Through enrollment with Marshall University and the Lewis College of Business, a student is eligible to participate in a number of various student-driven competitions affiliated from within and without the university. For example, and prior to the disruptions caused by the corona virus, LCOB students were eligible to participate in such competitions as the People’s Bank Case Study, Maier’s Ethics Competition, the Business Leadership Symposium, the WV Collegiate Business Plan Competition (WVU), and the WV Innovation + Business Model Competition (Marshall).
Notably, participation in such competitions is influenced by a variety of factors, including the balance of course loads and workloads that students carry, timing within any respective semester, and any internal and/or external incentives offered for participation. Unfortunately, some students simply do not take advantage of such opportunities and thereby forfeit the opportunity to realize personal improvement in leadership, teamwork/collaboration, internal communication, public presentation, problem-solving, critical thinking, and persuasion.
Broadly assuming that many students choose to not participate because of external factors (e.g., work and school schedule/load), a mechanism for encouraging participation is integrating an appropriate competition within a specific course. For example, and particularly pertinent to the entrepreneurship major, the Business Plan Competition (BPC) and the Business Model Competition (BMC) have been integrated into separate upper-level ENT-designated courses. Because these two competitions focus on different stages of the new venture/startup evolution, and because the competitions launch at different times of the academic year, it generally works out that the BPC is introduced and initiated in the first semester and followed by the BMC during the second semester.
Although the BPC and the BMC are not yet optimally scheduled, and making due with the constraints and scheduling preferences of each sponsor, fortuitously the staggered launches allow ENT students to discover the maturity level of its offering with the BPC – and its focus on business plan principles. For most students, their new venture concept is not sufficiently mature for the BPC, which allows for a transition into the BMC – with its focus on identifying options tied to a significant problem with significant market opportunities.
Some of the benefits from this approach include capturing a few students that would normally have bowed out of participation, thereby getting the opportunity to grow and improve their abilities across the spectrum of leadership, teamwork, and problem-solving. In addition, through classroom integration, the competitions are not out-of-reach as a strictly extracurricular activity, and instead are an active part of the course work and the assessment scheme for the students. Based on previous experiences, the seriousness and the level of effort devoted to the new venture concept is much improved by comparison to those that participate in one or more of the competitions through an extracurricular lens. In particular, the heightened focus and competitive nature of most students is enhanced and improves both inputs and outcomes.
Additional benefits include optimizing classroom learning, especially from one another. For example, to assist the students’ improvement with critical thinking and problem-solving, it is helpful to place the students in the position of judging and critiquing their fellow students’ presentations throughout the semester. Although each new venture concept is different from the others, similar themes emerge – usually through the questioning portion. Thus, through this sleight-of-hand, the students begin to appreciate the types of questions and forms of push-back that they should expect from a judge in the formal stages of the competition, assisting in their preparedness to effectively compete against other entrants.
Although this approach operates as a surrogate for a more traditional lecture-exam course format, there are challenges and difficulties in administering a course in this manner. For example, despite an instructor’s best efforts, it is almost impossible for the separate groups to remain on a similar pace and trajectory. Inevitably, a couple of groups will excel, several will maintain a moderate pace, and one or two will struggle. Because of this maturation imbalance, the instructor can find it difficult to convey the same subject matter to everyone. Rather, the instructor generally takes on the role of individual coach for each of the groups in the course. To manage this divergence, utilizing virtual meeting capabilities and other forms of technology to either time-shift or format-shift interaction so that each group gets the coaching attention it requires becomes an important part of the juggling act with this approach.
Another challenge is effectively communicating – most often trying to convince the student participants that the judges’ evaluation is not going to have an impact on their individual grades. This is a consistent concern from students. However, careful discussion and explanation about the objectives of the competition and the role of the judges as contrasted to the course objectives and the evaluations that manifest at the end of the semester usually helps assuage the concern(s). Reminding students that judges have a subjective approach to such competitions (despite the use of rubrics) and reference to other such environments (e.g., Shark Tank) usually provides the context to assist in their appreciation that not winning the competition does not necessarily demand a failing grade.
Thus, if faculty are experiencing frustration with low participation in valuable competitive events, consider integrating the competition into a course. Whether the competition participation constitutes a small, modest, or significant part of the course grade, the value of integrated participation will reward the student with an additional experience the student may have forfeited through non-participation.
Olen York