Journal of http://jmd.sagepub.

com/
Marketing Education

The Additive Effects of Semistructured Classroom Activities on Student Learning: An Application of

Classroom-Based Experiential Learning Techniques
Lawrence O. Hamer
Journal of Marketing Education 2000 22: 25
DOI: 10.1177/0273475300221004
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/22/1/25

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Marketing Education can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jmd.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/22/1/25.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 2000

What is This?

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIV LIB on October 2, 2014

JOPU
A RRILN2A0L00OF MARKETING EDUCATION
The Additive Effects of Semistructured Classroom
Activities on Student Learning: An Application of
Classroom-Based Experiential Learning Techniques
Lawrence O. Hamer
Many authors have suggested the use of experiential tech-
niques, such as semistructured classroom activities, as a
means of encouraging and facilitating student learning. This
article reports a study that investigated the relationship
between the use of multiple experiential techniques and stu-
dent learning. The study found that student learning
increased when multiple experiential techniques were used
relative to learning that occurred when a single experiential
technique was combined with a lecture format. In addition,
the data suggest that the use of multiple experiential tech-
niques also influenced the type of information students
learned.
The job of marketing educators is to assist students’ learning
of marketing concepts, theories, and practices. Many people
have suggested the use of field-based (e.g., internships, prac-
ticums) and classroom-based (e.g., role-playing, computer
simulations) experiential learning techniques as a means to
achieve student learning (e.g., Lewis and Williams 1994).
This article reports the findings of a study that investigated the
impact of a class format that featured multiple experiential
techniques on student learning in an undergraduate marketing
research course. These findings suggest that the use of multi-
ple experiential techniques results in increased student learn-
ing relative to student learning that occurs when a single
experiential technique is combined with a lecture format.
This article will begin with a discussion of instructional
formats (including experiential techniques). This will be fol-
lowed by a description of the study and the study’s results.
Finally, the findings of the study will be discussed. Readers of
this article should develop an understanding of the nature of
classroom-based experiential learning and its effect on the
amount and type of information students learn.
INSTRUCTIONAL FORMATS
When structuring their courses, educators have many tech-
niques from which to choose (e.g., lectures, group projects,
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIV LIB on October 2, 2014
in-class exercises, student journals, instructor-led discus-
sions, student-led discussions, computer simulations). These
various techniques can be loosely categorized by the type of
learning they are designed to encourage: passive learning or
active learning. Traditionally, marketing instruction (like that
in most other disciplines) has more often used passive learn-
ing than active learning techniques. For this reason, the fol-
lowing paragraphs contain a discussion of passive learning
that is followed by a discussion of active learning.
Passive Learning
The lecture, the traditional instructional format of college
and university educators, promotes passive learning because
learning occurs while students passively listen to and take
notes on a lecture without actively being engaged in the lec-
ture material (Benjamin 1991; Dabbour 1997). Passive learn-
ing, and thus the lecture format, is based on the implicit
assumption that lecturing equals learning (i.e., students learn
by being told what they should know) (Shakarian 1995).
This implicit assumption leads to three perceived advan-
tages of the lecture format. First, lectures allow instructors to
convey large amounts of information within a limited amount
of time and thus (provided that the lecturing-equals-learning
assumption is true) allow students to learn a large amount of
information within a limited amount of time (Benjamin 1991;
Perry et al. 1996). Second, lecturing instructors decide what
will be said and the manner in which they will say it and thus
exercise a great deal of control over the classroom environ-
ment. Control over the classroom environment is important
because (provided that the lecturing-equals-learning assump-
tion is true) it enables the instructor to control the amount of
information students learn. Third, lectures are well suited for
large class sizes that may prohibit techniques that are more
active in nature (e.g., class discussions). Instructors of classes
with many students often feel that the only feasible instruc-
Lawrence O. Hamer is an assistant professor in the Department of Marketing
at DePaul University, Chicago.
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 22 No. 1, April 2000 25-34
© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
25
26 APRIL 2000
tional technique is the lecture format because the class size
prevents any meaningful interaction among students.
The lecture format has obviously been a successful
instructional tool. Anecdotal evidence of this is provided by
the tens of thousands of students who have acquired informa-
tion through this format and used this information to gain
employment and start successful careers.
Despite the prevalence of the lecture format, research sug-
gests that passive learning techniques are limited in their abil-
ity to facilitate students’ learning because they do not encour-
age students to process information actively (Shakarian
1995). Experienced lecturers have undoubtedly had the expe-
rience of giving an entire lecture without being asked any
questions by students. Because the likelihood of learning
information increases as the amount of processing of the
information increases, the lack of student questions, which
may indicate a lack of processing on the part of students, sug-
gests a lack of learning. Some have argued that lectures only
encourage students to take notes quickly so that they can
“keep up” with the lecture (Bolles 1988; Craik and Lockhart
1972; cf. Shakarian 1995). In fact, research has shown the lec-
ture format (a passive learning technique) to be inferior to the
discussion format (an active learning technique) in encourag-
ing students to retain information for long periods of time and
apply information to new situations (McKeachie 1980).
The limited ability of passive learning techniques to
encourage students to process actively and retain information
suggests a lack of support for the underlying assumption of
the lecture format (i.e., lecturing equals learning). However,
even if the assumption is true, critics of passive learning argue
that students’ limited attention spans make it unlikely that
they will learn from a lecture (Shakarian 1995). Students’
attention to lectures has been found to drop sharply and con-
tinuously after the initial 10 to 15 minutes of a lecture. Given
that most college lectures last from 50 to 180 minutes, it
appears that students attend to only a small portion of a given
lecture. Therefore, even if the lecture format were an effective
way to learn, students’ attention spans would further limit the
ability of lectures to promote student learning (Shakarian
1995).
Active Learning
Contrary to the traditional lecture format and the accom-
panying passive learning, active learning techniques encour-
age students to become involved with the materials they are
attempting to learn by encouraging students to apply theory to
real-life situations in a dynamic manner (Lewis and Williams
1994). Rather than merely listening and taking notes, stu-
dents are encouraged to engage in higher-order thinking as
they personalize the subject matter to develop a deep under-
standing of the material (Anderson 1997; Bonwell and Eison
1991; Dabbour 1997; Shakarian 1995). Active learning tech-
niques, including experiential techniques (those that promote
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIV LIB on October 2, 2014
learning through the use of guided student experiences) and
nonexperiential techniques are characterized by (Bonwell
and Eison 1991; Dabbour 1997):
 student involvement in many activities (e.g., discussing, per-
suading, writing, critiquing) rather than just listening,
 emphasis on development of student skills rather than infor-
mation transmission, and
 higher-order thinking on the part of students.
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUES
Shakarian (1995) summarized many different active learn-
ing techniques that can be generally classified as nonexperi-
ential or experiential. Nonexperiential techniques encourage
students to actively process course materials, while experien-
tial techniques provide students with the opportunity to go
beyond conceptual discussions by using concepts in specific
real-world contexts (Gaidis and Andrews 1991b). The vari-
ous techniques are discussed below.
Nonexperiential
Several active learning techniques are modifications of the
traditional lecture format and are designed to encourage stu-
dents to think about or elaborate on materials presented using
a lecture format. Elaboration is encouraged by providing stu-
dents time to reflect on lecture material during class and
requiring students to complete a task demonstrating that
reflection has taken place. Modified lecture formats are
thought to be well suited in classes that require students to
learn large amounts of factual information (e.g., principles of
marketing) (Shakarian 1995). Also, modified lecture formats
are suitable for large class sizes because they require little or
no interaction among students. Rather, students can be asked
to reflect on class materials during short discussions with
their neighbors or on their own.
An example of a nonexperiential active learning technique
that is a modification of the traditional lecture format is the
clarification pauses technique (Bonwell and Eison 1991).
When using clarification pauses, instructors divide the lecture
into “mini-lectures” that are approximately 10 minutes in
length. The length of the mini-lectures is designed to reflect
students’ short attention spans. After each mini-lecture, the
instructor pauses for a few minutes to allow students time to
review their notes, discuss the mini-lecture among them-
selves in small groups, and ask the instructor questions about
the material.
While the task assigned to students when using clarifica-
tion pauses (i.e., asking students to review their notes and dis-
cuss the lecture in small groups) is rather informal, more for-
mal tasks can be assigned when using modified lectures.
These tasks include having students, alone or working in
small groups, write a paragraph that summarizes the main
points of the lecture, having students answer short essay ques-
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 27

TABLE 1
STEPS INVOLVED IN A SEMISTRUCTURED CLASSROOM ACTIVITY

1. Students prepare for group work by reading assigned materials before coming to class.
2. Upon arrival to class, students are assigned to small groups in a purposive or random manner.
3. Students are given a setting (context) that consists of a current business situation found in a recent newspaper, magazine, or other
publication.
4. Students are given a task that they are expected to complete in their groups. The task is designed to require students to use course
concepts in the context of the given setting and, in so doing, expand on the concepts in creative ways.
5. The instructor explains any specific procedures the students are expected to follow and hands out any materials the students will need
to complete the task.
6. The students are then given an appropriate amount of time (e.g., 10 to 15 minutes) to complete the task. During this time, the instructor
circulates among the groups.
7. Groups are called on to share their work with the rest of the class.

tions that require application of the materials presented in the
lecture, and so on.
Experiential
While experiential techniques usually take the form of
complex projects (an example of a loosely structured experi-
ential activity) performed by small groups (Gaidis and
Andrews 1991a), there are a variety of experiential tech-
niques. These techniques are discussed below in two groups:
semistructured classroom activities, which are typically rela-
tively short and moderately complex, and loosely structured
experiential activities, which are typically completed over a
longer time frame and are more complex.
Semistructured Classroom Activities
Unlike modified lectures, semistructured classroom
activities are dramatically different from the traditional lec-
ture format because they do not present students with new
information in a structured format. Rather, these activities
assume a minimal level of student knowledge and encourage
students to elaborate on that knowledge while completing a
semistructured task as part of a group. Working in groups also
allows the students to learn from each other as group mem-
bers interact to discuss and elaborate on course materials.
Semistructured classroom activities are well suited for
courses that expect students to be critical and creative when
identifying and reacting to problems (e.g., marketing man-
agement or marketing research) (Shakarian 1995).
Semistructured techniques are experiential because they
require students to perform activities that are based on course
concepts. In other words, these techniques give students
experience with the application of course materials that
builds on their theoretical understanding. Semistructured
techniques can be generally thought of as shorter, more
focused, and more controlled versions of term projects (i.e.,
mini-projects). Semistructured classroom activities use real
business situations as the context for learning. An example of
the steps involved in a semistructured activity is provided in
Table 1.
Within a given class, several collaborative learning tasks
can be assigned as time permits. Students can be reassigned to
groups after each task, or they may remain in the same group.
It is well documented that different students prefer to learn in
different ways (Davis 1993; Guild and Garger 1985; Kolb
1984; Murray 1990). Semistructured techniques offer the
added advantage of being amenable to a variety of learning
styles. By interacting with individual groups of students (see
Table 1, Step 6), the instructor can tailor the exercise to suit
the learning styles of the students. For example, the instructor
can explain appropriate theoretical structures in more depth
to assimilative learners (using Kolb’s typology) or provide a
more practical background to convergent learners.
Loosely Structured
Experiential Activities
Loosely structured experiential activities include com-
puter simulations, role-playing, group projects, debates, and
so on. Loosely structured experiential activities differ from
semistructured classroom activities by being of broader
scope, longer completion time, and less controlled. These
complex activities share the following characteristics:
 students are faced with unstructured, ambiguous situations;
 a great deal of student learning may take place outside of class
and away from the instructor;
 students must deeply process course materials and creatively
apply those materials to the situation; and
 students have a great deal of control over what they learn from
the activities and the process through which they learn.
In general, active learning techniques differ in the amount
of ambiguity with which students are presented (with nonex-
periential being the least ambiguous and loosely structured
experiential activities being the most ambiguous). As the
techniques become less structured and more ambiguous, their
level of difficulty increases, and the amount of deep process-
ing students have to do to complete assigned tasks increases.

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIV LIB on October 2, 2014

28 APRIL 2000
The Use of Experiential
Lear ning Techniques
Educators in many disciplines have used experiential
learning techniques to increase student learning. These disci-
plines include library science (Dabbour 1997), biology
(Anderson 1997), psychology (Perry et al. 1996), and market-
ing (e.g., Lawson 1995; Malhotra, Tashchian, and Jain 1989;
Williams, Beard, and Rymer 1991), among others. Within the
marketing discipline, experiential learning techniques are
widely accepted as a method that enables students to meld
theoretical frameworks with real-world experiences. These
experiential learning techniques typically involve students
working in small groups and completing loosely structured
experiential activities (Gaidis and Andrews 1991b) on topics
such as promotion strategy (Rothschild et al. 1986), market-
ing management (Conant and Mokwa 1987), marketing
research (Churchill 1986), and ethical analysis of marketing
decisions (Gaidis and Andrews 1991b). Educators who have
incorporated loosely structured experiential activities into
their courses have reported numerous benefits, including
increased instructor and student enthusiasm (Dabbour 1997),
increased student performance on graded assignments (Perry
et al. 1996), self-reported student enjoyment of the tech-
niques and enhancement of learning (Lawson 1995), and
self-reported student increases in the perceived value of the
learning experience (Graeff 1997).
While the benefits of using experiential learning tech-
niques have been documented, few researchers have looked at
the benefits of using a variety of experiential techniques
within a given class. The majority of studies investigating the
effects of loosely structured experiential activities have com-
bined the activities with lecture-based instruction. Thus, it is
not known if semistructured classroom activities would lead
to increased student learning over and above the learning
increases that result from the use of loosely structured experi-
ential activities. The study described in the following sections
sought to investigate the benefits of combining experiential
learning techniques as compared to the benefits of using a sin-
gle experiential technique.
THE STUDY
The above discussion suggests the following research
hypothesis:
Hypothesis: In a class that includes a loosely structured experien-
tial activity, semistructured classroom activities lead to more
student learning than lectures.
This hypothesis was tested using data gathered from a
classroom-based study. Participants in the study were 158
upper-level undergraduate students who were enrolled in a
marketing research course during the fall, winter, and spring
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIV LIB on October 2, 2014
quarters of 1997-1998. The participants were marketing
majors who were required to take the course and majors from
other business disciplines who took the course as an elective.
The course was taught at a private, urban university with an
enrollment of approximately 17,000 students.
Design
The present study, as with nearly all classroom research,
used a methodology that attempted to strike a balance
between rigorous methods and practical relevance (Cross and
Steadman 1996). To this end, the design used for the present
experiment was a static-group comparison design (Borg and
Gall 1989). The external validity of classroom research is
often curtailed by the inability of classroom researchers to
randomly assign students to experimental conditions (Camp-
bell and Stanley 1963). Such is the case with the present
study, as the teaching format was changed across terms and
the students themselves made the decision to enroll in the
class in a particular term. However, all experimental groups
were comparable in terms of students’ race, ethnicity, majors,
and so on. In addition, there was no statistical difference
between the groups’ evaluation of the instructor’s effective-
ness (suggesting that the instructor’s in-class performance
was comparable across groups). Finally, in the previous aca-
demic year (when the course featured a lecture format with-
out any experiential techniques), students’ grades did not sig-
nificantly vary across terms.
Independent Variable
The experiment’s independent variable was the instruc-
tional format used in the course. The course was taught using
lectures in the fall of 1997, while semistructured classroom
activities were used in the winter and spring of 1998. Stu-
dents were also assigned a class project (an example of
loosely structured experiential activity) under both experi-
mental conditions. However, because the nature of the project
remained constant across experimental conditions, it was not
part of the independent variable manipulation. Other than the
change in the instructional format, all aspects of the course
remained constant across the three quarters. These aspects
included the instructor, the text, the syllabus, the grading
guidelines, the exams, and so on. The following sections pro-
vide a description of the course under the lecture and semis-
tructured activities formats.
Lecture format. When using the lecture format, the mar-
keting research course resembled most other courses that use
a lecture format. Students were given a syllabus the first day
of class that contained a schedule of topics to be covered
throughout the term. On a given day, the scheduled topic(s)
would be the focus of a lecture that lasted approximately the
entire class time. The lecture was given by the instructor, who
stood at the front of the class, and computer-generated slides
served as visual aids for the lecture.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 29

TABLE 2
SEMISTRUCTURED CLASSROOM ACTIVITY USED TO TEACH MEASUREMENT CONCEPTS

1. Students prepared for class by reading the assigned chapters in the text. Students also had access to supplemental materials designed by the
instructor that could be used by the students to better understand the material in the textbook. For each chapter, the instructor assigned
questions that were designed to be relatively easy to answer after reading the assigned chapters. Students demonstrated their preparation by
turning in the assignment at the beginning of each class. (Note that this assignment was not experiential but rather preparation for the
experiential aspects of the class.) The assignment was graded, and the grade was incorporated into each student’s final grade.
2. At the beginning of each class, the instructor introduced the measurement concepts (e.g., conceptual definitions, operational definitions,
measurement scales) that would be the focus of the class, and students were asked if they had any questions about the concepts.
3. Students were told to form groups of two for the purposes of completing an exercise using the concepts from step 2. Students were instructed
to complete the following task in their groups:
• Develop a research objective.
• Identify the concepts in the objective.
• Conceptually and operationally define each concept in the research objective.
• State the type of measurement scale(s) used in their operational definitions.
Students were given 20 to 30 minutes to complete the task.
4. While the students were working in their groups, the instructor interacted with each group to see if the group understood the assigned exercise,
check the group’s progress, and answer any questions. While interacting with the groups, the instructor gave more detailed directions to
groups that were struggling with the assignment and gave additional activities to groups that were easily completing the assignment.
5. After the time expired or after all groups had finished the assignment, groups were sent to the front of the class to report on the manner in which
they completed the assigned task. While at the front of the room, the groups were critiqued by the instructor and by other students.

TABLE 3
Lectures typically had the following format: DEFINITIONAL QUESTION

 The instructor would begin class by providing an outline of A verbal explanation of the meaning of a concept is a(n):
the day’s lecture. a. nominal definition
 The instructor lectured on a topic and its related concepts. b. conceptual definition
c. verbatim definition
 For each concept, the instructor defined the concept, gave an
d. operational definition
example of the concept, and explained how the concept was
e. none of the above
related to other concepts/topics.

As students’ questions arose, they were fielded by the

instructor, who also paused several times during each lecture
to ask students if they had any questions. The instructor
attempted to increase students’ interest in the lectures by link-
ing the lectures to current events in newspapers and popular
business magazines.
Semistructured classroom activities format. Consistent
with the change from a lecture format to an active learning
format, the in-class activities of both the instructor and the
students changed drastically when semistructured activities
were used. While the exact activity changed from one topic to
the next, the format of the activities remained relatively con-
stant across topics. A description of the semistructured activ-
ity used to teach students measurement concepts is provided
in Table 2.
Dependent Variable
The study’s dependent variable, student learning, was
operationalized as the students’ performance on multiple-
choice final exams. While it has been suggested that
multiple-choice exams and other objective assessment tech-
niques may be imperfect measures of student learning, they
are a widely accepted assessment tool (Whitaker 1989). The
exams were designed to be similar in form and content across
academic terms. In fact, many of the questions were repeated
from one term to the next.1 Because active learning is thought
to encourage higher-level thinking, the exam questions were
divided into two groups for the purpose of analysis. The first
group consisted of definitional questions. Definitional ques-
tions were designed to test only recall of text materials. Thus,
these questions required only low levels of thinking (Bloom
1956). To answer definitional questions correctly, students
merely had to know the textbook’s definition of a concept or
recall a list of related concepts that was given in the text. An
example of a definitional question is given in Table 3.
The second group of questions consisted of nondefini-
tional questions. Nondefinitional questions were designed to
test the student’s ability to apply course concepts to new situa-
tions and/or understand how concepts relate to each other.
Thus, these questions required moderately high levels of
thinking (Bloom 1956). To answer a nondefinitional question
correctly, students had to have definitional knowledge of a
concept, and they had to be able to recognize a real-world

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIV LIB on October 2, 2014

30 APRIL 2000

TABLE 4
NONDEFINITIONAL QUESTION

Consider the following question:

In the past several years, smokers have become increasingly aware of the dangers of smoking to one’s health. How have you adapted your
smoking behavior as a result of the awareness of health risks?
Smoke Less No Change Smoke More

Which of the following is a valid criticism?

a. The question is too complex.
b. The question is ambiguous.
c. The question is leading.
d. The question is double-barreled.
e. None of the above are valid criticisms.

TABLE 5
NONDEFINITIONAL QUESTION

A grocery store wanted to assess the effectiveness of its frequent shopper program. The program involves giving consumers a frequent shopper
card that entitles the consumer to receive special discounts at the grocery store. A study was conducted with the objective of determining if
shoppers who possess a frequent shopper card bought more sale items than shoppers who do not possess a frequent shopper card. Data were
collected by intercepting consumers as they exited the grocery store and having them answer the following two questions:

1. Do you have a frequent shopper card? (circle the appropriate answer) Yes No
2. Fill in the following blank with the number of sale items you purchased today.

In terms of statistical analyses, what should the researcher do to meet the research objective?
a. Compute a confidence interval for a proportion.
b. Compute a confidence interval for a mean.
c. Conduct a chi-square test.

example of the concept or recognize if a concept could appro-
priately be applied in a given situation. Examples of nondefi-
nitional questions are given in Tables 4 and 5.
Student learning was measured as the percentage of ques-
tions that students correctly answered. To support the
hypothesis, the data would have to show that students who
were taught using active learning techniques had a higher per-
centage of correctly answered questions than students who
were taught using the traditional lecture format.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The data were analyzed using ANOVA, with the students’
percentage of correct responses as the dependent variable and
class format (semistructured activities vs. lectures) as the
independent variable, to test the hypothesis. The results of
the ANOVA (Fdf = 1,156 = 7.937, p < .005) indicate that the data
were consistent with the hypothesis as the students’ perfor-
mance under the semistructured activity format was signifi-
cantly better than under the lecture format (74% correct vs.
69% correct, p < .005; see Figure 1).
Because the use of semistructured activities seemed to
have a positive impact on overall student performance, the
data were further analyzed to investigate the class format–
student performance relationship in more depth. Accord-
ingly, the students’ grades were decomposed into grades on
definitional questions (i.e., the percentage of definitional
questions that were answered correctly) and grades on non-
definitional questions (i.e., the percentage of nondefinitional
questions that were answered correctly). Each of the two
components of grades was used as dependent variables in
separate ANOVAs, while the independent variable remained
class format for both analyses. The results of the analyses (see
Figure 2) indicate that the semistructured activities led to
increased student performance on both the definitional (79%
correct vs. 68% correct) (F1,156 = 18.351, p < .000) and non-
definitional (74% correct vs. 70% correct) (F1,156 = 4.347, p <
.039) aspects of the exam.
As the data indicated that the use of semistructured class-
room activities leads to increases in students’ learning, the
data were further analyzed to investigate the relationship
between students’ overall performance, type of information

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIV LIB on October 2, 2014

 JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 31

FIGURE 1: Effect of Class Format on Student Performance

learned, and teaching format.2 More specifically, the analysis

sought to investigate if the use of semistructured activities led
to increased performance on definitional and nondefinitional
questions given students’ overall grades on the exam. It was
thought that students who performed well (or poorly) on the
exam may have performed well (or poorly) under any instruc-
tional format and for any type of question asked, while the
benefits of experiential learning may only manifest them-
selves among students performing at moderate levels and/or
only for certain types of questions asked. In other words, the
use of semistructured activities may not result in increased
student learning across all levels of students’ overall perfor- FIGURE 2: Effect of Class Format on Definitional and Nondefi-
mance and across both types of questions asked. nitional Student Learning
To investigate the relationship between instructional for-
mat, overall performance, and type of information learned,
three groups (representing high, medium, and low perform-
ance) were formed for both instructional formats (for a total exam performance was low but increased student nondefini-
of six groups). The six groups were then collapsed across tional performance when overall exam performance was
instructional format (e.g., the high-performance semistruc- medium and high.
tured groups were combined with the high-performance lec-
ture group) to obtain three groups (of roughly equal size)
whose formation was based on overall exam performance DISCUSSION
while controlling for the effects of class format on perform-
Student Learning
ance. For each of the three levels of overall performance, two
ANOVAs were conducted (one with definitional performance The data presented in this article indicate that students
as the dependent variable, the other with nondefinitional per- taught using both semistructured and loosely structured expe-
formance as the dependent variable), for a total of six ANO- riential learning activities performed better on multiple-
VAs. The results of the ANOVAs (see Figure 3) suggest that choice final exams than students taught using lectures with
the relationship between class format and student learning loosely structured activities. This suggests that semistruc-
varies across overall exam performance. Specifically, the tured classroom activities have a significant and substantial
semistructured activities were associated with increased stu- impact on student learning that complements the impact of
dent definitional performance when overall exam perfor- loosely structured activities such as group projects. Thus,
mance was low and medium but had no effect on student defi- educators who have added loosely structured activities to
nitional performance when overall exam performance was their courses to aid student learning may realize additional
high. Conversely, the use of semistructured activities had no benefits from using multiple experiential activities in their
effect on student nondefinitional performance when overall courses.

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIV LIB on October 2, 2014

32 APRIL 2000

FIGURE 3: Moderating Effect of Overall Exam Performance on the Class Format–Student Performance Relationship

Furthermore, the data indicated that classroom-based
experiential learning techniques led to increases in the
amount of definitional and nondefinitional knowledge
acquired by students. This suggests that using multiple expe-
riential learning techniques may be useful for courses in
which students are expected to learn a large amount of factual
information (e.g., principles of marketing) as well as courses
that seek to teach students to apply concepts to particular
situations (e.g., marketing strategy).
However, the ability of classroom-based experiential
learning techniques to increase student acquisition of defini-
tional and nondefinitional knowledge (relative to knowledge
acquisition that results from lectures) appears to vary across
different levels of students’ overall performance. While stu-
dents of all overall performances benefited from the use of
semistructured activities, the nature of the benefit differed
across overall performance groups. Specifically, this study
suggests that experiential learning techniques can by used to
increase the definitional knowledge acquired by students of
low and moderate overall performances but not students of
high overall performance. This finding could be due to high-
overall-performance students’ ability to attain definitional

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIV LIB on October 2, 2014


understandings of course materials without a great deal of
elaboration on those materials. However, it appears that less
apt students need to elaborate actively on course materials to
attain even definitional understandings. Conversely, it
appears that the use of semistructured classroom activities
helps medium- and high-overall-performance students attain
nondefinitional (i.e., higher-order) knowledge of course
materials. This finding supports the notion that encouraging
students to elaborate on course materials helps them apply the
materials in abstract, loosely defined situations that are simi-
lar to the situations they will encounter on entering the work-
force after graduation.
The finding that the use of semistructured classroom-
based experiential techniques did not lead to nondefinitional
learning in students with low overall performance has further
implications. First, this finding suggests that the reason low-
overall-performance students do not perform well is because
they have to do a great deal of elaboration to attain a merely
definitional understanding of course materials. Thus, an even
greater amount of elaboration is needed to attain higher-order
understanding of course materials. Because class time is a
limited resource, it appears that low-overall-performance stu-
dents need to be encouraged to elaborate on course materials
outside of class. This will allow them to attain a definitional
understanding that can be built on in class to help them attain
a nondefinitional understanding. This elaboration could be
encouraged by assigning appropriate (i.e., definitional-level)
homework exercises and by encouraging students who have
demonstrated low overall performance (i.e., demonstrated
poor performance) to participate in study groups or other
types of elaboration vehicles.
In sum, the results of this study suggest that classroom-
based experiential learning techniques encourage students to
elaborate on course materials and thus have a positive, addi-
tive effect on student learning when combined with loosely
structured experiential activities. The positive, additive
effects of experiential learning techniques were found to hold
across the type of information being learned and across the
overall performance of the student. Therefore, this study sug-
gests that the use of multiple experiential techniques provides
more benefits to students than combining a single technique
with the lecture format.
LIMITATIONS AND
FUTURE RESEARCH
A limitation of this study relates to the need to ensure that
students have read the material before coming to class. By
requiring students to complete and submit questions before
class, the possibility exists that students in the semistructured
condition performed well on exams because they were more
likely to have read the material than students in the lecture
condition. This would not seem to be a serious limitation for
two reasons. First, from a practical standpoint, students must
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIV LIB on October 2, 2014
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 33
read the material before attempting the in-class exercises.
Therefore, if the confound exists, it is a “natural” precursor to
experiential learning. Second, the assignments did not require
or promote higher-order thinking and did not encourage stu-
dents to develop nondefinitional understandings of the mate-
rial. Thus, the increased performance on nondefinitional
aspects of the exam is evidence that the in-class exercises
themselves had a positive impact on student learning.
The findings of this study are also limited by the lack of
random assignment and the sequential nature of the experi-
mental manipulations. Additional research is needed to repli-
cate the study under more controlled conditions. Future
research is also needed to further investigate the relationship
between student characteristics and the use of semistructured
activities. While this study suggests that semistructured
activities have a positive effect on student learning, this effect
is likely to vary across individual students as each student
learns material in a unique manner.
NOTES
1. Students were not allowed to keep their exams, and thus students in
subsequent terms did not have unfair access to the exam’s content. In addi-
tion, questions that were repeated from one term to the next were no more
likely to be answered correctly than questions that were not repeated.
2. The previous analysis related to an a priori hypothesis of differences
in group means. The present analysis relates to a post hoc investigation of the
distribution of the sample data.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Elaine J. 1997. Active learning in the lecture hall. Journal of Col-
lege Science Teaching 26 (May): 428-29.
Benjamin, Ludy T., Jr. 1991. Personalization and active learning in the large
introductory psychology class. Teaching of Psychology 18 (April):
68-74.
Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: Vol. 1. Cognitive
domain. New York: McKay.
Bolles, E. 1988. Remembering and forgetting: Inquiries into the nature of
memory. New York: Walker.
Bonwell, Charles C., and James A. Eison. 1991. Active learning: Creating
excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.
1). Washington, D.C.: George Washington University, School of Educa-
tion and Human Development.
Borg, Walter R., and Meredith Damien Gall. 1989. Educational research: An
introduction. 5th ed. New York: Longman.
Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. 1986. Teaching introductory marketing research. In
Proceedings: AMA Winter Educators’ Conference, edited by Joseph
Guiltinan and Dale Achabal, 53-54. Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Conant, Jeffrey S., and Michael P. Mokwa. 1987. Confronting marketing
management reality: A design and instructional strategy for an interme-
diate course. Journal of Marketing Education 9 (fall): 21-32.
Craik, Fergus I. M., and Robert S. Lockhart. 1972. Levels of processing: A
framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior 11:671-76.
Cross, K. Patricia, and Mimi Harris Steadman. 1996. Classroom research:
Implementing the scholarship of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34 APRIL 2000
Dabbour, Katherine Strober. 1997. Applying active learning methods to the
design of library instruction for a freshman seminar. College and
Research Libraries 58 (July): 299-308.
Davis, James R. 1993. Better teaching, more learning: Strategies for success
in postsecondary settings. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.
Gaidis, William C., and J. Craig Andrews. 1991a. An experiential approach
for integrating ethical analysis into marketing coursework. Journal of
Marketing Education 13 (summer): 3-9.
. 1991b. Management of experiential learning projects in
marketing
coursework. Journal of Marketing Education 13 (summer): 49-60. Graeff,
Timothy R. 1997. Bringing reflective learning to the marketing
research course: A cooperative learning project using intergroup critique.
Journal of Marketing Education 19 (spring): 53-64.
Guild, Pat Burke, and Stephen Garger. 1985. Marching to different drum-
mers. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Kolb, David. 1984. Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Lawson, Timothy J. 1995. Active-learning exercise for consumer behavior
classes. Teaching of Psychology 22 (October): 200-2.
Lewis, Linda H., and Carol J. Williams. 1994. Experiential learning: Past and
present. In Experiential learning: A new approach, edited by Lewis Jack-
son and Rosemary S. Caffarella, 5-16. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIV LIB on October 2, 2014
Malhotra, Naresh K., Armen Tashchian, and Arun K. Jain. 1989. The project
method approach: An integrated teaching tool in marketing research.
Journal of Marketing Education 11 (summer): 32-40.
McKeachie, Wilbert J. 1980. Improving lectures by understanding students’
information processing. In New directions for teaching and learning:
No. 2. Learning, cognition and college teaching, edited by Wilbert J.
McKeachie, 25-36. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murray, John B. 1990. Review of research on the Myers-Briggs type indica-
tor. Perceptual and Motor Skills 70:1187-1202.
Perry, Nancy Walker, Matthew T. Huss, Bradley D. McAuliff, and Julie M.
Galas. 1996. An active-learning approach to teaching the undergraduate
psychology and law course. Teaching of Psychology 23 (April): 76-81.
Rothschild, Michael L., Keith Adler, Raymond R. Burke, and Hubert
Gatignon. 1986. Teaching the promotion course. In Proceedings: AMA
Winter Educators’ Conference, edited by Joseph Guiltinan and Dale
Achabal, 44-47. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Shakarian, Diana C. 1995. Beyond lecture: Active learning strategies that
work. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance 66 (May-
June): 21-24.
Whitaker, Urban. 1989. Assessing learning: Standards, principles, & proce-
dures. Philadelphia, PA: Council for Adult and Experiential Learning.
Williams, David L., John D. Beard, and Jone Rymer. 1991. Team projects:
Achieving their full potential. Journal of Marketing Education 13 (sum-
mer): 45-53.