Disciplinary differences between academic fields refer to those differences in teaching approaches, course design, and instructional tools but often considered “hard” sciences like physics and engineering, and “soft” sciences such as social sciences and humanities. This study seeks to explore these differences through a quantitative analysis of how course design and teaching tools differ across hard and soft academic disciplines. The research employs a survey-based approach to obtaining data from 240 academics from a number of institutions and disciplines. Statistical tests such as t-tests and regression analysis were used to identity and test the difference between the disciplines. The results found that instructors of hard sciences favor the delivery of structured content, emphasize technical skills, standardized assessments, and the use of digital simulation tools. On the other hand, soft sciences integrate collaborative projects, discussion based learning, and experiential methods like case studies for the most part. The findings also showed a significant variation in how technology gets adopted; where hard fields prefer software and digital tools that help with precise measurements and quantitative data analysis, while soft fields tend to prefer platforms that allow for discussion and qualitative analysis.
Keywords
Business and Management Education, Hard/Soft Academic Fields, Cross-Disciplinary Differences, E-Learning Projects, Course Modes, Teaching Tools, Teaching or Pedagogical Methods.
A. Hwang, C. J. Fornaciari, C. J. Asarta, J. B. Arbaugh, and Z. Ferrara, “An analysis of highly-cited scholarship in business and management education: Findings and future agendas,” The International Journal of Management Education, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 100447, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100447.
B. M. Jena, S. L. Gupta, and N. Mishra, “Effectiveness of online learning and Face-to-Face teaching pedagogy,” in CRC Press eBooks, 2021, pp. 21–43. doi: 10.1201/9781003132097-2.
S. White and I. Liccardi, “Harnessing Insight into Disciplinary Differences to Refine e-learning Design,” Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference, Jan. 2006, doi: 10.1109/fie.2006.322553.
D. Buhalis, D. Leung, and M. Lin, “Metaverse as a disruptive technology revolutionising tourism management and marketing,” Tourism Management, vol. 97, p. 104724, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2023.104724.
A. Macpherson, M. Elliot, I. Harris, and G. Homan, “E-learning: reflections and evaluation of corporate programmes,” Human Resource Development International, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 295–313, Sep. 2004, doi: 10.1080/13678860310001630638.
D. G. Mayo, “An objective theory of statistical testing,” Synthese, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 297–340, Dec. 1983, doi: 10.1007/bf01064701.
S. Choudhury and K. A. McKinney, “Digital media, the developing brain and the interpretive plasticity of neuroplasticity,” Transcultural Psychiatry, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 192–215, Apr. 2013, doi: 10.1177/1363461512474623.
C. Lai, M. Shum, and Y. Tian, “Enhancing learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning: the effectiveness of an online training platform,” Computer Assisted Language Learning, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 40–60, Mar. 2014, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.889714.
S. Cairncross and M. Mannion, “Interactive Multimedia and Learning: Realizing the benefits,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 156–164, Jan. 2001, doi: 10.1080/14703290110035428.
R. Lozano, M. Merrill, K. Sammalisto, K. Ceulemans, and F. Lozano, “Connecting Competences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in Higher Education: A Literature Review and Framework proposal,” Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 1889, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.3390/su9101889.
A. Habibi et al., “Building an Online community: student teachers’ perceptions on the advantages of using social networking services in a teacher education program,” Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 46–61, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.17718/tojde.382663.
P. Haruna, “Design, Extent of use and usefulness of instructional materials by student teachers on teaching practice – the Mentors’ assessment,” International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, vol. 06, no. 06, pp. 394–398, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.47772/ijriss.2022.6608.
O. Khummanee, “The Supervision Model Promoting the Implementation of Education Quality Assurance System Development Based on Ministerial Regulations for Education Quality Assurance 2018 for Educational Institutions under Hua Hin Municipality, Thailand,” SSRN Electronic Journal, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3921646.
J. Andrews and H. Higson, “Graduate Employability, ‘Soft Skills’ versus ‘Hard’ Business knowledge: A European study,” Higher Education in Europe, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 411–422, Dec. 2008, doi: 10.1080/03797720802522627.
B. Cimatti, “DEFINITION, DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT OF SOFT SKILLS AND THEIR ROLE FOR THE QUALITY OF ORGANIZATIONS AND ENTERPRISES,” DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals), Mar. 2016, doi: 10.18421/ijqr10.01-05.
N. J. Beutell, N. Abarca, and N. Majluf, Soft skills for human centered management and global sustainability. 2021. doi: 10.4324/9781003094463.
Rao, “Step by step to soft-skills training,” Human Resource Management International Digest, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 34–36, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1108/hrmid-06-2015-0099.
A. Azevedo, G. Apfelthaler, and D. Hurst, “Competency development in business graduates: An industry-driven approach for examining the alignment of undergraduate business education with industry requirements,” The International Journal of Management Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 12–28, Apr. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2012.02.002.
Z. B. Akhtar, “Exploring Biomedical Engineering (BME): Advances within Accelerated Computing and Regenerative Medicine for a Computational and Medical Science Perspective Exploration Analysis,” Journal of Emergency Medicine Open Access, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 01–23, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.33140/jemoa.02.01.06.
Acknowledgements
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Availability of data and materials
No data available for above study.
Author information
Contributions
All authors have equal contribution in the paper and all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Dong Diane E. Davis
Dong Diane E. Davis
University of Guadalajara, Col Americana, Americana, 44100 Guadalajara, Mexico.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs is a more restrictive license. It allows you to redistribute the material commercially or non-commercially but the user cannot make any changes whatsoever to the original, i.e. no derivatives of the original work. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Cite this article
Dong Diane E. Davis, “A Quantitative Analysis of Hard and Soft Academic Fields to Determine Cross Disciplinary Differences”, Journal of Enterprise and Business Intelligence, vol.4, no.2, pp. 061-072, April 2024. doi: 10.53759/5181/JEBI202404007.
