College Teaching

ISSN: 8756-7555 (Print) 1930-8299 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20

Recognizing Student Fear: The Elephant in the

Classroom

T. Scott Bledsoe & Janice J. Baskin

To cite this article: T. Scott Bledsoe & Janice J. Baskin (2014) Recognizing Student Fear: The
Elephant in the Classroom, College Teaching, 62:1, 32-41, DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2013.831022

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2013.831022

Published online: 08 Jan 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2822

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vcol20
COLLEGE TEACHING, 62: 32–41, 2014
Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0894-1920 print / 1930-8299 online
DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2013.831022

Recognizing Student Fear: The Elephant

in the Classroom
T. Scott Bledsoe and Janice J. Baskin
Azusa Pacific University

Understanding fear, its causes, and its impact on students can be important for educators
who seek ways to help students manage their fears. This paper explores common types of
student fears such as performance-based anxiety, fear of failure, fear of being laughed at, and
cultural components of fear that impact learning. The cognitive, emotional, and physiological
components of fear are also investigated, including its role in memory deficits and key functions
of the central nervous system that may be short-circuited when students are overwhelmed by
feelings of fear. Specific strategies for educators are provided to help students manage fear-
based behaviors and achieve emotional balance and academic success in the classroom. These
strategies include educating oneself and students about fear, creating a nurturing environment
for students, taking advantage of campus resources, being proactive about communicating with
students outside of the classroom, and incorporating active learning strategies.

Keywords: anxiety, classroom environment, fear, gelotophobia, higher education, student

fears, student learning, teaching

What do these scenarios have in common?
- As an icebreaker, you ask your students to introduce them-
selves by sharing what they did over the break. After a
few promptings, the class comes alive with story-telling and
laughter. As things quiet down, you notice a young female
student who has not contributed. She seems smiling and re-
laxed, so you ask, “How about you? How was your break?”
The life seems to drain from her face and she begins to speak:
“I, uh, went out of state to, uh, see. . .” then her voice fails,
she abruptly stops talking, and looks down.
- He strolls in late, sits at the back of the room, rarely par-
ticipates, and when he does, it’s usually a deprecating or
irrelevant remark. When you succeed in getting a good dis-
cussion going, he seems to be sabotaging your efforts by
engaging in side conversations with those in the back of the
room, disrupting the discussion with their laughter.
- She’s really earnest and sweet. She shows up for every
class, on time, and is competent at participating. But she
hasn’t handed in any assignments. You conference with her,
and after what seems to be a very productive session, and
exuding confidence and gratitude, she promises to stay on
Correspondence should be sent to T. Scott Bledsoe, Dept. of Graduate
Psychology, Azusa Pacific University, 701 E. Foothill Blvd., Azusa, CA
91702, USA. E-mail: tsbledsoe@apu.edu
track. But nothing happens and ultimately she fails simply
because she handed in little, if any, work.
What’s going on with these students? Are they struggling
with cultural differences or personal crises? Learning dis-
abled? Academically underprepared? Rude? Lazy? Maybe,
but not necessarily. They may be afraid, so consumed with
anxiety—for a variety of reasons—that their very cognitive
processes are short-circuiting, making it virtually impossible
to participate, concentrate, read, study, or pass an exam. They
can be prepared and willing, but when ordinary, human fear
and anxiety overtake them, their disengagement and ensuing
academic failure may become almost certain.
Fears are a normal part of growing up. They develop from
the moment a child first experiences a danger he or she cannot
fully understand or control (Craske, Hermans, and Vansteen-
wegen 2006). As we grow older, we develop resources to
combat our fears; as young people, we learn to accept and
even challenge them through society-sanctioned activities
such as playing sports or joining theater groups. Healthy de-
velopment indicates that we have learned how to recognize
and manage our fears. However, from time to time, fears
can sneak up and seem to control us, and for some, various
types of fear become chronic and even debilitating. These
include such common fears as the fear of public speaking,

as well as panic-induced and phobia-based fears such as the
fear of heights, and the fear of flying (American Psychiatric
Association 1994).
But seemingly ordinary, everyday fear can also become
debilitating. Fear isn’t just a matter of sweaty palms and
rapid heart rate. It impacts our cognitive processes—how we
perceive our environment, how we remember things, whether
we can focus and pay attention, how well we plan and then
execute that plan, and how well we problem-solve (LeDoux
1996; Cassady 2004). It can contribute to a general sense
of danger, as when one fears that bad things are bound to
happen, and its effects on learning and academic performance
can be profound (Owens et al. 2012; Warr and Downing
2000; Keogh et al. 2004). So when it enters a classroom and
sits there like an invisible elephant, crushing the breath out
of a student’s self-efficacy, motivation, and engagement, an
educator needs to be prepared to act.
But first, a few words about the connection between fear
and anxiety. Cummings (1995, 185) defines anxiety as “a
state of apprehension, tension, or uneasiness that occurs in
anticipation of internal or external danger,” an example of
which is walking through an unfamiliar alley and feeling un-
easy despite the absence of external danger. In contrast, fear
can be described as “the emotional state that exists when
a source of threat is precise and well-known,” (Yager and
Gitlin 1995, 659) and in the aforementioned scenario, this
might include a stranger running towards you in an aggres-
sive manner. Whereas the situation involving anxiety sug-
gests imagined danger, the fear-based situation involves di-
rect peril. Though fear and anxiety are thought to vary by
degrees on a continuum of threat-based stimuli (Craske et al.
2006, 4), the responses to them are often similar, and the
perception of threat is real. That is, whether in the grips of a
fear or anxiety response, we seldom ask, is this imagined or
real? We are simply afraid. Therefore, the terms will be used
interchangeably in this paper.
Fear can be displayed in numerous ways by students in
the classroom. One common fear response is described in the
opening paragraph in which the student seems almost para-
lyzed by fear when talking in class. This response may induce
physiological reactions such as blushing or sweating in ad-
dition to difficulty speaking. Some acting out behaviors may
also be indicative of fear as when a student attempts to divert
attention from the anxiety-provoking stimulus (e.g., discus-
sion on test preparation) by engaging in avoidance mecha-
nisms such as excessive talking or conversing with other stu-
dents at inappropriate times, acting silly, or repeatedly asking
off-topic questions of the instructor. Additionally, procrasti-
nation and repeated absence from class can both originate as
fear-based responses. Procrastinating students who come to
class unprepared may sit quietly and avoid engaging in class
discussions for fear of showing their ignorance of the topic
at hand. They may fall consistently behind in turning in their
work and may become almost routinely absent as a way to
avoid participation in class.
RECOGNIZING STUDENT FEAR 33
Fears can be learned from direct occurrences of threats
or indirectly as a result of observing others who experience
threatening incidents (Vytal 2007). Though the outcomes of
the two learned processes may differ (e.g., watching a friend
being ridiculed in a classroom as opposed to experiencing
the same humiliation firsthand), the resulting fear response
may ultimately be the same. A person who observed but
successfully avoided risky situations may thus demonstrate
fearful reactions identical to those exhibited by someone who
has borne the brunt of class ridicule. With this in mind, it may
be helpful to look more closely at the specific ways that fear
is experienced in the classroom.
The Experience of Fear
It is important to realize that behaviors that appear uniform
from student to student, such as anxious glances or nervous
twitches, may have vastly different meanings depending on
the person experiencing them. For many, the classroom repre-
sents a platform for academic success or a means to building
relationships with others and where a professor is seen as
a potential source of guidance and mentorship. But for oth-
ers, a professor may be seen as a distant, unforgiving, and
judgmental figure (Cox 2009) and a classroom an emotional
minefield. Each student holds a mental template of classroom
environments made up of incidents both positive and negative
from earlier occurrences in school and other life experiences,
and brings into the classroom the resultant fears. Individuals
with disabilities, past traumas, or unique historical back-
grounds (e.g., being poor but attending an affluent school)
may experience fears that are deep-seated and fraught with
painful memories. Culture also can play an important role in
a person’s ability to cope with fear, especially when the learn-
ing process takes place in a markedly different environment
than the one in which the student was raised. In particular,
students who are first-generation Americans or the first in
their families to attend college—or both—typically experi-
ence extremely high levels of classroom anxiety that often
negatively impact their success (Cox 2009; Salend 2011). Ad-
ditionally, graduate students (Onwuegbuzie 2000) and even
professors (McCrickerd 2012; Fimian 1987) may experience
fears associated with academic challenges.
Though not an exhaustive list, a few of the more common
types of classroom-based fears are described below.
One of the most universal ways that fear occurs in students
is through the perceived threat of failure. Students may be-
come so preoccupied with academically letting themselves
or others down that they actually strive to avoid failure in
situations involving achievements (such as not showing up
for a test), instead of intentionally pursuing successful out-
comes (by studying and taking the test) (Berger and Freund
2012). Failure-avoidant students may experience test anx-
iety, or “perceived arousal, reported worry, self-denigrating
thoughts, tension, and reports of somatic symptoms in exams
or similar evaluative situations” (Zeidner, as cited in Damer
34 BLEDSOE AND BASKIN
and Melendres 2011, 164). They may fail to complete read-
ings, procrastinate in preparing assignments, or simply not
turn them in, and, as a result, may fall further and further be-
hind their classmates. Such actions obviously are detrimental
to their learning and will hinder their ability to acquire im-
portant skills needed for the discipline they are pursuing
(Zimmerman and Kitsantas 1997).
Because the classroom often represents to many students
a competitive environment to achieve high grades rather than
the locus of their personal quest for knowledge and skills
mastery, some students may “choke” as they compare them-
selves to others. Their attention is divided between attempt-
ing to understand course-based information and worrying
that their skills will not match up to the abilities of others,
which may cause them to feel anxious, confused, and even
overwhelmed. Brown (as referenced in Lehrer 2010) refers
to this as the Superstar Effect and notes that in such settings,
“when people are forced to compete against a peer who seems
far superior, they often don’t rise to the challenge. Instead,
they give up” (Lehrer 2010, para. 2). A student who falls into
this category may not fear failure per se, but rather fear the
threat of being outperformed by others who are perceived to
be more academically gifted.
Many students exhibit shyness in the classroom, espe-
cially during the first few weeks of the course. Persistently
shy behaviors, which may be indicated by keeping one’s
head down, reluctance to engage in class discussions, or sit-
ting at the back of the room or near the exit, may signal to
the professor that the student is experiencing fear at some
level. Some of the more reserved students may actually fear
being laughed at, which is a condition known as gelotopho-
bia (Samson et al. 2011). Unable to view laughter’s positive
characteristics (e.g., community-building, tension-relieving),
such students perceive classroom laughter as threatening and
shame-inducing and may demonstrate such nervous behav-
iors as fidgeting and looking down when humorous com-
ments are made by students or the professor. They often
appear overly quiet, and are unable to engage in even mini-
mal discussions. A teacher who assumes that laughter is the
best medicine may actually be contributing to the fear-based
responses of some students suffering from gelotophobia.
Cultural factors may play an integral role in the fear-based
behaviors of foreign students studying in Western institu-
tions. This concept is sometimes referred to as fear of “for-
eignness” (Steed 2011); students may feel confused about
the complexity of the English language and the dynamics of
American classrooms while possibly holding on to feelings
of anxiety from their own educational history. They also may
fear the opinions of and interactions with students born in
the United States who, due to their upbringing and/or lack
of multicultural training, may exhibit biases and prejudices
against foreigners (Sue et al. 2010), or simply misunderstand
their behavior. When students remain quiet and refrain from
participating, some professors may interpret their silence as
a sign that these students are taking time to become more fa-
miliar with new settings, but in actuality, these pupils may be
experiencing emotional challenges on a much deeper level.
Because of their familiarity with collegiate settings, it
could be assumed that graduate students experience less fear
than their undergraduate counterparts. However, the opposite
may be true. Onwuegbuzie (2000) asserts that grad students
are actually more prone to procrastinate than undergrads
when writing papers, studying for exams, and submitting re-
search proposals. He notes that this is due to the prevalence of
perfectionism among graduate students which makes them
“highly susceptible to negative affective states” (Onwueg-
buzie 2000, 104), and suggests a causal connection between
procrastination and perfectionism which may be motivated
by a fear of failure. Long-term projects such as writing dis-
sertations may thus cause perfectionistic students to avoid
writing and conducting assigned research studies, ultimately
leading to additional stress, delayed output, or even course
withdrawal.
Even professors are not immune to experiencing fear. Ac-
cording to McCrickerd (2012), teachers experience fears in
regard to perceived poor performance in the classroom, re-
ceiving negative feedback, tenure denial, and believing they
have reached the limits of their talents. They may actually be
“unlikely to want to improve upon teaching since attempts
to improve may lead to feelings of failure. . .” (McCrick-
erd 2012, 59). In the classroom, such fear-based behaviors
may result in a status quo approach in which teachers refrain
from challenging students to excel. Ironically, the 2007–2008
HERI Research Brief Report (DeAngelo et al. 2009) indi-
cates that teachers identify “self-imposed high expectations”
as the most significant cause of stress, the result of which
may ultimately lead to excessive worrying and even physical
exhaustion (Fimian 1987). If this is true, the degree of expec-
tations teachers impose on themselves may directly impact
the amount of fear they experience.
Cognitive and Biological Components of Fear
Although students may experience fear in the classroom for
different reasons and in different ways, the cognitive and
physiological fear-based processes that occur in the central
nervous system are more similar in nature. A student who
feels extreme unease caused by the fear of being laughed at
may thus be experiencing the same mental and biological
consequences as the highly anxious student who is worried
about passing a midterm exam. When we, as educators, rec-
ognize, understand these fear behaviors, and empathize with
the internal processes that underlie them, we can take steps
to make the student feel more confident (and less fearful) in
the classroom. Some of these steps will be discussed later.
On a cognitive level, highly fearful students possess a
heightened sense of danger (Davey 2006) that may lead them
to interpret normal situations in a very suspicious manner, as
when an innocuous gesture made by one person is taken as
a hostile threat by another. When presented with a typical

discussion prompt from the professor (for example, “Let’s
have a discussion based on this week’s reading assignment”),
instead of mentally preparing comments, these students may
fear that they will be singled out or that their responses will be
automatically discounted or rejected. Memory also may be
impacted (Coles, Turk, and Heimberg 2007). Instead of be-
ing able to focus on the material to be read and studied, fear-
or anxiety-driven students may become overly worried about
how their participation or their abilities are being judged.
In turn they create memories not of the class material but
of their own apprehensive feelings, thus inhibiting their un-
derstanding of that class material. So, though they prepared
beforehand, the students are unable to recall salient elements
of the assigned material when classroom discussion occurs,
perhaps never having really learned the material at all.
Cognitive processing can also be viewed in terms of fixed
and growth mindsets. According to Dweck (2006, 6), individ-
uals with fixed mindsets believe that they possess a “certain
amount of intelligence, a certain personality, and a certain
moral character,” which limits their capacity to learn new
information. When students with fixed mindsets make low
grades on tests, they may react with fear-based self-talk. They
may internalize blame (“I knew it. This proves I’m a failure”)
or fault others (“The professor really had it in for me”) with-
out being able to realistically assess the situation (“I did not
receive the grade I wanted on this test. I will incorporate new
study strategies for the next one.”) Fixed mindsets can cause
students to fear situations in which they feel challenged be-
yond their abilities. As such, they may avoid opportunities for
academic improvement based on the faulty belief that failure
awaits them if they try. Growth mindsets, on the other hand,
allow students to learn from their mistakes and are discussed
later in this paper.
From a biological standpoint, a typical fear response in-
volves an intricate interaction among the neural pathways
of the brain (Perry 1999). The amygdala, an almond-shaped
structure located in the brain’s medial temporal lobe, plays a
vital role in the processing of emotions, including the fear re-
sponse. When alerted to a fear-based stimulus, the amygdala
signals the hypothalamus, important in maintaining sensory
balance, and then the hippocampus, which is integral to mem-
ory formation and organization. From there, the signal is sent
to the prefrontal cortex, which oversees executive planning
and other cognitive processes needed for learning; it also me-
diates sensory overload, and thus provides a calming effect
to the fear-generating stimulus. Normally, the signal dimin-
ishes in intensity, returns to the amygdala, and the student,
though still fearful, may be able to “pull it together.” Under
normal circumstances, feelings of fear will subside over time
and students become more comfortable with the structural
routines of the course by engaging more fully in classroom
activities.
For some students, however, fear-based responses con-
tinue to occur even beyond the normal period of initial adjust-
ment to course dynamics. When this happens, brain functions
RECOGNIZING STUDENT FEAR 35
may shift ominously to accommodate the continuous threats
perceived by the student. Structurally, in this case, fear-based
responses will still trigger the amygdala and hypothalamus,
but will bypass both the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex,
which creates an overly anxious mental state (Perry 1999). A
student experiencing test anxiety may thus appear flustered
and ruminate on potential failure as this process occurs. Be-
cause the hippocampus is not alerted, the brain loses its abil-
ity to differentiate between fearful and harmless memories.
Additionally, since the prefrontal cortex also is bypassed,
the brain is unable to return the body to a calmer and more
productive state, ultimately derailing the student’s attempts
to study for the test and understand important course-based
concepts (LeDoux 1999; Zull 2002). Continued fear-based
reactions will likely overload the central nervous system,
resulting in a snowballing effect of undue stress, and its re-
sultant negative effects on learning.
Our brains play an integral role in maintaining biological,
cognitive, and emotional functioning. Students who suffer
persistent levels of fear are actually experiencing a high de-
gree of overload in the form of threat-based signals occurring
in the central nervous system. Although it may not be pos-
sible to physically change intricate brain structures, there
are ways an instructor can help to promote students’ confi-
dence, increase their mental availability to better analyze and
synthesize course material, and reduce fear-based behaviors.
By doing so, we may even help the students on the road to
achieving their academic goals.
Strategies for Educators
There’s an old joke: How do you eat an elephant? One bite
at a time. The joke assumes that seemingly insurmountable
problems can be resolved if broken down into parts. To many
educators, helping highly fearful students successfully gain
the upper hand on their emotions may appear challenging.
Yet finding solutions and breaking them down into parts may
result in breakthrough for the students who need it most.
There are eight key ingredients to tackling this issue.
1. Educate yourself about fear and its impact
on students
As Parker Palmer writes in The Courage to Teach, “the
way we diagnose our students’ condition will determine the
kind of remedy we offer (1998, 41). He recalled the “Student
from Hell,” a “universal archetype” and one similar if not
identical to the fear-infected student this article discusses.
After an hour of striving unsuccessfully to positively engage
this student during class, Palmer left, consumed with feelings
of “self-pity, fraudulence, and rage.” Later that night he was
chauffeured to the airport by that same student and during the
drive and up until the time his plane departed, he talked with
him, learning of the student’s difficult life and the challenges
he faced in his desire to complete college. “”We talked until
it was time for my plane to take off,” Palmer wrote, “and for
36 BLEDSOE AND BASKIN
a while afterward we corresponded. I do not know whether
I helped him—but I know he helped me. He helped me un-
derstand that the silent and seemingly sullen students in our
classrooms are not brain-dead; they are full of fear” (Palmer
1998, 44).
Fear is a complex emotion and can take different shapes
and forms in a classroom setting. Although it is not possible
to recognize each cause, diagnosis, or symptom that corre-
lates to fear-based behaviors, it is possible to understand the
significance of these fears in a way that could be beneficial
to students. This starts with reframing our interpretations of
pertinent student behaviors, such as:
• excessive tardiness or sporadic attendance
• good class attendance, but missed assignments
• acting out behaviors –excessive talking, silliness, deroga-
tory or sarcastic comments
• little or no participation, even when asked to respond
• a “deer-in-the-headlights” appearance or other expres-
sions of nonresponsiveness
• continuous complaints of illness or not feeling well
• missed conferences or lack of follow-through after con-
ference
• nervousness, lack of eye contact, blushing and flushing,
sweating, other signs of agitation
• complaints that assignments are confusing or that they
weren’t told what to do (though they were reminded more
than once)
Understanding how students experience fear (e.g., through
gelotophobia, cultural factors), what this may entail on a
cognitive and biological level, and how it may ultimately
impact their learning, we can become more sensitized to
problematic behaviors and work towards making students
feel more comfortable and confident. In so doing, we may
actually be empowering ourselves to overcome our own fears
of change or of “reaching the limit” of our gifts and talents as
instructors (McCrickerd 2012, p. 57). We thus create a sense
of safety in the classroom (Golden 2013) that may initially
challenge our status quo thinking, yet can ultimately result
in reduced fears among our students.
2. Recognize that some student fears may be
associated with factors outside the classroom
It is important to discriminate between fears that occur
inside and outside of the classroom. Students who fail to
turn in papers on time, miss classes, avoid discussions, or
sleep during lessons may actually be wrestling with a num-
ber of challenges that originate outside of the institutions
they attend. These individuals may be holding down multi-
ple jobs, facing family challenges, or even spending exces-
sive amounts of time driving to and from school; all of which
may exacerbate fear-based responses. In addition, nearly 50
percent of today’s college students are the first generation in
their families to attend college (Choy, as referenced in Mehta,
Newbold, & O’Rourke 2011, 21). This group in particular
has external challenges that can create debilitating stress and
anxiety that may ultimately lead to academic failure; they
may lack the “cultural capital” to deal with the stress and
anxiety of pursuing a college education (Mehta et al. 2011).
In recent studies focusing on sleep patterns of college
students, it was found that 27% of the 1,845 students sur-
veyed in lab-based experiments were at risk for sleep dis-
orders (Gaultney 2010), and as much as half of the 4,513
online survey participants surveyed “reported having trouble
staying awake while driving, eating meals, or engaging in so-
cial activities” (Orzech, Salafsky, and Hamilton 2011, 616).
Thus, some ostensibly nervous or withdrawn behaviors may
be more indicative of sleep hygiene problems than anxiety.
Other studies found that weak time management skills cor-
related with higher levels of academic stress (Macan et al.
1990), and that students who played video games (Burgess,
Stermer and Burgess 2012, N = 671) reported a greater like-
lihood of avoiding homework than non-gamers, ultimately
resulting in lack of preparedness for classes. While not nec-
essarily caused by fear, any of these factors may contribute
to stress-based responses in the classroom.
Students diagnosed with Autism, Attention Deficit Disor-
der, Major Depressive Disorder, or other clinical syndromes,
may exhibit fear-like symptoms unique to their disorders
(e.g., an individual suffering from mild depression experi-
ences distress due to his inability to concentrate during a
crucial class assignment). In their study of college students
with ADHD, Advokat, Lane and Luo (2011, 656) found that
many participants strongly believed they were “worse off
than other students at planning and completing assignments
and avoiding distractions,” and such beliefs may have con-
tributed to increased anxiety in the classroom. With this in
mind, it is important not to make hasty assumptions about
the roots of these fears. Creating a dialogue with the student
who appears distressed or fearful can represent an important
first step in addressing problem behaviors.
3. Educate your students about the anxiety they
may be experiencing and provide guidance
in learning to manage it
In order to manage or reduce their anxiety, students of-
ten need to be made aware of their fear responses and be
given techniques for managing them. A number of studies
have shown that instructional intervention can diminish stu-
dent fears and improve academic performance (Youngblood,
1991; Kennedy and Doepke 1999; Dykeman 2011; Perry
2004; Podell et al. 2010; Vitasari et al. 2010).
Students, especially freshman, often have a low tolerance
for confusion, ambiguity, and making mistakes (Cox 2009;
Owen and Sweeney 2002). This low tolerance may grow
their anxiety (“How come I don’t understand this? Why did
I get it wrong? I must be too stupid to learn it.”) There often
exists a disconnect between their emotional responses and

their cognitive abilities to manage them. For example, as the
body responds first to stressors—feeling faint, perspiring,
stomach churning—the students interpret such symptoms as
illness; they then think, “I was too sick to do well on the
test,” unaware that anxiety itself can make them feel unwell.
They may be uninformed about how much control they can
have over these responses and uniformed of the techniques
that can be used to reduce stress and anxiety: they can, in
fact, perform some simple techniques to calm themselves
and feel better. In an experiment with 20 college math stu-
dents, researchers employed a 10-minute pre-test expressive
writing intervention and saw test scores for the expressive
writing group significantly improve over the control group:
“Control participants choked under pressure, showing a 12%
accuracy drop from pretest to posttest, whereas students who
expressed their thoughts before the high-pressure test showed
a significant 5% math accuracy improvement from pretest to
posttest” (Ramirez and Beilock 2011, 212) .
By helping students identify potential fear-based behav-
iors, we are implementing our own informal “early alert sys-
tem” and tapping into an important ingredient for classroom
success. Spending a few minutes helping students “see the
elephant” of anxiety and offering and even demonstrating a
few anxiety-management techniques will be class time well
spent in building a stronger sense of self-efficacy in your stu-
dents. Demonstrating such simple techniques as breathing
exercises, guided imagery, expressive writing, or stretching
or relaxation methods can help students reduce anxiety and be
more cognitively available to learn. It is also important to stay
attentive to anxiety levels throughout the semester and re-
spond appropriately. (For more information on techniques to
help students reduce stress, visit http://stress.about.com/od/
studentstress/ss/college stress.htm)
As mentioned earlier, students think in terms of fixed and
growth mindsets (Dweck 2006). Instructors can encourage
students to challenge their fears of being incapable of learn-
ing beyond a fixed level of knowledge. By confronting this
rigid pattern of thinking, professors help students incorpo-
rate a growth mindset in which they have the potential to
achieve academic success. Dweck argues that basic qualities
can be cultivated, new skills acquired, and that “everyone can
change and grow through application and experience” (7).
For example, if a student experiences self-defeating thoughts
about his low grade on a term paper, the instructor can en-
courage him to identify problem areas, seek available help
(e.g., attend a writing workshop), and plan more carefully for
future assignments. Instead of feeling anxious and helpless,
the student is thus empowered to find solutions that promote
self-efficacy.
4. Create a nurturing environment for your students
Providing a nurturing environment and positive attitude to
all students can promote trust and positively impact students
who are prone to fearfulness. Miglietti and Strange (1998,
RECOGNIZING STUDENT FEAR 37
15) conducted a study of 156 college students focusing on
teaching style preferences most effective for their learning.
Results indicated that factors such as “learner-centered activ-
ities, personalized instruction, relating learning to students’
experiences, assessing student needs, climate building, en-
couraging student participation in the learning process, and
maintaining flexibility” were deemed most important in cre-
ating a positive and stress-free classroom.
A nurturing environment can also promote cultural sen-
sitivity and discourage prejudicial or stereotyping behaviors
by students. Because many cultures depend on a variety of
visual cues during relational interactions, becoming aware of
and responding to the nonverbal communication of students
can also be a key factor in engendering a safe environment
within the classroom. Being sensitive and respectful to these
cues and nonverbal communication demonstrates inclusive-
ness essential to learner-centered teaching. As Gabriel (2008,
83) comments, “When students know that we value their di-
verse backgrounds and ethnic heritages, they will feel wel-
come in our class, and this feeling is important for sharing
and working together.”
Different classroom strategies for instruction can be help-
ful. For example, professors can encourage dialogue about
a particular issue by first asking students to engage in small
group discussions before leading into a general class discus-
sion. Studies involving the use of groups in college settings
(e.g., Bilics and Lerch 2001) have highlighted the impor-
tance of group collaboration, and in small group settings,
more fearful students may feel empowered to voice their
opinions without having to share them in front of the entire
class. Taking a few moments to allow students to journal
about their fears or to self-talk positive messages can help
reduce anxiety, quiet the amygdala, and increase cognitive
presence (Ramirez and Beilock 2011). The use of humor has
been shown to reduce student anxiety as well (Berk 2000).
In promoting a nurturing environment, it may be helpful
to consider student learning needs on an individual basis. The
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provides a framework
for educators to address the needs of diverse learners by “sug-
gesting flexible goals, methods, materials, and assessments”
(Center for Applied Special Technology 2011, 4). There are
three UDL Principles that may be beneficial for students who
experience excessive fear in the classroom: (1) provide mul-
tiple means of representation, (2) provide multiple means of
action and expression, and (3) provide multiple means of en-
gagement. Utilizing the third UDL principle with a student
who is both fearful and impulsive, for example, a profes-
sor might suggest that the student jot down ideas instead of
blurting them out. At specific time intervals (e.g., after every
fifth PowerPoint slide), the student would ask questions or
propose ideas based on the lecture material. This simple, yet
well-planned intervention could help students manage their
fear-based responses.
Be aware that sometimes students may perceive in-
struction activities other than the standard lecture as no
38 BLEDSOE AND BASKIN
instruction (Cox 2009). Particularly at the freshman level,
students’ expectations are largely shaped by their previous
educational experiences, and when the instructor uses other
types of teaching activities, the students may feel nothing
valuable is happening. Instructors should also bear in mind
that departing from the syllabus with unscheduled activities
or impromptu or vague or open-ended assignments may in-
crease student anxiety and may negatively impact those with
a low tolerance for ambiguity (DeRoma, Martin, and Kessler
2003). Explaining to students the purpose of your activity
and what you expect them to get out of it as well as assessing
their responses to what is being said and done in the class-
room may help alleviate their stress and increase learning
(Terry, as cited in Gray and Madison 2007).
Students feel nurtured and included when they feel they
have an equal chance of earning a good grade, and that in-
structors are fair and gracious in their evaluations. Providing
a numerous and varied assignments to earn credit as well
as using a “criterion” grading system (as opposed to “norm-
referenced” grading; i.e., grading on the curve) “works well
with learner-centered teaching” and helps reduce “debilitat-
ing evaluation anxiety” (Weimer, as cited in Gabriel 2008).
Well-organized and clearly articulated assignments and ex-
ams that offer some choice in completion can also be effective
in encouraging self-efficacy and reducing anxieties (Salend
2011).
5. Be proactive in communicating with your
students outside the classroom both as a group
and individually
Weaver and Qi (2005, 587) concluded that “faculty-
student interaction outside the classroom helps students learn
professionalism, view criticism in a constructive way, and en-
hance students’ confidence in the classroom,” which is “crit-
ical for explaining class participation.” Utilizing email and
other forms of communication with your students to clarify
assignments or to offer general comments or words of en-
couragement (e.g. “I just wanted to send a quick note to all
of you to let you know. . . .”) can help to ease student fears
about potential failure (Jaasma and Koper 1999). Often if
one student takes the time to ask you a question after class,
there is a good possibility that at least a few others had the
same concern, and without singling out that student, a gen-
eral email addressing the concern may also reassure others
in the class. Correspondences of this nature demonstrate to
students that their instructor is caring and willing to go the
extra mile for them.
Though many instructors repeatedly invite their students
to talk with them after class to stop by their offices, many stu-
dents may feel intimidated or confused (“what will I say?”)
and or too embarrassed (“he/she will think I’m too stupid
for college”) to take up the offer (Cox 2009; Chung and Hsu
2006). Sending encouraging notes or taking students aside
at break time or before or after class can help reassure them
as well as provide opportunities to model anxiety manage-
ment. One thing is clear from recent research on student
self-efficacy and engagement: Positive instructor interven-
tion is key (Hong, Shull, Haefner 2011). Personal relation-
ships between students and instructors can create inroads of
trust in the classroom. Although not always practical to con-
tact every student, particularly in a large class, reaching out
individually when merited can be a powerful and proactive
gesture in establishing empathic relationships with students
who may be struggling in class. Such gestures can go a long
way in smoothing the academic road and reducing students’
fears, whether those fears are based on competition, culture,
superstar effect, or other factors.
6. Provide icebreakers and other activities to
reduce stress and anxiety and repeat as needed in
the semester. Do them in a way that takes the
emphasis off individual achievement
When the first day of class comes, instructors can
also promote positive communication through icebreaker
activities—while doing double duty to address stress and
anxiety (Sciutto 1995; Anderson, McGuire, and Cory 2011).
Initial class meetings also set the tone for constructive and
learning-filled semesters. Yet icebreakers often showcase stu-
dent abilities to be articulate and integrate information, and
even with prompts as seemingly harmless as, “Tell me what
you did over the summer,” students may become overanxious.
Many may cherish the opportunity to share their exploits with
fellow classmates, but some may feel put on the spot and fear
exposing themselves or being compared to others. As an al-
ternative, provide students with an icebreaker in which they
can share as much or little information as they wish. (Make
sure to offer a time limit to avert long-winded presentations.)
As with the previous point, ask students to work in pairs or
small groups before speaking to the whole class. This pro-
vides a chance to engage in a less risky icebreaking activity
while promoting more intimate dialogue. Discussions of this
caliber can also take place between instructor and student.
Nonverbal icebreakers (e.g., stretching exercises) may also
be beneficial in maintaining alertness and interest in class
material. Finally, note that icebreakers can occur throughout
the semester in order to introduce a new topic, to re-energize
discussion, or ease tension at specific times during the course
(Chlup and Collins 2010).
Stress and anxiety levels also go down when students
feel they have regular opportunities to provide feedback on
what they learning—or not—in the classroom. Interweaving
“formative assessment” exercises with instruction can help
students feel more in control and less alien, and thus less
anxious. Gabriel (2008) illustrates the “Write-Pair-Share”
activity (93) and Hester’s “Meta-Cognitive Moment” assess-
ment technique (95), reporting that Hester concluded that
“her students seem more confident and have less test anxi-
ety” (96). (For an explanation of these and others, Gabriel

has referred instructors to Classroom Assessment Techniques
by Angelo and Cross 1993.)
7. Incorporate active learning strategies into your
normal teaching routine in order to promote a
stress-free environment
According to Light and Micari (as referenced in Golden
2013), active learning takes place when students feel safe and
supported by instructors and fellow classmates. Group activi-
ties are emphasized because they provide a collaborative feel
that often is missing in a normal classroom environment.
Peer facilitators can be trained to offer help and provide a
more “democratic” feel in which the instructor is not seen as
the sole source of classroom wisdom. For example, students
are “assigned a particular problem or question to research in
groups, and develop a short presentation and share with the
class either live or online through a blog or wiki.” The au-
thors add that this approach is successful with minority and
marginalized populations and may result in “reducing [stu-
dents’] anxiety as well as improving their confidence, moti-
vation and . . . assisting them in taking deeper approaches to
their study” (as quoted in Golden 2013, para. 8).
Learning communities, or “classroom communities [that]
treat the classroom as the locus of community-building by
featuring cooperative learning techniques and group process
learning activities as integrating pedagogical approaches”
(Lenning and Ebbers, as cited in Zhao and Kuh 2004, 116),
have been shown to increase student engagement and per-
sistence. Pastors (2006) surveyed 200 Northeastern Univer-
sity students participating in learning communities at the
beginning of the semester and at the end. The survey results
indicated higher (“strongly agree”) response rates in all cate-
gories for those students in learning communities compared
to those who were not. Items included “coping with test anx-
iety,” “dealing with stress,” “making classes more relaxed,”
and “feeling more confident in giving a presentation” (p. 7).
In a study of 82 students examining the relationship of the
active learning strategy of collaborative testing and quality
of interaction, Pandey and Kapitanoff (2011, 163) concluded
that “Students with higher levels of test anxiety were most
likely to benefit from collaborative testing and to experience
the greatest text anxiety reduction.”
8. Be aware of campus resources to help students
Many universities and colleges have formalized early alert
systems to help identify at-risk students and provide them
with academic assistance and support services. Other inter-
ventions include “success coaches,” “success workshops,”
“success skills programs,” and learning enrichment services
providing tutoring and mentoring. Most universities and col-
leges also have counseling services and support groups for
various needs, and some offer discipline-specific academic
services, such as for math, statistics, or physics. More and
more universities also are providing support to help instruc-
RECOGNIZING STUDENT FEAR 39
tors create the kind of classroom that will be conducive to stu-
dents getting the assistance they need to be academically suc-
cessful, including assistance with stress management through
test anxiety workshops. Some universities have offered work-
shops and one-unit courses for reducing stress and anxiety,
and several studies have demonstrated their efficacy (Sciutto
1995; Finkelstein et al. 2007; Bresó, Schaufeli, and Salanova
2011). Noticing early which students may be getting into
trouble and discretely guiding them to these resources may
help them stay enrolled and ultimately become successful in
meeting their academic goals. Tracking down the availability
and contact persons for these resources may seem compli-
cated, but often the straightest line to information about these
resources is the department chair’s office.
Conclusion
In every classroom and throughout any given semester, stu-
dents experience a variety of emotions specific to academia,
namely, eagerness to learn, anticipation of the unknown, test-
taking dread, and relief when the course is over. Yet a handful
of students experience more problematic emotions that ham-
per their ability to learn. Burdened by fear resulting from real
or perceived dangers within classroom, they must manage
these fears while simultaneously attempting to comprehend
course-related content. Knowing this, instructors have the op-
portunity to intervene to help students in crucial ways as they
educate themselves about the nature of fear, practice empa-
thy, and provide communication tools both inside and outside
the classroom that can go a long way in reducing fears and
boosting confidence. Research has shown that when instruc-
tors practice even the simplest interventions to help reduce
classroom anxieties, student engagement and performance
has been shown to improve. Though the problems that stu-
dents face may seem elephantine in scope, solutions can be
found that promote academic success— one bite at a time.
REFERENCES
Advokat, C., S. M. Lane, & C. Luo. 2011. “College Students with and
without ADHD: Comparison of Self-Report of Medication Usage, Study
Habits, and Academic Achievement.” Journal of Attention Disorders 15
(8): 656–66.
American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, D. M., F. A. McGuire, & L. Cory. 2011. “The First Day: It
Happens Only Once.” Teaching in Higher Education 16 (3): 293–303.
Angelo, T., & Cross, K. P. 1993. Classroom assessment techniques: A hand-
book for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berger, S., & A. M. Freund 2012. “Fear of Failure, Disorganization, and
Subjective Well-Being in the Context of Preparing for an Exam.” Swiss
Journal of Psychology 71 (2): 83–91.
Berk, R. A. 2000. “Does Humor in Course Tests Reduce Anxiety and Im-
prove Performance?” College Teaching 48 (4): 151–59.
Bilics, A. R., & C. M. Lerch. 2001, April. Collaborative Inquiry of Learning
Groups in College Settings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
40 BLEDSOE AND BASKIN
Bresó, E., W. B. Schaufeli, & M. Salanova. 2011. “Can a Self-Efficacy-
Based Intervention Decrease Burn-Out, Increase Engagement, and
Enhance Performance? A Quasi-Experimental Study.” Higher Education
61 (4): 339–55.
Burgess, S. R., S. P. Stermer, & M. C. Burgess. 2012. “Video Game Playing
and Academic Performance in College Students.” College Student Journal
46 (2): 376–87.
Cassady, J. C. 2004. “The Influence of Cognitive Test Anxiety across
the Learning-Testing Cycle.” Learning and Instruction 14 (6): 569–
92.
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). 2011, February. “Uni-
versal Design for Learning (UDL) guidelines: Full-text representation,
Version 2.0.” Wakefield, MA: Author. http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/
whatisudl
Chlup, D. T., & T. E. Collins. 2010, Summer/Fall. “Breaking the Ice: Using
Ice-Breakers and Re-Energizers with Adult Learners.” Adult Learning
21(3/4): 34–9.
Choy, S. 2001. Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary
access, persistence, and attainment (NCES Statistical Report 2001-126).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Educational Statistics.
Chung, C., & L. Hsu. 2006. “Encouraging Students to Seek Help: Supple-
menting Office Hours with a Course Center.” College Teaching 54 (3):
253–58.
Coles, M. E., C. L. Turk, & R. G. Heimberg. 2007. “Memory Bias For Threat
In Generalized Anxiety Disorder.” Cognitive Behaviour Therapy 36 (2):
65–73.
Cox, R. D. 2009. The College Fear Factor: How Students and Professors
Misunderstand Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Craske, M. G., D. Hermans, & D. Vansteenwegen 2006. Fear and Learn-
ing: From Basic Processes to Clinical Implications. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Cummings, J. L. 1995. “Neuropsychiatry: Clinical Assessment and Ap-
proach to Diagnosis.” In Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 4th ed.,
edited by H. I. Kaplan & B. J. Sadock, 167-87. Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins.
Damer, D. E., & Melendres, L. T. 2011, September. “‘Tackling test anxiety’:
A group for college students.” Journal for Specialists in Group Work 36
(3): 163–77.
Davey, G. C. L. 2006. Cognitive mechanisms in fear acquisition and main-
tenance. In Fear and Learning: From Basic Processes to Clinical Im-
plications, edited by M. G. Craske, D. Hermans, & D. Vansteenwegen,
99–116. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
DeAngelo, L., S. Hurtado, J. Pryor, K. Kelly, J. L. Santos, & W. S. Korn.
2009. The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 2007–2008
HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute,
UCLA.
DeRoma, V. M., K. M. Martin, & M. L. Kessler 2003, June. “The Relation-
ship between Tolerance for Ambiguity and Need for Course Structure.”
Journal of Instructional Psychology 30 (2): 104–10.
Dweck, C. S. 2006. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York:
Random House.
Dykeman, B. F. 2011, Winter. “Statistics Anxiety: Antecedents and Instruc-
tional Interventions.” Education 132 (2): 441–46.
Fimian, M. J. 1987. “Teacher Stress: An Expert Appraisal.” Psychology in
the Schools 24 (1): 5–14.
Finkelstein, C., A. Brownstein, C. Scott, & Y. L. Lan. 2007. “Anxiety
and Stress Reduction In Medical Education: An Intervention.” Medical
Education 41 (3): 258–64.
Gabriel, K. F. 2008. Teaching Unprepared Students: Strategies for Pro-
moting Success and Retention in Higher Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Gaultney, J. F. 2010. “The Prevalence of Sleep Disorders in College Stu-
dents: Impact on Academic Performance.” Journal of American College
Health 59 (2): 91–7.
Golden, S. 2013. “Making Scientists.” Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 12,
2013, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/04/16/interview-
authors-new-book-stem-teaching
Gray, T., & L. Madson. 2007. “Ten Easy Ways to Engage Your Students.”
College Teaching, 55 (2): 83–7.
Hong, B. S. S., P. J. Shull, & L. H. Haefner. 2011. “Impact of Perceptions
of Faculty on Student Outcomes of Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, Per-
sistence and Commitment.” Journal of College Student Retention 13 (3):
289–309.
Jaasma, M. A., & R. J. Koper. 1999. “The Relationship of Student/Faculty
Out-of-Class Communication to Instructor Immediacy and Trust and to
Student Motivation.” Communication Education 48 (1): 41–7.
Kennedy, D. V., & K. J. Doepke. 1999. “Multicomponent Treatment of a
Test Anxious College Student.” Education and Treatment of Children 22
(2): 203–17.
Keogh E. K., F. W. Bond, C. C. French, A. Richards, & R. E. Davis 2004,
September. “Test Anxiety, Susceptibility To Distraction And Examination
Performance.” Anxiety, Stress, and Coping 17 (3): 241–52.
LeDoux, J. 1996. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of
Emotional Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lehrer, J. 2010, April 3. “Essay: The Superstar Effect.” Wall Street Jour-
nal, W.1. Retrieved June 12, 2013, from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/399104032?accountid=8459
Lenning, O., & Ebbers, L. 1999. The powerful potential of learning commu-
nities: Improving education for the future [book]. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report, 26 (6).
Light, G., & Micari, M. 2013. Making Scientists: Six Principles for Effective
College Teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Macan, T. H., C. Shahani, R. L. Dipboye, & A. P. Phillips. 1990. “College
Students’ Time Management: Correlations with Academic Performance
and Stress.” Journal of Educational Psychology 82 (4): 760–68.
McCrickerd, J. 2012. “Understanding and Reducing Faculty Reluctance to
Improve Teaching.” College Teaching, 60 (2): 56–64.
Mehta, S. S., J. J. Newbold, M. A. O’Rourke. 2011, March. “Why Do First
Generation Students Fail?” College Student Journal 45 (1): 20–35.
Miglietti, C. L., & C. C. Strange. 1998. “Learning Styles, Classroom Envi-
ronment Preferences, Teaching Styles, and Remedial Course Outcomes
for Underprepared Adults at a Two-Year College.” Community College
Review 26 (1): 1–19.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. 2000. “Academic Procrastinators and Perfectionistic
Tendencies among Graduate Students.” Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality 15 (5): 103–109.
Orzech, K. M., D. B. Salafsky, & L. A. Hamilton. 2011. “The State of
Sleep among College Students at a Large Public University.” Journal of
American College Health 59 (7): 612–19.
Owen, W. N., & R. B. Sweeney. 2002. “Ambiguity Tolerance, Performance,
Learning, and Satisfaction: A Research Direction.” Proceedings of the
Information Systems Education Conference 19 (242c): 1542–7382.
Owens, M., J. Stevenson, J. A., Hadwin, & R. Norgate 2012. “Anxiety and
Depression in Academic Performance: An Exploration of the Mediating
Factors of Worry and Working Memory.” School Psychology Interna-
tional 33 (4): 433–49.
Palmer, P. J. 1998. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape
of a Teacher’s Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pandey, C., & S. Kapitanoff 2011. “The Influence of Anxiety and Quality
of Interaction on Collaborative Test Performance.” Active Learning in
Higher Education 12: 163–74.
Pastors, C. R. 2006, May/June. “Assessing a Learning Community Program
through a Student Survey.” Assessment Update 18 (3): 1–2, 7–8.
Perry, A. B. 2004, June. “Decreasing Math Anxiety in College Students.”
College Student Journal 38 (2): 321–24.
Perry, B. D. 1999. “Memories of Fear: How the Brain Stores and Re-
trieves Physiologic States, Feelings, Behaviors and Thoughts from
Traumatic Events.” Retrieved June 12, 2013, from http://www.healing-
arts.org/tir/perry memories of fear.pdf

Podell, J. L., M. Mchailyszyn, J. Edmunds, C. M. Puleo, & P. C. Kendall.
2010. “The Coping Cat Program for Anxious Youth: The FEAR Plan
Comes to Life.” Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 17 (2): 132–41.
Ramirez, G., & S. Beilock. 2011. “Writing about Testing Worries Boosts
Exam Performance in the Classroom.” Science 331 (6014): 211–13.
Salend, S. J. 2011. “Addressing Test Anxiety.” Teaching Exceptional Chil-
dren 44 (2): 58–68.
Samson, A. C., R. T. Proyer, G. Ceschi, P. P. Pedrini, & W. Ruch. 2011.
“The Fear of Being Laughed at in Switzerland: Regional Differences and
the Role of Positive Psychology.” Swiss Journal of Psychology 70 (2):
53–62.
Sciutto, M. J. 1995. “Student-Centered Methods for Decreasing Anxiety
and Increasing Interest Level in Introductory Statistics Classes.” Journal
of Instructional Psychology 22 (3): 277–80.
Steed, R. 2011. “Helping Students Overcome Fear of “Foreignness” in
Teaching Asian Religions.” Education about Asia 16 (3): 1–4.
Sue, D. W., D. P. Rivera, C. M. Capodilupo, A. I. Lin, & G. C. Torino. 2010.
“Racial Dialogues and White Trainee Fears: Implications for Education
and Training.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 16 (2):
206–14.
Vitasari, P., M. N. A. Wahab, A. Othman, & M. G. Awang. 2010, June. “The
Use of Study Anxiety Intervention in Reducing Anxiety to Improve Aca-
demic Performance among University Students.” International Journal
of Psychological Studies 2 (1): 89–95.
RECOGNIZING STUDENT FEAR 41
Vytal, K. 2007. “Learning to Fear.” Observer 20 (1). http://www.
psychologicalscience.org/observer/ archive/index.cfm?issue=151
Warr, P., & J. Downing. 2000. “Learning Strategies, Learning, Anxi-
ety, and Learning Acquisition.” British Journal of Psychology 91 (3):
311–33.
Weaver, R. R., & J. Qi. 2005. “Classroom organization and participation:
College students’ perceptions.” The Journal of Higher Education 76 (5):
570–601.
Weimer, M. 2002. Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Yager, J., & M. J. Gitlin. 1995. Clinical Manifestations of Psychiatric Dis-
orders. In Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 4th ed., edited by H. I.
Kaplan & B. J. Sadock, 659. Baltimore/London: Williams & Wilkins.
Youngblood, D. J. 1991, Winter. “Creating a Low-Anxiety Classroom En-
vironment: What Does Language Anxiety Research Suggest?” Modern
Language Journal 75 (4): 426–38.
Zeidner, M. 1998. Test Anxiety: The State of the Art. New York, NY: Plenum.
Zhao, C., & G. D. Kuh. 2004. “Adding Value: Learning Communities and
Student Engagement.” Research in Higher Education 45 (2): 116–38.
Zimmerman, B. J. & A. Kitsantas. 1997. “Developmental Phases in Self-
Regulation: Shifting from Process Goals to Outcome Goals.” Journal of
Educational Psychology 89 (1): 29–36.
Zull, J. E. 2002. The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by
Exploring the Biology of Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.