What’s in a (Building) Name?

A recent conversation with a former professor (and current colleague) turned to sharing memories of the first course I took under their instruction. Picture this: a computing classroom accommodating thirty students diligently conducting statistical analyses, mimicking the keystrokes of the renowned researcher guiding us. This course stood out to me as a paramount foundation-building, skills-based class which set the stage for my eventual dissertation study. Yet, memories of this class are intertwined with recollections of a windowless scene, highlighted by fluorescent overhead lighting, with the wise words of my instructor frequently being filtered out by an abundance of HVAC-related white noise.  Though I had learned a plethora of functional, marketable and employable and skills, could I have taken my academic achievement to the next level under different learning conditions?

Given the sheer volume of students and faculty at all levels, weaving in and out of classrooms and learning spaces throughout our campuses, one can be left to wonder how many other students are placed in similar positions each day, each semester, year-by-year. Think back to your favorite course: What did the classroom look like? What particular sounds, scents, scenes do you recall?  What do you believe those classroom characteristics contributed to your positive perception of the course?

In fact, academic literature suggests that classroom conditions do have notable relationships with student achievement (i.e., GPA). Not only do temperature, lighting, the presence of windows, external noises, and air quality play a role in student achievement, but also myriad other factors such as using a blackboard or white board, class size, technology quality, and even whether an instructor teaches from the front or back of the classroom make a difference as the end of the semester approaches.

In an effort to advance the goals and mission of the University, and to bolster student achievement across academic disciplines, I recently conducted an exploratory study to determine which academic buildings, and centrally-scheduled classrooms within those buildings, hosted courses with the lowest and highest student grade point averages. This study focused on data from Fall of 2014 to Spring of 2019. Specifically, buildings and classrooms with average student GPAs at or below 3.0 were visually identified for further future investigations.

Initial findings revealed that the Mathematics Building, Natural Sciences Complex, Academic Center, and Knox, Hochstetter, Cooke, Norton and Davis Hall all had average GPAs at or below 3.0. Within these buildings, some classrooms with GPAs at 3.0 or less were: Mathematics Building 250; Natural Sciences Complex 225, Knox 109, Hochstetter 212, Cooke 218, Norton 112, Davis 101, and Filmore 170 (Academic Center).

In thinking about these, and other lower scoring classrooms on campus not previously mentioned, several common classroom characteristics were noticed across these learning spaces. Many of these spaces were identified as large lecture halls or hosting courses in math, science, engineering and other complex introductory-level courses that set the foundation for future major-specific classes. Common sense and an overwhelming body of decades-long research support this notion; however, it fails to paint the entire picture of student achievement in classrooms. For instance, are the lower GPAs in these classrooms possibly attributed to what is being taught, how it is being relayed, or who is professing the information?

Our findings provide contradictory information. In some cases, specific subjects and courses were flagged as having average GPAs less than 3.0, regardless of where they were taught. Yet, some courses taught by the same instructor had substantially varying average class-wide GPAs depending on the building and classroom of the course. Individual variation was also noticed by instructor, whereas some instructors of the same course had vastly different average student GPAs when teaching in the same classroom.

At this point, you may be wondering how the previously mentioned physical conditions of the learning spaces, such as sound pollution, temperature, and technology, played a role in students’ GPAs at UB. Well, so am I. Given the initial findings of this exploratory study, we are left with no specific indication of whether the building or classroom makes a difference in average student GPAs. So far, this study is simply visual, and next steps will involve a qualitative and quantitative analysis of specific classrooms to clarify these complex findings.

In the meantime, students can rely on established tried and true methods of achievement that best fit their individual learning styles. It is no secret that the past several semesters have put students and faculty in a demanding and challenging position. As midterms and final exams draw ever closer, I wish you a stress-free period of concentration, diligence and “showing-up” with your best foot forward.