Abstract
In recent years, considerable attention has been given to how the physical structure of active learning classrooms affects academic performance, but little is known about how these spaces influence learners’ personal capability beliefs. The purpose of this study was to investigate how students’ beliefs and performance varied in two physical learning environments. Students (N = 372) enrolled in an entry-level undergraduate statistics course at a large public university that was taught in either a technology-enhanced, group-configured classroom or a traditional, forward-facing lecture classroom. Using surveys administered during the first and last week of the semester, students evaluated the importance of the learning environment and their self-efficacy for regulating their learning (e.g. focus, motivation) and for doing statistics. Between-groups analyses revealed that students in the two settings rated the importance of the physical environment similarly. Self-efficacy for self-regulation decreased across the semester in both settings. Within-group analyses showed that statistics self-efficacy decreased in the technology-enhanced classroom but increased in the traditional classroom. Statistics self-efficacy significantly predicted course grades in both classroom types. The effect of classroom environment on self-efficacy was moderated by student gender. This research provides initial insights about how physical classroom environments are related to personal capability beliefs in undergraduate education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.
Barron, B. (2000). Problem solving in video-based microworlds: Collaborative and individual outcomes of high-achieving sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.391.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1.
Beckers, R., van der Voordt, T., & Dewulf, G. (2016). Learning space preferences of higher education students. Building and Environment, 104, 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.013.
Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 719–726. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.20.
Brooks, C. I., & Rebeta, J. L. (1991). College classroom ecology: The relation of sex of student to classroom performance and seating preference. Environment and Behavior, 23(3), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591233003.
Brown, J., Volk, F., & Spratto, E. M. (2019). The hidden structure: The influence of residence hall design on academic outcomes. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 56(3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2019.1611590.
Choi, N. (2005). Self-Efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’ academic performance. Psychology in the Schools, 42(2), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20048.
Clinton, V., & Wilson, N. (2019). More than chalkboards: Classroom spaces and collaborative learning attitudes. Learning Environments Research, 22(3), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09287-w.
Cotner, S., Loper, J., Walker, J. D., & Brooks, D. C. (2013). “It’s not you, it’s the room”—Are the high-tech, active learning classrooms worth it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(6), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst13_042_06_82.
Dolan, P., Foy, C., & Smith, S. (2016). The SALIENT checklist: Gathering up the ways in which built environments affect what we do and how we feel. Buildings, 6, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings6010009.
Finney, S. J., & Schraw, G. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs in college statistics courses. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00015-2.
Godwin, K. E., Erickson, L. C., & Newman, R. S. (2019). Insights from crossing research silos on visual and auditory attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418807725.
Grace, D., Weaven, S., Bodey, K., Ross, M., & Weaven, K. (2012). Putting student evaluations into perspective: The course experience quality and satisfaction model (CEQS). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(2), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.05.001.
Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 28(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y.
Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0129.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Gover, M. R., & Nijjer, S. K. (1996). Cognitive assessment of the sources of mathematics self-efficacy: A thought-listing analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907279600400102.
Lent, R. W., Sheu, H.-B., Miller, M. J., Cusick, M. E., Penn, L. T., & Truong, N. N. (2018). Predictors of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics choice options: A meta-analytic path analysis of the social-cognitive choice model by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000243.
MacLeod, J., Yang, H. H., Zhu, S., & Li, Y. (2018). Understanding students’ preferences toward the smart classroom learning environment: Development and validation of an instrument. Computers & Education, 122, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.015.
Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2009). Women engineering students and self-efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institution study of women engineering student self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01003.x.
Maxwell, L. E., & Evans, G. W. (2014). Children and the physical environment. In R. Cooper, E. Burton, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide. Wellbeing and the environment (pp. 273–300). New York: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell065.
McGrath, A. L., Ferns, A., Greiner, L., Wanamaker, K., & Brown, S. (2014). Reducing anxiety and increasing self-efficacy within an advanced graduate psychology statistics course. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2015.1.5.
Meece, J. L., & Painter, J. (2008). Gender, self-regulation, and motivation. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 339–367). New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Milne, A. J. (2006). Designing blended learning space to the student experience. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 11.1–11.5). Washington, DC: Educause.
Najmabadi, S. (2017). Does redesigning classrooms make a difference to students? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1–4. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Does-Redesigning-Classrooms/240491.
Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_8.
Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9742-0.
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832.
Shieh, R., Chang, W., & Liu, E. (2011). Technology enabled active learning (TEAL) in introductory physics: Impact on genders and achievement levels. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 1082–1099. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.905.
Steidle, A., & Werth, L. (2014). In the spotlight: Brightness increases self-awareness and reflective self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 39, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.007.
Stoltzfus, J. R., & Libarkin, J. (2016). Does the room matter? Active learning in traditional and enhanced lecture spaces. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0126.
Stone, N. J. (2000). Exploring the relationship between calibration and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 437–475. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009084430926.
Thomas, C., Pavlechko, G., & Cassady, J. (2019). An examination of the mediating role of learning space design on the relation between instructor effectiveness and student engagement. Learning Environments Research, 22(1), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9270-4.
Usher, E. L. (2015). Personal capability beliefs. In L. Corno & E. H. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 146–159). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008a). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407308475.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008b). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456.
Usher, E. L., & Schunk, D. H. (2018). Social cognitive theoretical perspective of self-regulation. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 19–35)., Educational Psychology Handbook series Taylor & Francis Group: Routledge.
Usher, E. L., & Weidner, B. L. (2018). Sociocultural influences on self-efficacy development. In G. A. D. Liem & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), Big theories revisited 2 (pp. 141–164). Charlotte: Information Age.
Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_3.
Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1174–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036620.
Vyortkina, D. (2015). Designing active learning spaces. ICERI Proceedings (pp. 6677–6681).
Webb, N. M. (1980). A process-outcome analysis of learning in group and individual settings. Educational Psychologist, 15(2), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528009529217.
Whiteside, A., Brooks, C., & Walker, J. (2010, September 22). Making the case for space: Three years of empirical research on learning environments. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/9/making-the-case-for-space-three-years-of-empirical-research-on-learning-environments.
Zee, M., de Jong, P. F., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to individual students with a variety of social-emotional behaviors: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(7), 1013–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000106.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90027-5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A Item wording and factor loadings for unidimensional model for self-efficacy for self-regulated learning
Item wording | Factor loading |
|---|---|
1. Concentrate on your work in this classroom space? | 0.796 |
2. Remember information that is presented in this classroom space? | 0.798 |
3. Focus on what the instructor is saying in this classroom space? | 0.828 |
4. Focus on what your classmates are saying in this classroom space? | 0.797 |
5. Motivate yourself in this classroom space? | 0.830 |
6. Participate in this classroom space? | 0.755 |
7. Get help if you need it in this classroom space? | 0.788 |
Appendix B Item wording and factor loadings for unidimensional model for statistics self-efficacy scale
Item wording | Factor loading |
|---|---|
1. Identify the scale of measurement for a variable? | 0.722 |
2. Interpret the probability value (p value) from a statistical procedure? | 0.772 |
3. Identify the factors that influence power? | 0.768 |
4. Distinguish statistical significance from practical significance? | 0.800 |
5. Explain what the numeric value of the standard error is measuring? | 0.818 |
6. Form a statistical hypothesis? | 0.752 |
7. Ask questions about another student’s ideas? | 0.496 |
8. Distinguish between a Type I and a Type II error in hypothesis testing? | 0.790 |
9. Justify your solution to a statistics problem in writing? | 0.738 |
10. Decide if two variables are correlated? | 0.703 |
11. Distinguish between a population, parameter, and a sample statistic? | 0.772 |
Appendix C Descriptive statistics for self-efficacy and final course grades by classroom type and gender
Classroom type | Gender | M | SD | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|
T2 self-efficacy for self-regulated learning | ||||
Technology-enhanced | Female | 2.32 | 0.71 | 100 |
Male | 2.40 | 0.67 | 84 | |
Traditional | Female | 2.12 | 0.71 | 37 |
Male | 2.78 | 0.61 | 19 | |
T2 statistics self-efficacy | ||||
Technology-enhanced | Female | 2.82 | 0.71 | 100 |
Male | 2.81 | 0.58 | 84 | |
Traditional | Female | 2.83 | 0.59 | 37 |
Male | 3.21 | 0.69 | 19 | |
Final course grades | ||||
Technology-enhanced | Female | 81.54 | 9.82 | 100 |
Male | 80.15 | 9.13 | 84 | |
Traditional | Female | 81.81 | 8.18 | 37 |
Male | 83.22 | 8.69 | 19 | |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mantooth, R., Usher, E.L. & Love, A.M.A. Changing classrooms bring new questions: environmental influences, self-efficacy, and academic achievement. Learning Environ Res 24, 519–535 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09341-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09341-y