The Impact of Learning Styles and Course Delivery Method on Learning Outcomes: A Quasi-Experiment Investigating the Case Method of Course Delivery

Submitted to:

IllinoisStateUniversity

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Small Grant Program

By:

Daniel J. Goebel

Assistant Professor of Marketing

Department of Marketing

438-7077

Michael A. Humphreys

Associate Professor of Marketing

Department of Marketing

438-3830

Erin E. Miller

Marketing Graduate Assistant

Department of Marketing

______

Dr. Timothy A. Longfellow

Associate Professor of Marketing and Department Chair

Project Clearly Fits SoTL Objectives

The project proposed herein represents the concept of scholarship on teaching and learning (SoTL) because it implements “systematic reflection on teaching and learning” with the ultimate goal being public dissemination of the results in the forms of a journal publication, conference presentations, and presentations to the campus community. As such, this research conforms to the objectives of SoTL by conducting classroom research designed to study the affects of two specific variables on course outcomes in the marketing discipline. It is intended that the results of this research will be submitted for publication in a journal that specifically focuses on education and teaching issues within the discipline (e.g., the Journal of Marketing Education) and also made public via presentations at a national academic conference and Teaching-Learning Symposia on the ISU campus. These presentation and publication opportunities are explained in more detail later in this proposal.

Teaching-Learning Issue Under Consideration

The case method is a common and accepted course design in business education. In courses that are designed around the case method, concept development and student learning occur in the context of examining cases written about existing companies confronting specific business problems. Critical thinking and in-class discussion are keys to the case method. The undergraduate marketing strategy course is an example of a course for which the case method is widely accepted as being an appropriate pedagogy for achieving desired outcomes. Yet, extant research examining the relationship between the case method and student learning outcomes as compared to other course designs (e.g., problem simulation software or client projects) is nonexistent. Furthermore, as with all courses, students taking the marketing strategy course undoubtedly have different learning styles. However, once again, extant research investigating the potential for student learning style to interact with the case method of teaching as predictors of student performance does not exist. Consequently, the specific teaching-learning issues under consideration in this research are twofold. First, our research seeks to examine the relationship between the case method of course delivery and learning outcomes in the marketing strategy course compared to the outcomes of courses that use an alternative course design. The second major issue under consideration is an investigation of the relationship between student-learning style and student performance in a course that relies on the case method of teaching as the principle means of delivering the course content. This second issue examines the potential for case method pedagogy to moderate the relationship between learning style and outcomes assessment. Thus, the research project proposed herein addresses key learning topics that have been identified as important areas of investigation for better understanding and managing educational quality, including course design, student learning styles, and student satisfaction.

Literature Review

Clearly, assessing educational quality and outcomes has become a major issue for contemporary institutions of higher education, and this research agenda has been embraced by business education. Several topics have been recognized as being significant issues for investigation in business education, including student vs. instructor course-design preferences, student learning styles, and outcomes assessment (Tarasewich and Nair 2000). For example, a Task Force on Effective and Inclusive Learning Environments (1998) sponsored by the top accrediting agency of American colleges of business, the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), published a report recognizing the need for university professors to match teaching styles with their students’ learning style differences. The AACSB task force’s report reinforces previous sentiments included in reports published by the Education Commission of the United States (1996) and the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-GrantUniversities (1996). Taken together, these various reports affirm that student learning experiences should be the central focus of higher education efforts and that to enhance those efforts instructors need to recognize the potential for students to exhibit diverse learning styles. Such recognition assumes that if students are presented with the course material in a manner that coincides with their preferred style of learning, greater learning will result and students will be more satisfied with their educational experience.

Given this somewhat recent focus on student learning styles, it is surprising that more clarity is not provided regarding precise definitions of learning style. A review of the literature on learning styles reveals differences as to whether one is referring to preferences a learner has for different pedagogies or the actual process of acquiring and processing information while engaged in a learning activity (Davis, Misra, and Van Auken 2000). The former view of learning style concerns how the content of a course is delivered and may be defined as those conditions enhancing the affective component of the educational experience motivating a student to choose, attend to, and perform well in a course (Canfield 1994; Stewart and Felicetti 1992). The latter view of learning style is defined as the student’s particular manner of acquiring knowledge, skills, and attitudes through study and/or experience (Curry 1991). The manner of acquiring knowledge displayed by students is influenced by individual differences in how people absorb information, think, and solve problems (Garger and Guild 1984; Witkin et al. 1977).

Outcome assessment research is sorely needed in the marketing discipline. Indeed, Davis, Misra, and Van Auken (2000), in a study that found statistically significant relationships between various teaching pedagogies and attitude toward the marketing major, call for more research relating teaching method preference to student performance and outcomes. The completion of such research will most likely shift the focus from affective measures of course outcome (e.g., attitude toward to the major) to what is learned (Gremler et al. 2000).

Building on this literature summary and the call for more outcome-based research, the study proposed here seeks to link both aspects of learning style to student outcomes. Comparing learning outcomes when a course emphasizes case method pedagogy versus an alternative pedagogy tests the first definition of learning style. The second view of learning style is tested by examining the relationship of a student’s preferred method of acquiring knowledge, skills, etc. with student outcomes.

Expected Changes in Student Outcomes

The goal of the proposed research is to gather evidence regarding the efficacy of one pedagogy (case methodology) for delivering course content in senior-level marketing courses as compared to other course designs. In addition, the research described in this proposal seeks to determine if a student’s particular learning style interacts with the case method of teaching to influence course outcomes. The project is based on the argument that there is a lack of research supporting the efficacy of the case method in achieving targeted course outcomes. Furthermore, there is a dearth of knowledge in the marketing discipline regarding the learning styles of its majors and if those learning styles are conducive to how courses are taught. Consequently, completion of this research and dissemination of its findings should provide better insight into the relationship between course design, student learning styles, and course outcomes in marketing education. This insight can be the basis for improving educational quality and student performance by better matching course design and student learning style in marketing courses.

Methodology

First, to examine the relationship between the case method of course delivery and course outcomes compared to an alternative course design, pre-course knowledge and attitude assessments and post-semester outcome assessments will be conducted in targeted courses within the marketing curriculum. The courses will be sections of the capstone Marketing Strategy class in which the case method course design is used and sections of other courses (e.g., Marketing Strategy, Advanced Integrated Marketing Communications, Business-to-Business Marketing Strategy) that use an alternative course design (term projects or client projects). Assessments will include measurement of critical thinking skills, student course design opinions and preferences, and specific course content knowledge. Students within the courses will be similar in terms of age, college major (marketing), and class standing (seniors), thus controlling for these variables as potential sources of effect and variance in the dependent variables of interest. T-tests on the differences between the pre- and post-assessments will be conducted to determine if the differences for the case method course design classes are statistically greater than for those classes using an alternative course design.

Second, to determine the potential for case method pedagogy to moderate the relationship between student learning style and learning outcomes, data on each student’s learning style will be collected. Such data will be matched with the student’s respective pre- and post-semester outcome scores. Subsequent to data collection, multiple regression analysis will be conducted to examine the potential effects of learning style on learning outcomes. In addition, to determine the potential for case method pedagogy to moderate the relationship between learning style and outcome, interaction terms will be added to the regression model. These interaction terms will consist of each learning style multiplied by the perceived effectiveness of the case teaching method as predictor variables to the criterion learning outcomes variables. To the extent that any of the interaction terms are significant, then the case teaching method will be found to moderate the learning style  outcome relationship (Baron and Kenney 1986). Of course, regression assumptions will be tested using scatter plots and, to control for multicollinearity, the variance inflation factor will be calculated.

A copy of the outcome assessment developed by members of the marketing faculty for the Marketing Strategy course is attached to this proposal as Appendix A. Similar outcomes assessment instruments for the other targeted courses are being developed and will be ready for use by the beginning of the Spring 2003 semester. Also included with this proposal as Appendix B are items used to determine the specific learning styles of the students (Solomon and Felder 2002).

Presentation and Publication Outlets

Potential presentation and publication outlets for this research are many. The authors’ first objective for presenting the research results is to submit a manuscript to the Winter American Marketing Association (AMA) Educators’ Conference. This conference is considered a top conference in the marketing discipline and it accepts papers devoted to improving teaching and marketing education in many competitive paper tracks. In addition, the authors will submit a manuscript to a journal that focuses on marketing education issues. Two journals that accept papers in this genre are the Journal of Marketing Education and Marketing Education Review. Both journals publish articles advancing the scholarship of teaching and learning and either one is an appropriate outlet for the article emanating from this research. Finally, the authors will submit a proposal for an ISU Teaching-Learning Symposium for an opportunity to present research findings to the university teaching-learning community.

References

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business Task Force on Effective and Inclusive Learning Environment (1998), Effective and Inclusive Learning Environments, International Association for Management Education.

Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.

Canfield, Albert A. (1994), Learning Styles Inventory Manual,Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Curry, Lynn (1991), “Patterns of Learning Style Across Selected Medical Specialties,” Educational Psychology, 11, 247-277.

Davis, Richard, Shekhar Misra, and Stuart Van Auken (2000), “Relating Pedagogical Preference of Marketing Seniors and Alumni to Attitude toward the Major,” Journal of Marketing Education, 22 (August), 147-154.

Education Commission of the United States (1996), Making Quality Count in Undergraduate Education, Report for the ECS Chairman’s Quality Counts Agenda in Higher Education, Denver, CO: Education Commission of the United States.

Garger, Stephen, and Pat Guild (1984), “Learning Styles: The Crucial Differences,” Curriculum Review, 23 (1), 9-12.

Gremler, Dwayne D., Douglas K. Hoffman, Susan M. Keaveney, and Lauren K. Wright (2000), “Experiential Learning Exercises in Services Marketing Courses,” Journal of Marketing Education, 22 (April), 35-44.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-GrantUniversities (1996), Returning to Our Roots: The Student Experience, Clemson, SC: ClemsonUniversity Press.

Soloman, Barbara A. and Richard M. Felder (2002), Index of Learning Styles,

Stewart, Karen L., and Linda A. Felicetti (1992), “Learning Styles of Marketing Majors,” Educational Research Quarterly, 15 (2), 15-23.

Tarasewich, Peter and Suresh K. Nair, 2000. “Course Design Using Instructor and Student Preferences.” Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 54 (2): 40-54.

Witkin, H. A., C. A. Moore, D. R. Goodenough, and P. W. Cox (1977), “Field-dependent and Field-independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications,” Review of Educational Research, 47 (1), 1-64.

IllinoisStateUniversity Institutional Review Board

Research with Human Subjects

Protocol Submission Form

Federal regulations and IllinoisStateUniversity policy require that all research involving humans as subjects be reviewed and approved by the University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Any person (ISU faculty member, staff member, student, or other person) wanting to engage in human subject research at or through IllinoisStateUniversity must receive written approval from the IRB before conducting research. For more information, templates, and forms please go to

Please complete and forward this form and all supporting documents to your Department/Unit IRB representative. If you have any questions, please contact your Departmental/Unit IRB representative or the Research and Sponsored Programs Office (RSP), 438-8451, Campus Box 3040

I.General Information

A. Protocol Information
Protocol Title:
The Impact of Learning Styles and Course Delivery Method on Learning Outcomes: A Quasi-
Experiment Investigating the Case Method of Course Delivery
Is this research part of a thesis or dissertation proposal? No Yes
If yes, has the thesis or dissertation proposal been approved? No Yes
B. Principal Investigator Information (PI must be an ISU faculty or staff member)
Principal
Investigator Dr. Daniel J. Goebel / Department
Department of Marketing
Telephone
Number 438-7077 / Email
Address
Fax
Number 438-5510 / Mailing
Address Campus Box 5590
Co-Principal Investigator Information
Co- Principal
Investigator Dr. Michael A. Humphreys / Department
Department of Marketing
Telephone
Number 438-3830 / Email
Address

Faculty Staff Graduate Student / Mailing
Address Campus Box 5590
Co-Principal Investigator Information
Co- Principal
Investigator Erin Miller / Department
Department of Marketing
Telephone
Number / Email
Address

Faculty Staff Graduate Student / Mailing
Address Campus Box 5590

II.Principal Investigator Assurance

As Principal Investigator I certify that:

1. The information provided for this project is correct

2. No other procedures will be used in this protocol

3. I agree to conduct this research as described in the attached supporting documents

4. I will request and receive approval from the IRB for changes prior to implementing these changes. (including but not limited to

changes in cooperating investigators, as well as any changes in procedures)

5. I will comply with the IRB and ISU policy for the conduct of ethical research.

6. I will be responsible for ensuring that the work of my co-investigator(s)/student researcher(s) complies with this protocol.

7. Any unexpected or otherwise significant adverse events in the course of this study will be promptly reported to the RSP

8. In the case of student research, I assume responsibility for ensuring that the student complies with University and Federal regulations regarding the use of human subjects in research.

9. In the case of externally funded research, I willrequest a modification to my approved protocol if any relative changes to the project’s scope of work are requested by the agency.

Principal Investigator SignatureDate

III. Protocol Description

A. Provide a BRIEF description, in LAYMAN'S TERMS, of the proposed research.

The proposed research seeks to determine the effect of case method pedagogy on student outcomes. In addition, the impact of student learning styles on outcomes will be tested along with the potential for case method pedagogy to act as a moderator of the relationship between learning styles and outcome assessment.

B. Methodology

1.Participants (all protocols must have a completed appendix A)
a.How many participants will be included in the study?

Number:Male _63__ Female _87__ Total _150_

Age range:_20__ To _25__

B.Where will participants be recruited from?

Participants will be recruited from senior-level marketing courses. All participants will be at similar stages of their academic career thus reducing the chance for academic stage variability to confound the study.

c.How will they be recruited? (attach all recruitment documentation. I.e. letters, flyers etc)
Students in senior-level marketing courses will be asked to volunteer to participate. Recruiting efforts will take place on the first day of class during the second week of the semester to allow for enrollments to stabilize. The study, itspurpose, and potential outcomes will be announced in class. An incentive provided to the students will be the potential for them learn about their individual learning style along with strategies for how they can make the most of their particularmethod of learning.
d.How will you secure informed consent?

See attached Appendix C for a copy of the proposed informed consent form