Surprising student choices of traditional vs. nontraditional learning approaches in an undergraduate organizational behavior course.

Schnake, Mel E. ; Dumler, Michael P. ; Fredenberger, Bill 等

ABSTRACT

Students in two sections of an undergraduate organizational behavior course were presented with the opportunity to choose a learning and evaluation method for the course which best suited their individual learning styles. Surprisingly, very few students took advantage of this opportunity. A learning style preferences questionnaire determined that there were differences in the learning styles of male and female students. An exit questionnaire captured student ratings of course effectiveness, satisfaction with the course, and reasons for their choices of learning and evaluation methods. No significant relationships were observed between male and female students on course effectiveness, course satisfaction, or in the reasons for their learning method choices. Student reasons for their choices and discussed and alternative explanations suggested.

Keywords: lecture, nontraditional learning methods, learning style preferences

INTRODUCTION

Business schools are increasingly employing nontraditional learning methods to reach an increasingly diverse student population (French & Grey, 1996). Students differ in their motivation, personality, maturity, employment, time available, family responsibilities, and preferred learning styles. All of these factors may impact the effectiveness of various teaching methodologies (Klenke-Hamel & Sanders, 1997).

Another reason business schools have begun exploring alternative instructional methods is the belief that the lecture is an outmoded method of course delivery (Birk, 1997). In fact, some have called for the abolishment of the traditional lecture on college campuses (Sperber, 2000). There is a widespread belief that students will learn more effectively if they use other methods such as experiential activities, case analyses, and other "hands-on" or "active learning" experiences (DeBerry, 1998). Hoeksema (1995) proposed two types of learning strategies: deep and surface. Deep learning, considered the highest form of learning, is directed at understanding the meaning of a task and to satisfy curiosity. Surface learning involves memorizing facts and disorganized pieces of information. Students engaged in surface learning will memorize information with a focus on getting good grades on exams, but may not fully master the material. In contrast, students engaged in deep learning will put forth greater effort and do extra work and will not only learn the material, but also more fully understand it and be able to apply it. Lectures and exams are linked with surface learning, while active-learning instructional methods with corresponding alternative evaluations methods are linked to deep learning.

Lengnick-Hall and Sanders (1997, p. 1335) have defined quality management education as: "a course or integrated program of study that consistently yields (1) high levels of learning (e.g., increased knowledge, skill, and understanding), (2) high levels of change or intention to change behavior (application of new knowledge and skills), and (3) highly positive reactions (e.g., satisfaction with the course, the method of instruction, and the value of what was learned and intentions to recommend the course to others). They designed management courses to provide students with the opportunity to co-design the course with the instructor and assume more responsibility for their own learning. Students were presented with various methods of learning and evaluation methods as well as with deadlines and performance standards. Measures of student learning styles indicated a wide variety of learning preferences. Results of an analysis of outcome measures indicated that students reported satisfaction with the course, high levels of learning, and an intent to recommend the course to others (Lengnick-Hall & Sanders, 1997).

Research on the relationship between learning styles and instructional methods has been conducted most frequently in samples of K-12 students. One well-known model has been developed by Dunn and Dunn (Dunn and Dunn, 1992, 1993; Dunn, Dunn & Perrin, 1994) which describes learning style in terms of individual reactions to (1) their immediate environment (e.g., sound, temperature, seating arrangements), (2) their own emotionality (e.g., motivation, persistence, responsibility), (3) sociological preferences (e.g., learning alone or with others), (4) physiological characteristics (e.g., perceptual strengths and weaknesses, time of day energy levels), and (5) processing indications (e.g., global/analytic, impulsive/reflective). Studies in both elementary and high schools provide evidence that when instruction methods are matched with individual student learning styles, student performance is improved (Andrews, 1990; Orsak, 1990; Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Gorman & Beasley, 1995).

Another relatively well-known theory which argues for matching instructional methods with learning styles is Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Gardner (Gardner & Hatch, 1989) identified seven types of intelligences, all of which are necessary to function in society. The seven intelligences are: (1) logical/mathematical intelligence, (2) verbal/linguistic intelligence, (3) visual/spatial intelligence, (4) bodily/kinesthetic intelligence, (5) musical/rythmic intelligence, (6) interpersonal intelligence, and (7) intrapersonal intelligence. However, since intelligence has both biological and cultural bases, individuals differ in terms of which types of intelligence are most developed. These differences in intellectual strengths and weaknesses then determine how individuals most effectively learn (Gardner, 1991).

Similar evidence exists at the college level. Fredenberger, Schnake, Oliver and Fadil (2002) recently identified three clusters of learning preferences in a sample of undergraduate business students. Traditional Learners preferred a clearly and logically organized course, with specific information about assignments, requirements and rules. They also preferred to learn by reading and listening to lectures. Hands-On Learners preferred setting their own objectives, working independently, and working with things (e.g., building or operating). They also preferred learning by direct experience and by viewing slides, pictures or graphs. Group Learners preferred working in teams and with other people, working with words and language and learning through talking or writing. Traditional Learners may be best suited for the traditional lecture instructional method, while Hands-On Learners and Group Learners may learn more effectively through more nontraditional methods such as Lengnick-Hall and Sanders' (1997) alternative learning methods.

The purpose of this research is to examine undergraduate business students' learning style preferences and their choices of learning methods in organizational behavior courses in which they were given the autonomy to choose between traditional lecture and tests, nontraditional individual learning methods, or nontraditional group learning methods.

METHOD

Students in two sections of an undergraduate organizational behavior course were given the autonomy to choose their own learning methods as well as methods of evaluation of their mastery of the course material. The first day of class, students were presented with a syllabus entitled OB, Inc. The introductory portion of this syllabus appears at Exhibit 1. The instructor explained that there is research evidence that students have different preferred styles of learning, and when instructional methods match these learning styles, more effective learning takes place.

The course was divided into four quarters or "work periods", with each quarter covering approximately three chapters. Students were free to change their learning and evaluation method at the beginning of each quarter, but once chosen they had to continue with this learning and evaluation method for the entire quarter. Several possible learning and evaluation methods were discussed, including group case analysis, individual presentations to the class, manager interviews, etc. But it was stressed that the instructor was open to new and creative ideas. Any reasonable approach to learning the assigned material for the quarter and evaluation method would be considered. It was explained that students choosing the traditional lecture learning method and test evaluation method would complete a 20 point quiz at the completion of each chapter. Students choosing nontraditional learning methods would have to develop and reach an agreement with the instructor on learning/evaluation methods equivalent to three 20 point quizzes for each quarter. All students, regardless of learning/evaluation methods chosen had to complete both a midterm and final examination (multiple choice). Students then completed the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory (Canfield, 1976; Canfield & Canfield, 1978) during this first class session. During the last class session of the semester, students completed an "Exit Questionnaire" which included outcome measures from Lengnick-Hall and Sanders (1997) as well as an open-ended question which asked students to identify the specific reasons for their choice of learning/evaluation methods. One hundred three students began the semester; eighty-three completed the course. Due to absences on days questionnaires were administered complete, matched questionnaires were obtained from 53 students for a response rate of 64%.

The Canfield Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) assesses student preferences for different learning methods. The LSI measures three domains of learning styles: conditions of learning (Gagne, 1967, 1970; Kolb, 1974; Stern, 1962), content (Beswick and Tallmadge, 1970; Dorsel, 1975), and preferred ways of obtaining new information (Cooper & Garth, 1966; Jensen, 1970; Snow, Tiffin, & Seibert, 1964). Conditions of learning are defined as preferences for the dynamics of the situation in which learning occurs. Its subscales address preferences for working alone or in teams, a clearly organized course, having detailed and specific information about assignments and requirements, setting one's own learning objectives, and working independently. Content is the type of information in which the student is interested. The subscales assess preferences for numeric or qualitative information, working with inanimate objects or working with people. Learning mode has to do with the preferred media used in learning. The subscales of this domain assess preferences for learning through listening, reading, iconics (viewing illustrations, slides, graphs, etc.), or through direct experience (i.e., handling or performing, field trips, practice exercises). The lower the score on the LSI indicates a stronger preference.

The exit questionnaire included an open-ended question which asked students to describe the reasons why they chose the learning methods they employed during the semester, fourteen items from the scale developed by Lengnick-Hall and Sanders (1997) which measures student perceptions of course effectiveness and 15 items which tap student satisfaction with the course. The course effectiveness scale asked students to rate the extent to which the course increased their ability to, for example, manage their time, work well with others/collaborate, take charge of what I learn, apply theory to real life situations, understand organizations, and manage behavior in organizations. A seven-point Likert scale with anchors of "not at all," "to some extent," and "to a great extent." was employed. A factor-analysis of this scale suggested one factor. Coefficient alpha for the 14 item scale was .94. The satisfaction with the course scale asked students to rate the extent to which the course was a productive learning experience, relevant to their future, were satisfied with the content of the course, and whether they have or expect to apply what they learned in the course on the job or in their personal life. A five-point Likert scale with anchors of Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree was used. A factor analysis of these 14 items suggested a single factor, and coefficient alpha reliability estimate was .93.

Student reasons for selecting the traditional lecture and exam method were coded as "1" if they mentioned each specific reason, and "0" if they did not mention it, creating "dummy variables" for each of the seven specific reasons.

RESULTS

Surprisingly, few students opted for nontraditional learning methods. During the first quarter, no students chose nontraditional learning methods, although several approached the instructor to discuss options for successive "work periods." During the second quarter, four students opted for individualized nontraditional learning methods. One student agreed to summarize each chapter and meet with the instructor weekly to discuss it and answer questions posed by the instructor. Two students agreed to summarize each chapter and post their comments on a web page for all other students to view. A third agreed to analyze real world practices of companies concerning the topics in the assigned reading and write a paper. By the end of the semester, only two students continued using nontraditional learning and evaluation methods. No students opted for any group-based learning methods during the semester. There were a total of 103 students at the beginning of the semester. Eighty three remained at the end of the semester. Thus, approximately 4% of students attempted nontraditional learning methods during the second "work period," but only 2% continued with them through the end of the semester.

To determine whether there were any differences in the preferred learning styles of students, responses on the seventeen Canfield LSI subscales were examined by gender. First, a MANOVA of the sixteen LSI subscales by gender revealed that students did differ significantly by gender on the LSI subscales. Next, univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted on each of the seventeen LSI subscales to identify exactly how male and female students differed in their preferences of learning styles.

The ANOVA revealed that male and female students differed significantly on six of the seventeen LSI subscales. Specifically, male students indicated a preference for peer (means = 10.00, 14.19; F = 5.58; p < .05), goal (means = 9.77, 13.33; F = 4.33; p < .05), independence (means = 10.17, 15.33; 7.94; p < .01), inanimate (means = 8.23, 14.51; 13.00; p < .01), iconics (means = 8.27, 11.91; F =5.22; p < .05, and direct (means = 8.20, 13.12; F = 8.48; p < .01). Compared to female students, male students preferred working in student teams; setting their own objectives; working independently; working with things (e.g., building, operating); learning by viewing illustrations, slides, pictures or graphs; and learning by handling or performing. Thus, at least some significantly different learning style preferences were identified in this sample between men and women. It might be reasonably expected that given the opportunity, students would select learning and evaluation methods best suited to their preferred learning style. Yet, few students took advantage of this opportunity.

The exit questionnaire included an open ended question which asked students for the reasons for their choice of learning method. Of particular interest here are the majority of students who chose the traditional learning method. These open-ended responses were independently coded into seven categories by three raters. These categories included (1) unable to work independently/lazy, (2) familiarity with the traditional lecture method, (3) belief that the traditional method would be easier, (4) time pressure (belief that nontraditional methods would require more time), (5) uncertainty/risk aversion (unsure of what nontraditional methods would require), (6) importance of instructor's input in learning, and (7) belief that traditional lecture method would provide an advantage on exams.

Initially, the three raters agreed on 59% of the coding on 54 responses. However, this is a substantially understated inter-rater agreement percentage. This 59% represents complete agreement on how the 32 out of 54 responses should be coded. Some responses involved as many as four codes. The three raters agreed initially on 64 specific codes with 27 disagreements (70% agreement). After discussing the responses on which the raters disagreed, 100% agreement was reached. These infrequent disagreements involved a response which mentioned several reasons. Typically, all three coders agreed on two of three, or three of four reasons initially, and after brief discussion, reached consensus on the final reason.

The percentages of students who mentioned each of the seven reasons for their decision to remain with the traditional lecture/exam method appear in Table 1. As Table 1 shows, the most frequently mentioned reason (31.5% of respondents) was the perception that the instructor's input was important in the learning process. Typical comments included "I feel that I learn better by coming to class and having the instructor discuss and explain the materials," "I tend to learn better when I have a professor explaining things to me. It also makes me feel more confident about the material I am studying because sometimes when I am doing things on my own without the help of the professor I wonder if I am comprehending the material right or wrong," and "I learn more and absorb more through lectures and examples given by the teacher." The second most frequently mentioned reason for staying with the traditional lecture/exam approach (by 27.4% of respondents) was familiarity with the traditional learning methods. Typical comments included "I chose the traditional method mainly because that's what I am used to," "I chose the traditional classroom method because I know it," "I chose the traditional method because this is the way I have always learned and I believe this is my best way of learning," and "I feel I am more accustomed to this learning method, and learn more this way."

A chi-square analysis of reason by gender showed that male and female students did not differ significantly in the reasons for their decisions regarding learning/evaluation methods.

An analysis of variance with the satisfaction scale and the effectiveness scale as dependent variables and gender as the independent variable revealed no significant differences. The seven "dummy variables" created for the student reasons for selecting the traditional lecture and exam method were included in regression analyses on both the satisfaction scale and the effectiveness scale.

DISCUSSION

A great deal of attention is being given to student diversity, different learning style preferences and matching learning, instructional and evaluation methods to this diversity. Instructors on many campuses are being encouraged, if not pressured, to employ nontraditional methods in their classrooms, and those who cling to traditional lecture and evaluation methods are sometimes viewed as outdated or inflexible. However, the results of this research suggests that when given the opportunity to learn and be evaluated in virtually any reasonable method they prefer, most students opted for traditional lectures and exams. Further, when asked about the reasons for their decisions, the importance of the instructor and familiarity with traditional learning and evaluation methods were the two most frequently cited reasons.

One explanation for these results is that students are simply risk averse and are familiar and comfortable with the traditional lecture method. Perhaps, if exposed to other learning methodologies, they would come to prefer other approaches. However, another possibility is that many believe the traditional lecture is, in fact, most effective for them. One recent student compare the traditional lecture with cooperative learning methods (Morgan, Whorton & Gunsalus, 2000). Results suggest that the two methods were equivalent in terms of long term retention; however, the lecture method was superior in terms of short term retention. Several students in the current research stated that they believed the lecture method was most effective for them.

An alternative explanation is that students who state they are familiar and/or comfortable with the lecture method may actually be driven by assessment. That is, they are reluctant to attempt an alternative learning method because they are afraid they may miss something in class which will be on the exams, or they simply believe that they will perform better on exams by attending the lectures of the exam-preparer, which of course may be something entirely different than effective learning. In fact, the Morgan, et. al (2000) study provides evidence that lectures enhance short-term retention which may produce better results on exams. This explanation suggests that alternative assessment methods may encourage different learning methods.

While in the present study, students had the opportunity to propose alternative evaluation methods, such as case analysis and presentations, to match alternative learning methods, few students took advantage of these opportunities. However, researchers should be aware that individual assessments may bias students against teamwork or other alternative learning methods. Methods of assessment must be designed to match the method of learning. Of course, one interesting study examine learning/assessment matches as well as learning/assessment mismatches.

Universities are not likely to abolish the lecture method in the near future. It remains a very low-cost method of reaching large numbers of students. However, the results of the current study suggest that there may be other reasons to retain lectures. The most frequently cited reason for choosing traditional lecture by students in the current study was the importance of the instructor to their learning, followed closely by familiarity with the lecture method.

Future research is needed to determine whether students really believe that the lecture method is most effective for them or whether their decision is really "assessment driven." That is, they choose the lecture because they believe it will help them perform better on exams. This could be accomplish relatively easily in courses which employ the lecture method of instruction, but alternative methods of evaluation, such as case analyses, group projects, and presentations.

REFERENCES

Andrews, R. (1990). The development of a learning styles program in a low socioeconomic, underachieving North Carolina elementary school. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 6(3), 307-313.

Birk, L. (1997). What's so bad about the lecture? Education Digest, 62, 58-61.

Beswick, D. & G. Tallmadge. (1970). Reexamination of two learning style studies in light of the cognitive process theory of curiosity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 514-520.

Canfield, A.A. (1976). Canfield Learning Styles Inventory. Detroit, MI: Humanics Media.

Canfield, A.A. & J.S. Canfield. (1978). Canfield Instructional Styles Inventory. Detroit, MI: Humanics Media.

Cooper, J. & J. Garth. (1966). Interactions of modality with age and with meaningfulness in verbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 41-44.

DeBerry, T.W. (1998). Teaching "the dismal science" by the lecture method: Maligned by not abandoned. International Social Science Review, 73, 67-74.

Dorsel, T. (1975). Preference-success assumptions in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 514-520.

Dunn, R. & K. Dunn. (1992). Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dunn, R. & K. Dunn. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dunn, R., K. Dunn & J. Perrin. (1994). Teaching young children through their individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dunn, R., A. Griggs, J. Olson, B. Gorman & M. Beasley. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model. Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353-361.

Fredenberger, B., M. Schnake, J. Oliver & P. Fadil. (2002). A cluster analysis of preferred learning styles of undergraduate business students: Evidence of a need for diverse teaching methods. Proceedings, Southwest Academy of Management, St. Louis, MO.

French, R. & C. Grey. (1996). Rethinking management education. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gagne, R. (1967). Instruction and the conditions of learning. In L. Siegal (Ed.), Instruction, some contemporary viewpoints. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.

Gagne, R. (1970). The conditions of learning. (2nd Edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Gardner, H. & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school. Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-9.

Jensen, A. (1970). Individual differences in visual and auditory memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 123-131.

Kolb, D. (1974). On management and the learning process. In D. Kolb (Ed.) Organization psychology: A book of readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lengnick-Hall, C.A. & M.M. Sanders. (1997). Designing effective learning systems for management education:

Student roles, requisite variety, and practicing what we teach. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1334-1368.

Morgan, R.L., J.E Whorton & C. Gunsalus. (2000). A comparison of short term and long term retention: Lecture combined with discussion versus cooperative learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 53-58.

Orsak, L. (1990). Learning styles and bye: A winning combination. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities. 6(3), 335-346.

Snow, R., J. Tiffin, & W. Seibert. (1965). Individual differences and instructional film effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 315-326.

Sperber, M. (2000). End the mediocrity of our public universities. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47, 24.

Stern, G. (1962). Environments for learning. In N. Sanford (Ed.) The American college. New York: Wiley.

Mel E. Schnake,Valdosta State University

Michael P. Dumler, Illinois State University

Bill Fredenberger, Valdosta State University

Sherry Schnake, St. Mary of the Woods College

Table 1: Introduction Section of Course Syllabus OB, Inc.

MGNT3250, ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND MANAGEMENT Spring Semester,
2001

Organizations are increasingly moving toward group- or team-based
designs, where teams of employees assume more responsibility for their
own performance. Companies such as Volvo, Quad-Graphics, Delco,
Northern Telecom, Saturn, and Honeywell have reported tremendous
success and turnarounds which they attribute in large part to employee
teams. Organizations who have not adopted team-based work designs have
increasingly employed other forms of individual employee participation
and involvement.

There is also a growing body of empirical evidence that learning is
enhanced by student involvement in the design of the learning
experience. Individuals learn in different ways, which makes a single
course delivery system (e.g., lecture) ineffective for at least some
students. This course is designed around and based on this empirical
evidence, and the following assumptions:

1. Employee/student participation in decision making generally results
in more accurate decisions.

2. Employee/student participation in decision making generally results
in more commitment to making those decisions work.

3. Employee/student responsibility for their own performance and
results generally leads to higher motivation and performance.

4. Individuals differ in how they learn most effectively and therefore
require different instructional/learning methods.

5. Different instructional/learning methods require different methods
of assessment and evaluation.

MGNT 3250, hereafter referred to as OB, Inc., is a non-traditional
course in Organizational Behavior and Management. It is based on the
idea that the traditional lecture is an effective course delivery
method for some students, but ineffective for others. In addition,
since organizations are increasingly employing team-based work designs
rather than more traditional individual job assignments, this course
will provide students with an opportunity to gain skills in working in
teams. Primarily, this course will enable you to select and design the
learning and instructional methods most effective for you. The
Instructor's role in this course is similar to the role of a manager or
supervisor in a self-managing team; that is, as a resource. Individuals
and/or teams may call on the Instructor to provide lectures,
explanations, descriptions of assigned material and to design
evaluation methods.

GRADING

You must reach an agreement on how your performance will be evaluated
for each work period with the instructor. Once this agreement is made
it may not be changed during that work period. It may, however, be
changed for the next work period. You may choose to work as an
individual or in a self-managing team. Regardless of the method you
choose, you must reach agreement with your instructor as to how your
performance will be evaluated by the second day of that work period.

Evaluation Methods

You may choose any reasonable method by which to have your performance
evaluated. For example, if you prefer to work as an individuals and
prefer traditional methods, you may ask the instructor to lecture to
you on the assigned material and administer a variety of forms of
examinations. If you decide to work in a self-managing team, you may
still ask the instructor to administer an examination to you, or you
may make presentations to the instructor, write papers, ask the
instructor to verbally ask you questions about the material, or any
other reasonable method by which the instructor can assess your
understanding of the assigned material. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT
YOU MUST DECIDE ON A METHOD BY WHICH THE INSTRUCTOR CAN ACCURATELY
ASSESS THE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATERIAL OF EACH MEMBER OF
YOUR GROUP. That is to say, one group member may not carry other group
members ... everyone's performance must be assessed. The assessment
method chosen must permit determination of differentiation in levels
of student performance. You must reach agreement with the instructor
about how your performance will be evaluated by the second day of each
work period.

All students must take a 50 question multiple choice midterm and a 50
question multiple choice final examination on the day scheduled by the
university for this course.

Work Rules

OB, Inc. has some common work rules.

1. You have 5 personal days that you may use at your discretion. These
must cover all illnesses as well as any other types of absences. The
6th absence costs you one letter grade. The 7th absence results in an F
for the course.

2. Self-managing teams who find they have a non-performer, must manage
this problem during the current work session. Teams may change their
membership at the end of each work period. If you are fired from a
team, you are responsible to perform the work during the next work
period individually, or gain membership in another team.

3. YOU MUST NOT BE ABSENT DURING AN ASSIGNED EVALUATION OF
PERFORMANCE.... IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO "MAKE UP" EVALUATIONS.

Table 1: Results of Qualitative Data Analysis of Decision Reasons

Reason for Choosing Traditional % of Respondents
Learning Methods Mentioning Reason

Unable to work independently/lazy 6/49 (8.2%)
Familiarity with traditional learning methods 20/53 (27.4%)
Belief that traditional method would be easier 9/53 (12.3%
Not enough time for nontraditional methods 14/53 (19.2%)
Uncertainty/Risk Aversion 5/53 (6.8%)
Importance of Instructor's input in learning 23/53 (31.5%)
Perceived advantage of traditional 6/53 (8.2%)
 method on exams