1
Students’ Perceptions of the Lecture and Active Learning
Methods in Teaching: A Study of Asian Students
Pak T. Lee,1 Nguyen Thi Phuong Linh,2 Sunisa Thatong3 1School of Business, Pacific Adventist University, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea; 2Faculty of Business Administration, Asia-Pacific International University, Muak Lek,
Thailand; [email protected]; and 3Faculty of Business Administration, Asia-Pacific International
University, Muak Lek, Thailand
ABSTRACT: Educators commonly use lectures to transfer knowledge to their students, even though
the lecture method is considered out-dated by many instructors, who believe methods that actively
involve students in the learning process are more beneficial and effective. Findings on teaching
methods, however, have been mixed and inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to establish
Asian students’ perceptions of the two learning methods. The results, overall, showed that students
perceived that lectures helped them to remember material content better, prepared them well for
exams, and lead them to think more deeply about the subject content. At the same time, students also
expressed their desires to take an active part in learning. The responses showed that a large number of
students would like to see active learning methods used in classrooms. Variables such as gender and
student status had no significant influence on the perceptions of teaching methods. However, there
were differences in students’ perceptions between programs of study. In summary, the results seem to
suggest that students perceived that the lecture method of learning, together with active learning
involving teachers and students, maximized their learning.
Keywords: lecture method, active learning method, perceptions of teaching methods
Introduction
The background of the study
Education has witnessed a lot of changes in recent decades because of the rapid development of the
economy, technology, and a highly demanding environment. The goal of education is not only to
transfer knowledge from teachers to students but is also viewed as facilitating students’ autonomous
learning and self-expression (Bar-Yam, Rhoades, Sweeney, Kaput, & Bar-Yam, 2002). One of the
many challenges facing education systems is the effectiveness of teaching. Teaching methods play a
crucial role in students’ academic performance as well as learning experience.
Many educators believe that the traditional lecture approach of teaching is ineffective and out-dated.
De Los Santos, Kupczynski, and Bain (2016) went as far as to say that “The lecture method is D-E-A-
D”. According to Roehl, Reddy, and Shannon (2013), the lecture method is no longer beneficial for
teaching students in higher education, and educators should understand the reason why this approach
is not the most effective pedagogy available to instructors. Johnson, Adams, Becker, Estrada and
Freeman (2014) found indicators of increasing issues with the traditional lecture model. However,
because of large university classes, Marmah (2014) believes that the most economical method of
teaching is still the lecture and researchers like Druger (1999), and Khan & Akbar (1997), argue that
in many developing countries, lecturing is the dominant and traditional method of teaching. The
writers of this paper believe that students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of lectures and active
learning methods are more significant than the perceptions of their teachers.
Rationale for the study
At a time when many instructors are being encouraged to use active learning methods instead of
lectures, it is timely and useful to do more research on the students’ perspective. To date, results
suggest that students’ perceptions are not in agreement with many educators’ beliefs about the lecture
2
method of teaching. Students in lecture-style classes perceive that they learn a great deal from
lectures, are engaged in the learning process, and involved in independent thinking and problem
solving (Covill, 2011). Although many researchers believe that active learning methods should be
used (Marbach-Ad, Seal, & Sokolove, 2001; Jungst, Licklider, & Wiersema, 2003), others argue that
the lecture method is still dominant, beneficial and has been the most used teaching method (Marmah,
2014; McKeachie, 1997; Bligh, 2000). Research findings are inconclusive. Thus, there is a need for
more study about students’ perceptions of these teaching methods, particularly in the Asian classroom
environment, to get more insight about Asian students’ perceptions. Traditionally, Asian students
have been seen as passive and teacher-centered learners.
The objectives of the study
It is the purpose of this study to survey the perceptions of Asian students regarding the lecture and
active learning teaching methods. This study also aims to examine if there is any significant
difference in students’ perceptions of teaching methods based on gender, student status, and program
of study.
Significance of the study
This study will expand the theory of teaching methods in the Asian learning context and help lecturers
to understand the perceptions of students toward the lecture method and active learning methods.
From the results of this study, lecturers can apply appropriate teaching methods to enhance students’
learning experiences in the Asian education environment, thus making learning more meaningful
which in turn may encourage students to take a more active and deeper approach to learning.
Review of Current Literature
Active learning methods are promoted as the better methods of teaching and learning (Marbach-Ad,
Seal, & Sokolove, 2001; Jungst, Licklider, & Wiersema, 2003). The promotion of active learning is
based on the constructivist point of view. The constructivist approach places students at the center of
the learning process as teachers help them to interact with content and create their own knowledge
(Bachman & Bachman, 2011). Believers in this approach to learning argue that in order for
meaningful learning to take place, students must actively engage with the subject matter through
discussions, hands-on activities, problem solving and so on.
There are many strategies that may be used to engage students actively in the learning process. These
strategies may include instructors asking students to respond to questions during lectures, discussions,
problem solving, case studies, role play, and other student participatory activities. Lumpkin, Achen &
Dodd (2015, p. 123) describe active learning as “…any activity encouraging students to participate in
learning approaches, engaging them with course material and enhancing critical thinking as they make
applications beyond the classroom.” Bonwell and Eison (1991) take a similar view of active learning
as any teaching method that engages students in the learning process.
The promotion of active learning comes from suggestions that active learning increases student
achievement (O’Sullivan & Cooper, 2003; Christianson & Fisher, 1999). Berry (2008) claims that
active learning increases retention of concepts over time. It is thought that active learning leads to
better student attitudes and improvement in students’ thinking and writing (Bonwell and Eison, 1991).
According to Covill (2011), college professors are chastised for hanging on to the traditional lecture
approach of teaching, and are encouraged to adopt approaches that make students responsible for their
own learning through methods such as participating in problem solving, reading and discovery,
questions and discussions. Covill goes on to say that active learning is presented as the best approach
to learning regardless of class size, subject matter, characteristics of the learners involved, and the
culture of the learning institution (Covill, 2011). However, he adds that the use of active learning is
promoted even though the research findings are not conclusive as to the effectiveness of these
methods.
3
In the view of the writers of this paper, teaching using active learning methods involves much more
work in preparation than the lecture method. We agree with the view of some researchers that in order
for active learning to be effective, teachers must provide significant direction and structure in the
learning process. When students are left to their own exploring of subject matter, with limited
direction from the teacher, little may be achieved (Mayer, 2004; Kirschner & Clark, 2006).
Some proponents of active learning methods see the lecture method as a passive way of learning and
receiving information from instructors (Hansen & Stephens, 2000). Other educators see the lecture
method as relying on instructors to tell students what they need to know, and believe that the lecture
method encourages students to avoid responsibility for their own learning (Machemer & Crawford,
2007). It is argued that learning through lectures is relatively superficial and transient (Phipps, Kask,
& Higgens, 2001; Moust, Van Berkel, & Schmidt, 2005), and is a lot less effective than getting
students engaged in the learning process (Lumpkin, Achen & Dodd, 2015; Diamond, 2008). Bonwell
and Eison (1991) suggest that the sole use of lectures in the classroom limits students’ learning.
Tomlinson (2000) shows skepticism on the usefulness of the lecturing approach. He states that
lecturing minimizes feedback from students, and assumes an unrealistic level of students’
understanding and comprehension, disengaging students from the learning process and causing
information to be quickly forgotten. Machemer & Crawford (2007) join the call for change, rejecting
the notion that students are passive listeners and appealing for an approach of putting students at the
center of the teaching and learning process. They continue by arguing that the passive learning
method (lectures) can be effectively transformed using active learning strategies, which focus on
students rather than teachers, as the conveyors of all knowledge.
The lecture method of teaching is one of the oldest and may still be the most used teaching method in
higher education institutions. In the classroom context, a lecture is defined as the instructor standing
before a class and presenting information for the students to learn with very little exchange between
the instructor and the students during the lecture (Marmah, 2014). It has been the primary method of
teaching and learning in higher education since the very early days of post-secondary education
(Bligh, 2000; McKeachie, 1997), and there are findings that support the effectiveness of the lecture
method (Struyven, Dochy & Janssen, 2008; Benson, et al, (n.d)). Given the increasing pressures for
funding facing higher education in many countries, Bates (2000) and Laurillard (1993) point out that
the lecture method is likely to continue to be the most used method of teaching. Marmah (2014)
concurs with this view, citing the prevalence of large classes as a further reason for the continued use
of the lecture method. Researchers like Druger (1999), and Khan & Akbar (1997), hold the view that
in many developing countries, lecturing is the dominant and traditional method of teaching.
Although new strategies for teaching and learning have been advocated and promoted in higher
education and despite the devaluing of the lecture method by many researchers, the writers of this
paper believe that the lecture method will continue to be the main method used in tertiary institutions
in Asia, whether or not it is the best method of teaching, because of the prevalence of large classes
and its ease of use for both small and large classes.
Despite the belief by many educators that the traditional lecture approach to teaching is out-of-date or
ineffective, research studies on students’ perceptions suggest that the lecture method is preferred over
other methods (Struyen, Dochy, & Janssens, 2008; Benson, et al, n.d.; Leeds, Stull & Westbrook,
1998). In students’ evaluations of teaching, they negatively evaluated teachers who required more
work (active learning methods) and positively evaluated the lecture style teachers. Benson, et al (n.d.)
study results show that students rated the lecture method as the best teaching method because (1) the
teacher provided all knowledge related to the topic, (2) it was a time saving method in which students
listened to the lecture attentively and took notes. Qualters’ (2001) findings also suggest that students
do not like active learning methods because of the class time taken by activities, fear of not covering
all the material in the course, and anxiety about changing from traditional classroom expectations to
the active learning setting. Others found that students preferred the lecture approach because lectures
4
enabled them to listen passively. Instructors organized the subject matter for them, and prepared them
well for tests (McKeachie, 1997).
A study of students’ preferences regarding teaching methods, conducted by Rivkin, Pharm & Gim,
(n.d.) on a class of two hundred students in a drug-induced diseases and clinical toxicology course,
found that they preferred traditional lectures to other instructional methods. This finding is supported
by Leeds, Stull & Westbrook, (1998), whose findings showed similar results. In Rivkin, Pharm &
Gim’s, (n.d.) study, students’ perceptions on both content delivery and helpfulness in examination
preparation favored the traditional lecture method. Struyen, Dochy and Janssen’s (2008) study also
showed students’ evaluations of the lecture method to be mostly positive. Baldwin (1993), comparing
students taught in a mass-lecture format with a group exclusively in small classes, discovered that the
former group performed more favorably. Nolan (1974) explained that one reason students favored
lectures was because lectures forced them to take notes. Felder and Brent (1996) noted that students
actually became sullen and hostile when teachers attempted to force them to be active and take
responsibility for their own learning, believing that paying tuition entitled them to be taught by a
teacher, rather than teaching themselves. They also positively evaluated the lecture style teachers.
In summary, a review of literature regarding the lecture and active learning methods of teaching
reveal no complete agreement among researchers that one method is superior or inferior to the other,
irrespective of class size and culture. Some findings appear to suggest that active learning methods
increase student achievement, writing and thinking, while others show no difference between the
lecture and active learning methods. Yet other research indicates that the lecture method produces
better learning results. Interestingly, studies into students’ perceptions reveal not only mostly positive
attitudes towards the lecture method, but a degree of hostility towards active learning activities.
Researchers like Hackathorn, Solomon, Blankmeyer, Tennial & Garczynski (2011), argue that each
teaching technique has its own unique benefits and is effective for various levels of learning. Their
findings support the notion that active learning techniques do aid in increasing learning. In class
activities, they found that active learning led to higher overall scores than any other teaching methods
and that the lecture method led to the lowest overall scores of any of the teaching methods. The debate
goes on as researchers continue to explore the relative merits of lectures verses active learning
methods. Many educators keep on promoting and viewing active learning as superior to the lecturing
method. The question is whether active learning methods are superior to the lecture method from
students’ perspectives. This study primarily aims at establishing Asian students’ perceptions of the
lecture method and active learning methods of teaching and learning, to find out if these students see
the lecture method as passive, disengaging, unchallenging, and teacher dependent and the active
learning methods as more engaging, and challenging.
Data and Methodology
Data and Sampling
When conducting this research, the researchers had limited time and budget, so were unable to collect
data from the entire student population. Consequently, a sample of 300 students was involved. Data
were collected from April to May in 2017.
Research Questions
Data collected were analyzed to find answers to the following research questions.
1. What are students’ perceptions of the lecture method of teaching and learning?
2. What are students’ perceptions of the active learning methods (lectures plus student activities
such as student participation, discussions, asking questions, working in groups, self-learning, etc.)
of teaching and learning?
3. Are there differences between gender perceptions?
4. Are there differences in perceptions based on student status?
5. What are students’ attitudes toward the lecture and the active methods of teaching?
5
Research Hypotheses
H1: There is a significant relationship between gender and students’ perceptions of the lecture method
and active learning methods in teaching.
H2: There is a significant relationship between program of study and students’ perception of the
lecture method and active learning methods in teaching.
H3: There is a significant relationship between student status and students’ perception of the lecture
method and active learning methods in teaching.
Data Analysis
In this study, questionnaires were the main instrument for data collection. Answers to these surveys
were converted into numbers for analysis. The questionnaire was divided into two parts: background
information collecting information for demographic factors, and students’ perceptions of the lecture
method and active learning methods. Data were put into a statistical program and researchers used the
following methods:
Descriptive Statistics: are used to describe the basic features of students’ perceptions about the
lecture method and active learning methods
T-test: assesses whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other.
ANOVA analysis: is a statistical technique used to test a hypothesis concerning the means of
three or more groups.
Results and Findings
Descriptive Statistics
Figure 1: Percentage of Gender
Figure 2: Program of Study
42.7
57.3
Percentage of Gender
Male Female
35.3
14.721.7
9.0
12.76.7
Program of Study
Business Education
Humanities Nursing/Health
Religious Studies Science
6
From Figure 1, there were 128 males (42.7 percent) and 172 females (57.3 percent) who
participated in the survey. Figure 2 shows students who participated in this study are in the
Business program (35.3%), in Humanities (21.7%), in Education (14.7%), in Religious Studies
(12.7%), in the Nursing program (9%), and in Science (6.7%). As shown in Figure 3, most of the
Asian students in this study are from second year (36%). The others were first year (24.3%), third
year (20.3%) and senior year (19.3%).
Figure 3: Year of Study
Analysis of Students’ Perceptions
The perceptions of students were positive about both methods of teaching. For analysis purposes, the
perceptions of students are reported under two main sections: students’ perceptions of the lecture
method and students’ perceptions of active learning methods. See Table 1 for the means, standard
deviations, and percentages relating to the lecture teaching method.
Students’ Perceptions of the Lecture Method
The perceptions of the lecture method are divided into three parts for purposes of analyses: the
method, listening and learning, and teacher-centered learning.
Perceptions of the Lecture Method
The lecture is still a popular method of delivery in the classrooms among teachers. From Table 1, over
70 percent of students indicated that their teachers used the lecture method most of the time. Almost
77 percent of respondents preferred teaching methods that helped them learn by remembering
important points given by the lecturers. As many as 73 percent of the respondents liked teaching
methods that helped them to see how subject materials were organized and presented by the teacher.
Just over half the students saw the lecture method as a way of teaching that prepared them for tests
and examinations. Furthermore, 50 percent of students liked teaching methods that did not force them
to think and challenge their learning. Interestingly, more than 58 percent of students viewed the
lecture method as the best way to show students how complex problems were solved, and 62.7
percent of respondents said that lectures helped them to understand complex subject material (See
Table 1 for more details).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
First year Secondyear
Third year Fourth year
73
108
61 58
Year of Study
7
Table 1: Students’ Perceptions of the Lecture Method of Teaching
Mean Standard
deviation
Percent
agreed
Percent
disagreed
No
opinion
The Teaching Method
My teachers use the lecture method of teaching most of
the time. 3.84 .805 70.7 24.3 5.0
I prefer teaching methods that help me to learn by
remembering important points given by the teacher. 3.95 .837 76.7 18.3 5.0
The lecture method is the best way to show students
how complex problems are solved. 3.62 .852 58.7 32.7 8.7
I like teaching methods that help me to see how subject
materials are organized and presented. 3.93 .790 73.7 22.7 3.7
Lectures help me to understand complex subject
material. 3.68 .845 62.7 30.0 7.3
I like the lecture method of teaching because I do not
have to do the thinking. 2.98 1.089 32.0 34.7 33.3
The lecture method prepares me well for examinations
and tests. 3.52 .901 54.3 35.0 10.7
I do not like the idea that I am responsible for my own
learning. 2.96 1.101 31.3 34.0 34.7
I like teaching methods that do not force me to think and
challenge my learning. 3.41 1.163 50.3 28.3 21.3
Listening and Learning
Listening to lectures is the most effective way to learn. 3.34 .983 45.7 35.3 19.0
Listening to the teacher and taking notes helps me to
pass examinations. 3.75 .895 65.0 27.3 7.7
Listening to a lecture helps me to think about the subject
matter deeply. 3.47 .901 51.3 35.3 13.3
Listening to lectures helps me to remember the content
better. 3.52 .901 56.3 31.0 12.7
I learn to think critically by listening to lectures. 3.51 .867 53.7 35.7 10.7
I am very happy and comfortable to learn by listening
and taking notes. 3.58 .938 59.7 28.3 12.0
I learn more by listening to the teacher than any other
teaching methods. 3.29 .994 42.3 39.3 18.3
I learn a lot by listening to lectures in class. 3.62 .890 59.3 31.0 9.7
Teacher Centered Learning
The lecture method of teaching presents the teacher as a
role model for students. 3.58 .860 55.0 36.3 8.7
The lecture method of teaching ensures that the teacher
knows the subject content. 3.70 .883 62.7 29.3 8.0
I attend classes to learn from my teachers and not to
learn from other students. 3.12 1.050 36.3 36.7 27.0
I find it very difficult to do learning myself without the
teacher telling me what to learn. 3.40 1.008 47.7 35.7 16.7
I like teaching methods where the teachers do all the
talking. 2.70 1.065 23.3 33.0 43.7
I prefer learning situations where the teacher tells me
what I need to know about the subject. 3.99 .834 79.0 16.0 5.0
I pay tuition fees for every class so I expect teachers to
tell me what to learn. 3.94 .933 69.0 24.3 6.7
Perceptions of Learning by Listening
With regard to perceptions of learning by listening, about 65 percent of students said that listening and
the taking of notes helped them to pass examinations and tests. Just over fifty-nine percent of
responding students perceived that they learned a lot by listening to lectures in class, while 56 percent
8
perceived that listening to lectures helped them to remember the content material better. Close to 54
percent of students who participated in this survey perceived that they learned to think critically by
listening to lectures. In addition, about 52 percent also said that listening to lectures helped them to
think about the subject matter deeply. Something like 60 percent of respondents felt happy and
comfortable to learn by listening and taking notes. Another 42 percent indicated that they learned
more by listening to the teacher than any other teaching method with more than 18% of students
having no opinion. Forty-five (45) percent perceived listening to lectures as the most effective way of
learning, while 35 percent of respondents disagreed and 19% had no opinion.
Teacher-Centered Learning
Teacher-centered learning is still popular with students. About 79 percent of respondents preferred
learning situations where the teachers tell them what they need to know about the subject.
Approximately 69 percent of students believed that teachers were paid to teach and they expected
their teachers to tell them what to learn. Almost 63 percent indicated that the lecture method of
teaching ensured that the teachers know the subject content, with 55 percent of respondents perceiving
that the lecture method of teaching presented the teacher as a role model for students.
As many as 47.7 percent of students surveyed found it difficult to learn without the teacher telling
them what to learn, but 35 percent disagreed and 16 percent had no opinion. (See Table 1 for more
details).
Students’ Perceptions of Active Methods of Teaching and Learning
Perceptions of Active Learning Methods
An analysis of students’ responses shows that over 62 percent of respondents indicated that their
teachers used mixed methods (lecture and student activities) in most classes. This is below the 70
percent responses reported of the lecture method. It is interesting to note that more than 76 percent of
responses said they like classes where the teacher mixed lectures with student activities to apply
concepts. The high percentage of students favoring the active learning method suggests that students
are seeing the benefits of playing a more active role in learning and are favoring teaching methods
that help them to maximize their learning.
Perceptions of Participative Learning
The results seem to suggest that students would like to participate in their learning. Seventy-five (75)
percent of respondents perceived that students should take an active part in learning by discovering
and discussing in class and close to 75 percent of respondents said they would like learning situations
where they could take an active role in discussions and questions. Close to 75 percent of respondents
said that participating in class activities helped them to think about their learning. Nearly 71 percent
indicated that they learned best when they had opportunities to interact with other students and
teachers in class, with 70 percent of respondents expressing their desire to see more classes being
taught with some emphasis on student participation. In addition, more than 67 percent of students
perceived that student participation in classes would be the best way for students to learn subject
content. Almost the same percentage of students (66.7) indicated that they would like to participate by
putting forward their points of view. Sixty-five (65) percent of respondents said that they learned to
think critically in classes where they could participate in activities organized by teachers.
Working in Groups
A large percentage of students expressed a desire to work in groups. About 60 percent (59.7)
perceived that they learned more in classes where they worked together with other students, doing the
learning with others (63% of responses) and working in groups on cases and projects with other
students (50 % of responses). In addition, students saw that working in groups helped them to
understand the subject material better (59%).
9
Table 2: Students’ Perceptions of Mixed Method of Teaching
Mixed Method of teaching Mean Standard
deviation
Percent
agreed
Percent
disagreed
No
opinion
My teachers use mixed methods of teaching (lectures and
student activities) in most classes. 3.71 .915 62.7 27.7 9.7
I like classes where the teachers mix lectures with student
activities to apply concepts. 4.03 .815 76.3 20.7 3.0
Participative Learning
I believe that students should take an active part in learning
by discovering and discussing. 3.93 .786 75.0 21.3 3.7
I like learning situations where I can take an active part in
discussions and ask questions. 3.92 .826 74.7 20.3 5.0
Participating in class activities helps me to think about what
I am learning. 3.91 .748 74.0 23.0 3.0
I learn best when I have opportunities to interact with other
students and teachers in classes. 3.88 .866 71.3 22.3 6.3
I wish more classes were taught with emphasis on student
participation. 3.87 .793 70.0 25.7 4.3
Student participation in classes is the best way for students
to learn subject content. 3.85 .864 67.7 26.0 6.3
I really like classes where I can participate by putting
forward my point of view and ideas. 3.81 .867 66.7 28.0 5.3
I learn to think critically in classes where I can participate in
activities organized by the teachers. 3.74 .804 65.0 30.3 4.7
Working in groups
I learn much more in classes where I work together with
other students rather than listening to lectures. 3.65 .933 59.7 29.0 11.3
I learn best by doing the learning with others. 3.68 .868 63.3 28.7 8.0
I learn most by working on projects and cases in groups with
other students. 3.48 .941 50.7 36.3 13.0
Working in groups in class helps me to understand the
material better. 3.65 .915 59.0 32.3 8.7
Self-Learning
I prefer to do my own learning rather than listening to the
teacher telling me what to learn. 3.06 1.026 31.7 40.7 27.7
I learn best by finding information for myself. 3.54 .908 54.3 35.7 10.0
I like to read and find things out for myself outside the
classroom environment. 3.58 .909 55.0 34.7 10.3
I like it when the teacher asks students to find their own
information & present it in class. 3.47 .962 52.7 33.7 13.0
I like teaching methods that make me read and prepare
before coming to class. 3.41 .993 48.0 35.7 16.3
Student Presentations
I gain very little knowledge in classes where students do a
lot of talking and discussing. 3.44 1.053 44.7 39.3 16.0
I do not like classes where students do the teaching instead
of the teacher. 3.29 1.075 41.7 35.3 23.0
I don’t learn much in class when students do presentations 3.29 1.063 42.3 35.0 22.7
Teachers who make students do the teaching are not doing
their job properly. 3.15 1.136 38.3 33.3 28.3
Self learning
In terms of self-learning, 54 percent of students perceived that they learned best by finding
information for themselves, 55 percent liked to read and find things out for themselves outside the
classroom. The analysis also shows that almost 53 percent of students liked to find their own
10
information to present to the class. Just under 50 percent (48) preferred methods of teaching that
required them to read and prepare before coming to class. Only about 32 percent of students preferred
to do their own learning rather than listening to the teacher telling them what to learn. (See Table 2 for
more details.)
Student Presentations
Student presentations as a way of learning was not very well perceived by students. Overall, students
did not perceive a lot of student presentations in class as a good way of learning for them. About 45
percent of students perceived that they gained little where students did most of the talking. They did
not like classes where students did the teaching instead of the teacher (41.7 percent). Forty-two
percent of students indicated that they did not learn much from student presentations in class. With the
perceptions of student presentations, a large number of respondents (22 to 28 percent) gave no
opinion.
T-Test and ANOVA Analysis
Table 3: T-test result comparing Males and Females in Perception of teaching methods in
Asia
An independent sample t-test showed that the difference between the Male group (n = 128, M = 3.49,
SD = 0.52) and the Female group (n = 172, M = 3.45, SD = .039) was not statistically significant,
t(300) = 1.74, p = .971, 95% CI [-.010, .16], d = 0.077. So the hypothesis H1 is rejected.
Table 4: ANOVA Results between Program of Study and Perception of Teaching Methods
N Mean Std. Deviation F Sig
Business 106 3.5540 0.33527 2.663 0.023
Education 44 3.4171 0.34822
Humanities 65 3.5939 0.34877
Nursing/Health 27 3.5201 0.32065
Religious Studies 38 3.7100 0.57943
Science 20 3.5333 0.30532
Total 300 3.5579 0.38167
A one way ANOVA shows the differences in Program of Study between the department group
"Business Department" (n = 106, M = 3.55, SD = 0.34), the "Education Department" (n = 44, M =
3.42, SD = 0.35), the "Humanities Department" (n = 65, M = 3.59, SD = 0.35), the
"Nursing/Health Department" (n = 27, M = 3.52, SD = 0.32), the "Religious Studies Department"
(n = 38, M = 3.71, SD = 0.58), and the "Science Department" (n = 20, M = 3.56, SD = 0.38) were
statistically significant, F = 2.663, p = 0.023. There is a significant relationship between students’
program of study and students' perception of teaching methods. Therefore, hypothesis H2 is
accepted.
Variable Male Female t p 95% CI Mean
Difference
(d) Perception
Average
M SD M SD
3.4947 .52390 3.4450 .38837 1.740 .083 [-.01012,
.16464]
.07726
11
Table 5: ANOVA Results between Year of Study and Perception of Teaching Methods
N Mean Std. Deviation F Sig
First Year 73 3.5779 0.34122 0.251 0.860
Second Year 108 3.5584 0.44966
Third Year 61 3.5229 0.28136
Fourth Year 58 3.5686 0.39017
Total 300 3.5579 0.38167
A one way ANOVA indicates that the difference in Year of Study between the year group "first year"
(n = 73, M = 3.58. SD = 0.34), "second year" (n = 108, M = 3.56, SD = 0.45), "third year" (n = 61, M
= 3.52, SD = 0.28), and "fourth year" (n = 58, M = 3.57, SD = 0.39) are statistically insignificant, F =
0.251, p = 0.860. There is no significant relationship between year of study and students' perception of
teaching method. Thus, hypothesis H3 is rejected.
Conclusion, Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
Overall, the findings suggest that Asian students have strong positive attitudes toward both lectures
and active methods of teaching and learning. In terms of the lecture method, the study found that most
students perceived that they learned a lot by listening to lectures and taking notes in classes and that
listening helped them to remember the content well, think critically and deeply. Students also
expressed that listening to the teacher helped them to understand complex subject material and
prepared them well for examinations and tests. Most students indicated that they preferred teaching
methods that helped them to remember important points given by the teacher. Students did not see
lectures and listening to lectures as being passive, disengaging, unchallenging, and teacher dependent.
Concerning the lecture method, overall, the results seem to suggest that teacher-centered learning is
still popular with many students for several reasons: teachers tell the students what to learn, teachers
are paid to teach and teachers are role models in delivering learning material. Almost half of the
respondents surveyed perceived that they had difficulties in learning without the teachers telling them
what to learn. It seems that many students are good at learning what to learn and not learning how to
learn.
The results of this study also indicate that students like the active methods of teaching and learning
where they can take part in class activities such as discussions, asking questions, working with other
students in groups, and putting forward their points of view and ideas. Students perceive that the
active methods help them to think about their learning, including developing their critical thinking.
They expressed their perceptions that they could learn more in classes where they could work together
with others on projects, cases, and class activities, and they wished that more classes were taught with
emphasis on students playing a more active part. They also perceived that opportunities to interact
with students and teachers in classes also increased their learning.
With self-learning, a little over half of the respondents were positive about reading and finding things
out for themselves. Concerning student presentations in teaching, students’ perceptions were not very
positive. They perceived student presentations produced little benefit for them when students did all
the talking and presenting instead of the teacher.
Overall, results show that students felt both teaching methods have advantages that could benefit
them. They saw that lectures mixed with student activities helped to increase the effectiveness of their
learning. This finding is supported by Casado (2000), whose study of students’ perceptions across six
12
teaching methods, found the mixed method (lectures combined with discussions) the most preferred
method. This suggests that while delivering subject material in class, lecturers should also involve
students in activities such as group work on questions, class discussions, problem solving and case
studies.
From this study, researchers also found that gender and student status had no significant influence on
the perceptions of teaching methods. However, there were differences in students’ perceptions among
programs of study. These findings implied that lecturers should select appropriate teaching methods
for different programs of study so that they can enhance the comprehension and skills of students in
their areas.
The researchers recommend that further studies should expand sample size. This could be done by
involving students from other Asian countries for comparison purposes among different cultures. A
study on the impacts of each teaching method on Asian students’ learning process and performance
may be done to gain perspective about the effectiveness of these teaching methods.
There were some limitations in doing this research. Firstly, the sample, which included three hundred
students, was small, when compared with the total number of students in the region. This limitation
was due to budget constraints. Secondly, this study was conducted in Thailand, and although it
involved students from a number of Asian countries, it may not reflect perceptions of students outside
this region.
References
Bachman, L. R., & Bachman, C. M. (2011). A study of classroom response system clickers:
Increasing student engagement and performanve in a large undergraduate lecture class on
architectural research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22, 5-21.
Baldwin, B. A. (1993). Teaching introductory financial accounting in mass-lecture sections:
Longitudinal evidence. Issues in Accounting Education, 8(1), pp.97-110.
Bar-Yam, M., Rhoades, K., Sweeney, L. B., Kaput, J., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2002). Changes in the
Teaching and Learning Process in a Complex Education System. Retrieved from New
England Complex Systems Institute:
http://www.necsi.edu/research/management/education/teachandlearn.html
Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological changes: Strategies for college and university leaders.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Benson, L., Schroder, P., Lantz, C., & Bird, M. (n.d.). Students perceptions of effective professors.
Retrieved from www.usfca.edu/ess/sym2001/PDFbooks.
Berry, W. (2008). Surviving lecture: A pedagogical alternative. College Teaching, 56(3), 149-153.
Bligh, D. A. (2000). What's the use of lectures. San Francisco, C.A: Lossey Bass.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitment in the classroom.
Washington, D.C: George Washington University.
Casado, M. (2000). Teaching methods in higher education: A student perspective. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Education, 12, 65-70.
Christianson, R., & Fisher, K. (1999). Comparison of student learning about diffusion and osmosis in
constructive and traditional classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 687-
698.
13
Covill, A. E. (2011). College students' perceptions of the traditional lecture method. College Student
Journal.
Covill, A. E. (2011). College students’ perceptions of the traditional lecture method. College Student
Journal, 45(1), 92-101.
De Los Santos, S. B., Kupczynski, L., & Bain, S. F. (2016). The lecture method is D-E-A-D. Focus
on Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 10, 1-7.
Diamond, R. M. (2008). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide (3 ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Druger, M. (1999). Science teacher for the 21st century. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publishers.
Felder, R., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College
Teaching, 44(2), 43-47.
Hackathorn, J., Solomon, E. D., Blankmeyer, K. L., Tennial, R. E., & Garczynski, A. M. (2011).
Learning by doing: an empirical study of active teaching techniques. The Journal of Effective
Teaching, 11(2), 40-54.
Hansen, E., & Stephens, J. A. (2000). The ethics of learner-centered education: Dynamics that impede
progress. Change, 32, 40-47.
Johnson, L. A., Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher
Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Jungst, S., Licklider, B., & Wiersema, J. (2003). Providing support for faculty who wish to shift to
learning-centered paradigm in their higher education classrooms. The Journal of Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning, 3, 61-81.
Khan, M. S. & Akbar, S. R. (1997). School Teaching. New Delhi: A.P.H. Publishing Corporation.
Kirschner, P. S., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An
analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-
based teaching. Education Psychologist, 41, 75-86.
Laurillard, D. (1993), Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of
educational technology. London: Routledge.
Leeds, M., Stull, W., & Westbrook, J. (1998). Do changes in classroom techniques matter? Teaching
strategies and their effects on teaching evaluations. Journal of Education for Business, 75-78.
Lumpkin, A, Achen, R. M., Dodd, R. K. (2015). Student perceptions of active learning. College
Student Journal, v49 n1, pp.121-133.
Machemer, P., & Crawford, P. (2007). Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-
disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 9-30.
Marbach-Ad, G., Seal, O., & Sokolove, P. (2001). Student attitudes and recommendations on active
learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30, 434-438.
Marmah, A. A. (2014). Students perception about the lecture as a method of teaching in tertiary
institutions. View of students from college of technology education. International Journal of
Education and Research, 2(6), 601-611.
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for
guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
14
McKeachie, W. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1218-
1225.
Moust, J. H., Van Berkel, H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2005). Signs of erosion: Reflections on three
decades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University. Higher Education, 50, 665-683.
Nolan, J. D. (1974). Are lectures necessary? Improving college and university teaching, 22(3), pp.
253-256.
O’Sullivan, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). Evaluating active learning: A new initiative for a general
chemistry curriculum. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32, 448-452.
Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S., & Higgens, S. (2001). University students' perceptions of
cooperative learning: Implications for administrators and instructors. The Journal of
Expenriential Education, 24, 14-21.
Qualters, D. M. (2001). Do students want to be active? Journal of Scholarship of Learning and
Teaching, 2, 51-60.
Rivkin, A., Pharm, D., & Gim, S. (n.d.). Student preferences regarding teaching methods in a drug-
induced diseases and clinical toxicology course. Retrieved from American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education: http://www.ajpe.org/doi/full/10.5688/ajpe776123
Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage
millennial studetns through active learning strategies. Journal of Family and Consumer
Sciences, 105(2), 44-49.
Struyen, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2008). Students' likes and dislikes regarding student-activating
and lecture-based education settings: Consequences for students' perceptions of the learning
environment, student learning and performance. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 23, 295-317.
Tomlinson, P. (2000). Piaget, Vygostky and beyond: future issue for Developmental Psychology.
London and New York: Routledge.