Our purpose was to develop a profile of the frequency and duration with which different teaching techniques are used in the university classroom. Student observers recorded the time spent in different teaching activities in 58 separate classes across a variety of disciplines. Teaching activities were placed into one of eight categories. Instructors also provided estimates of time spent in each category. Results showed that lecture continues to be the primary method of instruction, that males lectured more than females, and that time spent lecturing was positively related to class size. A significant portion of class time involved no learning and the profile determined by student observations was generally similar to that determined by instructor estimates. This study provides both a methodology and a profile upon which to build further research.
BLACKBURN, R. T.
, PELLINO, G. R., BOBERG, A. & O’CONNELL, C. (1980) ‘Are Instructional Programs Off-Target?’, Current Issues in Higher Education. 1: 32–48.
2.
BLIGH, D. A.
(2000) What’s the Use of Lectures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BONWELL, C. C.
& EISON, J. A. (1991) Active Learning:Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
4.
CHICKERING, A. W.
& GAMSON, Z. F. (1987) ‘Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education’, AAHE Bulletin39: 3–7.
5.
COOPER, J. L.
& MUECK, R. (1990) ‘Student Involvement in Learning: Cooperative Learning and College Instruction’, Journal on Excellence in College Teaching1: 68–76.
6.
COSTIN, F.
(1972) ‘Lecturing Versus Other Methods of Teaching: A Review of Research’, British Journal of Educational Technology3: 4–31.
7.
EBLE, K. E.
(1972) Professors as Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
GRASHA, A. F.
(1996) Teaching with Style: A Practical Guide to Enhancing Learning by Understanding Teaching and Learning Styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance.
9.
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(1999) The American College Teacher: National Norms forthe 1998–99 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California at Los Angeles.
10.
JOHNSON, D. W.
& JOHNSON, R. T. (1993) ‘What We Know About Cooperative Learning at the College Level’, Cooperative Learning:The Magazine for Cooperation in Higher Education13 (Spring): 17–18.
11.
JOHNSON, D. W.
, JOHNSON, R. T. & SMITH, K. A. (1991) Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.4. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Educational and Human Development.
12.
KAZDIN, A. E.
(2001) Behavior Modification in Applied Settings, 6th edn.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
13.
KOZMA, R. B.
(1978) ‘Faculty Development and the Adoption and Diffusion of Classroom Innovations’, Journal of Higher Education49: 438–449.
14.
MICHAELSEN, L. K.
, FINK, L. D. & KNIGHT, A. (1997) ‘Designing Effective Group Activities: Lessons for Classroom Teaching and Faculty Development’, in D. DEZURE (ed.) To Improve the Academy, Vol. 16, pp. 373–398. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press and the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
15.
MILLIS, B. J.
& COTTELL JR., P. G. (1998) CooperativeLearning for Higher Education Faculty. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and The Oryx Press.
16.
SLAVIN, R. E.
(1989) – (1990) ‘Research in Cooperative Learning: Consensus and Controversy’, Educational Leadership47: 52–55.
17.
STANGOR, C.
(1998) Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
18.
STATHAM- MACKE, A.
, WALUM- RICHARDSON, L. & COOK, J. (1980) Sex-typed Teaching Styles of University Professors and Student Reactions. Report for the National Instituteof Education. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
19.
THIELENS JR., W.
(1987) The Disciplines and Undergraduate Lecturing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
20.
WEIMER, M. G.
(1992) ‘Improving Higher Education: Issues and Perspectives on Teaching and Learning’, in D. W. WULFF & J. D. NYQUIST (eds) To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional and Organizational Development, pp. 13–23. The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
