The "frustrated" and engaging learning cycles in intellectual learning

The "frustrated" learning cycle in intellectual learning examines how an unengaging intellectual learning mindset could generate a vicious of "frustrated" learning. Understanding it should help students to reflect on their intellectual learning mindset and, consequently, work out a more effective and engaging intellectual learning mode. This is the main purpose of this blog note.

The variables in the cycle are:
1. Learning to produce "edited" content [Learning as a necessary evil].
2. Quality of written work low.
3. Poor academic performance.
4. Experience of learning as "frustration".
5. Ineffective and unengaging intellectual learning

Compared that with the engaging learning cycle as follows:

The variables are:

1. Learning for empowerment

2. Quality of written work high

3. Good academic performance

4. Experience self-actualization

5. Effective and engaging intellectual learning

References
Bloom's taxonomy of learning; (video)
FB group on managerial intellectual learning

Individual research method evaluation for applied business research - study materials

Individual research method evaluation  for applied business research - study materials:


Two research methods are covered here for illustration


1 On Interview Research:

Reading 1 (qualitative interview); reading 2 (strengths and weaknesses); reading 3 (4 interview techniques).


2. On Survey questionnaire

Reading 1 (survey research); reading 2 (advantages and disadvantages of survey); reading 3 (online surveys).

***** Students need to come up with more specific research methods evaluation for the specific research methods used. [Do not produce lecture note content for this exercise; there must be actual intellectual learning done to do this exercise well for your dissertation project.]

Managing innovation and technology transfer: assignment preparation advice 2019

Managing innovation and technology transfer: assignment preparation advice

Examples of innovation management themes

1. Innovation culture
2. Innovation capability
3. Open innovation
4. Collaborative innovation
5. Innovation for SME
6. Innovation strategy
7. Disruptive innovation
8. High-technology innovation
9. Innovation leadership
10. Service innovation
11. Reverse innovation
12. Technology transfer office
13. Science Park

Assignment report structure

Assignment title
1. Introduction
1.1 An introduction of the chosen theme for study
1.2 What are the general management and academic concerns involved?
1.3. What are the assignment goals and research tasks taken up in the assignment reports?
1.4. What is the basic assignment report structure?
2. A briefing on the literature review and Internet findings
2.1. Basic ideas on efforts and scope of literature search and Internet search
2.2. Findings by research tasks
2.3. An overall view of the research findings
3. Conclusions and recommendations
References
Appendix


**** proposal content is from 1 to 2.1


Diagrams

Independent study Spring 2019 info updated

Independent study Spring 2019 info updated. Main points are as follows:

1. Research design: sample size of at least 50 is acceptable
2. Main quantitative data analysis technique to use is correlation analysis, including bivariate and multiple regression analysis
3. Secondary data to use are typically annual reports which include information related to corporate governance and financial management
4. Research methods that involve primary data are still not allowed
5. For multiple regression analysis, limit the number of independent variables to 3 at most. I.e.: y = a + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3
6. Oral presentation is on the Independent Study proposal information only; not required to provide briefing on project progress status in oral presentation
7. Final assignment reports are to be co-assessed by the two local tutors

Establishing linkage in ALRA theoretical framework development: some ideas

In the process of constructing and, subsequently, elaborating on the theoretical frameworks in the agile literature review approach, one needs to establish linkage between theoretical framework components and between academic ideas. For example, if a researcher's research topic is about how to motivate a learner to learn and take up creative writing, he/she needs to conceptually explore how "motivation" is related to "creative writing". Now, there is academic literature on the academic topic of "motivation" and also on "creative writing". When doing the literature review, the researcher might come across academic articles that examine the conceptual linkage between "motivation" and "creative writing", e.g. what can specifically be done to motivate a learner to learn and take up creative writing with theory-driven justification of ideas and viewpoints. This makes the researcher's linkage establishment task in this ALRA exercise easier. However, a researcher might not be able to find directly relevant academic articles like this. In this case, the researcher needs to rely on his/her intellectual reasoning and imagination to (i) adapt academic ideas and (ii) suggest how academic ideas in the "motivation" and "creative writing" topics can be related. This means, for example, the researcher needs to suggest how to motivate a learner to learn and take up creative writing, based on intellectual reasoning and intellectual imagination to bridge the "relevance gap" in the academic literature. This intellectual bridging by the researcher is necessary because the existing academic literature does not have works (e.g., intellectual discussion and empirical findings) directly on the on-hand research task (involving literature review effort) of the researcher.

The linkage establishment task in ALRA theoretical framework development is important and inevitable because the ALRA is doubly systemic in nature. See the following diagram for a recap of ideas:

Refining ALRA diagram variables - examples

The following five examples are on refining management-concerns diagram and theoretical framework level-0 variables  in the subject of the agile literature review approach:

Related to management-concerns diagrams (3 examples)

Example 1: The initial variable formulation could be interpreted as "ABC's Ltd's brand management capability weakness", thus an "organizational capabilities" variable. It could also be conceived as an outcome variable. The refined one is more clearly an "environmental drivers" variable.

Example 2: The two initial variables are all about human resource management; they are consolidated and the focus on "competence" is also stressed, so that the revised variable is more clearly an "organizational capabilities" variable.

Example 3: the original variable does not appear as a solutions-related variable; it is revised to stress this nature with the phrase "the potential solution of the leadership training programme...".

Related to theoretical framework level-0 (2 examples)

Example 4: the original variable tends to put much attention directly on the topic of organizational agility; it runs the risk that the in the subsequent literature review, the two topics of external environment assessment and organizational agility competence will collapse into one topic. Thus, the component formulation needs to stress the environmental characteristics more clearly (that could then justify the need for organizational agility) (re: on organizational agility)

Example 5: The original zone 3 outcomes-related component is still not clear on what specific outcomes to evaluate on; one needs to bear in mind that management concerns could cover variables in other zones, such as environmental drivers and organizational capabilities. Also, many of the theoretical framework level-0 components are derived from the management-concerns diagram  variables anyway. Their influences on this component are indicated in the arrows of this theoretical framework. The revised one is more specific what organizational outcome to focus on. In this case, it is the financial performance of ABC Ltd.

The examples above are not meant to be model answers, but are intended to point to ways to make the formulation of variables/ components (i) clearer in meaning and (ii) more appropriate to belong to a particular zone and, subsequently, to guide the ALRA research task requirements.

On the double systemicity of theoretical framework construction in the ALRA

The overall theoretical framework set in the agile literature review approach (ALRA) is described as doubly systemic. They are systemic at both level-0 and the level-1a/-b. This is illustrated in the following diagrams for illustration:

In parallel with the systematic diagramming at the theoretical framework level-1b, is one at the theoretical framework level-1a:

Note that at level-0, the components are high-level research tasks while at level-1b, the research tasks are low-level research tasks.