Getting Under the Hood: How and for Whom Does Increasing Course Structure Work?

被引:316
作者
Eddy, Sarah L. [1 ]
Hogan, Kelly A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Dept Biol, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Dept Biol, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
来源
CBE-LIFE SCIENCES EDUCATION | 2014年 / 13卷 / 03期
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
COLLEGE-STUDENTS; ACHIEVEMENT GAP; SCIENCE; BIOLOGY; PERFORMANCE; SAMPLE; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
At the college level, the effectiveness of active-learning interventions is typically measured at the broadest scales: the achievement or retention of all students in a course. Coarse-grained measures like these cannot inform instructors about an intervention's relative effectiveness for the different student populations in their classrooms or about the proximate factors responsible for the observed changes in student achievement. In this study, we disaggregate student data by racial/ethnic groups and first-generation status to identify whether a particular intervention-increased course structure-works better for particular populations of students. We also explore possible factors that may mediate the observed changes in student achievement. We found that a "moderate-structure" intervention increased course performance for all student populations, but worked disproportionately well for black students-halving the black-white achievement gap-and first-generation students-closing the achievement gap with continuing-generation students. We also found that students consistently reported completing the assigned readings more frequently, spending more time studying for class, and feeling an increased sense of community in the moderate-structure course. These changes imply that increased course structure improves student achievement at least partially through increasing student use of distributed learning and creating a more interdependent classroom community.
引用
收藏
页码:453 / 468
页数:16
相关论文
共 73 条
  • [1] Active Learning Not Associated with Student Learning in a Random Sample of College Biology Courses
    Andrews, T. M.
    Leonard, M. J.
    Colgrove, C. A.
    Kalinowski, S. T.
    [J]. CBE-LIFE SCIENCES EDUCATION, 2011, 10 (04): : 394 - 405
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2013, LATIN OFFERS GENDER
  • [3] Antoine G, 2000, J VEG SCI, V11, P617, DOI DOI 10.2307/3236568
  • [4] Making a difference for minorities: Evaluation of an educational enrichment program
    Barlow, AEL
    Villarejo, M
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING, 2004, 41 (09) : 861 - 881
  • [5] Beichner R.J., 2007, RES BASED REFORM INT
  • [6] Bodenhofer U., 2008, Mathware & Soft Computing, V15, P5
  • [7] Born W.K., 2002, J SCI EDUC TECHNOL, P347
  • [8] Fidelity of Implementation of Research-Based Instructional Strategies (RBIS) in Engineering Science Courses
    Borrego, Maura
    Cutler, Stephanie
    Prince, Michael
    Henderson, Charles
    Froyd, Jeffrey E.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION, 2013, 102 (03) : 394 - 425
  • [9] Context Matters: Volunteer Bias, Small Sample Size, and the Value of Comparison Groups in the Assessment of Research-Based Undergraduate Introductory Biology Lab Courses
    Brownell, Sara E.
    Kloser, Matthew J.
    Fukami, Tadashi
    Shavelson, Richard J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY & BIOLOGY EDUCATION, 2013, 14 (02) : 176 - 182
  • [10] Burchfield CM, 2000, TEACH PSYCHOL, V27, P58