Educators and researchers have long been interested in the factors that impact learning outcomes. Chamberlain University’s work in identifying a Social Determinants of Learning framework (SDoL; Study (chamberlain.edu)) highlights six important dimensions for institutions creating learning environments that break down barriers and provide equitable opportunities. Some of these dimensions explore the extrinsic factors that community environments or economics might have on student access and progress, while others explore intrinsic factors such as student motivation and critical thinking that influence student progress.
In all cases, the model suggests that it is critical for universities to understand the specific needs of their students and design recruitment, engagement, and educational policies and processes that meet students where they are and facilitate their success.
We know our adult and working professional students at Walden University come to us with a great deal of knowledge and experience, but their prior training and background often differs from the discipline they are now pursuing. We also know our students vary widely in what preparation they have prior to starting their programs, with some taking advantage of our many onboarding resources (i.e., orientation) while others do not. Therefore, our aim to meet students where they are to deliver the very best, customized learning experience is vulnerable when the processes for how we develop and organize our first term courses do not take into account students’ incoming personal and academic readiness.
With a broad-access enrollment mission that essentially randomly places new students into first-course sections, the classroom is filled with students of varying readiness and experience. Instructors must find ways to both challenge the already-prepared, focused students while trying not to leave behind the students coming in with less experience, clarity of purpose, or motivation. Does this variability produce good outcomes, and do students and faculty perceive these student differences as having any effects on learning?
We were curious to learn if the perceptions of students and faculty about variations in student readiness for their first course might impact all learners. Specifically, how do new students perceive their own and their peers’ motivations and abilities and in turn, do they think that impacts their educational experience? Likewise, how do faculty who teach first courses perceive their students’ readiness, and do they think variations in readiness affect their teaching and students’ learning?
There is limited research in higher education examining online students’ perceptions of their classmates’ preparedness and how such perceived differences in preparedness might affect individual student learning and progress, particularly within a broad-access educational mission context. We surveyed both students and faculty, across a range of programs and degree levels, to learn more about their perceptions of readiness in first courses.
One-hundred eighteen students were asked to rate their own preparedness to succeed, how their classmates differed in readiness, and how that difference affected their learning. Interestingly, across four dimensions (motivation to succeed, academic preparation for the course, adequate writing ability, and critical thinking), students rated themselves as much higher than their peers. Specifically, on a 1-5 Likert-type scale, 94% of students agreed or strongly agreed that they were motivated to succeed, but 45% believed their peers differed in their level of motivation. Ninety-two percent of students said they were academically prepared to be successful, but 65% felt that their peers differed in their level of academic readiness. Eighty-seven percent reported adequate writing skills, but 75% felt their peers’ writing skill level differed. Finally, 94% of students felt they possessed the critical thinking skills needed to succeed in their programs, but 70% felt their classmates’ levels of critical thinking was not the same.
After rating themselves and their classmates on these four dimensions, which are important to academic success, students were also asked to report how much those perceived differences affected their learning. Over half of the surveyed students perceived their learning experience in their first course was impacted by variations in their peers’ motivation and abilities as compared to their own.
In a similar fashion, we also analyzed the survey results of 273 faculty members who teach first-term online courses to better understand how faculty observe variations in preparedness among their students. Results indicated just over half of the faculty perceived that their first-term students are academically prepared. They also felt that there is considerable variation in preparedness among their online first-course students, and that this variation has a significant impact on their ability to teach effectively.
In combination, the results of the student and faculty perceptions of first course/first-term readiness tell an interesting story. Within a broad-access, random first-term sectioning enrollment approach, a plurality of both students and faculty perceive differences among students with respect to motivation and academic factors that impact their teaching and learning.
While social scientists may call out the potential for illusory superiority, these findings suggest another possibility that educators must consider. Past research has highlighted the positive effects that similarity has on learning outcomes. Whether these differences in motivation and abilities are perceived or real, learning may be hindered in circumstances where students feel they are drastically different from their peers on measures that are known to be related to successful outcomes (in this case, a student’s level of motivation and academic preparation).
These findings present two sides of the same education coin – on one side, culturally and demographically diverse classrooms promote varying viewpoints, enhanced knowledge about our world, and an enriched experience that better prepares students for a diverse, global workforce; on the other side, classrooms with variations in motivation and academic preparedness in the first term may inhibit learning and contribute to early attrition. Thus, diversity across the right factors is crucial to success while diversity across the wrong factors may be a detriment.
Is the optimal early term classroom one in which diversity of culture and experience, but likeness in motivation and academic readiness, provides equitable opportunity and the best outcomes for all learners? These findings and the SDoL framework call on institutions to further investigate the characteristics of the early term classroom that break down barriers and nurture a successful learning environment.
- Guidance on higher ed revenue sharing may be safer than many assume - December 6, 2024
- Students using AI: It’s not that scary and shouldn’t be banned - December 2, 2024
- Identity theft preys on campuses–here’s what we can do about it - November 26, 2024