Free online reading
Content ... 2
Introduction ... 3
Framework ... 6
Objectives of the Study ... 6
Methodology ... 6
Statistical Treatment of Data ... 7
Results and Discussions ... 9
Conclusions ... 13
Recommendations ... 13
Literatures Cited ... 14
Different stakeholders in the Philippines higher educational institutions agreed that there
was a need to raise the educational achievement of the youth (Hubbard, 2005). Basically, all
graduates of secondary education in the country must be prepared with knowledge and skills to
succeed in tertiary education (Mji & Makgato, 2006). The k-12 was only one of the major
requirements to improve student preparation in college. Higher education must provide a clear list of
hierarchy of year level competencies about what students needed to know in each year level (Shultz
& Hanushek, 2012).
Improving the readiness of college student in each year level to proceed to the next higher
level must be a major agenda among administrators. The focus of their efforts must be on the ability
of student to acquire competencies as they moved up in year level until graduation (Kuh, Kinzie,
Schuh, & Whitt, 2011). However, among institutions with an open admission policy improving the
readiness of college students was not just an altruistic gesture. They have to institute innovative
teaching strategies to prepare students in a heterogeneous class. Unlike selective institutions, where
they have a screening method to sort and select applicant, acquiring best prepared students in the
process, resulting in a homogenous class (Seidman, 2005).
The University of Mindanao is one higher educational institution (HEI) with an open
admission policy; being admitted to the university is not difficult. Nevertheless, some students did
not realize that, in each year level, they must demonstrate acquired competency based on the
standards of their enrolled program. Students who failed to meet the standards of the program were
recommended to enroll in remedial class or undergo intervention program, otherwise, they were
advised to shift to another course.
Teaching and learning played a very important role in promoting of competency among
college students (Khan & Coomarasamy, 2006). The most accepted criterion for an effective teaching
strategy was the amount of learning. There was a positive relationship between an effective teaching
strategy and the student's level of learning (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004). Students who acquired
substantial learning in the subject gave their instructor's teaching strategy a higher overall rating.
This was confirmed by Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, (2009) when they claimed that,
"effects of features of teachers' preparation on teachers' value added to student test score
performance." A teacher's effectiveness was as potent as his teaching preparations.
Numerous studies confirmed which teaching strategies enhanced student learning (Seidel &
Shavelson, 2007). However, few inquiries asked students to identify teaching strategies that
enhanced their learning in the business program. Although students did not have the expertise
knowing if the instructor's teaching strategy was the best, they can competently judge based on their
acquired learning in the program (Tucker & Stronge, 2005).
Research indicated that students were most qualified to recognize if their lesson added to
their competency. While different opinions on the degree in which students could competently
assessed the teaching strategy, there were substantial researches linking student learning to
effective teaching. A meta-analysis of 123 studies provided strong support to student learning and
effective teaching. It asserted that investigating effective use of teaching strategy and student
learning was one of the most popular research issues in higher education (D'Agostino & Powers,
2009). Researches on student evaluation of teaching strategy generally concluded that student
ratings were reliable, valid and useful (Marsh, 2007).
Similar to most universities, the University of Mindanao collected from students' anonymous
feedback before the end of each course (Douglas, Douglas, & Barnes, 2006). These feedbacks
measured the teaching effectiveness of instructors. Over the years the student evaluation instrument
improved especially in the area of teaching strategy and methodology (Algozzine et al., 2004). They
have transformed primarily from helping student in selecting their course to helping the faculty
improved their teaching strategy, to assisting administrators with respect to the faculty development
program (Beran, Violato, Kline, & Frideres, 2005). Among administrators the ratings information
helped in making a summative and formative decision about faculty retention, tenure, promotion,
awards and subject loading (Beran, Violato, & Kline, 2007). Faculty can also use the information to
improve their teaching strategy. Student-ratings are widely recognized tool in monitoring faculty
performance and course valuation in the Philippines (Magno & Sembrano, 2007).
There was much debate on how to define effective teaching strategy. Effective teaching
strategy used the scaffolding instructions originated by Lev Vygosky's social cultural theory and his
concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). "The zone of proximal development is the
distance between what learners can do by themselves and the next learning that they can be helped
to achieve with competent assistance" (Chaiklin, 2003). Meanwhile, Hedegaard, (2005) claimed that
effective teaching used "10 the zone of proximal development" as the basis of instruction in which
these can be "used to guide learners from the learned and understood scientific concepts to the
spontaneously applied." In addition, Lee, (2005) claimed the "11 signifying in the zone of proximal
development" wherein he added the interlocutor in the class was not a teacher in a traditional sense.
On the other hand, Gutiérrez (2008) argued the construct of a collective Third Space, which
challenged the present definition of the zone of proximal development. Third Space utilized "hybrid
language practices, conscious used of social theory, play and imagination" which links past, present
and an imagined future.
Numerous researchers investigated if students were reliable judges of teaching effectiveness.
Though several findings cautioned in relying solely on the rating of students to judge teaching
effectiveness, generally, studies claimed that student ratings were both reliable and valid
(Davidovitch & Soen, 2006). In class, student received various instructional activities (e.g.
assignments, exams, lectures, quizzes, recitation and researches) (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand &
Gamoran, 2003). In effect, students could distinguish quality, relevance, usefulness and expertise of
instructor. Inside the class, students could competently judge the quality of materials being taught
and how the instructor discussed the subject matter. In other words, concerning the instructor's
teaching, the student could provide reliable information. Therefore, students were surely qualified to
express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their learning experience. At any rate, students have
the right to express their opinions to the extent to which their experience inside the classroom were
useful, productive or satisfying.
The study was based on the Lev Vygotsky's Scaffolding Theory (Daniels, 2005), which
described as the support teachers gave to students to promote deeper learning (Sanders & Welk,
2005). A scaffold is a temporary learning support and eventually removed when the student takes
control of their own learning (Barker, Quennerstedt, & Annerstedt, 2015). The study of Beed,
Hawkins, & Roller, (1991) identified three essential features of scaffolding. The first, students must
be involved in a collaborative environment. The second scaffolding must take place in the student's
zone of proximal development (ZPD). The ZPD which was developed by Vygotsky, was the difference
between what a student could do without the teacher's assistance and what they could do with help
(McLeod, 2010). The third feature was the gradual removal of guidance and support of the teacher as
the student become more competent. At this level the student was believed to be an independent
learner (Quellmalz, Timms, & Schneider, 2009).
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The study intends to determine the teaching strategy that help students learn in their
professional course, identify the teaching strategy that need help to improve the course and the
steps to take to help improve the professional course.
The study used the purposive sampling method of 134 students from the three business
administration program; human resource management (HR), marketing management (MM) and
financial management (FM). The bulk of the respondents came from the third and fourth year
students because most of their subjects were professional courses (Guarte & Barrios, 2006). The
study randomly selected 128 students; more than 70 percent of respondents come from the third
and fourth year students. The researchers administered the self-constructed questionnaires
(Brinkmann, Schuetzmann, & Richter-Appelt, 2007) which were based on their experience on
different teaching strategies in professional courses (Rattray & Jones, 2007). The researchers
explained to the respondents the purpose of the survey, administer and retrieved the instrument
(DeVoe & Iyengar, 2004).
Table 1. Profile of the respondents
The study used the conjoint analysis to identify the preferred teaching strategy among
students taking a professional course (Orme, 2006). The conjoint analysis was able to determine the
combination of teaching strategy that helped in the delivery of professional courses. A set of
common teaching strategy was shown in the instrument and by analyzing how students preferred
between these strategies, the implicit valuation of each teaching strategy could be determined.
These implicit valuations were used to create teaching strategies that improved learning among
students in professional subjects, (Gustafsson, Herrmann, & Huber, 2007)
STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA
The students were asked to identify among different teaching strategies helped them to
learn best. They claimed that lectures with 110 or 26 percent, help them learn best followed by
recitation/reporting with 76 or 18 percent, the project or research and quizzes or exam with 73 and
70 or 17 percent share respectively. The least aspect of the course that helps students learn best was
the assignment with 34 or 8 percent.
In addition, students were asked to identify teaching strategies that need improvement. They
identified more relevant examples with 98 or 30 percent; hands on with 70 or 22 percent; application
with 68 or 21 percent and more lectures with 55 or 17 percent. The least that needs more
improvement is more group work with 20 or 6 percent.
Furthermore, the students were asked the steps to take to improve learning the course. They
claim focus and concentration with 98 or 28 percent; time management with 75 or 22 percent; group
studies with 66 or 19 percent, while 60 or 17 percent identify with consultation with the teacher.
Lastly, library work with 36 or 10 percent reveal library work is the least steps to take to improve the
course. Business Administration students rate each category of teaching strategy that helps them in
learning and place in a twelve by twenty (12 x 20) matrix which shows all possible attribute
combinations. The students were asked to identify, different teaching strategies, they may identify
more than one, which helped them learn in their professional course. The regression equation helps
modifies the student's response. Before subjecting the data for regression analysis, the assignment
column was removed to avoid co-linearity, although the process does not affect the model's
accuracy. The assignment attribute is still part of the regression equation with a zero coefficient.
Table 2. Teaching strategies that help and improve learning in the course
Aspect of course helps to learn best.
advise in helping improve learning in the course
more relevant examples
be hands on
steps to take to improve learning the course
participate in group studies
consultation with teacher
The result of the multiple regression analysis in the table 3 suggest that a significant
proportion of the total variation in the student's ranking was predicted by quizzes (-1.47E-15), group-
work (1.0), project (1.3), recitation (-6.52E-16), lecture (1.0) and time management (0.33) [F(6, 20) =
11.67, p = 0.008]. Additionally, for project unstandardized partial slope (1.3) are statistically
significant (t = 4.0, df = 6, p < .010); every one point increase in the project preference ranking
increases by more than one point among students when controlling for the quizzes, group work,
recitation, lecture and time management. The multiple R square indicates that approximately 93
percent of the variations in students learning were predicted by quizzes, group work, project,
recitation, lectures and time management. According to Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, (2013) this
result demonstrates a large effect.
Table 3. Preferred teaching strategies of business students
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The study shows that students perceive quizzes to have a negative effect on the aspect for
them to learn best in their professional course. This study implies that quizzes in some instances do
not produce a highly accurate performance of students (McDaniel, Agarwal, Huelser, McDermott, &
Roediger III, 2011). In a similar study, students rank quizzes second to last in helping them learn
(LaBranche, 2006). Meanwhile, studies describe the best strategy to use quizzes as an effective
teaching strategy to help a student in their professional course. One of these strategies is to let the
student plot the result of their successive quizzes and write down study strategy for the teacher to
give feedback. Students who are aware of their performance feel empowered and tend to engage in
more positive learning approaches (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004). Especially for students at risk,
teachers using motivational strategies and self-management skills significantly improve academic
success (Peter, 2005). Another proven method in using quizzes as an effective teaching strategy is to
use the collaborative learning strategy. It was reported that those who participated in a collaborative
testing were able to improve their attitudes towards learning better than the control group.
Furthermore, observations reveal that students involved in collaborative learning groups display
positive attitudes about their course and peers (Slusser & Erickson, 2006).
Group work otherwise known as cooperative learning is aspects of the professional course
that help student learn best by providing cognitive artifact which can be used for instructional
advantage (Reiser, 2004). In the concept of scaffold learning, cooperative learning support student
learning and provide support for peer interactions (Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005). One of the
advantages of cooperative learning is that the group of students learns better because of interaction
with each other to solve a problem or complete a task. Cooperative learning provides students the
sense of achievement, positive relationship and psychological health (Li & Lam, 2005). Due to these
advantages, cooperative learning in numerous research was acknowledge as the most widely used
and best evaluated form of peer learning (Topping, 2005).
However, it is not all advantages in cooperative learning, there are also disadvantages. A
study throws cautioned on the cooperative learning especially on the jigsaw method. In the study,
researchers discovered that a poor structured material and instruction result in low learning gains
among students (Souvignier & Kronenberger, 2007). Similarly, teachers who do not have a prior
training in cooperative learning and students with no prior experience in cooperative learning may
have a hard time in accommodating this teaching strategy (Baker & Clark, 2010). In addition,
cooperative learning needs calibrated support, eventually some teachers fail to consider that the tool
need to be removed to achieve fading (Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005).
Student project is also known as a problem based learning (PBL). PBL is known as a learner-
centered approach which has the ability to empower the student to conduct research, apply
theories, use knowledge and skills to achieve a goal or solve a problem (Savery, 2006). Another
research claimed that PBL prepare students more effectively for future learning. This technique
facilitates the four modern insights of learning: constructive, self-directed collaborative and
contextual (Dolmans, De Grave, Wolfhagen, & Van Der Vleuten, 2005). The advantages of PBL are
profound that a separate study concludes that this technique encourages among small group
opportunities to elaborate on new knowledge and enhance students' long-term memorability
(Schmidt, Rotgans, & Yew, 2011). In fact, research claimed that even if students were presented with
an ill-structured problem, their resourcefulness was able to overcome initial barriers. The ill-
structured problem even provides challenges to students to use the multi-disciplinary approach
which is beyond a typical school science (Chin & Chia, 2006).
Meanwhile, other studies contend that PBL as a teaching strategy poses several
disadvantages. These researches declare that although minimally guided instructions are popular and
appealing, they tend to ignore the human cognitive architecture, which reveals that these teaching
strategies less effective and less efficient than a strong teacher guided the student learning process.
It is only when students demonstrate a high prior knowledge will the teacher extend minimal guided
instruction (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). This means that the success of PBL depends on
students receiving proper scaffold learning from the teacher. It confirmed another study which
compared the explicit instruction and unassisted discovery. The result reveals that learning outcomes
favored explicit instruction, whereas, unassisted discovery does not benefited learners (Alfieri,
Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011).
Class reporting according to the result of this research poses a negative aspect on the
teaching strategy that does not help business students learn best. In one study, student reporting in
the class is not an end but part of a project based requirement of the class (Mitchell, Foulger, Wetzel,
& Rathkey, 2009). In some instances, students engage in research and report to the class the result of
an investigation. The research output is the highlight of the activity and not reporting (Scanlon et al.,
2009). Therefore, reporting is supposed to follow the principle of seven good feedback practices.
Teachers planning to require students reporting to follow the seven good feedback principles (Nicol
& Milligan, 2006): helps clarify good reporting; facilitate self-reflection and assessment in the
learning; inform the student about their learning; encourage peer dialogue; promote self-esteem and
close the gap between current and desired performance. Individual reporting should not be required
if seven principles cannot be met.
Lecture is not a student centered learning approach, as such; student engagement is missing
or very low (Armbruster, Patel, Johnson, & Weiss, 2009). The current trend in pedagogy is to shift
from a traditional lecture to the incorporation of active-learning and student-centered classroom
(Armbruster et al., 2009). Traditional lecture alone does not interest student to engage in learning
(Evans, 2008). However, studies do not totally drop the lecture from teaching strategy. The
recommendations are to modify its approaches (Slunt & Giancarlo, 2004).
Studies suggest blending the lecture with other modes to design a student-oriented class.
The first is the use of technology. Traditional lectures can be further enriched with the use of e-
learning during the process (Zhang, Zhao, Zhou, & Nunamaker Jr, 2004). In a similar manner, lectures
can be interesting when complemented the use of audio-visual display through standard web
browser. Second, suggest that teachers should be engaged in the active lecture. This technique
allows students to voluntary answer questions during lectures. The lecturer focuses on the topic of
discussions using the aid of technology. It is found active lectures make students more motivated and
engaged (Gauci, Dantas, Williams, & Kemm, 2009).
Time management is a negative indicator in the equation of preferences. This means that if
time management increases, learning will not likely take place. Time management is the ability of the
faculty to use the time of their students productively and effectively in learning (Dabbagh &
Kitsantas, 2004). The result shows that due to poor time management, students demand from the
faculty better time management. Time management demonstrates good classroom management.
The faculty proceeds to address the constructive teaching and scaffold learning until students
becomes an independent learner (Jordan, Schwartz, & McGhie-Richmond, 2009).
Business students preferred learning strategies are group work, projects or research and
lecture. However, reporting and poor time management of the faculty does not help in their learning.
The study proves that a student-centered class is the most preferred teaching strategy among
The faculty handling professional business course must use more often the project or
research teaching strategy. A student-centered classroom must be the norm in teaching. However, it
is not a general rule to use project or research indiscriminately in any business course. Requiring
students to engage in projects or researches entail the faculty to engage in scaffold learning. This
means a methodical presentation of principles and expectations must be provided to students prior
to a project or research. In addition, faculty members are not completely dissuaded to engage in
lecture and reporting. Nevertheless, a blended learning is required. In delivering lecture faculty
members must be engaged in active learning. In the end, individual reporting must be an activity for
students to report a prior academic activity (research, group work, etc.) and must not be used by the
faculty to let the student take over the class.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction
enhance learning?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1.
Algozzine, B., Gretes, J., Flowers, C., Howley, L., Beattie, J., Spooner, F., et al. (2004). Student
evaluation of college teaching: A practice in search of principles. College teaching, 52(4), 134-
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to
developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and
high school English.American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685-730.
Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered
pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life
Sciences Education, 8(3), 203-213.
Baker, T., & Clark, J. (2010). Cooperative learninga double-edged sword: a cooperative learning
model for use with diverse student groups. Intercultural Education, 21(3), 257-268.
Barker, D., Quennerstedt, M., & Annerstedt, C. (2015). Learning through group work in physical
education: A symbolic interactionist approach. Sport, Education and Society, 20(5), 604-623.
Beed, P. L., Hawkins, E. M., & Roller, C. M. (1991). Moving learners toward independence: The power
of scaffolded instruction. The Reading Teacher, 648-655.
Beran, T., Violato, C., & Kline, D. (2007). What's the" use" of student ratings of instruction for
administrators? One university's experience. The Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 37(1), 27.
Beran, T., Violato, C., Kline, D., & Frideres, J. (2005). The utility of student ratings of instruction for
students, faculty, and administrators: A" consequential validity" study. Canadian Journal of
Higher Education, 35(2), 49-70.
Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and
student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.
Brinkmann, L., Schuetzmann, K., & Richter-Appelt, H. (2007). Gender assignment and medical history
of individuals with different forms of intersexuality: Evaluation of medical records and the
patients' perspective. Journal of Sexual Medicine.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky's analysis of learning and
instruction. Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context, 1, 39-64.
Chin, C., & Chia, L. G. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project
work. Science Education, 90(1), 44-67.
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based
program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology
in the Schools, 41(5), 537-550.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
D'Agostino, J. V., & Powers, S. J. (2009). Predicting teacher performance with test scores and grade
point average: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 146-182.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-regulation in student-centered web-based
learning environments. International Journal on E-learning, 3(1), 40-47.
Daniels, H. (2005). An introduction to Vygotsky: Psychology Press.
Davidovitch, N., & Soen, D. (2006). Using students' assessments to improve instructors' quality of
teaching. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(4), 351-376.
DeVoe, S. E., & Iyengar, S. S. (2004). Managers' theories of subordinates: A cross-cultural
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(1), 47-61.
Dolmans, D. H., De Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I. H., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. (2005). Problem-based
learning: Future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical education, 39(7),
Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university.
Quality Assurance in Education, 14(3), 251-267.
Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher
education. Computers & Education, 50(2), 491-498.
Gauci, S. A., Dantas, A. M., Williams, D. A., & Kemm, R. E. (2009). Promoting student-centered active
learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances in Physiology Education,
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills,
their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active learning in
higher education, 5(1), 87-100.
Guarte, J. M., & Barrios, E. B. (2006). Estimation under purposive sampling.Communications in
Statistics--Simulation and Computation®, 35(2), 277-284.
Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2007). Conjoint measurement: methods and applications:
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space.Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164.
Hedegaard, M. (2005). 10 The zone of proximal development as basis for instruction. An introduction
to Vygotsky, 227.
Hubbard, L. (2005). The role of gender in academic achievement. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 18(5), 605-623.
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 535-542.
Khan, K. S., & Coomarasamy, A. (2006). A hierarchy of effective teaching and learning to acquire
competence in evidenced-based medicine. BMC medical education, 6(1), 59.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and
inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2011). Student success in college: Creating conditions
that matter. John Wiley & Sons.
LaBranche, D. F. (2006). Scaffolding--Getting Students Engaged in Learning. Journal of professional
issues in engineering education and practice, 132(2), 96-98.
Lee, C. D. (2005). 11 Signifying in the zone of proximal development. An introduction to Vygotsky,
Li, M., & Lam, B. (2005). Cooperative learning. Retrieved September, 25, 2013.
Magno, C., & Sembrano, J. (2007). The Role of T The Role of Teacher Efficacy eacher Efficacy and
Characteristics on T and Characteristics on Teaching Effectiveness, Effectiveness,
Performance, erformance, and Use of Learner and Use of Learner-Centered Practices-
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity,
potential biases and usefulness. In The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher
education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 319-383). Springer Netherlands.
McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger III, H. L. (2011). Test-
enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: The effects of quiz frequency and
placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 399.
McLeod, S. (2010). Zone of proximal development. SimplyPsychology. Retrieved July, 28, 2013.
Mitchell, S., Foulger, T. S., Wetzel, K., & Rathkey, C. (2009). The negotiated project approach: Project-
based learning without leaving the standards behind. Early Childhood Education Journal,
Mji, A., & Makgato, M. (2006). Factors associated with high school learners' poor performance: a
spotlight on mathematics and physical science. South African journal of education, 26(2),
Nicol, D., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to
the seven principles of good feedback practice. Innovative assessment in higher education,
Orme, B. K. (2006). Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison, WI: Research Publishers LLC.
Peter, C. (2005). Learning--Whose responsibility is it?. Nurse Educator,30(4), 159-165.
Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning
environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational psychologist,
Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., & Schneider, S. A. (2009). Assessment of student learning in science
simulations and games.
Rattray, J., & Jones, M. C. (2007). Essential elements of questionnaire design and development.
Journal of clinical nursing, 16(2), 234-243.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing
student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
Sanders, D., & Welk, D. S. (2005). Strategies to scaffold student learning: Applying Vygotsky's zone of
proximal development. Nurse Educator, 30(5), 203-207.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Deï¬
nitions and distinctions.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 3.
Scanlon, E., Littleton, K., Gaved, M., Kerawalla, L., Mulholland, P., Collins, T., et al. (2009). Support for
evidence-based inquiry learning: teachers, tools and phases of inquiry. Proceedings of
European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), 9.
Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. H. (2011). The process of problem-based learning: what works
and why. Medical education, 45(8), 792-806.
Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of
theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of educational
research, 77(4), 454-499.
Seidman, A. (2005). College student retention: Formula for student success: Greenwood Publishing
Shultz, G. P., & Hanushek, E. A. (2012). Education is the key to a healthy economy. Wall Street
Slunt, K. M., & Giancarlo, L. C. (2004). Student-centered learning: A comparison of two different
methods of instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(7), 985.
Slusser, S. R., & Erickson, R. J. (2006). Group quizzes: An extension of the collaborative learning
process. Teaching Sociology, 34(3), 249-262.
Souvignier, E., & Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders' jigsaw groups for
mathematics and science with and without questioning training. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77(4), 755-771.
Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational psychology, 25(6), 631-645.
Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Learning: ERIC.
Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom
learning? Communications of the ACM, 47(5), 75-79.
16 of 16 pages
- Quote paper
- Vicente Salvador Montaño (Author)Lily Mae De Chavez (Author), 2015, Effective Teaching Strategies in Business Education, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/338218