Education Research Bibliography

This resource is a running list of seminal references and annotations for education research. Use the links below to select a topic or browse the list. If you have questions or need further assistance, please contact the Teaching Commons staff.

For additional UC Merced research resources, see the Center for Institutional Effectiveness for data reports, visualizations, and statistics .

Need support conceptualizing change efforts? See this article on Logic Models.

Browse Topics

Student Success

  1. Engle, J., and Tinto, V. (2008). Moving Beyond Access: College Success for Low-Income, First-Generation Students. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
    • A collection of articles examining access, retention, and completion for low-income and first-generation college students, with supporting national data and policy implications.
  2. Finley, A., and McNair, T. (2013). Assessing Underserved Students’ Engagement in High-Impact Practices. American Association of Colleges and Universities.
    • Explores how high‑impact practices influence learning and success for underserved students and provides inquiry models and guiding questions for campuses.
  3. Salehi, S., Burkholder, E., Lepage, G. P., et al. (2019). Demographic gaps or preparation gaps? Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2).
  4. Shay, J. E., and Pohan, C. (2021). Resilient instructional strategies. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 22(1).
    • Reviews evidence‑based strategies that foster inclusive, resilient, and student‑centered learning environments, particularly during crises.
  5. Tinto, V., and Pusser, B. (2006). Moving from theory to action: Building a model of institutional action for student success.

Top

Active Learning

Active‑learning pedagogies have been shown to improve learning for all students, particularly those from diverse backgrounds. National efforts to implement evidence‑based teaching practices in STEM have been promoted by organizations including the National Research Council, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and the Association of American Universities.

  1. Crimmins, M. T., and Midkiff, B. (2017). High‑structure active learning pedagogy in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 94, 429–438.
    • Demonstrates improved academic outcomes associated with highly structured active‑learning course design.
  2. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  3. Patton, C. M. (2015). Employing active learning strategies. Journal of Instructional Research, 4, 134–141.
  4. Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., et al. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Top

Learner‑Centered Instruction and Curriculum Design

Learner‑Centered Instruction

Learner‑centered teaching emphasizes what students are doing to learn rather than what instructors are delivering. This approach engages students, fosters motivation, encourages collaboration, supports reflection, and explicitly teaches learning skills.

Backward design supports learner‑centered instruction by aligning learning goals, assessments, and instructional activities.

Curriculum Design

Effective curriculum design requires alignment between learning outcomes, assessments, and instructional activities. Bloom’s Taxonomy and its revised versions provide widely used frameworks for categorizing cognitive learning objectives.

  1. Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., et al. (2010). How Learning Works. Jossey‑Bass.
  2. Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., and Masia, B. B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
  3. Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Experiences.
  4. Weimer, M. (2013). Learner‑Centered Teaching.
  5. Wiggins, G., and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design.

Top

Student Engagement and Motivation

  1. Prince, M. J., Felder, R. M., and Brent, R. (2020). Active student engagement in online STEM classes. Advances in Engineering Education.
  2. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., and Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self‑regulation in science education. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.
  3. Wester, E. R., Walsh, L. L., Arango‑Caro, S., and Callis‑Duehl, K. L. (2021). Student engagement declines during remote learning. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 22(1).

Top

Assessment and Evaluation

Classroom observation data provide objective insight into instructional practices and complement survey‑based assessments when evaluating teaching effectiveness.

  1. Angelo, T. A., and Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques.
  2. Smith, C. D., Worsfold, K., Davies, L., et al. (2013). Assessment literacy and student learning.
  3. Suskie, L. A. (2018). Assessing Student Learning.

If SATAL is included in a proposal, consider adding the following references:

  1. Clark, D. J., and Redmond, M. V. (1982). Small Group Instruction Diagnosis. ERIC ED 217954.
  2. Signorini, A., and Pohan, C. A. (2019). Exploring the impact of the SATAL Program. International Journal for Students as Partners.
  3. Smith, M. K., Vinson, E. L., Smith, J. A., et al. (2014). A campus‑wide study of STEM courses.
  4. Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., et al. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching. Science.

Top