the time and space to
express as freely as possible and as much as possible. I also wanted ample time between the
interviews to reflect on each one of them. I used what Patton (2002) described as ‘the
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 64
standardized open-ended interview’ approach, assuming they would be time efficient and
responses would be easier to compare and analyze, and they would enable the participants to
share their thoughts and insights without being constrained by limited response choices (Patton,
2002). I used the protocol in Appendix F to invite the potential participants for the interview and
let the participants read the Informed Consent in Appendix E before beginning the interview.
Though I used the protocol in Appendix C to guide my interview conversation with the
participants, I took a semi-structured approach in the sense that I allowed the participants to
freely express their thoughts even though the response were not necessarily related to the
question I asked. I continually reminded the participants that there were no right or wrong
answers to the questions; I would not be judging them on the quality of their answers; I was only
interested in their experience and wisdom (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). I wanted to ask questions that
could elicit responses related to the participants’ and other instructors’ knowledge and
motivation for adopting a learner-centered integrated course design in the MBA program. In the
choice of the questions, and the language and the tone I used, I did my best to project my role as
a researcher and delink my role as the founder of the B-school and one of its key decision-
makers.
I had planned for the interview sessions of an hour with each participant. However, the
first interview took place on Dec 17, 2018, and it lasted a little over two and a half hours. The
second one that took place on Dec 19, 2019, took about an hour and 40 minutes. The shortest
one lasted 56 minutes. Every other interview lasted between 70 to 80 minutes. I found each
interview quite informative and thoroughly enjoyed each one of them. However, after the sixth
interview, which took place on Jan 6, 2019, I felt that the data got saturated; I was not going to
get significantly new information from more interviews.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 65
I let the participants choose the time and place of their convenience for the interview.
Four interviews took place on the campus of the B-school, and two at my office outside the
campus, because the participants found the location more convenient. Five participants preferred
to converse in English and one in Nepali. No interpreter was required because I am a native
Nepali speaker. Of the six participants I interviewed, three had been teaching in the organization
for more than ten years, two for more than five years, and one for a little over two years. Three
participants taught quantitative courses and the other three non-quantitative courses. Four of the
six participants were senior executives in private and public corporations; two were free-lance
teacher and consultant.
Focus Group Session
As I was analyzing the data, I felt the urge to check the validity of the study findings with
the students, a stakeholder group whose performance would ultimately measure the efficacy of
any recommendation. I wanted the opinion of those students who had at least studied two
trimesters at the B-school and who were willing to share their learning experience at the school.
I requested the school’s program office if they could get about ten volunteers to participate in a
focus group discussion. Twelve students agreed to participate, and nine students showed up. I
described the purpose of the focus group session and explained that anyone could decide not to
participate and not answer or comment on any of the questions that came up during the
discussion. The protocol in Appendix D was used to guide the focus group discussion. The
purpose of the session was to check the validity of the findings of the study, revealed by the
analysis of the interview with the instructors.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 66
Data Analysis
I followed a few simple steps for the data analysis. First, I examined the course syllabus
of each participant and rated them on each of the following parameters:
• Clear articulation of expected learning outcomes or learning goals
• The student-centered language used in the learning goals
• Use of higher-order learning outcomes (using any taxonomy of learning)
• Clear articulation of teaching and learning activities students are expected to engage in
• The proportion of active student-centered learning activities (direct observing or doing
experiences by the students) in the overall teaching and learning activities planned
• Alignment of learning goals with learning activities
• Alignment of assessments and examination questions with learning goals
• Alignment of assessments and examination questions with learning activities
I confined the rating on each parameter to yes - the feature was incorporated, no – the feature
was not incorporated, or NA – the feature could not be ascertained. Though my original plan
was to use the analysis of the course syllabus to help me probe deeper during my interview, I
changed my plan because most syllabi did not contain the detailed description of learning
activities and assessments to make any meaningful differentiation in their quality, as planned. I
decided to focus more on the interviews with the participants.
Second, I listened to the audio recording of each interview and made a note of the
essence of the participant’s views about each assumed KMO influence, and to any other
emergent code. With the participants’ permission, I had recorded all the interviews. For each
participant, I prepared one sheet containing the essence of his or her interview responses,
concerning each assumed KMO influence or any other code that emerged. Because I had
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 67
personally conducted and recorded the interview, I found the process of listening to the audio-
recording and directly making a note of responses quite effective. I could listen to the tones and
emphasis of the participants’ voice, which I would not have been able to by just looking at the
transcript.
Third, I edited the transcripts (for transcribing, I sought the help of a combination of
software and people) of all interviews, listening to their audio recordings. I verified the notes of
the essence of the interviews made from listening to the audio recording with the contents in the
transcripts; where necessary, I listened to the audio-recording and edited the notes or the
transcripts, whichever I found did not match with the audio-recording.
Finally, I aggregated all participants’ responses that pertain to one specific KMO
influence, or any other emergent code, together and examined them for themes or ideas related to
the study questions. I did try using qualitative coding analysis software ATLAS.ti, as planned
earlier, but found MS word adequate for the size of the data I had.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The participants in my research were the part-time faculty teaching in the MBA program
of a business school that I founded. Although I did not directly supervise any of them, I was
cognizant that the participants would not be able to delink my position in the organization with
my role as a researcher. The reactivity, unless handled with sensitivity, could have been a
serious concern in this study: the participants could opt for socially appropriate responses and
behavior over truthfulness. However, for all six participants, teaching at the B-school was not
the primary source of their income; they were quite secure and confident in their disposition.
Still, I took special precaution to ensure that interview questions were neutral and non-leading. I
was cautious that my demeanor was non-threatening and unobtrusive during the interviews.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 68
After every interview, I introspected on my behavior and constantly reminded myself that I was
in a researcher’s role and not that of the founder of the B-school. To the best of my judgment, all
six participants were truthful in their responses.
I validated the transcripts of their interviews with the respected participants, following
Creswell’s (2014) observation that member checking is ‘the single most important way’ of
mitigating the risk of misinterpreting participants’ views, action, and perception. I also
conducted a focus group session with 9 MBA students to check the validity of the findings.
Besides, I subjected myself to peer debrief by my dissertation chair. All said and done, I could
not agree with Creswell (2014) more, “In the final analysis, validity threats are made implausible
by evidence, not methods” (p. 128). Whether the organization studied found the study and its
findings useful for improving its students’ learning, graduation rate, and time to graduation
would be the real test of the research’s and its methods’ validity.
Ethics
First, I adhered to the universal principles of ethics, mainly informed consent, voluntary
participation, and respect for each participant’s circumstances and beliefs. Second, I followed
the guidelines prescribed by the USC’s Institutional Review Board. Third, I made it clear to all
participants in the interview and the focus group discussion that I was soliciting information as a
researcher and not in my capacity as the founder of the organization. Fourth, I made it clear to
all the participants that their participation was voluntary, and there would be no consequences,
positive or negative, for not participating. Finally, I assured all the participants that I would not
produce or share any audio or video recording of the interview without the participants’ consent.
I was aware that as I engaged in the process of data collection, situations could have
arisen when I would be challenged to confine myself as a researcher only. I did not have any
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 69
ethical dilemma, however. I was aware of Glesne’s (2011) warning, “When research participants
trust you, you invariably receive the privilege and burden of learning things that are problematic
at best and dangerous at worst.” (p. 168). And, Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) advice was deeply
embedded in my conscience, “Although policies, guidelines, and codes of ethics have been
developed by the federal government, institutions, and professional associations, actual ethical
practice comes down to the individual researcher’s own values and ethics” (p. 261).
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
All methodological approaches have strengths and weaknesses. The study used Clark
and Estes’ (2008) KMO gap analysis framework. Because the Clark and Estes’ (2008)
framework is designed to assess the causes of the organizational performance gap, and the case
study related to the organizational effort to improve students’ learning, graduation rate, and time
to graduation, the choice of the framework was appropriate to the context. Its emphasis on the
diagnosis of the causes before searching for the solutions was a big strength. The case study
design of the research and adoption of KMO framework was also appropriate because of the
researcher’s convenient access to the organizational information and the stakeholders of the
study. Data were easily available, and in-depth interviews with the participants were possible to
assess the KMO’s effectively. On the flip side, the case study approach made the study too
specific to the context of one organization, possibly making its findings less transferrable to
other organizations and contexts. Because the analysis relied on data from interviews with a few
participants, the study was susceptible to the risk of reality distortion due to participants’ bias
and underrepresentation of the population. Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO framework also did
not easily accommodate the analysis of environmental factors external to the organization.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 70
Limitations and Delimitations
One of the potential flaws of this study is the selection bias on the sample of participants
chosen for the interview. Because the qualitative interview was the chosen instrument, and
because time constraint made only a few interviews possible, it made sense to choose
participants who had ample knowledge of and experience in the organization. It also made sense
to choose participants who would express their thoughts and views without fear and hesitation.
Therefore, prejudice and pre-disposition of the participants chosen for the interview could have
influenced the findings. The participants’ views may not represent the views of the teaching
faculty as a group. The next limitation is the possible influence of the researcher in the
participants’ response because of his (the researcher’s) influential position in the organization,
even though the researcher felt that the chosen participants were candid and honest in their
expression. If time were not the constraint, I would have preferred interviewing more to mitigate
the sampling bias. I would supplement the interviews with one or two focus group sessions with
other participants to ensure that there is no distortion of reality because of the sampling bias.
The first significant delimitation of the study was the choice of the study itself. The
study focused on student learning measured primarily by course grade, time to graduation, and
completion rate. However, the students and the organization of the study value student
experience more; student experience encompasses much more than the course grade and time to
graduation. Notwithstanding the delimitation, the researcher believed that students care about
the quality of their learning, course grade, and time to graduation and improvement in those
parameters will enhance the overall student experience.
The second delimitation of significance is the choice of stakeholder for the study.
Because of time constraint, teaching faculty was chosen as the stakeholder group of the study,
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 71
fully knowing that the other key stakeholders – the students and the administrators – also greatly
influence student learning. The researcher’s role as one of the administrators and his experience
of close interactions with the other administrators mitigated the deficiency of exclusion of the
administrators. The deficiency of exclusion of the student group, to some extent, was addressed
by a focus group session with a group of students carried out to confirm the findings from the
interview with the instructors. Besides, the researcher believed that the findings would help the
organization and the instructors improve student learning, even though the study did not
incorporate the perspectives of the students and the administrators.
The third significant delimitation was the organization chosen for the case study. A
single organization was studied; the ethos and culture of the organization and the socio-political
environment surrounding it might be so unique that the findings may not be relevant, and
recommendations not transferable to other organizations. Because the organization of the study
was a business school, stakeholders chosen for the KMO study were the teaching faculty, and the
goal chosen was improving student learning, many of the findings, if not all, should be
transferrable across many institutions of higher education, especially those that have not yet
adopted a learner-centered course design and instructions.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 72
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Many students who enroll in higher education fail to graduate, and many of those who
graduate do not acquire knowledge and skills commensurate with the time and money they spend
on their higher education. These two problems, which afflict many societies around the world,
have enormous socioeconomic implications, apart from the individual pains they inflict on the
affected students and the graduates. This study conducted needs analysis in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes for the teaching faculty of a business school
(also referred to as the organization or the B-school) to adopt a learner-centered, integrated
course design framework in the MBA program so that the students’ learning, graduation rate, and
time to graduation, all improve. This chapter reports and discusses the analysis and
interpretation of the data collected for the research: what KMO gaps need to be addressed for the
teaching faculty in the MBA program to successfully adopt and implement a learner-centered,
integrated course design framework? Chapter 5 that follows will propose and discuss the
solutions for addressing the gaps; it will also recommend an evaluation plan for measuring the
efficacy of the proposed solutions.
The main data for the study came from one-on-one, semi-structured, protocol-guided,
conversational interviews with six teaching faculty members. (Though the plan was to interview
eight faculty members, the researcher felt that the data got saturated and no significant additional
information was going to come from additional interview). All six faculty members interviewed
were part-time faculty (90% or more instructors in the program were part-time instructors). Of
the six participants, three had been teaching in the organization for more than ten years, two for
more than five years, and one for a little over two years. Three participants taught quantitative
courses, and the other three taught non-quantitative courses. Four of the six participants were
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 73
senior executives in private and public corporations; two were free-lance teachers and
consultants. The course syllabi of the participants and that of a few other instructors were also
examined as a supplemental source. The findings gleaned out of the data from the interview
were validated with data collected from a focus group session with a group of MBA students.
The remainder of the chapter is organized following Clarke and Estes’ (2008) KMO
framework, which posits that the performance of any organization depends on its people’s
knowledge and motivation (K&M), and their interaction with the organizational environment.
The framework also suggests that the gap in any one or more of knowledge (K), motivation (M),
or organizational factors (O) causes performance deficiency (Clark & Estes, 2008). Based on
extensive literature review on teaching and learning, and the researcher’s knowledge of the
organization of the case study, 12 KMO causes – 7 K, 3 M, and 2 O – were presumed to
influence the teaching faculty’s performance goal of implementing a learner-centered, integrated
course design framework in the MBA program. The chapter presents the results and findings for
each of the 12 presumed KMO influences, and it concludes with a summary of findings and their
validation with data from a focus group session with the students.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
According to Clark and Estes (2008), “the knowledge and motivation systems are the
most vital facilitator or inhibitors of work performance” (pp. 43–44). Although the interview
with the participants was the primary instrument relied on for investigating the instructors’
knowledge and motivation, the syllabi of the participants and that of the other instructors
teaching in the MBA program were also examined to aid the data analysis. Table 8 shows the
researcher’s assessment of the participant’s course syllabi on a set of parameters distilled from
the literature review as important characteristics of effective course design. The mnemonics P1
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 74
to P6 in the first row of the table indicates the interview participants whose syllabi are rated on
the table; C1 and C2 under P2 indicate syllabi of two different courses taught by the participant
P2. Where the columns and rows cross, the syllabi are rated for the characteristics stated on
different rows of the first column. The rating Y indicates the syllabus contains the characteristic
stated in the row; N indicates it was not present; NA indicates they could not be ascertained from
the content of the syllabi. Though ratings of the syllabi on Table 8 suggests that many features
of effective course design, especially the alignment between the three components of the course
design – learning goals, assessments, and teaching and learning activities – were not evident in
the course syllabi, the table should be interpreted with a caveat. The instructors interviewed and
the students participating in the focus group session, both, indicated that the first session with the
instructors in the class made the course content much clearer to the students.
Table 8
Analysis of Participants’ Course Syllabi
Parameters P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6
C 1 C 2
Clarity of learning goals Y Y Y Y N Y Y
Use of learners’ language in learning goals Y N Y Y N Y Y
Inclusion of higher-order learning goals (any
taxonomy)
Y Y Y Y Y Y N
The clarity in the articulation of learning and
teaching activities
NA NA NA NA Y Y N
Inclusion of variety in teaching and learning
activities
NA NA NA Y Y NA N
Inclusion of active learning (doing and observing)
activities
Y NA Y Y Y y NA
Alignment between learning goals and learning
activities
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Alignment between assessments and learning goals NA NA Y NA NA NA NA
Alignment between assessments and learning
activities
NA NA NA NA Y Y NA
Note: Y- Yes, N- No, and NA- Not articulated clearly
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 75
Table 9 summarizes the knowledge factors presumed to influence the instructors’
efficacy in implementing the effective course design and the synthesis of findings on knowledge
influences. In the last column, the presumed knowledge factor is categorized as an “Asset” if the
findings suggested that the instructors had the presumed knowledge, and they used it in their
instructional practice. Otherwise, the presumed knowledge factor is categorized as a “Gap,”
suggesting that improvement is needed. Discussion of findings and interpretation of knowledge
influences follow Table 9.
Table 9
Synthesis of Findings on Knowledge Influence
Presumed
Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge
Type
Synthesis of insights Gap or
Asset
1. Instructors
need to
consider the
situational
factors in an
effective course
design
Declarative
(Conceptual
and Procedural)
Participants shared the example of taking
into consideration the following in the
choice of topics and cases
• students’ past education background
• relevance to the local context and
market demand
• the national and international trend
• students’ learning habits and time
constraints
Asset

2. Instructors
need to be able
to create clear
learning
outcomes from
the learners’
perspective.
Declarative
(Conceptual &
Procedural)
Course syllabus varied widely across
courses and instructors in terms of the
language used, teacher-centered
language at one end of the spectrum and
learner-centered one at the other.

In terms of the articulation of learning
activities (what the students are expected
to do) most course syllabi were found
lacking in using learners’ perspective;
most were content-centered.

In describing their instructional practice
and teaching experience, however, all
participants sounded much more student-
centered.

Gap

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 76

Table 9, continued
Presumed
Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge
Type
Synthesis of insights Gap or
Asset
3. Instructors
need to know
how to create
an effective
assessment
system that
aligns with
learning
outcomes.
Declarative
(Conceptual
and Procedural)
All but one accepted severe
misalignment problems between the
learning outcomes and assessments.

All expressed constrained by the
university-mandated 4-hour pen & paper
final examination and blamed the
constraint for the misalignment problem.

Four out of six participants also
expressed apprehension over the
competence of the instructors, some of
them even their own, on the art and
science of teaching and learning.
Gap
4. Instructors
need to be able
to design and
include a
variety of
teaching and
learning
activities.
Declarative
(Conceptual
and Procedural)
Inclusion of variety in learning activities,
including active learning by students,
appeared to be common in most
instructors’ instructional practice.

Description of activities in most of the
course syllabus was found to be content-
centered.

All but one participant expressed
constrained in the choice of learning
activities because university rule
compelled them to administer 4-hour
long, pen-and-paper, closed-book final
examination for students’ evaluation and
grading.
Asset
5. Instructors
need to be able
to design
instruction
(teaching and
learning
activities) in
alignment with
learning
outcomes and
assessments.
Declarative
(Conceptual
and Procedural)
Acceptance of misalignment between the
three components – learning goals,
learning activities, and assessments.

Misalignment primarily attributed to the
University-imposed constraints of the
pen-and-paper final examination.

Four participants also mentioned gaps in
the teachers’ knowledge and motivations
as possible causes.
Gap

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 77
Table 9, continued
Presumed
Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge
Type
Synthesis of insights Gap or
Asset
6. Instructors
need to know
how to write
and
communicate
effective
feedback to
students
Declarative
(Conceptual
and Procedural)
Five out of six participants admitted
students are generally not given
feedback, let alone in time for the
students to use it.

All expressed personal time constraints
as one of the limiting factors.

The apprehension expressed by four
participants regarding the instructors’
general competence in the science of
teaching applies in case of feedback too,
though none expressed it explicitly about
feedback.
Gap
7. Instructors
need to reflect
on the
effectiveness of
the course
design and
their
instruction.

Metacognitive All participants expressed the habit of
reflecting on their instruction and shared
examples of varying their instructional
practice based on their learning from
reflection; e.g., preference of in-class
assignment over the home assignment in
the quantitative courses to avoid students
copying one another’s work.
Asset

Incorporating Local Context in Course Design
According to Fink (2003, 2007, 2013), good course design is grounded on “an in-depth
analysis of the situational factors” like characteristics of the students and teachers, nature of the
subjects, resources available, etc. All the participants interviewed shared their experience of how
they incorporate local context in their instructional practice. All participants teaching
quantitative subjects expressed their preference for in-class assignments over home assignments
because the students generally copy one another’s assignments. A participant explained how the
nature of the subjects affects course design: “In a course like Business Statistics fundamentals
have not changed much. But in courses like Operations Management so much has changed”
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 78
(Participant 4). Another participant explained how local context affected his choice of content
selection in a course: “If I am teaching taxes, I dedicate most of my time in income taxes because
that is the most prevalent tax in the country (the word country substituted for the name)
(Participant 5). Another participant explained how she takes into consideration the prior learning
of the students in designing her course.
So, I always tell them, had all of you been from management background I would have
taken a very different way of teaching you all but because there are students who know
nothing about my subject, for some of you it may be a repetition of what we do.
(Participant 3)
Participant 5 described how the local context of accounting profession influenced his design;
participant 2 described how the nature of the subject influenced his, and participant 3 described
how students’ past background and prior knowledge influenced hers. Therefore, presumed
knowledge influence 1, consideration of situational factors in effective course design, was
considered an asset of the instructors.
Articulating Learning Outcome from the Learners’ Perspective
The course syllabi of most instructors were content-centered in the sense that teaching
and learning activities were not written or described from the perspective of the students. Only a
few course syllabi articulated learning activities from the perspective of what students were
supposed to do. As an example, Appendix G contains two excerpts – one from a participant’s
course syllabus and another from the syllabus of an instructor who is not a participant. All
participants’ interview responses, however, gave the impression that their instructional practice
was much more student-centered. Most participants expressed frustration that students did not
interact when they discussed learning goals in the class. “Most of the time it is one-sided
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 79
communication,” said one participant and added, “It (setting learning goals) would have been a
lot more enriching if there were interactions and discussions” (Participant 4).
The clarity of learning goals articulated in the syllabus and the language used -- learner or
content-centered -- varied by instructors and even by courses taught by the same instructor. The
following examples are excerpts from syllabi of two courses of one participant; the first
contained learner-centered language, the second teacher-centered:
• “At the conclusion of the course, the students will be able to gain the following
knowledge and skills: ...”
• “The objective of the course is to provide theoretical and practical knowledge in …”
Two participants’ responses to the interview questions related to the learning outcomes are
juxtaposed with one another in Table 10. Participant 1, in his quote, emphasized the importance
of learning outcomes and highlighted the prevailing inconsistencies and variation across
instructors and courses in the articulation of learning outcomes. Participant 3 methodically
described how she took learners’ perspective in choosing the learning outcomes and learning
sessions.
Table 10
Variation in Instructors’ Competence in Articulating Learning Outcomes
Participant 1 Participant 3
… in many of the course outlines, we have
not written learning outcomes. I think we
need to have that, in my case also. Learning
outcomes are absolutely, very, important.
And that we are doing in our sister
organization [another affiliate of the B-
school], but again, not here, we need to have
that.
First, I think of the objective, what can I
have my students learn from this thing; and
then I go through the learning outcomes;
and then I choose my course of study, topic
one, topic two or unit sessions. …And then,
according to the time that has been allotted
to me, I try to meet each learning outcome
with these topics.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 80
There is wide agreement among experts that students engage in learning more and learn
better when learning outcomes and learning activities are stated in the language of the learners,
they are learner-focused not instructor- or content-focused, and the learners can relate to them.
(Banta & Palomba, 2014; Kennedy, 2006; Nilson, 2010). Most participants’ (not that of all the
instructors though) course syllabi (6 out of 7) spelled out the learning outcomes clearly, and they
were in learner’s language. All participants in their interview responses clearly articulated that
they devoted their first lecture on discussing learning outcomes, and they described them from
the students’ perspective. However, most syllabi did not use learners’ perspective or language in
describing the teaching and learning activities. Therefore, at least the procedural aspect of the
presumed knowledge influence “Instructors need to be able to create clear learning outcomes
from the learners’ perspective and suitable to the context” was found to be deficient, requiring
some intervention to bridge the gap.
Aligning Assessments with Learning Goals
Students were required to complete 31 courses to fulfill their MBA degree requirement;
on six of those 31, the university the college was affiliated to, not the instructors teaching the
courses, conducted the final examination and awarded the grade to the students. On the
remaining 25 courses, the instructors had the autonomy of assessments and grading but with one
caveat: they needed to assign 40% weight to one, four-hour-long, closed-book, pen-and-paper
examination. Because variation in the quality of teaching and learning between affiliate colleges
was high, it was near impossible to align final examination (assessments) that the university
conducted with what students learned in their colleges, explained one participant (Participant 2).
Even in courses where the colleges had reasonable autonomy, most participants felt constrained
by the university requirement that all courses needed to assign 40% of the course grade to one, 4-
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 81
hour, pen-and-paper final examination. However, the participants differed in the intensity and
style of their criticisms. The researcher had asked each participant the following question: “Even
today, many students complain that how they are assessed is very different from what they are
asked to learn and study. How valid is the complaint?” Participant 3 answered it straight:
I think it is very valid sir, because as I said at the end of the day they're always concerned
with scoring, in the three-hour [4-hours] exams that they write for the university, or the
midterm, because those two exams carry the highest marking: one is 25%, and the other
one is I think 40%. (Participant 3)
The incentive works, and student learning was no exception, reasoned Participant-1 as if
he was giving a rational explanation for the Participant-3’s statement. In his words: “Not that
they [the students] don’t understand, but at the end of the day, it’s a game, ultimately. Is it marks
or overall learning?” Participant 5, much more forceful in expressing his frustration, questioned
the validity of such examination: “So, assessing part …, I feel it's very backward because that
three hours won't define what a student has learned over three months.” Such tests primarily
assess “what you memorize, …, what you write” voiced Participant-6 and shared his experience
of how students enjoyed being assessed through activities that have no set right or wrong
answers. Somewhat contrarian view was expressed by the participant 4, although he also shared
the other participants’ view that teaching and learning in the organization were still dominantly
examination focused. He remarked, “Pen and paper tests [are] still effective in making students
learn… Even though there is room for improvement in alignment, the students’ complaint is
overhyped. Many things we are covering in the class has good relevance to real-life”
(Participant 4). The participant’s remark resonates with what Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark
(2006) warned against overenthusiasm for learner-centered pedagogy:
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 82
After a half-century of advocacy associated with instruction using minimal guidance, it
appears that there is no body of research supporting the technique. In so far as there is
any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly supports direct, strong
instructional guidance rather than constructivist-based minimal guidance during the
instruction of novice to intermediate learners. (p. 83)
Most course syllabi examined, including that of the participants, described the nature of
assignments and the weights (like quizzes 20%, mid-term 20%, etc.). However, in most cases,
they did not contain the details of the assignments or how the students’ goal attainments were
going to be assessed and graded. On the one hand, the instructors complained about the
university requirement of 4-hour pen-and-paper final examination, on the other hand, they
administered the similar pen-and-paper examination for the mid-term and assigned 15 to 25%
weights to it. The participants’ resentment against the constraint of 4-hour pen-and-paper final
examination surfaced strongly, but none expressed appreciation for the freedom in the design of
assessments, including in the university-mandated 4-hour pen-and-paper tests (other than in 5 out
of 31 courses). Therefore, the participants’ attributing misalignment between the different
components of course design primarily to the university-mandated 4-hour pen-and-paper final
examination tilted towards self-serving bias -- people's tendency to attribute negative events to
external factors. The instructors’ knowledge gap in designing assessment systems in alignment
with learning goals could not be ruled out.
Including Variety in Learning Activities
Course syllabi of all the participants contained weights assigned to a variety of learning
activities – attending lectures, reading books and articles, in-class exercises, project work, case
analysis, class presentations, etc. It was evident from the interview with the participants that
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 83
they did use a variety of learning activities in their instructional practice. For example, here are
two excerpts from the interviews with two participants:
I always want to make sure that these things are not only delivered through lecture; I
want them to understand it practically…that's why most of the times the first half is on
the traditional lecture method, and the second half I don't make them listen to me;
because I think their attention span is only 40 to 45 minutes. (Participant 3).
They go to the real Nepalese entrepreneurs, and they explore the issues. They try,
and you know they compare what we have learned and what entrepreneurs had to say.
They would synthesize the whole thing (Participant 1).
In the first example, the instructor engages the students in active learning inside the classroom; in
the second the instructor sends the students out into the real world and makes them share their
learning from their interaction with the real world. Researchers have argued that students learn
more when they get opportunities to engage in active, experiential learning than when they
remain a passive recipient of information transmitted by the instructors (Rowland, DiVasto, and
Medsker, 2013; Umbach and Wawrzynski, 2005).
The weights assigned to different types of learning activities in the course syllabi and
sharing of teaching experience by the instructors indicated that most instructors use a variety of
learning activities and engage the students in active learning. One participant, however, felt that
single medium, the texts (reading and writing), still dominated the teaching and learning
activities.
We are only teaching them through books or through slides they have to read. The
teacher(s) will come, and then they will interpret it for them. And that is how it is being
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 84
done. …I believe we are only teaching them through one medium. And that is also very
restricting on the students’ ability to learn. (Participant 5)
With due respect to his opinion, instructors’ knowledge in including a variety of
teaching and learning activities in their instructional practice was not deemed to be deficient
requiring immediate intervention. For, syllabi of most courses indicated that course grades were
distributed across a variety of learning activities, and all participants shared the experience of
using a variety of learning activities in their instructional practices. Therefore, the presumed
knowledge influence 4, using variety and active learning in instructional practice - was
considered the instructors’ asset.
Aligning Learning Activities with Learning Outcomes and Assessments
All participants admitted, as discussed earlier under Knowledge Influence 3 also, that
misalignment problem between learning outcomes, assessments, and teaching and learning
activities afflicted most courses in the program. Most also expressed that university regulation
that required assigning 40% weight of the course grade to one, closed-book, pen-and-paper final
examination was a major constraint. The degree of constraints felt, however, varied by
instructors and courses, as it did in designing assessments to align with learning goals, as
discussed under Knowledge Influence 3 earlier.
Participant 6 felt much less constrained: “Well, in that respect, I think I'm fortunate;
whatever I teach has got direct practical benefit to the students.” Another participant, however,
argued that those pen-and-paper exams and weights assigned to those exams affected students’
motivations. Students’ priorities shift to examination, and the instructors’ task of designing
instructions for learning becomes challenging. Here is how she expressed her frustrations:
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 85
We want to teach something; we want to ask them to do something. But again, “Will this
come in the exam (stated in native language translated in English)? That is the question most
of the times, because, for them, it's the grading. (Participant 3)
Many researchers’ findings and professors’ experiences resonate with what the participant
frustratingly expressed (Connor-Greene, 2000; Weimer, 2002); Biggs, Tang and Society for
Research into Higher Education,2011): design of assessments and grading influence students’
learning.
The researcher suggested to the participants that the instructors had the full autonomy on
how they assessed 60% of the course grade, and even on the remaining 40% that required 4-hour
pen-and-paper test, they had the autonomy on what assessments they included on the test.
Participant-4 responded: “Forty percent pen-and-paper makes a big difference even for the other
60%”. If it was not for the university requirement of a manual, paper-based examination, he
added, “I would have made teaching in class more relevant to what is done in the world outside.”
The same participant, however, expressed much less tolerance for the students’ criticism of the
pen-and-paper examination, arguing that such tests are also effective in assessing student
learning. Humans apply different standards in judging self and others.
Participant-1 shared his experience of how the quality of student engagement and
learning varied in the two courses he taught. In one, where the instructor had full autonomy,
student engagement and learning was much higher than in the other, where final examination
questions were set externally by the university. Here is how he expressed, “… And the exam is
taken by the university, right. There are certain classical questions which students need to
prepare for the exam and all of those. That’s somehow killing [student learning].” He also
shared that alignment between the three components of course design – learning goals, learning
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 86
activities, and assessment – varied widely by instructors and by courses, depending on their
nature.
Except for participant 6, all others expressed that aligning learning activities with
learning goals was a challenge because the university imposed a constraint of 4-hour pen-and-
paper format for the final examination carrying 40% weight. At the same time, the participants
also alluded to possible lack of knowledge and motivation of the instructors. Most course syllabi
of the instructors, including that of the participants, did not contain statements that showed
linkages between the three components – learning goals, assessments, and teaching and learning
activities. Considering that the teaching faculty have full autonomy in designing their courses, it
is not credible that primary cause of misalignment between different components of the course
design is one constraint of pen-and-paper final examination mandated by the university. What
Cohen (1987) remarked about American schools more than three decades ago, may still be
pertinent to the B-school of this study: “Lack of excellence in American schools is not caused by
ineffective teaching, but mostly by misaligning what teachers teach, what they intend to teach,
and what they assess as having been taught” (Cohen, 1987, p. 19).
Writing and Communicating Feedback
All participants expressed that effective feedback would greatly enhance student learning.
However, all instructors but one admitted that the practice of giving feedback to students, except
to those who actively seek it out, was minimal. One participant, who said he mostly gave group
feedback on assignments, pointed to two causes, time constraints of the instructors and too many
assignments in the course design, for the absence of effective feedback system. He stated:
We are not justifying our job in relation to feedback…. How wonderful would it be if we
could give one to one feedback to students on every assignment! Rather, let's decrease
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 87
the number of assignments. Let's enhance the quality of assignments but let's make it a
point that each student is getting feedback from the faculty. And whenever I've done that
personally, I've seen the drastic change… But time, Sir, again. Visiting faculties,
trimester system, lots of assignments going on, four to five subjects going on in one
trimester, and then imagine in one subject at least three assignments, and then where is
the feedback time? (Participant 1)
In contrast, another participant suggested that instructors’ knowledge gap may be the cause.
But here the feedback is not very constructive. Like, even as a teacher, we would just
give a tick, and we would give the marks, but there is no detailing of why a student got
16 out of 25 or 24 out of 25; that guideline has to be prepared if we need to improve on
our learning-centered. (Participant 3)
Only participant 2 had a different perspective on the state of student feedback in the
program. He claimed that whatever assignments he gives to students, he checks them properly,
and gives his feedback to them before the examination. He explained, “I ask them (the students)
to send me the draft report. Only after I return them (the draft report) with feedback, I ask them
to submit me the final report. I do not evaluate (grade) the first draft”. Then he naively added,
“My assumption is (that) even in other subjects the students get feedback on their assignments.”
Participant-2 expressed more internal locus of control on giving feedback to students.
Most others attributed the lack of an effective feedback system to external causes. Participant-1
pointed to two main causes: quantity over quality in course design and assignments and limited
time part-time faculty could invest in feedback. Participant 3 pointed to the knowledge gap and
the absence of organizational guideline and grading rubric. There was no disagreement with the
generally accepted belief that timely and specific feedback linked to learning objectives
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 88
improves student learning (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Wiliam, 2011). But students were not
getting adequate and timely feedback, even though all participants claimed they were passionate
about teaching or helping students learn. Therefore, the gap in presumed knowledge influence 6
-- instructors’ knowledge in writing and communicating feedback -- was deemed validated.
Reflecting on One’s Course Design and Instruction
All participants shared their experience of reflecting on their teaching and altering their
instruction based on learning from reflection. Two participants teaching quantitative courses
shared their experience of how they switched to more in-class assignments than home
assignments in their course design because most students copied other students’ work in home
assignments. Another participant shared how he adopted the practice of making EMBA students
read articles in class and then discuss them because most students would not read the article
before coming to the class. One instructor shared his reflection on changes he observed in the
teaching and learning environment over time.
I came to learn myself quite late in my life that the whole, almost majority part, of the
teaching-learning approach of my school, my ISC, which is +2, equivalent to +2, and my
undergrad, was massively flawed. And I learned this looking at the way my daughter is
taught in school these days. (Participant 1).
Another participant shared how his experience as a teacher changed his perspective about
respecting diversity, not only in students but in people in general.
But as a teacher, the most important change that has come in me is, now I'm moving as
per the students' time. I've learned patience because everyone would not understand the
same thing as quickly as the next person. That is the most important thing that I've
learned, and that has helped me in my professional life as well. (Participant 5).
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 89
The two participants shared a different experience of reflection: Participant 5 reflected on
what he learned during teaching and applied in his non-teaching work; participant 1 reflected
on his past schooling, compared with his daughter’s modern schooling, and tried
incorporating learning in his instructional practice. All other participants also expressed that
they habitually reflected on their course design and instructional practice. Teaching is a
highly complex and contextualized activity requiring continual adaptation to changing
parameters (Ambrose et al., 2010). Effective teachers, therefore, need to have the
metacognitive knowledge of reflecting on their teaching and learning from the experience.
Fortunately, the presumed metacognitive knowledge influence, the instructors’ need to be
reflective on their course design and instructional practice, was found to be an asset for the
B-school and the instructors in the MBA program.
Summary of Findings – Knowledge Influences
Analysis of data revealed gaps in four assumed knowledge factors: creating effective
assessment system in alignment with learning outcomes, designing instructions and learning
activities in alignment with learning outcomes and assessments, writing and communicating
feedback, and writing and communicating course details in learners’ language. Table 9 at the
beginning of the section summarized the presumed knowledge influences and synthesis of
findings. Table 11 below summarizes four knowledge influences on which the researcher
inferred that a significant gap existed in the instructors’ knowledge or their instructional practice.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 90
Table 11
Gap-validated Knowledge Influences
Influence
#
Presumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
2 Instructors need to be able to create clear learning
outcomes (and communicate course details) from the
learners’ perspective
Declarative (Conceptual
& Procedural)
3 Instructors need to know how to create an effective
assessment system that aligns with learning outcomes.
Declarative (Conceptual
and Procedural)
5 Instructors need to be able to design instruction and
other teaching and learning activities in alignment
with learning outcomes and assessments.
Declarative (Conceptual
and Procedural)
6 Instructors need to know how to write and
communicate effective feedback to students
Declarative (Conceptual
and Procedural)

A participant who meditatively made the following comment seemed to have an intuitive
foresight of the research’s findings: “Every teacher, with all due respect, might not know what
they are teaching. There's no certification of teaching. Like, I'm teaching MBA students; so, do I
have what it takes to be a teacher?” (Participant 5)
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
If the teaching faculty do not have the motivation to change their instructional practice,
adoption, and implementation of the integrated course design framework will not succeed. Three
motivational causes were presumed to influence the organizational goal of adopting the
integrated course design framework to improve student learning. Table 12 summarizes the
motivational influences presumed, synthesis of findings from the gap analysis of motivational
causes, and the researcher’s inference regarding the gap in instructors’ motivation.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 91
Table 12
Motivational Influences and Synthesis of Findings
Presumed Motivation
Influence
Motivation
Construct
Synthesis of Findings

Gap or
Asset
1. Instructors need to see the
value in adopting and
implementing key features
of effective course design.

Utility
Value
All participants shared the experience
of seeing small tweaking of
assignments and assessments in their
course dramatically improve student
engagement and learning.

All participants expressed belief in the
initiative’s potential to make an
impact.

Some participants suggested that many
instructors in the program may not
have adequate knowledge about the
learner-centered course design to make
a judgment on its utility value.
Gap
2. Instructors need to feel
confident in their ability to
implement key features of
effective course design.
Self-
Efficacy
Faculty may find it challenging to
invest additional time and effort, if
required, to switch to learner-centered
instructional practice.

If a significant number of students are
motivated to earn a degree than to
learn, instructors may not succeed in
effectively implementing learner-
centered course design.

Many instructors may not have
adequate knowledge to feel confident
in adopting a learner-centered course
design and instructional practice.
Gap
3. Instructors should want to
help students learn better by
becoming a reflective
practitioner of the science
of instruction, going
beyond merely performing
in the class and meeting the
requirement of covering the
course.
Goal
Orientation
All participants reflected on their
teaching and applied their learning
from reflection to improve their
instruction.
All participants thought most
instructors in the program were
competent.
Asset
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 92
Valuing Adoption of Integrated Course Design Framework
Four constructs were used to examine how the instructors valued the goal of adopting
effective course design in the program: attainment value, satisfaction one gains from
accomplishment of a goal; intrinsic value, satisfaction one gains from simply doing the work;
utility value, degree to which the task relates to the accomplishment of other goals or extrinsic
rewards; and the cost, negative aspects of engaging in the task, including the opportunity cost
and the amount of effort needed to succeed (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). All participants
expressed that they would love to see improvement in student learning. They shared their
positive experiences of how small changes in learning activities, assignments, and the way of
assessing students’ work improved student engagement in their courses. A participant shared his
experience thus: “There's a myth among our students that theory (theoretical subjects) and
practice (practical subjects) are different. And whenever any faculty tries to link things with the
practical work, the interest goes to another (higher) level” (Participant 1). Another participant
shared her training experience at Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad, India, and
voiced how she would love to see her experience replicated in the program. Here is how she put
it, “We are too much focused into completing a course and preparing students for the exams… I
would want something like IIM sir, where the everyday class is an evaluation, where students
come in seriously” (Participant 3).
Another participant expressed his belief in the effective course design by using a
metaphor of supply and demand in economics: “If the instructor is supplying what they (the
students) are demanding, I believe then the student's motivation would be at an all-time high. So,
work needs to be done on what they want from the course” (Participant 5).
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 93
Therefore, the participants attached high attainment value and high intrinsic value to the
task of adopting an effective course design in the program. However, at least four participants
warned not to take for granted that all instructors – three of them forcefully referred to other
stakeholders as well -- share positive belief on the adoption of learner-centered course design.
Here is how one participant advised:
One, I think our organization needs to put it forth, black and white, loud and clear, that
we want this approach and it's not enough. You also will have to explain and tell the
faculties what exactly you mean by this [learner-centered integrated course design].
Many of us probably would be hearing this term for the first time. What do you mean by
student-centered learning? (Participant 1).
Participant 3 and participant 5 echoed similar thoughts regarding the instructors’ need,
including their own, to know more about integrated course design.
Although the participants attached high attainment value and high intrinsic value to the
task of adopting an effective course design in the program, their perceived utility value of the
task was low and perceived personal cost they attached to it was high. Most participants
repeatedly pointed out that the instructors were a part-time employee and they may not be too
keen to exert more mental effort for the adoption of the effective course design in the absence of
some tangible extrinsic reward. Therefore, the gap in the presumed influence instructors’ utility
value in implementing integrated course design framework was considered validated.
Being Confident of Implementing an Integrated Course Design Framework
According to expectancy-value theory, expectancies and values influence
performance, persistence, and task choice (Atkinson, 1964; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). In terms
of efficacy expectancy -- belief that one is capable of identifying, organizing, initiating, and
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 94
executing a course of action to attain the desired outcome -- participants were apprehensive
about the instructors’ knowledge of learner-centered course design, their motivation to invest
more time and mental effort in the absence of some extrinsic reward, and the outcome
expectations. The participants also expressed that changing the mindset of students and faculty
accustomed to content-centered teaching, and university and regulatory system geared to
examination was going to be challenging. A participant put it this way:
“I think the main is our attitude. We all are very traditionally tuned, till now. And
another thing is the seriousness of both the students and the teachers. We come here just
to teach, and the students come here just to get a degree.… We go to class just to take a
class, and then the students come there only for attendance” (Participant 3).
Another participant pointed to socio-cultural upbringing and past education of the
students that have trained them to be “mechanical degree earners and not organic life-learners.”
The learner-centered course design will not succeed “unless we have an ample number of
students who are seriously there for learning for the purpose of life, rather than, you know, only
taking a degree and certificate to get sold in the market, in the job market” (Participant 1).
Participant 5 was equally emphatic in stressing the importance of student motivation for the
initiative to succeed. He voiced, “once we have those group of students who actually want to
study the subject (are motivated to learn), then, I believe, whatever kind of methodology we use,
would be of much help (student learning will improve)” (Participant 5).
Participant-4 thought regulatory system of the university could be a strong inhibiting
factor for the successful implementation of the learner-centered course design in the program.
He also used the term “dispersed ideas” to suggest that key owners and managers need to
develop a solid shared commitment to the idea for the instructors to be able to implement it.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 95
Participant 1 also had a serious concern regarding the shared belief and firm commitment of all
critical stakeholders. Therefore, the gap in motivation factor 2, instructors’ self-efficacy in
successfully adopting and implementing the integrated course design, was deemed to be
validated.
Having Mastery Orientation in Teaching
A person with mastery goal orientation is motivated by developing competence, the one
with performance orientation by demonstrating competence (Dweck, 1986, as cited in Kaplan &
Maehr, 2007). None of the six participants appeared to exhibit performance orientation. Four of
the six participants were business executives, who were teaching because they loved teaching
and helping students learn. As discussed earlier under the presumed knowledge factor 7, the
instructors’ need to reflect on their teaching, all participant shared a reflection of their evolution
as teachers. Participant 2 shared his experience in the part-time MBA and EMBA classes and
expressed how frustrated he gets when students don’t engage in learning. “When students
engage in class and course and appreciate learning, I feel good,” he added. (Participant 2,
researcher’s translation of the original quote, which was in the native language).
In explaining how much he loves teaching, a participant said he would quit the day he
feels he has developed apathy towards teaching. He said he learns from interacting with the
students, receiving feedback from them, and meeting them informally. He added, “… I'm
growing as a human being, being a teacher” (Participant 1). Another participant described how
his perspective of looking at people changed once he started teaching and reflecting on his
experience:
Once I started teaching, I realized that people are very different. Then you cannot judge
the same person, in the same way, you require patience. ... You have to give them that
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 96
time so that they understand things. In the office, it was like why cannot you do this? But
when I was teaching, it was my responsibility to make them understand things. So, that
has taught me a lot. (Participant 5)
The participants’ recounting of their teaching experience revealed that metacognitive
behavior was common among the participants interviewed. Therefore, the presumed
motivational influence of mastery orientation, like the metacognitive knowledge influence of
reflective practice in teaching, was deemed to be the instructors’ asset for attaining the goal of
adopting a learner-centered, integrated course design in the MBA program.
Summary of Findings – Motivation Influences
Participants validated that all three presumed motivational factors were important for the
teaching faculty to successfully implement the integrated course design for improving student
learning in the program. Their responses indicated that instructors teaching in the MBA program
tend to have a mastery orientation, and the presumed motivational influence of mastery
orientation was the instructors’ asset for adopting a learner-centered integrated course design
framework. In the other two motivational factors, instructors’ belief in integrated course design
to improve student learning and their self-efficacy in adopting integrated course design, gaps
were validated. Table 12 summarized the presumed motivational influence and synthesis of
findings from the data analysis; Table 13 below summarizes the motivational influences in which
the gaps were found to be significant

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 97
Table 13
Gap-validated Motivational Influences
Motivational
Influence #
Presumed Motivation Influence Motivation
Construct
1 Instructors need to see the value in adopting
and implementing key features of effective
course design.

Utility Value
2 Instructors need to feel confident in their
ability to implement key features of effective
course design.
Self-Efficacy

Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
Of the 12 causes presumed to influence the success of the organization’s adoption and
implementation of a learner-centered, integrated course design framework two were
organizational – a culture of learner-centered instructional practice, and a culture of collaborative
teaching. “Missing or faulty processes and inadequate materials are often the cause of barriers to
the achievement of performance goals, even for people with top motivation and exceptional
knowledge and skills,” wrote Clark and Estes (2008, p. 122). Organizational causes presumed
and the synthesis of findings related to them are summarized in Table 14 below.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 98
Table 14
Organizational Influences and Synthesis of Findings
Presumed
Organizational Influence
Organizational
Influence Category
Synthesis of Findings Gap or Asset
1. The organization
needs to foster a
culture of learner-
centered instructional
practice
Cultural Setting
Influence
Commitment to improving
student learning not shared
widely across the organization,
especially by all key owners
and administrators.

Too much content to cover and
too little time to do so under
the trimester system compels
instructors to focus on
completing courses and
students to study for the exams.

University requirement of 4-
hour pen-and-paper
examination favors content-
centered teaching and rote-
learning.

The general level of student
motivation is low because of
the organization’s focus on the
number over quality in student
recruitment

The college’s heavy reliance
on adjunct faculty severely
limits student-faculty
interaction outside class.

Limited and lax organizational
guidance for standardization of
course design allows for the
wide variation in the quality of
instructions across courses.

Organizational practice in the
management of adjunct faculty
not objective and effective;
uniform performance standard
not applied to all instructors.
Gap
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 99
Table 14, continued
Presumed
Organizational Influence
Organizational
Influence Category
Synthesis of Findings Gap or Asset
2. The organization
needs to foster a
culture of
collaborative teaching
Cultural Model
Influence
Heavy reliance on part-time
faculty makes collaboration
between and among faculty a
challenge.

There are duplications in
contents across courses
resulting in a waste of
resources.

The ego of individual faculty
may not support collaboration.

Organizational may not be
willing to commit resources to
compensate for additional time
invested by the adjunct faculty
Gap

Fostering a Culture of Learner-centered Instructional Practice
“When organizational goals, policies, or procedures conflict with organizational culture,
expect performance problem,” wrote Clark and Estes (2008, p. 113). Participants drew attention
to many organizational factors that did not support the culture of learner-centered instructional
practice. Key findings relating to culture distilled from the participants’ interview are discussed
under three headings: culture, policies and procedures, and resources.
Culture. Socio-cultural upbringing and past educational background of the students,
according to one participant, pose challenges to adopting a learner-centered course design and
instruction. The students have been nurtured at school and colleges to do what they are told to
do. They are used to getting a fixed diet, argued a participant: “you do this, and you do this, and
you do this, then you’ll pass” (Participant 5). Another participant echoed similar thoughts, “the
culture is such that you do not question a teacher. You do not oppose a teacher. I think that
needs to change” (Participant 3). She also pointed out to another cultural problem of both
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 100
students and teachers showing the tendency to get serious at the 11
th
hour. She quipped, “We try
to imitate the west, but I think we still have not incorporated it (the culture) well; that culture is
something that we have to learn.”
In addition to the socio-cultural factors described in the preceding paragraph, the
participants also pointed at some of the internal cultures that could conflict with the spirit of
learner-centered, integrated course design. Here is how one participant put it: “I have felt that
our management is also looking at like a number of passes, sometimes I feel that. And to tell
you [the] truth [that] is why I discontinued finance…, I was almost forced to” (Participant 1).
Another participant used the term “dispersed ideas among key managers” to suggest that not all
shareholders shared the commitment to improving student learning. He added, “We need a team
of people with a single goal of achieving it (adoption of learner-centered integrated course
design)” (Participant 4). Because the institution is a for-profit entity, and student tuition is the
only source of revenue, managers’ concern for the numbers may get reflected in their behavior.
Policies and procedures. Trimester system that replaced the semester system a few
years ago have severely limited students’ time and space for autonomy and reflection. Both the
students and the instructors are prisoners of time and schedule; their focus is on compliance, not
on student learning. “The trimester system that we have is the real challenge,” voiced participant
1. “We are too much focused into completing a course and preparing students for the exams,”
shared the other (Participant 3). Too much content to cover in too little time may be the policy
problem that inhibits the culture of learning. Clark and Estes argued, “People are only able to
invest inadequate and shallow effort in each item when forced to distribute effort over too many
priorities. They need to focus their attentions on a limited number of challenging goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 27).
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 101
University administered final examination carrying 40% weight constrain the instructors
from effectively designing the course, expressed most participant. “They (the students) are
always concerned with scoring in the three-hour exams that they write for the university, or the
midterm,” is how participant 3 put it. The final and mid-term together, based the instructors’
course syllabi, carry between 55% to 65% of the total course grades. The B-school’s policy
regarding the mid-term and other assignments may be aggravating the problem caused by the
university regulation. Unnecessary rules and work barriers discourage innovation (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Most participants repeatedly also pointed at the low level of student motivation, alluding
to the quality of student recruitment, and consequently to the student recruitment policy.
Surprisingly, a few students in the focus group discussion (to be discussed later) also questioned
the quality of student recruitment. For a for-profit educational institution solely dependent on
the student tuition for its operations, every student on the margin is a tough call.
Another participant expressed his frustrations at the lack of fairness and objectivity in the
organization’s management of adjunct faculty: “organizationally we have a bit of soft
management, sir.… I've heard … some teachers do not have assignments in the whole course; no
assignments, there is only mid-term” (Participant 1). He also talked of instances where college
was late in sending the students’ marks to the university in time because few instructors were
inordinately late in submitting the marks. Participants also pointed out at the organizational
limitations because of the dearth of good teaching faculty in the market.
In the absence of standard guideline from the organization, there is wide variation in how
the courses are designed, and instructions are carried out. One participant emphasized the
importance of standardized guidelines as follows: “In the American schools, they have a rubric
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 102
prepared in the beginning and every trimester; the parents are told on what basis your child is
improving. But I think that is lacking if you want to create the B-school as a learning center. We
need to prepare that, initially, and as teachers, we need to be oriented on that” (Participant 3).
The following words of Clark and Estes (2008) captures what participants were implying:
Policies and procedures need to align with the organizational culture to translate into
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008)
Resources. The organization relies heavily on part-time instructors or the adjunct
faculty. Their time constraints and lack of motivation for additional mental effort will be a
challenge, most participants expressed. One participant put it bluntly, “But now we are more
like commercially, you know, teaching in different places; that is why we cannot spend 100 %
time itself” (Participant 3). Another participant expressed that students get limited opportunities
to interact with faculty outside class and shared, “Students call me on the phone and ask,
sometimes even at 11 at night” (Participant 2). All the comments hinted that the current
composition of part-time, full-time instructors (around 90:10) might not be supportive of learner-
centered course design and instruction.
The preceding discussions indicated that a significant gap needed bridging on the
presumed organizational influence 1, the need to foster a culture of learner-centered instructional
practice.
Fostering a Culture of Collaborative Teaching
All participants thought the idea of collaborative teaching was great, but they expressed
apprehension that implementation was not going to be easy. All the participants pointed to the
organizational reliance on the part-time or adjunct faculty as a major constraint. Here is how one
participant said it:
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 103
That I feel would be absolutely great, but would it be possible? It would be very difficult
because we do not have, what I'd like to call, full-time teachers at the B-school. I'm
working somewhere. I like to teach. And then, yes, I am teaching, but it's not my full-
time job. So, will everyone have that same time available so that they work, five or six of
them, together to achieve a unified goal? It would be a major problem, I think.
(Participant 5)
Participant 1 pointed at three challenges: a dearth of good faculty, time to systematize
collaboration, and resources in terms of compensation for the additional time invested by the
faculty. In sharing his views, Participant 2 expressed that in most subjects, no collaboration was
required. He thought the individual instructor’s tendency to cover everything oneself and seeing
collaboration as interference would pose a challenge. He did not see collaborative teaching
happening easily. Accordingly, the organizational setting was not conducive to collaborative
teaching until a significant gap was bridged. Therefore, the organizational cause gap in
collaborative teaching was validated.
Summary of Findings – Organizational Influences
Analysis of the data pointed to many organizational barriers, emphatically validating gaps
in both presumed organizational causes, cultivating a culture of learner-centered instructional
practice, and cultivating a culture of collaborative teaching. Participants did not believe that all
key stakeholders of the B-school shared the commitment to improving student learning. They
thought the school valued number over quality in student recruitment; it emphasized course
coverage and the number of passes in the examination instead of learning quality. The faculty
did not have much time for interaction with the students outside class because a majority of the
instructors were part-time. The school did not provide any guidance for course design and
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 104
grading rubric. The organization was not objective and fair in its management of the part-time
faculty. Similarly, the barriers identified that could potentially inhibit culture of collaborative
teaching were a) pre-dominance of part-time instructors among the teaching faculty, b) personal
ego of faculty and resisting collaboration by perceiving it as an interference, and c)
organizational reluctance to commit resources for additional faculty time (full-time recruitment
or paying for more part-time faculty’s time). Table 15 recaps the validated organizational causes
for which findings were summarized in Table 14.
Table 15
Gap-validated Organizational Influences
Organizational
Influence #
Presumed Organizational Influence Influence
Category
1 The organization needs to cultivate a culture of
learner-centered instructional practice
Cultural setting
influence
2 The organization needs to cultivate a culture of
collaborative teaching
Cultural model
influence

Students’ Perspectives on KMO Influences
This section reports the revalidation of the KMO causes validated by the data from the
interview with the participant instructors. The next section concludes the chapter with the
summary of findings and the researcher’s reflection.
Of the twelve students approached for participating in a focus group session, nine
participated. Appendix H contains the synthesis of the findings from the focus group discussion.
Table 16 juxtaposes findings from the analysis of the interview data with that from focus group
discussion with the students. The final column on Table 16 shows whether the students affirmed
the gaps on the KMO influences validated by the data from interviews with the instructors. In
two motivation influences, instructors’ utility value and their self-efficacy, nothing could be
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 105
gleaned from the focus group discussion. In all other KMO influences, focus group discussion
with the students affirmed the gaps validated by the interview with the participants (instructors).
Table 16
Students’ Revalidation of KMO Influences Gaps
Gap-validated Influences Findings from
interviews with
Instructors
Findings from a
focus group session
with students
Student
validation
Y/N/NA
Knowledge Influences
Instructors need to be able to
create and communicate clear
learning outcomes and
learning activities, from the
learners’ perspective and
suitable to the context (M).
Course syllabi varied
widely in terms of the
language used (learner-
centered or not) and
clarity in describing
learning outcomes and
learning activities.

Most course syllabi
were content-centered.
They did not describe
learning activities from
the learners’
perspective.

Generally, learning
goals became clearer
after the instructors
explained to the
students in the first
class.

In many numerical
courses, students had
difficulty
understanding what
they were expected to
learn.

When the students
were not clear about
what they were
expected to learn,
they shifted focus to
studying for passing
the exam.
Y
Instructors need to know how
to create an effective
assessment system that aligns
with learning outcomes.
Many attributed
deficiencies in
alignment between
different components of
the courses to the
university-mandated
final examination.

Some expressed
apprehension on the
instructors’
knowledge/competence
in the science of
teaching and learning
Some courses had too
many assignments
and some others too
few.
Most courses did not
have defined
schedules for
assignments at the
beginning of the
term.
Many times, term
papers of multiple
courses fell due at the
same time.
Y
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 106

Table 16, continued
Gap-validated Influences Findings from
interviews with
Instructors
Findings from a
focus group session
with students
Student
validation
Y/N/NA
Knowledge Influences
Instructors need to be able to
design instruction and other
teaching and learning
activities in alignment with
learning outcomes and
assessments.
Same as above. The students did not
have time for
meaningful learning
because the focus
was mostly on course
coverage and exam.

Some teachers were
rigid in terms of what
they wanted the
students to do or
write in assignments.
Y
Instructors need to know how
to write and communicate
effective feedback to students
Only a small number of
faculty gave timely
feedback.

Most attributed not
giving feedback to their
time constraints.
In most courses,
students did not get
feedback in time;
most assignments
they turned in after
the midterm did not
come back to them.
Y

Motivational Influences
Instructors need to feel
confident in their ability to
implement key features of
effective course design (H).
Not all stakeholders
shared a commitment to
improving student
learning.

Most adjunct faculty
did not have the
motivation to spend
more time than they
were already spending.
NA
Instructors need to see the
value in adopting and
implementing key features of
effective course design (M).

Many participants
expressed that the
socio-cultural nurturing
of students on spoon-
feeding for exams not
conducive to learner-
centered course design
and instructional
practice.
NA

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 107
Table 16, continued
Gap-validated Influences Findings from
interviews with
Instructors
Findings from a
focus group session
with students
Student
validation
Y/N/NA
Organizational Influences
The organization needs to
cultivate a culture of learner-
centered instructional practice
(H).
The socio-cultural
upbringing of most
teachers made it hard
for the organization to
find instructors
proficient in learner-
centered instructional
practice.

Limited organizational
guidance on
standardization caused
wide variation in course
design, adversely
affecting student
learning in the absence
of effective supervision.

Over-dependence on
adjunct faculty reduced
organizational leverage
over them in terms of
management and
monitoring.

Only 25% to 30% of
the students were
motivated to learn,
the rest only
interested in getting
the degree.

The school cared
more about numbers
than quality in
student recruitment.

A handful of teachers
did not encourage
students’ asking
questions.

Y
The organization needs to
cultivate a culture of
collaborative teaching (H).
Because most faculty
were part-time,
collaboration would be
a challenge.

A few courses had
common content, but
the faculty’s ego
constrained
collaboration.

Instructors expressed
apprehension that the
organization would not
be willing to
compensate part-time
faculty for additional
time spent for
collaboration.
Three different
courses covered the
same topic. Faculty
ego hindered
collaboration.

How would
instructors who had
no time for student
feedback have time
for collaboration?

Y

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 108
Summary of Findings and Reflection
Twelve KMO causes were presumed to influence the teaching faculty’s goal of adopting
and implementing a learner-centered course design framework in the MBA program of the
organization. Synthesis of interviews with the participants, and researcher’s judgment on the
gaps on KMO influences were summarized in three different tables –knowledge causes on Table
11, motivation causes on Table 13, and organizational causes on Table 15. The gaps were
validated on four of the six presumed knowledge influences -- on designing assessments in
alignment with learning goals, on designing learning activities in alignment with learning goals
and assessments, writing and communicating effective feedback, and writing and communicating
course materials in the syllabus from learners’ perspective. The motivational gaps were
validated in two of the three presumed motivational influences – instructors’ utility value on the
learner-centered integrated course design, and their self-efficacy on the implementation of the
course design framework. Similarly, gaps in both presumed organization causes, namely the
culture of learner-centered instructional practice and culture of collaborative teaching, were
validated. The presumed KMO influences are not independent; they are highly interdependent,
not only within a category but also between categories. Though the interview questions were
designed to elicit responses about one specific KMO cause, many times the responses related to
more than one cause. Ultimately, every problem, even those related to knowledge or motivation,
can be attributed to organizational causes.
Gaps in some of the knowledge influences, especially in aligning learning goals,
instructions (teaching and learning activities), and assessments in the course design, were
expected, given that most instructors did not have formal training or education in the science of
teaching and learning. Gaps in motivation were also expected as a majority of the instructors
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 109
were part-time adjunct faculty who did not depend on the organization for their living or their
primary income. However, there were a few unexpected findings; some were remarkably
revealing.
Teachers were more intense and more vocal than the students in criticizing the
assessment systems. Instructors’ intense criticism of the university-mandated 4-hour pen-and-
paper final examination was also intriguing. Was it because one such examination severely
constricts instructional effectiveness? Was it because humans have a natural proclivity for
attributing negative events to external causes? Or, was it because the university-mandated
examination was unknowingly used as a mask to conceal real problems related to knowledge,
motivation, and organizational causes? Another factor both instructors and students used as a
possible explanation to most of the deficiencies in teaching and learning (absence of
collaborative teaching, deficiency in feedback) is the adjunct or part-time nature of the teaching
faculty. Understandable, but also prone to being used by all stakeholders as a convenient escape-
goat to camouflage real problems.
A few students in the focus group session agreed with the instructors’ opinion that 2/3
rd

to 3/4
th
of the students in the program lacked motivation for learning; they (the students) were
there just for the degree. How much of the students’ low motivation was due to poor course
design, faulty student recruitment, or unavoidable socio-culture reality was hard to determine.
Though there was a natural proclivity for attributing the deficiencies or gaps to external causes,
2/3
rd
of the participants (4 out of 6) did suggest -- some strongly, some subtly – that instructors
may not have adequate knowledge and motivation to successfully adopt and implement a
learner-centered integrated course design in the program.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 110
The gap in a culture of collaborative teaching was expected, considering the
organization’s use of or reliance on part-time or adjunct faculty for teaching. Organizational
barriers pointed out under the presumed organizational cause of cultivating a learner-centered
instructional practice fell into three category – easily bridgeable, involving hard-choices but still
bridgeable, and not only challenging but daunting. For example, barriers like not having
organizational guidance on the standardization of course design could be resolved with choice,
mental effort, and persistence. Increasing quality of student enrollment or increasing number of
full-time teaching faculty might be a little harder: it involves inter-temporal tradeoff, sacrificing
present revenue or profit (possibility of the reduced number of students today) for potential more
revenue and profit in future (potentially higher number of students and higher fees). On the
daunting category fell the problems such as getting the university regulation changed or
increasing the supply of quality teachers and motivated students in the society.
The next chapter will propose and discuss solutions to bridge the gap in KMO causes that
were validated. It will also recommend measures for evaluating the effectiveness of the
proposed interventions or solutions.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 111
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND SOLUTIONS
Chapter One described the problems of limited learning, delayed graduation, and degree
non-completion in higher education institutions. Though the studies and examples cited in
Chapter One were about the HEIs in the US and Nepal, the problems of low completion rate,
limited learning, longer than usual time for completion afflict higher education in many
countries. The chapter also described the problems and the context of the organization chosen
for this study: a small, for-profit, business school in Nepal anxious about the student learning,
non-completion rate, and time to graduation in its MBA program. Two conceptual frameworks
used in the study, Fink’s (2013) integrated course design framework and Clark and Estes’ (2008)
KMO gap analysis model, were also discussed. Chapter Two reviewed the literature on student
learning in HEIs. One of the dominant themes that emerged was that an effective course design
in which learning goals, learning activities, and assessments are aligned enhances student
learning (Biggs &Tang, 2011; Connor-Greene, 2000; Fink, 2013; Leber et al., 2017; Nilson,
2010; Walvoord & Anderson, 2010; Weimer, 2002; Whetten, 2007). Chapter Three discussed
the research design and methods used for data collection. Interviews with six purposefully
chosen faculty members were carried out, and the interview audio-recordings and transcripts
were analyzed to assess the KMO gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008) of the instructors in implementing
the integrated course design framework (Fink, 2013) in the MBA program. The findings were
reported and discussed in Chapter Four. This chapter will recap the organizational context,
problems, and goals described in detail in Chapter One. It will also summarize the findings
reported and discussed in detail in Chapter Four. It will then discuss the recommendations and
solutions based on the findings and suggest an integrated implementation and evaluation plan.
The chapter ends with suggestions for future research and the conclusion.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 112
Recap – Context and Problems of the Study
Organization’s Context and Mission
As described in detail in Chapter 1, the organization of this case study was a private, for-
profit, business school (also referred to as the B-school or simply the school or the organization)
in Nepal. The school’s MBA program, at the time of the study, was among one of the most
expensive in Nepal. Most students in the program were from the middle to upper-middle
socioeconomic strata. Most of the instructors in the program (almost 90%) were not full-time
employees; many of them were practicing managers and working professionals in other
organizations. Although most instructors were part-time, the school’s relationships with the
instructors had been stable; the average length of a part-time faculty’s association with the school
was around ten years.
About 1,200 students of the B-school were split evenly between the undergraduate and
graduate programs. About 55% of the MBA students were in the part-time program and the
remaining 45% in the full-time program. Students in both programs were required to complete
66 credits of course work from the same set of courses to obtain an MBA degree. The two
programs differed in duration: students in the full-time program could complete the courses in
six trimesters spanned over a minimum of 24 months; students in the part-time program could
complete the courses in eight trimesters spanned over a minimum of 32 months.
Organization’s Performance Problem
As described in detail in Chapter One, the B-school had been concerned with the high
non-completion rate of its part-time students and delayed graduation of both full-time and part-
time students – full-time students not graduating in 24 months and part-time students not
graduating in 32 months. Table 1 in Chapter One captures the B-school’s concerns with the
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 113
students’ failing to graduate in time (24 months for the full-time and 32 months for the part-time
programs) and failing to graduate altogether.
The first concern of the B-school was the number of part-time students who failed to
graduate – a worrying average of 29% and a peak of 47% based on the data of six cohorts of
students enrolled between 2013 and 2016. The second concern was the number of students who
failed to graduate in the normal duration of the program – 24 months for the full-time students
and 32 months for the part-time. Not even one student in the last four cohorts in the part-time
program completed the program in 32 months. Even in the full-time program, 23% of of the
students in the last cohort did not graduate in 24 months, a number not in keeping with the B-
school’s market reputation then. The third concern of the B-school was the market perception
about the quality of learning in its MBA program. Neither the teaching faculty who taught in the
program nor the business organizations who employed the graduates perceived the teaching and
learning at the B-school to be different from those in other comparable schools in Nepal.
Organization’s Performance Goals
Considering the performance problem highlighted in the preceding section, the B-school
set the goal of improving its student learning by adopting and implementing a learner-centered
integrated course design (adapted from Fink, 2013) in all courses offered to students enrolled in
the program on or after Fall 2020. Consequently, the organization expects to attain the
following seven goals by June 2022:
• 90% of the students in full-time MBA program recruited in Fall 2020 and every cohort
after that complete the program in 2 years.
• Percentage of the students in the part-time MBA program completing their graduation
requirement within 32 months will gradually increase and stabilize at a minimum of 50%
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 114
-- 25% for Fall 2020 cohort, and 40% for Spring 2021, and 50% for cohorts enrolled after
that.
• The non-completion rate in the part-time program will reduce to less than 10% for the
Fall 2020 cohort and every cohort after that.
• Average CGPA of students in every full-time MBA cohort will not drop below 3.5/4.0,
even after increment in the 2-year graduation rate
• Average CGPA of students in every part-time MBA cohort will not drop below 3.3/4.0
even after increment in its 32-month graduation rate to 50%.
• At least 75% of the students of every cohort enrolled in the program on or after Fall 2020
rate their learning, in terms of knowledge and skill acquired or honed, higher than 4 in a
Likert scale of 1 to 5 in a student satisfaction survey.
Performance Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
This case study focused on the performance goals of the teaching faculty, for their
knowledge and motivation will be the most influential in making the shift from instruction-
centered, in most cases misaligned, course design to the learner-centered, integrated course design.
The teaching faculty’s goal is to adopt and successfully implement a learner-centered integrated
course design for every MBA cohort enrolled on or after the Fall 2020 trimester, at least in the
courses the B-school has complete autonomy in design, delivery, and assessments. In six of the
31 courses the students are required to complete for their MBA degree, the university, not the B-
school, conducts the final examination. The impact of the adoption of the learner-centered,
integrated course design will be measured by the degree of attainment of the following goals:
1. At least 90% of the students in full-time MBA program recruited on Fall 2020 or later
complete every course requirement in the first attempt, and the remaining, if any,
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 115
complete it on the second attempt. Moreover, the average GPA of the students in a
cohort on every course is 3.5 or higher.
2. Seventy percent of the students in the part-time MBA program recruited on Fall 2020
or later complete the course in the first attempt and the remaining, if any, on the
second attempt and average GPA of the students on the course is 3.3 or higher.
3. At least 75% of the MBA students (full-time and part-time both) of every cohort
enrolled on Fall 2020 or later rate their learning in the course, in terms of knowledge
and skill acquired or honed, higher than 4 in a Likert scale of 1 to 5 in the course
evaluation survey conducted before the end of the course.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to investigate KMO factors that influence the learning, and
consequently, the graduation rate and the time to graduation of the B-school’s MBA students.
The questions guiding the study were:
1. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors influence the teaching faculty’s
adoption and successful implementation of a learner-centered, integrated course design
framework in the program?
2. What knowledge, motivational, and organizational solutions should the B-school
embrace to bridge the gap in the KMO causes revealed by the investigation?
Recap -- Summary of Results and Findings
Based on the literature review and the researcher’s knowledge of the organization, seven
knowledge, three motivation, and two organizational causes were presumed to influence the
teaching faculty’s effectiveness in adopting and implementing a learner-centered, integrated
course design. The investigation focused on those 12 presumed influences. Analysis of the data,
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 116
mainly interview with the participants and examination of their course syllabi, found that three
presumed knowledge influences and one motivation influence were the instructors’ assets, in the
sense that the instructors had the requisite knowledge and motivation and they used that
knowledge in their instructional practice. The four identified asset influences were a)
instructors’ knowledge to consider situational factor in the course design (presumed influence 1),
b) their knowledge to include variety in the teaching and learning activities (presumed influence
4), c) their practice of reflecting on their teaching (presumed influence 7), and d) their mastery
orientation in teaching (presumed influence 10). In eight other KMO influences, significant gaps
were not ruled out. A focus group discussion with the MBA students was conducted to
triangulate whether the students validate the findings inferred from the interview with the
instructors and analysis of their course syllabi. The interview data were further scrutinized to
identify the causes of the KMO gaps in eight validated KMO influences. Were the gaps caused
by the deficiencies in the knowledge of the instructors, the motivation of the instructors,
organizational causes, or any combination of the three? For example, an instructor’s manifested
knowledge gap, say in writing and communicating effective feedback, could have been due to
lack of knowledge about writing effective feedback, or lack of motivation to invest time and
mental effort, or deficiency in organizational support system. Table 17 recaps the key findings
related to eight influences on which the gaps were validated: the first column lists the presumed
KMO influences, the second column lists the key findings relating to those influences, and the
third column lists the KMO causes for the gaps scrutinized from the data. Key findings and
KMO causes of gaps of the two presumed influences – instructors’ need to create effective
assessment systems (K-influence 3), and the instructors’ need to design instructions in alignment
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 117
with other components of the course design (K-influence 5) – are clubbed together because
findings and causes of the gaps related to both were the same.
Table 17
Key Findings and Causes of Gaps on Validated KMO Influences
Gap-validated KMO influences Key findings KMO causes of gaps
K-2: Instructors need to be able
to create clear learning
outcomes from the learners’
perspective, suitable to the
context.

K- construct:
Declarative Conceptual &
Procedural

Course syllabi did not describe
activities from the learners’
perspective. They mostly
described the content.

There was no consistency in the
use of learner-centered language
in the course syllabi; they varied
by instructors, and even by
courses of the same instructor.

Two-third of the participants
expressed that many instructors
might not know the difference
between a learner-centered and a
teacher-centered language.
K-Conceptual: Many instructors
may not have the conceptual
knowledge of a learner-centered
instructional practice.

K-Procedural: Many instructors
may not have the procedural
knowledge of writing syllabus
contents in learners’ language
K-3: Instructors need to know
how to create an effective
assessment system that aligns
with learning outcomes.
K- construct:
Declarative Conceptual &
Procedural
All participants expressed that
aligning learning outcomes,
assessments, and learning
activities in a course was a
challenge, and in most courses,
they were not as aligned as they
would have liked.

Most participants attributed the
cause of misalignment to the
university-mandated 4-hour pen
& paper, closed-book final
examination carrying 40%
weight of the total course grade.

Several participants also
expressed apprehension over the
instructors’ competence in
effective course design.
K-conceptual: Many instructors
may not have the requisite
knowledge required to design
courses aligning all three
components of the course
design.

M-expectancy: Instructors may
not be investing adequate time
and mental effort in the course
design because they do not
believe the change in course
design will improve student
performance.

M-attribution: Instructors may
be conveniently attributing the
gap to an external cause –
university regulation – and not
investing the requisite time and
mental effort in course design.

K-5: Instructors need to be able
to design instruction (teaching
and learning activities) in
alignment with learning
outcomes and assessments.

K- construct:
Declarative Conceptual &
Procedural

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 118
Table 17, continued
Gap-validated KMO
influences
Key findings KMO causes of gaps

K-6: Instructors need to know
how to write and communicate
effective feedback to students

K–construct:
Declarative Conceptual and
Procedural
Five out of six participants said
the instructors generally did not
give feedback to students except
when students actively sought
them. Students confirmed they
rarely got feedback, let alone in
time.

All instructor participants
expressed personal time
constraints as one of the limiting
factors in giving feedback.

Instructors might not have the
knowledge and skill of writing
and communicating feedback
effectively.
K- conceptual and procedural:
Instructors may not have the
requisite knowledge and skill of
writing and communicating
effective feedback.

M – utility value: Instructors
assign high cost (negative
utility) to time and effort
required to write and
communicate feedback and,
therefore, do not invest time and
mental effort in writing and
communicating feedback to
students.

M-1: Instructors need to see
value in adopting and
implementing key features of
effective course design.
M- construct:
Utility value

Participants expressed belief in
the integrated course design
having an impact on student
learning, but they questioned the
instructors’ motivation for
exerting extra time and effort.

Few participants were
apprehensive that many
instructors in the program might
not know much about the learner-
centered course design to be able
to make a judgment on its utility
value.
M – utility value: Instructors do
not see any extrinsic utility
value that compensates for the
cost they assign to additional
time and effort required.

K – Conceptual: instructors may
not have adequate knowledge
about the learner-centered
course design and instructional
practice to pass judgment on its
value.

M-2: Instructors need to feel
confident in their ability to
implement key features of
effective course design.

M construct:
Self-efficacy
Instructors thought more than
2/3
rd
of the students were
interested only on earning a
degree and not on learning. They
doubted course design would help
those students.

Few instructors were
apprehensive the university might
inhibit rather than support
improvement initiative.

Many instructors’ limited
knowledge of effective course
design might lower their
motivation to adopt it.
M-outcome expectancy:
Instructors’ confidence in the
success of effective course
design is low because of a few
external factors – lack of
students’ motivation to learn,
and lack of supporting
regulatory environment.

M-self-efficacy: Instructors not
confident about their ability to
invest time and effort required
for the adoption of effective
course design.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 119

Table 17, continued
Gap-validated KMO influences Key findings KMO causes of gaps

O-1: The organization needs to
cultivate a culture of learner-
centered instructional practice

O-construct:
Organizational setting
Too much content to cover and
too little time to do so under the
trimester system made the
instructors focus on completing
courses and the students on
studying for the exams.

University requirement of 4-
hour pen-and-paper examination
favored content-centered
teaching and rote-learning.

Most students’ motivation for
learning was low because the
organization focused on the
number over quality in student
recruitment

Because 90% of the teaching
faculty were part-time, student-
faculty interaction outside class
was limited.

Lax organizational guidance on
standardization of course design
allowed wide variation in the
quality of instructions across
courses.

The organization did not apply
uniform and objective standard
in managing part-time faculty.
O-Policy and Procedure:
Organizational policies and
procedures focus more on the
quantity of course coverage than
on the quality of learning,
restraining instructors from
being innovative in the
alignment of different
components of course design.

O-cultural setting: organization
values number over quality in
student recruitment.

O-resources: Organization does
not invest in full-time faculty or
more faculty time of the adjunct
faculty.

O- Policy and procedure:
Organization does not provide
adequate guidance for course
design and instructional practice
allowing for wide variation
across instructors.

O-cultural setting: Managers do
not apply rules uniformly across
adjunct faculty encouraging
wide variation in instructors’
adherence to the norms.
O-2: The organization needs to
cultivate a culture of
collaborative teaching

O- construct:
Organization Model
Evident lack of collaboration
between faculty because
duplication in contents across
courses has continued term after
term.

The organization’s excessive
reliance on part-time faculty
made collaboration between and
among faculty a challenge

O-resources: Organization does
not invest in full-time faculty.

O- Policy and procedure:
Organizational policies and
procedures do not encourage
collaborative teaching.

M- Value: Teaching faculty do
not see the value in
collaborative teaching

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 120
KMO Recommendations
Fuller and Farrington (1999, as cited in Clark and Estes, 2008) suggested that fully
integrated performance improvement programs are more effective and much more efficient.
Accordingly, potential causes in all three areas -- knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors -- were examined for the gap in any presumed influence, whether knowledge, motivation,
or organizational. This section proposes and discusses context-specific recommendations for
each of the K, M, or O causes identified and listed in Table 17. The knowledge
recommendations will be discussed first, followed by motivation and then organizational
recommendations. The next section will regroup the recommendations (recommendations may
repeat over different KMO gaps) into solutions and action steps for implementation and
discusses them along with the evaluation plan to assess their effectiveness.
Knowledge Recommendations
Table 18 summarizes the knowledge solutions. The first column states the knowledge
gaps identified, the second column states the context-specific knowledge solutions
recommended, and the last column cites the principles supporting the recommendations.
Knowledge gaps were categorized following Krathwohl (2002) in four knowledge dimensions –
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Because the instructors were recruited based
on their subject matter expertise, the gap in their factual knowledge was not even examined, and
no significant gaps were found in their metacognitive behavior. Following Clark and Estes
(2008), knowledge solutions were chosen from one of the four types – information, job aids,
training, and education. According to Clark and Estes (2008), “Information, job aids, training,
and education provide different benefits and should be used in different circumstances” (p. 59).
Education in the form of short-term modular courses are suggested for bridging the gaps in
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 121
conceptual knowledge, and workshops on writing syllabus and writing and communicating
feedback along with job aids in the form of samples and rubrics are suggested for bridging the
gaps in procedural knowledge.
Table 18
Knowledge Gaps and Context-Specific Recommendations
Knowledge Gaps
Inferred
Context-Specific
Recommendations
Principle and Citation
KG 1– Conceptual:
Many instructors may not
have adequate knowledge
of effective course design,
the science of instruction,
and motivation theory in
learning.
Provide Education:
Arrange for instructors to attain
short modular courses leading to
a certificate or diploma in science
of instruction in higher education
People need education --
information, job aids, or training are
insufficient -- to be able to handle
the new and unexpected situation
(Clark & Estes, 2008)

KG 2-Procedural:
Many instructors may not
have the procedural skill
of writing syllabus
contents in learners’
language and writing and
communicating effective
feedback
Provide Job Aids and training:
• Arrange for instructors to
attain workshops on writing
syllabus and writing and
communicating feedback.
• Provide samples of well-
written syllabus and feedback
and rubrics for writing
syllabus, and grading
assignments
Information, job aids, training, and
education provide different benefits
and should be used in different
circumstances (Clark & Estes, 2008,
p. 59)

Timely and specific feedback linked
to learning objectives improves
student learning (Pintrich & Schunk,
2002; Wiliam, 2011).

Motivation Recommendations
Motivational gaps identified were categorized using motivational constructs from
expectancy-value theory. According to expectancy-value theory, expectancies and values
influence performance, persistence, and task choice (Atkinson, 1964; Eccles and Wigfield,
2002). Eccles et al., (1983 as cited in Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) categorized task-value into four
types: attainment value, satisfaction one gains from accomplishment of a goal; intrinsic value,
satisfaction one gains from simply doing the work; utility value, degree to which the task relates
to the accomplishment of other goals or extrinsic rewards; and the cost, negative aspects of
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 122
engaging in the task, including the opportunity cost and the amount of effort needed to succeed.
Although the participants attached high attainment value and high intrinsic value to the task of
adopting an effective course design in the program, their perceived utility value of the task was
low and perceived personal cost they attached to it was high. Participants did not see much
utility value (net of cost) in collaborative teaching also.
In terms of efficacy expectancy, belief that one is capable of identifying, organizing,
initiating, and executing a course of action to attain the desired outcome, participants were
apprehensive about the instructors’ knowledge in learner-centered course design and
instructional practice. They were also doubtful about the instructors’ motivation to invest more
time and mental effort in the absence of some extrinsic reward. The participants’ outcome
expectancy of the adoption of the effective course design was also not so high: they were
apprehensive that that adoption of effective course design would result in the desired outcome of
better student learning, lower non-completion rate, and shorter time to graduation. The
participants’ low outcome expectancies, to some extent, was explained by their proclivity to
attribute current deficiency in course design or student performance to external causes -- the
university-mandated 4-hour pen-and-paper final examination and low student motivation.
Attributions affect expectancies in a way people attribute past success (or failure) to internal or
external, controllable or non-controllable, and stable or unstable causes. Table 19 summarizes
the motivation solutions. The first column states the motivation gaps identified, the second
column states the context-specific motivation solutions recommended, and the last column states
the principles that support the recommendations.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 123
Table 19
Motivation Gaps and Context-Specific Recommendations
Motivation gaps inferred Context-specific
recommendations
Principle and citation
MG 1– extrinsic utility value:

Instructors do not perceive
net positive utility value (they
perceive high personal cost)
in terms of time and effort
required for the following:
• Adopting learner-centered
integrated course design.
• Writing and
communicating feedback.
• Teaching collaboratively
with other instructors
Send top-level
communication to all
instructors expressing
organizational commitment to
improving student learning by
adopting integrated course
design, effective feedback
system, and collaborative
teaching.
Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation are not necessarily
conflicting; they can also be
potentially reinforcing
(Ambrose et al., p. 76)

We can never assume that our
beliefs will automatically be
shared by those around us
(Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 84).
Review and rewrite the
agreement with faculty to
compensate for time
instructors devote outside
class for helping students
learn, e.g., guidance and
feedback to students.
“Much of what we do is
chosen not because we love it
or excel at it, but because we
want the benefits that come
when we finish” (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 96).
MG 2- expectancies:

Instructors do not have high
success expectancy of the
task of implementing
integrated course design: both
outcome expectancy and
efficacy expectancy are low.

Instructors tend to attribute
current performance gap to
external causes (external
locus of control) and not so
controllable cause -- e.g.,
university regulation for
misalignment in course
components.

Conduct workshops and
training on the design of
learner-centered instruction
and instructional alignment.

Review and improve student
recruitment, and student
retention policies to increase
the quality of new and
continuing students

Review the process of faculty
recruitment and course
allocation to ensure that every
instructor has a manageable
workload.
“motivation is not a stable
trait but reflects an interaction
between the context and what
the student brings to the
context. Accordingly, it is
inappropriate to label students
as "motivated" or
"unmotivated" (Linnenbrink
& Pintrich, 2002).
“Individuals' efficacy
expectations are the major
determinant of goal setting,
activity choice, willingness to
expend effort, and
persistence” (Bandura, 1997,
as cited in Eccles & Wigfield,
2002).
Even the brightest and most
motivated people have a
limited capacity (Clark &
Estes, 2008, P. 27)
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 124
Organizational Recommendations
According to Clark and Estes (2008), another cause of performance gap, besides
knowledge and motivation, is “the lack of efficient and effective organizational work processes
and material resources” (p. 103). They also argued that organizational culture would have to
align with organizational policies and processes for performance to be effective. Organization
solutions are categorized using the following constructs: a) policy and processes, b) resources
(time and money), c) organizational setting, and d) organizational model. The last two are
organizational culture constructs proposed by Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001). Cultural
models are the beliefs and values shared by individuals in groups within the organization, and
cultural settings are where activities and performance occur. Table 20 summarizes the
organizational solutions.
Table 20
Organizational Gaps and Context-specific Recommendations
Organizational Gaps Inferred Context-Specific
Recommendations
Principle and Citation
OG1-Policy and Procedures:

Organizational focus is on the
quantity of course coverage
than on the quality of
learning.

The organization does not
provide adequate guidance
for course design and
instructional practice
allowing for wide variation
across instructors.

Review and rewrite course
outlines and syllabi of all
courses in the MBA program
in collaboration with the
instructors, in the process
addressing the quantity
quality tradeoff.
People are only able to invest
inadequate and shallow effort
in each item when forced to
distribute effort over too
many priorities. They need to
focus their attentions on a
limited number of
challenging goals. (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 27).
Review the prevailing
policies related to
assessments and remove
unwarranted constraints
imposed on the instructors.
Unnecessary rules and work
barriers discourage
innovation (Clark & Estes,
2008)
Provide standard samples and
rubrics for the course
syllabus, assignments, and
gradings.
Job aids are useful for experts
who are being asked to use a
new approach (Clark & Estes,
2008)
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 125

Table 20, continued
Organizational Gaps Inferred Context-Specific
Recommendations
Principle and Citation
OG2- Resources:

The organization does not
invest in full-time faculty or
in more faculty time of the
adjunct faculty.

Frame and adopt a policy of
attracting full-time teaching
faculty, allowing them the
freedom to do research and
provide consulting services,
and gradually increasing their
numbers.

Review and reframe
agreement with adjunct
faculty to incorporate
compensation for their time
spent outside class for student
guidance and feedback.
“Much of what we do is
chosen not because we love it
or excel at it, but because we
want the benefits that come
when we finish” (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 96).

Cost -- e.g., the effort needed
to succeed and cost of
foregone opportunities -- is a
critical component of utility
value
OG3-cultural setting:

Organization values number
over quality in student
recruitment.

Managers do not apply rules
uniformly across adjunct
faculty encouraging wide
variation in instructors’
behavior, including non-
compliance to rules and
procedures.
Send top-level
communication to the
stakeholders that the
organization is committed to
improving student learning
even at the cost of sacrificing
revenue in the short-term.

Review and revise student
recruitment and retention
policy and procedure so as
not to recruit students who
have very little chance of
completing the program.
If elements of culture become
dysfunctional, it is
leadership’s responsibility to
manage evolution and change
(Schein, 2004)
Settings are pathways to
cultural change (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001)
Policies and procedures need
to align with the
organizational culture to
translate into performance
(Clrark & Estes, 2008)
Review faculty evaluation,
management, and retention
policies and procedures and
implement them effectively.
“Much of what we do is
chosen not because we love it
or excel at it, but because we
want the benefits that come
when we finish” (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 96).

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The previous section discussed specific recommendations to bridge the identified gaps in
knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes. This section collates the context-specific
recommendations discussed in the previous section into four solution groups and a few action
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 126
steps, adding a few action steps if necessary. Also proposed is an integrated implementation and
evaluation plan for the recommended solutions. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-levels
evaluation model for training is adapted for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed
solutions and the action steps. The levels of evaluation are not mutually exclusive, especially at
the level of learning, transfer, and impact because the people affected by the intervention are
practicing teaching and learning on a day to day basis. Further, evaluations are at best, an
approximation because many external factors influencing the change cannot be isolated. Table
21 summarizes the regrouping of the context-specific recommendations made in the previous
section into four solutions and few action steps within them; the last column in the table suggests
a tentative timeline for implementation.
Table 21
Proposed Solutions and Action Steps
Proposed Solutions Action Steps Start - End
1. Send clear
communication and
consistent signals
from the top
leadership to all
relevant stakeholders
that the organization is
committed to
improving student
learning.
Head of the organization sends a thoughtfully
drafted email to all key stakeholders.

He or she interacts with the key stakeholders in
small groups and explain why the organization is
committed to improving student learning.
0 - 60 days
2. Review and Rewrite
Course outlines and
Syllabi of all 31 MBA
courses, incorporating
the key features of
integrated course
design.
Develop a competency framework for the B-
school MBA program and map them with one or
more learning goals of different courses in
collaboration with the instructors.
30 -60 days
Map learning outcomes with activities that
students are required to engage in keeping
redundancy and duplication across courses to a
minimum.
60 – 90 days
Developing assessment criteria and grading
rubric for learner’s attainment of learning goals
in each course.
60 – 90 days
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 127

Table 21, continued
Proposed Solutions Action Steps Start - End
3. Strengthen the support
system for student
learning
Enforce the use of learning hub (a digital
platform) for all course-related communication –
syllabus, assignments, grading, feedback –
between students and instructors in all MBA
courses.
30 - 180 days
Adopt and implement a policy of recruiting full-
time teaching faculty allowing them the freedom
of carrying out consulting and research on a
profit-sharing basis with the institution.
90 - 360 days
Review and revise contract with adjunct faculty
to incorporate clauses containing a) consultation
hours for students, and b) timeline for grading
and providing feedback on students’ work.
30 – 90 days
4. Provide opportunities
to the instructors for
obtaining training and
education in the art
and science of
teaching and learning
in higher education
Identify potential partner institutions from the
US, UK, Europe, and Australia to collaborate
with for training and education of the instructors
in higher education.
90 days
Conduct one or two training programs spanning
a week within a year, for the professional
development of teaching faculty associated with
the B-school
One year
Collaborate with one university abroad and
launch a regular certification program in
teaching and learning in higher education, for
instructors in Nepal.
A year and a
half

Communicate Organizational Commitment to Improving Student Learning
Instructors’ perceived personal cost of adopting integrated course design was high (MG
1). They also did not believe that organizational leadership shared the commitment to student
learning, and therefore, to the initiative of adopting an integrated course design in the MBA
program. Instructors also questioned the fairness and objectivity of management in its dealing
with different teaching faculty. They also questioned the organizational commitment to quality
when it came to student recruitment. Therefore, communication from the highest level in the
organization containing a firm commitment to implementing effective course design and
improving student learning needs to be a part of the overall solution. For better effect, initial
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 128
email communication needs to be followed by face to face interaction in a small group at various
stages of implementation. Such communication is expected to achieve the following objectives:
• reduce the resistance to change and strengthen the change catalysts,
• reduce the gap in the instructors’ perceived utility value of adopting effective course
design, and
• initiate the cultural setting for balancing the quality quantity tradeoff in student
recruitment, and reinforcing commitment to improving student learning.
The real evaluation of this solution is the implementations of other proposed solutions.
Review and Re-write Course Syllabi
Reviewing and rewriting course syllabus of all courses is recommended for addressing a
combination of KMO gaps. Three action steps suggested for implementing this solution are as
follows: 1) developing a competency framework for the program and mapping them with
learning goals of different courses, 2) mapping learning goals of the courses with the learning
activities planned in them, and 3) developing assessment criteria and grading rubric for each
course. A special division or a task force, not the program managers involved in the day to day
operations, would be more effective in carrying out the three action steps recommended.
Further, the special division or the task force should involve a few influential members of the
teaching faculty in the review and rewriting process; such inclusion will increase the faculty’s
ownership of the change initiative. Because the three action steps are interdependent, the
evaluation plan for all three action steps is combined. Table 22 summarizes four levels of
evaluation to assess the efficacy of the solution – reviewing and rewriting the course syllabi.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 129
Table 22
Evaluation Plan for Reviewing and Rewriting Course Syllabi
Proposed
Solution:
Review and Rewrite Course outlines and Syllabi of all MBA courses,
incorporating the key features of integrated course design.
Action Step 1: Develop a competency framework for the B-school’s MBA program and map
them with one or more learning goals of different courses in collaboration
with the instructors.

Action Step 2: Map learning outcomes with activities that students are required to engage in
keeping redundancy and duplication across courses to a minimum.
Action Step 3: Develop assessment criteria and grading rubric for learner’s attainment of
learning goals in each course.
Evaluation of
Reaction:
Conduct a pre and post discussion Likert-scale surveys to assess the
instructors’ belief and value in
a) developing a shared understanding of the competency framework,
b) mapping competencies with student learning goals from different courses,
c) mapping learning goals with learning activities, reducing duplication of
activities across courses,
d) incorporating active learning (doing and observing by students) in the
course, and
e) making assessment criteria and grading rubric clear to students.
Observe the instructors’ engagement in and contribution to the discussion.
Evaluation of
Learning:
Get an expert evaluation of the course syllabi produced/refined post
discussion, especially on the following parameters:
a) linkages of the course learning outcomes with the program’s competency
framework,
b) alignment of learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessments with
one another,
c) degree of learner-centeredness in the description of learning outcomes and
learning activities,
d) clarity of assessments and grading rubric, and
e) avoidance of duplication across courses.
Evaluation of
Transfer:
Use a structured interview with a sample of students in the program to get
their perspective of the course syllabus along the same parameters suggested
for expert evaluation under the evaluation of learning.
Evaluation of
Impact:
Track and compare student’s graduation rate, and their time to graduation
before and after the implementation of changes.

Assess through survey and a structured interview with a sample of students
and faculty regarding improvement, if any, in a) student engagement in
learning, b) students’ time for autonomy and reflection, and c) student
learning.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 130

Strengthen Support System for Student Learning
Instructors and students both expressed that they did not have much time for interaction
outside class because most instructors are part-time, not full-time. Most participants also
attributed their adjunct and part-time status for not being able to give timely feedback to the
students. That was also the reason given by the students for their stoic acceptance of not getting
the feedback on their work. Three action steps were suggested under the solution, strengthening
the support system for student learning: a) enforcing use of learning hub in all courses, b)
recruiting full-time teaching faculty, and c) reviewing and rewriting agreement with part-time
faculty.
Enforce the use of learning hub. The organization had tried using the learning hub
about ten years earlier but failed. The level of enthusiasm and resistance vary by instructors.
However, for the attainment of the B-school’s goal to improve teaching and learning, effective
use of learning hub by the faculty and the students is almost a necessary condition. Effective use
of learning hub enhances students autonomy and increases transparency in communication
between and among the instructors, the students, and the administrators. It can also significantly
reduce the students’ and overtime the faculty’s extraneous load, thereby improving teaching and
learning. The program management team, with the support of the IT team, should bear the
primary responsibility of enforcing the use of a learning hub in all courses.
Recruit full-time teaching faculty. Both the students and the teaching faculty were of
the view that without increasing the share of full-time faculty, the desired improvement in
student learning, and consequently on the graduation rate and time to graduation would be
challenging. However, given the current level of human resources in the country, and the
financial resources at the disposal of the organization, it will not be able to recruit the full-time
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 131
faculty of the same quality as it is getting on a part-time basis. However, the organization should
explore recruiting full-time teachers, allowing them the freedom to engage in research and
consulting in their area of interest. It should target full-time, part-time faculty ratio between 1:4
to 1:3. The Human Resource department should assume the responsibility of attaining the goal
of recruiting full-time faculty.
Review and rewrite agreement with part-time faculty. Effective recruitment,
retention, and management of the part-time faculty is the most critical success factor influencing
the B-school’s goal of improving student learning, time to graduation, and graduation rate. The
organization need to develop and adopt a well-thought-out policy of differentiating part-time
faculty based on their potential for contribution in improving student learning, and providing
incentives for attracting, engaging, and retaining good faculty. Drafting the policies, getting
them approved, and re-writing agreements with the part-time faculty based on the new policies
should be the primary responsibility of the HR department, in close consultation with the
program management team and finance department.
Table 23 summarizes evaluation plans for each of the three action steps.
Table 23
Evaluation Plan for Strengthening Support System for Student Learning
Proposed
Solution:
Strengthen the support system for student learning
Action Step 1: Enforce the use of learning hub (a digital platform) for all course-related
communication – syllabus, assignments, grading, feedback – between
students and instructors in all MBA courses.
Evaluation of
Reaction:
A Likert-scale survey to assess how useful the students and the faculty
find the learning hub.
Evaluation of
Learning:
Analyze the usage time of the learning hub by the students and the
faculty.
Evaluation of
Transfer:
Analyze the quality of use of the learning hub by the faculty and the
students.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 132
Table 23, continued
Proposed
Solution:
Strengthen the support system for student learning
Evaluation of
Impact:
Analyze students’ grades in assignments and courses.
Conduct satisfaction survey of students and faculty regarding how
learning hub aided or hindered learning.
Action Step 2: Adopt and implement a policy of recruiting full-time teaching faculty allowing
them the freedom of carrying out consulting and research on a profit-sharing
basis with the institution.
Evaluation of
Reaction:
The number of applications received for full-time teaching faculty after
the new policy comes into force.
Evaluation of
Learning:
The number of full-time faculty recruited after the policy is adopted.
Evaluation of
Transfer:
Measure the number of hours of faculty-student interaction outside
class, maintaining the log of all such interactions.
Evaluation of
Impact:
Assess improvements in students’ grades, graduation rate, and the
average time to graduation.
Use student survey and interaction with a sample of students to find out
whether quality and timeliness of feedback have improved.
Action Step 3: Review and revise contract with adjunct faculty to incorporate clauses
containing a) consultation hours for students, and b) timeline for grading and
providing feedback on students’ work.
Evaluation of
Reaction:
Assess resistance and willingness to revise the contract, with additional
compensation for additional time commitment asked.
Evaluation of
Learning:
The number of adjunct faculty contracts revised incorporating clauses
relating to consultation hours and timeliness of feedback.
Evaluation of
Transfer:
Measure out-of-class interaction between adjunct faculty and students.
Measure improvement, if any, in time within which assignments are
graded and feedback provided by the adjunct faculty.
Evaluation of
Impact:
Measure average improvement in course grade, graduation rate, and
time to graduation, if any, compared to the past.
Use student survey and one-on-one interaction with the sample of
students to see whether students perceive improvement in access to
faculty and quality and timeliness of feedback received from them.

Collaborate with a Foreign University in Providing Training and Education
The analysis of the interview data and course syllabi revealed some gap in instructors’
conceptual and procedural knowledge of instructional science. All instructors in the MBA
program of the B-school have subject matter expertise, but very few had training on pedagogy.
Some knowledge gap related to higher-level cognitive processing related to teaching and
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 133
instruction, and therefore required education for teachers. Others related to effectively using
what the instructors already knew, and therefore required training and workshops. The students
also validated wide variation in instructors’ proficiency related to teaching.
The organization needs to explore modular certification program for the instructors
leading to a diploma awarded by a foreign university. The reason is that collaboration with a
foreign university will increase the instructors’ willingness to participate in the program.
According to Mayer (2011), people work harder to learn material that has personal value to
them. Exploration of collaboration with the foreign university for training will have to be
entrusted to one of the board members until the memorandum of understanding for the
partnership is reached. Then it can be handed over to the Center for Training and Development,
which should assume responsibility of carrying out the other two action steps of conducting
short-term skill-enhancing training, and conducting regular certification programs in teaching
and learning in higher education. Table 24 contains the evaluation plan for the last two action
steps, evaluation of the first one is yes or no evaluation: success if the MoU for collaboration is
signed within 90 days and two training sessions are conducted in a year.
Table 24
Evaluation Plan for Conducting Training and PDP for Instructors
Proposed
Solution:
Collaborate with one or more universities abroad and start training or
professional development programs for instructors in the art and science of
teaching and learning in higher education
Action Step 1: • Identify potential partner institutions from the US, UK, Europe, and
Australia and enter into a collaboration agreement
Action Step 2: • Conduct one or two training programs spanning a week within a year, for
the professional development of teaching faculty associated with the B-
school
Action Step 3: • Collaborate with one university abroad and launch a regular certification
program in teaching and learning in higher education, for instructors in
Nepal.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 134
Table 24, continued
Proposed
Solution:
Collaborate with one or more universities abroad and start training or
professional development programs for instructors in the art and science of
teaching and learning in higher education
Evaluation of
Reaction:
Pre-training survey of the participants on the expectation from the training
and post-training survey on the participants’ perception of the efficacy of the
training
Evaluation of
Learning:
Participant’s performance on the tests for certification of completion of the
training.
Evaluation of
Transfer:
Participant’s reflection on the use of learning from training on the course they
are teaching.
Students’ assessment (based on a sample) of the instructors’ use of learning
from training in the course they are teaching.
Evaluation of
Impact:
Instructors’ self-assessments of improvement in their instructional practice.
Students’ assessments of the instructors’ improvement, if any, in instructional
practice.
Students’ performance in the course (reflected by the grades and work quality
in assignments)
The number of teaching faculty in higher education enrolling and completing
the program every year.

Summary
The study examined what knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes would
influence the teaching faculty in the B-school to be able to attain the goal of successfully
adopting a learner-centered, integrated course design framework in the MBA program. Based on
the literature review and the researcher’s knowledge of the local context of the organization,
seven knowledge, three motivation, and two organizational factors were assumed to influence the
teaching faculty’s success in attaining the goal. Data from the in-depth interview with six
purposefully chosen faculty members, and their course syllabi were analyzed to assess whether
the faculty had the adequate level of knowledge and motivation on the presumed influences, and
the organization was adequately supportive on the organizational influences presumed. The
analysis revealed that in four of the seven knowledge influences, two of the three motivational
influences, and both of the presumed organizational influences significant improvements were
required for the teaching faculty to be able to attain their goal of successfully implementing a
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 135
learner-centered, integrated course design in the program. The eight influences were categorized
as gaps and the remaining four as assets. The gaps revealed by the analysis in four knowledge
influence and two organizational influences were validated by the data gleaned from a focus
group discussion with nine MBA students. The data were further analyzed to assess whether the
gaps in the validated KMO influences were due to some deficiency in the teaching faculty’s
knowledge (K), their motivation (M), some organizational factors (O), or any combination of
two or more factors. Context-specific recommendations suggested by the literature were then
proposed to address each of the deficiency in K, M, and O and categorized as knowledge
recommendations, motivation recommendations, and organization recommendations. The
context-specific recommendations were then regrouped into four broad solutions and action steps
within them for implementation and evaluation. Recommended timeline for implementation of
the solutions and the action steps ranged from 60 days to year and a half, depending on the action
steps. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2004) 4-level evaluation model for training was adapted
for evaluation. Evaluation plans for three of the four proposed solutions – review and rewriting
of the course syllabi, strengthening the support system for student learning, and providing
training and education to the instructors – were outlined in Table 22 to Table 24. Except for the
first proposed solution – sending clear communication to the stakeholders of the organizational
commitment to improving student learning – evaluation at all four levels – reaction, learning,
transfer, and impact – was proposed for the other solutions. Since one of the tangible outputs to
measure, student course grades, keep coming out at the end of every trimester (9 weeks long),
students and faculty are engaged in teaching and learning every day, evaluation integrated with
implementation will aid implementation, provided the organization uses the evaluation data
thoughtfully and effectively.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 136
Future Research
One data struck me the most, especially after my dissertation chair referred to me the
website of USC’s Center for Urban Education. Of the last six cohorts of part-time students in the
MBA program, only three students from one cohort (5% of the total number enrolled in that
cohort) completed the program in 32 months, the time in which a typical student should complete
the program by design. From the last four cohorts, none completed the program in 32 months.
In contrast, 77% of the last cohort of full-time students completed the program in 24 months, the
time in which a typical full-time student is expected to complete by design. Moreover, the
failure rate (% of students who do not complete the program) was 29% (average of 6 cohorts) in
the part-time program against 11% (average of 6 cohorts) in the full-time program. The
difference was starker between the last cohort of the two programs: 25% of the students in the
part-time program failed to graduate against only 3% in the full-time program. As the
organization reviews and rewrites the syllabus to improve the student learning in the program, a
study would be interesting: In what ways, if any, are the university and the schools offering
identical MBA program to the part-time and full-time students not fair to one or the other group
from the “Equity Minded” perspective. What changes in the policies, practices, structures of the
university and the mindset of the key policymakers would be required, if offering the identical
program to the two groups turned out to be against the spirit of ‘equity-mindedness?’ USC’s
Center for Urban Education explains “equity mindedness” as a way of thinking and
“understanding inequities as a dysfunction of the various structures, policies, and practices.” It
adds, “‘Equity-Minded’ practitioners question their own assumptions, recognize stereotypes that
harm student success, and continually reassess their practices to create change” Center for Urban
Education. (n.d.).
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 137
This study could not capture in-depth perspectives of the real intended beneficiaries of
this study, the students. A focus group discussion with a group of students carried out for
triangulation of findings also revealed some interesting insights for possible future research. The
students remarked that how they relate to a course or certain topics in a course depends on the
students’ area of interest. Most higher education programs, including the one of this case study,
assume one learning goals for all students in the program. It will be interesting to research
whether the institutions awarding MBA degrees will be open to adopting individualized learning
goals for the students in every course. And if yes, what changes would the institutions require in
their policies and practices, cultural settings, and cultural models, including the cultural mindset
of the administrators?
Conclusion
This case study examined the problems of learning, graduation rate, and time to
graduation of the MBA students of a private, for-profit business school affiliated to a public,
government-owned university. According to the data shared by the school, 11% of its full-time
MBA students and 29% of its part-time MBA students (based on the data of 6 cohorts of
students) failed to graduate within the maximum time allowed by the university. Based on the
data of same six cohorts, percentage of students graduating in time (normal duration of 2 years
for the full-time and 32 months for the part-time MBA) was around 42% for the full-time MBA;
only three out 180 part-time students of the six cohorts completed the program in 32 months.
The school wanted to improve student learning, reduce non-completion rate, and shorten time to
graduation by adopting a learner-centered, integrated course design in the MBA program.
Literature review on the student learning indicated that course design, especially alignment
between the three components, learning goals, learning activities, and assessments, was a key
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 138
determinant of student learning. Fink’s (2013) framework of the integrated course design was
chosen as a framework to be adopted by the school and Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO
framework was chosen to examine the needs of the organization to effectively adopt and
implement the integrated course design. Because of the time constraints, only one group of
stakeholder, the teaching faculty, was chosen for the study.
Based on the literature review and the researcher’s knowledge of the local context of the
organization, seven knowledge, three motivation, and two organizational factors were assumed
to influence the teaching faculty’s success in attaining the goal. One-on-one, face to face, in-
depth interviews with six purposefully chosen faculty were carried out by the researcher. Audio-
recording of the interview, the transcripts of the interview, and course syllabi of the instructors
were analyzed, primarily to examine what they informed about those 12 presumed influences.
The analysis revealed that in eight of the 12 influences, instructors’ knowledge and motivation or
the organizational factors were not at the level required to attain the goal the organization had
set. The gaps were most pronounced in the following five areas:
1) instructors’ knowledge of aligning assessments, learning activities, and learning goals
in the course design,
2) instructors’ knowledge and skill in writing and communicating feedback,
3) instructors’ belief that they would personally benefit from the adoption of learner-
centered course design,
4) instructors’ belief on the success of the initiative, and
5) organizational culture of cultivating the learner-centered instructional practice.
Context-specific KMO recommendations were suggested to address the deficiency in K,
M, and O revealed by data analysis. For implementation and evaluation, the context-specific
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 139
recommendations were regrouped into four broad solutions and specific action steps within
them. Integrated implementation and evaluation plans were proposed, adapting Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2004) 4-level evaluation model for training for evaluation.
It is painful to imagine students investing four years of time and tons of money on hope
and then walk away with despair. Less painful but painful nevertheless is to walk away with a
degree without much learning. The 29% failure rate is high, especially for a school that charged
high tuition. The tuition of 2-years full-time and 32-months part-time MBA programs of the B-
school, the organization of this case study, was ten times per-capita income of the country. This
problem of high cost and the high failure rate is not typical of the organization of this case study.
Many HEIs around the world have similar problems. Literature on student learning convincingly
suggests that a learner-centered course design in which the three elements -- learning goals,
assessments, and teaching and learning activities – align with one another is more effective for
student learning than a traditional teacher or content-centered course design (Barr & Tagg, 1995;
Biggs & Tang, 2011; Fink, 2013; Nilson, 2010). Students who participated in the focus group
discussion in this study validated the experts. Two insights they shared: when the students are
not clear about what they are expected to learn, the focus shifts to studying for passing the
examination; in some courses, they are so engaged that “time flies,” in some others they “will
have to keep waiting when the three hours will pass.” Successful adoption of effective course
design has the potential to enhance student learning, and consequently increase the graduation
rate, and shorten time to graduation. If the B-school’s adoption and implementation of solutions
translate into better student learning, better graduation rate, and shorter time to graduation, other
similar HEIs can adapt the findings for improvement in their students’ learning, graduation rate,
and time to graduation.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 140
REFERENCES
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ames, C. (1992a). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Andrade, Heidi Goodrich. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational
Leadership, 57(5), 13–18.
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Atkinson, J.W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Oxford, England: Van Nostrand.
Bandura A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New Yor, NY: Freeman
Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2014). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and
improving assessment in higher education. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Barnett, R. (2007). A will to learn: Being a student in an age of uncertainty. Maidenhead,
England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate
education. Change, 27(6), 12–25.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. S. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student
does. (4th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Bossavie, L., & Denisoya, A. (2018). Youth labor migration in Nepal. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 141
Bowen, W. (2015). Higher education in the digital age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Bowman, Nicholas A., & Seifert, Tricia A. (2011). Can college students accurately assess what
affects their learning and development? Journal of College Student Development, 52(3),
270–290
Bransford, J., & Johnson, M. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some
investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 11(6), 717–726.
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading.
Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 349–362.
Center for Urban Education. (n.d.). Equity Mindedness. Retrieved from
https://cue.usc.edu/about/equity/equity-mindedness/
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, F. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education (New Directions for Teaching and Learning no. 47). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta GA: CEP Press.
Cohen, S. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic bullet. Educational Researcher,
16(8), 16–20.
Connor-Greene, P. (2000). Assessing and promoting student learning: Blurring the line between
teaching and testing. Teaching of Psychology, 27(2), 84–88.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 142
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dembo, M., & Seli, H. (2016). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A focus
on self-regulated learning (5th ed.) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040– 1048.
Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M. (1983). Expectancies, values,
and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motivation
(pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132.
Evans, C., Kandiko Howson, C. and Forsythe, A. (2018) Making sense of learning gain in higher
education. Higher Education Pedagogies, 3 (1), 1–45.
Fahey, P. A. (1986). Learning transfer in main ideas instruction: Effects of instructional
alignment and aptitude on main idea test scores (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (303465924)
Fink, L. D. (2003). A Self-Directed Guide to Designing Courses for Significant
Learning. Retrieved from
https://www.deefinkandassociates.com/GuidetoCourseDesignAug05.pdf
Fink, L. D. (2007). The power of course design to increase student engagement and
learning. Peer Review, 9(1), 13-17.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 143
Foster, & Stagl. (2018). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an inverted (flipped)
classroom model economics for sustainable education course. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 183, 1323–1336.
Foster, Mary K., West, Bettina, & Bell-Angus, Barbara. (2016). Embracing your inner "guide on
the side": Using neuroscience to shift the focus from teaching to learning. Marketing
Education Review, 26(2), 78–92.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
31(1), 45–56.
Ginder, S.A., Kelly-Reid, J. E ., & Mann, F. B. (2016). Graduation rates for selected cohorts,
2007–12; student financial aid, academic year 014–15; admissions in postsecondary
institutions, fall 2015: First look (Provisional Data; NCES 2017–084). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed., pp. 162–183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Government of Nepal, Ministry of Education (2016). Nepal education in figure 2016. Retrieved
from http://moe.gov.np/assets/uploads/files/Nepal_Education_in_Figures_2016.pdf
Guthrie, K. M. (2019, April 9). Challenges to Higher Education's Most Essential Purposes.
Retrieved from https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/challenges-to-higher-educations-most-
essential-purposes/
Handley, Karen, Price, Margaret, & Millar, Jill. (2011). Beyond "doing time": Investigating the
concept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37(4), 543–
560.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 144
Hay, D., Wells, B., & Kinchin, H. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative measures of student
learning at university level. Higher Education, 56(2), 221–239.
Holt, E., Young, C., Keetch, J., Larsen, S., & Mollner, B. (2015). The greatest learning return
on your pedagogical investment: Alignment, assessment or in-class instruction? PLoS
One, 10(9), E0137446.
Hughes, G. (2011). Towards a personal best: A case for introducing ipsative assessment in
higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36 (3). 353–367.
Hughes, G. (2017). Ipsative assessment and personal learning gain: Exploring international
case studies. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ikenberry, S. O., & Kuh, G. D. (2015). From compliance to ownership: Why and how
colleges and universities assess student learning. In G. D. Kuh & S. O. Ikenberry (Eds.),
Using evidence of student learning to improve higher education (pp. 1–23). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jarvis, P. (2013). Learning to be a person – East and west. Comparative Education, 49(1), 4–15.
Jones, A., & Bennett, R. (2017). Reaching beyond an online/offline divide: Invoking the rhizome
in higher education course design. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 193–
210.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141–184.
Kennedy, D. (2006). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide. Cork Ireland:
University College Cork.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, D. (2006). Improving employee performance through appraisal
and coaching (2nd ed.). New York, NY: American Management Association.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 145
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does
not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Latham, G., & Brown, T. (2006). The Effect of learning vs. outcome goals on self‐efficacy,
satisfaction and performance in an MBA Program. Applied Psychology, 55(4), 606–623.
Leber, J., Renkl, A., Nückles, M., & Wäschle, K. (2017). When the type of assessment
counteracts teaching for understanding. Learning: Research and Practice, 1–19.
Leberman, S. I., & Martin, A. J. (2005). Applying dramaturgy to management course design.
Journal of Management Education, 29(2), 319–332.
Linnenbrink, E., & Pintrich, P. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School
Psychology Review, 31(3), 313–327.
Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. (1969). The directing function of goals in task performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 35–42.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. The American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
Lohani, S (2018, May 21). Educated and qualified, but no jobs for us. The Himalayan Times.
Retrieved from https://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/educated-qualified-no-job-
unemployment/
Macfarlane, B. (2014). Student performativity in higher education: Converting learning as a
private space into a public performance. Higher Education Research & Development,
34(2), 1–13.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 146
Marginson, Simon. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education:
Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education: The
International Journal of Higher Education Research, 72(4), 413–434.
Mayer, R. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Mathema, K. B. (2007). Crisis in education and future challenges for Nepal. European Bulletin
of Himalayan Research, 31, 46–66.
Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., Wolniak, G. C., Pascarella,
E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that
higher education works. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Merriam, S.B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Fast facts. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of Education Statistics, 2017 (NCES
2018–070). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A
model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education,
31(2), 199–218.
Nilson, L. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors
(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 147
Novak, J. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in
schools and corporations [electronic resource]. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
Orsmond, Paul, & Merry, Stephen. (2011). Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links
between tutors' and students' understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125–136
Pascarella, E. T. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future research.
Journal of College Student Development 47(5), 508–520.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science,
220(4596), 477–478.
Roser, M. & Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2018). Tertiary education. Retrieved from
https://ourworldindata.org/tertiary-education'
Rothkopf, E., & Billington, M. (l979). Goal-guided learning from text: Inferring a descriptive
processing model from inspection times and eye movements. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 310–327
Rowland, G., DiVasto, T., & Medsker, Karen L. (2013). Instructional design and powerful
learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 9–42.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 148
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Singh, G. B. (2015). Quality teaching and learning in Nepalese classrooms. In Transforming
Teaching and Learning in Asia and the Pacific Case Studies from Seven Countries (pp.
44–66). Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Sadler, D. R. (2016). Three in-course assessment reforms to improve higher education
learning outcomes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7), 1081–1099.
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwonke, R., Ertelt, A., Otieno, C., Renkl, A., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (2013). Metacognitive
support promotes an effective use of instructional resources in intelligent tutoring.
Learning and Instruction, 23(1), 136–150.
Serriere, N. (2014). Labour market transitions of young women and men in Nepal. Geneva:
International Labour Office.
Stehle, S., Spinath, B., & Kadmon, M. (2012). Measuring Teaching Effectiveness:
Correspondence Between Students' Evaluations of Teaching and Different Measures of
Student Learning. Research in Higher Education, 53(8), 888–904.
Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
The World Bank (2016). World Bank Group Country Survey 2016. Retrieved from
https://data.worldbank.org/country/nepal
The World Bank (2018). School enrollment, tertiary (% gross). Retrieved from
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR and
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 149
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in
student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184.
University Grants Commission (2013). Quality assurance and accreditation for higher
education in Nepal: A brief guideline. Retrieved from
www.ugcnepal.edu.np/ugc_header_images/QAA_Guidelines.pdf
UGC Nepal (2016). Education management information system/Report on Higher Education
2014/15 A.D. (2071/72 B.S.). Retrieved from
http://www.ugcnepal.edu.np/reports/EMIS%2014%2015.pdf
UNDP (2016). Human development reports. Retrieved from
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/NPL
UNDP (2018). Human development reports. Retrieved from
http://hdr.undp.org/en/2018-update
UNESCO (2015). Education for all: National review report 2001–2015. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002327/232769E.pdf
USAID (2015). Nepal earthquake - Fact sheet #20. Retrieved from
https://www.usaid.gov/nepal-earthquake/fy15/fs20
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walvoord, B., & Anderson, V. (2010). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment in
college (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (1st ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 150
Whetten, D. A. (2007). Principles of effective course design: What i wish i had known about
learning-centered teaching 30 years ago. Journal of Management Education, 31(3),
339–345,347–357.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning?. Studies in educational evaluation, 37(1), 3-
14.
Xia, B. S. (2017). An in-depth analysis of learning goals in higher education: Evidence from the
programming education. Journal of Learning Design, 10(2), 25–34.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 151
APPENDIX A
Organizational and Stakeholders’ Goal
Organizational Goal
By June 2022, reduce the program noncompletion rate to less than 10% for every cohort of full-time
and part-time students, and increase the timely graduation rate (full-time students graduating in 2 years
and part-time students graduating in 32 months) to 90% for the full-time program and to 50% for the
part-time program.
Teaching Faculty’s Goal
Adopt and implement integrated course design framework in all the courses offered to every MBA
cohort enrolled on or after Fall 2020 so that at least 90% of the full-time and 70% of the part-time
students pass all the courses in their first attempt.
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence Assessments
8. Instructors need to
understand the
importance of
situational factors in
an effective course
design
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Artifact: Review the course syllabus given to
students

Interview Q5: When I was teaching, I had to write
the course syllabus myself. I wonder how it works
now. Could you walk me through the process of how
you put together a syllabus for the course you are
now teaching?

Probes:

What factors did you consider while you wrote or put
together the syllabus for your course?

How did each of those factors affect the syllabus and
its quality?
9. Instructors need to
be able to create
clear learning
outcomes, from the
learners’ perspective
and suitable to the
context
Declarative
(Conceptual &
Procedural)
Artifact: Review the language and the tones of the
learning outcomes, if any, mentioned in the course
syllabus.

Interview Q6.:
Instructors differ in ways they define the purpose of
their teaching a course. I will appreciate if you could
share how you set the course objectives for the
course you are teaching.

Probes:
Could you please share the thought process you went
through in setting the course objectives and learning
goals?

Is the process you described typical of how you set
objectives for the course you teach?

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 152
Could you please describe the interaction, if any, you
have had with the students regarding the course
objectives and learning goals?

10. Instructors need to
know how to create
an effective
assessment system
that aligns with
learning outcomes.
Declarative
(Conceptual and
Procedural)
Artifact: Review the question papers of the tests and
examinations administered to the students.

Interview Q7:
In my personal experience as an instructor, I loved
teaching and interacting with the students; but I did
not enjoy assessing and grading them. I am curious
to know how you planned assessments for student
learning in your course.

Probes:
Any experience you would like to share about the
assessments you used and found very effective for
student learning?

Any experience you had where you found the
assessment you gave did not serve the purpose
intended?

11. Instructors need to
be able to design
and include a variety
of teaching and
learning activities.
Declarative
(Conceptual and
Procedural)
Artifact: Review the course syllabus for nature and
variety of teaching and learning activities mentioned.

Interview Q8:
I used to find the task of walking into the classroom
and interacting with the students for few hours much
easier than deciding what to cover in the lectures,
what readings to assign, and what other activities to
include in the course. To be able to hear your
experience of how you decided on what teaching and
learning activities (lectures, readings, case studies,
project work) to include in the course you are
teaching will be extremely valuable.

Probes:
What factors influenced your decision on what type
of learning activities to include and how much?

Based on your experience, what are your thoughts
regarding the use and efficacy of different types of
learning activities— reading assignments, lecture,
case studies, project work—in terms of student
learning?

12. Instructors need to
be able to design
instruction and other
teaching and
Declarative
(Conceptual and
Procedural)
Artifact: Review the question papers of the tests,
along with learning outcomes and assignments
mentioned in the syllabus.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 153
learning activities in
alignment with
learning outcomes
and assessments.
Interview Q9:
During my college days in the late ’70s in Nepal and
India, I have had personal experience of studying
many courses where the way we were assessed in the
examination and the way we were taught in the class
had little relevance. Even today, we hear many
students say that they find little relation between
what they learn in the classroom and how they are
assessed and graded in the examination. I would like
to have your perspective on the present-day reality on
alignment between what students are taught, how
they are assessed, and how they are graded.

Probes:

Could you share your experience (the lessons learned
or the process you follow) of trying to align or avoid
misaligning teaching and learning activities with the
course objectives or learning goals?

Could you share your experience (the lessons learned
or the process you follow) in aligning assessments
(including tests and examinations) with the
instructions and teaching and learning activities?

13. Instructors need to
know how to write
and communicate
effective feedback to
students
Declarative
(Conceptual and
Procedural)
Artifact: Sample of students’ work and instructors’
feedback, if and only if instructors share them.

Interview Q10:
As a college and university student in Nepal and
India, again way back in the late ’70s and early ’80s,
I recall having received feedback only from one
professor. The marks we used to obtain in our tests
were the only feedback. I am curious to know your
perception about the prevailing practice, your own,
and that of others, of feedback from teachers to
students.

Probes:
Could you please share your experience, if any, of
having given feedback that had a strongly beneficial
impact on students?

Any experience of having given feedback that did not
work as intended?

14. Instructors need to
reflect on the
effectiveness of the
course design and
their instruction.
Metacognitive Interview Q11:
Could you please share your experience, if any, of
having felt wonderful after teaching a class or a
course?

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 154
Interview Q12:
Could you please share your experience, if any, of
having felt terrible after teaching a class or giving a
lecture?
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Motivation
Construct
Motivation Influence Assessment
4. Instructors need to
see the value in
adopting and
implementing key
features of effective
course design.

Utility Value Interview Q1:
Could you please share your perspective on the
quality of student learning in the B-school MBA
program?

Probes:
How do you compare how well the B-school MBA
students are learning with your learning as a Master
student? What aspects of their learning is better than
your learning when you were a Master student?
What aspects were better while you were learning as
a Master student?

How do you compare the B-school MBA students’
learning with any other parameter you deem
appropriate (e.g., learning of students in other
colleges you have taught or other institutions you
have observed)?

How do you compare their learning in your course
compared to that in other courses?

How is your observation on variation in the quality
of learning between students in the program?

If you had the sole authority to institute any changes
you like, what changes would you introduce to
improve the student learning in the B-school MBA
program?

Interview Q 2:
Educational institutions in the US and Europe have
widely adopted learner-centered (as opposed to
teacher and content-centered) course design in higher
education. In your perspective, where do you see the
B-school MBA’s teaching and learning in a
continuum between totally teacher and content-
centered to a learner-centered?
5. Instructors need to
feel confident in
their ability to
implement key
features of effective
course design.
Self-Efficacy Interview Q3:
How soon, in your opinion, can we implement the
changes/improvement you suggested? (a) In your
course? (b) In other courses in the program?

Probe:
What challenges do you foresee?
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 155

6. Instructors should
want to help
students learn better
by becoming a
reflective
practitioner of the
science of
instruction, going
beyond merely
performing in the
class and meeting
the requirement of
covering the course.
Goal Orientation Interview Q4:
What changes have you found in yourself as a
teacher since you first started teaching?
And how do you see yourself growing as a teacher,
in the next few years?

Assumed
Organizational
Influence
Organizational
Influence
Category
Organizational Influence Assessment
3. The organization
needs to cultivate a
culture of learner-
centered
instructional
practice
Cultural Setting
Influence
Interview Q13:
What organizational problems or challenges do you
see if instructors in the B-school were to make their
teaching and learning practice dominantly learner-
centered, and less teacher or content-centered?

4. The organization
needs to cultivate a
culture of
collaborative
teaching
Cultural Model
Influence
Interview Q14:
Some schools have adopted a collaborative culture of
teaching, e.g., all five instructors teaching five
different courses in a term to a student cohort
collaborating and teaching as one team. What
problems, if any, do you think will we face in
adopting that practice?

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 156
APPENDIX B
Protocol for Document Analysis
The course syllabi were examined using the following parameters:
• Whether learning goals or expected learning outcomes are clearly articulated.
• Whether the language used in writing learning goals are student-centered.
• Whether learning outcome contains higher-order learning outcomes as per any
taxonomy of learning, e.g., Bloom taxonomy, SOLO taxonomy.
• Whether the syllabus contains clear articulation of what teaching and learning
activities students are expected to engage in.
• Whether the syllabus contains variety in teaching and learning activities designed.
• Whether the syllabus or any other document contains planning of active student-
centered learning activities (direct observing or doing experiences by the students) in
the course.
• Whether the documents show the alignment between learning goals and planned
teaching and learning activities.
• Whether assessments indicate by the test questions and examination show alignment
with the learning goals
• Whether learning activities planned in the syllabus align with test and examination
questions.
The document analysis was used primarily to enrich the interview, a primary means of data
collection.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 157
APPENDIX C
Interview Protocol
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule and agreeing to share your thoughts
and experience with me. I am pursuing a doctoral degree at the University of Southern
California. For my dissertation, I am researching the prospects and challenges of adopting a
learner-centered course design framework in graduate programs in higher education institutions
in Nepal. I have a series of questions that may take one to one-and-a-half hours to complete.
There is no right, wrong, or expected answer to any question; the purpose is to learn from and
understand your perspective and of the other teaching faculty like you. The data may be used to
help the B-school or other educational institutions in Nepal to develop strategies to support the
institutions, and their teaching faculty, in adopting a learner-centered course design framework in
their graduate programs.
I reassure you of the confidentiality of your interview. I will not reveal your identity
when I quote your thoughts and responses, in part or in full; I will assign a pseudonym to your
interview. If you permit and feel comfortable, I would like to audio record the interview. I will
personally transcribe the interview, validate the transcription with you, and destroy the audio
recording to keep your identity confidential. If recording the interview makes you feel
uncomfortable or you would like it not to be recorded, I will take notes as you respond and talk,
and I will validate the notes with you to ensure that I understood you correctly. Shall we start the
interview now?
Warm-up Questions
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 158
a. Until 1994, when I first started teaching as an adjunct faculty at Kathmandu University
School of Management, I never thought I would get into teaching. How and when did you
get into teaching?
b. I first began teaching in 1994, but the last time I taught a course was in 2007 to the MBA
students of the B-school. How has your experience of teaching at the B-school been?
Motivation Influence Assessment Questions:
1. Could you please share your perspective on the quality of student learning in the B-school
MBA program?
Probes:
• How do you compare how well the B-school MBA students are learning with your
learning as a Master student? What aspects of their learning is better than your
learning when you were a Master student? What aspects were better while you were
learning as a Master student?
• How do you compare the B-school MBA students’ learning with any other parameter
you deem appropriate (e.g., learning of students in other colleges you have taught or
other institutions you have observed)?
• How do you compare their learning in your course compared to that in other courses?
• How is your observation on variation in the quality of learning between students in
the program?
• If you had the sole authority to institute any changes you like, what changes would
you introduce to improve the student learning in the MBA program?
2. Educational institutions in the US and Europe have widely adopted learner-centered (as
opposed to teacher and content-centered) course design in higher education. To what extent
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 159
has the school’s MBA program adopted it and what scope of improvement, if any, do you
see?
3. How soon, in your opinion, can we implement the changes you suggested? (a) In your
course? (b) In other courses in the program?
Probe:
• What challenges do you foresee?
4. What changes have you found in yourself as a teacher since you first started teaching? And
how do you see yourself growing as a teacher, in the next few years?
Knowledge Influence Assessment Questions:
5. When I was teaching, I had to write the course syllabus myself. I wonder how it works now.
Could you walk me through the process of how you put together a syllabus for the course
you are now teaching?
Probes:
• What factors did you consider while you wrote or put together the syllabus for
your course?
• How did each of those factors affect the syllabus and its quality?
6. Instructors differ in ways they define the purpose of their teaching a course. I will appreciate
if you could share how you set the course objectives for the course you are teaching.
Probes:
• Could you please share the thought process you went through in setting the course
objectives and learning goals?
• Is the process you described typical of how you set objectives for the course you
teach?
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 160
• Could you please describe interaction, if any, you have had with the students
regarding the course objectives and learning goals?
7. In my personal experience as an instructor, I loved teaching and interacting with the students;
but I did not enjoy assessing and grading them. I am curious to know how you planned
assessments for student learning in your course.
Probes:
• Any experience you would like to share about the assessments you used and found
very effective for student learning?
• Any experience you had where you found the assessment you gave did not serve the
purpose intended?
8. I used to find the task of walking into the classroom and interacting with the students for few
hours much easier than deciding what to cover in the lectures, what readings to assign, and
what other activities to include in the course. I would like to be able to hear your experience
of how you decided on what teaching and learning activities (lectures, readings, case studies,
project work) to include in the course you are teaching.
Probes:
• What factors influenced your decision of what type of learning activities to include
and how much?
• Based on your experience, what are your thoughts regarding the use and efficacy of
different types of learning activities— reading assignments, lecture, case studies,
project work—in terms of student learning?
9. During my college days in late 70’s in Nepal and India, I have had personal experience of
studying many courses where the way we were assessed in the examination and the way we
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 161
were taught in the class had little relevance. Even today, we hear many students say that they
find little relation between what they learn in classroom and how they are assessed and
graded in the examination. I would like to have your perspective on the present-day reality
on alignment between what students are taught, how they are assessed, and how they are
graded.
Probes:
• Could you share your experience (the lessons learnt or the process you follow) of
trying to align or avoid misaligning teaching and learning activities with the course
objectives or learning goals?
• Could you share your experience (the lessons learnt or the process you follow) in
aligning assessments (including tests and examinations) with the instructions and
teaching and learning activities?
10. As a college and university student in Nepal and India, again way back in late 70’s and early
80’s, I recall having received feedback only from one professor. The marks we used to
obtain in our tests were the only feedback. I am curious to know your perception about the
prevailing practice, your own and that of others, of feedback from teachers to students.
Probes:
• Could you please share your experience, if any, of having given a feedback that had
strong beneficial impact on students?
• Any experience of having given a feedback that did not work as intended?
11. Could you share your experience, if any, of having felt wonderful after teaching a class or a
course?
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 162
12. Could you share your experience, if any, of having felt terrible after teaching a class or
giving a lecture?
Organizational Influence Assessment Questions:
13. What organizational problems or challenges do you see if instructors in the B-school were to
make their teaching and learning practices dominantly learner-centered, and less teacher or
content-centered?
14. Some schools have adopted a collaborative culture of teaching, e.g., all five instructors
teaching five different courses in a term to a student cohort collaborating and teaching as a
one team. What problems and challenges, if any, do you see in the B-school trying to adopt
collaborative teaching practice?
Closing Questions:
a. Is there anything else you would like to add or comment on that you did not or could not
address in response to the previous questions?
b. If you have any questions or think of anything you would like to add please feel free to
contact me directly.
c. Will you permit me to contact you for follow up questions in I need?
Once the audio recording is transcribed, I will contact you for checking and validating whether I
transcribed your words and thoughts correctly. I would like to thank you for your time and really
appreciate your thoughtful insights.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 163
APPENDIX D
Protocol for Focus Group Discussion
1. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule and agreeing to share your thoughts and
insights with me. I am a pursuing a doctoral degree at University of Southern California.
For my dissertation, I am researching the prospects and challenges of adopting a learner-
centered course design framework in graduate programs in higher education institutions in
Nepal.
2. I have a series of questions that may take one to one-and-a-half hours to complete. There is
no right, wrong, or expected answer to any question; the purpose is to learn from and
understand your perspective and of the other teaching faculty like you. The data may be used
to help the B-school or other educational institutions in Nepal to develop strategies to support
the institutions, and their teaching faculty, in adopting a learner-centered course design
framework in their graduate programs.
3. I reassure you of the confidentiality of this discussion. I will not reveal your identity when I
quote any of your thoughts and responses, in part or in full; I will assign a pseudonym to
each one of you. If you permit and feel comfortable, I would like to audio record the
interview. I will personally transcribe the interview, validate the transcription with you, and
destroy the audio recording to keep your identity confidential. If recording the interview
makes you feel uncomfortable or you would like it not to be recorded, I will simply take
notes as your respond and talk, and I will validate the notes with you to ensure that I
understood you correctly. Shall we start the discussion now?
4. When do the instructors/teachers share a course syllabus with you? How many days before
the trimester begins? And when would you like them to share with you?
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 164
5. How clear are you in a typical course, from reading the syllabus or interaction with the
instructors in the class, about what you are expected to learn in terms of knowledge or skill
after completion of the course?
6. What is your perception about the way instructors articulate learning goals? How relevant are
they to you? Can you relate them to your background and life experience?
7. How easy or challenging do you find the learning goals set for the course?
8. What comments do you have for the quality and number of assessments/tests in the course?
9. What are your thoughts on 3-hour pen and paper tests carrying 40% weight in every course?
10. How frequently do you receive feedback from the instructors on your work?
11. How do you find the quality of feedback, if any?
12. Do you act on the feedback?
13. Do courses generally offer you opportunity to engage in active learning (doing and
observing)?
14. How do you find the instructors’ motivation to help you learn?
15. Do you reflect on your learning from different courses?
16. How strongly do you see that what you do in a course are related to learning goals?
17. Do the assessments/tests/examinations relate to what you learned on the course?
18. Do your grades generally reflect your learning from the course?

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 165
APPENDIX E
University of Southern California
Information Sheet for Research
Transforming Student Learning Through an Integrated Course Design
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Ajaya Ghimire for his doctoral
dissertation at the University of Southern California. Please read through this form and ask any
questions you might have before deciding whether or not you want to participate.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence of
the teaching faculty in implementing a learner-centered framework of integrated course design in
the MBA program in Nepal.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in an interview. The
interview will be conducted at the premise of the B-school Institute of Management. The
interview is expected to be one to one-and-a-half hours long. You do not have to answer any
questions you don’t want to.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any compensation for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. At
the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed, and the de-identified data may
be used for future research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you
should not participate.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 166
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Ajaya
Ghimire at ghimire@usc.edu or at +1 415 691 9636 in the US or +977 985 107 1932 in Nepal.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 167
APPENDIX F
Recruitment Communication
Hello Potential Participant’s Name
I am Ajaya Ghimire, a doctoral candidate in the Global Executive Doctor of Education
(Global EdD) program of the University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, USA. I am
conducting a case study research on Organization Name (Remains Anonymous) under the
supervision of my dissertation committee chair, Prof. Jenifer Anne Crawford. I have obtained all
necessary approval, including from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the USC, for the study
(USC IRB Study Id. UP-18-00511). The purpose of the study is to understand knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influence of the teaching faculty in implementing a learner-
centered framework of integrated course design in the MBA program in Nepal.
I invite you to participate in this study because your insight as a member of the teaching
faculty in the MBA program will be valuable in informing the study and helping the organization
attain its goal of improving student learning, graduation rate, and time to graduation. I will
appreciate if you could spare about an hour or two of your time for a face to face interview at your
convenient time and place.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may withdraw at any stage of your
participation, if you do not want the information from your interview to be used in the study. Any
identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact me, the Principal Investigator, by
email at ghimire@usc.edu or phone at +1 985-107-1932 or my Faculty Advisor Dr. Jenifer
Crawford by email at jenifer.crawford@usc.edu or phone at +1 530-519-4085.
I hope you will agree to participate, and I look forward to talking to you soon.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 168

APPENDIX G
Excerpts from Course Syllabi

1. An excerpt from a participant’s course syllabus
2. A
An excerpt from the course syllabus of an Instructor (not a participant in the interview)

EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 169

APPENDIX H
Insights from Focus Group Discussion with Students

Presumed Knowledge
Influence
Questions and Follow-
up Questions Asked
Synthesis of Responses Gap
Validation
1. Instructors need to
understand the
importance of
situational factors in an
effective course design
How well you can relate
what you learn on the
courses with your
background and
personal life experience,
or you feel like it is
something to learn in
order to pass the
examination?
• In about 60% of the
courses they can relate
• How a student relates also
depends on his or her area
of interest
• When the students cannot
relate classroom teaching
to their background and
experience, they focus on
passing the exam.
Moderate
2. Instructors need to be
able to create clear
learning outcomes, from
the learners’ perspective
and suitable to the
context
1. How many days
before the term starts do
the instructors share
course syllabus with
you?
2. After reading the
syllabus and/or after
interacting with the
instructors, how clear
you are about what you
are expected to learn
from the course?
Q.3. What is the
language of the learning
outcomes? (the students
were explained the
difference)

Q. 5. How easy or
challenging do you find
the learning goals in the
courses?

• Student get the course
outline one week before the
term starts, and they are
satisfied with
• Generally, learning goals
becomes clearer after the
instructors explain them in
the first class.
• There are courses,
especially numerical ones,
where they find it hard to
understand what they are
expected to learn.
• In very few courses the
learning outcomes are
articulated in the students’
language, in most courses
they are teacher or content-
centered.
• When the students are not
clear about what they are
expected to learn, the focus
shifts to studying for
passing the exam.
Moderate
3. Instructors need to
know how to create an
Q.6. How do you feel
about the number of
• Trimester system, as
opposed to semester
High
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 170
effective assessment
system that align with
learning outcomes.
assignments? Too few,
just right, too many?
Q. 7. Most instructors I
talked to complained
about 3-hour pen-and-
paper final
examinations. What are
your thoughts on 3-hour
pen and paper tests
carrying 40% weight in
every course?
Q.8 If you had the
freedom, how would
like to evaluate?
Q.9: How rampant is
unpredictability factor
in the examination? Is
there inconsistency
between learning goals,
learning activities, and
examination questions?

system, gives little time to
students to focus on
learning because of 4
assignments, one midterm
and one final.
• Lack of uniformity in
assignment loads across
courses - some courses
having too many and some
others too few – makes it
difficult for students to
allocate time between
different courses.
• Believe that reducing
number of assignments and
improving their quality will
improve student learning
(26:00).
• In most courses the
assignments are not
planned in the beginning.
At the time the students
receive the course syllabus,
they are not there.
• Many times, the term paper
of multiple courses fall due
at the same time.
• Do not believe that 3 or 4 -
hour examination is
effective in all courses.
They may be suitable for
quantitative subjects.
• Most said unpredictability
factor between what the
exam tests and what is
taught in the class was not
that bad (40:49).
4. Instructors need to be
able to design and
include variety of
teaching and learning
activities.
Q.13 Do courses give
you opportunity to
engage in active
learning?
• In some courses, mostly
non-numerical, they get
active learning
opportunities. But in
numerical courses they
don’t.
• In some courses they are so
engaged that “time flies,”
in some others they “will
Moderate
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 171
have to keep waiting when
the three hours will pass.”

5. Instructors need to be
able to design
instruction and other
teaching and learning
activities in alignment
with learning outcomes
and assessments.
Q.10 What about the
idea of reducing content
but increasing the
quality of coverage?
Q.17 Do grades reflect
your true learning in
your course?

• They have the perception
that as MBA students they
have to know all subjects.
They also admit that many
things they studied in the
earlier terms they do not
remember.
• In almost all subjects they
“feel like rush, rush, rush”
with no time for thinking
about learning. “Sir, I think
we are focusing more on
the quantity than the
quality” (50:37)
• Some students study from
the examination’s
perspective only.
• Most believed grades
reflected their learning.
Students’ effort will
determine both learning
and grades, some
expressed.
• Some teachers are rigid in
terms of their expectation
on what they want as an
answer.
• Our mindset for
examination is different
from our mindset for
learning for real-life
(1:30:33).
High
6. Instructors need to
know how to write and
communicate effective
feedback to students
Q.11 How frequently do
you get feedback?
Q.12 Whatever
feedback you get in
time, do you act on
them?
• Students get personal
feedback in few courses
only. In most cases, the
feedback that do come,
come too late. “After
midterm, we do not get
papers and assignments
back.”
• In many courses, not in all,
the students don’t get
High
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 172
feedback even after
persisting for them. They
have come to accept not
getting feedback as the
norm.
• Because the instructors are
adjunct faculty, students
lower their expectations in
terms of interaction time
with the faculty.

7. Instructors need to
reflect on the
effectiveness of the
course design and their
instruction.
NA
Presumed Motivation
Influence
Questions and Follow-
up Questions Asked
Synthesis of Responses
8. Instructors need to see
the value in adopting
and implementing key
features of effective
course design.

NA
9. Instructors need to feel
confident in their ability
to implement key
features of effective
course design.
NA
10. Instructors should want
to help students learn
better by becoming a
reflective practitioner of
the science of
instruction, going
beyond merely
performing in the class
and meeting the
requirement of covering
the course.
Q.14 How do you find
the instructors’
motivation to help you
learn?
• Most faculty are willing to
help us learn. It depends
on the students’ interest
and initiative as well.
• There are faculties with
whom we are scared to ask
questions.

Low
Presumed Organizational
Influence

11. The organization needs
to cultivate a culture of
learner-centered
instructional practice
Q. 15 Is it a culture in
the B-school where
students are scared to
ask questions? Or they
fear that they might
• In my personal experience,
three teachers did not
encourage asking
questions. A student gave
an example of an instructor
who expressed that he was
High
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 173
look stupid? What is the
culture here (1:12:47)?
Q.16 Do you engage in
reflection about your
learning?
Q.20 How valid is the
argument that most of
today’s students have
no motivations to learn?
Q. 21 Out of 30
students in a section, is
it fair to say that 25% to
30% of the students are
not interested in
studies?
Q.22 Do students want
an improvement in
teaching and learning?
Q.23 Do you think the
B-school has been
accepting students in
the MBA program that
it should not have been
accepting?

feeling sleepy during the
presentation by the
students.
• Influence of teachers’
disposition confirmed by
the students. Only a few
need to improve.
• Not much time for
reflection. But the
responses were mixed.
Some reflect some don’t as
much. Most try to relate
courses to their real-life
experiences.
• We cannot completely
deny that some students
come with the intent of
completing a degree and
getting married to a good
spouse. There are a few
serious students. Others do
not take their studies
seriously. They also
complain that the teachers
only focus on the other
students who come
prepared. Sir, 25 to 30%
are interested, and the rest
are not interested.
• Another view: Maybe
because of the noises, our
dedication towards study is
less than that of the earlier
generation.
• Another view: Everyone in
their capacity are doing as
per their capability.
• Another view: There is
variability. There are some
students who only study for
exams.
• Many students lack interest
in studies and therefore on
improvement.
EFFECTIVE COURSE DESIGN FOR IMPROVING LEARNING 174
• Yes, poor recruitment. I
even felt, oh, this happens
even in this school?

12. The organization needs
to cultivate a culture of
collaborative teaching
Q.18 Would you like
the teachers to teach
you collaboratively?
Would it be possible in
the B-school?
Q. 19 What challenges
do you see in
collaboration?

• In three different subjects
(OB, HR, Communication),
the same topic is taught,
and we have to write as per
the instructors’ teaching.
• If teachers cannot devote
time for feedback, how will
they get time for
collaboration? Students
could lose if teachers
engage in the formalities of
collaboration.
• Because of the experience
of the teachers,
collaborative teaching
would still be possible.
High

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the problems related to student learning, graduation rate, and time to graduation in the MBA program of one business school in Nepal. Using an interview protocol that focused around 12 presumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) factors distilled from the review of literature on student learning, six teaching faculty members were interviewed. The instructors’ course syllabi were analyzed. The teaching faculty’s knowledge and motivation and the organizational causes (KMO) that potentially influenced the organization’s effectiveness in adopting Fink’s integrated course design framework were examined, using Clark and Estes’ KMO gap analysis model. A focus group session with the students was conducted to check the validity of data obtained from the interviews with the faculty members. The study found the gaps in eight of the 12 presumed KMO factors. The organizational setting did not foster a culture of learner-centered instructional practice. All policies and practices, implicit or explicit, focused more on quantity than on quality. Chapter 5 proposes knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions along with the plans for implementation and evaluation. An interesting area of future research would be to examine the course design from what USC Center for Urban Education calls equity-minded perspective. The graduation rate and the time to graduation of the part-time and the full-time students differed by too wide a margin to ignore potential inequity caused, to one or the other group, by identical course design for both full-time and part-time students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Creating a faith-integrated Bachelor of Science nursing program: an innovation model

PDF

Building 21st century skills for school-age children in Colombia: lessons from a promising practice

PDF

Advancing retention strategies at a historically Black university

PDF

Preparing students for the 21st century labor market through liberal arts education at a Chinese joint venture university

PDF

Creativity and innovation in undergraduate education: an innovation study

PDF

Improving educational attainment at a bridge program in Saudi Arabia: a gap analysis

PDF

Learner-centered teaching in Uganda: an analysis of continuing educational needs

PDF

The principal, the achievement gap and Children's Literacy Initiative: a promising practice

PDF

Faculty retention at private colleges in China

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

A gap analysis on improving teacher retention in kindergarten: a case of a private kindergarten in Hong Kong

PDF

Understanding student persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCs): an evaluation study

PDF

Systemic multilayered assessment of global awareness in undergraduate students: an innovation study

PDF

Teaching quality in Zhejiang University of Technology

PDF

Analyzing the implementation of a learning management system into a post-merger & acquisition organization and its effects on sales performance (improvement model)

PDF

Creating a comprehensive professional development program for MBA students: a needs analysis

PDF

Building computations thinking through teaching of computer programming: an evaluation of learning centers in China

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

Leading instructional shifts in emergent bilingual education: a principal's role

Asset Metadata

Creator Ghimire, Ajaya (author)

Core Title Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Publication Date 08/15/2019

Defense Date 07/16/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag effective course design,Fink’s integrated course design,HEIs Nepal,Higher education institutions,KMO gap analysis,learning improvement,MBA learning improvement,OAI-PMH Harvest,student learning

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Crawford, Jenifer Anne (committee chair), Krop, Cathy Sloane (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email aghimire.ace@gmail.com,ghimire@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-215956

Unique identifier UC11662937

Identifier etd-GhimireAja-7789.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-215956 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GhimireAja-7789.pdf

Dmrecord 215956

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ghimire, Ajaya

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA