Exploration of student perceptions, behaviors and academic performance in construction management classes

Maghiar, M; Sturges, D; Maurer, T and Jackson, M (2015) Exploration of student perceptions, behaviors and academic performance in construction management classes. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 11(4), pp. 241-256. ISSN 1557-8771

Abstract

To improve student success, instructors need to understand how students feel about their own learning and how much responsibility the students take for it. This information is crucial to teaching and to the development of more effective courses. Yet, very often, instructors in higher education focus on content learning exclusively. While summative assessment of learning in these courses is important, content learning is not the only measure of educational outcomes. This study used an instrument-surveying tool in which the Course Valuing Inventory (CVI) was adapted for Construction Management (CM) courses to evaluate cognitive-content, affective-personal and behavioral learning in students taking these courses. The study also examined the relationship between course valuing scores, Approaches to Study Inventory (ASI), and course performance. Results indicated that the CVI can be adapted for use in CM courses. Multiple regressions run in this exploratory study predicting final course grade from seven predictor variables (student class standing, student self-reported GPA, whether the course was required for the student's major, likelihood of student continuing with their current major, grade that student anticipated receiving in the course, ASI score, and CVI score), revealed that six of the variables were significant predictors of final course grades.;  To improve student success, instructors need to understand how students feel about their own learning and how much responsibility the students take for it. This information is crucial to teaching and to the development of more effective courses. Yet, very often, instructors in higher education focus on content learning exclusively. While summative assessment of learning in these courses is important, content learning is not the only measure of educational outcomes. This study used an instrument-surveying tool in which the Course Valuing Inventory (CVI) was adapted for Construction Management (CM) courses to evaluate cognitive-content, affective-personal and behavioral learning in students taking these courses. The study also examined the relationship between course valuing scores, Approaches to Study Inventory (ASI), and course performance. Results indicated that the CVI can be adapted for use in CM courses. Multiple regressions run in this exploratory study predicting final course grade from seven predictor variables (student class standing, student self-reported GPA, whether the course was required for the student's major, likelihood of student continuing with their current major, grade that student anticipated receiving in the course, ASI score, and CVI score), revealed that six of the variables were significant predictors of final course grades.;

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: pedagogy; learning; value-based experience; course valuing inventory; undergraduate; engineering; perceptions; higher education; student behavior
Index terms: pedagogy, instructor, exploration, undergraduate, inventory, value-based experience, higher education, academic performance, multiple-regression, surveying, student behaviour, exploratory study
Subjects: statistical analysis, inventory management, value management, environmental resource management, educational institutions, assessment methods, learning theory, research methods, teaching methods, curriculum development, practitioner, health monitoring assessment and metrics
Topics: Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Design Practice, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Education, Supply Chain Management
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here