Zum Brunn 2014

Instr Sci
DOI 10.1007/s11251-014-9310-0
Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement

in the college classroom: a mixed method study
Sharon Zumbrunn • Courtney McKim • Eric Buhs • Leslie R. Hawley
Received: 10 September 2012 / Accepted: 20 January 2014

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract This explanatory sequential mixed methods study examined how belonging
perceptions, academic motivation, and engagement might mediate the relationship between
academic contextual characteristics and achievement using structural equation modeling
and qualitative follow-up interviews with college students from a large, Midwestern uni-
versity. In the first, quantitative phase, two hypothesized models of student belonging and
motivation were tested. In line with the Self-System Model of Classroom Support for
Motivation (Connell and Wellborn, in: Gunnar and Sroufe (eds.) Minnesota Symposium on
Child Psychology: Self-processes and Development, 1991), Model 1 hypothesized student
belonging and motivation to be directly predicted by supportive classroom environment
perceptions, and to directly predict engagement, which was hypothesized to predict
achievement. Model 2 elaborated on the traditional self-system model and hypothesized
student belonging to mediate the relationship between supportive classroom environment
perceptions and student motivation. Quantitative findings revealed support for Model 2.
Supportive classroom environment perceptions predicted students’ belonging beliefs,
which in turn predicted students’ motivation, engagement, and achievement in the course.
The second, follow-up qualitative phase suggested ways in which contextual characteris-
tics might influence student belonging beliefs in the classroom. Taken together, the
S. Zumbrunn (&)
Virginia Commonwealth University, 1015 W. Main Street, P.O. Box 842020, Richmond,
VA 23284-2020, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
C. McKim
Department 3374, College of Education, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave.,
Laramie, WY 82071, USA
E. Buhs
University of Nebraska at Lincoln, 226 Teachers College Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
L. R. Hawley
Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families and Schools University of Nebraska at
Lincoln, 216 Mable Lee Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
123
S. Zumbrunn et al.
quantitative and qualitative data illustrate the influential role of classroom contextual
characteristics on student outcomes, as well as the role student belonging plays in college
student motivation and success.
Keywords Contextual characteristics Belongingness Motivation Engagement

Student achievement
Most researchers and practitioners would agree that support is an important factor in learning
and academic success for students of all ages. Research examining student beliefs and
behaviors in classroom contexts has produced findings that support this view, and suggests
that students with greater perceptions of support from various sources, such as peers and
instructors, generally have less distress (Anderman 2002; Buhs 2005; Wentzel 1997, 1998)
and higher levels of academic engagement and achievement (Anderman 2002; Buhs 2005;
Connell et al. 1994; Umbach and Wawrzynski 2005; Wentzel 1997, 1998). Students’ need
for relatedness or belonging, defined as the extent to which students feel accepted and
supported by teachers and peers (Goodenow 1993; Goodenow and Grady 1993), may be
especially important at the college level, as students often face the need to form and maintain
new relationships while transitioning from high school to college (Bronfenbrenner 1979;
Pittman and Richmond 2008; Tinto 1993). In particular, college students may experience the
loss of one’s school friends, the need to develop new relationships and groups, moving away
from home and becoming acquainted with new college roommates, and the expectation of
increased autonomy in life and studies (Cleary et al. 2011).
The majority of belonging research at the college level has focused on the campus
community and promoting belongingness among minority students (e.g., Castellanos and
Jones 2003; Hurtado and Carter 1997; Nunez 2009; Strayhorn 2008a, b, 2010; Strayhorn
and Saddler 2009; Walton and Cohen 2007, 2011). However, Strayhorn (2012) suggests
that belonging beliefs are ‘‘context-dependent, such that sense of belonging in a particular
context (e.g., department, classroom) has the greatest influence on outcomes (e.g.,
adjustment, achievement) in that area’’ (p. 20). The classroom is often the center of
students’ college academic experience and as such, warrants further investigation.
Many students interact a great deal with faculty during their college careers and the
salience of faculty-student relationships to the academic success and persistence of stu-
dents has been highlighted in findings from multiple studies (Pascarella and Terenzini
1980, 1983). In contrast to students who voluntarily withdrew from college institutions,
persistent students reported more interaction with faculty and rated their instructors higher
in the areas of concern for student development and teaching. Students also spend much of
their time with peers in college and these relationships can play an important role in
retention and success (Harris 2001; Hoffman et al. 2002; Pittman and Richmond 2008;
Tebben 1995). Although results from these findings and others (Hausmann et al. 2007;
Wheeless et al. 2011) suggest an influential role for student belonging on persistence or
withdrawal from an institution, many questions remain unanswered (Anderman and
Freeman 2004). Little is known, for example, about the specific processes via which
classroom contextual characteristics might influence college students’ belonging percep-
tions (Freeman et al. 2007). Questions also remain about the precise pathways via which
college students’ belonging perceptions might, in turn, affect their motivation (i.e., self-
efficacy and value beliefs for learning tasks), engagement (e.g., attendance and class
participation), and achievement; a set of constructs that likely influence students’ persis-
tence in higher education.
123
Belonging, motivation, and engagement
In the present study, we addressed this need by posing two main questions: (1) How do
student perceptions of support and belonging relate to student motivation, engagement, and
achievement, and (2) In what ways do college students believe classroom contextual
characteristics relate to their belonging perceptions? These research questions warranted a
mixed methods approach. An examination of relationships among the constructs was best
addressed with quantitative inquiry, and an exploration of student perceptions of classroom
contextual elements that foster or inhibit belongingness was best suited to qualitative
inquiry, yielding an explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell and Plano
Clark 2010). Quantitative data of student perceptions of instructor academic and social
support, belonging, self-efficacy, and task value, and their reported class engagement and
achievement, and qualitative data detailing student classroom experiences were gathered.
In outlining the rationale for this study, we begin by summarizing the extant literature
on the associations between the social context and students’ self-beliefs, behaviors, and
outcomes that relies primarily on the self-system model of motivational development
(Connell and Wellborn 1991). We then describe findings from related research that suggest
elaborations to prior conceptions of processes and linkages between contextual and
behavioral variables. Evaluating and comparing a more elaborate model to the more
established, yet less precise model, may more accurately illustrate the complexity of
academic environments and describe specific processes involving more precisely measured
motivation constructs (Hulleman et al. 2008; Wigfield and Cambria 2010).
Links between student belonging, engagement, and achievement
The self-system model of motivational development (Connell and Wellborn 1991)

emphasizes the complex dynamics of classroom environments and describes processes by
which aspects of the social context impact student self-beliefs and subsequent academic
engagement and achievement. Similar to other motivational theorists (e.g., Baumeister and
Leary 1995; Deci and Ryan 1985), Connell and Wellborn (1991) posit that humans have
fundamental needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (i.e., the need to feel
socially connected—a construct similar to belonging), and indicate that the degree to
which these needs are fulfilled within a context predicts motivation, engagement, and
performance in that context.
Previous research findings have consistently supported the utility of the self-system
model in academic settings (Buhs 2005; Connell et al. 1994; Hamre and Pianta 2005;
Van Ryzin et al. 2009), with many studies emphasizing the predictive role of student
belonging in academic and socio-emotional adjustment. The majority of this research
has, however, been conducted with elementary and middle school students. In a study of
fifth and sixth grade students, for example, Furrer and Skinner (2003) showed that
students’ perceptions of relatedness to their teacher were associated with engagement in
classroom activities. Students with higher relatedness reported higher levels of classroom
engagement and vice versa. In related studies with middle school students, Wentzel
(1997, 1998) found that students’ relationships with teachers predicted academic
engagement and performance. Similar studies with college students are rare, though
findings are comparable to research conducted with younger populations (Freeman et al.
2007; Micari and Pazos 2012; Strayhorn and Saddler 2009; Strayhorn and Terrell 2007).
For example, in a study with undergraduate students, Micari and Pazos (2012) found that
student-faculty relationships positively predicted student confidence and achievement in a
highly challenging course.
123
S. Zumbrunn et al.
Supportive classroom environments and student belonging as antecedents

of motivation, engagement, and achievement
Student belonging is often cited as a protective factor and associated with both academic
and social support from teachers (Catalano et al. 2004; Furrer and Skinner 2003). The
evidence linking supportive classroom environments and student academic success has
been consistent in the literature (Furrer and Skinner 2003; Hamre and Pianta 2005; Van
Ryzin et al. 2009; Wentzel 1997, 1998). Studies with middle and high school students
show that students with supportive academic climate perceptions were more motivated
(Anderman 2003; Murdock et al. 2000) and felt more connected to their school (McNeely
et al. 2002). At the college level, Freeman et al. (2007) found that student opinions of their
instructors’ organization, encouragement of student participation, and warmth and open-
ness positively related to students’ feelings of belonging, though they noted that more
research in this area with college students is needed. Certainly, instructor academic support
is often communicated to students through interactions and the instructional practices
incorporated in the classroom. Instructors also play a role in fostering social support by
encouraging positive interactions among students in the class (Ryan and Patrick 2001). For
example, in a study with undergraduates, McKinney et al. (2006) found that students with
instructors who encouraged classmates to get to know one another at the beginning of the
semester reported greater belonging perceptions. In the present study, instructor academic
and social support was operationalized as student perceptions of instructional practices,
and instructor’s care, respect, and expectations for students. Student perceptions of peer
support were qualitatively explored in the current study.
Some evidence suggests that belonging may relate to student motivation (Battistich
et al. 1997; Patrick et al. 1997). For example, adolescents’ perceptions of their social
relationships have been shown to predict expectations of success, value of school work,
general school motivation, and effort (Goodenow 1993; Goodenow and Grady 1993).
Similarly, research shows relationships between adolescents’ positive perceptions of social
support and academic efficacy (Ryan and Patrick 2001).
Within the self-system model aspects of motivation have generally been placed at the
same place in the model sequence as belonging constructs. Two motivational variables that
have been examined and linked to student belonging are self-efficacy and task value. Self-
efficacy is defined as students’ beliefs about their academic capabilities for a specific task
(Bandura 1986) and task value is defined as students’ beliefs about the potential impor-
tance, usefulness, and enjoyment associated with an academic task (Wigfield and Eccles
2002). These motivational variables address two important overarching questions students
typically ask themselves prior to engaging in a task: ‘‘Can I do this task?’’ and ‘‘Why
would this task be important to me?’’ In the model posited by Connell and Wellborn
(1991), task value and self-efficacy clearly would be considered aspects of the self-system
and placed in the same place in their causal model as relatedness/belonging (see Fig. 1).
Other studies, however, indicate that belonging may be antecedent to aspects of
motivation such as self-efficacy and task value. In a study with middle school students,
Roeser et al. (1996) found that students’ belonging beliefs predicted their academic self-
efficacy. Similar results were found by Freeman et al. (2007) in the only similar study, to
our knowledge, of college students to date. Their findings suggested a positive relationship
between freshmen students’ feelings of class belonging and their subsequent academic self-
efficacy and task value. Results from other investigations with both adolescents and college
students also indicate that supportive messages from instructors may, in turn, bolster
students’ self-efficacy beliefs (Kim and Keller 2008; Usher and Pajares 2009) and that
123
Context Self Action Outcomes
Supportive Belonging, Engagement in Achievement

Classroom Self-Efficacy & Academic
Environment Task Value Activities
Fig. 1 Self-system model of classroom support for motivation (Adapted from Connell and Wellborn 1991)
students’ perceptions of social support from teachers predict task value (Ahmed et al. 2010;
Midgley et al. 1989). These findings and models suggesting that belonging/relatedness may
precede student perceptions of self-efficacy and value indicate a possible elaboration of the
self-system model. Higher self-efficacy and value beliefs may be less likely unless aspects
of the classroom context first facilitate belonging. This does not suggest that students begin
a course without prior conceptions of self-efficacy or task value, but that aspects of these
constructs linked to a specific course may emerge from the sense of belonging attached to
that context.
Student engagement is characterized by the time and energy students invest in educa-
tionally purposeful activities (Kuh 2003). Engagement has been consistently presented as a
mediating link between belonging and motivation and subsequent achievement (see Fre-
dricks et al. 2004 for a review) or other adaptive outcomes (Van Ryzin et al. 2009; Wentzel
1991). Evidence suggests that specific motivational constructs may uniquely predict
engagement (Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Linnenbrink and Pintrich 2002). Walker et al.
(2006), for example, examined relationships between motivational variables and engage-
ment with college students and found that value of academics and self-efficacy uniquely
predicted cognitive engagement.
The research summarized above suggests two possible sets of conclusions about the
relationships among college student classroom belonging, motivation, engagement, and
achievement. One is the more common model (labeled Model 1) known as the self-system
model of classroom support for motivation (Connell and Wellborn 1991). This model
represents the notion that belonging, self-efficacy, and task value are directly predicted by
a supportive classroom environment, and directly predict engagement. Engagement, in
turn, predicts achievement (see Fig. 1). A second possibility (labeled Model 2) is the
somewhat newer model proposed in this study that elaborates on the self-system model. As
Model 2 indicates, we argue that a supportive classroom environment predicts belonging
and that belonging likely predicts self-efficacy and task value. These motivational beliefs,
in turn, independently predict engagement and engagement predicts achievement (see
Fig. 2). Unlike Model 1, Model 2 examines the specific relationship between belonging
and motivation.
The present study combined both quantitative and qualitative data using an explanatory
sequential mixed methods design (Creswell and Plano Clark 2010) to provide an extra
dimension of description and understanding of college student belongingness. In the initial
quantitative phase, two models representing the two possible sequences of linkages (dis-
cussed earlier as Models 1 and 2) were tested using structural equations modeling (SEM)
with data drawn from college students. Potential associations between student perceptions
of instructor academic and social support (i.e., Barnes et al. 2008), sense of class belonging
(i.e., perceived relatedness to instructor and peers; Goodenow 1993), academic motivation
(i.e., self-efficacy and task value beliefs; Garcia and Pintrich 1996), academic engagement
(i.e., instructor ratings of student course engagement; Betts and Rotenberg 2007), and
123
S. Zumbrunn et al.
Supportive Self-Efficacy Engagement in

Classroom Belonging & Academic Achievement
Environment Task Value Activities
Fig. 2 Revised model of classroom support for motivation
achievement (i.e., instructor reports of student grades) were analyzed. Evaluation of these
models is important because most investigations to date have not included evaluations of
specific process models that evaluate the potential predictive roles of supportive classroom
characteristics, belonging, motivation, engagement, and achievement, and these relation-
ships might reveal important aspects of college student development and retention.
The extant literature also suggests that contextual variables are positively related to
student classroom belonging beliefs, though surveys and questionnaires have been the
primary instruments used to examine student perceptions of belonging (Nichols 2008).
Qualitative explorations and student voices are largely missing from the belonging liter-
ature and likely would add to quantitative findings (Anderman and Kaplan 2008), and thus
the second purpose of the present study was to explore student belonging perceptions in
relation to their classroom experiences. In the qualitative, follow-up phase of this study,
students were interviewed about their classroom experiences and belonging perceptions in
order to clarify the characteristics of university educational contexts that may promote or
impede students’ feelings of belonging.
Quantitative phase method
Sample
Student participants in this study were 212 undergraduates (155 females, 73 % female)
enrolled in educational psychology classes at a large Midwestern university in the US.
Students ranged from 18 to 39 years of age (M = 20.39, SD = 2.54), and the majority
reported sophomore standing (54 %). Nearly all of the participants (90 %) reported that the
course was a prerequisite for admission to their major. Participants’ self-identified eth-
nicities included African-American (2 %), European-American (92 %), Latino(a) (3 %),
and other groups (3 %).
Four instructors participated (two female) from the undergraduate educational psy-
chology classes in which student participants were enrolled. Instructors ranged from 24 to
32 years of age (M = 27, SD = 3.46). Three instructor participants identified themselves
as European American, and one instructor identified herself as Asian-American. Post-
secondary teaching experience for the instructors in this study ranged from 2 to 5 semesters
(M = 3.5, SD = 1.29). All instructors taught two sections of Child or Adolescent
Development. Between 25 and 30 students were enrolled in each of the sections. None of
the instructors were part of the research team.
Materials and procedure
Student participants completed the following quantitative instruments: (1) a demographic

questionnaire developed for this study; (2) an adapted version of the Psychological Sense
123
of School Membership Scale (PSSM; Goodenow 1993); (3) the task value and academic
self-efficacy subscales from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ;
Garcia and Pintrich 1996); and (4) selected scales from the Student Evaluation of Teaching
questionnaire (SET; Barnes et al. 2008). See Table 1 for correlations, means, and standard
deviations for all variables included in the above measures. Quantitative data collection
took place at approximately the mid-point of the spring semester in university classrooms
without the presence of instructors. All quantitative measures were administered at the
same time. Students were provided with *25 min to complete the survey and all students
finished within the time allowed.
Demographic questionnaire
Students provided their age, gender, ethnicity, academic major, and enrollment status (e.g.,
freshman, sophomore, etc.). Students also indicated whether or not the course was required
for their major.
Belongingness
The Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale (PSSM; Goodenow 1993) was
originally developed to measure middle school students’ perceptions of school member-
ship. We used an adapted version of the PSSM to assess college students’ perceptions of
belonging within a single class (e.g., ‘‘I feel like a real part of this school’’ was changed to
‘‘I feel like a real part of this class’’). The adapted scale examined students’ general sense
of belonging (20 items, e.g., ‘‘Students in this class treat me with respect;’’ a = .90). Two
of the items were new and were developed to measure perceptions of social aspects of
membership relevant to the current study; ‘‘I can talk to students if I have a problem’’ and
‘‘I am included in group work.’’ Exploratory factor analyses indicated that the new items
loaded onto a single factor with the remainder of the scale items. The items exhibited
loadings that ranged from .56 to .73 (PCA extraction, varimax rotation). Participants rated
items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘Not at all true’’ to ‘‘Extremely true,’’
and scores were created by taking the mean of all items.
Self-efficacy and task value
The MSLQ (Garcia and Pintrich 1996) was developed to measure the motivational ori-
entation of college students and has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties with
similar participants (Pintrich et al. 1993). The two subscales of the MSLQ used in this
study were: (1) academic self-efficacy (4 items, e.g., ‘‘I’m confident I can do an excellent
job on the assignment and tests in this course;’’ a = .90), and (2) task value (6 items, e.g.,
‘‘It is important for me to learn the course material in this class;’’ a = .91). Participants
responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘Not at all true’’ to ‘‘Extremely
true.’’ Participants received a single sum score for each subscale, which was the mean of all
the items.
Instructor academic and social support
The Student Evaluation of Teaching questionnaire (SET; Barnes et al. 2008) assessed
student perceptions of instructor academic and social support. This instrument displayed
123
S. Zumbrunn et al.
Table 1 Correlations, means, and standard deviations

1 2 3 4 5 6
Supportive classroom environment –

Belonging 0.53* –
Self-efficacy 0.25* 0.44* –
Engagement 0.08 0.11 0.35* –
Task value 0.43* 0.44* 0.31* 0.08 –
Achievement -0.06 0.06 0.43* 0.64* 0.03 –
Means 4.01 3.99 3.95 4.22 3.84 0.87
Standard deviations 0.60 0.47 0.70 0.60 0.72 0.09
* p \ .05, two-tailed
adequate validity and reliability in studies with similar groups of undergraduates (Barnes
et al. 2008). Data from the teacher excellence and teacher preparedness scales indicated the
scores were positively correlated (r = .75), thus both scales were combined into a general
instructor academic and social support scale. The combined scale was composed of 14
items (e.g., ‘‘The instructor seems to care whether students learn the material,’’ ‘‘The
instructor conveys material in a way that is easy to understand,’’ and ‘‘The instructor
expects academic excellence from students;’’ a = .93). Participants responded using a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘Strongly agree.’’ A single
scale score was calculated for each participant by using the mean of all items.
Instructor measures
Instructors completed an adapted version of the Teacher Rating Scale of School Adjust-
ment (Betts and Rotenberg 2007) for each student at mid-term, approximately. This scale
included 12 items (a = .91) designed to measure students’ engagement [e.g., ‘‘(The stu-
dent) actively participates,’’ and ‘‘(The student) comes to class’’]. Instructors rated students
on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘Does not apply’’ to ‘‘Certainly applies.’’ A single
scale score was created for each participant using the mean of all items. Instructors also
completed mid-term course grades (later labeled achievement) for each of their students
that indicated the number of course points earned relative to total points possible at that
point in the semester. Instructors received a department store gift card for their
participation.
Quantitative results
Data used in these analyses were examined a priori for conformity to parametric and
multivariate assumptions. Bivariate correlations were examined for multicollinearity and to
evaluate whether or not the variables correlated in expected directions. No multicolline-
arity was found and correlation estimates supported a priori expectations (see Table 1 for
bivariate correlations, means and standard deviations). The bivariate correlation between
belonging and engagement/achievement was significant and indicated initial support for
overarching hypotheses of mediation (Baron and Kenny 1986). Confirmatory analyses of
the hypothesized structural models (see Figs. 1, 2) were carried out using Mplus software
123
(Muthén and Muthén 1998) to evaluate the fit of the hypothesized models to the data and,
given indications of acceptable fit, to obtain parameter estimates for the structural paths.
Model 1 represented a sequence of linkages suggested by the conceptual framework
presented earlier in this paper, and includes self-efficacy and task value as aspects of
motivation typically viewed as closely related constructs (e.g., Patrick et al. 1997).
When examined as components of the self-system model (Connell and Wellborn 1991),
the constructs of belonging, self-efficacy, and task value were placed at the same level
as predictors of engagement. Instructor academic and social support was placed as the
exogenous predictor and was hypothesized to predict belonging, self-efficacy, and task
value. Belonging, self-efficacy, and task value, in turn, were hypothesized to predict
classroom engagement. Engagement, finally, was hypothesized to predict achievement.
Additional direct paths from belonging, self-efficacy, and task value to achievement
were included to examine whether or not engagement mediated links to our achieve-
ment outcome as suggested by Connell and colleagues (e.g., Connell and Wellborn
1991).
Model 2 was created to test the alternative hypotheses presented that revised the prior
assumptions from Model 1 and indicated that instructor academic and social support is a
likely predictor of belonging and that belonging is antecedent to self-efficacy and task
value. Self-efficacy and task value, in turn, were hypothesized to predict engagement and
subsequent achievement. To keep the assumptions between Model 1 and Model 2 parallel,
we also tested direct paths from instructor academic and social support to self-efficacy and
task value. This allowed us to examine whether or not belonging might mediate linkages
from instructor academic and social support to self-efficacy and task value. Following
similar logic, we also tested a direct path from belonging to engagement to examine
whether or not self-efficacy and task value mediated the link from belonging to engage-
ment. Finally, to further maintain parallel effects in the models, we also tested direct links
from self-efficacy and task-value to achievement, to examine mediation among that
sequence of linkages as well.
Model fit
We evaluated structural model fit with several fit indices, such as the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI values above .95 indicate very good fit and those at or above 0.90 indicate
reasonable fit; Bentler 1990), Steiger’s Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA values below 0.05 indicate a very good fit and those at or below .10 indicate a
reasonable fit; Steiger 1990) and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR
\.05; Hu and Bentler 1999). Model fit estimates for Model 1 were unacceptable
(v2 = 59.21, df = 8; CFI = .84; RMSEA = .23; SRMR = .11). However, model fit sta-
tistics for the hypothesized Model 2 indicated much better fit (v2 = 14.59, df = 4;
CFI = .97; RMSEA = .11; SRMR = .04) and, upon removal of non-significant paths to
improve parsimony, the resulting reduced model produced acceptable fit to the data. Non-
significant paths from instructor academic and social support to self-efficacy, from
belonging to engagement, from task value to engagement and from task value to
achievement were removed in this subsequent analysis. With the exception of the path
from task value to engagement, non-significant values were consistent with hypotheses and
supported expected patterns of mediation. The constellation of fit statistics from Model 2
(Fig. 3) indicated either good or acceptable fit to the data (v2 = 18.56, df = 7; CFI = .97;
RMSEA = .09; SRMR = .05).
123
S. Zumbrunn et al.
Structural path estimates
Given that Model 2 (Fig. 3) exhibited an acceptable fit to the data, estimates of the
structural relationships among the model variables were interpreted. Estimated path
coefficients were largely consistent with hypothesized linkages (all coefficients reported
below are standardized values and significant at p \ .05 or smaller). Instructor academic
and social support was associated with belonging (.52); students who indicated that their
instructors were supportive also tended to report greater belonging. Self-efficacy and task
value were, in turn, also associated with belonging (.43 and .30, respectively), thus students
who indicated greater belonging also tended to report higher self-efficacy and task value.
Students with higher self-efficacy also tended to report higher engagement in the classroom
(self-efficacy was the only significant predictor of engagement; .35). Higher engagement
was also related to higher achievement (.56). The path coefficient estimated for the link
between task value and engagement was not significant.
Significant parameter estimates from instructor academic and social support to task
value (.28) suggest that belonging partially mediated the link from instructor academic and
social support to task value (Muthén 2011). The non-significant direct path from instructor
academic and social support to self-efficacy indicates that belonging fully mediated that
link. Engagement also partially mediated the relationship between self-efficacy and
achievement (the direct path from self-efficacy to achievement was estimated at .24). SEM
estimates of indirect effects for belonging on the achievement outcome provided additional
support for the hypothesized mediation. Belonging displayed significant total indirect
effects (Mplus; Muthén and Muthén 1998) on achievement (.19, p \ .01) via a path to self-
efficacy and paths from self-efficacy to both engagement and achievement.
Need for follow-up explanations
To gain a more complete understanding of student classroom experiences and perceptions

of belonging, a qualitative follow-up phase was conducted (Creswell and Plano Clark
2010). The focus of the qualitative phase was to better understand students’ perceptions of
belonging and the classroom experiences that may be part of belonging and important
associated processes. The quantitative results showed strong relationships between student
belonging and instructor academic and social support. Previous research has examined
teachers’ instructional support and the connections with students’ motivation, but few
studies to date have examined the connection between classroom contextual elements and
students’ sense of belonging (Freeman et al. 2007). One important component of this study
was the ability to follow-up with participants, which allowed us to explore what students
highlight as important when asked about belonging. In particular, the qualitative phase
investigated one overarching question: ‘‘How do students describe their belonging per-
ceptions in relation to their classroom experiences?’’ By gaining insight into the classroom
experiences that influence students’ sense of belonging, instructors can shape their
instructional practices to better suit the needs of students.
Qualitative phase method
Interview data collection
A follow-up phenomenological qualitative investigation was conducted to understand more

about participants’ belonging perceptions and classroom experiences. In a phenomenological
123
n.s. Self-Efficacy .24**

.35**
Supportive .43**
.52** n.s. .56**
Classroom Belonging Engagement Achievement
Environment
.30**
n.s.
.28** n.s.
Task Value
Fig. 3 SEM results: Model 1. ** p \ .01, n.s. nonsignificant
study, the focus of the research process is to develop an understanding of participants’

perceptions of experiences (Merriam 2009; Willis 2007).
All students who participated in the quantitiative phase of the study were asked to
participate in the qualitative phase. Approximately 81 % (N = 172) of students volun-
teered to participate. Qualitative phase participants were selected across the eight classes
from the quantitative phase. The sample for the qualitative phase of this study included two
females and one male from each belonging level: low (quantitative belonging scale score
equal to one standard deviation below the mean or lower) and high (quantitative belonging
scale score equal to one standard deviation above the mean or higher). All four partici-
pating instructors were represented by the qualitative phase participants. The average age
for the participants in the qualitative phase was 20.60 (SD = 1.43) and all identified
themselves as European-American.
Table 5 provides descriptive information, quantitative belonging, instructor academic
and social support, task value, and self-efficacy mean scale scores, and qualitative
descriptions of belonging for each qualitative phase participant. Participants ranged in
enrollment status from sophomore to senior, and the course was required for half of the
participants. Two of the three students with higher belonging mean scores majored in
education. The other student in the higher belonging group majored in sociology, but
minored in education. Only one of the three students in the lower belonging group
majored in education. The others majored in advertising and sociology. Participants’
mean task value scale sores differed considerably between the two groups. Students
with higher belonging scores all reported mean scores of 4.50 (scores could range from
1 to 5), compared with scores ranging from 2.17 to 3.00 for students with lower
belonging mean scores. Differences in quantitative self-efficacy mean scale scores
between the two groups were less apparent. Whereas self-efficacy scores ranged from
4.00 to 4.50 (scores could range from 1 to 5) for participants with higher belonging
scores, participants with lower belonging scores reported self-efficacy mean scores
between 3.00 and 4.50. Differences in qualitative descriptions among the participants
are discussed in the following sections.
For the qualitative phase of the study, interviews were conducted over a 2-week period
immediately following the quantitative phase. Interviews lasted between 20 and 30 min
and were conducted by the first and second authors. All interviews were tape-recorded and
transcribed verbatim. Each interview focused on students’ perceptions of belonging and
their experiences with their instructor and peers in the course. The interview protocol used
in the qualitative phase can be found in Appendix.
123
S. Zumbrunn et al.
Qualitative analytic procedures
After completion of qualitative data collection, all student data were matched. Student
names were then removed and replaced with pseudonyms. Data analysis followed Mou-
stakas (1994) procedures for systematic analysis for phenomenological data. This process
involves epoche (or bracketing or identifying significant statements), phenomenological
reduction, synthesizing themes into a description of individual experiences, and con-
structing a composite description of the meaning. Authors attempted to set aside any
‘‘taken for granted’’ assumptions about college students or sense of belonging in order to
more accurately describe the phenomena.
Transcripts were read in their entirety for overall understanding by two researchers.
Phenomenological reduction was achieved through horizontalization, which is the process
of exploring the data and treating all pieces of data as equal value (Merriam 2009).
Transcripts were re-read and reoccurring ideas among participants were noted. Researchers
then met to discuss their initial reactions and discuss potential categories that represented
key statements from the participants, a process known as basic thematic categorization
(Saldaña 2013). Themes that emerged from student responses were categorized according
to commonality. Three major theme categories emerged from the data: perceptions of
belonging; perceptions of peer acceptance and support; and perceptions of instructor
acceptance and support.
An initial coding list was co-constructed by the two readers using a sub-set of partic-
ipant responses. After independent initial coding was complete, the researchers met again
to discuss a final coding list, which considered connections, contrasts, and comparisons
among the theme categories (Saldaña 2013). Transcripts were then re-read in entirety and
coded using final sub-category codes. Sub-categories for the theme category, perceptions
of belonging—or the sources of student belonging beliefs—included interpersonal inter-
actions with instructors and peers, similarities and differences in academic beliefs and
perceptions of task value among classmates (see Table 2). When discussing peer accep-
tance and support, coding sub-categories encompassed variations in the ways in which
students felt similar, different, comfortable, valued, and respected (see Table 3). Coding
sub-categories for the perceptions of instructor acceptance and support included students’
beliefs about their instructors’ availability, approachability, and investment in and respect
for students (see Table 4). The ways in which the instructor set the tone for the class and
encouraged group interaction also were sub-categories for this theme category. Interest-
ingly, unlike task value, self-efficacy did not emerge as a sub-category code in any theme
category.
Qualitative findings
The qualitative data gathered in this study supported and expanded the findings found in
the quantitative phase. Specifically, interview data provided a more descriptive picture of
students’ experiences in the classroom, as well as of the contextual characteristics that
foster or inhibit student belonging perceptions.
Perceptions of belonging
When explaining the source of their belonging perceptions, all students referenced inter-
actions with their peers (see Table 5). All students with higher belonging scores said they
123
Table 2 Coding sub-categories for belonging perceptions

Coding sub- Response prototypes
category
Interpersonal ‘‘There’s this girl that I sit by that I didn’t know before coming to class and I’ve
(Peers) gotten to know her a little bit and that’s been kind of nice’’
Interpersonal ‘‘My teacher knows my name’’
(Instructor)
Academic (Peers) ‘‘Even if I did [participate], sometimes there wasn’t much response after that and it
was just kind of like I was doing it [participating] by myself’’
Task value ‘‘Almost everybody in there is going to be a teacher, so there’s common interest’’
Table 3 Coding sub-categories for perceptions of peer acceptance and support

Coding sub- Response prototypes
category
Value ‘‘She [another student] told me I did a good job … she acknowledged what I was good
at’’
Respect ‘‘People are usually pretty accepting of other people’’
Similarities ‘‘We all kind of generally had the same thoughts and feelings about things’’
Differences ‘‘I know that there were some people who were upset that we weren’t as into it [the
class] as they were’’
Comfort ‘‘The people were nice and you just had a comfort level with them’’
Table 4 Coding sub-categories for perceptions of instructor acceptance and support

Coding sub-category Response prototypes
Investment ‘‘She [the instructor] is willing to work with me to do well’’

Respect ‘‘He [the instructor] always tried to listen to your opinion and understand it’’
Setting tone ‘‘He [the instructor] tried to lighten the mood by playing music at the beginning
of each class’’
Availability ‘‘You [the student] could always go and visit [the instructor] during office
hours’’
Approachable ‘‘I could go to talk with him about things’’
Encouraging group ‘‘The instructor tries to get students to participate’’
interaction
belonged because of their interpersonal relationships with their classmates. Amanda noted,
‘‘I sit in the same spot every day so I know the people I sit next to. I know their names, like
we’ve done projects together, and I can say ‘hi’ to them.’’ Patricia commented, ‘‘A lot of
people voice their opinions on certain topics that we discuss and everyone seems to feel
comfortable doing that.’’
All students with lower belonging scores also mentioned peers as an important source of
their belonging perceptions. Specifically, they felt their belongingness was negatively
influenced by their interpersonal interactions with their classmates. Heather described her
experience,
123
123
Table 5 Qualitative participant descriptive information, quantitative academic and social support, task value, and self-efficacy mean scores, and qualitative descriptions of
belonging by quantitative belonging scale score mean
Participant Quan. Enrollment Major Gender Instructor Required Quan. Quan. Quan. Qual. Qual. Qual.
pseudonym belonging status ID and course instructor task self- belonging accepted accepted
and belonging (Gender) academic value efficacy reason or supported or
group and by peers supported
social by
support instructor
Sarah (lower 2.80 Sophomore Sociology Female 4 (Male) No 3.36 3.00 4.50 Academic (Peers) ‘‘Kind of’’ ‘‘Yes’’
belonging)
Collin (lower 2.95 Junior Advertising Male 1 (Female) No 4.00 2.17 3.13 Academic (Peers) ‘‘I think so’’ ‘‘Yes’’
belonging)
Heather (lower 3.15 Sophomore Secondary Female 3 (Male) Yes 3.93 2.17 3.00 Interpersonal (Peers) ‘‘Somewhat’’ ‘‘Most of
belonging) education the time’’
Patricia (higher 4.50 Junior Sociology Female 1 (Female) Yes 4.50 4.50 4.50 Interpersonal (Peers) ‘‘Yes’’ ‘‘Yes’’
belonging)
Amanda (higher 4.65 Senior Elementary Female 2 (Female) No 4.71 4.50 4.75 Interpersonal (Peers ‘‘Yes’’ ‘‘Yes’’
belonging) education and Instructor)
Elijah (higher 4.85 Junior Secondary Male 4 (Male) Yes 4.93 4.50 4.00 Interpersonal (Peers) ‘‘Yes’’ ‘‘Yes’’
belonging) education
Quantitative belonging, instructor academic and social support, task value, and self-efficacy mean scale scores could range from 1 to 5
S. Zumbrunn et al.
I’m pretty conservative in my beliefs and stuff and there were quite a few liberal
people in there [the class]. And that kind of made me uncomfortable at times when
they were talking about that stuff. We did a small section on religion and that just got
kind of crazy in class and I was almost afraid to speak up and share. … If everyone
was agreeing and I disagreed, then I didn’t want to speak up because I don’t really
like confrontation. I didn’t want to speak up and be the different one.
The other students with lower belonging scores referenced academic reasons in their
explanations. Specifically, both students mentioned academic differences set them apart
from their peers. Collin struggled the most with unengaged peers during small group
activities. He shared, ‘‘We didn’t really say much. It was kind of dead … there were days
when no one was really responding so it was just kind of like I wasn’t there.’’ Sarah
explained her experience,
I fit in with the people that sit in the back [of the classroom] that text and talk. …
There are some people that do the reading every night and ask detailed questions
about something on a specific page of the textbook whereas other people just try to
get like the main ideas. I guess I didn’t do the reading every night so I didn’t really fit
in with that.
Task value seemed to play a role in all students’ perceptions of belonging, regardless of
their level of belonging. As shown in Table 5, students with higher belonging scores also
had higher task value scale scores (4.50 for all students in this group) than their peers with
lower belonging mean scores (task value mean scores of 2.17–3.00). Patricia (higher
belonging group) reported belonging because ‘‘[We have] similar interests, it seems like a
lot of us are going to be educators, which is why we’re taking this class, so I feel a part of
where everyone else is coming from.’’ Elijah (higher belonging group) commented,
‘‘Almost everybody in there is going to be a teacher, so there’s common interest.’’
Although Amanda (higher belonging group) was not an education major, she shared her
experience as a student minoring in education, ‘‘That is probably why I don’t feel 100 %
belonging, because I’m not going to be a teacher.’’ Unlike students in the higher belonging
group, Collin (lower belonging group) explained that he sometimes didn’t feel as though he
fit in because he was ‘‘not pursuing education.’’ In their interviews, Sarah and Heather
(lower belonging group) both mentioned their lack of interest in many course topics. Sarah
shared her frustration with repeated course content, ‘‘Sometimes we were like, ‘we already
know it, let’s move on.’’’
Peer acceptance and support
When asked whether or not they felt accepted or supported by their peers, all higher
belonging students answered positively, but lower belonging students were more tentative
with their responses (see Table 5). In describing the reasons for their perceptions of their
peers, students with higher belonging scores reported feelings of value and respect. Patricia
said, ‘‘We each put in our own ideas and nobody’s ideas are thrown out. … I’ve never
noticed anyone casting out their [other students’] ideas and being really critical. … People
are usually pretty accepting of other people.’’ Elijah also commented about his experiences
with his classmates, ‘‘They were just very supportive people. You wanted to be successful,
but you wanted the other people around you to be successful, too, because you knew them
on a more personal level.’’ Conversely, students with lower belonging scores reported
feelings of difference and disrespect when describing the unsupportive nature of their
123
S. Zumbrunn et al.
peers. Heather described an example, ‘‘At the end of the semester we all had to give
presentations. … They [the other students] were just totally against what we were talking
about. … I was a little embarrassed and it was kind of awkward.’’
Instructor acceptance and support
Students’ quantitative ratings of instructor academic and social support differed between
the two groups (see Table 5). Whereas students in the higher belonging group rated
instructor academic and social support between 4.50 and 4.93 (scores could range from 1 to
5), ratings of instructor academic and social support of students in the lower belonging
group ranged from 3.36 to 4.00. Interestingly, only one of the six interview participants
mentioned interactions with their instructor when initially explaining the source of their
belonging perceptions (see Table 5). However, when asked directly, all students reported
feeling accepted or supported by their instructor at least most of the time. Students from
both high and low belonging groups referenced instructor investment in their descriptions
of instructor support. Elijah (high belonging group) commented about his instructor ‘‘He
was very good at answering questions and making sure he took the time to fully answer
them. … He made sure he took the time for you.’’ Sarah (low belonging group) made a
similar comment, ‘‘He was really nice and helpful and he was really interested in it [the
course topics]. … He wanted us to learn it.’’ Instructor respect for students was another
common theme throughout participants’ responses. Heather (low belonging group) said
that her instructor ‘‘always tried to listen to [her] opinion and understand it.’’
Students from both belonging groups also reported ‘‘setting the tone of the class’’ as an
important supportive instructional strategy. Patricia (high belonging group) commented
about her instructor, ‘‘She’s just really enthusiastic about things. She makes it interesting.’’
Students with higher belonging scores also referenced availability and approachableness as
supportive instructor qualities. Patricia (high belonging group) said, ‘‘she’s really
approachable, and when I e-mail she e-mails me back pretty quickly.’’
Encouraging group interaction seemed to be a salient supportive instructional strategy
for students from both belonging groups. Patricia (high belonging group) reported, ‘‘I
really think interaction, definitely group interaction, is important because you’re not just
getting what the teacher says, you’re interacting, you’re sharing each other’s ideas.’’
Specifically, the students emphasized the importance of discussion. Heather (low
belonging group) commented, ‘‘When we got into discussions, that was when I liked being
there [in class] and hearing different people’s sides of the story.’’ Collin (low belonging
group) agreed with that sentiment, ‘‘The teacher did a lot on PowerPoint, but discussion
could have increased participation. … There were days when no one was really
responding.’’
Discussion
Though support and belonging are important for college student retention and success,
research to date primarily has focused on campus community belonging (Strayhorn 2012),
leaving questions about the ways in which college student perceptions of classroom sup-
port and belonging might play a role in academic adjustment (Freeman et al. 2007). In this
study, quantitative and qualitative methods were used to explore relationships among
classroom contextual characteristics and college student belonging, motivation, engage-
ment, and achievement. As we will discuss, many of the individual pathways suggested by
123
our data validate and build on the complex relationships between multiple social, moti-
vational, and academic adjustment variables, which have been well-documented in primary
and secondary educational contexts, at the college level using mixed methodology. The
quantitative data revealed a predictive role for instructor academic and social support for
student belonging and also suggested meditating roles for belonging, motivation,
engagement, and student achievement. This evidence extends findings from previous
research and supports pathways identified in our second hypothesized model (see Fig. 2),
specified here using a clearly supported sequence of conceptual linkages, that posited
student belonging perceptions to be antecedent to task value and self-efficacy motivational
constructs. Theoretically, these findings suggest that instructor academic and social support
can be a key contributor to students’ feelings of belonging that, in turn, may have powerful
effects on motivation and achievement (Hausmann et al. 2007; Vallerand et al. 2008).
This relatively complex model was fitted to the data and indicated that students’ per-
ceptions of instructor academic and social support were positively and moderately asso-
ciated with students’ feelings of belonging. These findings were consistent with results
from past studies primarily conducted with younger populations (e.g., Freeman et al. 2007;
Hamre and Pianta 2005; McNeely et al. 2002; Murdock et al. 2000; Van Ryzin et al. 2009).
Students with higher belonging scores tended to rate their instructors as prepared, pro-
fessional, and respectful. Additionally, students with higher belonging scores also rated
their instructor as more enthusiastic, passionate, and caring in the classroom. These results
suggest that instructor academic and social support may be an important aspect of student
belonging, as instructor support in the classroom was related to the extent to which students
felt like a part of the class. Although specific pedagogical practices were not examined in
the current study, our findings indicate that instructor enthusiasm, passion, and the level of
interest and caring they show toward their students may play a central role in supporting
student motivation and engagement in the classroom social context—an important com-
ponent in understanding achievement processes.
As hypothesized, results also showed that student perceptions of belonging displayed
linkages to their levels of motivation in the course. These findings also are consistent with
past research also primarily conducted with younger populations (Battistich et al. 1997;
Freeman et al. 2007; Goodenow 1993; Goodenow and Grady 1993; Patrick et al. 1997;
Wentzel 1998). Students who felt comfortable and accepted in class not only tended to
have higher efficacy beliefs, but also felt that the course content was more useful than their
peers with weaker perceptions.
Similar to results from other studies (Pajares 1996; Schunk 1995), self-efficacy was also
linked to both academic engagement and achievement. Students that felt more capable of
succeeding in the course tended to be more involved class participants and, subsequently,
higher achievers than their less efficacious classmates. Additionally, results showed student
engagement to be strongly linked to students’ grades in the course. This finding also is
consistent with our hypothesized model and with previous studies of motivation and self-
system processes (Buhs 2005; Skinner et al. 1998).
A prominent finding in the motivation and achievement literature has been that stu-
dents’ academic task value is positively associated with subsequent engagement (Eccles
et al. 1998; Pintrich 1999). We expected similar patterns to emerge here. Specifically, we
expected students who believed coursework to be worthwhile and useful would be more
likely to engage in learning activities. In the current study, however, task value was not
associated with either engagement or achievement. This may have been due to the fact that
study participants were recruited from a course required for students entering an educa-
tional degree program, yet taken before admission to the program. As evidenced in many
123
S. Zumbrunn et al.
of the qualitative interviews, it is possible that students may have felt that the course was
not central to their career goals if they were not yet admitted to the certification program or
firmly committed to pursuing a degree in education. Their motivation may have been more
narrowly described by performance goals (i.e., achieving an acceptable grade) than to
mastery-oriented/learning goals tapped by the task value scale.
Finally, our quantitative findings showed that a model that presents belonging as
antecedent to motivational constructs/variables (Model 2) fit our data better than one in
which instructor academic and social support is directly linked to belonging, self-efficacy,
and task value. Belonging, in turn, was not directly linked to engagement except for an
indirect/mediated linkage through self-efficacy. Although our design and data were not
longitudinal, these results and the significant indirect effects estimates were consistent with
the contention that instructor classroom support may more directly influence belonging and
that belonging, in turn, is a potential factor that may predict subsequent motivation
(especially self-efficacy beliefs), engagement, and achievement. Taken together, these
results also provide general support for the self-system model while suggesting that
belonging may function antecedent to motivational aspects of student competence and
value beliefs.
A purposive sample of six students (three from each quantitative belonging group: high
and low) were chosen of the 212 quantitative participants to participate in the follow-up
qualitative phase of the study. Results from this phase produced a useful and interpretable
set of findings that add detail to the quantitative results and contribute to a more complete
understanding of the role of classroom contextual characteristics on college student
belonging. All students interviewed felt supported by their instructor at least most of the
time. Students from both high and low belonging groups mentioned instructor investment
and tone-setting as important indicators of instructor academic and social support. Students
also emphasized the significance of instructor respect for student opinions in fostering
belongingness in the classroom. Finally, students also mentioned the importance of
instructor availability, flexibility, and approachableness.
Although students noted several ways in which instructors fostered a supportive
classroom environment, major differences in student belonging beliefs seemed to relate to
interactions with their classmates. In particular, only students from the high belonging
group reported feeling accepted and supported by their peers with certainty. These stu-
dents’ feelings of belonging seemed to stem from familiarity, comfort, and shared interests
and experiences with their peers. Moreover, students with higher belonging perceptions
reported feeling respected and valued by their classmates.
Though no students reported feeling completely unaccepted or unsupported, students in
the low belonging group were more hesitant about the acceptance and support of their
classmates. All students in this group reported feeling different from their peers. Signifi-
cant reasons included differences in ideas, values, course meaningfulness, and engagement.
These students also reported feeling uncomfortable in the classroom and disrespected by
their classmates.
Certainly, the instructor cannot manage all peer interactions among students, but
instructors play an important role in the instructional design of their courses. For example,
it seemed that group interaction was an important source of support for many of the
students interviewed from both groups. Even though some students did not necessarily feel
like they fit in with the whole class, most mentioned relating to a smaller group of students.
This emphasizes the importance of structuring group work for students. However, group
work must also be meaningful. Students from both groups mentioned that relevance of
course topics played a role in their feelings of belonging. From the quantitative scores of
123
those interviewed, it is interesting to note the patterns of task value in relation to students’
perceptions of belonging. Those with higher task value scores also held more positive class
belonging beliefs. This finding is relevant for instructors to consider, as students may
develop a deeper personal interest in utilitarian class activities (Hulleman et al. 2008),
which may ultimately enhance their perceptions of belonging in the course. In a study on
college students’ classroom communities, McKinney et al. (2006) found that encouraging
students to get to know their class neighbors—those sitting immediately around them—
helped students feel more secure and supported in the classroom. In addition to encour-
aging productive peer group work and making course content meaningful and relevant,
instructors should also actively promote respect among class members (Engstrom and
Tinto 2008). Explicit discussions regarding the importance of respect ad setting ground
rules for class discussions are often effective ways to establish a safe place for students to
learn and share (McKeachie 2012).
Overall, the quantitative and qualitative findings from this study illustrated not only the
influential role that instructors and peers have in the classroom, but also the role belonging
likely plays in college student motivation (via self-efficacy beliefs) as well as relationships
with engagement and achievement processes. This research expands on prior findings by
applying a model of belonging developed for children and younger adolescents (Furrer and
Skinner 2003; Wentzel 1997, 1998) to a college-age sample and demonstrating the
potential importance of creating academically and socially supportive classroom contexts
at the university level. By understanding how belonging perceptions link to specific aspects
of academic motivation, instructors can be better prepared to foster motivation and aca-
demic adjustment in college classrooms. Instructors who demonstrate enthusiasm and
create a supportive social context appear more likely to foster higher motivation and
achievement patterns in their students. This information has the potential to not only
improve instructional techniques, but also influence student learning and success in the
classroom.
Limitations of the current research should be noted. First, student perceptions of
instructor characteristics, belonging, and motivation were all gathered from self-reports.
This may have created problems with shared-source variance. Although this study included
instructor ratings of student engagement and achievement, future research might also use
more objective measures (e.g., observations) to assess instructor characteristics. Similar to
other studies in the area of belonging (Catalano et al. 2004; Furrer and Skinner 2003), the
current study associated student belonging with both academic and social support from
teachers and peers. Future studies in this area might develop more precise psychometric
measures of academic and social support to explore possible distinct processes and con-
tributions to student adjustment. Additionally, data were collected from students and
instructors at a single time point for this study. Our conclusions are therefore tempered by
the correlational nature of our data; however, the findings of this study suggest potential
pathways that can be further examined using causal methodology. Classroom observations
or a longitudinal analysis exploring the impact of classroom belonging on motivation
changes or trajectories of motivation, engagement, and achievement, and further exam-
ining peers and instructors as potentially independent and dynamic sources of belonging
and support for motivational processes would provide a stronger basis for drawing con-
clusions about directions of influence. Although the quantitative phase of this study
focused on instructor academic and social support, participants’ qualitative data high-
lighted the equal importance of peer academic and social support. Future research should
examine quantitative models of belonging that include both instructor and peer academic
and social support in relation to student belonging, motivation, engagement, and
123
S. Zumbrunn et al.
achievement. Furthermore, the current study focused on student perceptions of academic

and social support and did not directly examine the effect of specific instructional practices
on college student perceptions, beliefs, and behavior. Future investigations might examine
the influence of explicit pedagogical practices on student belonging, motivation, engage-
ment, and achievement. Seventy-three percent of the participants in this study were female.
Although some evidence suggests that females may display slightly different achievement
rates and/or motivation levels than males (Jacobs et al. 2002; Pajares and Valiante 2001),
there is no evidence that we are aware of in the research literature that would suggest that
the specific pattern of linkages we examined here (i.e., our causal model) would differ
across gender groups. Higher (or lower) levels of classroom support, belonging, motiva-
tion, and engagement likely affect males and females similarly regardless of potential
group differences in absolute levels of motivation and/or achievement, though future
studies might explore gender differences using models similar to those examined in the
current study. Finally, though the sample of interview participants was purposively
selected, there is a possibility, given the small sample size, that students’ statements were
idiosyncratic or related to instructor differences. Future qualitative studies with larger
samples are needed to confirm these findings.
Despite these limitations, the evidence gathered for this model and the additional detail
gleaned from the qualitative findings reveal support for models of the relationships
between classroom contextual characteristics and potential processes explaining student
classroom belonging, motivation, engagement, and achievement. The results of this study
suggest that college educators should consider the effects of student perceptions of
classroom academic and social support—particularly on student feelings of belonging, as
these perceptions may affect consequent motivation, engagement, and achievement.
Appendix
Qualitative phase interview protocol
Describe your experience in this class.

• Probe: Was it good? Bad? So-So? Why?
On a scale from 0 – 100, how much would you say that you fit in and belong in this
class? Why?
• Follow-up: Did you know the instructor or any of your classmates before this class?
• Follow-up: In what ways do you feel that you do or don’t fit in?
What does it mean ‘‘to belong’’ in the classroom?
• Probe: Define belonging in the classroom.
Give a specific example of a time in this class when you felt like you did or didn’t
belong.
Describe a specific example of your experiences with your peers in this class.
• Follow-up: Based on those experiences, do you feel accepted/supported by your
peers? Why do you feel this way?
– Probe: In what ways do you feel that you are or are not supported?
123
Describe your experiences with your instructor in this class.

• Follow-up: Do you feel supported by your instructor? Why do you feel this way?
– Probe: In what ways do you feel that you are/are not supported?
• Follow-up: What instructional practices are used that are supportive?
• Follow-up: What instructional practices are used that are not particularly supportive?
References
Ahmed, W., Minnaert, A., van der Werf, G., & Kuyper, H. (2010). Perceived social support and early
adolescents’ achievement: the meditational roles of motivational beliefs and emotions. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 39, 36–46.
Anderman, E. M. (2002). School effects on psychological outcomes during adolescence. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 94, 795–809.
Anderman, L. H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle school stu-
dents’ sense of school belonging. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(1), 5–22.
Anderman, L. H., & Freeman, T. M. (2004). Students’ sense of belonging in school. In P. R. Pintrich & M.
L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 13, pp. 27–63). Oxford: Elsevier.
Anderman, L., & Kaplan, A. (2008). The role of interpersonal relationships in student motivation: intro-
duction to the special issue. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 115–119.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Barnes, D. C., Engelland, B. T., Matherine, C. F., Martin, W. C., Orgeron, C. P., Ring, J. K., et al. (2008).
Developing a psychometrically sound measure of collegiate teaching proficiency. College Student
Journal, 42, 199–213.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 51, 1173–1182.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational
Psychologist, 32, 137–151.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 238–246.
Betts, L., & Rotenberg, K. (2007). Trustworthiness, friendships, and self-control: factors that contribute to
young children’s school adjustment. Infant and Child Development, 16, 491–508.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Buhs, E. (2005). Peer rejection, negative peer treatment, and school adjustment: Self-concept and classroom
engagement as mediating processes. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 407–424.
Castellanos, J., & Jones, L. (2003). Latina/o undergraduate experience in American higher education. In J.
Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The majority in the minority: expanding representation of Latina/o
faculty, administrators, and students in higher education (pp. 1–14). Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
Catalano, R. F., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school
for healthy development: Findings from the Social Development Research Group. Journal of School
Health, 74(7), 252–261.
Cleary, M., Walter, G., & Jackson, D. (2011). ‘‘Not always smooth sailing’’: mental health issues associated
with the transition from high school to college. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 32(4), 250–254.
Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African American
youth: context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development, 65, 493–506.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: a motivational analysis of
self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology:
self-processes and development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum.
123
S. Zumbrunn et al.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 109–132.
Eccles, J.S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon (Series E.) & N.
Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology; Vol 3. Social, emotional, and personality
development (5th edn., pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.
Engstrom, C., & Tinto, V. (2008). Access without support is not opportunity. Change, 40(1), 46–50.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state
of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belongingness of college freshmen at the
classroom and campus levels. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 203–220.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–161.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Assessing students’ motivation and learning strategies in the classroom
context: the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. In M. Birenbaum & F. J. R. C. Dochy
(Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes, and prior knowledge (pp.
319–339). Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: relationships to motivation
and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 21–43.
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values to academic
motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 60–71.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first grade classroom
make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76, 949–967.
Harris, B. A. (2001). The power of creating a spiritual learning community. Adult Learning, 12(3), 22–23.
Hausmann, L. M., Schofield, J. W., & Wood, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of intentions to
persist among African American and White first-year college students. Research in Higher Education,
48, 803–839.
Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salamone, K. (2002). Investigating ‘‘sense of belonging’’ in first-
year college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(3), 227–256.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. B., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task values, achievement
goals, and interest: an integrative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 398–416.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of campus racial climate on
Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324–345.
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-
competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child
Development, 73(2), 509–527.
Kim, C., & Keller, J. M. (2008). Effects of motivation and volitional email messages (MVEM) with personal
messages on undergraduate students’ motivation, study habits and achievement. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 39, 36–51.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: benchmarks for effective
educational practices. Change, 35(2), 24–32.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School
Psychology Review, 31, 313–327.
McKeachie, W. (2012). McKeachie’s teaching tips. Independence: Cengage Learning.
McKinney, J. P., McKinney, K. G., Franiuk, R., & Schweitzer, J. (2006). The college classroom as a
community: Impact on student attitudes and learning. College Teaching, 54(3), 281–284.
McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: evidence
from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138–146.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Wiley.
Micari, M., & Pazos, P. (2012). Connecting to the professor: impact of the student–faculty relationship in a
highly challenging course. College Teaching, 60(2), 41–47.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-
related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. American Psychological
Association, 81, 247–258.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Murdock, T. B., Anderman, L. H., & Hodge, S. A. (2000). Middle-grade predictors of students’ motivation
and behavior in high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(3), 327–351.
Muthén, B. (2011). Applications of causally defined direct and indirect effects in mediation analysis using
SEM in Mplus. Retrieved Sep 1, 2012 from http://www.statmodel.com/download/causalmediation.pdf.
123
Muthén, L.K. & Muthén, B.O. (1998–2010). Mplus User’s Guide. 6th edition. Los Angeles: Muthén &
Muthén.
Nichols, L. (2008). An exploration of students’ belongingness beliefs in one middle school. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 76, 145–169.
Nunez, A. (2009). Latino students’ transitions to college: a social and intercultural capital perspective.
Harvard Educational Review, 79(1), 22–48.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research, 66,
543–578.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of middle
school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3),
366–381.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions
from a theoretical model. The Journal of Higher Education, 51, 60–75.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1983). Predicting voluntary freshman year persistence/withdrawal
behavior in a residential university: a path analytic validation of Tinto’s model. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75, 215–226.
Patrick, H., Hicks, L., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Relations of perceived social efficacy and social goal pursuit
to self-efficacy for academic work. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 109–128.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcı́a, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 53(3), 801–813.
Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and psychological
adjustment during the transition to college. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 343–361.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychology environment and
early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and
belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408–422.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ moti-
vation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2),
437–460.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy,
adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. The Plenum series in social/clinical
psychology (pp. 281–303). New York: Plenum Press.
Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences and the develop-
ment of perceived control. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development, 63, 2–3.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). A structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2008a). Fittin’ in: Do diverse interactions with peers affect sense of belonging for Black
men at predominantly White institutions? Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 45(4),
501–527.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2008b). The role of supportive relationships in facilitating African American males’
success in college. NASPA Journal, 45(1), 26–48.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2010). Majority as temporary minority: examining the influence of faculty-student rela-
tionship on satisfaction among white undergraduates at historically black colleges and universities.
Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 509–524.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: a key to educational success for all students.
New York: Sage.
Strayhorn, T. L., & Saddler, T. N. (2009). Gender differences in the influence of faculty–student mentoring
relationships on satisfaction with college among African Americans. Journal of African American
Studies, 13(4), 476–493.
Strayhorn, T. L., & Terrell, M. C. (2007). Mentoring and satisfaction with college for Black students. Negro
Educational Review, 58(1), 69–83.
Tebben, S. L. (1995). Community and caring in a college classroom. Journal for a Just and Caring
Education, 1(3), 335–344.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: the role of college faculty in student
learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 153–184.
123
S. Zumbrunn et al.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: a validation study. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 34, 89–101.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Koestner, R. (2008). Reflections on self-determination theory. Canadian
Psychology, 49, 257–262.
Van Ryzin, M., Gravely, A., & Roseth, C. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement in school as
contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1–12.
Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic
motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and individual differ-
ences, 16, 1–12.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief-social belonging intervention improves academic and health
outcomes of minatory students. Science, 331, 1447–1451.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social and academic goals at school: motivation and achievement in context. In M.
L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, a research annual (Vol. 7,
pp. 185–212). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: the role of perceived pedagogical caring.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411–419.
Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Student motivation in middle school: the role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90, 202–209.
Wheeless, V. E., Witt, P. L., Maresh, M., Bryand, M. C., & Schrodt, P. (2011). Instructor credibility as a
mediator of instructor communication and students’ intent to persist in college. Communication
Education, 60, 314–339.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: defini-
tions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30, 1–35.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2002). The development of achievement motivation. San Diego: Academic Press.
Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
123

Zum Brunn 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zum Brunn 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zum Brunn 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instr Sci

Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement

Sharon Zumbrunn • Courtney McKim • Eric Buhs • Leslie R. Hawley

Received: 10 September 2012 / Accepted: 20 January 2014

Keywords Contextual characteristics Belongingness Motivation Engagement

Links between student belonging, engagement, and achievement

The self-system model of motivational development (Connell and Wellborn 1991)

Supportive classroom environments and student belonging as antecedents

Context Self Action Outcomes

Supportive Belonging, Engagement in Achievement

Supportive Self-Efficacy Engagement in

Fig. 2 Revised model of classroom support for motivation

Quantitative phase method

Materials and procedure

Student participants completed the following quantitative instruments: (1) a demographic

Self-efficacy and task value

Instructor academic and social support

Table 1 Correlations, means, and standard deviations

Supportive classroom environment –

Structural path estimates

Need for follow-up explanations

To gain a more complete understanding of student classroom experiences and perceptions

Qualitative phase method

Interview data collection

A follow-up phenomenological qualitative investigation was conducted to understand more

n.s. Self-Efficacy .24**

Fig. 3 SEM results: Model 1. ** p \ .01, n.s. nonsignificant

study, the focus of the research process is to develop an understanding of participants’

Qualitative analytic procedures

Table 2 Coding sub-categories for belonging perceptions

Table 3 Coding sub-categories for perceptions of peer acceptance and support

Table 4 Coding sub-categories for perceptions of instructor acceptance and support

Investment ‘‘She [the instructor] is willing to work with me to do well’’

Peer acceptance and support

Instructor acceptance and support

achievement. Furthermore, the current study focused on student perceptions of academic

Qualitative phase interview protocol

Describe your experience in this class.

Describe your experiences with your instructor in this class.

You might also like