An Investigation of the Relative Effectiveness of Three Diverse Teaching Methodologies

Abstract

Most academics would accept the contention that there is no one best teaching methodology. However, this has not limited the debate over the one better approach. While such disagreements have typically been limited to campuses and conferences, a heated exchange appeared in the Academy of Management Review (Kolb, 1981;Stumpf and Freedman, 1981). These particular articles involved experiential learning theory and the relative merits of Kolb's Learning Style Inventory. However, other less direct confrontations are commonplace, as demonstrated by the number of studies reaching different conclusions about the relative effectiveness of various teaching approaches.As educators, it is often hard for us objectively to evaluate our own work. Our classes are our laboratories and the information we receive is direct and personal, resulting in strong biases. In other areas where our involvement and stakes are low, we can be far more analytical. But our teaching methods go right to the root of one of our major activities making it difficult to remain truly objective. There is ample supporting evidence of the effectiveness of many teaching orientations. The superiority of case-oriented approaches is reported in the writings of Moore (1967) and Wolfe (1975). Experiential teaching is defended by Wolfe (1973) and Fritzsche (1974). Lecture advocates cite Elfner (1980). There is even documentation available for those who believe that the method employed has little impact (Bane, 1925;Birney and McKeachie, 1955;Sanford, Lindzey, Holmreich and Parker, 1969).Although the three methods mentioned (case, experiential, lecture) do not account for all possible teaching approaches or combinations thereof, they do seem to adequately represent the diversity of opinions that exists. It is within this context that the present study was developed.The origins of our research can be traced to one rare (at least for our university) and one common event. The unique condition was that the authors were teaching the same course (a full-year organizational behavior course) on the same days during the same period. The more common condition was that each instructor disagreed with the others concerning the best teaching method for this course. One was a case advocate, another

Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes

“…Our article builds upon Stewart-Wingfield and Black (2005) by incorporating more active learning elements into the experimental design, employing a direct comparison of two large classes, more rigorously focusing on cognitive outcomes, and controlling for various student-specific factors as well as survivor bias. Lastly, Miner et al (1984) found no significant differences in learning outcomes between two types of active learning and a control group. The present article differs greatly from Miner et al (1984) in both its experimental design and methodology.…”

“…The traditional lecture approach has been used for many years in higher education because it provides a convenient and expeditious mode to impart knowledge and introduce basic principles to large classes of undergraduate students (Whetten & Clark, 1996). By using the traditional lecture method, professors can present a large amount of material in a relatively brief amount of time (Miner, Das, & Gale, 1984).…”

Learning by doing: An empirical study of active teaching techniques

“…Generally, lectures consist of instructors introducing constructs and their definitions, examples of how phenomena work, and other supporting information. This approach is beneficial because it is a convenient and efficient way to introduce a vast amount of information, especially in large classes where activities may be impractical (Michel et al, 2009;Miner, et al, 1984;Whetten & Clark, 1996;Van Eynde & Spencer, 1988). Consequently, lecturing has developed a reputation of being mundane, disengaging, or monotonous, (Dorestani, 2005;Miner, et al, 1984;Stewart-Wingfield & Black, 2005).…”

“…This approach is beneficial because it is a convenient and efficient way to introduce a vast amount of information, especially in large classes where activities may be impractical (Michel et al, 2009;Miner, et al, 1984;Whetten & Clark, 1996;Van Eynde & Spencer, 1988). Consequently, lecturing has developed a reputation of being mundane, disengaging, or monotonous, (Dorestani, 2005;Miner, et al, 1984;Stewart-Wingfield & Black, 2005). Some instructors worry that students retain less of the information, and many instructors find themselves dealing with students who pay less attention, play games or send messages on their laptops, or even sleep in class (Michel, et al, 2009;Van Eynde & Spencer, 1988).…”

“…However, the results are mixed and often contradictory (see Michel, et al, 2009 for a review). For example, some empirical studies demonstrate that active teaching techniques are superior to lecture (Serva & Fuller, 2004;Michel, et al, 2009;Van Eynde & Spencer, 1988), while others suggest that there is no real difference (Dorestani, 2005;Miner, Das, & Gale, 1984;Stewart-Wingfield & Black, 2005). Thus, further research is warranted.…”