Experimental analysis of students' course selection
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5262286 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Elisha Babad (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, corresponding author), Arik Tayeb (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) |
| Year | 2003 |
| Volume | 73 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 373-393 |
| Publication date | 2003-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | British Journal of Educational Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0007-0998 • E-ISSN: 2044-8279 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1348/000709903322275894 |
| PMID | 14672150 |
| OpenAlex | W2040569191 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 8 |
Background: Prior to every term, students must select courses (i.e., academic units of instruction within a degree programme) to determine their study programme. Course selection (CS) is a sequential decision-making (DM) process - students weigh various types of information available about each course. Every decision influences the weighting of considerations for the next. This study is focused on three central dimensions of CS: Learning Value (low or high in being intellectually challenging, interesting and thought-provoking), Lecturer's Style (low or high - exciting, charismatic and humorous versus dry, inflexible, unclear, etc.), and Course Difficulty (easy, moderate or hard).Aims: (1) To examine students' preferences for each dimension in five choices and in their sequential location (1st to 5th). (2) To trace compromises in dilemma situations after the desirable combinations had already been selected. (3) To investigate differential selection as a function of students' age, gender, and academic standing (average grades).Sample: Advanced undergraduates in various departments in an Israeli university (N=1,007).Method: In an experimental design, respondents were presented with 12 course descriptions representing 2×2×3 combinations, and asked to select five courses in a sequential order.Results: The 12 courses were found to be empirically divided into: ideal courses (2), first-degree (4) and second-degree (4) compromises, and rejected courses (2). Students avoided selecting hard courses unless they had no choice. Learning Value was the most preferred dimension, followed closely by Lecturer Style. Correlations showed that older and higher achieving students chose more difficult and high Learning Value courses.Comments: The discussion centred on the methodological issue of the effectiveness of an experimental design for the investigation of CS, conceptual issues concerning Course Difficulty in students' selection and evaluation, and applied issues concerning the availability of information about the three investigated dimensions to students in real-life CS
Dilemma · Dimension (graph theory) · Mathematics education · Selection (genetic algorithm) · Statistics · Style (visual arts) · Value (mathematics) · Weighting · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Evaluation of Teaching Practices · Innovations in Educational Methods · Mathematics · Medical Education and Admissions · Psychology
Metacognitive Scaffolding in the Age of GenAI
Bioeconomy students’ motivation and objectives to engage in entrepreneurship education
Lemons in the university
How student evaluations of teaching affect course enrollment
The association between course selection and academic performance
Assessing Student Preferences for Quantitative Methods Courses Using Discrete Choice Experiments
Spillover Effects
The Power of One More Course
| Unique citing works | 8 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,6 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 8 |