Translating the learning sciences into practice: A primer for clinical and translational educators

Abstract

The learning sciences have yielded a wealth of insights about the mechanisms and conditions that promote learning, yet the findings from this body of research often do not make their way into educational practice. This fundamentally translational problem is one we believe that educators from translational fields, with their evidence-based orientation and familiarity with the challenges and importance of translation, are well-positioned to address. Here, we provide a primer on the learning sciences to guide educators in the Clinical and Translational Science Institutes and other organizations that train translational researchers. We (a) describe the unique teaching and learning environment in which this training occurs, and why it necessitates attention to learning research and its appropriate application, (b) explain what the learning sciences are, (c) distill the complex science of learning into core principles, (d) situate recent developments in the field within these principles, and (e) explain, in practical terms, how these principles can inform our teaching.

Introduction

Almost a century of research on the brain and cognition has yielded a wealth of insights into how people learn – insights that can inform how we teach and train learners [1,2]. With a deeper understanding of the factors that affect learning, from the mechanics of memory to the conditions that spark and sustain motivation to the role of emotion in cognition, one would expect educators to be better positioned than ever before to teach effectively. Yet, it is disconcerting how inconsistently learning research makes its way into educational practice [3–10].

Disconcerting, perhaps, but is it surprising? As academics involved in translational research, we know all too well that the process of moving ideas from basic research in controlled conditions to application in the complex, messy real world is far from easy or automatic [11–13]. To do so effectively, bridges need to be built: key operational principles must be identified [11], complexity must be grappled with [12], technical language must be deciphered and made comprehensible to stakeholders [14], facilitators to implementation must be identified and barriers removed [15,16]. We also understand the critical importance and high stakes of translational pursuits and know that, without these bridges, important findings and insights from basic research languish in technical journals and are never used to improve practice or policy [17].

What’s more, because of our familiarity with the processes of translation and implementation, we may be especially well-suited to the work of bringing learning research into educational practice. We are evidence-based in our orientation, accustomed to working across disciplines to find effective approaches to complex problems, trained to find bridges between research and application, and firmly committed to educating and training the next generation of researchers. Moreover, because we are facing seismic shifts in the educational environment – a sudden move to remote and hybrid modalities, changing student populations, and an ever-broadening range of educational technologies – that demand constant innovation and adaptation [18–20], we understand the need to build new educational practices on a solid, evidence-based foundation.

Our goal in this article is to provide a primer on the learning sciences – new for some; a review for others – to guide us in this fundamentally translational process. We will (a) describe the teaching and learning environment in which translational researchers are trained, and explain why it necessitates an understanding of learning research, (b) explain what the learning sciences are and why they matter, (c) distill the complex science of learning into a set of basic principles, (d) situate recent developments in the field within these principles, and (e) explain, in practical terms, how these principles and insights can inform teaching and learning in our unique educational environment.

Our Unique Educational Environment

Since their creation in 2006, the Clinical and Translational Science Institutes (CTSIs) have played a vital role in training and supporting the next generation of clinical and translational researchers [21–24]. Although surprisingly little has been written about learners in the CTSIs and in other organizations that train the translational workforce, we know that learners include graduate students, residents, fellows, faculty, research staff, and community collaborators [25]. They bring with them considerable prior education (bachelor’s degrees at minimum and often medical, master’s, and doctoral degrees) as well as deep expertise in their fields [26,27]. They tend to have concrete goals for their learning and seek the development of specific, practical skills. Educators also come from a wide variety of fields and departments, from surgery to social work to engineering. The same people who occupy the roles of teacher and student in one context may be colleagues and collaborators in another context, creating a somewhat flattened hierarchy atypical of academic medicine [28,29]. This promotes a high degree of collegiality among instructors and learners.

Translational science is taught in a range of contexts, including credit-bearing courses in master’s, PhD, and certificate programs; training programs for early career investigators; professional development workshops and seminars in areas such as mentorship [30,31], leadership [32–34], equity and inclusion [35,36], teamwork and team science [37–39]; and in the informal space of mentor–mentee relationships and interdisciplinary collaborations [40]. Both formal and informal curricula in the CTSIs tend to be practical rather than theoretical, focused on skill-building in discrete competency areas (e.g., statistical knowledge, grantsmanship, qualitative research skills [41,42]). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, we – along with the rest of higher education – have seen a shift in learning modalities toward online and hybrid programming that may become more permanent [18,43].

These unique elements of the teaching and learning environment, in particular the focus on teaching adult learners in diverse and generally interdisciplinary contexts, should be foremost in our minds as we consider how to apply the rich science of learning to our educational pursuits.

What Are the Learning Sciences and Why Do They Matter?

For such a widely used term, “learning” has proven remarkably difficult to pin down [44,45]. Most definitions describe a process of change, prompted by experience, that increases knowledge [46]. It is not a change that happens to learners passively but rather something that learners must make happen by reflecting on the experience and forming and testing mental models [47,48]. Learning is understood to be an interior process that cannot be measured directly but must be inferred through behavior [49]. Performance, in other words, serves as a proxy for learning. Many researchers situate the locus of learning within individuals; however, others locate learning in social interactions [1,48,50–52], a formulation that has been extended to describe learning at the level of teams and organizations [53,54].

The term “learning sciences” emerged in the 1990s to describe an interdisciplinary field of research that seeks to understand the mechanisms by which learning occurs in real-world situations and to identify and encourage practices that facilitate learning [55,56]. The learning sciences are inherently interdisciplinary, drawing on a diverse array of fields including cognitive and developmental psychology, neuroscience, computer science, sociology, and anthropology [57].

Among other things, the learning sciences have challenged long-standing myths about teaching and learning [58–61]. Among these myths is the belief that subject matter expertise is sufficient to make one an effective teacher [62], that increasing content increases learning [63,64], that lecturing by itself is an effective teaching strategy [4,65], and that it is important to diagnose and teach to specific learning styles [59,66,67]. None of these beliefs is supported by evidence. Teaching requires knowledge and skills entirely distinct from subject matter expertise. Less content, accompanied by opportunities for active engagement, contributes to deeper learning and longer retention [4]. Similarly, lectures yield poor learning results relative to active learning, and should be used advisedly [4,68]. Moreover, although many educators tout the importance of adjusting their teaching strategies to students’ individual learning styles, there is little in the research literature to support that approach. Indeed, “learning styles” are generally little more than context-dependent preferences and not stable states; thus, researchers agree that instructors are better off adjusting their teaching strategies to the content rather than to students’ professed learning styles [59,69–72].

In addition to expanding research on learning and debunking myths, the learning sciences have sought to distill existing research (often highly technical in its original form) into core principles and practical strategies to guide teaching practice. These distillations have yielded principles of adult learning [73], principles to promote deeper learning and knowledge retention [74–76], multimedia design principles [77], principles of social learning [78], and theories of applied intelligence [79], among others. Each framework organizes the complex literature in somewhat different ways, with different foci and intended audiences, and all are valuable. For the purposes of this article, we have loosely adapted the framework set out in Ambrose et a l[57]. This framework, which synthesizes half a century of literature on learning, identifies a basic set of principles to help educators understand how learning works, as well as how to use that understanding to teach more effectively. The principles are not specific to any discipline or student level, and thus apply across learning contexts and modalities. Moreover, they are sufficiently broad to encompass new discoveries and formulations, such as work in the areas of cognitive load and social presence, which we have also included.

For simplicity, we have organized these principles into three categories: acquisition and integration of knowledge, social and emotional components of learning, and elements of skill-building. In the following sections, we describe the research that informs each area and explain how it relates to the specific learning environments in which translational researchers are educated.

Acquisition and Integration of Knowledge

Four areas of the learning sciences shed light on how knowledge is acquired and integrated. They concern the role of prior knowledge, knowledge organizations, cognitive load, and metacognition.

Prior Knowledge

All learning builds on prior knowledge [80–82]. Indeed, learning only occurs when learners connect what they are learning to what they already know or have experienced. In the case of adult learners, who bring significant academic, professional, and life experience into new learning situations, there is a strong knowledge foundation on which to build and one that educators should not neglect. However, gaps and deficits in prior knowledge can also impede learners’ ability to integrate new knowledge and may be particularly important to recognize and address in interdisciplinary learning environments, where students and trainees come from different academic and professional backgrounds and do not all possess the same baseline knowledge. The interdisciplinarity of institutions and departments focused on translational education may also create other learning challenges, including the inappropriate application of prior knowledge. Specifically, learners may apply knowledge gained in one context (e.g., prior degree programs) in contexts where it is not relevant or applicable [57]. (One example, for instance, is importing concepts of bias and generalizability from quantitative fields into qualitative research, which operates on very different terms.) Both knowledge gaps and misapplied prior knowledge are issues that educators should be aware of and look to remediate.

• Advice for educators: Help learners connect what they are learning to what they already know and have experienced, but also pay close attention to – and address – what they do not know, apply in the wrong context, and believe in error.

Organization of Knowledge

Learning involves not only what learners know but how they organize what they know. The ways that knowledge is organized determines how easily it can be retrieved and how effectively it can be used [57,83]. However, the organizational frameworks of experts and novices differ markedly [84,85]. Expert knowledge is richly connected [85], making it possible for experts (including teachers) to readily see how ideas are linked. Moreover, experts organize what they know around the deep structures and underlying principles of problems and cases, rather than superficial similarities [83]. Experts also possess multiple organizational frameworks, which allow them to sort information in different ways for different purposes and facilitates the transfer of that knowledge to new situations [57]. Expert/novice differences are important to recognize in the context of teaching and learning. As experts in their fields, educators – even at the graduate level – cannot assume their learners naturally possess these organizational structures. Rather, part of the task of educators is to help learners develop similarly meaningful and flexible knowledge organizations [86,87].

• Advice for educators: In addition to imparting information, provide organizational frameworks and schemas to help learners organize their growing knowledge in meaningful and practical ways. Also, ask questions that require learners to make and articulate connections, thus growing their neural networks [88].

Cognitive Load

Recognition of the limitations of working memory has been one of the most important discoveries to come out of the learning sciences [89]. Working memory is the cognitive system responsible for manipulating, encoding, and organizing new information before it is ultimately moved into long-term memory. While long-term memory is capacious, with almost limitless space (think: the Library of Congress), the cognitive resources available for processing information in working memory are highly limited (think: your physical desktop) and must be husbanded carefully. Cognitive load theory focuses on ways to make optimal use of working memory for learning [90,91]. Scholars in this area have differentiated between intrinsic, germane, and extraneous cognitive load. Intrinsic cognitive load refers to the cognitive resources required by a task itself (e.g., reading a journal article). Germane cognitive load refers to the cognitive resources required to generate meaningful connections or develop a schema (e.g., connecting the content of one journal article to others). Extraneous cognitive load refers to cognitive resources eaten up by incidental or unnecessary factors (e.g., the confusing directions of an instructor) [92,93]. Learning scientists agree that instructors should minimize extraneous cognitive load while maximizing germane cognitive load [92], in other words, to make sure the difficulty in a task advances learning without draining cognitive resources unnecessarily. Cognitive load theory is particularly applicable in the context of online learning, where poorly organized platforms and unfamiliar technologies can add extraneous cognitive load, potentially eroding motivation and impeding learning [94–96].

• Advice for educators: Increase germane cognitive load by assigning tasks and asking questions that compel learners to think harder about the material you are teaching. At the same time, decrease the extraneous cognitive load by making written directions clear and succinct and employing good visual design.

Metacognition

Another critical facet of knowledge acquisition is metacognition or the process by which learners understand, monitor, and refine their own cognitive processes [97–99]. Ambrose et al represent metacognition as a set of five abilities [57]: first, the ability to realistically and accurately assess the requirements of a task (e.g., the time, resources, and skills required); second, the ability to evaluate one’s own skills and competencies relative to the task requirements; third, the ability to plan appropriately; fourth, the ability to monitor and assess performance as one acts; and fifth, the ability to reflect back on one’s performance after the fact and make adjustments for the future. While one would think that accomplished graduate-level learners typical of the CTSIs and other translational educational contexts have already developed strong metacognitive skills, research indicates that, in fact, adult learners often fail to monitor their own thinking and fall back into familiar patterns and biases that limit their intellectual growth [100]. Research also shows that metacognitive skills can be strengthened considerably and with very positive outcomes for learning if instructors provide structured opportunities for self-evaluation, planning, and reflection on past performance [101,102].

• Advice for educators: Allocate ample time for learners to reflect on their strengths and weaknesses in relation to complex tasks, to assess the demands of those tasks, and to plan their strategy. Allow time at the mid-point of projects for learners to stop, monitor progress, and adjust their approach, and leave time at the end of such tasks for learners to reflect on their performance and plan.

Social and Emotional Components of Learning

Learning is an intensely communal activity that cannot be divorced from the social and interactive contexts in which it occurs [48,51,103]. Indeed, there is increasing recognition that learning is heavily influenced by social and emotional – and not simply cognitive – factors [104], a fact that is even more apparent since the advent of online education [105,106], where social connection and community can become attenuated, with detrimental impacts on learning. There is far more to say about the social elements of learning than space here allows. However, four important principles concern the factors that influence motivation, the importance of learners’ developmental stage, the ways in which climate affects learning, and the role of presence, particularly online.

Motivation

Motivation drives the behaviors that result in learning and is thus a critical ingredient in all learning contexts. There are two high-level factors that, taken together, increase learner motivation: value and expectancy [57,107]. Value stems from learners’ perceptions that the material they are learning and the tasks they are engaged in are relevant, meaningful, and of practical value. According to the tenets of self-determination theory, three elements increase perceived value: competence (awareness of increasing mastery), relatedness (connection and accountability to other people), and autonomy (a sense of agency and control) [108]. Daniel Pink adds to that a sense of purpose [109].

The other factor in motivation is expectancy. Expectancy concerns learners’ beliefs that success is possible: that their efforts are connected to desired goals [110], that they are personally capable of achieving those goals [111], and that the environment will support and not thwart their efforts [57]. Learners who believe that a task is unreasonably difficult, that they are personally incapable, or that they do not have adequate support will lose motivation. Both value and expectancy must be present for motivation to be high. If learners value an outcome but do not feel capable of achieving it (high value, low expectancy) they will lose motivation. By the same token, if learners feel capable of achieving a goal but do not value it (low value, high expectancy), motivation will suffer. Notice that both value and expectancy are issues of perception, not objective reality: learners must believe that what they are learning has value and that successful learning is possible. While graduate-level learners often possess a fair degree of intrinsic motivation, instructors should not assume that their motivation will be high for all tasks and activities or that motivation cannot be eroded even when initially high. Considering ways to increase value and expectancy is thus a wise course of action for all educators.

• Advice for educators: Seek to increase learners’ motivation by highlighting the practical value of what they are learning and reducing factors that erode expectations of success, without compromising high standards. Provide opportunities for learners to exercise autonomy, demonstrate increasing competence, and connect with one another.

Developmental Stage

While the factors that affect learning (e.g., prior knowledge, motivation, metacognition) are the same for students at all life stages, learners themselves differ, as do their learning needs [57]. Various stage models have been offered to help educators understand learners at different phases of life. These include Perry’s model of intellectual development, which describes four stages in learners’ ability to tolerate ambiguity and countenance different perspectives on complex issues yet, ultimately, commit to action [112]. Perry’s model has been refined and extended by Baxter-Magolda, who has explored the issue of “self-authorship” across cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal domains of development [113]. Stage models also include theories of racial identity development [114–117]. While many such models focus on the developmental tasks of traditional college-aged learners [118,119], the paradigm with perhaps the most relevance to the educational context of the CTSIs is Knowles’ theory of andragogy [120–122]: teaching adult learners. Theories of adult learning vary but the primary components are these: Adult learners want to know how the material they are learning serves concrete personal or professional goals [123,124]. They learn best by doing, i.e., through practice and participation, preferably through problem-solving [125]. They bring experiences to the learning encounter that can facilitate learning but also at times cause mental rigidity [1,120]. Finally, adult learners do best in informal environments, in which they have a degree of self-direction and control, and where the relationship between instructor and learner is more collaborative than directive [126]. It should be noted that developmental theories, many of which took individual psychology as their starting point and neglected structural issues of power and inequity, have been reexamined in recent years through the lens of critical theories about race, ethnicity, gender, and disability [119,127,128].

• Advice for educators: Assign tasks with obvious practical relevance to learners’ professional and/or personal lives, focus on allowing students to learn by doing, allow ample opportunities for learners to bring their experiences to bear in discussion, and approach the learning situation in a collegial and collaborative manner.

Climate

Equity and inclusion are and should be an increasing focus within higher education [5,66]. A critical issue for educators to consider is whether the learning climate they foster in courses and training seminars is genuinely inclusive, welcoming, and supportive of diverse learners [129,130]. We know that when the climate of a classroom or training is overtly or subtly marginalizing toward learners, whether on the basis of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, or any other factor, it exacts a high toll on learning, performance, motivation, and persistence [131–135]. Powerful messages about inclusion and exclusion can be conveyed to learners simply by the choice of authors and topics to include (or not include) on a course reading list [57]. Assumptions and biases about ethnic and racial groups can be embedded in case studies [136]. Choices in instructional materials (e.g., the use of videos without subtitles or podcasts without transcripts) can marginalize and disadvantage students with visual or auditory disabilities [137]. Microaggressions can be prevalent in classrooms and detrimental to students’ learning and persistence in the field [138–140]. A fascinating body of research on stereotype threat demonstrates that, when stereotypes are triggered even in the subtlest ways, members of stereotyped groups can experience a disruptive cognitive state that undermines learning and performance [141,142].

Fortunately, there is much that instructors can do to create inclusive learning environments, including employing simple strategies to reduce stereotype threat, such as communicating high expectations for all learners [143–145]. Other factors that create a positive learning climate are the demonstration of “instructor immediacy” – verbal and nonverbal instructor behaviors that convey approachability to students [146–149]. The communication of immediacy is particularly important online, where learners can easily feel isolated [150]. Universal Design for Learning (UDL), a set of guidelines that grew out of disability research, seeks to make learning accessible to all through the design of flexible learning environments in which learners have a range of choices in how they engage with instructional materials and demonstrate learning [151,152]. While the impact of UDL has yet to be empirically assessed, it is grounded in well-established learning research and early studies look promising [153].

• Advice for educators: Work to create a learning environment that is intellectually challenging yet welcoming to every learner. Use content that reflects diverse voices and conveys approachability. Design for accessibility and inclusion.

Presence

Online learning has distinct benefits when it comes to convenience, access, and self-pacing; however, it also has challenges, principally the attenuation of social connection that comes when people are not physically “present” with one another. Scholarship coming out of the Community of Inquiry framework [154,155] has emphasized the importance of creating three types of “presence” in online courses: social presence: the ability of learners to project their identities and connect with one another effectively through technologically mediated means [156,157]; cognitive presence: the ability of learners to connect deeply to course content [158,159]; and teaching presence: the instructor’s ability to reach across the distance, seem real and genuine, and connect meaningfully with learners [150]. This body of research points to the fact that social connection and community building cannot be taken for granted but must be developed deliberately and cultivated carefully online [160,161]. As the CTSIs expand their online programming, this research is critically important to consider. However, the Community of Inquiry framework is equally applicable to face-to-face and hybrid educational environments and speaks to the powerful social and emotional components of learning.

• Advice for educators: In all courses, but especially online, be deliberate about projecting your own personality and presence while working to build community and encourage meaningful interaction among learners.

Elements of Skill-Building

Considerable scholarship in the learning sciences has attended to the processes and stages by which learners acquire skills, gain fluency and automaticity using those skills, and develop expertise within a particular domain [162]. Much of the research in this area explores differences in the ways experts and novices organize, access, and use information [84,163] and is informed by research on artificial intelligence and machine learning. Two relevant principles relate to the development of mastery and the role of practice and feedback in that process.

Mastery

To develop expertise in a given domain (say, clinical research), learners must master complex skills. According to Ambrose et al., this requires first that they acquire the component skills that make up the complex skill (consider, for example, how many sub-skills are required to perform a task like writing a grant proposal!). In addition to acquiring these sub-skills, learners must integrate them successfully, developing speed and fluency at executing these skills in combination. Finally, they must understand when and where to apply what they have learned [1,57]. This final element of mastery is also known as transfer and is, arguably, the central point of learning [164]. When should you employ a particular research design? When are specific statistical methods appropriate? Skill gaps at any of these levels can inhibit the development of mastery and interfere with performance. Ironically, one factor that complicates learning for relative novices is the expertise of their teachers, whether in formal or informal learning contexts. Because experts have gained mastery to the point of unconscious fluency [165], they tend not to see all the steps and component skills involved in learning complex tasks, and thus often do not scaffold tasks appropriately for learners. Researchers call this “expert blind spot” [166,167]. It is a hazard that educators in translational science programs should watch for, because their own expertise can sometimes blind them to the learning needs of students.

• Advice for educators: Recognize that mastery takes time to develop and allocate sufficient time for students to learn skills in isolation, practice them in combination, and use them in diverse contexts to develop transfer. Also, watch out for your own expert blind spot when teaching others!

Practice

Practice and feedback are both essential for developing competence in any domain [57]. Practice without feedback is not only demotivating; it also reinforces mistakes [168–170]. Feedback without practice, on the other hand, is pointless: without opportunities to address mistakes, learners do not improve. They also lose motivation [171]. However, not all practice and feedback are useful. Ideally, the practice should be focused on specific performance goals [172,173]. The task, moreover, should be appropriately challenging: too easy and the learner is not pushed to improve; too difficult and both performance and motivation suffer [57,174,175]. Finally, the practice should involve sufficient time on task [176]. A fascinating area of research has focused on what Bjork and Bjork have called “desirable difficulties” [177–179]. As it turns out, when learners struggle to learn something, they encode the information more deeply and remember it longer. Thus, there is an optimal level of difficulty (challenging but not discouraging) that facilitates learning. A related area of research is on “retrieval practice,” also called the testing effect [177,178,180,181]. This scholarship has found that the act of retrieving information from long-term memory, whether through testing or simply by being asked questions, helps to create stronger mental paths back to that information and ultimately leads to deeper learning [60]. In addition, spacing practice sessions farther apart (the “spacing effect”) aids learning by compelling learners to engage in more effortful retrieval [182]. The research on retrieval practice and spacing has had particular resonance in medical education, where learners are expected to integrate and remember vast amounts of information [183].

• Advice for educators: Make sure learners have ample and repeated opportunities to practice key skills, ensuring that tasks are sufficiently difficult to be effortful but not so difficult as to be discouraging. Give learners retrieval practice by asking frequent questions or giving low-stakes assessments.

Feedback

Feedback, or information provided to learners to help them improve their understanding or performance, is one of the most powerful factors affecting learning [62,184]. Feedback helps learners identify gaps between current and desired knowledge and skills while helping to identify specific actions they can take to close the gaps. Feedback helps learners develop stronger skills at self-evaluation [185] and also plays a key role in motivation [186]. Research shows that feedback is most effective when it focuses on specific areas for improvement [187], is prioritized so as to differentiate high-importance items from low-importance items [188], and is delivered soon after performance [184]. The collegial, mentorship-focused nature of education in the CTSIs makes feedback a particularly important tool for helping learners improve.

• Advice for educators: Provide learners with feedback that identifies specific, actionable, and prioritized areas for improvement, make sure the feedback is delivered in a timely fashion, and ensure there are immediate opportunities for learners to incorporate your feedback into practice.

Recommendations

While the summary of research and advice for educators provided in the earlier sections may seem somewhat daunting, the lessons are actually simple and intuitive. Taken together, they suggest the types of strategies for teaching and training outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Strategies educators can use to incorporate research-based learning principles

How can educators help learners acquire and integrate knowledge more effectively?

Prior knowledge: Do a short prior knowledge assessment at the beginning of courses or trainings to ensure you are starting at the right place and with appropriate pacing. Create opportunities for learners to bring their knowledge and experiences (personal and cultural as well as professional) to bear on what they are learning. Watch for knowledge gaps in key areas that may impede new learning, and remediate them. Explicitly address faulty assumptions learners might make on the basis of previous academic training or professional experiences.

Organization of knowledge: Pay attention to how you, as an expert in your field, organize information, and make these implicit organizational schemas explicit to your learners. Provide tables, templates, and other organizational scaffolding to help learners structure information in ways that facilitate appropriate application.

Cognitive load: Increase germane cognitive load by pressing learners to draw connections and elaborate meanings. Decrease extraneous cognitive load by making directions clear and organizing information for easy navigation.

Metacognition: Provide structured opportunities (as in-class activities or assignments) for learners to evaluate their own skills and abilities and identify areas for improvement. Allow sufficient time for project planning and encourage learners to take time mid-project to assess and modify strategies if necessary. Allocate time at the end of projects and major assignments for learners to reflect on their experience and identify what they would do differently in the future.

How can educators better address the social and emotional components of learning?

Motivation: Assign tasks with immediate practical relevance. Ask learners to identify the value of these tasks relative to their professional and personal goals. Make sure that instruction and assessments are well-aligned, that requirements are reasonable and fair, and that learners have ample time and support for challenging tasks to increase expectancies. Look for opportunities to give learners choices in assignments and responsibility for their work (autonomy). Highlight their growing mastery (competence) and encourage them to work collaboratively to build a connection with peers (relatedness).

Developmental stage: Give adult learners ample opportunities to share their expertise and discuss their experiences. Assign practical, hands-on tasks that align with real-world work products (e.g., a study design, manuscript abstract, research poster). Encourage peer-to-peer mentoring and peer review.

Climate: Communicate high standards and confidence that all learners can meet them. Choose materials (readings, case studies, images) that represent diverse experiences and avoid stereotypes. Seek ways for learners to bring their cultures and backgrounds into the classroom. Use Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles when designing instruction to create greater inclusion.

Presence: Create opportunities for synchronous and asynchronous student-to-student interaction in online courses by using breakout rooms, discussion forums, group projects, social media, etc. Use methods in online courses (e.g., informal video updates, weekly email check-ins, online office hours) that make you present and accessible to learners.

How can educators help learners build skills and gain mastery?

Mastery: Deconstruct complex skills into their component parts, and make sure learners have adequate practice learning key sub-skills in isolation before asking them to use those skills in combination. Recognize your own expert blind spot, and work against it by making implicit knowledge (the steps and practices you intuitively engage in) explicit to learners.

Practice: Make sure that the tasks you assign are appropriately challenging: difficult enough to be cognitively demanding, but not so difficult as to erode motivation. Give learners multiple opportunities to practice key skills. Employ retrieval practice by frequently asking learners to recall and apply information learned on prior occasions. Use cumulative tests (which compel learners to engage in both retrieval practice and spacing) but give learners ample opportunities to use their knowledge before testing them.

Feedback: Move beyond compliments and criticism to provide specific, actionable information learners can use to improve performance. Provide feedback in a timely manner, when the performance it is based on is still fresh in learners’ minds. Leverage peer review to provide learners with feedback from more sources.

Conclusion

Teaching and learning are ubiquitous in the CTSIs and other institutions focused on training the translational workforce. Thus, there is much for educators in the CTSIs to gain by cultivating a deep understanding of the mechanisms of learning and the attributes of high-quality teaching. In this article, we have made a case for bringing the learning sciences more systematically into our educational practices. We have argued, moreover, that educators in the field of translational science may be particularly well-equipped to translate the rich, varied, and interdisciplinary research on learning into practice because of their appreciation for the importance and complexity of translational pursuits, and their commitment both to evidence-based practices and to educational excellence.

We have offered this distillation of key principles from the learning sciences and contextualized it within our unique educational environment in the hope that this framework can provide helpful guidance and a shared vocabulary for educators at our institutions, regardless of the specific contexts in which they teach. We believe that, armed with these principles, educators will be better able to discern why effective practices are effective, identify and address teaching problems, adapt strategies successfully to new teaching contexts and modalities, and innovate from a solid foundation of understanding.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ethan Lennox, for his invaluable editorial assistance. Research reported in this publication was supported by The University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) NIH/NCATS: 1UL1TR001857 and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health.

Disclosures

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Bransford J. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Expanded Edition. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 2000.

2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. How People Learn. II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2018.

3. Mintzes JJ, Walter EM. Active Learning in College Science: The Case for Evidence-Based Practice. 1st ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, 2020

4. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2014; 111 (23): 8410–8415.

5. Newton PM. The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology 2015; 6: 1908.

6. Herckis L. Passing the Baton: digital literacy and sustained implementation of eLearning technologies. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning 2018; 5 (1): 29–44.

7. Heyes D. Why important education research often gets ignored. The Conversation [Internet], 2014. (https://theconversation.com/why-important-education-research-often-gets-ignored-33040)

8. Hurtado S. Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher education. Review of Higher Education 2007; 30 (2): 185–196.

9. Solari EJ, Terry NP, Gaab N, et al. Translational science: a road map for the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly 2020; 55 (S1): S347–S360.

10. Stanovich PJ, Stanovich KE. Using Research and Reason in Education: How Teachers Can Use Scientifically Based Research to Make Curricular & Instructional Decisions. Washington, DC: Partnership for Reading Project, National Institute for Literacy, U.S. Dept. of Education, 2003.

11. Austin CP. Translating translation. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2018; 17 (7): 455–456.

12. Seyhan AA. Lost in translation: the valley of death across preclinical and clinical divide–identification of problems and overcoming obstacles. Translational Medicine Communications 2019; 4 (1): 1–19.

13. Garcia LR, Polegato BF, Zornoff LAM. Challenges of translational science. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia 2017; 108 (5): 388–389.

14. DeWitt P. 4 reasons educators use research and 4 reasons they don’t. Education Week [Internet], 2019. (https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-4-reasons-educators-use-research-and-4-reasons-they-dont/2019/01)

15. Brownson RC, Proctor EK, Luke DA, et al. Building capacity for dissemination and implementation research: one university’s experience. Implementation Science 2017; 12 (1): 104.

16. Emmons KM, Colditz GA. Realizing the potential of cancer prevention — the role of implementation science. The New England Journal of Medicine 2017; 376 (10): 986–990.

17. Jiang F, Zhang J, Wang X, Shen X. Important steps to improve translation from medical research to health policy. Journal of Translational Medicine 2013; 11 (1): 33.

18. Sharp EA, Norman MK, Spagnoletti CL, Miller BG. Optimizing synchronous online teaching sessions: a guide to the, new normal, in medical education. Academic Pediatrics 2021; 21 (1): 11–15.

19. Zalat MM, Hamed MS, Bolbol SA. The experiences, challenges, and acceptance of e-learning as a tool for teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic among university medical staff. PloS One 2021; 16 (3): e0248758.

20. Rose S. Medical student education in the time of COVID-19. JAMA 2020; 323 (21): 2131–2132.

21. Leshner AI, Terry SF, Schultz AM, Liverman CT, eds. The CTSA Program at NIH: Opportunities for Advancing Clinical and Translational Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2013.

22. Meyers FJ, Begg MD, Fleming M, Merchant C. Strengthening the career development of clinical translational scientist trainees: a consensus statement of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Research Education and Career Development Committees. Clinical and Translational Science 2012; 5 (2): 132–137.

23. Zerhouni EA. Translational and clinical science — time for a new vision. The New England Journal of Medicine 2005; 353 (15): 1621–1623.

24. Dilmore TC, Moore DW, Bjork Z. Developing a competency-based educational structure within clinical and translational science. Clinical and Translational Science 2013; 6 (2): 98–102.

25. Brishke J, Evans C, Shenkman E. 3021 strengthening translational research through citizen scientist education. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2019; 3 (s1): 94–95.

26. Oster RA, Devick KL, Thurston SW, Learning gaps among statistical competencies for clinical and translational science learners. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2020; 5 (1): e12 e12.

27. Yin HL, Gabrilove J, Jackson R, et al. Sustaining the clinical and translational research workforce: training and empowering the next generation of investigators. Academic Medicine 2015; 90 (7): 861–865.

28. Whitelaw S, Kalra A, Van Spall HGC. Flattening the hierarchies in academic medicine: the importance of diversity in leadership, contribution, and thought. European Heart Journal 2020; 41 (1): 9–10.

29. Conrad P, Carr P, Knight S, Renfrew MR, Dunn MB, Pololi L. Hierarchy as a barrier to advancement for women in academic medicine. Journal of Women’s Health 2010; 19 (4): 799–805.

30. Nearing KA, Nuechterlein BM, Tan S, Zerzan JT, Libby AM, Austin GL. Training mentor-mentee pairs to build a robust culture for mentorship and a pipeline of clinical and translational researchers: the Colorado mentoring training program. Academic Medicine 2020; 95 (5): 730–736.

31. Pfund C, House SC, Asquith P, et al. Training mentors of clinical and translational research scholars: a randomized controlled trial. Academic Medicine 2014; 89 (5): 774–782.

32. Vaughan R, Romanick M, Schlesinger S, Kost R, Drassil D, Coller B. 4037 assessing leadership skills in translational science training: The Rockefeller University leadership survey. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2020; 4 (s1): 116–117.

33. Libby AM, Ingbar DH, Nearing KN, Moss M, Albino J. Developing senior leadership for clinical and translational science. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2018; 2 (3): 124–128.

34. Straus SE, Soobiah C, Levinson W. The impact of leadership training programs on physicians in academic medical centers: a systematic review. Academic Medicine 2013; 88 (5): 710–723.

35. Rubio DM, Mayowski CA, Norman MK. A multi-pronged approach to diversifying the workforce. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2018; 15 (10): 2219.

36. Estape ES, Quarshie A, Segarra B, et al. Promoting diversity in the clinical and translational research workforce. Journal of the National Medical Association 2018; 110 (6): 598–605.

37. Hall KL, Feng AX, Moser RP, Stokols D, Taylor BK. Moving the science of team science forward: collaboration and creativity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008; 35 (2 Suppl): S243–S249.

38. Bisbey TM, Reyes DL, Traylor AM, et al. Teams of psychologists helping teams: the evolution of the science of team training. The American Psychologist 2019; 74 (3): 278–289.

39. Mayowski CA, Norman MK, Schenker Y, Proulx CN, Kapoor WN. Developing a team science workshop for early-career investigators. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2019; 3 (4): 184–189.

40. David C, Kochan FK, Lunsford LG, Dominquez N, Haddock-Millar J. The Effective Mentor, Mentee and Mentoring Relationship. City Road: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2017. 143.

41. Robinson GFWB, Moore CG, McTigue KM, Rubio DM, Kapoor WN. Assessing competencies in a master of science in clinical research program: the comprehensive competency review. Clinical and Translational Science 2015; 8 (6): 770–775.

42. Mayowski CA, Norman MK, Kapoor WN. Assessing an assessment: the review and redesign of a competency-based mid-degree evaluation. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2018; 2 (4): 223–227.

43. Lau JYB, Dasgupta R. Will the coronavirus make online education go viral? Times Higher Education. (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/will-coronavirus-make-online-education-go-viral)

44. Barron AB, Hebets EA, Cleland TA, Fitzpatrick CL, Hauber ME, Stevens JR. Embracing multiple definitions of learning. Trends in Neurosciences 2015; 38 (7): 405–407.

45. De Houwer J, Barnes-Holmes D, Moors A. What is learning? On the nature and merits of a functional definition of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2013; 20 (4): 631–642.

46. Garvin D. Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review 1993; 71: 78–91.

47. Dewey J. Education and democracy in the world of today. 1938 Schools (Chicago, Ill) 2012; 9 (1): 96–100.

48. Vygotsky LS, Kozulin A. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1986, Translation newly revised and edited by Alex Kozulin.

49. Soderstrom NC, Bjork RA. Learning versus performance: an integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2015; 10 (2): 176–199.

50. Rogoff B. Human teaching and learning involve cultural communities, not just individuals. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2015; 38: e60.

51. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977.

52. Roth W-M, Jornet A. Situated cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science 2013; 4 (5): 463–478.

53. Argyris C. On organizational Learning. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Business, 1999.

54. Senge PM. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency, 2006, Revised and updated edition.

55. Sommerhoff D, Szameitat A, Vogel F, Chernikova O, Loderer K, Fischer F. What do we teach when we teach the learning sciences? A document analysis of 75 graduate programs. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2018; 27 (2): 319–351.

56. Sawyer RK. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

57. Ambrose SA, Bridges MW, DiPietro M, Lovett MC, Norman MK. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010.

58. Holmes JD, Richmond AS. Great Myths of Education and Learning. Chichester: Wiley, 2016.

59. Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2008; 9 (3): 105–119.

60. Brown PC, Roediger HL, McDaniel MA. Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014.

61. Christodoulou D. Seven Myths About Education. London: Routledge, 2014.

62. Hattie J, Yates G. Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014.

63. Luckie DB, Aubry JR, Marengo BJ, Rivkin AM, Foos LA, Maleszewski JJ. Less teaching, more learning: 10-yr study supports increasing student learning through less coverage and more inquiry. Advances in Physiology Education 2012; 36 (4): 325–335.

64. Deslauriers L, McCarty LS, Miller K, Callaghan K, Kestin G. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2019; 116 (39): 19251–19257.

65. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering education (Washington, DC) 2004; 93 (3): 223–231.

66. Willingham DT. Why Don×t Students Like School?: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for Your Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.

67. Royal KD, Stockdale MR. The myth of learning styles: what medical educators need to know. Ear, Nose, & Throat Journal 2015; 94 (4-5): 132.

68. Mallin I. Lecture and active learning as a dialectical tension. Communication Education 2017; 66 (2): 242–243.

69. Galagan P. Learning styles: going, going, almost gone: recent studies find that the scientific research on learning styles is weak and unconvincing. T+D (Alexandria, Va) 2014; 68 (1): 22.

70. Husmann PR, Mussell J. Styles over substance: can learning styles teach us anything? The FASEB Journal 2019; 33 (S1): 211.213.

71. Fallace T. The ethnocentric origins of the learning style idea. Educational Researcher 2019; 48 (6): 349–355.

72. Kirschner PA. Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers and Education 2017; 106: 166–171.

73. Knowles M. Andragogy in Action. Vol San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.

74. Brown P, Roediger H, McDaniel M. Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.

75. Carey B. How We Learn: The Surprising Truth About When, Where, and Why It Happens. New York: Random House, 2014.

76. Willingham D. Why Don’t Students Like School?: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for Your Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.

77. Mayer R. Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

78. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1986.

79. Sternberg R, Kaufman J, Grigorenko E. Applied Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

80. Ausubel D. The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology 1960; 51 (5): 267–272.

81. Braasch J, Goldman S. The role of prior knowledge in learning from analogies in science texts. Discourse Processes 2010; 47 (6): 447–479.

82. Fyfe E, Rittle-Johnson B. Feedback both helps and hinders learning: the causal role of prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology 2016; 108 (1): 82–97.

83. Chi MTH, Feltovich PJ, Glaser R. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science 1981; 5 (2): 121–152.

84. Chi M, Feltovich P, Glaser R. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science 1981; 5 (2): 121–152.

85. Bradshaw GL, Anderson JR. Elaborative encoding as an explanation of levels of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1982; 21 (2): 165–174.

86. Gentner D, Loewenstein J, Thompson L, Forbus KD. Reviving inert knowledge: analogical abstraction supports relational retrieval of past events. Cognitive Science 2009; 33 (8): 1343–1382.

87. Chi MTH, VanLehn KA. The content of physics self-explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 1991; 1 (1): 69–105.

88. Elio R, Scharf PB. Modeling novice-to-expert shifts in problem-solving strategy and knowledge organization. Cognitive Science 1990; 14 (4): 579–639.

89. Klingberg T. The Overflowing Brain: Information Overload and the Limits of Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

90. Sweller J, Ayres P, Kalyuga S. Cognitive Load Theory, vol. 1, 1st ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2011.

91. Kalyuga S, Sweller J. Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 2004; 96 (3): 558–568.

92. Sweller J. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review 2010; 22 (2): 123–138.

93. Klepsch M, Seufert T. Understanding instructional design effects by differentiated measurement of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Instructional Science 2020; 48 (1): 45–77.

94. Jochems W, JJGv Merriënboer, Koper R. Integrated E-learning: Implications for Pedagogy, Technology and Organization. London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004.

95. Mayer RE. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

96. Schweppe J, Rummer R. Integrating written text and graphics as a desirable difficulty in long-term multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior 2016; 60: 131–137.

97. Rhodes MG. Metacognition. Teaching of Psychology 2019; 46 (2): 168–175.

98. Fleming SM, Lau HC. How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2014; 8: 443.

99. Osman ME, Hannafin MJ. Metacognition research and theory: analysis and implications for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development 1992; 40 (2): 83–99.

100. Kleka P, Brycz H, Fanslau A, Pilarska A. Becoming aware of one’s own biases in emerging adulthood — a longitudinal study. Metacognitive approach. Advances in Cognitive Psychology 2019; 15 (4): 308–317.

101. Perry J, Lundie D, Golder G. Metacognition in schools: what does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review (Birmingham) 2019; 71 (4): 483–500.

102. Kramarski B, Mevarech ZR. Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: the effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal 2003; 40 (1): 281–310.

103. Lave J, Wenger E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

104. Cavanagh S. The Spark of Learning: Energizing the College Classroom with the Science of Emotion. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2016.

105. Marmon M. Enhancing Social Presence in Online Learning Environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2018.

106. Garrison D, Anderson T, Archer W. The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: a retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education 2010; 13 (1): 5–9.

107. Wildman J, Bedwell W. Practicing wat we preach: teaching teams using validated team science. Small Group Research 2013; 44 (4): 381–394.

108. Ryan R, Deci E. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press, 2017.

109. Pink D. Drive: the Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. New York: Riverhead Books, 2009.

110. Carver C, Scheier M. On the Self-Regulation of Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

111. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977.

112. Perry WG. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999.

113. Baxter Magolda MB, King PM. Assessing Meaning Making and Self-Authorship: Theory, Research, and Application. San Francisco, CA: Wiley/Jossey-Bass, 2012.

114. Watson JC. Native American racial identity development and college adjustment at two-year institutions. Journal of College Counseling 2009; 12 (2): 125–136.

115. Chan J. Complexities of racial identity development for Asian Pacific Islander Desi American (APIDA) college students: complexities of racial identity development. New Directions for Student Services 2017; 2017 (160): 11–23.

116. Tatum BD. Racial Identity Development and Relational Theory: The Case of Black Women in White Communities. Wellesley, MA: The Stone Center, Wellesley College, 1993.

117. Boykins M. The Relationship Between White Racial Identity Development and Implicit Bias Among White American College and University Students. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2021.

118. Chickering AW, Reisser L. Education and Identity. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993.

119. Jones SR, Stewart D-L. Evolution of student development theory. New Directions for Student Services 2016; 2016 (154): 17–28.

120. Knowles MS. Andragogy in Action. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.

121. Bennett EE, Blanchard RD, Hinchey KT. AM last page. applying Knowles× andragogy to resident teaching. Academic Medicine 2012; 87 (1): 129.

122. Knowles MS. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. Wilton, CT: Association Press, 1980, Revised and updated edition.

123. Merriam SB. The New Update on Adult Learning Theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.

124. Merriam SB. Andragogy and self-directed learning: pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2001; 2001 (89): 3–14.

125. Hagen M, Park S. We knew it all along! Using cognitive science to explain how andragogy works. European Journal of Training and Ddevelopment 2016; 40 (3): 171–190.

126. Schank RC. The Connoisseur’s Guide to the Mind: How We Think, How We Learn, and What It Means to Be Intelligent. New York: Summit Books, 1991.

127. Torres V, Jones SR, Renn K. Student affairs as a low-consensus field and the evolution of student development theory as foundational knowledge. Journal of College Student Development 2019; 60 (6): 645–658.

128. Abes ES, Jones SR, Stewart DL. Rethinking College Student Development Theory Using Critical Frameworks. Bloomfield: Stylus Publishing, LLC, 2019.

129. DeSurra C, Church K. Unlocking the classroom closet: privileging the marginalized voices of gay/lesbian college students, Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (New Orleans, November 19–22, 1994); 1994.

130. Longerbeam S. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual college student experiences: an exploratory study. Journal of College Student Development 2007; 48 (2): 215–230.

131. Lee JJ, McCabe JM. Who speaks and who listens: revisiting the chilly climate in college classrooms. Gender & Society 2021; 35 (1): 32–60.

132. Epstein I, Stephens L, Mora Severino S, et al. “Ask me what I need”: a call for shifting responsibility upwards and creating inclusive learning environments in clinical placement. Nurse Education Today 2020; 92: 104505.

133. Baglieri S. Disability Studies and the Inclusive Classroom: Critical Practices for Creating Least Restrictive Attitudes. Florence: Routledge, 2012.

134. Chin MJ, Quinn DM, Dhaliwal TK, Lovison VS. Bias in the air: a nationwide exploration of teachers’ implicit racial attitudes, aggregate bias, and student outcomes. Educational Researcher 2020; 49 (8): 566–578.

135. Gregg N. Increasing access to learning for the adult basic education learner with learning disabilities: evidence-based accommodation research: adults with learning disabilities in adult education. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2012; 45 (1): 47–63.

136. Allotey P, Allotey-Reidpath C, Reidpath DD. Gender bias in clinical case reports: a cross-sectional study of the "big five" medical journals. PloS One 2017; 12 (5): e0177386.

137. Cohn E, Molinero A, Stoehr G. Is School Really Open? A Report Card of Web Based Accessibility in Higher Education. Austin, TX: Department of Education, University of Texas at Austin, 2001.

138. Sue DW. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010.

139. Suárez-Orozco C, Casanova S, Martin M, et al. Toxic rain in class: classroom interpersonal microaggressions. Educational Researcher 2015; 44 (3): 151–160.

140. Murray TA. Microaggressions in the classroom. The Journal of Nursing Education 2020; 59 (4): 184–185.

141. Inzlicht M, Schmader T. Stereotype Threat: Theory, Process, and Application. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012.

142. Goff PA, Steele CM, Davies PG. The space between us: stereotype threat and distance in interracial contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2008; 94 (1): 91–107.

143. Good C, Aronson J, Inzlicht M. Improving adolescents× standardized test performance: an intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 2003; 24 (6): 645–662.

144. Chalabaev A, Radel R, Masicampo EJ, Dru V. Reducing stereotype threat with embodied triggers: a case of sensorimotor-mental congruence. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 2016; 42 (8): 1063–1076.

145. Alter AL, Aronson J, Darley JM, Rodriguez C, Ruble DN. Rising to the threat: reducing stereotype threat by reframing the threat as a challenge. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2010; 46 (1): 166–171.

146. Creasey G, Jarvis P, Gadke D. Student attachment stances, instructor immediacy, and student-Instructor relationships as predictors of achievement expectancies in college students. Journal of College Student Development 2009; 50 (4): 353–372.

147. D’Agustino S. Creating Teacher Immediacy in Online Learning Environments. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, 2016.

148. Holliday C. How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. (Education). Technical Communication (Washington) 2002; 49 (2): 255.

149. Witt PL, Wheeless LR, Allen M. A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs 2004; 71 (2): 184–207.

150. D’Agustino S. Leveraging Teaching Presence in Online Courses: Strategies, Technology, and Student Perspectives. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2016, 113–137.

151. Nelson LL. Design and Deliver: Planning and Teaching Using Universal Design for Learning. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co, 2014.

152. Rose DH, Meyer A. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2002.

153. Schreffler J, Vasquez III E, Chini J, James W. Universal design for learning in postsecondary STEM education for students with disabilities: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education 2019; 6 (1): 1–10.

154. Arbaugh JB, Cleveland-Innes M, Diaz SR, et al. Developing a community of inquiry instrument: testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet & Higher Education 2008; 3 (4): 133–136.

155. Garrison DR, Cleveland-Innes M, Fung TS. Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education 2010; 13 (1): 31–36.

156. Whiteside AL, Dikkers AG, Swan K. Social Presence in Online Learning: Multiple Perspectives on Practice and Research. Herndon: Stylus Publishing, LLC, 2017.

157. Armellini A, De Stefani M. Social presence in the 21st century: an adjustment to the community of inquiry framework. British Journal of Educational Technology 2016; 47 (6): 1202–1216.

158. Shea P, Bidjerano T. Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster, epistemic engagement, and, cognitive presence, in online education. Computers and Education 2009; 52 (3): 543–553.

159. Darabi A, Arrastia MC, Nelson DW, Cornille T, Liang X. Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: a comparison of four discussion strategies: discussion strategies in online learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2011; 27 (3): 216–227.

160. Cuthbertson W, Falcone A. Elevating engagement and community in online courses. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning 2014; 8 (3–4): 216–224.

161. Whiteside AL, Dikkers AG, Swan K. Social Presence in Online Learning: Multiple Perspectives on Practice and Research. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2017.

162. Alexander P. The development of expertise: the journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher 2003; 32 (8): 10–14.

163. Charness N, Reingold EM, Pomplin M, Stampe DM. The perceptual aspect of skilled performance in chess: evidence from eye movements. Memory and Cognition 2001; 29 (8): 1146–1152.

164. Billing D. Teaching for transfer of core/key skills in higher education: cognitive skills. Higher Education 2007; 53 (4): 483–516.

165. Sprague J, Stuart D. The Speaker’s Handbook. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2005.

166. Nathan M, Petrosino A. Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal 2003; 40 (4): 905–928.

167. Nathan M, Koedinger K. An investigation of teachers’ beliefs of students’ algebra development. Cognition and Instruction 2000; 18 (2): 209–237.

168. Bangert-Drowns RL, Kulik C-C, Kulik JA, Morgan M. The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research 1991; 61 (2): 213–238.

169. Anderson RC, Kulhavy RW, Andre T. Feedback procedures in programmed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 1971; 62 (2): 148–156.

170. Metcalfe J. Learning from errors. Annual Review of Psychology 2017; 68 (1): 465–489.

171. Gnepp J, Klayman J, Williamson IO, Barlas S. The future of feedback: motivating performance improvement through future-focused feedback. PloS One 2020; 15 (6): e0234444 e0234444.

172. Ericsson K, Charness N. Expert performance: its structure and acquisition. The American Psychologist 1994; 49 (8): 725–747.

173. Ericsson K, Lehmann A. Expert and exceptional performance: evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology 1996; 47 (1): 273–305.

174. Vygotsky L, Cole M. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.

175. Sanders D, Welk D. Strategies to scaffold student learning: applying Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Nurse Educatore 2005; 30 (5): 203–207.

176. Martin F, Klein J, Sullivan H. T he impact of instructional elements in computer-based instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology 2007; 38 (4): 623–636.

177. Bjork RA, Kroll JF. Desirable difficulties in vocabulary learning. The American Journal of Psychology 2015; 128 (2): 241–252.

178. Birnbaum MS, Kornell N, Bjork EL, Bjork RA. Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: the roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory & Cognition 2013; 41 (3): 392–402.

179. Bjork EL, Soderstrom NC, Little JL. Can multiple-choice testing induce desirable difficulties? evidence from the laboratory and the classroom. The American Journal of Psychology 2015; 128 (2): 229–239.

180. Pyc MA, Rawson KA. Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory and Language 2009; 60 (4): 437–447.

181. Karpicke JD. Metacognitive control and strategy selection: deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology General 2009; 138 (4): 469–486.

182. Cepeda NJ, Vul E, Rohrer D, Wixted JT, Pashler H. Spacing effects in learning: a temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science 2008; 19 (11): 1095–1102.

183. Dobson J, Linderholm T, Perez J. Retrieval practice enhances the ability to evaluate complex physiology information. Medical Education 2018; 52 (5): 513–525.

184. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 2007; 77 (1): 81–112.

185. Chou C-Y, Zou N-B. An analysis of internal and external feedback in self-regulated learning activities mediated by self-regulated learning tools and open learner models. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 2020; 17 (1): 1–27.

186. Nicol DJ, Macfarlane-Dick D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames) 2006; 31 (2): 199–218.

187. Balzer W, Doherty M, O’Connor R. Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin 1989; 106 (3): 410–433.

188. Lamburg W. Self-provided and peer-provided feedback. College Composition and Communication 1980; 31 (1): 63–69.