Active Learning, Students Who Are Academically At-Risk, and Institutional Classification
Keywords:
students who are academically at-risk, active learning, Carnegie Institutional Categories, institutional classificationAbstract
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36896/4.1fa2
In this study, self-reported survey results from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2017 and 2018 are examined to understand the extent to which students who were academically at-risk and academically prepared engaged in active learning versus traditional learning methods across bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree-granting institutions. The NSSE Report Builder Public (2018) was utilized to create a data set from first year student responses selecting for teaching methodologies, Carnegie Institutional Categories, and student academic level as determined by course grades. Researchers used chi-square analyses to establish associations between the variables; all chi-square results were statistically significant except for one; there was no association found between students who were academically at-risk and coursework that emphasized evaluative learning activities. Next, researchers analyzed the frequencies of types of learning activities reported by students. Students who were were academically at-risk reported lower frequencies of using active learning techniques and tended to engage in study for fewer hours across all institution types. From this analysis, suggestions for improving the instruction for students who are academically at-risk include increased use of active learning teaching strategies for the various types of degree-granting institutions.
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (1996). Chalk and talk: A national survey on teaching undergraduate economics. The American Economic Review, 86(2), 448-453.
Boylan, H. R. (2011). Improving success in developmental mathematics: An interview with Paul Nolting. Journal of Developmental Education, 34(3), 20-27. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ986275.pdf
Boylan, H. R., Bonham, B. S., & Tafari, G. N. (2005). Evaluating the outcomes of developmental education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 125, 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.139
Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2012). Refocusing developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 36(2), 34-39. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ718687.pdf
Churach, D., & Fisher, D. L. (2001). Science students surf the web: Effects on constructivist classroom environments. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 20(2), 221-247.
Fowler, L. (2006). Active learning: An empirical study of the use of simulation games in the introductory financial accounting class. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 10(3), 93-103.
Fowler, P. R., & Boylan, H. R. (2010). Increasing student success and retention: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Developmental Education, 34(2), 2-10. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ986268.pdf
Fulks, A., & Lord, B. (2016). Leveling up in a gamified classroom. AMLE Magazine, 3(6), 41-43.
Gonyea, R. M., & Kinzie, J. (2015). Independent colleges and student engagement: Descriptive analysis by institutional type. Council of Independent Colleges. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED569195.pdf
Grahe, J. E., & Hauhart, R. C. (2013). Describing typical capstone course experiences from a national random sample. Teaching of Psychology, 40(4), 281-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628313501040
Grubb, N., & Associates. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at community college teaching. Routledge.
Hall, J. M., & Ponton, M. K. (2005). Mathematics self-efficacy of college freshman. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(3), 26-32.
Kressler, B., & Kressler, J. (2020). Diverse student perceptions of active learning in large enrollment stem course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 20(1), 40-64. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v20i1.24688
Kuh, G. D., & Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2008). High-impact practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.org/leap/hips
Kuh, G., O'Donnell, K., & Schneider, C. G. (2017). HIPs at ten. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(5), 8-16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1366805 https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2015.1077661
Lombardi, D., & Shipley, T. F. (2021). The curious construct of active learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1), 8-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620973974
Lumina Foundation (n.d.). A stronger nation: Learning builds the talent that makes us rise. https://www.luminafoundation.org/our-work/stronger-nation/
Mayhew, M. J. (2012). A multilevel examination of the influence of institutional type on the moral reasoning development of first-year students. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 367-388. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2012.0020
McCarthy, J. P., & Anderson, L. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative Higher Education, 24(4), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IHIE.0000047415.48495.05
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. Jossey-Bass.
Mireles, S., Offer, J., Ward, D. D., & Dochen, C. W. (2011). Incorporating study strategies in developmental mathematics/college algebra. Journal of Developmental Education, 34(3), 12-41.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2015). National survey of student engagement: The college student report. https://tinyurl.com/vw832xx9
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2019). About NSSE. https://nsse.indiana.edu/html/about.cfm
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2018). Welcome to the NSSE report builder-public: Data file summary. http://bl-educ-cprtest.ads.iu.edu/SAS/rb_nsse.html
NSSE Report Builder-Public. (2018). National Survey of Student Engagement 2017 & 2018 [Data set]. http://bl-educ-cprtest.ads.iu.edu/SAS/rb_nsse.html
Opdecam, E., Everaert, P., Van Keer, H., & Buysschaert, F. (2014). Preferences for team learning and lecture-based learning among first-year undergraduate accounting students. Research in Higher Education, 55(4), 400-432. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11162-013-9315-6
Price, K., & Baker, S. N. (2012). Measuring students' engagement on college campuses: Is the NSSE an appropriate measure of adult students; engagement? The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60, 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2012.649127
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Rabourn, K. E., BrckaLorenz, A., & Shoup, R. (2018). Reimaging student engagement: How nontraditional adult learners engage in traditional postsecondary environments. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 66, 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2018.1415635
Rachal, K., Daigle, S., & Rachal, W. S. (2007). Learning problems reported by college students: Are they using learning strategies? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(4), 191-199. https://doi.org/10.1037/e516532007-001
Shi, Y., Peng, C., Yang, H. H., & MacLeod, J. (2018). Examining interactive whiteboard-based instruction on the academic self-efficacy, academic press and achievement of college students. Open Learning, 33(2), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1454829
Smart, K. L., & Csapo, N. (2007). Learning by doing: Engaging students through learner-centered activities. Business Communication Quarterly, 70(4), 451-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/10805699070700040302
Tabrizi, S., & Rideout, G. (2017). Active learning: Using bloom's taxonomy to support critical pedagogy. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 8(3), 3202-3209. https://infonomics-society.org/wp-content/uploads/ijcdse/published-papers/volume-8-2017/Active-Learning-Using-Blooms-Taxonomy-to-Support-Critical-Pedagogy.pdf
https://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2017.0429
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (n.d.). Basic classification description. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php
Wadsworth, L. M., Husman, J., Duggan, M., & Pennington, M. N. (2007). Online mathematics achievement: Effects of learning strategies and self-efficacy. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 6-14.
Zamora-Polo, F., Corrales-Serrano, M., Sánchez-Martín, J., & Espejo-Antúnez, L. (2019). Nonscientific university students training in general science using an active-learning merged pedagogy: Gamification in a flipped classroom. Education Sciences, 9(4). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1238177.pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040297
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
