RELATING TEACHING METHODS WITH EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES IN THE BUSINESS CURRICULUM Insights into Experiential Pedagogy, Volume 6, 1979 196 RELATING TEACHING METHODS WITH EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES IN THE BUSINESS CURRICULUM James W. Gentry, Oklahoma State University Kenneth C. McCain, Boise State University Alvin C. Burns, Louisiana State University ABSTRACT Educational research has made a strong case for the setting of educational objectives, and Bloom and his colleagues [2;3;4] have developed and tested a taxonomy of learning levels. This paper suggests that explicit consideration of the desired learning objectives for a particular course should be made before choosing the instructional methods to be used in the course. INTRODUCTION Descriptions of curricula are set upon such different bases as descriptions of teacher behavior, descriptions of Instructional methods, and descriptions of Intended behavior [3]. Much research done by ABSEL participants has been concerned with the effectiveness of different teaching methods [5; 6; 8; 9; 13; 15; 17; 26]. For example, in one of the more comprehensive studies, Catalanello and Brenenstuhl [5] found no significant differences in cognitive learning or problem solving skill development when the simulation, experimental and discussion modes of teaching were compared. However, they did find greater perceived learning and more satisfaction occurred when simulations were used. On the other hand, Bloom et al. [3] developed their classification based upon the intended behavior of students. Their taxonomy of educational objectives is given below: Level 1: Knowledge. The student can give evidence that he remembers either by recalling or recognizing, some idea or phenomenon with which he has had experience in the educational process. This level encompasses the knowledge of specifics (terminology and specific facts) , of and means of dealing with specifics (conventions, trends and sequences, classifications and categories, criteria, and methodology), and of the universals and abstractions In a field (principles and generalizations, and theories and structures). Level 2: Comprehension. A type of understanding or apprehension such that the individual knows what is being communicated and can make use of the material or idea being communicated without necessarily relating it to other material or seeing its fullest implications. This level encompasses translation (the paraphrasing of communication from one form to another), interpretation (explaining or summarizing a communication), and extrapolation (extending trends beyond the given data to determine implications that are in accordance with the conditions described in the original communication). Level 3: Application. The use of abstractions in particular and concrete situations. Level 4: Analysis. The breakdown of a communication into its constituent elements or parts such that the relative hierarchy of ideas is made clear and/or the relations between the ideas expressed are made explicit. Level 5: Synthesis. The putting together of elements and parts so as to form a whole. The end product may be a unique communication, a plan, or a set of abstract relations. Level 6: Evaluation. Judgments about the value of material and methods for given purposes. The judgments may be in terms of the communication’s internal logic or consistency, or they may be in terms of external standards. The term taxonomy Infers that the different levels of learning can be classified and that there is a hierarchical structure among them. Several studies have supported the hierarchy presented above [1; 10; 12; 16; 18; 19; 20]. However, some studies have questioned either the classification scheme or the hierarchical structure. Klein [11] questioned the need for the “application” level. Madaus, Woods, and Nuttall [14] found little relationship between the last two levels and the preceding four. Stedman [21] could not find significant differences in the first four levels. Waugh [24] concluded that the taxonomy is not hierarchical. Even given the existence of a valid taxonomy, it is difficult to classify courses as emphasizing solely one level. While an introductory course In one of the business functions may concentrate on the knowledge level, it may also have comprehension, application and even analysis as learning objectives. On the other hand, a doctoral seminar may concentrate on the synthesis and evaluation levels, but still involve the first four levels as well. We do hypothesize that the teaching objectives will move toward the last level as we move from introductory courses to second courses in a functional area to the area undergraduate capstone courses to the masters-level courses to the doctoral courses. However, we also expect that there will not be a one-to-one correspondence due to multiple objectives for each course. Bloom, Hastings, and Madaus [4] point out that we now have a wealth of instructional materials available to us, especially when compared to what was available 50 or even 25 years ago. They mention the use of readings, workbooks, programmed materials, games, films, problem materials, and drill materials. They indicate that the use of these materials should depend upon the special needs of the students, suggesting that purely descriptive materials are likely to be most useful for the objectives of “knowledge” and “comprehension’ and that problem materials are likely to be most useful for “application and “analysis.” We agree that certain teaching methods in the business curriculum are more conducive for different levels of learning. The traditional lecture/test approach may well be the most efficient approach for courses emphasizing the knowledge level, while cases may be more efficient for courses emphasizing application and analysis. Similarly simulations and experiential exercises Insights into Experiential Pedagogy, Volume 6, 1979 197 may be more fitting for courses that do not emphasize the knowledge level. The extended live case approach may fit best with the synthesis level. The discussion in the previous paragraph is, admittedly, very superficial in that we discuss a methodology such as simulation without acknowledging that simulations can vary from very simple tasks such as those in Frazer [7] to complex games such as INTOP [22]. For instance, Walker [23] discussed a teaching approach in which three simulations, increasing in complexity from the first to the third, are used in a three-sequence Cost accounting curriculum. Still, different teaching approaches such as the case method, simulation games, and experiential exercises have less intra-type variation than inter-type variation. The original intent of our study then was to attempt to relate various teaching methodologies with educational objectives for different level courses. While our desired end product was to be normative theory, our initial step was to be descriptive. We intended to survey faculty teaching courses in the basic business functions at three different universities as to: 1. the educational objectives for the courses they teach, using a constant sum allocation procedure for the six different levels, 2. the teaching methods (or combinations of teaching methods) that they currently use in their courses, 3. the teaching methods (or combinations of teaching methods) that they would use under ideal teaching conditions (small classes, light course load, reward system based on amount of increase in cognitive learning on the part of the students), and 4. their situational constraints as to the use of different teaching methods (class size, student assistance in grading, graduate assistants, course load, level of training, number of years of college teaching experience, reward system, etc.). We expected to find a strong relationship between the educational objective and the course level. We also expected to find variation in teaching methods according both to the course level and to the level of educational objectives. On the other hand, we hypothesized that we would find frequent occurrences of teachers being one-or-two method persons, regardless of course level or level of educational objective. At one extreme, we expected to find the traditional lecture/test format used almost exclusively by some faculty. Similarly, we expected to find that some faculty into simulation gaming would be using that method in all of their courses. Our research proceeded to the questionnaire pretest stage. The questionnaire defined the levels of learning (as they appear earlier in this paper) and then asked questions pertaining to the four points mentioned above. The specific teaching methods included were lecture, group discussion, case method, programmed learning, simulation gaining, experiential exercises, short projects, and term projects. Respondents to the pretest had some difficulty with the constant sum scales for the first three types of questions. However, we thought that these problems could have been overcome by adding additional instructions and by doing more pretesting. A more serious problem was that our respondents experienced a great deal of difficulty in distinguishing the various learning levels from one another. We did not find that this problem was removed when we attempted to redefine the constructs. Another alternative that was considered was to provide examples for the different levels of learning. This approach was not used because (1) it might Introduce a source of bias and (2) we could not agree as to how to categorize several possible examples. Thus, we chose not to conduct the survey research because of the questionable validity of our concepts. Again, these problems are not new, as the taxonomy has been questioned before [11; 14; 21; 24]. Further, Bloom himself [4, p. [17] has admitted that certain concepts were not included in the taxonomy originally and that they should be included. One such category is that of developing skills in using processes and procedures, which Is somewhat related to the knowledge level but has ties with some of the other levels as well. Looking at the experimental studies in the field of education did not provide clarity for us, as we had envisioned the levels of synthesis and evaluation being emphasized in doctoral seminars; several education studies discussed these levels in the context of grade school classes. Our original intent was to make a normative statement about the suitability of different teaching methods in different courses, using the learning levels as the intervening variable. Given the problems in communicating the constructs, we did not obtain any data upon which to base such a statement. We do think that the value of a method Is dependent upon the level of learning desired for a particular course. For example, if the perceived learning objective in an introductory marketing course is basically one of factual knowledge, then it may not make sense to use a simulation game in that course. Our revised purpose for this paper is to encourage faculty to consider systematically the learning objectives for his/her course as well as his/her own predisposition for certain teaching methods. Bloom, Hastings, and Madaus [4] discuss the need to set objectives in terms of (1) what is possible and (2) what is desired. Clearly the course objectives need to be within the students’ reach. As for what is desired, they point out that, while we cannot know a person's life pattern in advance, the objectives should be selected so that the student has the maximum flexibility in making a great variety of possible life decisions. The faculty member should be encouraged to set the objectives as high as possible, as research has indicated that the level at which the teacher interacts with the students will be reflected by the level at which the students respond to him/her [2;16;25]. Once the learning objectives have been determined, we encourage the faculty member to consider the suitability of various teaching methods to the learning objectives. On one hand, it may be a questionable practice to use the traditional lecture/test format for all levels as is done by some of our colleagues. On the other hand, it also may be a questionable practice to use games and experiential exercises at all levels as may be done by some of us. REFERENCES [1] Ayers, J. D., “Justification of Bloom’s Taxonomy by Factor Analysis,’ Proceedings, American Education Reading Association, Chicago, 1966. Insights into Experiential Pedagogy, Volume 6, 1979 198 [2] Bloom, Benjamin S., ‘Testing Cognitive Ability and Achievement,’ in N. L. Gage (editor), Handbook of Research on Teaching (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963). [3] Bloom, Benjamin S., Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walker H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1956). [4] Bloom, Benjamin S., J. Thomas Hastings, and George F. Madaus, Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971). [5] Catalanello, Ralph F. and Daniel C. Brenenstuhl, “An Assessment of the Effect of Experiential, Simulation, and Discussion Pedagologies Used in Laboratory Sections of an Introductory Management Course,” Proceedings, Fourth ABSEL Conference, Wichita, 1977, pp. 51-58. [6] Certo, Samuel C., ‘Experiential Training Methodology, Traditional Training Methodology and Perceived Opportunity to Satisfy Human Needs," Proceedings, Second ABSEL Conference, Bloomington, 1975, pp. 31-37. [7] Frazer, J. Ronald, Business Decision Simulation (Reston: Reston Publishing Company, 1975). [8] Fritzche, David J .,”The Lecture Versus the Game,” Proceedings, First ABSEL Conference, Oklahoma City, 1974, pp. 41-46. [9] Hoover, J. Duane and Canton J. Whitehead, “An Experiential- Cognitive Methodology in the First Course in Management: Some Preliminary Results,’ Proceedings, Second ABSEL Conference, Bloomington, 1975, pp. 25-30. [10] Hunkins, F. P., “The Influence of Analysis and Evaluation Questions on Achievement in Sixth Grade Social Studies,” Educational Leadership, Vol. 25, January 1968, pp. 326-332. [11] Klein, M. F .,‘Use of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Cognitive Domain) in Constructing Tests for Primary School Pupils, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 40, February 1972, pp. 38-50. [12] Kropp, R. P., H. W. Stoker, and W. L. Bashaw, ‘The Validation of the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,” Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 34, Spring 1966, pp. 69-76. [13] Laughlin, Eugene, James W. Gentry, and Carolyn May, Comparison of Alternative Forms of Teaching Fundamentals of Accounting,” The Accounting Review, Vol. 51, April 1976, pp. 347-351. [14] Madaus, George F., E. M. Woods, and R. L. Nuttall, “A Causal Model Analysis of Bloom’s Taxonomy, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 10, Fall 1973, pp. 253- 262. [15] Mancuso, Louis C .,‘A Comparison of Lecture-Case Study and Lecture-Computer Simulation Teaching Methodologies in Teaching Minority Students Basic Marketing, Proceedings, Second ABSEL Conference, Bloomington, 1975, pp. 339- 346. [16] Roberts, Nancy, Further Verification of Bloom’s Taxonomy,” Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 45, February 1976, pp. 16-19. [17] Scott, Richard A., “An Experimental Testing of Teaching Methodologies in Marketing,” Proceedings, Fourth ABSEL Conference, Wichita, 1977, pp. 67-71. [18] Scriven, M., “The Methodology of Evaluation,” Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation, American Education Research Association Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1, Chicago, 1967. [19] Smith, I. L., I.Q., Creativity, and the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain,’ Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 38, Summer 1970, pp. 58-60. [20] Stanley, J. C. and D. L. Bolton, “A Review of Bloom’s ‘Taxonomy of Educational Objectives’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 17, 1957, pp. 631-634. [21] Stedman, C. H., ‘An Analysis of the Assumptions Underlying the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 10, 1973, pp. 235-241. [221 Thorelli, Hans B., Robert L. Graves, and Lloyd T. Howells, INTOP (New York: The Free Press, 1963). [23] Walker, Clayton H., ‘The Effectiveness of Progressively Complex Accounting Simulations in Increasing Decision- Making Performance, Proceedings, Fifth ABSEL Conference, Denver, 1978, pp. 60-66. [24] Waugh, Russell, “Bloom’s Taxonomy and Mathematics Teaching, The Australian Mathematics Teacher, Vol. 31, December 1975, pp. 209-213. [25] Willson, Irwin A., “Changes in Mean Levels of Thinking in Grades 1-8 Through Use of an Interaction Analysis System Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy,” Journal of Education Research, Vol. 66, May-June 1973, pp. 423-429. [26] Wolfe, Douglas and Eugene Byrne, “A Comparison of Perceived Learning in Three Pedagogically Different Sections of a Required Business Policy Course,” Proceedings, Third ABSEL Conference, Knoxville, 1976, pp. 474-482. Table of Contents Volume 6, 1979 The Use of Cases with Role Plays in a Research Methods Course Debugging and Implementing the Live-Case Approach to Marketing Research in the Australian Environment Using a Case as the Basis for a Modified Debate Using Cases in Business Communication Classes A Structured Approach to Case Analysis and Reporting Intercollegiate Case Analysis Competition as an Experiential Learning Experience Attributes Germane to Student/Live Case Situations Understanding Dispute Resolution Through Experiential learning Personality Development and Conflict Dynamics: An Experimental Design to Study the Effects of Teaching Methodologies on Conflict Resolution Interpersonal Competence and the Digital PDP-11:40 The process of Writing a Collective Bargaining Simulation: A Case Study in Practical Pedagogy Simulating Negotiations in an Educational Context Simulations as a Technique for Teaching Collective Bargaining Experiential Processing of Differing Managerial Perspectives: The Use of a Game Show Format Individual Self Report vs. Group consensus in Small Decision-Making Groups Effects of Sex-Role Stereotypes on Promotion Decisions: An Exercise Computer Aids to Planning: The Budget and Forecasting Module Use of a Microcomputer in a Decision Analysis for Investment Portfolio Selection A Game of Investment Strategy: Description, Use, Criticism and Modification Coping with Future Uncertainties Through Probabilistic Budgeting Administration and Design of Simulation Materials for a Specialized Management Training Program Managing Stress in Organizational Life Banksim: The Bank Management Simulation Issues in the Organizational Application of Simulation and Experiential material Games Within Games: The Role of the Glitch Experiential Learning from Classroom to Business An Evaluation of the Small Business Institute Program as an Experiential learning Exercise Conversations with Top Management (Simulated) Experience in the Use and Assessment of Simulation in Management Education A Statistical Analysis of Simulation Users: Relationships between Stress and Human Subject guidelines Group Decision Making in a Computer Game Analysis of Demographic and Psychosocial Variables Comparing Performance During Three Managerial Accounting Simulation Schedules Business Policy Simulation and the Intense Course Structure The Use of Intensive Simulation in Executive Development and Academic Settings The Use of Experiential Exercises in the Undergraduate Consumer Behavior Course A Personal Marketing Strategy Approach: Framework and Application Teaching PERT Experientially in Marketing Research Discovering the Majority Fallacy An Experiential Approach to Studying International Business A Demonstration of the Business Simulation Game as a Curriculum Assessment Device Relating Teaching Methods with Educational Objectives in the Business Curriculum The Junior Achievement Applied Management Program as a Compromise Situation Between the Simulation and the Internship Who is Using Computerized Business Games?: A View from Publishers' Adoption Lists Trials and Tribulations in Testing Educational Innovations An Examination of the Perceived Effectiveness of Computer Simulation in a Classroom Setting as Affected by Game, Environmental and Respondent Characteristics Game Administration: A Life Cycle Analysis Research on the Effectiveness of Using a Computerized Simulation in the Basic Management Course Gaming and Attitudinal Change The Teacher-Student Relationship in Experiential Classes and the Student's Perception of Course Effectiveness An Exploratory Study of Student Characteristics and Educational Processes in Programmatic Experiential learning General Incongruity Adaption Level (GIAL) as a Predictor of Risk Preferences in a Simulated Management Game The Cap-Stone Opportunity: Combining Business Simulation and Experiential Learning Incorporating MIS/DSS into Policy Courses Via Simulation Who Benefits Most from Participation in Business Policy Simulations: An Empirical Study of Skill Development by Functional Areas The Use of Program NAMEX in Teaching the Accounting for Nonmonetary Assets The Use of Program CVP in Teaching Cost-Volume-Profit Analysis Experiential vs. Traditional Classroom Approach in the Basic Management Course: A Puerto Rican Experience A Guide to the Successful Use of Business Simulation Games The Dynamic Aspects of Interactive Gaming Puts the Realism into Gaming System Representation of SIMORG The Design of a Database System to Support Business Simulation and Experiential Learning A Data Entry and Retrieval System for a Computer Simulation (DERS) Simulation - An Advantage for Accounting Research Computer-Aided Project Performance Control Simulation: An Interactive Experiential Gaming Technique for Managerial Decision Making Utilization of Manual Simulation Games to Develop Scenarios of Future Events - An Exploratory Study Foundry: A Foundry Simulation Customized Debriefing: The Achilles Heel of Experiential learning? Computerized Business Simulations and Experiential Learning Exercises: An Instructional Interface The Baseball Game: A Group Role Observation, Problem Solving Experience A Practical Design for Experiential Learning Exercises: Roles, Technical Equipment and Alternative Debriefing Formats