Using Active Learning in Public Relations Instruction:
Demographic Predictors of Faculty Use
Charles A. Lubbers
A. Q. Miller School of Journalism and Mass Communications
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-1501
(913) 532-6890 [office]
(913) 532-7309 [fax]
email: [log in to unmask]
and
Diane A. Gorcyca
Department of Communication Studies
Missouri Western State College
Saint Joseph, MO 64507
(816)271-4387
email: [log in to unmask]
Please address correspondence to Charles Lubbers.
Running head: ACTIVE LEARNING IN PUBLIC RELATIONS
Active Learning
Using Active
Learning in Public Relations Instruction:
Demographic Predictors of Faculty Use
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the arguments for including active
learning in
undergraduate education and presents the results of a national
survey of nearly 200
public relations instructors regarding their use of active
learning. On average,
respondents report they often use the ten active learning
approaches identified in
the survey. Additionally, regression analysis indicates that
some demographic
characteristics of public relations faculty (eg. academic
degree, years of teaching,
and age) are significant predictors of willingness to use
these activities.
INTRODUCTION
Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not
learn
much just by sitting in classes listening to teachers,
memorizing pre-packaged
assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk
about what they are learning,
write about it, relate it to past experiences, apply it
to their daily lives. They
must make what they learn part of themselves.
(Chickering and Gamson, 1991, 66)
Chickering and Gamson's (1991) statement is central to the
notion
of active learning in undergraduate education, and would
surely be applauded by the
myriad of groups calling for improvements in college and
university instruction.
The call for improvements in undergraduate education are also
coming from Journalism
and Mass Communication educators. The January, 1996 issue of
AEJMC News presents
the results of Committee on Teaching Standards' review of the
1994-95 annual reports
from each AEJMC division (Johnson et al., 1996). Their report
highlights
commendable activities observed in the annual reports. Under
the section related to
teaching methods, nearly all of these recognized activities
relate to making the
student an active learner. The following are examples of
their activities which
apply to active learning.
--Overcoming student apathy toward a particular course
or
courses.
--Articles in the newsletter that encourage
participatory
student activities, so that students become active
rather than passive learners.
--Alternative teaching methods; beyond lecture and
discussion in the classroom.
--Surveys of key case studies important to a
particular
field/ course; use of case studies in the classroom.
(Johnson et al., 1996)
Whether the motivation is to improve instruction solely for
the
benefit of the student, or to respond to public concerns about
the quality of
post-secondary instruction, many individuals are calling for a
new focus on active
learning.
Education is an operationalization of the word "process." In
order to be effective in the educational setting, constant
readjustment and
invention are the keys to success. Educators, at all levels,
are continually
exploring new learning vistas in order to more adequately
adjust not only to
changing student populations, but also to pressures from
various interest groups,
not the least of which are politicians and the business
community. One response, at
the post-secondary level, to demands from various groups may
well be the recent
flurry of writings on the use of active learning strategies in
the classroom.
Public relations courses offer a perfect opportunity for
incorporation of many
active learning techniques.
This paper will first define the issues involved in an active
learning approach. Secondly, specific areas suggested for
strategies will be
covered. Finally, the results of a national survey which
included items on active
learning and was administered to public relations faculty will
be presented.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Bonwell and Eison (1991) offer the most commonly cited
definition
of active learning. They stress that "...students must do
more than just listen:
They must read, write, discuss, or be engaged in solving
problems. Most important,
to be actively involved, students must engage in such
higher-order thinking tasks as
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Within this context, it
is proposed that
strategies promoting active learning be defined as
instructional activities
involving students in doing things and thinking about what
they are doing" (p. iii).
The processes involved in communication and instruction are
directly analogous to each other. Ann Stanton (1989)
concluded "the two concepts
are related integrally in that instruction is actually a
communicative process" (p.
364). If this is the case, exclusive dependence upon the
lecture mode denies the
process approach. "...Educators may want to consider
increasing the amount of
classroom time devoted to ...handling questions and answers,
and small group
discussion" ( Johnson and Szczupakiewicz, 1987, p. 136).
Emphasizing the role active
learning techniques could play in the educational process,
Stanton elaborates , "It
is through communicative interaction (e.g., between teacher
and students, between
peers, between parents and students) that instruction occurs.
Learning is
accomplished when communication is successful, i.e., when
instructor and students
come to shared understanding" (p. 364).
Most Public Relations instructors are skilled in this art of
participatory learning, engaging our students in class
discussion, class
presentations, and other such "active learning" exercises.
These acts go beyond
the traditional lecture/open it up for question format.
Bernstein (1994), for
example, outlines research related to the use of discussion as
a teaching technique.
In the traditional lecture/question setting, we need to ask
ourselves, how many of
our students actually respond during a general class
discussion; will students ask
questions, and will these questions promote participatory
learning?
West and Pearson (1994) discovered that in large lecture
rooms
few students ask questions (an average of 3.6 per hour of
instruction) and when they
do, the vast majority of the questions were procedural and
information seeking
questions. Few questions have anything to do with the subject
matter being
presented (p. 359).
If this is the typical classroom questioning behavior of
students, then few students may be taking the opportunity to
actively participate in
the learning process. A focus on an active approach
contradicts the approach to
classroom teaching based on the conceptualization of students
passively receiving
information and being expected to have the ability and the
desire to formulate the
transfer to this information to different contextual
situations.
McKeachie (1994) adds a caution to the blanket expansion of
active learning techniques in education. "If instructors
expect students to learn
skills, the students have to practice, but practice doesn't
make perfect. Practice
works if learners see the results of their practice and gain
information from the
results about what to do" (p. 282). The caution presented by
McKeachie involves the
area of student motivation. "To develop critical thinking,
students must learn to
want to think" (p. 282). By combining the concepts of active
learning and
motivation, "...active learners are more likely to be
attentive and to be thinking
about the topic, relating new knowledge to previous learning
and elaborating the
implications of what they have learned" (p. 284).
Bonwell and Eison (1991) identify five strategies associated
with
"active learning" (p. 2). These strategies are: a). students
are involved in more
than listening; b). less emphasis is placed on transmitting
information and more on
developing student's skills; c). students are involved in
higher order thinking
(e.g., analysis, synthesis, evaluation); d). students are
engaged in activities
(e.g., reading, discussing, writing); e). Greater emphasis is
placed on students'
exploration of their own attitudes and values.
Education at the university level requires an application of
active learning by both the instructor and the student. A
combination of techniques
are necessary if the diverse student population present on
most campuses is to be
reached.
An additional caution to the blanket inclusion of active
learning
techniques is that beyond the ample use of class exercises, an
active learning
approach must provide for evaluation. This assessment of
class exercises is an
important area for both active learning and critical thinking.
"What matters...is
not just what students know but what they can do with what
they know. What's at
stake is the capacity to perform, to put what one knows into
practice" (Hutchings,
1990). Participation in the exercise is important, in fact,
essential for
successful acquisition of the skills required by the basic
communication course, but
the student needs to consider these skills beyond the exercise
or class discussion
or class participation. "There is only one way to acquire
[academic] skills and
abilities, and that is to practice them" (Bouton & Garth,
1983). In order to assess
the impact of these participatory exercises, simple writing
assignments can be used.
By utilizing the concepts of Writing Across the Curriculum
(WAC),
such as allowing students to react to class exercises and
class lectures in a
written, ungraded manner, students are given the opportunity
to express their
reasoning and evaluation without possible criticism by
others. This idea follows
the advice of Meyers and Jones (1993), "Let your students take
more responsibility
for their own education. Put them into situations where they
must contribute to
teaching themselves and others" (p. 13). As students write to
establish connections
and to see the relationship between events and theory they
begin the process of
required self-development. Meyers and Jones (1993) point out
"... that learning is
truly meaningful only when learners have taken knowledge and
made it their own" (p.
20). Teaching in this manner follows the tenet that
"instruction communication is
not primarily information transmission" (Sprague, 1993, p.
355). Teaching is
assisting in the development of the skills that are required
in the specific
discipline and applicable to other facets of life and
learning. Citing Vygotsky's
statement that, "Teaching is assisted performance." Sprague
observes:
These words emphasize that a student must be doing
something-performing-for us to help him or her learn.
Moreover.teaching is an
intrinsically social activity, something that is jointly
constructed between a
teacher and a student, rather than a behavior of either. ( p.
356).
Active learning techniques, such as writing,can provide a
powerful, complementary tool to assist this development of
teaching as an
"intrinsic" social activity.
These techniques are essential in fostering critical
thinking,
which is the goal of active learning. Haynes (1990) writes:
"Writing encourages
critical thinking. By placing words before us, writing
facilitates their scrutiny
as well as the development of strict standards for their use"
(p. 90).
The act of communication, through talking or writing, can
encourage a writer to clarify. "Like talking, writing
clarifies thinking. We write
to communicate to a reader, even if it is ourselves..."
(Meyers & Jones, 1993, p.
23). Allowing students the opportunity to express themselves
in both communicative
forms promotes the relevance of one method of communication to
the other. Thus, the
concepts of audience identification, so integral to the
communication process are
also an inherent part of writing. The skill of audience
adaptation easily can be
applied to both oral and written contexts.
"...Writing in class is a valuable strategy promoting active
learning when it has been tied to explicit goal of the course"
(Bonwell and Eison,
1991, p. 37). The writing assignments, to be successful,
should follow the flow of
the course content. In PR courses, the notion of writing news
releases, or
critiquing a release can be an implementation of active
learning strategies.
Providing a structure for class participation and discussion
is a
central issue for successful implementation of classroom
active learning strategies.
For the public relations class, the use of case studies is a
tool that fosters all
of these principles. Adams (1993) concludes that five
benefits results from team
work on case studies: 1) socialization skills are honed; 2)
students become more
autonomous as learners; 3) a better environment is created for
the teacher; 4)
students learn to research and present more in-depth
information than they do
working alone; and 5) students enjoy the team cases more than
any other part of the
course. The final conclusion of the author is that the use of
case studies provides
a bridge between theory and practice.
Public Relations courses offer a vehicle for utilizing the
concept of writing as an active learning strategy. Spicer
(1991) indicated five
suggestions for critical thinking implementation in the PR
classroom: 1) analyze
news releases on writing style, creativity, etc., 2) analyze
PR approaches of
campaigns, 3) find and discuss examples of unethical PR
materials, 4) discuss the
role of PR in society, and 5) develop PR campaigns.
An additional strategy for active learning is proposed by
Pohl
and Butler (1994). They suggest that student involvement in a
student organization,
specifically PRSSA, offers benefits that translate themselves
into more active
participation in the classroom. Membership and participation
in the organization
assists the students in areas such as: cooperative learning,
formative evaluation,
focus group strategy and critical thinking. Participation in
PRSSA affords the
student the opportunity for implementation of the issues
learned in the classroom.
METHOD
The methods section presents the discussion of the creation,
distribution and analysis of a national survey instrument
concerning public
relations education. Only a portion of the data collected is
presented in this
paper. Future reports will discuss additional elements of
public relations
education. However, this paper focus on data related to
active learning practices
in public relations education.
Survey Instrument
A survey instrument designed to assess undergraduate teaching
practices was included with a demographic profile
questionnaire to create the
mailing used for this investigation. Six demographic
variables (respondent's: age,
sex, highest academic degree, years of college-level teaching,
academic rank, and
type of public relations program) were collected as part of a
demographic profile
questionnaire and will be used in this investigation. The
demographic variables are
discussed further in the results section.
The "Faculty Inventory for the 7 Principles for Good Practice
in
Undergraduate Education" (Chickering, Gamson and Barsi, 1989)
includes 70 questions
to help faculty assess their instructional practices. Ten of
the items relate
specifically to the principle of active learning, and they are
the focus of this
investigation. According to Chickering, Gamson and Barsi
(1989) "The 'Inventories
of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education' are part of a
project initiated in 1986
under the auspices of the American Association for Higher
Education (AAHE), the
Education Commission of the States, and the Johnson Foundation
Inc. ... The
inventories relate to the 'Seven Principles for Good Practice
in Undergraduate
Education' published in 1987 by AAHE ...."
Sorcinelli (1991, 13) reports that the "Seven Principles"
used in
the inventory grew out of 50 years of research on teaching
practices and "a
conference that brought together a distinguished group of
researchers and
commentators on higher education." Gamson (1991), one of the
authors of the "Seven
Principles", argues that the work distills findings from
decades of research on
undergraduate education. "The Seven Principles and the
Inventories are deceptively
simple. They are the result of a complex series of
activities" (5).
Respondent Sampling
The sampling universe for this investigation was defined as
the
members of national or international public relations
education interest groups.
Creation of the universe was operationalized by obtaining the
mailing lists for the
relevant public relations educator group within the following
organizations: the
Association for Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication
(AEJMC), the Public
Relations Society of America (PRSA), the Speech Communication
Association (SCA), and
the International Communication Association (ICA). Since the
investigation was
focused on instructional practices in the United States,
addresses outside the
United States were deleted from the universe.
Thirty percent of the names for each of the four mailing
lists
were selected using a random number list. The four samples
were then combined into
one mailing list and duplicate entries were deleted. These
efforts led to a list of
435 subjects throughout the United States. Each of the 435
subjects received an
initial mailing and a followup mailing if the initial mailing
was not returned
within three weeks.
Only two of the 435 mailings were returned as undeliverable.
Of
the remaining 433 mailings, 250 responses were received, for a
response rate of
57.7%. Fifty-nine of the respondents indicated on a screening
question that they
had never taught a public relations course and were not
eligible to participate in
the investigation. Twenty-nine sent partial information and
162 returned all the
information requested.
Data Analysis
The six demographic variables were used in multiple linear
regression equations for each of the ten measures of active
learning. MINITAB
release 10 for the Macintosh was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
Demographic Profile of Subjects
A demographic profile questionnaire was included with each
mailing. Only one eligible respondent failed to complete the
information on this
questionnaire. This section presents some of the results for
the demographic
variables to be used in the regression runs discuss later.
While respondent ages ranged from 26 to 81, two measures of
central tendency (mean and median) placed the average age at
46. Years of teaching
experience at the college level ranged from 1 to 45 with a
mean of 12.75 and a
median of 10. Of the 185 reporting their sex, 78 (42.2%) were
female, while 107
(57.8%) were male.
The three remaining variables, which asked the respondents to
describe their academic rank, highest academic degree, and the
type of public
relations program in which they taught, were answered by 189
respondents. While
there were equal numbers at the full and associate professor
ranks (N=44, 23.3%
each), the largest group of respondents were at the assistant
professor level (N=69,
36.5%). The remaining respondents reported being instructors
(N=10, 5.3%), adjunct
faculty (N=11, 5.8%) or "other" (N=11, 5.8%).
Nearly two-thirds of the respondents reported that the
highest
degree earned was a Ph.D, 58 (30.7%) said a Masters, 4 (2.1%)
a Bachelors and 4
(2.1%) said "other". Nearly one-half of the respondents
(N=90, 47.6%) reported that
their public relations program was a sequence of courses
within a major. Fifty
respondents (26.5%) indicated that their program was a few
courses within another
major, and 49 (25.9%) said that their public relations program
was a separate major.
Results for the Ten Active Learning Measures
As noted in the methods section, ten statements on the "Seven
Principles" inventory were specifically designed to elicit
information concerning
the use of active learning in the classroom. Figure 1 is
reproduced from the
Faculty Inventory of the Seven Principles (Chickering, Gamson
and Barsi, 1989) and
provides the ten active listening statements used in this
investigation.
---------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
---------------------------------------
For analysis, scores of "very often" were coded as 1,
"often", 2,
through "never", 5. Table 1 provides the number of
respondents answering the item,
the mean response, the standard deviation and the minimum and
maximum answers for
each of the ten items. The responses seem to indicate that,
on average, the
respondents use most of these ten approaches quite often. The
low mean scores for
items 1, 3, and 6 indicate a large number of respondents used
these approaches very
often.
---------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
---------------------------------------
As indicated on Table 1, for many of the items the responses
tended to group at the end of the scale for "often" use. This
lack of score
differentiation makes it difficult to look for predictors for
the differences in
responses. The next section, however, provides the results of
regressions used to
identify demographic variables which were significant
predictors for some of the
active learning items.
Results of Regression
Multiple linear regressions were run for each of the ten
active
learning items. The six demographic measures were used as
predictor variables, and
in four of the regression runs at least one of the six
predictor variables was
considered statistically significant with a probability score
of .05 or less. This
section details the results of those four runs.
Table 2 presents the results of the regression run in which
the
second active learning statement was the dependent variable.
This survey item asked
respondents to indicate how often they asked students to
summarize similarities and
differences among different theorists, research findings, or
artistic works. The
positive relationship between age and this measure of active
learning indicates that
younger respondents were more likely to use this active
learning approach. While
the variable of years of teaching was not statistically
significant at the .05
level, it did fall between the .05 and the .1 level. Since
there is a negative
correlation between years of teaching and use of this active
learning approach, the
longer the respondents had taught, the more likely they were
to use this type of
active learning.
---------------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
---------------------------------------
Table 3 presents the results of the regression equation in
which
active learning statement number 6 (giving students concrete,
real-live situations
to analyze) was the dependent variable. Two of the
demographic predictor variables
(academic degree and type of public relations program) were
significant at the .05
level, and another (sex) had a p-level under .1. The results
indicate that those
with Doctorates were more likely report using such real-life
situations for analysis
than did those with a Masters or Bachelors degree.
Additionally, faculty in those
programs where the public relations courses are a separate
major were more likely to
provide such concrete examples for analysis.
---------------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
---------------------------------------
Active learning statement number 9 asked about the frequency
of
using field trips, volunteer activities, or internships
related to course material.
Table 4 presents the results of the regression run for this
statement related to
active learning. Once again the number of years teaching was
significant when
regressed with this measure of active learning. The negative
correlation indicates
that those faculty with more teaching experience use this type
of active learning
more often.
---------------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
---------------------------------------
Table 5 presents the results of the final regression run with
statistically significant results. Active learning statement
number 10, which
concerns carrying out research projects with the students,
was the dependent
variable for the regression. The respondent's highest
academic degree was
positively correlated with use of this active learning
approach. Thus, those
faculty with the Doctorate were most likely to report doing
research projects with
their students.
---------------------------------------
Insert Table 5 about here
---------------------------------------
DISCUSSION
The first section in the results provides a brief demographic
profile of the respondents for the current investigation. The
results can be
summarized by saying that the "average" respondent was a
46-year-old, male assistant
professor who had earned a Doctorate degree, had about 10
years of teaching
experience and is currently teaching in a public relations
sequence within a major.
One surprising result for the demographics was the small
percentage (5.8%) of the
respondents reporting that they were adjunct faculty. Grusin
and Reed (1994, 15)
noted that, "estimates of adjunct use throughout all of higher
education range from
38 percent to 57 percent." The small numbers of adjunct
faculty among the
respondents is undoubtedly due to the method of creating the
sampling universe.
Many adjuncts may not belong to one of the education-oriented
professional
associations.
The results presented on Table 1 provide the mean scores for
each
of the ten active learning statements included in the
questionnaire. The overall
conclusion must be that the respondents' reports clearly
indicate that they use
these active learning practices in their teaching. The mean
score of 1.29 for
statement number six related to providing concrete, real-life
situations was the
"highest" for the group. That mean score indicates that the
vast majority of
respondents reported using this approach very often. This
result is particularly
encouraging since the AEJMC Committee on Teaching Standards
listed such use of
real-life case studies as one of their commendable activities
in teaching (Johnson
et al., 1996).
The "lowest" mean score on Table 1 was a 2.74 for statement
number 10 related to doing research with your students.
However, it is important to
note that since this was a 5-point scale, that a score of 3
would represent at least
occasional use of the approach. Thus, the 2.7 (the lowest
mean) is still above the
middle score of "occasional" use.
Only one of the six demographic measures used as predictor
variables in the regression equations were significant with
two of the measures of
active learning. Academic degree was significant for the
equations discussed around
Tables 3 and 5. The results of those two tables indicate that
respondents who
report having earned a Doctorate are more likely to report
using real-life
situations for analysis than did those with a Masters or
Bachelors degree. Those
with Doctorates were also more likely to be involved in
research projects with their
students.
Tables 2 and 4 provide support for the contention that
teaching
experience may encourage the use of active learning
strategies. The results of
those two tables indicate that faculty with more years of
teaching were more likely
to report asking students to summarize similarities and
differences in material
being studied. The more experienced faculty were also more
likely to use the
nontraditional instructional practices of field trips,
volunteer activities, or
internships that related to the course material. Our field's
interest in
internships is evidenced by Basow and Byrne's (1993)
discussion of student
expectations and goals for internships.
Several other demographic predictions for the use of active
learning techniques were uncovered. Faculty in those programs
where the public
relations courses are a separate major were more likely to
provide concrete,
real-life examples for analysis (see Table 3). Additionally,
Table 2 notes that
those who are younger are more likely to ask students to
summarize the similarities
and differences in course content.
Sorcinelli (1991, 18) notes that while more research on the
effectiveness of different varieties of active learning is
necessary, "research
indicates that teaching methods that encourage student
activity and involvement,
especially student-to-student interaction, are likely to be
superior to more passive
methods when higher-level cognitive or affective learning is
the goal."
This initial investigation into the use of active learning
techniques by public relations faculty in the United States
must conclude that the
faculty are reporting frequent use of these techniques. While
their level of use
depends somewhat on factors like teaching experience, age, and
academic degree,
faculty responses indicate strong use of active learning
techniques. If these
reports are accurate, then the public relations faculty are
clearly achieving the
AEJMC Committee on Teaching Standards' commendable activity to
"...encourage
participatory student activities, so that students become
active rather than passive
learners" (Johnson et al., 1996).
REFERENCES
Adams, W. C. (1993). Using Case studies in the introductory
public relations course. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Speech
Communication Association, Miami Beach, FL.
Basow, R. R. & Byrne, M. V. Internship expectations and
learning
goals. Journalism Educator, 47, 4, 48-48-54.
Bernstein, J. M. (1994). Discussion and learning skills in
an
introductory course. Journalism Educator, 49, 1, 39-48.
Bonwell, C. C. & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning:
Creating
excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 1, Washington,
D. C.: The George Washington University, School of
Education and Human Development.
Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Applying the Seven
Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education.
Jossey-Bass Inc.,
Publishers, San Francisco.
Chickering, A. W., Gamson, Z. F. & Barsi, L. M. (1989).
Faculty
Inventory for the 7 Principles for Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education. Seven
Principles Resource Center, Winona State University,
Winona, Minnesota.
Gamson, Z. F. (1991). A brief history of the seven
principles
for good practice in undergraduate education, in
Chickering and Gamson's (eds)
Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education (p.
5-12). Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, San Francisco.
Grusin, E. K. & Reed, B. S. (1994). The role of part-time
faculty in the quality of instruction. Journalism
Educator, 48, 4, 15-26.
Haynes, W. L. (1990). A case for a speech-based basic course
in
a vid-oral world. Basic Course Annual, 2, 89-100.
Hart, R. P. (1993). Why communication? Why education? Toward
a
politics of teaching. Communication Education, 42,
97-105.
Hutchings, P. (1990). Assessment and the way it works.
Closing
plenary address, 5th American Association of Higher
Education Conference on
Assessment, Washington, D.C., June 30, 1990.
Johnson, S. et al. (1996). Reports: Committee on Teaching
Standards. AEJMC News, 29, 2, 18-20.
Meyers, C. & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning:
Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Johnson, J. R. & Szczupakiewicz, N. (1987). The public
speaking
course: Is it preparing students with work related
speaking skills? Communication
Education, 36, 131-137.
McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching Tips: Strategies,
research,
and theory for college and University Teachers. (9th
ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C.
Heath & Co.
Pohl, G.M. & Butler, J.M. (1994). Public relations in
action: A
view of the benefits of student membership in
pre-professional organizations. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech
Communication Association, New
Orleans, LA).
Sorcinelli, M. D. (1991). Research findings on the seven
principles, in Chickering and Gamson's (eds) Applying
the Seven Principles for Good
Practice in Undergraduate Education (p. 5-12).
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, San
Francisco.
Spicer, K. L. (1991). The application of critical thinking
skills
in the public relations curriculum. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the
Speech Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
Sprague, J. (1993). Retrieving the research agenda for
communication education: Asking the pedagogical
questions that are "embarrassments
to theory." Communication Education, 42, 106-122.
Stanton, A. Q. (1989). The interface of communication and
instruction: Conceptual considerations and programmatic
manifestations.
Communication Education, 38, 364-371.
West, R. & Pearson, J.C. (1994). Antecedent and consequent
conditions of student questioning: An analysis of classroom
discourse across the
University. Communication Education, 43, 299-311.
Figure 1 - Active learning items from the Faculty Inventory of
the
Seven Principles....
Table 1
Description of scores for the ten measures of active learning
Item # N Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Active 1 159 1.6038 0.7117 1 3
Active 2 159 2.3333 1.0167 1 5
Active 3 159 1.4528 0.6234 1 4
Active 4 159 1.7358 0.7585 1 4
Active 5 159 1.6855 0.7128 1 4
Active 6 159 1.2893 0.5075 1 3
Active 7 159 1.8553 0.9469 1 5
Active 8 159 2.3522 0.9881 1 5
Active 9 158 2.5380 1.2397 1 5
Active10 159 2.7421 1.2489 1 5
Table 2
Regression of 6 demographic measures with Active 2 - asking
students to summarize similarities and differences
Predictor Coef Stdev t-ratio p
Constant 0.6514 0.5826 1.12 0.265
Age 1 0.0265 0.0109 2.43 0.016
Sex 0.2882 0.1721 1.67 0.096
AcadRank 0.0877 0.0787 1.11 0.267
Degree 0.1466 0.1363 1.08 0.284
Yrs. Teaching 2 -0.0238 0.0131 -1.82 0.071
Program -0.0586 0.1131 -0.52 0.605
R2 = 10.8% N = 150
Analysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS F p
Regression 6 16.9725 2.8287 2.88 0.011
Error 143 140.6875 0.9838
Total 149 157.6600
1 Denotes significant results with a p-level equal to or less
than
.05
2 Denotes results with a p-level falling between .1 and .05.
While not statistically significant for this investigation,
they may be important in
future research.
Table 3
Regression of 6 demographic measures with Active 6 - giving
students concrete, real-life situations to analyze
Predictor Coef Stdev t-ratio p
Constant 1.2433 0.2925 4.25 0.000
Age -0.0027 0.0055 -0.49 0.623
Sex 2 0.1448 0.0864 1.68 0.096
Acad. Rank 0.0073 0.0395 0.18 0.854
Degree 1 0.1516 0.0684 2.21 0.028
Yrs. Teaching -0.0033 0.0066 -0.48 0.629
Program 1 -0.1189 0.0568 -2.10 0.038
R2 = 9.3% N = 150
Analysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS F p
Regression 6 3.6248 0.6041 2.44 0.028
Error 143 35.4685 0.2480
Total 149 39.0933
1 Denotes significant results with a p-level equal to or less
than
.05
2 Denotes results with a p-level falling between .1 and .05.
While not statistically significant for this investigation,
they may be important in
future research.
Table 4
Regression of 6 demographic measures with Active 9 - field
trips,
volunteer activities, or internships related to the course
Predictor Coef Stdev t-ratio p
Constant 4.1063 0.7083 5.80 0.000
Age -0.0195 0.0133 -1.46 0.145
Sex 0.2697 0.2090 1.29 0.199
Acad. Rank -0.1428 0.0953 -1.50 0.137
Degree 0.0541 0.1656 0.33 0.744
Yrs. Teaching 1 -0.0347 0.0159 -2.19 0.030
Program -0.2049 0.1370 -1.50 0.137
R2 = 9.8% N = 149
Analysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS F p
Regression 6 22.270 3.712 2.57 0.021
Error 142 204.938 1.443
Total 148 227.208
1 Denotes significant results with a p-level equal to or less
than
.05
Table 5
Regression of 6 demographic measures with Active10 - carry out
research projects with my students
Predictor Coef Stdev t-ratio p
Constant 1.4265 0.7051 2.02 0.045
Age 0.0035 0.0132 0.27 0.790
Sex 0.0749 0.2083 0.36 0.720
Acad. Rank 0.0743 0.0953 0.78 0.437
Degree 1 0.6119 0.1650 3.71 0.0001
Yrs. Teaching -0.0066 0.0158 -0.42 0.678
Program 0.0488 0.1368 0.36 0.722
R2 = 13.2% N = 150
Analysis of Variance
SOURCE DF SS MS F p
Regression 6 31.282 5.214 3.62 0.002
Error 143 206.078 1.441
Total 149 237.360
1 Denotes significant results with a p-level equal to or less
than
.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
