This paper examines two dimensions of concurrent verbal protocol validity. First, whether verbalization affects process and outcome (reactivity) was examined by comparing concurrent verbal protocol traces with those from a computer search process tracing method, the latter being a complete trace of information acquisition from experimental materials. Earlier findings that verbalization affects time were confirmed. However, verbalization did not affect amount and pattern of acquisition or accuracy of judgments. Second, whether concurrent verbal protocols are complete was examined by comparing concurrent verbal protocol and computer traces that were simultaneously obtained in a treatment in which subjects verbalized as they acquired information from the computer. The verbal traces less completely captured information acquisition behavior than computer search. This suggests that, although concurrent verbal protocols provide greater insight into decision behavior than computer search, the latter is a more reliable information‐acquisition trace. Thus, if information acquisition is of primary interest and if computer search activities can be naturally integrated into performing the primary task, computer search is preferred to concurrent verbal protocols. However, if information use or retrieval from long‐term memory is of primary interest, concurrent verbal protocols are preferred to computer search. Finally, this paper examined whether the simultaneous use of concurrent verbal protocols and computer search provides traces of information acquisition and use that are as complete as when each method is independently applied. Although computer search tended to limit subjects verbalizations of evaluative operators, this effect may be eliminated by practice on the computer prior to collecting data.

In this article we describe our experience in transforming our classes into learning organizations. Our mechanism was a pedagogical innovation in which we gathered weekly student reflections on the content of the session as well as the performance of the professor. We differentiate in the article between using the innovation as a traditional feedback tool and as a process conducted within a learning organization context. In the latter, the straightforward methodology required a vision for a different type of class, significant shifts in the mental models of students and professors, utilization of personal mastery, a systemic interconnectedness among the various aspects of the class as an organization, and a different understanding of the role of vulnerability in the learning process. The innovation surfaced the dynamics of the often undiscussible learning processes and rendered them part of management learning. Examples of critical incidents from our classes as well as student assessments of the process and its outcomes are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract