An Examination of Current Hospitality and Tourism Teaching
Methods
By Cynthia Deale, Ph.D., Robert O'Halloran, Ph.D., Paul Jacques, Ph.D. and John Garger, MBA
Research into pre-college teaching methods is common; much
less research exists about how post-secondary educators teach. Studies that have been conducted tend to focus on student ratings of
RQ 7:What are the most effective teaching methods according to
educators?
RQ 8:Is there a relationship between the teaching techniques, sup-
teaching effectiveness rather than on the methods (Hativa, 1997).
port media, evaluation activities, and influences on hospitality
Some authors have made attempts to tie the effectiveness of teaching
and tourism educators and the following variables:
to student test scores, but the relationship is complicated, particularly
because students themselves are involved in the dynamics of learning (Ding & Sherman, 2006). Lammers and Murphy (2002) conducted
a study of college teaching methods in various disciplines, but did
not address those presently implemented in hospitality and tourism
classes. Little is known about what hospitality and tourism educators
are doing in their classes, what types of teaching methods they use,
and what resources they implement to inform their teaching. Hospitality is a multi-faceted industry and its educational programs require
students to study a variety of subjects from accounting and tourism
to food and beverage management. Due of the range of topics within
the discipline, it is feasible that hospitality educators use a wider range
of teaching methods than instructors of other disciplines. Therefore,
the authors of this study explored the teaching methods and activities
hospitality and tourism educators use in their classes.
In this study, the researchers examined teaching methods and
activities used by instructors in the field of hospitality and tourism
education and investigated relationships between educator variables
such as gender, years of teaching experience, type of institution, and
teaching methods and activities. Specifically, the authors explored the
following research questions (RQ):
RQ 1:What teaching techniques are used in hospitality and tourism
classes?
RQ 2:What types of support media are used in hospitality and tourism classes?
RQ 3:What evaluation activities for students are used in hospitality
and tourism classes?
RQ 4:What evaluation activities for educators are used in hospitality
and tourism classes?
RQ 5:Which activities influence how educators teach in hospitality
and tourism classes?
RQ 6:Which teaching techniques and activities are most successful
according to educators?
A. public versus private schools,
B. two-year versus four-year schools,
C. type of teaching position held by the educator , and
D. sex of the educator.
Background of the Study
Researchers have argued that instructors in higher education
teach from a two-pronged approach that includes teacher-centered
information processing such as covering existing knowledge about
a subject and a student-centered conceptual change approach that
centers on having students restructure their knowledge of a subject
matter to think about it in new ways. The Approaches to Teaching
Inventory (ATI) was designed to reflect these two styles (Prosser &
Trigwell, 1999; Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse, 1999). However, the ATI
has been criticized as being too narrow since teaching and learning
are complex processes (Meyer & Eley, 2006). While the ATI focuses on
teaching philosophies, it does not identify the actual teaching methods used by educators.
Barrett, Bowman, and Donovan (2007) noted that teaching can be
conceptualized as a continuum that stretches from a teacher-centered
to a learner-centered approach. The teacher-centered approach concentrates on transmitting knowledge and uses lectures as a primary
tool. The learner-centered approach emphasizes the individual learner
and a joint-sharing of the teaching-learning process by the learner and
the teacher (O’Banion, 1999; Weimer, 2002). As hospitality educators,
the authors wondered where instructors in this field fit along this continuum. Studies concerning the teaching and learning methods used
in hospitality education are not found in extant literature.
According to several researchers, the lecture - meaning an organized presentation of content material to students - is the primary
teaching method used by instructors in college and university classrooms (Ballantyne, Bain, & Packer; 1999; Hativa, 1997; Lammers &
Murphy, 2002; Lei, 2007). Lammers and Murphy (2002) conducted an
extensive study of teaching techniques in college classrooms where
Cynthia Deale, Ph.D., is Associate Professor at East Carolina University.
Robert O'Halloran, Ph.D., is Director and Professor at East Carolina
University. Paul Jacques, Ph.D., is Associate Professor at Western Carolina
University. John Garger, MBA, is a Consultant with Metronome Computer
Services.
20
student observers documented teaching activities in 58 separate classrooms across different disciplines. They found that lectures dominated
college classes, males lectured more than females, and time spent
lecturing was positively related to class size. Student observers noted
Volume 22, Number 2
that 15 percent of class time was spent on non-learning activities such
genesis in the mid-20th century (Mooney, 2007). Studies of teaching
as taking attendance with student observations close to educator
in subject areas related to business mirror the studies of teaching
estimates of how time was spent on these activities. In a survey of 292
overall. For example, instructors relied heavily on the lecture method
community college instructors, Barrett, Bowman, and Donovan (2007)
when teaching economics (Becker & Greene, 2001) and educators
used the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) to measure the de-
of business statistics emphasized problem sets taught via “chalk and
gree of teacher-centered versus learner-centered styles and found that
talk” sessions (Becker & Watts, 1996). As early as the 1960’s, teaching
the educators showed a strong preference for teacher-centered styles
in business schools was characterized by a systems approach and
(e.g. a content-driven style of course delivery). Lei (2007), in a study of
distance learning via television, games and simulations, and the case
teaching at two community colleges, found that instructors primarily
method (American Society for Transportation & Logistics, 1966). Over
used lectures (planned delivery of content via one-way communica-
30 years ago, Dooley and Skinner (1977) identified four categories of
tion from the teacher to the student) with discussion (communication
instructive style in graduate business courses: teaching with very low
about the content between the student and the teacher and some-
structure, using the Socratic approach, teaching methods where the
times between students themselves) following as the second most
instructor dominates 95% of class time, and using case studies with
common teaching method.
highly-directed lectures. They suggested that the case method is an
In a study of university educators, Smeby (1996) found that while
educators in different fields varied slightly in their use of instructional
approach that allows educators to vary the proportion of instructor
versus student talk.
delivery techniques, instructors at the college level spent more time
For many decades, the use of cases has been recognized as an
in the lecture mode of teaching than any other method. Researchers
effective teaching method in business education. For example, An-
showed that lecturing was the most widespread method used in a
drews (1951) advocated the case method for executive training and
study of university educators in the United States, England, and Scot-
some researchers have suggested that the case method supports
land. In the sciences, instructors used lectures 91% of the time; in the
better retention of content material than other methods (Van Eyne &
social sciences, they used lectures 81% of the time; and in the humani-
Spencer, 1988) and is well-received by students (Orlansky & Zatzman,
ties, they used lectures 61% of the time (Thielens, 1987).
1986). Other investigators found no differences between instructors’
Some researchers suggest that the lecture may be a method
use of the case method and lecture in terms of information retention
preferred by students (McKeachie, 1997). However, just because the
and student satisfaction (Parkinson & Daradirek, 2002). Rees and Por-
lecture method is comfortable does not mean that it is the only viable
ter (2002) suggest that it is beneficial to discuss the cases before the
method. As some researchers have suggested, a number of teachers
theory, and Shugan (2006) noted that cases combined with Socratic
get high ratings for teaching in less than ideal ways (Becker & Watts,
dialogue are common in business schools. While the case method has
2001). As one psychologist stated, “Many students prefer teaching that
evolved as a popular method in business courses, it is not without its
enables them to listen passively--teaching that organizes the subject
critics claiming that it discounts the findings of important research
matter for them and that prepares them well for tests . . . research,
studies in business disciplines (Shugan, 2006) or is insufficient for
however, points to better retention, thinking, and motivational effects
understanding quantitative concepts (Orlansky & Zatzman, 1986). In
when students are more actively involved in talking, writing, and do-
addition, much of the evidence for the effectiveness of the case meth-
ing . . .” (McKeachie, 1997, p. 1219). In the sciences, Franklin and Theall
od has been anecdotal (Mumford, 2005). Studies do not indicate how
(1995) found that instructors of math, science, and engineering moved
common the case method is in hospitality education.
away from dependence on the lecture to rely heavily on imparting
The challenges and problems within management education
content knowledge to students via guest lectures, audio-visual ma-
were outlined in a seminal article written by Porter and McKibbin
terials, homework papers and reports, independent projects, group
(1988). The authors found that business executives were very con-
discussions, team or collaborative projects, and oral presentations.
cerned that college business students were too narrowly educated.
One could argue that hospitality educators differ from educators in
The emerging academic service-learning pedagogy appears to be one
other social sciences due to the hands-on, industry-related nature of
approach that educators can use to address this concern (Madsen,
the discipline and, therefore, educators in this field may use a wider
2004), while internships have also been found to be helpful (Beard,
variety of methods. However, studies have not been conducted to
1998; Beard & Morton, 1999; Cho, 2006). Authentic, problem-based
determine whether hospitality educators, arguably teaching in an
learning offers another alternative to facilitate student learning in ap-
applied business/management field, rely primarily on the lecture
plied content areas such as hospitality (Stein, Isaacs & Andrews, 2004).
method.
Again, while hospitality education may mimic these findings, studies
Hospitality is a business and its varied components such as management have become established academic disciplines since their
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education
have not been conducted to determine if projects and service learning
are used extensively in hospitality education.
21
As noted, hospitality education is rooted in the business of
tourism courses. Therefore, the authors of this study attempted to learn
hospitality. Regardless of whether a hospitality program is housed
more about how educators are teaching in hospitality classrooms.
in a college of business, college of human ecology, or other setting,
Methods
its content is a blend of industry information and the acquisition of
The Certified Hospitality Educator (CHE) workshop (American
managerial and technical skills and abilities, many of which focus on
business principles. Hospitality management education differs from
Hotel & Lodging Association, 2004) and a Teaching Variety Inventory
that in other business disciplines due to the strong service-oriented,
presented by O’Halloran and Deale (2003) provided the starting point
hands-on nature of work in the hospitality industry and the frequent
for this research. The CHE workshop incorporates several content and
interaction between students and industry professionals through
interactive methods used as teaching strategies by hospitality and
activities such as career days, student chapters of industry-related
tourism educators (American Hotel & Lodging Association, 2004).
organizations, service to the industry, and special events for students
Using these as a guide, the authors conducted a pilot survey of hos-
sponsored by industry-related organizations. Students in hospitality pro-
pitality educators within the Southeast Council on Hotel, Restaurant,
grams are usually required to complete an internship or practical work
and Institutional Education (SE CHRIE). Based on their feedback, a
experience as part of their education and many students are already
revised survey that included questions concerning the teaching meth-
employed in the hospitality field while they complete their education.
ods used by hospitality and tourism educators, as well as demographic
Yet, other than this practical component and anecdotal evidence, little
information and items assessing the resources educators used to en-
is known about the teaching methods instructors use in hospitality and
hance their teaching, was used in the present study.
Table 1
Respondent Demographic Profile*
Institution Public 4-year Public 2 year 58.0%
13.0%
Private 4-year Private 2 year 16.6%
4.1%
Other 8.3%
Teaching Level Freshman Senior Other 56.0%
71.5%
4.1%
Sophomore
Masters
68.6%
31.4%
Junior
Doctoral 70.5%
12.8%
Teaching Area
Food & Beverage Tourism
54.1%
27.3%
Lodging
Culinary
36.6%
15.7%
Acct./Fin.
Club Mgt. 29.7%
9.3%
Mean Teaching Years 13.2 years
Mean Age 47.9 years
Gender Male
61%
Female
39%
MS/MA
17.4%
MBA
9.9%
Assistant
Other 25.6%
10.5%
Highest Academic Degree Completed
Ph.D.
49.4%
BA/BS
8.1%
Certifications CHE
25.0%
CHA /CFBE
48.0%
Rank Professor Instructor 15.7%
21.5%
Associate Adjunct 23.8%
2.9%
Status Tenured
Not Tenured Track 34.9%
34.3%
Non-Tenured 30.8%
Other 37.8%
* N=196
22
Volume 22, Number 2
Table 2
Teaching Methods and Support Media Used
1
n
2
%
n
3
%
n
4
%
n
5
%
n
%
Teaching Method
Lecture
2
1.0
7
3.6
23
11.7
80
40.8
84
41.9
Discussion
2
1.0
4
2.0
30
15.3
91
46.4
69
35.2
Field Trip
34
17.3
69
35.2
61
31.1
23
11.7
9
4.6
Guest Lecturer/Speaker
9
4.6
56
28.6
82
41.8
35
17.9
14
7.1
Panel/Symposium/Forum
87
44.4
69
35.2
34
17.3
5
2.6
1
0.5
Small Group Activities
10
5.1
17
8.7
42
21.4
81
41.3
46
23.5
Game or Simulation
41
20.9
48
24.5
61
31.1
36
18.4
10
5.1
Student Presentations
10
5.1
14
7.1
46
23.5
84
42.9
42
21.4
Case Studies
23
11.7
87
44.4
42
21.4
35
17.9
9
4.6
Demonstration or Experiment
43
21.9
43
21.9
52
26.5
37
18.9
21
10.7
Software
36
18.4
44
22.4
59
30.1
28
14.3
29
14.8
Electronic Slide Presentations
3
1.5
6
3.1
21
10.7
41
20.9
121
61.7
Support Media
Overhead Projectors
67
34.2
47
24.0
40
20.4
22
11.2
13
6.6
Artifacts (Objects)
45
23.0
41
20.9
58
29.6
31
15.8
12
6.1
Web-based Communication
29
14.8
14
7.1
39
19.9
29
14.8
73
37.2
Chalkboard/Whiteboard
17
8.7
25
12.8
61
31.1
42
21.4
45
23.0
Note: 1=Never/Not at All; 2=Very Infrequently/Once in a While; 3=Sometimes; 4=Fairly Often; 5=Frequently if Not Always
The revised questionnaire was administered as an online survey
mean age of the respondents was 47.9, 61% of the sample was male,
to hospitality educators using the entire membership of the Inter-
approximately 49% of the respondents held a Ph.D., and a majority of
national Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education
those sampled (58%) taught at public, four-year institutions. The types
(ICHRIE) as a sampling frame. Using a 5-point Likert scale, educators
of faculty positions (assistant professor, instructor, etc.), tenure status
responded to items on the survey by indicating the degree to which
(tenured, non-tenured, fixed term) of the educators, and level of stu-
they employed a variety of teaching methods. The scale ranged from
dents (freshmen, seniors, etc.) they taught varied. The types of courses
1 (never) to 5 (frequently, if not always). In addition, a variety of demo-
taught and the number of years the educators had taught also var-
graphic information was collected including the type of institution at
ied; a slight majority of educators taught food and beverage courses
which the educator taught (public, private, two-year, four-year), the
(54%), and the mean teaching experience was 13.2 years.
number of years of teaching experience the educator had, and the
Results Related to RQ 1
highest academic degree held by the faculty member. These data were
compiled into a database from which both descriptive and inferential
statistics were calculated.
Results and Discussion
The Sample
Information on teaching styles was collected from 196 members
of the ICHRIE. Membership in ICHRIE is approximately 1,300 (personal
communication, Mia Williamson, ICHRIE membership services, July 20,
2007), providing an approximate 15 % response rate. A demographic
profile of the respondents is shown in Table 1, indicating that the
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education
Not surprising, a large majority of respondents (83.7%) indicated
using lectures either fairly often or frequently, as shown in Table 2. This
finding was commensurate with findings of previous studies. Hospitality and tourism educators in the sample also employed discussions
regularly with 81.6% of respondents indicating the use of discussions.
However, whether in lecture or discussion form, these instructors
favored a classroom approach to teaching, with only 16.3% of respondents indicating use of instructional techniques that take place
outside of the classroom (e.g. field trips) frequently or fairly often.
Guest lecturers and speakers were reported to be moderately
used by hospitality and tourism educators with the distribution of
23
Table 3
Methods Used to Evaluate Student Learning
1
Written Test or Quiz
2
3
4
5
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
9
4.6
12
6.1
20
10.2
67
34.2
88
44.9
Written Essay
17
8.7
23
11.7
50
25.5
70
35.7
36
18.4
Oral Test or Quiz
72
36.7
55
28.1
38
19.4
22
11.2
9
4.6
Take Home Test
76
38.8
50
25.5
49
25.0
18
9.2
3
1.5
Individual Term Paper/Project
12
6.1
6
3.1
37
18.9
82
41.8
59
30.1
Pre- and Post-test
62
31.6
49
25.0
46
23.5
25
12.8
14
7.1
Anecdotal Record
72
36.7
42
21.4
43
21.9
28
14.3
11
5.6
Group Project
12
6.1
7
3.6
42
21.4
74
37.8
61
31.1
Group Project w/ Organization
61
31.1
47
24.0
39
19.9
33
16.8
16
8.2
Service Learning
47
24.0
41
20.9
62
31.6
33
16.8
16.8
6.6
Physical Test/Manipulation
118
60.2
44
22.4
17
8.7
14
7.1
3
1.5
Self-assessment Checklist
83
42.3
43
21.9
21
20.9
24
12.2
5
2.6
Student Journals
94
48.0
39
19.9
43
21.9
10
5.1
10
5.1
Note: 1=Never/Not at All; 2=Very Infrequently/Once in a While; 3=Sometimes; 4=Fairly Often; 5=Frequently if Not Always
responses approximately normally distributed about the middle response (sometimes), while the use of panels, symposia, and forums
Results Related to RQ 3
Written tests and essays were frequently used when evaluating
was not common. Student presentations were popular, with 63.8%
students in hospitality and tourism classrooms with respondents indi-
of the respondents indicating that they were used fairly often or fre-
cating the use of written tests (79.1%) and essays (54.1%) either fairly
quently. Case studies were used less often, with 22.8% using them fairly
often or frequently, as presented in Table 3. Other forms of assessment
often or frequently. This figure was not as high as expected due to the
such as oral and take-home tests were not common student evalu-
common usage of cases in business education, in general. However, cases
ation methods, whereas another individual evaluation method, the
are more often used in graduate school (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005) and the
term paper or project, was used fairly often by 41.8% and frequently
majority of faculty sampled taught undergraduate hospitality students.
by 30.1% of those sampled. Overall, hospitality and tourism educators
Results Related to RQ 2
favored objective forms of student evaluation, with 80% of respon-
Educators responded that they used electronic slide presentations more than traditional chalkboards or whiteboards, with 82.6%
of respondents indicating use of electronic slides either fairly often or
frequently, versus 44.4% for chalkboards or whiteboards (See Table 2).
A post hoc regression analysis between electronic slide presentation
use and chalkboard or whiteboard use indicated no significant correlation (F=2.08, p=0.15). The authors surmised that a negative correlation
between these two variables would indicate a preference toward
higher technology display media. In other words, although electronic
slide presentations were used more by respondents over chalkboards
or whiteboards, use of the higher technology media did not appear
to preclude use of traditional media. Hospitality and tourism educa-
dents indicating use of anecdotal records never, very infrequently, or
only some of the time. Understandably, this may be due to university
restrictions rather than an educator’s preference, where to be fair to
students, evaluation in courses must be standardized with little left to
subjective interpretation. Group projects were common with 68.9%
of respondents indicating use of this evaluation method either fairly
often or frequently. However, group projects with deliverable products to organizations were far less common; only 25% of respondents
indicated use of this method either fairly often or frequently. Finally,
student self-assessment as an evaluation method was uncommon
with 64.2% of respondents indicating use of self-assessment checklists
either never or very infrequently. Similarly, 67.9% of respondents indi-
tors moderately incorporated online resources managed by their
cated using student journals either never or very infrequently.
institutions into their teaching techniques, with 52% of respondents
Results Related to RQ 4
indicating use of web-based communication systems (e.g. Blackboard)
either fairly often or frequently.
24
Thirty percent (30.7%) of respondents indicated using self-assessment checklists either fairly often or frequently and student feedback
Volume 22, Number 2
Table 4
Influences on Educators’ Teaching
1
Trial and Error
2
3
4
5
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
8
4.1
8
4.1
54
27.6
82
42.3
43
21.9
Self-evaluation of Teaching
9
4.6
12
6.1
56
28.6
72
36.7
47
24.0
Student Feedback
4
2.0
3
1.5
35
17.6
78
39.8
76
38.8
Observing Other Instructors
23
11.7
40
20.4
57
29.1
54
27.6
22
11.2
Colleague Feedback
37
18.9
39
19.9
60
30.6
51
26.0
9
4.6
Discussions with Peers
6
3.1
15
7.7
52
26.5
89
45.4
34
17.3
TA Training or Experience
59
30.1
36
18.4
43
21.9
43
21.9
15
7.7
Contexts Other than University
31
15.8
29
14.8
59
30.1
50
25.5
27
13.8
CHE or Other Workshops
77
39.3
36
18.4
29
14.8
35
17.9
19
9.7
Note: 1=Never/Not at All; 2=Very Infrequently/Once in a While; 3=Sometimes; 4=Fairly Often; 5=Frequently if Not Always
appeared to be an important method of educator evaluation, with
(3.1%). Sixteen items were mentioned by four people (2.5%) each,
81.6% of respondents using this method either fairly often or fre-
including: the use of industry panels, attending and evaluating career
quently. However, the authors recognize that many universities require
fairs, interviewing hospitality managers, participating in customer
student feedback as a means to assess courses. Periodic student logs
service role plays, participating in internships, completing Internet
were not used much to assess teaching with over 80% of respondents
assignments, acting as secret shoppers or critics of hospitality opera-
indicating that they either never or very infrequently use this method,
tions, critiquing restaurants, designing menus and preparing food
and while observation by a colleague was used either fairly often or
for special groups, conducting international trips, engaging in com-
frequently by 21.4% of respondents, only 3% opted for the more self-
munity based service-learning activities, engaging in industry-related
oriented evaluation of videotaping lessons.
service projects, developing and completing research projects for
Results Related to RQ 5
poster or other research presentations, developing and marketing
Hospitality and tourism educators were somewhat adventurous
and independent, with 64.2% of respondents indicating trial and error as an influencing factor fairly often or frequently when choosing
teaching methods, as can be seen in Table 4. As far as self-evaluation,
60.7% indicated that it influenced their teaching fairly often or frequently, while 78.6% of respondents suggested that student feedback
influenced their teaching fairly often or frequently. Outside influences
for respondents (indicated with answers of fairly often or frequently)
varied, but the most commonly mentioned influence was discussions
with peers (62.7%).
Results Related to RQ 6
One-hundred fifty-nine respondents answered an open-ended
new products, participating in capstone or senior course experiences,
and taking part in industry days at the university. Activities mentioned
by three people (1.8%) each included job shadowing, participating
in mock-interviews, designing and creating a model hotel or resort,
developing research designs or problem statements, and assigning
additional books such as novels for extra credit or a book discussion.
Two respondents (1%) each mentioned attending an industry–related
show with students and analyzing it as a class, leadership activities,
and completing literature reviews for research papers or as standalone assignments. A variety of other ideas were mentioned once
by 36 respondents. Unique examples identified by faculty members
included:
•
I send the class on a scavenger hunt to the library to track
question asking them to give an example of what they considered
down various details about the industry and become familiar
to be a successful teaching technique or activity. Not surprisingly,
with publications and databases useful to study in our field.
responses varied greatly. Case studies and projects were each men-
Students learn by doing and love competing for a prize.
tioned by 14 respondents (8.8% each for those who answered the
•
Reflective journals coupled with group discussions are an
question). Field trips and some type of interactive activity where
important asset in intercultural studies. Teaching at an inter-
students work together in small groups were mentioned by seven
national school with over 60 nationalities represented, these
respondents each (4.4%). Games were mentioned by six people (3.7%)
interactions prove to be extremely valuable to all concerned.
and simulations and discussions were each specifically noted by five
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education
25
•
An owner of a local hotel had my marketing class do a web site
for his business. The owner was very pleased and so were the
students. They saw how it worked and it was real world.
Results Related to RQ 7
Respondents were also asked the following question: What do
you believe is (are) the most effective teaching method(s) for hospitality and tourism and why? Again, 159 people answered this item and
their answers varied, many commenting on the need for both theory
and practice. Thirty-nine respondents (24.5%) mentioned that a combination of techniques was most effective; thirty-seven respondents
(23.3%) reported the importance of experiential, hands-on learning
and of getting students involved in the real world of the industry as
being most effective. Representative answers included:
•
…this industry is built on serving other(s). Students must be
given every opportunity to develop their interpersonal skills,
their problem-solving skills, their leadership skills, and their
critical thinking skills. Experience is often the best way to develop these areas.
•
Getting the students to teach each other the material - helps
them to relate to material (we are) covering—Getting them out
in the industry to see/hear what exactly is happening—makes
them understand the importance of the topic.
•
Authentic learning experiences that involve students in
projects with the industry or other organizations involved in
hospitality and tourism - Learning opportunities that engage
Differences between Faculty Teaching at Public and Private
Schools
Several significant differences were found between responses
from those teaching at private and public institutions. Faculty members at public schools were more likely to use electronic slides (p=
.046) and web-based communication (p=.012), while faculty members
at private schools were more likely to use chalkboards/whiteboards
(p=.064) and believed that the CHE workshop was more of an influence on their teaching (p=.004). There were no significant differences
found between the types of evaluation or assessment tools used
in private and public schools. The finding that educators at public
schools favored electronic slides and web-based communication while
those at private schools favored the use of whiteboards or chalkboards
may be a function of class size issues as public institutions typically
have larger class sizes. That those at private schools noted CHE workshops had an influence on their teaching more than faculty members
at public schools is an interesting finding. Perhaps public institutions
have more diverse professional development opportunities available
through faculty centers for teaching or perhaps the CHE is recognized
more as an instructional tool in private institutions. At some private
schools, the CHE may be strongly recommended or even required
of faculty members and may be paid for by the institution. This may
not be the case for faculty members at public institutions who may
have more choices in terms of their own professional development
opportunities and yet may also have to pay for their own professional
students in real world experiences and allow them to reflect on
development.
theory and practice in the field of HT.
Differences between Faculty Teaching at Two-year and Fouryear Schools
Twenty-nine respondents (18.2%) noted that some combination
of lecture and activity was most effective, while twenty-six (16.4%)
Significant differences were noted between two-year and four-
indicated that lectures and demonstrations worked best. Sixteen
year faculty members’ teaching methods. Educators in four-year
(10%) respondents wrote answers indicating that the best methods
schools favored guest lecturers (p =.068), electronic slides (p=.037),
involved students in active learning, while the other 12 respondents’
and web-based communication (p=.001). Educators in two-year
answers varied widely, with responses such as team teaching and
schools favored demonstrations (p=.001), artifacts (p=.004), chalk-
solving problems. These remaining answers did not appear to have a
board/whiteboard (p<.001), written tests (p=.045), take-home tests
common theme.
(p=.030), anecdotal records of student performance (p=.005), physi-
Results Related to RQ 8
cal manipulation or performance (p=.014), student journals (p=.063),
To further the understanding of hospitality and tourism teaching, tests of differences in means were calculated for four groups of
respondents using an ANOVA. The authors carried out the tests in
an exploratory fashion to help reveal differences that might have
otherwise gone unnoticed and to provide suggestions for future
research focusing on these categories of respondents. Given the
exploratory nature of these analyses, the present authors assumed
colleague feedback on teaching (p=.083), and the CHE workshop was
viewed as more of an influence on teaching (p=.001). These results
were not surprising as many two-year hospitality programs are based
on culinary education are, therefore, very hands-on by nature.
Differences Based on the Type of Teaching Position Held by the
Faculty Member
A few significant differences were found between self-reported
that a significance factor (p-value) of 0.10 was a reasonable cut-off
teaching behaviors of faculty members by rank. Written tests were
point for indicating whether a significant difference warranted dis-
used more frequently by assistant professors than full professors (p=
cussion.
.069), while group projects with a deliverable product to a client were
used more often by associate professors than by instructors (p=.074),
and instructors felt that their observations of other educators’ classes
26
Volume 22, Number 2
influenced their classes more than assistant professors (p=.100). Per-
easy ways to enhance one’s lectures. Examples of ways to improve the
haps assistant professors used written tests because they represented
lecture (and discussion) method include the following:
a low risk approach to evaluation while tenured professors were will-
1.
Plan each lesson with the learning outcome (s) identified. This
ing to try more diverse activities such as projects that involve greater
means beginning with the learner and what he or she should
pedagogical risks.
learn from the lecture/discussion instead of starting with the con-
Differences Based on the Gender of the Instructor
tent and how to present it. Turning a lesson around to focus on its
intended outcome may provide insight into a better lesson. This
Differences were found between the self-reported teaching
does not mean adopting learning-outcomes based approach sim-
strategies of male and female educators. Male faculty members re-
ply as a managerial tool, but using it as a tool for careful reflection
ported using lectures more than females (p=.004) and reported other
influences inspired their own teaching more frequently (p=.018).
As compared to male faculty members, female faculty members
when planning lessons (Hussey & Smith, 2002).
2.
method, the act of caring about the learner helps increase
favored discussion (p=.022), small group work (p<.001), take-home
learning and is particularly important in large lecture classes.
tests (p=.075), self-assessment checklists for students (p=.015), and
Try combining a learning and learner-centered focus, welcome
observation of others’ teaching as an influence on their own teaching
student questions, and get to know students (Straits, 2007;
(p=.084). These findings supported previous research on gender of the
educator in college teaching (Crawford & McLeod, 1998; Lacey, Saleh,
& Gorman, 1998; Starbuck, 2003).
Noddings, 1988).
3.
ticipation in a lecture rather than make students more passive
and less involved. For example, electronic slides do not have to
These findings are interesting, but the real question to ask about
simply be shown by the teacher and talked through while stu-
the results of this study is: why do these results matter to hospitality
dents take notes. Instead, the instructor and the students can
educators and their students? Results of this study provide more than
use the slides as aids for their discussion to grapple with the
anecdotal information about what hospitality educators do in their
ism education. Sharing information about teaching and educators’
Use technology as a tool to actively engage students in the
lecture and discussion. Technology can enhance student par-
Implications and Conclusions
classes and add to the body of knowledge about hospitality and tour-
Care about students. This seems obvious, but regardless of
content and develop answers to questions (Clark, 2008).
4.
Reflect carefully on the content material when planning the
lecture and/or discussion. Remember that more is not neces-
behaviors associated with the teaching process, as well as offering
sarily better (Gaer, 1998).
positive examples of teaching and learning experiences, can act as a
a.
catalyst for increasing awareness of and attention to what hospitality
vide students with opportunities to engage in activities
and tourism faculty members do when they teach. Educators may be
that reinforce learning such as:
wise to confer and consult with their colleagues and peers to consider
utilizing a variety of learning methods throughout a course. Most importantly, these results can help point toward the future of hospitality
education and whether its educators plan to continue along a rather
As noted previously, the lecture method was the most frequently
used teaching method reported by educators in the study. While this
might not be very innovative or exciting as a method, to abandon the
lecture may not be wise or efficient. With class sizes increasing and resources becoming scarce, the lecture (with discussion) method offers
a means to present content material to large numbers of students and,
therefore, is efficient as a teaching method (American Hotel and Lodging Association, 2004). However, a teaching method needs to be used
because it enhances learning and to ensure that their lectures involve
students and contribute to the learning process, educators need to
evaluate how effective their lectures and discussions are as vehicles
for student learning. Although a specific focus on the effective lecture
method was not the central theme of this paper, there are relatively
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education
b.
talking over the main points with other students,
c.
writing about the content,
d.
working through small case study scenarios or solving
problems , and participating in role-plays or games (Amer-
traditional path or move towards implementing more dynamic teaching and learning models and methods.
Include variety within a lecture/discussion format to pro-
ican Hotel and Lodging Association, 2004).
5.
Use both formative and summative classroom assessment
techniques to support instructional objectives (Cross & Angelo,
1993).
The use of written tests and class projects was common among
educators in this study but the application of projects that resulted
in deliverable products was far less common, reported in use fairly
often or frequently by only 25% of the sample. In an applied field
such as hospitality, experiential, authentic learning projects that extend beyond the classroom to engage students in the real world of
hospitality are important and ought to receive more attention due to
the hands-on nature of the industry and its relationship with tourism,
often a community-based activity. While several respondents in this
study mentioned the use of student projects, it is not clear how these
projects were carried out in their classes and, specifically, how they
27
addressed student learning outcomes. Further investigation into how
learning in applied fields such as hospitality. In a highly competitive,
authentic projects contribute to student learning in hospitality would
technologically-changing world, educators should seek to implement
provide insights into how to use these opportunities to enhance
varied teaching techniques and instructional objectives to accom-
student learning and engage in service with communities and the
modate a diverse student body and meet the demands of today’s
hospitality and tourism industry.
hospitality industry. Instructors, like industry professionals, are wise to
Some gender differences among instructors were found in this
learn how to adapt to inevitable societal changes as time progresses.
study and while these were interesting, further research needs to be
According to Lei (2007), educators who are opposed to change need
conducted to determine if these differences disappear when subject
to realize that complete resistance to change is futile as they will be
matter is controlled, as it was in a previous study (Starbuck, 2003).
left behind in a highly competitive society. In the dynamic economic,
Rather than focusing on gender differences in teaching, more lever-
social, cultural, and natural environment of the 21st century, what
age could be gained by promoting a teaching to learning paradigm
worked in the past does not necessarily work now or in the future. In-
and conducting classroom-based research via a Scholarship of Teach-
structors need the flexibility to accommodate students with different
ing and Learning (SoTL) model to investigate the impact of different
backgrounds and cognitive abilities and to adapt to an ever-changing
teaching techniques on student learning (Carnegie Foundation for
world (Lei, 2007).
the Advancement of Teaching, n.d). Although this research study did
Limitations
not focus on SoTL, it is a way for instructors to investigate their own
best practices in teaching through their own courses and experiences.
Therefore, SoTL provides post-secondary educators with a means to
improve teaching that is already readily available without the need for
additional financial resources or discretionary time.
Given that educators at four-year institutions may be primarily in-
This investigation provided information about teaching by
hospitality and tourism educators through self-reports of their teaching preferences and behaviors, but was not without limitations.
The research results offer clues as to what is going on in hospitality
education, but the study is restricted to a sample of 196 instructors,
primarily to those in the United States, due to the high composition of
terested in or rewarded for their research, university administrators face
Americans in ICHRIE’s membership. It is possible that the respondents
an uphill battle getting them to devote more time or effort to improving
in this sample already had a strong interest in teaching and therefore,
their teaching. Making it clear that their future is threatened should they
completed the survey. The current study was based on educators’ self-
ignore the quality of teaching is one approach, although not a supportive
reports of their own teaching and it is possible that an observational
or positive one. An emphasis on SoTL is more constructive.
study of how hospitality and tourism educators teach and how their
Using SoTL, instructors engage in discipline-focused classroom
or program-based research that involves investigating issues related
to teaching and learning within one’s own discipline (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, n.d). In business education,
Boyer (1990) promoted this form of research in his fourfold vision
of faculty members’ creative activities embracing the scholarship
of discovery, integration, engagement, and teaching and learning.
Through SoTL, educators have the ability to conduct research while
improving student learning and their own teaching. By reducing the
distance between teaching and research, college educators may be
enticed to pay more attention to their teaching roles. If this SoTL approach is successfully adopted, then both educators and students can
benefit (Johnston, McDonald, & Williams, 2001). A movement towards
a SoTL model offers a way to open hospitality teaching to debate and
discussion by all involved in this discipline and begins to close the
gap between teaching and research. A deeper focus on SoTL would
increase the attention on learning for the learner (Michael & Modell,
2003) and permit hospitality educators to see that teaching and learning in the field of hospitality are as dynamic as the industry itself.
While it has been argued that there is no single best teaching
technique used at the college level (Lei, 2007), there may be some
methods that are more effective than others in terms of student
28
students learn would reveal a different picture and would be a welcome addition to the study of hospitality and tourism education.
References
American Hotel & Lodging Association (2004). Certified Hospitality Educator.
Orlando, Florida: Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Lodging
Association.
American Society of Transportation & Logistics (1966). Current trends in teaching of business. Transportation Journal, 5(3), 42-52.
Andrews, K. R. (1951). Executive training by the case method. Harvard Business
Review, 29, 58-70.
Ballantyne, R., Bain, J., & Packer, J. (1999). Researching university teaching
in Australia: themes and issues in academic reflections. Studies in Higher
Education, 24(2), 237-257.Barrett, K. R., Bower, B. L., & Donovan, N. C. (2007).
Teaching styles of community college instructors. The Journal of American
Distance Education, 21(1), 37-49.
Beard, D. F. (1998). The status of internships/cooperative education experiences
in accounting education. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(3/4), 507-516.
Beard, F., & Morton, L. (1999). Effects of internship predictors on successful fieldexperience. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 53(4), 42-53.
Becker, W. E., & Greene, W. H., (2001). Teaching statistics and econometrics to
undergraduates. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 169-182.
Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (1996). Chalk and talk: A national survey on teaching
undergraduates. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 86(2),
448-453.
Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (2001). Teaching methods in U.S. undergraduate eco-
Volume 22, Number 2
nomics courses. Journal of Economic Education, 32(3), 269-279.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard
Business Review, 83(5), 96-104.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (n.d.) CASTL—Carnegie
Academy of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Retrieved March 1, 2008
from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/programs/index.asp?key=21.
Cho, M. (2006). Student perspectives on the quality of hotel management internships. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 6(1), 61-76.
Clark, J. (2008). PowerPoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest in university lectures. College Teaching, 56(1), 39-44.
Crawford, M., & McLeod, M. (1990). Gender in the classroom: An assessment of
the chilly climate for women. Sex Roles, 23(3/4), 101-122.
Cross, K. P., & Angelo, T. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ding, C., & Sherman, H. (2006). Teaching effectiveness and student achievement: Examining the relationship. Education Research Quarterly, 29(4), 39-49.
Dooley, A. R., & Skinner, W. (1977). Casing casemethod methods. Academy of
Management Review, 2, 277-289.
Franklin, J., & Theall, M. (1995). The relationship of disciplinary differences
and the value of class preparation time to student ratings of teaching. In
N. Hativa & M. Marincovich (Eds.) Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and
Learning: Implications for Practice, (pp. 41-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gaer, S. (1998). Less teaching and more learning, Focus on the basics: Connecting
research & practice. 2D. National Center for Adult Learning and Literacy.
Retrieved January 17, 2008 from http://www.ncsall.net/?=385.
ence classrooms: A working model of helping the learner to learn. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mooney, A. (2007). Core competence, distinctive competence, and competitive advantage: What is the difference? Journal of Education for
Business, 83(2), 110-115. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from ABI/INFORM
Global database. (Document ID: 1410903891).
Mumford, A. (2005). The case method - Does learning theory matter?
Development and Learning in Organizations, 19(4) 17-19.
Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional
arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96(2), 215-230.
O’Banion, T. (1999). The learning college: Both learner and learning centered.
Learning Abstracts, 2(2). Retrieved 8/12/07 from http://www.league.org/publication/abstracts/learning/lelabs0399.html.
O’Halloran, R. M., & Deale, C. S. (2003). Mise en place for teaching: A handbook
for hospitality and tourism educators and trainers. Lansing, MI: Educational
Institute of the American Hotel and Lodging Association.
Orlansky, J. Z., & Zatzman, J. (1986). Case method curriculum as perceived by
Colgate Darden Business School graduates (1960–1980) from the University
of Virginia (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1986). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 48(2A), 0297.
Parkinson, M. G., & Daradirek E. (2002). The Socratic method in the introductory
PR course: An alternative pedagogy. Public Relations Review, 28(2), 167-174.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1998). Management education and development:
Drift or thrust into the 21st century, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Relational perspectives on higher education
teaching and learning in the sciences. Studies in Science Education, 33, 31-60.
Rees, W. D., & Porter, C. (2002). The use of case studies in management training
and development. Part 1. Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(1), 5-8.
Hativa, N. (1997). Teaching in a research university: Professors’ conceptions,
practices, and disciplinary differences. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, March
24-28. ED 407 919, HE 030 167.
Shugan, S. M. (2006). Editorial: Save research—Abandon the case method of
teaching. Marketing Science, (25)2, 109-115.
Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2002). The Trouble with Learning Outcomes.
Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(3), 220-233 DOI:
10.1177/1469787402003003003.
Starbuck, G. H. (2003, April). College teaching styles by gender. Paper presented
at the Western Social Science Association Annual Meeting. Las Vegas, NV.
Johnston, C., McDonald, I., & Williams, R. (2001). The scholarship of teaching
economics. Journal of Economic Education, 32(3), 195-202.
Lacey, C. H., Saleh, A., & Gorman, R. (1998). Teaching nine to five: A study of the
teaching styles of male and female professors. Paper presented at the Annual
Women in Educational Leadership Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska, October 1112 (ERIC No. ED442334).
Lammers, W. J., & Murphy J. L. (2002). A profile of teaching techniques used in
the university classroom: A descriptive profile of a US public university. The
Institute for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Lei, S. A. (2007). Teaching practices of instructors of two community colleges in
a western state. Education, 128(1), 57-72.
Madsen, S. (2004). Academic service learning in human resource management education. Journal of Education for Business, 79(6), 328-332. Retrieved
February 17, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID:
692351241).
Smeby, J. C. (1996). Disciplinary differences in university teaching. Studies in
Higher Education, 21(1), 69-79.
Stein, S. J., Isaacs, G., & Andrews, T. (2004). Incorporating authentic learning
experiences within a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2),
239-258.
Straits, W. (2007). ”She’s teaching me”: Teaching with care in a large lecture
course. College Teaching, 55(4), 170-175.
Thielens, W. (1987). The disciplines and undergraduate lecturing. Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1987.
Washington, D.C.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education,
37, 57-70.
Van Eynde, D. F., & Spencer, R. W. (1988). Lecture versus experiential learning:
Their differential effects on long-term memory. Organizational Behavior
Teaching Review, 12(4), 52-58.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five key changes to practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McKeachie, W. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American
Psychologist, 52, 1218-1225.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Eley, M. G. (2006). The approaches to teaching inventory: A
critique of its development and applicability. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76(3), 633-664.
Michael, J. A., & Modell, H. I. (2003). Active learning in secondary and college sci-
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education
29
Copyright of Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education is the property of International CHRIE and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.