Service‐Learning in Supply Chain ... - Wiley Online Library

Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education Volume 13 Number 1 January 2015 Printed in the U.S.A.

C

2015 Decision Sciences Institute

CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH

Service-Learning in Supply Chain Management: Benefits, Challenges and Best Practices∗ Tobias Schoenherr Department of Supply Chain Management, Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, N370 North Business Complex, 632 Bogue St., Room N370, East Lansing, MI 48824, e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Service-learning (SL) is a pedagogical approach in which students are assigned a courserelated project in a not-for-profit organization, and are tasked to apply course content to execute the project. While the benefits are multifarious, only recently have supply chain management (SCM) courses adapted this innovative teaching methodology. The present article aims to popularize this pedagogical concept by providing a detailed overview of the background, development, implementation, and success of an SL project in an undergraduate SCM course; this serves as a “how to” guide for instructors interested in implementing the approach. Compelling evidence for the value of SL is provided by data assessing the students’ learning experiences, and benefits for participating organizations are demonstrated. Caveats and challenges are noted, and ensuing best practices for SL are presented.

Subject Areas: Experiential Learning, Supply Chain Management, ServiceLearning.

INTRODUCTION Service-learning (SL) is an experiential learning pedagogy that has been gaining attention across disciplines and within business schools (Godfrey, Illes, & Berry, 2005). It can be defined as a course-based “credit-bearing educational experience in which students participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility” (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996, p. 222). SL is therefore different to traditional experiential learning approaches in business education that involve for-profit organizations. Specifically, in an SL project, students ∗ This research project was made possible by Michigan State University’s Lilly Teaching Fellowship, and sincerest thanks go to Deborah DeZure, Assistant Provost for Faculty and Organizational Development, for her inspiration, support and guidance. Significant help was also provided by Michigan State University’s Center for Service-Learning and Civic Engagement, and sincerest thanks go to the Center’s Director Emeritus, Karen McKnight Casey.

45

46

Service-Learning in Supply Chain Management

are assigned to a not-for-profit organization and tasked to work on a course-related project with the entity. With the focus on the not-for-profit sector, the SL methodology incorporates community service to help students gain a deeper understanding of course content and acquire new knowledge, while at the same time engaging in civic activity (Geringer, Stratemeyer, Canton, & Rice, 2009). In this fashion, SL extends learning beyond the classroom, fosters a sense of caring for others (Godfrey, 2000), and provides valuable real-world experience for students (Burns, 2011). It has thus been called the “scholarship of engagement” (Boyer, 1997), and is especially well suited for the current Millennial Generation students (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Rhodes, 2012). While SL in business has been applied within a variety of contexts (e.g., Foster, 2004; Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2003; Maloni & Paul, 2011; Richmond, Banerjee, & White, 2008), few studies offer statistical evidence of the impact of SL (Yorio & Ye, 2012), and those that do provide mixed results (Bernacki & Jaeger, 2008). Therefore, much is still to be learned about the impact of SL on its constituents (Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon, & Kerrigan, 1996; Geringer et al., 2009; Hagenbuch, 2006) and how it can make teaching more practically relevant (Chupp & Joseph, 2010; Hoover, Giambatista, Sorenson, & Bommer, 2010; Poon, Chan, & Zhou, 2011). Furthermore, no study has documented and assessed the implementation of SL in a supply chain management (SCM) course, leaving this context uninvestigated. The present research contributes to the scholarship of teaching and learning by providing a detailed overview of the background, development, implementation, and success of an SL project in an undergraduate SCM course. This outline serves as a “how to” guide for instructors who want to implement the approach. We further provide compelling evidence for the value of SL by assessing students’ learning experiences, and demonstrate benefits for participating organizations. We also note caveats and challenges, and suggest a set of best practices for successfully implementing SL in university courses. By motivating and making this pedagogical concept more accessible to instructors, we respond to calls for making teaching more practice- and action-oriented (e.g., Hoover et al., 2010; Mangan & Christopher, 2005), and enhancing its relevancy and applicability to the real world.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS Service-Learning While university students are taught subject-matter expertise and problem-solving skills, they often lack the practical application of these in the real world (Burns, 2011). Within this context, SL can enhance student learning via the integration of theory and practice (Geringer et al., 2009). Students experience the applicability of course content in actual organizations (Howard, 1998), and are likely to better internalize knowledge. What makes SL different to other experiential learning approaches is that it allows students to learn through active participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences with not-for-profit organizations (Furco, 1996). As such, SL provides structured time for students to think, talk, or write about what they observed during the service activity, and extend learning

Schoenherr

47

beyond the classroom and into the community (Rockquemore, & Harwell Schaffer, 2000; Willits-Cairn & Kielsmeier, 1991). Due to these characteristics, SL has been called the most effective teaching pedagogy for today’s business school faculty (Papamarcos, 2005). SL also supports not-for-profit organizations in their important endeavors (Wisner, Stringfellow, Youngdhal, & Parker, 2005). Since such an organization’s primary objective is to take care of individuals in need, and not necessarily to create corporate wealth or optimize business processes, business- and specifically SCM-related issues may not always receive highest priority, potentially leaving opportunities unrealized (Coyle, Jamieson, & Oakes, 2005). This is where the help and expertise of students can be valuable, as they can work on and complete initiatives that might otherwise be overlooked or remain unaddressed. This will further benefit the ultimate clients of the organization by, for example, providing better, more effective or more efficient services. This, by implication, benefits society and community overall (Bringle, Games, & Malloy, 1999). The underlying motivation for SL is the realization of synergistic benefits from complementarities, and the symbiotic application of the respective strengths of the partners to fulfill a need of the other (Campus Compact, 2014; Furco, 1996). Partnerships generated via SL have the potential to provide such benefits for students, the participating organizations and their clients, and the overall community and society (Burns, 2011). In addition, SL enhances the exposure of the university within the community, strengthens its involvement, and demonstrates its commitment and sense of responsibility.

Student Benefits of SL SL draws on Kolb’s (1984) theory of experiential learning, according to which best learning outcomes ensue when the four stages of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation are experienced (Madsen & Turnbull, 2006). In the process, in which different learning styles can be accommodated, the learner’s role changes from that of observer to active participant, and between specific involvement and general analytic detachment (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). SL provides a venue to achieve experiential learning (Petkus, 2000). It starts with the concrete experience made by the student at the not-for-profit organization, and evolves to reflective observation of what has been learned in the field. Experiences are looked at from different perspectives, and ideas are generated. This is assimilated with what has been studied in the classroom, and is brought into a logical form (abstract conceptualization). The refined insight is applied via active experimentation, and then put into context of the concrete experience again. As such, the process moves students from passive to active learning (Waddock & Post, 2000). The educational philosophy of John Dewey provides further support for SL in that it facilitates the “organic connection between education and personal experience” (Dewey, 1938, quoted in Giles, 1990, p. 258). The moral roots of SL are grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition of caring for the poor and needy, as well as in secular traditional Western philosophy as represented by Immanuel Kant and his categorical imperative (Godfrey, 2000).

48


Besides the provision of a detailed overview of the background, development, implementation, and success of SL in an undergraduate SCM course, we also aim to provide evidence for the learning value of SL initiatives, an area that is in need of further insight (Driscoll et al., 1996; Geringer et al., 2009; Hagenbuch, 2006). For this purpose, drawing on the theoretical foundations introduced above, we forward a set of four research propositions (RPs), which we subsequently test with student data. Specifically, we track students’ perceptions of their course-specific skills, knowledge, and attitudes (SKA). These dimensions go back to Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of learning domains, and the associated educational psychomotor (skill), cognitive (knowledge), and affective (attitudes) activities. Our expectation is that the actual application of course content in the real world via the SL project will improve students’ skill, knowledge and attitude (RP1). Exploring these dimensions in greater detail, specifically with regard to skills, we suggest that SL enables students to apply what they have learned in a “real-world” setting, thus illustrating the relevance and importance of course content. Our expectation is therefore that the SL initiative will improve students’ satisfaction with the course, value derived from it, interest, and perceived achievement of course objectives (RP2). The experience of having contributed to the success of an organization will also be a distinguishing component that contributes to students’ professional development. Additional abilities likely to be enhanced include organizational, leadership, and communication skills. The project further enhances students’ understanding of key issues, opportunities, techniques, and developments in SCM. We therefore expect the SL project to improve students’ attitudes towards and perceptions of the group project (RP3). Considering attitudes from a broader perspective, students gain an improved sense of social and ethical responsibility, as well as citizenship behavior (Gray et al., 1996). As such, the specific focus on not-for-profit organizations introduces students to a moral paradigm other than wealth creation (Godfrey, 2000), making SL especially valuable for higher education in business (Poon et al., 2011). A student’s compassion, commitment to public interest, and community service self-efficacy are thus expected to improve (RP4). This may lead more graduating students to explore job opportunities in the not-for-profit sector. Besides investigating the beneficial impact on students, we seek to demonstrate the synergistic impact realized by not-for-profit organizations. Benefits should derive from the new and fresh perspectives that students may bring to the table, as well as from the application of current best SCM practices learned in the course. In addition, student teams bring with them the time and motivation that not-for-profit organizations may lack to address SCM-related issues (due to their primary and substantiated focus of caring for individuals in need).

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SL PROJECT The SL initiative was implemented in an undergraduate SCM course (focusing on procurement and supply management) in a business school at a large university. The SL project constituted a significant component of the student’s final course grade (20%). During the summer preceding the course the instructor worked with local not-for-profit organizations to develop the projects. For this purpose, a call for proposals was sent to all not-for-profit organizations in the greater metropolitan

Schoenherr

49

area of the university. An excerpt of this call, including requirements and expectations, is provided in Appendix A. This can serve as a template for instructors wishing to develop their own SL projects. While this up-front development was time-consuming, it was deemed to be crucial for the successful conduct of the initiative. As such, only organizations that showed a genuine interest in the partnership and were willing to offer students a mutually beneficial experience were included. While the call for proposals outlined some of the key requirements and expectations, these were further elaborated on during personal visits by the instructor to interested organizations, and during in-depth telephone consultations. At that time, suitable projects were identified and jointly developed. This was done to ensure that a real need of the organization was addressed while at the same time providing a valuable learning experience for students—key elements for the sustainability of an SL initiative. Of equal importance was the appropriate fit of the identified project with the course content, thus enabling students to directly apply knowledge and add value to the participating organization. As such, organizations were carefully selected and projects were carefully developed for use in the SL initiative. This ensured the maximum learning opportunity for the students and the maximum benefit for the organizations. A methodical, rigorous, and structured development process was regarded as an important success factor for the project. Given the significant time investment needed and their likely inability to judge the appropriateness of a topic, it is not recommended that students identify organizations and/or projects themselves. A total of 13 projects at eleven not-for-profit organizations were identified for the semester in which this investigation was carried out. Illustrative examples of projects included the following (generic agency names are provided to maintain confidentiality):

r Community Rehabilitation Organization: Perform a supplier selection

r

r

analysis in which the incumbent supplier of corrugated materials is evaluated against a set of other potential suppliers; explore strategy options to partner with 3PLs to streamline the delivery of corrugated materials and provide decision support. Christian Not-for-profit: Evaluate whether a central store (or multiple regional store locations) can be utilized to supply a variety of disposable items to the multitude of adult foster care homes the organization operates; many of the homes purchase items from local retailers, they acquire these items through a purchasing agent, by other means, or a combination thereof; evaluate the feasibility of a centralized purchasing function. Not-for-profit Association: Assist management of the association in creating a streamlined, cost-effective, and efficient method for inventorying, procuring, and managing equipment and supplies, including computers, office equipment parts and supplies, and general office supplies; a secondary objective is to assist management in developing preliminary decision support for coordinating the procurement of office supplies in a shared services arrangement with four partner agencies.

50


r Greater Metropolitan Food Bank: Develop a resource database that

r

contains information about the businesses in the county areas served; the database should cover information about food resources, processing/production resources, and technology available to maintain and communicate resources to the food bank’s service territory. Global Charity: Evaluate technology needs and research different vendors to acquire desired technology equipment and software to complete a new computer training lab, for which a $20,000 grant was received; research not-for-profit programs within these vendors.

All projects were introduced to students at the beginning of the course, and were subsequently assigned based on students’ preferences and strengths. Depending on the scope of the project, teams consisted of between three and seven students. Teams worked throughout the semester on their assigned project, applying and integrating course content, and developing suggestions and strategies for the organization. At the end of the course, students provided a final project report with their recommendations and learning outcomes, and presented their findings and results to the sponsoring not-for-profit organizations. A detailed description, project assignment, and deliverables catalog was developed to keep students on track (Appendix B). This can again serve as a template or starting point for instructors developing their own SL initiative.

METHOD AND DATA COLLECTION To assess the effectiveness of the SL approach, student feedback was solicited at multiple times during the semester. Specifically, qualitative data was collected in the form of a class journal in which students were asked to reflect weekly on the learning experiences made both inside the classroom and with the SL project. These exercises required students to think beyond what they had learned or how class concepts can be applied in the real world, and encouraged them to consider the deeper implications for themselves and their futures. Such active reflection is an integral part of SL and differentiates this pedagogy from more traditional volunteer activities and projects with for-profit companies (Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2000). Quantitative data were collected via surveys administered throughout the semester (one survey was conducted at the beginning of the course, one at the mid-point, and one at the end of the course). The questionnaires assessed student learning outcomes along the dimensions of skills, knowledge and attitudes, satisfaction, values and interest, attitude toward the group project, and compassion, commitment to public interest, and community service self-efficacy. The scales utilized were adapted from prior research on the scholarship of teaching and learning (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Godfrey & Grasso, 2000; Zlotkowski, 1998). Psychometric tests were conducted to purify the scales, with items being removed due to low factor loadings, cross-loadings and low R2 values. Appendix C presents the final items used, their factor loadings, and construct reliabilities. A total of 49 complete responses were received, representing a response rate of 90.74%. Both qualitative and quantitative data were also collected from the community partners. The instructor obtained feedback from the not-for-profit organizations at numerous points during the semester to ensure that students remained

Schoenherr

51

on track and met the organizations’ expectations. Besides this feedback, surveys including open-ended questions were administered throughout the semester. In addition, a survey at the end of the course assessed the overall impact the students’ work has had, also in quantitative and monetary terms if applicable.

RESULTS Impact on the Student Learning Experience and Assessment of Propositions This section reports on the overall experience with the SL project throughout the semester and its perceived success by the students. The focus is on the qualitative comments students provided as part of their class journals. The overall consensus from the journal entries was widespread appreciation of the pedagogy and realization of its value. The following comments1 provide illustrative examples of the thoughts noted by the students (these were given primarily in the latter part of the semester) as they pertained specifically to the increase in knowledge, skills and attitudes (RP1): “I think that the SL project was a great learning experience . . . it should be a requirement. . . . The SL will be very useful for me in the future because it is a real life experience, which helps me gain experience in the purchasing field, it is something I can refer back to when making purchasing decisions.” “I am extremely happy that we had the opportunity to work on the SL project. I really enjoyed it and I think it was very beneficial to everyone who was involved in it.”

These assessments are supportive of Kolb’s (1984) theory of experiential learning, which stressed the interplay of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (Madsen & Turnbull, 2006). The SL initiative clearly has the potential to touch on these four dimensions, enabling significant learning. The student comments also reveal that SL is in line with the educational philosophy of Dewey (1938) in that it enables the connection between education and personal experience. Comments were also supportive of our second proposition (RP2), in which we expected students’ satisfaction with the course and perceived value to increase. Much appreciation was expressed for the different and unique approach of the course in terms of integrating real-world experiences. These were not limited to the students’ time with the not-for-profit organization, but included also the discussion of the students’ projects in class throughout the semester. This ensured a connection to course content, and enabled teams to learn about the projects of their classmates and how they were conducting them. Overall, it was seen as a “change of pace” in contrast to other college courses, and students realized the impact that the SL project was having on their professional development. Some of the comments that illustrate these sentiments include: 1 The students were introduced to the project with the terminology of “academic service-learning” (ASL), which is synonymous with service-learning. For consistency, “ASL” has been replaced with “SL” in the quotes.

52


“I thought the course was very well put together and the SL program was my favorite project I have had since enrolling at [university]. I hope you do not change anything about the class and continue to teach it as you did this semester.” “This was one of the best courses I have taken at [university]. I really enjoyed the integration of real-world experiences we were making into the weekly lectures.”

Comments in support of our third proposition (RP3), in which we suggested students’ satisfaction with the class project would improve, were also made. Several students further noted that they would list the SL experience on their resumes, realizing the professional development reaped from the engagement (this approach was particularly evident among students that did not yet have internships or other work experiences). The following comments are illustrative of students’ satisfaction with the project: “I think the SL project was an amazing opportunity for everyone.” “I think the SL project is great, and it should be a requirement for graduating from the SCM program.”

According to the last proposition (RP4), we expected that students would be characterized by a greater degree of compassion at the end of the course, a greater commitment to public interest, and greater community service self-efficacy. This is one of the fundamental underlying notions of SL, in that not only knowledge, skills and attitudes toward the subject should improve, but that also this deeper level of change is accomplished. Illustrative quotes include: “The project has helped me in realizing how I can use what I am learning and apply it to help others.” “I liked most the ability to get out in the community and to make the world a better place.”

Further support for the value of the SL project comes in the form of answers to a set of questions students were asked at the end of the semester as part of the final survey (Table 1). As can be seen, the SL project accomplished the intended objectives and realized the desired benefits as outlined above. Specifically, SL helped students apply course content in the real world, and made them feel more connected to the community. Students were also of the opinion that SL is an essential component for a well-rounded education.

Impact on the Not-For-Profit Organizations The benefits for the not-for-profit organizations were also considerable, illustrating the truly synergistic impact achieved. Specifically, benefits, including significant savings, sometimes in the six digits, were realized by the participating agencies. As such, the application of students’ knowledge to the issues identified by the not-forprofit organizations represented a valuable contribution, enhanced their operations, and enabled the ultimate improvement of services and products provided to their clients. While the organizations may have been aware of inefficiencies, the need to address them, and the associated potential for improvement, they often lacked the needed resources or time to do so. Constrained by limited budgets and the

Schoenherr

53

Table 1: Thoughts on the SL project. Statements

Mean

Std. Dev

SL helps students apply course content in the real world. SL helps students feel more connected to the community. SL helps students connect theory and practice. SL helps students learn course content. SL is a critical component of undergraduate education. SL is essential for a well-rounded education. SL increases the overall satisfaction of students in the course. An SL activity should be a requirement for graduation. SL helps students perform better on exams. The work associated with SL outweighs its benefits.

5.714 5.408 5.327 5.265 5.163 5.020 5.000 4.490 4.271 4.000

1.458 1.442 1.505 1.238 1.519 1.233 1.555 1.596 1.410 1.368

Notes: Students were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with these statements on a scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (value = 1) to “strongly agree” (value = 7). In the questionnaires, the term “academic service-learning” (ASL) was used, which is synonymous with service-learning. For consistency, “ASL” has been replaced with “SL” in the statements.

overriding objective to care for individuals in need, such business-related aspects of the organization did not receive highest priority. This is where the help of the students, who were eager to apply what they had learned in the course, was invaluable. The perspective of the students was also noted as providing a fresh viewpoint to issues that may have been overlooked or neglected in the past. As such, the SL initiative was the perfect ground for a successful, mutually beneficial and synergetic partnership. Illustrative results achieved by the participating organizations include the following. In the case of a Christian not-for-profit organization that operated a number of facilities in the state, the student team helped transition the organization from a decentralized purchasing structure in which each individual facility did their own purchasing, to a centralized structure in which purchasing was conducted centrally for all facilities. This enabled economies of scale and scope, and the leveraging of volume and greater bargaining power; first-year savings were estimated to be $350,000. Another team that worked with a community rehabilitation organization was in charge of identifying alternate suppliers for the organization’s corrugated packaging spend. The students qualified the suppliers and solicited quotes, yielding savings of $120,000. A third example involved a team that worked with a not-for-profit agency to optimize fuel purchases for their fleet of vehicles. The students identified appropriate group purchasing organizations the agency could partner with, leading to annual savings of $20,000 in fuel cost. Specific comments by the participating not-for-profit organizations, when asked about the overall evaluation of the project, included: “This is a great idea to utilize “real life” business situations to get the students involved in. In the wrap up discussion that I had with the students, it was evident to me that they felt this was a great learning experience, and that it was much better than writing a paper. It also worked out well for us, as I didn’t have the resources available to put towards this project.”

54


“This project came at the best possible time. As our organization deals with budget shortfalls, workload issues, and a new leadership it is very beneficial to get an outside set of eyes looking at what we do and how we do it. I find it is sometimes hard when we are dealing with day to day operational issues to find the time to take a step back and look at the items we asked for assistance with. These items were more strategic in nature, and your students provided a fresh and current perspective.”

Quantitative Results This section reports on whether and how students differed quantitatively throughout the semester based on three surveys that were administered.2 Means and standard deviations for the constructs across the three administrations of the survey are reported in Table 2. To discern statistical differences among the three administrations, Friedman tests were conducted for each construct, and corresponding χ 2 values were computed. A significant χ 2 value indicates that the means across the three surveys are statistically different. To determine which differences in pairs of means were significant, follow-up pairwise comparisons were conducted using Wilcoxon tests (Table 2). The presence of statistical differences across the three time periods for knowledge and skills suggests a significant improvement in these two dimensions over the course of the semester. While this result is indicative for the support of RP1, the last dimension of Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of learning domains, attitude, does not seem to be impacted. This suggests that while students improve on psychomotor (skill) and cognitive (knowledge) dimensions of learning, affective (attitudes) aspects do not change. This may be explained by the already high mean value for attitudes at time A (5.494). By taking this course, students may already have a very high attitude toward the course, improvement upon which may be difficult. In contrast, mean values for knowledge and skills started out at lower levels and offered room for improvement. The enhancement of knowledge and skills is consistent with Kolb’s (1984) theory of experiential learning, which postulates the derivation of. Benefits from direct observation made in the real world, combined with putting it into context, assimilating it, deriving appropriate actions, and implementing it via the SL project. Through this process, knowledge and skills can be developed (Kolb & Kolb, 2005), as validated by the improvements in student learning. RP2 postulated an improvement in students’ satisfaction with the course, value derived from it, interest, and perceived achievement of course objectives. These notions were confirmed by the data, albeit at different significance levels. Differences were especially pronounced for the achievement of course objectives and satisfaction. While course value and interest also improved, the change was not as large. Similar to the discussion on attitude above, the limited improvement can be explained by the already high mean values at time A, as well as by the 2 We note that while the statistical tests can discern differences across time, we are not able to attribute these differences to the SL project in the strictest sense. While the SL initiative was a major component of the course, likely contributing to the improvements, other factors may also have contributed to the statistical differences (interpretations should be viewed against this caveat). Therefore, the quantitative results are provided here merely as a supplement to the qualitative evaluation provided above, with which we were able to pinpoint improvement attributable to the SL project.

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

4

4

4

PSM Skills

PSM Attitude

Course Satisfaction

Course Value

Course Interest

Course Objectives

Project Attitude

Compassion

Commitment to Public Interest

Community Service Self-Efficacy

Time B 5.174(A,C) (.746) 5.063(A,C) (.824) 5.337(C) (1.073) 5.389(A,C) (1.075) 5.573 (.988) 5.110(C) (1.213) 5.407(A,C) (.759) 5.694 (1.124) 4.380 (1.183) 4.78 (.791) 5.387 (.655)

Time A 3.673(B,C) (1.438) 3.592(B,C) (1.441) 5.494 (1.064) 4.979(B,C) (.829) 5.112(C) (.953) 5.168 (.989) 4.630(B,C) (.972) 5.577 (1.008) 4.553 (1.232) 4.582(C) (.823) 5.107(C) (.824)

5.744(A,B) (.812) 5.653(A,B) (.886) 5.604(B) (0.974) 5.540(A,B) (1.331) 5.592(A) (1.248) 5.265(B) (1.212) 5.929(A,B) (.765) 5.372 (1.598) 4.510 (1.057) 4.923(A) (.884) 5.519(A) (.853)

Time C

.143 .132+

.280+ 9.504**

.13

–.322

.522***

.198

–.173

.117

.777***

.155*

4.394

1.000

.800

45.895***

–.058

.019

.461+

6.985* 5.239+

.151*

.410*

.412*

.341*

–.043

–.205

1.299***

.097

.480*

.561**

0.110

0.267*

13.900**

2.061***

2.071***

A – C

.590***

–.157

1.471***

57.167***

.570***

B – C

2.992

1.501***

A – B

46.437***

Friedman Test

Wilcoxon Test

Notes: Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) are reported for the three time periods. Superscripts to the means indicate to which time period the current mean is significantly different (p < .05). The χ 2 statistic is reported for the Friedman test, and the Wilcoxon test presents the mean difference (significance based on the corresponding z statistic). ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05; + p < .10.

1

RP #

PSM Knowledge

Construct

Table 2: Student development over the course of the semester.

Schoenherr 55

56


inability of SL to impact these dimensions within our context. Such nonsignificant improvements on certain dimensions are consistent with prior work (Poon et al., 2011). RP3 was not supported—differences in attitudes toward the project were not statistically significant across the three time periods. This may again be explained by high attitude levels toward the project at time A (5.577), thus not leaving much room for improvement (at time A, students had already been introduced to the SL project as a central course component, but had not worked on it). With regard to RP4, the data showed an improvement in community service self-efficacy, but the change in commitment to public interest was only marginal; no change was detected in compassion. This indicates the value of engaging with not-for-profits with regard to students’ community service self-efficacy. Not only are topic-specific aspects taught, but students grow in their civic understanding and responsibilities.

CHALLENGES AND BEST PRACTICES While SL projects are able to yield significant results for everyone involved, the effort needed to make them a success, as well as the associated challenges, need to be considered. This section summarizes some considerations and caveats, as well as suggested remedies for challenges encountered by students, the instructor, and participating organizations. As such, it represents a set of best practices that can help in making SL a success.

The Nature of Real-World Projects The project required the application of course content to a real-world situation, rather than just memorization of lecture material for exams. For some students, this more complex environment, in which there are no right or wrong answers, was a challenge. It was different, and as such, was perceived as overwhelming. To illustrate individual groups’ challenges with such complexities, and to provide suggestions on how to address them, the instructor made these experiences “learning points” as part of larger class discussions. Similarly, many students had not been widely exposed to real-world business problems unless they had participated in a prior internship. Even then, the internships may have provided structured learning environments. In the SL initiative, the unstructured nature of the business problem sometimes made students uncomfortable. However, it is these environments that students likely have to deal with once they embark on their professional careers. As such, experiences made in the SL project contribute to a student’s best preparation for their future. It is also better to make such experiences (and possible mistakes) as part of a course in a safe learning environment, rather than in an important job project later on which could make or break one’s career. An important factor for students’ successful completion of the projects is thus having effective faculty mentorship. This was accomplished by requiring students to meet and update faculty and the participating organization on a regular basis. Communication among all three partners (students, organization, instructor) is key to maximizing the learning experience.

Schoenherr

57

Possible Student Apprehension From a student perspective, the SL projects are, by their very nature, more involved compared to traditional, library-based semester projects, and may thus be received with apprehension by some students. A concern voiced in this regard was the significant time commitment, which was greater than for projects in other classes at a similar level. While this was considered in the design of the course (by reducing the workload for other deliverables), this new type of project and how to approach it requires additional student learning on how to best manage time. Some apprehension is often present in SL (Howard, 1998). Faculty guidance and mentorship is crucial in these stages. Even those students that could not be convinced about the approach are expected to develop an appreciation for it when they reflect on their university coursework and its ability to prepare them for their careers. Informal feedback received from graduated students confirms this. Considering that some students do not want to do these types of projects, we have experimented in subsequent semesters with the SL project being a voluntary alternative to a regular semester project, or as a substitute for a mid-term exam. In this format, students committed to the cause could self-select this option. This voluntary alternative has been proven to be successful and attractive to the students. As such, the SL alternative is described up-front, noting the significant time commitment and dedication needed to make it a success, as well as the potential travel. We have found that students that sign up for the initiative are truly the most committed, eager to make a difference, and happy to invest the time and energy. This also strengthened partnerships with participating organizations, since they were now receiving insight from the most dedicated student teams. An alternate format could involve the offering of special SL sections of the course, and indicating as such in course catalogs. With this voluntary self-selection and commitment to performing the SL component, more significant learning can be expected. Formal Student Presentations A powerful contributor to students’ satisfaction with the initiative was the formal presentation students made to the not-for-profit organizations at the end of the semester. These presentations were held during a regular class session to which organizations’ representatives were invited, or at the location of the organization. The feedback received from the not-for-profit organizations, as well as the discussion of how the students’ work will help the organizations improve, generated a sense of accomplishment, confidence, and pride among the students (as did the students having mastered the organization’s complex challenge/problem that might have seemed overwhelming at first). Several representatives of the not-for-profit organization usually attended the presentations, including senior level executives, which demonstrated to the students the value of their work. The Students’ Civic Development While the results above indicated an improvement in the students’ commitment to public interest and community service self-efficacy, we suggest that this improvement may be even greater when students also get involved with the actual clients of the not-for-profit organizations. Due to the nature of the projects, this

58


was not always given: while the projects were within a not-for-profit setting, they may not have provided the “true” community service experience one would have experienced when having direct contact with clients. This could have occurred, for example, by actively interacting with individuals with disabilities or serving food in a soup kitchen. In most instances, due to the nature of the projects, the students operated “behind the scenes” on business infrastructure and strategy issues, and did not directly provide service to individuals in need. Students may thus have not been able to experience truly meaningful service activity (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996), possibly curtailing the effect on the students’ civic development. A possible avenue to further enhance the student experience would thus be to require teams to spend a certain amount of hours actively volunteering for the organization in addition to the work on the actual project (the author’s own experience confirms this). This could mean interacting with individuals in homeless shelters, or delivering “meals on wheels.” The active involvement would likely further enhance the student experience due to the generation of deeper insight into and closer connection with the organization’s mission.

Logistical Challenges A further challenge consisted of students having to travel to the location of the community organization. For more distant locations, it thus had to be ensured that students had personal transportation available, and that they were willing to make the trip at least three times during the semester. If this was not possible, a video conference call was able to substitute for one meeting with the organization. It is also advisable to group students in teams that have similar schedules, since the inability to find a common meeting date also resulted in frustration on the students’ part. Class time at the beginning of the semester was reserved for students to find others with similar schedules and project interests. To overcome the challenge of travel expenses incurred by students, instructors may want to explore the availability of internal university funds or grants. We were fortunate to receive monetary support from the university’s Center for Service Learning and Civic Engagement, and a teaching fellowship obtained by the author, with which student travel could be reimbursed. For local travel, the public transportation authority that offers bus service throughout the metropolitan area kindly offered bus tokens, so students did not have to incur fare expenses. An additional concern that may arise is the issue of accidents occurring while students are at the organization or during their commute. Instructors should thus check with university offices to determine whether indemnification can be provided. In our case, we were fortunate that the students were indemnified by the university. Instructor Commitment From an instructor perspective, the development and implementation of SL projects undoubtedly requires more work than traditional projects. The identification and selection of community organizations required a significant amount of time. An estimated time commitment for the first-time development and implementation of the initiative described in this paper is about 5 days (which includes visits

Schoenherr

59

to organizations), spread out over about 6 weeks during the summer. Now that contacts have been developed, the challenge and time commitment is lower since several organizations have established themselves as continuous contributors to the initiative, and offer yearly projects for students. The estimated time commitment to set up the SL initiative is now about 1 day, spread out over 2 weeks. Support, which may reduce the time commitment of the instructor, may also be available by using dedicated centers at the university responsible for connecting students interested in volunteering in the community. At the author’s university, this was the Center for Service Learning and Civic Engagement, which provided invaluable help in spreading the word and finding interested organizations. A further major challenge consists of the identification of appropriate SL projects. While most organizations were willing to participate, many of them noted, upon further contemplation, that they would not be able to offer a meaningful project that would substantiate the dedication of a student team. In these instances, the supply chain environment was very basic and the procurement and supply management tasks were straightforward, and thus not in need of further improvement. This difficulty in finding appropriate projects for an entire class may have contributed to SL not yet being frequently conducted in SCM courses (the identification of appropriate projects may be easier in other disciplines, such as marketing (e.g., creating a marketing brochure) or accounting (e.g., volunteer tax assistance)). However, we have demonstrated that it is possible, and hope to have encouraged many more SCM faculty to pursue this innovative pedagogy. In addition, care should be taken in developing and specifying the projects. They should be manageable in the given amount of time, and with the knowledge possessed by the students (particularly with the content provided in the course). In addition, only projects that have a very strong alignment and fit with the course objectives should be considered (topics outside of the scope of the course can lead to frustration on the part of the students). What has also helped was the presence of a clear outline of the deliverables and requirements that offers students structure.

Organizations’ Expectations From the perspective of the participating organizations, one concern encountered was that deliverables were not met. To avoid this eventuality, it is important to outline, in writing, the key deliverables the organization expects, and to develop milestones that students need to accomplish at certain intervals. This should be done in collaboration with the instructor prior to the semester, so that he or she can assess how realistic a successful completion of the project would be. Once the course has started, an in-depth discussion should be held with the student teams, ideally at the site of the organization, so that all members have a common understanding of expectations. A formal memorandum of understanding may even be developed and signed between the organization and the student teams. A detailed deliverables catalog with frequent communication between all parties involved, as illustrated in Appendix B, has proven to facilitate this objective. A student team leader who manages communications between team members, the community organization, and the instructor should also be appointed. In this way, the organization and the instructor have one key student contact to communicate with the team (not having such an individual led to inconsistent

60


communication when several students communicated, or no communication when everyone thought someone else was communicating). The approach described above, in which students voluntarily opted into working on SL projects in lieu of an alternate course component, has also helped, since it ensured the assignment of only those students who are also truly committed to the cause (finding a student volunteering to take leadership among these groups has not been an issue).

CONCLUSION This study contributes to the scholarship of teaching and learning by providing a detailed overview of the background, development, implementation, and success of an SL project in an undergraduate SCM course. The outline and best practices to effectively develop the pedagogical concept can serve as a “how to” guide for instructors interested in developing their own SL initiatives. We further provided compelling evidence for the value of SL by empirically assessing students’ learning experiences, and demonstrated benefits for the participating not-for-profit organizations. Specifically, while students frequently lack practical experience, not-for-profit organizations often lack the time or resources to develop and implement strategic initiatives. By working together, the two parties complement each other in that students are provided with a real-world experience and can apply course content, and organizations are provided with valuable help, and students eager to contribute. While we provided evidence of multiple student benefits of SL in SCM education specifically, and more broadly for the advancement of the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education via this approach, we also noted caveats and considerations, and discussed best practices for SL. Despite the challenges associated with SL projects, the overall outcome of the initiative has been well worth the effort. As with any research, limitations exist, which however offer exciting avenues for future research. For example, course selection bias may have influenced the results, that is, we do not know whether students chose the section of the course based on whether it included a SL component or not. In addition, we are not able to control for GPA or other student/class characteristics. Overall, however, we have provided illustrations of the significant benefits of SL for students, universities and organizations. It is our hope that the present article will provide motivation and guidance for others wishing to implement SL.

REFERENCES Bernacki, M. L., & Jaeger, E. (2008). Exploring the impact of service-learning on moral development and moral orientation. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 5–15. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Co Inc. Boyer, E. L. (1997). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11–20. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 69(2), 221–239.

Schoenherr

61

Bringle, R. G., Games, R., & Malloy, E. A. (1999). Colleges and universities as citizens. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Burns, D. J. (2011). Motivations to volunteer and benefits from service learning: An exploration of marketing students. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 18(1), 10–23. Campus Compact. (2014). Strategic Plan 2014 and Beyond. http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Campus-CompactStrategic-Plan-Executive-Summary-1.15.14.pdf. (accessed July 20, 2014). Chupp, M. G., & Joseph, M. L. (2010). Getting the most out of service learning: Maximizing student, university and community impact. Journal of Community Practice, 18(2/3), 190–212. Coyle, E. J., Jamieson, L. H., & Oakes, W. C. (2005). EPICS: Engineering projects in community service. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 139–150. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in education. New York, NY: Collier Books. Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model for service-learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community, and institution. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3(1), 66–71. Eyler, J., & Giles, Jr., D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Foster, S. T., Jr. (2004). FreeQuality: Using service-learning to motivate student learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2(1), 57–63. Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In Expanding boundaries: Service and Learning. Washington DC: Corporation for National Service, 2–6 Geringer, S. D., Stratemeyer, A. W., Canton, A., & Rice, W. (2009). Assessing service-learning outcomes in a Principles of Marketing course: A teambased vs. individual-based approach. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 14(1), 1–12. Giles, D. E. (1990). Dewey’s theory of experience: Implications for servicelearning. In J. C. Kendall & Associates (Eds.), Combining service and learning: A resource book for community and public service, 257–260. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education. Godfrey, P. C. 2000. A moral argument for service-learning in management education. In P. C. Godfrey & E. T. Grasso (Eds.), Working for the common good: Concepts and models for service-learning in Management, 12–41. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Godfrey, P. C., & Grasso, E. T. (2000). Working for the common good: Concepts and models for service-learning in management. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

62


Godfrey, P. C., Illes, L. M., & Berry, G. R. (2005). Creating breadth in business education through service learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(3), 309–323. Gray, M., Geshwind, S., Ondaatje, E., Robyn, A., Klien, S., Lax, L., Astin A., & Astin, H. (1996). Evaluation of learn and serve America, higher education: First year report, volume 1. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Hagenbuch, D. J. (2006). Service learning inputs and outcomes in a personal selling course. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(1), 26–34. Hoover, J. D., Giambatista, R. C., Sorenson, R. L., & Bommer, W. H. (2010). Assessing the effectiveness of whole person learning pedagogy in skill acquisition. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(2), 192–203. Howard, J. P. F. (1998). Academic service learning: A counternormative pedagogy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 73, 21–29. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, NY: Random House. Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. (2003). MBA students and corporate citizenship: Incorporating industry-specific service-learning projects into the curriculum. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 1(1), 119–125. Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. L. (2000). Management students as consultants: A strategy for service-learning in management education. In P. C. Godfrey & E. T. Grasso (Eds.), Working for the common good: Concepts and models for service-learning in Management, 55–68. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Madsen, S. R., & Turnbull, O. (2006). Academic service learning experiences of compensation and benefit course students. Journal of Management Education, 30(5), 724–742. Maloni, M. J., & Paul, R. C. (2011). A service learning campus sustainability project. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9(1), 101–106. Mangan, J., & Christopher, M. (2005). Management development and the supply chain manager of the future. International Journal of Logistics Management, 16(2), 178–191. Papamarcos, S. D. (2005). Giving traction to management theory: Today’s servicelearning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(3), 325–335. Petkus, E. (2000). A theoretical and practical framework for service-learning in marketing: Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 64–70.

Schoenherr

63

Poon, P., Chan, T. S., & Zhou, L. (2011). Implementation of service-learning in business education: Issues and challenges. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 22(3), 185–192. Rhodes, R. (2012). Millenials report their preferred learning environment. Decision Line, 43(5), 9–14. Richmond, W., Banerjee, D., & White, B. J. (2008). Integrating curriculum across courses in the same semester and across semesters using a service learning project. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(2), 509–513. Rockquemore, K. A., & Harwell Schaffer, R. (2000). Toward a theory of engagement: A cognitive mapping of service-learning experiences. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 14–25. Waddock, S., & Post, J. (2000). Transforming management education: The role of service-learning. In P. C. Godfrey & E. T. Grasso (Eds.), Working for the common good: Concepts and models for service-learning in Management, 43–54. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Willits-Cairn, R., & Kielsmeier, J. (1991). Growing hope. Minneapolis, MN: National YouthLeadership Council. Wisner, P. S., Stringfellow, A., Youngdahl, W. E., & Parker, L. (2005). The service volunteer–loyalty chain: An exploratory study of charitable not-for-profit service organizations. Journal of Operations Management, 23(2), 143–161. Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(1), 9–27. Zlotkowski, E. (1998). Successful service-learning programs: New models of excellence in higher education. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing Company.

APPENDIX A EXCERPT FROM THE CALL FOR PROPOSALS TO NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS What you can expect r Teams of 4–6 students will work with your organization for ten weeks during the fall/spring semester on a project related to procurement and supply management. Issues to be addressed may include (but are not limited to) the following: developing and implementing a procurement strategy for a certain product or service; supplier selection, management and development strategy; determining the best buyer-supplier relationship; assessing opportunities for global sourcing, and insourcing/outsourcing; planning for negotiations; exploring opportunities for electronic procurement; implementing green procurement; and cost/price analyses for the purchase of goods and services. However, any project related to procurement and supply management will be considered. r Students in the course are primarily juniors and seniors majoring in supply chain management. In this course, the work on your project is the largest

64


r

r

assignment, so you can expect a significant amount of work put into the project. Please consider that a good portion of time will be consumed in the early stages of the project while the team is becoming familiar with your organization and the project. Please also note that students do not have to be in your organization for the entire time—they could, for example, just be there for initial and update meetings, and the remaining work may be conducted offsite (e.g., writing, reading, analyzing data, etc.). Students will meet with your organization throughout the semester to provide an update on their progress. At the end of the semester the team will present you with a solution or suggestion for the topic investigated, and provide you with a professionally prepared report. This engagement is absolutely free to your organization, except the time spent interacting with the students.

What we expect r Your organization must have a genuine interest in providing students with such an opportunity. r The project should be relatively well defined, and should be of modest scope (e.g., doable by a 5-student team within 10 weeks during the fall/spring semester). r The projects are to involve students in professional activities that provide them with a meaningful, educational experience. As such, clerical duties should be kept at a minimum. r Your organization should maintain regular contact with the assigned team and provide timely information and feedback, as needed, for project completion. r Providing feedback to the professor on student performance (your general impressions of participation and quality of work the team performed for your organization). APPENDIX B ABBREVIATED PROJECT ASSIGNMENT3 Project Assignment The group project is designed to apply your knowledge of procurement and supply management obtained in this course (and any other related prior experience) to a real-world need within a not-for-profit organization. The primary goal of the assignment is for you to develop a solution or a strategy for the problem or issue identified by the organization assigned to you. You will meet with your notfor-profit organization representative, conduct research on the topic at hand, and develop a comprehensive report providing a suggested solution for the organization’s problem, or a suggested strategy to resolve issues identified. Organizations 3 The

full-length project assignment can be obtained from the author upon request.

Schoenherr

65

have been carefully selected and projects have been carefully developed to be used in this service-learning activity.

Benefits of Service-Learning Service-learning (SL) is a teaching methodology that utilizes community service to help students gain a deeper understanding of course content, acquire new knowledge and engage in civic activity. Service-learning is an instructional methodology that

r allows students to learn through active participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences,

r enables students to use newly acquired skills and knowledge in real-world situations,

r extends learning beyond the classroom and into the community, and r fosters a sense of caring for others. Service-learning should not be mistaken with volunteering or professional development. SL is related to the course content, and should illustrate such in a community organization. With the service-learning activity you will gain a deeper knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the course goals and objectives as outlined in the syllabus.

Procurement and Supply Management Strategy The topic that will be assigned to your team has been carefully developed by the organization together with the instructor. It is your charge now to meet and communicate with your assigned organization and work with your team to complete the project. The individual tasks will obviously vary depending on which organization your team has been assigned to, and which problem/issue the organization has expressed a need for investigation. However, common to all projects is the development of a solution or strategy to the identified issue or problem in procurement and supply management. I can imagine that some groups will work on streamlining and consolidating an organization’s vendor base, while others will explore new sourcing opportunities or provide recommendations on which supplier to choose. The Organization The organization assigned to you has committed to have a genuine interest in providing students with an SL opportunity. The project they have selected is well defined, and should be of modest scope (i.e., doable by your team within 10 weeks during the fall/spring semester). The project will involve you in professional activities that will provide you with a meaningful, educational experience. As such, clerical duties will be kept at a minimum. The organization has committed to maintain regular contact with their assigned team and provide timely information and feedback, as needed, for project completion. The organization will also provide feedback to the professor on your performance throughout and at the end of the

66


semester (the organization’s general impressions of your participation, engagement and quality of work your team provided for the organization).

Deliverables r Updates (four times during the semester) in the form of a memo to both the organization and the instructor (specific dates provided to the students). r Meeting reports (three times during the semester) (specific dates provided to the students). r A professionally prepared final report in which you summarize the problem, your thought process and solution approaches, evidence collected, research conducted, and the final solution or strategy recommended. You need to be convinced that your ideas will work, and you will need to defend your recommendation also based on alternatives that may be available. This report is similar to what a professional management consultancy would provide their clients. r A presentation at the end of the semester in which you concisely state the problem, provide your solution methodology, and defend your recommendation. Besides this presentation at the end of the semester, you will also have to make a final presentation to your organization, when you hand over the final report. You may invite your organization to the class period in which you present your findings, or you may arrange an alternate date and venue with them. Format of Final Report The final report should be written with 1.5-line spacing and 1-inch margins on all sides. The report should adhere to the following structure. I. Title page II. Executive summary (1 page): a concise summary of your project with key findings; this should be written after you have completed the project III. Situation analysis (3 pages): introduction to/overview of the organization, and introduction/overview/state of the overall industry the organization is operating in IV. Problem definition (1 page) V. Problem analysis and identification/proposal of solution approaches (6 pages, most likely more): this part should include a qualitative and/or quantitative analysis of the problem/issue at hand, incorporating class material and material from outside sources (e.g., ISM, CAPS, CSCMP, industry whitepapers, specific industry benchmark reports, etc.); the analysis should be thorough, and the write-up should be concise and professional (i.e., do not copy and paste from outside sources, and reference all outside sources used!). Here you will need to convince the reader that your solution approaches will work, and that your suggested approach is the most optimal one.

Schoenherr

67

VI. Recommendations and future outlook (1 page) VII. References (1 page) VIII. Appendices, tables, figures (1 page, most likely more)

Assistance Please note that the instructor is available throughout the semester to discuss and assist you with any aspect of the project, or to deal with any other issues that you are concerned about. Please contact the instructor immediately once issues or questions arise. APPENDIX C SCALE ITEMS (R) = reverse-coded item Current perceived knowledge of Procurement and Supply Management (PSM) (α = .937) I feel I know more about PSM than my classmates (.829). I know the basic principles of PSM (.911). I understand the challenges associated with PSM (.761). I feel knowledgeable about PSM (.943). I know a great deal of what is involved in PSM (.890). I can describe the steps involved in making a business-to-business (B2B) purchase (removed). Current perceived skill level of PSM (α = .935) I can apply PSM principles in the real world (.711). I would feel comfortable making a B2B purchase right now for a company by myself (e.g., in an internship) (.825). I know how to apply PSM principles to make the best purchase decision (.919). I feel that my current skills in PSM would make valuable contributions to an employer (.933). My current skill level in PSM is above average (.916). Current attitude toward PSM (α = .921) I enjoy learning about PSM (.807). I am intrigued by the possibilities in PSM (.714). I have a favorable attitude towards PSM (.914). I am highly interested in PSM (.921). I am eager to learn more about PSM (.847). I regularly read outside material related to PSM (removed). Satisfaction with the course (α = .886) I am satisfied with the overall course structure (.678). I am satisfied with the topics covered in this course (.656).

68


I am more satisfied with this course than with other courses taken at (the university) (.804). I am more satisfied with this course than with other courses taken from the Business School (.774). I would recommend taking this course to a friend (.871). I enjoy taking this course (.881). I am not satisfied with the assignments in this course (R) (removed). I am satisfied with the project in this course (removed).

Value from the course (α = .840) The value I am getting out of this course is great (.854). I am getting more value out of this course than out of other courses at (the university) (.910). I am getting more value out of this course than out of other courses from the Business School (.875). I think the topics covered in this course are valuable for my future professional career (.432). I am disappointed with the value I get out of this course (R) (removed). Interest in the course (α = .846) I am highly interested in the topics in this course (.796). I find the content of this course fascinating (.906). I am eager to come to class for this course (.741). I am intrigued by the topics covered in this course (.643). I voluntarily read ahead in the assigned readings since I am so interested in this course (removed). I discuss topics from this course outside of class with my friends (removed). Achievement of course objectives (α = .817) I understand key issues, opportunities, strategies, techniques and developments in purchasing and supply management currently being deployed by leading organizations to achieve competitive advantage (.633). I understand the importance of developing a supply management strategy that is aligned with the firm’s overall competitive strategy (.603). I understand the criteria and techniques for selecting suppliers, know how to assess and evaluate existing suppliers, and know how and when to build trust between participants across the supply chain (.852). I understand issues involved in the make-or-buy decision, global sourcing, negotiations, and ethics (.876). Attitude toward group project (α = .923) I am convinced that I will learn a lot from the group project (.803). What I learn in the group project will be beneficial to my future professional career (.945). I will be able to apply what I learn in my group project in the future (.956). The experiences I am making in the group project are valuable (.757).

Schoenherr

69

I am enjoying the group project (removed). This group project is much better than other group projects in other courses (removed). I am looking forward to pushing our group project forward (removed). The group project is fun (removed).

Compassion (α = .761) I am rarely moved by the plight of the underprivileged (R) (.688). I seldom think about the welfare of people whom I don’t know personally (R) (.858). I have little compassion for people in need who are unwilling to take the first step to help themselves (R) (.514). There are few public programs that I wholeheartedly support (R) (.620). Most social programs are too vital to do without (removed). It is difficult for me to contain my feelings when I see people in distress (removed). To me, patriotism includes seeing to the welfare of others (removed). I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one another (removed). Commitment to public interest (α = .747) It is hard for me to get intensely interested in what is going on in my community (R) (.577). Meaningful public service is very important to me (.631). An official’s obligation to the public should always come before loyalty to superiors (.588). I consider public service my civic duty (.827). People may talk about the public interest, but they are really concerned only about their self-interest (R) (removed). I unselfishly contribute to my community (removed). I would prefer seeing public officials do what is best for the whole community even if it harmed my interests (removed). Community service self-efficacy (α = .950) If I choose to participate in community service in the future, I will be able to make a meaningful contribution (.792). In the future, I will be able to find community service opportunities which are relevant to my interests and abilities (.840). I am confident that, through community service, I can help in promoting social justice (.727). I am confident that, through community service, I can make a difference in my community (.841). I am confident that I can help individuals in need by participating in community service activities (.845). I am confident that, in future community service activities, I will be able to interact with relevant professionals in ways that are meaningful and effective (.875).

70


I am confident that, through community service, I can help in promoting equal opportunity for citizens (.766). Through community service, I can apply knowledge in ways that solve “real-life” problems (.778). By participating in community service, I can help others to help themselves (.789). I am confident that I will participate in community service activities in the future (.835). Tobias Schoenherr is Associate Professor in the Broad College of Business at Michigan State University. He holds a PhD in operations management and decision sciences from Indiana University, and a Diplom-Betriebswirt (FH) from the European School of Business at Reutlingen University, Germany. He is also an APICS certified supply chain professional (CSCP). His research focus is on strategic supply management, including strategic sourcing, leveraging supply base capabilities, and global operations strategy. He has published over 40 peer-reviewed publications in journals such as Decision Sciences, Management Science, Journal of Operations Management, Production and Operations Management, Journal of Business Logistics, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, and International Journal of Operations and Production Management, among others. He is an associate editor for Decision Sciences and the Journal of Operations Management, and serves on several editorial boards, including those of the Journal of Business Logistics and the Journal of Supply Chain Management. He has served the Decision Sciences Institute in a variety of capacities, including as president of the Midwest Decision Sciences Institute and as associate program chair for the 2011 Annual Meeting in Boston.