learning spaces and self-efficacy in undergraduate … spaces and self-efficacy in undergraduate...
TRANSCRIPT
Learning Spaces and Self-Efficacy in
Undergraduate Statistics
Renae Mantooth (BA), Abigail M. A. Love (MS), & Ellen L. Usher (PhD)
Various Learning Spaces
2
Various Learning Spaces
3
Various Learning Spaces
4
Perceptions of the physical environment convey
social, cultural, and psychological meaning.
The Physical Learning Space
5
Past research focuses on social environments,
rather than the physical environment.
Influences perception, distraction, motivation, affect,
and anxiety (Maxwell & Evans, 2002).
Helps structure and facilitate learning and teaching.
Social Cognitive Theory
Reciprocal Determinism
Environmental
Influences
Personal
Factors
Behavioral
Outcomes
6
Social Cognitive Theory
Reciprocal Determinism
Environmental
Influences
Personal
Factors
Behavioral
Outcomes
Physical
SpacePerceived
Importance
Course
Grade
7
Statistics
Self-
Efficacy
Two
Entry-Level
Statistics
Courses
Context of the Study
Technology-
Enhanced
+
Traditional
Classroom
Spaces
Active
Learning
Pedagogy
8
Context of the Study
9
Traditional Classroom
Context of the Study
10
Traditional Classroom
Context of the Study
11
Technology-Enhanced
Classroom
Context of the Study
12
Technology-Enhanced
Classroom
Context of the Study
844 undergraduate students
14 class sections
9 instructors
2 courses
13
Participants
Procedure
Baseline and end-of-course surveys were
administered on paper during regular class time.
14
Fall 2016 Semester
Phase I Phase II
+ Importance of Physical Space
+ Statistics Self-Efficacy
+ Final Course Grades
+ Importance of Physical Space
+ Statistics Self-Efficacy
Measures
“How confident are you that you
can decide if two variables are
correlated?”
15
Perceived Importance of the
Physical SpaceStatistics Self-Efficacy
Single Item Measure 11 Item Measure
1 (not at all confident)
4 (completely confident)
Course 1, a = .940 Course 2, a = .917
“The physical space is important to my learning.”
1 (completely disagree)
4 (completely agree)
Results
Perceived Importance of the Learning Space
Does the physical learning space matter to students?
Space was rated as more important
at the beginning of the semester
than at the end.
Pre (M = 3.36, SD = .68)
Post (M = 3.24, SD = .77)
No association between
classroom type and students’
rating of the importance (pre) of
the physical space.
c2(3) = 2.137, p = .509
16
Results
Perceived Importance
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
17
Higher at the end.
Higher at the beginning.
Same rating at the beginning and end.
148
220
476
Results
Statistics Self-Efficacy and Classroom Type
How do students report statistics self-efficacy based on the physical space?
F (1, 343) = 24.45, p < .001, d = .50
18
3.152.84
1
3
2
4
Classroom Type
Traditional (M = 3.15, SD = .57)
Technology (M = 2.84, SD = .66)
Mean S
SE
Score
s
Results
Statistics Self-Efficacy and Course Grades
Is there a relationship between statistics self-efficacy scores and course grades?
There was a statistically significant and
positive correlation between self-efficacy
scores and final course grades reported
at the end of the semester.
Course 1 (r = .361, p < .001)
Course 2 (r = .434, p < .001)
19
Results
Statistics Self-Efficacy and Course Grades
Do statistics self-efficacy scores predict course grades?
Course grades increased as statistics self-
efficacy increased. A one-point increase in
statistics self-efficacy is associated with a
3.33 increase in grades, on average.
b = (3.33, p < .001)
20
Future Directions
21
Do perceptions of importance of the physical space
influence academic outcomes?
Is there a relationship between ratings of importance at
the end of the semester and classroom type?
Why did students enrolled in the traditional classroom
course have higher statistics self-efficacy?
