Abstract

There is often a disconnect between the unit of analysis inrigorous education research, and the types of recommendations that instructors find the most useful to improve their teaching. Research often focuses onnarrow slices of the student experience, and university instructors often require broad recommendations. We present the Fearless Teaching Framework to address this gap between research and practice. In this framework, we define four pieces ofeffective teaching: classroom climate, course content, teaching practices, andassessment strategies. We argue that these are appropriate areas of focus forinstructor growth, based on their relations to student engagement.

Keywords: educational development, climate, content, practice, assessment

Introduction

Educational development professionals provide college instructors with the support, training, and resources they need to improve their teaching practice. In their work, educational development professionals turn to the decades of education theory and research, and distill it into actionable guidance for instructors. However, there is often a disconnect between the detail with which education empirical research is focused, and the needs of the practitioner. Namely, education research typically looks at very specific constructs within very specific contexts (e.g., the extent to which in class peer relationships predicts grades among freshman students from low income backgrounds). However, higher education instructors often need high level summaries of results (e.g., students learn more in courses with good classroom climate; Zubrunn, McKim, Buhs, & Hawley, 2014) that lead to general guidance for what they should do in their class this semester (e.g., provide time for your students to introduce themselves to their classmates and exchange contact information so they can form study groups). Often, education research is focused on the trees, while instructors need to see the forest.

In our own work as educational development professionals, we have seen the misalignment between research and practice leads some instructors to avoid education research as a resource to inform their practice. To address this gap, we constructed the Fearless Teaching Framework—a research based conceptual map of the foundational processes that underlie effective teaching (see Figure 1). This framework is designed to be used by college and university CTL to specify and communicate education research findings to instructors. The Fearless Teaching Framework identifies four pieces of effective teaching that can be succinctly communicated to instructors: classroom climate, course content, teaching practice, and assessment strategies.

Figure 1. The Fearless Teaching Framework.Figure 1. The Fearless Teaching Framework.

We constructed the Fearless Teaching Framework at the Teaching and Learning Transformation Center (TLTC) at the University of Maryland, College Park, which supports faculty efforts to improve student learning and achievement. The name of the framework is grounded in the University of Maryland’s campaign to promote “fearless ideas.” It refers to instructors’ continued growth toward teaching excellence. Working backward, we know that students are more likely to learn and succeed when they are motivated and engaged in the course (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008). The model identifies what we argue are four of the most powerful predictors of student motivation and engagement that the instructor is typically able to influence: classroom climate, course content, teaching practice, and assessment strategies (referred to collectively as teaching effectiveness). Finally, the model indicates that CTLs can help instructors improve their teaching effectiveness through professional development and training.

Teaching and learning encompass bi directional processes driven by efforts from both the teacher and the learner. In our definition of effective teaching, we focus on the teacher’s contribution, while acknowledging that students also influence learning. In particular, we focus on the ways that teachers can promote student motivation and engagement, which should then promote learning (Murphy & Alexander, 2000). However, we recognize that teachers are not in complete control of their students’ motivation and engagement. Specifically, students come to class with their own interests, lived experiences, and attitudes that may make it more or less likely that they will work hard in a class. This caveat is noted in pathway d in Figure 1.

In this paper, we aim to document the evidence that underlie pathways b and c in the Fearless Teaching Framework, specifically providing evidence that the four pieces of effective teaching (climate, content, practice, and assessment) are appropriate areas of focus for educational development professionals.

Student Motivation and Engagement

Educational psychologists define motivation as an internal process that guides, activates, and maintains behaviors over time (Murphy & Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2003; Schunk, 2000). In other words, motivation is what determines where students are trying to go, gets them going, and keeps them going when academics get tough. Motivated college students are more likely to try again after failure and persist longer than students who are not motivated (Allen, 1999; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004).

Student engagement can be conceptualized as enacted motivation. That is, whereas motivation is the intention to participate in school, engagement is the actual behavioral, emotional, and cognitive work of learning (Fredricks et al., 2004). When students are motivated and engaged in academics, they attend class, pay attention, take notes, show interest in the content, try hard during activities and on assessments, learn and retain more material, and transfer knowledge to novel situations, among other indicators (Jetton & Alexander, 2001; Pintrich, 2003; Pugh & Bergin, 2006).

Across literature with samples from childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, student motivation and engagement are predictors of critical thinking and academic achievement (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006). In constructing the Fearless Teaching Framework, we drew from the Self System Model of Motivational Development (SSMMD; Skinner et al., 2008) which provides an instructive framework for understanding the development of motivation and engagement. The SSMMD indicates that when instructors provide warm classroom contexts that support students’ need for relatedness, competence, and autonomy, they engage with course content, which promotes learning and achievement. Furthermore, from an expectancy value theory perspective, students are most likely to engage when they believe it is possible for them to be successful, and they value the task at hand (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).

We build on prior education theories and research to identify practical ways university instructors can promote motivation and engagement. In the Fearless Teaching Framework, each piece of effective teaching (climate, content, practice, and assessment) was selected because of strong evidence that it is malleable and promotes student motivation and engagement. We describe the definition and evidence for the inclusion of each piece, and provide a table with five relevant empirical articles for educational development professionals who want to offer literature to the instructors they serve.

It is important to recognize prior models of effective teaching (e.g., Bain, 2012; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Perkins, 2009), though most were not designed with the field of higher education instructional development in mind. As we will discuss, the Fearless Teaching Framework has some commonalities with these prior models, but they are focused on more details of teaching than the wide view. We will demonstrate that the Fearless Teaching Framework’s organization of education research is more applicable to the field of educational development because it is simple, and covers a wide range of education literature without being overly prescriptive.

Literature Review

Climate

Classroom climate encompasses the social, emotional, and physical environment of the learning space (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, & Lovett, 2010). There are several operationalizations of climate in the literature, but generally classroom climates are considered positive when the classroom is inclusive and equitable to students from different backgrounds, accessible to students with different needs, intellectually challenging, and instructors and classmates are supportive and focused on the mastery of learning goals (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Morin, Marsh, Nagengast, & Scalas, 2014). Negative climates are typified by exclusion, disrespect, verbal aggression, and anonymity (Myers & Rocca, 2009). Instructors can promote a positive classroom climate by fostering warm and supportive relationships with students, listening to students’ perspectives, using inclusive language and practices, encouraging student questions and cooperation, and attending to students’ needs for accessibility.

Theories such as self determination theory and the belongingness hypothesis indicate that a positive climate would benefit students (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Indeed, in the empirical literature, positive classroom climate has been shown to predict engagement (see Table 1) and academic achievement (Alcott, 2017; Miyake et al., 2010).

Table 1. Brief Literature Review of the Extent to which Classroom Climate Predicts Motivation and Engagement
CitationSampleOutcomeResults
Anderson, Hamilton, & Hattie, 2004215 twelth grade students in English classes at three schoolsSelf reported (Classroom Environment Scale Involvement; Trickett & Moos, 1974) and teacher reported measures of motivationAffiliation with classmates was positively associated with motivation behaviors. Other aspects of classroom climate did not vary much across the different classrooms included in the study.
Corkin, Yu, Wolters, & Wiesner, 2014248 undergraduate mathematics studentsMotivational beliefs (i.e., self efficacy and task value) and Academic behavior (i.e., academic procrastination)Climate was defined as instructor support, situational interest, and academic press. Instructor support positively predicted self efficacy, which in turn negatively predicted academic procrastination. Academic press also negatively predicted self efficacy.
Freeman, Anderman, & Jensen, 2007238 first semester university freshmenAcademic self efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and task valueClass belonging positively predicted academic self efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and task value
Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 201263 teachers and 2000 fifth and sixth grade studentsEngagement (Furrer & Skinner, 2003) and academic achievement.Observations, student surveys, and academic data indicate that engagement mediated the positive relation between classroom emotional climate and students Language Arts grades. In other words, positive climate predicted engagement, which predicted better grades.
Zubrunn et al., 2014212 undergraduates in an Educational Psychology courseSelf efficacy, task value (motivated strategies for learning questionnaire; Garcia & Pintrich, 1996), engagement in academic activities (teacher ratings, Betts & Rotenberg, 2007) and academic achievementA supportive classroom environment directly positively predicted belonging and task value. Supportive classroom environment indirectly positively predicted self efficacy, engagement, and achievement.

Content

Course content refers to the topics, skills, materials, and organization thereof that an instructor includes in the class. In this piece of effective teaching, we encourage instructors to be mindful of the subjects, examples, and applications they cover in class, and select the best possible materials for their class (see Table 2). Including course content that is relevant to students’ lives, developmentally appropriate for the course level and students’ prior knowledge, interesting, and aligned with learning objectives predicts student motivation and engagement (Howard, 2001; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The extent to which the course content is perceived by students to be relevant to their personal or professional goals has a positive impact on student motivation to engage in class activities like studying (Corkin, Horn, & Pattison, 2017; Frymier & Shulman, 1995). Clearly demonstrating how the content aligns with the students’ personal and professional goals (Frymier & Shulman, 1995) engage students with the content and correlates with higher levels of motivation.

Table 2. Brief Literature Review of the Extent to Which Course Content Predicts Motivation and Engagement
CitationSampleOutcomeResults
Axtell, 2006293 male undergraduate students enrolled in Precalculus and Calculus 1 over the course of three years.Student persistence in the course sequence and grades in both courses.In comparison to students who took the prior, traditional Precalculus and calculus courses, the students who took the intentionally sequenced courses were more successful (both as measured by grades and retention) in the Calculus course.
Frymier & Shulman, 1995470 undergraduate students. Students reported on 309 male and 160 female instructors across 41 departments, covering all five colleges of the university.Student motivationThe authors found a modest, positive correlation between students’ motivation for studying and their perception that the teacher tried to make the content relevant.
Jones, Epler, Mokri, Bryant, & Paretti, 201347 engineering undergraduates, including 10 students who were interviewed.Motivation to engage in the course.The project was found to be motivating to students because it allowed for them to pick a topic related to their interested and situated the course content within the real world.
Pike & Carter, 201043 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory piano class.Students’ sight reading skills and engagement.In comparison to a control group, students who learned either rhythm or pitch through activities that meaningfully organized the content into smaller chunks performed better and reported feeling more engaged.
Shankararaman & Ducrot, 2016110 first year undergraduate students in an Information Systems Software Foundations courseStudents’ perceptions of the usefulness for learning and studying.The majority of respondents reported that providing learning outcomes were at least somewhat useful for (a) understanding what they should gain from the course, (b) preparing for assessments, (c) self assessing their competence, and (d) understanding what content they did not master.

The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is a useful heuristic for choosing course content (Vygotsky, 1978). The ZPD is the space between the level of difficulty a student can handle without instruction, and the level a student can handle with instruction. As a general guideline, instructors should include curricular content that is difficult enough that a student could not complete it without instruction, but not so difficult that it is beyond the realm of possibility for students even with instruction (Wass & Golding, 2014).

One way to ensure that the content is aligned with students’ goals, and other courses in a sequence are to use a backward design approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This method guides teachers to start their course design with learning outcomes that articulate the skills and knowledge needed to master the course content. We recommend that the instructor identifies learning outcomes that are relevant to the students’ academic, professional, or personal lives to promote student engagement in the material (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). The teacher then presents the content through activities and lessons that move students toward mastering these outcomes.

Practice

Teaching practices—the activities that instructors engage to design their course and lessons, develop assignments, and interact with students—play a significant role in engagement and learning. There are many evidence based teaching practices, and in this section, we identify some of the research based practices we most commonly recommend at our CTL (see Table 3).

Table 3. Brief Literature Review of the Extent to Which Specific Teaching Practices Predict Motivation and Engagement
CitationSampleOutcomeResults
Corkin et al., 2017962 college students enrolled in either an intervention or a control section of a large biology course across two semesters.Student motivation and interest.Students who participated in the active learning course reported higher levels of interest in the course concepts and higher personal motivation beliefs for the course.
Doymus, 200768 undergraduate students enrolled in two sections of a general chemistry course.The Chemical Equilibrium Achievement Test.Students who learned using the jigsaw technique outperformed those in the control condition on all parts of content assessment.
Hulleman, Godes, Hendricks, & Harackiewicz, 2010107 college students (50 males, 57 females) from an introductory psychology class.Students’ sense of utility value, current situational interest, and maintained situational interest.The intervention predicted performance on the problem set and increased perceptions of utility value and interest. This was especially true for students who were low in expected or classroom performance.
Levy & Bookin, 201480 public policy graduate students enrolled in a required statistics course.

Behavioral engagement.

Web postings and cold calling increased the number of minutes students spent on course content by almost one hour an average of 93 minutes for the intervention group versus an average of 35 minutes for the control group.

Wijnia, Loyens, & Derous, 2011Study 1:243 undergraduates enrolled in a psychology course that used either a problem based learning approach or a traditional lecture approach Study 2:14 students from study 1.Student motivation.Teaching content with a problem based learning approach requires scaffolding such as a sequential order of deadlines and reports, group structure, and assistance finding problem solving resources. With the right scaffolding, problem based learning can increase students’ intrinsic motivation to learn the course content.

Students learn more when they are “minds on” in learning activities, rather than passively listening or taking verbatim notes (Alexander & Winne, 2006; Davis, 1998; Freeman et al., 2014). Faculty can create spaces for active learning in their classrooms by breaking up lecture with opportunities for students to apply what they have just heard (e.g., working through a problem, answering a question, developing an analogy). Collaborative dialogue during these activities is particularly beneficial (Smith et al., 2009). For instance, students can work through the problem with a peer or briefly discuss the issue together before dialoguing with the whole class.

Students are more likely to engage and learn when course information (e.g., expectations, lectures and notes, readings and materials, assignments, and feedback) is clear, accessible, and well organized (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Wentzel & Brophy, 2014). Instructors can help students locate and understand information by using a comprehensive syllabus, a well organized and updated course site, thoughtfully designed slide decks and lecture notes, thorough assignment descriptions and explicit due dates, and informative feedback on assignments and assessments.

Students have higher motivation to learn when they are challenged to think deeply about course content and are required to explain and justify their answers (Alexander, 2006; Scott, 2010). Instructors design activities that require students to engage in “deep” learning tasks such as analysis, explanation, abstraction, or creation, while minimizing “shallow” tasks that involve recognition, calculation, or reiteration. Faculty can also set high standards for professionalism, by expecting students to come to class prepared, submitting assignments on time, and participating meaningfully in learning activities.

The dominant mode of instruction—lecture—suggests that telling equates to teaching and hearing is sufficient for learning. In reality, learning is more akin to construction; it occurs when students connect new information to prior knowledge (Ambrose, Lovett, Bridges, DiPietro, & Norman, 2010; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). For this reason, it is important for instructors to help students connect what they are learning with things they already know. Research suggests that when teachers present content in a way that builds on prior knowledge and gradually supports independent problem solving and mastery (e.g., via scaffolding), students develop self efficacy and motivation, and maintain interest in the topic (Reiser & Tabak, 2014). This can be accomplished through concept mapping activities and prompting students to connect what they have learned with earlier topics in the course, or in their personal or professional lives (Wentzel & Brophy, 2014). Instructors can help students perceive relevance by explicitly explaining why the topic will help students achieve their goals and by cueing students to make those connections themselves.

Students are most motivated to learn when they are incentivized through a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. This means that students are most likely to want to learn when they see the value of the material and because the instructor requires them to engage with it (Alderman, 2013). Instructors can encourage learning and engagement by using strategies such as safe cold calling, required participation in discussion based courses, and required response to lecture using techniques such as minute papers and web postings.

Assessment

Assessment practices (e.g., projects, tests, and assignments) are a key driver of student learning in higher education because they signal to students which course content is the most important and to what extent they should master the material. Assessments, however, can cause unnecessary stress when they are not aligned with the course objectives or students’ learning goals (Wass, Timmermans, Harland, & McLean, 2018). When students perceive that assessments are not purposefully developed in alignment with course learning outcomes, or that assessments are created to cause them stress and anxiety, they do not engage in deep, meaningful learning. To engage students in meaningful learning, teachers must adopt assessment practices that align with course and lesson learning outcomes, and motivate students to dive deeper into the content for the sake of mastery, not for surface level achievement (see Table 4).

Table 4. Brief Literature Review of the Extent to Which Assessment Strategies Predict Motivation and Engagement
CitationSampleOutcomeResults
Landers & Reinholz, 2015Community college students in two developmental math courses.Student use of and meaning making from a reflection activity after math homeworks.Student participated in the reflection as a means of self assessment, to learn from their mistakes, and to understand what the teacher wanted from them. Students were able to identify their strengths and weaknesses in math.
Wilson, Boyd, Chen, & Jamal, 2011First year undergraduates (N = 471) enrolled in a course with computer assisted formative assessmentsCourse grades and student satisfaction with the formative assessmentStudents reported that the formative assessment helped them to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and study for the exams. Students who completed the formative assessments earned significantly higher exam grades than those who did not.
Atkinson & Siew Leng, 2013Undergraduate students (N = 55) completed a survey.Student perceptions of formative feedback provided through a rubric.Students reported that the rubric helped them see what they had achieved and what they still needed to learn. Students like the rubric and wanted them to for more assignments.
Shields, 2015First year undergraduates (N = 240) were interviewed.Students’ emotional response to instructor feedback.First year students experience anxiety from feedback. Their self appraisal and confidence is connected to feedback they receive on their first assignment in college.
Wass et al., 2018Undergraduate students (N = 40) at a university in New Zealand.Students’ emotional responses to assessments and the interaction with learning and well being.Students experience stress and frustration when they feel like they have no control over their assessments and when they have multiple assessments at the same time. They often have to submit lower quality work and miss personal balance to focus on the highest stress assessment.

Assessments practices can encourage student motivation and engagement when they are valid, reliable measures of stated learning outcomes (Pellegrino, DiBello, & Goldman, 2016). Transparent expectations enable students to know what is expected of them and determine that mastery is possible, for example, through detailed rubrics that are provided to students before they complete assignments (Atkinson & Siew Leng, 2013). Clearly aligning learning outcomes with assessments can motivate students to study hard because they can visualize mastery. Additionally, learning is promoted when these assessments provide students with timely, individual feedback that can inform their progress toward mastery (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Teachers should embrace a universal design for learning approach (Zeff, 2007) and consider offering several different methods for students to demonstrate their mastery. Furthermore, including both formative and summative assessment strategies within courses can help guide students toward mastery of the learning outcomes. Instructors can incorporate formative assessments that provide that learners with low stakes feedback mid way through their learning process, in addition to high stakes summative feedback that more formally evaluate learning and application (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Overlap Across Climate, Content, Practice, and Assessment

It is important to note that these constructs are not orthogonal. Rather, there are aspects of teaching—such as relevance—that could potentially be sorted into more than one piece. Here, we place choosing relevant topics in the content piece, and explicitly explaining the relevance to students in the practice piece. Furthermore, the four pieces relate to one another. For example, engaging students in problem based learning—an instructional approach that leverages facilitated problem solving for learning—can also increase student interest and the extent to which they value the course content (Hmelo Silver, 2004). Changes in one piece will likely also result in some changes in another piece (see Figure 2). We suggest that courses are most effective when the four pieces work in tandem. For example, the assessments, and course content as operationalized in the course learning goals, should be aligned so that students understand the connection between what they are learning and how they will be assessed.

Figure 2. The Interdependent Nature of the Pieces of Effective Teaching.Figure 2. The Interdependent Nature of the Pieces of Effective Teaching.

Discussion

The four pieces of effective teaching in the Fearless Teaching Framework provide university instructors with digestible, evidence based guidance on the ways they can promote student motivation and engagement. In turn, when students are motivated and engaged in courses, they are more likely to learn, earn high grades, and continue to graduation.

The research base supporting the use of climate, content, practice, and assessment as definitions of effective teaching is not new. Rather, the contribution of this article is the categorization of this broad research base into four simple categories that instructors can easily remember and use for reflection and course development.

There are areas of overlap between the Fearless Teaching Framework and prior models of effective teaching. Bain (2012) encourages instructors to treat students with respect (climate), and communicate high expectations for their students (practice). Perkins (2009) emphasizes the need for clear instructions and expectations (assessment), active learning (practice), informative feedback (assessment), and interesting and relevant materials (content). Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) work can also be broadly sorted into our four pieces of effective teaching. Namely, they suggest enhancing course climate through strong student teacher relationships, engaging in collaborative, active, diverse practices, and providing clear expectations, time demands, and varied assessment strategies. However, these models provide guidance at the granular level, which leads them to identify some—though not all—aspects of effective climate, content, practice, and assessment. In contrast, the Fearless Teaching Framework was constructed to be a broad, higher order reference point for CTL guidance, consultations, and instructor reflection.

There are many ways to foster effective climate, content, practice, and assessment that we do not identify by name in this article. Indeed, we do not intend to name all of the possible ways that teachers can promote learning. There are other practices and choices that instructors make beyond those we mention that can help or hinder learning. Furthermore, there are factors other than student motivation and engagement that predict student learning (e.g., teacher expertise, students’ prior knowledge, classroom ambiance). However, we offer a starting place that instructors can use to grow as teachers.

A potential avenue for future work is exploring how measures of climate, content, practice, and assessment can be used to evaluate teaching, both in formative and summative assessment. If instructors are being provided professional development around these four constructs, it would be reasonable that incentives and evaluations would be aligned with the expectations for effective teaching.

Beyond using the Fearless Teaching Framework as a communication tool, CTL on university campuses can also use the framework to identify gaps in their offerings for instructors. For example, upon reflection, center leaders might realize that recent workshops have focused on teaching practices, but nothing has provided explicit professional development on creating a positive classroom climate. This use of the framework may help CTLs broaden the scope of their programming. Furthermore, we would encourage CTLs to structure workshops and consultations so that they identify which pieces of the framework are most salient in the session.

At the TLTC at the University of Maryland, we have used the Fearless Teaching Framework to design and revise instructor workshops, provide formative assessments of university teaching, and guide strategic planning. It has helped us address gaps in our programming, and use consistent, clear language with instructors.

Conclusion

Summarizing decades of education research on effective teaching can be a daunting task for instructors and CTL professionals alike. We believe that the Fearless Teaching Framework—and in particular our pieces of effective teaching—can be a helpful tool in communicating this body of research to instructors because it is simple, research based, and easy to remember.

References

  • Alcott, B. (2017). Does teacher encouragement influence students’ educational progress? A propensity score matching analysis. Research in Higher Education, 58(7), 773–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162 017 9446 2
  • Alderman, M. K. (2013). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Alexander, P. A. (2006). Psychology in learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  • Alexander, P. A., & Winne, P. H. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of educational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation and persistence. Research in Higher Education: Journal of the Association for Institutional Research, 40(4), 461–485. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018740226006
  • Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., & DiPietro, M. (2010). How learning works: seven research based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • Ambrose, S., Lovett, M., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., & Norman, M. (2010). How learning works: Seven research based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • Anderson, A., Hamilton, R. J., & Hattie, J. (2004). Classroom climate and motivated behavior in secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 7, 211–225.
  • Atkinson, D., & Siew Leng, L. (2013). Improving assessment processes in higher education: Student and teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of a rubric embedded in a LMS. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 651–666.
  • Axtell, M. (2006). A two semester precalculus/calculus I sequence: A case study. Mathematics & Computer Education, 40(2), 130–137.
  • Bain, K. (2012). What the best college students do. Cambridge, MA: The Bell Press of Harvard University Press.
  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
  • Betts, L., & Rotenberg, K. (2007). Trustworthiness, friendships, and self control: Factors that contribute to young children’s school adjustment. Infant and Child Development, 16, 491–508.
  • Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162 005 8150 9
  • Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
  • Corkin, D. M., Horn, C., & Pattison, D. (2017). The effects of an active learning intervention in biology on college students’ classroom motivational climate perceptions, motivation, and achievement. Educational Psychology, 37(9), 1106–1124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1324128
  • Corkin, D. M., Yu, S. L., Wolters, C. A., & Wiesner, M. (2014). The role of college classroom climate on academic procrastination. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.04.001
  • Davis, O. L. (1998). Beyond beginnings: From “hands on” to “minds on”. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(2), 119–122.
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
  • Doymus, K. (2007). Effects of a cooperative learning strategy on teaching and learning phases of matter and one component phase diagrams. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(11), 1857–1860.
  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–84115.
  • Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belongingness of college freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 203–220.
  • Frymier, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1995). ‘What’s in it for me?’: Increasing content relevance to enhance students’ motivation. Communication Education, 44(1), 40–50.
  • Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022 0663.95.1.148
  • Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Assessing students’ motivation and learning strategies in the classroom context: The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. In M. Birenbaum, & F. J. R. C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes, and prior knowledge (pp. 319–339). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949–967.
  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  • Hmelo Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
  • Howard, T. C. (2001). Telling their side of the story: African American students’ perceptions of culturally relevant teaching. The Urban Review, 33(2), 131–149.
  • Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 880–895. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019506
  • Jetton, T., & Alexander, P. (2001). Interest assessment and the content area literacy environment: Challenges for research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 303–318.
  • Jones, B., Epler, C., Mokri, P., Bryant, L., & Paretti, M. (2013). The effects of a collaborative problem based learning experience on students’ motivation in engineering capstone courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 7(2), 33–71. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541 5015.1344
  • Landers, M., & Reinholz, D. (2015). Students’ reflections on mathematics homework feedback. Journal of Developmental Education, 38(3), 22–36.
  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Levy, D. & Bookin, J. (2014). Cold calling and web postings: Do they improve students’ preparation and learning in statistics? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(5), 92 109. DOI: 10.14434/josotlv14i5.13901
  • Miyake, A., Kost Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330(6008), 1234–1237. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1195996
  • Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Scalas, F. (2014). Doubly latent multilevel analyses of classroom climate: An illustration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.769412
  • Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated look at motivational terminology. (Special Issue). . Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53.
  • Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2009). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness in the college classroom: Effects on student perceptions of climate, apprehension, and state motivation. Western Journal of Communication, 65(2), 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310109374696
  • Pellegrino, J. W., DiBello, L. V., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). A framework for conceptualizing and evaluating the validity of instructionally relevant assessments. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1145550
  • Perkins, D. N. (2009). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can transform education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
  • Pike, P. P., & Carter, R. (2010). Employing cognitive chunking techniques to enhance sight reading performance of undergraduate group piano students. International Journal of Music Education, 28(3), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761410373886
  • Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022 0663.95.4.667
  • Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2006). Motivational influences on transfer. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 147–160.
  • Reiser, B. J., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 44–62). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268
  • Schunk, D. H. (2000). Motivation for achievement: Past, present, and future. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 6, 161–165.
  • Scott, S. (2010). A minds on approach to active learning in general music. General Music Today, 24(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371309354432
  • Shankararaman, V., & Ducrot, J. (2016). Leveraging competency framework to improve teaching and learning: A methodological approach. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5), 1299–1327. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10639 015 9383 7
  • Shields, S. (2015). ‘My work is bleeding’: Exploring students’ emotional responses to first year assignment feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(6), 614–624.
  • Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840
  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124.
  • Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1974). Classroom Environment Scale, form R. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  • Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246–260.
  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Wass, R., & Golding, C. (2014). Sharpening a tool for teaching: The zone of proximal development. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901958
  • Wass, R., Timmermans, J., Harland, T., & McLean, A. (2018). Annoyance and frustration: Emotional responses to being assessed in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education. http://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418762462
  • Wentzel, K., & Brophy, J. (2014). Motivating students to learn. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd edition. ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Wijnia, L., Loyens, S. M. M., & Derous, E. (2011). Investigating effects of problem based versus lecture based learning environments on student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEDPSYCH.2010.11.003
  • Wilson, K., Boyd, C., Chen, L., & Jamal, S. (2011). Improving student performance in a first year geography course: Examining the importance of computer assisted formative assessment. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1493–1500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.011
  • Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
  • Zeff, R. (2007). Universal design across the curriculum. New Directions for Higher Education, 2007(137), 27–44.
  • Zubrunn, S., McKim, C., Buhs, E., & Hawley, L. R. (2014). Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study. Instructional Science, 42, 661–684.