Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 70, Issue 1, pp 61–85

Business Ethics Training: Insights from Learning Theory

Article

Abstract

This paper explores research in educational psychology and learning theory in a search for insights to enhance business ethics training Useful educational principles uncovered are then applied to the development of an ethics training initiative for sales professionals. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research to help enrich business ethics training.

Keywords

business ethics business ethics training ethical decision-making facilitator–participant interaction inductive learning self-discovery selling ethics unethical selling behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) & Project 2061 (1993) Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolhuis S., Voeten M. J. M. (2001) Toward Self-Directed Learning in Secondary Schools: What do teachers do? Teaching and Teacher Education 17(7): 837–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll Archie B., Buchholtz Ann K. (2003) Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 5th ed. SouthWestern Publishing Co., CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  4. Chalmers A. F. (1976) What is this Thing Called Science? University of Queensland Press, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  5. Champagne A. B., Gunstone R. F., Klopfer L. E. (1985) Instructional Consequences of Students’ Knowledge About Physical Phenomenon. In: West L. H. T., Pines A. L. (eds) Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. Academic Press, New York, pp. 61–68Google Scholar
  6. Cobb P. (1994) Where is the Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on Mathematical Development. Educational Researcher 23: 13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawford B. A. (2000) Embracing the Essence of Inquiry: New Roles for Science Teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37(9): 916–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eysenck M. W. (eds) (1990) The Blackwell Dictionary of Cognitive Psychology. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferrell O. C., Fraedrich J., Ferrell L. (2002) Business Ethics: Ethical Decision-making and Cases. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 444pGoogle Scholar
  10. Fraedrich J., Thorne D. M., Ferrell O. C. (1994) Assessing the Application of Cognitive Moral Development Theory to Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 13: 829–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gott R., Duggan S. (1996) Practical work: Its Role in the Understanding of Evidence in Science. International Journal of Science Education 18(7): 791–806Google Scholar
  12. Indiana State University (ISU): 2003, Learning Styles, (http://www.indstate.edu/ctl/styles/ learning. html# LSTEACH)Google Scholar
  13. Izzo G. (2000) Compulsory Ethics Education and the Cognitive Moral Development of Salespeople: A Quasi - Experimental Assessment. Journal of Business Ethics 28(Dec.): 223+CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones T. M. (1991) Ethical Decision-Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review 16(Feb): 366–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joyce B., Weil M., Showers B. (1986) Models of Teaching, 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey)Google Scholar
  16. Keys W. C., Bryan A. L. (2001) Co-Constructing Inquiry-Based Science with Teachers: Essential Research for Lasting Reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(6): 631–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kohlberg L. (1969) Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive Developmental Approach to Socialization. In: Goslin D. A. (eds) Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 347–480Google Scholar
  18. Lunenberg M. L., Volman M. (1999) Active Learning: Views and Actions of Students and Teachers in Basic Education. Teaching and Teacher Education 15(4): 431–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahlios M. C. (1981) Relationships of Cognitive Style to Teacher–Student Interaction and Student Learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction 17(1): 26–30Google Scholar
  20. Murphy P. E., Laczniak G. (2005) Marketing Ethics: Cases and Readings. Pearson - Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 172 p.Google Scholar
  21. Narvaez D., Rest I. (1995) The Four Components of Acting Morally. In: Kurtines W. M., Gewirtz J. L. (eds) Moral Development.-An Introduction. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 385–99Google Scholar
  22. National Research Council (NRC) (2000) Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Osborne R., Freyberg P. (1983) Roles for the Science Teacher. In: Osborne R., Freyberg P. (eds) Learning in Science: The Implication of Children’s Science. Heinemann, Birkenhead, Auckland, pp. 91–99Google Scholar
  24. Osborne J. F. (1996) Beyond Constructivism. Science Education 80(1): 53–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Polman J. L., Pea R. D. (2001) Transformative Communication as a Cultural Tool for Guiding Inquiry Science. Science Education 85(3): 223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Quenk Naomi L. (2000) Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment. J. Wiley & Sons, New York, 197 pGoogle Scholar
  27. Rossman A. D. (1993) Managing Hands-On Inquiry. Science and Children 31(1): 35–37Google Scholar
  28. Skager R. (1984) Organizing Schools to Encourage Self-Direction in Learners. UNESCO Institute for Education, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  29. Tamir P., Stavy R., Ratner N. (1998) Teaching Science by Inquiry: Assessment and Learning. Journal of Biological Education 33(1): 27–32Google Scholar
  30. University of Alberta: 2005, Dictionary of Cognitive Science, (http://www.bcp.psych.ualberta .ca/%7emike /Pearl_Street/ Dictionary /dictionary.html)Google Scholar
  31. Watson R., Goldsworthy A., Wood-Robinson V. (1999) What is not Fair with Investigations? School Science Review 80(292): 101–106Google Scholar
  32. Weber, J. A.: 2003, Integrity in Selling, Special session, American Marketing Association Summer Educators’ Conference (8/18/03)Google Scholar
  33. White R. T. (1988) Learning Science. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Windschitl M. (2003) Inquiry Projects in Science Teacher Education: What can Investigative Experiences Reveal about Teacher Thinking and Eventual Classroom Practice? Science Education 87(1): 112–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Woolnough E. B., McLaughlin S., Jackson S. (1999) Learning by Doing—Two Classroom Studies of Pupils’ Preferred Ways of Learning Science. School Science Review 81(294): 27–34Google Scholar
  36. Zady M. F., Portes P. R., Ochs V. D. (2002) Examining Classroom Interactions Related to Difference in Students’ Science Achievement. Science Education 87(1): 40–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zion M., Slezak M., Shapira D., Link E., Bashan N., Brumer M., Orian T., Nussinowitz R., Court D., Agrest B., Mendelovici R. (2004) Dynamic, Open Inquiry in Biology Learning. Science Education 88: 728–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zion M., Slezak M. (2005) It Takes Two to Tango: In Dynamic Inquiry, the Self-Directed Participant Acts in Association with the Facilitating Facilitator. Teaching and Facilitator Education 21(7): 875–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations