


































UAFS Advances in Business Research 2012 LOWREZ (2).pdf


Riedy, Yu, and Zhou                                                                                                                                                     Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 141-146 

141 

 

Effect of Teaching Method on Students’ Perceptions of Instructor Attributes  
 

Marian Riedy, Emporia State University 

Jun Yu, Emporia State University 

Joyce Zhou, Emporia State University 
 

 

A long-standing and substantial body of research indicates that an active and/or cooperative teaching method may 

be more effective in terms of instructional outcomes than a traditional lecture approach. A separate body of 

research demonstrates that effective instructors have similar personality traits and professional attributes, at least 

insofar as students perceive those traits and attributes. This article describes a study that merges these two areas of 

inquiry to explore whether the use of different teaching methods by one instructor affects student perceptions of that 

instructor’s traits and attributes.    
 

 

No college instructor today could be unfamiliar with the term “active learning,” or a related pedagogical concept 

such as “cooperative” or team-based learning. The literature is rife with reports of the effectiveness of active 

learning. Professional development courses and seminars emphasize the need to include meaningful, engaging, and 

realistic or “active” exercises in course work.   

Yet by most reports the majority of college instructors still use primarily a lecture-based approach to teaching 

face-to-face classes (Paulson & Faust, 2008). Notwithstanding the research suggesting an alternative approach, this 

reluctance to jettisoning the traditional lecture may be justified: lecture may just be more effective for some subjects, 

students, or instructors. Lecture may be most effective for instructors who lecture well, and active learning or 

cooperative learning best for those who are or become adept with that method (Covill, 2011), and there may be other 

good reasons for relying largely on lecture.   

Given this uncertainty, instructors seeking to enhance their teaching effectiveness face a quandary. One obvious 

solution is to include at least some active and cooperative learning exercises within a lecture-based class (Paulson & 

Faust, 2008). But this begs the fundamental question of what method should take priority. The answer may be found 

by reference to a different measure of teaching effectiveness: instructor traits and attributes, as perceived by 

students. Almost everyone cherishes the memory of a favorite teacher. That memory probably rests more on who 

that teacher was than how he or she taught. This common phenomenon is corroborated by research summarized in 

Part II below demonstrating that students rate instructor effectiveness, in part, based on who that instructor is: a 

combination of personality traits and attributes, such as enthusiasm and fairness, and acquired skills, such as 

knowledge of the subject matter and professional experience. If students’ perceptions of the instructor’s traits and 

attributes are affected - positively or negatively - by that instructor’s choice of teaching method, that result should 

assist the instructor in choosing the more effective method.   

For the purpose of assessing the potential impact of instructor choice of teaching method on students’ 

perceptions of the instructor, we compared students’ perceptions of the instructor of two sections of the same 

semester-long course, one section taught primarily with lecture and the other with an active, cooperative method. In 

the next section, we provide a review of the relevant literature, followed by an introduction of the research method.  

We then present the results of data analysis and conclude with a discussion of the results and their implications.  
 

Literature Review and Hypotheses 
 

 Active learning may be defined as anything that students do in a classroom other than merely passively listening 

to an instructor's lecture (Paulson & Faust, 2008). Cooperative learning is commonly defined as the use of student 

groups working together to maximize each other’s learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991). Defined as such, 

active and cooperative learning are conceptually distinct: students could be engaged individually in active learning 

activities in the classroom and cooperative learning exercises outside the classroom, for example. The actual and 

perceived efficacy of these two teaching methods could also differ for many reasons, including, for example, the 

potential detrimental effect on cooperative learning outcomes resulting from the creation of a “dysfunctional” group 

(Michaelsen & Black, 1994). But for purposes of this article, cooperative learning will be considered a subset of 

active learning (Paulson & Faust, 2008), because the main objective of the reported study is to compare students’ 

perceptions of a lecture-based teaching method to an active and cooperative method. 

 Although the research is not entirely consistent (Lancaster & Strand, 2001; Struyven, Dochy, & Janssens, 2008), 

the weight of authority holds that active learning produces better outcomes than lecture (New Horizons, 2005) in 



Riedy, Yu, and Zhou                                                                                                                                                     Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 141-146 

142 

 

terms of, inter alia, measured achievement (Williams, 2007) and retention (Berry, 2008). It is not so clear whether 

students’ perceptions of teaching effectiveness are consistent with actual outcomes. Instead, the research is mixed 

(Machemer & Crawford, 2007).    

Marbach-Ad, Seal, and Sokolove (2001); Caldwell, Weishar, and Glezen (1996); and Johnson et al. (1991), 

among others, report greater student satisfaction with instruction that includes at least some aspects of an active 

learning approach. Other studies indicate that students rate the lecture method more highly because they believe they 

learn a great deal from and will retain the material presented in lectures (Covill, 2011), perceive it to be more 

organized and a better preparation for tests (McKeachie, 1997), or because they expect to be taught, not to teach 

themselves (Felder & Brent, 1996). Explanations for students’ preference for the lecture method in the face of 

substantial evidence indicating that an active method of learning achieves better outcomes include habit - students 

are simply more familiar with the lecture method - and the possibility that students’ perceptions of the benefits of the 

lecture method simply do not correspond with reality (Covill, 2011). Students may in fact have no preference for 

teaching method, per se: in a study comparing active and passive teaching methodologies, Drafke, Schoenbachler, 

and Gordon (1996) found no difference in knowledge or attitudes between students in two sections of the same 

class, one taught with the traditional lecture method and the other active teaching methodologies. The authors 

suggested that other factors besides teaching method may be more important in influencing student learning and 

interest.   

 To some extent, of course, the variations in reported student perceptions of teaching method may actually spring 

from the variations among instructors. Student perceptions of an effective instructor appear to be fairly consistently 

correlated with specific personal and professional traits and attributes of the instructor. As reported by Faranda and 

Clarke (2004), Tootoonchi, Lyons, and Hagen (2002), and Centra (1977), communication skills (clarity and 

speaking ability) and knowledge of the subject matter rank highest. Also commonly included in the attributes 

correlated with perceived high effectiveness are preparation for class (Tang, 1997), fairness (Centra, 1977; 

Simendinger, Galperin, LeClair & Malliaris, 2009), enthusiasm for the subject matter (Centra, 1977), 

encouragement of student thought (Centra, 1977), and currency with the subject matter (Simendinger et al., 2009).   

The relative significance ascribed to these traits and attributes may vary depending on the students’ culture (Alshare 

& Miller, 2009), and gender (or other) stereotypes may play an independent role in student evaluations (Whitworth, 

Price, & Randall, 2002). Nonetheless, certain instructor traits are consistently reported as positively affecting 

students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness.   

Fewer studies focus on the effect of teaching method on students’ perception of effective instructor traits and 

attributes. Alshare and Miller (2009) reported that the significance of some instructor traits and attributes depended 

on whether the class was taught on-line or face to face. Lancaster and Strand (2001) compared students’ perceptions 

of one instructor’s traits and attributes teaching multiple sections of one class, two lecture-based and two using a 

cooperative learning method. All sections were taught face-to-face. In their study Lancaster and Strand (2001) found 

no statistically significant differences, although they note that the results may have been affected by the facts that the 

classes shared pedagogical features (e.g., team performance) and the six survey questions used to rank traits and 

attributes did not specifically address the potential benefits of a cooperative learning environment, instead focusing 

on a lecture method 

It seems plausible that students have different perception of instructors based solely on whether the class is 

conducted with a lecture or active learning method. Students may perceive the instructor to be more organized or 

structured with the lecture method. Because active learning involves interaction with the instructor in a less formal 

manner, students may rate the instructor to more highly on interactive traits. In addition, there should be no 

difference in the perception of instructor attributes that simply cannot vary according to the method of instruction.   

 Based on the above-referenced literature, the following hypotheses were proposed: 
 

Hypothesis 1: Regardless of the teaching method, students’ perceptions of instructor attributes that are 

objectively invariable (e.g., relevant work experience) will be the same. 
 

Hypothesis 2: Students’ perceptions of instructor attributes related to student/instructor interaction (e.g., 

“Friendliness,”  “Open to questions,”) will rank higher when a cooperative learning method of instruction is 

used. 
 

Hypothesis 3: Students’ perceptions of teacher attributes related to class structure (e.g., “Organization” and 

“Clarity”) will rank higher when a lecture-based method of instruction is used. 
 

 

 



Riedy, Yu, and Zhou                                                                                                                                                     Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 141-146 

143 

 

Research Methodology 
 

 The research is based on a one-semester business law course taught by one of the coauthors. The students are 

upper-level (juniors or seniors). The course is a requirement for all business majors, and with a few exceptions all 

the students in the class were business majors. The course was taught to two sections. Both sections used the same 

textbook.   

 The instructor used a lecture-based method for the control section. Each class period was comprised of at least 

50% lecture; approximately one-quarter of the class periods were comprised entirely of lecture. The instructor 

regularly posed hypothetical questions to the class, and encouraged questions and comments from students. But 

student participation during the lectures was limited. All students were also required to make two presentations 

during the semester describing a legal topic in the news, followed by questions and comments from the instructor 

and the class. Aside from the presenter, student participation in these exercises was limited. Additional assignments 

for this section included two team projects:  (a) writing and presenting a paper on business ethics and (b) negotiating 

a business contract. Scores for the team assignments comprised 36% of the total grade. The students took four 

examinations during the semester. Each student took the examinations individually; use of the textbook and notes 

was allowed during the exam. Examination results comprised 57% of the total grade for the class, and the remainder 

from presentations on legal topics in the news. 

 The treatment section was taught using a cooperative learning method. The course was constructed to include 

aspects of each of the “five pillars” of effective cooperative learning as defined by Johnson et al. (1991): positive 

interdependence, individual accountability, interpersonal skills, face-to-face promotive interaction, and processing 

out. The students were randomly assigned to six teams (three or four per team) on the first day of class. Each team 

was responsible for presenting the material from the textbook and leading the class discussion for three chapters of 

the textbook. The instructor sat in the classroom, with the students, and asked questions of the presenters and the 

students in the audience, and made comments, as necessary, to ensure that the material was presented accurately and 

thoroughly. The quantity of instructor intervention varied, depending on the skills and preparedness of the team, and 

the relative difficulty of the material presented. Presentations were scored, as a team, by the instructor (90%) and by 

the class (10%). After the first round of presentations, the class voted on whether (1) to change the teams and (2) 

alter the requirements of the presentations. The vote was solidly against changing the teams, and for imposing 

additional requirements (team to present in the front of the classroom, use some graphical aid, and pose three 

“thinking” questions for the class). 

 Each student in the treatment section was individually responsible for writing five case analyses, using the 

standard “IRAC” (issue, rules, analysis, and conclusion) formula. On the date each paper was due, the teams would 

meet during the class period to discuss their separate analysis and conclusion. Each team then voted on the “right” 

outcome (as determined by the court’s decision in the actual case). If a team voted correctly - regardless of the 

outcome on each individual paper - it received 10 additional points. Following the vote, the class as a group 

discussed the legal principles presented by the case and the rationale for the court’s decision. 

 The treatment class took six quizzes, which they were allowed to answer together, as a team. They were not 

allowed to use the textbook or notes during the quizzes. The quizzes contained the same questions as the 

examinations given the control section. However, the order of the questions differed, because the material in the 

textbook was presented in a slightly different order in the two sections. 

 The final assignment for the treatment section was a “moot court” competition, in which each team drafted a 

brief and presented an oral argument on behalf of its “client.” The briefs were scored by the instructor. The class, 

sitting as the “jury,” voted for the plaintiff/defendant, and the successful team advocate received an additional 20 

points. 

 Team scores for the treatment section comprised 69% of the total grade, with the remainder from the case 

analyses. 

 Although the examination/quiz scores for the two sections could not reliably be compared because of the 

differing procedures employed for taking the tests, the difference between the students’ total scores for the two 

sections was not statistically significant. 

Data used for the purpose of this study research is based on students’ responses to a questionnaire at the end of 

the semester. Twenty-one students from the control group responded to the survey and eighteen students from the 

treatment section. Students completed the questionnaire anonymously.    

The questions are related to students’ perceptions of the instructor on a number of attributes that are often 

discussed in the literature (Simendinger et al., 2009; Jackson, Teal, Raines, Nanssel, Force, & Burdsel, 1999). One 

set of questions asks students to rate instructor attributes on which perceptions should not differ between the two 

sections, including knowledge of subject matter, fairness to students, personality, relevant work experience, 



Riedy, Yu, and Zhou                                                                                                                                                     Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 141-146 

144 

 

professional appearance, and course preparation. Another set of questions concerns attributes on which the treatment 

class should rate the instructor higher, including communication skills, willingness to assist outside of class, sense of 

humor, ability to motivate, enthusiasm, friendliness, challenging students to think, open to questions, and making it 

comfortable to participate. The third set asks for ratings on class organization and clarity, on which instructor 

attributes students in the control class are expected to rate the instructor higher. 
 

Findings 
 

 The results of the data analysis are shown in Table 1. We selected .10 rather than .05 as the test significance 

level (Lavovitz, 1968). 
 

Table 1: Means and test results 
 

Variable Lecture method Active-learning method Two-group t test 

Attributes not expected to vary 

Knowledge 4.95 4.89 Not sig. 

Fairness 4.48 4.56 Not sig. 

Personality 4.57 4.50 Not sig. 

Relevant work experience 4.71 4.78 Not sig. 

Professional appearance 4.46 4.78 Not sig. 

Class preparation 4.33 4.56 Not sig. 

Attributes expected to be rated higher by active learning class 

Communication skills 4.43 4.56 Not sig. 

Willingness to assist 4.38 4.50 Not sig. 

Sense of humor 4.10 4.28 Not sig. 

Ability to motivate 4.24 4.22 Not sig. 

Enthusiasm 4.62 4.78 Not sig. 

Friendliness 4.71 4.83 Not sig. 

Challenging students to think 4.43 4.83 p <0.03 

Open to questions 4.67 4.89 p<0.09 

Making it comfortable to participate 4.67 4.67 Not sig. 

Attributes expected to be rated higher by lecture class 

Class organization 4.24 4.78 p<0.02 

Clarity 4.05 4.50 p<0.07 

 

 The first hypothesis - students in the control and treatment sections will rate instructor attributes that are 

objectively invariable statistically the same - is supported. No statistically different results were found for the control 

and treatment sections. The second hypothesis - students in the treatment section will rate instructor attributes 

related to student/instructor interaction higher than the control section - is only partially supported. Except for the 

attribute of “open to questions,” no statistically significant differences were found between the two sections.   

We did found significant differences in students’ perceptions of the instructor regarding class organization and 

clarity. However, the findings are opposite to what was suggested in the third hypothesis - students in the treatment 

section would rate instructor attributes related to class management lower than the control section. On the contrary:  

students in the active learning section rated the instructor higher on these attributes, as indicated in Table 1.   
 

Discussion 
 

The simplest explanation for the unexpected results of this study is that the hypotheses were poorly reasoned.  

For example, the second hypothesis may have been based on an erroneous presumption regarding the desire for 

instructor/student interaction on the part of the students. It may well be that students simply have no preference for a 

particular degree or type of interaction with the instructor. That is, so long as the instructor is perceived as “fair” and 

“knowledgeable,” whether or not the instructor interacts in a meaningful way with the student is simply not that 

important. Another explanation is that the instructor traits and attributes intended to measure the relative potential 

benefits of the cooperative and the lecture-based method did not accomplish that objective.    

 But to the extent the results are sound, they may serve as good guidance to instructors seeking to improve their 

perceived teaching effectiveness. Most importantly, for all the significant findings, the section taught using the 

cooperative method scored the instructor more highly. That the students in the cooperative learning section found 

the instructor to be more challenging could be due as much to the nature of the assignments as the nature of the 

teaching method, and some of those same assignments were used in the lecture-based section. But the higher ranking 

for “open to questions” surely follows from the more open and informal style of the cooperative learning 



Riedy, Yu, and Zhou                                                                                                                                                     Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 141-146 

145 

 

environment. The high ranking for “organization” and “clarity” from the treatment section suggests that when 

students are required to participate actively in their own learning, they actually learn the material better, and 

therefore perceive the instructor as providing the clarity and organization that they have actually achieved on their 

own. Given past research that indicates that active-learning is often more effective (Berry, 2008; Williams, 2007; 

New Horizons, 2005), this explanation certainly has merits.  

 It is also conceivable that, given the substantial evidence that students typically prefer to have some active 

learning activities in a given course (New Horizons, 2005; Marbach-Ad et al., 2001; Caldwell et al., 1996; Johnson 

et al,1991), there might be some halo effect as a result of that attitude. That is, students might have a more positive 

perception of certain instructor characteristics just because the instructor adopted a teaching method that is active-

learning oriented, which is the method they prefer. Future research can help explore why this is the case for some 

instructor characteristics but not for others. 

 The findings of this preliminary study by no means settle the debate about the relative advantages of lecture-

based teaching versus active-learning-based teaching. However, because the four instructor characteristics as to 

which there was a statistically different rating by the two sections were all rated higher by the treatment section, 

from the perspectives of the students active learning is likely preferred. Of course, more research will be needed to 

address issues raised in this study, and it is certainly not advisable to abandon the lecture-based method because, as 

discussed above, it may be the more effective and the preference of the students, depending on the particular 

situation. 
 

REFERENCES 
 

Alshare, K., & Miller, D. 2009. Student perceptions of the importance of instructor traits: A cross-cultural study.  

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(2), 107-134. 
 

Berry, W.  2008. Surviving lecture: A pedagogical alternative. College Teaching, 56(3), 149-153. 
 

Caldwell, M., Weishar, J., & Glezen, G. 1996. The effect of cooperative learning on student perceptions of 

accounting in the principles course. Journal of Accounting Education, 14(1), 17-36. 
 

Centra, J. 1977. Determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass Inc. 
 

Covill, A. 2011. College students’ perceptions of the traditional lecture method. College Student Journal, 45(1), 

92-101. 
 

Drafke, M., Schoenbachler, D., & Gordon, G. 1996 Active and passive teaching methodologies: student outcomes 

over a semester course. Marketing Education Review, 6(1), 9-17. 
 

Faranda, W., & Clarke, I. 2004. Student observations of outstanding teaching: Implications for marketing educators.  

Journal of Marketing Education, 26(3), 271-281. 
 

Felder, R., & Brent, R. 1996. Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 

43-47. 
 

Jackson, D., Teal, C., Raines, S., Nanssel, T., Force, R., & Burdsal, C. 1999. The dimensions of students’ 

perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(4), 580-596. 
 

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. 1991. Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN:  

Interaction. 
 

Labovitz, S. 1968. Criteria for selecting a significance level: A note on the sacredness of .05. American Sociologist, 

3(3), 220-222. 
 

Lancaster, K., & Strand, C. 2001. Using the team-learning model in a managerial accounting class: An experiment 

in cooperative learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 16(4), 449-567. 
 

Machemer, P., & Crawford, P. 2007. Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. 

Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 9-30. 
 



Riedy, Yu, and Zhou                                                                                                                                                     Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                           2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 141-146 

146 

 

Marbach-Ad, G., Seal, O., & Sokolove, P. 2001. Student attitudes and recommendations on active learning. Journal 

of College Science Teaching, 30(7), 434-438. 
 

McKeachie, W. 1997. Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1218-1225. 
 

Michaelsen, L., & Black, R. 1994. Building learning teams: The key to harnessing the power of small groups in 

higher education. Norman, OK: Growth Partners. 
 

New Horizons for Learning. 2005. Cooperative learning. Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http://education.jhu.edu/ 

newhorizons/strategies/topics/Cooperative%20Learning/index.html. 
 

Paulson, D., & Faust, J. 2008. Active learning for the college classroom. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from http:// 

www.calstatela.edu/dept/chem/chem2/Active/main.htm 
 

Simendinger, E., Galperin, B., LeClair, D., & Malliaris, A. 2009. Attributes of effective business teachers.  

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(3), 107-130. 
 

Struyven, K., Duchy, F., & Janssens, S. 2008. Students’ likes and dislikes regarding student-activating and lecture-

based educational settings: Consequences for students’ perceptions of the learning environment, student learning 

and performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(3), 295-317. 
 

Tang, T. 1997. Teaching effectiveness at a public institution of higher education: Factors related to the overall 

teaching effectiveness. Public Personnel Management, 26(3), 379-387. 
 

Tootoonchi, A., Lyons, P., & Hagen, A. 2002. MBA students’ perceptions of effective teaching methodologies and 

instructor characteristics. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 12(1), 79-93. 
 

Whitworth, J., Price, B., & Randall, C. 2002. Factors that affect college of business student opinion of teaching and 

learning. Journal of Education for Business, 77(5), 282-289. 
 

Williams, R. 2007. Cooperative Learning: A Standard for High Achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA:  Corwin 

Press. 
 

 

Marian Riedy, Esq., has practiced as a litigator since graduating from Harvard Law School in 1981. She earned an 

MBA from Georgetown University, and teaches business law in the School of Business, Emporia State University. 
 

Jun Yu is an associate professor of marketing at Emporia State University. He research interests include consumer 

behavior, marketing strategy, e-commerce, and entrepreneurship. He has published in Journal of Business Research, 

Journal of Consumer Marketing, International Journal of Management Theory and Practice, and others. 
 

Joyce Zhou is an assistant professor of marketing at Emporia State University. She received her Ph.D. in marketing 

from Saint Louis University. Her research interests include consumer behavior, advertising, and international 

marketing. She has published in Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Business Research, International Journal 

of Management Theory and Practice, and others. 


