Cited by 553Innovative Teaching MethodsHigher Education Research StudiesEvaluation of Teaching Practices

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

Open access
Eddy, Sarah L., Hogan, Kelly A.·2014·CBE—Life Sciences Education

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1187/cbe.14-03-0050

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Students in active-learning course designs that reduced or eliminated achievement gaps have reported an increased sense of community and self-efficacy compared to their peers in the lecture-intensive version of the same course.

    “students in active-learning course designs that reduced or eliminated achievement gaps have reported an increased sense of community and self-efficacy compared to their peers in the lecture-intensive version of the same course (22, 23).”

    From Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math (2020) · cites this paper as [22]

    In Methods and Results (Study 3, Factor 2; page unavailable), students in the moderate-structure course were twice as likely to report a stronger sense of classroom community than those in the low-structure course. The Introduction mentions self-reported self-efficacy in prior active-learning research, but says that research did not compare students in versions of the same course. This paper therefore does not support the claimed same-course self-efficacy comparison. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Retention rates for first-generation college students in STEM are lower than those of continuing generation college students, especially in key gatekeeping courses like General Biology and General Chemistry.

    “Disturbingly, data demonstrate that retention rates for first-generation college students in STEM are lower than those of continuing generation college students (Chen, 2013; Doerschuk et al., 2016) especially in key gatekeeping courses like General Biology and General Chemistry (Eddy & Hogan, 2014; Gregg-Jolly et al., 2016; Harackiewicz et al., 2014).”

    From Exploring Organic Chemistry I students’ responses to an exam wrapper intervention. (2020) · cites this paper as Eddy & Hogan, 2014

    The Methods and Results sections describe an introductory biology course in which a grade below C− prevents students from advancing in the major, supporting its role as a gatekeeping course. The paper also reports lower exam performance for first-generation students under low course structure. It does not establish lower STEM retention rates by generation status or study first-generation students in General Chemistry; those parts of the claim are not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interventions involving student centered pedagogies have shown excellent promise in combating these trends.

    “Auspiciously however, interventions involving student centered pedagogies have shown excellent promise in combating these trends (Crimmins, 2017; Eddy & Hogan, 2014; Haak, HilleRisLambers, Pitre, & Freeman, 2011).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Freeman S Eddy SL McDonough M Smith MK Okoroafor N Jordt H Wenderoth MP End of lecture: active learning increases student performance across the STEM disciplines Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014 111 8410 8415 24821756 PMC4060654
  2. Handelsman J Miller S Pfund C Scientific Teaching 2007 New York W.H. Freeman 19039122

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Hogan, Kelly A.
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Published
2014-09
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
453-468
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2096648490
Cited by
553
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 3
FWCI
142.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
National Science Foundation (1118890, 0942215)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
course structure, active learning, academic performance, racial and ethnic disparities, first-generation college students, Black-White achievement gap, distributed learning, classroom community, student study time, higher education
MeSH terms
Behavior, Curriculum, Educational Measurement, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Male, Perception, Regression Analysis, Students, Time Factors, Universities, Problem-Based Learning, Racial Groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review