New Study by Turner College's Heriot and Thomson Argues for Use of the Business Model Canvas for Reforming Business Education

A new study on the history of business education in the U.S. by the Turner College's Kirk Heriot and Neal Thomson, along with Kennesaw State University's Shelby Meek, opens by pointing out that the introductory business curriculum in the United States has remained largely unchanged since the 1920s, despite dramatic shifts in higher education, business practice, and student needs. As the authors assert, the persistence of historical practice increasingly undermines student success, institutional sustainability, and the relevance of business education. The researchers explain that most students encounter business education for the first time through accounting and economics, which are the two courses with the highest national failure and withdrawal rates. High failure rates are also well documented in business statistics, another early-stage gatekeeper, where structural, instructional, and system-level factors all contribute to widespread student difficulty even when modern teaching tools are present. As the authors point out, students persist when they experience early academic momentum, supportive learning environments, and clear alignment between curriculum and their vocational aspirations. The traditional introductory curriculum offers few such opportunities, as students typically cannot take management, entrepreneurship, marketing, or other applied courses until much later in their program, even though early interest alignment increases persistence.

To support the contentions above, Heriot et al. employ a two-part research design to compare the introductory business curriculum of the early twentieth century with the curriculum required by contemporary Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)-accredited business programs in the United States. The first component involved collecting archival data on business curricula from the 1920s. The second component involved gathering data on the current introductory curriculum from a random sample of modern AACSB-accredited institutions. The researchers found that the introductory curriculum from 1919 to 1926 consistently emphasized accounting, economics, economic history, and business statistics, mirroring the priorities of early twentieth century business education. On average, students completed 11.25 credit hours in principles of accounting and Principles of economics, with approximately 5.35 credit hours devoted to accounting and 5.90 to economics. Economic geography appeared in nine of the 20 programs examined, reflecting early efforts to situate business activity within broader environmental and geographic contexts. Heriot et al. identified 13 course types as modern-day requirements for first- or second-year business students, consistent with curriculum mapping studies in management education. The introductory curriculum is dominated by principles of macroeconomics and microeconomics, and financial and managerial accounting, thus closely paralleling the emphasis observed in the 1919 to 1926 curricula. 

The researchers explain that the introductory curriculum has been insulated from the pedagogical shifts that have reshaped the rest of business education. Scholars have called for active and experiential learning and for greater emphasis on teamwork, communication, and problem solving, yet these innovations have largely bypassed introductory requirements. The result is a historical paradox: business education was criticized as "too applied" in the 1930s and is now critiqued as not applied enough, reflecting the broader difficulty business schools face in aligning their practices with a rapidly evolving world. To provide a disciplined method for rethinking this legacy structure, the researchers introduce the Business Model Canvas as a problem-solving framework for business schools seeking to redesign the introductory curriculum. Although originally developed for entrepreneurial ventures, the Canvas has been adopted within management education as a tool for conceptual clarity, value creation analysis, and innovation, and applying it to a curriculum allows educators to treat that curriculum as a value-delivery system rather than a list of required courses. As Heriot et al. explain, the introductory curriculum serves several distinct customer segments. First-year and transfer students arrive with uneven academic preparation and limited understanding of what a business degree entails, still forming their academic identities. Employers constitute a second critical segment, expecting graduates to demonstrate communication, teamwork, adaptability, ethical reasoning, and integrative thinking. In terms of the value proposition, introductory courses should help students gain an early understanding of the business field, build foundational skills, develop professional identity, and foster engagement and curiosity. Employers emphasize applied skills such as communication, collaboration, and ethical decision-making that are frequently underdeveloped in new graduates. Next, given that management education research underscores the value of project-based and integrative learning experiences for engagement and relevance, incorporating simulations, experiential modules, or collaborative projects would broaden delivery channels and create more meaningful early encounters with business practice. In curriculum terms, revenue streams reflect the institutional value generated through student persistence, enrollment stability, and reputational outcomes, and first-year success is one of the strongest predictors of long-term retention. Key resources include faculty expertise, advising staff, learning technologies, and experiential learning infrastructure, all of which are currently organized around disciplinary silos that reinforce traditional structures rather than supporting integrative redesign. Modernizing introductory business education would require reimagining cross-disciplinary faculty collaboration, advising support, and access to current cases, simulations, and evidence-based teaching practices. Proceeding through the Canvass, introductory activities should help students understand the scope of business, introduce foundational concepts across functional areas, and develop communication, teamwork, and problem-solving skills. When technical courses are sequenced too early, students encounter abstract concepts before understanding broader business context, undermining learning and motivation. Repositioning quantitative courses later in the program would allow introductory activities to focus on relevance, integration, and confidence-building. Next, key partners include employers, alumni, community organizations, internship offices, and student success centers. As Heriot et al. argue, partnerships are especially valuable early in the program because they counteract the abstract nature of traditional coursework and help students understand the purpose of business education. Strengthening these relationships in the introductory curriculum would align learning experiences with employer expectations and student interests. Lastly, the costs of redesign include faculty teaching loads, curriculum committee processes, accreditation requirements, and institutional inertia. 

The researchers conclude the study by asserting that reimagining the introductory curriculum is essential for business schools that wish to respond to changing student needs and labor market demands. Rather than prescribing a single solution, they encourage institutions to apply the same problem-solving tools we teach, including the Business Model Canvas, to examine the needs of their own student populations. By treating curriculum design as a value creation challenge rather than a static inheritance, institutions can build introductory experiences that strengthen persistence, prepare students for advanced study, and align with the evolving purpose of business education.