Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What you do is less important than how you do it: the effects of learning environment on student outcomes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Learning Environments Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Higher education has seen a shift towards promoting student-centred learning. There has also been a push for identifying the ‘best’ teaching models and an insistence that instructors use these models, despite mixed results regarding their effectiveness. In the current paper, we compare the effects of an autonomy-supportive learning environment on student learning and achievement with those of the specific course features of contact hours and active learning. In a large-scale comprehensive survey with over 14,000 responses from students enrolled in courses constituting various disciplines, course levels and instructors, data across all student outcome variables suggested that those in highly autonomy-supportive learning environments experienced significant increases in satisfaction of students’ basic psychological needs, student motivation, course evaluations and academic performance. These results suggest that what is most important for students is not the specific techniques used by instructors but the quality of student–instructor interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher education.

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,11(4), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,111(23), 8410–8415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillmore, G. M., Kane, M. T., & Naccarato, R. W. (1978). The generalizability of student ratings of instruction: Estimation of the teacher and course components. Journal of Educational Measurement,15(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion,24(3), 175–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundlach, E., Richards, K. A. R., Nelson, D., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2015). A comparison of student attitudes, statistical reasoning, performance, and perceptions for web-augmented traditional, fully online, and flipped sections of a statistical literacy class. Journal of Statistics Education,23(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBM Cognos Analytics. (2005). Armonk, NY: IBM. Software available at: https://www.ibm.com/products/cognos-analytics. Accessed June 2015.

  • Keith, T. Z. (2014). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • LaBeouf, J. P., Griffith, J. C., & Roberts, D. L. (2016). Faculty and student issues with group work: What is problematic with college group assignments and why? Journal of Education and Human Development,5(1), 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education,31(1), 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levesque-Bristol, C., Knapp, T. D., & Fisher, B. J. (2010). The effectiveness of service-learning: It’s not always what you think. Journal of Experiential Education,33(3), 208–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levesque-Bristol, C., Richards, K. A. R., Zissimopoulos, K., Wang, C., & Yu, S. (2019). Applying self-determination theory to the college classroom: A test of the integrative model for learning and motivation. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Marchlewicz, S. C., & Wink, D. J. (2011). Using the activity model of inquiry to enhance general chemistry students’ understanding of nature of science. Journal of Chemical Education,88(8), 1041–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mostrom, A. M., & Blumberg, P. (2012). Does learning-centered teaching promote grade improvement? Innovative Higher Education,37(5), 397–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology,98(1), 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riffell, S., & Sibley, D. (2005). Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: An evaluation of a hybrid course format. Computers and Education,44(3), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitations of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,55(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development and wellness. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, S. B., & Tanner, K. D. (2013). “What if students revolt?” Considering student resistance: Origins, options, and opportunities for investigation. CBE-Life Sciences Education,12(4), 586–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serwetnyk, T., Filmore, K., VonBacho, S., & Smith, C. M. (2013). Online basic life support courses gain efficiencies while maintaining quality training outcomes for registered professional nurses in a large academic medical center. Circulation,128(Suppl 22), A10178–A10178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. A. (2008). First-day questions for the learner-centered classroom. The National Teaching and Learning Forum,17(5), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. V., & Cardaciotto, L. (2012). Is active learning like broccoli? Student perceptions of active learning in large lecture classes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,11(1), 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research,15(2), 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2008). Students’ experiences with contrasting learning environments: The added value of students’ perceptions. Learning Environments Research,11(2), 83–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE-Life Sciences Education,12(3), 322–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomcho, T. J., & Foels, R. (2012). Meta-analysis of group learning activities: Empirically based teaching recommendations. Teaching of Psychology,39(3), 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twigg, C. A. (2003). New models for online learning: Improving learning and reducing costs. Educause Review,38(5), 28–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: a test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70(4), 767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willson, R. W. (2008). In-class: Online hybrid methods of teaching planning theory—Assessing impacts on discussion and learning. Journal of Planning Education and Research,28(2), 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis (Vol. 59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students’ perspective. The Internet and Higher Education,9(2), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yudko, E., Hirokawa, R., & Chi, R. (2008). Attitudes, beliefs, and attendance in a hybrid course. Computers and Education,50(4), 1217–1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, 340 Centennial Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Emily M. Bonem

  2. Vanderbilt University, 2201 West End Ave, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA

    Heather N. Fedesco

  3. The University of Chicago, 1050 E. 59th Street, Wieboldt 316, Chicago, IL, 60037, USA

    Angelika N. Zissimopoulos

Authors
  1. Emily M. Bonem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather N. Fedesco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angelika N. Zissimopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily M. Bonem.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bonem, E.M., Fedesco, H.N. & Zissimopoulos, A.N. What you do is less important than how you do it: the effects of learning environment on student outcomes. Learning Environ Res 23, 27–44 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09289-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09289-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation