This study evaluates the seriousness ofcommunication barriersfor ihefoUowingfive teaching methods:

(1) straight lecture, (2) prepared case studies, (S) experiential exercises, (4) computer simulation, and
(5) "live" case studies. The results of this study indicate the presence of 13 communication barrier
clusters orfactors that concern students A number of significant differences existfor six of the clusters
among the five teaching methods.

An Analysis off Communication Barriers

in Five iMetiiods off Teaching Business Subjects
Steven Golen and Alvin C. Burns
Louisiana State University
James W. Gentry
Oklahoma State University

As EDUCATORS, WE WISH TO TRANSMIT information to our students in the most

effective and efficient manner. The methods we use to complete this process are unique
to each instructor. However, it seems reasonable to assume thatfivespecific methods are
common in the classroom today. Thesefivemethods are: straight lecture, prepared case
studies of varying length and complexity, experiential exercises (i.e., workbook, end-of-
chapter problems), computer simulation, and "live" case studies where students work on
problems in business and industry.
Which method is the best? Why does one instructor use one method over another?
Why is one method successful for one instructor but unsuccessful for another? From our
observations, it seems that the method chosen is basically a function of each instructor's
own experiences as a student, personal preferences, unfamiliarity with other methods,
departmental expectations, and perhaps peer or mentor infiuence.
Therefore, many questions exist regarding the relative merits and potential problem
areas when an instructor considers an alternative teaching method for his or her course.
What can an instructor expect in terms of the students' achievement and their attitudes
toward the subject matter, the course, the other students, and the instructor? Since
leaniing is the result of a communication process, problems or barriers can inhibit or
restrict this process, affect learning, and influence students' attitudes. This process, or in
this case the particular teaching method selected by the instructor, will likely produce
certain communication barriers peculiar to the method.

PUBPOSE

The purpose of this study wasfive-fold.Specifically, we sought to:

1. investigate the seriousness of communication barriers for each method;
2. determine whether certain barriers are unique or cluster with other barriers;
3. determine the differences in perceived seriousness of the barriers for each method;
4. determine the differences in perceived seriousness of the various barriers for four
basic business disciplines; and
 46 THE JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION • 21:3

5. analyze possible perceptual differences between teaching methods and disciplines.

PROCEDURES
The evaluation of the teaching methods used was conducted through the use of a
narrative handout or scenario that described the basic approach in each of the five
methods: straight lecture, case studies, experiential exercises, computer simulation, and
"live" case studies. Straight lecture was included as a control treatment. Allfivemethods
were used to some degree in four business disciplines: marketing, management, finance,
and accounting. One narrative for each method within each discipline was composed;
therefore, there were 20 separate narratives, each of which included a discussion of one
method and reference to the principles of one of the four courses. All the students had
previous exposure to thefivemethods.
Each narrative informed the student to assume he or she was enrolled in either a
marketing, management, finance, or accounting principles course and that a particular
method would be used to help the students learn the subject matter. The description
continued with specifics and examples of the method to be used as well as references to
the subject matter. The students were told that about 50 percent of the class time would
be devoted to the method.
Forty-six possible communication barriers were selected from a list determined by a
review of the literature. A large number of barriers was developed because of the two
sources of communication within the teaching methods—the instructor and other
students. The students were instructed to identify the seriousness of each barrier to
leaming the subject-matter principles of one of the four courses. The seriousness of the
barriers was measured on a 5-point scale from "not serious" to "very serious."
An equivalent-groups research design was used. Students enrolled in the "capstone"
business policy course, reserved for those students in their senior year, were
administered the questionnaire during the first week of class. The two universities (A and
B) used in the study are both major state universities with over 22,500 students each and
with business schools in excess of 2,500 enrolled juniors and seniors. Random assignment
of each teaching method-business discipline narrative was used, and each student
responded to one narrative. A final sample of 700 students was split almost evenly
between the universities and among the teaching methods and principles courses.

FINDINGS

Equivalence Tests

An analysis to determine the equivalence of the samples from the two universities was
conducted. No significant differences were determined by a t-test for familiarity with the
 ANALYSIS/COMMUNICATION BARRIERS • GOLEN, ETAL 47

teaching method. Similarly, Chi-Square tests found no significant differences between A

and B samples regarding classification, grade point average, sex, or major.

Seriousness of the Barriers

Preliminary analyses focused on the seriousness of the communication barriers
regardless of method, discipline, or university. The grand mean ratings for the barriers
are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
REUTIVE SERIOUSNESS OF THE COMMUNICATION BARRIERS*

Barriers Grand Mean

1. Instructor's Tendency Not to Listen 4.20

2. Students' Tendency Not to Listen 4.09
3. Overload or Too Much Information for Students 4.09
4. Instructor's Hostile Attitude 4.09
5. Personality Conflicts Between Instructor and Student 4.02
6.Laci(ofFeedbacktoInstructor 4.00
7. Instructor's Lack of Credibility 3.95
8. Instructor's Prejudices or Biases 3.93
9. Students' Lack of Interest in the Subject Matter 3.92
10. Differences in Perception Between Instructors and Students 3.82
U.LackoflVustinlnstructor 3.82
12. Students'LackofUnderstandingof TechnicalLanguage 3.81
13. Students' Hostile Attitude 3.80
14. Instructor's Either-Or Thinking 3.71
15. Students'Resistance to Change 3.68
16. Students' Inadequate Knowledge of the Topic 3.67
17.Students'Either-0rThinking 3.66
18. PoorTimingofRequestsandlnstructions 3.63
19.LackofFeedbacktoStudents 3.62
20. PhysicalNoise or Distraction 3.58
21.ExcessiveSizeofaGroup 3.58
22. Too Many Intermediate Receivers Between the Sender and Intended Receiver
of the Information 3.46
23. Students' Know-It-All Attitude 3.46
24. Instructor's Know-It-All Attitude 3.45
25. Students' Poor Organization of Ideas 3.43
26. Instructor's Emotional Reaction 3.34
27. Students' Prejudices or Biases 3.33
28.Lackof'IVustinOtherStudents 3.27
29. Students' Fear of Distortion or Omission of Information 3.23
30. Personality Conflicts Between Students 3.16
31. Physical Distance Between Student Sender and Student Receiver of Information 3.16
32. Students' Emotional Reaction 3.07
33. Students'Defensiveness 3.02
 48 THE JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION • 21:3

Barriers Grand Mean

34. Differences in Perceptions of Students 2.95

35. Students' Preniaturely Jumping to Conclusions 2.84
36.Students'UseofProfanity 2.83
37. Informal Social Groupings or Cliques 2.76
3ainstructor'sUseofProfanity 2.75
39. Students' Lack of Credibility 2.75
40. Poor Spatial Arrangement 2.73
41. Students' Inability to Understand Nonverbal Communication 2.72
42. Students With Overiy Competitive Attitudes 2.56
43. Differences Between Status of Instructor and Students 2.54
44. Differences Between Students' Status 2.36
45. Students' Speaking Too Loudly 2.25
46. Inappropriate Physical Appearance of Students 1.85

•Based on a scale of 1 ("not serious") to 5 ("very serious").

Inspection reveals a broad range of serious ratings with some interesting patterns. Nine
of the eleven most serious barriers concerned the instructor or differences between the
instructor and students. On the other hand, of those barriers perceived as less serious,
the majority concerned student-specific traits or behaviors.

Communication Barrier Clusters or Factors

Principal components factors analysis with varimax rotation was used to determine
the clusters or factors of the communication barriers within the forty-six item
instrument. Using the decision rule of eigenvalues greater than or equal to one, we found
13 clusters or factors accounting for 61.2 percent of the total variance. A number of the
rotated items were found to load with coefficients appreciably close to 1.0, and arbitrary
cut-off factor loadings greater than or equal to ±.45 was applied. All 13 of the factors
satisfied face validity, as can be seen in Table 2. The table also shows the results of
Cronbach's Alpha computed as reliability estimates for each factor with two or more
items. Generally, preliminary research such as this should determine reliability
coefficients of .60 or greater. In all but one case, this lower limit was surpassed.

Differences in Seriousness Across Universities

When the analysis of differences was performed using the factor sum scores, only one
factor was rated as being significantly different (p « .05) by students at the two
universities. Students at University A tended to believe that the use of profanity was
slightly more serious a barrier to education than did those from University B.
Nonetheless, the large degree of consistency in the perceived seriousness of the various
communication barriers across the two universities lent credence to combining the two
subject groups to investigate differences across disciplines and methods.
 ANALYSIS/COMMUNICATION BARRIERS • GOLEN, ETAL 49

Table 2
COMMUNICATION BARRIER CLUSTERS:
ITEMS AND RELIABIUTY COEFFICIENTS

Explained
Variance (given Smn Cronbach's
Barrier Items Factor Loading in percent) Score Mean Alpha

1. Hostility, Distrust, and Personality

Conflicts with Instructor
Instructor's lack of credibility .60
Personality conflicts between
instructor and students .62
Instructor's hostile attitudes .74
Students' hostile attitudes .55
Instructor's tendency not to listen .61
Lack of trust in instructor .68 20.2 4.0 .81
2. Student Interpersonal Conflicts
Personality conflicts between
students .77
Informal social groupings or cliques .66
Lack of trust in other students .63 6.9 3.1 .67
Z.llse of Profanity
Instructor's use of profanity .86
Students' use of profanity .87 4.6 2.8
4. "Either-Or" Thinking
Instructor's "either-or" thinking .83
Students' "either-or" thinking .80 4.2 3.8 .84
5. Noise and Spatial Distraction
Students speaking too loudly .52
Poor spatial arrangements .67
Physical distance between sender
and receiver .58
Physical noise or distractions .63 3.6 2.9 .64
6. Ernotional Reactions and
Defensiveness
Students' defensiveness .47
Instructor's emotional reaction .74
Students' emotional reaction .83 3.3 3.1 .69
7. Status Differences
Difference between status or
position of instructor and
students .83
Difference between students'
status or position .75 3.2 2.5 .78
8. Students'Know-It-Allism and
Resistance
Students' know-it-all attitude .55
Students' resistance to change .56
Students' lack of credibility .56 3.0 3.3 .45
 50 THE JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION '21:3

Explained
Variance (given Snm Cronbach's
Barrier Items Factor Loading in percent) Score Mean Alpha

9. Students'Lack of Knowledge
and Understanding
Students' lack of understanding
of technical language .75
Students' inadequate knowledge
of the topic .77 2.6 3.8 .64
W. Feedback Problems
Lack of feedback to instructor .70
Lack of feedback to students .66
Students' tendency not to listen .48 2.6 3.9 .67
11. Perceptual Differences
Differences in perceptions of
students .70
Differences in perception between
instructor and students .75 2.5 3.4 .60
l2.PrejudicesandBiases
Instructor's prejudices or biases .57
Students' prejudices or biases .67 2.4 3.8 .71
13. Group Size Problems
Excessive size of a group .70 2.2 3.6 (Not applicable)

Differences in Serionsness Across Disciplines

The narratives were presented in the context of using different methods of
introductory courses in accounting, finance, management, and marketing. When the
factor sum scores were analyzed, the only factor which was perceived differently across
disciplines was the "Lack of Knowledge and Understanding" factor. Post hoc tests
involving the mean ratings on the variables associated with this factor revealed the
problem was perceived to be more serious with basic Finance and Accounting subject
matter and less serious with principles of Marketing or Management subject matter.

Differences in Seriousness Across Methods

When the 13 communication clusters were examined, there were 6 cases of significant
differences (p ^ .05) found for the teaching methods. In order to determine where the
significant differences were, Duncan's Multiple Range Test was performed for each case.
The results of these tests indicated that the student respondents envision all four of the
teaching methods which require some type of interaction as being significantly more
conducive to student interpersonal conflicts than straight lecture. At the same time, the
straight lecture environment is one in which there is a perceived greater danger of
physical distractions inhibiting communication than in any of the other four methods.
 ANALYSIS/COMMUNICATION BARRIERS • GOLEN, ETAL 51

Regarding "either-or" thinking barriers to communication effectiveness, the live case

method generates more concern than does the experiential exercise method. Experiential
exercises are more indicative of status differences problems than is straight lecture. The
students' know-it-allism and resistance are perceived equally great as a problem for all
four of the more interactive methods. Finally, students' lack of knowledge is perceived
more serious a problem with the live case study method than with straight lecture.

Differences in Seriousness
Across Student Characteristics
Major, grade point average, and sex were the three student characteristics analyzed in
this study. Six different business majors were identified These were: accounting, finance,
management, marketing, quantitative methods, and other (the vast majority of whom
were general business majors). Analysis of variance determined only one significant
difference (p ^ .08), and a post hoc analysis revealed the use of profanity communication
item being perceived as more serious by quantitative methods majors than by any other
group. Finance majors and management majors perceived it as less serious than did all
other major groups. The cumulative grade point average analysis used four groupings:
2.0-2.5; 2.6-3.0; 3.1-3.5; and 3.6-4.0 (4-point system in both schools). This analysis
determined only one significant difference (p « .07), which occurred for the status
differences barrier. This problem was of less concern for those with the highest GPA's
than it was for those in the other categories.
Several differences existed between male and female students, however. Seven
significant differences (p ^ .05) were found in t-test comparisons. For all these cases,
fenaale students tended to indicate greater concern than did male students for hostility,
distrust, and personality conflicts with the instructor; the use of profanity; "either-or"
thinking; emotional reactions and defensiveness; students lack of knowledge and
understanding; feedback problems; and perceptual differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on thefindingsof this study, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. In the aggregate, the most serious communication barriers to learning basic business
subject matter were perceived by students to be the instructor's tendency not to listen,
students' tendency not to listen, overload or too much information for students,
instructor's hostile attitude, and personality conflicts between instructor and student.
2. Inappropriate physical appearance of students, students' speaking too loudly,
differences between students' status, differences between status of instructor and
students, and students vidth overly competitive attitudes were the least serious
communication barriers to learning basic business subject matter in the aggregate.
3. This across-methods, across-discipUnes, and across-universities analysis identified
13 specific clusters or factors of barriers that concern business students and warrant the
attention of business educators.
 52 THE JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION '21:3

4. Very few significant differences of these factors exist among the four business
disciplines (marketing, management, finance, and accounting) and between the two
universities. One can conclude that the students from both universities perceived the
seriousness of the barriers the same, regardless of discipline.
5. Several significant differences exist among thefiveteaching methods for six of the
barrier clusters. One can conclude that each method contains unique barriers that are
more serious than others.
6. Students appear to be most concerned not with barriers created by student-specific
behaviors during a class situation but rather by the expectation, evaluation, and feedback
process of the instructor.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made:
1. Instructors should keep abreast of the most common communication barriers that
may affect leaming business subject matter.
2. Once instructors have selected a particular method, they should understand the
linkage between the barriers that may exist in the method and the behavior designed to
overcome or minimize the effect of these barriers on the learning of subject matter.
3. Students, as well as instructors, should develop their interpersonal skills by
analyzing the most serious communication barriers that may exist for a particular method
before the method is used.
4. Faculty development programs should include training in dealing with
communication barriers to learning that may exist in the classroom.
5. Further research should be conducted by analyzing the communication barriers to
leaming in other undergraduate, as well as graduate, business or related disciplines that
use various methods of teaching.