Sahana Achyutha, Dr. Vijila E


The growth in the country’s economy and business creates an increase in the demand for management graduates. However, the employability of these business graduates′ depends on the students′ usefulness which will basically depend on the quality and relevance of their education (i.e.) knowledge and skills of the students. As the gatekeepers of education, management teachers play an important role in imparting relevant knowledge and skills to the students. Thus the responsibility of preparing the management graduates for their career rests on the faculty members. The objectives of this study is to evaluate the (i) attributes of the cognitive domain of B-School faculty members; (ii) to evaluate the significant difference between the cognitive domains of the B-School faculty members in relation to the demographic attributes and to assess the latent factors of the cognitive domain based. The literature analysis, curriculum analysis and job responsibilities as per norms helped in identifying 20 attributes of cognitive domain. A structured self administered survey questionnaire was developed for data collection. The items in the questionnaire were rated on a five point Likert scale. Each item was to be rated on a five point Likert scale. The respondents for the study consist of assistant professors, associate professors, and professors working in University affiliated B-Schools in urban Bengaluru. The demographic profile of the respondents comprised of  63.8% were male and 36.2% were female respondents; 46.3% of the respondents were of the 36 – 45 yrs age group, 39.5% were in the 25 – 35 yrs age group, 12.6% were of  the 46 – 55years age group and 1.6% belonged to 56 – 65 yrs age group. 55.4% of the respondents were MBAs, 23% were M.Phil degree holders and 23% were PhD degree holders. 62.2 % of the faculty members have high cognitive competency and 37.8 % possess average cognitive competency. It was also found there is a significant difference in the cognitive competency of the B-School faculty members in relation to their gender, age and designation.


Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp.1105-1151). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlba¬um Associates.

Alnoor, Abdulghani and Yu, MA Hong (2010). Yemenis Primary School Teacher Competency. The social sciences. 5 (5) pp 414 – 420.

Barnett, J. & Hodson, D. (2001). PCK: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Teacher Education, 85, 426-453.

Beijaard, D., Meijer, P.C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers' professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 107-128.

Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001).From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.

Grossman, P. L., & Richert, A. E. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A re-examination of the effects of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 53-62.

Guntuku, Rajkumar and Meesala, Appalayya (2013), developing a Management Teacher Competency Scale for Indian Context, TRANS Asian Journal of Marketing and Management Research, Vol. 2 (5), May 2013, pp14 – 26.

Lee, E., Brown, M. N., Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary science teachers’ PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics, 107, 52-68.

Magnusson, J. Krajcik, & H. Borko, 1999. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Boston, MA: Kluwer.

McEwan, H., & Bull, B. (1991). The pedagogic nature of subject matter knowledge. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 316–334.

Nguyen, Kim Thu., Griffin, Patrick and Nguyan, Cuc, Generating Criteria for Assessing Lecturers in Vietnam’s Universities: A Conceptual Paper. Retrieved June 2010 from

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., Gertzog, W. A. Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change. Science Education, 1982, 66, 211-227.

Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Keyon, L., Ache’r, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B, & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632-654.

Shulman, L. S. & Sykes, G. (1986). A National Board for Teaching? In Search of a Bold Standard: A Report for the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. New York: Carnegie Corporation, p. 6.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Research, 57, 1-22.

Tripathi, Pooja, Ranjan, Jayanthi & Pandeya, Tarun. PAKS: A Competency Based Model for Academic Institutions. International Journal of Innovation, Management & Technology, 1(2), June 2010. 213 – 219.

Verloop, N., Driel, J. Van. & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441-461.

پاراگلایدر Full Text: PDF


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

ISSN : 2251-1547