Through the use of existing grade and student survey data, this study investigated online courses offered at a public four-year university. Specifically, the study explored differences in student success rates between online and face-to-face courses for traditional undergraduate students as well as the climate of student perceptions towards online courses. Our general results suggest that students performed better in, and had higher levels of preference toward, traditional face-to-face formats. However, overall perceptions of online courses were positive, with students viewing instructional technologies as reliable and easy to use, as well as reporting that online technologies facilitated prompt feedback, enhanced their problem-solving skills, and met their learning needs. Alongside this, students exhibited positive views towards their instructors’ skill level and use of technology to support academic success. Logistic regression analyses of differences in student success across instructional formats revealed interaction effects with variables of age (nontraditional/traditional), aid status and whether or not courses were taken to fulfill general education or major requirements, suggesting a more complex effect of instructional format across student subpopulations. The variability in the results observed in the current study warrant further exploration before definitive conclusions on the impact of instructional format on student outcomes and perceptions can be made.

Science writing, such as lab reports, allows students to form a meaningful understanding of scientific concepts. However, students often view scientific writing as unimportant and utilize surface level approaches when completing writing assignments. The current study implemented three experimental interventions (directly‐communicated, self‐generated, and hybrid) aligned with prior literature and designed to improve the utility value of lab reports in college settings. Participants (n = 1,002) were recruited from 43 lab sections of an introductory biology course at a large southeastern university. Measures of subjective task value (utility value, attainment value, cost, and intrinsic value) were collected pre‐, mid‐, and post‐intervention. The self‐generated and hybrid groups exhibited higher self‐reported utility value by posttest compared to the control group. Requiring students to generate their own utility value toward a task, followed by a written reflection, increases students' maintained and situational interest for biology laboratory reports.

No abstract

The study reported in this paper aimed to not only understand student attitudes towards statistics, but also their beliefs about their ability to perform statistical tasks (self-efficacy), the value they place on carrying out course and statistical tasks (task value), and level of effort they perceive when engaging in these tasks (cost) across a semester in an undergraduate introductory statistics course. Findings indicated that students viewed statistics as more difficult, less valuable, and more costly to engage in as the semester progressed. Further, students also reported an increase in avoidant help-seeking behaviors (e.g., not seeking help when needed). Non-cognitive factors were not found to predict course retention. Variables of affect and self-efficacy, however, were shown to predict overall course grade.

The ability to collaborate successfully with others is a highly valued skill in the modern workplace and has been reflected in the increase of collaborative learning methods within education. Research has highlighted the crucial role of self-regulation in successful collaboration, and more recently begun to focus on understanding how groups jointly regulate their interactions. The current chapter outlines a mixed-methods study that compared the impact of individual- and group-centered prompts on the frequency of social metacognitive activities during online group review activities with college students (N=48) from the USA. Tentative study findings suggested that group-centered problematizing prompts were moderately successful in shifting groups towards more social forms of regulation such as co-regulation; however, they were not enough to move groups towards shared metacognitive regulation. Further results revealed how the quality of group engagement was influenced by participants' perceived value towards activities, function and focus of metacognitive episodes, and group dynamics.