Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

The Trickle-Down Engagement Model posits that instructor engagement promotes student engagement which, in turn, has positive implications for student learning.

Objective

Our goal was to provide evidence-based practical recommendations for instructors to communicate their engagement with course material to students, activating the trickle-down process.

Method

In two experiments, we used recorded mock lectures in which we manipulated instructor movement within the classroom (Study 1) and enthusiastic statements that cued instructor engagement (Study 2). In both studies, we measured student learning and assessed perceptions of the instructor's engagement, their own engagement, and the presented material.

Results

Engaged cue statements successfully communicated instructor engagement but physical movement did not. Consistent with the Trickle-Down Engagement Model and our hypotheses, perceptions of instructors’ engagement positively related to participants’ own engagement, which was also positively related to better learning outcomes.

Conclusion

When instructors verbally communicate their engagement with course material, students are more engaged and demonstrate better learning.

Teaching Implications

Channeling explicit, positive instructor engagement has numerous benefits, including enhanced student learning and educational experiences.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Azevedo

(2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1004069

Bonet

Walters

B. R.

(2016). High impact practices: Student engagement and retention. College Student Journal, 50(2), 224–235.

Carini

R. M.

Kuh

G. D.

Klein

S. P.

(2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9

Frenzel

A. C.

Goetz

Lüdtke

Pekrun

Sutton

R. E.

(2009). Emotional transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014695

Goroshit

Hen

(2016). Teachers’ empathy: Can it be predicted by self-efficacy? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(7), 805–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1185818

Hatfield

Cacioppo

J. T.

Rapson

R. L.

(1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. In Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (pp. 29–73). Guilford Publications.

Holmes

C. P.

Kirwan

J. R.

Bova

Belcher

(2015). An investigation of personality traits in relation to job performance of online instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(1), 1–10. https://eric.ed.gov/?redir=http%3a%2f%2fwww.westga.edu%2f%7edistance%2fojdla%2fspring181%2fholmes_kirwan_bova_belcher181.html.

Hotaman

Yüksel-Sahin

(2010). The effect of instructors’ enthusiasm on university students’ level of achievement motivation. Egitim ve Bilim, 35(155), 89–103.

10.

Houser

M. L.

Waldbuesser

(2017). Emotional contagion in the classroom: The impact of teacher satisfaction and confirmation on perceptions of student nonverbal classroom behavior. College Teaching, 65(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2016.1189390

11.

Hughes

Pace

C. R.

(2003). Using NSSE to study student retention and withdrawal. Assessment Update, 15(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/au.154

12.

Meyers

Rowell

Wells

Smith

B. C.

(2019). Teacher empathy: A model of empathy for teaching for student success. College Teaching, 67(3), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2019.1579699

13.

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2017). Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education – Annual results 2017. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

14.

Pekrun

Linnenbrink-Garcia

(2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_12

15.

Reschly

A. L.

Christenson

S. L.

(2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1

16.

Russell, V. J., Ainley, M., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). Student motivation and engagement. Schooling Issues Digest. Australian Government, Department of Education, Science and Training.

17.

Saucier

D. A.

Jones

T. L.

Miller

S. S.

Schiffer

A. A.

Mills

H. D.

Renken

N. D.

(2022a). Cueing engagement: Applying the Trickle-Down Engagement Model to instructors’ in-class behaviors. https://osf.io/dt2j4/?view_only=0e0c4f50f2af4c719b62c01a2db30219

18.

Saucier

D. A.

Miller

S. S.

Jones

T. L.

Martens

A. L.

(2022b). Trickle-down engagement: Effects of perceived teacher and student engagement on learning outcomes. The International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 33(2), 168–179.

19.

Schunk

D. H.

Mullen

C. A.

(2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219–235). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_10

20.

Sharif

M. A.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

(2016). The effect of relative encoding on memory-based judgments. Psychological Science, 27(8), 1136–1145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616651973

21.

Silva de Souza

G. H.

Jardim

W. S.

Lopes

Marques

Y. B.

Lima

N. C.

Ramos

R. S.

(2020). Brazilian Students’ expectations regarding distance learning and remote classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 20(4), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.12738/jestp.2020.4.005

22.

Skinner

E. A.

Belmont

M. J.

(1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571

23.

Steele

J. P.

Fullagar

C. J.

(2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 143(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.1.5-27

24.

Sunasee

(2020). Challenges of teaching organic chemistry during COVID-19 pandemic at a primarily undergraduate institution. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3176–3181. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00542

25.

van Doorn

E. A.

van Kleef

G. A.

van der Pligt

(2014). How instructors’ emotional expressions shape students’ learning performance: The roles of anger, happiness, and regulatory focus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 980–984. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035226

26.

Zhang

(2014). Assessing the effects of instructor enthusiasm on classroom engagement, learning goal orientation, and academic self-efficacy. Communication Teacher, 28(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2013.839047

Cueing Engagement: Applying the Trickle-Down Engagement Model to Instructors’ In-Class Behaviors

Abstract

Background

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

Teaching Implications

Get full access to this article

References