http://wje.sciedupress.com World Journal of Education Vol. 6, No.

6; 2016

Combined Teaching Method: An Experimental Study

Iryna V. Kolesnikova1,*
1
Department of Pedagogy and Methodology of Primary Education, National Pedagogical Dragomanov University,
Kiev 01601, Ukraine
*Correspondence: Department of Pedagogy and Methodology of Primary Education, National Pedagogical
Dragomanov University, NO: 9 Pirogova Street, Kiev 01601, Ukraine.  Tel: 380-044-542-0647.  E-mail:
[email protected]

Received: November 28, 2016 Accepted: December 8, 2016 Online Published: December 12, 2016
doi:10.5430/wje.v6n6p51 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wje.v6n6p51

Abstract
The search for the best approach to business education has led educators and researchers to seek many different
teaching strategies, ranging from the traditional teaching methods to various experimental approaches such as active
learning techniques. The aim of this experimental study was to compare the effects of the traditional and combined
(traditional plus active learning) teaching methods in the process of knowledge formation among future primary
school teachers. Participants were randomly selected from available Ukrainian 5th year students. After they were
pre-tested, randomly divided into two equal groups. The participants in the experimental group were instructed
through combined teaching methods, while those in the control group were only taught through traditional lecture.
Following the completion of the course, both groups were received their post-test. The results of both groups were
equal at the beginning of experiment. An investigation on the post-test indicated that both teaching methods
increased the students’ post-test scores significantly. Also, the result of post-test scores in the experimental group
increased statistically significant than that the control group. This study concluded that active learning plus the
traditional teaching method is a feasible alternative to the traditional teaching method only format.
Keywords: traditional teaching method; active learning; combined teaching method; knowldege formation

1. Introduction
The search for the best approach to business education has led educators to explore many different teaching
strategies, ranging from the traditional lecture class to the active learning techniques. It is well known that the
Ukrainian education system is inherited from the Soviet Union era and it was adopted without any major changes. In
particular in the study plans of pedagogical specializations, the priority was given to the theoretical matters which very
often it was held just formally, leaving no impression in the students’ minds and had no connection to the future
professional activity of the student (Subtelny, 2000), but after independence of Ukraine in 1991 the majority of
research of modern Ukrainian researchers have dealt with the problems of moulding the informational competence of
future teachers.
Above all, evolution of creative thinking of future elementary school teachers to enhance the formation of knowledge
and skills to design a learning process by selecting an appropriate teaching method has not yet been adequately
evaluated (Bondar, 2005; Babanskii, 1982). As Kolesnikova (2016a) defines, it’s very important to select a well
designed method which might be a key to achieve the goal and ensure the effectiveness of the educational process as a
whole. Thus, in order to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom, non-traditional strategies such
as active learning can be utilized. In addition, the combined (traditional plus modern strategy) teaching method has
been suggested by Penner (1984) that must be taken into consideration.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of the traditional and combined (traditional plus
active learning) teaching methods in the process of knowledge formation among future primary school teachers at the
Department of Pedagogy and Methodology of Primary Education of the National Pedagogical Dragomanov
University, Kiev, Ukraine.

Published by Sciedu Press 51 ISSN 1925-0746 E-ISSN 1925-0754

http://wje.sciedupress.com World Journal of Education Vol. 6, No. 6; 2016

1.1 Teaching Method

The term teaching method refers to the general principles, pedagogy and management strategies used for classroom
instruction. In addition, teaching methodology is an essential element in the educational curriculum because it
provides the answer to a key question in teacher education.
As Barrett, Bower, and Donovan (2007) define, the teacher centered and student centered approaches are two major
types of teaching approaches. It is worth noticing that any teaching method a teacher uses has advantages,
disadvantages, and requires some preliminary preparation. Several studies (Barnes & Blevins, 2003; Morgan,
Whorton, & Gunsalus, 2000) point out that all teaching methods have their strengths and weaknesses. Additionally,
for a particular teaching method to be appropriate and efficient it has to be in relation with the characteristics of the
learner and the type of learning it is supposed to bring about (Westwood, 2008).
Therefore, effective teaching methods help to activate students' curiosity about a class topic, engage students in
learning, develop critical thinking skills, keep students on task, engender sustained and useful classroom interaction,
and, in general, enable and enhance the learning of course content (Boundless, 2016).
1.2 Traditional Teaching Method
The traditional teaching method, also known as lecture method is very common in education especially at university
level. In this education context, the educator can deliver the message via the “chalk-and-talk” method and overhead
projector transparencies. This directed instruction model has its foundations embedded in the behavioural learning
perspective, which has been used for decades (Skinner, 1938). In addition, the learning mode tends to be passive and
the learners play little role in their learning process (Orlich, Harder, Callahan, Kauchak, & Gibson, 2004).  
As Udovic, Morris, Dickman, Postlethwait, and Wetherwax (2002) and Kolesnikova (2016b) state in their study, this
approach may not provide students with valuable skills, or even with a body of knowledge that lasts much beyond
the end of the term (Udovic et al., 2002). Moreover, it has been found in most universities by many teachers and
students that the traditional teaching method in classroom is of limited effectiveness in both teaching and learning.
In this view, the lecture method despite its well documented limitations may not be totally discarded in favour of
other teaching approaches (Edlich, 1993; Brockbank & McGill, 1998). This method of teaching has been more or
less similar around the world; the adaptation of teaching methods and styles to different educational contexts has
been always an issue for consideration, anyhow, there is a need to transform the lecture method and make it more
interactive.
1.3 Active Learning Pedagogies
Because of growing competitive demands in modern sociaty educators strive to provide the most productive
classroom experience for their students. To achieve this objective, researchers constantly search for new and
improved teaching methods. There are a variety of non-traditional teaching methods that effectively conveys
information and understanding to students (Martin, 1998). In this regard, active learning has received considerable
attention over the past several years (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). In addition, active learning has added a new
dimension to the pedagogies. Furthermore, this methodology has become a preferred way to change the traditional
teacher centered classroom into the newer student centered approach to learning. Moreover, active learning
instruction is considered as a device to achieve quality, it means that in the higher education the deep learning has
changed into an effective form in learning and teaching (Haack, 2008).
According to Shimazoe and Aldrich (2010), active learning has some benefits for students such as having better grades,
developing deep learning of materials, promoting positive attitudes toward autonomous learning, and acquiring social
skills and self-efficacy beliefs. Berry (2008) postulates that four key elements characterise all active learning
approaches: (1) critical thinking, (2) individual responsibility for learning, (3) involvement in open-ended activities,
and (4) organization of learning activities by the professor.
In short, active learning requires students to do meaningful learning activities and think about what they are doing
(Prince, 2004). Also, active learning is often contrasted to the traditional method where students passively receive
information from the instructor.

2. Methods
The study was experimental in nature with pre and post-test control group design and was performed at the
Department of Pedagogy and Methodology of Primary Education, National Pedagogical Dragomanov University,

Published by Sciedu Press 52 ISSN 1925-0746 E-ISSN 1925-0754

http://wje.sciedupress.com World Journal of Education Vol. 6, No. 6; 2016

Kiev, Ukraine.
2.1 Objective of the Study
A review of literature indicates that a number of previous studies have been conducted on the impact of traditional
and combined teaching methods in the study process (Penner, 1984; Morgan et al., 2000). But, in an Ukrainian
context no study has been carried out on the issues.   
This study, therefore, is an attempt to compare the effects of the traditional and combined (traditional plus active
learning) teaching methods in the process of knowledge formation among Ukrainian future primary school teachers.
To achieve the above mentioned objective the following research projects were posed as the foci of the current study.
2.2 Research Hypotheses
Based on the objective of study the following hypotheses were drafted to be sustained or rejected through analysis of
the data.
H01) There is no significant difference between the pre and post-test mean scores of students taught through
combined (traditional plus active learning) teaching methods.
H02) There is no significant difference between the pre and post-test mean scores of students taught through
traditional teaching methods.
H03) There is no significant difference between the achievement scores in knowledge of students using traditional
and combined (traditional plus active learning) teaching methods.
2.3 Participants
Forty future primary school teachers aged 22-25 both genders were randomly selected from among 132 available
Ukrainian 5th years students of special course in desigh theory lessons for primary schools that had already aquired
general didactic course as well as methodological knowledge and skills that were integrated during training practice in
primary schools.
2.4 Instruments
Participants in experimental and control groups were pre and post-tested using the same open ended questions
covering the topics of education training subject and concepts from each chapter in order to assess knowledge of the
participants before and after applying each teaching method. Then, the participants were pre-tested at the beginnig of
the semester, after that participants were randomly divided into two equal groups of 20 each, one experimental and
another one control.
For participants in the control group with lecture format, the instructor used PowerPoint slides and delivered in the
traditional manner of the lecture style, with no student input/feedback. On the contrary, in the experimental group
participants were engaged in the lecture format plus variety of activities, such as reading, writing, discussion, use of
modern technology, presentation and seminar that promote analysis, synthesis and evaluation of content.
Following the completion of the course, at the end of semester a post-test was administered to all participants in both
groups. The questions were initially explained by the researcher when handed out. They were asked to finish the
questions independently based on their own learning conditions for 60 minutes. The differences in the pre and
post-test scores were compared to assess improvement under the teaching method being applied in the section. A
scoring rubric was used to evaluate students' constructed responses and the maximum score of each test was 20.
2.5 Analysis
The data collected through pre and post-tests were put to statistical analysis using statistic package for social sciences
(SPSS) Inc., Chicago, IL., United States, version 13.0 for Windows. In addition to calculating the descriptive
statistics, paired samples t-test was run to see whether the participants’ performances were statistically different on
the pre and post-tests. Moreover, 2-tailed t-test was run to compare the participants’ improvement on pre-test
compared to post-test.

3. Results
As the first part of analysis, the data of participants’ performance was collected and then, a number of descriptive
statistics such as mean, median, variance and standard deviation were calculated. The overall results of pre-test in
both groups are shown in Table 1.

Published by Sciedu Press 53 ISSN 1925-0746 E-ISSN 1925-0754

http://wje.sciedupress.com World Journal of Education Vol. 6, No. 6; 2016

Table 1. Results of t-test of Overall Scores on Pre-test of Experimental and Control Groups
Pre-test N Mean SD t-value DF Sig. (2-tailed)
Experimental 20 6.32 .92 0.000 38 1.000
Control 20 6.32 1.32
*Significant at α = 0.05.

As it can clearly be seen in the Table 1 above, the difference of mean score of both groups at the level of confidence
α = 0.05 was zero. As a result, the mean difference was not significant (1.000 > 0.05). It’s stating that there is no
significant difference between two groups and indicating that both groups are absolutely equal at the beginning of
experiment.
In order to make sure how much improvement occurred in the scores of experimental group, comparison analysis
were performed. The descriptive analyses are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The Descriptive Statistics for the Pre and Post-test of Experimental Group
Test N Mean SD t-value DF Correlation Sig.
Pre-test 20 6.3250 .92160 - 4.386 19 .538 .014*
Pair 1
Post-test 20 7.9450 1.95380
*Significant at α = 0.05.

According to Table 2 the difference of mean on pre and post-test of experimental group is significant (P = .014). This
simply indicates that students accomplished enough after studying through the combined (traditional plus active
learning) teaching methods.
In order to make sure whether the difference was significant or not, the researcher employed a paired samples t-test
for pre and post-test of experimental group. The results of t-test on pre and post-test of experimental group are
displayed in Table 3.

Table 3. The Results of the t-test on the Pre and Post-test of Experimental Group
Paired Differences
95 % Confidence Interval of Difference
Mean SD SE t-value DF Sig. (2 - tailed)
Lower Upper
Pre & Post-test - 1.62 1.65 .369 - 2.39 - 8.46 4.386 19 0.000

Based on Table 3 above, the data analysis reveals that the mean difference of scores between pre and post-evaluation
(1.62) shows that the experimental group is significantly different when comparing pre and post-test marks (P
= .000).
According to Table 2 and Table 3 experimental group made significant improvement as the mean difference of pre
and post-test mark was significant. This implies that null hypothesis H01 was rejected, describing that there is no
significant difference between the pre and post-test mean scores of students studying through the combined
(traditional plus active learning) teaching methods.
While alternative hypothesis H11 which was accepted indicates that there is significant difference between the pre
and post-test mean scores of students studying through the combined (traditional plus active learning) teaching
methods.

Published by Sciedu Press 54 ISSN 1925-0746 E-ISSN 1925-0754

http://wje.sciedupress.com World Journal of Education Vol. 6, No. 6; 2016

In this report strong evidence is given to support that the combined (traditional plus active learning) teaching
methods is highly effective. To what extent the control group improved their scores, is interesting to consider, the
comparison analyses were performed. The descriptive analysis results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. The Descriptive Statistics for the Pre and Post-test of Control Group
Test N Mean SD t-value DF Correlation Sig.
Pre-test 20 6.325 1.35 .330 19 .471 .036*
Pair 2
Post-test 20 6.425
*Significant at α = 0.05.

As revealed in Table 4 the control group’s mean marks difference between pre and post-test is significant (.036
< .05). The current result indicates that participants in control group also show significant improvement after
studying through traditional teaching methods.
Hence, to understand whether this difference is statistically significant or not, the researcher employed another paired
samples t-test for pre and post-test in control group. The results of t-test on pre and post-test of control group are
displayed in Table 5.

Table 5. The Results of the t-test on the Pre and Post-test of Control Group
Paired Differences
95 % Confidence Interval of Difference
Mean SD SE t-value DF Sig. (2- tailed)
Lower Upper
Pre & Post-test - .100 1.353 .302 - .733 .533 - .330 19 .745

The data analysis in Table 5 above reveals that the mean difference of scores between pre and post-test (.100) shows
that the control group has shown significant (.745) improvement in their performance in the post-test as compared to
the pre-test. The result implies that the traditional teaching method among this group effective too. The results from
Table 4 and Table 5 reject the null hypothesis H02 which states that there was no significant difference between the
pre and post-test mean scores that taught through traditional teaching method, and alternate hypothesis H12 was
accepted which reveals that there was significant difference between the pre and post-evaluation mean scores of
students taught through traditional teaching method.
The results of data analysis shown in Tables 2 and 5 indicate that both groups made significant progress during the
course. Since it is not yet clear which group made more progress and shown improvement in their knowledge in this
framework. For this purpose, comparisons of mean scores in post-test are presented in the Table 6.

Table 6. The Results of t-test of Overall Scores on Post-test of Experimental and Control Groups
Post-test N Mean SD t-value DF Sig. (2-tailed)

Experimental 20 7.95 1.953 2.889 38 .000*

Control 20 6.43 1.310
*Significant at α = 0.05.

According to Table 6 above, the mean score of the experimental and control groups were 7.95 and 6.43 respectively,
considered greater in experimental group. In addition, based on Tables 3 and 5, the difference of mean scores of both
groups in pre and post-test (1.620 - 0.1000 = 1.52) shows that post-test performance considered greater in
experimental group when compared to the control group. As revealed in Table 6 the difference of mean scores

Published by Sciedu Press 55 ISSN 1925-0746 E-ISSN 1925-0754

http://wje.sciedupress.com World Journal of Education Vol. 6, No. 6; 2016

between the two groups was significant (P = 0.006 < 0.05) at the level of confidence α = 0.05 as set by researcher.
Additionally, there is strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis H03 because there was no significant difference
between the mean scores in knowledge formation. Thus, the alternate hypothesis H13 considers significant difference
between the mean scores in the knowledge formation applying traditional and combined teaching methods. This
implies that combined (traditional plus active learning) teaching method was more effective pedagogy than
traditional teaching method for improving knowledge of future primary school teachers.

4. Discussion
The obtained results and findings of the present experimental study possess the ability to lead to the conclusions which
are undoubtedly of high importance. To this end, after comparing the results of the experimental group performance
and those of the control group at the beginning of experiment, both groups were equal in the pre-test.
Lecturing, a time-tested and long-venerated teaching method, remains the most frequent method of instruction in
higher education throughout the world (Svinicki & McKeachie, 2011; Lambert, 2012). The traditional teaching
method is generally teacher directed and follows book steps of activities and demonstrations.
In contrast to the traditional teaching method, a more modern view of learning is active learning where students are
expected to be active in the learning process by participating in discussions and or collaborative activities (Matiru,
Mwangi, & Schlette, 1995). Active learning accommodates a variety of learning styles, promotes student
achievement, enhances learner motivation, changes student attitudes, and basically, causes learners to learn more
(Astin, 1997; Fayombo, 2012).
The findings of present study were in agreement with the research of Morgan et al. (2000), Charlton (2006), De
Caprariis, Barman, and Magee (2001), Perkins and Saris (2001), Yoder and Hochevar (2005), Hunt, Haidet,
Coverdale, and Richards (2003) that demonstrated the use of the lecture combined with discussion improved learning
process among students. Concerning the pre and post-test results in present study, the experimenter came to the
conclusion that the comparison of pre and post-test scores of experimental and control groups were statistically
significant. In this respect, both teaching methods increased the students’ post-test scores significantly. About the
differences found pertaining to pre and post-tests descriptions, researcher attributes this to the instructors and
students academic obligation.
In contrast to present study, the combined method of lecture and group discussion were compared with traditional
lecture method, and it was reported that although the students significantly preferred the group discussion to the
lecture method, there was no significant difference in the post-test scores of the two groups (Fischer, Jacobs, &
Herbert, 2004). A study by Barnes and Blevins (2003) suggests that active discussion-based methods are inferior to
the traditional lecture-based method. In this regard, researcher in the present study attributes this to the students
engage in the variety of activities, such as reading, writing, discussion, use of modern technology, presentation and
seminar that promote analysis, synthesis and evaluation of content whereas those studies used only group discussion.
Furthermore, in the present study, the result of post-test scores in experimental group increased statistically
significant than that control group, this might be mostly due to the amalgamation of the traditional teaching method
with active learning activities. This study suggests that knowledge formation can be significantly improved through
the use of combined (traditional plus active learning) teaching method among Ukrainian’s future primary school
teachers.
4.1 Conclusion
It could be concluded that some of the criticism and hesitation concerning active learning seems to originate in the
belief that these techniques are intended to be alternatives, rather than enhancements of lectures (Faust & Paulson,
1998). The results of our study highlight that the lecture is efficient way to present pedagogy, but that using lecture
as the sole mode of instruction presents less potent than combined (traditional plus active learning) teaching method.
As Prince (2004) states, teaching cannot be reduced to formulaic methods and active learning is not the cure for all
educational remedies. Hence, the lecture when combined with active learning activities is a feasible alternative to the
traditional lecture only format.
4.2 Limitations and Further Studies
The maine problem researcher faced in performing this study included difficulty with participants’ cooperation due
to alteration and adaptation from traditional teacher centered to the combined teaching strategy, which is one way to
incorporate active learning activities (Penner, 1984). A lack of proper space for having group discussion sessions

Published by Sciedu Press 56 ISSN 1925-0746 E-ISSN 1925-0754

http://wje.sciedupress.com World Journal of Education Vol. 6, No. 6; 2016

was another limitation.

In this research, the effect of the combined teaching method in the process of participants’ knowledge formation was
the chosen focus; thus, for further research skills formation could also be studied, especially according to
Kolesnikova (2016a), in the formation of knowledge and skill of future primary school teachers, there should be a
close link between theory, methods and teaching techniques.
Additionaly, participants in this study were chosen from 5th year students with didactical and methodological
knowledge and skills that were integrated during courses and teaching practice in primary school. As Wildova (2010)
states in his study, there are contradictions between the requirements of the primary school teachers and their
professional qualities. In this case comparing the combined (traditional plus active learning) and traditional teaching
method in the process of the skills formation would be efficient.
4.3 Recommendations and Pedagogical Implications
Through showing how the combined (traditional plus active learning) teaching method contributed to the process of
knowledge formation, the study hopefully helps in supplying evidence in support of this teaching approach.
Although, there currently exists a wide range of pedagogical options designed to match course content, but the
selection of an appropriate and effective pedagogy has been a central theme in management education for decades
(Roth & Smith, 2009). Therefore, it is recommended that combined teaching method may be applied for the process
of knowledge formation of future primary school teachers. As mentioned by Mehta, Schwartz, and Hess (2012), there
are many well-known barriers to educational system change. The teachers, educational leaders and policy makers
may arrange and facilitate for combined teaching method’s implementation, and the curriculum designers may
include combined teaching methods as part of future primary school teachers’ training programs in Ukraine. It is
believed that the contribution of this research lies in extending the current understanding of both the use and
application of combined teaching method as an important and useful pedagogical option in future primary school
teachers’ education.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the Dean of the Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology Prof. Volodymyr Bondar at the
National Pedagogical Dragomanov University, Kiev, Ukraine for his great support.

References
Astin, A. W. (1997). What Matters in College?: Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Babanskii, J. K. (1982). Оптимизация учебно-воспитательного процесса (методические основы) [Optimization
of educational process: Methodical bases]. Moscow: Education.
Barnes, D., & Blevins, D. (2003). An anecdotal comparison of three teaching methods used in the presentation of
microeconomics. Educational Research Quarterly, 27(4), 41-60.
Barrett, K.R., Bower, B. L., & Donovan, N. C. (2007). Teaching styles of community college instructors. American
journal of distance education, 21(1), 37-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640701298738
Berry, W. (2008). Surviving lecture: A pedagogical alternative. College Teaching, 56(3), 149-154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.56.3.149-153
Bondar, V. I. (2005). Дидактика [Didactic]. 78-96. Kiev: Lybid.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom ASHEERIC Higher
Education Report No. 1, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Boundless Education (2016). Effective teaching strategies help to engage students in learning, develop critical
thinking skills, and keep students on task. Retrieved May 28, 2016 From
https://www.boundless.com/education/textbooks/boundless-education-textbook/working-with-students-4/teachi
ng-strategies-21/effective-teaching-strategies-64-12994/.
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Charlton, B.G. (2006). Lectures are such an effective teaching method because they exploit evolved human
psychology to improve learning. Medical Hypotheses, 67(6), 1261-1265.

Published by Sciedu Press 57 ISSN 1925-0746 E-ISSN 1925-0754

http://wje.sciedupress.com World Journal of Education Vol. 6, No. 6; 2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2006.08.001
De Caprariis, P., Barman, C., & Magee, P. (2001). Monitoring the benefits of active learning exercises in
introductory survey courses in science: An attempt to improve the education of prospective public school
teachers. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1-11.
Edlich, R. F. (1993). My last lecture. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 11(6), 771-774.
Faust, J. L., & Paulson, D. R. (1998). Active learning in the college classroom. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 9(2), 3-24.
Fayombo, G. A. (2012). Active learning strategies and student learning outcomes among some university students in
Barbados. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2(9), 79–90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2012.v2n9p79
Fischer, R. L., Jacobs, S. L., & Herbert, W. N. (2004). Small-group discussion versus lecture format for third-year
students in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 104(2), 349-53.
Haack, K. (2008). UN studies and the curriculum as active learning tool. International Studies Perspectives, 9(4),
395-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2008.00344.x
Hunt, D. P., Haidet, P., Coverdale, J. H., & Richards, B. (2003). The effect of using team learning in an
evidence-based medicine course for medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 15(2), 131-139.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1502_11
Kolesnikova, I.V. (2016a). Model of teaching to select the methods of education during general didactical training
process for future primary school teachers. [In Ukrainian.] Science and Education a New Dimension. Pedagogy
and Psychology, 38(77), 33-37.
Kolesnikova, I.V. (2016b). Future Elementary Teachers' Knowledge and Skills in Selection of Teaching Methods.
American Journal of Educational Research, 4(10), 731-735. http://dx.doi.org/10.12691/education-4-9-6
Lambert, C. (2012). Twilight of the Lecture. Harvard Magazine, 114(4), 23-27.
Martin, V. (1998). Developing Managers in the 1990s Public Services: New Requirements in Public Service
Management Development. Total Quality Management, 9(3), 279-288.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954412989135.
Matiru, I. B., Mwangi, A. P., & Schlette, R. (1995). Teach Your Best: A Handbook for University Lecturers. Institute
for Socio-cultural Studies (ISOS), University of Kassel: German Foundation for International Development
(DSE).
Mehta, J., Schwartz, R. B., & Hess, F. M. (2012). The Futures of School Reform. Cambridge: Harvard Education
Press.  
Morgan, R., Whorton, J., & Gunsalus, C. (2000). A comparison of short term and long term retention: Lecture
combined with discussion versus cooperative learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(1), 53-58.
Orlich, D.C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Kauchak, D. P., & Gibson, H. W. (2004). Teaching Strategies: A Guide
To Better Instruction (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Penner, J. G. (1984). Why many college teachers cannot lecture: How to avoid communication breakdown in the
classroom. Springfield, Ill., USA: Charles C. Thomas.
Perkins, D., & Saris, N. (2001). A jigsaw classroom technique for undergraduate statistics courses. Teaching of
Psychology, 28(2), 111-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2802_09
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3),
223–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.
Roth, K. J., & Smith, C. (2009). Live Case Analysis: Pedagogical Problems and Prospects in Management Education.
American Journal of Business Education, 2(9), 59-66.
Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: understanding & overcoming resistance to
cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58(2), 52-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567550903418594
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. 440-457. Oxford, England:
Appleton-Century.
Subtelny, O. (2000). Ukraine: a History (3rd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Published by Sciedu Press 58 ISSN 1925-0746 E-ISSN 1925-0754

http://wje.sciedupress.com World Journal of Education Vol. 6, No. 6; 2016

Svinicki, M. D., & McKeachie, W. J. (2011). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and
university teachers (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth publisher.
Udovic, D., Morris, D., Dickman, A., Postlethwait, J., & Wetherwax, P. (2002). Workshop Biology: Demonstrating
the effectiveness of active learning in an introductory Biology course. BioScience, 52(3), 272-282.
Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about teaching methods. Camberwell, Vic: ACER Press.
Wildova, R. (2010). Development of Professional Education in Primary School through the Changes in Methodology
of Different Curriculum Areas. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 2(4), 104-110.
Yoder, J., & Hochevar, C. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations.
Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 91-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3202_2

Published by Sciedu Press 59 ISSN 1925-0746 E-ISSN 1925-0754