846620

research-article2019
ALH0010.1177/1469787419846620Active Learning in Higher EducationMicari and Calkins

Article
Active Learning in Higher Education
2021, Vol. 22(2) 143­–157
Is it OK to ask? The impact of © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
instructor openness to questions on sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1469787419846620
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787419846620
student help-seeking and academic journals.sagepub.com/home/alh

outcomes

Marina Micari 
Susanna Calkins
Northwestern University, USA

Abstract
Instructors’ actions in the classroom matter; what the instructor does and says can impact students’
attitudes about the course and learning approaches, which can in turn impact the quality of their learning.
This study examines the relationships among instructor openness to student questions, student help-
seeking behavior, and student final grade in lecture-style college/university courses. Two hundred sixty-eight
university students completed measures on their perception of instructor openness to questions and their
approach to help-seeking in class. Perceived instructor openness and help-seeking were positively related
to grade. Help-seeking mediated the relationship between perceived instructor openness to questions and
final grade. Participants were also asked for examples of communication behaviors instructors used to either
promote or suppress help-seeking; themes emerging from these responses are presented, and implications
for instructors are given.

Keywords
academic help-seeking, active learning, classroom communication behaviors, student–faculty interaction,
student questions

Barriers to academic help-seeking

Academic help-seeking is widely seen as a critical self-regulatory behavior for college/university
students, and effective help-seeking is vital to student success at all levels (Karabenick, 1998;
Karabenick and Gonida, 2018; Karabenick and Knapp, 1991; Karabenick, 2006; Kitsantas, 2002;
Newman, 2000; Williams and Takaku, 2011). Help-seeking can support students’ learning through
several avenues, including correcting or reinforcing content knowledge and improving metacogni-
tive skills (Aleven et al., 2006), and can result in improved performance (Ryan and Shin, 2011). In

Corresponding author:
Marina Micari, Academic Support and Learning Advancement, Northwestern University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston,
IL 60208, USA.
Email: m-micari@northwestern.edu
144 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(2)

particular, seeking help to better understand (often referred to as adaptive or instrumental help-
seeking) rather than simply to expedite a task (termed expedient or executive help-seeking) pro-
motes meaningful learning (Finney et al., 2018). Despite the value of help-seeking, many college/
university students, especially those who would benefit most from it, tend not to ask for help in
productive ways (Karabenick, 2003). A number of barriers to academic help-seeking have been
identified, both at the individual level and the environmental level.

Individual level
In the minds of many students, asking for academic help, particularly adaptive help, implies expos-
ing themselves as academically inferior, and this exposure poses a threat to one’s self-esteem
(Karabenick and Gonida, 2018; Karabenick and Knapp, 1991; Pokorny and Pickford, 2010; Ryan
and Pintrich, 1997; Sánchez Rosas and Pérez, 2015). Generally speaking, the more a student per-
ceives help-seeking to be a sign of weakness, the less likely the student is to ask for help. Ironically,
then, students with lower levels of prior academic achievement are often less likely to seek help
(Ryan et al., 2001), since seeking help might highlight their perceived (or real) underperformance.
Students may be concerned that seeking help will mark them as struggling, indicating that they do
not truly belong in their academic program (Patel et al., 2015). Stigma is a particular concern for
students who may already feel marginalized, including (but not limited to) students from under-
represented racial or ethnic groups, low-income students, and first-generation college/university
students (see, for example, Sánchez Rosas and Pérez, 2015). In selective institutions, the stigma of
seeking academic support can be especially stark because of the “imposter syndrome,” in which a
person feels at some level that they do not actually merit a conferred role, such as university stu-
dent (Bertelsen et al., 2013; Fischer, 2010; Lee and Kramer, 2013; Sonnak and Towell, 2001).
In addition, students who lack experience with receiving academic help such as tutoring—who
are often the students with fewer family resources—may find it even more difficult to recognize
when and what sort of help is needed, making it less probable that the notion of seeking help will
even occur to them. Indeed, in Calarco’s (2011) study, students from lower socioeconomic-status
backgrounds were more likely to believe that teachers would respond negatively if they asked for
help, and thus less likely than their middle-class peers to actively seek out help when they needed
it. Self-efficacy and achievement goal orientation have also been linked to academic help-seeking.
Students with higher levels of self-efficacy for coursework and a higher sense of competence are
generally more likely to seek help, and level of familiarity with the material appears to paradoxi-
cally increase willingness to seek help (Chu et al., 2018; Kitsantas, 2002; Newman and Goldin,
1990; Ryan and Pintrich, 1997). Performance-avoidance goals, in which a student is trying to avoid
demonstrating lack of ability (Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1996), are in general negatively related to
seeking help, beyond assistance with getting tasks completed (Roussel et al., 2011; Zusho and
Barnett, 2011). Performance-avoidance has also been linked to a tendency to ask for “dependency-
oriented” help, that is, asking for others to complete a task rather than asking for help figuring it
out for oneself (Komissarouk et al., 2017).

Environmental level
Students may come to college/university with conscious or subconscious reasons for not seeking
academic help, but colleges/universities may also unintentionally collude to either keep those bar-
riers in place or to construct new ones. Programs and services labeled as or believed to be remedial
can produce a stigma among users, creating a disincentive for seeking help. Furthermore, well-
meaning instructors may be simply so pressed for time that they do not make the overtures that
Micari and Calkins 145

would encourage underprepared students to seek help from them. Any lack of instructor support is
especially troubling given research demonstrating that instructors make a significant impact on
students’ help-seeking behaviors (Geertshuis, 2018; Sidelinger et al., 2016). There is a good deal
of evidence that the classroom environment directly affects students’ tendency to seek academic
help. Classrooms with mastery goal structures—those in which individual development is seen as
more important than performance or relative ability—appear to promote help-seeking. Indeed,
research has shown that the more the learning environment is focused on relative ability rather than
individual development, the less likely students are to ask for help (Karabenick, 2004; Ryan et al.,
1998). Schenke et al. (2015) and Shim et al. (2013) found that students in mastery-oriented class-
rooms were more likely to seek instrumental or adaptive academic help — in other words, guid-
ance and clarification rather than answers than those in classrooms with performance-oriented
environments. Kozanitis et al. (2007) likewise found that the degree to which students felt the
instructor welcomed their questions predicted their willingness to seek help.
Students who have a weaker sense of belonging in the environment—as is the case for many
students from minoritized groups—tend to engage less with instructors and fellow students in con-
versations about course content outside the classroom (Hurtado et al., 2011; Pyne and Means,
2013; Schwitzer et al., 1999). First-generation college/university students, who often feel unsure
about how to navigate the academic terrain, are also typically less willing than their continuing-
generation peers to seek help outside the classroom (Collier and Morgan, 2008; Rodriguez et al.,
2016). In the case of students from marginalized groups, there is also the prospect of potentially
reinforcing stereotypes about one’s own group as academically less able (see Steele, 1997, on ste-
reotype threat), imbuing help-seeking with a certain amount of danger. Winograd and Rust (2014)
found that the more students felt a burden from stereotype threat (the cognitive burden created
when one worries about confirming a negative stereotype about their social group), the more they
saw a stigma around seeking academic help. Indeed, research has found students who feel that
help-seeking threatens their identity to be less likely than others to take advantage of available
academic support (Cabrera et al., 2016; Karabenick and Knapp, 1991; Patel et al., 2015; Rodriguez
et al., 2016). Thus classrooms that are less inclusive and which may trigger stereotype threat can
create barriers to help-seeking (Massey and Fischer, 2005).

Engaged teaching
Instructors are at the core of the college/university-student experience, and impact not just students’
learning, but also their overall sense of well-being, which in turn can greatly impact their ability to
learn effectively (Baker, 2006; Geertshuis, 2018). With the lecture having long dominated instruc-
tional practice in higher education, some instructors might view students as passive recipients of the
teacher’s knowledge: teachers speak and students listen (Mulryan-Kyne, 2010). In reaction to this
“transmission” model of education, in which the teacher transmits knowledge to students (Prosser
and Trigwell, 1999), many colleges/universities have adopted far more interactive, engaged, and
active methods of teaching. A key feature of the active learning model is students’ ability to inter-
rogate the material they are learning, which by extension allows them to express their doubts, confu-
sion, opinions, and insights to their instructors and fellow learners. In particular, students’ ability to
pose questions with the aim of improving understanding—to seek academic help—increases the
degree of control they have over their own learning, enabling them to better gauge their level of
understanding, correct their misunderstandings, and deepen their knowledge.
Instructors play a critical role in constructing the overall course environment, and how they
construct this will likely depend on how they conceive of and approach teaching and student learn-
ing. Research has shown that instructors tend to approach teaching in one of three distinct ways.
146 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(2)

The first is the transmission approach, in which the instructor will seek to transmit content and
materials directly to students, with little to no interaction with the students, sometimes found in a
traditional lecture format. Instructors taking such an approach may expect students to take in mate-
rial in a surface way and memorize the material for examinations. The instructor is usually focused
on covering material as quickly and efficiently as possible, with little room for student questions.
The second is the acquisition approach, in which the instructor will seek to help students acquire
materials and skills, but the communication is often still one-way. The third of these approaches is
the engaged approach, where the instructor will find ways to help students to engage with one
another and the material, and to construct knowledge and ideas for themselves (Light and Calkins,
2008; Prosser and Trigwell, 1999). It is important to note that these approaches lie on a continuum,
and that instructors may not fit neatly into a single category.
Instructors taking an engaged approach will seek to create an environment that promotes and
expects engaged student interactions. Rather than focusing on covering as much information as
possible, instructors with an engaged approach will likely promote active learning strategies where
students work together and learn from each other. Strategies may be as simple as “think-pair-
share,” which allows students to individually reflect on a question or problem, discuss their
thoughts with a partner, and then share with the rest of the class. Or students may answer a polling
question, either individually or in pairs (e.g. through “clickers” or an online polling program), but
in such a way that their anonymity protects them from feelings of failure and risk. This approach
can promote student engagement generally (Heaslip et al., 2014) and may prompt students to
explore ideas further with questions of their own. Evidence suggests that active learning pedagogy
has a positive impact on students’ well-being, which itself promotes learning (Ballen et al., 2017).
These authors found that active learning practices increased students’ self-reported confidence in
scientific ability and their overall sense of social belonging in the course. Their study also showed
improved academic performance for underrepresented minority students, leading the researchers
to suggest that “elements of classroom climate that promote collaborative problem solving, enhance
group development, and engender confidence likely play an important role in learning” (p. 5).
Generally speaking, engaged teaching supports a classroom structure in which students are moti-
vated to work for the sake of learning and developing new knowledge and skills, as opposed to
strictly for the sake of earning high grades (Meece et al., 2006; Urdan and Schoenfelder, 2006).
Engaged teaching which focuses on the students’ learning also contributes to a climate that is safe for
risk-taking, that encourages students to try new tasks, approach new problems, and think or act in
new ways, even when they are not confident that they will succeed (Cole et al., 1999; Fryer-Edwards
et al., 2006). Furthermore, collaborative learning—a hallmark of learner-focused teaching—can help
downplay competitiveness in favor of the group working together to create knowledge. Grading sys-
tems play a critical role here: Grading that is norm-referenced or curved can foster competitiveness
and hamper risk-taking, while criterion-referenced and development-oriented grading practices fos-
ter student motivation that is oriented toward development, which encourages risk-taking (Schinske
and Tanner, 2014). Engaged teaching practices, then, should be expected to encourage student ques-
tions and other forms of academic help-seeking.
In large introductory lecture classes in particular, students have little opportunity to engage with
or get to know instructors, and often do not know many of their classmates, and thus may feel even
more insecure about asking for help than they would feel in a smaller classroom setting. While
some work (e.g. Karabenick and Sharma, 1994; Kozanitis et al., 2007) has examined the relation-
ship between instructor reaction to questions and student help-seeking behavior at the college/
university level, there has been less attention to the link between this instructor–student dynamic
and grade outcomes. This study attempts to contribute to filling that gap. More specifically, we
sought to explore the link, if any, between how open students feel that their instructor is when it
Micari and Calkins 147

comes to asking questions in class, the help-seeking behaviors that students use, and the final
grade. We also sought to answer the question of what particular instructor behaviors are perceived
by students to be encouraging of help-seeking.

Research methods
Participants
Participants were first- and second-year, traditional-age undergraduate students at a large,
highly selective research university, enrolled in a science, math, engineering, or social science
course. Students were given the option to complete a survey at the start and end of the academic
term. Two hundred fifty-two students completed the full survey. Twenty-five percent of those
students identified as underrepresented by race/ethnicity (African American, Latinx/Hispanic,
or Native American), and 74% identified as not underrepresented (Asian American or White);
1% did not have ethnicity information available. Sixty-four percent identified as female, and
36% as male.

Measures
We measured perceived instructor openness to questions using the Perceived Teacher Support of
Questioning Scale, measured on a 1–7 Likert-type scale (Karabenick and Sharma, 1994). We
modified the items slightly to better fit the college/university setting. Reliability of the scale with
this sample was high (α = 0.89). The modified items are as follows, with all beginning “my
professor”:

My professor is fine with students interrupting him/her whenever they have a question, responds to
questions by trying to answer them as carefully and thoroughly as s/he can, compliments students who
ask questions, provides sufficient time for students to ask questions, generally feels good when students
ask questions, believes that student questions are important, is sometimes harsh with students who ask
questions (reversed for analysis), typically gets annoyed when students ask questions (reversed for
analysis), doesn’t stop for questions once s/he begins talking (reversed for analysis), believes that student
questions take up class time more profitably spent by teaching or explaining the material (reversed for
analysis), let be known that students should not interrupt her/him for questions (reversed for analysis),
responds to questions by answering them as briefly as possible so that s/he can return to what s/he was
saying (reversed for analysis).

We measured help-seeking behavior using the Academic Help-Seeking Scale, adapted for the
general college/university context, measured on a 1–7 Likert-type scale (Skaalvik and Skaalvik,
2005). The adapted items (α = 0.75 for times 1 and 2) are as follows:

If I do not understand a problem, I ask the instructor to explain it to me. If I struggle with a problem that I
do not understand, I ask someone for help in order to understand the problem. I do not ask for help in this
class even if I work with a problem that I do not understand (reversed for analysis). I do not ask for help
in this class even when I need it (reversed for analysis).

Course grade was measured on a 0–4 scale, 0 representing failure and 4 representing the highest
grade (A). This grade was assigned to the student at the end of the term by the course instructor.
We standardized final grades for the analysis, using a z score based on the mean grade and standard
deviation for each course.
148 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(2)

We included two open-ended questions on the survey:

What, if anything, does your professor do to encourage you to ask questions, either in class or in office
hours? What, if anything, does your professor do to discourage you from asking questions, either in class
or in office hours?

Procedures
The study was conducted in medium-to-large (ranging from 30 to 300 students) introductory
courses at a research-intensive university in the Midwestern United States. Human-subjects
approval was obtained from the university’s institutional research board. Students in 28 lecture-
style biology, chemistry, physics, economics, and statistics courses, over three academic quarters,
were given the opportunity to take a survey at the start and end of the academic term. Participation
was optional. Help-seeking measures were taken at the start (time 1) and the end of the academic
term (time 2); instructor openness measures were taken at the end of the term. A total of 268 stu-
dents took the survey during the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 academic years. Of those students,
254 had final grade data available, and of those, 167 had previous grade point average (GPA) data
available (those who did not were first-term students with no prior grades at the institution). No
individual student appeared in the data set more than once, so independence of observations can be
assumed.

Analysis
Because of the nested nature of the data (i.e. students nested within courses), a mixed-effect
approach was initially used. This approach takes into account the variation that may occur among
clusters (in this case, courses), providing more accurate standard error estimates and thus more
accurate parameter estimates than single-level regression models do (Heck et al., 2013). Within the
Mixed procedure in SPSS 25, the course in which the student was enrolled was assigned as the
random effect in the model. As suggested by Paccagnella (2006), we did not center the variable
means, since the goal was to investigate individual-level effects. We began by running the null
model (i.e. the model with no predictors), in order to determine whether there was indeed sufficient
variance across clusters to warrant the mixed-model procedure (Heck et al., 2013). We ran a null
model for each of the outcome variables: standardized course grade and help-seeking at time 2 (the
end of the term). For standardized course grade, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, describ-
ing the amount of variance attributable to each cluster) was 0.01, meaning that 1% of variance in
grade can be attributed to the particular course in which the student is enrolled. For help-seeking at
time 2 (the end of the term), the ICC was 0.001, indicating that virtually none of the variance in
help-seeking can be attributed to course. Heck et al. (2013) suggest a threshold of 0.05 for deter-
mining whether to use a mixed-level analysis; therefore, we decided to use single-level linear
regression. All analyses were performed in SPSS 25.
To test whether or not perceived instructor openness would be positively related to final grade,
we used linear regression, with perceived instructor openness to questions as the predictor and
standardized final course grade as the outcome variable. Pre-course GPA was used as a covariate to
account for differences in students’ overall academic performance. To test whether or not the help-
seeking approach would be positively related to course grade, we used linear regression, with help-
seeking at time 2 (end of the term) as the predictor and standardized course grade as the outcome
variable. We included pre-course GPA as an additional predictor in the model to account for differ-
ences in students’ overall academic performance. To test whether or not the perceived instructor
Micari and Calkins 149

openness to questions would be positively related to help-seeking approach, we used linear regres-
sion, with instructor openness to questions as the predictor and help-seeking approach at time 2 as
the outcome variable. Help-seeking approach at time 1 was used as a covariate to account for initial
differences in help-seeking. To test whether or not the help-seeking approach would mediate the
relationship between perceived instructor openness and final grade, we used the PROCESS plug-in
for SPSS 25 (Hayes, 2013). Instructor openness to questions was entered as the predictor, final
course grade as the outcome variable, and help-seeking approach at time 2 as the mediator. Previous
GPA was included as a covariate.
For the open-ended questions, 216 students responded to the first question, and 147 to the sec-
ond. We analyzed these open-ended responses by first creating a set of broad categories in which the
responses could be organized. We then refined the categories, assigning each category a code. We
then coded each response separately. Some responses, which offered more than one explanation,
were coded for more than one category. After each response was coded, we noted frequencies for
each coded category. We then refined the coding schema, combining several similar categories
together into a single code. A primary rater went through the responses first, assigning codes, and
then a second rater went through these codes to check for agreement. In a few cases, there was some
disagreement; in these cases, the two raters discussed the differences and came to agreement.

Results
Assumptions of linear regression (normality, homoscedasticity, and lack of multicollinearity) were
tested using diagnostics within SPSS 25; all were met. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics of each
variable; see Table 2 for correlations among variables.

Table 1.  Descriptive statistics.

Variable n M SD
Help-seeking at time 1 252 5.00 1.14
Help-seeking at time 2 268 4.71 1.25
Perceived instructor encouragement of questions 268 5.06 1.01
Standardized final grade 254 0.124 0.962
Previous GPA 167 3.50 0.386

GPA: grade point average.

Table 2. Correlations.

Help-seeking Help-seeking Perceived instructor Previous Standardized

at time 1 at time 2 encouragement of GPA final grade
questions
Help-seeking at time 1 0.477* 0.104 0.008 0.182*
Help-seeking at time 2 0.477* 0.211* 0.137 0.174*
Perceived instructor 0.104 0.211* –0.006 0.071
encouragement of questions
Previous GPA 0.008 0.137 –0.006 0.476*
Standardized final grade 0.182* 0.174* 0.071 0.476*  

GPA: grade point average.

*p<0.01.
150 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(2)

Perceived instructor openness to questions in relation to final grade

The model (F(2, 151) = 24.71; p < 0.0001) was significant, explaining 25% of the variance in
standardized final grade. Both perceived instructor openness to questions (β = 0.14; p < 0.05) and
GPA (β = 0.478; p < 0.001) were significant predictors of the final grade. Thus, the more the
instructor encouraged questions in class and the higher the previous GPA, the higher the grade at
the end of the module/course.

Help-seeking behavior in relation to course grade

The model (F(2, 151) = 27.04; p < 0.0001) was significant, explaining 26% of the variance in the
final grade. Both help-seeking approach (β = 0.193; p < 0.01) and GPA (β = 0.453; p < 0.001) were
significant predictors of the final grade. This means that the more that students sought help, and the
higher their GPA, the higher their final grade.

Perceived instructor openness to questions in relation to help-seeking approach

The model (F(2, 249) = 41.39; p < 0.0001) was significant, explaining 25% of the variance in help-
seeking at time 2 (the end of term). Both instructor openness to questions (β = 0.149; p < 0.01) and
help-seeking approach at time 1 (the start of the term) (β = 0.461; p < 0.001) were significant predictors
of help-seeking approach at time 2 (the end of term). This shows that the openness of the instructor to
questions and the help-seeking approaches used by students at the start of the module/course were
positively related to how much the students used help-seeking approaches at the end of module/course.

Help-seeking approach and its relationship to perceived instructor openness and

final grade
The indirect effect was small but significant for help-seeking approach at time 2, the end of the
term (lower CI = 0.0033; upper CI = 0.0993), indicating that help-seeking mediated the relationship
between perceived instructor openness to questions and the final course grade. This means that an
increase in students’ help-seeking behavior would be in some part accountable for the relationship
between instructor openness to questions and a higher final grade. See Tables 3 and 4 for direct and
indirect effects, standard errors, and confidence intervals within the mediation analysis.

Table 3.  Mediation analysis: Indirect effects.

Indirect effect on standardized grade SE Bootstrap lower CI Bootstrap upper CI

Help-seeking 0.041555 0.0246 0.0033 0.0993

SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval.

Table 4.  Mediation analysis: Direct effects.

Direct effect on standardized grade SE Lower CI Upper CI

Help-seeking 0.1342 0.0574 0.0207 0.2476
Perceived instructor 0.1017 0.0732 – 0.0429 0.2463
encouragement of questions
Previous GPA 1.1795 0.1813 0.8212 1.5378

SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval; GPA: grade point average.
Micari and Calkins 151

Instructor behaviors that encourage questions

Allowing time for questions and reflection.  Of the 216 students who responded to the first question,
79 indicated that instructors would pause for questions (e.g. “Any questions?”) or stop to gauge
comprehension (“Is everyone good with that?”). Eight students commented that the instructor
would ask them “to think through it.” Twenty-three students indicated that the instructor would
specifically pause at key points in the lecture, usually after important concepts had been raised or
toward the end of the session. As one student noted, “[The instructor] asks for questions after each
concept and also at the end of each lecture.” Thirty-two students noted a general willingness of
the instructor to answer questions during the class session. Thirty-nine indicated that the instruc-
tor would remind them to bring questions to office hours or less frequently to their teaching
assistant(s) (TAs). In addition, 13 indicated that the instructor would answer questions before
class or in office hours.

Enthusiastically encouraging questions.  Students also indicated ways that the instructors are more
specifically encouraged questions. One student, for example, explained, “(the instructor will)
explain the information without judgement and does so clearly,” while another said, “(the instruc-
tor) always answers fully and happily.” Fifteen appreciated that the instructor would acknowledge
or “compliment” the asking of a “good” question (e.g. “He points out good questions that are
asked”), while 12 noted that welcoming attitude of the instructor toward questions (e.g. “He never
mocks anybody or says ‘that’s a dumb question.’”). Eight indicated that the instructor was gener-
ally encouraging, but did not specify further (e.g. “[the instructor] encourages participation in
general . . .”), while five indicated more specific encouragement (“[the instructor] walks around
class, has conversations with individual students.”). Students also noted that the instructor sought
their feedback around question-asking. As one student explained, “She also sent out a student sur-
vey, saw people were nervous to ask questions, and told people not to be afraid to ask questions.”

Use of particular methods for asking questions.  Students also noted specific methods or tools their
professors used to encourage question-seeking, including the use of online discussion forums such
as Piazza or the learning management system discussion board (six responses); using incentives,
such as points or prizes, (three responses); “testing” students in office hours by having them explain
things back (six responses); discussion-based clickers questions (two responses); and providing
resources “to seek help on our own” (two responses).
Fourteen students could not think of anything their instructor did, five did not answer the
question, and 10 responded in the negative. Of those 10, eight suggested it was the fault of the
instructor, one student explained that it was their own inability to speak up in class, and one
said the structure and the pace of the course made it too difficult for the instructor to answer
questions.

Instructor behaviors that discourage questions

Time pressure.  Of the 147 students who answered the second question, over a third thought that the
classes were too rushed and the instructor(s) too hurried to be able to answer questions. As one
student explained, “[The instructor] lectures the entire time and doesn’t stop for questions, but no
one tries to ask questions.” Similarly, another student remarked, “.  .  . because [the instructor] only
waits for about 5 seconds for any questions, it’s almost as if [the instructor is] discouraging us from
asking questions.” Another commonly expressed idea was that the instructor would tell students to
“‘wait until I finish this thought’ before answering a question.”
152 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(2)

Instructor critique of students seeking help.  A number of students indicated that they felt reluctant to
ask for help because of the instructor’s off-putting behavior or general demeanor. Nineteen
explained that the instructor would make them “feel dumb” for asking the question. As one student
remarked, “[the instructor] can be kind of demeaning if you answer a question wrong and make a
bit of a spectacle of you in front of the whole class.” Similarly, another student noted,

if [the instructor] feels that question was bad, she gets snooty, making kids ask themselves “Is my question
stupid?” I’d better not ask just to be sure, because I don’t want to be embarrassed in front of the teacher
and class.

Ten students indicated generally being afraid of the instructor or intimidated; as one student wrote,
“[The instructor] is just intimidating.”

Intimidation in the classroom.  Other students expressed discomfort with asking questions generally.
Seven indicated that the large class size is intimidating or discouraging. As one explained, “It isn’t
what the professor does directly, but just because there are so many students in the class, it is kind
of intimidating asking a question during lecture.” Six others just did not want to ask questions (“my
professor encourages us to ask questions; I just don’t like to”; “She doesn’t ask if we have ques-
tions. We are supposed to interrupt her, which I do not like to do”). In addition, two students
believed it was simply not necessary to ask questions. As one student explained, “[the instructor]
explains well enough without [questions].”

Discussion
In this study, help-seeking behavior and perceived instructor openness to questions were positively
related to course grade, perceived instructor openness to questions was positively related to help-
seeking behavior, and help-seeking partially mediated the relationship between perceived instruc-
tor openness and final grade. We further identified key categories of instructor behavior perceived
by students as welcoming of questions: allowing time and space in the classroom for questions,
actively and enthusiastically encouraging questions, and using tools or methods to allow students
to ask questions more readily. Instructor practices seen as discouraging questions included pressing
through lecture without time for questions and criticizing students’ questions. Finally, students
described a generally intimidating classroom environment as prohibitive of questions.
In line with previous research, this study supports the critical role of help-seeking and of moti-
vational approach in student success, as well as the important relationship between instructor
behavior and students’ approaches to their learning. Instructors may not always realize how great
an effect their classroom communication can have on the quality of student learning—including
the behaviors students themselves enact which can further or inhibit their own learning. This study
suggests that instructors who actively encourage students’ questions may be promoting more active
help-seeking behaviors in their students, which in turn promote higher grades. Building in dedi-
cated time for seeking help may also normalize help-seeking and increase students’ willingness to
access help (Hammond et al., 2015). Students who are feeling confused or stuck in a class but fail
to ask for help are, in a sense, digging themselves deeper into the problem. However, a student who
takes the initiative to ask for help is proactively taking a step toward a solution. This proactive
behavior might also create a ripple effect: a positive experience with seeking help can make it more
likely that a student will use the help-seeking strategy again (Israelashvili and Ishiyama, 2008;
Vogel et al., 2007). Instructors can encourage questions by explicitly stating that all questions are
welcome, by allowing ample time for questions, by providing particular means by which students
can ask questions, and by avoiding criticism of questions.
Micari and Calkins 153

This study had several limitations. First, the sample size is small. Second, it is possible that
instructors who are open to questions are also doing things in the classroom that promote learning
and thus grade, which would confound the relationship we saw between openness to questions and
grade. It is possible that students who tend to view instructors as open to questions may also tend
to have qualities that promote their own learning and grade, and this, too, could be a confounding
factor. In addition, students who chose to provide open-ended answers to the questions about posi-
tive and negative instructor behaviors may be those who have the strongest feelings on the issue,
which would mean that the themes we discovered are not necessarily representative of the whole.
Finally, this study focused on a specific population: undergraduates in their first 2 years of study,
studying a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) topic, at a large institution
in the United States. Future research might address other populations and settings, and should
address the various characteristics of instructors who are open to questions in the classroom, and
how these might confound or contribute to the findings of this study. For instance, instructors who
are intentionally open to questions in the classroom may also be encouraging student resilience or
the student’s ability to successfully cope with a challenging situation (Klibert et al., 2014). Because
students with higher anxiety about the course may experience instructor communications differ-
ently from those with less anxiety, future research might also include students’ general anxiety
level about the course as an additional predictor or covariate. Finally, student performance is
affected by a wide and varied range of factors, and it is likely that instructor encouragement of
questions impacts a number of factors related to course performance, apart from help-seeking
behavior. For instance, an instructor encouraging questions may lead students to feel generally
more comfortable and confident about the course, increasing self-efficacy and by extension perfor-
mance. Future research should seek to tease out the various effects of instructor attitude toward
student questions, and how these effects may impact student learning and performance.
This study, along with others, suggests that instructors' appearing interested in answering stu-
dents’ questions promotes positive learning outcomes. While classroom structure and large student
numbers can limit instructors’ options for encouraging questions, there is a range of options that
instructors wishing to encourage greater help-seeking behavior and improve outcomes among their
students might consider, and which can be modified to work in a wide range of classroom settings:

Building in time for questions.  This means both accounting for ample time in a class plan and actually
providing opportunities for students to ask questions. Asking “any questions?” can be part of this
approach, but more often than not this alone elicits very few questions. More structured avenues
for questions (for instance, having students pair up and come up with a question, and then address-
ing some subset), especially in ways that take pressure off individual students, can be more useful.
Technology-enabled question-asking, or submission of questions electronically during or after
class, can be an excellent option for larger classes. In this case, instructors might choose a subset
of questions to respond to.

Explicitly and enthusiastically encouraging questions.  In this study, students reported feeling encour-
aged to ask questions when instructors stated outright that they liked to hear questions and clearly
appeared happy while answering questions. This will often require flexibility on the part of the
instructor to deviate from the day’s plan, since student questions may take up time planned for
other activities. However, if this is not feasible, questions might be submitted outside of class, with
some portion of them addressed either electronically or in the following class period.

Demonstrating respect for students’ questions.  Students in this study also felt encouraged by instruc-
tors who took their questions seriously, no matter how basic they might seem, and who voiced an
appreciation of student questions. This might take the form of noting a question’s value because it
154 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(2)

helps clear up a misconception, or because it is a question others might have, or because it raises
an important point. We do caution against, however, responding to each and every question with
automatic praise (e.g. “Great question!”), because after a while this can begin do seem disingenu-
ous to students (and in fact one of the students in our study noted this).

Creating opportunities for students and instructors to learn from each other through classroom assess-
ment techniques.  Classroom assessment techniques (CATs) are designed to help students ask and
answer conceptual, skill-based, or knowledge-based questions, and are also designed to help
students—and the instructors—gauge their own strengths, gaps, and weaknesses (Angelo and
Cross, 1993), which in turn can promote effective help-seeking. Instructors might encourage
students to identify the “muddiest point” or an area where they may need more guidance. This
approach can also help students feel that their learning, as well as they as individuals, matter to
the instructor. Furthermore, CATs can provide guidance to the instructor on how to adjust course
content and activities, and when to speak to students privately (e.g. invite individual students to
office hours), and can be used as pair or small-group work to help students collaboratively iden-
tify questions they have about course content.
Collectively, these strategies may help students to take risks—particularly in helping them share
when they need help and in what areas, and encourage them to step outside their comfort zone.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Marina Micari   https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7968-4107

References
Aleven V, McLaren B, Roll I, et al. (2006) Toward meta-cognitive tutoring: A model of help seeking with a
cognitive tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 16(2): 101–28.
Angelo TA and Cross KP (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers
(Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series). 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baker A (2006) What else do students need? A psychodynamic reflection on students’ need for support from
staff at university. Active Learning in Higher Education 7(2): 171–83.
Ballen CJ, Wieman C, Salehi S, et al. (2017) Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self-efficacy
drives performance gains with active learning. CBE: Life Sciences Education 16(4): ar56.
Bertelsen RG, Ying D and Solinap G (2013) Learning, when you are not learning. In: Kirkebæk M, Du X and
Jensen A (eds) Teaching and Learning Culture. Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 145–62.
Cabrera NL, Rashwan-Soto FD and Valencia BG (2016) An intersectionality analysis of Latino men in higher
education and their help-seeking behaviors. In: Sáenz VB, Ponjuán L and Figueroa JL (eds) Ensuring the
Success of Latino Males in Higher Education: A National Imperative. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing,
pp. 75–92.
Calarco JM (2011) “I need help!” Social class and children’s help-seeking in elementary school. American
Sociological Review 76(6): 862–82.
Chu Y, Palmer S and Persky AM (2018) Assessing metacognition in the classroom: Student help-seeking
behavior. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 10(11): 1478–87.
Cole DG, Sugioka HL and Yamagata-Lynch LC (1999) Supportive classroom environments for creativity in
higher education. The Journal of Creative Behavior 33(4): 277–93.
Collier PJ and Morgan DL (2008) “Is that paper really due today?” Differences in first-generation and tradi-
tional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations. Higher Education 55(4): 425–46.
Micari and Calkins 155

Elliot AJ and Harackiewicz JM (1996) Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation:
A mediational analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology 70(3): 461.
Finney SJ, Barry CL, Horst SJ, et al. (2018) Exploring profiles of academic help seeking: A mixture modeling
approach. Learning and Individual Differences 61: 158–71.
Fischer MJ (2010) A longitudinal examination of the role of stereotype threat and racial climate on college
outcomes for minorities at elite institutions. Social Psychology of Education 13(1): 19–40.
Fryer-Edwards K, Arnold RM, Baile W, et al. (2006) Reflective teaching practices: An approach to teaching
communication skills in a small-group setting. Academic Medicine 81(7): 638–44.
Geertshuis SA (2018) Slaves to our emotions: Examining the predictive relationship between emotional well-
being and academic outcomes. Active Learning in Higher Education. Epub ahead of print 31 October.
DOI: 10.1177/1469787418808932.
Hammond K, Thorogood J, Jenkins A, et al. (2015) A friendly destination: Normalising first-year science
student help-seeking through an academic literacy Targeted Learning Session. A practice report. The
International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 6(1): 179–85.
Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-
based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Heaslip G, Donovan P and Cullen JG (2014) Student response systems and learner engagement in large
classes. Active Learning in Higher Education 15(1): 11–24.
Heck RH, Tabata L and Thomas SL (2013) Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling with IBM SPSS. New York:
Routledge.
Hurtado S, Eagan MK, Tran MC, et al. (2011) “We do science here”: Underrepresented students’ interactions
with faculty in different college contexts. Journal of Social Issues 67(3): 553–79.
Israelashvili M and Ishiyama FI (2008) Positive and negative emotions related to seeking help from a school
counselor. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion 1(4): 5–13.
Karabenick SA (1998) Strategic Help Seeking: Implications for Learning and Teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Karabenick SA (2003) Seeking help in large college classes: A person-centered approach. Contemporary
Educational Psychology 28(1): 37–58.
Karabenick SA (2004) Perceived achievement goal structure and college student help seeking. Journal of
Educational Psychology 96(3): 569–81.
Karabenick SA (2006) Introduction. In: Karabenick SA and Newman RS (eds) Help Seeking in Academic
Settings: Goals, Groups, and Contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1–14.
Karabenick SA and Gonida EN (2018) Academic help seeking as a self-regulated learning strategy: Current
issues, future directions. In: Schunk HD and Greene JA (eds) Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning
and Performance. New York: Routledge, pp. 421–33.
Karabenick SA and Knapp JR (1991) Relationship of academic help seeking to the use of learning strategies
and other instrumental achievement behavior in college students. Journal of Educational Psychology
83(2): 221–30.
Karabenick SA and Sharma R (1994) Perceived teacher support of student questioning in the college class-
room: Its relation to student characteristics and role in the classroom questioning process. Journal of
Educational Psychology 86(1): 90–103.
Kitsantas A (2002) Test preparation and performance: A self-regulatory analysis. The Journal of Experimental
Education 70(2): 101–13.
Klibert J, Lamis DA, Collins W, et al. (2014) Resilience mediates the relations between perfectionism and
college student distress. Journal of Counseling & Development 92(1): 75–82.
Komissarouk S, Harpaz G and Nadler A (2017) Dispositional differences in seeking autonomy- or depend-
ency-oriented help: Conceptual development and scale validation. Personality and Individual Differences
108: 103–12.
Kozanitis A, Desbiens J-F and Chouinard R (2007) Perception of teacher support and reaction towards
questioning: Its relation to instrumental help-seeking and motivation to learn. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 19(3): 238–50.
156 Active Learning in Higher Education 22(2)

Lee EM and Kramer R (2013) Out with the old, in with the new? Habitus and social mobility at selective col-
leges. Sociology of Education 86(1): 18–35.
Light G and Calkins S (2008) The experience of faculty development: Patterns of variation in conceptions of
teaching. International Journal for Academic Development 13(1): 27–40.
Massey DS and Fischer MJ (2005) Stereotype threat and academic performance: New findings from a racially
diverse sample of college freshmen. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 2(1): 45–67.
Meece JL, Anderman EM and Anderman LH (2006) Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and aca-
demic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology 57: 487–503.
Mulryan-Kyne C (2010) Teaching large classes at college and university level: Challenges and opportunities.
Teaching in Higher Education 15(2): 175–85.
Newman RS (2000) Social influences on the development of children’s adaptive help seeking: The role of
parents, teachers, and peers. Developmental Review 20(3): 350–404.
Newman RS and Goldin L (1990) Children’s reluctance to seek help with schoolwork. Journal of Educational
Psychology 82(1): 92–100.
Paccagnella O (2006) Centering or not centering in multilevel models? The role of the group mean and the
assessment of group effects. Evaluation Review 30(1): 66–85.
Patel R, Tarrant C, Bonas S, et al. (2015) The struggling student: A thematic analysis from the self-regulated
learning perspective. Medical Education 49(4): 417–26.
Pokorny H and Pickford P (2010) Complexity, cues and relationships: Student perceptions of feedback. Active
Learning in Higher Education 11(1): 21–30.
Prosser M and Trigwell K (1999) Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher
Education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education; Open University Press.
Pyne KB and Means DR (2013) Underrepresented and in/visible: A Hispanic first-generation student’s narra-
tives of college. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 6(3): 186–98.
Rodriguez SL, Lu C and Bukoski BE (2016) “I just feel like having to duke it out by myself”: How Latino
men cope with academic and personal obstacles during college. Journal Committed to Social Change on
Race and Ethnicity 2(2): 63–101.
Roussel P, Elliot AJ and Feltman R (2011) The influence of achievement goals and social goals on help-
seeking from peers in an academic context. Learning and Instruction 21(3): 394–402.
Ryan AM and Pintrich PR (1997) “Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’
help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology 89(2): 329–41.
Ryan AM and Shin H (2011) Help-seeking tendencies during early adolescence: An examination of motiva-
tional correlates and consequences for achievement. Learning and Instruction 21(2): 247–56.
Ryan AM, Gheen MH and Midgley C (1998) Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination
of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy, teachers’ social-emotional role, and the classroom
goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology 90(3): 528–35.
Ryan AM, Pintrich PR and Midgley C (2001) Avoiding seeking help in the classroom: Who and why?
Educational Psychology Review 13(2): 93–114.
Sánchez Rosas J and Pérez E (2015) Measuring threats, benefits, emotional costs and avoidance of academic
help-seeking in Argentinian university students. Pensamiento Psicológico 13(2): 49–64.
Schenke K, Lam AC, Conley AM, et al. (2015) Adolescents’ help seeking in mathematics classrooms:
Relations between achievement and perceived classroom environmental influences over one school year.
Contemporary Educational Psychology 41: 133–46.
Schinske J and Tanner K (2014) Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE: Life Sciences Education
13(2): 159–66.
Schwitzer AM, Griffin OT, Ancis JR, et al. (1999) Social adjustment experiences of African American col-
lege students. Journal of Counseling & Development 77(2): 189–97.
Shim SS, Kiefer SM and Wang C (2013) Help seeking among peers: The role of goal structure and peer cli-
mate. The Journal of Educational Research 106(4): 290–300.
Sidelinger RJ, Frisby BN and Heisler J (2016) Students’ out of the classroom communication with instructors
and campus services: Exploring social integration and academic involvement. Learning and Individual
Differences 47: 167–71.
Micari and Calkins 157

Skaalvik S and Skaalvik EM (2005) Self-concept, motivational orientation, and help-seeking behavior in
mathematics: A study of adults returning to high school. Social Psychology of Education 8(3): 285–302.
Sonnak C and Towell T (2001) The impostor phenomenon in British university students: Relationships
between self-esteem, mental health, parental rearing style and socioeconomic status. Personality and
Individual Differences 31(6): 863–74.
Steele CM (1997) A threat in the air. How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. The
American Psychologist 52(6): 613–29.
Urdan T and Schoenfelder E (2006) Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relation-
ships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology 44(5): 331–49.
Vogel DL, Wade NG, Wester SR, et al. (2007) Seeking help from a mental health professional: The influence
of one’s social network. Journal of Clinical Psychology 63(3): 233–45.
Williams JD and Takaku S (2011) Help seeking, self-efficacy, and writing performance among college stu-
dents. Journal of Writing Research 3(1): 1–18.
Winograd G and Rust JP (2014) Stigma, awareness of support services, and academic help-seeking among
historically underrepresented first-year college students. Learning Assistance Review 19(2): 19–43.
Zusho A and Barnett PA (2011) Personal and contextual determinants of ethnically diverse female high
school students’ patterns of academic help seeking and help avoidance in English and mathematics.
Contemporary Educational Psychology 36(2): 152–64.

Author biographies
Marina Micari is Director of the office of Academic Support and Learning Advancement at Northwestern
University; in that role, she oversees learning-support programming for undergraduates. Her research interests
include academic help-seeking, student–instructor interaction, small-group supplemental learning, and diversity
and inclusion in learning-support settings. Address: Academic Support and Learning Advancement, Northwestern
University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. [email: m-micari@northwestern.edu]
Susanna Calkins is the Director of Faculty Initiatives at the Searle Center for Advancing Excellence and an
instructor in the MS in Higher Education Administration Program at Northwestern University. She is the co-
author of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The Reflective Professional, and her research has
focused on instructor conceptions of learning and teaching, learning and teaching with technology, mentoring,
critical thinking, and creating active learning environments. Address: Searle Center for Advancing Learning
and Teaching, Northwestern University, 627 Dartmouth Place, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. [email: s-calkins@
northwestern.edu]