Advertisement

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

  • Emily M. BonemEmail author
  • Heather N. Fedesco
  • Angelika N. Zissimopoulos
Original Paper
  • 126 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Active learning Contact hours Learning environment Self-determination theory Student motivation 

Notes

Supplementary material

10984_2019_9289_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. 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
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IBM Cognos Analytics. (2005). Armonk, NY: IBM. Software available at: https://www.ibm.com/products/cognos-analytics. Accessed June 2015.
  11. Keith, T. Z. (2014). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mostrom, A. M., & Blumberg, P. (2012). Does learning-centered teaching promote grade improvement? Innovative Higher Education, 37(5), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Smith, G. A. (2008). First-day questions for the learner-centered classroom. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 17(5), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tomcho, T. J., & Foels, R. (2012). Meta-analysis of group learning activities: Empirically based teaching recommendations. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Twigg, C. A. (2003). New models for online learning: Improving learning and reducing costs. Educause Review, 38(5), 28–38.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis (Vol. 59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students’ perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yudko, E., Hirokawa, R., & Chi, R. (2008). Attitudes, beliefs, and attendance in a hybrid course. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1217–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  3. 3.The University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations