Student enrollment decisions and academic success: evaluating the impact of classroom space design

Abstract

Instruction based on active learning is being promoted in higher education by the creation of new collaborative teaching and learning spaces, but capacity does not yet exist for all courses to be held in these new spaces. In this study, we examined how students choose between sections of the same course, with the same materials and techniques used by the same instructor, delivered in a collaborative teaching and learning space compared with a lecture-theater space. We also measured how the factors used in enrollment decisionmaking, and the subsequent learning experiences in the chosen environment, are associated with student attitudes related to learning chemistry. We collected student survey data from undergraduate students enrolled in Organic Chemistry II using items from the Colorado Learning Attitudes toward Science Survey for Chemistry and questions about the enrollment process. Students also responded to in-class prompts at the end of the semester about several different factors that could have influenced their decision to enroll in their section of the course. We combined these student responses with other data to create structural equation models for how the design of the teaching and learning space is associated with decision-making factors or attitudes about learning chemistry. Our models showed correlations among space enrollment, aspects of student identity, decision-making factors, and attitudes toward learning chemistry. These results suggest that students are self-sorting between the various learning spaces, which demonstrates a need for further research into the drivers of these sorting patterns over time.

Separated by spaces: Undergraduate students re-sort along attitude divides when choosing whether to learn in spaces designed for active learning

“…We also highlight these observed changes are not associated with substantive differences in practical instructional behavior from the professor, as confirmed by previous observations we conducted (Ralph et al, 2022). In many enrollment decisions students encounter between active learning settings and passive learning settings there will be instructional differences as well – either intentionally or unintentionally.…”

“…For the CLASS-C, Adams et al (2008) originally reported the instrument measured as many as nine constructs related to learning chemistry. However, subsequent revisions of the instrument have reduced the scales to measuring three constructs that can be measured together in a single administration with acceptable validity and reliability (Douglas et al, 2014; Heredia and Lewis, 2012; Ralph et al, 2022).…”

“…Classrooms intentionally designed to support active learning can associate with improved student achievement and more positive attitudes (Armbruster et al, 2009; Park and Choi, 2014; Rau et al, 2017), but there has been little study to-date of how students engage with these enrollment choices themselves. Scheduled course times and major requirements are important factors for students when considering section enrollment options, but past research has shown differences in additional factors—like classroom type—may also lead to unexpected student grouping associated with attitudes or subgroup membership (Ralph et al, 2022). Students say active learning classroom spaces better support and are more desirable for collaborative learning (Clinton and Wilson, 2019).…”

Piecing Complement Together with LEGO Bricks: Impacts on Interest, Confidence, and Learning in the Immunology Classroom

“…Indeed, studies have shown that students perform better academically when learning via their preferred method (4,5). Furthermore, a recent study demonstrated that honor students and women are more likely to choose collaborative learning environments (31), which may be because of a preference for active learning methods. Although selection bias could have been a factor influencing learning outcomes, the findings from the introductory course demonstrate that the student populations (those who did and did not do the activity) in the introductory immunology course were comparable (Fig.…”