High Educ (2015) 70:1–17

DOI 10.1007/s10734-014-9820-3

Student experience and academic success: comparing

a student-centred and a lecture-based course programme

Sabine Severiens • Marieke Meeuwisse • Marise Born

Published online: 16 October 2014

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Past research has shown that, under certain conditions, student-centred and
small-scale course programmes result in more academic success. The present study
investigates these conditions in further detail. It is examined whether, in comparison to a
course programme that is relatively more lecture-based, a student-centred course pro-
gramme promotes academic success to a larger extent when students’ experience of these
environments is positive, when they show high levels of effort and engagement and spend
more time studying. Four hundred seventy-five first-year business administration students
from a course programme relatively student-centred and a course programme relatively
lecture-based participated in the study. The students completed a questionnaire on expe-
riences, student attitude and time spent studying. Academic success data were obtained
from student administration offices. Analyses of variance and linear structural modelling
analyses were conducted to answer the research questions. Results show that in the rela-
tively student-centred course programme, feeling at home affected effort as well as
engagement. Effort was related to the time spent studying as well as academic success
[credits and grade point average (GPA)]. Similarly, in the more lecture-based course
programme, feeling at home affected effort and engagement. In this case, effort affects
time spent studying which in turn affected academic success in terms of GPA. There are a
number of differences between the models: time spent studying, effort and feeling at home
seem to play different roles in the student-centred course programme compared to the
course programme that is relatively lecture-based. The process that explains academic
success in student-centred and small-scale course programmes is different compared to the
process in more traditional lecture-based course programmes.

S. Severiens (&)
M. Meeuwisse

Department of Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, Faculty of Social Science, Erasmus University
Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: severiens@fsw.eur.nl

M. Born
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Science, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands

123
2 High Educ (2015) 70:1–17

Keywords Course programme
Student-centred
Lecture-based
Academic success

Feeling at home
Student engagement

Introduction

An important question in higher education is how to retain as many students as possible

and support them in such a way that they graduate within the prescribed time. The first
bachelor year seems essential in this respect. Once students survive their first year and
decide to move on to their second bachelor year, the majority graduate within three of
4 years (Baars and Arnold 2014). In their review of the first-year experience, Harvey et al.
(2006) conclude that the experience of being a first year student who is ‘‘one of the
masses’’, of not being seen as an individual, is one of the main issues. Yorke argued that
the focus of the first year should be to provide for students’ individual needs, instead of
seeing first-year students as a potentially problematic group of students (Yorke 2000). The
review of Harvey et al. (2006) showed that students seem to prefer student-centred learning
environments and activating learning activities rather than lectures. Furthermore, activat-
ing learning activities seem to be effective, provided students are well-prepared. Severiens
and Schmidt (2009) arrive at a similar conclusion on the basis of their literature overview:
most studies investigating the link between the extent to which course programmes are
student-centred on the one hand and promote academic success on the other hand, find
positive relationships between the two. This positive relationship can be explained by the
constructivist principle that student-centred learning environments invite students to
actively engage with the learning material. These learning environments require students to
cooperate with their peers on tasks and to deeply process the learning material (consisting
of authentic tasks), more than traditional learning environments do (Trigwell and Prosser
1991; Vermunt 1998). This also implies that student-centred learning environments make
use of relatively small groups. Thus, small group learning environments may provide an
answer to the question raised above: introducing such learning environments could help
more (first-year) students to obtain good study results, thereby improving the effectiveness
of higher education.
Lea et al. (2003) point out that even though there appears to be a positive relationship
between student-centred approaches and academic success, one has to be careful about
these claims. An important reason for this concerns the definition problem: there is con-
siderable disagreement about what student-centred approaches exactly are and a range of
potential definitions make it difficult, if not impossible, to draw any final conclusion
regarding its effects. Demonstrating that the particular type of constructivist learning
environment determines its effects, Kirschner et al. (2006) seem to support this notion:
constructivist learning environments using minimally guided instructional approaches are
less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis
on guiding the student learning process. Furthermore, Baeten et al. (2012) show a positive
relationship between gradually introducing student to student-centred learning environ-
ments and academic achievement and motivation.
Aside from these definition and implementation issues, the perception by students of the
learning environment also seems important in this respect. Struyven et al. (2008) show how
students’ perceptions of the learning environment in terms of their preferences for teaching
methods affect their learning and performance. In that study, lecture-taught students were

123
High Educ (2015) 70:1–17 3

generally more positive, whereas students’ perceptions of activating learning environments

varied from very positive to very negative. It seemed that a positive experience of the
activating learning environment was necessary for a positive relationship with academic
success.
The present study examines the nature of the relationships in two course programmes
that differ in terms of the extent to which they invite activating learning behaviour in more
detail by focusing on student experiences. Struyven et al. (2008) have shown that students’
perceptions in terms of likes and dislikes affect their learning behaviour and their per-
formance in activating and lecture-based learning environments. We want to argue that
students perceptions in terms of more general experiences of the learning environment,
such as feeling at home, may also affect their learning behaviour and performance. The
present study aims to investigate the link between student-centred learning environments
and academic success using a set of factors that describe student experiences. The aim of
this research is important given the explanation as to why some student-centred learning
environments do in fact promote good performance, whereas other student-centred
learning environments do not in comparison to traditional learning environments.
We intend to examine two concepts that involve asking students about their experi-
ences: feeling at home and cultural congruity. Previous research has shown that students
are more likely to feel at home in student-centred and small-scale learning environments
(Thomas 2002; Zepke et al. 2006). Feeling at home in a learning environment refers to
feelings of fitting in, it is indicated by comfortable connections with other students and by
an enthusiasm to actually be in the learning environment. Students who feel they fit in, tend
to drop out less often. Fitting in is important for adjustment and academic success (Harvey
et al. 2006). These findings can be interpreted in terms of conditional factors: if students
feel at home in their (student-centred) learning environment, then they perform well. A
second concept providing insight into the experience of the learning environment concerns
cultural congruity (Gloria and Robinson Kurpius 1996; Edman and Brazil 2007). This
concept refers to the so-called cultural fit of students within the university environment. It
resembles the more general concept of ‘‘feeling at home’’ but zooms in on feelings that
may surface more often among students from ethnic/cultural minority backgrounds. Gloria
and Robinson Kurpius describe how students from minority backgrounds (in this case
Latino students) often need to perform a balancing act between their home culture and the
university culture in order to be successful at university. Being in a minority position and
having to choose between one’s own culture and mainstream white culture can result in
isolation (p. 536). We chose to include this concept in our study, given the diverse
backgrounds of the student population in the course programmes we intended to examine.
A second way in which the current study aims to further our understanding of the
relationship between learning environments and academic success is by including a set of
mediating factors. Hockings (2009) argues that student-centred and activating learning
environments are effective, but not for everyone. She estimates on the basis of a qualitative
study that around 30 % of the students in student-centred learning environments are still
not participating as they should and can be characterised as surface learners. Apparently,
student-centred learning environments do not succeed in engaging all students. The stu-
dents that do become involved are probably more successful. Student attitudes such as
effort and involvement are positive predictors of academic success (Elliot et al. 1999;
Hofman and Van den Berg 2003; Markel and Frone 1998; Meeuwisse et al. 2011). The
time spent studying also plays a role in this respect. When students are truly involved in
studying and show a high level of effort, it affects the time they spend studying, and this in
turn affects academic success in a positive way. A variety of studies have shown that the

123
4 High Educ (2015) 70:1–17

Feeling at home Effort

Time spent
Academic success
studying

Cultural congruity
Engagement

Fig. 1 The conceptual model: academic success is explained on the basis of experiences, attitude and time
use

time students spend studying has a positive impact on their academic success (Bruinsma
2003; Loyens et al. 2007; Severiens and Wolff 2008; Van den Berg and Hofman 2005).
Summarising: on the basis of the research described, we argue that course programmes
may be more successful when (1) students’ experience of these course programmes is more
positive and (2) when students make a greater effort, are more involved and spend more
time studying. These arguments are investigated by testing a structural model that
describes the expected links between experiences, effort and engagement, time spent
studying and academic success. In Fig. 1 the conceptual model is illustrated.
Additionally, we intend to test this particular model in a more student-centred as well as in
a more lecture-based course programme. In student-centred course programmes, teaching
methods are based on a constructivist learning theory and the teaching methods emphasize
student responsibility and activity. These course programmes often include group work to
foster collaborative learning processes. In more traditional environments, the emphasis is on
teacher control and teaching is about imparting information from teachers to students (Lea
et al. 2003; Sadler 2012). The process leading to academic success may be the same regardless
of the character of the course programme. On the other hand, student-centred course pro-
grammes may require different student attitudes and different student behaviour to obtain
similar levels of academic success. Therefore, the present study examines the process leading
to academic success in the course programmes separately. In other words, it looks at structural
differences between the two different course programmes.

Research questions

The central question in this study is to what extent academic success in a more student-
centred and a more lecture-based course programme can be explained by experiences,
attitudes and time spent studying. The research questions read as follows:
1. What are links between experiences (feeling at home and cultural congruity), student
attitudes (effort and engagement), time spent studying and academic success in a
course programme that is relatively student-centred?
2. What are links between experiences (feeling at home and cultural congruity), student
attitudes (effort and engagement), time spent studying and academic success in a
course programme that is relatively lecture-based?

123
High Educ (2015) 70:1–17 5

3. Are these two models the same, or do we see differences in terms of links between the
concepts in the model and in terms of the magnitude of regression coefficients?

Method

Respondents

At the time of the survey (in the spring of the 2009/2010 academic year), 364 first-year
students were enrolled in the student-centred course programme. In total, 154 students
completed the questionnaire (response rate 42 %). In the lecture-based course programme,
717 first-year students are enrolled. Of this group, 321 students completed the question-
naire (response rate 45 %) (see Table 1). In the total group, seven respondents enrolled
already in 2008/2009 and were therefore removed from the data.

Procedure

The respondents were approached during a lecture at the beginning of a new term (Feb-
ruary and March 2010). The questionnaire was a paper and pencil test which took about
30 min to complete.
The information on academic success [‘‘grade point average’’ (GPA) and number of
acquired credits at the moment of administering the questionnaire] was obtained from the

Table 1 Background character-

Student-centred Lecture-based
istics of respondents in each of
the course programmes by gender
Gender
Male 54 % 56 %
Female 46 % 44 %
N 153 321
Ethnic background
Majority 69 % 74 %
Non-western minoritya 26 % 21 %
Western minoritya 5% 5%
N 153 321
Socioeconomic status (SES)
Parent(s)—no higher education 40 % 44 %
Parent(s)—higher education 60 % 56 %
N 143 315
Living situation
With family 75 % 69 %
Alone or in student housing 25 % 31 %
N 151 318
a
The definition of Statistics Secondary education
Netherlands is used: an
individual belongs to a minority Pre-university education (VWO) 94 % 89 %
group if at least one of the Indirect route 6% 11 %
parents is born outside country N 154 321
the Netherlands

123
6 High Educ (2015) 70:1–17

student administration in each of the two course programmes. GPA concerned the
weighted average mark of the completed terms at the moment of completing the ques-
tionnaire. Because the two universities in our sample use different time schedules, the GPA
of one of the universities is based on a longer period (1 month). We assume that this
difference does not affect the validity of the comparison between the two programmes.

The two course programmes

As described in the introduction, in student-centred course programmes teaching methods

emphasize student responsibility and activity and often include group work. In more
traditional environments the emphasis is on teacher control and teaching is about imparting
information from teachers to students. We have used five dimensions to compare the
course programmes. Three dimensions can be considered as proximal indicators of the
extent to which the course programme can be considered to be student-centred: the number
of lectures, student-to-teacher ratio and group work. Two dimensions can be considered as
more distal indicators: the number of first-year students (referring to large and small-scale
course programs) and student services (where a larger body of student services indicates
student-centredness). Table 2 summarises the findings of this comparison.
The first indication is the number of first-year students. The total group of first-year
students in course programme A is 364 compared to 712 in course programme B. The
second to fifth indicators refer to the organisation of the course programmes. For each of
these indicators course programme A is smaller-scale and more student-centred compared
to course programme B. In terms of the number of lectures: in course programme A 144 h
per each year are dedicated to lectures compared to 250 h in course programme B. In terms
of the student-to-teacher ratio: in course programme A the student-to-teacher ratio is lower:
students spend 8 h a week with a teacher in groups that are smaller than 25. In course
programme B students spend\1 h a week in a group smaller than 25 students. The amount
of group work is another indicator for the extent to which a course programme can be
considered to be a student-centred environment. In half of the subjects in course pro-
gramme A, students work together on assignments and 40 % of their grade depends on the
quality of the group assignment. In course programme B on the other hand, in only one of
every four subjects students do cooperative work and 20 % of their grade in these subjects

Table 2 Description of the two course programmes

Programme A Programme B

Number of first- 364 717

year students
Lectures 144 h of lectures per academic year 250 h of lectures per academic year
Teacher-to- 8 ‘‘small-scale hours’’a each week Less than 1 ‘‘small-scale hour’’a each
student ratio weekb
Cooperative In half of the subjects, 40 % of the grade In 25 % of the subjects, 20 % of the grade
work depends on the group assignment depends on the group assignment
Student services Per 1,000 students, one student counsellor Per 1,000 students, one student counsellor
for 28 h a week for 20 h a week
a
A ‘‘small scale hour’’ is an hour with one teacher in groups comprising less than 25 students
b
Given the small number of students attending the ‘‘workshop lectures’’, this may occasionally result in one
or two more ‘‘small-scale’’ hours

123
High Educ (2015) 70:1–17 7

depends on the group assignment. This shows that in course programme A there is not only
more group work, it is also considered to be more important compared to course pro-
gramme B. The fourth indicator refers to the availability of student counselling. The
underlying idea is that small-scale and student-centred course programmes offer more
counselling compared to large-scale course programmes. In course programme A, per
1,000 students, there is a student counsellor appointed for 28 h a week, compared to 20 h a
week in course programme B. In other words, students experiencing problems at home,
socially or financially, for example, in course programme A have more access to a
counsellor compared to students in course programme B.
In conclusion, course programme A is relatively student-centred compared to course
programme B. Therefore, we describe course programme A as student-centred and course
programme B as lecture-based.

Measures

The survey instrument consisted of four parts. The first part included questions on students’
background. The second part enquired about their time use. Students were asked to fill in
the numbers of hours spent on studying, working, family and leisure time. The third part
asked about their experiences in their respective course programmes: to what extent they
felt at home and to what extent they felt that their family background was aligned with the
course programme (cultural congruence). The fourth part of the instrument had to do with
student attitude towards studying: a scale measuring effort as well as a scale measuring
students’ involvement were included. Table 3 describes each of these scales and shows
their reliability scores.

Analyses

The research questions were answered by means of linear structural modelling analyses
(AMOS) (Arbuckle and Wothke 1999). In these analyses, course programme was included
as an independent variable, and academic success (GPA and credits) and the scales
measuring attitude towards studying and experience of the course programme were
included as dependent variables.
In addition to v2, we used the comparative fit index (CFI), with a cut-off value of[.95 (Hu
and Bentler 1999) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), with guidelines
proposed by MacCallum et al. (1996). After the model was found to fit for the full sample, it was
examined whether these results were invariant for the student-centred course programme and
lecture-based course programme (research questions 1, 2 and 3). For this purpose, both within
and between-group analyses were conducted (see Byrne 2004, for this procedure).

Results

Average differences

Tables 4, 5 and 6 present the descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and
zero-order correlations among all variables separately for the lecture-based and student-

123
8 High Educ (2015) 70:1–17

Table 3 Description of scales in the questionnaire and their reliability

Scale and reliability (number of items and Items
Cronbach’s alpha)
All scales are rated on 5-points from 1 ‘‘not at
all true for me’’ to 5 ‘‘very true for me’’

Attitude towards Effort (k = 9; a = .76) (adapted from Butler I try to read all the learning material before the
studying 2007) meetings (such as lectures and workshops)
During meetings (such as lectures and
workshops) I am concentrated
I study hard for tests
I try my best during meetings (such as lectures
and workshops)
I hand in assignments too late (reversed)
I try to do my best in my course programme
I study just enough to pass the exams (reversed)
During meetings (such as lectures and
workshops) my attention often drifts
(reversed)
I try to do my best for all assignments
Involvement (k = 5; a = .76) The most important things that happen to me
(adapted from Reeve and Smith 2001) involve my studies
To me studying is only a small part of who I am
(reversed)
I am involved personally in my studies
Most things in life are more important than
studying (reversed)
I have other activities more important than my
studies (reversed)
Experiencing the Feeling at home (k = 5; a = .82) I feel I am at the right place here
learning (adapted from Meeuwisse et al. 2010) I like to go the campus
environment I am different compared to most other students
(reversed)
I come here as little as possible (reversed)
I feel at home here
I enjoy the atmosphere here
Cultural congruity (k = 11; a = .82) (adapted I feel that I have to change myself to fit in at
to Dutch context from Gloria and Robinson school
Kurpius 1996) I feel that my ethnicity is incompatible with
other students
I can talk to my friends at school about my
family and culture (reversed)
I feel I am leaving my family values behind by
going to college
My ethnic values are in conflict with what is
expected at school
I can talk to my family about my friends at
school (reversed)
I feel that my language and/or appearance make
it hard for me to fit in with other students
My family and school values often conflict
I feel accepted at school as an ethnic minority
(reversed)
As an ethnic minority, I feel as if I belong on
this campus
I can talk to my family about my struggles and
concerns at school (reversed)

123
High Educ (2015) 70:1–17 9

centred course programme. Scores for all variables are such that a high score represents
higher levels of the construct.
Before presenting the results of the structural modelling analyses, we report the average
differences on each of the concepts in the model (see Table 4). There are no differences
between the two course programmes in academic success: neither the number of credits nor
the GPA differs between the two course programmes. On average, the respondents in the
student-centred course programme acquired 70 % of the credits they could have acquired
at the time of the administration of the survey. In the lecture-based course programme
students acquired 68 % of their credits. The average mark in the student-centred course
programme is 6.03, and in the lecture-based course programme it is 6.12. The marks are
measured on a 10-point scale with 1 being the lowest mark and 10 being the highest mark
(100 % score).
Students in the student-centred course programme are more likely to feel at home and
they are also more likely to experience cultural congruity (see Table 4). The effects can be
described as small (etas-squared are 0.011 and 0.008). Students’ effort in the student-
centred course programme is higher compared to the lecture-based course programme (see
Table 4). The effect is small (eta-squared is 0.01). The difference in involvement is not
statistically significant. Students in the two course programmes spend a similar amount of
time studying.

Model evaluation fit for the full sample

To find out how academic success is achieved, we designed a basic theoretical model based
on former research results. Linear structural modelling analysis was used to determine the
interrelationships between students’ experiences, students’ attitude towards studying, study
time and academic success as described in Fig. 1. The model fit well with the full sample
(N = 475): v2 = 15.68, df = 10, p = .109; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04) (see Fig. 2).
Accordingly, the proposed model could be accepted.
In the full sample, it turned out that feeling at home positively affected effort as well as
engagement. In turn, a high level of effort impacted on time spent studying, and this led to
a higher GPA.

Comparisons between the two course programmes

Given the possible differences between the student-centred and lecture-based course
programme in terms of achieving study success, it was first tested whether the model

Table 4 Means, standard devia-

M (SD) M (SD) F
tions, F-values, and correlations
Lecture-based Student-centred
between all variables in the lec-
ture-based course programme
Feeling at home 3.69 (.69) 3.85 (.66) 5.29*
Cultural congruity 4.03 (.56) 4.13 (.57) 3.90*
Effort 3.50 (.54) 3.63 (.52) 5.81*
Engagement 2.77 (.73) 2.80 (.66) .21
Time spent studying 18.86 (8.64) 20.43 (7.88) 3.62
Credits 68.14 (27.39) 70.48 (23.76) .70
GPA 6.11 (.96) 6.03 (.77) .83
*p \ .05, **p \ .01

123
10 High Educ (2015) 70:1–17

Table 5 Correlations between all variables in the lecture-based course programme

Feeling at Cultural Effort Engagement Time spent Credits GPA
home congruity studying

Feeling at home 1 .593** .523** .448** .224** .107 .079

Cultural .593** 1 .342** .195** .125* .032 .011
congruity
Effort .523** .342** 1 .517** .494** .079 .144*
Engagement .448** .195** .517** 1 .323** .000 -.019
Time spent .224** .125* .494** .323** 1 .085 .154**
studying
Credits .107 .032 .079 .000 .085 1 .704**
GPA .079 .011 .144* -.019 .154** .704** 1
*p \ .05, **p \ .01

obtained from the full sample fitted well for both course programmes (research questions 1
and 2).
The basic model as shown in Fig. 1 fit moderately well with the student-centred course
programme (N = 154): v2 = 19.69, df = 10, p = .03; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .08. The
coefficients in this model (see Fig. 3) showed that time use was not related to academic
success. In an attempt to improve the fit, we added a direct link between effort and
academic success. This alternative model fit well: v2 = 7.00, df = 8, p = .54;
CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00 (see Fig. 3). Given the improved fit, this model was accepted.
To answer the first research question: Feeling at home in the student-centred course
programme turned out to have a positive impact on effort as well as involvement. A high
level of effort was related to more time spent studying. This, however, did not result in
greater academic success. Instead, there was a direct link between effort and academic
success. Students who reported high levels of effort obtained more study credits and also
obtained higher marks.
The basic model as shown in Fig. 1 fits well with the lecture-based course programme
(N = 321): v2 = 11.74, df = 10, p = .30; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .02. Feeling at home
turned out to positively impact effort as well as involvement. In turn, effort resulted in
more time spent studying, which ultimately resulted in a higher GPA. Figure 4 shows the
model and its statistically significant standardised coefficients.
In order to compare the two models, we tested the links that appear in both accepted
models for invariance. This method of comparing models is in accordance with Byrne
(2004). Only one link turned out to differ between the two models.
In the lecture-based course programme, feeling at home was a stronger predictor of
study effort than in the small group course programme (Dv2 = 6.3, df = 1, p = .01). The
more students felt at home in the lecture-based environment, the more effort they made,
and the more successful they were. In the student-centred environment, effort was
important as well, but in a different way compared to the lecture-based environment. In the
student-centred environment, effort directly affected academic success. The effect of effort
was the same regardless of how much time students spent studying. A second difference
between the two models was that the model in the student-centred course programme was a
better predictor of the variance in academic success than in the lecture-based course
programme. Below, we will try to explain these differences.

123
High Educ (2015) 70:1–17 11

Table 6 Correlations between all variables in the student-centred course programme

Feeling at Cultural Effort Engagement Time spent Credits GPA
home congruity studying

Feeling at 1 .614** .297** .241** .091 .042 .079

home
Cultural .614** 1 .289** .164* .057 .180* .237**
congruity
Effort .297** .289** 1 .340** .395** .271** .258**
Engagement .241** .164* .340** 1 .263** .105 .047
Time spent .091 .057 .395** .263** 1 -.001 -.018
studying
Credits .042 .180* .271** .105 -.001 1 .765**
GPA .079 .237** .258** .047 -.018 .765** 1

*p \ .05, **p \ .01

Discussion

The analyses showed that the conceptual model as presented in the introduction fit the data
moderately well from the course programme that is relatively student-centred. The model
was adapted slightly to arrive at a good fit. We describe the statistically significant links to
answer the first research question. In the more student-centred course programme, feeling
at home affects effort as well as engagement. In turn, effort is related to the time spent
studying as well as academic success (credits and GPA). The conceptual model fit well
with the course programme that is relatively lecture-based and it needed no improvements.
The second research question can therefore be answered as follows. As in the more
student-centred course programme, feeling at home affects effort and engagement in the
lecture-based course programme. Effort affects time spent studying which in turn affects
academic success in terms of GPA. The third research question looks at differences
between the two models. There are a number of differences.
Time spent studying, effort and feeling at home seem to play different roles in the more
student-centred course programme compared to the more lecture-based course programme.
Time spent studying is related to academic success in the more lecture-based course programme
only. The differentiated role of time spent studying may be explained by the more individu-
alistic nature of the lecture-based environment. This aspect may cause students to depend more
on themselves to perform well: their positive attitude in terms of effort must translate into
actually spending time studying in order to be successful. In the small-scale course programme,
students spend more time in small classes and they spend more time cooperating with peers. It
may well be that these ‘‘forms’’ offer sufficient learning opportunities; whether or not students
put in additional time studying does not further improve their academic success.
In the relatively small-scale course programme, effort seems to play a larger role by directly
affecting academic success. The differentiated role of effort may be explained along the same
lines as time spent studying: small groups as well as cooperative work require relatively high
levels of effort. To be successful in the student-centred course programme, students must show
effort and participate fully in the group process. Otherwise, their academic success will suffer.
This process indicates a direct link between effort and academic success.
A third difference concerns feeling at home. Its relationship with effort and engagement
is greater in the lecture-based compared to the small-scale course programme. Students

123
12 High Educ (2015) 70:1–17

Feeling at .42** Credits

Effort .42**
home

.44**

Time spent
studying
.11**

Cultural congruity
Engagement GPA

Fig. 2 Accepted model in the full sample (N = 475). v2 = 15.68, df = 10, p = .109; CFI = .99;
RMSEA = .04). Note: *p \ .05, **p \ .01

who feel at home in a large-scale environment, may be more inclined to put in effort and
time to be successful. Conversely, it is easier for students who do not feel at home in the
large-scale course programme to ‘‘disappear’’. There is no group of peers and they will be
known to fewer teachers that could keep checks on them and encourage them to keep
going.
Feeling at home as well as student effort turn out to be important factors in explaining
study success, especially in the student-centred course programme. The question is why
this tendency would be greater in a relatively student-centred course programme com-
pared to a relatively lecture-based course programme (as indicated by the larger amount
of explained variance in the student-centred course programme). Academic success in a
lecture-based environment is, compared to success in a student-centred environment,
apparently less dependent on positive experiences or positive student attitudes. This
means that academic success in a lecture-based course programme is more dependent on
other factors, which were not investigated in the present study. Background character-
istics such as achievement in secondary school and study skills (as well as individual
characteristics such as self-efficacy and motivation) may be more important in the lec-
ture-based course programme (and explain more variance). Along the same lines as
above: in the lecture-based course programme students depend more on their own
background and individual characteristics. The student-centred course programme may
compensate more effectively for a less positive student profile in terms of individual and
background characteristics.
Given the diverse nature of the student population in the two course programmes, we
expected cultural congruity to explain some of the variance in study success. However,
cultural congruity was not related to student attitude in either of the two course pro-
grammes. In other words, fitting in and experiencing cultural congruity between the
home and the academic environment does not seem to affect attitudes, time spent
studying and study success. Most former research that used this concept aimed to
describe the experience of minority students (Gloria and Robinson Kurpius 1996; Edman
and Brazil 2007). The reason we did not find a link may be because this concept explains
effort and engagement in the group of minority students only. We recommend that the
role played by cultural congruity be examined more closely in different groups of
minority students.

123
High Educ (2015) 70:1–17 13

.31**

.30**
Feeling at .20*
Effort Credits
home .34**

.23*
Time spent
studying

Cultural congruity
Engagement GPA

Fig. 3 Accepted model in the student-centred course programme (N = 154). (v2 = 7.00, df = 8, p = .54;
CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00). Note: *p \ .05, **p \ .01

Feeling at .49** Credits

Effort .45**
home

.51**

Time spent
studying
.16**

Cultural congruity
Engagement GPA

Fig. 4 Accepted model in the lecture-based course programme (N = 321). (v2 = 11.74, df = 10, p = .30;
CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .02). Note: **p \ .01

Recommendations for practice

First and foremost, the present study confirms the findings of previous research (Elliot et al.
1999; Hofman and Van den Berg 2003; Markel and Frone 1998) in showing that attitude
towards studying is related to academic success. We want to reiterate the recommendation
for practice mentioned in many of these studies that when students start studying, their
attitudes should be closely monitored and discussed when levels of engagement and effort
start to decrease. Even though monitoring students’ satisfaction is quite common practice
in higher education, using these monitoring data in supervision or counselling settings is
not. Improvement in this area would quite probably support and encourage students to keep
studying.
In line with previous research (Thomas 2002), the results of our study showed that
feeling at home plays an important role in achieving academic success. Especially in the
lecture-based course programme, it is important to create a culture where students feel at
home and fit in and they also enjoy. Students who do not feel at home in a lecture-based
environment seem to suffer more from the large scale compared to students that do not feel

123
14 High Educ (2015) 70:1–17

at home in a student-centred environment. It is therefore important to create a ‘‘small-scale

feel’’ in the large-scale course programme by organising, for example, mentor groups and
peer groups.
In the introduction we referred to the study by Struyven et al. (2008), in which the
researchers observed a relatively large variance in students’ perceptions of activating
learning environments. While some students were very positive, other students’ percep-
tions were quite negative. The present study shows that students’ perceptions have a
greater impact on academic success in the more student-centred course programme. These
findings seem to suggest that small-scale and student-centred course programmes are more
subject or vulnerable to students’ perceptions. This may imply that the general quality of
student-centred course programmes could be affecting students’ perceptions, as well as
their academic success to a larger extent compared to the general quality of lecture-based
course programmes. In other words, if the quality of student-centred course programmes is
not sufficient, the effect on students may be greater. In practice this means that for such
course programmes, it is even more important to monitor educational quality closely and
maintain high standards. However, we put forward these claims cautiously, as more
research is needed to confirm our interpretation.

Limitations

The present study showed no differences in average academic success between the two
course programmes. In the introduction we explained that, despite the fact that most
research concludes that small-scale learning environments have positive effects, this is not
always the case. Lea et al. (2003) explained this finding by identifying differences in the
definition of activating learning environments. Furthermore, they proposed a second
explanation relating to implementation: even though many institutes or programmes claim
that their lessons are student-centred, it may not be in reality. The organisational differ-
ences between the two course programmes as investigated, may not be implemented in
practice as it was intended. In other words, the student-centred course programme may, in
practice, not be student-centred enough, or conversely, the lecture-based course pro-
gramme may not be large or traditional enough. Related to this limitation is the fact that we
have used indicators and perception measures at the level of programmes to explain student
learning processes that take place at the level of courses or even individual learning tasks.
If we had used indicators and perceptions at this more micro level of courses and learning
tasks, we may have found stronger explanations for study success and differences between
the two course programmes. The first suggestion for future research is therefore to further
explore possible links by examining the course programme in practice and on a more micro
level. This can be done, for example, by observing and interviewing students and teachers
in the context of specific courses and learning tasks.
In our study we compared two course programmes in terms of its student-centeredness.
At this point, it is impossible to conclude whether the observed differences were caused by
a difference in numbers of students or by the activating character of the cooperative
learning assignments. In a future study, this confounding effect can be avoided by com-
paring course programmes with similar numbers of students that use activating methods
versus more traditional methods.
A third limitation in our study concerns the possibility of bias. A first source of bias
could consist of particularities in the group of respondents. Because the goal in the present
study was to compare two course programmes, it is important to consider whether this bias

123
High Educ (2015) 70:1–17 15

would be different in the two groups of respondents. The background characteristics (see
Table 1) of the two groups were comparable in the sense that none of the examined
differences were statistically significant. Furthermore, the educational concept (small
versus large-scale) seems not to be a decisive factor in their choice for a university (Warps
et al. 2009). Because of this similarity and, in addition, because of the similarity in the
procedure of the data collection (during a lecture), we assume there is no relevant dif-
ference in response bias affecting the results. However, this is an assumption which should
be taken into consideration when judging the results and conclusions. A second possible
source of bias is the use of self-report instruments. Respondents may overrate or underrate
their responses depending on their memories, moods, social desirability etc. Following a
similar line of argument as above, there is no obvious reason for why the bias would be
different in the lecture-based compared to the activating course programme. Therefore we
assume that the comparison between the two course programmes using self-report mea-
sures is a valid comparison. Aside from this comparison, it is possible to build a stronger
case for the conclusions in the present study by using different measures such as obser-
vations, interviews and think aloud measures to examine learning processes in more stu-
dent-centred and more traditional course programmes. This is one of the suggestions for
future research.

Future research

Given the above limitations, the first suggestion for future research is to avoid relying on
theoretical descriptions of course programmes, but to also examine course programmes and
its individual courses in practice. This can be done, for example, by observing and
interviewing students and teachers. The comparison could further be strengthened by
including more course programme indicators (such as time spent on individual student
work and on self-study, the use of formative assessment and feedback, the extent to which
course programmes are competence based etc.) and by using multiple methods including
self-report measures as well as interviews and observational methods. Finally, the com-
parison could be strengthened by comparing other course programmes than from business
administration.
Secondly, we want to recommend following up to the present study by focusing on the
30 % in Hockings’ study (2009). In the student-centred course programme: what per-
centage of students had negative experiences, who are these students and why do they not
feel at home and engaged in their studies? Answering these questions would further
enhance our understanding of academic success and suggest ways to improve students’
first-year experience and increase retention in this essential stage of higher education.

Conclusion

Feeling at home, student effort and time spent studying turned out to be important factors
that explain academic success in the first year of higher education. Furthermore, the present
study showed that the process underlying academic success in a student-centred course
programme is different compared to the process in a lecture-based course programme.
These differences are relevant and should be taken into account by student counsellors, but
also when designing innovations for course programmes in higher education.

123
16 High Educ (2015) 70:1–17

Acknowledgments The study was sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Education.

References

Arbuckle, J., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Smallwaters Corp.
Baars, G. J. A., & Arnold, I. J. M. (2014). Early identification and characterization of students who drop out
in the first year at university. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice,
16(1), 95–109.
Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2012). The effects of different learning environments on students’
motivation for learning and their achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.
1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02076.x.
Bruinsma, M. (2003). Effectiveness in higher education; Factors that determine the outcomes of university
education. Groningen: PhD thesis.
Butler, A. B. (2007). Job characteristics and college performance and attitudes; A model of work-school
conflict and facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.500.
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics. Basic concepts, applications
and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Edman, J. L., & Brazil, B. (2007). Perceptions of campus climate, academic efficacy and academic success
among community college students: An ethnic comparison. Social Psychology of Education. doi:10.
1007/s11218-008-9082-y.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gab, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam perfor-
mance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.549.
Gloria, A. M., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (1996). The validation of the cultural congruity scale and the
university environment scale with Chicano/a Students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences.
doi:10.1177/07399863960184007.
Harvey, L., Drew, S., & Smith, M. (2006). The first-year experience: A review of literature for the Higher
Education Academy. York: The Higher Education Academy.
Hockings, C. (2009). Reaching the students that student-centred learning cannot reach. British Educational
Research Journal. doi:10.1080/01411920802041640.
Hofman, W. H. A., & Van den Berg, M. N. (2003). Ethnic-specific achievements in Dutch higher education.
Higher Education in Europe 28(3), 371–389.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-
based teaching. Educational Psychologist. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred
learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’? Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321–334.
Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2007). The impact of students’ conceptions of
constructivist assumptions on academic achievement and dropout. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.
1080/03075070701573765.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample
size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.
Markel, K. S., & Frone, M. R. (1998). Job characteristics, work-school conflict, and school outcomes among
adolescents: Testing a structural model. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.
277.
Meeuwisse, M., Severiens, S. E., & Born, M. Ph. (2010). Learning environment, interaction, sense of
belonging and study success in ethnically diverse student groups. Research in Higher Education.
doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9168-1.
Meeuwisse, M., Born, M. Ph., & Severiens, S. E. (2011). The family-study interface and academic out-
comes: Testing a structural model. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0024420.
Reeve, C. L., & Smith, C. S. (2001). Refining Lodahl and Kejner’s Job Involvement Scale with a convergent
evidence approach: Applying multiple methods to multiple samples. Organization Research Methods.
doi:10.1177/109442810142001.
Sadler, I. (2012). The challenges for new academics in adopting student-centred approaches to teaching.
Studies in Higher Education 37(6), 731–745. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.543968.

123
High Educ (2015) 70:1–17 17

Severiens, S. E., & Schmidt, H. (2008). Social and academic integration and study progress in PBL. Higher
Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9181-x.
Severiens, S. E., & Wolff, R. P. (2008). A comparison of ethnic minority and majority students: Social and
academic integration, and quality of learning. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/
03075070802049194.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F, & Janssens, S. (2008). Students’ likes and dislikes regarding student-activating and
lecture-based educational settings: Consequences for students’ perceptions of the learning environ-
ment, student learning and performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education. doi:10.1007/
BF03173001.
Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus. Journal of
Educational Policy. doi:10.1080/02680930210140257.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and the quality of learning outcomes at the
course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1991.tb00984.x.
Van den Berg, M. N., & Hofman, W. H. A. (2005). Student success in university education: A multi-
measurement study of the impact of student and faculty factors on study progress. Higher Education.
doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6361-1.
Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational
Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01281.x.
Warps, J., Hogeling, J., Pass, J. & Brukx, D. (2009). Studiekeuze en studiesucces. Een selectie van gegevens
uit de Startmonitor over studiekeuze, studie-uitval en studiesucces in het hoger onderwijs. [Study
choice and study success. A selection of data from the Entry Monitor on study choice, drop out and
study success in higher education]. Nijmegen: ResearchNed.
Yorke, M. (2000). The quality of the student experience: What can institutions learn from data relating to
non-completion? Quality in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/13538320050001072.
Zepke, N., Leach, L., & Prebble, T. (2006). Being learner centered: One way to improve student retention?
Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075070600923418.

123
Copyright of Higher Education is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.