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 teaching
effectiveness rather than on the methods (Hativa, 1997).Some authors have made attempts to tie the
effectiveness of teaching 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?

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.

RQ 7: What are the most effective teaching methods according to educators?

RQ 8: Is there a relationship between the teaching techniques, support media, evaluation activities, and
influences on hospitality and tourism educators and the following variables:

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
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 that 15 percent of class time was
spent on non-learning activities such as taking attendance with student observations close to educator
estimates of how time was spent on these activities. In a survey of 292 community college instructors,
Barrett, Bowman, and Donovan (2007) used the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) to measure the
degree of teacher-centered versus learner-centered styles and found that the educators showed a
strong preference for teacher-centered styles (e.g. a content-driven style of course delivery). Lei (2007),
in a study of teaching at two community colleges, found that instructors primarily used lectures
(planned delivery of content via one-way communication from the teacher to the student) with
discussion (communication about the content between the student and the teacher and sometimes
between students themselves) following as the second most common teaching method. In a study of
university educators, Smeby (1996) found that while educators in different fields varied slightly in their
use of instructional delivery techniques, instructors at the college level spent more time in the lecture
mode of teaching than any other method. Researchers showed that lecturing was the most widespread
method used in a study of university educators in the United States, England, and Scotland. In the
sciences, instructors used lectures 91% of the time; in the social sciences, they used lectures 81% of the
time; and in the humanities, they used lectures 61% of the time (Thielens, 1987).

Some researchers suggest that the lecture may be a method preferred by students (McKeachie, 1997).
However, just because the lecture method is comfortable does not mean that it is the only viable
method. As some researchers have suggested, a number of teachers get high ratings for teaching in less
than ideal ways (Becker & Watts, 2001). As one psychologist stated, “Many students prefer teaching that
enables them to listen passively--teaching that organizes the subject matter for them and that prepares
them well for tests . . . research, however, points to better retention, thinking, and motivational effects
when students are more actively involved in talking, writing, and doing ” (McKeachie, 1997, p. 1219). In
the sciences, Franklin and The all (1995) found that instructors of math, science, and engineering moved
away from dependence on the lecture to rely heavily on imparting content knowledge to students via
guest lectures, audio-visual materials, homework papers and reports, independent projects, group
discussions, team or collaborative projects, and oral presentations. One could argue that hospitality
educators differ from educators in other social sciences due to the hands-on, industry-related nature of
the discipline and, therefore, educators in this field may use a wider variety of methods. However,
studies have not been conducted to determine whether hospitality educators, arguably teaching in an
applied business/management field, rely primarily on the lecture method.

Hospitality is a business and its varied components such as management have become established
academic disciplines since their genesis in the mid-20th century (Mooney, 2007). Studies of teaching in
subject areas related to business mirror the studies of teaching overall. For example, instructors relied
heavily on the lecture method when teaching economics (Becker & Greene, 2001) and educators of
business statistics emphasized problem sets taught via “chalk and talk” sessions (Becker & Watts, 1996).
As early as the 1960’s, teaching in business schools was characterized by a systems approach and
distance learning via television, games and simulations, and the case method (American Society for
Transportation & Logistics, 1966). Over 30 years ago, Dooley and Skinner (1977) identified four
categories of instructive style in graduate business courses: teaching with very low structure, using the
Socratic approach, teaching methods where the instructor dominates 95% of class time, and using case
studies with highly-directed lectures. They suggested that the case method is an approach that allows
educators to vary the proportion of instructor versus student talk. For many decades, the use of cases
has been recognized as an effective teaching method in business education. For example, Andrews

(1951) advocated the case method for executive training and some researchers have suggested that the
case method supports better retention of content material than other methods (Van Eyne &
Spencer, 1988) and is well-received by students (Orlansky & Zatzman,

1986). Other investigators found no differences between instructors’ use of the case method and
lecture in terms of information retention and student satisfaction (Parkinson & Daradirek,

2002). Rees and Porter

(2002) suggest that it is beneficial to discuss the cases before the theory, and Shugan (2006) noted that
cases combined with Socratic dialogue are common in business schools. While the case method
has evolved as a popular method in business courses, it is not without its critics claiming that it
discounts the findings of important research studies in business disciplines (Shugan, 2006) or is
insufficient for understanding quantitative concepts (Orlansky & Zatzman, 1986). In addition,
much of the evidence for the effectiveness of the case method has been anecdotal (Mumford,
2005). Studies do not indicate how common the case method is in hospitality education. The
challenges and problems within management education were outlined in a seminal article
written by Porter and McKibbin

(1988). The authors found that business executives were very concerned that college business students
were too narrowly educated. The emerging academic service-learning pedagogy appears to be
one approach that educators can use to address this concern (Madsen, 2004), while internships
have also been found to be helpful (Beard,

1998; Beard & Morton, 1999; Cho, 2006). Authentic, problem-based learning offers another alternative
to facilitate student learning in applied content areas such as hospitality (Stein, Isaacs &
Andrews, 2004). Again, while hospitality education may mimic these findings, studies have not
been conducted to determine if projects and service learning are used extensively in hospitality
education.
As noted, hospitality education is rooted in the business of hospitality. Regardless of whether a
hospitality program is housed in a college of business, college of human ecology, or other setting, its
content is a blend of industry information and the acquisition of managerial and technical skills and
abilities, many of which focus on business principles. Hospitality management education differs from
that in other business disciplines due to the strong service-oriented, hands-on nature of work in the
hospitality industry and the frequent interaction between students and industry professionals through
activities such as career days, student chapters of industry-related organizations, service to the industry,
and special events for students sponsored by industry-related organizations. Students in hospitality
programs are usually required to complete an internship or practical work experience as part of their
education and many students are already employed in the hospitality field while they complete their
education. Yet, other than this practical component and anecdotal evidence, little is known about the
teaching methods instructors use in hospitality and tourism courses. Therefore, the authors of this study
attempted to learn more about how educators are teaching in hospitality classrooms.

Methods

The Certified Hospitality Educator (CHE) workshop (American Hotel & Lodging Association, 2004) and a
Teaching Variety Inventory presented by O’Halloran and Deale (2003) provided the starting point for this
research. The CHE workshop incorporates several content and interactive methods used as teaching
strategies by hospitality and tourism educators (American Hotel & Lodging Association, 2004).
Using these as a guide, the authors conducted a pilot survey of hospitality educators within the
Southeast Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education (SE CHRIE). Based on their feedback,
a revised survey that included questions concerning the teaching methods used by hospitality and
tourism educators, as well as demographic information and items assessing the resources educators
used to enhance their teaching, was used in the present study.

Table 1

Respondent Demographic Profile*

Institution
Public 4-year 58.0% Private 4-year 16.6%

Public 2 year 13.0% Private 2 year 4.1% Other

8.3%

Teaching Level

Freshman 56.0% Sophomore 68.6% Junior 70.5%

Senior 71.5% Masters 31.4% Doctoral

12.8%

Other 4.1%

Teaching Area

Food & Beverage 54.1% Lodging 36.6% Acct./Fin. 29.7%

Tourism 27.3% Culinary 15.7% Club Mgt. 9.3%

Other 37.8%

Mean Teaching Years 13.2 years Mean Age 47.9 years

Gender

Male 61% Female 39%

Highest Academic Degree Completed

Ph.D. 49.4% MS/MA 17.4% MBA 9.9%

BA/BS 8.1%

Certifications

CHE 25.0% CHA /CFBE 48.0%

Rank

Professor 15.7% Associate 23.8% Assistant 25.6%

Instructor 21.5% Adjunct 2.9% Other

10.5%
Status

Tenured 34.9% Non-Tenured 30.8%

Not Tenured Track 34.3%

* N=196
Teaching Methods and Support Media Used

1 2 3 4 5

n % n % n % n % 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 78.7 42 21.4 81 41.3 46 2 3.5

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

Support Media

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 12 16 1.7

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 to hospitality educators using the entire
membership of the International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education (ICHRIE) as a
sampling frame. Using a 5-point Likert scale, educators responded to items on the survey by indicating
the degree to which they employed a variety of teaching methods. The scale ranged from 1 (never) to 5
(frequently, if not always). In addition, a variety of demographic information was collected including the
type of institution at which the educator taught (public, private, two-year, four-year), the number of
years of teaching experience the educator had, and the 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 mean age of the respondents was 47.9, 61% of the sample was male,
approximately 49% of the respondents held a Ph.D., and a majority of those sampled (58%) taught at
public, four-year institutions. The types of faculty positions (assistant professor, instructor, etc.), tenure
status (tenured, non-tenured, fixed term) of the educators, and level of students (freshmen, seniors,
etc.) they taught varied. The types of courses taught and the number of years the educators had taught
also varied; a slight majority of educators taught food and beverage courses (54%), and the mean
teaching experience was 13.2 years.

Results Related to RQ 1

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

Table 3

Methods Used to Evaluate Student Learning

1 2 3 4 5
n % n % n % n % n %

Written Test or Q uiz 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 11 8 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 was not common. Student presentations were popular, with 63.8% of the
respondents indicating that they were used fairly often or frequently. Case studies were used less often,
with 22.8% using them fairly often or frequently. This figure was not as high as expected due to the
common usage of cases in business education, in general. However, cases are more often used in
graduate school (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005) and the majority of faculty sampled taught undergraduate
hospitality students.

Results Related to RQ 2

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 educators moderately incorporated online resources managed by their institutions into their
teaching techniques, with 52% of respondents indicating use of web-based communication systems (e.g.
Blackboard) either fairly often or frequently.

Results Related to RQ 3

Written tests and essays were frequently used when evaluating students in hospitality and tourism
classrooms with respondents indicating the use of written tests (79.1%) and essays (54.1%) either fairly
often or frequently, as presented in Table 3. Other forms of assessment such as oral and take-home
tests were not common student evaluation methods, whereas another individual evaluation method,
the term paper or project, was used fairly often by 41.8% and frequently by 30.1% of those sampled.
Overall, hospitality and tourism educators favored objective forms of student evaluation, with 80% of
respondents 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 indicated using student journals either never or very infrequently.

Results Related to RQ 4

Thirty percent (30.7%) of respondents indicated using self-assessment checklists either fairly often or
frequently and student feedback

Table 4

Influences on Educators’teaching

1 2 3 4 5

n % n % n % n % n %

Trial and Error 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 81.6% of respondents using this
method either fairly often or frequently. However, the authors recognize that many universities require
student feedback as a means to assess courses. Periodic student logs were not used much to assess
teaching with over 80% of respondents indicating that they either never or very infrequently use this
method, and while observation by a colleague was used either fairly often or frequently by 21.4% of
respondents, only 3% opted for the more self-oriented evaluation of videotaping lessons.

Results Related to RQ 5

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 question asking them to give an

example of what they considered to be a successful teaching technique or activity. Not
surprisingly, responses varied greatly. Case studies and projects were each mentioned by 14
respondents (8.8% each for those who answered the question). Field trips and some type of
interactive activity where students work together in small groups were mentioned by seven
respondents each (4.4%). Games were mentioned by six people (3.7%) and simulations and
discussions were each specifically noted by five (3.1%). Sixteen items were mentioned by four
people (2.5%) each, including: the use of industry panels, attending and evaluating career fairs,
interviewing hospitality managers, participating in customer service role plays, participating in
internships, completing Internet assignments, acting as secret shoppers or critics of hospitality
operations, critiquing restaurants, designing menus and preparing food for special groups,
conducting international trips, engaging in community based service-learning activities,
engaging in industry-related service projects, developing and completing research projects for
poster or other research presentations, developing and marketing 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 down various details about the industry and
become familiar with publications and databases useful to study in our field. Students learn by doing
and love competing for a prize.

• Reflective journals coupled with group discussions are an important asset in intercultural studies.
Teaching at an international school with over 60 nationalities represented, these interactions prove to
be extremely valuable to all concerned.

• 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 students in real
world experiences and allow them to reflect on theory and practice in the field of HT. Twenty-nine
respondents (18.2%) noted that some combination of lecture and activity was most effective, while
twenty-six (16.4%) indicated that lectures and demonstrations worked best. Sixteen (10%) respondents
wrote answers indicating that the best methods involved students in active learning, while the other 12
respondents’ answers varied widely, with responses such as team teaching and solving problems. These
remaining answers did not appear to have a common theme.

Results Related to RQ 8

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 that a significance factor (p-value) of 0.10 was a
reasonable cut-off point for indicating whether a significant difference warranted discussion.

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 development.

Differences between Faculty Teaching at Two-year and Four-

Year Schools

Significant differences were noted between two-year and four-year faculty members’ teaching methods.
Educators in four-year schools favored guest lecturers (p =.068), electronic slides (p=.037), and web-
based communication (p=.001). Educators in two-year schools favored demonstrations (p=.001),
artifacts (p=.004), chalkboard/whiteboard (p<.001), written tests (p=.045), take-home tests (p=.030),
anecdotal records of student performance (p=.005), physical manipulation or performance (p=.014),
student journals (p=.063), 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 teaching behaviors of faculty members
by rank. Written tests were used more frequently by assistant professors than full professors (p= .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
influenced their classes more than assistant professors (p=.100). Perhaps assistant professors used
written tests because they represented a low risk approach to evaluation while tenured professors were
willing to try more diverse activities such as projects that involve greater pedagogical risks.

Differences Based on the Gender of the Instructor

Differences were found between the self-reported teaching strategies of male and female educators.
Male faculty members reported 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 favored discussion (p=.022), small group work (p<.001), take-home tests
(p=.075), self-assessment checklists for students (p=.015), and observation of others’ teaching as an
influence on their own teaching (p=.084). These findings supported previous research on gender of the
educator in college teaching (Crawford & McLeod, 1998; Lacey, Saleh, & Gorman, 1998; Starbuck, 2003).

Implications and Conclusions

These findings are interesting, but the real question to ask about the results of this study is: why do
these results matter to hospitality educators and their students? Results of this study provide more than
anecdotal information about what hospitality educators do in their classes and add to the body of
knowledge about hospitality and tourism education. Sharing information about teaching and educators’
behaviors associated with the teaching process, as well as offering positive examples of teaching and
learning experiences, can act as a catalyst for increasing awareness of and attention to what hospitality
and tourism faculty members do when they teach. Educators may be 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 traditional path or move towards implementing more dynamic
teaching and learning models and methods.
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 easy ways to
enhance one’s lectures. Examples of ways to improve the lecture (and discussion) method include the
following:

1. Plan each lesson with the learning outcome (s) identified. This means beginning with the learner and
what he or she should learn from the lecture/discussion instead of starting with the content and how to
present it. Turning a lesson around to focus on its intended outcome may provide insight into a better
lesson. This does not mean adopting learning-outcomes based approach simply as a managerial tool, but
using it as a tool for careful reflection when planning lessons (Hussey & Smith, 2002).

2. Care about students. This seems obvious, but regardless of method, the act of caring about the
learner helps increase learning and is particularly important in large lecture classes. Try combining a
learning and learner-centered focus, welcome student questions, and get to know students (Straits,
2007; Noddings, 1988).

3. Use technology as a tool to actively engage students in the lecture and discussion. Technology can
enhance student participation in a lecture rather than make students more passive and less involved.
For example, electronic slides do not have to simply be shown by the teacher and talked through while
students take notes. Instead, the instructor and the students can use the slides as aids for their
discussion to grapple with the 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 necessarily better (Gaer, 1998).

a. Include variety within a lecture/discussion format to provide students with opportunities to engage in
activities that reinforce learning such as:

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 (American 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 addressed student learning
outcomes. Further investigation into how authentic projects contribute to student learning in hospitality
would provide insights into how to use these opportunities to enhance student learning and engage in
service with communities and the hospitality and tourism industry.

Some gender differences among instructors were found in this study and while these were interesting,
further research needs to be conducted to determine if these differences disappear when subject
matter is controlled, as it was in a previous study (Starbuck, 2003). Rather than focusing on gender
differences in teaching, more leverage could be gained by promoting a teaching to learning paradigm
and conducting classroom-based research via a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) model to
investigate the impact of different teaching techniques on student learning (Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, n.d). Although this research study did 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 interested in or rewarded for their
research, university administrators face an uphill battle getting them to devote more time or effort to
improving their teaching. Making it clear that their future is threatened should they ignore the quality of
teaching is one approach, although not a supportive or positive one. An emphasis on SoTL is more
constructive.

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 learning in
applied fields such as hospitality. In a highly competitive, technologically-changing world, educators
should seek to implement varied teaching techniques and instructional objectives to accommodate a
diverse student body and meet the demands of today’s hospitality industry. Instructors, like industry
professionals, are wise to learn how to adapt to inevitable societal changes as time progresses.

According to Lei (2007), educators who are opposed to change need to realize that complete resistance
to change is futile as they will be left behind in a highly competitive society. In the dynamic economic,
social, cultural, and natural environment of the 21st century, what worked in the past does not
necessarily work now or in the future. Instructors need the flexibility to accommodate students with
different backgrounds and cognitive abilities and to adapt to an ever-changing world (Lei, 2007).

Limitations

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
Americans in ICHRIE’s membership. It is possible that the respondents in this sample already had a
strong interest in teaching and therefore, completed the survey. The current study was based on
educators’ self-reports of their own teaching and it is possible that an observational study of how
hospitality and tourism educators teach and how their 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 field-experience. 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
economics 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. 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.
Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2002). The Trouble with Learning Outcomes. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 3(3), 220-233 DOI: 10.1177/1469787402003003003. 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). 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 science
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. Shugan, S. M. (2006). Editorial: Save research—Abandon
the case method of teaching. Marketing Science, (25)2, 109-115. Smeby, J. C. (1996). Disciplinary
differences in university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 69-79. Starbuck, G. H. (2003, April).
College teaching styles by gender. Paper presented at the Western Social Science Association Annual
Meeting. Las Vegas, NV. 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. 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.