Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and

Teaching (2005-2012) Teaching (2005-2012)

Volume 3 Number 1 Journal of Business & Leadership Article 14

1-1-2007

An Integrative Analysis of Benjamin Bloom's Cognitive Domain An Integrative Analysis of Benjamin Bloom's Cognitive Domain

and Bruce Tuckman's Developmental Model and Bruce Tuckman's Developmental Model

Reginald Bell Prairie View A&M University

Wally Guyot Fort Hays State University, wmguyot@fhsu.edu

Philip Martin Fort Hays State University

Robert Meier Fort Hays State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl

Part of the Business Commons, and the Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Bell, Reginald; Guyot, Wally; Martin, Philip; and Meier, Robert (2007) "An Integrative Analysis of Benjamin Bloom's Cognitive Domain and Bruce Tuckman's Developmental Model," Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012): Vol. 3 : No. 1 , Article 14. Available at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol3/iss1/14

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Peer-Reviewed Journals at FHSU Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012) by an authorized editor of FHSU Scholars Repository.

lld l. Gu yo l. M:tn in . anu Me ier J o urn~l o r 13usin css and Leadership : Re sea rch. Practi ce. and Teaching 2007. Vol. 3. No. I . 11 6- 124

AN INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS OF BENJAMIN BLOOM'S COGNITIVE DOMAIN AND BRUCE TUCKMAN'S DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL

Reg in a ld Be ll , Pr airi e Vi ew A & M Univers ity Wa ll y Guyot, Fort Hays State University Phi li p Martin, Fort Hays State University Robert Meier, Fo r1 Hays State Uni vers ity

Tlte purpose of th e stu f(r was two-fold: (I) Do small group sellings benefi t stud ents'! (2) /-low can profes .wrs enltan ce tlte group enl'ironm ent lf1rouglt ta.\·k relm ed instructions? A 33-item Group Leaming 011 Development Survey (GOLDS)

was us ed to integrm e Bruce Tu ck man 's developmental model wit/1 Benjamin Bloom's cognitive domain. Nanni ng and Pe rforming variables (Factor I) contributed 3 I percent to tlt e total scale variance; jiatlt ermore , knowledge,

compr elt en\ ·ion, U/1{/ applicmion task variabl es loaded 011 Factor 2, for 9 percent of tlt e total scale variance. Signifi cant p< .05 differen ce~· •verej(mnd . Emp irical evidence su.ro~esred a Dynami c Group Leaming !Hodel (DGLM) be created to

lt elp explain th e group leaming on deve lopment construct.

INTRODUCTION

L en rnin g is a construct inferred from observed behav ior (Kerli nger, 1973) . The cogniti ve domain (B loom , Engl ehart , Furst, Hil l. & Krarhwohl , 1956) includes objec ti ves related to r·eca ll of knowledge and deve lopment of higher cognit ive abi l ities. T he cognitive domain contai ns six subdi v isions (know ledge, comprehension , app l icat ion, analys is, synthes is, and eva luation ) representat ive o f a hierarchy of mental abi l iti es; it is perf'ectl y suitable as a meas urable constr ·uct. In thi s study, six subd iv isions of B loom 's cogniti ve domain were meas ured aga in st the fi ve stages of group deve lopment (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) . Responses from th e 33 -itern Gr·o up

Lea rnin g on Deve lopment Survey (GOLDS) were tested using multivariate stati sti cal contro ls and meth ods. T uckrn an's ( 1965) model of small-group de ve lopmental processes organi;:ed ex ist ing research into a conceptual frarn eworl-. .

The l iter·ature

could not be considered trul y representative o f small-group deve lopmental processes because th ere was an overrep r·esentat ion of therapy and T-group se ttin gs and an under representat ion o r natur·al m laboratc ry-group se ttings, mal--ing ge neral iLing diffi cull. li e suggested the need lo r furth er rese arch on narural and labora tory gmups. indica ted th e need for more ri gorou s meth odo logical co nsiderati ons in srud y ing group process. and cr it ic ized the use of a sing le group for obsc r\'a ti on because it made contro l and S) stcmat ic mani pu lati on or independent va ri ab les imposs ib le. Additi onall ), group members mi ght possess unantic ipated inter ve ning va ri ables that could be prob lemati c for a group 's

deve lop menta l processes. An inter venin g variab le is an ' ' in-t he- hea d" va ri ab le. It

ca nnot

be see n, heard, or fel t. It is inferred frorr. behav ior. ·' ll os tility" is infe rred from presumably hosti le or aggressive ac ts. " Learning" is inferred from , among other thi ngs. increases in test scores . " !\ nx iet y" is in fer red from skin responses , from hea rtb at, and so on. Designing a cause-effec t sing le small group ex perim ent that accou nts for all o f the trul y mean ing ful and important intervenin g va ri ab les (while controlling for intern al and e:-- terna l va l idit y fa ctors) is imposs ible. Tuckman

11 6

( 1965, p. 386) asserts "Certain ly durati on o f group li fe wou ld be ex pec ted to in nuence amount and rate of deve lopment. .

etting-spec ific differences and wi thin -setting differences may affec t tempora l change as regards the spec ific content of the stages in developmental sequence, the rate o f progress ion through the sequence, or the ord er of the sequence itse lf "

Soc ial ~~.- 1e nti s ts engaging in small group studies are someti mes perp lexed because th eir results can often appear spurious: coun ter argum ents posed by others might be used to exp lain away research findin gs. A few small group studi es where subjects' behaviors were recorded and rated by two or more rat ers st il l show problems that make it difficult to generali ze results, even when inter-rater reliability is contr oll ed (Art zt & Armour-T homas, 19 90 , 1992; B loom, 19 75) .

A s a conceptual framc wm k, the deve lopmental mode l (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977 ) is potent enough to be construed as a meas urab le construct in asserting th at sma II group processes result in deve lopmental stages. B loo m 's cognitive domain is ubiquitous to educa ri on , makin g it perf ectl y suitable as a measurable construct. IJioo rn et al. asserted "e lements" of lower leve l int ell ectua l abi liti es co mbi ne to form hi gher leve l ment al ab iliti es and thus " c lass ified " leve ls into hierarchica l Cil tcgo ri cs .

Other factors may affec t the lea rnin g process. K erlinger ( 1973 ) rel'erred to lea r·ning as an intervening or " in -th e-head" va ri able. Tuck man ( 1965) referred to th e interveni ng variab le " hostilir y" as an element of the "S torming" stage in group deve lop ment. We asse r1 hostilit y can occur in groups as mu lti ple intervening va ri ab les because more than one group member could be in possess ion o f thi s " in-the-hea d" vari able at one tirne. Moreover, hostilit y is not always manifested by out ward aggress ive acti ons. Pas sive ly aggress ive attitud es can also occur . Group members experi encing such behav ior might harbor sa li ent emoti onal memori es affecting their parti c ipati on in ex ist ing and future groups. Cause-e ffect sc ientifi c studi es of small group lea rnin g on stages of deve lopment are prob lemati c in other ways.

Cogniti ve ab ilit y is co rrelated with srn all group deve lopment. L earnin g might large ly be dependent on how the

1

Bell et al.: An Integrative Analysis of Benjamin Bloom's Cognitive Domain and

Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2007

Bd l. Guyot. Martin. and M~ier

group form s and on the amount o f time it remains and works together. Temporal complexi ti es assoc iated w ith scientific studies of a single small group 's deve lopmental processes preclude many trea tment group des igns; yet, they do not preclude using stati sti ca l controls ( fac tor analys is, effect size, large samples, MANCOVA , etc.) in p lace o f ex perim ental controls. Knowledge about small groups is l ike ly to be better understood by determining the latent nature of simultaneously occurring " in-the-hea d" variables assoc iated w ith a group 's developmental processes by sampling populati ons of indi v iduals with histori es of small group panicipation. Students may deve lop precepts of their true experi ences long after any panicular small group has adjourned. Tuck man ( 1965) contended duration of group l ife would be expected as a var iab le o f influence on the rate of deve lopment. Therefore. duration and rate associated w ith small group deve lopment are important when des igning a sc ientific group stud y.

Typicall y , student groups do not rese mble workplace and laboratory groups. Business pro fessors usin g peer- lea rnin g strategies stri ve to prepare student s fo r real-worl d group successes. Group work shoul d be a ski ll a student can transfer to industry; however, it is not known to what ex tent cogniti ve abiliti es co rrelate with group de' elopmcnt. T he research questi on was apparent: at what leve l of learning do students perceive th at a group begi ns to norm and pcrlo rm necessary tasks to accompli sh it s co mmu na l goal(s)? Thi s unanswered questi on poses a prob lem for ed ucato rs using peer lea rning

method s.

Problem

The problem faced by business ed uca tors is two-fo ld: ( I ) how do pro fessors know i f students benefit from their group interactions? M any professors fin d it i difficu lt to assess the group learning environment. A ssuming stu dents progress temporall y through the fi ve stages of deve lopment , w hat lea rnin g occurs and at what cognitive leve ls? A nd (2) can professors accommodate lea rnin g by offer ing groups task­related instructi ons beneficial to a broad range of ab ili ty differences, co mparab le to one- to-one tutori als (B loom, 1984 ;

Larson et al. , 1984 )? T eachers make judgment s on what gr·o ups should

accomplish based on supplementa l materi als, empiri cal research papers. and books read . M cKeac hi c. Chism. Menges. Svi nick i. and Wein stein ( 199-1 ) o iler a defi niti on o f peer lea rnin g as fo llows: " We shall use the term " pee r lea rnin g" to include both '·co ll aborative" and ·'cooperative " lea rnin g. Co ll aborative and cooperati ve len rn ing in vo lve interdepe11den ce o f group mcrn ber·s in wor-king tow<Hd s a comm on goa l" ( 143) . In thi s stud y, th e deliniti on of srmll groups shall hence forth adopt the McKeachie et al . ( 1994) definiti on o f peer len rnin g. Groups nss igned at rand om work better than imposed lea rnin g structures (S iava n, 1985)

Groups should be ass igned a wide array o f peer lea rnin g acti v iti es to cultivate mutual support and to stimul ate lea rnin g (Nea l & Echternacht , 1995) . Several authors reported the positi ve impact lea rnin g groups have on moti vati on, interpersonal relationships, and attitudes toward lea rning

Journa l or Bu sm~ss and Lcacl crsi" P R~s~a rch . Prac ll c~ . and Teac l11 ng 2007. Vol 3. No I . 11 6-124

( La zarow it z & Ka rsenty. 1990 ; Slav in. 1985 ; Sharan & haulov . 1990) . Since Tuckman asserted the use o f a single

group for observati on makes contro l and systemati c manipulati on of independent va ri ab les imposs ible, a good way to measure th e influence o f small group learnin g on deve lopment is to assess the perceptions of business students who part ic ipated in group lea rnin g activiti es. We rev iewed a number o f scholarl y arti c les across a broad range of lea rnin g env ironments that guided our research questi on.

Related Literature

Cooperati ve lea rnin g stud ies span at least four decades. W ebb and Gri b ( 1967) in vesti gated the effecti veness of small student - led di scuss ion groups as a meth od of in structi on. When achievement was the crit eri on of efficacy, the res ults o f the compara t ive findin gs were favorab le to both students and teachers. Similarl y , So lomon ( 1990) found relationshi ps between stu dents' cooperati ve lea rnin g exper iences and their alti tu des toward schoo l . In th at stud y, students in all c lasses had at least some ex peri ence w ith small group learn ing and th at th e effects o f cooperati ve learning on students' academic and soc ial de ve lopment we re a functi on of the quality o f the group inter·acti on. M or·eovcr, ll ea ley and Ma11hews ( 1996) assert coopera t ive lea rnin g in small groups prod uced higher achi evement ; cooperative lea rnin g enab led deve lopment of more positi ve r·e lati ons hip s among students and hea lthier psycho log ica l adjustm ent to the soc ial setting th an did compet iti ve or individua li st ic experi ences .

ll auserrn an ( 1992) reports on cooperati ve learni ng methods pertainin g to laboratory and fie ld-based studi es of cooperati ve lea rn in g. The stud y emphasized fi elu-tested meth ods that can increase th e r·e pen o ir e of effecti ve teaching methodo logy. An tony and Boatsman ( 1994) in vesti gated co ll ege faculty usc of cooperati ve pedagogica l techniques in their class room s. A survey of over 35,000 facul ty revea led that facul ty use of coopera ti ve pedagogy was best measured by a seve n-item construct. Result s showed women used coopernti ve pedagogy nw rc th an rn cn; facu lt y in the soft sc iences used cooperati ve met hod s more o ften than did fa culty in the ha1·d sc iences. Ani cles 011 pe er len rnin g and indi v idua l outco mes were reviewed .

11 7

Wright <~ nJ Du nca n ( 1986) exa mtned relati onships between :-tttr·ilcti on to gro up and indiviJ u <~ l outcomes in groups and betwee n group cohes iveness nnd inui v idual outco mes in groups parti c ipa ting in a group psychothcrap) ex per ientia l train ing progr·a nl . Th ey fo und attracti on to group ~llld group co hes iv eness II' CI'c both relat ed to individua l ou tco mes. Even adu lts ca n benefit (O lm stead, 1970) from small group methods by er1hancing moti v at ion lo r learnin g. deve lopi ng pos iti ve ::t ttitudcs tow::t rd later use of course materi als, and improv ing problem so lv ing ski ll s. H owever, group methods were no more effec ti ve th an lectures lo r trnn sminin g infonn at io n and concepts.

Joan B loom ( 1975) tested the effect iveness of a small -group curri culum des igned to teach cooperative work . T rai ned groups more frequentl y se lected the most cooperat ive rul e options. Choice of rul es was unrelated to th e sex of the group or the

2

Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012), Vol. 3 [2007], No. 1, Art. 14

https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol3/iss1/14

lk ll. Gu) OI. ~lanin . and ~ kia

type of training. Cho ice o f ru les was related to behav ioral cohes iveness bu t unrelated to type o f training. Walberg and W) nne ( I 994) found th at learning group effecti veness was hindered by groups' short - l ived character. T hey recommended educa tors stress group persistence by keeping discrete groups of stu dents and teachers togeth er over longer interva ls.

McE lhinney and Murk ( 1994) advocated using small lea rnin g groups in grad uate ed ucati on to prepare lea rn ers for

workp lace chall enges. They reported th e most effect i ve usc for ~ m a ll groups was in resea rching ar1d l ea rnin g ex perienc es th at do not have well -structured pmcesses m onl y one ri ght answer . Whil e small lcarrrin g groups appea red 10 oil er· ad va nw ges.

limita tions wu e also cited : unequa l co ntri but ions o f group members, the know ledge levels o r group part ic ipants, and th e di ffi culty o f eva luating perl" orm ance and ass igning grades. T hey reco mm ended instructors of small groups hou ld assume th e role o f fac ilitator, offe ring help only when group members ca nnot so lve the ass igned probl ems.

M ore recentl y, Strom and Strom (2002) int roduced the 'o llaboration-lnt cgration Theory. The th eory was based upon

their analys is o ftii" O limit ati ons assoc iated w ith group learnin g: ( I ) how to eva lua te stud en t groupwo r·k skill s and (2) how to prov ide tasks that enilb le student s to practi ce th ose skill s. T heir theory prov ided sugges ti ons to ensure students move from il pilss ive to an acti ve ro le in group lea rnin g situati ons. In add iti on. Draskov ic, Ho ldrin et, Bu lte, Bo lh uis, and Van Lceuwe (2004) presented findi ngs on the relat ionship between the va ri ab les compr ising lea rnin g m ec hanisms in small co llaborati ve groups. Their · findin gs sugges ted that a large r roporti on of co ll aborative sequences in the group. toge ther 11 ith a low proporti on o f dys fu ncti onal behav ior and hi ghl y r: tc i lit ative behav ior or th e tutor . should lea d to increase d

know ledge deve lopment. The ~l i t e ra ture search revealed no stud y that di r·ec tl y

add resses our re ~ea rc h questi on. namel\ the co rT clati on be111ee n lcarn ill !!_ and sma ll gm up dC1e ltl pr11C ill. iiOI I CI Cr.

hundreds o f pee~· l ea rn ing ~ ludi c~ h ~ r 1 e been pu blr shcd l"lt c arti c les we n.:v iewcd were used to iust if) th e thr ·cc spec ifi c nu ll

h) pOtheses used to test group lcar:ning by int eg rat ing Gloom 's taxonomy w ith Tuck rn an 's stages o l" group deve lopment.

llypot heses

On -way Mu lti va ri ate A nalys is o f Covaria nce (I\1ANCOVA) wa s used to tc.:st fo r mea n cli!Terences among dependent variab les and cl cmog raph ic va r iabl es ( I ) gender, (2) dec lared maj or. and (3) grade leve l regard ing students' percept ions of dyadic and small group learn ing on dc1e lop ment. T he hypotheses were stat ed as foll ows:

H y pothesis I : T here is no signi fi cant di.'ference betwee n the mean s of students' gender regard tn g therr perceptions o f dyadic and small group lea rning on development when age and cumul ative GP/\ are used as co l'ar iates to parti al out the relati onship between the covariate nnd seven factors.

H y po th es i ~ 2: There is no signifi cant difference among th e mea ns fo r students' dec lared major s ;1nd th err

Journ al or 13 us in ess and Leadership : Researc h. Pracli ce. and Teac hino

2007. Vol. 3. No. I . 11 6- t24

percept ions o f dyadic and small group learnin g on deve lopment when cumulati ve GPA is used as a covari ate to parti al out the relat ionship between the covari ate and se ven fac tors.

H y poth es is 3: T here is no significant difference among th e mea ns for stu dents' grade level and their perceptions of dyad ic and small group lea rnin g on deve lopment when cumu lati ve G PA is used as a covari ate to parti al out th e relati onship between the cova ri ate and seven factor·s.

METHOD

Sa mple a llll Procedure: N ine courses were used in th e stud y as a representati ve samp le from a populati on of approx imately I ,000 students in a co llege of business at a reg ional pub lic uni ve rsity. Business and non-business majors parti c ipated in thi s study. Non-bu siness maj ors included students from other co ll eges on campus. T hree hundred thirty students completed a survey. Instituti onal guidelines on ethica l conduct were fo ll owed and approva l w as granted. The GOLDS survey contained 33 items and demographi c data . Students responded to a L ikert -type scale ranging from I (strongly d isagree) to 5 (strong ly agree). T hree (3) was used as a neutral term . An unrotated principal component factor analys is suggested seven fa ctors be retained that would acco unt for 61 percent of th e sca le va ri ance. T he principal ax is factor method w ith promax ob lique rotati on method was used ( Hatcher, 1994) . One-way MANCO VA (using se l f-reported cumulative G PA as covari ate) and analyses were perform ed to assess significa nt di fl crences among three independent va ri ab les and the se ven deri ved fac tors. The f<Jctors we re used as multi var· iate dependent va riab les to co mpare w ith means of independent dcmog ril phic var- iilb les . T he null hypoth eses were tested using a 0~

si,nillc111 ce k vd

. - D~scr iptiv e Data: T he stil ti sti ca l analyses prese nted in this

~ tu d ) 11 ere base d on 33 0 usable surve ys. T he surve y was compl eted by 164 males and 166 fe males. Student ages ranged frorn 17 to 42 ycar·s. T he moda l age was 20 . T he average cumulat ive G PA report ed wa s 3. 165, skewed hi gh because o f MBA students. GPA vari ed from 1.7 to 4 .0, and the moda l GPA

was 3. 0 . T he samp le included 46 freshmen, 6 1

sophomores, 98 j un iors, 96 seniors. and 29 grad uates.

I I 8

Scale Development: T he GOLDS is co mposed o f 33 scenari o statements. Statements I through 18 on the GO LDS were in fused w ith what Brown and Weidmaier (2003) ca ll "'

process ve rbs." Bu siness teachers use process ve rbs to write

lea rnin g obj ecti ves to assess the leve l o f a student 's intellec tu al abi li ty w ith in th e cogniti ve domain . T he cognitive domain is a hi erarchy o f behav iors assoc iated w ith certain types o f intell ectual ab i l ities, beg inning w ith know ledge and ending w ith eva luation. In tab le I three process verbs from each of B loom 's ( 1956) cogniti ve leve ls were selected randoml y from a tab le present ed in Brown and Weidmaier (2003) . T hese process ve rbs arc used to indica te statement scenari os assoc iated wrth each leve l o f int ellec tu al ab ilit y. For exa mp le. " know ledge

leve l ment al abil ity" used three scenari o statements w ith the

3

Bell et al.: An Integrative Analysis of Benjamin Bloom's Cognitive Domain and

Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2007

OciL Guyot. Martin . and Meier

process verbs define, rec ite, or read. Statement s 19 through 33 on the GOLDS used language that approx imated fi ve stages o f small-group deve lopmental processes (Forming, Storming, Nonn ing, Performing, and Adjourning); th ese statements were derived from Tuck man ( 1965) and Tuck man and Jensen ( 1977) . Tab le I shows wording simil ar to language used by Tuckman and Jense n ( 1965; 1977). The GOLDS instrument was used to integrate B loom 's cogniti ve domain w ith Tuck man and Jensen's deve lopmental model to measure our theori zed

.J ourna l o r Ou s in~ss and L~ad~rs h ip : Research. Pr acti ce. and Teaching 2007. Vol . o. I. 11 6- 124

construct (group learning on deve lopment) . Bell and Quaz i (2004) recommended a stud y be done that wou ld use cumu lati ve GPA as a covari ate in a mean comparison test. They did not conduct a cause-effect experim ent to estab lish a cau al relati onship between student s' percepti ons and th eir actual learnin g. They made no attempt to de termin e pred icti ve innuences o f independent va ri ables on students' perceptions o f th eir own learnin g. For thi s stud y, the GOLD was analyzed for it s reliabi lit y.

Table I : Cognitive Domain (Le\'e l and Process Verbs), Development Stages and Statement Numbers

BLOO~ t · s I'HOCESS \ 'EIW C. \T EGO I{\' FOH COC:NITI\' E DO~ l A IN S TAT E1\I ENT Nli~ IB E H -Knl"' kd ~~ (d efi ne. r~c1 t c . r~ S I. S2 . SJ '---

Comp n:h t..:nsion ( lllt cq w.:t. ll <lll ' lah.: . t:lli llp an.:) S-L ~5 . S6 Applicati on (apph . soll'e . dluwa te) S7 . SS . 59

~~1al ys i s (summ

ari ze. di :n! nll "',::.:, _c..:clc.: il-'-:.li.:'-,,. -e,- 117i:-,tc-·)- S I 0. S I I . S 12 Synthesis (lo nnul atc. pr epare. pr opose) S I J . S 14. S 15 Evalu ation (test. cri ti que. eva lu ate) S 16. S 17. S 18 . .:--Tl l (' h:~IA N ,'\,J ENSEN 'S STAGES OF GROU t' 1) [ \ 'ELOP t\t ENT STATE 1\IE NT Nll t\IBEH Ft>rm in~ (testing members. orient ati on to leader. int erpersona l ) - S 19. 5 20. S2 1 -Stonnin !:: (ho; tilitl . boundaries . ta sks. resistance . confli cts .. ) S22. 523. S24 Norming (feelings. cohesiveness . reali stic swnda rds, etc .. ) S25. 526. S27 Pcr lo rmin2 (accomplishing task'. fl exib il ity. supporti ve ro le;. etc-'--c"------t---;;-S'=- - 8:".-;S:-:2:::9-'-. -3cS3::-0=-----

"Addourning (lastino oood or bad wi ll , scorn. free rider problem, etc ) SJ I, S32. SJJ

Instrument Reliability: A Cronbach alpha reliab ilit y test was performed on the GOLDS in strument. T he standard ized alpha reliabilit y coeffici ent fo r the overall sca le was 0.928. which exceeds the Nunnall y ( 1978) criteri a of 0.70 for an acceptab le alpha. Develli s ( 199 1) writ es about scale reliabi li ty " betwee n

.80 and .90, very good . " (p. 85) . The GOLDS sca le is a " very good" measure of students' percepti on o f group learn ing on deve lopment. Si nce no item deleted added a noti ceab le difference to the sca le reli abi lit y. all item were ret<ti ned for analyses. A fac tor analys is was conducted after detcrm ining th e in trument reliabi lit y .

Factor A nalys is: Bell and Qua7 i (2004) found signi fi can t stati sti ca l d i fferenccs be t ween business maj ot·s' and non­business majors· pet·ccptions o f le amin g in d yad ~ and smal l groups. Thei r first deri ved factor foun d business majors perce ived dyads and small groups to be th e number one fac tor assoc iated with their own learnin g. Simil at· scenari o statetn ent s relating to dyads were used in the GOLDS. Student responses

~-------L~~~~-----

from the GO LD S surve y were first subj ected to an un rotated factor so luti on usin g prin c ipa l component anal ys is and " Sc ree" test which suggested that seven factors be retained fo r rotati on. The ori ginal factors accounted for 60.7 1 percent of th e total ca le va ri ance. Promax obl ique rotati on was used to ex tract the seven facto rs, as shown in table 3. Th e crit eri on fo r selec ting fac tor loadings was se t at 0.3 8 (Dcve lli s, 199 1: Hatcher. 1994; Kachi ga n. 199 1) Using th ese criteria , six items were found to load 0 11 Fac tor I , w hi ch was subsequentl y labeled ormin g and Per fo rmin g. Six items loaded on Factor 2. Know ledge , omprehension and A ppli c tti on T asks. Fi ve items loaded on Factor 3, Eva luati ve l~ o rm in g. T hree items were f und to load 011 Factor 4, Stornw1g. T wo items loaded on Fac tor 5. 13 ad Will A dj ourni ng. 1'11 0 item loaded on Factor 6, A nalyz ing. Four items

l ~>a d e d on F;1 to r 7. Synthesiz ing w ith Good W i ll Adj ouming. ~Le l1 a ri o

stJt cments fm Factor I nrc pre~e nt ed in tab le 2

below.

Table 2: Sce nari o Statements Nonning (S25, S26, S27) and Performin g (S28, S29, SJO) for Fac tor I

Fac tor O ne: Norming :uul Perf orming S2

7. M) e\peri ence 11it h small groups has sho11n me that I k a rn ed bett er 11h cn members 11e re all o11ed to adopt ne11 r• >k> an d the ir

personal

opinions could be e\prc" cd fr ed ) S26. My experience with small grou p> has shown me tha t I le arn ed bell er 11 hen member~ were open minded enou gh to all o11 rca l1 stic nc 11

standa rds to evo lve fr om honest feed hac~ S28 . My experience "ith small group s has shown me that I learn ed be tier "hen members co ul d usc :he q rcngtl h ol their int erpe rsonal

rela

ti onships to accomplish spec if1 c t as ~ s SJ O. My ex perience with small groups has shown me th at I le arn ed bett er 11 1 1<:~ 1 members hccamc s up po rti1 e o l ta s ~ pe rl (>rmancc and

highly co mmitted to achieving goals 529 M) experience with small gro up > has sho11n me th at I karn ~d bell er 11 hcn Ill ) fun ctio nal rok 11 :1 ' lk ,i bk and the gruup 's cncrg) co ul d he chann eled int o completi n!: "" ~ s

S25. My ex perience 11ith small gro up s has shown me th at I learn ed bell cr 11 hcn memb ers dc vcl o p~d tru e li:c lings IOII arcl s each oth er and coul d 11 0rk cohes ivcl ) on goal '

To asce rt ain if' th ere were nn1 signifi ca nt d ifferences in students' percep1 ions among the detnograp h ic vari ables (gender, dec lared major, and grade leve l ). dat3 were fu rt her

11 0

anal )zcd using in!'erential stmisti cs to test !h e null hypotheses. Tab le 3 shows new factors and it em de cript ions of the ex trnctcd !'a ctors.

4

Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012), Vol. 3 [2007], No. 1, Art. 14

https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol3/iss1/14

I t ~..: ll. ( i11y n t. M: u·1i11. a nd i'Vk 1c1 ltn n1 1a l ti l H11 ... i1 1c \O.: : 111d l .cl H.Icr..; hip · Rcscar~; h . l'racth.:c , a 11 d Teaching 2007, Vn l. J . No. I , 11 6- 124

Tahlc J: l'romax (Ohliquc) Ho1a1ions wi1h Seven Far1or s and Connnunali1ics *

Slalrlllt' lllll Fartor I ,oatliugs

( 'ommunalifit ·s

0 27

! )

!)

(_)\0

<)2~

1)20

<) '

1 )~

I.JI !.

I ) I X

1) 1/

() .' I

() I I)

!) 1!

!) 1 I

!) I II

() I I

( _)(,

!) I I

<) I I

I) I I

<) 7

()I .'

I)

I

'i

.X6 1

74

5

,'i 05

1(, 1

- 120

- I 5

2 111

- I l l

- 0 12

-.0'>5 .000 .0 I (, .001 . 125 - I 11

. I I X .055 -. {1(, I .0 I 1) -.0 15 -. I I (I

.01!2 -. 125 -.Otl 1 -.0')0 (J.I '! 0111

-.002 .050 -. 1(·7 .0.17 - 030 l 'i2

- () tl () - . 11(, - 11X OXO - 0(>1 '!7

-. OXO 061) I ~ ~ 1 (1(,7 -. 0 I .0 50

1.1 ·1

1(1(,

XII - 0111

12]

I O'J

- . 12 1

-. 17 1 - 0·11 - 0(,

- Ill)( , IH O - 075

()<)O - OliJ - IH I

- .01 5 0 I ~ - 020 or. I

(ll)tl - 1) ] (, - 0·1 j - 0'19

- ()Ill 1107 II I I

. 12(•

.rm - I I(,

- 14

07X 1(,() lii>X 111 1 I()<) 02X ) 'I I

IJ'I

I

0 '.1 7 I') - I I \ · II X!, () 'i I ll 'i !,

I I I ()XII !J 11 I 11011 I "I II I 'i ()IX

() 1/ 02 I 1.1 7 - II'! .' IJX(> I I I '1 7

!I(, - 011 5 ·I '> I . 1 ·1(, - (l 'i'i 11 .'7 - II ')

1·1 '1 ().1() ·120 257 - 11 11 - 112 (1 ,11

- IXO - O'i X - I l l< X2 (, - 11 ·1 (, - 0 71 I I X

.0 17 00·1 IJ 'i tl 6 17 - 007 () 51 - 1·12

- I 02 () 5 (, I •1·1 2'1 07(, 0·17 I I (I

11 2·1 07X - 010 - Oil ~ X'i (, - 05') - 11·17

() 55

- 1•17

()( ,2 - 11 2 '1 (, 57 ()(,X - 052

0(111 - 05'i OX - 0·111 - () I II 11IIX - I IX

- 0 7 2 1X -11 11 0'< 07 1 1X2 1·15

1'1 5 27 0·11 0 11 02· 1 .~' )() () 'i. l

I 'i2 - () (,(, 011 I () 1.' - Ill• .' - 11 7 I (,() I

11

7

11 - () I X 11X - () 'i (l 0'17 110 I •1·1·1

.' 1(, I 0 I 0 I 'I Ill •I 1112 I XI• 1')'1

('i(, \2 I I ' I 11 7X l l'i ll ()I I IX I

()()(, 1."1 ()() .' I l 'i Il l ! -' .' X 1\. 1

0' !7 1·111 . 1 17 - (I ! I ()(,I () 1.1 27 '1

.7 17

.63J

65< 1

(, ')

55 ()

'i ' ll

(.\ I

(, I(,

5 <)1)

75 X

7·111

72(,

'i .1

() '; . (

(!()()

(,()()

11·1

27'!

T: thk ,J: Mttllivarial<: Tr , l s for l'ill:ti 's Tr:nT :tttd l{oy 's L:trgc sl Hool

l 'i llai '.., I 1 :1r r

V :II IIC

c; t' lllkr (;r :uk lr vd

II 17 11 7'1

.1 ) 'i () ' 17 1

II ) (l <> IIIC' " dl 2X I 11 111 dl 1211 1/ X•I

·"'l' .lU ll ' ~ X ) l ':utlld l ' ta Squ :ucd IJ.I 7 .02 11

t 1t..: p1 L\L il h p () '; :t lld t t f(! li C\C ill '-1 p · ()I

ll rrl:o rr d ~ l:i jor -' (IX

I 22 X ;:;; (.

2.' •10 12 1 OHJ

Ho y'.., l.arg r " l l{ oo l

V: li l ll '

S>t; l' :uli :d l 'la Sq11 alcd

( ;flltlt' l'

0 111

2 2 'i ll 7 1 0 .(IJ() .

0·17

Craclrlnd 0 12

I '11•7

7 1 I 17X

.OJ I

llrdarrcl ~lajor 0(/l

2 7) 1)

X

.I 0

.1111(,•· · () (,i(

Findings: To lcsl lit e 11tr ee null lt ypollt eses, res ponses l'rnrtt

.13 0 sur ve ys we re uscd . M 111ii v ;~ri<~l e les l s fo r l'illa i'. , Tr :tcc and

Ro y's L ; ul~C S I l {oo l an ; pr es<.: ttl cd itt lab lc 4 li1r 11t c litre<.: llttll

lt ypullt cscs lcs l ed <t l (I s i ~; nili c: rti CC le vel nr .05. A sig n i li C<tlll

dii'l

c rC

II CC \Vi iS I(HIIId bci WCC II lit e lll <.: iiii S Of Slltd CIIIS' g<.: ndCr

rc ~;ardin ~; llt

c

ir pcrccpliOIIS Of dyadi c <t nd Sl11<ill group lcarnill"

5

Bell et al.: An Integrative Analysis of Benjamin Bloom's Cognitive Domain and

Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2007

Bdl. Guyot. Martin . and Meier

on deve lopment wh en age and cumulative GPA were used to partia l out the relationship between the cova riates and seven factors ; therefore, hypothes is I was rej ected.

A significant difference was found among the means of stud ents' declared majors and their perceptions o f dyadic and sma l l group lea rnin g on deve lopment w hen cumul ativ e GPA was used to partial out the relati onship between the cova ri ate and seven factors; th erefore, hypot hes is 2 was rejected. No

.J ourna l o r Business and Leadership · Resea rch. Practice. and Teaching 2007. Vol. 3. No. I. 11 6- 124

significant difference was found in students' grade leve l and their percept ions o f dyadic and small group lea rnin g on deve lop ment wh en cumul ati ve GPA was used as a covar iate to partial out the relati onship between the cova ri ate and seven factors; th erefore, hypothes is 3 was not rej ected. The nex t section offe rs conc lusions and recommendati ons that should be helpful for pro fessors of business using m ethods o f group lea rnin g.

Table 5: Tukey ' s Pos t H oc Procedures of Paired Majors on Each Factor

MAJO R ACCT 13USC UO: AD MGMT MRKT I' IN;\ MIS D OU I3 OTti ER ACCT F l-. 02-1* 1'4 = 003** f'4 =. 0 10**

13USC 1' 7

-. 040* F2=. 0 12* LEAD FS=.045* MGMT FJ = 023 • F6= 0 12*

Fo= 009 .. MRKT F2 -. 0 I ~· F2= 022 * f' 2= 0 13* F2= Oil * F2= 008*'

FJ=.006"'* F3

=. 027* FIN A

MIS

1'4=. 0 10'* 1' 5= 0-1 5* F-1 =. 003** F4=. 003 * * F4= 035 * DOU B OTHER F7= 0 15* F7=. 040*

Table 5 shows Signifi cant result s o l th e Tu!- c) s pos t hoc procedure lor companng ea ch maJor and each factor All seven factors had at ka st one maj ur th at di ff ered from anoth er maj or

Conclusions

Based upon the facto r analysis o f the GOLDS 33 item scenari o statements, the se ven deri ved facto rs contribute to

understanding of how dynamic group lea rnin g relates to stages

of small group deve lopm ent . T he seven derived factors were used to justify the creat ion of a Dynam ic Group Learnin g

M ode l ( DG LM ) as prese nted in fi gure I . Bloo m 's cogniti ve domain ( know ledge, comprehension, app li ca ti on, analys is,

synthes is, and eva luati on) is represented by randoml y selected

process verbs used in each scenari o statement representing th e appropri ate leve l of mental abili ty in th e cogniti ve domain ( Bloom et al., 1956) . Three randoml y selec ted process verbs represented an appropriate level o f cogniti on (Brown and

W eidmaier, 200 3). Stud ents responded to GO LDS items S 19 through SJJ th at represented fi ve stages of group developm ent (Tuckm an and Jensen, 1977) . The responses were subj ected to

fac tor analys is, resulting in seven deri ved factors. The deri ved factors are constru ed as separate di mension s of th e DGLM

co nstru ct.

Figure I

T t-...e Dy n a n -...t c G r o up L earn11"1 Q M o c t e l (DG LM )

KNOVVL~DGC Dc l,, o Ro c•h-> Ru ..> ._ t lOlii

A s shown in fi gure I , th e DG LM presupposes ind iv id ual lea rnin g to be intellectu all y hi erarchica l, consistent w ith B loom et al. ( 1956); moreover, th e directi onal fl ow of cogniti ve learnin g is indi ca ted w ith at mw s mov in g fm m !-.now ledge down to eva luati on. O f spec i ::~ l im portance is th e two-way fl ow between an individual g roup membe r ·s cogniti ve nbi liti es and

th e se ven derived facto rs. W e propose th at small group lea rnin g occurs as a res ult o f intervening va ri ables, combined wi th small group lea rnin g processes th at help shape necess m y tasks leading to commun nl goa l ac hievemcnt (s). T his research

I ~ I

showed scenari o statements ( S2 7, S~ 6 , S ~ S . SJO , S29, S25) represent ing N orming and Performin g loaded on Factor I and accounted lo r 3 1.50 percent o f th e scale var iance. Respondents perce ived small group learnin g wa s more iniluenced by Formin g and Stormin g stages o r deve lop men t th an by low er leve l cognit i ve abi lities. T he DGLM shows a tl ow of small

group lea rnin g processes from th e Nonning and Performing to Synthesiz ing w ith Good Will Adjo urning. Nann ing and Perl' orrnin g has more w eight in th e DGLM th an th e lower leve l intellectu al abi I it ies in Fac tor 2, w hich is composed o f'

6

Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012), Vol. 3 [2007], No. 1, Art. 14

https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol3/iss1/14

Bell. C> u)OI. Ma n in. and f\ tcier

K now ledge, Co n1pr ehension and App l ic::ni on T asks ( Bloom et al. . 1956) .

We surmi se from the DG LM student s may perce ive th at small groups tlw t progress be yond Formin g and tormin g may be bette r pos it ioned to eng< 1ge in mean in g ful le arnin g tasks related to achiev ing comm un al goa l(s) . Factor I , Normin g and Perf ormin g, accounts fm more than fi ve tim es th e va ri ance o f Fa

ctor 7, Synthe<; izin g wi th Good Wi ll A lj ourning. The one­

way arrow beg in ni ng w ith Factor I fl ows toward task accomp l ishment. Th e DG LM refl ects a lilrge number o f lea rnin g and deve lopmental processes which occur simultaneously and show an inev itable fl ow toward s goal achievement. T herefore, small group lea rnin g on deve lopment might be construed as a dynamic process that fac i I itates task accomplishments which lead to goa l achievements. Students also appear to perceive higher level cogniti ve abi liti es but at a lesser rate on the group deve lopment processes, includin g Eva luati ve Formi ng, Storming, Bad Wi ll Adj ourning, A nalyz ing, and Synthes izi ng w ith Good Will Adj ourning.

fh c researchers were intrigued that eva luati on and synt hesis, higher learn ing abi l iti es. we re present at a group 's fmma tion and ad journment. M ore advance d cogniti ve ilb il it y was ass oc iated w ith adjo urnm ent w it h bad w i l l m good w ill . l l ighc1· leve l learni ng appcilrs to take p lace in th e !o rm at ion o f the sma ll grou p and at it s adjoumm ent. Perhap s student s form precepts about future relatio ns bec ause they dread nr favm

havin g an encounter w ith the same pe1·so nalit; t) pC or persons in a futu re pce 1· lem ning co ntext. Nevenh clcss , adjourn1n e11t issues appear to be moderately imporlan t ! ·a c t o r~ in dy nan11 c group lea rn ing nn de ve lopm ent. More imporlantl y. student s perceive lowe r le vel intellec tual ab il iti es to be assoc ia ted wit h the stages o f de1 elopment that T uc!._m an and Jensen ( 1977) a<;s oc ia tcd w ith tas!._ accomp li shm e nt and go :-~ 1 achieve ment. A s illustrated in l: igure I , the l)u i,M shows one arrow tl ow ing from tas !._ acco mp lishment to goal achievement representing the endpo int fm small group lea rnin g on deve lopment. T he arrow be twee n ta s!._ accompli shments and goa l achi eve ment is unidirec tional beca use task accompli shments arc necessary for goa l ac hi evement. T he fo llow ing recomm cmiati ons are o ff ered to business educ1l01·s.

nccom mend ations

l{ccomm endation One Business profcsso1·s at the 1·eg ional un1v

ersi ty where the inve st iga t ion was conducted (usin g pcc r­

le<lrnin g as a teac hin g too l) should writ e c lear and prec ise lll '> lru ct ions for s m:-~ 11 groups. l n<;t ru cti ons should be wr itt en in direc t i1 e. o ut C ll n ll' ~ -bascd language at the appropria te lower IL:1 els of int el le ctua l abi liti es (1-_now ledge, co mpr ehension and

<~p pll catiO il } us

1n);. spcc ilic process vc rbs. HccommcrHiati ou Two: 11u sincss pro!Css lli'S should ass ist

-, tudcnl 'i to p1·ugrcss beyo nd 11 hat T uck man ( I 965 . I 977 ) rcf'e rs [() .1'> '> ta

ges l lnl: an d [ \\'0 o r ~ mall group clc vc lopmcnt: formin g

c~nd '>lo

rmin l' l' cachers ca 11 do so by rand lJm ly ass igning students to g~ ·oups and requi rin g them to ii <;Sign form al m le s, such as a JXC sidcnt a11d a sec retary. Small groups need help

getting beyond the fom1ing and stormin g stages quick ly in order to fac ilit ate progress toward the first stage in the

122

Journ al of Busin ess and Lcad ~rs hip : Re search. Pracri cc. and Teaching 2007. Vol. 3. No. t. I t6-t 24

DG LM- Normin g and Perf ormin g. Recall those two stages compri se Fac tor I , which students perce ive to be associated wi th group lea rnin g on developme1 t. T o facilitate learning, pro fessors can ( I ) ass ign leadership ro les, (2) give groups the il b ilit y 10 se lect leaders ilnd wa ys to change or adopt new leaders, (3) gi ve groups the abilit y to terminate the membership o f non-producti ve members through agreement, (4) give a number o f tasks we ighted by importance, and (5) write out the goa l or goals the group is to achieve w ith a time schedule.

Recommend ation Three: Pro fessors' writt en instructi ons should pertain to the know ledge, co mprehension and appli ca ti on levels that comprised DGLM Factor 2 . Learning objecti ves using the process verbs defin e, rec ite, read, interpret, translate, compare, appl y, illustrate, and so lve should be written out in advance o f small group formati on. A s noted in Fi gure I , although ana lyz ing and eva luating were factors, it appears lower leve l cogniti ve processes have more influence on small group learnin g tasks once the group has progressed beyond Normin g and Per formin g stages. T his stud y w ill enhance the thi nkin g and practi ce in business educati on. Small groups w ill benefit f rom improved w ritten instructi ons tailored to the lower leve ls o f cogniti on, and small groups w ill develop qui ckl y beyo nd fom1ing and stormin g w ith assistance o f business wo less ors.

R E FERENCES

A1ll ony, J .. & 13o atsman, 1< . 1994 . Defining the teaching­learni ng fun cti on in term s o f coo perati ve pedagogy: An cmpir ·ica l ta xo nomy of fa cult y practices . Paper presented at th e A nnual Meeting o f th e A ssociat ion for th e Study of II igher Ed uca t ion.

A rt zt, A ., & Armom-Th omas, E. 1990 . Protocol analysis of

group prob lem so lv in g i n mathematics: A cognitive­metacogniti\'e fram ework for assess ment. P3pe r presented at the A nnual M ee ting o f the A meri can Ed uca ti onal Research A s oc iati on, Boston.

A rt zt, A ., & A rm our-Thomas, E. 1992 . Development o f a cognit ive -m ctacognit i ve framework for protoco l analys is o f mathematica l problem solv ing in small groups. Cog nition and Instruc ti on, 9 : 137 .

Bel l, R , & Qun i, R. 2004 . M ixed meth od instructi on across business d iscip lines. So uthwestern Business Ad ministrati on Journal , 4 : 35-47 .

Gloom, B., L:: ng leli art , M ., Fu rst, E., Hill , W ., & Krathwohl , D. 1956 . T he ta xo nomy of educational obj ec ti ves, lland boo l; I: The cognitive d ornain. New York : Dav id M c l< ;1y Compan y, In c.

B loom. 11 . \ 9~<1 . ril e sea rch for methods o f group instructi on as ciTect i ve as one-to-one tutorin g. Educational Leadership , <1 I : 4- 17.

B loom, J. 197 5. Small g roup cooperative curriculum and exper im ental evaluation: A study of cooperation

7

Bell et al.: An Integrative Analysis of Benjamin Bloom's Cognitive Domain and

Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2007

BelL Guyo t. Martin . and Meier

trammg. Fina l Report. (E RI C Docum ent Reprod uction Servic e No. ED I 008 77).

Brown , H., & Weidma ier, C. 2003. Planning for in st ru cti on. In M. Rader, (Ed.), Effecti ve meth ods of teachin g business education in the 21 " Century. Yearbook 4 1, (pp. 46-62) . Reston, VA: Nati ona l Bus iness Ed ucation Assoc iati on.

Cronbach, L. 195 1. Coeffi c ient a lpha and the intern al structure oftests. Psychomctrika, 16: 297-334 .

Draskov ic, 1. , Ho ld rin et, R., Bu lt e, .1 , Bolhuis, S., & Van Lee uwe. J. 2004 . Modelin g sma ll group learn in g: Instructi ona l sc ience . Int ern ati ona l Jo u r na l of Learn ing and C ognition, 32: 447-473 .

Deve lli s. R. 199 1. Sca le d eve lop rnen t. Thousand Oa ks. CA: Sage Pu b I icati ons

Hatcher, L. 1994 . A step-by-s tep a pproac h to usin g th e S AS(R ) sys te m fo r fac to r a na lys is a nd str uctu ra l equation mode ling. Ca ry, NC: SAS Institut e.

Hauserm an, C. 1992 . Seekin g an e ffective cooperati ve learnin g strategy. C onte mpo ra ry Ed uca tio n, 63: 185 - 190 .

Hea ley, M., & Matth ews, H. 1996 . Lea rnin g in sma ll gro ups in uni ve rs ity geograp hy co urses: Des ignin g a core modu le around group proj ects. J ourn a l of Geog ra ph y in Higher Educa tion , 20: 167 -1 7 1.

Kachi gan, S. 199 1. Multi va ri a te s ta tis tica l a na lys is. New York: Radi us Press .

Ke rlin ge r, F. 1973 . Found a ti ons o f be hav io ra l researc h. Austin . Texas: Ho lt . Rinehart , & Winston.

Krath wo hl , D., Bloo m, B .. & Masia, B. 196-l . A taxo no my of educa ti ona l obj ec ti ves: Ha nd boo k 2, th e affect ive do main . New York : David Mc Kay Co .

Larson, C., Danserea u, D .. O' Donn ell . A., Hythecker, V., La mbiott e, J .. & Roc kli n. T . 1984 Verba l abili ty and coope rati ve lea rnin g: Tra ns fer of e ffec ts. J ourn a l of Readin g Behav io r , 16: 289-295.

Lazarow it z. R., & Karsenty. G . 1990 . Coopera ti ve learn ing and stu dents ' acade mi c ac hi evement , process ski ll s, learnin g environment , and se lf-estee m in tenth -grade bio logy c lassrooms. In S. Sharan, (Eel .), C oo perat ive lea r ning : Th eory and research. (pp . 123- 149) , New Yo rk: Praege1·.

McKeachi e, W., Chi sm. N., Menges, R , Sv in icki, M., & Weinste in , C. 1994 . Teachi ng ti ps: Strateg ies, researc h and th eory for co ll ege and un ive rs it y teache1·s. Lex ington, MA : Heath and Co mpa ny.

McE lhinney, J. , & Murk, P. 1994 . Us in g sma ll learning groups in grad uate ed ucation . In/\ . Quig ley, (Ed.). Proceedi ngs of th e 199 4 Annu a l Co nfe rence fo r t !te Co mmiss ion of

Journ al of Business and Leadershi p: Research. Practi ce. and Teachi ng 200 7. Vol. 3. No. I . 11 6- 124

Professo rs of Adult Edu ca ti on 23: I, 84-9 , Da ll as, Texas.

Moo re, M. 1970. The perceptu a l-motor domai n and a proposed taxo nomy of percepti on. AV Co mmunica tion Rev iew, 18: 379-4 13.

Nea l, J ., & Echtern acht, L. 1995. The effect o f st ru ct ured tec hniqu es on g roup decision mak in g in the un de rg radu a te bu sin ess co mmunica ti on class roo m. Paper present ed at th e annua l meetin g o f the American Educa tiona l Research Associat ion (Sa n Franc isco , CA. April 18-22).

Nu nn a ll y. J. 1978 . Psyc hometr ic th eo r y. New York : McGraw­Hill .

O lm stead, J. 1970 . T heory a nd state of the a rt of s mall-g roup me th ods of in s tructio n. (ER IC Doc um e nt Rep1oduCl ion Se rvice No . ED04034 5. Abstract onl y).

Sh::u an. S .. & Shaulov , A. 1990 . Coo pera ti ve lea rning, motivat ion to learn , and acad emi c achi eve ment. In S. Sharan, (Ed .), C oopera ti ve learning: Theory a nd resea rch. (p p. 173-202). New Yo rk: Pr·ae ge r.

Simpson. 13 . 1966 . The c lass ifi cati on o r ed uca ti onal obj ecti ves. psychomotor domain . Illinois Teacher of Home

123

Eco no mics, 10: 11 0- 144 .

Slava n. R. 1985 . An introd uct ion to cooperat ive lea rnin g resea rch. In R. Slava n, S. Sharan, S. Kaga n, R. Lazarowi tz, C. Webb, & R. Schmu ck, (Eels. ), Learning to cooperate, coope ra ti ng to lea r n. (pp. 5- 18), New York : Plenum Pr ess .

So lomon. D. 1990 . Coo perative learnin g, intra grou p dyna mics, and stud eut outcomes. Paper prese nted at th e Annu a l Mee tin g o r th e Ameri ca n Psy cho log ica l Assoc iat ion, 98th . (Bos ton, MA, August I 0-1 4).

St1 ·o1n . P ., & Strom. R. ~002 . Ove rco min g lim itati ons o f c llperati ve lea min g among co mmunity co ll ege student s.

Co nt munit y Co llege Jourual of Resea rch & Practice, 26 : 3 15-33 I.

Tu cl--1na11, B. 1965 . l)eve lop1nental sequ ences in sma ll groups. Psyc holog ical 13ull etin , 63: 384-399 .

Tuc l-- 1 n::tn , B., & Jense n. M. 1977. Stages o f" small-group deve lopm ent re vi s it ed. Gro up and Orgau ization Studie s,

2 4 19-447 .

Webb, N . & Grib . T. 1967. Teaching process as a lea rn ing experience: The ex per imental use of studcut - led groups. (Final Repo rt . HE-000-882) . Washing ton, DC: Department o f l lea lth, Educa ti on, and Welfare.

Wri ght, T. , & Du nca n. D. 1986 . Attracti on to group . group cohes iveness and in di viclu::t l o ut come : A stud y o f t1 ·a inin g groups. S ma ll G roup 13eha vior·, 17: 487-492 .

8

Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching (2005-2012), Vol. 3 [2007], No. 1, Art. 14

https://scholars.fhsu.edu/jbl/vol3/iss1/14

13ell . Guyol. Martin. nnd Meier Journal or Business and Leadership : Research, Practi ce. and Teachino 2007. Vol. J. No. I , 11 6- 124'

Reginald Bell is an ass istan t professor o f bus iness com munica tion at Prairie View A&M University. He rece ived his Ph.D. in business educa tion from the U ni ve rsit y of Missouri at Co lumbia. He has pub lished in Business Communication Quarterl y, Intern ati onal Jou r·nal of Ed ucat ion Research, Journal of Business and Leadership : Research, Practice and Teaching, Journal of Co ll ege Teachi ng and Learn in g, Southwestern Business Ad ministrat ion Journ al and the Journa l of Diversity M anagement.

Wa lly Guyot is a pro fessor of accounting and inform at ion sys tems at Fort !l ays State Un ive rsity. He rece ived his Ph .D. in bu ~ in ess ed uca tion rom U ni versity of North Dakota. His cu rrent research interests include pedagogy and instructi on in business subjec ts, including business co rnrn uni ca ti on. li e has publi shed in Jour ·nal of Business Ed ucation , and made several presentat ions at the South west Business Sympos ium, ~nd he is the author/co-au th or o f seve ral academic manuscrip ts in progress.

Philip l\1artiu is il n instructor o r manage men t at Fort ll ilys St3t c l Jni ve rsity. li e rece ived his MBA from Fon Hays State Un ive rsity . Hi s cu rrent research intere sts inc lude pedagogy and in structi on in business subj ects, inc lud ing business co mmunica ti on. He has publi shed in Intern at ional Journal o f Educati on Resea r-ch, and made se ve ral presentati ons at the Southwest Business Sympo sium.

Robert Meier is a professor of accounting & inform ati on systems ill Fort Hays State Unive rsity. He rece ived his Ph .D. in statisti cs from K ansas Stale Universit y. His current research interests in clude pedagogy and instru ct ions in business subj ects, including business co mmuni ca ti on. He has rub lished in Central Bu siness Review, Intern ati onal Journa l of Ed ucati on Research , Journal of Computer Inf orm ati on Systems, Research Journal o f the Academy Transactions on Computer In fo rm ati on System s, and Southwestern Business Adm inistrati on Journ aL

12'-l 9

Bell et al.: An Integrative Analysis of Benjamin Bloom's Cognitive Domain and

Published by FHSU Scholars Repository, 2007