Cold Calling
Cold Calling
Abstract
Classroom discussion is perhaps the most frequently used “active learning”
strategy. However, instructors are often concerned about students who are
less inclined to participate voluntarily.They worry that students not involved
in the discussion might have lower quality learning experiences. Although
instructors might consider whether to call on a student whose hand is not
raised (“cold-call”), some instructors resist cold-calling fearing that the stu-
dent will feel uncomfortable. This study examines the impact of cold-calling
on students’ voluntary participation in class discussions and their comfort
participating in discussions. The results demonstrate that significantly more
students answer questions voluntarily in classes with high cold-calling, and
that the number of students voluntarily answering questions in high cold-
calling classes increases over time. Furthermore, students in classes with
high cold-calling answer more voluntary questions than those in classes with
low cold-calling; this also increases over time. Finally, in classes with high
cold-calling, students’ comfort participating in class discussions increases
while in classes with low cold-calling, students’ comfort participating does
not change. Research findings show that cold-calling can be done fairly ex-
tensively without making students uncomfortable. Thus, the research re-
ported here provides support for using this instructional strategy to engage
more students to participate in discussions.
1
Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Julie H. Hertenstein, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, 404 Hayden
Hall, Boston, MA 02115-5000, USA
Email: [email protected]
2 Journal of Management Education XX(X)
Keywords
cold-calling, student voluntary participation, students’ comfort participating,
class participation, class discussion, case discussion
Literature Review
Active learning—which encourages student collaboration in the teaching–
learning process—has long been encouraged as an educational strategy
(Bonwell & Eisen, 1991; Nyquist & Wulff, 1990). Discussion teaching is
one of the most widely used forms of active learning. Discussion provides
the opportunity for students to practice and develop essential skills such as
organizing concepts, formulating arguments, evaluating evidence, and
responding thoughtfully and critically (Davis, 2009) and elicits higher level
reflective thinking (Ewens, 2000). Through participation in discussion, stu-
dents are better able to retain information (Ewens, 2000) and to learn more
(Weaver & Qi, 2005). Several explanations have been proposed for why
students who participate in discussion learn more. Arbaugh and Benbunan-
Fich (2006) suggest that more learning results because it is easier to inter-
nalize explanations from knowledgeable peers and because disagreements/
misunderstandings can be resolved during group discussions. This explana-
tion is consistent with Hertenstein’s (1991) earlier assertion that discussions
provide students the opportunity to learn “both through their own active
participation and through the contributions of others” (p. 175).
In the field of business, references in the literature to class discussion
often focus on case discussion as the case method is one of the most common
and important pedagogical techniques used to teach business (Greenhalgh,
2007; Rollag, 2010). Indeed, it has been said that cases have become “ubiq-
uitous” in management education (Schmidt-Wilk, 2010, p. 492); case discus-
sions provide varied benefits. Gilmore and Schall (1996) find that case
4 Journal of Management Education XX(X)
Goodyear, Prosser, & O’Hara, 2006).2 Although any of these approaches may
help involve some students who are reluctant participators, they do not resolve
this problem entirely.
A student’s ability to participate in class discussions is an acquired skill,
which, like other communication skills such as making formal presentations,
develops over time. Both academic and practical sources suggest that with such
skills, the more students practice, the better they get, and the more comfortable
they become (“10 Tips for Public Speaking,” n.d.; Dallimore, Hertenstein, &
Platt, 2008; “The Habit of Courage,” n.d.; Sprague & Stuart, 2003). Students
explain that they are more comfortable participating when they participate
more and when other students participate more (Souza et al., 2010). One reason
students’ comfort is enhanced when engaged in discussion with other students
is because they relate to one another as peers. C. R. Christensen (1991) explains,
Although it may not be obvious why calling on a student whose hand is not
raised might increase student participation quality and discussion effective-
ness, a study by Dallimore et al. (2006) provides some insight. The study
examines one graduate class taught by an instructor who cold-called fre-
quently and graded participation. The primary findings were that not only did
students’ self-reported participation frequency increase, but their self-reported
preparation increased as well. If cold-calling is associated with increased
preparation, then preparation may enhance participation quality and discus-
sion effectiveness. This link between cold-calling and preparation is noted in
an earlier edited book about case teaching (Rosmarin, 1987).
Despite the apparent potential for cold-calling to enhance participation qual-
ity, discussion effectiveness, frequency of participation, and preparation, some
instructors are hesitant to call on a student whose hand is not raised. These
instructors worry that cold-calling might make students feel “humiliated” or
that they were “victims” (Dallimore et al., 2005, p. 24). Experienced instructors
further suggest that because cold-calling would make students uncomfortable,
they would be less likely to volunteer (Dallimore et al., 2006).
However, in the limited research available where data are gathered from
students rather than instructors, the evidence suggests that cold-calling might
not have a negative impact on student comfort participating. Dallimore et al.
(2006) report that average student comfort participating in class did not
decrease between pre- and postcourse surveys in one graduate course taught
by an instructor who cold-called frequently. They further note that increased
preparation and increased participation frequency are associated with
increased comfort participating. Souza et al. (2010) report results from a study
where teachers in some courses cold-called, whereas teachers in other courses
did not cold-call. Using pre- and postcourse surveys, they report that comfort
participating increased significantly in courses with and without cold-calling.3
Thus, student perceptions about the effects of cold-calling on student comfort
participating seem to contradict the views of instructors.4
However, the earlier studies have methodological limitations, which also
raise concerns about some of their findings. For example, student participa-
tion frequency was measured based solely on student self-reported fre-
quency. It is possible that at the end of the course, students had a positive
perception of their participation and perceived that they participated more
than they actually did. In addition, the earlier studies do not distinguish vol-
untary participation from participation resulting from cold-calls. Thus, the
perception of increased frequency may result solely from cold-calling, and
students’ voluntary participation may not change.
Dallimore et al. 7
cold-calling and student comfort in class participation, they will be better able
to decide how much cold-calling to use.
Research Hypotheses
One factor that characterizes student participation in class discussions is the
number of students who participate in the class. For example, in a 40-stu-
dent class, participation would be considered to be greater if 30 students
participate than if only 10 students participate. In heavy cold-calling envi-
ronments, some students may be brought into the discussion for the first
time. Given this first opportunity to exercise and develop their class discus-
sion skills, these individuals may find themselves more willing to volunteer
to participate in subsequent class discussions. Through cold-calling, par-
ticipation opportunities may be offered to more students throughout the
course, so we expect the percentage of students who voluntarily answer
questions to increase. Thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b are as follows:
Method
Research Design
The research design involved gathering data at various times in 16 sections
of a single course in which 632 students were enrolled. Data were gathered
using two surveys administered to students and observations of two class
discussions for each section.
Course
This research was conducted in the undergraduate management accounting
course required for the BS in Business Administration degree at a large,
private university. This course is taught on-ground, not online. The course
was selected because it has multiple sections taught by multiple instructors
each year, and a common syllabus and final exam are used across sections.
Although the sections are not identical because of individual differences in
instructional style between instructors, all sections share common peda-
gogical elements such as syllabus, textbook, slides for lectures, cases, final
exam, and so on. The pedagogy includes case discussions, written case
analyses, small-group problem solving, lecture, team projects, and student
presentations.6
Data were gathered from 16 sections of this course taught in two consecu-
tive fall semesters. The course met twice a week in 100-minute sessions for a
total of about 25 sessions. There were approximately 40 students in each sec-
tion and attendance was required.
Data
Two surveys were used to gather data on student opinions and perceptions
about class discussions; in addition, each section was observed twice during
the course. Thus, data were gathered at four times during the course as
shown in Figure 1.
Surveys. The purpose of the precourse survey was to establish a baseline prior
to the course of students’ attitudes and behaviors related to class participation.
To avoid biasing students, it did not mention cold-calling or calling on students
whose hands were not raised. The survey stated, “We are conducting a study on
class discussion and student learning to help faculty understand approaches that
lead to student learning so they may become more effective teachers.”
The postcourse survey focused on participation frequency and comfort par-
ticipating in this course. Although the postcourse survey did not mention
Dallimore et al. 11
Pre-course Post-course
Observa!on 1 Observa!on 2
Survey Survey
(Weeks 6-7) (Weeks 9-10)
(Weeks 1-2) (Weeks 13-14)
Figure 1. Time line for survey and observation data (week in course for data
collection in parentheses)
cold-calling per se, it asked whether the professor had called on students
whose hands were not raised in this course, and, if so, the effect on the overall
discussion and the respondent’s preparation.
The appendix lists precourse and postcourse questions analyzed in this
study. Students responded to these questions using a 7-point Likert-type
scale. They also provided their gender.
Observations. Days when case discussions were held were selected for
observation to maximize the periods of discussion observed. The observers
were graduate students employed as research assistants. There was one
observer for each case discussion class.
Training sessions were held to teach observers to categorize questions
and record data. The initial training session was followed by multiple prac-
tice sessions. Each practice was followed by debriefing and discussion to
clarify the coding process. Practice sessions were repeated until consistency
in coding was achieved across observers. Following the training session,
observers recorded data in actual classes not in the study and discussed their
results with researchers before conducting research observations.
Observers were told that they were assisting in research about discussion
teaching. Observers did not have detailed information about the research
project; specifically, researchers did not discuss the hypotheses with the
observers.
At the beginning of each case discussion observed, the observer recorded
the gender of each student and her location (seat) in the classroom on a seat-
ing chart diagram. For each question the instructor asked during the discus-
sion, the observer recorded which student responded and whether the
student volunteered or was cold-called.
The students observed in this study were enrolled in one of the first
courses where they encounter case discussions; thus, instructors need to
actively facilitate the discussion to engage students and help the discussion
to progress. Questions related to all levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson
12 Journal of Management Education XX(X)
& Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, 1956) were used by instructors in this study to
facilitate the discussion.7
Students
Students enrolled in this course are typically sophomores. Class rosters
issued 1 week prior to the start of the course indicated that 632 students
were enrolled in the 16 sections of the course; rosters at the end of the
course indicated that 598 students were enrolled. To ensure confidentiality,
students were not asked for their names on the surveys; however, they were
asked for the last four digits of their nine-digit student identification number
to enable precourse surveys and postcourse surveys to be matched for
analysis purposes. Precourse surveys were completed by 581 students and
postcourse surveys by 541. A total of 359 students provided accurate iden-
tification information on both the precourse and postcourse surveys allow-
ing surveys to be matched, consisting of 46% (166) women, and 54% (192)
men.8 During the first observation, 578 students were present, for the sec-
ond, 559. The proportions of men and women in the two observations were
approximately the same as for the surveys.
Instructors
The 16 sections of this course were taught by seven full-time instructors. Two
were tenured faculty, four were tenure track but nontenured faculty, and one
was full-time but not tenure track; two were women and five were men. The
Informed Consent form signed by each instructor indicated that they were
participating “in a research study on class discussion and student learning . . .
designed to identify factors that affect student learning during class discus-
sions.” Instructors were not informed about the hypotheses.
All instructors in this research project were considered effective teachers.
The teaching-effectiveness ratings for all sections in this study averaged
4.51 out of a maximum possible score of 5.0.9 Furthermore, the ratings for
“treats students with respect” for all sections in this study averaged 4.64 out
of 5.010; thus, all instructors in this study were considered to provide a sup-
portive learning environment.
No constraints were imposed on these instructors; each of them used their
natural instructional style, including whether, or how much, they cold-called
students. Variations between instructors were because of individual differences
in instructional styles.11
Dallimore et al. 13
Data Analysis
Dependent Variables: Observation Data
Percentage student participation in class discussion. During each observa-
tion period, the behavior of individual students (based on seat location
during the class, not name or student identification number) was observed
and recorded, as described above. Based on these recorded observations, a
student who answered at least one volunteer question was given a value of
1 on the “answered a voluntary question” variable; otherwise, the student
was given a 0. Likewise, a student who answered at least one cold-called
question was coded as a 1 on the “answered a cold-called question” vari-
able; otherwise the student was coded as a 0. The percent of students pres-
ent who answered either volunteer or cold-called questions was calculated
for each section. Together, these variables measured the extent to which
there was broad student participation in the class discussion in a particular
class section.
Participation frequency per student. Because student behavior was recorded
with respect to type and number of questions answered, a measure of fre-
quency of class participation was obtained by counting the number of volun-
teer questions answered by each student present and the number of
cold-called questions answered by each student. These metrics focus on par-
ticipation frequency at the individual student level of analysis.
Independent Variables
Cold-call environment. The primary focus of this study is to compare stu-
dent behavior and perceptions in differing cold-call environments. Instruc-
tors used their own pedagogical style, including whether or how much they
cold-called students; we did not actively manipulate this variable. In one
section no cold-calling was used; in all other sections instructors used some
combination of cold-calling and voluntary questions. Because instructors
used their own pedagogical style, we used the observation data to classify
sections into high cold-call (Hi CC) versus low cold-call (Lo CC) environ-
ments. Based on observation of the first case discussion for each section, the
14 Journal of Management Education XX(X)
Results
Cold-Call Environment and Prior Student Attitudes and
Perceptions of Class Discussion
Based on the precourse survey data, there were no significant differences
between students in Lo CC and Hi CC sections at that time, as shown in
Table 1. Although students self-select into particular course sections based
on the course time and sequence, there does not appear to be a difference in
student characteristics a priori with respect to important features of class
discussion. Most notably, students in both environments had similar percep-
tions of their own participation in class discussion in terms of frequency,
satisfaction, liking, and comfort participating. Furthermore, there were no
differences between the two types of cold-call environments with respect to
expectations about participation in this course.
answered questions rose from the first class discussion (62%) to the second
class session (71%). Finally, there was a significant interaction between
cold-call environment and observation such that there was a divergence
between the cold-call environments. Whereas the percentage of students who
voluntarily answered questions increased significantly in the Hi CC sections,
t(350) = −4.026, p = .000, the percentage of students who voluntarily
answered questions remained the same in the Lo CC sections from
Observation 1 to Observation 2, t(784) = 0.034, p = .973.
Furthermore, an indirect measure of the percentage of students participat-
ing in class discussion is obtained from the postcourse survey question which
asks students about their perception of other students’ participation. Students
in Hi CC sections rated the number of other students participating in this
course as compared with other courses significantly higher than students in
the Lo CC sections (Table 2). This confirms that students perceive the differ-
ences in percentage of students participating in class discussion that were
revealed by the observation data.
Dallimore et al. 17
0.6
Lo CC
0.55 0.55 (mean = .55)
0.4
0.2
0
Obs 1 (mean = .62) Obs 2 (mean = .71)
F p-value
Number of Volunteer
Ques!ons Per Student
2.84
3 Hi CC
2.5 (mean = 2.25)
2 Lo CC
1.66
1.5 (mean = 1.60)
1.69
1.51
1
0.5
0
Obs 1 (mean = 1.59) Obs 2 (mean = 2.27)
F p-value
The results from the analysis of the number of volunteer questions per
student strongly support both Hypotheses 2a and 2b. Hypothesis 2a relates
cold-calling to voluntary student class participation. The mean number of
voluntary questions answered per student was significantly higher for stu-
dents in Hi CC sections (2.25) compared with Lo CC sections (1.60).
Hypothesis 2b contends that the frequency of voluntary class participation
per student increases over time in Hi CC sections but does not change in Lo
CC sections. This is precisely the pattern of the significant interaction found
between cold-call environment and observation period: The number of vol-
unteer questions answered per student rose significantly from 1.66 to 2.84 in
Hi CC sections, but the change for Lo CC sections was not significant,
increasing slightly from 1.51 to 1.69.
To understand students’ overall frequency of participation, we need to
know not only how many times they participate voluntarily but also how
often they were cold-called. Thus, the two variables, number of voluntary
questions answered per student and the number of cold-called questions
20 Journal of Management Education XX(X)
F p-value
Self-Reported
Par!cipa!on Frequency
5.1 5.06 Hi CC
(mean = 4.94)
5
4.9 4.81
4.8
4.7
4.73
4.6
Lo CC
4.5
4.54 (mean = 4.64)
4.4
4.3
4.2
Pre-Course (mean = 4.77) Post-Course (mean = 4.80)
F p-value
Self-Reported Comfort
with Class Discussion
5.1 5.06 Hi CC
5.05 (mean = 4.92)
5
4.95
Lo CC
4.9 4.93 (mean = 4.89)
4.84
4.85
4.8
4.75 4.78
4.7
4.65
4.6
Pre-Course (mean = 4.81) Post-Course (mean = 5.00)
F p-value
Sensitivity Analysis
The results examining the effect of cold-calling on student class participa-
tion behavior and their perceptions of class discussion are based on one
approach to categorizing sections into Hi CC and Lo CC groups. We won-
dered how sensitive the results reported above are to this grouping decision
rule. To maximize the difference between Hi CC and Lo CC sections, we
split the sample into thirds with respect to the mean percentage of students
cold-called during the first observation. We designated the top third of the
sections as Hi CC sections and the bottom third, as Lo CC sections. The
middle third of the sections were omitted from this analysis. This grouping
rule resulted in five sections with 196 students rated as Hi CC sections and
five sections with 210 students, as Lo CC sections. The mean percentage of
students cold-called in the Hi CC sections was .61 with a range from .33 to
.84 and in the Lo CC sections, .01 with a range from .00 to .02.
The analyses based on this maximally differentiated sample (with respect
to cold-call behavior) revealed very similar results for the percentage of stu-
dents answering voluntary questions and the number of voluntary questions
answered per student (see Figures 2 and 3), observed frequency of class par-
ticipation (see Figure 4), and student self-reported participation frequency
(see Figure 5). There were, however, different results with respect to student
comfort.
As shown in Figure 7, the repeated-measures ANOVA showed that nei-
ther the survey period main effect nor the cold-call environment main
effect was statistically significant. However, the two-way interaction was
statistically significant, showing a divergence between the two cold-call
environments over time with respect to self-reported comfort with class
discussion. Further analysis of the interaction found that students in Hi CC
sections increased their comfort ratings marginally from the precourse to
the postcourse survey, t(117) = −1.885, p = .062, whereas student ratings
of comfort with class discussion in the Lo CC sections did not change,
t(113) = 1.243, p = .216. Additionally, although the traditional t test shown
in Table 2 measuring mean comparisons between Hi CC and Lo CC sec-
tions for the postcourse survey responses did not yield a significant differ-
ence between cold-call environments, the significant interaction discussed
Dallimore et al. 25
Sensi!vity Analysis:
Self-Reported Comfort
with Class Discussion
5.1 5.06 Hi CC
5.05 (mean= 4.92)
5 4.95
4.95
4.9
4.85
Lo CC
4.8 (mean = 4.86)
4.75
4.78 4.77
4.7
4.65
4.6
Pre-Course (mean = 4.87) Post-Course (mean = 4.92)
F p-value
Furthermore, given that class discussion skills develop over time, stu-
dents must first simply learn to speak before they can develop the ability
to contribute in a more significant and thoughtful way. Thus, instructors
might use a hierarchy such as Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001; Bloom, 1956) to guide the development of student class discussion
skills and enhance their confidence participating. They might cold-call
early in the course using straightforward knowledge or recall questions to
make sure each student’s voice is heard and that each student has a
successful participation experience. Building on this the questions can
become more challenging—eventually progressing to analysis and evaluation—
while creating a series of successes through which a student can develop
the skills to participate more substantively and the confidence to par-
ticipate voluntarily. As more students are engaged more actively in
class discussion, the discussion benefits from more voices being
heard and from the greater diversity of thought and of experience that
they represent.
Clearly, this study has implications for discussion facilitation more gen-
erally (e.g., encouraging instructors not simply to rely on volunteers and to
understand the available range of nonvoluntary participation strategies).
Additionally, there are clear implications for faculty development and
teacher training. For example, findings provide support not only for the
development and use of classroom discussion pedagogies that engage more
reluctant participants in discussion activities but also support the value of
helping faculty learn how to effectively use these strategies. Furthermore,
relative to student-skill development and program design, we suggest that a
systematic use of cold-calling could be an informal but systematic way to
help communication-apprehensive students feel more comfortable speak-
ing in front of their instructors and peers.
Summary
This study examined the effect of cold-calling on students’ participation in
class discussions, especially voluntary participation, and on their comfort
participating. Pre- and postcourse surveys concerning student perceptions
about and behaviors during class discussion in a required business course
were gathered from sophomore students at a large, private research univer-
sity. In addition, trained observers gathered data on instructor question-asking
behavior during two case discussions.
The primary results indicate that in high cold-calling environments,
more students participate voluntarily, the number of students participating
voluntarily increases over time, and more questions are asked and
answered. Furthermore, more students participate overall in class discus-
sions in high cold-calling environments. Finally, comfort participating
increases in high cold-calling environments; it does not change in low
cold-calling environments.
That cold-calling has such a significant, positive effect on participation
is an important and valuable extension of literature related to discussion
teaching in general and cold-calling in particular. Furthermore, the fact that
cold-calling can be done fairly extensively without making students uncom-
fortable provides support for using this instructional strategy to engage
more students to participate more actively in class discussions.
Dallimore et al. 31
Appendix
Precourse survey
Liking of class discussion How much do you like class discussion? 1 = not at all
and 7 = very much
Familiarity with class discussion How familiar are you with class discussion? 1 = not
familiar and 7 = very familiar
Typical participation frequency In most courses, I participate: 1 = not at all and 7 = very
frequently
Expected participation In this course, I expect to participate: 1 = not at all and
frequency 7 = very frequently
Typical comfort participating In general, when I participate in class discussions, I feel:
1 = uncomfortable and 7 = comfortable
General evaluation of class In general, the evaluation of my class participation has
participation been: 1 = low and 7 = high
Satisfaction with class In general, my satisfaction with my class participation is:
participation 1 = not satisfied and 7 = very satisfied
Postcourse survey
My actual participation In this course, I actually participated: 1 = not at all and 7
frequency = very frequently
Number of other students Compared with other courses, the number of students
participating compared with who participated in class discussion was: 1 = much
other courses lower and 7 = much higher
Comfort participating in this In this course, when I participated in class discussions I
course felt: 1 = less comfortable and 7 = more comfortable
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.
Notes
1. There is extensive literature on learning styles and how these learning styles
affect discussions and conversations. See, for example, Claxton and Murrell
(1987), Rayner and Cools (2011), Sadler-Smith and Evans (2006), and Sims and
Sims (1995).
2. We have seen rapid movement toward technology in teaching and as a tool for
student learning. It has been used to engage students in discussion for varied
reasons (e.g., it allows for more participation without the constraints of class
time and allows students more control over both the content and context of their
participation). The impact of technology on class interaction is investigated in
the field of management by Arbaugh (2000) who examines participation in an
asynchronous Internet-based MBA course and finds no significant differences
in learning or interaction quality from the conventional classroom. However, he
finds significantly more participation overall, a finding consistent with Bump’s
earlier conclusions.
3. The four teachers in the study are all authors on the Souza et al. (2010) article;
they collaborated and agreed to follow consistent instructional practices with the
exception of the use of cold-calling. The authors note that “the fact that each of
the four instructors work diligently to create and maintain a supportive commu-
nication climate and have been recognized for effective teaching likely impacted
the results” (Souza et al., 2010, p. 245). Furthermore, there were significant dif-
ferences in the precourse variables between the students in courses with cold-
calling and the students in courses without cold-calling. This suggests that these
groups of students were quite different before the experiment, which may also
affect the results.
4. This discrepancy may stem from instructors’ extrapolating their past experience
with a particular student at a point in time, rather than understanding the impact
of cold-calling on students’ comfort in general, and comprehending the effect of
this pedagogy on student comfort over time.
5. This is consistent with Bandura’s (1997) theory of self-efficacy.
6. Although we attempted to control for as many variables as possible to eliminate
alternative explanations of our findings, this research was conducted in actual
Dallimore et al. 33
classes and was not a controlled experiment. Thus, other contextual factors (e.g.,
setup of the classroom, time of day of class) could possibly influence the results.
7. Prior to conducting this research study, two of the authors observed many discus-
sion sections in this course to develop instruments and coding schemes for the
study. They observed instructors asking questions related to all levels of Bloom’s
taxonomy. For example, knowledge/recall (How do fixed costs behave when
production increases?); comprehension (Why do fixed costs per unit decrease
when production increases?); application (If you double production, what hap-
pens to variable costs?); analysis/synthesis (What is really going on here? What
might be the reason for an unfavorable price variance and a favorable usage
variance? What can you conclude from these data? How did you come to that
conclusion?); and evaluation (What would be the arguments for using the [. . .]
method? Do you agree with Susan? Why? Did you see any problems with this
approach? Do you think this is realistic? What are the pros and cons? How would
you summarize what we have said so far?).
8. The remaining students may have been present for one survey and not the other,
or they may have forgotten, incorrectly remembered, or chosen not to reveal the
last four digits of their student identification number. In these instances, data from
the precourse and the postcourse surveys could not be matched, and they were
eliminated from the analysis sample. For the variables examined in this study
(Table 1) we conducted mean comparison tests between matched and unmatched
samples. No significant differences between the two groups were found.
9. Teaching effectiveness ratings are independent of this project. They were gath-
ered from the university’s teaching evaluation program.
10. “Treats student with respect” ratings are independent of this project. They were
gathered from the university’s teaching evaluation program.
11. Dates that surveys would be administered and observations conducted (as shown
in Figure 1) were discussed with the instructors to minimize disruption. Since
observations were planned when instructors had scheduled case discussions, vir-
tually no changes occurred in the observation dates; however, survey dates were
sometimes adjusted by one class session to ensure sufficient time was available
to administer a survey.
12. This particular postcourse survey question was only asked in the second year of
the 2-year study period.
13. It may be that the analyses reported for participation frequency could be
affected by the majority of students who really like class discussion. Out of
concern that we might be overlooking the effect of cold-calling on students
who do not like class discussion, we conducted the analyses on participation
frequency for just those students who reported that they did NOT like class
discussion on the precourse survey. Although this substantially reduced the
sample size, it produced similar results. As with the larger sample, students in
34 Journal of Management Education XX(X)
References
10 Tips for Public Speaking. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.toastmasters.org/
MainMenuCategories/FreeResources/NeedHelpGivingaSpeech/TipsTechniques/
10TipsforPublicSpeaking.aspx
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York,
NY: Longmans.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). The virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An
exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asyn-
chronous internet-based MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 24,
213-233.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological
and social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 5, 435-447.
Arter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. Book 1, Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman, Green.
Dallimore et al. 35
Bonwell, C., & Eisen, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom
(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, DC: Association for
the Study of Higher Education.
Brower, H. H. (2003). On emulating classroom discussion in a distance-delivered
OMHR course: Creating an on-line learning community. Academy of Manage-
ment Learning & Education, 2, 22-36.
Bruns, W. J., Jr. (2006). Why I use the case method to teach accounting (Case method
Ref. 9-193-177). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Bump, J. (1990). Radical changes in class discussion using networked computers.
Computers and the Humanities, 21, 49-65.
Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of group response sys-
tems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education.
Issues in Accounting Education, 22, 391-409.
Caspi, A., Chajut, E. & Saporta, K. (2008). Participation in class and in online discus-
sions: Gender differences. Computers & Education, 50, 718-724.
Christensen, C. M., & Carlile, P. R. (2009). Course research: Using the case method
to build and teach managment theory. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 8, 240-251.
Christensen, C. R. (1991). Every student teaches and every teacher learns: The
reciprocal gift of discussion teaching. In C. R. Christensen, D. A. Garvin, &
A. Sweet (Eds.), Education for judgment: The artistry of discussion leadership
(pp. 99-122). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. R., & Hansen, A. J. (1987). Teaching and the case method: Text,
cases, and readings. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Claxton, C. S., & Murrell, P. H. (1987). Learning styles: Implications for improv-
ing educational practices (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4). College
Station, TX: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Cunningham, B. M. (2008). Using action research to improve learning and the class-
room learning environment. Issues in Accounting Education, 23, 1-30.
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2004). Classroom participation and
discussion effectiveness: Student generated strategies. Communication Education,
53, 103-115.
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2005). Faculty-generated strategies
for “cold calling” use: A comparative analysis with student recommendations. Jour-
nal on Excellence in College Teaching, 16, 23-62.
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2006). Nonvoluntary class partici-
pation in graduate discussion courses: Effects of grading and cold calling. Journal
of Management Education, 30, 354-377.
36 Journal of Management Education XX(X)
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2008). Using discussion peda-
gogy to enhance oral and written communication skills. College Teaching, 56,
163-172.
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2010). Class participation in
accounting courses: Factors that affect student comfort and learning. Issues in
Accounting Education, 25, 613-629.
Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dixon, W. J., & Massey, J. F. (1969). Introduction to statistical analysis (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M., & O’Hara, A. (2006). How and what university
students learn through online and face-to-face discussion: Conceptions, intentions
and approaches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 244-256.
Ewens, W. (2000). Teaching using discussion. In R. Neff & M. Weimer (Eds.), Class-
room communication: Collected readings for effective discussion and questioning
(pp. 21-26). Madison, WI: Atwood.
Fishman, S. M. (1997). Student writing in philosophy: A sketch of five techniques.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 69, 53-66.
Gilmore, T. N., & Schall, E. (1996). Staying alive to learning: Integrating enactments
with case teaching to develop leaders. Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage-
ment, 15, 444-457.
Greenhalgh, A. M. (2007). Case method teaching as science and art: A metaphoric
approach and curricular application. Journal of Management Education, 31, 181-194.
The Habit of Courage. (n.d.). Toastmasters International. Retrieved from http://www
.toastmasters.org/MainMenuCategories/FreeResources/NeedHelpGivingaS-
peech/FearFactor/TheHabitofCourage.aspx
Hertenstein, J. H. (1991). Patterns of participation. In C. R. Christensen, D. A. Garvin,
& A. Sweet (Eds.), Education for judgment: The artistry of discussion leadership
(pp. 175-191). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Howard, J., Zoeller, A. & Pratt, Y. (2006). Students’ race and participation in sociol-
ogy classroom discussion: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 14-38.
Liang, N., & Wang, J. (2004). Implicit mental models in teaching cases: An empirical
study of popular MBA cases in the United States and China. Academy of Manage-
ment Learning & Education, 3, 397-413.
Nyquist, J. D., & Wulff, D. H. (1990). Selected active learning strategies. In J. A. Daly,
G. W. Friedrich, & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Teaching communication: Theory,
research and methods (pp. 337-362). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rayner, S., & Cools, E. (Eds.). (2011). Style difference in cognition, learning, and
management: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dallimore et al. 37
Rollag, K. (2010). Teaching business cases online through discussion boards: Strate-
gies and best practices. Journal of Management Education, 34, 499-526.
Rosmarin, A. (1987). The art of leading a discussion. In C. R. Christensen & A. J. Hansen
(Eds.), Teaching and the case method: Text, cases, and readings (pp. 235-240).
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Sadler-Smith, E., & Evans, C. (Eds.). (2006). Learning styles in education and
training. Bradford, England: Emerald Group.
Schmidt-Wilk, J. (2010). Signature pedagogy: A framework for thinking about
management education. Journal of Management Education, 34, 491-494.
Scollon, S., & Bau, K. (1981, April). A model for making higher education more
culturally sensitive. Paper presented at the Conference of the National Associa-
tion for Asian and Pacific American Education, Honolulu, HI.
Sims, R. R., & Sims, S. J. (Eds.). (1995). The importance of learning styles: Under-
standing the implications for learning, course design, and education. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Smith, L. J., & Smith, D. L. (1994). The discussion process: A simulation. Journal of
Reading, 37, 582-584.
Souza, T. J., Dallimore, E. J., Aoki, E., & Pilling, B. C. (2010). Communication
climate, comfort and cold-calling: An analysis of discussion-based courses at
multiple universities. In L. B. Nelson & J. E. Miller (Eds.), To improve the acad-
emy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (Vol.
28, 227-249). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sprague, J., & Stuart, D. (2003). The speaker’s handbook (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadswoorth/Thomson Learning.
Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2005). Introduction to rubrics. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College
students’ perceptions. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 570-600.