Communicate High Expectations and Provide Appropriate Support¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 7 claims (7 for) · 16 studies (7 review, 3 causal, 3 quant-synthesis, 2 theoretical, 1 qualitative), q1–q4 · 2 of 16 report an effect size

Description¶

This strategy pairs two moves that are ineffective in isolation: setting explicitly high, demanding expectations for learner performance, and providing the structured support (Scaffolding, feedback, and guided practice) that makes those expectations attainable. The expectation alone functions as a motivational message — a form of Coaching — while the support converts the message into achievable steps. Originating in Chickering and Gamson's (1987) "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education," it draws on expectancy effects, self-efficacy theory, and goal-setting research.

Design Implications¶

High expectations raise performance when learners believe the expectations are achievable and when support is contingent on their current competence Self-efficacy predicts academic persistence. [+M]. Specific, difficult goals outperform vague "do your best" exhortations, but only when learners receive feedback on progress toward them Specific difficult goals lead to higher performance. [+M]. Support must be responsive: help that is too heavy undermines the message of confidence, while help that is too thin turns high expectations into discouragement Contingent scaffolding improves learning. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Explicit, concrete statements of the performance standard — what "good work" looks like, with exemplars or rubrics
• A supportive relational climate; expectations read as confidence, not threat
• Task-level and process-level feedback so learners can see progress toward the standard Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S]
• A mechanism for gradually withdrawing support as competence grows Fading support promotes transfer of responsibility. [+M]

Constraints¶

• High expectations without support produce failure experiences that erode self-efficacy, particularly for learners with weak prior knowledge Self-efficacy predicts academic persistence. [-M]
• Support without high expectations invites minimal compliance; learners calibrate effort to the demonstrated standard [-M]
• Praise that is effort-focused but vague ("you're so smart") can undermine persistence after setbacks; process-focused feedback is more robust Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [~S]
• Expectancy effects are weaker and less reliable in real classrooms than in the original laboratory-adjacent studies; they do not substitute for instructional quality [~W]

Implementation Variability¶

• In one-to-one tutoring: state expectations at the session outset, request drafts and revisions, and periodically review progress against the standard
• In classrooms: publish high rubric standards early, normalize revision, and use Check-ins to calibrate support
• In online environments: adaptive difficulty and mastery thresholds encode expectations into the system while hints and worked examples supply the support

Target Learners¶

• Underprepared learners, who benefit most when high expectations are paired with contingent support rather than remediation alone Contingent scaffolding improves learning. [+M]
• Capable but disengaged learners, for whom demanding goals signal that their effort matters Task value increases motivation and engagement. [+M]
• Advanced learners, who disengage when standards are undemanding; for them, expectations can rise while support fades Fading support promotes transfer of responsibility. [+M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Motivational outcomes: self-efficacy, persistence, and ownership of learning Self-efficacy predicts academic persistence. [+M]
• Quality standards: producing work that meets explicit criteria rather than "done" criteria
• Self-regulation: internalizing high standards as learners take over monitoring of their own performance Self-monitoring improves self-regulation. [+M]

Instructions¶

1. State the standard explicitly at the outset — what excellent performance looks like, with an exemplar or rubric — and express confidence that the learner can reach it.
2. Break the path to the standard into achievable steps, providing Coaching and modeling on the first step rather than the whole task.
3. Give feedback tied to the standard and to process ("your argument needs a counterexample here"), not to the person Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S].
4. Require revision: ask for drafts and treat the first attempt as intermediate, signaling that the standard is reachable through iteration.
5. Fade support as competence grows — reduce hints, increase task complexity, and transfer responsibility for self-assessment to the learner Fading support promotes transfer of responsibility. [+M].
6. Check in periodically on progress toward the standard, adjusting support to current performance rather than to a fixed schedule Contingent scaffolding improves learning. [+M].

Related Strategies¶

• Scaffolding — the support half of the pairing; expectations without it fail
• Mastery-oriented feedback — the feedback mechanism that keeps high standards motivating rather than punishing
• Growth mindset framing — the belief system that makes effort toward a high standard seem worthwhile
• Communicate course structure and expectations early to support students' self-efficacy at course start

Examples¶

• Chickering & Gamson's Seventh Principle in practice — Writing-intensive courses that require multiple drafts with instructor response, treating revision as the norm rather than remediation.
• Khan Academy — Mastery-based progress bars communicate a high standard (100% mastery) while hints and videos provide the support to reach it.
• Writing centers and tutoring programs — Tutors open sessions by naming an ambitious goal for the draft, request specific revisions, and review progress at the session's end.

Key Sources¶

• Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
• Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.