Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Active learning strategies can foster student engagement in large lecture courses.

Objective

The Health Psychology Interview Project (HPIP) combines multiple active learning strategies to promote engagement in a large undergraduate health psychology course. The current study provides a detailed description of the HPIP and presents student evaluations of the project.

Method

Students in two cohorts of a health psychology course (N = 154) participated in the term-long project by creating research questions, asking them of experts in the field (N = 18) during remote collective interview sessions, and writing a response paper addressing their questions. Students reported that they found the project interesting and useful, and that it encouraged their engagement with health psychology research and the research process to a significant extent. Students also shared open-ended evaluations of the HPIP.

Results

Quantitative results revealed that students perceived the project as enjoyable and valuable and that it helped them engage with course material. Qualitative responses demonstrated that students particularly enjoyed interacting with experts in the field.

Conclusion

The HPIP fostered engagement with course material and a connection between students and health psychology professionals.

Teaching Implications

Detailed descriptions reveal how the HPIP model could be adapted to other academic courses.

Keywords

student engagement active learning writing assignment guest speakers

Gordon Allport (1953) quoted a Chinese saying that captures a pedagogical philosophy familiar to many teachers of psychology: “When I hear it, I forget it. When I see it, I remember it. When I do it, I know it” (p. 877). Consistent with the idea that students learn by “doing,” implementing active learning strategies and encouraging student engagement can promote an array of positive outcomes among college students. Student engagement is positively linked with motivation, learning outcomes, and enjoyment of course material (Carini et al., 2006; Doolittle et al., 2023). However, challenges arise when seeking to engage students, especially in large lecture courses, which are often characterized by an impersonal atmosphere and a greater sense of anonymity among students (Talbot et al., 2015). The Health Psychology Interview Project (HPIP) is a term-long interview and writing project developed to foster engagement in a large health psychology lecture course. In this paper, we introduce the project's goals, describe the methods and processes that instructors can consider for implementation, and present student evaluations of the project from two class cohorts.

Student Engagement and Active Learning

The HPIP aims to foster student engagement, a broad construct examined by teaching and learning researchers. The literature on student engagement suggests four main aspects: academic (completing learning-related activities), social (interacting with classmates and instructors), cognitive (thinking deeply and critically about course material), and affective (perceived usefulness and value of material learned; Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Student engagement across these dimensions is associated with positive outcomes, including greater satisfaction with classes, psychological well-being, and self-efficacy (Steele & Fullagar, 2009; Virtanen et al., 2016).

Given these potential benefits, increasing student engagement is a focal pedagogical goal. However, many challenges arise when attempting to foster engagement. We sought to address several of these challenges in our health psychology course. In large lecture courses (>75 students), students report feeling less engaged due to decreased interaction with the instructor and their peers, as well as difficulties with distraction (Benjamin, 1991; McAndrew et al., 2018). Furthermore, in the traditional lecture format used for large courses, students passively receive information without necessarily thinking about the material critically or discussing the material with others (Stoerger & Kreiger, 2016).

Instructors have developed active learning strategies that encourage critical thinking to engage students in the face of these challenges (Doolittle et al., 2023). For example, instructors can harness the self-reference effect by asking students to connect class material to their own lives or interests (Liu et al., 2024). These assignments require students to think critically about course material and apply concepts to other domains (Wentworth & Whitmarsh, 2017). We sought to use aspects of these strategies in the HPIP by having students apply course concepts in a writing assignment based on interviews with guest experts in health psychology.

The HPIP utilized these guest experts to engage with the students via remote collective interview sessions using the Zoom platform. Guest lectures and fostering interactions between students and researchers increase students’ interest in the subject and understanding of current research (Merle & Craig, 2017; Woods-Townsend et al., 2016). These interactions can also expose students to various careers and encourage meaningful career conversations (Schwartz et al., 2018; Sherman et al., 2021).

Health psychology instructors have noted a need for active class assignments. In a national survey of health psychology instructors, over 40% of respondents indicated a need for digital media resources, such as videos and podcasts, and 32% said there were not enough classroom activities or demonstrations (Panjwani et al., 2017). The HPIP contributes to these goals. Moreover, such activities can benefit students’ academic and health outcomes. Applied health psychology assignments can lead to positive changes in health behaviors, such as adopting healthier eating, sleeping, and exercise habits (Wright et al., 2020). Similarly, the HPIP aimed to help students understand the relevance of health psychology concepts to their daily lives by featuring experts on topics such as stress, pain, eating, and coping with loss. Thus, the HPIP aimed to break down the walls between science producers and consumers, as well as between practitioners and potential patients.

Current Study

Health psychology is a course that deeply connects to students’ lives. Yet, students can disengage when courses are taught in a large lecture format. To surmount this barrier, we created a novel assignment that drew on prior work on fostering student engagement. The current study builds on this research by combining aspects of different engagement strategies and applying them in a course with a documented need for class activities and digital media resources, namely, health psychology. Specifically, the HPIP is a writing assignment that requires students to think critically about course material and apply it to their lives and interests. The HPIP invites students to interact with guest speakers, the course instructor and TA, and their classmates during relatively small-sized (<10 people) remote collective interview sessions. The instructor designed HPIP specifically for Health Psychology; however, we (the instructor and teaching assistant) discuss strategies for implementing the project in other courses as well.

The HPIP had four goals: first, increase students’ exposure to and familiarity with health psychology concepts and the research process (academic engagement); second, facilitate critical thinking about course topics through an iterative writing assignment (cognitive engagement); third, foster connections between students and external health psychology experts (social engagement); and fourth, demonstrate the value and relevance of health psychology to their own lives and current events (affective engagement). In the current study, we address the research question: Does the HPIP effectively foster student engagement? We hypothesized that students would evaluate the HPIP as interesting and valuable and as significantly impacting their engagement with health psychology research and the research process.

We designed and implemented a course-long interview and writing assignment that used multiple modalities and engagement strategies. We report data from two cohorts that illustrate the project's effectiveness. The project's first iteration (Winter 2022) was developed during the COVID-19 global pandemic and focused on interviewing experts on Health Psychology and COVID-19 (e.g., stress, loneliness, health persuasion in the context of the pandemic). The second iteration of the HPIP (Winter 2023) focused on interviewing experts in a broader range of Health Psychology topics unrelated to the pandemic (e.g., pain, grief, health behaviors). To evaluate the project, students reported their interest in and perceived value of the assignment, as well as their perceived level of engagement.

We implemented the HPIP in a Health Psychology undergraduate course at a large research-focused university in the western United States. The course typically has 100–150 upper-division students enrolled in Psychological and Brain Sciences (the major's name). It takes place over a 10-week academic quarter with one instructor and one course teaching assistant (TA). The HPIP required each student to compose two research questions for two health psychology experts (from a total of nine guest speakers), ask their question (or have their question asked) to the expert during a Zoom interview, and write a response paper answering their question based on their literature review of the topic and the expert's input. Figure 1 illustrates the project timeline.

Figure 1.
Timeline of the HPIP During a 10-Week Academic Quarter.

Method

Participants

The HPIP was implemented in a health psychology course taught during Winter 2022 (Cohort 1) and Winter 2023 (Cohort 2) at a four-year university in the Western United States. The instructor and course TA were the same across years. All enrolled students completed the project (142 students in Cohort 1 and 94 students in Cohort 2), but only 91 students in Cohort 1 and 63 students in Cohort 2 participated in a subsequent survey about their experiences. Across cohorts, the total sample size of survey respondents was 154 students, yielding a 65% participation rate (M_age = 21.17; 48% White, 19% Latinx, 12% East Asian, 12% Multiracial, and 9% Other; 84% women). The sample was 45% (n = 69) third-year students, 49% (n = 75) fourth-year students, and 6% (n = 9) fifth-year students. Ninety percent (n = 138) were Psychological and Brain Sciences majors, 8% (n = 12) were Biopsychology majors (the two majors offered by the department), and 2% (n = 4) were majors outside the department. The primary results are descriptive statistics that assess the perceived interest, value, and engagement of the HPIP. For these analyses, we conducted a post-hoc sensitivity power analysis using GPower for one-sample t-tests that compare the mean to the scale midpoint (Faul et al., 2007). With the present sample of N = 154, small effect sizes of d = 0.22 or greater for one-sample t-tests compared to the scale midpoint could be detected with 80% power (α .05, two-tailed). Previous research examining the impact of specific projects on student engagement found medium to large effect sizes and thus, we had sufficient power to detect similar effects (e.g., Stoerger & Kreiger, 2016; Wentworth & Whitmarsh, 2017).

Measures

Perceived Value and Interest

Students responded to two subscales of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory to assess affective components of student engagement and students’ overall evaluation of the project (Deci et al., 1994). Seven items assessed the value/usefulness of the assignment (e.g., “I believe participating in this assignment was beneficial to me”). Seven items assessed students’ interest/enjoyment in the project (e.g., “I would describe this assignment as very interesting”). All items used a 1 (Not at All) to 7 (Very Much) scale. To create a composite of perceived value (α = .94) and interest (α = .92), we averaged responses, with higher scores indicating greater perceived value and interest, respectively.

Perceived Engagement

Students reported the extent to which the project helped them engage with health psychology research (ten items) and the research process (four items). These items spanned across the different aspects of student engagement. For example, items assessing engagement with health psychology research measured academic engagement (e.g., “To what extent did the writing assignment help you gain exposure to health psychological research relevant to personal health, health communications, and health policy”), cognitive engagement (e.g., “to what extent did the writing assignment help you analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view”), social engagement (e.g., “the assignment allowed me to engage with experts in the field of health psychology”), and affective engagement (e.g., “the assignment gave me an opportunity to apply health psychology to my own interests”). Items assessing engagement with the research process measured academic engagement (e.g., “To what extent did the writing assignment help you develop familiarity with the strengths and limitations of various research methodologies”) and cognitive engagement (e.g., “To what extent did the writing assignment help you analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view”). All items used a 1 (Not at All)* to 7 (Very Much) scale. To create a composite of perceived engagement with health psychology research (10 items, α = .88) and with the research process (4 items, α = .79), we averaged the responses, so that higher values indicate greater perceived engagement. See Feasel and Sherman (2025) for a description of the creation of these composites.

Open-Ended Evaluations

Students responded to three open-ended questions reporting their general thoughts (“What are your thoughts about the writing assignment in general?”), what they enjoyed (“What did you enjoy about the writing assignment?”), and suggested improvements (“What would you recommend to improve the writing assignment?”).

Procedure

In the project's first iteration, the HPIP focused on health psychology topics related explicitly to COVID-19. After the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the course instructor conducted a series of thirteen interviews in the Spring and Summer of 2020 with public health workers, policy scholars, and health psychology researchers to discuss their experience and research related to the global pandemic. These experts were collaborators or professional associates of the instructor. These interviews and a compilation video of highlights served as the foundation for the 2022 project. Eight of the original experts agreed to participate as guest speakers in Winter 2022, along with one new speaker.

In the second iteration, the project covered topics across the field of health psychology. During past classes of this health psychology course, students earned extra credit by summarizing a talk or podcast relevant to health psychology broadly. These extra credit talks served as a list of potential speakers for the Winter 2023 HPIP. The course instructor invited a list of these health psychology experts to be interviewed. Some of these experts were the instructors’ professional associates. Past students’ interest in their work and the availability of their podcasts or talks on relevant material drove the selections. Nine experts agreed to participate. We created a compilation video with highlights from the original talks or podcasts, which served as the foundation for the 2023 project.¹ Speakers were not paid for their time. However, we minimized the speakers’ time commitment by asking them to participate in the hour-long interview without any preparation beyond being sent student questions the day before.²

Students watched the compilation video at the beginning of the academic term and reported the top three guests whose expertise best aligned with their interests. For Cohort 1, we scheduled interview times as the academic term went on, but for Cohort 2, we finalized all interview times prior to the term. Students in Cohort 2 then had potential to select speakers whose interview times aligned with their schedules. The course TA assigned students to two speakers (one from their top three and one other speaker). Students listened to the whole talk or podcast for their two assigned guests and drafted a research question for each assigned speaker. Students submitted their questions as a course assignment and received feedback. Students chose one of their two questions to answer in their response paper.

During weeks 5–10 for Cohort 1 and weeks 4–7 for Cohort 2 of the 10-week academic term, the instructor or TA hosted a Zoom interview with each speaker outside of regular class time. Students asked their questions live, pre-recorded, and submitted them to the instructor, or had their questions read by the instructor. Various participation options were offered to include students who could not attend the live interviews or did not feel comfortable asking their questions. The instructors prioritized live questions (∼8 per interview) and pre-recorded questions (∼5 per interview) and read remaining student questions as time permitted. Instructors combined similar questions to address the topics of most students. The course webpage hosted recordings of all interviews.

As the final part of the project, students chose one of their two questions and wrote a 400–600 word response paper. Students answered their questions based on the expert interviews and prior research (assignment required at least three references) or suggested future directions for research to address their questions. The low word count encouraged students to convey their ideas concisely and enabled grading within the time constraints of the course (the course TA graded all papers).

Three to four weeks after completing the course, the instructors invited students to participate in a survey about their experiences with the HPIP. Students reported their perceived value and interest, perceived engagement, and open-ended evaluations of the project. Students received a $5 gift card as compensation. The Institutional Review Board approved the study procedures. Guest speakers, example student questions, assignment instructions, and rubric, full survey measures, and study data are available on OSF (Feasel & Sherman, 2025).

Results

Students’ Perceived Interest, Value, and Engagement with Health Psychology and the Research Process

Overall, students perceived the project as interesting and useful, and it helped them engage with health psychology research and the research process. One-sample t-tests confirmed that all student ratings were significantly above the midpoint (4.0) of the scale (all ds > 0.70, ps < .001, see Table 1).³ Reported p-values were adjusted using the Holm-Bonferroni method to correct for alpha inflation when conducting multiple tests.

Table 1.
Perceived Interest, Value, and Engagement of the HPIP.

M SD df t p d

Interest/enjoyment 5.05 1.25 153 10.44 <.001 0.84

Value/usefulness 5.71 1.10 153 19.31 <.001 1.56

Engage with health psych research 5.81 .83 152 27.09 <.001 2.19

Engage with research process 5.31 1.01 153 16.20 <.001 1.31

Note. Reported p-values were adjusted using the Holm-Bonferroni method.

Content Analysis of Open-Ended Evaluations of Student Engagement

Two research assistants, who had no earlier involvement in the project, analyzed the open-ended responses using conventional content analysis with an inductive coding approach to develop a set of themes from the data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). They coded student responses according to these themes and discussed discrepancies until agreement was reached (see Feasel & Sherman, 2025, for a detailed description of this process).

While feedback was positive overall, students shared suggestions for improvement. In the first year, students suggested scheduling interviews earlier in the quarter and expanding the scope beyond COVID-19. This feedback informed changes made in the project's second iteration.⁴ In the second year, students suggested requiring drafts due before the final response paper, allowing students to choose both assigned speakers, and having all students’ questions answered during interviews.

When asked about what they enjoyed from the assignment, students appreciated that the project helped them connect with health psychology professionals:
I thought it was really cool that we got to ask our questions to the experts that were being interviewed. It was also interesting to hear how they got to their current career and learn more about different careers in health psychology (from Cohort 2).

Students also appreciated the freedom to explore a topic of their choice: “I thought it was very meaningful and good because it gave students the liberty to choose their own topic and pick something that interests them” (from Cohort 1). Other themes present in students’ responses were that the project fostered engagement with course material beyond the classroom and that it was relevant to personal interests and the real world:
I enjoyed integrating potential ideas related to why my topic is important and how it contributes to the differences seen in different prevalence rates in various countries. Also, it was not busywork because of the requirements, and the topic was tailored to our specific interest with COVID-19 (from Cohort 1).

Discussion

We designed and implemented the HPIP to foster engagement in a large, lecture-based health psychology course. Students perceived that the HPIP 1) deepened their understanding of health psychology and the research process (academic engagement), 2) required critical thinking about course material (cognitive engagement), 3) fostered interactions with health psychology experts (social engagement), and 4) demonstrated the value of course material by making connections with students’ interests and current events (affective engagement). These findings build on past research that active learning strategies enhance students’ engagement and interest in course content (Doolittle et al., 2023). While past research examined these strategies independently, the HPIP combined different strategies to provide students with multiple ways of engaging with course material through writing, reviewing past literature, interviewing guest speakers, and connecting course topics to their lives.

Limitations and Future Directions

The timing of the HPIP in relation to COVID-19 is both a strength and a limitation of the current project. The HPIP took place in the first two years after returning to in-person learning. Thus, the project may have been particularly successful for these cohorts of students seeking social connection after COVID isolation (Knight et al., 2021). Similarly, these students may have been more comfortable with the project's virtual format due to increased technology use during the pandemic (Wright et al., 2024).

One limitation of the current study is the potential for self-selection bias in the surveyed student sample. Sixty-five percent of students who completed the HPIP responded to the survey assessing the project. Results may represent students who felt strongly about the project or performed exceptionally well in the class. However, the distribution of self-reported grades from Cohort 2 did not differ from the class overall, demonstrating that it was not the case that students at the extremes of the grade distribution were more likely to participate in the survey. Additionally, past research has shown that engagement strategies promote learning even for students who initially dislike the requirements of active learning (Deslauriers et al., 2019). The project's multiple interactive components over the academic term require clear explanations of the expectations and purpose of the project in order to foster engagement among students who vary in their interest in active learning (see also Tharayil et al., 2018).

A third limitation is the reliance on self-report measures to assess the project's effectiveness. These measures aligned with the primary goal of evaluating whether the HPIP fostered the psychological aspects of student engagement. However, these measures precluded us from examining whether the HPIP improved students’ learning and academic performance. Future researchers could employ objective measures of student learning (e.g., exam scores) to assess whether increased engagement through the HPIP improves academic performance.

Although the HPIP was designed for a health psychology course, it is adoptable and adaptable for instructors teaching other psychology courses. A developmental psychology course could implement an interview project with guest speakers such as professors in cognitive development and social development, as well as pediatricians and social workers. The active learning and engagement strategies incorporated in the project are effective across disciplines (Michael, 2006). Furthermore, instructors can adapt the project to suit their goals, drawing potential speakers from popular psychology podcasts, such as Hidden Brain (Vedantam, 2015 – present) or Minds Matter (de Sousa & Fisher, 2022 – present), or virtual talks (e.g., TED Talks). In the current project, we drew in part on students’ suggestions for speakers, and so the project covered topics that aligned with students’ interests. Beyond promoting engagement, other outcomes of the HPIP benefit students across fields of psychology. Connecting students with experts introduces them to current research and enhances students’ understanding of the research process, a common goal across many psychology programs and courses (Stoloff et al., 2010). The HPIP offers a means to integrate career conversations into a lecture course and expose students to various career paths within specific areas of psychology. Students in the HPIP connect course material to their daily lives, which may impact relevant behaviors. For example, applied health psychology assignments encourage students to adopt healthier behaviors (Wright et al., 2020), while applied cognitive psychology helps students to develop more effective study habits (Putnam et al., 2016).

While the HPIP demonstrates promising benefits for student engagement, it may require additional work and planning for instructors who are interested in implementing it. The current instructor, who had taught health psychology many times previously, had existing class materials (e.g., lectures and exams). Thus, the instructor dedicated course prep time to organizing the HPIP comfortably. Instructors teaching a course for the first time may find this unfeasible. To manage the additional time commitment, the current instructor scheduled some interviews during office hours (time already dedicated to teaching the course). Future iterations could consider scheduling some interviews during class time, reducing additional time commitment for instructors and maximizing the number of students in attendance. The current instructor also incorporated video clips from interviews in lecture material (highlighting student questions with the student's permission), demonstrating that time spent organizing the project enhances the course content as well. Another idea is to implement the HPIP as part of a study program, such as an interdisciplinary emphasis (e.g., Wright, 2023). Sharing the workload across multiple instructors may make the project more manageable. The project's flexible nature allows speakers from different disciplines to participate and encourages students to apply an interdisciplinary framework.

Overall, the Health Psychology Interview Project effectively promoted students’ interest and perceived engagement in a large health psychology course, facilitating meaningful interactions between students and psychology experts. By encouraging students to connect course concepts to their interests, both basic and applied, the HPIP fostered critical thinking and deeper learning that can be difficult to achieve in large lecture-based courses. Given its flexibility, the HPIP model can be adapted across various academic disciplines to enhance student engagement and foster connections among students, researchers, practitioners, and instructors.

	M	SD	df	t	p	d
Interest/enjoyment	5.05	1.25	153	10.44	<.001	0.84
Value/usefulness	5.71	1.10	153	19.31	<.001	1.56
Engage with health psych research	5.81	.83	152	27.09	<.001	2.19
Engage with research process	5.31	1.01	153	16.20	<.001	1.31

Footnotes

Author's Note

Sierra H. Feasel is also affiliated with Psychology Department, Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants from the Association for Psychological Science Fund for Teaching and Public Understanding of Psychological Science and from UCSB Instructional Development.

ORCID iD

Sierra H. Feasel

Open Practices

For publishing their material, Feasel and Sherman received badges for open data and open materials. The public content may be retrieved from

Notes

References

Allport

G. W.

(1953). The teaching-learning situation. Public Health Reports, 68(9), 875–879. https://doi.org/10.2307/4588580

Benjamin

L. T.

(1991). Personalization and active learning in the large introductory psychology class. Teaching of Psychology, 18(2), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1802_1

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

Deci

E. L.

Eghrari

Patrick

B. C.

Leone

D. R.

(1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x

Deslauriers

McCarty

L. S.

Miller

Callaghan

Kestin

(2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116

de Sousa

A. M.

Fisher

B. (Hosts).

(2022 – present). Minds matter [Audio podcast]. https://www.mindsmatterpodcast.com/

Doolittle

Wojdak

Walters

(2023) Defining active learning: A restricted systemic review. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 11, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.25

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A-G.

Buchner

(2007) G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146

Feasel

S. H.

Sherman

D. K.

(2025). Connecting, interviewing, writing: Fostering student engagement via the Health Psychology Interview Project. Retrieved from https://osf.io/3fqp9/

10.

Finn

J. D.

Zimmer

K. S.

(2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5

11.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

12.

Knight

Carlisle

O'Connor

Briggs

Fothergill

Al-Oraibi

Yildirim

Morling

J. R.

Corner

Ball

Denning

Vedhara

Blake

(2021). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and self-isolation on students and staff in higher education: A qualitative study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(20), 10675. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010675

13.

Liu

Wen

Liu

C. P.

(2024). The effectiveness of self: A meta-analysis of using self-referential encoding techniques in education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 112–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12636

14.

McAndrew

A. S.

Dykeman

Fell

C P

Nussbaum

(2018) Unpacking the student experience in large lectures. EDUCAUSE Review, https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2018/10/unpacking-the-student-experience-in-large-lectures

15.

Merle

P. F.

Craig

(2017). Be my guest: A survey of mass communication students’ perception of guest speakers. College Teaching, 65(2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2016.1232691

16.

Michael

(2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006

17.

Panjwani

A. A.

Gurung

R. A.

Revenson

T. A.

(2017). The teaching of undergraduate health psychology: A national survey. Teaching of Psychology, 44(3), 268–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317712786

18.

Putnam

A. L.

Sungkhasettee

V. W.

Roediger

H. L.

III . (2016). Optimizing learning in college: Tips from cognitive psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 652–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616645770

19.

Schwartz

B. M.

Gregg

V. R.

McKee

(2018). Conversations about careers: Engaging students in and out of the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 45(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317745247

20.

Sherman

D. K.

Ortosky

Leong

Kello

Hegarty

(2021). The changing landscape of doctoral education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: PhD students, faculty advisors, and preferences for varied career options. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 711615. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.711615

21.

Steele

J. P.

Fullagar

C. J.

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

22.

Stoerger

Kreiger

(2016). Transforming a large-lecture course into an active, engaging, and collaborative learning environment. Education for Information, 32(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-150967

23.

Stoloff

McCarthy

Keller

Varfolomeeva

Lynch

Makara

Simmons

Smiley

(2010). The undergraduate psychology major: An examination of structure and sequence. Teaching of Psychology, 37(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280903426274

24.

Talbot

R. M.

Hartley

L. M.

Marzetta

Wee

B. S.

(2015). Transforming undergraduate science education with learning assistants: Student satisfaction in large-enrollment courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(5), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0047231x.2015.12454809

25.

Tharayil

Borrego

Prince

Nguyen

K A

Shekhar

Finelli

C J

Waters

(2018) Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0102-y

26.

Vedantam

S. (Host).

(2015 – present). Hidden brain [Audio podcast]. Hidden Brain Media. https://hiddenbrain.org/

27.

Virtanen

T. E.

Kiuru

Lerkkanen

M. K.

Poikkeus

A. M.

Kuorelahti

(2016). Assessment of student engagement among junior high school students and associations with self-esteem, burnout, and academic achievement. Journal for Educational Research Online, 8(2), 136–157. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:12430

28.

Wentworth

D. K.

Whitmarsh

(2017). Thinking like a psychologist introductory psychology writing assignments: Encouraging critical thinking and resisting plagiarism. Teaching of Psychology, 44(4), 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317727909

29.

Woods-Townsend

Christodoulou

Rietdijk

Byrne

Griffiths

J. B.

Grace

M. M.

(2016). Meet the scientist: The value of short interactions between scientists and students. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1016134

30.

Wright

R. R.

(2023). Undergraduate health psychology education: An effective model for interdisciplinary education. Education, 143(3), 117–127.

31.

Wright

R. R.

Larson

Richards

Larson

Nienstedt

(2024). The COVID-19 pandemic: Electronic media use and health among US college students. Journal of American College Health, 72(9), 3261–3276. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2022.2155463

32.

Wright

R. R.

Nelson

Garcia

Butler

(2020). Health behavior change in the classroom: A means to a healthy end?. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 41(5), 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-020-00605-0

Connecting,Interviewing,Writing: Fostering Student Engagement via the Health Psychology Interview Project

Abstract

Background

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

Teaching Implications

Keywords

Student Engagement and Active Learning

Current Study

Method

Participants

Measures

Perceived Value and Interest

Perceived Engagement

Open-Ended Evaluations

Procedure

Results

Students’ Perceived Interest, Value, and Engagement with Health Psychology and the Research Process

Content Analysis of Open-Ended Evaluations of Student Engagement

Discussion

Limitations and Future Directions

Footnotes

Author's Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Open Practices

Notes

References