A Comparison of Active Learning and Traditional Pedagogical Styles in a Business Law Classroom
| Date | 01 March 2014 |
| Author | LeVon E. Wilson,Stephanie R. Sipe |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/jlse.12010 |
| Published date | 01 March 2014 |
Journal of Legal Studies Education
Volume 31, Issue 1, 89–105, Winter 2014
A Comparison of Active Learning and
Traditional Pedagogical Styles in a
Business Law Classroom
LeVon E. Wilson*and Stephanie R. Sipe**
I. Introduction
Do college students learn best by the traditional lecture1pedagogical style
of delivery, or should university professors discard the traditional lecture
and opt for an active learning2environment? The search for the answers
to these questions prompted the researchers to experiment with two dif-
ferent pedagogical methods in the classroom to determine whether there
was a significant difference in student learning as a result of the style of
delivery. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to determine whether
an active learning classroom environment is more effective in teaching uni-
versity students certain concepts of business law than the traditional lecture
environment. To generate data to answer this question, over a seven-semester
period beginning in fall semester 2005 six classes of Legal Environment of
Business students were instructed on the topic of employment discrimination
by a lecture method of delivery, and nine classes of Legal Environment of
Business students were taught the same topic by an active learning method
of delivery. The learning outcomes of the student groups were then assessed
using a standardized test that was designed to measure the levels of student
learning under several categories of Bloom’s Taxonomy.3
*Professor of Legal Studies, Georgia Southern University.
**Associate Professor of Legal Studies, Georgia Southern University.
1The traditional lecture method is commonly viewed as when professors talk and students listen.
2Active learning, sometimes referred to as collaborative learning or learning by discovery, may
include a number of instructional techniques that are designed to actively involve students.
3See A Committee of College and University Examiners, The Nature and Development of the Taxon-
omy,inTaxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals
10, 18 (Benjamin S. Bloom ed., 1956).
C2014 The Authors
Journal of Legal Studies Education C2014 Academy of Legal Studies in Business
89
90 Vol. 31 / The Journal of Legal Studies Education
This study was conducted on university students in their first business
law class, which was Legal Environment of Business. The groups were not
told that they were being evaluated on how they responded to different
teaching methods. After the chapter material was delivered to the students
and they were assessed on their knowledge by way of the standardized test,
their responses were evaluated to determine whether there was any significant
increase in learning for students who were taught by the active learning
method of instruction versus students who were taught by a lecture method
of instruction.
II. Research Questions
1. As measured by test score, to what extent is an active learning classroom en-
vironment more effective in teaching university students certain concepts
in a business law classroom than the traditional lecture environment?
2. To what extent is the learning of business law concepts impacted by the
style of instructional delivery and other variables such as gender, class
attendance, or class level?
III. Literature Review
The purpose of this study was to see if active learning does in fact produce
a more successful learning outcome for the study of business law concepts.
The authors, through their own learning experiences, had a subjective be-
lief that active learning presentations can lead to more successful learning
opportunities, at least for adult learners. However, the authors were aware
of some controversy in the literature on the effects of active learning. For
example, prior research by Brown and Pendlebury4points out that just
because learners happen to be engaged in some kind of observable activ-
ity, this does not mean that they are necessarily the subjects of their own
learning, rather than objective recipients of information, as active learning
theories would have us believe. Further, other researchers think that there
may be a problem in the aims of the active learning community. According to
Kane,5the process may be as important as the product and basically color the
4See George Brown &Malcolm Pendlebury,Assessing Active Learning:Effective
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Module 11 1–5 (1992).
5Liam Kane, Educators, Learners and Active Learning,23 Int’l J. Lifelong Educ. 275 (2004).
To continue reading
Request your trial