Larry K. Michaelsen

In recent years, colleges and universities have been the target of a wide variety
of criticisms ranging from emphasizing athletics at the expense of academics to
misuse of research funds. None, however, is more serious nor more widespread
than the dissatisfaction with classroom instructional practices and the resultant
lack of skills of university graduates. Further, these concerns have led a number
of institutions to reevaluate their entire education process.

There have, however, been a number of recent positive developments in post-
secondary education. One is the growing body of evidence, primarily from stud-
ies in the past decade, that small group-based instructional methods can promote
the achievement of a variety of desirable educational outcomes (e.g. see Godsell
et al., 1992). In various studies, small group-based instructional practices have
proved to be effective for developing students' higher-level learning and prob-
lem-solving skills ( Kurfiss, 1988); for enhancing the effectiveness of computer-
based instruction ( Wojtkowski & Wojtkowski, 1987; Light, 1990); for
eliminating the basis for stereotypes based on race, gender, and physical hand-
icaps (see the review by Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983); and for re-
ducing drop-out rates for accounting students ( Wilson, 1982) and science majors
( Tobias, 1990).

In spite of this evidence, however, the use of small group-based instructional
methods are still much more of a novelty than a common practice in college
courses. Furthermore, this apparently contradictory situation is a result of two
key factors. First, most university faculty members' approach to teaching ap-
pears to be guided by the assumption that the only way to ensure that students
are exposed to course concepts is by personally going over the material in class.
Thus, they genuinely feel that using class time for group work will be sacrificing
basics for frills, because doing so will automatically result in a reduction of the

-139-