The Use of Lecture Vs. Other Classroom Activities at LMBC

Building a Case for Active Learning: The Use of Lecture vs. Other Classroom Activities at LMBC

Jon M. Werner University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Whitewater, Wisconsin Carol Scovotti University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Whitewater, Wisconsin Richard G. Cummings University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Whitewater, Wisconsin James W. Bronson University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Whitewater, Wisconsin

ABSTRACT An action learning process was used at a large Midwestern business college (“LMBC”) to promote greater use of active learning approaches in the classroom. At an all-college gathering, faculty received instruction and encouragement in the use of the case method in their respective classes. Faculty were subsequently surveyed about their use of lecture versus other more active classroom learning activities, such as problem-solving, case discussions, group work, and individual reflection. Results obtained demonstrated widespread use of active learning across the college, though with many differences based upon academic discipline, rank, age, and gender. Connections are made to models of change and experiential learning theory. Key words: action learning, active learning, experiential learning, lecture method, case method

Lecture has been a primary pedagogical form throughout The considerable interest in more active or experiential history (Friesen, 2011). Though often maligned, it remains forms of learning may appear to clash with the continued a dominant method of teaching, both to younger and widespread usage – or at least perceptions of usage – of university-level students (Bowen, 2012; Harmon, Alpert, “traditional” lecture formats (Goffe & Kauper, 2014; Banik, & Lambrinos, 2015; Petrović & Pale, 2015). Over Wieman, 2014). Hassan (2011) studied faculty percep- the past 50 years, many alternative learning activities have tions of their own need for professional development to been advanced, including active, experiential, and prob- implement innovative teaching and learning methods, lem-based learning (Bain, 2004; Carvalho, 2015; Slavich such as problem-based learning and technology-enhanced & Zimbardo, 2012; Sroufe, & Ramos, 2015). Ungaretti, learning. Dhar (2012) addressed various “alternative” Thompson, Miller, and Peterson (2015) noted that prob- pedagogical approaches used in business schools. Mitch- lem-based learning, widely used in medical education, ell, Parlamis, & Claiborne (2015) used a change model to could be a useful addition to management education. address faculty resistance to online education. Models of Evidence suggests superior student outcomes result from change, as well as resistance to change, have been wide- more experiential, rather than lecture-based classes (e.g., spread since Lewin (1951) presented his influential force- Cajiao & Burke, 2015; Fitzsimons, 2014; Kahl & Venette, field theory. 2010; Schermerhorn, Gardner, & Dresdow, 1992; Malik In an effort to move towards more evidence-based ap- & Janjua, 2011; Waddock & Lozano, 2013; Williams proaches to learning (Teare, 2013), the present study & McClure, 2010). Both Mesny (2013) and Rendtorff made use of an action learning framework, as first pro- (2015) provide strong theoretical and empirical ground- posed by Revans (1982). In essence, this approach invites ing for the use of case studies in management education.

Journal of Learning in Higher Education 7 Jon M. Werner, Carol Scovotti, Richard G. Cummings, & James W. Bronson participants to meet and discuss a “live” organizational is- are included in Table 1 that typically occur in the class- sue, and then seek suitable solutions to that issue. This ap- room, such as lecture, discussion, case studies, and the proach aligns with efforts by researchers in other settings showing of videos, as well as activities that would gener- (Yeo & Marquardt, 2015). For example, Smith and Stitts ally take place outside of the classroom, such as reading, (2013) used action learning to introduce critical thinking homework, papers, or fieldwork. skills in a capstone undergraduate business course. Soffe and Hale (2013) used action learning to promote ethical The “Case” for Active Learning at LMBC questioning by business students. Edmonstone and Rob- son (2014) used action learning to develop a Master’s pro- A one-hour teaching and discussion session on the case gram in human resources for health. Faculty in our study method was conducted at an all-day college kickoff were exposed to various active approaches to learning, and gathering before the start of classes in August, 2014 at in an iterative and interactive manner, were encouraged a large Midwestern business college (here referred to as to discuss and apply active learning techniques in their “LMBC”). Two forces for change led to this being includ- respective classrooms via action learning. That is, action ed in the agenda for that faculty gathering. First, several learning was used to promote increased active learning individuals in the LMBC Dean Suite expressed concerns techniques within a single business school. We next re- that, despite claims that graduate courses in the college view the rationale for active/experiential learning, and made more extensive use of the case method than was true then for this study. in undergraduate courses, perusal of graduate course syl- David Kolb’s experiential learning theory has had a major labi did not support this claim. Second, in the summer of impact in advancing experiential approaches to manage- 2014, one of the authors of this study had just returned ment education (Bergsteiner & Avery & Neumann, 2010; from attending a case workshop offered by Harvard Uni- Kayes & Kayes, 2003; Kolb, 1984; Kolb, 2014; Kolb & versity, and presenting a case there. Another author from Kolb, 2005; Schenck & Cruickshank, 2015). Kolb iden- a different department had previously attended Harvard tified four primary learning modes, including concrete case workshops, and a third author had been writing and experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptual- using Harvard-style cases for over two decades in cap- ization, and active experimentation (Kolb, 1984). He stone business courses. These three individuals were asked argued that effective instruction should engage learners by the acting dean to lead an interactive session on the in all modes of learning. However, the one-way flow of value of the case method, which included departmental information from instructor to student via lecturing can discussions by table, as to what aspects of the case method result in passive student learning, and does not foster all could be utilized in each department. While potential four learning modes. Bergsteiner and colleagues identified drawbacks of the case method have been noted by others common pedagogical activities, in addition to the lecture, (Bridgman, Cummings, & McLaughlin, 2015; Mesny, and listed them under Kolb’s learning modes (Bergsteiner 2013), the goal coming from the college Dean Suite was et al., 2010). Table 1 presents this breakdown. Activities to promote more active learning in general, with the case

Table 1 Classroom Activities Associated with Kolb’s Four Learning Modes Concrete experience Reflective observation Abstract conceptualization Active experimentation Lecture examples —- Lecture* Lecture examples Laboratories —- —- Laboratories Readings —- Text readings —- Fieldwork —- —- Fieldwork —- —- Projects* Projects* Simulations* Thought questions Model building Case studies* Observations Brainstorming Model critiques Homework Films/videos* Discussions* Papers —- Problem sets* Logs, journals* Analogies —- Source: Bergsteiner, Avery, & Neumann (2010). *Denotes an activity addressed in this study.

8 Spring 2018 (Volume 14 Issue 1) Building a Case for Active Learning:The Use of Lecture Versus Other Classroom Activities at LMB method providing one example, especially for both class- clude methods not already included in the list provided). room and online graduate courses (Gragg, 1940). These activities were largely drawn from Bergsteiner et al. (2010), with a focus on activities where the authors had At the end of the LMBC college kickoff gathering in Au- anecdotal evidence of usage by at least some college facul- gust, 2014, the acting dean of the college stated that it ty.1 The 30-item questionnaire was completed electroni- would be good to know what college faculty were, in fact, cally via SurveyMonkey.2 doing in the classroom. This led the authors to initiate the university-level internal review process to survey college Six questions focused on faculty opinions of active learn- faculty. A fourth faculty member was added to the origi- ing. Response scales ranged from 1= strongly disagree, to nal three (“case presenters”), and data was collected for the 5=strongly agree. Seven questions concentrated on the present study in Fall, 2014. A decision was made to also use of technology in classroom-based courses, specifical- include questions of technology usage in the classroom in ly email, PowerPoint, Gradebook, Dropbox, Turnitin3, this same survey. Facebook/Social Media, and Twitter. A five-point scale was used for these questions, from 1= not at all, to 5= all Concerning technology, Friesen (2011) questioned how the time. lecture, as an “old” form of oral communication, can in- teract with, or even survive, the increasing use of today’s newer media technologies. A survey of university students Results found that 16.1% preferred a lecture-focused class, 19.4% preferred an interactive class with considerable discus- A total of 94 completed surveys were received. With 125 sion and group work, and 64.5% preferred a combina- college faculty members, this constituted a response rate tion of lecture and interaction (Young, Douang, Vinz, of 75.2%. Table 2 summarizes the respondents’ demo- Yencheske, & Flash, 2014). The focus of the survey, then, graphic data. was to determine the extent to which lecturing, versus A follow-up was conducted, where those who volunteered other more active learning methods, were being used by at the end of the electronic survey had an observer in one business faculty, as well as the extent to which various of their fall 2014 classes capture time usage in a single technology options were used by faculty in their courses class of the instructor’s choosing. The purpose of this ob- (Rollag & Billsberry, 2012). servation was to compare estimates to actual class time us- The three primary research questions addressed in this age. Of the 26 who expressed interest in the follow-up, 13 survey include: participated. 1. What pedagogical methods are business faculty Research Question 1: currently using in their classrooms? Pedagogical Methods 2. To what extent do demographic variables, such as academic discipline, rank, etc., relate to the use of Faculty estimated their class time usage retrospectively lecture versus other pedagogical approaches? in all of their classroom courses for the prior academic year. They were then asked to select one course they would 3. To what extent are technological tools, such as teach in the current year and perform a similar estima- email, PowerPoint, etc. used by business faculty as tion. As seen in Table 3, faculty estimated that over half they teach classroom-based courses? of class time was spent in active learning activities other than lecturing. After lecturing, the three most common Methodology classroom activities were general discussions, small group activities, and working on problems. Three activities with In fall 2014, faculty and staff with teaching responsibili- ties at a large Midwestern university (“LMBC”) were surveyed about the extent to which lecturing, versus other 1 Beyond these classroom activities, the college has ex- pedagogical approaches, were being used in graduate and tensive involvement of students in college – or major-re- undergraduate courses. Faculty at LMBC have full related student organizations, internships, and study abroad sponsibility for teaching courses, with no recitation sec- opportunities. These activities are also viewed as strategic tions, or any other form of teaching conducted by gradu- college priorities, but were not the focus of this survey. ate assistants. Potential pedagogical methods included: 2 The full survey is available upon request from the au- lecture, discussion, group work, problem solving, cases, thors. presentations, audiovisual content, individual reflection, simulations, and “other” (where faculty could in- 3 Turnitin is a web-based plagiarism prevention service that checks document originality.

Journal of Learning in Higher Education 9 Jon M. Werner, Carol Scovotti, Richard G. Cummings, & James W. Bronson

Table 2 Table 3 Respondent Demographics Faculty and Staff Estimates of Variable # Pct. Their Use of Class Time, Total Respondents 94 100 Over All of Their Courses (2013-14), and For One Particular Course (2014-15) By Academic Rank Means Full Professor 21 22 Class Activity All One Associate Professor 12 13 Courses Course Assistant Professor 27 29 Lecture 47.4% 44.3% Academic Staff 34 36 General Discussion 10.5% 10.4% By Gender Small Group Activities 9.9% 11.8% Male 64 68 Working on Problems 8.5% 10.2% Female 30 32 Case Discussion 6.3% 5.6% By Department Affiliation (n = 93) Student Presentations 6.3% 6.0% Accounting (ACCT) 11 12 Audiovisual Content 4.6% 4.5% Economics (ECON) 7 7 Individual Reflection 3.0% 2.8% Finance & Business Law (FIN) 11 12 Simulations 1.5% 1.4% Information Technology & Supply Chain 16 17 Other 2.0% 3.0% Management (ITSCM) Management (MGMT) 19 20 moderate usage were case discussions, student presenta- Marketing (MKTG) 14 15 tions, and use of audiovisual content. The three least used activities were individual student reflection, simulations, Occupational Health & Safety (OHS) 11 12 and other activities (guest speakers were the most fre- By Age (n = 84) quently mentioned activity under “other”). By compari- son, the 13 individuals who had a class period timed by a 24 – 34 11 13 volunteer spent an average of 43.5% lecturing. The range 35 – 44 23 28 was large for this sub-sample of faculty, from 0% to 77.6% lecturing. 45 – 54 23 28 55 – 64 17 20 Faculty agreed that active learning methods such as cases and experiential learning were vital in undergraduate 65+ 9 11 education (M= 4.11; SD= 0.74), though they also agreed By Employment Status that their courses required a substantial amount of lecture (3.57; 1.16). There was moderate agreement that their Full-time 78 83 courses were conducive to case and class discussions (3.39; Part-time 16 17 1.17), and that cases and experiential learning were vital in graduate education (3.35; 0.74). Faculty disagreed that By Course Level Taught they were more comfortable lecturing (2.55; 0.96), and Undergraduate lower levels 7 7 that they used more cases in graduate courses (2.13; 1.51). Undergraduate upper levels 28 30 Technologies used in the classroom varied by type of Undergraduate all levels 15 16 technology. Instructors made the greatest use of the online Gradebook (M= 4.24; SD= 1.31), followed by email Graduate levels 4 4 (4.20; 0.97), PowerPoint (3.83; 1.10) and Dropbox (3.65; Undergraduate lower levels with Graduate 3 3 1.47). Faculty and staff were least likely to use the Turni- tin plagiarism detection software (2.40; 1.52), and made Undergraduate upper levels with Graduate 26 28 almost no use of social media sites such as Facebook (1.24; Undergraduate all levels with Graduate 11 12 0.71), or Twitter (1.04; 0.63).

10 Spring 2018 (Volume 14 Issue 1) Building a Case for Active Learning:The Use of Lecture Versus Other Classroom Activities at LMB

Tests for Differences between “estimated” and “actual” time use suggests that Across Demographic Variables faculty were not simply projecting “desirable” responses. While differences by department and demographic vari- Table 4 list the significant findings resulting from ANO- ables were noted, Table 3 indicates that less lecturing hap- VA analyses of the full year (2013/2014) estimated per- pens in business classrooms than might be expected (Wie- cent of class time usage for all courses, as well as the es- man, 2014). timated percent of class time usage for a course to be taught during the 2014/2015 academic year (Research There are logical differences across academic disciplines. Question 2). Table 5 identifies the significant differences For example, Accounting faculty use more class time for in opinions about active learning and technology usage problem solving. Management faculty are more likely to (Research Question 3). Statistically significant differences discuss cases. Marketing faculty integrate more social were observed based on academic rank, department affili- media into courses. However, many of the differences ation, gender, age, and course levels taught (p < .05). For identified raise additional questions. Why isn’t problem informational purposes, differences are also included in solving more widely used – outside of accounting class- Tables 4 and 5 that approached statistical significance (p rooms? What are the reasons that faculty make relatively < .10). scant use of individual student reflection and simulations in their classrooms, despite strong arguments in favor of such classroom practices (Dehler & Welsh, 2014; Kane & Discussion Goldgehn, 2011; Rachman-Moore & Kenett, 2006; Wad- dock & Laozano, 2013; Welsh & Dehler, 2013)? What A primary finding of this survey is that business faculty at impact does gender play in the use of active learning tech- this university use active learning techniques during class niques? On faculty technology usage? Why do associate time. Given that only 13 participated in the follow-up professors in our sample lecture more than other ranks? study, comparing self-reported versus observed classroom Given that only 12 associate professors completed our sur- time usage is not possible. Nevertheless, the similarity vey, caution is needed in extrapolating from our results.

Table 4 Significant Differences by Survey Variable Significant Differences Variable All Courses Combined Estimates Single Course Estimates 2013/2014 2014/2015 Associate professors – most amount of class time lecturing (p = .069 – approached significant) Associate professors – most amount of class time Academic Rank As rank increases, so does the likelihood an lecturing (p = .064) instructor uses class time for case discussions. (p < .01) Amount of class time solving problems: ACCT Amount of class time solving problems: ACCT – – most; MKTG – least. (p <.05) most; MGMT – least (p < .05). Department Affiliation Amount of class time lecturing: ECON – most; Amount of class time devoted to audiovisual MGMT – least (p < .05) content: ECON – most; MGMT – least (p < .05) Gender None Males spend more time lecturing (p = .067) Instructors 65+ – most amount of audiovisual Older instructors – most amount of class time Age content during class time; Youngest group (24 – using audiovisual content (p < .01) 34) – least (p < .01) Instructors of 100–200 level courses – most Instructors of 300–400 level courses – most amount of class time for problem solving (p = amount of class time for lecture. (p = .077) .067) Course Level Taught Instructors of 100–200 & 700 level courses – Instructors of 100–200 & 700 level courses – most amount of class time for individual work most amount of class time for individual work & & reflection (p < .01) reflection (p < .01)

Journal of Learning in Higher Education 11 Jon M. Werner, Carol Scovotti, Richard G. Cummings, & James W. Bronson

Table 5 Significant Differences Regarding Opinions about Active Learning & Technology Usage Variable Active Learning Opinions Technology Usage Associate professors – more likely Academic Rank None to use Turnitin (p < .05) Females – more likely to use Gender None Gradebook (p < .05) and Dropbox (p < .01) “My courses are conducive to case/class discussions.” MGMT most likely to agree; ECON least likely (p < .05) MKTG – uses Dropbox most; “Cases/experiential learning is vital to undergraduate ACCT least (p < .05) education.” Department Affiliation MKTG – most likely to use MGMT most likely to agree; ECON least likely (p < .01) social media; OSH and FIN – “Cases/experiential learning is vital to graduate education.” least likely (p < .05) ITSCM & MGMT most likely to agree; ECON least likely (p < .01) “I am more comfortable lecturing.” Course Level Taught Instructors who teach graduate level courses most likely to agree None (p < .05)

We question whether lecturing is seen as a safer classroom all faculty.4 In November, 2015, a new college dean pre- technique, and if active learning may raise “vulnerability” sented three strategic priorities related to teaching and issues for some faculty, as discussed by Brown and others student experiences, i.e., (Brown, 2012; Pacansky-Brock, 2016). A concern to avoid ▶▶ Exceptional student experiences, with emphasis on risk in the classroom could explain why associate profes- involvement in student organizations, internships, sors were less likely to engage in active learning than other and study abroad levels of faculty, though does not necessarily explain the fact that female faculty in our sample were slightly more ▶▶ Relevant and rigorous curriculum likely to engage in active learning in their classrooms. Fu- ▶▶ Effective and innovative teaching ture research should address such issues, as well as others raised by our findings. Comparable studies at other insti- As a follow-up to these strategic priorities, the LMBC tutions could address questions concerning the generaliz- dean set up brown bag lunch discussions on the top three ability of these findings. A larger sampling of actual class faculty requests from this survey, i.e., improved discussion time usage would address concerns as to whether faculty leading, using cases in class, and using problem-solving self-reported time usage in fact mirrors what happens in in class. The brown bag on the case method was held in the classroom. March, 2016. Thirteen faculty attended the March gathering, with over half stating that they had little previous This study originated from a discussion of case use across experience with the case method. When asked why more disciplines at a college retreat prior to the 2014 academic active learning methods were not more widely used in the year, and can be viewed as a form of action learning (Yeo business classroom, the immediate response by one fac- & Marquardt, 2015). Results were shared with faculty via ulty member was, “loss of control.” A discussion ensued email. A presentation of the results at a college meeting after this comment, with more experienced case teachers in August, 2015 was followed immediately by small-group discussions (by department) concerning possible impact on teaching methods used in that department. Individual 4 Sixty individual responses were submitted. Examples faculty responses were then summarized and sent out to include: “My own exposure to different methods (such as cases) impacts my use of these methods,” “What do students want from these classes?” and “We are still doing too much talking.” A summary is available from the authors upon request.

12 Spring 2018 (Volume 14 Issue 1) Building a Case for Active Learning:The Use of Lecture Versus Other Classroom Activities at LMB addressing how they handle this issue. We do not have di- vard’s history to reorient management. Academy of rect measures of change in faculty class time usage at this Management Proceedings, 1, 11637. time. However, faculty interest in active learning across Brown, B. (2012). departments, combined with the top-down support from Daring greatly: How the courage to be the dean, suggests that this change initiative is gaining vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and New York: Avery. traction. lead. Cajiao, J., & Burke, M. (2015). How instructional meth- The results of this study should encourage business fac- ods influence skill development in management educa- ulty from all disciplines to integrate more active learning tion. . activities into their classrooms. Bowen (2012) stated that Academy of Management Learning & Education doi: 10.5465/amle.2013.0354. if a goal of higher education is to develop key skills, then the focus in the classroom should be less on content de- Carvalho, A. (2015). The impact of PBL on transferable livery and more on interaction. The value of learning by skills development in management education. Inno- experience is well-established (Kolb, 2014). Yet, for many vations in Education and Teaching International. doi: reasons, the traditional lecture refuses to “go away.” This 10.1080/14703297.2015.1020327. study should encourage business faculty to engage in what Dehler, G. E., & Welsh, M. A. (2014). Against spoon- at least one group of business students said they most feeding. For learning. Reflections on students’ claims preferred, i.e., a combination of lecturing and active/in- to knowledge. teractive learning (Young et al., 2014). Perhaps it is not Journal of Management Education, (6), 875-893. so much a matter of “lecturing or letting go,” as much as 38 “lecturing and letting go” (cf., Kahl & Venette, 2010). Dhar, S. K., Sr. (2012). Effective learning in higher educa- The breakdown of common teaching methods from Berg- tion: In search of new pedagogical approaches. AIMA steiner et al. (2010) – presented in Table 1 – implies that Journal of Management and Research, 6(1/4). Available multiple teaching methods are needed to foster multiple at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2266959 forms of learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). It is hoped that Edmonstone, J., & Robson, J. (2014). Action learning on these findings will promote the use of a more diverse ar- the edge: Contributing to a master’s programme in ray of innovative learning methods, and that this will take Human Resources and Health. place across academic departments, ranks, and other dis- Action Learning: Re- (3), 361-374. tinguishing demographic variables. Future research can search and Practice, 11 then examine whether or not this in turn leads to greater Fitzsimons, M. (2014). Engaging students’ learning student learning across disciplines and levels of education through active learning. Irish Journal of Academic (Shaw, Fisher, & Southey, 1999; Bologna & Weiskircher, Practice, 31(1), Article 13. Available at: http://arrow. 2015). dit.ie/ijap/vol3/iss1/13 Friesen, N. (2011). The lecture as a transmedial pedagogi- References cal form: A historical analysis. Educational Research- er, 40(3), 95-102. Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goffe, W. L., & Kauper, D. (2014). A survey of principles instructors: Why lecture prevails. Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G. C., & Neumann, R. (2010). Journal of Economic , (4), 360-375. Kolb’s experiential learning model: Critique from a Education 45 modelling perspective. Studies in Continuing Educa- Gragg, C. I. (1940). Because wisdom can’t be told. Har- tion, 32(1), 29-46. vard Business School, Case 9-451-005. Bologna, D. A., & Weiskircher, K. (2015). Focusing on Harmon, O., Alpert, W., Banik, A., & Lambrinos, J. the student: Discovering emergent properties of an (2015). Class absence, instructor lecture notes, intellec- engaged classroom. Paper presented at the Academy of tual styles, and learning outcomes. Atlantic Economic Management conference, Vancouver, Canada. Journal, 43, 349-361. Bowen, J. A. (2012). Teaching naked: How moving technol- Hassan, S. (2011). The needs and perceptions of academ- ogy out of your classroom will improve student learning. ics regarding their professional development in an era San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. of educational transformation. South African Journal (3), 476-490. Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & McLaughlin, C. (2015). of Higher Education, 25 The case method as invented tradition: Revisiting Har- Kahl, D. H., & Venette, S. (2010). To lecture or let go: A comparative analysis of student speech outlines from

Journal of Learning in Higher Education 13 Jon M. Werner, Carol Scovotti, Richard G. Cummings, & James W. Bronson

teacher-centered and learner-centered classrooms. Rollag, K., & Billsberry, J. (2012). Technology as the en- Communication Teacher, 24(3), 178-186. abler of a new wave of active learning. Journal of Man- (6), 743—752. Kane, K. R., & Goldgehn, L. A. (2011). Beyond “The total agement Education, 36 organization”: A graduate-level simulation. Journal of Schenck, J., & Cruickshank, J. (2015). Evolving Kolb: Ex- Management Education, 35(6), 836-858. periential education in the age of neuroscience. Journal (1), 73-95. Kayes, D. C., & Kayes, A. B. (2003). “Through the look- of Experiential Education, 38 ing glass”: Management education gone awry. Journal Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr., Gardner, W. L. III, & Dresdow, of Management Education, 27(6), 694-710. S. A. (1992). Success profiles for student examination performance in a large-lecture management course: An Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as empirical study. New Jersey: Journal of Management Education, the source of learning and development. (4), 430-443. Prentice-Hall. 16 Shaw, J. B., Fisher, C. D., & Southey, G. N. (1999). Evalu- Kolb, D. A. (2014). Becoming an experiential manage- ating organizational behavior teaching innovations: ment educator. Keynote address to the Management More rigorous designs, more relevant criteria, and an Education & Development Division, Academy of example. (5), Management, Philadelphia, PA. Journal of Management Education, 23 509-536. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transforma- learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in tional teaching: Theoretical underpinnings, basic higher education. Academy of Management Learning principles, and core methods. Educational Psychology & Education, 4(2), 193–212. Review, 24(4), 569-608. Lewin, K. (1951). New York, Field theory in social science. Smith, J. W., & Stitts, D. K. (2013). Using action learn- NY: Harper. ing and critical thinking tools to make changes in Malik, S., & Janjua, F. (2011). Active learning: An effec- higher education. Contemporary Issues in Education tive pedagogic approach. International Journal of Aca- Research, 6(1), 73-84. , (2), 963-967. demic Research 3 Soffe, S. M., & Hale, E. (2013). Expanding on a new Mesny, A. (2013). Taking stock of the century-long uti- model of action learning: Finding ethical solutions lization of the case method in management educa- to complex problems with a framework for insightful tion. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, questioning. International Journal of Human Resources 30(1), 56–66. Development and Management, 13(1), 76-90. Mitchell, L. D., Parlamis, J. D., & Claiborne, S. A. (2015). Sroufe, R., & Ramos, D. P. (2015). Leveraging collabora- Overcoming faculty avoidance of online education: tive, thematic problem-based learning to integrate cur- From resistance to support to active participation. ricula. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Educa- Journal of Management Education, 39(3), 350-371. tion, 13(2), 151-176. Pacansky-Brock, M. (2016). Humanizing online learning. Teare, R. (2013). Building a case for evidence-based learn- Keynote address at the OPID Teaching Conference, ing. In O. Zuber-Skerritt & R. Teare (Eds.), Lifelong April 14, Green Lake, WI. action learning for community development: Learning (pp. 67-97). Rother- Petrović, J., & Pale, P. (2015). Students’ perception of live and development for a better world dam, NE: Sense Publishers. lectures’ inherent disadvantages. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 143-157. Ungaretti, T., Thompson, K. R., Miller, A., & Peterson, T. O. (2015). Problem-based learning: Lessons from med- Rachman-Moore, D., & Kenett, R. S. (2006). The use of ical education and challenges for management educa- simulation to improve the effectiveness of training in tion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, performance management. Journal of Management 14(2), 173-186. Education, 30(3), 455-476. Waddock, S., & Lozano, J. M. (2013). Developing more Rendtorff, J. D. (2015). Case studies, ethics, philosophy, holistic management education: Lessons learned from and liberal learning for the management profession. two programs. Academy of Management Learning & Journal of Management Education, 39(1), 36-55. Education, 12(2), 265-284. Revans, R. W. (1982). What is action learning? Journal of Management Development, 1(3), 64-75.

14 Spring 2018 (Volume 14 Issue 1) Building a Case for Active Learning:The Use of Lecture Versus Other Classroom Activities at LMB

Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. (2013). Combining criti- Yeo, R. K., & Marquardt, M. J. (2015). (Re) Interpreting cal reflection and design thinking to develop integra- action, learning, and experience: Integrating action tive learners. Journal of Management Education, 37(6), learning and experiential learning for HRD. Human 771-802. Resource Development Quarterly, 26(1), 81-107. Wieman, C. (2014). Stop lecturing me. Scientific Ameri- Young, M., Douang, A., Vinz, T., Yencheske, C., & Flash, can, 311(2), 70-71. B. (2014). Leadership styles and characteristics of professors. Unpublished study from undergraduate leader- Williams, J., & McClure, M. (2010). The effects of teach- ship class. ing methods in leadership knowledge retention: An experimental design in lecture, experiential, and public pedagogy. Journal of Leadership Education, 9(2), 86- 100.

Journal of Learning in Higher Education 15