Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 70, Issue 1, pp 1–17 | Cite as

Student experience and academic success: comparing a student-centred and a lecture-based course programme

  • Sabine SeveriensEmail author
  • Marieke Meeuwisse
  • Marise Born
Article

Abstract

Past research has shown that, under certain conditions, student-centred and small-scale course programmes result in more academic success. The present study investigates these conditions in further detail. It is examined whether, in comparison to a course programme that is relatively more lecture-based, a student-centred course programme promotes academic success to a larger extent when students’ experience of these environments is positive, when they show high levels of effort and engagement and spend more time studying. Four hundred seventy-five first-year business administration students from a course programme relatively student-centred and a course programme relatively lecture-based participated in the study. The students completed a questionnaire on experiences, student attitude and time spent studying. Academic success data were obtained from student administration offices. Analyses of variance and linear structural modelling analyses were conducted to answer the research questions. Results show that in the relatively student-centred course programme, feeling at home affected effort as well as engagement. Effort was related to the time spent studying as well as academic success [credits and grade point average (GPA)]. Similarly, in the more lecture-based course programme, feeling at home affected effort and engagement. In this case, effort affects time spent studying which in turn affected academic success in terms of GPA. There are a number of differences between the models: time spent studying, effort and feeling at home seem to play different roles in the student-centred course programme compared to the course programme that is relatively lecture-based. The process that explains academic success in student-centred and small-scale course programmes is different compared to the process in more traditional lecture-based course programmes.

Keywords

Course programme Student-centred Lecture-based Academic success Feeling at home Student engagement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Education.

References

  1. Arbuckle, J., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Smallwaters Corp.Google Scholar
  2. Baars, G. J. A., & Arnold, I. J. M. (2014). Early identification and characterization of students who drop out in the first year at university. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 16(1), 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2012). The effects of different learning environments on students’ motivation for learning and their achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02076.x.Google Scholar
  4. Bruinsma, M. (2003). Effectiveness in higher education; Factors that determine the outcomes of university education. Groningen: PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, A. B. (2007). Job characteristics and college performance and attitudes; A model of work-school conflict and facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.500.
  6. Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics. Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Edman, J. L., & Brazil, B. (2007). Perceptions of campus climate, academic efficacy and academic success among community college students: An ethnic comparison. Social Psychology of Education. doi: 10.1007/s11218-008-9082-y.Google Scholar
  8. Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gab, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.549.Google Scholar
  9. Gloria, A. M., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (1996). The validation of the cultural congruity scale and the university environment scale with Chicano/a Students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. doi: 10.1177/07399863960184007.Google Scholar
  10. Harvey, L., Drew, S., & Smith, M. (2006). The first-year experience: A review of literature for the Higher Education Academy. York: The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  11. Hockings, C. (2009). Reaching the students that student-centred learning cannot reach. British Educational Research Journal. doi: 10.1080/01411920802041640.Google Scholar
  12. Hofman, W. H. A., & Van den Berg, M. N. (2003). Ethnic-specific achievements in Dutch higher education. Higher Education in Europe 28(3), 371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.Google Scholar
  14. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.Google Scholar
  15. Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’? Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2007). The impact of students’ conceptions of constructivist assumptions on academic achievement and dropout. Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075070701573765.Google Scholar
  17. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.Google Scholar
  18. Markel, K. S., & Frone, M. R. (1998). Job characteristics, work-school conflict, and school outcomes among adolescents: Testing a structural model. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.277.Google Scholar
  19. Meeuwisse, M., Severiens, S. E., & Born, M. Ph. (2010). Learning environment, interaction, sense of belonging and study success in ethnically diverse student groups. Research in Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9168-1.
  20. Meeuwisse, M., Born, M. Ph., & Severiens, S. E. (2011). The family-study interface and academic outcomes: Testing a structural model. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0024420.
  21. Reeve, C. L., & Smith, C. S. (2001). Refining Lodahl and Kejner’s Job Involvement Scale with a convergent evidence approach: Applying multiple methods to multiple samples. Organization Research Methods. doi: 10.1177/109442810142001.Google Scholar
  22. Sadler, I. (2012). The challenges for new academics in adopting student-centred approaches to teaching. Studies in Higher Education 37(6), 731–745. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.543968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Severiens, S. E., & Schmidt, H. (2008). Social and academic integration and study progress in PBL. Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9181-x.
  24. Severiens, S. E., & Wolff, R. P. (2008). A comparison of ethnic minority and majority students: Social and academic integration, and quality of learning. Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075070802049194.
  25. Struyven, K., Dochy, F, & Janssens, S. (2008). Students’ likes and dislikes regarding student-activating and lecture-based educational settings: Consequences for students’ perceptions of the learning environment, student learning and performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education. doi: 10.1007/BF03173001.
  26. Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus. Journal of Educational Policy. doi: 10.1080/02680930210140257.Google Scholar
  27. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and the quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1991.tb00984.x.Google Scholar
  28. Van den Berg, M. N., & Hofman, W. H. A. (2005). Student success in university education: A multi-measurement study of the impact of student and faculty factors on study progress. Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6361-1.Google Scholar
  29. Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01281.x.Google Scholar
  30. Warps, J., Hogeling, J., Pass, J. & Brukx, D. (2009). Studiekeuze en studiesucces. Een selectie van gegevens uit de Startmonitor over studiekeuze, studie-uitval en studiesucces in het hoger onderwijs. [Study choice and study success. A selection of data from the Entry Monitor on study choice, drop out and study success in higher education]. Nijmegen: ResearchNed.Google Scholar
  31. Yorke, M. (2000). The quality of the student experience: What can institutions learn from data relating to non-completion? Quality in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/13538320050001072.Google Scholar
  32. Zepke, N., Leach, L., & Prebble, T. (2006). Being learner centered: One way to improve student retention? Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075070600923418.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine Severiens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marieke Meeuwisse
    • 1
  • Marise Born
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, Faculty of Social ScienceErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social ScienceErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations