Abstract
Enhancing student engagement and achievement in large undergraduate university courses is a vibrant area of research. Many existing studies have demonstrated the capacity of technologically enhanced formal and informal learning spaces to promote learning. However, this literature is dominated by studies that use assessment to incentivise student participation, usually in the form of awarding or deducting coursework marks. Our study presents an alternative to this “carrot and stick” approach. We describe the design and implementation of two optional, non-grade-bearing learning support initiatives in a large enrolment, first-year human biology course: first, an online mock test that allows for timely feedback; and second, peer-teaching and—learning using the Piazza discussion platform. We analysed the uptake of these initiatives across three consecutive course offerings (2013–2015), and conveyed to students their potential impact as a series of graphs in the course materials. Regression analysis identified a positive correlation between participation in the mock test and summative achievement in the course for Grade Point Average (GPA)-matched student pairs, with the benefit being most pronounced for students with low-to-middle GPAs. Modelling revealed four different levels of student participation in Piazza, with increasing participation correlated with greater achievement, particularly for students with low-to-middle GPAs. The benefits of the two initiatives were complementary. Interestingly, for certain students, ‘passive’ participation in Piazza yielded similar learning benefits to ‘active’ participation, suggesting that active participation is not an antecedent for learning gains. This finding has important implications for instructors who currently require students to ‘visibly’ engage to earn participation marks.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Supplemental materials are available at http://bit.ly/142-supplemental-materials. De-identified original data is available upon request.
References
Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D. L., Allain, R. J., Bonham, S. W., Dancy, M. H., & Risley, J. S. (2007). The student-centred activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 2–39.
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105.
Birch, E. R., & Miller, P. W. (2006). Student outcomes at university in Australia: A quantile regression approach. Australian Economic Papers, 45(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8454.2006.00274.x.
Blanc, R., & Martin, D. C. (1994). Supplemental instruction: Increasing student performance and persistence in difficult academic courses. Academic Medicine, 69(6), 452–454.
Bowden, J.L.-H., Tickle, L., & Naumann, K. (2019). The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: A holistic measurement approach. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354.
Chevalier, A., Dolton, P., & Lührmann, M. (2018). ‘Making it count’: Incentives, student effort and performance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 181(2), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12278.
Davis, D., Chen, G., Hauff, C., & Houben, G.-J. (2018). Activating learning at scale: A review of innovations in online learning strategies. Computers & Education, 125, 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.019.
Dempster, F. N. (1989). Spacing effects and their implications for theory and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 309–330.
Dyment, J., Stone, C., & Milthorpe, N. (2020). Beyond busy work: Rethinking the measurement of online student engagement. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7), 1440–1453. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1732879.
Eide, E., & Showalter, M. H. (1998). The effect of school quality on student performance: A quantile regression approach. Economics Letters, 58(3), 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(97)00286-3.
Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 132–139.
Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behaviour. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.191.
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s ‘learning for mastery.’ Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-704.
Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(4), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604109.
Hin, B. L. C. (2011). Effect of incentivised online activities on e-learning. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 28, 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.040.
Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009.
Ismail, A. O., Mahmood, A. K., & Abdelmaboud, A. (2018). Factors influencing academic performance of students in blended and traditional domains. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 13(2), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i02.8031.
James, M. C. (2006). The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in Peer Instruction. American Journal of Physics, 74(8), 689–691. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2198887.
Koch, A., Nafziger, J., & Nielsen, H. S. (2015). Behavioural economics of education. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organisation, 115, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.09.005.
Koenker, R. (2005). Quantile regression. . Cambridge University Press.
Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1982). Robust tests for heteroscedasticity based on regression quantiles. Econometrica, 50(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912528.
Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008). Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Medical Education, 42(10), 959–966. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03124.x.
Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2013). Comparative effects of test-enhanced learning and self-explanation on long-term retention. Medical Education, 47(7), 674–682. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12141.
Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76(11), 1066–1069. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2978182.
Lavecchia, A. M., Liu, H., & Oreopoulos, P. (2016). Behavioural economics of education: Progress and possibilities. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 5, pp. 1–74). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63459-7.00001-4
Lockspeiser, T. M., O’Sullivan, P., Teherani, A., & Muller, J. (2008). Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: The value of social and cognitive congruence. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13(3), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9049-8.
Luxton-Reilly, A., Bertinshaw, D., Denny, P., Plimmer, B., & Sheehan, R. (2012). The impact of question generation activities on performance. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, (pp. 391–396). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157250
Malm, J., Bryngfors, L., & Mörner, L.-L. (2011). Supplemental instruction: Whom does it serve? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 282–291.
Manganelli, S., Cavicchiolo, E., Mallia, L., Biasi, V., Lucidi, F., & Alivernini, F. (2019). The interplay between self-determined motivation, self-regulated cognitive strategies, and prior achievement in predicting academic performance. Educational Psychology, 39(4), 470–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1572104.
Michael, J. (1991). A behavioural perspective on college teaching. The Behaviour Analyst, 14(2), 229–239.
Minhas, P. S., Ghosh, A., & Swanzy, L. (2012). The effects of passive and active learning on student preference and performance in an undergraduate basic science course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 5(4), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1274.
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001.
Ramsden, P. (1991). Learning to teach in higher education. RoutledgeFalmer. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/auckland/detail.action?docID=170018
Raupach, T., Brown, J., Anders, S., Hasenfuss, G., & Harendza, S. (2013). Summative assessments are more powerful drivers of student learning than resource-intensive teaching formats. BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-61.
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x.
Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing students: How shall we know them? (Revised ed.). Kogan Page.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Scrucca, L., Fop, M., Murphy, T. B., & Raftery, A. E. (2016). mclust 5: Clustering, classification and density estimation using Gaussian finite mixture models. The R Journal, 8(1), 289–317.
Serra, M. J., & DeMarree, K. G. (2016). Unskilled and unaware in the classroom: College students’ desired grades predict their biased grade predictions. Memory & Cognition, 44(7), 1127–1137. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0624-9.
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165919.
Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., Eagan, M. K., Esson, J. M., Knight, J. K., Laski, F. A., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Lee, C. J., Lo, S. M., McDonnell, L. M., McKay, T. A., Michelotti, N., Musgrove, A., Palmer, M. S., Plank, K. M., & Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892.
Svanum, S., & Aigner, C. (2011). The influences of course effort, mastery and performance goals, grade expectancies, and earned course grades on student ratings of course satisfaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 667–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02011.x.
Tam, M.-Y. S., Bassett, G. W., & Sukhatme, U. (2002). New selection indices for university admissions: A quantile approach. In Y. Dodge (Ed.), Statistical Data Analysis Based on the L1-Norm and Related Methods (pp. 67–76). Birkhäuser. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8201-9_6
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/auckland/detail.action?docID=4654043
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Umapathi, T., & Tsang, T. Y. (2015). Peer-assisted learning and examination results: A glass half-full? Medical Education, 49(2), 234–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12603.
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2004). Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. Jossey-Bass.
Willoughby, S. D., & Gustafson, E. (2009). Technology talks: Clickers and grading incentive in the large lecture hall. American Journal of Physics, 77(2), 180–183. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3013542.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support and encouragement of the former Academic Director of the School of Medical Sciences Associate Professor Roger Booth, editing and proof-reading advice from Dr. Ian Brailsford, and the students in MEDSCI 142.
Funding
This work did not receive any funding support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualisation: AT. Methodology: AT, MB. Formal analysis and investigation: MB, AT. Writing—original draft preparation: AT, MB. Writing - review and editing: DG, SS
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare there is no known conflict of interest. This material has not been published elsewhere, and the manuscript is not currently under consideration with any other publisher.
Ethical Approval
The project was conducted over three years (2013-2015), with the approval of the University of Auckland Human Ethics Committee, reference number UAHPEC 9295.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tsai, A., Burrell, M.H., Sturm, S. et al. Rethinking the Carrot and the Stick: A Case Study of Non-Grade-Bearing Learning Activities to Enhance Students’ Engagement and Achievement. NZ J Educ Stud 56 (Suppl 1), 143–165 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-021-00197-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-021-00197-1